Shuttle Certification Question

[Rand Simberg[_1_]]

Prior to the CAIB, did *anyone* ever talk about "certifying" Orbiters,
or is that entirely a post-Columbia phenomenon? Because I can't
recall it in history, and that includes eleven years in Downey in the
eighties.

The reason that I ask is that I've acquired part of the appendix on
the subject on a recent study that NASA did, and wonder if they just
came up with the "certification" language to satisfy the CAIB's
question about flying past 2010. I've never before heard of a
"certification reverification." What is being described here is
basically a reverification.

I've posted the text, with a figure for schedule post 2010, at my
blog.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=16160

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
> Prior to the CAIB, did *anyone* ever talk about "certifying" Orbiters,
> or is that entirely a post-Columbia phenomenon? Because I can't
> recall it in history, and that includes eleven years in Downey in the
> eighties.
>
> The reason that I ask is that I've acquired part of the appendix on
> the subject on a recent study that NASA did, and wonder if they just
> came up with the "certification" language to satisfy the CAIB's
> question about flying past 2010. I've never before heard of a
> "certification reverification." What is being described here is
> basically a reverification.
>
> I've posted the text, with a figure for schedule post 2010, at my
> blog.
>
> http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=16160

My only thought (and I don't have a copy of Jenkin's with me in DC) is that
Jenkin's mentions each airframe is carded at something like a 1.6 load
factor (I may be using the wrong term). But pretty much, the rest seems to
be nebulous numbers like, "100 uses" for the SSME, etc.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

[Rand Simberg[_1_]]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:27:59 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" > made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
>> Prior to the CAIB, did *anyone* ever talk about "certifying" Orbiters,
>> or is that entirely a post-Columbia phenomenon? Because I can't
>> recall it in history, and that includes eleven years in Downey in the
>> eighties.
>>
>> The reason that I ask is that I've acquired part of the appendix on
>> the subject on a recent study that NASA did, and wonder if they just
>> came up with the "certification" language to satisfy the CAIB's
>> question about flying past 2010. I've never before heard of a
>> "certification reverification." What is being described here is
>> basically a reverification.
>>
>> I've posted the text, with a figure for schedule post 2010, at my
>> blog.
>>
>> http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=16160
>
>My only thought (and I don't have a copy of Jenkin's with me in DC) is that
>Jenkin's mentions each airframe is carded at something like a 1.6 load
>factor (I may be using the wrong term). But pretty much, the rest seems to
>be nebulous numbers like, "100 uses" for the SSME, etc.

The load factor (actually structural safety factor, or margin) is 1.4
(the difference between manned aircraft and rockets, which are less,
but I can't remember the number), but that's not really on point.
Thanks for the try, though.

My thesis is that all this talk about "recertification" of the Shuttle
to fly it past 2010 is post-Columbia hooey, but I'd like to verify
that.

[Brian Thorn[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:39:11 GMT, (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

>My thesis is that all this talk about "recertification" of the Shuttle
>to fly it past 2010 is post-Columbia hooey, but I'd like to verify
>that.

I think there was vague talk of it after the 1999 flow liner issues.

Brian

[Rand Simberg[_1_]]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:08:23 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn > made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

>On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:39:11 GMT, (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>My thesis is that all this talk about "recertification" of the Shuttle
>>to fly it past 2010 is post-Columbia hooey, but I'd like to verify
>>that.
>
>I think there was vague talk of it after the 1999 flow liner issues.

Cite?

Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
"certificates"?

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>My only thought (and I don't have a copy of Jenkin's with me in DC) is
>>that
>>Jenkin's mentions each airframe is carded at something like a 1.6 load
>>factor (I may be using the wrong term). But pretty much, the rest seems
>>to
>>be nebulous numbers like, "100 uses" for the SSME, etc.
>
> The load factor (actually structural safety factor, or margin) is 1.4

Hmm, thought it was 1.2 on Columbia and the later OVs had been built to 1.6
and Columbia upgraded.

> (the difference between manned aircraft and rockets, which are less,
> but I can't remember the number), but that's not really on point.
> Thanks for the try, though.
>

Actually it sort of was. My point was basically that that's the ONLY number
I've seen that has any sort of documentation.

The 100 flights, 10 years I think was like the numbers that Feynman mentions
on chance of a disaster. Basically made up and wishful thinking.

