Oversight commision requires MANDATORY publication of your program's safety review

[PrivateFlip]

In light of the staggering losses both in kerbonaut lives as well as the enormous economic costs associated with the numerous accidents and mission failures affecting the kerbal space program, the space program oversight commission is now mandating all space program administrators to make public without delay their safety review reports.

In compliance with the request by the much respected oversight commission I will be the first to make public the latest general safety review conducted by on our program.

I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize our ongoing commitment to safety. In addition I think it is important to realize space exploration is by definition and challenging and risky enterprise. To not want these risk is to not want a space program, which would be a mayor setback our nation, science and kerbalkind. That said we do see there is room for improvement on some minor points as the report will make clear.

- Abstract -

Since the space program under evaluation has reached another milestone in incidents the auditor is pleased to be able to conduct yet another program wide safety review. The program wide safety review allows the identification of certain trends and common shortcomings in procedure.

Complicating the investigation does not keep is the almost complete any records on flights so most information has been gathered through interviews and no hard numbers can be presented.

Launch

Surprisingly the majority of mayor accidents, well over 50% according to interviewees, occur at the launch pad before or within seconds after launch. Although there is a wide variety of causes two categories stand out specifically:

-Insufficient structural integrity.

The number one reason for failures on the launch pad and failures overall is an insufficient structural strenght of the system involved to endure the stresses applied on it. For obvious reasons this problem tends is isolated with new launch vehicles. Interviewees made clear it wasn't uncommon for it to take three or more launch attempts before a new type of combination was structurally sound enough to stand motionless on the launch pad.

Strangely most interviewees did not seem to be bothered by this in the slightest even though these incidents usually lead to the complete destruction of the launcher and loss of live. A common response of interviewees when sufficiently pressed with this bleak picture was that they lacked the ability to determine whether or not a certain structural part would be able to cope.

Although it is indeed true the space program does not have access to refined modeling equipment the auditor would assume it would be quite easy to predict a sole 1.25 meter ring would not be able to support the weight of a 7.5 by 20 meter structure filled to the top with rocket fuel. To this most interviewees had no comprehensive reply.

-Incorrect staging of the ground supports.

This particular recurrent type of incident involves the an incorrect staging which causes the ground support launch stabilizer to release the launcher without simultaneously activating the engines to propel it towards the sky, causing the vehicle to instead fall towards the ground which, again, usually leads to the complete destruction of the launcher and loss of crew. Interviewees point out ground support is usually added to the design just before launch and in the rush of it all this aspect is often overlooked.

Surface to orbit flight

Insufficient structural integrity remains the primary cause for failure throughout the atmospheric flight to orbit since this stage brings the highest stresses on the launcher. According to personnel the occurrence of the problem tends to correlate with new designs and the so called “heavy lifters.â€Â

Mayor incidents in this part of the flight do become less deadly as any crew present is often able to use their reentry vehicle to escape the exploding and burning wreckage of their spacecraft.

Space

In contrast operations in space are comparatively safe with the explicit emphasis on comparatively.

Many incidents still occur during landing attempts on our moons. Common issues comprise:

-forgetting to extend the landing gear leading to damage to the lander and kerbals being stranded for years on end.

-landers tipping over during landing due to insufficient pilot skill and/or too elongated lander designs.

-breaking too late during descend causing a high velocity impact with the ground.

Positive points

-The space program under investigation has recently adopted the policy whereby all crew modules

are equipped with a sufficient number of sepatron solid boosters to propel it away from an exploding rocket as part off an abort sequence. This implementation reduced the number of casualties during incidents on the landing pad with 75%.

-New features in design software allow the easily switching out of crew modules for a non crewed dummy package for initial structural integrity testing on the launch pad.

-The overall mission success rate recently rose above 15%.

Please post your own safety review. This could be a general one or a breakdown of a specific incident or could describe safety measures taken by your program. If there are sufficient entries we could compile the data into a more comprehensible safety document with common errors and possible solutions.

[Mekan1k]

This is enforced by the Redundancy Department of Redundancy, Department.

Seriously though, that is really well done.

[NovaSilisko]

OFFICIAL SAFETY DOCUMENT REVIEW FOR: SILISKO INDUSTRIES

[The document contains nothing but stick figure doodles and several stylized 'S' characters]

GRADE: F

[Itsdavyjones]

Grand tour testing site safety review.

