Slashdot Mirror
Panel Warns NASA On Commercial Astronaut Transport
DesScorp writes "In a blow against the commercial space industry, a federal panel warned NASA not to use private companies to ferry astronauts into space. While the Obama Administration wants to outsource some NASA activities, insiders at the space agency are resisting any moves to use commercial alternatives. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel 'cautioned that the private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit. The report urged NASA to stick with its current government-run manned space ventures, and said that switching to private alternatives now would be "unwise and probably not cost-effective." The findings are likely to provide a boost to NASA officials who want to keep nearly all manned space programs in house.' Private companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing argue that they're capable of human transport in space safely and at competitive costs."
Just trying readying Feynman's experience with them.
Private companies with little experience vs all of NASA's experience??
They really need to rethink retiring the shuttles untill ares/constellation or whatever its called is running.
than paying another country to take our astronauts into space?
I see no difference, other than we cannot truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavors
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.
All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible. Rocket science really is rocket science. If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Because their bureaucracy has done such an excellent job in the last 35 years of getting us back to the moon, to Mars, etc. and delivering on all the multitude of other promises they've made via decades of press releases and computer animation.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Umm... NASA also relies on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit. The shuttle has about a 1 in 65 chance of catastrophic failure resulting in loss of the crew. For all of its vaunted simplicity, the Apollo flights only flew 18 times and had one very very close loss of the crew in space (and of course one actual loss of crew on the ground). I honestly don't know if private companies will do better or not but it is not as if NASA's record in this area is all that great either. Having a somewhat adversarial relationship between private enterprise and the government as we have with airlines appears to have contributed to overall safe air travel. I think it is worth a shot to try it in space. When the government is both the provider of a service and the one auditing it, you end up with no independent evaluators except at the accident boards.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
Translation:
Nobody offered us a bribe.
"His name was James Damore."
And with the Space Shuttles being retired, and no replacement available in the immediate future, what do they suggest? Maybe a giant slingshot?
Aren't private companies like Boeing and Lockheed doing this for the Government now? They're the ones building the space flight systems.
private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit.
That's true enough. Why let private companies blow your astronauts up when you can get the government to do it for you for many times the cost?
NASA: the best astronaut-killing rockets that money can buy!
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
The report urged NASA to stick with its current government-run manned space ventures, and said that switching to private alternatives now would be "unwise and probably not cost-effective.
Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
And, considering NASA has been relying on private contractors to build their vehicles for years, it seems a little suspicious that they would suddenly come out against private contractors when they want to move to the next logical step and actually launch the vehicle they built (and hence steal NASA's big PR moment).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I don't know enough about space flight to form a rational opinion for or against commercial ferrying.
I piss off bigots.
Shut up.
Deregulating space travel is the only way we're ever going to make a dent there, for the time being and with the current political climate.
Please, just shut up. Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks.
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
I think it is worth a shot to try it in space.
Absolutely. You first.
You mean capitalists lie and cut safety features to make a profit? Marx had that figured out over a hundred and fifty years ago. It sounds as if the authors of this report have some experience living in a capitalist society and the working brains to observe it instead of believing what ads tell them to.
It is just standard politics...
Government agencies doesn't like Companies doing what they do. They portrait a company as a greedy organization who will cut all the corners and create a product that is doomed to fail.
Companies doesn't like Government taking over what they do. They Portrait the government as a huge inefficient bureaucracy who will spend more then what they need and make compromise over compromise until you have a bad product which doesn't do anything well.
So in the end Your screwed both ways.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Allow licenses for trips into space for private citizens via private corporations. Those who can afford it would fund the cost to get it done. In the quest to standardize and get more travelers, the cost would go down. Possibly low enough to be cost effective that NASA would then transition to the best provider.
If I had to go to space, I would rather go with Boeing or Lockheed Martin that with NASA.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
the second one with crappy environmentally friendly tile modifications was most definitely caused by NASA management listening to environmentalist dipshits instead of the experts.
What exactly are these "tile modifications" you refer to? The fragile thermal tiles played no part in the Columbia accident, which involved a chunk of foam insulation from the external tank impacting the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge of the orbiter's wing.
