Space X 2nd stage recovery

JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 29 Apr 2018
16:11:50 -0400:

On 2018-04-29 08:49, Jeff Findley wrote:

vehicle is certified. For flying vehicles, that's the FAA's
responsibility. NASA flies employees every single day on commercial
passenger aircraft yet they're not "legally responsible" for any
commercial passenger jet aircraft mishaps.


Fair point.

Question: When Challenger blew up, was Christa McAuliffe considered a
NASA employee or truly just a passenger who got training from NASA but
still employed by her school?


She was at most a 'temp'. She was a 'civilian teacher', just like
Senator Glenn and Senator Garn didn't become 'NASA employees' when
they rode on the Shuttle.


I think traditionally, "Astronaut" was more like the pilot of a
commercial aircraft than a passenger. Hence employer responsible for
employee safety because driving the rocket was the job.


So we're from "legally responsible" to "Mayfly thinks". And Mayfly
thinks incorrectly, by the way. Just why do you think all those
astronauts were military pilots?


If you move to a paradigm where NASA employees become mere passengers on
commercial spacecraft that are piloted by the commercial operator, then
you are correct that employer NASA may just have to ensure the
commercial operator has an FAA certification.


He's correct regardless.


But things change if NASA buys the ship and puts its own pilots on the
rockets and runs the launch. No longer buying seats on a commercial
flights, it is chartering the plane and putting its own staff to run it.


No, things don't change. NASA owns a bunch of 'commercial' aircraft.
Do you seriously believe they just ignore the existence of an FAA type
certification and use their own airworthiness rules?


But how will NASA certify manned commercial operations? Won't it use
NASA standards or develop their own?


If the vehicle they're using has an FAA certification, why would they?
The only conceivable reason would be because they're trying to block
the use of the vehicle because they have their own agenda and their
own vehicle.


The other aspect is that NASA will have its standards still apply
becauyse of a ship docking/berthing to its property (space station) and
launching from its property (KSC). (for insance, requiring commefcial
operator cede authority to military who gets the right to press the red
button to detonate the rocket).


Totally different issues than NASA 'man rating'.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2018
02:00:28 -0400:

On 2018-04-29 20:51, Fred J. McCall wrote:

No, things don't change. NASA owns a bunch of 'commercial' aircraft.
Do you seriously believe they just ignore the existence of an FAA type
certification and use their own airworthiness rules?



I'm going to save time and space and merely say that droning on about
aircraft certification and the fact that there are always new things
to learn even on certificated aircraft is irrelevant and just snip all
the spew about airplanes. Bottom line, NASA does *NOT* have its own
rules for aircraft that it uses, so why should they do that for
spacecraft?


https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets...m?newsId=19074
This fact sheet seems to imply FAA only cares about launch and re-entry.

Since since until now, all FAA approved launches/launchers were
commercial cargo launches, does it have what it takes to certifiy manned
flight? (aka: man rate a rocket).


And of course you think they don't and won't, but then you're
frequently a bit of a nitwit.


http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?p...edition=prelim

§50905. License applications and requirements

(a)(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary may establish
procedures for safety approvals of launch vehicles, reentry vehicles,
safety systems, processes, services, or personnel (including approval
procedures for the purpose of protecting the health and safety of crew,
government astronauts, and space flight participants, to the extent
permitted by subsections (b) and (c)) that may be used in conducting
licensed commercial space launch or reentry activities.


Pay attention to this next bit.


(b) (2) The Secretary may prescribe—
(D) additional license requirements, for a launch vehicle carrying a
human being for compensation or hire, necessary to protect the health
and safety of crew, government astronauts, or space flight participants,
only if such requirements are imposed pursuant to final regulations
issued in accordance with subsection (c); and


So while the FAA has the ability to regulate manned spaceflight, it
isn't clear that at this point in time, they have developped the
regulatiosn for commercial manned flights other than what it has for
commercial cargo (namely to ensure the safety of people/infrastructure
on the ground).


Why would they develop such things before they had to?


If NASA dictated man rating requirements as part of its contracts for
Dragon and Starliner, would FAA just need these 2 to pass regular cargo
requirements because FAA doesn't yet have its own rules& for manned
space flight?


Until such time as one of them is being used for commercial operations
the question is irrelevant. Once one of them is wanted for use in a
purely commercial operation, I suspect FAA is going to have to develop
something, since NASA has neither the authority to 'approve' manned
spacecraft for purely commercial use nor the desire to have the legal
responsibility if they use their own rules and they don't cover
something.


