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."

Comments

NASA isn't good at listening

[2.7182]

Just trying readying Feynman's experience with them.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[McGregorMortis]

Those O-rings had a safety factor of three!

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Anonymous Coward]

While the first one with the O-ring maybe was simply tragic, the second one with crappy environmentally friendly tile modifications was most definitely caused by NASA management listening to environmentalist dipshits instead of the experts.

First one was simply tragic? Wasn't the first one a result of NASA management ignoring what Morton Thiokol engineers said regarding launches in freezing temperatures? They had to get the first teacher into space and a delay would have been embarrassing. So they opted to not have a delay and they had a tragedy instead.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[MaWeiTao]

Two major accidents in 30 years with an agency engaged in high risk activities. And you don't consider that a great safety record?

If anything people at NASA are almost definitely erring on the side of excessive caution knowing what kind of backlash they'll get from the ignorant masses if anything more goes wrong.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of 129 flights 2 have gone wrong or a .003 percent failure rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_missions#List_of_shuttle_flights

Of course when things go wrong for them it goes amazingly spectacularly. You cannt have that much LOX laying around and other major crazy flammable stuff and not have someone die once and awhile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_(film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon_(TV_miniseries)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13_movie
While dramatized it shows why they do it.

These dudes are *IN* it because it is risky. They love the risk.... Just because you are risk adverse (it shows because you want a 0% fail rate) doesnt mean they are. These dudes are crazy...

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[GiveBenADollar]

Those O-rings had a safety factor of three!

When used at the proper temperatures, which they weren't. A private company wouldn't have used them in the same situation because of the liability involved.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[camperdave]

The shuttle accident had nothing to do with "environmentally friendly tile modifications", or environmentally friendly anything. It had to do with a chunk of ice and foam smashing into the wing. Ice and foam fall off of the External Tank on all launches, and the area of the bipod strut attachment has always been problematic in terms of foam loss. Many shuttles have flown with dozens of foam damaged tiles, some as many as 290. Now granted, NASA has changed the process by which the foam is applied to one that is more environmentally friendly. However, the foam on Columbia's tank was the older "unfriendly" variety.

The real problem is that you have the shuttle mounted on the side of the stack, smack dab in the path of falling debris, in the first place. The shuttle should have been at the top of the stack.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[DJRumpy]

Although I can see some benefit to keeping this under government control, here we are 40 years later, using the same basic technologies while lacking the same capabilities that put us on the moon. It seems that the only thing that's happened at NASA in the last 50 years is a lot of money has been spent. We have the shuttle, based on a hybrid of flight end propulsion technologies during that time, but it's old, dated, and long past it's prime. Is there any reason NASA can't certify the safety of such after it's submitted by the private sector?

I can't help but wonder if it's time to let the private sector in. Some competitiveness, innovation, and new blood are what's needed right now, not NASA.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[c6gunner]

NASA doesnt have a great safety track record any longer.

Well that's a load of shit. Can you name a space agency which regularly launches manned missions and has a significantly better safety track record?

Didn't think so.

NASA has made some stupid mistakes, that's a given. They've also had issues maintaining a good safety-culture. Those problems have lead to unnecessary deaths, and every step should be taken to ensure that they are rectified. However, with great achievements come great risks. If we're not willing to accept the fact that we WILL make mistakes and we WILL lose people, then we shouldn't expect to ever achieve anything significant.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[rhook]

It was more the result of management at Morton Thiokol refusing to do anything about the problem, they're the ones who declared the shuttle safe for launch at the last minute during a teleconference.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[McGregorMortis]

The "safety factor of three" was something that NASA management claimed. The O-rings would supposedly fail catastrophically if they eroded half-way through (one radius). In previous launches, the O rings had eroded only 1/3 of a radius. NASA management claimed this represented a "safety factor of three".

Feynman was very critical of that assertion. The design did not expect the O rings to erode at all. The presence of erosion meant that they had already failed, and there was no safety factor at all. It just dumb luck that there had been no disasters before Challenger.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[rhook]

No it shouldn't have been at the top, you have to worry about the flight characteristics. Even lengthening the ERBs by 6 centimeters will cause a launch failure that results in the loss of the shuttle. This is rocket science you know.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[GooberToo]

Two major accidents in 30 years with an agency engaged in high risk activities. And you don't consider that a great safety record?

Just to drive the point home, while I don't recall the actual statistics, but statistically speaking, even accounting for the accidents, NASA is ahead of what their own projections indicate. In other words, even with those accidents, NASA is still beating their own projected losses.

Despite the fact everyone yawns when men are launched into orbit, rocket science is still science and at the best of times is a highly calculated crap shoot. All astronauts known this.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[polar red]

Nasa budget: 17.2 billion dollars in 2009.
US military defense: 685.1 billion in 2009

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[rliden]

Out of 129 flights 2 have gone wrong or a .003 percent failure rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_missions#List_of_shuttle_flights

Of course when things go wrong for them it goes amazingly spectacularly. You cannt have that much LOX laying around and other major crazy flammable stuff and not have someone die once and awhile.

2 divided by 129 is 1.55%. It's not a good failure rate, especially considering the failure and accident rate of commercial airlines. Here are some plane crash statistics. Plane Crash Info.

NASA was negligent in both of those crashes. Their QA has an abysmal track record compared to other Level 1 systems such an US Naval nuclear power or commercial air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_Earth_to_the_Moon_(TV_miniseries) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13_movie While dramatized it shows why they do it.

These dudes are *IN* it because it is risky. They love the risk.... Just because you are risk adverse (it shows because you want a 0% fail rate) doesnt mean they are. These dudes are crazy...

Astronaut movies have about as much to do with space travel as The Hunt For Red October does with being a submariner or Tron does with being an IT worker.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Dishevel]

The problem with the Environmentalists is not that they want clean air and water. Which for the most part we have thanks to them now. It is that once we get these things it is never enough. To them the water will never be clean enough. It dose not matter to them that it will cost California millions of jobs to pass a regulation that will clean the air a negligible amount. The need for which was "proven" by a statistician who faked their PHD. Yet CARB will push the regulations through anyway. Because more is better. Right?

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Dishevel]

The capabilities that were lost? Oh I know. Will, Balls, and the ability for people to stand up to pussies and call them out. When you push the envelope people will die. Move on and move forward so that the lives lost will not be a waste. If Apollo 1 had happened today we would have never made it to the moon.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[careysub]

NASA doesnt have a great safety track record any longer.

Well that's a load of shit. Can you name a space agency which regularly launches manned missions and has a significantly better safety track record?

Didn't think so.

...

Well, now that you mention it, yeah! I can! It is the Russian Federal Space Agency. They currently have a running string of 94 manned launches with zero fatalities (the equivalent number for the U.S. is 16).

Or, if you prefer, we could rate the overall safety of the two nation's current manned launch systems, the U.S. Space Shuttle and the Russian Soyuz vehicle family. It is 2 fatal missions out of 129 for the Shuttle (on flights 25 and 113) and 2 fatal missions out of 104 for the Soyuz (on flights 1 and 10). Fatal accidents occurring throughout a program's history is symptomatic of a fundamentally unsafe system. Fatal accidents exclusively concentrated near the beginning shows a system that got through the near side of the "bathtub curve" and is now operating with high reliability. Soyuz is on track for exceeding the Shuttle launch history, and thus the overall fatal launch rate, before the U.S. can launch a replacement.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Anonymous Coward]

Then get private investors and go! No one is holding you!

For Pete's sake, ALL Nasa wants to avoid is buying shit from people they don't know with questionable track record, to launch astronauts under NASA's own name and at NASA's liability. Who's funding is questioned when the private companies rocket blows up? Yes, it's NASA. Why? Because the private company can just fold up after they've cut corners.

I'm all for private companies launching things. But they haven't launched shit with their own stuff into orbit yet. The first stop for a company to be certified reliable is to have their design function in the field for number of years. That means launching things. They should be happy to ferry supplies and other non-critical components until their track record matches their egos.

And no, I'm not talking about Boeing or Lockheed. They *have* a track record. And even then they fuck up (see Genesis with upside down accelerometer and then NASA got the blame).

There is a lucrative unmanned space business. That's where these new companies should compete.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[jfruhlinger]

If we privatise space flight that means less taxes ... NASA should just provide funding via Grants/Loans/etc.

And what's going to be the source of the money for those grants and loans?

If we privatize space travel to the ISS (which is really what this is about), NASA and your tax dollars (along with Russian and European tax dollars) will still be paying for it. Heck, it's not like NASA's own spacecraft are built in-house by government employees. You're still talking about dealing with government contractors; you'll just be outsourcing the project management that NASA used to do. It may or may not be cheaper, but don't pretend you'll be handing spaceflight over to the magical free market. The government will be paying these private companies with your tax dollars.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[FleaPlus]

Just trying readying Feynman's experience with them.

It's really funny that you mention Feynman, because the problem he opens with in his dissenting opinion as a member of the panel which studied the Challenger accident is the exact same problem NASA management (especially Alabama's MSFC) has been having in their push of the Ares I as the "safest launch vehicle ever":

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the
probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The
estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher
figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from
management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of
agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a
Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could
properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the
machinery?" ...

If a reasonable launch schedule is to be maintained, engineering
often cannot be done fast enough to keep up with the expectations of
originally conservative certification criteria designed to guarantee a
very safe vehicle. In these situations, subtly, and often with
apparently logical arguments, the criteria are altered so that flights
may still be certified in time. They therefore fly in a relatively
unsafe condition, with a chance of failure of the order of a percent
(it is difficult to be more accurate).

      Official management, on the other hand, claims to believe the
probability of failure is a thousand times less. One reason for this
may be an attempt to assure the government of NASA perfection and
success in order to ensure the supply of funds. The other may be that
they sincerely believed it to be true, demonstrating an almost
incredible lack of communication between themselves and their working
engineers.

(It's also interesting to note that Feynman essentially had to fight the rest of the panel to include his dissent, as they wanted to just trust NASA to fix its problems on its own. Also worth noting that the management-to-engineer ratio at NASA is far higher than it was in Feynman's day)

Even though the Ares I exists only on paper and it hasn't even passed a reasonable design review, NASA management (or at least the pre-Bolden management) claimed it would have a failure rate of 1-in-3000. Also, this failure rate ignores a number of potential problems which have come up with the design, but the ASAP panel mentioned in the summary just takes it on good faith that NASA will still make a perfectly safe vehicle with the Ares I. Fortunately, a number of the top Ares managers have already been canned, and the new administrator, Charles Bolden, seems to be much less problematic than his predecessor, Michael Griffin (i.e. he doesn't believe himself to be the world's greatest aerospace engineer, and so actually listens to what his engineers tell him).

It's also worth noting that NASA (and the DOD, and NRO) already uses commercial launchers for all of their unmanned probes, as they've been doing for several years now. We all like to say human life is priceless, etc. etc., but there frankly isn't much more you'd do to safeguard a volunteering person than you'd do for a billion-dollar unmanned probe representing years of work by huge teams.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Nexus7]

Hear hear...

