Tag: ASAP

NASA’s useless safety panel suddenly notices that there are leaks on ISS

9:52 am

My regular readers will know that I consider NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) to be less than useless, repeatedly showing strong biases that allow it to miss major safety issues while causing headaches where no safety problems exist. Those biases consistently favor NASA and the older big space companies while attacking the new space companies like SpaceX.

This week the panel held its quarterly public meeting, and illustrated their uselessness and bias once again. Suddenly they have noticed that ISS has a serious chronic air leak problem due to the stress fractures in the Russian Zvezda module. They also came to the brilliant discovery that ISS is big, and that its de-orbit will have to be done carefully.

Oh my! Will wonders never cease!? These facts have only been documented at length and frequently by numerous inspector general reports and NASA updates over the past half decade. NASA has in fact contracted SpaceX to build a specialized de-orbit spacecraft, larger than a Dragon capsule, to dock with the station and conduct the de-orbit.

NASA didn’t need this safety panel to tell it the obvious.

Meanwhile, the panel suddenly decided it must chime in on budget issues and the possibility of there being major cuts at NASA, something that is entirely outside its area of responsibility. And to no one’s surprise it announced that budget cuts are bad!

Nor did the panelists see any safety issues with putting astronauts in an Orion capsule and flying them around the Moon on the next Artemis launch, even though NASA and its inspector general have both determined that the capsule’s heat shield is unreliable. The panel also had no problem with flying humans in this capsule the very first time its environmental system is tested.

To these political hacks, they see “we see no showstoppers at this time” for this SLS/Orion manned mission.

Instead, as always, the panel focused its criticism and concerns on SpaceX and Starship, labeling its development “the biggest risk” in NASA’s program to get Americans back to the Moon.

The most hilarious aspect of the panelists’ public comments is that they had nothing to say about Boeing’s Starliner, a pattern the panel has followed since Boeing and SpaceX got contracts a decade ago to transport astronauts to and from ISS. Consistently the panel has seen phantom safety risks with SpaceX — where none existed — while ignoring or completely missing Boeing myriad failures. That pattern continues.

NASA does face budget cuts. It would certainly help the agency if every dime wasted on this panel could be funneled into more useful purposes.

11 comments

NASA’s useless safety panel makes another useless announcement about Starliner

10:15 am

An official of NASA’s ineffectual and largely corrupt safety panel yesterday made another meaningless update on the work Boeing is doing to fix the thruster problems that occurred on the first manned flight of its Starliner manned capsule last summer, and as always told us absolutely nothing.

Paul Hill, a member of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), said at a Jan. 30 public meeting that the committee was briefed on the status of the investigation into Starliner’s Crew Flight Test (CFT) mission recently. That mission launched in June with NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams on board, but the spacecraft returned to Earth three months later uncrewed because of agency concerns about the performance of spacecraft thrusters.

“NASA reported that significant progress is being made regarding Starliner CFT’s post-flight activities,” he said. “Integrated NASA-Boeing teams have begun closing out flight observations and in-flight anomalies.” He didn’t elaborate on the specific issues that the teams had closed out but stated that it did not include the thrusters, several of which shut down during the spacecraft’s approach to the station. The propulsion system also suffered several helium leaks. [emphasis mine]

In other words, this announcement was meaningless, because it included no information about the main problem. Hill’s comments were mostly empty blather, which is generally what this panel says in all its announcements. We still do not know when or if Starliner will fly again with astronauts on board.

Over the years the panel has bent over backwards to say positive things about Boeing, so that it missed all of Boeing’s design and construction failures from day one. At the same time it repeatedly slammed SpaceX, even though that company clearly had its act together and ended up fulfilling all of its contract obligations to NASA, even as Boeing has failed to do so.

If I was a member of Trump’s DOGE project, eliminating this safety panel would be very high on my list of things to do to make NASA’s more efficient. All it does is slow things down, often for exactly the wrong reasons.

3 comments

NASA’s useless safety panel once again sticks its nose where it isn’t qualified to go

11:13 am

For the third year in a row, the annual report of NASA’s generally useless and often corrupt safety panel, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), is once again focused not on technical safety issues related specifically to engineering — the reason the panel was first formed in 1968 following the Apollo 1 launchpad fire that killed three asteronauts — but NASA’s general management and long term strategies and plans, something that is entirely the responsibility of Congress and elected officials.

