[FPSPACE] Study backs COTS

[Jens Kieffer-Olsen]

-----Original Message-----
From: bmuniz at constellationservices.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:49 PM
 
> 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

 Ben, I fully appreciate that you choose to address the
 wider logistic issues only as they present themselves.

 So, if a crew were camping out on the Moon, you would
 probably at the time recognize the liability of a private
 provider to guarantee their upkeep in the wake of a
 disaster striking anywhere along the chain of supply.    

 Yet, as far as the ISS is concerned it bothers me that
 in the hypothetical situation of CSI causing disruptive
 damamage to the station, you may well count on its crew
 to simply hie themselves into their Soyuz lifeboat and
 row it back to Earth ASAP. Period. End of story.

 In your reply to Tom Matula you quoted from McAleese and
 Associates:
 "Under performance specifications, the successful offeror may 
 well propose to launch that same spacecraft at a fixed cost,
 with full refund in case of failure. This change recognizes
 that the highest system performance specification is now the
 insertion of the spacecraft into the proper orbit, and imports
 the concept of flight insurance from the commercial spacecraft
 sector. In essence, the hardware manufacturer becomes a service
 provider. The bottom line is that successful offerors must now
 step up to greater levels of risk ..."

 My point exactly. "Abandonment of the ISS is not an option",
 is what I want to hear you shout through the corridors of the
 insurance industry right into their executives' offices! 

--
Jens Kieffer-Olsen
Slagelse, Denmark