In 1969, the US government/NASA put a man on the moon with less computing power than today's phones. And they brought them back too.

And we get all excited when a private company has a successful test launch into orbit?

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[vijayiyer]

The defense budget being out of control doesn't change anything regarding the NASA budget. By your rationale, the bigger our deficit, the bigger we should let it become. How about cutting both and living within our means?
Let's establish a $5B X-Prize and be done with it.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[c6gunner]

Well, now that you mention it, yeah! I can! It is the Russian Federal Space Agency. They currently have a running string of 94 manned launches with zero fatalities (the equivalent number for the U.S. is 16).

According to wikipedia, Russia has had 96 cosmonauts in space, four of whom died. That's assuming they didn't lose some while they were the USSR, and lying about everything. NASA has had 277 astronauts in space, 18 of whom died. That's 4.1% and 6.4% respectively - hardly a massive difference.

This article has a fairly extensive overview of known accidents associated with the Russian and American space programs.

Fatal accidents exclusively concentrated near the beginning shows a system that got through the near side of the "bathtub curve" and is now operating with high reliability.

Except that with such a small sample size, you don't have enough data to draw that conclusion. If I flip a coin 10 times and get heads on 8 of the tosses, that doesn't mean heads is more likely to come up - it just means my sample size is too small.

Go to the wiki page and look at the "near-fatalities" section. You'll notice a trend. Out of the 10 most recent accidents, 8 were part of the Russian space program. For instance, look at the most recent:

2008 April 19: Soyuz TMA-11 suffered a reentry mishap similar to that suffered by Soyuz 5 in 1969; the service module failed to completely separate from the reentry vehicle and caused it to face the wrong way during the early portion of aerobraking. As with Soyuz 5, the service module eventually separated and the reentry vehicle completed a rough but survivable landing. Following the Russian news agency Interfax's report, this was widely reported as life-threatening while NASA urged caution pending an investigation of the vehicle.

Certainly sounds like a fairly serious problem to me. That the service module eventually separated is just blind luck.

To be fair, the article does also note that:

Shuttle incidents generally look unspectacular, but are no less life threatening. Many of the Shuttle launches prior to Challenger arguably constituted near misses—partial burn through of the O-ring material in the solid rocket boosters had occurred many times.

So that list of near-fatalities might slightly slanted. However, you don't get to pretend that the Russian program is inherently safer just because they've been lucky enough to survive their accidents.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[drsquare]

How many of the first 129 attempted flights landed safely?

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[polar red]

how is not even 60 bucks per american out of control ?

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[youn]

$60 is enough for most people to buy enough liquor to get on the moon without a space ship at least once a year :)... heck for that price they can even imagine themselves in a far away galaxy :)

that said I am all for NASA getting 10 times that amount :)

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[careysub]

...However, you don't get to pretend that the Russian program is inherently safer just because they've been lucky enough to survive their accidents.

I actually agree with most of your remarks, and yes, given the similar nature of the programs and similarity of inherent risks, it is not surprising that their manned launch safety records are not greatly different. By picking and choosing what to count as a "serious" accident or methods of counting (does a fatal launch make the system more unreliable because more people are on board?) either one can be made to look worse.

Nonetheless, the notion of a flight on which fatalities occur is by itself a clear and unbiased measure of safety (though not a complete or exclusive measure). Remember, the original challenge was to name a program with a significantly better safety track record. While it is possible the string of 94 launches with no fatalilities is pure dumb luck, rather than evidence for a system that overcame its initial problems, what is the likelihood that this is so?

Consider this hypothesis: what is the confidence that Soyuz has a 95% of better reliability (as measured by fatal accidents) now, given a sample of 94 successive successes? Answer: 99.1%.

What is the confidence that the Shuttle has 95% reliability now given 2 failures in 123 launches? Answer: 94.4%. What is the confidence that it now has 95% reliability given its current record of 16 successive successes? Answer: 55.1%. What if we take all post Challenger launches with 1 failure? Answer 96.7%.

The fact is the current Soyuz launch record without fatalities is quite definitely and literally significantly better.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[ppanon]

but there frankly isn't much more you'd do to safeguard a volunteering person than you'd do for a billion-dollar unmanned probe representing years of work by huge teams.

That depends. If you're needing to launch a dozen or more of those billion dollar "unmanned probes" (or spy sats in the case of the military/intelligence agencies) then it may be more cost effective to self-insure by mass producing an extra one or two to compensate for a 10% failure rate instead of trying to bring the failure rate for one or two less launches down to 0. That's what happens when heavy lifter launches cost >$100 million (or nearly $0.5 billion in the case of the shuttle).

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Rockoon]

How many of the first 129 attempted flights landed safely?

To balance the equation 2 / N = 0.003%, the answer is obviously that of the first 129 flights, 66667 of them landed safely. Thats freaking awesome.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[rgarbacz]

Space flights indeed are dangerous and for some time to come will remain in the domain of exploration rather than tourism, but your claim that NASA has no faults in the disasters which happened is not true. Space shuttle, although an awesome looking vehicle, is inherently not safe:

• it is the only man space vehicle with heat shield not protected, where any foam isolation debrees (or any other object, which happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time) can easily damage it (all other vehicles are put on top of a rocket), if it followed proven concept Columbia accident would not happen
• it is the only man space vehicle without launch escape system (all other vehicles have small rockets, which take the man capsule away from a rocked in case of any early flight failures), if it followed this basic safety guidelines the astronauts from Challenger most likely would survive the catastrophe (they were still alive after the explosion)

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[GooberToo]

but your claim that NASA has no faults

I didn't claim such a thing. I can see how you may have interpreted what I said to imply that. Without a doubt, NASA shot themselves in the foot. Having said, many, many accidents have a human factor associated with it. Accordingly, even NASA assumes human factors in their risk assessment.

Risk assessment does not negate the human condition.
 

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[aztektum]

3. You forgot Apollo 1. Unless you left them out because they weren't actually in the air.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Criton]

SM speration fialure would be an LOC event for Orion due to the fact the Apollo OML is stable in two attitudes and how the parachutes are packaged. In this case Dragon with it's simple cargo trunk vs a full service module complete with more complex connections is the safer vehicle on reentry.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[c6gunner]

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. You've shown that the overall track record is essentially the same. You then picked one particular statistic, and argued that it shows the Soyuz program to be safer. While that may be the case if we ignore all other considerations, I don't understand your rationale for focusing on that one metric while ignoring all others.

If we were to examine all "close calls" and find a similar trend, I would heartily agree that the Soyuz program is far safer. However, the (admittedly limited) available data shows that this is probably not be the case.

Think of it this way: you and I have a game of Russian Roulette, and after 3 trigger pulls each ... I win. You're arguing that my safety record is significantly better than yours since I have a 100% success rate, while you've failed 33% of the time. I don't find that to be a particularly rational analysis of the situation :)

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Dishevel]

Like I said. Let me know when the Enviros are happy somewhere and nothing else needs to be done there.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[khallow]

And no, I'm not talking about Boeing or Lockheed.

Yes, you are (well, the rockets are now the United Launch Alliance). When you tar the entire private US launch industry because a few new companies (particularly SpaceX) have trouble getting their act together (with considerable obstruction from the established players), you are tarring professionals like the ULA who launched 18 rockets in 2009, all successfully. NASA never has had that sort of launch record. Further, there's no magical difference between SpaceX and the ULA. SpaceX can get the experience and professionalism to compete with the big boys.

This sort of whining is self-perpetuating. As long as we continue to slight commercial launch in favor of often less experienced and professional NASA operations, commercial launch will never be validated for use in NASA missions. Hence, the excuses that keep NASA from using commercial launch now will keep NASA from using commercial launch any time in the future. At least, until NASA embarrasses itself so thoroughly that they're forced to go with commercial launch (hopefully that just happened).

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[khallow]

Just to drive the point home, while I don't recall the actual statistics, but statistically speaking, even accounting for the accidents, NASA is ahead of what their own projections indicate. In other words, even with those accidents, NASA is still beating their own projected losses.

You mean the 1 in 100,000 projected failure rate that NASA management talked about prior to Challenger? Yea, they exceeded expectations all right.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[Lockejaw]

The fact is the current Soyuz launch record without fatalities is quite definitely and literally significantly better.

Except the "current streak" metric is close to meaningless. It depends too much on when the sample is taken. Even with two agencies of equal success rates, it is very unlikely for them to have equally long success streaks at an arbitrary point in time. This is the same reason why "current uptime" is not a good metric for system stability. Run the numbers for MTTF, and then we have something to talk about.

Re:NASA isn't good at listening

[amightywind]

Guess you missed this, retard. Charles Boldin only has a job, because he is sufficiently diverse, and he lets Obama put his hand up his ass to make his mouth work.

How is it different

[Shivetya]

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

Re:How is it different

[ftobin]

One big difference between having a sovereign and a corporation do the task is that a corporation can much more easily fold if there is a problem. In other words, a corporation has much less to lose.

Re:How is it different

[FlyingBishop]

Where is the profit motive? Human space travel, while it does involve engineering, is really pure science of the highest order. All we're doing is asking the question "What will happen if we send a person into space?" and doing it. It's simply too expensive to be a worthwhile commercial endeavor. As such, free enterprise doesn't make sense. It's something that a purely business attitude simply cannot understand.

Now, of course what we're talking about is separating those parts that business can understand and using business for that, but it still just seems wrong. You've got two different people talking totally different languages, one of "How can we do this?" and one of "What if we do this?"

Yeah, I'm a bit of an idealist, but I think the what if people should be holding the keys at the management levels. Someone needs to bring them down to Earth occasionally, but you need people who aren't afraid to waste money if you want to do anything interesting. Are such people in charge at NASA? I don't know, they're probably the same managerial types at the aerospace firms. But I don't see why shifting the managerial focus to commercial enterprise will do anything to advance pure science.

Unless of course your goal is to kill pure science in the aerospace field.

Re:How is it different

[Amorymeltzer]

...other than we cannot truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavors

Sarcasm and cynicism aside, I DO prefer the companies that have worked closely with NASA for decades successfully over national programs far younger and comparatively untested. And that isn't to even mention it's a lot easier to talk when there isn't an ocean or two between you and your outsourcee.

Re:How is it different

[oh_my_080980980]

And the other country we are relying is Russia. They have the same experience as NASA.

This *IS* ROCKET SCIENCE. We should not be taking chances with private companies that will transport people at a "competitive cost."

They can't get plans to fly on-time, why do you think they can handle space travel!!

Re:How is it different

[oh_my_080980980]

So are you deliberately forgetting about all the lobbyists that will fight any regulation???

Re:How is it different

[AshtangiMan]

But rocket science isn't really rocket science. IAARS

Re:How is it different

[couchslug]

The problem that would be solved by paying other countries to fly missions is that we overvalue astronauts to the point where protecting them has made _using_ them prohibitive.