As the press release notes right at the top, “The report highlights 2023 activities and observations on NASA’s Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles, Agency Governance, and Moon to Mars Program Management.” On none of these issues does this panel have any expertise, or even qualifications. Most of its membership are former government bureaucrats, with only one panel member coming mostly from the private sector.

More important, while the panel is supposed to be review NASA’s engineering to make sure it is not getting sloppy, its panelists are all management types, not engineers.

To give the panel some credit, its report [pdf] does actually note the many risks NASA is taking on its various Artemis manned lunar flights, including more than a dozen engineering designs which will be flown for the first time on the first Artemis manned mission to land on the Moon. However, while this should be the panel’s number one concern, it buries it inside the report, and simply recommends that NASA redistribute these firsts across multiple missions. How NASA should do this is not addressed.

Last year I simply noted ASAP’s annual report in a quick links post, adding that “It has been so wrong so many times in the past, clearly biased against private space while favoring NASA, its analysis is simply worthless.” That conclusion still applies.

The sooner Congress stops wasting any money on this panel, the better. It provides no real service except to slow down development. And it is now putting itself above Congress in its effort to influence strategic and programming.

Leave a comment

NASA’s safety panel questions NASA commitment to commercial space stations

10:18 am

We’re here to help you! Not surprisingly, members of NASA’s safety panel have once again expressed doubts about NASA’s ongoing effort to encourage a thriving private, competitive, and efficient commercial space industry, this time questioning the transition from NASA’s government-built space station, ISS, to privately-built and owned space stations, four of which are presently under development.

At a July 21 meeting of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, members said they were concerned that commercial stations whose development is being supported by NASA were unlikely to be ready in time before the ISS is retired at the end of the decade, and that those efforts suffered from insufficient budgets.

Those plans, called Commercial Leo Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations by NASA, “are on a precarious trajectory to realization on a schedule and within the projected resources needed to maintain a NASA LEO presence,” said Patricia Sanders, chair of the panel. “This is an area of concern for us.”

The panelists also questioned how quickly the stations would be man-rated (claiming NASA was not allocating enough time to do so) as well as whether NASA had enough work for four stations.

For the past decade this safety panel has consistently shown itself to be hostile to the new commercial space companies. It has never seen any safety issues or scheduling problems with NASA’s big SLS rocket. Nor did it notice Boeing’s significant software and valve problems on Starliner. Yet somehow, the work of SpaceX was dangerous (when it was not), and now these new stations, most of which are being built by new space companies, are equally unfit for use.

It is time to shut down this panel. Or at a minimum fire its present members and bring in new blood more willing to look at the entire space industry with a more objective eye.

9 comments

NASA corrupt safety panel once again blathers on

9:41 am

The corrupt safety panel at NASA that spent years slowing down SpaceX’s manned Dragon capsule development with sometimes absurd demands, including delays caused simply because of paperwork, is now demanding that NASA should slow its approval of Boeing’s Starliner capsule, even if its unmanned demo mission next week succeeds completely.

This quote from the article best illustrates this safety panel’s do-nothing bureaucratic view of the world:

A further concern is that Starliner uses the United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket to get to orbit, but Atlas Vs are being phased out. ULA is building a new rocket, Vulcan, that could see its first launch late this year, but must go through a “human-rating” certification process that [panel member David] West said “could take years” for Starliner. [emphasis mine]

Every demand of this panel for years has demanded years of delays, with many having nothing to do with technical safety — the panel’s original purpose — but with management questions and the panel’s own overblown opinion of itself. Worse, some of its demands never made sense, such as its objection to SpaceX’s launch procedures where it fueled the rocket after the astronauts got on board. This quote from an earlier post about the panel’s recent inappropriate attempt to insert itself into NASA’s policy decisions sums things up well, and provides links to previous failures of the panel:

This panel continues to demonstrate its corrupt and power-hungry attitude about how the U.S. should explore space. For years it did whatever it could to stymie NASA’s efforts to transfer ownership to the private sector, putting up false barriers to the launch of SpaceX’s manned Dragon capsule that made no sense and were really designed to keep all control within the government bureaucracy.

It is now targeting Boeing, though amazingly it is only doing it after many of Starliner’s technical problems have been uncovered. The safety panel was a complete failure in spotting the company’s problems early on, several years ago, when it might have saved everyone a lot of time and money. Instead, it now acts like an annoying back seat driver, only kibitzing about things that went wrong long after everyone else has done the work.

