Pre-Columbia Criticism of NASA's Safety Culture in the late 1990's

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

The howling mob might try reading the text I quoted for context. I'd
expect stuffy to ignore context, but the rest of you disappoint me.

D.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap36.htm

According to the Wright Patterson AFB history web site, it's an escape
"module" if you are talking about things like the F-111 crew escape method.
Perhaps the fact that several posters misunderstood you suggests that the
thread itself - as well as your included context - didn't narrow down the
meaning to ***escape*** capsules. :-) No big deal.

Jon

(Derek Lyons) writes:

The howling mob might try reading the text I quoted for context. I'd
expect stuffy to ignore context, but the rest of you disappoint me.

After re-reading the original post, your original meaning is still not
clear (maybe I'm dense). If you mean aircraft escape capsules, then
you're right. If you meant escape capsules for space vehicles, then
you're wrong. I was assuming, since you didn't specify one or the
other, that you meant escape capsules for space vehicles since this is
sci.space.shuttle.

As has been pointed out, the escape capability of Soyuz is flight
proven. The escape capability of Mercury and Apollo were both well
tested (Gemini using e-seats, not an escape tower). Shuttle escape
was not in the operational design, as originally built (ignoring the test
flights). The original operational design didn't even give the crew
pressure suits and parachutes, which I believe you had on the X-15.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(Derek Lyons) writes:

jeff findley wrote:

(Derek Lyons) writes:
Capsules have a horrible operational record. They are not a panacea.

How do you arrive at this statement? The only death I can think of
that was directly related to a capsule was Soyuz 1. Other deaths and
near deaths were attributed to systems you'd have on *any*
spacecraft.

Pay attention to the thread Jeff, 'capsule' in the current context
means 'escape capsule' (I.E. F-111) not 'space capsule' (I.E.
Mercury).

Aircraft escape capsules have a poor safety history. However,
spacecraft capsules have a good safety history. The escape system on
Soyuz is flight proven and has saved lives. The Apollo escape system
was extensively tested, although was never used on an actual mission.
I was under the impression that this was sci.space.shuttle and you
were replying to a posting that specifically referred to the space
shuttle design, not the F-111. You said "capsules" without any
adjectives to describe what you meant.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:04:58 +0000, Jon Berndt wrote:

I'm a little puzzled by Derek's statement. I've been trying to think back
on bad capsule experiences, but can't come up with any other than
Komarov's and Soyuz 11.

Well, _if_ you count the Apollo 1 fire (bad capsule design), that makes
4... In Apollo 13 the problem was with the SM, not the capsule, but the
SM was _required_ by the capsule... I think that's about as far as I can
stretch it, myself.

Derek... the howling mob has you surrounded, methinks

Jon

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

jeff findley writes:

Pay attention to the thread Jeff, 'capsule' in the current context
means 'escape capsule' (I.E. F-111) not 'space capsule' (I.E.
Mercury).

Aircraft escape capsules have a poor safety history. However,
spacecraft capsules have a good safety history. The escape system on
Soyuz is flight proven and has saved lives.

An escape capsule for a winged spacecraft is a totally different thing
than an escape system on a Soyuz-style capsule.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 08:32:34 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:

Derek... the howling mob has you surrounded, methinks

The howling mob might try reading the text I quoted for context. I'd
expect stuffy to ignore context, but the rest of you disappoint me.

Ouch... walked into the turbine blades on that one.

Yes, escape capsules do not have a good hisyory.

D.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

From Jochem Huhmann:
jeff findley writes:

Pay attention to the thread Jeff, 'capsule' in the current context
means 'escape capsule' (I.E. F-111) not 'space capsule' (I.E.
Mercury).

Aircraft escape capsules have a poor safety history. However,
spacecraft capsules have a good safety history. The escape system on
Soyuz is flight proven and has saved lives.

An escape capsule for a winged spacecraft is a totally different thing
than an escape system on a Soyuz-style capsule.

What is at issue here (in or out of context) is escape from vehicles
capable of hypersonic spaceflight. When discussing crew escape from
the X-15 or shuttle, it is a misdirected criticism to cite subsonic
capsule performance of aircraft like the F-111.

As pointed out in another recent thread, this is like getting into a
car, reading the warning sign on the visor about how airbags can kill
you...
and then drawing a conclusion that a car *without* airbags is safer.

This conclusion is erroneous.

Back to the X-15. It's typical flight profile has *very little*
overlap in comparison to where the F-111 typically flies. Problems
with -111 egress cannot accurately be transferred directly to
hypersonic vehicles. The X-15 does not fly hours of pattern work at
the runway. It flies only one approach. The X-15 does not fly for
long durations at altitudes below 1,000 feet AGL. While the X-15 will
spend a significant portion of its flight at _hyper_sonic speed, the
F-111 doesn't typically spend all that much time flying _super_sonic.

An escape module could very well have saved Mike Adams. Regarding the
shuttle, an escape module could very well have eliminated a number of
memorial names for high schools and parks and such across the country.


If I am driving down an interstate at full speed, I want my car to
have an airbag. If I am flying a hypersonic entry, I want my
spacecraft to have (/be) a capsule.


~ CT

From "Charleston":

If NASA had allowed for completely automated reentry and the crew was just
five.... Well "WTF" nothing will bring them back now. I feel sick that I
did not say more, louder, sooner, and that I did not meet my writing
objectives. Sorry, but nothing would have changed anyway I guess.


For everyone interested, you can check out the October Popular Science
article that covers space shuttle egress. See new thread at

om

Daniel, in that article Sid Gutierrez expresses sentiments similar to
yours.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:
What is at issue here (in or out of context) is escape from vehicles
capable of hypersonic spaceflight. When discussing crew escape from
the X-15 or shuttle, it is a misdirected criticism to cite subsonic
capsule performance of aircraft like the F-111.

There is no evidence that the problems with weight and controllability
that F-111 style capsules suffer from would not also apply to the
Shuttle/X-15. (In fact, given the greater enviromental effects,
there's every evidence that they's be *worse*.)

An escape module could very well have saved Mike Adams. Regarding the
shuttle, an escape module could very well have eliminated a number of
memorial names for high schools and parks and such across the country.

An unproven assumption on your part, without one shred of evidence.

Not that you are capable of knowing the difference anyhow.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

For everyone interested, you can check out the October Popular Science
article that covers space shuttle egress. See new thread at

. com

Sorry you are not allowed access to that arera. What error problem is this???