We cheerfully drive cars that kill tens of thousands in the US every year, and accept lots of other deathy/woundy/cripply outcomes as the cost of doing business. We can do that with astronauts if we get NASA and government out of manned launches thus ending public expectations of perfection.

All pre-astronaut models of Terran exploration understood that people are cheap and wrote off lots of them. The bravery of those who succeeded met with public praise, a reasonable reward for the right sort of fellow. We forget the legacy test pilots, but those guys knew the risk, thrived when challenged, and accomplished great things. Get manned missions out of NASA, use NASA for science instead of tourism, and learn about the universe instead of wasting limited resources.

Re:How is it different

[Rogerborg]

It was rocket science 40 years ago. By now, it should be do-able by anyone who's seen Mythbusters.

Re:How is it different

[Blakey Rat]

I think the main complaint is that it means less budget, and less employees for NASA. Personally, as a tax payer, I see that as a good thing... but then again I don't get a paycheck from NASA.

Re:How is it different

[WindBourne]

It would inject the money back into our nation's system; If combined with Bigelow's multiple space stations, It would drop the price of launches (multiple locations will increase the rate of launches, which will lower the price). It would bring back our high tech industries.

OTH, if we go with Russia launches, then I suspect that those who push that, will follow it up with pushing us to use Chinese launches.

Yeah, it is VERY DIFFERENT. I prefer us to stay with private Launches, or at least stay with western launches.

Re:How is it different

[alder]

I don't see why shifting the managerial focus to commercial enterprise will do anything to advance pure science.

It depends on what your scientific endeavor is. Is it a science of space flight? Or is it a science that you conduct in space and you just need a ride to get there? You are absolutely correct if all we are talking about are different delivery mechanisms - conventional rockets, high altitude assisted launches, scram engines, The Elevator, etc. If those are the subject(s) of the scientific research, then definitely (IMHO) a commercial enterprise will not help you a whole lot (if at all) today.

However, if you send humans into space to do science in some lab up there, on a moon, on Mars, etc., then whoever delivers your scientists to the lab is not much more than a glorified taxi driver. Do you build your own car to commute to work? Actually, if I remember the history correctly, some people in the early days of automobile did just that - built their own cars. But nowadays if you do not have your own car you hire a taxi. So extending this analogy as far as I can ;-) Lockheed and Boeing are your local car/truck rental agency - U-Haul maybe ;-) or "Two Guys and a Truck" (because they actually deliver stuff to orbit, almost every other week). Alternatively you can hire a truck with a Chinese or a Russian or (some time later) maybe even an Indian driver.

It all depends on what your goal is...

Re:How is it different

[Nyeerrmm]

It's engineering, not science at this point. Its not a matter of learning how to do it, its a matter of learning how to streamline it and make it safer, cheaper and more reliable.

NASA has proven to be incapable of developing a viable launch vehicle -- this isn't to blame the people at NASA, I know and like many of them, but structurally, it just isn't happening. Look at Ares 1, overbudget, underperforming and subject more to the goals of keeping jobs in Alabama rather than getting astronauts to orbit. Ares 1-X, a cobbled together model that was passed off as a prototype, cost around $500M -- this is as much as all the work of SpaceX. While the argument that Falcon 9 has yet to fly, and there may be a lot of trouble along the way is valid, it applies just as much to Ares 1.

Private companies with private investment will be trying harder to be efficient and achieve competitive costs, but this won't be at the expense of safety. If SpaceX kills an astronaut its as bad for their bottom line as if they don't fly at all. Ferrying astronauts to space is no longer the frontier -- NASA showed us how to do it, now its time to let more efficient methods come to bear. Let NASA continue its role as the leading edge of exploration, the Lewis and Clark role. There is no profit and very high risks in sending rovers to Mars or learning how to send astronauts to asteroids, but there is great societal benefit -- this is a great job for the government. However, ferrying people and cargo to orbit has much lower risks and the ability to generate profit -- if market-oriented contracts can reduce costs we can do more to expand the frontier, which is ultimately the goal.

Re:How is it different

[dpilot]

If it folds, the corporation has just lost everything - it's "life." (It's dead, Jim - Appropriate since we're talking about space travel.) Of course the corporation is composed of people, and they've lost much less than they would if their soverign "died," but the company itself is dead.

OTOH, a foreign sovereign wouldn't fold in such a disaster. It would certainly go "Oops, sorry," but in the general scheme of things, space transportation is likely to be a minor fraction of what a sovereign does. About the worst-case scenario would be a sovereign whose only/major source of revenue was space access, and then to have such a disaster.

Re:How is it different

[ChrisMaple]

We cheerfully drive cars that kill tens of thousands in the US every year

Ooh, a car analogy, and a defective one. Automobile deaths are almost completely the fault of drivers: intoxication, inattention, recklessness, driving in a manner not appropriate for conditions (ice, snow, etc.) and so on. Very few automotive deaths are caused by equipment failure. I suspect equipment failure is more significant in big trucks, but still not the dominant cause. On the other hand, all US space travel fatalities have been caused by equipment failure.

Re:How is it different

[FlyingBishop]

It's clear that conventional delivery mechanisms are inadequate to allow commercial use for anything other than satellites. Until that changes, anything other than commercial satellites should remain in the domain of pure science.

Re:How is it different

[QuantumG]

Where is the profit motive?

7 people have paid between $25M and $35M to fly to the ISS in the last 9 years. That rate has been held back by the availability of seats.

probably a bad idea

[v1]

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.

Re:probably a bad idea

[elrous0]

The Russians manage to save money, launch a lot of missions, AND they still have a safety record that dwarfs NASA's. Maybe we should ask them how to do it.

Re:probably a bad idea

[joeyblades]

You're kidding, right? Challenger, the worst space program disaster of all time, occured because NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch. NASA's reasons for pressing on, in spite of these warnings, was entirely commercial.

Re:probably a bad idea

[zwei2stein]

(because airplanes drop left and right because boeing wanted to save costs on wind materials ... not)

Faced with how much dead astronauts would cost em, they would definitelly not cut every possible corner.

One thing is saving few bucks by using X instead of Y, another having crash-reputation and having to pay-off families of deceased and/or cost of cargo.

Anyhow, being you, I would really reconsider "All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible" statement anyway. They most certainly are not spending those money on that, that is given by fact that is is goverment agency responsible for quite nice funds, funds that friends of people who are in charge of them could do with even if they offer slightly wrose product.

Re:probably a bad idea

[CrimsonAvenger]

AND they still have a safety record that dwarfs NASA's.

No, they don't.

Shuttle has had 134 flights, two failures. About 1.6%.

Soyuz has had 104 flights, two failures. About 2%.

Note that in both cases, the "failures" were loss of crew accidents. If we also include failures that do not cause loss of crew, Soyuz looks even worse.

Re:probably a bad idea

[Svartalf]

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.

For all of their "caution", the following two incidents happened and come immediately to mind:

The Challenger Disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster>The Columbia Disaster

In the first, they launched in adverse conditions that aggravated a design flaw in the solid fuel booster's design that caused the Challenger to blow up as it ascended into orbit. The design flaw was approved by that "crazy-careful" NASA and the launch was approved by the same, over concerns about the design and the conditions by the subcontractor for the engines. If you saw the high-level design drawings for the sealing system they chose to use in the Space Shuttle booster (the most powerful solid fuel booster developed to date at that time...) when compared against the design they chose to use with the Titan II boosters they added to the Gemini program rockets, you'd see that they cheapened the design in the Shuttle booster- with a vastly more powerful booster. Couple that with conditions that would almost guarantee the failure we saw- and an insistence to launch when NASA knew there was a solid chance of this sort of failure- there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.

In the second, they switched an insulation design for the central fuel tank from one that relied on CFCs (good thing...) without verifying that there might be a problem with it coming off on launch and damaging the fragile ceramic heat shield tiles on the shuttle (bad thing...). The testing applied to the new insulation foam wasn't given as extensive a run of verification as the old stuff was, which led to the eventual issue. No checks of potential damage on the critical heat shield were done- not that they could have repaired the damage or easily got the crew back in one piece if they'd found out that they were in trouble there. No major accounting for damaged heat shield sections or planning for a detected problem (in the form of another shuttle on a rescue mission...) had ever really been done. Again, there's nothing "crazy-careful" in that mix.

In the end, the only reason we've had the track record we have had with NASA in the Shuttle era of the agency has been that there've been few runs at things. Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things. They're not so careful these days- else the two incidents wouldn't have transpired the way they did. In the first, they'd have scrubbed the mission for another day, which would have prevented the disaster altogether. In the second, had it happened with the people's attitudes during the Apollo 13 timeframe, they would've done a once-over of the shuttle visually either with monitoring gear or via EVA to ensure the integrity of the shuttle. They would have had contingencies for damage of the nature that happened- and had a backup plan for the crew if they couldn't repair the same. NASA's gotten to where they're probably only slightly better than the commercial interests in safety because they're well under budget (which is why they're trying desperately to keep it all in-house if possible; they can justify what they've got right now- if they outsource, the budget shrinks on them even further...) and they're operating more as a political org instead of an engineering driven one like it used to be. That's not to say they don't have good people and some of the best and brightest- but to characterize them as being vastly better on safety than the commercial interests because they're not going to cut corners, etc. is wrong and mistaken at best.

Re:probably a bad idea

[mcgrew]

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.

Except the rocket scientists and engineers mostly work for Lockheed Martin and Boeing and other private corporations, who actually build the vehicles and subsystems.

Re:probably a bad idea

[GiveBenADollar]

Yeah, NASA never cuts corners. They pay top dollar for their o-rings and take every risk seriously including silly things like supersonic foam.

Re:probably a bad idea

[Luminair]

for some reason astronaut Dr. Leroy Chiao thinks differently "Soyuz has a very special place in my heart. It is a robust, capable spacecraft and launcher. It has the best-demonstrated safety record of any manned spacecraft. And, it just feels hearty."

why could that be

Re:probably a bad idea

[zildgulf]

>>Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things Like when the Challenger blew up? They are only crazy-careful about keeping things in house.

Boeing and Lockhead have been building extreme high altitude (near outer space) aircraft for decades. Their safety records are about as good (or better) than NASA's. These people at these companies know what they are doing.

Also if NASA was so crazy-careful they wouldn't be trusting to send astronauts on Russian built rockets. Their safety record is no better than NASA but they are, in all practical purposes, a private space transport organization.

As for Dick Rutan's efforts, they are beyond awesome but only daredevils may apply at this point. He is stuck trying to push the technology beyond the limits and keep thing safe. One of these days things are going to go horribly wrong in one of his in spite of doing everything "right". It is a high price his team is willing to pay. In that case I can understand NASA having hissy fits over a private space transport system like that. I would!

--
I am a redunant contractor working for the Redunancy section of the Redundancy Division of the Department of Redundancy Department...Redundancy.

Re:probably a bad idea

[Colonel Korn]

AND they still have a safety record that dwarfs NASA's.

