author: Wayne R.

subject: Re: replacement antenna GPS-45

text:
I had one of those that we busted. We were lucky in that the antenna case
cracked and we were able to pop it off the innards. There's not a whole lot
inside there. So long as the helical tube isn't trashed you could probably fix
it yourself - probably a broken solder joint on the back of connector. A Dremel
tool with the thin cutoff wheel could probably make fairly clean work of opening
the antenna case. Silicone would seal it right up again too.

Not much to lose anyway, right?

If you want to just replace it, I think he 48 uses the same antenna - if you
find someone with a dead unit to get their antenna...

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:57:24 -0700, [email] (Scott Truesdell)
wrote:


author: Vic Fraenckel

subject: Re: replacement antenna GPS-45

text:
| If you want to just replace it, I think he 48 uses the same antenna - if
you
| find someone with a dead unit to get their antenna...

I have even used my garmin75 antenna with my GPS45.

Vic
________________________________________________________

Victor Fraenckel - The Windman                 [email]
KC2GUI                                                      www.windsway.com

      Home of the WindReader Electronic Theodolite
                               Read the WIND

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long
and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
- Winston [Leonard Spencer] Churchill (1874 - 1965)


author: [redacted]

subject: UV bandpass?

text:
While prototyping a spectrometer (my expertise is electronics, not
optics) I have been horrified to find that uv bandpass filters from
~300 to ~400 nm are incredibly expensive.

I've done a little research and found that a substance commonly called
"wood's glass" is much less expensive and has similar bandpass
properties. Unfortunately I cannot find a source for it!

Can anyone here help? Specifically, I need squares 30-50 mm and 5 mm
or less thick.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Jerry Cooper
[email]


author: David Reeve

subject: Re: UV bandpass?

text:
Hi Jerry,

Normally I'd use something like Schott UG1 or UG11 for this type of
application. Have a look in a Coherent-Ealing or Melles Griot catalog.

Dave

<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Marvin Margoshes

subject: Re: UV bandpass?

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

"wood's" most likely refers to R. W. Wood.  Perhaps you can find a copy of
his book, "Physical Optics", Macmillan, NY 1934.


author: Josh Halpern

subject: Re: UV bandpass?

text:
Pyrex has a cutoff about 305 nm, so that is half the
job.  A very thin microscope slide cover does a
good job cutting off everything below 300 nm.

It's harder blocking stuff above 400 and passing
the 300-400 nm region.  The Chemists Companion
has a bunch of recepies for optical filters using
chemical solutions.

One of the more amusing things about glass
optical filters is that they fluoresce and luminesce
if you hit them with high intensity light.

josh halpern

[email] wrote:


author: .Trans

subject: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
The argument against Meyer's claims to hydrogen generation
is that any electrolysis method is definitely unproductive, energy wise.

I don't know if this is the right analogy. When a column of marching
soldiers approach a
bridge , they are ordered to break step and walk at ease. If not, the
marching
steps will create a resonance and break apart the bridge and destroy it.
On the other hand, random steps out of resonance does no harm to the bridge.
In both cases the amount of energy transferred to the bridge surface is the
same.
But in one case, it can cause the concrete to break apart. while in the
other
case, no amount of transferred energy can do any damage to the bridge.

Is there a logical reason to look at Meyer's system in this mode of
operation ?.
An oscillating influence on the water ,creating resonance while electrolysis
is going on ?

Just like an LC resonance circuit, can the water column be considered as
a core within a coil inductance which is under resonance ?.


author: Mark K.

subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part ?

text:
In article <[email]>,
  ".Trans" <[email]> wrote:
wise.
it.
bridge.
is the
the
electrolysis
as

Hi Trans,
Don't know about the Chemustri and Fizziks but the >electroplating<
process can be greatly accelerated by ultrasonics. Ultra-sound however
is not (yet?) used in practice in the industrial process because the
shape of objects and tanks make it near impossible to predict where the
effect will be strongest.
The guess is that the cavitation in the liquid aids the circulation and
scrubbing of the surfaces being plated. But a whole bunch of other
stuff probably happens too (including whatever is supposed to cause
sonoluminescence)

 It strikes me that the plates or tubes used in the Meyer cells, if
somehow made to vibrate at the right sonic or ultrasonic frequencies
might lead to other things than just plain electrolysis going on.
Wether sonic resonance can be made to happen at low power levels in
these setups is something someone else had better answer because I
don't know what I'm talking about :-) and I don't know if you people
have talked about this here before.

Regards, Mark

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: who writes

subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
In some cases, the resonance will damage the bridge. Not in every case.

Meyer's claim is more like sending marching soldiers across a bridge and having
the bridge disassemble into its component parts with no damage, ready to be
rebuilt. Resonance usually doesn't do that. It usually destroys structure, not
that carefully.

 Yours,

 Doug Goncz
 Replikon Research (Seven Corners, VA)

 Remembering Linda Newbery 1959-10-19 - 1979-01-06 - 2000-09-22
 http://members.aol.com/DGoncz/www.fahs.org_lguestbook.htm

 "Honey, where are my memory pills?"


author: Harry H Conover

subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
.Trans ([email]) wrote:
: The argument against Meyer's claims to hydrogen generation
: is that any electrolysis method is definitely unproductive, energy wise.
:
: I don't know if this is the right analogy. When a column of marching
: soldiers approach a
: bridge , they are ordered to break step and walk at ease. If not, the
: marching
: steps will create a resonance and break apart the bridge and destroy it.
: On the other hand, random steps out of resonance does no harm to the bridge.
: In both cases the amount of energy transferred to the bridge surface is the
: same.
: But in one case, it can cause the concrete to break apart. while in the
: other
: case, no amount of transferred energy can do any damage to the bridge.
:
: Is there a logical reason to look at Meyer's system in this mode of
: operation ?.
: An oscillating influence on the water ,creating resonance while electrolysis
: is going on ?
:
: Just like an LC resonance circuit, can the water column be considered as
: a core within a coil inductance which is under resonance ?.
:

It's a good analogy, but in the case of Meyer's WFC doesn't apply.

The problem is that the chemical bond that chains the two hydrogen
atoms to the single oxygen atoms requires a finite amount of energy
to break it.  It is this total amount of energy that must be input,
wheter or not your supply it in one big chunck or a little bit at a
time.

Compare the hydrogen's bonding to the springs on your car. If you
hit a big enough pothole, you may break a spring.  You can also break
a spring by putting the car on a vibration test fixture and severely
shaking it up and down.  Hitting the pothole is less costly to accomplish
the same end.

Still, don't forget about the other factor involved in electrolysis.
After you break the hydrogen-oxygen bond, you have to supply sufficient
electrical charge to neutralize the charged ions that breaking up the
molecule produces.  This requires current, and this is where Faraday's
Law enters the picture and explains precisely how many ampere-seconds
(Coulombs) of electricity are required for each mole equivalent
of hydrogen you produce.

Notice that Meyer's claim skirt both of the above fundamental
requirements.

                                              Harry C.


author: Gerry Schneider

subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
.Trans wrote:

Meyer's cell design is based on resonance, but the water between the plates is
part of a capacitor which is series resonated with the inductor in the circuit.
This means that the water sees a very high voltage and low current AC source,
and supposedly (according to pro-Meyer types) "breaks down" in a way that splits
the molecule with a lower energy input than required for electrolysis. The
problem is that there is no known theoretical method for this to happen, and
experiments conducted with proper scientific accuracy verify that the Meyer cell
is a poor to useless generator of H2 and O2. I myself have tried following the
schematic in the patent and found it to be useless at doing anything except
creating steam. About the only interesting thing I found was that it worked best
(steam production, not H2/O2) with pure water, since the presence of conductive
ions reduces the "Q" of the resonant circuit. BTW, I played around considerably
with various inductors and capacitive values (plate separation and area) without
much success, and also found no "magic frequency" anywhere in the range of 100
Hz to 100 kHz. I should mention, just for the record, that I have 30 years
experience in Engineering Physics, much of it in power conversion, so I'm not
exactly a beginner at this. Most of this experimentation was done on a spare
time basis over the past 6 months, probably with less than normal
record-keeping, and with no attempt to measure true input power, since I wasn't
getting anything burnable coming out. If anybody else has done similar work I'd
be interested to compare notes.

Gerry


author: Fred Kasner

subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
Nice try but not real science. Several errors in your assumptions. The
statement that no amount of energy if not in resonance with a bridge's
natural frequency can cause damage to a bridge will require that
engineers stop teaching their students courses in strenght of materials.
And it will also tell them that a gossamer thin bridge made of the
weakest of materials will suffice. That's major error #1.

The second error is that the natural frequency of a water molecule's
resonance of its chemical bonds lies in the infra-red frequency range.
This is easily measured and explained by quantum mechanics. Of course,
unfortunately, these frequencies must be used exactly. This is not like
the increasing magnitude of oscillation of a child on a swing. The
amplitude of the vibration does not increase and eventually cause a
mechanical failure. The laws of quantum mechanics are not the same as
the laws of macroscopic matter.

I understand that you know some physics, but not the right kind for this
problem.

FK

".Trans" wrote:


author: Don Lancaster

subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
".Trans" wrote:

Nope.
In fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true.

Electrolysis is basically an integration process and thus is a strong low pass
filter.
Cell capacitance makes it even a stronger low pass filter.

This means that only the dc term significantly contributes to hydrogen
generation.
All that "resonances", ac terms, or pulses normally can do is produce low grade
heat or water vapor and thus REDUCE electrolysis efficiency.

The wildly successful QPROX system uses pulses and higher frequencies
specifically to REDUCE electrolysis effects.

Read the QPROX papers.


author: J B

subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part ?

text:
When you think about it a minute, guys;  I believe all this interesting
resonance talk had it's original in me hotwiring my baby crib jiggler! : )

Talk to the hand...cuz the messenger don't wanna talk anymore!

"Mark K." <[email]> wrote in message
news:8unejp$o92$[email]...


author: None of Your Business

subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
In article <8uao93$[email]>, [email] (Harry H
Conover) writes:

His cell of electrodes bathed in water is a capicitor.
Regards,
JW

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
 Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
				--- George Washington

"That's all very nice Mr. Tesla but where do we put the meter?"
J.P. Morgan


subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
"Gerry Schneider" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I myself have tried following the
except
worked best
conductive

Thanks for your info. It seem that this approach ( Meyer's) at best can
produce steam. Thats what I gather. Anyway this throws up an interesting
question. As a steam generator, how efficient was it compared to normal
method of producing steam  ?

