Comments on: Some notes on commercial ISS transport

By: Mike Puckett

Mike Puckett — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:41:45 +0000

Someone needs to call Senator Brownbeck’s office and make him aware of the ‘man rating’ shenenagians game being played with ISS crew/cargo.

By: Michael Mealling

Michael Mealling — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:36:11 +0000

Chris,
Hence the reason folks should prepare to work closely with the guys from CSI (http://www.constellationservices.com/). While NASA may play funny business with what “man rated” means, offering contracts for delivery of cargo/people to station in a way that no one can actually meet is a little to transparent even for NASA at its worst. I’d suggest we all wait a bit for useful details before we start ripping poor Brant to shreds in public.

By: J Patton

J Patton — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:51:33 +0000

Why would ANYONE invest commercial $$s to design a system to FAA requirements, only to be told by NASA that those requirements aren’t good enough?

By: Chris Mann

Chris Mann — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:06:00 +0000

Even if you manage to trump NASA in the “human rating” game, they’ll likely never clear you for ISS prox ops.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:13:29 +0000

“Human rating” is clearly just a game that NASA plays to keep others out, since however they choose to arbitrarily define it, they always waive it for themselves.

By: J Patton

J Patton — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:55:03 +0000

I’ve been working Human Rating requirements for a couple of years. 8705.2A is a GREAT Human Rating requirements document. It’s unfortunate that NASA isn’t willing to use them. “Human Rating” is simply magic NASA pixie dust. Only THEY know what it means, and only THEY can say if a system is “Human Rated.” For example, requirement 3.1 “Two-Failure Tolerance” says “Space systems shall be designed so that no two failures result in crew or passenger fatality or permanent disability.” So it’s obvious that the current ATK Crew Launch Vehicle cannot meet this basic requirement. Hence, the new CLV is not “Human-Rated.” NASA has no qualms about Tailoring this requirement from Day 1. They seem to be willing to Tailor THEIR requirements to get what THEY want, but any other solution that actually MEETS their requirements (eg. a system that provides engine-out for all flight phases) is deemed to be non-compliant, as the other system designers obviously don’t understand the NASA Human Rating requirements.

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:19:23 +0000

However, I don’t suppose NASA could easily stop a spacecraft flying some other country’s flag from docking at the ISS, or prevent a pilot with whatever FAA ticket will be required from flying non-NASA passengers to the space station. I suppose NASA might have enough influence to prevent the FAA from allowing this.

Either way, it’s b*llsh*t — more sh*t heaped on and sticking to NASA’s formerly shiny reputation.

It’s almost enough to make a patriotic American hope that the Russians get their Kliper spacecraft flying before the Steroid Capsule (TM) gets hatched.

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:10:51 +0000

However, once NASA starts to procure actual crew transport services, with the vehicle carrying NASA astronauts, NASA would “absolutely” require the vehicle to meet its human-rating requirements. …

In other words, fugedaboudit.

Rand Simberg likes to remind people that the Shuttle is not actually “man-rated.”