Launch abort system economically unsound?

[Skyskimmer]

I am not imposing my views on anyone I am expressing an opinion.

Sorry when I said big scheme of things I meant that if many people share the same view. They are end up imposing. That's the vib I get with the shuttle disaster.

Glad we have the misunderstanding cleared up.
I work in the space industry the importance of crew survival can not be understated in that industry. Part of my views come from Christian beliefs, part comes from my military background "leave no one behind, watch your team mates back" thought process.

I suppose my mother works in health care and grew up with a grandmother( on O2, Bipap, and now a ventilator.) Well aware that the amount of money spent keeping a 80+ year old alive could be spent, feeding 5-10 children in africa. Obviously I'm not suggesting such a nihilistic approach(spending everycent on others) however I'm a strong believer that people should learn to understand the cost of life/death.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I've always wondered whether or not a launch abort system is worth the trouble for human spaceflight.

First of all, it just does not make any economic sense. In order to judge whether or not a safety system makes sense industries use the cost of life analysis. Essentially a safety system is justified if the economic value of the lives saved is greater than the cost of the safety system that would save those lives. Now there are different values of life for different industries and sectors of society, however rarely do they go over a few million dollars. So essentially we can estimate for a 4 person crew of a Orion capsule the estimate would come to less than 10 million. On the other hand from what I have heard the NASA launch abort system costs hundreds of millions of dollars and years to develop. At the same time if the Ares rocket were to get any where near the reliability that was advertised than the launch abort system would never be needed on any launch.

The fact of the matter is that if human spaceflight is going to be affordable it is going to have to make economically sound decisions.

My view is each life is unique, therefore priceless. Therefore it is the moral thing to make every effort to preserve a life.

YES!!!!!!!!

There is always someone who objects to a value of life analysis on a moral basis. I was surprised that no one said this sooner. I will now explain to you why your statement is incorrect.

First of all, worth or value is relative. It is a measure of how much someone is willing to trade for something. When you say life is priceless this may be true for you obviously because money would be no use to you when your dead. An entire country of 300 million people with a 13 tillion dollar economy is not going to spend trillion of dollars in order to save an individual's life. True you are worth something, but not that much. Of course to a person in China who does not even know you exist your worth nothing at all.

Secondly and even more importantly do you act as if your life is priceless. If you did then you would never do anything to even remotely jeopardize your own life, and you would only perform the actions that increase your chances of survival. That means you would never drink or smoke. You would eat only the most health foods all the time. You would avoid walking down the street and avoid driving. Fact of the matter is that unless your a safety nut your a hypocrite to say life is priceless when you do not even treat your own life as such.

Life is worth something. The sad part of what I mentioned above is that people very often make choices that indicate that they do not value themselves very much. When a person smokes they know that it will likely take years off their life, yet they smoke anyway. The only conclusion one could draw from this assuming they are rational is that the pleasure it brings them is worth more to them than the years of life they lose.

Fact of the matter is that even if you are a safety nut one must accept the fact that we are mortal. We will die eventually whether it is tomorrow or 90 years from now. Thus it is pointless to live in a way that maximizes ones survival. Some of us choose to risk their lives to travel into the final frontier for the betterment of mankind, and some of them will die. However even those who die I envy. Even though their lives where cut short they were lives of significance and they will be remembered.

 

[Skyskimmer]

First of all, worth or value is relative. It is a measure of how much someone is willing to trade for something. When you say life is priceless this may be true for you obviously because money would be no use to you when your dead. An entire country of 300 million people with a 13 tillion dollar economy is not going to spend trillion of dollars in order to save an individual's life. True you are worth something, but not that much. Of course to a person in China who does not even know you exist your worth nothing at all.

Secondly and even more importantly do you act as if your life is priceless. If you did then you would never do anything to even remotely jeopardize your own life, and you would only perform the actions that increase your chances of survival. That means you would never drink or smoke. You would eat only the most health foods all the time. You would avoid walking down the street and avoid driving. Fact of the matter is that unless your a safety nut your a hypocrite to say life is priceless when you do not even treat your own life as such.

Quality point there. Is it worth hiring a safety crew of 100 people if the odds of them getting in a car accident(driving to work) are greater than them preventing a space accident.

 

[Booban]

Committing suicide is illegal for a reason. Astronauts do note get to decide for themselves how much their life is worth and risk it. This is a team effort. Dead spacemen reflect poorly on the country.

Priceless does not mean that something is infinitely expensive. Just no price tag. It's value varies from person to person therefore discussing how you should treat a 'priceless' object is mute.

