The Chair Force Engineer (aka "Mr. X") likes the TeamVision approach to the VSE. I haven't read it myself, so I don't know if they claim that the Shuttle is "man rated" as Mr. X does (though he also uses quotes, so perhaps he's not really making the claim). It is not, and never has been. "Man rating" is whatever NASA decides that it means, and it's usually just an excuse to not use a vehicle that they don't want (for other reasons) to use.

.

a little off-topic but interesting...

I think that ALL versions of Orion (standard or TBS, small or big SM) must have its TPS firmly joined to the capsule an that a jettisoned TPS is a BAD design and a (possible) BIG risk, as explained in my new article: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/022orionTPS.html

in my opinion the BEST solution is to firmly join the TPS to the Orion's main body and locate the parachutes/airbags outlets on the Orion's sidewalls

The TPS isn't jettisoned for the parachutes, and airbags are no longer part of the design. Otherwise, I accept that there is a risk associated with making the TPS detachable. I'm not sure if TPS attached throughout the mission is the best design, but it is a less risky design.

I do think this is a bit off Rand's topic.

.

Leland,

clearly, the TPS is jettisoned to open the airbags, not the parachutes ...the safety problem is that the Orion's TPS is not firmly joined to the capsule but has only a few (software driven...) explosive bolts... and, yes, the argument is off-topic (as I've said in my previous post) but I've not found a TPS-related topic

But there are no airbags. They were taken out of the design.

.

not true (both) airbags and jettisoned TPS are still part of the Orion's design

also, a rececent news says that airbags will have a special valve to quickly deflate them after landing and avoid the Orion to bounce

the airbags can be deleted ONLY if also the soil landing will be (shifting to the Apollo's sea landing only)

What I find odd in his post is his assertion that, with a 95 percent successful escape system, loss-of-crew is reduced to 2 percent. If you assume a 95 percent failure rate of the main vehicle, the escape system should reduce LOC to 0.2 percent. Even assuming 90 percent failure rate on both launch vehicle and escape system, LOC is only one percent.

PICA >>SMICA

CP is a loosing proposition>. no legs inside obersavation
TXT's integrated dual layer 3-D Q/P HD/LD rules

PICA >>SMICA

CP is a loosing proposition>. no legs inside obersavation
TXT's integrated dual layer 3-D Q/P HD/LD rules