I have been saying for years that it is time to shut this panel down. It is now long past time to do so. The time and money saved might actually improve safety far more than the panel ever has.

9 comments

SpaceX aiming to launch 52 times in 2022

9:31 am

According to NASA officials, SpaceX is hoping to complete as many as 52 launches in 2022, a pace of one launch per week.

The impressive figure was given during a virtual meeting of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, or ASAP, which gives guidance to the space agency on how to maintain safety within its biggest programs. “NASA and SpaceX will have to be watchful during 2022 that they’re not victims of their success,” Sandy Magnus, a former NASA astronaut and member of the panel, said during the meeting. “There’s an ambitious 52-launch manifest for SpaceX over the course of the year. And that’s an incredible pace.”

Based on other sources, I had previously estimated a SpaceX manifest for ’22 to be 40 launches. That this new higher number comes from NASA’s corrupt safety panel, and was touted as a reason to raise questions about SpaceX, makes me suspicious of it.

Still, a launch pace by SpaceX of one launch per week is wholly possible. For one thing, the company needs to get a lot of Starlink satellites into orbit as quickly as possible. With its development of Starship blocked by government interference, it might have decided to up the pace of launches using Falcon 9.

Furthermore, because most of the rocket is reused, SpaceX has a far greater launch capacity. For every Falcon 9 it builds it gets ten or more launches from its first stage. This means SpaceX does not have to build as much to maintain a high launch pace.

As for the safety panel’s fears about such a pace, who cares? That safety panel has been consistently wrong about everything it has said about SpaceX and commercial space now for almost a decade. It is very likely wrong now. In a more rational world, NASA would have shut it down two years ago for doing such a bad job. Sadly, we no longer live in a rational world.

2 comments

NASA safety panel on SLS schedule, Dragon explosion

9:08 am

NASA’s safety panel held a long scheduled meeting to review NASA’s on-going manned projects, and had the following to say:

The first story describes very little new information about the explosion on April 20th that destroyed the Dragon crew capsule during engine tests, other than it occurred in connection with the firing of the Dragon’s eight SuperDraco engines. I am being vague because they were.

The second story describes the panel’s strong objection to any effort by NASA to trim the test program for SLS in order to meet the Trump administration’s 2024 deadline for returning to the Moon. It also confirms officially for the first time that NASA will not be able to fly the first unmanned mission of SLS in 2020. That flight is now expected in 2021, a decade after NASA began development of SLS, and seventeen years after George Bush Jr first proposed NASA build this heavy-lift rocket.

That’s practically one person’s entire career at NASA. Seems pretty shameful to me.

While I actually agree with the panel’s advice in both of these stories, both stories however do reflect the overall culture of this safety panel: Go slow, take no risks, be patient. This culture is in fact so cautious that it has served to practically make impossible any American exploration of space, on our own rockets.

Based on what I expect now during the investigation of the Dragon explosion, I would not be surprised if the panel successfully delays the first manned Dragon launch another year or two or three.

4 comments

NASA’ safety panel illustrates the impossibility of exploration by NASA

12:36 pm

Last week NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) issued its 2017 report [pdf], detailing the areas it has concerns for human safety in all of NASA’s programs. Not surprisingly, the report raised big issues about SpaceX, suggesting its manned launch schedule was questionable and that there were great risks using the Falcon 9 rocket as presently designed.

ASAP was especially concerned with the issues with the Falcon 9 COPV helium tanks and how they were connected with the September 2016 launchpad explosion, as well as SpaceX’s approach to fueling the rocket. Below is a screen capture of the report’s pertinent section on this.

ASAP SpaceX concerns

The report complements NASA and SpaceX for looking at a new design for the COPV helium tanks, but also appears quite willing to force endless delays in order to make sure the issue here is completely understood, even though this is likely impossible for years more.

ASAP also raises once again its reservations about SpaceX’s method of fueling the Falcon 9, which would have them fill the tanks after the astronauts are on board so that the fuel can be kept cold and dense to maximize performance. This issue I find very silly. The present accepted approach is to fill the tanks, then board the astronauts. SpaceX wants to board the astronauts, then fill the tanks. Either way, the astronauts will be in a rocket with tons of volatile fuel and oxidizer. I really do not see why it makes that much of a difference, especially with SpaceX building a successful track record using its approach with each successful commercial launch. They did 18 last year alone.

Below the fold is a screen capture of the report’s entire summary, with some sections highlighted by me.
» Read more

32 comments