http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/19safety/

I think it’s pretty obvious that the ASAP has their heads firmly planted in their rectums.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/bolden-review-hlv-friday-sidemount-doubt-in-linessme-boost/

“HLV study summary from (Mr) Hanley – Sidemount doesn’t buy anything and takes hit on safety. A couple of versions of In-line going to Bolden on Friday,” noted the memo (L2), which was part of a MOD managerial overview of recent activity.

“The Panel continues to urge NASA to take a more open-minded and aggressive view towards using robots to reduce human risk whenever possible, consistent with mission accomplishment. This means using robots to replace humans on some missions and to support astronauts on others.”

“For robotics in support of human spaceflight, there are three basic areas: stand-alone, precursor for human activities, and systems embedded in the human infrastructure. This categorization of functions makes sense to the Panel.

and it sounds like we’ll be hearing more about this

“During 2010, the Panel will undertake a more in-depth assessment of NASA’s investment in and planning for using robots in place of and in support of human astronauts.”

So the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel is going to start weighing in more strongly on what humans are actually needed for, and what they aren’t needed for. It’ll be interesting to see if the bottom line turns out to be that humans are needed because humans are wanted. I’m not sure they are chartered to go beyond that, really.

in my view the people have sort of a voice at the safety table…and the Rasmussen poll (which leans right) more or less stated what they think…a majority feel that nothing much is worth the risk of human space exploration.

Americans dont flinch at death. We have sent over 4000 to their deaths in various wars since 9/11 and Americans only get upset when 1) the deaths are due to incompetence or 2) what they were told was the reason for them turns out to be false. They take that wrath out on their politicians.

For the life of me I cannot imagine what one would say people died for if it were in terms of returning to the Moon, going to Mars or a NEO…

The real exploration in This Republic right now is being done by people like Musk…people who are trying to find ways (explore) to create new jobs that can save The Republic.

Robert G. Oler

Okay, so Bolden wants NASA to stop treating the public like children and instead bring them in as partners.

In many businesses, the business partner usually has something at stake in the enterprise, brings money to the table, and has equal voice in the decision.

Hmm. So I guess that means at the next Agency Program Management Council (PMC) meeting (a.k.a. NASA’s top brass board of directors type meeting); that Admiral Bolden should have a few John. Q. Public’s in attendance, and like any business partner, they would have a say, a voice, a vote, influence,over decisions that Admiral Boldens PMC would make.

Right?

And I can see a Program or a Project having John. Q. Public sit on say, it’s Risk Management Board Meeting, it’s Configuration Control Board meeting, it’s Safety Board Meetings, etc. And in true partner fashion be an equal voice in decisions. Because, after all, they aren’t children.

Right?

The worst bias shows in the patently false claim that the safety of Ares I alternatives is based on “nothing more than unsubstantiated claims.” Some of the alternatives to Ares I have exemplary records of actual launches, while Ares I is mostly a bunch of computer files. So which is “unsubstantiated”? ASAP apparently believes that their familiar process applied to a nonexistent rocket is superior to actual launch histories supported by well-validated processes that were “not invented here.” If that is where ASAP stands, then it is time to disband it, or at least replace the current members.

Also, the Jupiter would be using 4-segment SRBs that have not had any new fatal malfunctions in nearly a quarter of a century.

But anyone who’s been through a real NASA safety review or actually traced the origins of the scads of probabilities knows that NASA often has figures given to three decimal places that are based on 1) order of magnitude estimates with no supporting data, 2) arbitrary figures drawn from specifications rather than testing or analysis, or 3) historical records from highly dissimilar designs. The safety estimate for the Delta IV-H, which has no SRBs, was based on that of the Titan III, which has SRBs, while the Challenger was “not counted” in calculating the safety of the Ares SRB based on the historical record.

For example, in calculating the relative safety of the Delta IV-H and Arers, the LSAS used the safety record of the totally dissimilar Titan as an estimate for the Delta IV-H. Failures due tro the Titan SRBs were counted against the Delta, which does not even have SRBs. However to estimate Ares safety the Shuttle SRB was used, but 51-L was “not included”, so the safety record was 100%. One would have to be fairly naive to imagine that the authors of the report were not under pressure to find the Ares superior.

Real safety comes from extensive testing at the component and system level, and from experience in actual flight, because the failure modes that will kill you are the ones you didn’t predict. NASA safety assurance is unfortunately largely paperwork and organizational based on applying rather simplistic rules that make sense at the management level but not at the hardware level, and do not make it intrinsically safer than any commercial system. Additional flights for unmanned cargo, on the other hand, add to flight experience and make the Falcon and Delta safer.