BTW, I played around considerably
without
100

You could use a sweep freq generator, say operating at 10 Khz  sweep rate ,
sweeping between two set freq limits. I feel the dynamics of the water
coloumn will prevent it from having constant electrical characterictics
under simulation as an LC tank circuit. Thus the resonance freq and Q will
keep changing all the time. The best way to keep resonance and hence higher
efficiency is by feeding from a sweep freq gen, and then sync the sweep gen
with the peak current drawn - so that there is a freq lock to maintain
resonance. You can do this with either a small PLL ( Phase locked loop )
circuit or a simple microprocessor control. This way the circuit will be
constantly kept in resonance no matter how fast the changes in dynamics. It
will also help to ignore to a large extent , considerations such as
electrode size and separation distances while doing the experiment, since
these can be taken care of by increasing the amplitude of the input freq
from ther sweep generator.

I am mentioning this from the steam generation aspect. Who knows, this could
lead to an efficient steam generator device with industrial applications !.
For boiler applications and even in household and commercial uses.
Just my wild thoughts !!.
Rgds
.


subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
Can someone point out a url explaining the supposed construction and
operation of the meyer thing? What type of resonance is this thing
supposed to utilize?

Gerry Schneider wrote:


subject: Re: Did Resonance play a part  ?

text:
Gerry Schneider wrote:

The Tektronix FG504 TM515 pair makes a dandy EIS instrument in that you can lin or
log sweep for up to a hundred seconds over any frequency span you like. You can also
easily combine a fixed dc bias point with a small ac signal to measure cell
impedance. This also clearly lets you isolate the ac and dc effects.

My personally having done so on numerous occasions strongly verifies that the
claimed resonance and ac effects are either (A) Useful adjuncts to porcine whole
body cleanliness, or else (B) Total hogwash.

The QPROX data is easily verified wherein pulses (exactly equal to grouped
harmonics) are specifically and purposely used to REDUCE electrolysis effects.

A useful goal here would be to come up with an "at the terminals" SPICE model of an
electrolysis cell.
Amazingly, this appears conspicuously absent in the "real science" literature. Or at
least I have been unable to find it.

A SPICE model would eliminate all these utterly bogus ac, resonance, and pulse
claims once and for all.


author: Mike Dicenso

subject: Re: N.A.S.A. : "Need Another Seven Astronauts"

text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Bill Bonde wrote:

The scary thing is, they originally intended to put people on it.
-mike


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Rand Simberg wrote:

Then why make a proclomation about the foam piece strike as if it was
definatively known to be the cause?
-Mike


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Rand Simberg wrote:

Ah yes, Rand, and what engineering analysis have you done to determine
that the foam insulation strike is the actual cause of the accident? If
you have some special information, or through some method determined that
to be the case, please, by all means contact NASA and let them know. But
if you haven't, then you are speculating based on a possible *coincidence*
of events, which *may* be related, or maybe not. "nap" has no absolute,
special knowledge, and either do you or I. As George pointed in his
excellent post earlier, it is irresponsible to make such claims.
-Mike


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, George William Herbert wrote:

Fantastic posting, George. You should save and submit this to the Columbia
FAQ being created on sci.space.shuttle. The explantation of the delta V
need to get Columbia to ISS' inclination was excellent, and it needs to be
inculded for people to understand why they couldn't just go there to get
inspected. Never mind mind the phasing requirements, even if they had by
some coincidence been launched into a 51.6 degree inclination.
-Mike


subject: Re: Re: N.A.S.A. : "Need Another Seven Astronauts"

text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Bush Busta wrote:

<Crap Snipped>

Yet another troll. *PlONK!*
-Mike


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, nap wrote:

Who died of bad engineering? What design flaw allowed Columbia to be
destroyed. You possess no special knowledge here. You have repeatedly
demonstrated only ranting and ignorance of the most extreme sort.

For some reason I doubt your sincerity. You have posted in this thread
under apparent ignorance and spite, and have ignored all reasonable
arguements counter to your postition.

I was saddened by it, just as I was for Columbia's crew. But I also know
that those soldiers, just as with Columbia's crew died doing their jobs.
It is unfortunate, but I see no reason to rant and rave and rail at
non-existent design flaws, or other silliness, either. But I doubt you
were in any state of mourning. I doubt your sincerity, as I doubt your
ability to educate yourself properly on the issues, and argue rationally.

What oversight? What special knowledge do you have one occured? Answer:
You do not.

Irrelevant, and how very troll-like to attempt to divert the subject in
such a manner. NASA does not build commerical aircraft, but many
invovations they have created have helped airplane companies improve them.
The Space Transportation System was NOT built by NASA directly either. Did
you know that? STS was built by private companies under contract to NASA.
BUt that probably doesn't matter to you to know facts and the truth.
Seldom are for trolls and net.kooks.

I've snipped the rest for bandwidth's sake, and because it's fairly
obvious you could not answer what I wrote below.

However you really are: GET HELP! In the meantime into the killfile with
you! *PLONK!*
-Mike


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Doug Haxton wrote:

The way you should ask it is in this hypothetical: It's April 1970, just
one day after Apollo 13's sucessful landing on the Moon, the crew are
returning to Earth, and are looking forward to landing day when suddenly
an explosion occurs... You now have 15 minutes to save the astronauts...
But there is no LEM, Aquarius was expended in the lunar landing and was
jettisoned... What do you do to save the crew... The Cold Hard Equations.
-Mike


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, nap wrote:

As people have pointed out to you, Apollo 13 survived because they
happened to have the problem occur at a point in mission where they still
had another spacecraft to run to (the LEM Aquarius). If not for that bit
of luck, all the efforts made would not have ever happened, and crew would
have perished in less than 20 minutes.

They had that advantage. But it was thought there was no issue with
regards to the *foam* insulation hitting the wing. There was no evidence
for concern, and the crew, which was informed of the situation, did not
think much of it either. No alarms going off during the mission, no signs
of large structural damage, or anything else.

Nobody KNEW. What the hell is wrong with you? There was no cause for
concern. Nobody at this point really truely knows what caused the tragedy,
and as Dittmore put it what looks like a smoking gun, isn't.

I can understand anger and the need to vent. But please, stop acting the
part of a troll or net.kook, go educate yourself on the issues, and then
come back after taking a few days to chill.
-Mike


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, nap wrote:

Boo hoo. People die. Did you mourn the loss of TWA flight 800? Did you
mourn the loss of the soldiers who perished in a recent helicopter crash
in Afganistan? This is tragic, yes. But it is the nature of the beast when
flying high risk endeavors such as spaceflight.

But they do. Did you also know the they fund and do research on
improvements for aircraft, many of which see service in the very aircraft
you ride? Note: NASA does not actually build either build wither
spacecraft or aircraft, unless it is required. NASA did not build the STS,
though it had a significant hand in commissioning and guiding it's
directions.

As people have pointed out to you many times, and you refuse to listen;
they didn't even know they had a problem, and the one possible problem
(the insulation trike issue) was looked at very extensively.

Exactly. It's tough enough doing an EVA in a relatively safe location,
it's even worse, way worse when there are aids for getting where you want
to go, and for what? To check on some *maybe* existing damage?

No, it's not. You are ignorant. Go educate yourself. On Challenger they
knew very strongly that there was a potentially serious problem with the
o-rings (burn through, blow-by of hot gasses.). No one knew of such a
similar problem with the foam strikes (it assumes way too much at this
point to even make such a sure statement).

They looked very closely at the footage of the strike, they did an
extensive analysis. Also, your ignorance shows through most highly. Did
you knwo that several times NASA has grounded the shuttle post-Challenger
to fix what they knew to be serious issues, the most recent one being the
flow liner cracks? You did know that, didn't you? They do not operate from
the fantasy rationale you have cooked up. It's stuff you write like the
above that I have to conclude you are merely a troll, or yet another
delusional net.kook. If you aren't. I suggest that you educate yourself
properly on the issues, and quite making an ass out of yourself.

I have every confidence that they will resume flights after having found
the true cause of the accident, and implementing a solution to correct it.
-Mike


text:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, nap wrote:

THis makes you sound like an ignorant troll. What evidence so you have of
this? Answer: none. No one knew such a thing occured, and we still really
have no idea what actually caused this. The insulation strike is a
possible canidate. But only that. About 10 days on hard analysis went into
trying to determine if the strike had any safety impact. That is not
"nothing", and that is not fatalism.

No. If you knew anything at all; the "can do" attitude was ONLY possible
because by sheer dumb luck the explosion in the SM occured at a point when
the LEM was still available to the crew to use as a lifeboat. AS was
pointed out in another post, the Apollo 8 crew most certainly would've
been doomed, and the Apollo 13 crew would've been just as doomed if the
explosion had occured post lunar landing. There were no such options for
Columbia.

If you must say something these matters, at least educate yourself first.
What you wrote above is essentially ignorant trolling. The Soyuz launcher
would have a great deal of difficulty reaching the Columbia's orbital
inclination with any reasonable payload. The other problem is that the
Progress (and Soyuz) space craft uses a probe and drouge docking system,
very different from the APAS-86 docking mechanism mounted on the Orbiter
Docking System (ODS). However, Columbia had no ODS, since this mission did
not require it. But even if it did, ther ecould be no Progress or Soyuz
(spacecraft) dockings.

No, that's reality. Assuming that the problem, whatever that was, was
discovered by some method, there was not a whole lot that could be done.

See above. Not doable. Different inclinations, and not margin for carrying
a payload as big as a Progress, and the Progress cannot dock. Assuming all
other problems are magically solved; processing a Progress in time to
reach the shuttle before the supplies ran out would be a very non-trival
challenge.
-Mike


text:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Steven Litvintchouk wrote:

Likewise, had the Apollo 13 crew been on the in-bound leg of their
journey, after the moon landing (with Aquarius expended and discarded)
when the coil gave out, the situation would also have ended in disaster.
Dumb luck was both against and for that mission.