The assumption that we have to choose between having an abort system and being reckless is false. We have the technology to get to space safely without such a system.

 

[markododa]

YES!!!!!!!!

There is always someone who objects to a value of life analysis on a moral basis. I was surprised that no one said this sooner. I will now explain to you why your statement is incorrect.

First of all, worth or value is relative. It is a measure of how much someone is willing to trade for something. When you say life is priceless this may be true for you obviously because money would be no use to you when your dead. An entire country of 300 million people with a 13 tillion dollar economy is not going to spend trillion of dollars in order to save an individual's life. True you are worth something, but not that much. Of course to a person in China who does not even know you exist your worth nothing at all.

Secondly and even more importantly do you act as if your life is priceless. If you did then you would never do anything to even remotely jeopardize your own life, and you would only perform the actions that increase your chances of survival. That means you would never drink or smoke. You would eat only the most health foods all the time. You would avoid walking down the street and avoid driving. Fact of the matter is that unless your a safety nut your a hypocrite to say life is priceless when you do not even treat your own life as such.

Life is worth something. The sad part of what I mentioned above is that people very often make choices that indicate that they do not value themselves very much. When a person smokes they know that it will likely take years off their life, yet they smoke anyway. The only conclusion one could draw from this assuming they are rational is that the pleasure it brings them is worth more to them than the years of life they lose.

Fact of the matter is that even if you are a safety nut one must accept the fact that we are mortal. We will die eventually whether it is tomorrow or 90 years from now. Thus it is pointless to live in a way that maximizes ones survival. Some of us choose to risk their lives to travel into the final frontier for the betterment of mankind, and some of them will die. However even those who die I envy. Even though their lives where cut short they were lives of significance and they will be remembered.

Trilions of dollars for a LAS system ?, I don't know the real cost but it seems over the top, plus the US doesn't have a spacecraft with an LAS system, and in the future i guess efforts would be made to reuse the LAS for boost after orbital insertion, or at suborbital velocity(which could complicate things a little bit ...), However, its not really expensive. Considering the whole cost its a fraction.

 

[Skyskimmer]

Committing suicide is illegal for a reason. Astronauts do note get to decide for themselves how much their life is worth and risk it. This is a team effort. Dead spacemen reflect poorly on the country.

Priceless does not mean that something is infinitely expensive. Just no price tag. It's value varies from person to person therefore discussing how you should treat a 'priceless' object is mute.

The assumption that we have to choose between having an abort system and being reckless is false. We have the technology to get to space safely without such a system.

Yes but your are choosing with large amounts of money, and it isn't suicide, no more than getting a degree is economic suicide, there's risk as there should be. Spending a billion dollars just to save a life is absurd when you could feed a million 3rd world children for a year with that money. If you can't make those tough decisions, the world will not be kind too you. Than again spending 10 mil to save 4 lives would seem reasonable. It's all the pricing point in my opinion.

Sure you could argue that nasa space program funding could feed 20 million people a year, and that's partially true, but this is why space colonization needs to be a major goal. We must spread life into space, it's our responsibility. Civilizations last for only so long, we must act we never know how long the window for such activity can last. We have resource depletion, global warming, etc being major issues it's logical to attempt to moving elsewhere, as we most likely won't be able to do so in 500 years. However we should attempt to do so on a budget and be aware of the balancing act of safety, and the true cost.

 

[steve82]

The only reason there is any controversy about LAS is that it is the Achilles heel of CCDev and throws all of their assumptions about upmass and costs/seat out the window, especially when they try to use their claimed prices to provide bogus comparisons of their so-called superiority with Orion. Orion designed the LAS and demo'd it in a spectacularly successful fashion and arguably can say they have flown the first American human-rated flight hardware to be developed in many many years.

 

[Skyskimmer]

The only reason there is any controversy about LAS is that it is the Achilles heel of CCDev and throws all of their assumptions about upmass and costs/seat out the window, especially when they try to use their claimed prices to provide bogus comparisons of their so-called superiority with Orion. Orion designed the LAS and demo'd it in a spectacularly successful fashion and arguably can say they have flown the first American human-rated flight hardware to be developed in many many years.

Thing I don't get is can't they just do it outside of USA for half the cost? I mean outside of obligations to nasa?

 

[believer_since_1956]

I've always wondered whether or not a launch abort system is worth the trouble for human spaceflight.

