NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:36:48 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 Sat, 09 Dec 2006 01:45:35 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Still, you added that comment as though it is of some significance.
What is it?

Why is the desripction of no significance?

Because the fact that neither of Russia's fatal space accidents were
during ascent does not make their space program safer than NASA's.
That's like saying the L-1011 is safer than the DC-10 because
Eastern's L-1011 crashed during landing at Miami while American's
DC-10 crashed during takeoff at Chicago. It's true, but does it make
one bit of difference? Nope.

OK, let's say "of interest" rather than "significant." I still think
that's the case, because it points out difference between the
approaches. But let me confess (because I'm getting old and senile)
that I can only recall one incident of death in a Soviet vehicle (the
depressurization during entry).

Soyuz 11.

What's the other one?

Soyuz 1, the parachute failure.

Unless you don't consider that an in-flight failure since it occurred at
impact.

"It's not the fall that kills you, it's that sudden stop at the end."

Sorry, I consider that an in-flight failure, regardless of what you might
think.


--
JRF

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

Brian Thorn wrote:


Because the fact that neither of Russia's fatal space accidents were
during ascent does not make their space program safer than NASA's.
That's like saying the L-1011 is safer than the DC-10 because
Eastern's L-1011 crashed during landing at Miami while American's
DC-10 crashed during takeoff at Chicago. It's true, but does it make
one bit of difference? Nope.



In fact, the Soviets had one spacecraft, Soyuz 5, that started its
reentry nose-end first with its equipment/retro module still attached
(the solar arrays worked like fins on a bomb and turned it around so the
front of the reentry module was pointing into the airstream) but it
survived after the equipment module exploded and detached and it turned
around to the correct orientation.
I'd like to see what would happen if NASA brought a shuttle in tail-end
first. :-D

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:

OK, let's say "of interest" rather than "significant." I still think
that's the case, because it points out difference between the
approaches. But let me confess (because I'm getting old and senile)
that I can only recall one incident of death in a Soviet vehicle (the
depressurization during entry). What's the other one?


Soyuz 1.
One of the solar arrays never deployed so it was short of power and
couldn't maneuver properly because the center of balance was off due to
the undeployed panel.
They managed to get it lined up for retrofire eventually, but the main
chute didn't deploy properly due to a design defect, and when the
reserve chute was deployed it tangled with the main one, so that
cosmonaut Komarov was killed on impact:
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz1.htm

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

I'd like to see what would happen if NASA brought a shuttle in tail-end
first. :-D

Personally I'd like to see the space industry follow the rail and car
industries' lead and put the engines at the front.

Neil Gerace wrote:

Personally I'd like to see the space industry follow the rail and car
industries' lead and put the engines at the front.


When I was playing around with that hypothetical solid-fueled ICBM that
would cloak itself in its own smoke to prevent it being hit by a laser
during ascent, that's how it was going to work. The first stage would be
on top with its nozzles at the front end angled outwards, and the second
and third stages would be under it, with the warhead at the bottom.
Some early rocket designs followed the front motor placement, including
Goddard's first liquid-fueled one.

Pat

Rand Simberg wrote:



Rand - One last time: Please do NOT feed the trolls.

Thanks.

--
dave Michelson

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:32:36 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

What's the other one?

Soyuz 1, the parachute failure.

Unless you don't consider that an in-flight failure since it occurred at
impact.

"It's not the fall that kills you, it's that sudden stop at the end."

Sorry, I consider that an in-flight failure, regardless of what you might
think.

It is. I'd simply forgotten it.

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:21:52 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

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.

The way I keep the books, both Soyuz 1 and 11 count as in-flight
fatalities. That's two fatal accidents on two flights. Which one of those
two did *you* forget?

Soyuz 1.

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:26:33 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

and is a basis for
preferring NASA, when in fact the private sector hasn't yet even made
the attempt. There's in fact no reason to think they couldn't do it
better than NASA, if funded, given that NASA is hardly perfect.

I'm just pointing out the illogic of the basis of his preference.

Do not confuse his logic for mine.

I'm not.

I would like to give the private sector
a shot. But do not for one second assume that I believe that the private
sector has a better safety record than NASA.

I didn't claim they did. I just said that it was absurd to claim that
NASA had a better safety record than the private sector, since the
private sector has none at all. And it's even more absurd to claim
that therefore we should trust NASA more than the private sector,
which was George's weird position.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:26:33 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

and is a basis for
preferring NASA, when in fact the private sector hasn't yet even made
the attempt. There's in fact no reason to think they couldn't do it
better than NASA, if funded, given that NASA is hardly perfect.

I'm just pointing out the illogic of the basis of his preference.

Do not confuse his logic for mine.

I'm not.

I would like to give the private sector
a shot. But do not for one second assume that I believe that the private
sector has a better safety record than NASA.

I didn't claim they did. I just said that it was absurd to claim that
NASA had a better safety record than the private sector, since the
private sector has none at all. And it's even more absurd to claim
that therefore we should trust NASA more than the private sector,
which was George's weird position.

Than you would say nasa has more experience performing safe and
successfull manned space flight than the private sector, and therefore
the same safety regulations such as independent safety oversight from
the asap should apply to private launchers.

tom.