The only hope would have been if the damage had been discovered on day one
somehow; the Columbia goes into full conservation mode, extending supplies
to at least 21 days or more. Then, Atlantis, which was ready to go to the
VAB and the pad at the time of Columbia's launch day, might've been
accelerated fast enough to mount a rescue flight. But it would've been a
true race against time, with virtually NO margin for error.
-Mike


text:
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, nap wrote:

Sigh. Hasn't anyone been actually done a little research here? The
Columbia crew simply could not reach ISS because it was not in the same
orbit (51.6 degree inclination for ISS versus a 39 degree one for
Columbia). The two orbits, never mind the altitudes are not mutually
compatible and the orbiter would not be able to reach the station without
violating some pretty major physical laws. The ISS' Soyuz capsule is only
able to take 3 people up or down at a time, it would be nearly useless in
this kind of a situation, even if the orbiter and ISS were in the same
inclination altitude, and in-phase with each other.

An EVA to go an look was ruled out largely because getting to the
shuttle's underside is incredibly difficult; no handholds; no tether
attachpoints. On top of that, based on past experiance, it was thought
that the debris strike was no consequence. That may prove wrong in
hindsight. But at the time, that was a operating rationale. It was deemed
not worth the risk. The ability to use an RMS to look at the potentially
affected area was also non-existant on this flight because the mission
requirements did not call for the use of one, and so no RMS was installed
for the flight. It's that simple.
-Mike


author: PHil

text:
This statement is totally inaccurate.  When recounting the events that led
up to the Challenger tragedy one of those Thiokol engineers in question,
that was convinced the SRB o-rings would fail under certain conditions,
explained that his superiors would not allow him to present his opinions to
the NASA committee because of a lack of solid evidense - IOW, proof.  This
was a failing of Thiokol management; they refused to support their own
engineering staff for fear of embarassement in front of NASA.

Anyone who knows otherwise, feel free to correct me.

-phil


author: nap

text:
"Vinlandr" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I have to agree, I'm afraid. If there had been an
Apollo 13 effort to inspect the shuttle for the
suspected damage, and to keep the Astronauts
on the Space Station or use the Stations emergency
pod, this disaster could have been disaster. What
they are saying was they didn't want to look because
they didn't want to try.


author: Rand Simberg

text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:19:49 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mike
Dicenso <[email]> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I didn't.

All I said was, "I do think that regularly allowing debris to fall
from the ET onto a fragile TPS system is a design flaw."  Do you think
it a feature?


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:50:34 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mike
Dicenso <[email]> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

None.  Not that it has any relevance.


text:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Rand Simberg wrote:

Actually, looking back at older material, I find that it was understood
that ice and occasionally foam from the RT would fall off, and this was
well known before any shuttle was flown. So, that being the case, I would
have to question that assessment. But if you wish to keep calling it such,
you have that right. But one could look at this as pontentially no more a
design flaw than chips of paint occasionally being lost from a car or
plane. At some point you know and understand this will happen.

The other issue here being just how often is regular? This does not
happen all the time. Just some of the time. Can you provide documentation
that every shuttle flight was constantly shedding foam and ice? I can't.
Did this phenomena occur on say... every other flight? Did it even occur
every 10th flight?
-Mike


text:
"Mike Dicenso" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Let's review. We have 7 dead astronauts, and a shuttle
scattered all over Texas. Some sort of failure. The second
catastrophic failure in a little over 100 flights. You don't
call that bad engineering?

That's unacceptable even for a combat aircraft.

The design flaw seems to have been that the fragile
tiles are suceptable to frequent foam or ice loss from
the main fuel tank.

When it was noted that there was frequent loss of
foam from the fuel tank, there should have been
engineering test that showed that it was probable
that such a loss could cause a catastrophic failure,
as it apparently did. Since it happened, it is pretty
clear that this failure mode was not investigated
before OR AFTER foam or ice loss became a
known problem.

Of course you do. When you have no answer,
call people a liar. Or fire them, eh?

You have a hull loss. What over sight?! Good hell!
Is "failure mode analysis" something new to NASA?


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 00:26:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mike
Dicenso <[email]> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Well, while nap clearly doesn't know what he's talking about in
general, I do think that regularly allowing debris to fall from the ET
onto a fragile TPS system is a design flaw.


author: Bush Busta

text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 00:26:55 -0700, Mike Dicenso
<[email]> wrote:

So the NASA bureaucrats and engineers didn't blow off the possibility
of damage occurring during liftoff?

Who did then?

Terrists?

NASA has exploded two shuttles and killed 14 highly trained
professionals.

In the case of the Challenger the assholes gave a $1,000,000 bonus to
the makers of the failed O rings for a job well done AFTER the
disaster.

NASA has no one to blame but themselves.

Let the Buck Passing and bureaucratic infighting begin.

   --BB


author: Gary

text:
Mike Dicenso <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

7 due to a piss poor design related to the EFT.  There is no justifiable
excuse for letting things fall off of the EFT (or any other part of the
vehicle) and impact the orbiter during launch.  All flights should have
been grounded the first time it happened, and the problem solved.  The fact
that this accident didn't happen earlier is simply blind luck.

<snip>


text:
You people don't get it.

I'm not saying they could be saved. Far from it.

I am saddened that there are people at NASA who
didn't even care to know if there was a problem, much
less try.

"Mike Dicenso" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 00:36:03 -0700, Mike Dicenso
<[email]> wrote:

Meanwhile back in this century.

Following the last Shuttle explosion there was talk of an escape pod
for the crew.

We now know that Columbia's problems started showing up over
California.

What happened to the escape pod?

    --BB


text:
"Mike Dicenso" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
disaster.

Either you can't read, or you can't rebutt and would rather
pretend to not understand.

I will never understand people who think they can win
arguments by pretending to be stupid.

What part of "try" is not getting through to you people?


author: Charles Buckley

text:
Mike Dicenso wrote:

  There is two ways to look at this:

1) Design flaws leading to insulation coming off periodically.
Ideally, the insulation should not separate from the tank.

2) Something caused the tiles to separate as part of this accident.

There is no definitive causality between the two statements. Rand's
position is that the first case above is a matter that is
sufficient, in and of itself, to warrant some redesign and
investigation - whether, or not, it lead to this accident.


text:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Rand Simberg wrote:

So, then how does insulation become a "design flaw", then, Rand?
-Mike


text:
"Mike Dicenso" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
is

Yeah, well. They shouldn't die because of bad
engineering.

Oh heck yes. That one really pissed me off.

You didn't?

It doesn't have to be risker because of engineering
oversight.

Where's a NASA built commercial aircraft?

So, there aren't any NASA built airplanes in commercial
service.

without
only
in
deemed


text:
"Mike Dicenso" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Apollo 13 had every possible chance with hundreds of engineers
pulling for them, brainstorming, and finding really innovative
solutions.

This shuttle didn't have that advantage. IF it was ice that caused
this hull loss by damaging the heat shielding tiles, then someone
screwed up big time.

one

We didn't even try.

This attitude will kill the space program and the ISS.


text:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Rand Simberg wrote:

Absolutely not. But I won't stand by and let you use it to divert things
either. How did the debris falling off the tank contribute to the
accident? What analysis did you (or nap) do to determine this was the
cause? To whom did you present your findings for peer review? To put it
another way; design feature or not, how did the debris *definitively*
contribute to the loss of space shuttle Columbia?

You say that you are not proclaiming it, and yet... that is, in fact, what
you both are doing based on flimsy circumstantial evidence.
-Mike


text:
"Mike Dicenso" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Sigh yourself.
You're alive to sigh. Seven people dead and a lost shuttle.
You're saying no one should question NASA just writing it
off. Oh well, if a tile came off, they're dead, so don't worry about
it.

Okay.

Thank god NASA doesn't build airplanes.

I can see you're getting tied up in specifics. My point is,
why wasn't there anyone looking at the problem? Maybe
there wasn't anything they could do but die, but hell, there
wasn't ANY effort to even check out if there was a problem.

Yeah. Someone could get killed doing that, eh?

NODY. No One Dead Yet, so not a problem.

Same sort of thinking that lost the Challanger.

Well, I'm sure that the American people are going to
want to fund lots more NASA missions, given that
exhaustive engineering evaluation. "no one dead yet,
so keep flying!"

Actually, you'll be lucky to see a dog sent up in the
future. There's a problem here, and unless something
changes, the shuttle as well as the ISS are going to be
shut down.


author: Bill Bonde

text:
nap wrote:
Columbia didn't go to the space station. It has no way to get to the
station. Didn't have the proper ways to connect to the station. The
Soyuz lifepod can only hold three people and they are already on the
space station.


author: Alan Whitehouse

text:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 20:13:23 GMT, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

BULLSHIT!!!   They never traveled to the ISS and couldn't reach it.
Plus even if they did, the stations emergency capsule only holds 3
people!!!  What about the other 7 left even if they were there with no
way to get back in an emergency.


author: Steven Litvintchouk

text:
nap wrote:

You can't compare the Shuttle to Apollo 13.
Apollo 13 had the Lunar Module to serve as an "emergency lifeboat".  No
lifeboat or other rescue craft exists for the Shuttle.  No escape pod,
no ejection seats, nothing.

Had the same explosion occurred on Apollo 8 while it was orbiting the
Moon *without* a Lunar Module, you would have had three doomed
astronauts.  Even NASA's "can do" attitude couldn't have saved Apollo 13
without its Lunar Module "lifeboat."

For the 10,000th time:  The shuttle couldn't reach the Space Station in
the orbit it was in.
This keeps getting asked over and over and over and over.

A friend of mine is fond of saying, "Don't ask the question if you can't
live with the answer."
NASA knows that if the wing of the shuttle is sufficiently damaged, the
astronauts are doomed.
No recourse.

The astronauts had maybe a day or two of consumables left.  By the time
a rescue mission could be organized, they would be long since dead.


author: "Karl"

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message
news:DZe%9.143423$_s4.50305@rwcrnsc54...

....and if they had enough fuel and if they were in the right orbit and if
they had the spacewalk gear and if they had the docking gear and if Clint
Eastwood.............


text:
"Rand Simberg" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Given the recent loss of life, the flaw in thinking something
is safe until someone proves otherwise should be obvious.


text:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 12:39:42 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mike
Dicenso <[email]> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The fact that a design flaw is well-known and long-standing doesn't
make it not a design flaw.  It just makes it a design flaw that's been
accepted.  Perhaps it was a mistake to do so.  Particularly as the
consensus seems to be building that it was indeed the cause.

Regular does not imply every single time.