No, they don't.

Shuttle has had 134 flights, two failures. About 1.6%.

Soyuz has had 104 flights, two failures. About 2%.

Note that in both cases, the "failures" were loss of crew accidents. If we also include failures that do not cause loss of crew, Soyuz looks even worse.

And in addition to the Shuttle's superior safety record, it has vastly greater capabilities. Soyuz is unable to go repair Hubble, for instance.

Re:probably a bad idea

[FatAlb3rt]

Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things.

It's difficult to compare the 2 eras because the budgets are drastically different (10:1?). But the documentation reqmts and presence of safety & QA are substantially more since Apollo.

They would have had contingencies for damage of the nature that happened- and had a backup plan for the crew if they couldn't repair the same.

What was that contingency plan they used for Apollo 13 when they didn't have sufficient compatible CO2 scrubbers? An on-the-fly hack. Read about the incident and you'll find that pretty much the whole thing after the explosion was a seat-of-the-pants ride, a contingency that had not been planned for at all.

they're operating more as a political org instead of an engineering driven one like it used to be

I think that would only weaken your argument. A political organization would tend to error on the side of caution to protect against bad PR, would it not? Engineers tend to be more results driven. IMHO

Re:probably a bad idea

[theIsovist]

possibly because if you take the number of failures that it has that have resulted in loss of crew, it's actually safer in the event of a fuck up. fun with statistics, no doubt, but i do recall one of the soyuz capsules falling to earth with a ballistic trajectory and landing without serious injury to the crew.

Re:probably a bad idea

[rhook]

The management at Morton Thiokol we're the ones who recommended the shuttle launch proceed, overruling the recommendation from their engineers. "The engineers at Thiokol also argued that the low overnight temperatures would almost certainly result in SRB temperatures below their redline of 40 F (4 C). However, they were overruled by Morton Thiokol management, who recommended that the launch proceed as scheduled."

Re:probably a bad idea

[GodfatherofSoul]

Challenger wasn't the worst space program disaster.

• http://www.nytimes.com/1989/09/28/world/1980-soviet-rocket-accident-killed-50.html?pagewanted=1
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe

Re:probably a bad idea

[TooMuchToDo]

Don't like the odds? Don't volunteer to be the crew. I would *happily* take the Soyuz odds, happily work for free in orbit assembling a station or solar power arrays, etc. Safety is less important when you have a pool of people who are willing to roll the dice for a huge reward (getting to space).

Re:probably a bad idea

[elnyka]

The Russians manage to save money, launch a lot of missions, AND they still have a safety record that dwarfs NASA's. Maybe we should ask them how to do it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe

They have a safety record that dwarfs NASA? Pray tell what statistics are you using? I think there is a high probability you don't know what you are talking about.

Re:probably a bad idea

[rliden]

The shuttle has 129 recorded space flights (failure rate is 1.55%). The 5 test flights of the Enterprise, which was never considered space mission worthy by NASA, don't count. Wikipedia has a pretty good entry on the flight history of the shuttle.

If we're considering failure rate to be a fatal crash rate commercial airlines and commercial airline vendors (Boeing, etc) have a much better failure rate than NASA. It doesn't make any more sense to use to another country's space program than it does to use commercial vendors.

Re:probably a bad idea

[Stupendoussteve]

The Apollo 1 fire seems to disagree with this idea that NASA was crazy-careful. This was not wholly NASA-caused issue, but they definitely contributed to the causes of the fire and deaths.

Re:probably a bad idea

[khallow]

And in addition to the Shuttle's superior safety record, it has vastly greater capabilities. Soyuz is unable to go repair Hubble, for instance.

No offense to the brilliant engineering of the Shuttle or Hubble Space Telescope, but it's poor strategy to build and fly for 30 years a rocket which has expensive capabilities that are rarely used (and which have remarkably low value for the cost, when they are used). Sure Soyuz can't repair Hubble (well at least not without requiring a second launch for the replacement equipment and launching from a location closer to the equator, the total cost of the mission falling well under a Shuttle launch) but then again we didn't need to repair Hubble. We could have just launched more space telescopes to replace Hubble when it broken down.

Re:probably a bad idea

[Qzukk]

In the second, they switched an insulation design

The insulation that fell off and hit the wing was still the old insulation.

Re:probably a bad idea

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Lockheed Martin and Boeing are system integrators that, mostly, do similar things like NASA in the sense that they hire a lot of subcontractors to build parts and components and then they bolt it all together. That's an important role, to be sure, but they are not very big on subsystem design. If you want subsystem design, you should go further down the food chain to places like ATK, Honeywell, Honeybee, Aerojet, and so on.

Re:probably a bad idea

[elrous0]

Interesting spin. You're comparing Soyuz failures in the 1960's to NASA's failures in 1986 and 2003. Not one person has been injured during a manned Soyuz launch since the 1971 and there have been no in-flight failures since 1975. The modern Soyuz is far safer than the shuttle and has demonstrated it with a almost 40 years of spotless performance.

Re:probably a bad idea

[rwv]

I believe NASA keeps Independent Verification and Validation for critical system in-house. Building a rocket is an easy task compared to certifying that it's safe for manned space flight.

Re:probably a bad idea

[khallow]

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.

Key word here is "crazy". The NASA bureaucracy has a long history of poor risk management. They've gone psycho over controlling the risk of certain failures in launch (the Ares I, for example, is rationalized on the basis of a guess that they halve risk by roughly 1 part in 400, also the blame finding that occurs after major accidents) while ignoring or discounting greater risks (the Ares I currently requires a sacrifice of reliability in lunar missions with the reduction of risk in launching the mission being lower than the increase of risk elsewhere in the mission due to reduced redundancy of the Orion spacecraft). Some old time examples are the concentration of infrastructure in Florida (one well-placed big hurricane can take it all out), the dependence on a single launch vehicle (a huge single point of failure), and the complete absence of a successor vehicle to the Shuttle prior to 2005.

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 don't buy it. If the US really wanted a "safe as possible" space program, then they wouldn't launch people into space. By launching people into space, you implicitly accept that there's something more important to you than the lives of your astronauts, namely doing that mission. And to be honest, that is usually correct. The mission usually is far more valuable and important than the astronauts.

By increasing safety requirements to absurd levels (which are always for known safety issues not unknown ones), you're making the launch far more expensive at the expense of a minute increase in astronaut safety. And often this will be counterproductive. Namely, launching more and spending less on safety can actually be safer simply because you gain more operational experience and find more risks in real missions than in tests and simulations.

Re:probably a bad idea

[zippthorne]

Actually most of the rocket science was settled over a century ago. Most of what we've seen from NASA is rocket engineering.

Re:probably a bad idea

[Nyeerrmm]

If SpaceX or Orbital Sciences kills an astronaut they're going out of business just as quickly as if they don't deliver a product at all. There will probably be less tolerance for failure from a private company than there is for NASA failures. On top of this, the people working at a private company aren't especially less or more moral than civil servants.

The wasted money isn't on redundancy and proper design, its on the inefficiencies inherent to government work. Ares 1 is being propped up not by its technical merits, but by the fact that if it is cancelled a lot of jobs will be lost in Alabama and the senators from that state are defending it with everything they have. There is nothing magical about civil servants that makes them more conscientious -- I've worked as both.

Re:probably a bad idea

[gmueckl]

It hasn't been entirely spotless. There were some major technical difficulties during reentry a while ago (in 2008 or so). I don't remember any details and don't have time to look up sources, though.

All I remember is that the capsule is designed to be separated into 3 parts in early reentry with only the middle part (the crew cabin) actually returning. There was a problem with a revised design of the explosive bolts that separated the upper part causing a less than smooth separation which ended up rotating the craft. And I think this happened on two occasions and could have been fatal to the crew.

Re:probably a bad idea

[rgarbacz]

The statistics are correct, the only difference is that all 2 catastrophes happened withing the first 10 flights of Soyuz. To put it in another perspective Soyuz has 94 safe landings in a row.

Re:probably a bad idea

[crgrace]

How did President Obama send those jobs to Mexico? Were jobs sent to India, Mexico and China from 2001 through 2008 sent there by President Bush?

Carl

Re:probably a bad idea

[murdocj]

You're assuming businesses act rationally. A private space company may need to launch to meet this quarter's goals so their execs get their bonuses. Or the company may be tight for funding and if they don't launch, they are going out of business anyway. Businesses do what appear to be crazy, irrational things ALL THE TIME, because there is no "business" or "corporation" as a thinking, breathing entity. They are all run by individuals who have their own motives, and those motives aren't necessarily good ones. They may be rational motives from the individual's point of view, but disasterous for the business.

Re:probably a bad idea

[Nyeerrmm]

But how is a government organization immune to this? I can see a company growing complacent and cutting corners -- it would happen after a number of successful flights, when they think its never been a problem before, so why keep protecting against it. This is exactly what killed 14 STS passengers, and it was the government there that was behaving irrationally, and in the case of Challenger, the corporate manufacturer was encouraging delaying the flight.

Re:probably a bad idea

[murdocj]

Other posts in this thread have indicated that in the case of the Challenger, the private company management wanted to fly and overruled their own engineers and told NASA it was ok. It doesn't sound like that disaster advances the cause of private spaceflight.

Re:probably a bad idea

[the_other_chewey]

Yes, in the past, NASA was crazy-careful, but that was more around the Apollo era of things.

I'm sorry, but you should really read up on your NASA history again. "crazy" does indeed apply
to a lot of things they did back then. "careful" - not so much.

The first manned Apollo mission for example, Apollo 8, was done after a pretty much failed unmanned
test flight of a Saturn V (Apollo 6) - and was only the third Saturn V launch ever.

Now imagine a situation like that for the Shuttle successor, a launcher that relies heavily on previous
experience - something the Apollo guys didn't have: First launch with dummy payload goes OK, second launch
with the real thing fails miserably. Would you expect the third launch to be manned?

Apollo-NASA was thorough, very professional, highly innovative, and concentrated on getting things done.
The risks were known, and everyone involved accepted them as part of doing what they were doing. This included accepting
"we might go boom", knowing that the engineers involved did the best they could to prevent known sources of boom, while
still being unable to prevent unknown ones.

Note that both Shuttle losses fall under the "known sources" category, something I believe would not have happened with
Apollo-NASA - not because of them being more careful, but because of them being more competent:
They actually listened to the engineers, and trusted their judgements, all the way down to the subcontractors.

Today, even a remote possibility of boom is considered unacceptable.

Re:probably a bad idea

[Nyeerrmm]

I'm not really trying to argue that COTS-like contracts would be safer. All I'm saying is that changing the contracting method from cost-plus to fixed-cost would have little direct impact on safety. In the long-term it could lead to improvements, but thats just because of potentially lower costs, which leaves more room in the budget for safety, and more frequent flights, which improves statistics and design procedures, no matter who is doing it.