Owner: Itsdavyjones.

Number of kraken attacks: 3

number of reactor meltdowns: 10

number of failed launches: 10

-launchpad failures: 3

-staging failures: 1

-inflight instabilities: 3

-insuficient acceleration: 3

succesful launches: 14

grade: D-

[Omicron314]

You see, we really needed that restraining chair for Jeb, as well as that unicorn statue there, so yeah... Heh... I'm just going to walk this way now...

Grade: G

Edited June 4, 2013 by Omicron314
Added 'G' for Grade!

[Whirligig Girl]

Lack of booster strutting

Booster Staging breaks off engine

Addition of an excess of not enough boosters

Not accounting of sudden Munar bombardment causing base to be destroyed in the year 0.21

Sampling the surface of Minmus, Duna, Eve with invalid scientific instruments, notably the mouth.

[Guest]

Excerpt from Jebediah Aerospace Safety Review:

"Failures are common. This is an important lesson to learn before launching. The golden rule-Press the F5 button constantly throughout flight. In the case of an emergency, hold the F9 key. In case of unrecoverable failures, there is always the revert flight button.

According to disclosed launch data, 9 out of 10 launches have failures. 6 out of these 9 end in revert flight."

[The Jedi Master]

Safety Report #001

We have determined that the following factors are the most common causes of catastrophic failure in the Jedi Space Program:

Incorrect Staging

Problem: The staging is not wired properly, resulting in an incorrect flight profile

Possible Solution: Fire whoever wires the staging, do a staging check before launch

Heavy Payloads

Problem: The payload is too heavy, resulting in failure to lift the ship into orbit

Possible Solution: Don't make such heavy payloads--find other ways to get what you need

Burning Too Late

Problem: During landing descent, the ship will burn too late, resulting in slamming into the celestial object at high velocity

Possible Solution: Find a way to figure out precisely when to burn

Not Enough Fuel

Problem: There is not enough fuel, resulting in either floating into oblivion or slamming into the celestial object at high velocity

Possible Solution: Pack more fuel

Bad Interplanetary Encounters

Problem: The launch window for an interplanetary encounter is eyeballed incorrectly, resulting in floating into oblivion

Possible Solution: Learn degrees, you blockhead

Forgetting Important Elements

Problem: The engineers focus on obvious things, like fuel and engines, neglecting things like electricity and docking ports, resulting in floating into oblivion

Possible Solution: Have a building checklist

THE FLUFFING MIDDLE ENGINE FALLING OFF FLUFF

Problem: The middle engine will fall off during ascent for no reason whatsoever, resulting in catastrophic fluffing failure

Possible Solution: We have no fluffing clue.

[robopilot99]

Although launch safety has been improved your space program has a poor reputation for rescuing astronauts stranded on various celestial bodies (or lost in space). Your space program also has a problem with causing severe injuries to kerbals during extreme rentry scenarios. Oh yeah and stop flying so low over my office! Your stupid jet planes keep getting on my nerves!

Grade:

C-

[Duxwing]

All designs are fully tested before use. All crewed craft include fail-safe launch escape systems. All requirements are over-estimated. No crew lost.

Grade A

-Duxwing

[The Error]

-Review for: Novan Commonwealth Space Program-

=Quote= Screw this safety review! We'll make our with with blackjack and boosters! =End quote=

[Tw1]

I am proud to announce that there have been no fatalities as of late.

There have been mechanical issues with some recent missions, and one or two missions suffered fairly minor structural failures, but no one was killed.

The most recent vessel to experience unplanned rapid diassembly was of the "sh'tuule" type, yet the crew aborted safely*.

The fault was found to be in the landing gear, and operation of that class vessel has been suspend. Possibly pending replacement by a new ssto type vessel.

Failure at launch had lately been minimal, as can be seen in our successful placement of the Sydney Harbour bridge into a circular 150 km orbit around Kerbin on the first attempt.

To date, the cause of the most deaths used been members of the space program attempting impractical (yet awesome) stunts, particularly invoking planes, cannons, orbital skydiving, and exploitation of anomalous forces.

There are currently no kerabs stranded in outer space. This does not include our Eve colonist, who, thought lacking means of return, has the necessary support for extended exploration of the planet. Nor does this include the guy in an elliptical orbit around Minmus. He has sufficient fuel in his Eva suit to land, and when he finally feels like it, it will be a simple matter for the Minmus base to dispatch a vessel to retrieve him.