In fact, I can't really think of any real way that the "100 flights" number
could be any more than a "made up" number. There's no real database to
compare against. And given the generally mild conditions the orbiters fly
in, I can't really see that number couldn't be 200, 500 or even 1000.

Now, the "10 year" number I can see based on the known aging of materials,
but then again, that's hard to judge because there's not much of a database
to compare against.


> My thesis is that all this talk about "recertification" of the Shuttle
> to fly it past 2010 is post-Columbia hooey, but I'd like to verify
> that.

I tend to agree and Jorge has posted previously that some have argued all
the work after Columbia is essentially equivalent to a recert anyway.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

[Jorge R. Frank]

OM wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
> Simberg) wrote:
>
>> Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
>> ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
>> "certificates"?
>
> ...Rand brings up a good point for once: In all this talk about
> "certification", there's one thing I've yet to see: certified by
> "whom"? The FAA? NARA?

By NASA itself.

[Jorge R. Frank]

OM wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:39:33 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
> > wrote:
>
>> OM wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
>>> Simberg) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
>>>> ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
>>>> "certificates"?
>>> ...Rand brings up a good point for once: In all this talk about
>>> "certification", there's one thing I've yet to see: certified by
>>> "whom"? The FAA? NARA?
>> By NASA itself.
>
> ...Which will no doubt lead to cranks and crackpots claiming that will
> be a case of the "fox guarding the henhouse". This in turn begs the
> question: if not NASA, then what agency would be qualified to perform
> such a certification? Would the FAA be able to do the job more than
> satisfactory?

No.

[Jeff Findley]

"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> OM wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:39:33 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> OM wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
>>>> Simberg) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
>>>>> ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
>>>>> "certificates"?
>>>> ...Rand brings up a good point for once: In all this talk about
>>>> "certification", there's one thing I've yet to see: certified by
>>>> "whom"? The FAA? NARA?
>>> By NASA itself.
>>
>> ...Which will no doubt lead to cranks and crackpots claiming that will
>> be a case of the "fox guarding the henhouse". This in turn begs the
>> question: if not NASA, then what agency would be qualified to perform
>> such a certification? Would the FAA be able to do the job more than
>> satisfactory?
>
> No.

They don't have the qualifications to "look under the hood". ;-)

I believe, if I remember correctly, that the FAA *is* involved in oversight
of private launches done by any person who is a US citizen, even if the
launch does not take place in the US. For private launches there are
permits to get and paperwork to fill out and everything had better be in
order *before* you launch.

The ARocket list archives has a lot of info on this. Not long ago, there
was a big stink on that list about needing launch permits for tethered
flights (details in the archives).

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

[Derek Lyons]

OM > wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
>>ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
>>"certificates"?
>
>...Rand brings up a good point for once: In all this talk about
>"certification", there's one thing I've yet to see: certified by
>"whom"? The FAA? NARA?

Not only by *whom*, but to *what standard*? Do aviation standards
even apply?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Derek Lyons]

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > wrote:
>
>"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
>
>> My thesis is that all this talk about "recertification" of the Shuttle
>> to fly it past 2010 is post-Columbia hooey, but I'd like to verify
>> that.

Part of the problem with "recertification" is that Shuttles were never
(AFAICT) formally "certified" in the first place.

OTOH, I'd argue that this "certification" debate is nothing but
another inappropriate attempt to shoehorn the Shuttle/space travel
into the aviation metaphor.

>I tend to agree and Jorge has posted previously that some have argued all
>the work after Columbia is essentially equivalent to a recert anyway.

FWIW - the method outlined in Rand's blog entry isn't so different
from how the boats are "certified"... Performance is compared to the
spec and known problems are closed out. (Either by fixing the problem
or by placing the system/boat under a performance limitation.)

But, as Rand (?) points out WRT aviation, there's an extensive
engineering and experience database for us to work from.

Is "certifying" the Shuttle once again an attempt to apply operational
standards to an experimental craft?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[Brian Thorn[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

>Cite?
>
>Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
>ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
>"certificates"?

It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember
reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other
aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and
STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's
plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late
1999.

The idea didn't appear out of the blue after Columbia, especially
since Columbia's age played no role in the accident, but the CAIB put
all its weight behind the idea.

