NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2006 10:28:38 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2006 10:18:40 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

I think there is room for both opinions, still. The first thing NASA will
probably outsource is putting cargo up. OTOH, when is the last time a
private carrier put people up or brought anything down? And even with taking
payload up, I think if I were orbiting, I would want NASA to control the
upper stage.

You mean the agency that's killed fourteen people, out of a few
hundred? Why?

Because no one does it better, as can be seen by tonight's scrub.

What an absurd and illogical argument.

Nobody's been given money to attempt to do it better. And in fact,
the Russians do it better.

Been given money? By whom?

By everyone, you moron.

We'll start with you, imbecile. How much have you given to private
spaceflight?

Your idiotic question was about who hadn't given money.

Why would you ask who hasn't given someone
money? What kind of idiotic question is that? When are you going to
learn to read? Or think?

You are the one whining about fairness.

No, I wasn't.

Do you honestly think that if
the govt. gave billions of dollars to a bunch of space jockeys that
we'd automatically create a private space industry?

Do you honestly think that asking idiotic straw man questions advances
the debate?

Once again the issue of independent safety oversight with the private
space industry is something the faa must deal with, and could be
tremendously aided by utilizing the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel,
whose charter is already in place to conduct such oversight with
nasa's manned space program.

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel first quarterly report 2006.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/...terly_2006.pdf

"I. Introduction
This is the First Quarterly Report for the Aerospace Safety Advisory
Panel in 2006.
NASA chartered the Panel to review, evaluate, and advise on elements of
NASA's safety and quality systems, including industrial and systems
safety, risk management and trend analysis, and the management of these
activities."


http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/pa...st/Blakey1.htm
"STATEMENT OF MARION C. BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

FEBRUARY 9, 2005
In conclusion, I want to assure the Committee that the FAA will
continue to strive to be proactive, vigilant, and responsive to the
needs of the commercial space transportation. We will create a sound
regulatory framework that protects public safety while enabling the
industry to manage risk, evolve its technology, and bring its products
to the global marketplace with appropriate regulatory oversight. As
Secretary Mineta recently said before the Aero Club here in Washington:
"The first rule, to quote an old adage, is 'do no harm.' This
means that your government will not stand in the way of airlines as
they seek to innovate. It means giving the fledgling commercial space
industry the freedom to develop, and I am very pleased that we now have
a streamlined legislative foundation in place to support this exciting
new area of transportation." I agree with the Secretary."

On 8 Dec 2006 11:21:03 -0800, in a place far, far away,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2006 10:28:38 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Do you honestly think that if
the govt. gave billions of dollars to a bunch of space jockeys that
we'd automatically create a private space industry?

Do you honestly think that asking idiotic straw man questions advances
the debate?

Once again the issue of independent safety oversight with the private
space industry is something the faa must deal with, and could be
tremendously aided by utilizing the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel,
whose charter is already in place to conduct such oversight with
nasa's manned space program.

You know, I think that you could ask this obsessive-compulsive mental
case how his mother is, and he'd probably repost the same thing...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2006 11:21:03 -0800, in a place far, far away,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2006 10:28:38 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Do you honestly think that if
the govt. gave billions of dollars to a bunch of space jockeys that
we'd automatically create a private space industry?

Do you honestly think that asking idiotic straw man questions advances
the debate?

Once again the issue of independent safety oversight with the private
space industry is something the faa must deal with, and could be
tremendously aided by utilizing the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel,
whose charter is already in place to conduct such oversight with
nasa's manned space program.

You know, I think that you could ask this obsessive-compulsive mental
case how his mother is, and he'd probably repost the same thing...


mmm, maybe such independent oversight from the asap would make space
tourism flights safer, wow I understand rand, my motivation is terrible
from your standpoint as independent safety oversight would most
certainly be more costly to the private space flight industry..
tom

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On 8 Dec 2006 10:18:40 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
:a way as to indicate that:
:
: I think there is room for both opinions, still. The first thing NASA will
: probably outsource is putting cargo up. OTOH, when is the last time a
: private carrier put people up or brought anything down? And even with taking
: payload up, I think if I were orbiting, I would want NASA to control the
: upper stage.
:
: You mean the agency that's killed fourteen people, out of a few
: hundred? Why?
:
: Because no one does it better, as can be seen by tonight's scrub.
:
: What an absurd and illogical argument.
:
: Nobody's been given money to attempt to do it better. And in fact,
: the Russians do it better.
:
:Been given money? By whom?
:
:By everyone, you moron. Why would you ask who hasn't given someone
:money? What kind of idiotic question is that? When are you going to
:learn to read? Or think?

When are you going to learn what a business case looks like and
recognize that your whining for some piece of the government pie
doesn't constitute one?

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

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

And whether or not NASA's record is the same as the Russians, or
better, or worse, depends on how you keep the books. They've only
lost crew on one flight, and never on ascent.

Er... two flights: Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. And unless your crew is never
planning to return to Earth, I fail to understand the "never on
ascent" caveat.

Stats...

Shuttle: 692 astronauts flown, 14 fatalities (2.02%)
Soyuz: 228 cosmonauts flown, 4 fatalities (1.75%)

US Spaceflights: 147 (incl. X-15 Flights 90 and 91, and SS1 flights)
Failures: 5 (Gemini 8, Apollo 13, STS-51L, STS-83, STS-107)
Failure Rate: 3.40%

Soviet/Russian Spaceflights: 105
Failures: 6 (Soyuz 1, 11, 18A, 25, 33, T-10A)
Failure Rate: 5.71%

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

And whether or not NASA's record is the same as the Russians, or
better, or worse, depends on how you keep the books. They've only
lost crew on one flight, and never on ascent.

Er... two flights: Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. And unless your crew is never
planning to return to Earth, I fail to understand the "never on
ascent" caveat.

Stats...

Shuttle: 692 astronauts flown, 14 fatalities (2.02%)
Soyuz: 228 cosmonauts flown, 4 fatalities (1.75%)

US Spaceflights: 147 (incl. X-15 Flights 90 and 91, and SS1 flights)
Failures: 5 (Gemini 8, Apollo 13, STS-51L, STS-83, STS-107)
Failure Rate: 3.40%

Soviet/Russian Spaceflights: 105
Failures: 6 (Soyuz 1, 11, 18A, 25, 33, T-10A)
Failure Rate: 5.71%

Brian

Here is some information about the faa's safety performance goal, of
no fatalities in the private launch industry.

Commercial Space Launches GAO-07-16
FAA Has Met Its Safety Performance Goal of No Fatalities or Substantial
Property Damage
Page 16
"FAA has met its annual performance goal to have no fatalities,
serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public during
licensed space launches and reentries since establishing this goal in
2003. Moreover, according to FAA, none of the 179 commercial launches
that occurred between March 1989 and August 2006 resulted in casualties
or substantial property damage. Of these 179 launches, FAA had joint
oversight responsibility with other federal agencies for 152 (about 85
percent) and sole responsibility for 27 (about 15 percent) that
included sea launches and the launches of SpaceShipOne from Mojave
Spaceport. FAA shared responsibility with the Air Force for 132
launches at Air Force launch sites and with NASA, the Army, or foreign
governments for 20 launches at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in
Virginia, the Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, and
other facilities. Thus, the majority of commercial space launches
during this period took place at Air Force launch sites where the Air
Force had primary responsibility for safety oversight. We discuss later
in this report the challenges that FAA faces in the future in assuming
sole responsibility for launch safety oversight at spaceports."

tom

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:46:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

And whether or not NASA's record is the same as the Russians, or
better, or worse, depends on how you keep the books. They've only
lost crew on one flight, and never on ascent.

Er... two flights: Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. And unless your crew is never
planning to return to Earth, I fail to understand the "never on
ascent" caveat.

It wasn't a "caveat." It was a detailed description of the failures.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:46:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

And whether or not NASA's record is the same as the Russians, or
better, or worse, depends on how you keep the books. They've only
lost crew on one flight, and never on ascent.

Er... two flights: Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. And unless your crew is never
planning to return to Earth, I fail to understand the "never on
ascent" caveat.

It wasn't a "caveat." It was a detailed description of the failures.

rand you do not have the right to post here without addressing the fact
you have a bias, and you do not want independent oversight in the
private space launch industry because of costs, not because of public
safety... Ignoring me does not ignore that simple fact of ethical
professional responsibility, as you have no free pass simply because
you make illogical declarations, as you are responsible for your own
posts now put up or...

Now rand simberg, do you have a personal bias for posting how safety
oversight may effect an industry you are associated with?

tom

Rand Simberg wrote:

NASA's overall fatality rate is still less than 2%, equal to the Russians.
Nobody else has enough flights to even compare, in a statistically
significant way.



The point is, that's no reason to prefer NASA over the private sector.



Which has made two manned spaceflights up to the moment. :-)

Pat

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:17:59 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

NASA's overall fatality rate is still less than 2%, equal to the Russians.
Nobody else has enough flights to even compare, in a statistically
significant way.



The point is, that's no reason to prefer NASA over the private sector.



Which has made two manned spaceflights up to the moment. :-)

Three, actually. All of them successful...