Viewing page 103 of 138

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[right header]] AEROSPACE SAFETY ADVISORY PANEL


[[bullet point]] U.S./Russian cooperation on human space flight dates to the 1970s, when NASA and the Soviet space program cooperated on a limited exchange of medical research data for the Apollo-Soyuz preparations and flight.

2. Soyuz Reliability. Although Soyuz reliability issues remain, the ASAP is reassured by a number of factors.
[[bullet point]] The Soyuz vehicle and the similar Progress launcher have a solid 40-year track record.
[[bullet point]] The robust Soyuz design enabled it to survive and safely land despite recent pyrotechnical separation failures during two capsule reentries (admittedly a rough ride for the astronauts). 
[[bullet point]] NASA recognizes that its mission includes ensuring the safety of U.S. astronauts on any space vehicle, including the Soyuz.


C. Direction of Exploration

NASA is operating under a bipartisan directive to continue gathering data on Earth's climate and resources, support ISS operations until 2016, and return to the Moon as a precursor to exploring Mars and nearby asteroids. The ASAP understands that evaluation of these priorities is ongoing, but emphasizes several concerns.

1. Stable Goals. The ASAP suggests that stability of policy and technical goals is particularly crucial for complex, expensive, safe, long-term programs and for cost-efficient, cost-effective, and safe mission plans and workers.

2. Staged Approach to Exploration. The ASAP notes that precursor robotic missions can conduct initial fact-finding and data collection, enhancing the viability of human exploration and offering opportunities to improve safety. NASA currently envisions both robotic and human missions under the Constellation program and therefore is developing a more structured method (e.g., a decision tree) to encourage analysis and optimal use of alternatives for human, robotic, and human robotic-assisted missions, thereby diminishing the risk to NASA astronauts.

3. Periodic Review of Architecture of Long-Range Programs. The ASAP endorses the standard management and engineering practice of periodically reviewing architecture and program plans (including design assumptions, new development, changing requirements, emerging technologies, and their impact on decisions). Such reviews are particularly useful for programs such as Constellation that extend over many years and are subject to external reassessments of fundamental goals.
[[bullet point]] For any new long-term and complex program, periodic and continuing management and engineering reviews of overall architecture are part of the normal technical evolution. Learning continues as the program proceeds, and plans are reevaluated in light of new knowledge, development problems, more advanced or emerging technologies, personnel with improved skill sets, advanced processes and systems, and modified objectives. Because change is inevitable over a 20-year life cycle, such course corrections are required.


[[centered footer]] ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008