And before you try to backpedal, and trot out the old right-wing canard (originated by Rush Limbaugh) about the ET insulation foam having been reformulated without CFCs, try reading the CAIB report (volume 1, Page 51), which specifically states that the portion of the foam that broke loose was the OLD CFC-based formulation.
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL1/PART01.PDF
http://mediamatters.org/research/200508090007
http://www.sts107.info/kooks%20and%20myths/kooks.htm#EPA
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Privatizing the other aerospace operations of the government, mainly war, has become so economical and reliable that we now have $billions extra for space exploration. Aerospace contractor corporations like Lockheed Martin and Boeing never overcharge the government. Their aircraft are more reliable than the NASA vehicles that crash once or twice every several thousand launches at the cutting edge of engineering.
What could possibly go wrong?
--
make install -not war
Boeing also said that they could build a virtual fence on the Mexican border in 3 years and for $1Billion. 5+ years later, the $1 Billion is gone, the virtual fence covers 26 miles, and it doesn't work! Defense contractors need to be held to higher standards, and not granted any cost-plus contracts,
This is yet more evidence that the Hatch Act should be extended to cover government contractors like Lockheed and Boeing.
Seastead this.
Are you kidding me? I would pay to be first, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl...
IMO it's time to offload manned missions and stick to actually _exploring_ space with probes and rovers and other remote-manned tech. Manned missions have created a burden that sucked other programs dry, but the lust of those who want to play in space can make commercial outfits viable.
We don't _need_ people in space before we perfect exploring it with the remote-controlled systems we absolutely require anyway to interact with an utterly hostile environment. Development cycles for remotely-manned vehicles can be much shorter (avoids the decades-long burden of old Shuttle tech) allowing "launch early, launch often".
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
N.A.S.A. should continue with a professional launch company.
Yours In Minsk,
K. Trout
this report is political trash. lies.
you'll have to spend many hours getting up to speed on this topic, but suffice it to say NASA employs 10,000 people just to screw in a light bulb, and the political clout acting to keep them happy and working is significant.
NASA is no better than private companies or other countries.
How many people at NASA are not LMco or Boeing contractors already? Most of my friends at JSC in Houston are employed by one of these companies, under contract to NASA. You really think this is not already a joint effort?
While I'd like to see NASA abandon Ares for private vehicles, the report isn't quite the blow to private space efforts the article suggests. The report doesn't say that NASA shouldn't use private space vehicles to transport astronauts; it says that private space vehicles aren't at the point where their safety for transport of astronauts can even be determined. And until such a determination can be made, the report concludes, it would be unwise to abandon NASA's Ares vehicle. Here's the key paragraph:
"To abandon Ares I as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven superiority (or even equivalence) is unwise and probably not cost-effective. The ability of any current COTS design to “close the gap” or even provide an equivalent degree of safety is speculative. Switching from a demonstrated (design approach proven by Apollo, use of heritage hardware, and Ares 1-X flight success), well designed, safety optimized (ESAS) system to one based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a poor choice. Before any change is made to another architecture, the inherent safety of that approach must be assessed to ensure that it offers a level of safety equal to or greater than the program of record."
Some how the idea of great safety for man space exploration doesn't seem to come to my mind when it comes to subcontractors being selected by lowest bid wins. How about we just deorbit the ISS on time plus defund future man space exploration from NASA's budget. We either subcontact out to the Russians or let private industry build up on their own for commercial man space flight. NASA has failed to lead in manned space exploration (STS and ISS), let someone else do it. It would save us a few billion in the mean time and keep NASA out of industry's way of doing it right. If industry blows it, it's their white elephant and not the tax payer's.
I bet China can outsource that. The some way as the Satelite launches, and high tech electronics.
Outsource the gov also.
If NASA had more money and would actually do something maybe private companies would not be outpacing them. Oh I forgot space exploration isn't funded unless there is a political race against a foreign power. God forbid we do something just because we should...
-Xen
I have to view this as NASA bureaucrats being scared of SpaceX designing and building a better ship.
is more commercialization of our institutions and cultural artifacts. The next step after letting Boeing shuttle our astronauts would be renaming the ISS as "The Tostidos Space Station". Next would be Cape Coca-cola. The Nike rocket would at least be somewhat apropos to the tiny crowd who knows something of aerospace history and mythology.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Having commercially outsourced spaceflight is good for the astronauts's wife as she can sue the crap off of the private company after blowing up her husband than she could a "blameless government entity".