First of all, it just does not make any economic sense. In order to judge whether or not a safety system makes sense industries use the cost of life analysis. Essentially a safety system is justified if the economic value of the lives saved is greater than the cost of the safety system that would save those lives. Now there are different values of life for different industries and sectors of society, however rarely do they go over a few million dollars. So essentially we can estimate for a 4 person crew of a Orion capsule the estimate would come to less than 10 million. On the other hand from what I have heard the NASA launch abort system costs hundreds of millions of dollars and years to develop. At the same time if the Ares rocket were to get any where near the reliability that was advertised than the launch abort system would never be needed on any launch.

The fact of the matter is that if human spaceflight is going to be affordable it is going to have to make economically sound decisions.

My view is each life is unique, therefore priceless. Therefore it is the moral thing to make every effort to preserve a life.

YES!!!!!!!!

There is always someone who objects to a value of life analysis on a moral basis. I was surprised that no one said this sooner. I will now explain to you why your statement is incorrect.

First of all, worth or value is relative. It is a measure of how much someone is willing to trade for something. When you say life is priceless this may be true for you obviously because money would be no use to you when your dead. An entire country of 300 million people with a 13 tillion dollar economy is not going to spend trillion of dollars in order to save an individual's life. True you are worth something, but not that much. Of course to a person in China who does not even know you exist your worth nothing at all.

Secondly and even more importantly do you act as if your life is priceless. If you did then you would never do anything to even remotely jeopardize your own life, and you would only perform the actions that increase your chances of survival. That means you would never drink or smoke. You would eat only the most health foods all the time. You would avoid walking down the street and avoid driving. Fact of the matter is that unless your a safety nut your a hypocrite to say life is priceless when you do not even treat your own life as such.

Life is worth something. The sad part of what I mentioned above is that people very often make choices that indicate that they do not value themselves very much. When a person smokes they know that it will likely take years off their life, yet they smoke anyway. The only conclusion one could draw from this assuming they are rational is that the pleasure it brings them is worth more to them than the years of life they lose.

Fact of the matter is that even if you are a safety nut one must accept the fact that we are mortal. We will die eventually whether it is tomorrow or 90 years from now. Thus it is pointless to live in a way that maximizes ones survival. Some of us choose to risk their lives to travel into the final frontier for the betterment of mankind, and some of them will die. However even those who die I envy. Even though their lives where cut short they were lives of significance and they will be remembered.

As stated earlier this is my belief. You have the right to disagree, however it does not change my belief. We live in a non prefect world so risk will always exist, I accept that. However I still believe life is priceless.

Please read this exert from the Community Guidelines
Decency and Decorum
Please be courteous to the other users and do not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. Global ad homs aimed at groups within the community are not acceptable. All participants deserve to be treated respectfully and with dignity. If you are overly disruptive or abusive, we reserve the right to take disciplinary action, such as suspending or even banning you from posting or commenting in the Community.

It is always possible, and preferable, to debate issues, not personalities. In debating an issue, first consider asking questions to further understand the differing viewpoint. Avoid generalizations. Use “I” statements, rather than “you” statements. Offer your point of view as simply that – a viewpoint – unless you have hard evidence to back up your statements.

In the Space and LiveScience forums, as well as Free Space, you may be challenged to provide backup for your contentions. We strongly encourage that you respond in a timely manner with relevant, in-context, and factual backup. If you cannot provide such information, it is strongly recommended that you retract, or at least clarify, your remarks.

In all cases, be respectful of each others beliefs, even if you think they are wrong.

 

[DarkenedOne]

YES!!!!!!!!

There is always someone who objects to a value of life analysis on a moral basis. I was surprised that no one said this sooner. I will now explain to you why your statement is incorrect.

First of all, worth or value is relative. It is a measure of how much someone is willing to trade for something. When you say life is priceless this may be true for you obviously because money would be no use to you when your dead. An entire country of 300 million people with a 13 tillion dollar economy is not going to spend trillion of dollars in order to save an individual's life. True you are worth something, but not that much. Of course to a person in China who does not even know you exist your worth nothing at all.

Secondly and even more importantly do you act as if your life is priceless. If you did then you would never do anything to even remotely jeopardize your own life, and you would only perform the actions that increase your chances of survival. That means you would never drink or smoke. You would eat only the most health foods all the time. You would avoid walking down the street and avoid driving. Fact of the matter is that unless your a safety nut your a hypocrite to say life is priceless when you do not even treat your own life as such.

Life is worth something. The sad part of what I mentioned above is that people very often make choices that indicate that they do not value themselves very much. When a person smokes they know that it will likely take years off their life, yet they smoke anyway. The only conclusion one could draw from this assuming they are rational is that the pleasure it brings them is worth more to them than the years of life they lose.

Fact of the matter is that even if you are a safety nut one must accept the fact that we are mortal. We will die eventually whether it is tomorrow or 90 years from now. Thus it is pointless to live in a way that maximizes ones survival. Some of us choose to risk their lives to travel into the final frontier for the betterment of mankind, and some of them will die. However even those who die I envy. Even though their lives where cut short they were lives of significance and they will be remembered.

As stated earlier this is my belief. You have the right to disagree, however it does not change my belief. We live in a non prefect world so risk will always exist, I accept that. However I still believe life is priceless.

Please read this exert from the Community Guidelines
Decency and Decorum
Please be courteous to the other users and do not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. Global ad homs aimed at groups within the community are not acceptable. All participants deserve to be treated respectfully and with dignity. If you are overly disruptive or abusive, we reserve the right to take disciplinary action, such as suspending or even banning you from posting or commenting in the Community.

It is always possible, and preferable, to debate issues, not personalities. In debating an issue, first consider asking questions to further understand the differing viewpoint. Avoid generalizations. Use “I” statements, rather than “you” statements. Offer your point of view as simply that – a viewpoint – unless you have hard evidence to back up your statements.

In the Space and LiveScience forums, as well as Free Space, you may be challenged to provide backup for your contentions. We strongly encourage that you respond in a timely manner with relevant, in-context, and factual backup. If you cannot provide such information, it is strongly recommended that you retract, or at least clarify, your remarks.

In all cases, be respectful of each others beliefs, even if you think they are wrong.

First I like to clarify believer that I did not intend in any way to disrespect you or make any personal attacks against you. If you interpreted my post as doing such than I sorry, and I will try to refine my language so it is less offensive to you.

I have read the excerpt that you provided several times. and the only thing I am guilty of is using you rather than I. However the excerpt also states,

"In the Space and LiveScience forums, as well as Free Space, you may be challenged to provide backup for your contentions. We strongly encourage that you respond in a timely manner with relevant, in-context, and factual backup. If you cannot provide such information, it is strongly recommended that you retract, or at least clarify, your remarks."

After all this is a forum for discussion and debate. If you do not want to debate your proposition I have no problem with that.

 

[believer_since_1956]

YES!!!!!!!!

There is always someone who objects to a value of life analysis on a moral basis. I was surprised that no one said this sooner. I will now explain to you why your statement is incorrect.

First of all, worth or value is relative. It is a measure of how much someone is willing to trade for something. When you say life is priceless this may be true for you obviously because money would be no use to you when your dead. An entire country of 300 million people with a 13 tillion dollar economy is not going to spend trillion of dollars in order to save an individual's life. True you are worth something, but not that much. Of course to a person in China who does not even know you exist your worth nothing at all.

Secondly and even more importantly do you act as if your life is priceless. If you did then you would never do anything to even remotely jeopardize your own life, and you would only perform the actions that increase your chances of survival. That means you would never drink or smoke. You would eat only the most health foods all the time. You would avoid walking down the street and avoid driving. Fact of the matter is that unless your a safety nut your a hypocrite to say life is priceless when you do not even treat your own life as such.

Life is worth something. The sad part of what I mentioned above is that people very often make choices that indicate that they do not value themselves very much. When a person smokes they know that it will likely take years off their life, yet they smoke anyway. The only conclusion one could draw from this assuming they are rational is that the pleasure it brings them is worth more to them than the years of life they lose.

Fact of the matter is that even if you are a safety nut one must accept the fact that we are mortal. We will die eventually whether it is tomorrow or 90 years from now. Thus it is pointless to live in a way that maximizes ones survival. Some of us choose to risk their lives to travel into the final frontier for the betterment of mankind, and some of them will die. However even those who die I envy. Even though their lives where cut short they were lives of significance and they will be remembered.

As stated earlier this is my belief. You have the right to disagree, however it does not change my belief. We live in a non prefect world so risk will always exist, I accept that. However I still believe life is priceless.

Please read this exert from the Community Guidelines
Decency and Decorum
Please be courteous to the other users and do not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. Global ad homs aimed at groups within the community are not acceptable. All participants deserve to be treated respectfully and with dignity. If you are overly disruptive or abusive, we reserve the right to take disciplinary action, such as suspending or even banning you from posting or commenting in the Community.

