It is a process of determining that a rocket is safe to fly humans. It’s something NASA requires to fly it’s astronauts. Both the Atlas V and Falcon 9 are human rated.
-
-
Any launch system that is sufficiently reliable to put a billion-dollar DoD bird on is safe to fly humans. The entire stack (including an escape system on the crew module) is what makes a vehicle "human rated," not the launcher design. I wrote a book about this.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Yes I know about your book. Which I strongly disagree with the statesments you make about safety. We are no longer in the Wild West of space exploration and can’t afford to drop safety standards and loose highly skilled and trained astronauts.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Have you actually read the book? You might learn something.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @SafeNotAnOption @SethKurk and
When were we ever "the Wild West of space exploration"?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Back when we launched rockets with humans on board and there was a high chance they wouldn’t return. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, early shuttle. At least that what I refer to it as. Probably not a wide used term.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You mean back in the olden days, when it was important to get Americans into space?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Imagine if we had the same safety standards that early air travel had today. Millions of people will die each year. I believe getting someone to LEO should be as close to risk free as possible.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SethKurk @SafeNotAnOption and
This assertion betrays a complete lack of economic common sense. Everything in life involves trade-offs. Cars could have lower risk if they cost $900,000 each and had a max speed of 20 mph. In no aspect of human life do we aim for absolute safety. LEO should be no different.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @SafeNotAnOption and
I know that. By risk free I mean a similar amount of risk that take when getting on an airplane or getting in our cars.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Why? If we can put a person into LEO for $10 million with a 0.1% risk rate, or into LEO for the entire GDP of the US with a risk of 0.001%, why is the latter preferable ?
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @SafeNotAnOption and
I think you believe I’m an for 0% risk rate which I’m not. That’s a stupidly impossible number to try to reach. I’m saying we shouldn’t lower our standards just because it might speeds things up. That’s how we loose astronauts. Examples are Apollo 1 and Challenger.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
We are going to lose astronauts, or we are not going to space. What is the right number, if not zero?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.