WTF?!?

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:02:51 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Terrell Miller wrote:

"Whatever restrictions we had in place post-9/11 have been eased,"
said Michael Braukus, a public affairs officer at NASA headquarters in
Washington. "So we're just back to more or less what is ... normal
operations in regards to the media activities, as well as other
security operations."
/quote

Unbelievable. NASA has done some really dip**** things in the last 30
years, but this one takes the cake.

Hey, remember their approach to the recommendations of the safety
commission- did they meet all the commission's criteria? No.
Are they going to launch anyway? Yes. Why? Because the Shuttle has now
been declared "safe".

And many of the commission's criteria were always unrealistic.

And I see Pat's reading comprehension hasn't improved since I killfiled
him, since no one (not the CAIB, not the RTFTG, not NASA) has declared the
shuttle "safe". It's safer than it was before the accident, it's about as
safe as it can reasonably be made, and its overall safety record is
comparable to any other manned spacecraft, past or present, but no one is
pretending it's "safe" in any absolute sense.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:04:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Hey, remember their approach to the recommendations of the safety
commission- did they meet all the commission's criteria? No.
Are they going to launch anyway? Yes. Why? Because the Shuttle has now
been declared "safe".

And many of the commission's criteria were always unrealistic.

And I see Pat's reading comprehension hasn't improved since I killfiled
him, since no one (not the CAIB, not the RTFTG, not NASA) has declared the
shuttle "safe". It's safer than it was before the accident, it's about as
safe as it can reasonably be made, and its overall safety record is
comparable to any other manned spacecraft, past or present, but no one is
pretending it's "safe" in any absolute sense.


Of course, nothing can be said to be "safe" in any absolute sense, but
it's a convenient phrase for demagogues.

ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "safe" that I was
previously unaware of...

--
Terrell Miller


"Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again".
-Entertainment Weekly

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:04:03 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Hey, remember their approach to the recommendations of the safety
commission- did they meet all the commission's criteria? No.
Are they going to launch anyway? Yes. Why? Because the Shuttle has now
been declared "safe".

And many of the commission's criteria were always unrealistic.

And I see Pat's reading comprehension hasn't improved since I killfiled
him, since no one (not the CAIB, not the RTFTG, not NASA) has declared the
shuttle "safe". It's safer than it was before the accident, it's about as
safe as it can reasonably be made, and its overall safety record is
comparable to any other manned spacecraft, past or present, but no one is
pretending it's "safe" in any absolute sense.

Of course, nothing can be said to be "safe" in any absolute sense, but
it's a convenient phrase for demagogues.

In sci.space.policy wrote:


Pat Flannery wrote:

Actually, a rebreather and manpack SAM would work even better.


I'm slightly unpersuaded that a MANPADS would be a particularly
good anti-Shuttle weapon. The SRB exhaust would probably
confuse the poor thing -- and it might try to fly up the
exhaust plume.

A largish no-fooling keep-out zone around the pad would,
however, seem to be a good idea to discourage people with
mortars, anti-materiel rifles, ATMs and the like from taking
shots at the fueled stack before launch.

I can't find a figure for the thickness of the SRB casing.
535 PSI, 12' diameter.
Call it 4MPa, and 4m, leading to a hoop stress of some 16MN/m.
Let's call the material steel, at 500MPa, that leads to (for hoop
stress) and that makes the thickness 30mm or so, so call it 60mm, for
the longitudinal stresses too, and add a factor of 1.5, for 100mm.

This is right on the edge of (AIUI) 50 cal performance at 1Km, with
exotic rounds.

I suspect that 'best' results would be gotten by shooting at the
nozzle liners.
Windage may be a problem.

Ian Stirling wrote:

I can't find a figure for the thickness of the SRB casing.
535 PSI, 12' diameter.
Call it 4MPa, and 4m, leading to a hoop stress of some 16MN/m.
Let's call the material steel, at 500MPa, that leads to (for hoop
stress) and that makes the thickness 30mm or so, so call it 60mm, for
the longitudinal stresses too, and add a factor of 1.5, for 100mm.

SRB casings are indeed steel, but it's a special steel ('maraging
steel') with a tensile strength about three times higher than
your figure.

Paul

On 2005-07-09, Pat Flannery wrote:

If not, they could look at TV coverage of the giant digital countdown
clock.... which is a security lapse as blatant as publishing the arrival
and departure times of the London metro trains and double-decker buses.

I can assure you that using train schedules to let the terrorists know
when to plant bombs in London would be ineffective. Set the delay timer
to go off when you reach Kings Cross, all you'd do would be scare the
**** out of Lincolnshire...

--
-Andrew Gray

Ever see the movie Earth II*? The scuba diver with the high-powered
rifle and air mattress surfacing just off the coast?
Actually, a rebreather and manpack SAM would work even better.

Where would the diver have his "base ship"? Keep in mind that the waters
off of the coast are *heavily* patrolled near launch date and marine traffic
of any kind isn't allowed in the area - so your diver would have to go many
miles underwater to get to the "beach"...

A largish no-fooling keep-out zone around the pad would,
however, seem to be a good idea to discourage people with
mortars, anti-materiel rifles, ATMs and the like from taking
shots at the fueled stack before launch.