So when the time comes for FAA to develop the supplemental regulations
to upgrtade from cargo to manned launches/re-entry, how will it proceed?


I suspect it will look a lot like aircraft certification, given that
FAA tends to be pretty conservative about such things. If they take a
long time to figure it out, FAA could be a significant barrier to
commercial business (see the case of certification of the Raytheon
Starship business aircraft, for example).


-just copy he NASA "man rating" regulation ?


No.


-or develop regulations as needs arise, as happened with the A320.


That's not what happened.


Or would this be an FCC like process where FAA might propose adoption of
the NASA man-rating rules, and lobbyists from Boeing and SpaceX and
others would work hard to remove the more onerous requirements?


No.


Considering BFS is being designed right now, shouldn't SpaceX get some
sort of clarity of what rules will be applied to its ship?


Not an issue until they start selling tickets.


BFS accident with 100 passengers aboard with no means to survive/escape
would be akin to Titanic. And people would ask FAA why it didn't require
BFS habve enough lifeboats aboard etc etc.


How many 'lifeboats' does the typical airliner carry? Why would the
question even arise, given that it has never come up with regard to
aircraft carrying hundreds of people crashing?




But how will NASA certify manned commercial operations? Won't it use
NASA standards or develop their own?


If the vehicle they're using has an FAA certification, why would they?
The only conceivable reason would be because they're trying to block
the use of the vehicle because they have their own agenda and their
own vehicle.


The other aspect is that NASA will have its standards still apply
becauyse of a ship docking/berthing to its property (space station) and
launching from its property (KSC). (for insance, requiring commefcial
operator cede authority to military who gets the right to press the red
button to detonate the rocket).


Totally different issues than NASA 'man rating'.



Just a bit more on this idea. NASA doesn't have its rules apply to
Russian spacecraft which are not only docking to NASA property (sort
of), but are carrying NASA astronauts.

As for things like Range Safety, commercial aircraft are required
during operation to obey all sorts of rules. None of those rules are
part of type certification.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2018
16:03:30 -0400:

On 2018-04-30 10:44, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Why would they develop such things before they had to?


Wouldn't such rules be needed PRIOR to SpaceX and Boeing bidding on
comemrcial manned taxi services ? How can you bid on a service before
you know what rules will be imposed on you?


They're not bidding 'commercial' services.


Until such time as one of them is being used for commercial operations
the question is irrelevant.

With Dragon2 flying this year "Until such a time ..." is NOW.


Except Dragon V2 is flying under NASA rules and not flying 'commercial
services'. You're very confused about this. The word 'Commercial' in
the contract doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.

purely commercial operation, I suspect FAA is going to have to develop
something, since NASA has neither the authority to 'approve' manned
spacecraft for purely commercial

You're correct. As far as Virgin Galactic joy rides, NASA has no say.

But it becomes a grey area when it comes to ISS taxi and resupply
missions since NASA is the customer, and as a customer, can impose
whatever rules it wants above and beyond what FAA already has.


No gray area at all.


The question becomes whether the FAA *must* develop rules for commercial
manned flights in oder for SpaceX to be able to launch Dragon2 which
*also* must conform to NASA specs.


Nope.


And in a void, FAA is more likely to just adopt NASA's "man rated" rules
rather than develop its own.


Nope.


And again, it all depends on whether NASA is buying airplane tickets to
the iSS from SpaceX Airlines, or whether NASA is chartering the plane
(Falcon9 + Dragon) and will fly it as a government mission. If the
pilots are NASA employees, it would point to it being a government
flight, at which point FAA may not kick in.


Yep.


If SpaceX has a vehicle with 7 seats, and uses 1 seat for its own pilot
to drive 6 passengers to ISS, then it is a clear case of a commercial
flight operated by SpaceX and no different from NASA buying
Orlando-Houston tickets for its employees on Delta Airlines.


Nope.


How the contract is structured matters in this case. And I don't know
how it is structured.


Well, you know, before you go darting off on tangents it would be
userful if you knew what was going on.


I suspect it will look a lot like aircraft certification, given that
FAA tends to be pretty conservative about such things. If they take a
long time to figure it out, FAA could be a significant barrier to
commercial business (see the case of certification of the Raytheon
Starship business aircraft, for example).

Aircraft certification evolved over decades or trial and error. (The
A320 example I provided being just one of them, but that trial and error
goes back to square windows on the comet becoming a "no no" for
pressurized aircraft after it was found to cause structural failures at
the corner.