Brian

[Jorge R. Frank]

Jeff Findley wrote:
> "Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
> ...
>> OM wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:39:33 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> OM wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
>>>>> Simberg) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
>>>>>> ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
>>>>>> "certificates"?
>>>>> ...Rand brings up a good point for once: In all this talk about
>>>>> "certification", there's one thing I've yet to see: certified by
>>>>> "whom"? The FAA? NARA?
>>>> By NASA itself.
>>> ...Which will no doubt lead to cranks and crackpots claiming that will
>>> be a case of the "fox guarding the henhouse". This in turn begs the
>>> question: if not NASA, then what agency would be qualified to perform
>>> such a certification? Would the FAA be able to do the job more than
>>> satisfactory?
>> No.
>
> They don't have the qualifications to "look under the hood". ;-)
>
> I believe, if I remember correctly, that the FAA *is* involved in oversight
> of private launches done by any person who is a US citizen, even if the
> launch does not take place in the US. For private launches there are
> permits to get and paperwork to fill out and everything had better be in
> order *before* you launch.

FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the
same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard
to certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience.

[Rand Simberg[_1_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn > made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

>On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>Cite?
>>
>>Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
>>ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
>>"certificates"?
>
>It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember
>reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other
>aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and
>STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's
>plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late
>1999.
>
>The idea didn't appear out of the blue after Columbia, especially
>since Columbia's age played no role in the accident, but the CAIB put
>all its weight behind the idea.

No one is questioning the notion of assuring the safety of flying the
Shuttle post-Columbia. The issue is the notion of "certifying" it.

[Rand Simberg[_1_]]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn > made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

>On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>Cite?
>>
>>Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
>>ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
>>"certificates"?
>
>It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember
>reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other
>aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and
>STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's
>plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late
>1999.

If it wasn't called "recertification," it wasn't recertification.

I'm a little astouded by this enthusiasm for the concept of
"recertifying" the Orbiters, when they were never "certified" in the
first place.

[hallerb@aol.com]

On Jan 21, 9:52�pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
> Thorn > made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
> >Simberg) wrote:
>
> >>Cite?
>
> >>Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
> >>ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. �Where are the
> >>"certificates"?
>
> >It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember
> >reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other
> >aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and
> >STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's
> >plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late
> >1999.
>
> If it wasn't called "recertification," it wasn't recertification.
>
> I'm a little astouded by this enthusiasm for the concept of
> "recertifying" the Orbiters, when they were never "certified" in the
> first place.

well they wouldnt pass todays man rating specs since they lack launch
boost escape

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

> wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 9:52?pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

well they wouldnt pass todays man rating specs since they lack launch
boost escape

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unless of course they were given a waiver. Or the rules changed. NASA is
policing itself here.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

[Jeff Findley]

"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff Findley wrote:
>> They don't have the qualifications to "look under the hood". ;-)
>>
>> I believe, if I remember correctly, that the FAA *is* involved in
>> oversight of private launches done by any person who is a US citizen,
>> even if the launch does not take place in the US. For private launches
>> there are permits to get and paperwork to fill out and everything had
>> better be in order *before* you launch.
>
> FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the
> same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard to
> certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience.

True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

[Joseph Nebus]

"Jeff Findley" > writes:

>"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
...
>> FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the
>> same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard to
>> certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience.

>True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?

If I recall from Heppenheimer's book about the development of
the space shuttle accurately, the FAA came to the decision that the
space shuttle was a space vehicle, outside their jurisdiction, and that
it spent a little bit of time in the atmosphere flying from its launchpad
to orbit, or from orbit to landing, was too incidental to give the FAA a
regulatory authority over it.

(One might wonder how the Shuttle program would have developed
had the FAA decided it should oversee its operations. I don't expect
the FAA would be a particularly onerous overseer, although having a more
independent set of eyes might help in borderline decisions.)

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Joseph Nebus" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Findley" > writes:
>
>>"Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
...
>>> FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the
>>> same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard
>>> to
>>> certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience.
>
>>True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?
>
> If I recall from Heppenheimer's book about the development of
> the space shuttle accurately, the FAA came to the decision that the
> space shuttle was a space vehicle, outside their jurisdiction, and that
> it spent a little bit of time in the atmosphere flying from its launchpad
> to orbit, or from orbit to landing, was too incidental to give the FAA a
> regulatory authority over it.
>
> (One might wonder how the Shuttle program would have developed
> had the FAA decided it should oversee its operations. I don't expect
> the FAA would be a particularly onerous overseer, although having a more
> independent set of eyes might help in borderline decisions.)

