Some thoughts from Bob Zimmerman.
I’d be concerned if I thought that NASA was really going to use this vehicle for anything serious.
11 thoughts on “SLS Safety”
Comments are closed.
Some thoughts from Bob Zimmerman.
I’d be concerned if I thought that NASA was really going to use this vehicle for anything serious.
Comments are closed.
I think there’s a legal requirement, nowadays, that a dead NASA crew consist of, at a minimum, a white woman, a black man, an Asian of some kind, and a foreigner.
If things keep going the way they are, the SLS will be the safest rocket ever built. If it never flies, it’ll be perfectly safe.
Well there is still the possibility of something falling off it and hitting a worker on the ground. And of course ground testing. Apollo 1 never flew and still killed 3 astronauts.
I think Mr. Zimmerman might be mistaken on one point; the SRB stacking. He reports they are holding off. I’ve seen photos of the stacking being underway. So, it’s actually worse than he reports.
A further note is that the issue with Orion, the many months needed to replace a component, has been dealt with – via deciding to go ahead and fly it as-is. They don’t seem to think they need to fix it for the first flight (unmanned). So much for test-as-you-fly. (And, of course, they won’t need much power, because there’s no life support system aboard – the first time that’ll see space is with a crew aboard on a lunar voyage).
The core issue, as the article makes clear, is that they seem to be relying on “certified” rather than actual real-world processes. This does not bode well, especially for a system that’ll have a very low flight rate.
It’s also worth remembering that this is the same NASA that, for a while, was seriously considering putting a crew aboard the first SLS launch.
So, in a way, SLS has achieved a perfect trifecta; it’s incredibly expensive, useless, and unsafe.
Well, back in the 1970’s they decided it was okay not to conduct a static fire the SRB’s prior to launch. The prior rule about not using solids for manned missions, because they can’t really be assured, went right out the window. I think lots of safety compromises are downstream of that. But heck, what’s the point of sticking an incredibly heavy abort system on top of Orion if it’s not going to do some aborting?
I wonder what Wayne Hale thinks about this decision?
Was there ever really a “rule” not to use solids for manned missions? MOL wasn’t canceled until 1969, and then not because it used solids on the Titan IIIC et seq.
The prevailing opinion of our political and bureaucratic class seems to be that certifications are more important than real world experiences. Should we be surprised to see this infecting the engineering world as well?
I’m pretty sure they decided not to live test the engines when it became apparent that if they did, they’d have to replace at least one of the engines before launch. How many time have they ever managed to launch the same three engines twice without major work on one or more between?
Anyone want to bet that more than two of the engines tested actually make the launch? That’s assuming anything survives the green run.
Excuse me. Excuse me!
When I was age 10 and got all my information about everything aerospace from visiting Chicago’s Adler Planetarium, I pretty much knew the difference between a Gemini and an Apollo spacecraft, all about the Saturn IB, the Saturn 5 and all of that.
Now, what is an SLS? How big of a rocket and how many stages? Is there some kind of deal where Earth orbit missions go on a Saturn IB like rocket and Lunar ones on a Saturn V? Or does every single space mission, if one ever happens go on this one humongo rocket?
Just asking for a friend who is getting old and just cannot keep up . . .
Interestingly enough one could have made a very good argument that the Apollo CSM was severe overkill for LEO missions. In fact the Gemini capsule offered not only the needed maneuverability but had demonstrable endurance as well. So much so that the USAF designed its MOL around it. Not to mention a far less costly booster to get it into orbit than any of the Saturns. But LEO was never much the NASA focus for manned (er I mean crew) missions prior to shuttle. A whole ‘nuther distraction.
Apollo with a cutdown SM (SPS and most fuel tanks removed) would have been fine for LEO and a resuppliable Skylab. Funnily enough, the Russian Oryol and Chinese nameless NextGen are exactly that (two versions, a light LEO and a heavy BEO).