No, nor do I need to.


text:
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Rand Simberg wrote:

It happened only three times in the entire history of the program, and
apparently only within the last 4 years, possibly due to change in the
foam's formula to meet enviromental standards. So, originally there was no
flaw at all, even though they took into account for the possibility of
such an occurance. Your assement is suspect.
-Mike


author: Jake Nichols

text:
Bush Busta wrote:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-107/hires/s107e05359.jpg

Take a look at the picture.. do YOU see any damage to the wing? I didn't

If NASA couldn't see damage to the wing.. and didn't have the ability to
see the very underside of the wing, but knew that in the past tiles had
come off with NO problems of the orbiter returning, what makes you think
THIS time they should have been worried?

JC


author: JES

text:
"Gary" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns93174F407D5C4ambassadorkosh@68.6.19.6...
fact

Better shut down the auto manufacture's, as nothing has ever come off of the
vehicle's they make, right? Better shut down all the aircraft manufacture's,
as nothing has ever fell off or come apart with the planes they make, right?
How about shutting down the trains? Nothing has ever broken on any of them,
right? Now, we have no vehicles, no planes and no trains. Guess we're back
to the covered wagon. Ah, but they also came apart. The horse? Nope. They
have this thing about dying right in the middle of the desert on your way to
Disney Land. So, back to walking, right? Right!

All of these should have been shut down after the first couple of accidents,
right? Get real!


text:
Well, nap has answered almost everyone except me and a couple other's that
put him on the spot with questions he couldn't answer.

He's been gone from the ng for a day or so, probably hunting the web for
answers. Or, maybe he just put us in his killfile. I know that's where I'm
putting him.

In my considered opinion, his linguistic abilities are only surpassed by his
ignorence of the American language.

Bye, bye nap.............;-)


author: Captain Nerd

text:
In article <jpG%9.156592$_s4.82759@rwcrnsc54>, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

   Well, this one sure pegged the old "irony meter" for sure.

   Cap.


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:25:25 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mike
Dicenso <[email]> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I didn't say it was a fatal design flaw.

I repeat the question, is it a flaw, or a feature?  My vote is for
flaw.


author: George William Herbert

text:
nap <[email]> wrote:

Do you have any training in aerospace engineering?
Do you have any training in spaceflight operations?

You are claiming that NASA did in fact do bad engineering
and bad operations here.  You say you are an engineer.
But you also are not posting anything which indicates
you have field specific knowledge.

It is VERY SPECIFICALLY part of the canons of engineering
ethics that an engineer shall not make public pronouncements
as an engineer without well founded engineering basis for
those statements.  If you are a Professional Engineer you
are likely technically in violation of your license,
though I doubt anyone will call you on it with the
applicable board.

The reason I start out by saying this is that essentially
every single thing you have said so far is covered by
"common knowledge" within the manned spaceflight engineering
community, and so the questions and statements you are making
are essentially nonsensical.


text:
"Mike Dicenso" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
the ET
determine

The manager of the shuttle program called it a "fundamental
design flaw". You seem to be missing something...

Safe until proven not so by disaster? Also known as
No One Dead Yet. (NODY). Real engineers ask when
was it *definitively* prove that falling debris would NOT
endager safety of flight.

The default is not that things work until engineering analysis
proves they won't work.

You think this is a trial?! It's engineering! EVEN if the
falling crap on the main fuel tank is proven not to have
contributed to the crash, and this is unlikely, a problem
has been found that has to be fixed.


text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:53:26 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mike
Dicenso <[email]> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I never claimed it did.


author: Doug Haxton

text:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:31:06 GMT, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

Someone earlier in the thread suggested that you read the story, "The
Cold Equations" by Tom Godwin.  May I second the suggestion?

Some problems don't have solutions.

Doug


text:
"Bill Bonde" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Well, Dr. Bonde, the rocket scientist, says they had to die.
No need to look at the possibility of tossing out stuff to see
if they had enough fuel to reach the space station; no need to
look at the possibility to see if they could bring spare parts
to the shuttle on the next Russian resupply ship, no need to
do a damn thing or worry about the shuttle at all; What will
be, will be.

Which is the attitude that brought us to this sorry day, with
a shuttle scattered in little bits all over Texas.

The can do attitude of NASA is truly dead.


text:
"Alan Whitehouse" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

It's quite possible that may have been true.
But the attempt wasn't even made.

If they did reach the station, the others  might have come back
on the supply ship launched this morning, or extra supplies could
have been brought up so that they could wait until there was another
shuttle. The point being made was that the attitude was that
if there was damage to the shuttle, there was nothing that
could be done so screw it. This was contrasted with the
incredible effort made on Apollo 13, which was an
engineering miracle.


text:
"Steven Litvintchouk" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Oh, of course not! On Apollo 13, there was a massive
effort to save the crew. In the case of the Shuttle, there
was no effort at all and it was very fatalistic.

Of course, the issue was not as you say, but the
issue was the relative amount of effort put in by
NASA. In Apollo 13, engineers were working
around the clock to find a fix. On Columbia,
the attitude was that if the tiles were damaged
during launch, they were as good as dead so
don't bother.

Well, that's nice. But perhaps instead of launching a resupply
mission to the ISS today, the Russians could have launched
a mission to the shuttle and brought up stuff to examine and
repair the damaged shuttle.

So, fuck 'em. Nice attitude.

See above about Russian launch.


author: Hobbs

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message news:<bKF%9.156188$_s4.77917@rwcrnsc54>...

Well I think it's safe not to take apart the rear axle on my
car and lube the ball bearings sealed around it but maybe when
I'm driving down the freeway someday the rear axle will fly off
as happened to a friend of mine.  If you don't have confidence
in some fundamental things you wouldn't be driving or in Nasa's
case flying the shuttle.  They might have been wrong but you
never get to the point of 100% confidence unless you are on
drugs or just not a very deep thinker.

-McDaniel


text:
"JES" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Moot argument.

Auto manufacturers regularly have recalls.  Aircraft are grounded and
repaired.  Trains are halted and repaired.


text:
"JES" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
his

Good answer. A few irrelevant facts, some mistatements, and
top off with an argumentum ad hominem.

Mind if I use your posts as examples of really bad arguments
and poor thinking in a class on logic and philosophy?


text:
"Captain Nerd" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
wrote:

Let's see if I understand the argument of the opposition:

They say that there is not enough fuel to get to the ISS, ergo,
taking refuge in the ISS cannot be done. There was no handholds,
and no jet packs, so a space walk would be very dangerous,
and there was no equipment on board the shuttle to repair the
tiles, ergo, that could not be done either.

The problem is that my argument for TRYING something and
looking at options was misinterpreted, either intentionally or
due to stupidity, for a couple of specific examples I gave which
were intended to be examples of things to look at, and not as
proposed solutions themselves. (I do confess that I had thought
the scientific experiments they had done were on the ISS, which
was in error which is why I brought up the ISS in the first place.
I'm not a shuttle groupie, I don't ususally follow this stuff.)

So irony, yeah. It's pretty clear who has to savor the irony.


author: Jay K

text:
That was a great message, thankx.

just a little bit of nitpicking...

sure we can.  but they would be expensive and impractical

nascar, indy cars etc usually seem to do fine protecting people in
crashes. we could build passenger cars that would survive just about
any crash, but besides the expense, it would probably kill the people
in any car it hits.

well, it's only been a few thousand years, but the pryamids still seem
to be standing.....

My point is, we could have made a much safer shuttle, and have a safer
space program, but we choose to comprimise safety for other factors.


text:
"George William Herbert" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1lafg$krs$[email]...

Actually, yeah.

Nope.

Okay, lets just say losing 2 shuttles in about 110 flights
indicates that someone didn't do a proper engineering
failure mode analysis.

There is, of course, the aerospace exemption from
the PE license requirements.

I started out as Nap the citizen bitching about the
piss poor engineering. 2 losses in 109 or so flights
is not acceptable, is it?

Are you saying that NASA is above being questioned?
That we're all suppose to be happy with a shuttle scattered
all over Texas?

[snip]

Got an A in space dynamics, thanks. Not enough fuel
was a sufficent answer.

Then ice or foam falling off the tank should never
have lead to a hull loss, huh?

But it probably did. Someone didn't do their homework.

Good god, man! Do you know how stupid this sounds
after a hull loss that is in all likely hood due to exactly this
event?

NODY = No One Dead Yet.

Well, take pride in that bit of engineering, because
there seems to have been a first time.

Well, it's pretty obvious they screwed up. Hull loss
on the 21st event.

Doesn't appear that way, unless it turns out to be
a terrorist act.


text:
On 3 Feb 2003 00:49:52 -0800, in a place far, far away,
[email] (George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I am starting to question the validity of that analysis.  It may be
that they were playing Russian Roulette, as they did with the O-rings.


text:
On 3 Feb 2003 00:49:52 -0800, [email] (George William
Herbert) wrote:

Here it comes. The Engineers Favorite Whine!

How many Shuttles have you engineering wonder boys blown up now?

Are all engineers right wing assholes in denial?

That seems to be a common trait.

       --BB


text:
"George William Herbert" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1lafg$krs$[email]...

Now that was great. My hat is off to you Sir! I just hope he is still around
to read it. If he is, I'm sure you will not get a reply. I didn't........


text:
nap wrote:
It seems like, while the insulation is wet, some sort of strengthening
agent (say carbon twin) could be wrapped around it like you do with
strapping tape on any package that UPS is going to get hold of. I think
that makes it more your standard workaroundable problem than
"fundamental".

Also, how much does the insulation weigh? Perhaps you could have some
sort of removable insulation that is taken off right before launch. You
get more boil off but maybe you save enough on the insulation weight to
make up for it.

So there are some wild speculations.


text:
"Doug Haxton" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Give up. Watch them die.

I am being educated in the NASA philosophy.


author: kenb

text:
nap wrote in message:

    Nap, please:

    Take some time to reasearch some material about the shuttle.  The
shuttle is designed to operate within certain orbital mechanics and laws of
physics that regulate what can and cannot be done with this machine during
on-orbit operations.  To answer many of your questions, I'm sure this this
link should be helpful as a starting point:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/.
    I can see that you are quite concerned for the lost crew of STS-107, so
please take some time to learn some more about them and how they lived and
trained during their time with NASA.  I'm sure that a better understanding
of shuttle operations on orbit will make the opinions you hear in this
newsgroup more understandable.


text:
nap wrote:

NASA didn't know they had a problem that needed solving.
They had held meetings on the debris that had hit the Shuttle on launch
and after careful evaluation they had decided the impact was
insignificant.
And so they forgot about it.

Could NASA have pulled off a miracle if they had decided on day one that
there was a real problem?  We'll never know.


author: Tim Kozusko

text:
nap <[email]> wrote in message
news:prf%9.143096$rM2.58299@rwcrnsc53...

What part of "wrong orbit" is giving you so much trouble?

Here's your homework - when a rendezvous with the ISS is the mission, how
long is the launch window?
Part 2, why do you think it's so short?


author: AW

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message news:<prf%9.143096$rM2.58299@rwcrnsc53>...

In Apollo 13, the crew used the LEM as a lifeboat.  Even if Columbia
was damaged, it only meant that it safely reenter the atmosphere.  The
onboard systems and life support was still functioning perfectly.

If we use the ISS scenario, they might have use the Columbia as a
lifeboat, supplies could be extended even with 7 additional people.
Today, the Russians launched a Progress with supplies.

Why did NASA got rid of the MMUs?  They might have been used for the
astronauts to do a EVA.

AW


text:
nap wrote:

NASA knew that Apollo 13 was in trouble because of the explosion and
warning alerts, so NASA started working hard to find a fix.  It still
took several days.

Whereas two weeks ago, NASA had examined the video frames of the
Columbia launch and decided that the Columbia was in good shape.
So NASA wasn't working on any fix these last two weeks, because NASA
didn't think they needed one.

I don't know if NASA could have pulled off some miracle if they had
started working on it from day one.  But they didn't.


author: Greg D. Moore (Strider

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message
news:prf%9.143096$rM2.58299@rwcrnsc53...

They didn't attempt it because it was physically impossible.

There just wasn't the fuel.


text:
nap wrote:
Russian Progress freighters are dumped after they are emptied and burn
up in the atmosphere.

The specific ideas that you are suggesting are impossible though. Tile
repair is more sensible although how do you do it without the arm?


author: Mike Speegle

text:
nap <[email]> typed:

    It is very true.

    Ok, if you have .05% of the fuel needed to get to the station, would
you make the attempt?  You can't fool physics and mother nature.


text:
nap wrote:

On Apollo 13, there was a very real explosion ("pretty large bang") and
alerts, so NASA knew they had a real problem and so they started working
hard to find a fix.

Whereas NASA had examined the video frames of the Columbia launch and
decided that the shuttle was OK.  No instruments or telemetry indicated
a major malfunction.  So NASA wasn't working on any fix these last
couple of weeks because they didn't think they needed any.

NASA doesn't provide an in-flight repair kit for shuttle tiles, so it's
highly unlikely that Russia does.
And Columbia's astronauts didn't have the capability to do an EVA all
the way around the shuttle.  If tiles were damaged on the bottom surface
of the Orbiter, the astronauts couldn't reach them.

The Russians don't have a ship that can rescue all seven shuttle
astronauts.  The Soyuz can only carry three at most.

No recourse.


author: Steve Hix

text:
In article <Xns931784E64C9B1ambassadorkosh@68.6.19.6>,
 Gary <[email]> wrote:

The remainder of the fleet...not the ones that failed.

Think about it.


text:
"Gary" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns931784E64C9B1ambassadorkosh@68.6.19.6...

Of course the recalls do not happen until they find a defect reported by
users or until enough people are killed.

The shuttle flights have been grounded and will be fixed until the next time
an accident happens.

The same with trains.

My point to the poster was that if we shut down everything because, and I
quote him, "to a piss poor design related to the EFT", then we need to shut
down all that I mentioned, because they are also of "piss poor" design or
the recalls, and grounding wouldn't be necessary.


author: Jochem Huhmann

text:
"nap" <[email]> writes:

Yes?

The difference is that a rocket with a capsule on top can have a working
rescue system easily. And indeed all crews launched that way *had* such
a system. Launcher failure don't has to mean to lose the crew (with the
Shuttle is does, though). On reentry capsules also have much less
critical systems. The shuttle is a fragile beast with lots of complex
systems which all have to work perfectly. Some of them (like the tiles)
additionally are exposed unprotected to harsh conditions during launch
and in orbit.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this.

        Jochem


text:
"nap" <[email]> writes:

Sounds cruel, but yes. You shouldn't be happy with it, but the crew knew
the risks and accepted it.

The problem is because of the love of some for wings and landing
gear the Shuttle looks too much like an airplane (which it isn't) and
people expect it to be safe as an airplane (which it isn't).

Spaceflight is risky. If the primary US-launcher for manned missions
were a big rocket with a capsule on top of it which does a bottom-first
reentry and parachutes down to earth it would be clear that this is not
flying in a plane as you and I do without risking much. And such a
capsule would be much safer than the shuttle, ironically. But that's a
different story.

        Jochem


text:
nap <[email]> wrote:

Or that you are unaware that an ongoing flight risk of 0.4%
(NASA estimate) to 1%-2% (safety critics) was well founded,
well known within the community, and universally accepted
as plausible and reasonable.

I am going to repeat this, as it is very important:
Everyone involved in the program knew that there was
at *least* a 0.4% (NASA's official risk estimate) chance
of loss of shuttle with each flight, and loss of life.
NASA may have miscalculated the true risk, and it is
probably closer to 1%.  But astronauts and people in
the program were also aware of safety critics analysies
which indicated the higher risks.

It is entirely reasonable for you to say that your personal
level of acceptable risk in manned spaceflight is lower
than that.  You are free to campaign for safer spaceflight,
raise public awareness, whatever.

It is not reasonable to claim that your ignorance of the
range of real risk assessments necessarily equals NASA neglegence.

No, of course not.  And even less happy with seven astronauts,
one of whom I believe I met in person, having been scattered
to the hypersonic wind and burnt to death at near-orbital speeds.
The loss of the orbiter is really pretty darn trivial, all things
considered.

The question is, was NASA deceiving itself or the astronauts
or the government or the industry or citizens as a whole about
how likely that was to happen.  And the answer to that is
that NASA was probably mildly understating the risk (their
official number of 0.4% versus the more likely valid 1% or
so real risk) but not by any huge absolute amount.
After Challenger, the number of flights planned for
the Shuttle program was equal to or greater than the
ongoing perceived risk, and everyone said let's fly it
anyways.  That was an implicit assumption that yes,
eventually we would lose another shuttle.  When ISS was
being launched, there was a lot of introspection and
program analysis and public and industry discussion
about the risks of us launching the first parts of
the station and then losing a shuttle in the middle
of assembly, before the station could keep itself up.
The analysies showed that loss of a shuttle during
the critical period was if not highly likely at
least was a significant program risk.  And everyone
said yes, let's fly it.  We fortunately are somewhat
past that critical risk period now; ISS can survive
without Shuttle flights for a while now, though it
isn't a great operating mode.

It possibly did.  Ice, or insulation, or a combination of them.

Or possibly was simply a coincidence.

It is certainly a legitimate risk factor to be looking at
as a possible, even perhaps likely root cause of the loss
of crew and Columbia.  Accident investegators must not jump
to conclusions, though, as a lot of accidents in all fields
turn out to be not what the obvious first answer was.
We should all wait for evidence and analysis to come in.

If that turns out to have been the case, then yes,
there was a problem there which was not properly
analyzed in the design and ongoing operations.
Design and ongoing operations analysis results
were that such ice and insulation impacts were
too low energy to damage enough tiles to cause
risk of orbiter serious damage or loss.  If that
was in fact what went wrong, then there is something
wrong with the analysis or some of the data used
to draw those conclusions.

Your statements were that since crew and Columbia
were lost, NASA necessarily was neglegent in not
having considered that risk and failure mode.
The truth is subtly but importantly different:
that failure mode was considered, in depth.
The analysis of it may have been wrong,
and that may have been the actual root cause.
And if so, we have to understand why things
went differently than the analysis, or what
was wrong with the analysis.  But your assertation
that the analysis wasn't done, that people weren't
looking at falling ice and insulation to see what
risk it might pose, is blatantly untrue.

Engineers will always be mistaken from time
to time.  Engineers who are merely mistaken
are not necessarily neglegent, even when
the result is the loss of seven lives and
a several billion dollar spacecraft.
The process, which specified that the possible
risk of falling ice and foam had to be analyzed
and reviewed, is also not necessarily neglegent
if the analysis is wrong.

Ships sink because of engineering mistakes;
aircraft crash due to them, cars crash badly,
buildings sometimes fall down and need repair
or reinforcement fairly often due to them.
Engineers make mistakes, even very professional
and dilligent ones.  Doing their job, doing the
ethical thing in a situation, being competent
and careful don't guarantee correct results.
Any engineer who doesn't understand this yet
has a false mental idol of perfection.
We are, indeed, all too human.

If this is what happened, we need to know
how and why.  It could be neglegence.
It could be individual neglegence, or systemic,
or any combination.  A detailed and fair
investigation is called for, and I would
expect and demand that anyone found to be
at fault in the sense of actual neglegence
be held accountable at some level.

But it is not ipso facto neglegence,
and villifying people and agencies
without actual evidence of wrongdoing
is unethical and unreasonable, and in
the end grossly unproductive from an
actual safety standpoint.  If there is
a problem it needs fixing; if there wasn't,
then you could easily cause one by taking
your attitude towards the investegation.
And somehow, having Endeavour blow up
next year because of systemic problems
caused by people like you stressing
NASA now out of ignorance and fear
seems to me to be a wholy stupid
thing for me to let happen.  So I
am going to continue to be aggressive
and confrontational about pointing
out what you've got wrong.

No, Nap.

What is stupid is claiming that the system is flawed
and that people were neglegent, when they were clearly
dilligent in considering the issue, analyzing it,
and their analysis was correct at least 20/21 times.

The analysis may well have been incomplete or somehow
wrong, but the system did everything it was supposed to do.
The risk was identified.  It was known within the team,
known to the astronauts, known to industry and the
space community.  Engineers were assigned to look at
the problem during the design phase, and on an ongoing
basis during operations.  Their analysies were correct
for the previous flights.

Everything about those analysies now needs to be redone
to see if there were flaws.  Records from prior flights
need to be re-examined to see if there were hints in the
evidence which everyone missed.  New engineers and tests
and analysis techniques should be applied to see if there
were any systemic mistakes in the analysis done before.

But you can't reasonably ask for more than a problem
being identified, tracked, analyzed on every occurrance
by competent engineers.  Sometimes despite using good
people and good processes, mistakes happen anyways.

We don't know for sure that the processes were in
fact good or that the people were in fact good.
But the basic things that needed doing were being
done, and this accident investigation should tell
us if there were problems in the process.

You have looked at this and said "my god, they're
all lousy, this is all too risky".  I have looked
at this and said "they're human, someone made a mistake
somehow, and this is why our real loss risk rate is
1% or more".  The thing is, *before* the accident,
I looked at the program and said "they're human,
someone could make a mistake somehow, and that is why
our real loss risk rate is 1% or more".  And it is
reasonably clear to me that on that general point
I was right.

I understood.  I accepted the risks.  The astronauts
understood, and accepted the risks.  You didn't
understand.

-george william herbert
[email]


author: Tom Merkle

text:
[email] (Rand Simberg) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Who are you kidding?
What do you mean you're starting to question the shuttle's safety
programs? You've been questioning the entire shuttle program in this
newsgroup for at least a couple years. Don't pretend to have been
halfway in favor of it now...

Especially not to make a rhetorical dig...

Tom Merkle


author: nap

text:
"Bush Busta" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

No, I'm an engineer right wing asshole who is
NOT in denial. :-)

Seems that people are sticking up for an engineering
job that kills people one in every 50 launches or so.

Even the manger of the space shuttle program agrees
that it appears there is a fundamental design flaw
with the space shuttle.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/03/sprj.colu.shuttle.investigation/ind
ex.html

"Dittemore said NASA is assuming that foam debris
from the external tank is the "root cause of the problem
that lost Columbia."

"That prospect is a "sobering" one, he said, because it
implies a fundamental problem with space shuttle flight
design."

At least someone at NASA has figured out the failure
rate is not acceptable.


text:
"Bush Busta" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Another asshole who doesn't have the slightest idea of what he is talking
about.

<K-PLONK>


author: The Enigmatic One

text:
In article <eqm%9.146693$rM2.61372@rwcrnsc53>, [email] says...

Erm, rather the philosophy demanded by science.  But you wouldn't realize
that, as you can't really comprehend science.

					-Tim


text:
nap wrote in message:

    You're starting to remind me of somebody.  Never mind.


author: Eric Lee Green

text:
In article <eqm%9.146693$rM2.61372@rwcrnsc53>, nap ruminated:

And we are being educated in wishy-washy bullshit "New Age"
philosophy, which claims "anything is possible."

Hint: The laws of physics are not amenable to wishful
thinking.

A rescue mission with another shuttle may have been (remotely)
possible if the extent of the damage had been known. Mating with the
ISS, on the other hand, was about as possible as me flapping my arms
and flying. Gravity doesn't care about wishful thinking.


text:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 04:41:46 GMT, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

I'm willing to be persuaded.  Let's see your philosophy in action.

It's April 1970.  You're in charge of NASA when Apollo 13 has an
explosion on board.

Thing's are a bit different in this version of history, however, in
that the explosion has caused all of the propellent to vent out.

How do you save them?  Please be specific.

Doug


text:
"kenb" <kenwho?@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jCh%9.653$[email]...
of
so

Flat out, if this is as good as NASA can do, then the
shuttle program is going to be shut down and the ISS
with it.

Engineers are suppose to do better than "gee, who
would have thunk it would do that?" or "yeah, we
thought that might happen, but what the hell..."


text:
"Steven Litvintchouk" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Okay, you're good with that. You're good with this
goof and you're good with 7 dead people and a lost
shuttle. Blow off the problem because there's nothing
they can do about it anyhow. Might as well not even
try.

I donno, I guess I just thought they should do better.

Maybe not. Maybe so. At least they could have made an
effort to see if they had a problem.


text:
"Tim Kozusko" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b2c9ni$uiv$[email]...

Read the thread. This was explained back in the thread.


author: Jeffrey Turner

text:
AW wrote:

NASA deliberatel wanted to kill those seven astronauts
and put the whole shuttle program on hold.  Congratulations.
You figured it out.  NASA actually means North American
Suicidal Association.  All astronauts are eventually killed
by NASA.  Bravo!

--Jeff


author: [redacted]

text:
{{two weeks ago, NASA had examined the video frames of the Columbia
launch and decided that the Columbia was in good shape. So NASA wasn't
working on any fix these last two weeks, because NASA didn't think they
needed one.}}

We now have learned that a military spy satellite actually captured an
image of the shuttle with a very visible irregularity at the leading
edge of the left wing. Also, NORAD backtracked a piece of space debris
burning up in the atmosphere prior to the shuttle burnup and found it
originated exactly where&when the shuttle was a day or so before.
Suppose that NASA had, on day one, said "We don't think there was
significant damage, but let's ask the military to use their spy
satellite to deliberately get an image of the shuttle in orbit as soon
as possible"? So on day two they know they have a likely problem, and
they go into contingency mode already. Might they have had time to go
into low-consumption mode to gain a week or so in orbit, and fly a
Progress module right into the cargo bay and close the doors then
spacewalk from the crew cabin into the cargo bay to transfer the
consumables to extend the mission even further, and keep doing Progress
modules as needed until Atlantis or something could rescue the crew?

Even if no rescue could be done, wouldn't it have been nice if the crew
had known their fate and been able to say goodbye to their families
etc.? And for the science mission, maybe more of the data could be
radioed down so it wouldn't be lost when the science experiments burned
up?

And with the spy satellite image on day two, maybe even better images
could be obtained later, maybe by moving the orbit of a spy satellite
closer to the shuttle, maybe even by launching a new spy satellite or
sub-orbital spy device very very close to the shuttle to show quite
clearly what the damage was to get a more definite idea whether the
damage was fatal or not? Maybe if they knew the exact amount and
location of damage, they might have changed the standard
rock-back-and-forth maneuver to avoid heating up that particular part
of the wing as much as normal, overflown the landing pad in a wide loop
and circled back, or ditched in a shallow part of the ocean with
submarine rescue already waiting for them?

Note: That piece that fell off the orbiter did so the very first day!
So they could have had both that info and the spysat image very soon
during the mission.


text:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <[email]> wrote in message
news:tBg%9.20278$[email]...

Who did the equations? Did they look at lightening the load?
Cite?


text:
"Bill Bonde" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

God, you people are such defeatist! Can't be done!
Best to let them die! Don't even try!

How the hell did this country ever make it to the moon
with this defeatist attitude.


author: Billy Wang

text:
"Mike Speegle" <[email]> wrote in message news:<b1k181$145rej$[email]>...

But you can fool the bureaucrats at NASA.  NASA is run like the postal service.


author: Bill Bonde

text:
Mike Speegle wrote:
Shuttle's main engines cannot be restarted in Space.


text:
"Mike Speegle" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1k181$145rej$[email]...

God, you people are such defeatist! Can't be done!
Best to let them die! Don't even try! Don't even LOOK
at the problem...

How the hell did this country ever make it to the moon
with this defeatist attitude.


author: jjustwwondering

text:
Steven Litvintchouk <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Now they know they were wrong, and they must
examine and repair their thought processes.

But were they? What if they were damaged where they could
be reached?

Saving some would have been better than saving none
- so this argument, at least, seems flawed.

Could Soyuz take at least one astronaut?
Could it help assess the damage?
Could it bring supplies (if they were short) ?

Quite plausible - but no excuse for not brainstorming
the problem for unlikely solutions.

As you indicate yourself, NASA did not do that
because they believed there was no problem -
not because they knew there was no solution.


text:
"Steven Litvintchouk" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
is
No

Yes, and it would be impossible to bring such a kit, along with
whatever is needed for a space walk, up to the shuttle so
DON'T EVEN LOOK TO SEE IF IT IS POSSIBLE,
just let them DIE.

It is so good to know that you people are
so damn smart that you know an acheivable
engineering problem cannot be solved, so just
say screw it, ignorance is bliss.


author: Gary

text:
"JES" <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

My last post on this.  Assuming that the tiles were damaged by the
insulation (or ice), this was a totally preventable accident.  Things (ice,
insulation, whatever) have fallen off of the external fuel tank and struck
the orbiter on several flights.  Any one of them might very well have
caused a loss of ship & crew.  This is, as I stated earlier, absolutely
unacceptable from a safety standpoint.  If safety really were "paramount",
as Sean O'Keefe has put it, then the fleet should have been grounded after
the first time it happened, the problem located, & resolved.  Instead they
fell right back into the very same mindset ("well, it didn't cause a
problem this time so let's fly again") that led to the loss of Challenger.


author: Thurston Phoremost

text:
Jochem Huhmann <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

This is bizzarre. A parachuting bottom-first vehicle would be "much
safer" (your words) than the current space shuttle design? But NASA
won't build them that way because they don't like that shape, it's not
pretty enough?

So, Jochem, you're asserting that NASA deliberately chooses to
compromise safety so as to come up with a space vehicle that looks
pretty?

Or that looks "safe", when in fact it is anything but?

Nap is offering the opinion that NASA does not take safety seriously
enough.

And you seem to be making his case much better than he can himself.

T.


text:
"Jochem Huhmann" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Okay. Cruel it is, but they were volunteers, so
it's okay, I'm told.


text:
"George William Herbert" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1nuoi$q4c$[email]...
about

In other words, you're saying that it's suppose to kill
people, and they only messed on the failure modes
effects analysis by a factor of 5 or so. This is acceptable
to you that out of 100 flights, you can expect to lose
two shuttles.

The program would never have been approved with
a failure rate like this. Too expensive and too dangerous.

[snip smug condencending crap]

Thanks for the input.

The head  of the shuttle program seems to agree
with me, he views killing astronauts as a fundamental
design flaw and not as a "feature".

Reasonable minds will prevail.


text:
"Tom Merkle" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

...

Rhetorical? There's shuttle bits all over the southern U.S..


author: Rand Simberg

text:
On 4 Feb 2003 00:50:17 -0800, in a place far, far away,
[email] (Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I've never questioned the safety, or the competence of the engineers
on the program.  I seriously doubt that you can find any post in which
I have.  My complaint has been cost and lack of responsiveness.

I'm not.


text:
"The Enigmatic One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:iit%9.89121$[email]...

So, you think Science is about stamping your
feet when caught with a fuck up and insulting anyone
who noticed that the fuck up might have been
prevented?

Seems NASA agrees with you, according to my
local paper that says that 5 guys concerned with
shuttle safety were fired.


text:
"Eric Lee Green" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Who are you talking to? Not me. I never said that it was
possible. I just noticed no one even tried to see what
could be done.

Like the CO2 problem on Apollo 13; square peg and
round hole, or some such thing. At least they didn't say
you can't fit a square peg in a round hole and let them
die. They TRIED.

Quite an excuse. This should have never have happened
in the first place.


author: Doug Haxton

text:
On 2 Feb 2003 23:42:42 -0600, Eric Lee Green <[email]> wrote:

Hm...how fast could another shuttle be prepped in a "Damn the
torpedoes, full speed ahead" scenario?

Doug


author: JES

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message
news:7ji%9.134769$Ve4.8847@sccrnsc03...

You say you are an engineer. HOW would you have tackled the problem? NASA
examined everything, notified the crew, and neither one felt there was
nothing more than a minor problem. The crew wasn't worried, as tiles have
come off before. Did you watch the Accident Response Briefing today?

Now to something else you said in another post. You asked how we ever made
it to the moon. In another post you asked for some proof. Fine. Where is
your *proof* that we *did* go to the moon and back?

I listened to almost all conversations to and from the shuttle and NO ONE
was the least bit worried. Do you really believe that they would communicate
back and forth for two weeks and NEVER mention a problem?

If you are an engineer, I hope I never come across any problems that you
have solved......

NASA is NOT G-d! They can not do the impossible and neither can the crew of
a Space Shuttle.....


author: Joann Evans

text:
nap wrote:

   Are you under the impression that anyone here LIKES this? Nobody here
is GOOD with this at all.

   Do you enjoy running around in this same circle with everyone? You
don't go fix a problem that you don't even know you HAVE. And even now,
we STILL don't know that the tank debris was responsible. What would you
be saying if launch video had seen nothing, but the orbiter was still
lost the same way?

   And it still doesn't change the fact that nothing could be done, even
if we *did* know.

   No one LIKES that.

   But that's the way it IS.


text:
"Jeffrey Turner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Far more likely there was an unwillingness to go back
to the executive and say "We can't run this program with
the meager bucks you've given us, and we are shutting the
program down because it's not safe" because a lot of people
had their jobs on the line.


author: Greg Goss

text:
[email] wrote:

If an RCC element was missing entirely, would Columbia have made it
that far, or would it have failed catastrophically long previously.


text:
On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 23:04:55 -0800, in a place far, far away,
[email] made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

There is no way to launch Progress modules to that orbit, even if
there were some on the pad, ready to go.  That's why ISS is where it
is.


text:
nap wrote:

   Probably no one did them, because (as you've been told) there was no
percieved need. But had there been one, it's not hard to go back and see
what the mass of the orbiter was at the time, the differences in orbital
altitude and inclination, remaining OMS and thruster fuel, etc. And
*still* find that it would've been impossible.

   Just because they're both 'in space' or even both in low Earth orbit,
still dynamically doesn't put them anywhere near each other.

   And just how much disposable mass do you think they even start with?
This isn't 'Destination Moon.'


text:
nap wrote:

   Others have thought this through more than you.

   The arm physically CAN NOT reach all parts of the orbiter, espically
the underside. Either with camera, or crewmember at the end. (And you
want to make sure you don't cause even more damage in the attempt.)

  Crewmember in EVA gear has no handholds. ISS has plenty, but then it
has no re-entry surfaces.

   I don't know if they even always carry thrusters for untethered EVA.
Can't do it if you don't have it. (And let's try not to collide with
tiles while doing this, either.)

   And you have to know that you really *have* a problem. Apollo 13 left
no doubt in the first instant. In this case, we don't know that there
was even anything to look for. There's no certainty that the tank debris
impact (which had to be a glancing blow) with the wing underside is the
cause. It may be. It may also be coincidental.


author: Mike Speegle

text:
Bill Bonde <[email]> typed:

    I said nothing regarding the SMEs.  But they do have the OMS and RCS
for positional and directional thrusting.


text:
nap <[email]> typed:

    Now you're being remarkably stupid.  How do you think we got to
space?  By carefully engineering according to the laws of science and
mathematics.  It's been said it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get to the ISS.
That's because the fuel necessary to perform that orbital maneuver was
not there.  If your car runs out of gas and the motor stops, you can
*try all you want to drive to the next city for help, but you still
won't be able to do it.

   So to summarize, they could not go to the ISS.  It was a physical
impossibility.  Laws of nature, nothing defeatist about it.  Sorry if
you can't accept reality, but this is not the movies or TV.


text:
jjustwwondering wrote:
They would have to spacewalk to go between both craft. If you haven't
seen the 1969 movie "Marooned", check it out. The Russian "Devil Ship"
is a must see: http://www.rocketshipvideo.com/reviews/marooned.html

#begin quote
An Academy-award winner for its special effects and boasting a Hollywood
dream cast (Gregory Peck, David Janssen, Gene Hackman, James Franciscus,
Richard Crenna, Lee Grant, and Mariette Hartley)  and based on a story
by Martin Caidin (whose other work also became THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR
MAN).

     Coming a year after 2001 and COUNTDOWN (which is more similar in
subject matter), it tells the story of a space-based crisis that was
still unrealized at the time the movie was made, but would come fairly
close to reality with the next year's Apollo 13 disaster.

     Three astronauts are shot into space for a tour of duty on a
Skylab-like space station, but they seem to tire and become frazzled
before their planned departure date and some equipment failures dog the
mission.  The decision is made to end the mission prematurely.

     However, a fault develops in their return capsule--the retro
thrusters, designed to slow them from orbital velocity and bring them
down, will not fire. Also unable to return to their lab, they are
marooned in their spacecraft while ground control searches desperately
for a solution.

      The wives of the astronauts stand faithfully by (much as in the
previous year's COUNTDOWN).

     An emergency mission is planned with existing, though untested,
equipment that can be pulled from other applications for the only launch
window of opportunity before the astronauts' oxygen runs out.

     The story then becomes a simple race against time, complicated by
the deteriorated condition of the already-fatigued crew.

     Complications arrive as a hurricane blocks the launch window.  It
looks like the launch will have to be scrubbed.   The launch is only
possible by launching through the calm eye of the storm (!).

     The complication is that the delay means that there is not enough
oxygen to support the three men for the additional time....


author: Captain Nerd

text:
In article <kDg%9.47198$G83.125@sccrnsc04>, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

   You need to read a short story called "The Cold Equations."
   It has to do with the pain caused by dealing with a cold,
   uncaring Universe's unbendable laws, even in the face of
   plucky, caring humanity.

   Cap.


author: Steven Litvintchouk

text:
nap wrote:

Maybe I'm not making myself clear.

After carefully examining the video frames of the launch, NASA had
decided that there wasn't any problem, and the Shuttle was just fine.
So they stopped holding meetings on trying to solve a problem they had
decided didn't exist anyway.

You keep demanding that NASA should have found a way to solve the
problem.  NASA didn't know they had a problem.  Neither did the
Columbia's crew.  As far as everybody was concerned, the mission was
nearly flawless until re-entry.


text:
"Gary" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns9317A753B2002ambassadorkosh@68.6.19.6...

Okay. Bye.


author: nap

text:
"Thurston Phoremost" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I don't know if a disposable re-entry vehicle is any safer
than the shuttle, but since it is not subject to the repeated
stress of re-entry, and the tiles cannot be ablative as was
the heat shields of previous programs, it very well may be.

There were also no vulnerable spots like the wheel wells
on prior launch vehicles.

And the ablative shields of prior programs had no opportunity
for low paid techs to apply them by mixing the adhesive with
spit...

So maybe the answer is something like put the people up in
small returnable, single use capsules and the large cargoes up on the
larger launch vehicles, then do an Apollo style docking.

:-)

I don't see a whole lot of disagreement on the objective facts.

What I see disagreement on is the design philosophy, the
philosopy of the use of risk, and what are acceptable goals
for the cost in blood and treasure.

A lot more real science could be had for the buck here on
earth for the amount of dollars being spent, and at no cost
to human life.


author: George William Herbert

text:
nap <[email]> wrote:

If you do not understand what I am saying, you could
just ask, rather than invent statements that offensive
and ludicrous.

No, it's not supposed to kill people.

Best guess?  Roughly that.

Acceptable?  Yes.  Desirable?  No.

Given the state of the art in spacecraft
engineering, the velocities and energies
and materials involved, I believe that
anyone who thinks we can get the risk down
from ~1.0% to ~0.1% without a very significant
amount of money and time (equal to the origional
Shuttle program, a whole new vehicle) is
deceiving themselves.

Incremental improvements to the Shuttle are
certainly possible; the engines have been made
a lot more reliable, the astronaut escape envelope
expanded a lot with the suits, pole and chutes
(though astronauts generally think it's not
all that useful, practically).  Perhaps we
will upgrade to stronger thermal protection
systems now.

The prorgam funded again with NASA claiming a failure rate
of 1 in 250 after Challenger.  They got a new shuttle
(Endeavour) saying that, have been clear and open
with that risk ever since.  They have, in fact,
gotten budgetary approval each year since Challenger
for ongoing manned spaceflight operations.

Anyone who proposes a new system and suggests
that catastrophic failure rates realistically
will be 0.1% is probably lying.

I expect more manned space programs *will* be
approved over time, despite that.

Most people understand that operating spacecraft
is inherently risky.

When this is all said and done, NASA is going to
go back to flying Shuttles for at least some time.
And they are going to be flying at a risk of something
like 1% (maybe 0.5%, maybe slightly more).  And the
general public is going to accept it.  We'll fix what
went wrong this time, but other dangers will remain,
as will the danger of the unknown.

If 1% risk is unacceptable to you, then that's fine.
As I said earlier, you're perfectly within your rights
to decide that's an unacceptable risk to you and argue
for the shutdown of the manned spaceflight program.
But you will lose that argument.  Manned spaceflight
is dangerous.  Manned spaceflight is worth doing anyways.
We should make manned spaceflight as safe as we can,
but not deceive ourselves as to what the remaining
real level of risk is.