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense since FAA rules pretty much don't
apply to government craft in the first place.


>
> --
> Joseph Nebus
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

[Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:13:51 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
> wrote:

>
> "Jorge R. Frank" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jeff Findley wrote:
> >> They don't have the qualifications to "look under the hood". ;-)
> >>
> >> I believe, if I remember correctly, that the FAA *is* involved in
> >> oversight of private launches done by any person who is a US citizen,
> >> even if the launch does not take place in the US. For private launches
> >> there are permits to get and paperwork to fill out and everything had
> >> better be in order *before* you launch.
> >
> > FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the
> > same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard to
> > certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience.
>
> True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?

Only for the aircraft that are only used to carry people around in
much the same manner as commercial aircraft. The research and support
aircraft at Dryden, like F-18s and F-15s and stuff, aren't covered by
FAA rules, but the KingAirs used to haul management and other staff to
and from Ames are.

This doesn't include certification, just maintenance and operation.
Military aircraft aren't certified and the KingAirs were bought from
the maker, who did the certification before introducing the aircraft
to the market.

These rules, requiring adherence to FAA regs for aircraft used like
commercial aircraft, apply to all Federal agencies. It's mostly only
agencies like NASA and the military that also have aircraft to which
the rules don't apply.

Mary "Works until you want to hang an experiment on the KingAir."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

[Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, Brian Thorn
> wrote:

> The idea didn't appear out of the blue after Columbia, especially
> since Columbia's age played no role in the accident, but the CAIB put
> all its weight behind the idea.

The age of the leading edge material, and the number of reentries it
had made, was a factor in the accident, I thought. It had become
brittle in extended use and was, therefore, not resistant to the
impact of the foam.

Mary "Or was this just a hypothesis?"
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

[David Lesher]

"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" > writes:

>> True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?

>Only for the aircraft that are only used to carry people around in
>much the same manner as commercial aircraft. The research and support
>aircraft at Dryden, like F-18s and F-15s and stuff, aren't covered by
>FAA rules, but the KingAirs used to haul management and other staff to
>and from Ames are.

>This doesn't include certification, just maintenance and operation.
>Military aircraft aren't certified and the KingAirs were bought from
>the maker, who did the certification before introducing the aircraft
>to the market.

>These rules, requiring adherence to FAA regs for aircraft used like
>commercial aircraft, apply to all Federal agencies. It's mostly only
>agencies like NASA and the military that also have aircraft to which
>the rules don't apply.


I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

BUT BUT
Most/all had to obey the FAR's just as if they did; in many cases because
their insurance companies required same, in others because there was an
edict err policy requiring same. Is that what you mean?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[hallerb@aol.com]

On Jan 23, 6:51�pm, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)"
> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, Brian Thorn
>
> > wrote:
> > The idea didn't appear out of the blue after Columbia, especially
> > since Columbia's age played no role in the accident, but the CAIB put
> > all its weight behind the idea.
>
> The age of the leading edge material, and the number of reentries it
> had made, was a factor in the accident, I thought. �It had become
> brittle in extended use and was, therefore, not resistant to the
> impact of the foam.
>
> Mary "Or was this just a hypothesis?"
> --
> Mary Shafer � Retired aerospace research engineer
> We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
> or
> Visit my blog athttp://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/� �

did nasa try the foam hit on a new panel and if so how bad was the
damage?

[Brian Thorn[_2_]]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:51:19 -0800, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
Shafer)" > wrote:


>> The idea didn't appear out of the blue after Columbia, especially
>> since Columbia's age played no role in the accident, but the CAIB put
>> all its weight behind the idea.
>
>The age of the leading edge material, and the number of reentries it
>had made, was a factor in the accident, I thought. It had become
>brittle in extended use and was, therefore, not resistant to the
>impact of the foam.
>
>Mary "Or was this just a hypothesis?"

From the CAIB...

"Findings:
F3.3-1 The original design specifications required the RCC components
to have essentially no impact resistance.
F3.3-2 Current inspection techniques are not adequate to assess
structural integrity of the RCC components.
F3.3-3 After manufacturer's acceptance non-destructive evaluation,
only periodic visual and touch tests are conducted.
F3.3-4 RCC components are weakened by mass loss caused by oxidation
within the substrate, which accumulates with age. The extent of
oxidation is not directly measurable, and the resulting mission life
reduction is developed analytically.
F3.3-5 To date, only two flown RCC panels, having achieved 15 and 19
missions, have been destructively tested to determine actual loss of
strength due to oxidation.
F3.3-6 Contamination from zinc leaching from a primer under the paint
topcoat on the launch pad structure increases the opportunities for
localized oxidation."

