How serious is the May window?

Jim Oberg wrote:
"Chris Bennetts" wrote

I still wouldn't completely rule out Discovery's next trip being aboard an
SCA rather than a shuttle stack.


Since there are no longer any shuttle processing
facilities apart from KSC, I'm assuming you are
referring to museum disposal?

That's what I had in mind.

--Chris

OK, you're the expert, so I'll ask: Why is recertification not
necessary
for unmanned operation?


no chance of killing crew We have at least one extra orbiter since
atlantis is being retired early.

so we could safely cointinue flying the shuttle even beyond the 2010
date till a new heavy lift system is available

Please stop snipping and replying to a post that wasn't the source. Hiding
text and your answer are not effective forms of making a technical point.

restoring context

Bob Haller wrote:

nasa would be far better off to upgrade the shuttle for unmanned
operations to keep it flying till the replacement vehicle is
available, it will cost a ittle more but unmanned elminates
recertifying and that saves bucks unlimited....

/restoring context


Bob Haller wrote:

OK, you're the expert, so I'll ask: Why is recertification not
necessary
for unmanned operation?


no chance of killing crew

I don't see the humor here. Please explain.

Now, you're the expert, so please discuss the following. Suppose that loss
of control of the orbiter occurs during rendezvous and docking with ISS?
Suppose that uncontrolled propulsion systems firing are made with the
orbiter docked to ISS? I don't see how the lack of recertification will
help here. I don't see how the lack of humans on-board will help here. In
your answer please consider -- as just one source of information -- NESC
document RP-05-18, Shuttle Orbiter Reaction Jet Driver (RJD) Independent
Technical Assessment/Inspection Report. Also discuss the loss of control of
a 200,000+ lb orbiter during reentry and how the lack of certification and a
crew on board to deal with malfunctions is safe.



We have at least one extra orbiter since
atlantis is being retired early.

Irrelevant. Please stay on topic.


so we could safely cointinue flying the shuttle even beyond the 2010
date till a new heavy lift system is available

Please address safety issues including the points above.

--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"The number of people having any connection with the project must be
restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people."
-- Kelly Johnson in Skunk Works
--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"The number of people having any connection with the project must be
restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people."
-- Kelly Johnson in Skunk Works

You still do not deal with the loss of control of the Shuttle as you have
not eliminated the risk but simply shifted it in one case and fantasized it
away in another. And here I thought you actually cared about safety. You
don't.

By the way, you were so worried about the sounds on the space station. Did
you ever relay your concerns to the authorities that they were handling it
all wrong and it was unsafe? Or were you too much of a chicken even for
that?

Unless you have something intelligent to say, I will probably simply not
replay to any more of your babble.





Bob Haller wrote:

Please stop snipping and replying to a post that wasn't the source.
Hiding
text and your answer are not effective forms of making a technical
point.

restoring context



Bob Haller wrote:
nasa would be far better off to upgrade the shuttle for unmanned
operations to keep it flying till the replacement vehicle is
available, it will cost a ittle more but unmanned elminates
recertifying and that saves bucks unlimited....


/restoring context


Bob Haller wrote:
OK, you're the expert, so I'll ask: Why is recertification not
necessary for unmanned operation?

no chance of killing crew



I don't see the humor here. Please explain.

Now, you're the expert, so please discuss the following. Suppose
that loss
of control of the orbiter occurs during rendezvous and docking with
ISS?
Suppose that uncontrolled propulsion systems firing are made with
the orbiter docked to ISS? I don't see how the lack of
recertification will
help here. I don't see how the lack of humans on-board will help
here.
In
your answer please consider -- as just one source of information --
NESC
document RP-05-18, Shuttle Orbiter Reaction Jet Driver (RJD)
Independent
Technical Assessment/Inspection Report. Also discuss the loss of
control of
a 200,000+ lb orbiter during reentry and how the lack of
certification and a
crew on board to deal with malfunctions is safe.



We have at least one extra orbiter since atlantis is being retired
early.


Irrelevant. Please stay on topic.


so we could safely cointinue flying the shuttle even beyond the
2010 date till a new heavy lift system is available


Please address safety issues including the points above.

--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"The number of people having any connection with the project must
be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of
good people."
-- Kelly Johnson in Skunk Works
--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"The number of people having any connection with the project must
be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of
good people."
-- Kelly Johnson in Skunk Works


Reply Rate this post:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

Is this enough pasting for you???/

I put a smiley behind cant kill a crew, since the only reason the
shuttle is being shut down is the risk of killing another crew. Up
untill columbia most here and certinally nasa were happy to fly
this system at least another 20 years...

Revendous and docking would FIRST invoplve a soyuz crew flying over
to manually fly and dock the shuttle to the station! Docking of
shuttlke wouldnt be automated!

shuttle docked to ISS would have ISS crew in shuttle as needed

uncontrolled engine firing of shuttle can occur at any time, its
one shuttle trouble that would have to be addressed to continue
past 2010..its a danger today assuming RTF ever occurs

on reentry, white sands or a off shore landing area would have to
be used to minimize danger during reentry. but even with manned
reentry there are non recoverable failure modes that a live crew
cant help, columbia is a excellent example.

Have a question for YOU, if the next flight sees more foam loss how
will the station be finished and supported till the new system is
up and running?




--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"The number of people having any connection with the project must be
restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people."
-- Kelly Johnson in Skunk Works
--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"The number of people having any connection with the project must be
restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people."
-- Kelly Johnson in Skunk Works

rk wrote in
:

Bob Haller wrote:

OK, you're the expert, so I'll ask: Why is recertification not
necessary
for unmanned operation?

no chance of killing crew

I don't see the humor here. Please explain.

More to the point, the CAIB doesn't make an exception for it:

R9.2-1
Prior to operating the Shuttle beyond 2010, develop and conduct a vehicle
recertification at the material, component, subsystem, and system levels.
Recertification requirements should be included in the Service Life
Extension Program.

--
JRF

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

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

rk wrote in
:

Bob Haller wrote:

OK, you're the expert, so I'll ask: Why is recertification not
necessary for unmanned operation?

no chance of killing crew

I don't see the humor here. Please explain.

More to the point, the CAIB doesn't make an exception for it:

R9.2-1
Prior to operating the Shuttle beyond 2010, develop and conduct a
vehicle recertification at the material, component, subsystem, and
system levels. Recertification requirements should be included in
the Service Life Extension Program.

And Hallerb is an obsessive rule follower. Why does he disregard this
recommendation which the NASA Administrator said will be followed?
--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"The number of people having any connection with the project must be
restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people."
-- Kelly Johnson in Skunk Works

On 26 Feb 2006 12:37:07 -0800, "Bob Haller" wrote:

The safety board was talking about a MANNED vehicle, take out people
requirements can be updated.

The ISS is manned.

If you use your new Soyuz idea than that will be manned.

The Earth is manned for reentry.

Please show that the CAIB report referred to only manned missions. It's
your assertion, back it up.


I noticed no one addressed what will happen if the next shuttle looses
more foam?

I noticed it had nothing to do with the topic at hand and is thus irrelevant
to this conversation. Or do you just want to change the topic to avoid the
fact that your recommended plan is unsafe?

--
rk, Just an OldEngineer
"The number of people having any connection with the project must be
restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people."
-- Kelly Johnson in Skunk Works