-george william herbert
[email]


author: sickwrister

text:
Here is the best way to handle this argument I've heard:

1 Riding a rocket into orbit is NOT SAFE.

2 Riding a rocket into orbit HAS NEVER BEEN SAFE.

3 Riding a rocket into orbit WILL NOT BE SAFE FOR THE FORSEEABLE
FUTURE!

Astronauts know this.  They go anyway.


author: Sam Milton

text:
Doug Haxton <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

OV-101 Enterprise could be converted into an orbitor but it wouldn't
be very fast. It was used for testing before the Columbia was built,
if you recall.  Challenger was built from Structural Test Article-99
(STA-99)which was an engineering test structure used to verify
computer models of the orbiter structure.  The reason that STA-099 was
converted was verted into Challenger, and not Enterprise, was that
some improvements were made to the structure during the construction
of OV-102 Columbia.  During the building of Discovery and Atlantis,
NASA had some "structural spares" built to facilitate repair of a
damaged orbiter. This consisted of two front fuselage halves, wing
structures, aft-fuselage, mid-fuselage, and horizontal stabilizer.
These components were constructed into Endeavour after the Challenger
accident.  The Enterprise is sitting in storage at the Washington
Dulles Aircraft, waiting to be put into the National Air and Space
Museum's new Dulles museum. A NASA inspection in 1996-1997 found that
the Enterprise airframe was in "relatively good condition".    If
Enterprise were considered to be converted to a replacement orbiter,
it would have had to be taken apart, and the improvements made to the
structure.  Endeavour took almost four years to be constructed, and it
already had the improvements in the structure.  So it could be done,
but it wouldn't be quick, easy, or cheap.


text:
"JES" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Like a commercial airplane.

Do you have the test results for how shuttle tiles are
affected by falling ice, as a function of tile temperature,
placement on the shuttle, and size of ice fall?

If you don't, you have no damn business sending that
thing up on a day when there is ice on it.

If they do, and it turns out that this was an ice related
problem, someone screwed up bigtime.

Felt? Got numbers? If I want feelings, I'll ask some
leftist guitar player. Engineers work by numbers.

And where the hell was the effort? They may have
been damned from take off on, but no one knew and
it's the engineers job to know.

Well, now they're dead. The space program probably
is too.

The NASA website is clogged up.

My proof that we...

Oh hell. I didn't realize you were one of those loons.


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
launch

The minimal effort to prevent this from happening, and
NASA's effort to silence anyone who questions the safety
of the shuttle, tells me NASA was not concerned enough
to make sure it wouldn't happen.

What seems to be the problem is having such a obvious
failure spread all over Texas, and having people ask
why yet again did we lose seven astronauts.

that

I seem to be going in circles because "everyone" keeps misstating
what I am saying. I'm wondering what engineering schools
don't use the SAT reading comprehension tests anymore.

The engineer's job is to know. Foam falls on the shuttle, and
the engineer says no problem. Well, that's appears to be wrong,
doesn't it!

Nope. We don't know. Stuff falls on left wing. Left wing falls
off. That very well might be cause and effect.

How do you know that if no one even tried?

Again, square peg, round hole, give up and let Apollo 13
die. Opps! Someone tried, and got it to work!

That's all I'm saying, no one tried.


author: Ian Woollard

text:
[email] (Rand Simberg) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Yes, specifically "overflight restrictions" from the launch site
preclude it from reaching that orbit- i.e. Progress would have to drop
stages on inhabited land, and unlike Columbia, Progress stages are
likely to reach ground level fairly intact.


author: Alain Fournier

text:
Rand Simberg wrote:

Yes, but the number of Progress modules needed would most likely of been
zero.
Atlantis could of been launched in time in such a scenario. Of course
that is not
a sure thing. There are frequently delays in Shuttle launches. But
Shuttles have
been launched in less then 25 days and it could be done again.

See
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html
<http://www.io.com/%7Eo_m/columbia_loss_faq.html>

Alain Fournier


author: Dave Kenworthy

text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I like that.

There seems unfortunately to be a perception that 'space' is a place, like
Paris or Cairo. Perhaps we have a natural tendency towards earthbound
parochialism. I've been trying to come up with a one-liner to address this
"Why couldn't they just....?" and this is as close as I have seen so far.


text:
"Joann Evans" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

We have 7 dead astronauts and a shuttle scattered all
over Texas.

Seems they didn't think it through enough.


author: Bill Bonde

text:
Mike Speegle wrote:
I didn't claim you said anything about the main engines. I was just
adding in that bit of information as to why it was impossible to go to
ISS.


text:
"Mike Speegle" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1k6lp$132u94$[email]...

Show me where the math was done before hand.
Show me the math. Hey, I'm an engineer, not some
ski bum. I've degrees in engineering and physics.
Show me.

They didn't even LOOK at it. Didn't even make the
effort.

No brainstorming, no consideration of alternatives,
just let them die. Hell, it's easier.

Yeah, that's the attitude that got us to the moon, you
say. Maximum effort is "remarkably stupid" now. I'll
remember that one.


author: The Enigmatic One

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] says...

Ya know, I was going to suggest this to Nap myself.  However, Nap isn't the
sort to be able to understand a story like this.  He doesn't understand
science.

					-Tim


author: Steve

text:
"Steven Litvintchouk" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
surface

To be fair to nap, one of the reasons NASA gave for not looking for a
problem was that they thought 'nothing could be done'. Nap is saying fuck
that, have a look and then try to do something if required.


author: Gary

text:
Steven Litvintchouk <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Things falling off of the EFT and striking the orbiter during boost,
whether or not it causes "significant damage", should have been
considered a safety issue long ago and the fleet grounded until the
problem was solved.  The fact that this didn't happen earlier is simply a
matter of blind luck.  The very same attitude lead to the loss of the
Challenger.


text:
"Steven Litvintchouk" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
surface

Seems they were wrong. Opps!

Nope. Said they should have tried. They didn't even try.
It's all a "well, if the tile is damaged, they're justed fucked,
that's all" attitude.

Nearly flawless, as far as everybody was concerned. They just
lost the craft and all souls on board. Other wise, it was damn
near perfect.


author: Rand Simberg

text:
On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 02:12:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, "nap"
<[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Whatever makes you think that the purpose of this endeavor is science?

If that were the point, we wouldn't have a manned space program at
all.


text:
"George William Herbert" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b1s5u6$9ej$[email]...

At 2% probability of hull loss, and over 100
expected missions, is that not saying that you
expect to lose 2 shuttles and their crews? Why,
yes it is. It is, in it's normal usage, going to kill
people. That is the way it is designed.

So, you didn't find it desirable that the Columbia
crew died, but it was acceptable. Completely figured
into the failure rate, and tough luck for them, they
knew the risk, they accepted it, and I should just
be happy with it.

The American people don't find it acceptable.
The manager of the shuttle program doesn't
find it acceptable. The congress doesn't find it
acceptable. Just you and a few others, it appears.


text:
"sickwrister" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Okay.  But we have another program, the ISS,
which is dependent upon the shuttle and with the risk factor
the NASA groupies are advocating, we will run
out of shuttles before the ISS program is done.

So, you're fine with another 21 dead astronauts.
Just part of the cost, huh?


author: Doug Haxton

text:
On 3 Feb 2003 14:05:22 -0800, [email] (Sam Milton)
wrote:

Whoops, didn't make myself clear (interesting answer, though!).

My question is:  suppose a shuttle was 2 months away from a scheduled
launch; how quickly could it be launched in an emergency?

Doug


author: Joann Evans

text:
nap wrote:

   Are you suggesting commercial aircraft never have catastrophic
accidents?

   This is not weather-induced ice. (Which *was* part of the issues with
Challenger.) This is ice condensing out of the atmosphere on a tank full
of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Its insulation is not perfect.
Indeed, it still may have been a fragment of insulating material itself,
and not ice.

   Don't play semantic games. Does the word 'judgement' work better for
you? Engineers *do* use that.

   No human being can know everything. Is this a suprise?

   I beleive he meant television.


author: JES

text:
"nap" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Lrj%9.145414$_s4.50677@rwcrnsc54...

Seems to me that there have been more deaths by commercial plane crashes,
not counting military, than in the space program. I was flying a Tri-Pacer
over the FL. swamps in 1961 when I heard a thud come from the rear of me
outside. On pre-flight everything checked out perfect. Not 5 minutes after
take off, there was the thud. All my gauges were right on the button. No
problem as far as I could see. But I had one advantage the shuttle crew
didn't. I could look out the window and then see that I had a gapping hole
in the side of the plane. Now this could have been a bad situation for me if
it got any worse. You being an engineer, how do tell me from the tower how
to fix it before it rips any farther? Tri-Pacer back then had a fabric
covering, not metal. Should I climb out there and sew it up when I don't
have a needle and thread?

Do you?

Commercial planes go up with ice on them all the time. Ever hear of carb
icing? You said you would solve it like commercial planes.

Hum, read the above.

So does NASA. And no, I don't have the numbers, do you? Hows this. Neither
one, NASA or the flight crew believed in their educated minds that there was
a problem.

What effort? If you don't know there is anything wrong, you can't fix it.
Like I said before, if they had known or thought there was a serious
problem, they wouldn't have talked calmly for over two weeks with each
other. Maybe you would, but I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd be demanding to
know what they were going to do about it. They never once in the 16 days say
anything about it.

Not a chance. Are trains still running? Are planes still flying? Are cars
still running and killing more people each year than any space program?

It was on FOX and MNSB. I recorded the whole briefing. Would you like a
copy?

made

That's right, YOUR proof. You asked someone else for PROOF! Where's yours?

No I'm not one of those "loons" as you call them. I am pilot ( 6 years in
the AF) and an amature astronomer. No, I don't believe in ufo's or aliens.
But since you don't work for the space program and have never been to outer
space, where's your proof that anyone has ever been to the moon? When you
ask for proof of someone else, you should have some of your own. You were
given the facts (proof) of why the shuttle crew and NASA couldn't do what
you said they could or should have, but you can't accept the "numbers" or
the math as you called it. So, where is your numbers (proof) that man went
to the moon and landed. All you know is what you saw on tv or were told,
right? No first hand experience. I can't prove man went to the moon, but I
believe (feel) we did.


text:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 03:15:14 GMT, "nap" <[email]> wrote:

 Woman states her dislike for someone.  That person falls ill and
dies.  That very well might be witchcraft.

Insufficient data for your rant here, dude.  Especially when the
insulation falling on the wing hasn't done damage before.