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
"...private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit..."
Of COURSE they warn that.
They are bloated bureaucrats who are trembling at the idea of the free market possibly threatening their sinecure.
Look, we ALL know that space travel is dangerous. (NASA doesn't exactly have a 100% safety record EITHER...) Personally, I think the private industry space travel isn't quite ready for prime-time either, and that could be a basis for a sincere warning being issued by NASA. But that industry isn't going to see any reason to invest and improve if space travel remains locked in as a government-only business.
OTOH, it's more likely that you have an entrenched bunch of government employees that don't like the sound of the word 'competition'.
-Styopa
And there's an old tradition that CEOs of airborne vehicle developing companies travel along on the first flight. Or at least there should be.
I think it's also worth pointing out Elon Musk's rebuttal to the findings of this NASA safety panel. I'm glad to see someone in the private spaceflight industry has the cajones to call BS when he sees it.
NASA wasn't worried before. Of course you're going to say you're cool with private contractors when you're still the middle man. But now with startups like SpaceX getting their vehicles to orbit (which are designed to carry both crew, cargo, or both), NASA is a bit worried about being made obsolete (which is entirely possible).
Somewhat true. I've seen huge amounts of bureaucracy, fiefdoms, and waste during my tenure as a business owner working with the government. I used to be a big fan of the government having a large role, but after my experience, I'd almost always rather have a private enterprise do it as long as the proper regulations are in place and severe punishments exist for breaking those regulations (cut corners for profit and your vehicle disintegrates killing your crew? death penalty).
Why not build an Earth orbiting Prison. Theres gotta be some money in that.
And there's an old tradition that CEOs of airborne vehicle developing companies travel along on the first flight. Or at least there should be.
By "first flight" I take it you mean the first flight the production model of the aircraft, not prototypes or other developmental craft. In any case, if this ever was a tradition at all I doubt it lasted beyond the 1980s. However, I could see early company presidents and CEOs of both aircraft manufacturers, as well as airline companies, doing this in the early to mid 20th century. Of course, much was different about the way companies and corporations did things back then. For example, a successful company back then was one that consistently maintained profitability over the long-term; now a usually company or corporation isn't considered a "success" unless it's increasing either quarterly profits, market-share, or both by a double digit percentages per each quarter.
This is just ridiculous. If the government is going to make suggestions - then they should be putting up the money so that NASA doesn't HAVE to use private companies. ::sigh:: don't say anything if you don't have anything productive to say.
Just another classic example of their take on something without being able to deliver. Time and time again we are disappointed with the choices and decisions they make. If it was up to anyone - I think there would be a more proactive space program. We all know inevitability leads us to live in space. Which although is difficult is not something we should be afraid of in the slightest.
You are incorrect. You're parroting Rush Limbaugh's line, which is not true. The foam that struck Columbia's reinforced carbon carbon tiles (NOT the ceramic tiles) was the CFC based formulation. Read the CAIB report volume 1, page 51 for information based on facts. Also, NASA was aware that foam was shedding and damaging heating tiles. They knew this from STS-2 which had entire tiles missing. The problem was this was condiered a safe deviation precisely because no issue had previously occured. That's a dangerous mindset. Please don't get any more information from entertainers without first fact checking it for yourself.
Full article: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30060
Among points I picked up on myself, they point out that since there are no existing standards for them to follow for building human rated craft, they claim that none of them have experience doing so is non sequitor. They politely don't point out that the sole existing man rated spacecraft has had two fatal failures, though they'd also have to admit it's experimental, not commercial, even though built by human rated aircraft corporations.
Even more politely, when ASAP makes the statement that the commercial start ups hoping to carry people are making unsubstantiated claims, they do reply that since they haven't built the hardware yet to test it, and only have stated intentions, it's hardly a valid criticism but don't resort to the sorely needed "DUH!".
ASAP has done a creditable job when it came to criticizing their own work. That is, the BigAero members cooperated fully when investigating problems. But as far as dealing a blow to commercial startups, TFA is so full of FUD that NASA can only take it and leave it or risk being seen being led around by the corporate welfare milk teat.
FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, and more recently Commerce's Office of Space Commercialization, have been plowing full speed ahead to clear the way for the new guys just as much as the big ones. When multibillion dollar corporations get scared enough to "warn" NASA, things are probably going to get interesting. I thought they were interesting enough the year Rutan won the X-prize, because half the licenses for commercial launches issued that year by FAA/AST had his name on them.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
You're really trying that argument on /. you do know it wouldn't be hard to find at least a dozen people here who would castrate themselves with a spoon for the chance.
I agree you'd not be the only one. I also would go, I just wouldn't be one of the first. And, this isn't purely for reasons of a mechanical nature, but I'd like to wait until the pilots and other staff are a little more confident and comfortable.
Well presumably the launch system would be tested unmanned before the first manned flight, to the extent that was possible. I'm certainly no pilot, and am therefore unfortunetly terribly unqualified to actually fly a rocket. But if all they needed was a human "monkey payload", I'd jump for that in a heartbeat.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Cars are not limited-edition. They are not experimental. They are very, very, very heavily regulated, with vast amounts of unmanned testing before they hit the market -- none of which is happening with commercial space flight.
I piss off bigots.
Deaths aren't bad for business if you can pay them off or hush them up.
I piss off bigots.
NASA is not the organization that came out in a statement against commercial spaceflight in this press release. The organization that made the criticisms of commercial space systems is an independent review board of 'experts and engineers' that has been advising and consulting NASA since 1968 if I recall correctly. The panel is known as ASAP. A description of its role can be found on NASA's site here: ASAP. While the agency appears to work very closely with, it was/is supposed to be an independent safety committee formed by Congress to inform Congress. You can take that to infer whatever levels of benevolence vs. evil intent that you wish.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Is United Launch actually NASA? You do KNOW that they are the ones that fit the Shuttle and make it work, yes?
Likewise, by your opinion, it must be NASA that has the delta and Saturn's.
Personally, I always thought that it was private industry that ran these, not NASA.
Look, NASA has done a lot of positive things. BUT, we NEED to bring private enterprise into this. If nothing else, we need private money to get us to the moon and mars.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'd rather go with SpaceX. They do all of their development in-house. They are the new kids on the block with a lot to prove. Best of all, they are a bunch of cowboys, and I trust cowboys.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Boeing and Airbus do not produce limited edition experimental craft.
Commercial manned space flight for untrained civilians at the current state of development makes about as much sense as the Wright brothers selling joyrides aboard the Wright Flyer.
I piss off bigots.
This just in...Private-Public partnerships are the worst of both worlds, not only do they not bread competition, while tax payers still foot the bill, but now their main objective is to make profit out of your taxes. Private industry is good in some places, but when they are just fighting over who gets to rip of the government, they will not be competition (manned space flight is not a consumer industry and the government will be setting up a private monopoly).
private competition >>>> public monopoly (at least there is still accountability) >>>> private monopoly (especially one that lives of public money)
Put yeah stick to the handbook government doing anything = bad and throw away Americas only non-military strength.
Clark Lindsay:
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=17960
This is ridiculous from beginning to end. Even with optimum funding, the Ares I won't fly for at least 5 years and probably not for 7 or 8 years. So how has it demonstrated or substantiated any capability or superiority? Citing the Ares I-X flight is absurd. That vehicle had virtually nothing in common with Ares I. Griffin's quick and dirty 60 day ESAS hardly sets a standard for optimized design.
It is in fact the panel that is speculating as to the ultimate safety of the Ares I. It will be so expensive to operate, it will never fly enough times to accumulate sufficient flights to prove any statistical prediction of its safety.
And by the way, why is a safety panel making judgments about cost-effectiveness? Even if COTS-D were funded, Falcon 9/Dragon will involve about 100 times less NASA funding than Ares I/Orion. Yes, the latter is designed for deep space but that should not require 100 times more money. The F9/Dragon operating costs will also be a fraction of that for Ares I/Orion. Ignoring such cost differences would be considered not just "unwise" but ridiculous by most taxpayers.
The panel further speculates on the degree of safety of the COTS designs, which really refers to Falcon 9/Dragon since Orbital has made no move to develop a crew capability for Taurus II/Cygnus. There's no indication that the panel made any effort to investigate the statements from SpaceX that the F9/Dragon system has been designed from the beginning to meet NASA's human rating requirements (at least to the degree that the company could determine those requirements). With such enormous cost savings at stake, you might think the panel would want to know if it could be built with high margins.