Please show where square windows are a 'no no' for aircraft
certification.


You can't expect FAA to develop comprehensive commecial spaceflight
rules overnight. NASA is the one with the experience in the matter
having suffered failures in its history. (early rockets, Apollo 1,
Apollo 13, Challenger, Columbia).


NASA has no experience in developing commercial spaceflight rules.
NASA has some minor experience (which seems to be applicable only when
they want it to) in developing EXPERIMENTAL VEHICLE rules.


So if FAA is tasked to implement commercial manned spaceflight
regulations, it is more likely to take the NASA rules and hopefully
remove onerous ones after stakeholders such as SpaceX have shown they
are not required.


No, it isn't.


Considering BFS is being designed right now, shouldn't SpaceX get some
sort of clarity of what rules will be applied to its ship?


Not an issue until they start selling tickets.


it is an issue for engineers designing the rocket RIGHT NOW. They need
to know what rules they must obey.


Nope. You really don't know **** about aircraft certification,
either, do you?


How many 'lifeboats' does the typical airliner carry?

One at each door. And lifejackets under each seat. And while succesful
ditching in water are rare, the requirement is there. (the lifeboats
also happen to be the slides to allow emergency evacualtion of aircraft
standing on its landing gear).


No. There are no 'life boats' on commercial aircraft. If things go
to **** in flight, you ride it down and pray a lot.


You need to think about it from a political level. If BFR/BFS launches
with 100 passengers and they all die when it can be shown they could
have survived, fingers will be pointed at the FAA's failure to create
proper regulations for manned spaceflight.


And if unicorns start ****ting magic pixie dust fingers will be
pointed...


And there will be tough questions for the FAA in term of risks. If a
window breaks while in orbit, the pilot just can't drop down to 10,000
feet in a couple of minutes so people don't die. Do you mandate everyone
wear a space suit to survive such an event? section off the habitable
space so only a portion of passengers die in such an event? or just
mandate the windows be extra strong? Or just accept the risk?


Suppose everyone farts at the same time and the vehicle explodes...


Note that I THINK a similar debate was had for the Concorde due to how
high it flew.


You think wrong.

Just a bit more on this idea. NASA doesn't have its rules apply to
Russian spacecraft which are not only docking to NASA property (sort
of), but are carrying NASA astronauts.

Fair point. But then again, the NASA employees are passengers and a
russian is in charge of driving the Soyuz and it is controlled by
Russian ground personnel. And NASA did try to impoose as much as it
could in terms of safety rules, with the Russians succesfully pushing
back. Same for ISS in early days when americans relied on Russia for
life and transport and found Russia to be playing very loose which was
incompatible with NASA "everything must be scripted and tested 200
times" approach. But NASA had no choice but to grin and bear it because
they had no choice but to ride with the russians and live in russian
segment.

Bill Shepherd wore a roll of duct tape with him at all times to fix
things in Zarya/Zvezda.


Cite?


The difference with Dragon/Starliner is that NASA has time and isn't
desperate for a ride and can impose regulations if it wants it. The fact
that NASA got SpaceX to drop land landings for Dragon is one such
examnple of the power NASA exerts.


How is that relevant to anything?



As for things like Range Safety, commercial aircraft are required
during operation to obey all sorts of rules. None of those rules are
part of type certification.

If you look at ETOPS, FAA regulation cover not only the aircraft type
certification, but also airline maintenance rules, as well as in flight
rules (ETOPS flights routes, as well as rules that apply in case of
engine failure).


Once again, it becomes obvious that you don't know jack **** about
aircraft certification, either.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 1 May 2018
19:35:45 -0400:

On 2018-05-01 06:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Please show where square windows are a 'no no' for aircraft
certification.


Google Comet square window


Why would I need to do that? I know all about the Comet.


The standard may not ban square windows, ...


There you go, then. Your original statement was incorrect.


... but the certification process
requires testing of many pressurization cycles to ensure this doesn't
happen.


And there's no reason why large square windows can't be made to work.
It would just be a lot more expensive, which is why you don't see it.




Bill Shepherd wore a roll of duct tape with him at all times to fix
things in Zarya/Zvezda.


Cite?


If you're not aware of this, you were obviously not following expedition
1. The dict tape was very well known and most NASA images in the gallery
shows teh roll of duct tape on Shepherd's waist.


Do you not know what a 'cite' is?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn