Today’s selection of space policy\/politics related links<\/p>\n
Update<\/strong>:<\/p>\n The\u00a0NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel<\/a>\u00a0once again shows that it judges the safety of a human spaceflight development program according to the degree that it looks like previous such programs at NASA. If it is not a top-down agency managed program with cost-plus subcontracting and ever escalating costs, then it simply must be less safe.<\/p>\n ASAP cannot, of course, specify any actual technical shortcomings in the commercial systems being developed. It can only point to superficial differences in the way the commercial crew program is \u00a0configured and the fact that its costs are low.<\/p>\n I see nothing in the report about the fact that the rockets used for the commercial crew spacecraft will have flown many times unmanned prior to crew flights and will continue to fly unmanned payloads in parallel with the crew program. ASAP had shown no reluctance to have NASA astronauts fly on an Ares I after just one test flight and they appear to have no qualms in crew flights on the SLS\/Orion after just one test flight. Apparently, real world flight hardware experience is trivial to ASAP compared to stacks of paper studies and proper FAR procurement procedures.<\/p>\n More policy links:<\/p>\n Update 2<\/strong>:<\/p>\n **************************<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n