U.S. Manned Space programs

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:28:04 -0700 (PDT), Me
wrote:

I know, the insulation is there to protect the rocket. But is it
REALLY supposed to be on fire like that? The incident was downplayed
by ULA, but I still think they were damned lucky not to lose the
vehicle that day.

Yes, it is thick enough to handle the fire issues.
And it was nowhere close to being an issue (it was classified as a
flight observation and not an anomaly) , much less "lucky not to lose
the vehicle"

just some clueless internet key pounders making much ado about nothing

Well, I'm the clueless internet key pounder in question, and I sure
hope you're right. But I still have trouble believing that Delta
IV-Heavy still on fire at 1,500 feet is what Boeing had in mind when
they designed the vehicle.

Brian

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Me" wrote in message
...

On Apr 27, 10:00 pm, Alan Erskine wrote:

I know, the insulation is there to protect the rocket. But is it
REALLY supposed to be on fire like that? The incident was downplayed
by ULA, but I still think they were damned lucky not to lose the
vehicle that day.

Yes, it is thick enough to handle the fire issues.
And it was nowhere close to being an issue (it was classified as a
flight observation and not an anomaly) , much less "lucky not to lose
the vehicle"


And this is exactly the sort of attitude I'm talking about. The fact
that
"it's thick enough to handle the fire issues" is besides the point.

The point is, the original design did NOT include "on fire after it's
cleared the launch pad". What you're doing is redefining the issue.

This is exactly what lead to the breakup of Challenger and Columbia.
Essentially, "well it wasn't designed for that, but it was safe before
and
should continue to be safe."


just some clueless internet key pounders making much ado about nothing

If the engineers at ULA have looked at the issue in detail, and not just
dismissed it out of hand, then it really isn't an issue. I'm guessing
that they have looked at it in detail, given that their customers' first
reaction would be similar to yours.


And that's the important distinction: if they've looked at it in detail and
fully understand it.


The problem with Challenger was that the engineers did recommend that
the flight be put on hold. They were overruled.


Well it even predates that specific flight. NASA knew they were having
O-ring burn-throughs, something that wasn't supposed to happen AT ALL.
There's some good arguments to be made that they should have stopped flying
long before Challenger.

The problem with Columbia was that it was assumed that the RCC was
"tougher" than the silica tiles. There was no test data to back up that
assumption. In that case, the engineers really were taken by surprise.


Right. "So far it hasn't been a problem, so we don't expect it to be in the
future." But they were based on some pretty faulty assumptions.

Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Apr 29, 6:13*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

And this is exactly the sort of attitude I'm talking about. *The fact that
"it's thick enough to handle the fire issues" is besides the point.

No, it has nothing to do with attitude, it has to do with knowing what
the vehicle was designed to do.

The point is, the original design did NOT include "on fire after it's
cleared the launch pad".


You do not have the knowledge or insight to make such a claim

"Me" wrote in message
...

On Apr 29, 6:13 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

And this is exactly the sort of attitude I'm talking about. The fact
that
"it's thick enough to handle the fire issues" is besides the point.

No, it has nothing to do with attitude, it has to do with knowing what
the vehicle was designed to do.

The point is, the original design did NOT include "on fire after it's
cleared the launch pad".


You do not have the knowledge or insight to make such a claim

You're correct in that I have no insider information. I'm going on both the
public comments I've seen over the past couple of years that at least
publically seem to indicate that having large "fireball" at launch then, and
now the rocket actually burning after leaving the pad were NOT part of the
original design. Now it's possible (even probable) the PAO is simply wrong,
but that tends to also then go against common sense. Generally in most
vehicles, an uncontrolled burning surface is not considered to be "normal"
or acceptable.





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Tue, 8 May 2012 09:15:20 -0400, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:


You do not have the knowledge or insight to make such a claim

You're correct in that I have no insider information. I'm going on both the
public comments I've seen over the past couple of years that at least
publically seem to indicate that having large "fireball" at launch then, and
now the rocket actually burning after leaving the pad were NOT part of the
original design. Now it's possible (even probable) the PAO is simply wrong,
but that tends to also then go against common sense. Generally in most
vehicles, an uncontrolled burning surface is not considered to be "normal"
or acceptable.

Why doesn't ULA just install at the Delta IV pads those "sparklers"
like on the Shuttle MLPs and be done with it? It would have to be
better than having a rocket doing a "Hindenberg" impression at every
T-0.

Oops, here I am pounding keyboards again...

Brian