It is always possible, and preferable, to debate issues, not personalities. In debating an issue, first consider asking questions to further understand the differing viewpoint. Avoid generalizations. Use “I” statements, rather than “you” statements. Offer your point of view as simply that – a viewpoint – unless you have hard evidence to back up your statements.

In the Space and LiveScience forums, as well as Free Space, you may be challenged to provide backup for your contentions. We strongly encourage that you respond in a timely manner with relevant, in-context, and factual backup. If you cannot provide such information, it is strongly recommended that you retract, or at least clarify, your remarks.

In all cases, be respectful of each others beliefs, even if you think they are wrong.

First I like to clarify believer that I did not intend in any way to disrespect you or make any personal attacks against you. If you interpreted my post as doing such than I sorry, and I will try to refine my language so it is less offensive to you.

I have read the excerpt that you provided several times. and the only thing I am guilty of is using you rather than I. However the excerpt also states,

"In the Space and LiveScience forums, as well as Free Space, you may be challenged to provide backup for your contentions. We strongly encourage that you respond in a timely manner with relevant, in-context, and factual backup. If you cannot provide such information, it is strongly recommended that you retract, or at least clarify, your remarks."

After all this is a forum for discussion and debate. If you do not want to debate your proposition I have no problem with that.

Thank you very much I appreciate your apology. For my part I respect your right to disagree, I took an oath of office when I was in the Army to defend the Constitution which guarantees free speech. I hold no ill feelings I hope you feel likewise, thanks again.

 

[bdewoody]

For small crews I think a LAS is prudent. But when we start sending passengers into space such a device becomes unbuildable. So if and when man starts sending untrained passengers into space we better have an almost bullet proof system in place. Even then we must be willing to accept and acknowledge the possibility of a catastrophy and have the will to continue flying.

 

[MeteorWayne]

believer_since_1956 and DarkenedOne....

Is it really necessary to quote the entire post (and reply to the post) when you reply? Edit out the repetative stuff, OK! Sheesh!!!

User Meteor Wayne

 

[rcsplinters]

This link is an example of commercial crew safety which has come up on several forums and I think is traceable back to Hale's own blog: http://www.spacenews.com/civil/1011...ecries-nasas-commercial-crew-safety-regs.html. Wayne Hale, while I don't personally agree with all of his comments in this case, is one of those guys that deserve our attention as a very relevant and credible source of information and perspective relative to human space flight. I don't agree, but I have to listen.

I see this as relevant to the LAS question as it generalizes that specific issue. Has NASA reached the point where it can relax its own diligence, thus cutting its own costs? Has manned space flight reached the point where such diligence is unnecessary in the commercial sector?

I think the answer to those questions is no, at least for now. However, that's just my opinion and I'm not sure how one objectively and mathematically approaches this except through historical data. Problems both from Soyuz and the Shuttle seem to suggest that we aren't there yet. However, I think Hale makes an unassailable point. This diligence (use bureaucracy if you want to paint a negative picture) is costing us money, LOTS of money. There's little doubt in my mind that it’s kept people alive up to this point. However, is it needed in the future? How will we know, objectively that's it not needed? I have no clue, but it’s interesting to ponder the points. LAS's are but one example of this broader discussion.

 

[scottb50]

For small crews I think a LAS is prudent. But when we start sending passengers into space such a device becomes unbuildable. So if and when man starts sending untrained passengers into space we better have an almost bullet proof system in place.

One approach is to use a launch/abort/maneuver and deorbit system. I would also think using the upper stage as part of the launch phase would reduce the size needed, pretty much what Spacex is working toward, but it would work with a powered return vehicle just as well.

I could see parachute return capsules for cargo and as quick response life-boats, but a completely redundant, powered, flyback vehicle would be needed for passenger service.

With airplanes multiple redundancy has been very successful, comparing that to Space flight is like apples to a brussels sprouts. Statistics prove there is a number for anything and it can come up anytime, or not, bullet proof can never be fool-proof, you could forget to put it on.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Guys you need to think of it this way. You use different methods of transportation for items of different value. For example they do not transport the hope diamond by sending it in the mail. The package system is fairly reliable, but there exists a measured probability of damage or loss.

The facts is that NASA, the DOD, as well as the commercial sector launch payloads worth several billions of dollars individually into space all the time. They have determined that the unmanned vehicles that are available are able to accomplish this task with a reasonable amount of loss without LAS. IN fact many of the expendable, unmanned rockets are even safer than their manned counterparts.