Sounds to me like they're saying the RCC panels weaken over time, but
they don't know how much and the panels weren't supposed to take any
impacts anyway. :-/

In any case, age wasn't a contributing factor in the accident. The
SWRI impact test would have smashed a brand-new RCC panel too.

Brian

[Pat Flannery]

Brian Thorn wrote:
>
> In any case, age wasn't a contributing factor in the accident. The
> SWRI impact test would have smashed a brand-new RCC panel too.
>

When they shot the foam at the fiberglass panel that was supposed to be
as strong as a RCC panel, it caused a crack in it but not a hole. They
had to put NASA's feet to the fire to get them to give the CAIB a actual
flown RCC panel...NASA said it was too expensive to destroy one of
those, and the fiberglass one would behave the same way the real one would.
Besides, the crack in the fiberglass one would have been fatal, so there
was no reason to do the test with a real panel.
I think NASA had a sneaking suspicion about what was going to happen
when that foam hit a actual panel, and was trying to figure out some way
to prevent that test from happening...the end result was that they came
out of it looking like they were trying to cover things up. It would
have been better if they had given the CAIB a real panel in the first
place, and just taken their lumps over getting their strength estimates
of the panel wrong.

Pat

[Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:50:15 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> wrote:

> "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" > writes:
>
> >> True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?
>
> >Only for the aircraft that are only used to carry people around in
> >much the same manner as commercial aircraft. The research and support
> >aircraft at Dryden, like F-18s and F-15s and stuff, aren't covered by
> >FAA rules, but the KingAirs used to haul management and other staff to
> >and from Ames are.
>
> >This doesn't include certification, just maintenance and operation.
> >Military aircraft aren't certified and the KingAirs were bought from
> >the maker, who did the certification before introducing the aircraft
> >to the market.
>
> >These rules, requiring adherence to FAA regs for aircraft used like
> >commercial aircraft, apply to all Federal agencies. It's mostly only
> >agencies like NASA and the military that also have aircraft to which
> >the rules don't apply.
>
> I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
> FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

Fairly new rule, maybe less than ten years old. It only applies to
public aviation that mimics private aviation, sort of. It doesn't
apply to other public aviation. It covers less than a dozen NASA
aircraft, mostly KingAirs and QueenAirs and whatever NASA 1 is.

I don't think it applies to the pilots or mechanics, just to the
aircraft. I think they're regular NASA pilots, with NASA medicals and
NASA job assignments (NASA doesn't issue licenses, per se, but puts it
into the job description). I know the mechanics don't have FAA
licenses, at least at Dryden. They use the regular Dryden inspection
system, which the FAA has agreed to.

> BUT BUT
> Most/all had to obey the FAR's just as if they did; in many cases because
> their insurance companies required same, in others because there was an
> edict err policy requiring same. Is that what you mean?

No. The USG doesn't have insurance companies, because it
self-insures. I don't know about smaller units and insurance. The
NASA directives instruct us to follow the FARs as much as is
applicable and doesn't interfere with the stuff we're doing. I mean,
we don't need FAA permission to launch or drop the Orbiter through the
controlled air space. We tell them, not ask them. That's pretty
typical of public aviation, except for when the mission is just
hauling people around.

In general, the various exceptions to the FARs are mission related.
For example, the damned LACo Sheriff's helicopter that flies over my
neighborhood at 200 ft at Oh-Dark-Thirty is allowed to descend much
lower than the FARs allow because it's required to look for criminals
(and to awaken more sleeping citizens to let us know our sheriff is at
work).

NASA and the military adhere to the relevant FARs when traveling
cross-country under ATC, but do so with uncertified aircraft and
unlicensed pilots. These agencies break a lot of FARs, too, but
usually within special areas. Oil Burner/Olive Branch routes, MOAs,
restricted areas. We used to fly the SR-71s above the controlled air
space (above 65,000 ft), going Mach 3 over US ground. We still fly
the U-2s there, only slower. So does the USAF.