[Whirligig Girl]

In compliance with this note, I give you a more compiled note of our Safety Review.

CEO of Gregrox Incorperated,

We must inform you that your Saftey Review was too amature, and needs better compilation and a more accurate depiction of failures in the Gregrox Incorperated Space Commission. Thank you for your compliance.

Safety in the GISC has never been a large problem, mind you, but here is our safety review according to The Flip Standard.

- Abstract -

The Gregrox Incorperated Space Commission (GISC) has a faulty safety system, but can be easily improved.

Launch

The GISC rarely has launch problems, unless Heavy lifters using Wide bases are required. Struts are gratuitously placed as well as Launch Clamps. Interviewees stated that "The GISC is one of the rarer places to find any type of conspicuous green substance." and that "Even in the event of a launch failure the capsule is fitted with a launch escape system to propel Astronauts away from a failure.

In some cases the Launch clams are incorrectly staged, leading to a loss of certain parts of the Launch Vehicles, but again no loss of life.

Surface-To-Orbit Flight

This situation seems to be where a large majority of modern failures in the GISC take place. Staging Errors, Lack of Seperatrons to push away spent boosters, and early jettison of Launch Escape Towers have caused 4 losses of crew in the last year alone.

The most recurring problem is that of Booster Separation not being aided by Separatrons. The Large, Heavy Boosters are unable to be pushed free of the vehicle, so they end up hitting the rocket and destroying the engine.

Useless Contraptions

By far the most dangerous safety failure in the whole of the GISC is when Useless Contraptions succede. The Grand Designer, during certain times when he is angry or sad, may simply kill Pilots or torture them in stupid contraptions that can only be thought of by a madman.

Space

This is where the majority of failures early in the GISC took place. Due to underbuilding of several Mun Landers, a successful return of Kerbal Pilots from the Mun was not made until the Apollo-Style method was attempted. Many Duna Landers have been torn apart by parachutes on descent, and at least two pilots have died due to careless jetpacking. Only one Mun rescue has ever taken place, the crew of the Judy Peak Expedition, where publicity required a safe return of the Kerbals piloting the Honored mission.

In Modern times Space tends to be much safer, except in the case of the Asteroid Redirect Training, wherein a paper mache asteroid was placed in orbit around Kerbin. The pilots were unable to retrieve the asteroid due to the paper mache expanding, covering the docking port. The Redirector was instructed to attempt to push the asteroid without a docking port, and in the process fell apart. Jebediah Kerman had went on EVA to inspect the Asteroid, where he became stranded far away from the capsule which had floated several kilometers away. Both missions were aborted, killing all three crew members.

Atmospheric Aircraft Flight

Kerbals in the GISC seem to be terrible aircraft pilots, and constantly crash aircraft whilst doing stunts. SSTOs rarely make orbit and back and when they do they rarely land without damage.

Positive Points

-It would be fairly easy to up the saftey of launches and removal of the Useless Contraptions Division.

-Space accidents are rare now.

-Kerbals in the GISC seem to be contantly ready and willing to follow the whims of the CEO of the GISC: The Grand Designer GregroxMun, who the Pilots and staff in the GISC seem to worship as a god.

-Probes are often used in place of Kerbals for many missions.

-All space stations are fully stocked with food supplies and air for several decades, enough for station inhabitants to survive indefinitely up there.

-Work is being made on a new, simpler Launch Escape System.

[FlamingPotatoes]

Currently the V.B.S.P(Very Big Space Program) has no intense safety regulations but due to piloting skill (mostly luck) a majority of missions survive.

The Only area which requires improvement are the ascent from the mun. Both tries have failed.

Grade- C-

[RogueMason]

The space program run by Mason Shipyards and Industries (henceforth referred to as MSI) has recently been investigated and reviewed. The findings are as follows:

-----

1. Rocket launches in recent years have proven to be non-fatal. No Kerbals have been lost during lift-off at all for a long time. To be fair to MSI, the launches have never really been hazardous to life, and the rockets that do disintegrate have a tendency to leave command modules intact. Heavier launch vehicles will explode more often, but the widely-used Vulcan IV Heavy rocket has proven to be very reliable. Wrap-around launch designs that see the payload surrounded by heavy rockets are more commonly destroyed due to structural instability, but this technique is seeing less use nowadays. One noticeable problem that occasionally springs up is the firing of the launch clamps before ignition due to mis-staging. The problem is usually non-fatal and quickly rectified. Launch Escape Systems are simplistic, however, more often than not decoupling the command module from a malfunctioning rocket whilst simultaneously firing the parachutes. This has proven dangerous in the past, but there has been no reason to escape from a launch recently.

