The latest from the teddy bears. Or dogs. Or whatever they are.
3 thoughts on “Safety Is The Highest Priority”
I like it. The moto: launch abort systems are nice to have but access to space is more important. Start flying astronauts on US vehicles again, this year, and develop the “safety” later.
I’m going to have to dissent, here. NASA has killed 14 astronauts in flight, all of them on a vehicle that had no escape system after the first couple of flights. They took forever to accept such a system, and did only because they became supremely confident in their control of risk, only to be surprised twice by just how wrong they were.
I work with current and very experienced former astronauts, some on a daily basis. None I know of would consider flying on an expendable without a launch abort system. And I agree with their reasoning. Flying with a LAS, even one that has been through minimal testing, provides significantly higher probability of survival than flying without — as the crew of Soyuz T-10-1 can attest.
In any event, it doesn’t take an enormous test program to qualify a rudimentary LAS that will work on the ground, which is where an ELV poses the greatest risk. The huge T/W ratio of the Apollo and Ares/Orion LAS was driven not by that, but by the max Q and transonic capsule base drag. Getting past that is always going to be more difficult, but it’s not that difficult. And I’ve become a convert (based on demonstration) to the liquid LAS, which avoids many of the pitfalls, cost, and performance shortfalls of the solid LAS systems.
This isn’t one of the vital issues separating us from early spaceflight. Indeed, having a working LAS would likely move a manned Falcon/Dragon along more quickly, not less so. And avoiding a tragedy would be a feature, not a bug.
Context is important.. you have to recognize that the video is talking about INKSA.. something that *is* important, but which NASA gets a waiver on every year. What if they don’t? Does the US just cede the ISS?
I like it. The moto: launch abort systems are nice to have but access to space is more important. Start flying astronauts on US vehicles again, this year, and develop the “safety” later.
I’m going to have to dissent, here. NASA has killed 14 astronauts in flight, all of them on a vehicle that had no escape system after the first couple of flights. They took forever to accept such a system, and did only because they became supremely confident in their control of risk, only to be surprised twice by just how wrong they were.
I work with current and very experienced former astronauts, some on a daily basis. None I know of would consider flying on an expendable without a launch abort system. And I agree with their reasoning. Flying with a LAS, even one that has been through minimal testing, provides significantly higher probability of survival than flying without — as the crew of Soyuz T-10-1 can attest.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Soyuz_T-10-1_abort.jpg (Note the position of the left-most guy’s right hand…)
In any event, it doesn’t take an enormous test program to qualify a rudimentary LAS that will work on the ground, which is where an ELV poses the greatest risk. The huge T/W ratio of the Apollo and Ares/Orion LAS was driven not by that, but by the max Q and transonic capsule base drag. Getting past that is always going to be more difficult, but it’s not that difficult. And I’ve become a convert (based on demonstration) to the liquid LAS, which avoids many of the pitfalls, cost, and performance shortfalls of the solid LAS systems.
This isn’t one of the vital issues separating us from early spaceflight. Indeed, having a working LAS would likely move a manned Falcon/Dragon along more quickly, not less so. And avoiding a tragedy would be a feature, not a bug.
Context is important.. you have to recognize that the video is talking about INKSA.. something that *is* important, but which NASA gets a waiver on every year. What if they don’t? Does the US just cede the ISS?