Mary "Yes, it's an odd rule, if you ask me."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" > wrote in
message ...
> In general, the various exceptions to the FARs are mission related.
> For example, the damned LACo Sheriff's helicopter that flies over my
> neighborhood at 200 ft at Oh-Dark-Thirty is allowed to descend much
> lower than the FARs allow because it's required to look for criminals
> (and to awaken more sleeping citizens to let us know our sheriff is at
> work).


The worst case I've heard of a government agency not following regulations
that civilian craft would have to follow was after a rotor strike between
the State Police medivac copter and the civilian one. The pilot flew the
unrepaired SP helicopter off the helipad (10+ stories up in an urban area).

The civilian medivac copter couldn't fly until appropriate inspections and
repairs were done.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

[Derek Lyons]

David Lesher > wrote:

>I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
>FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

Except the FCC does govern USG freq assignments - who do you think
assigns the freq to the goverment? The USG can't just use any ol'
freq it feels like. (Since the whole spectrum is subject to various
international agreements that the US is a party to.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

[David Lesher]

(Derek Lyons) writes:


>>I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
>>FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

>Except the FCC does govern USG freq assignments - who do you think
>assigns the freq to the goverment? The USG can't just use any ol'
>freq it feels like. (Since the whole spectrum is subject to various
>international agreements that the US is a party to.)

I believe that's a NTIA Office of Spectrum Managment job.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[David Lesher]

"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" > writes:

>> I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
>> FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

>Fairly new rule, maybe less than ten years old. It only applies to
>public aviation that mimics private aviation, sort of. It doesn't
>apply to other public aviation. It covers less than a dozen NASA
>aircraft, mostly KingAirs and QueenAirs and whatever NASA 1 is.

Ah, a NASA rule.


>> BUT BUT
>> Most/all had to obey the FAR's just as if they did; in many cases because
>> their insurance companies required same, in others because there was an
>> edict err policy requiring same. Is that what you mean?

>No. The USG doesn't have insurance companies, because it
>self-insures. I don't know about smaller units and insurance.

State/local cops playing Whirlybirds [Boy does THAT date me...]
are the ones I had in mind re: the insurance aspect.

>NASA and the military adhere to the relevant FARs when traveling
>cross-country under ATC, but do so with uncertified aircraft and
>unlicensed pilots. These agencies break a lot of FARs, too, but
>usually within special areas.

Adhere, yes... but "fall under" is different...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[SENECA@argo.rhein-neckar.de]

> > The idea didn't appear out of the blue after Columbia, especially
> > since Columbia's age played no role in the accident, but the CAIB put
> > all its weight behind the idea.
>
> The age of the leading edge material, and the number of reentries it
> had made, was a factor in the accident, I thought. It had become
> brittle in extended use and was, therefore, not resistant to the
> impact of the foam.
>
> Mary "Or was this just a hypothesis?"

Neither. The impact force was several times (even orders of ten?) beyond
the allowed limit for the RCC. It didnt matter whether the RCC had any
ageing in the 10 or 20% range. But this issue was big blown up by NASA
PR to hide the simple truth.


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##

[Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:09:42 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
> wrote:

> "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" > writes:
>
> >> I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
> >> FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)
>
> >Fairly new rule, maybe less than ten years old. It only applies to
> >public aviation that mimics private aviation, sort of. It doesn't
> >apply to other public aviation. It covers less than a dozen NASA
> >aircraft, mostly KingAirs and QueenAirs and whatever NASA 1 is.
>
> Ah, a NASA rule.

No, the NASA response to an FAA rule.

I think the impetus for the rule was another state university killing
off its top management or an entire athletic team while ignoring basic
tenets of safety.

Mary "Might even be legislation."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

[David Lesher]

>...David, is that panix.com addy valid? I need to e-mail someone at
>panix.com to verify something.

Sure; Panix is alive and kicking. Our userbase *still* puts the bar scene
in Star Wars to shame, our newsserver kicks butt, and we have ftp that
can outrun an imperial starship...


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[David Lesher]

"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" > writes:

>> Ah, a NASA rule.

>No, the NASA response to an FAA rule.

>I think the impetus for the rule was another state university killing
>off its top management or an entire athletic team while ignoring basic
>tenets of safety.

>Mary "Might even be legislation."

But what it runs into, ISTM, was a separation of powers issue.
Hmm, wonder who would know details/cites....?
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433