Re:probably a bad idea

[CrimsonAvenger]

for some reason astronaut Dr. Leroy Chiao thinks differently "Soyuz has a very special place in my heart. It is a robust, capable spacecraft and launcher. It has the best-demonstrated safety record of any manned spacecraft. And, it just feels hearty."

why could that be

Because he's never looked at the numbers? Because he's infatuated with Soyuz?

Certainly not the safety record of the two, since the Shuttle actually has a better one than Soyuz.

By the by, Shuttle has flown 134 orbital missions. Russia (Vostok, Voshkod, Soyuz) has flown 112. The USA has flown 20 other than Shuttle. China has flown one. Which means that Shuttle has flown more than every other spacecraft combined (134 to 133) - note that I'm not counting the several suborbital flights....

Re:probably a bad idea

[Luminair]

no, what I was getting at is that you are wrong

We should stick with NASA

[elrous0]

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.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[benjfowler]

Well, if it's so easy, then why hasn't some jumped-up John Galt character flown to the Moon on his own money yet?

Truth is, big plans cost money. The only reason why America went from suborbital flights to walking on the Moon in the space of a decade, is because it was given unlimited funding. Private business just doesn't do that sort of thing,

Re:We should stick with NASA

[elrous0]

Probably because big business didn't have a good enough REASON to go to the moon. The recent launch of SpaceShipOne and the Virgin Galactic enterprise was done because the combination of the X Prize and the money to be made on space tourism actually justifies the cost of the endeavor. If a company thought they could make trips to the moon worth the cost of developing and building the infrastructure to do it, you can bet they would pass a plodding and inefficient NASA in a New York minute.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[mcgrew]

Because their bureaucracy has done such an excellent job in the last 35 years of getting us back to the moon, to Mars, etc

You must not have been paying attention. We have the Hubble, and now we have the new telescope that will put Hubble to shame. We have robots on Mars, which I would argue is far better than having human feet there. We have satellites around Mars, Venus, and iinm Mercury. We have the robot in space that looks for gamma ray bursts. We've had the Voyagers and myriad other deep space probes collecting treasure troves of data about our solar system.

NASA has done a fine job. Landing a man on the moon wasn't science, it was international politics; we were in a race with the Soviets, who orbited the first satellite, sent the first man into space, and orbited the first man. Putting a man on the moon served no purpose except to salve our national pride. Ever since we landed on the moon NASA has been about science, and it has advanced science greatly.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[oh_my_080980980]

You are aware that space travel costs money. When Congress doesn't fund space travel, it's very hard to go back to the moon and take a trip to Mars.

But hey if you want to see your taxes go up to pay space travel, then I urge you to write your senator and congressman and ask them increase your taxes to pay for this.

Moron.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[FatAlb3rt]

What program was designed to get us to the moon or Mars? They haven't got us to the sun yet either.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[TooMuchToDo]

You do realize that Elon Musk founded SpaceX to lower the cost of getting out of Earth's gravity well because he wants to colonize Mars, correct? I'd say that's pretty damn close to a "John Galt".

Re:We should stick with NASA

[benjfowler]

It should be pointed out too, that R&D costs SERIOUS money. If we were to fly to the Moon today, it'd be way cheaper, relatively speaking, than in the 1960s. All the technology's better, we have experience operating in space, we know what to expect, what corners to cut, what not to scrimp on, etc etc.

That kind of R&D spending is *FAR* beyond what any private enterprise is willing to invest, regardless of the potential payoff. You require the willpower and fundraising capability of a huge nation-state like the USA to pull that off; this is why America's achievement of putting a man on the Moon in a decade will probably never be matched again.

As an aside, SpaceX have reached orbit on private money, and are about to get into heavy lift and (eventually) human spaceflight. They have the **MASSIVE** benefit of leveraging the billions of dollars already spent by governments and militaries in building the systems that they're copying.

I'm getting tired of rebutting the right-wing myth that private enterprise can always do everything better. Because despite the fervent wishes of the 12-year-old "Atlas Shrugged" fan crowd, there are just some things in this world that require massive, coordinated action -- best run by governments.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[thomst]

What are you smoking?

NASA doesn't set those goals. The President sets them. That's why we threw away the momentum of the Apollo project - Nixon hated it, because he (rightly) considered it a legacy of JFK. So he authorized Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz, rather than work towards a lunar colony, or flights to Mars. And he cut NASA's requested budget.

And that's the other thing about long-term NASA goals. They're entirely at the mercy of Congress, which has consistently refused to fund them for other than the current fiscal year. So NASA is constantly having to ramp them up and down, depending on how popular funding space flight is this year.

Do you have any opinions of your own, or are they all recycled from fat, drug-addicted, reactionary trolls?

Re:We should stick with NASA

[Idiomatick]

"We have robots on Mars, which I would argue is far better than having human feet there."

No... Having humans there would be way fucking better since that would clearly be harder to do... But having robots is better than nothing. But yeah, NASA isn't totally incompetent, they are horribly over priced true. But they have no competition, no one to look to (aside from the secretive Russians), no body to take ideas from and they are getting stale. With all that I still think the main gimping factor is that NASA gets way too little funding given what its asked to do.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[mcgrew]

Having humans there would be way fucking better since that would clearly be harder to do

How would "harder to do" make it better? The whole purpose of going to Mars is scientific discovery.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[couchslug]

Some things aren't worth the application of "massive" resources on one project to the detriment of others...

Manned spaceflight is a tremendous barrier to actual _exploration_ of space because it is so expensive to use humans for a job where many, many more remotely-manned systems could do a better job.

Manned exploration at this primitive stage of unmanned and remotely-manned supporting technology just gets in the way and provides drama for those who enjoy it. Were we really interested in exploration and the power to act off-world, we'd build systems to do that. Once perfected, human passengers can be an afterthought. It is not a matter of choosing BETWEEN manned and remotely-manned missions, but doing them in the most useful order.

We already use robotic and remotely-manned systems for many tasks on Terra from mining to undersea exploration to IED disposal. I argue that current manned programs are a hangover of Cold War penis-waving. Want to EXPLORE space? Wait for the vast tech base of seemingly unrelated supporting technology on Earth to improve while building the (required either way!) unmanned/remotely-manned systems first.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[FooAtWFU]

It's obvious that the government can be better at certain goals taken in isolation (like spaceflight). The question then becomes whether those massive things are better than the sum total of everything that doesn't get done because people were taxed and made to spend money on that instead of something else, or the government raised the cost of borrowing by competing for debt, or even because the government was spending money on spaceflight instead of a bunch of small infrastructure projects.

That's a really hard assessment to make. It would be naive to say that it's clearly not the case (in light of the wasteful excesses and destruction of capital in our last housing crisis), but it would be hubris to say that you/the government can do better job deciding what's an important use of society's resources than the individual members of that society.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[ChrisMaple]

Space flight was developed in the context of the cold war and if you weren't alert in the 1950s you probably don't understand the intense pressure to develop rocketry rapidly. The idea was that if the US couldn't keep up it would be dead or enslaved. The result was that enormous funds were poured into developing space flight, and wastefully so. (For example, yet ironically, the Vanguard program was developed in parallel to military programs because of a foolish insistence that the first US satellite be nonmilitary.)

If space flight had been developed privately, it would have been done much more slowly and economically. Part, perhaps most, of the development would have been done by rich individuals without a profit motive beyond their own satisfaction. Look at rocket hobbyists today. However, the profit motive would eventually assert itself. The idea of communications satellites was there before spaceflight was possible, and the idea of weather satellites was fairly obvious. Much of the expense of developing space flight would be lower if it had waited for the development of the advanced computers that exist now, and improved materials, etc.

there are just some things in this world that require massive, coordinated action -- best run by governments.

Yes, there's war, and there's ... uh ... and ... well uh... Government is inherently wasteful because of several reasons that do not necessarily apply to private enterprises (political pressures both internal and external prevent straightforward action, funding comes from people some of whom object (occasionally violently) to having funds removed from them, etc.) And what constitutes "best" is open to debate.

And gratuitous libel of Objectivists is getting really old.

Re:We should stick with NASA

[Idiomatick]

Erm if we had people there.. I assume it would entail us having the science and engineering required to put people there... Unless you meant we fired meat popsicles into a martian impact... which while interesting would be less useful. (I'd do it if i died just so i could be the first man on mars due to a technicality)... Anyways, I do agree that robots are a good 1st step in most cases .. like scouts. But humans are the next step and if we were there already that'd be dandy.... My vote is for humans and robots in space, aka more funding rather than some weird idea /.ers have that we have to choose.

This just in....Monopolies do not like competition

[Ada_Rules]

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.

Translation

[Rockoon]

Translation:

Nobody offered us a bribe.

Re:Bad bad idea

[joeyblades]

Do you think NASA invents all of the technology that goes into space exploration? A large portion of that technology already comes from third parties. NASA is more of a program management function than a developer.

Re:Bad bad idea

[91degrees]

The space shuttle orbiter is made by Rockwell and Boeing. The external tank is made by Lockheed. Boeing also made parts of the Saturn V and Delta rockets. Lockheed Martin are already designing and developing Orion.

I think a few private companies are reasonably experienced.

Panel is blinkered...

[dkf]

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!

Re:Panel is blinkered...

[oh_my_080980980]

You are a complete a$$-hole.

You have no idea about the complexities of space travel but you think that some bottom-dollar company can execute space travel without any problems.

Go back under the rock you crawled out from.

"Probably not cost effective"

[Weaselmancer]

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.

Re:"Probably not cost effective"

[jittles]

Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.

I wouldn't exactly call it a government run monopoly. I mean, they aren't using unfair business practices to keep others from entering into the space arena. And I doubt you're factoring in the cost of training the astronauts. It's not cheap. Better to spend the extra money on transport and have a better understood risk than to go with a private company.

Re:"Probably not cost effective"

[mcgrew]

Because we all know a government run monopoly is the most cost effective means of doing something.

My power company, CWLP, is a government run monopoly, owned by the city of Springfield. We have the cheapest electricity in the state, and and the most reliable power.

In March, 2006 two F-2 tornados (almost F-3s) tore through Springfield and completely destroyed the electrical infrastructure in my neighborhood and a lot of other neighborhoods. There wasn't a single unbroken utility pole, nor a single wire that didn't touch the ground. The transformers were all on the ground, on roofs, and in trees. They had to completely rebuild, and my power was back on in a week.

Later that spring a single weak F-1 went through the St Louis area. I visited a friend in Cahokia on the Illinois side of the river, served by the private power company Amerin three weeks later, and the only evidence that there had been a tornado at all was that my friend's power was still out.

Amerin is my natural gas company, and their customer service is abysmal. CWLP's customer service is for the most part excellent. The reason is, if I'm unhappy with my electrical service I'm liable to vote against the Mayor next election, but if I'm unhappy with my gas service there's absolutely nothing I can do; it's not like I can get another gas company.

If you have choices, the free market works well. With a monopoly there is no free market, and you are far better served by it being a government monopoly.

Re:"Probably not cost effective"

[mcgrew]

a competitor can provide a better service.

Which universe do you live in that you have a choice of electric companies?

Re:"Probably not cost effective"

[ChrisMaple]

Which universe do you live in that you have a choice of electric companies?

The universe in which Home Depot and Lowes sells generators.

Re:"Probably not cost effective"

[mcgrew]

You're going to fuel that generator more cheaply than buying electricity? They're going to come out and repair it for free when it breaks? At least you'd have done away with the abysmal customer service, but I don't see any other benefits. A generator is in no way a viable choice.

Re:"Probably not cost effective"

[khallow]

If you have choices, the free market works well. With a monopoly there is no free market, and you are far better served by it being a government monopoly.

No, the lesson here is that if there has to be a monopoly, then you are better off owning the monopoly. Elected government running the monopoly is one way for the customers to own the monopoly.

Re:Bad bad idea

[suso]

If they are talking about companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, then yes I think this is a bad idea. but if they are talking about new unknown companies, then I can't blame them for being cautious. Going to space is no small endeavor, its not like just putting a sign on your car and creating a cab company.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[elrous0]

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).

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know enough about space flight to form a rational opinion for or against commercial ferrying.

Re:Hmmm

[Amorymeltzer]

Thank you, that was very helpful. You're the kind of person who calls in to surveys to say "I don't know," aren't you?

Re:Hmmm

[rpetre]

I think his point was "... and most likely, neither do you, so quit acting like you do".

Re:Hmmm

[eln]

His comment is much more helpful and informative than the half-baked nonsense passing for "expert opinion" elsewhere in this thread. People read news articles and opinion pieces about space travel and think they're expertly qualified to spout off about it. At least the AC is honest.

The profit motive...

[EWAdams]

... is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is. I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.

Re:The profit motive...

[Known Nutter]

When considering survival in a limited-edition experimental craft, the first step may be to avoid riding a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is.

Just sayin'...

Re:The profit motive...

[aliddell]

being known as a company that lets its passengers die is not likely to result in a whole lot of profits. Hell, I know this and I've never run a business in my life.

Re:The profit motive...

[Attila Dimedici]

... is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is. I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.

Right, because it is so profitable to be known as a company that kills your passengers. On another note, who are you recommending to do it then, because it seems that the people at NASA are thinking about covering thier ass, not about keeping the astronauts alive.

Re:The profit motive...

[rakanishu]

The CEO must ride with the astronauts. That'll make it safe.

Re:The profit motive...

[MobyDisk]

Then don't drive a car. FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.

Re:The profit motive...

[physicsphairy]

Fortunately for you, I don't think anyone is ever going to ask to go for the ride. And if cheap commercial space flight gets shoved in the attic, I don't think any of your children will get the chance to say no either.

But if we're going to let people try to climb Everest, go cave diving, and test experimental aircraft, I don't see why we need to go nuts with space safety, assuming there are plenty of people eager to take the risk. I mean, trying to be super careful hasn't even worked--to this day we still learn about our mistakes when the whole thing goes kablooey. Trying to overengineer it doesn't make it safe, what we really need is just to get through this first phase of space flight where we are still heavily experimenting, and the only way to do that is to just go for it.

Re:The profit motive...

[MozeeToby]

If their failure rate is high, they won't get very many launches before NASA says enough and stops buying from them. The best way to maximize profit is with more launches, launches that will only take place if certain safety requirements are met. In the meantime, you do realize that NASA gets paid to put commercial satellites into orbit right? And that they have a limited budget, tight time-tables, and various government offices breathing down their necks?

Re:The profit motive...

[iprefermuffins]

Why can't they be thinking about both? How about they don't get paid till you're safely back on the ground?

Re:The profit motive...

[jgtg32a]

How do you not realize that deaths are very bad for business, there will be lawsuits and loss of business because well people died.

Re:The profit motive...

[Blakey Rat]

Boeing and Airbus seem to manage their incredible safety rates for the last 50 years without any problems, and they're for-profit companies. (With various degrees of government support, but this hypothetical space vendor would have that as well.)

Given, their task is less complex, but then again the amount of flights is at least three orders of magnitude greater as well.

Re:The profit motive...

[Moridin42]

That isn't so difficult to accomplish. When you are negotiating for a ticket, tell them that you'll release the funds from escrow when you are safely on the ground.

If you have the kind of money to afford space travel, you can probably swing that sort of arrangement. By the time space travel gets cheap, safety will be more of a proven record, and it won't be necessary.

Re:The profit motive...

[evilviper]

Right, because it is so profitable to be known as a company that kills your passengers.

Yes, it is! History has shown, time and time again, that safety is more expense than it's worth. Go back to seat belts in the 70s, or even Toyota's recent scuffle, where they avoided a recall until forced to do so...

A + B + C = X.

Re:The profit motive...

[FleaPlus]

Yes, it is! History has shown, time and time again, that safety is more expense than it's worth. Go back to seat belts in the 70s, or even Toyota's recent scuffle, where they avoided a recall until forced to do so...

That only applies industries where the public is largely unaware of accidents and failures. You can be rest assured that any accident during a private manned spaceflight is going to be on newspaper/news.google front pages for quite a while, and any private space company knows that would result in its name being negatively embedded in the public psyche for quite some time.

Re:The profit motive...

[ChrisMaple]

I can think of a whole bunch of places more dangerous than a space flight. Ankle deep in a lava flow. The bottom of the Marianas Trench. In an alligator's mouth. In a hangman's noose. In a running tree chipper.

Re:The profit motive...

[evilviper]

That only applies industries where the public is largely unaware of accidents and failures.

Okay. Commercial airlines then... Why is it that the public at large has no idea of the relative safety records of the different carriers, or of the different brand and model of jet? Why don't those with a poor safety record go out of business in short order?

I'm very interested...

Re:The profit motive...

[FleaPlus]

Why is it that the public at large has no idea of the relative safety records of the different carriers, or of the different brand and model of jet? Why don't those with a poor safety record go out of business in short order?

Um, ValuJet? That's the only domestic airliner I can think of where safety was a major issue, and their finances plummeted.

Re:The profit motive...

[evilviper]

...I can think of...

My point, exactly.

Though it's irrelevant to the point, if you really want to know, Comair (Delta Connection) has a far more abhorrent record than ValuJet ever did.

Re:The profit motive...

[khallow]

The profit motive is not really what I want people thinking about when I ride a limited-edition experimental craft into the most dangerous place there is. I want them thinking about keeping my ass alive and nothing else.

Then don't fly limit-edition, experimental, for profit craft. A key flaw with your argument is that nobody will want your whiny ass in a seat. They'll want someone who understands what's going on and is willing to take the risks.

Re:Bad bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, the website sets its font a certain way for a reason. do you really have to fuck with it? why? to be "noticed"??? attention whore.

Re:Bad bad idea

[LUH 3418]

The problem is that there isn't much market for transporting humans to space. Even if they could do it at a third of the cost NASA can manage, it would still be too expensive for everyone but the richest of the richest. Practically, the only people with the interest and the budget right now are government agencies.

Beyond that, the rockets used to launch people into space are usually not the same as those used for satellite launches, limiting the usability of that equipment for other purposes.

Re:Bad bad idea

[Opportunist]

Little experience?

Apollo CM/SM: North American Aviation, now part of Boeing.
Space Shuttle Orbiter: See above.
LEM: Grumman Aircraft Engineering, ackquired by Northrop to form Northrop Grumman.

Who do you think built the crafts that were used so far? NASA itself? Consider: They worked, mostly.

Two words to the federal panel...

[mdm-adph]

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.

Re:Two words to the federal panel...

[RKThoadan]

It's not really all that "regulated" you know. Relatively little regulation is stopping you from building a spacecraft on your own and flying yourself to the moon. The main regulations you have to follow are actually FAA regs for atmospheric flight. NASA actually uses private companies for some satellite launches.

Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_spaceflight

Re:Two words to the federal panel...

[Amorymeltzer]

Just because there ARE risks doesn't mean we shouldn't try to lower them. From an institutional point of view, deaths put any operation on hold longer than almost anything else. If you want to get there, make it safe; ain't nobody gonna go to space if dying has to actually be considered.

Re:Two words to the federal panel...

[couchslug]

"ain't nobody gonna go to space if dying has to actually be considered."

The people who deserve to go will brave the risk and move things forward, no one else matters. So what if the timid don't go early?

Cowards can stay on the ground.

Re:Two words to the federal panel...

[oh_my_080980980]

I think we need to start thinning out the heard and I nominate you as the prime candidate.

Oh and can we start storing nuclear waste in your backyard. Why should the government have a monopoly on storing nuclear waste.

Jackass!

Re:Two words to the federal panel...

[mdm-adph]

Well, perhaps "regulating" was the incorrect word -- I guess I looking more for "decentralizing." I have nothing wrong with government projects -- I do have a problem with government-only projects.

Re:Two words to the federal panel...

[TooMuchToDo]

You don't even need to follow the FAA regulations if you launch from outside the US (Pacific Atolls, sea platform near the equator, etc.)

Re:Two words to the federal panel...

[khallow]

I think you also need to flag your operation with another country, say Liberia.

Re:Two words to the federal panel...

[careysub]

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.

There is nothing stopping a private consortium from funding out of private capital the development of it's own space flight system, then selling its launch services to the government or space tourists. In fact there a number of companies trying to do this right now, for small satellites mostly (and non-orbital thrill rides).

What is preventing LockMart or Boeing from coughing up the $5 to $10 billion required for a full-scale manned launch system? Nothing... except they want the government to contract in advance to use them exclusively for launch services in the future, or else they want the government to fund the "private deregulated" project. They do not want to invest and compete, they want a "pre-bailout", a no risk proposition from the beginning.

Private enterprise can be efficient if there is competition - multiple providers - and preferably also a marketplace of multiple customers. When there is one provider for an essential service needed by only one customer none of the supposed disciplines of the marketplace function and there is no pragmatic (that is, practical as opposed to ideological) reason for the government not to own its own launch system and many for it to do so.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[Infiniti2000]

I think it is worth a shot to try it in space.

Absolutely. You first.

Re:Bad bad idea

[91degrees]

Well, more with substantial detailed design and specification requirements from NASA, with design and engineering from the private companies.

Re:Bad bad idea

[Manfred Maccx]

Not sure about that. I'm pretty sure that Nasa issue the specs, requirements and the scope of work but the engineering is done by those companies not by the Nasa.

Re:Space Shuttles retiring

[Svartalf]

Nahh... Probably something more along the lines of this...

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[jellomizer]

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.

easy : Allow it for the private citizens

[funkman]

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.

Re:Bad bad idea

[hargrand]

That's not the way it works. NASA specifies operational requirements. Engineers (many of whom may be NASA support contractors, not government employees) then translate those into technical requirements that are used as the basis for a competitive procurement. The winning bidder is responsible for the hard engineering, manufacturing, integration and initial testing. NASA from that point on acts, as has been mentioned here, as a program manager making sure that things like cost, schedule and performance risks are minimized.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[characterZer0]

If I had to go to space, I would rather go with Boeing or Lockheed Martin that with NASA.

Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already.....

[Ellis D. Tripp]

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

Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already.....

[DesScorp]

" and trot out the old right-wing canard (originated by Rush Limbaugh)"

Limbaugh didn't originate that. That theory was put forth by a retired Lockheed engineer (before the accident investigation), and Limbaugh said it sounded likely to him. A lot of blogs picked it up too until the accident report came out.

Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already.....

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Yes, I noticed that shortly after I posted that I used the wrong word there. Limbaugh didn't actually ORIGINATE this particular bullshit story, he simply drew upon his presumably vast knowledge of polymer chemistry and aerospace manufacturing techniques to lend creedence to an unsubstantiated claim made by one of his guests. After all, if it makes environmentalists look bad, then "it sounded likely" to Mr. Limbaugh.

His legions of dittohead followers then picked up on the story and gave it so much traction that it repeatedly surfaces to this day in most discussions of the Columbia accident.

Nothing like using the tragic deaths of 7 astronauts to advance your own career and political agenda. The man is a true douchenozzle.

Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already.....

[Dishevel]

I do not need Rush to make environmentalists look bad. I live in California.

Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already.....

[Calithulu]

He should apologize to Rush when Rush apologizes for stating that it sounded likely on-air while not actually knowing if there was any truth to it.

Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already.....

[mi]

He should apologize to Rush when Rush apologizes for stating that it sounded likely on-air while not actually knowing if there was any truth to it.

It may sound likely without being true at all. Rush, in general, words himself carefully and has very little to apologize for. This fact, of course, adds a lot to the hatred of certain people against him, who are, in general, a lot less refined. This thread is another example :-)

Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already.....

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that it's laudable that the man uses weasel words to avoid legal liability when implying/propagating lies? If it was an occasional occurrence then it might be excusable, but he's got enough of a track record that it's pretty clearly a strategy for increasing controversy, raising his profile, and profiting from it via advertising sales. That the majority of his audience laps it up when most of them claim to be followers of a philosophy that has as one of its keystones "Thou shall not bear false witness" is pretty ironic.

Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already.....

[ChrisMaple]

Rush's use of "weasel words" is in contrast to Rush's opponents who lie in full knowledge that they are nowhere close to the truth.

I frequently use phrases such as "as far as I know", "I've read that", "this person said", "it appears that". This is what an honest person does, making it clear that someone else deserves credit for an idea, that I am not certain about a point, and so forth.

What you call "weasel words" are a hallmark of an honest person.

Re:Bad bad idea

[TnkMkr]

Let me premise this with the statement that I am making an assumption, IF NASA has gone the way that most of the defence industry has,
then over last three to four decades they have been outsourcing more and more of their resources. This means the the agency itself has
probably shrunk to nothing more than the program managing guys who do the high level planning and review. The actual in the feild grunt
design engineers or manufacturing techs are all probably private industry contractors.

Its the direction the military has gone in, the government doesn't design or build anything, they don't even buy the designs anymore,
they just purchase the end products and use them. (and get trapped in years of upgrade funding, repair services, etc. because they
don't own any of the technical data for the systems).

Space Privateers

[Doc Ruby]

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?

Re:Space Privateers

[ChrisMaple]

Make it mandatory that only the manufacturer of the vehicle can operate it, and they only get paid at the end of a successful flight.

Re:Bad bad idea

[Sir_Lewk]

Don't think that only NASA does design, and contractors just do manafacturing, the relationship is much more complex, with good engineers on both sides of the table. NASA does not have a monopoly on good engineers, or even a monopoly on engineers with a good track record.

Also, knock it off with the monospaced font. If people wanted to read things that way, they'd have configured their browsers that way. As it is, you just come off as an attention whore who feels the need to artificially attract attention to his posts.

The same Boeing that 'built' the border fence??

[Anonymous Coward]

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,

Re:Bad bad idea

[Opportunist]

Nope. NASA decides what the craft has to do, then they ask for submissions. It works like most governmental projects, they don't care how, they just care that something is done. You have this kind of procedure in pretty much all governmental projects, from defense to spacecraft to databases. You get a (more or less...) detailed project description, what the finished product should do, what specs it has to comply with and then you're supposed to give them a study and a design. If they approve, you can start getting the big $$$ signs in your eyes.

That's basically why companies agree with this kind of projects. From a developer's point of view, they're about as horrible as it can get. You often get sketchy ideas which may or may not be possible in the first place and then have to make miracles happen. But they pay well. Really, really well.

Re:Bad bad idea

[JWW]

No, I'm sorry what you said doesn't hold. NASA comes up with requirements and specifications. Words, sentences, numbers etc. Contractors then work from those and build the REAL stuff. Sure they review (ad nauseum) things with NASA along the way, but the Contractors are designing and building almost everything.

Re:Bad bad idea

[maroberts]

But don't they just 'make' the equipment, opposed to NASA designing the crafts?

Nope. Companies submit proposals and NASA selects them, sometimes with modifications. It seems that Boeing and Lockheed are just trying to keep other entrants out of the market.

Re:Bad bad idea

[proslack]

The catch is that there are hundreds of third parties involved in the construction of any one spacecraft. No one company that I know of builds all the components of a spacecraft, or has the in-house expertise to handle that sort of design. There is a certain amount of institutional knowledge at NASA that doesn't exist in the private sector. Most people working in the space program are contractors anyway...United Space Alliance. Makes more sense to me to keep things as they are...government oversight, commercial construction. If you privatize the whole thing you'll lose control of classified technology, experience cost-overruns, and trade safety for cost even more than you do now.

Hatch Act

[Baldrson]

This is yet more evidence that the Hatch Act should be extended to cover government contractors like Lockheed and Boeing.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[Sir_Lewk]

Absolutely. You first.

Are you kidding me? I would pay to be first, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Re:Bad bad idea

[JWW]

Dude, NASA doesn't design the craft then just issue requirements and specs. The contract companies then build the crafts.

You are wrong. Continuing to post over and over again how NASA designs everything and the private companies are just putting stuff together isn't going to make you correct.

NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl...

[couchslug]

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".

most readers don't know this but

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bad bad idea

[Ipeunipig]

His Archimedes only allows that type face.

Re:Bad bad idea

[FatAlb3rt]

Spend some time at one of the space centers. Look at the names on the buildings in the area. Look at the company names on the majority of the badges. Sneak into a couple design meetings to see the ideas being presented.... and who is presenting them. Then you might rethink your position.

Hint: You'll find the civil servants are in the minority and the contractors are doing a lot of (most of?) the work. NASA takes a largely managerial role. Nothing special about them other than the color of their badge. Many get pulled into the ranks from the contractor pool.

Re:Bad bad idea

[Ipeunipig]

“Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?”

The Article Mischaracterizes The Report

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Lowest Bid

[dammy]

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.

well if they would fund them...

[Xenious]

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...

NASA scared of SpaceX making a better ship?

[watermodem]

I have to view this as NASA bureaucrats being scared of SpaceX designing and building a better ship.

The last thing i want

[AP31R0N]

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.

The Astronaut's wife argument....

[jameskojiro]

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".

Re:Bad bad idea

[L4t3r4lu5]

Monospaced fonts are to be used for one thing only.


.. ( )
.(o)(o)
.. ) (
.. (Y)

I know, I know...

I'd say 25% genuine

[argStyopa]

"...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'.

Elon Musk's Rebuttal

[Larson2042]

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.

Re:Elon Musk's Rebuttal

[BJ_Covert_Action]

Also for reference: Spaceflightnow's actual article as opposed to the apparent soundbite linked to in the summary....I mean really, what was it? Three paragraphs?

Re:Elon Musk's Rebuttal

[DerekLyons]

It's also worth pointing out that Musk has a major financial stake in whether or not commercial providers are chosen.
 
If you read the article you linked, you also see where he weasels... He blasts the panel for 'claiming' his vehicles isn't man rated - but then states "it is man rated except for the escape system". (Um, Elon - being man rated is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't.) The same goes for the Falcon 9 - he claims it isn't 'paper' like the Ares, but then the article points out that it hasn't flown and that its scheduled first flight is likely to slip (again).

Re:Elon Musk's Rebuttal

[FleaPlus]

He blasts the panel for 'claiming' his vehicles isn't man rated - but then states "it is man rated except for the escape system"

All of the parts that have been funded and already designed/built are man-rated to NASA standards. That's more than NASA can say for the Ares I, which had to lower its safety standards when it turned out the Ares I was incapable of meeting them.

Re:Elon Musk's Rebuttal

[DerekLyons]

He blasts the panel for 'claiming' his vehicles isn't man rated - but then states "it is man rated except for the escape system"

All of the parts that have been funded and already designed/built are man-rated to NASA standards.

When you have to spin to divert attention from the facts (which are that the entire flight vehicle is not man rated), you do nothing but reveal either weakness of your case, or the intensity of your bias.

Re:Elon Musk's Rebuttal

[speederaser]

Some parts of the escape system are unique to the selected launch pad, other parts are not. Nobody has the entire escape system 'man-rated' until well after the contract is let and the customer tells them what they want.

The Space Shuttle didn't even have an escape system until well after Challenger. Even that wasn't man-rated, it's just a big curved pole the astronauts stick out the hatch and slide out on. Whether they impact the wing or empennage on the way out (at Mach 3!) depends greatly on the attitude of the shuttle, which they may not have much control over in an emergency.

This isn't the big deal you seem to think it is.

Re:Elon Musk's Rebuttal

[Luminair]

that isn't spinning, you just don't know what you are talking about. he simply spoke with explicit detail.

NASA has to pay for the escape system, then tell SpaceX how to build it, and then qualify it as man-rated. NASA has not done this, so it is not man-rated. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST

Re:Bad bad idea

[Stupendoussteve]

Watch From the Earth to the Moon, or at least the "Spider" episode (about the design and production of the Apollo Lunar Module). You will understand the process more closely, and lose some negativity about those companies taking over.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[TooMuchToDo]

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).

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[TooMuchToDo]

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).

Could make boat loads of money

[TheBusiness]

Why not build an Earth orbiting Prison. Theres gotta be some money in that.

Re:Could make boat loads of money

[CompMD]

I, for one, would welcome our Space-Australian speaking overlords.

The New Kids Fire Back

[DynaSoar]

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.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[jgtg32a]

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.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[Infiniti2000]

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.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[Sir_Lewk]

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.

Bad analogy, and you know it.

[EWAdams]

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.

Re:Bad analogy, and you know it.

[MobyDisk]

So which one is your complaint: The fact that they are for profit? Or that they are experimental?

Cars are not limited-edition. They are not experimental.

True: experimental things are more dangerous that heavily regulated well tested things. But your post was stressing the for-profit motive, not the experimental nature of things. For the foreseeable future, manned spacecraft are limited-edition experimental craft, regardless of who makes them.

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.