The standard rockets for unmanned launchers these days have a probability of failure of less than one in one hundred. Also remember in order for a LAS to be effective it would have to be outfitted on every single launch, since one cannot predict when such a failure will occur. It would help if the system is reusable, so that it would not have to be fabricated for every flight. Yet even if it is reusable it still would impose a mass penalty on every flight. The Orion LAS for example weighs about 2000 kg. That is 2000 kg that are lost on every launch. At 10000 $/kg that equates to $20 million per launch. If the launch vehicle has a probability of failure of 1/100 than it means that in order to prevent that one failure it will cost you $2 billion dollars or 200000 kg of cargo into space.

The same applies to humans. Every single transportation industry results in casualties. Over 40,000 people die a year due to car accidents. We try to lessen this number with cost-effective safety measures such as seat beats. However there are also many safety measures that are not taken because they are too expensive, and if it is too expensive than it will put car travel out of the financial reach of those who use it.

Fact of the matter is that is we want to have real human spaceflight we need to accept a reasonable level of risk. I am not talking about stunt missions to asteroids without any real objective other than get to humans there and back. I am talking about a human spaceflight economy, space hotels, space colonization, and etc.

 

[believer_since_1956]

believer_since_1956 and DarkenedOne....

Is it really necessary to quote the entire post (and reply to the post) when you reply? Edit out the repetative stuff, OK! Sheesh!!!

User Meteor Wayne

I over reacted, I submit my appology.

 

[bdewoody]

What the DarkenedOne said. The 40.000 car death figure is just for the USA Both China and India are loosing over 100,000 every year. I think Europes numbers are similar to the USA. Eventually space craft will be configured like aircraft. Military planes have a LAS called a parachute. You won't find many military pilots willing to fly without one. Military space craft and experimental space craft will probably continue to have some form of LAS. On the other hand very few private aircraft and no commercial aircraft are equipped with a LAS. Occasionally an airliner crashes and up to several hundred people get killed. An investigation is launched to determine the cause and as a result commercial planes get better. Insurance companies pay off the relatives of those killed and life goes on. Commercial space craft will be heavily tested before the first paying passenger takes a ride but sooner or later there will be a failure and people will die. Again an investigation will be undertaken and improvements will be made. Insurance companies will pay off the relatives of the dead and life will go on.

 

[scottb50]

What the DarkenedOne said.

http://brsparachutes.com/

Quite a few airplanes have it installed and more are built everyday.

 

[vulture4]

The BRS system is a good investment with LSAs and light experimental aircraft that may suffer structural or power failure while at altitude, but it isn't feasible for large or fast aircraft and it doesn't help with low altitude loss-of-control like the recent crash in Melbourne, FL. In most accidents with faster aircraft there just isn't time to use one, even if it were feasible. While a significant number of pilots have been saved by ejection seats, even in noncombat incidents, they are mainly for combat aircraft where the possibility of a crash is much higher due to enemy fire. In cases where failures are frequent and of a type that an emergency system can prevent, then an escape system may make sense. But to simply add it without any consideration of the real failure rates and modes, as with the Orion, makes no sense.

 

[bdewoody]

What the DarkenedOne said.

http://brsparachutes.com/

Quite a few airplanes have it installed and more are built everyday.

I didn't mention the safety chute for general aviation private planes because it isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I think what the issue here should be is “The current LAS as NASA specifies it to be today is economically unsound.”

An innovation such as the pusher or third stage usage as an abort system is an innovation that would satisfy the pessimistic safety personalities and the others that look at the traditional LAS costs that does not contribute anything to 99 missions out of a hundred. It makes the third stage cost more but is not significant and it does not negatively affect the payload capability. Don’t let tradition keep innovation from solving the problem of increasing safety and making economic sense.

 

[scottb50]

Don’t let tradition keep innovation from solving the problem of increasing safety and making economic sense.

If it is possible to do it should be done. If it can use existing resources so much the better. Nothing can be fool-proof but, especially when you are looking at 0-velocity escape requirements, there are minimal options. That a crew module capable of carrying 10 passengers couldn't be built that could parachute into the ocean or onto land, or continue to orbit and dock to a station is easy to do.

 

[vulture4]

I do not think a LAS is feasible on an RLV and I do not think it is necessary. However SpaceX proposes a throttleable liquid-fueled pusher engine cluster on the tail of the Dragon which could be used as a LAS (though maybe not from the pad) but could also be used for a controllable (unlike Soyuz) pinpoint soft landing on land after a parachute descent. That does make some sense, eliminating the expensive ocean recovery without the rather unpredicatble landing of the Soyuz.