[FPSPACE] Study backs COTS

[bmuniz at constellationservices.com]

Jens,

To be clear, I agree with the core of your 
original point, that this is not a trivial issue:

At 03:15 AM 04-02-07, Jens Kieffer-Olsen wrote:
>>But to insure a private company ... is no mean feat.

My point is simply that people are in fact working on this.

>  Yet, a nearly completed ISS represents an irreplaceable
>  asset. The other day it was even suggested that it could
>  not be rebuilt, should it be ripped apart.

I missed that conversation.  But let me say that 
although there is always the "magic bb" scenario, 
standard risk management assesses the probability 
and consequences of reasonably expected events 
that could be encountered.  For example, there 
could be a scenario where a "visiting vehicle" -- 
Shuttle, Progress, or other -- could impact the 
truss at a velocity sufficient to sever it.  But 
what is the real probability of that vs. a 
scenario where, let's say, the VV impacts a 
module at a lower velocity that is sufficient to 
puncture the pressure hull? (e.g. Progress M-34 
collision with Mir during the TORU envelope 
expansion test).  Those are the kinds of analyses 
that will in part drive the solutions to this issue.

>Imagine that
>  a space station located in a lunar Lagrange point, pivotal
>  in freighting men and mice to and from the moon, were badly
>  damaged. How would CSI support a lunar base during the
>  repair?

I imagine that CSI and other companies will deal 
with that scenario when there actually is a space 
station located in a lunar Lagrange point that we 
want to deliver cargo to.  But right now all we 
have ISS, which is not currently envisioned to be 
in the logistics supply chain for VSE.

I believe I've made my point by now -- that the 
issue of risk and insurance has and is been 
considered.  That's all I have to say on this for right now.

Ben


Benigno Muñiz Jr.
Chief Technical Officer
Constellation Services International, Inc.
<http://www.constellationservices.com>