Somehow, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't work for a commercial spaceflight company. If you do, please tell me what commercial spaceflight company you are referring to. I'd like to know if someone is sending pilots and astronauts up into space without testing. Somehow, I doubt they would have much luck hiring pilots.

Re:Bad analogy, and you know it.

[EWAdams]

So which one is your complaint: The fact that they are for profit? Or that they are experimental?

Both together, obviously. It's the combination of the two that seems likely to be lethal.

NO commercial spaceflight company is doing the kind of testing that car companies do. How many Virgin Galactic spaceplanes have they destroyed to test for crashworthiness? How many cars does a car company destroy?

Re:Bad analogy, and you know it.

[MobyDisk]

I think the problem here is that you are applying the standards of cars to the standards of spacecraft and it doesn't apply.

NASA didn't purposely crash space shuttles to see if astronauts would survive: the assumption was they died. Unlike cars, there are no other space shuttles flying around, and the drivers aren't amateurs. Plus, cars cost a lot less than space ships. :-) If we had to crash test space ships, we would never complete any.

Re:Bad bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Spend some time at one of the space centers. Look at the names on the buildings in the area. Look at the company names on the majority of the badges. Sneak into a couple design meetings to see the ideas being presented.... and who is presenting them. Then you might rethink your position.

Hint: You'll find the civil servants are in the minority and the contractors are doing a lot of (most of?) the work. NASA takes a largely managerial role. Nothing special about them other than the color of their badge. Many get pulled into the ranks from the contractor pool.

I was a co-op student in the Engineering Directorate of the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center in the early 2000's. Among many other things I did attend meetings and this was not my experience. While you are right about contractors being important to many projects and usually the only way an outsider could distinguish a civil servant from a contractor is by their badge, there was a lot of in-house design work. For example, two of the projects I worked on were the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) and the Material Science Research Rack (MSRR) most of the design work was done by civil servants. Not just the electronics but also the mechanical housings, although I do recall that the majority of the cable diagrams and routing were done by on-site contractors. There were also many other small to medium sized projects that were done "in-house" and the engineering work was primarily, and occasionally completely, done by civil servants. This included both technical demonstrations like DART and scientific missions like Gravity Probe B.

On-site manufacturing was even less clear-cut, technically all the manufacturing personnel worked for whatever company won the contract. However, if a new company was awarded the contract the actual people doing the work were usually the same as before. I saw such a transition first hand, and while there were noticeable differences between how the shop was run under the two contractors, the names and faces hardly changed at all.

I'll give you one more wrinkle before I end my post. There was one on-site contractor I often worked with who was, as he referred to it, "a charter member of NASA". He had been a engineering co-op student with the newly formed NASA, worked at Marshall until retirement in his 60's, then came back as a part-time (i.e. less than 35 hours per week) contractor.

Two words, dude: Ford Pinto.

[EWAdams]

Deaths aren't bad for business if you can pay them off or hush them up.

Re:Two words, dude: Ford Pinto.

[khallow]

That's why they build the Ford Pinto even today. They can buy them off. Sure, they don't make a profit, but that's not the point of running a business. It's how many people you can sucker into flaming wrecks.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[BJ_Covert_Action]

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.

Kind of curious

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[BJ_Covert_Action]

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.

And they're regulated to hell and gone, too.

[EWAdams]

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.

Re:And they're regulated to hell and gone, too.

[Blakey Rat]

Boeing and Airbus do not produce limited edition experimental craft.

I can't speak for Airbus, but Boeing does that all the time for the military.

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.

That's true, but we're talking about a company that:
1) Builds tons of space stuff for the government/military already
2) Has worked with NASA extensively already on various contracts, back to the Apollo era
3) Generally has the know-how and the resources to make this happen

Not that I'm saying NASA should just hand Boeing the keys and say "go for it," but my point is that the idea isn't nearly as objectionable as some people on this forum are making it seem. There *are* private companies capable, and no doubt willing, to take on this task.

Some great rebuttals

[FleaPlus]

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

The government is cost effective?

[ZWarrior]

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.

Re:Bad bad idea

[FleaPlus]

Beyond that, the rockets used to launch people into space are usually not the same as those used for satellite launches, limiting the usability of that equipment for other purposes.

That's pretty much a large part of the point behind commercial spaceflight: The commercial rockets designed for launching billion-dollar satellites (Atlas V, Falcon 9, etc.) will also be used for launching humans after they've been proven on unmanned missions. That way you don't also have to spend tens of billions of dollars developing and maintaining a separate line of human-only rockets.

I've lost faith in government contractors.

[tjstork]

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.

Re:I've lost faith in government contractors.

[iso-cop]

NASA shouldnt be using commercial spaceflight, they should be making commercial spaceflight companies put in bids for contracts.

This is exactly what NASA already does. They figure out what the requirements for the next big thing and then contract out the details. NASA is on the hook to make sure that the right product is built and that the product is built right. More and more...and more of NASA's work has been outsourced but it has not resulted in the fabulous innovations and cost savings people want. Commercial companies keep all of the intellectual property and have little incentive not to overrun costs because there are only a few with the ability to meet NASA's needs, so new work will have to flow back to them.

Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital Sciences, and a few others are spending most of the money and working the politicians to keep it flowing.

Re:I've lost faith in government contractors.

[Luminair]

no actually NASA decides what it wants and then finds someone to build it. NASA does it wrong.

Just don't land on my house....

[tjstork]

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!

Who is surprised?

[mi]

a federal panel warned NASA not to use private companies

Government officials warning against private companies. Who is surprised?

You're misrepresenting facts

[Ambitwistor]

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.)

Re:You're misrepresenting facts

[joeyblades]

I think it is you who is misrepresenting the facts.

Check out this description of the meeting from Roger Boisjoly, former Morton Thiokol engineer, who was present when the final decision was made:

http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/profpractice/ppessays/thiokolshuttle/shuttle_telecon.aspx

Here are a couple of key quotes:

Joe Kilminster of MTI was asked by Larry Mulloy of NASA for his launch decision. Joe responded the he did not recommend launching based upon the engineering position just presented. Then Larry Mulloy asked George Hardy of NASA for his launch decision. George responded that he was appalled at Thiokol's recommendation but said he would not launch over the contractor's objection. Then Larry Mulloy spent some time giving his views and interpretation of the data that was presented with his conclusion that the data presented was inconclusive.

and

I must emphasize that MTI Management fully supported the original decision to not launch below 53 F ( 12 C) prior to the caucus. The caucus constituted the unethical decision-making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation. NASA placed MTI in the position of proving that it was not safe to fly instead of proving that it was safe to fly. Also, note that NASA immediately accepted the new decision to launch because it was consistent with their desires and please note that no probing questions were asked.

The reason that NASA needed this launch to proceed is clear. After two previous delays, they had almost no launch window left in order to get the Spartan 203 satellite into position for it's mission to observe Halley's Comet.

Re:You're misrepresenting facts

[Ambitwistor]

I am aware of Boisjoly's views; I attended a talk he gave (basically after he was blackballed from the industry after speaking out against his management). But NASA didn't place MTI into any unescapable position; it was MTI's own decision to alter their recommendation.

As I said, NASA wasn't eager to postpone the launch, and as I said, and they wanted a strong justification for postponing (when they should instead have wanted a strong justification for launching - again, as I said, a poor decision but not the same as having "entirely commercial motives"). However, culpability ultimately rests with MTI management. If they hadn't reversed their no-go recommendation, there's no way NASA would have gone ahead with the launch. Certainly NASA wanted to go ahead with the launch, provided it was safe, but there's no blame in that. The blame is in MTI management telling NASA that it was safe.

Contrary to your original claim, NASA did not "ignore all warnings from Morton Thiokol"; to the contrary, they followed MTI's final recommendation that the launch posed little risk. There is no justification for invoking crass commercial motivations: ultimately NASA launched because they believed it was safe to do so. (And certainly they're not going to be financially ahead if the mission fails.)

Re:You're misrepresenting facts

[joeyblades]

Of course, NASA believed that a launch did not pose significant risk (I won't use the 'safe' word). It's debatable whether the management of Morton Thiokol believed the risk was acceptable, but they clearly believed that NASA was accepting/encouraging the risk. It is clear that the engineers at Morton THiokol did not believe that it was safe. The issues and concerns had been raised multiple times to NASA, including a memo, in August of 1985, warning of possible catastrophic failure.

It's just silly to claim that NASA was just accepting the Morton Thiokol recommendations. The only non-reckless course of action for NASA to have taken would have been to have the Morton Thiokol engineers explain why it was safe to launch. That never happened, so we have to ask ourselves why NASA would ignore the warnings and allow the launch to proceed. What was their motivation?

The cost of delay was huge. The Spartan 203 mission would have to be scrapped. A new mission would have to planned, new payload prepared, mission specialist trained, etc.. Not to mention any contractual costs for not launching TDRS-2 on time and not launching Spartan 203 at all.

But you're probably right. None of this financial stuff probably had anything to do with it. I'm sure NASA just thought everything was hunky-dory and that those pesky engineers at Morton Thiokol were just a bunch of whiners...

"A key U.S. aerospace panel"

[LifesABeach]

OK, who is this, "Clown Posy"?

Re:Bad bad idea

[CompMD]

And who have been prime contractors for NASA vehicles in the past? Surprise! Lockheed Martin and Boeing!

Re:Bad bad idea

[J05H]

Only thing different is payload and aeroshell between Falcon 9 for satellite and Dragon capsule.

Reasonable

[Xinvoker]

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.

Re:Reasonable

[Criton]

Spacex is not the only commercial provider they are the only one who has a prototype at the moment. But a vehicle called Dreamchaser built by spacedev launched on the Atlas V also can be ready quickly and don't for get the other COTS vehicle Cygnus. If anything they need to expand COTS to no less then four companies then it'll be a sure bet. ULA also should be allowed to compete on the launch end as their vehicles the Atlas V and Delta IV have a nearly spotless service record. I doubt Ares I will be as reliable for it's first 25 missions.

Re:Reasonable

[Luminair]

you don't get it. No one at NASA or Lockheed Martin or Boeing or ATK have demonstrated human spaceflight to orbit either.

Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit

[DerekLyons]

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).

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.
 
 

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.

The USN Submarine Force has operated that way, and without independent evaluators, for decades - and has an outstanding safety record.

Thank you

[sean.peters]

... 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.

Maybe so, but...

[sean.peters]

If a company thought they could make trips to the moon worth the cost of developing and building the infrastructure to do it, you can bet they would pass a plodding and inefficient NASA in a New York minute.

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.

Yes.

[sean.peters]

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.

Re:Bad bad idea

[FleaPlus]

Only thing different is payload and aeroshell between Falcon 9 for satellite and Dragon capsule.

Correct, and the Dragon capsule will also be used quite often for unmanned science experiments.

Ares I safer then an EELV or F9?

[Criton]

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.

Re:How is this a good idea?

[uuddlrlrab]

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.

Just to play Devil's advocate...

[uuddlrlrab]

...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."