Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Panel Warns NASA On Commercial Astronaut Transport

Posted by kdawson on from the let-me-carry-that-for-you dept.

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."

56 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. NASA isn't good at listening by 2.7182 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just trying readying Feynman's experience with them.

    1. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by McGregorMortis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those O-rings had a safety factor of three!

    2. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by MaWeiTao · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by GiveBenADollar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by rhook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by McGregorMortis · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    9. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by Dishevel · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    10. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by jfruhlinger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    13. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by youn · · Score: 2, Funny

      $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 :)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    14. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by ppanon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    15. Re:NASA isn't good at listening by rgarbacz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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)
  2. How is it different by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    than paying another country to take our astronauts into space?

    I see no difference, other than we cannot truly hold other countries to the strictest standards that we all know we would impose on commercial endeavors

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:How is it different by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:How is it different by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!!

    3. Re:How is it different by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  3. probably a bad idea by v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.

    All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible. Rocket science really is rocket science. If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:probably a bad idea by joeyblades · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:probably a bad idea by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:probably a bad idea by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    4. Re:probably a bad idea by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    5. Re:probably a bad idea by Luminair · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    6. Re:probably a bad idea by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the second, they switched an insulation design

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

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:probably a bad idea by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. We should stick with NASA by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because their bureaucracy has done such an excellent job in the last 35 years of getting us back to the moon, to Mars, etc. and delivering on all the multitude of other promises they've made via decades of press releases and computer animation.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:We should stick with NASA by benjfowler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  5. This just in....Monopolies do not like competition by Ada_Rules · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Umm... NASA also relies on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit. The shuttle has about a 1 in 65 chance of catastrophic failure resulting in loss of the crew. For all of its vaunted simplicity, the Apollo flights only flew 18 times and had one very very close loss of the crew in space (and of course one actual loss of crew on the ground). I honestly don't know if private companies will do better or not but it is not as if NASA's record in this area is all that great either. Having a somewhat adversarial relationship between private enterprise and the government as we have with airlines appears to have contributed to overall safe air travel. I think it is worth a shot to try it in space. When the government is both the provider of a service and the one auditing it, you end up with no independent evaluators except at the accident boards.

    --
    --- Liberty in our Lifetime
  6. Re:Bad bad idea by joeyblades · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And, considering NASA has been relying on private contractors to build their vehicles for years, it seems a little suspicious that they would suddenly come out against private contractors when they want to move to the next logical step and actually launch the vehicle they built (and hence steal NASA's big PR moment).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. The profit motive... by EWAdams · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... 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.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:The profit motive... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... 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.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:The profit motive... by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  9. Re:Bad bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Bad bad idea by LUH+3418 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Two words to the federal panel... by mdm-adph · · Score: 4, Informative

    Shut up.

    Deregulating space travel is the only way we're ever going to make a dent there, for the time being and with the current political climate.

    Please, just shut up. Yes, a few are going to die going up, but they know the risks.

    --
    It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
  12. Re:Bad bad idea by hargrand · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  13. Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already..... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Informative

    the second one with crappy environmentally friendly tile modifications was most definitely caused by NASA management listening to environmentalist dipshits instead of the experts.

    What exactly are these "tile modifications" you refer to? The fragile thermal tiles played no part in the Columbia accident, which involved a chunk of foam insulation from the external tank impacting the reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge of the orbiter's wing.

    And before you try to backpedal, and trot out the old right-wing canard (originated by Rush Limbaugh) about the ET insulation foam having been reformulated without CFCs, try reading the CAIB report (volume 1, Page 51), which specifically states that the portion of the foam that broke loose was the OLD CFC-based formulation.

    http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL1/PART01.PDF
    http://mediamatters.org/research/200508090007
    http://www.sts107.info/kooks%20and%20myths/kooks.htm#EPA

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already..... by DesScorp · · Score: 2, Informative

      " 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.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    2. Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already..... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    3. Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already..... by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:Stop with the Limbaugh bullshit already..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  14. Re:Bad bad idea by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  15. The same Boeing that 'built' the border fence?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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,

  16. Re:This just in....Monopolies do not like competit by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Absolutely. You first.

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

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  17. NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl... by couchslug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    NASA clingeth mightily to its rice bowl...

    IMO it's time to offload manned missions and stick to actually _exploring_ space with probes and rovers and other remote-manned tech. Manned missions have created a burden that sucked other programs dry, but the lust of those who want to play in space can make commercial outfits viable.

    We don't _need_ people in space before we perfect exploring it with the remote-controlled systems we absolutely require anyway to interact with an utterly hostile environment. Development cycles for remotely-manned vehicles can be much shorter (avoids the decades-long burden of old Shuttle tech) allowing "launch early, launch often".

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  18. Re:"Probably not cost effective" by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  19. The last thing i want by AP31R0N · · Score: 3, Funny

    is more commercialization of our institutions and cultural artifacts. The next step after letting Boeing shuttle our astronauts would be renaming the ISS as "The Tostidos Space Station". Next would be Cape Coca-cola. The Nike rocket would at least be somewhat apropos to the tiny crowd who knows something of aerospace history and mythology.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  20. I'd say 25% genuine by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...private space companies rely on "unsubstantiated claims" and need to overcome major technical hurdles before they can safely carry astronauts into orbit..."

    Of COURSE they warn that.
    They are bloated bureaucrats who are trembling at the idea of the free market possibly threatening their sinecure.

    Look, we ALL know that space travel is dangerous. (NASA doesn't exactly have a 100% safety record EITHER...) Personally, I think the private industry space travel isn't quite ready for prime-time either, and that could be a basis for a sincere warning being issued by NASA. But that industry isn't going to see any reason to invest and improve if space travel remains locked in as a government-only business.

    OTOH, it's more likely that you have an entrenched bunch of government employees that don't like the sound of the word 'competition'.

    --
    -Styopa
  21. Elon Musk's Rebuttal by Larson2042 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  22. The New Kids Fire Back by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Full article: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30060

    Among points I picked up on myself, they point out that since there are no existing standards for them to follow for building human rated craft, they claim that none of them have experience doing so is non sequitor. They politely don't point out that the sole existing man rated spacecraft has had two fatal failures, though they'd also have to admit it's experimental, not commercial, even though built by human rated aircraft corporations.

    Even more politely, when ASAP makes the statement that the commercial start ups hoping to carry people are making unsubstantiated claims, they do reply that since they haven't built the hardware yet to test it, and only have stated intentions, it's hardly a valid criticism but don't resort to the sorely needed "DUH!".

    ASAP has done a creditable job when it came to criticizing their own work. That is, the BigAero members cooperated fully when investigating problems. But as far as dealing a blow to commercial startups, TFA is so full of FUD that NASA can only take it and leave it or risk being seen being led around by the corporate welfare milk teat.

    FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation, and more recently Commerce's Office of Space Commercialization, have been plowing full speed ahead to clear the way for the new guys just as much as the big ones. When multibillion dollar corporations get scared enough to "warn" NASA, things are probably going to get interesting. I thought they were interesting enough the year Rutan won the X-prize, because half the licenses for commercial launches issued that year by FAA/AST had his name on them.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  23. Some great rebuttals by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Funny

    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

  24. You're misrepresenting facts by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.)