Commercial Spaceflight Federation:
http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1058
The ASAP's repeated references to the two "COTS firms" ignores the fact that many companies, including both established firms and new entrants, will compete in the Commercial Crew Program envisioned by the Augustine Committee. While the Falcon 9 and Taurus II vehicles have already met numerous hardware milestones and will have a substantial track record by the time any astronauts are placed onboard, several other potential Commercial Crew providers envision use of launch vehicles such as the Atlas V, vehicles that are already entrusted by the government to launch multi-billion dollar national security payloads upon which the lives of our troops overseas depend.
Despite the ASAP Report's contention that commercial vehicles are "nothing more than unsubstantiated claims," the demonstrated track records of commercial vehicles and numerous upcoming manifested cargo flights ensure that no astronaut will fly on a commercial vehicle that lacks a long, proven track record. The Atlas V, for example, has a record of 19 consecutive successful launches and the Atlas family of rockets has had over 90 consecutive successes, and dozens of flights of the Atlas, Taurus, and Falcon vehicles are scheduled to occur before 2014 in addition to successful flights already completed.
Further, thirteen former NASA astronauts, who have accumulated a total of 42 space missions, stated in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed that commercial spaceflight can be conducted safely:
"We are fully confident that the commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle. Commercial transportation systems using boosters such as the Atlas V, Taurus II, or Falcon 9 will have the advantage of multiple unmanned flights to build a track record of safe operations prior to carrying humans. These vehicles are already set
I have read most of the replies thus far and they are all talking about the experience level, safety record, and knowledge pool existing at NASA.
Did nobody catch the irony of a FEDERAL panel claiming that switching to private alternatives would be "...unwise and probably not cost-effective." Since when is the federal government cost effective? They spend our money like they can always print more.
Ok, they do print the money, but my point is that a federal panel claiming that the government would be more cost effective than private business is like the con man claiming he can save you money, neither is true.
Here I come to save the da... *thud*
I gotta get me a shorter cape.
Everyone keeps demanding that NASA outsource commercial space flight but really, has outsourcing ever really delivered for any industry, let alone a government with highly technical needs? I don't think it has.
Take the US Navy for example. Before the private contractor lobby, the Navy built its own warships and at its own yards. Now, they have a byzantine procurement system, cost overruns out the wazoo, I mean, even the Littoral Combat Ship has turned into a joke, and WTF does a carrier cost 10 billion now, or 20 billion. It's a joke, a bunch of finger pointing by vendors, and frankly, enough already. Any more the Navy is just a subsidy for Newport News and Bath Iron Works. I'd say, let's reopen the Philly Navy Yard and have the Navy build its own ships, without all the red tape.
This is my sig.
Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks
The issue with space flight is all the times the people crash on the houses, then it will be, "private space company is too big to fail", and they get handouts. In fact, I don't even know if I want the rocket noise. We don't really have free enterprise now. Free enterprise requires accountable corporations serving the national interest, and all we have is a bunch of investors trying to cash in without doing anything.
If somebody wants to build a spaceship, go ahead, with your money, but if you try to it over my house, I'm shooting it down!
This is my sig.
Government officials warning against private companies. Who is surprised?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch.
No, they didn't. Morton-Thiokol initially recommended that NASA postpone the launch. After much debate, they decide to go offline and reanalyse the risks. (It's not clear whether NASA explicitly asked them to reconsider their recommendation, or whether it was Morton-Thiokol's own idea) Morton-Thiokol came back and told NASA they'd determined it would be okay to launch after all. NASA then acted upon Morton-Thiokol's recommendation.
Morton-Thiokol management ignored warnings from Morton-Thiokol engineers to postpone the launch. (Strictly speaking they didn't ignore the warnings, they overruled them, because they didn't think the engineers presented a sufficiently strong case for a catastrophic risk. Of course this was a foolish thing to do.)
NASA's reasons for pressing on, in spite of these warnings, was entirely commercial.