I can't find a figure for the thickness of the SRB casing.
535 PSI, 12' diameter.
Call it 4MPa, and 4m, leading to a hoop stress of some 16MN/m.
Let's call the material steel, at 500MPa, that leads to (for hoop
stress) and that makes the thickness 30mm or so, so call it 60mm, for
the longitudinal stresses too, and add a factor of 1.5, for 100mm.

This is right on the edge of (AIUI) 50 cal performance at 1Km, with
exotic rounds.

Now let's assume that our diver gets to the beach with his SAM or high-tech
rifle - the shuttle on pad is *several* miles (at least 8-10 km) away from
the closest beach. Armed military helicopters patrol the beachline in the
area, making passes every few minutes on launch day - not to mention the
Coast Guard patrolling in the offshore waters and (since 9/11) military
fighter jets on patrol as well. I don't think our hypothetical diver could
get into range for a shot before getting "picked off", and even from "the
beach" closest to the shuttle, he'd have to be Harry Potter to be able to
hit that bird with anything from that far away.

Look at it this way - from 6 miles away, if you shot at the shuttle with a
rifle doing say, 1800 fps, it would take 17.6 seconds for the projectile to
reach the area of the shuttle (assuming that the bullet never slows down) -
Assuming you fired at the same time the shuttle launched, and assuming the
shuttle accelerates at 3 G's, at 17.6 seconds, by the time the bullet
reached where the shuttle WAS, the shuttle would be clocking a good 1157
miles per hour or 1697 fps, and by 20 seconds it will be going at over 1900
fps or 1315 miles per hour (2116 km/hr) - which means if you took more than
2.4 seconds to aim and fire your shot, the bullet would *never* hit the
shuttle, no matter what your aim was (keep in mind, bullet drop is 9.8
meters/sec(squared), which means a bullet drop of 1.5 kilometers in 17.6
seconds) Although the shuttle doesn't actually start its acceleration at 3
g's, and it would be silly to try and shoot it during launch (rather than
standing still) - and even then I don't think that anyone's going to pick it
off with a rifle any time soon.

If you were packing a SAM, you'd get spotted and turned to swiss cheese by
the local aerial coverage, or have to waste your single shot trying to keep
from getting turned to jelly. Besides, the Russian Igla SA-16 "Gimlet"
portable SAM only has an effective range of 5km, which isn't enough to hit
the shuttle from the beach.

And don't bet on a potential terrorist getting a press or visitor's pass - a
journalist friend of mine informed me last night that individuals receiving
such passes (such as news crews, etc) have gone through a background check
and screening process more intimate than a proctological exam.

Okay, so what about someone "planted" at the Space Center as an employee?
Once again, heavy screening and security processes before, during, and after
launch day. When you see those astronauts coming out of the O&C building
and getting into the AstroVan, what you don't see are the guys on the roofs
above with machine guns. I should know - that location is about 20 feet
from where I regularly took my cigarette breaks when I was working at the
O&C.

Another line of defense? How about 15,000+ space center employees who would
rip a potential terrorist limb from limb at the first indication of trouble.

Personally, I think that the launch should be fairly safe from terrorist
threat - even if people DO know what time it's going to be. If anything is
going to kill our space program, it'll be bad press, bad politics, or the
ignorance and apathy of the public. Besides, we've always got Branson &
Rutan.

-K

wrote:


I'm slightly unpersuaded that a MANPADS would be a particularly
good anti-Shuttle weapon. The SRB exhaust would probably
confuse the poor thing -- and it might try to fly up the
exhaust plume.


Use a manually steered one like a British Blowpipe.

A largish no-fooling keep-out zone around the pad would,
however, seem to be a good idea to discourage people with
mortars, anti-materiel rifles, ATMs and the like from taking
shots at the fueled stack before launch.



It's an awfully vulnerable thing when it's on the pad in a fueled condition.
My pet fear was that they'd get someone in the VAB with a handheld flare
launcher that would let one of the SRBs have it during assembly.
In fact you could make a tiny, easily-concealed incendiary device and
accomplish that goal.

Pat

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:05:35 -0500, Kevin wrote
(in article ) :

Assuming you fired at the same time the shuttle launched, and assuming the
shuttle accelerates at 3 G's

Bad assumption, especially at launch when the stack is at its heaviest.

Other than that, good breakdown of the security issues involved.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever."
~Anonymous
www.angryherb.net

Terrell Miller wrote:


And I see Pat's reading comprehension hasn't improved since I
killfiled him, since no one (not the CAIB, not the RTFTG, not NASA)
has declared the shuttle "safe". It's safer than it was before the
accident, it's about as safe as it can reasonably be made, and its
overall safety record is comparable to any other manned spacecraft,
past or present, but no one is pretending it's "safe" in any
absolute sense.



Of course, nothing can be said to be "safe" in any absolute sense, but
it's a convenient phrase for demagogues.


ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "safe" that I was
previously unaware of...


Well, the mission commander thinks it's safe:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...eadlines-space
At least for this flight...although I don't know how I'd react if
someone asked me "Do you think this will be your last mission?"
I think Jose Jimenez would probably say "Oh, I sure hope not". :-)

Pat