2. Reaching orbit is rarely problematic. Payloads are launched on rockets of appropriate configuration, usually resulting in fuel to spare, which has proven useful on many interplanetary missions.

3. Very few problems have been noted with vehicle instability in orbit. The most catastrophic failure was many years ago, but no fatalities were incurred in that incident, merely a considerable debris field that has since been dealt with. The orbital environment is debris-free, hence resulting in no collisions. All fatalities in orbit are attributed to combat, primarily from the Kraken War.

4. Exploration of celestial bodies is inherently dangerous business, but MSI has proven to have a good track record, with extensive planning going into every mission. Mun was initially a hotspot of non-fatal crash landings back in the 13th age (0.13.3) during which Jebediah Kerman, Bill Kerman, and Bob Kerman were repeatedly stranded on the surface of our closest celestial neighbour. However, since then, MSI has improved drastically, and landings on Mun and Minmus are mostly safe, provided the crews are attentive (which they usually are). Missions to other planets in the system are extensively thought out to ensure that the crews who fly out to Duna or Jool, for example, can return home, and have adequate supplies and accommodation. Only one known fatality has been incurred relatively recently on the surface of Duna during the third mission of the Venturer Program; Franklin Kerman is believed KIA.

5. Most vehicles have manned and unmanned flight capability in order to maximise safety potential. Interplanetary landers tend to display this trait more so than Kerbin system landers. The inclusion of automated systems on manned vehicles is generally looked upon favourably.

6. SSTO Spaceplanes. Rarely used other than as proof-of-concept. SSTO spaceplanes have proven to be hazardous, with two problems being prevalent; unequal engine flameout in-atmosphere, and centre-of-lift instability. The former has been helped with the recent development of the R.A.P.I.E.R. while the latter has been rectified through experience. Even so, pilots are often found in the middle of nowhere on Kerbin after failing to make orbit, with minimal supplies. Unmanned flight testing would be better here.

7. Aircraft are, nowadays, proving to be alright. The occasional test flight will go awry, but tried and tested planes are reliable. Most of MSI's fatalities occur in this field.

Also, as it is a basic right for all Kerbals, snacks are provided in abundance for the most part, which is what a lot of other programs fall down on. MSI knows how their crews work.

To summarise the necessary improvements:

New LES for rockets.

Unmanned equipment on all landers.

Unmanned equipment on all test flights.

Grade: A

-----

[Fred Cop]

-- safety review document #012 --

today, 26 keptember, 2015, your space program will be reviewed for physical and mental problems, and a copy of this report will be sent to the goverment for them to judge wether it is worth continuing to fund you for the foreseeable future.

Please read the following with an open mind, and it would be a good idea if you fixed the problems listed in bold. Thank you.

Assembly;

- rockets are regularly retrieved from the launchpad upon the discovery of an insignificant/major error. Perhaps double check your builds in future before launch, as these acts are wasting funding.

- rockets/vehicles designed for tourists are usually designed with a drone, making the s.a.s modules redundant

- overestimation of monopropellant, electric charge and ablator. Use less in the future

- forgetting to assign pilots to their respective rockets, leading to engineers or even scientists sitting at the controls

launch;

- some rockets have too little thrust

- some rockets aren't structurally sound

- small errors in staging revert back to the vab/sph

- launching with rcs turned on, when using s.a.s is just fine

- some rockets end up with the wrong or non-pilots

flight;

- rockets being steered too early, causing them to spin nearly uncontrollably

- rockets being steered too late, causing them to miss the manoeuvre node

- manoeuvre nodes used incorrectly

- liquid and oxidiser fuels easily draining, caused by too much fuel consumption

- entering through planet's atmospheres by flying straight down towards it, rather than coming in at an angle

- easily flippable rovers

misc;

- jeb is stuck in orbit

- valentina is k.i.a

- hardly able to reach the mün, or shorter

- collecting funding only from tourists

- - - Updated - - -

-- SAFETY REVIEW DOCUMENT #012 --

Today, 26 Keptember, 2015, your Space Program will be reviewed for physical and mental problems, and a copy of this report will be sent to the goverment for them to judge wether it is worth continuing to fund you for the foreseeable future.

Please read the following with an open mind, and it would be a good idea if you fixed the problems listed in bold. Thank you.

Assembly;

- Rockets are regularly retrieved from the launchpad upon the discovery of an insignificant/major error. Perhaps double check your builds in future before launch, as these acts are wasting funding.

- Rockets/vehicles designed for tourists are usually designed with a drone, making the S.A.S Modules redundant

- Overestimation of Monopropellant, Electric Charge and Ablator. Use less in the future

- Forgetting to assign pilots to their respective Rockets, leading to Engineers or even Scientists sitting at the controls

Launch;

- Some rockets have too little thrust

- Some rockets aren't structurally sound

- Small errors in staging revert back to the VAB/SPH

- Launching with RCS turned on, when using S.A.S is just fine

- Some rockets end up with the wrong or non-pilots

Flight;

- Rockets being steered too early, causing them to spin nearly uncontrollably

- Rockets being steered too late, causing them to miss the manoeuvre node

- Manoeuvre nodes used incorrectly

- Liquid and Oxidiser Fuels easily draining, caused by too much fuel consumption

- Entering through planet's atmospheres by flying STRAIGHT DOWN towards it, rather than coming in at an angle

- Easily flippable rovers

Misc;

- Jeb is stuck in orbit

- Valentina is K.I.A

- Hardly able to reach the Mün, or shorter

- Collecting funding only from tourists

[Whirligig Girl]

Hello GregroxMun, we regret to inform you that unless you can provide us with a copy of your space program's safety review document, any attempt at launching a rocket will be shot down with missiles. Any attempt to use HyperEdit will result in the space center being hyperedited into space. Now that we have gotten your attention, we request your safety review document.

Well, since I'm in the middle of bugfixing Alternis Kerbol Rekerjiggered, I can't very well loose access to HyperEditing things! It's time for the Gregrox Space Administration's second safety review!

-Abstract-

The GregroxMun Space Administration (formerly the Gregrox Incorperated Space Commission) has done well in the past few months in safety, mostly because The Grand Designer has realized that Kerbals are people too.

Launch

Launches have been perfected, even after the strange physical law change of the year 1.0. Very rarely does a rocket collapse on the launch pad, and there has not been a staging failure on the pad in months.

Surface-To-Orbit Flight

Almost all GMSA rocket launches are equipped with launch escape towers, for the main reason of "they look neato." Although a significant amount of time the abort mode on the tower is forgotten, in the cases where the abort mode is remembered, capsuled rockets are safe. Launch failures are mainly the result of poor payload strutting inside fairings, or a lack of separatrons on boosters. More and more often simpler designs are chosen, and Asparagus staging is a rare occurrence nowadays. This is in part due to the current abundance of large rocket parts compared to last time a safety review was published.

A new series of space shuttles have come into service. The Edwin Abbot series are considerably safer than normal space shuttle designs because they do not have off center thrust. Edwin Abbot designs use a large external tank on the front of the shuttle body, rather than the bottom. Boosters are mounted on the wings. This design is more stable and simpler to fly than other shuttles.

Modding.

The GMSA is home to a rapidly changing space environment. Sometimes it launches from the planet Earth, sometimes from Mars, and sometimes from Kerbin in another planetary system arrangement! As of late, the latter situation, labeled "Alternis Kerbol" is more frequent. Administration meetings have revealed that this is because The Grand Designer was not content with just designing the rockets, but had to design the UNIVERSE instead.

As such, the GMSA frequently "cheats" by using the Infinite Improbability Drive, marketed by Kerbaltek Inc as the Hyper-Edit Drive, to get around. In many cases normal rockets and planes are used because this is fun, but only when not actively developing the Alternis Kerbol system. Note that this is only a recent development.

Space

The safest part of the space program remains safe. Though now there is atmospheric re-entry heating to deal with (this is usually alright) the space program is capable of efficiently and effectively getting to any planet, as long as it has a decent rocket.

Eve

Eve is the one place that no Kerbal in the GMSA has returned from. The challenge is still too great.

Alternis Tylo

This is the single most death-concentrated planet in the entire GMSA history. Alternis Tylo or "Stumbos" is a gigantic planet orbiting where Duna ought to be. It has a thin atmosphere and FOUR GEES of gravity. All attempts at a hyper-edit landing have ended in tragic failure.

Alternis Minmus

Due to "development troubles" on the alternis version of Minmus, several Kerbals have perished due to terrain glitches involving offsetting the terrain. Note that the current public version of Minmus is stable, it is only the dev version which adds craters that is glitching, and that is not released yet.

Science

Science is done in many cases even in Sandbox mode where it is worth nothing to the program. Purely altruistic. And probably dangerous due to the lesser delta v budget. However, in many cases surface samples are analyzed with invalid scientific instruments such as taste buds.

Positive Points

-The stuff happening in the Alternis universe is unrelated to the prime universe, which means that no Kerbals are ACTUALLY dying.

-Space is mostly safe.

-The space program is involved in the creation of new worlds, which is cooler than most space programs!

-There is plenty of snacks.

[percyPrune]

The British Aero - Nautical Group (B.A.N.G) has a safety target of 3 Kerbals killed per 100 launches. Unfortunately, due to an unexpected outbreak of competence during this fiscal period, we have failed to meet this target.

This has resulted in an unacceptable level of overcrowding in the astronaut complex and, unless the situation returns to normal, we will be forced to start killing Kerbals gratuitously, simply in order to reduce headcount and meet the target.

Yours,

Meanie Kerman

CEO / Safety Oversight and Salary Minimisation.

[randomness5555]

BWI Space program Safety Report is as follows:

1: Assembly

Many landers are underbuilt, and frequently run out of fuel or have landing legs too short to land on without severe risk of critical damage to engines. Many rockets are not fitted with launch escape systems, however they have almost never been needed.

In contrast many of the program's older and larger rockets were overly complex, heavy and fragile, and solid rocket boosters were often positioned much too close to each other. This has improved since their policy of 'One large stage is better than multiple small ones' was implemented however.

2: Pre-launch

Remarkably, the BWI has an almost perfect record here as of late. Even when proper launch supports are not attached, most of the machinery they churn out is sufficiently well constructed to hold it's own weight, and while staging errors are common it is rare for these to not be detected before a problem is caused. In addition, specialised software allowing for updates to staging setups during flight has significantly reduced casualties.

3: Flight

Very little atmospheric rocket flight is performed by BWI pilots anymore, as their supercomputer codenamed 'Mech-Jeb' has had a remarkably higher success rate. However, especially with the aforementioned heavier launchers this is not fool-proof, with fairings and drives firing early and the occasional complete failure to control the machine-often preceded by what ground crews call 'the jelly effect', a wobbling that shakes lower stages to bits, often resulting in collision with crew capsules or upper stage tanks. Again, simpler lower stages have massively increased reliability in this area.

4: Space

Things rarely go wrong with a single vessel in space as Mechjeb is especially reliable here. However, larger machines assembled in space don't tend to go far, as they too are affected by the jelly effect. While more struts seem to be the answer, the BWI rarely build this type of vessel. What (sadly) is more common are casualties caused in re-entry, especially returning from the mun/minmus as their often underbuilt munar vehicles don't have the required fuel to slow down to a safe speed, and entire heatsheilds melt before all the ablator can even burn off. Since BWI interest is almost entirely based around kerbin and LKO this is rarely an issue though.

5: Planes

The BWI's record is mixed here. Their aircraft are (mostly) well built and reliable even on their first flight, with special mention to the 'Sky pirate-Brute', a seemingly crude but extremely manoeuvrable bi-plane which in over ten unmanned crash tests only ever destroyed it's cockpit once, and several times landed on only one of it's four wings. However, while BWI pilots are also good, they are overconfident, and often attempt to push their planes to the limits before promptly overdoing it. Many a plane has smashed into the VAB or Space plane hanger tower while over stressing a turn in some way. In addition, the occasional plane will have landing gear too tall or unstable, not often causing a problem on take-off but straight up crashing it on landing. Attempts at building larger aircraft almost all end in utter disaster, and the BWI has only constructed one SSTO that managed to reach space-which ran out of fuel attempting to circularise, and killed it's pilot on re-entry.

6: Mun

Simply put, the BWI stinks at Mun landings. The landers that don't simply smash into the ground have only recently started using the so called 'Apollo technique' and before this, almost none made it home, running out of fuel long before reaching Kerbin, often on the ascent. They are improving, but more work is needed.

Good points: The BWI is, despite the report, fairly competent when it comes to safety, or at least no worse than the average. Their rockets have come on leaps and bounds, and their smaller aircraft have proven themselves time and time again-it is almost always pilot error that causes issues. Staging errors are infrequent, and it's very rare that a rocket doesn't have enough thrust to launch properly.

Bad points: Their record with large aircraft is, with two exceptions, a disaster with most failing to lift off at all. SRB's on complex stages often collide rather destructively with fuel tanks during stage separation and return missions to other planets have an (at best) poor record.

Overall, this space program has simultaneously come a long way, yet not been far with so many missions stuck at kerbin. Acceptable, so long as safety improvements continue

Edited October 22, 2015 by randomness5555

[Joshwoo70]

Joshwoo69 carrer save:

Most launches are Unmanned which significantly reduces the chances of casualties.... though some Crafts has crashed beside the KSC... little to no animal casualties are recorded.

Manned missions: Strict struts rules and simulated unmanned tests ensure that little to no problems occur during launches. Even though some some craft members have a couple of concerns of some craft designs. most of them are satisfied of the strict rules that is in the design of the craft.

Overall : A

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Name:AddictionAeroworks

Report: All looks to be what a decent Kerbql would enjoy. No launchpad of VAB, Hmm why? Spaceplane testing seems to be done using a simulator called: Human Space Program. Most of AA's craft have reached orbit with big margins, as well as even Duna! Deaths have been minimal, usually from smaller, less noticeable design errors.

Score: 86%

[KSACheese]

Name - Goliath Aerospace Administration

Report - Through the entirety of our space program, there have been only two major incidents involving a death and/or destruction of a spacecraft.

1) Jebadiah Kerman, KIA, after failure to PROPERLY INSTALL PARACHUTES (Those engineers were since charged with involuntary manslaughter).

2) The DDV spacecraft experienced flight anomalies during descent into Duna's atmosphere and disintegrated. No lives lost.

Overall, the RAA has a low rate of crashes and deaths (game crashes are quite often, unfortunately). We have also recently begun a long term scientific operation on Duna in the form of our Sera I mission site.

Score: B- (81.5%)

[Findthepin1]

Name = United Kerbol Traveling Circuses (UKTC)

Report:

We have a reusable Minmus transit vehicle ready to take off and be used at least once. We can't do anything with it because it's unmanned, Minmus is unmanned, and we can' launch anything because a transdimensional rift opened in the VAB. Nothing we do changes objects that were in the VAB when the rift opened unless it's done on both sides of the rift. Speaking of which, our friends on the other side, the Universal Kerbal Tour Company (UKTC) also can't launch anything, but for the likely unrelated reason of their leader 1PinTheFind procrastinating because he doesn't to risk the chance of having to send a SECOND Duna rescue mission.

Score: C+

[Guest]

After a major review of the success rate, Kerbal deaths, and launch failure rate, the Kerbal Snack and Space Agency has a report. Our findings are below. This review was called after a change in management, as the new administration has made a vow towards transparency.

After a heavy review of recent launches, we are unhappy to announce that we have had a 61.5% launch failure rate in the past 6 months. We are deeply saddened by these failures, as some of the conditions for these launches have been grounds for countdown halt. The majority of successful launches have been simple tests of Kerbin orbit, and launch systems. Fortunately, the majority of lost missions have been unmanned.

We always hold Kerbal life to the highest standard, and have never taken loss lightly. This is why we are grounding all manned flights for at least the next two months. The count for kernels lost has now ticked to 5. We offer our condolences to the friends and family of those lost.

This is a preliminary report, and more information is to come as it is declassified. We are going to be releasing several emails of staff, crew, and anyone that has an impact on the safety of our space program. As we are currently working on an overhaul, all flights have been grounded.

[Generalstarwars333]

Well, we try to always ensure the safety of our kerbonauts, and will even go as far as time travel to ensure it. Kerbonauts stranded in solar orbit on a now obsolete space station will be eventually rescued once the necessary funds, motivation, and skill are available. To date we have had only one death in over four years or operating, and that is something we never hope to repeat.