NASA's reasons for pressing on were that M-T told them it would be safe to do so. We don't know what NASA's reasons were for asking M-T to reanalyze the risks, if in fact they even did so. It's true that NASA wasn't eager to postpone the launch until April, and wanted a strong justification for doing so which M-T ultimately failed to provide. (Arguably that's backwards, they should have demanded a strong justification to proceed with the launch if doubts were present, but this decision failure is not the same as having "entirely commercial" motives.)
OK, who is this, "Clown Posy"?
How dare these underlings propose to deny CEOs of their rightful God-given bonuses. These underlings will feel the wrath of the mighty Predator and his companion Reaper.
They know there is ET life and spaceships out there. Must keep lit shut.
Given that there isn't a single commercial company that has demonstrated human spaceflight to orbit, i think it's reasonable to be cautious. The Dragon capsule (The one that goes on top of the Falcon 9, SpaceX) is designed so that it can be modified to carry humans. But not even the rocket itself has been launched yet. If they successfully complete all their COTS resupply missions to the ISS, then they can be considered an option.
Actually, it had multiple incidents and close calls...
Consider the flight of Apollo 6. The pogo problems discovered on the flight weren't fully cured until Apollo 14. (And in fact those problems nearly caused the loss of Apollo 13 during ascent.) Then consider such incidents as the low fuel problems on Apollo 11, the docking problems on Apollo 14, the SPS issues on Apollo 15 and 16, the RCS problems on Skylab 3, the near poisoning of the crew on ASTP during reentry and landing...
There's more to safety than just not killing someone or coming close. Apollo had multiple incidents that threatened the life of the crew.
The USN Submarine Force has operated that way, and without independent evaluators, for decades - and has an outstanding safety record.
Think it's a coincidence that erring so heavily on the side of caution also freezes out private competition? I doubt if the masses are as ignorant as those who speak for them.
... for pointing out the real issue here. If there was any money to be made from private industry doing "stuff" in space, no oversight panel in the universe would stop them. The Lockheeds and Boeings of the world would just buy themselves some Congressmen and make it happen. But in fact, there's no realistic way to make any money going into space. And given that, you might as well have NASA maintain their current role. The history of companies managing their own procurements has not been so great - read up on the Coast Guard Deepwater program for an example.
That's a giant "if". Going to the moon is hideously expensive... and how do you recoup the money? The fact that companies haven't brushed NASA aside (which would be easy for companies with the lobbying might of LMCO and/or Raytheon) speaks volumes - private industry isn't going to the moon (or elsewhere in space) because there's no money to be made there.
Of course, it's not done quite as crassly as all that - you actually just make campaign contributions to the important congressmen. But (as I've written elsewhere) the fact that none of the aerospace companies have bothered to do so speaks volumes - it's just not worth their while to do so. There's no conceivable way to actually make money in space.
I find it amusing they think Ares I which is nearly all untested hardware and has several design flaws would be safer then an EELV such as Delta IV or Falcon 9 which has proven reliable engines. I'd trust Dragon on it's first flights more then I would Orion on Ares I.
no, what I was getting at is that you are wrong
Urgh, that was the lamest comeback ever. A quote from an astronaut whilst very nice is still qualitative, and in terms of safety record we're actually looking for quantative values. If a very experienced F1 driver says a car is really nice and feels safe but the EURO-NCAP rating is 1/5 stars, which would you trust?
Yeah, but where does that stop? What if the program puts such a cheap value on the participating astronauts that they become as expendable as the impact probes we shot at the moon? What if Airmen stop signing up? What then? Conscription? Random short-stick lottery from qualifying candidates? As far as your other examples go, cars and so forth, a lot has to do with, yes, private sector interests that will pay just enough to reasonably limit their liability, and not a penny more, politics, and a general public that's been numbed to a point of indifference. Using certain things about our society that are pretty f***ed up as an example and justification to let our space program be f***ed up is just a bad can of worms to open. Allowing standards to slacken instead of being raised, that's not progress; that's the disgusting slob still at the bar some time in the A.M. drunkenly screaming, "WHADYA MEAN, LAST CALL?! BULL****!!!" I, for one, do not want us to be that guy.
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo
...how many *significant* recalls have there been for vehicles within, oh, just the past four years? The past two? Just 2009? How about the most recent one, gas pedals on certain Toyotas sticking? It's bad enough if something like that causes a wreck here on Earth, but in space, there's no such thing as "a crash you walk away from."
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo