NASA 2011 budget and Ares-1

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

The fact that even though it was not designed to do a unmanned landing it
could be that easily modified to make one possible shows that with a
little extra work in the beginning it could have been designed to
incorporate that feature right from the get-go in a reliable form.

Yes and no. Note to that it was added in after what, 100 flights or so?
When the flight regime and procedures are well test.


When it came time to design the Shuttle, NASA wasn't about to paint itself
into that corner, so it was _going_ to require people to fly it come hell
or high water.


You're putting the cart before the horse. Of course the Shuttle was going
to have people on it. That was sort of the point.

Once you accept that design requirement, you discard the need to make it
entirely autonomous.


Pat

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
:And I saw at least one article where someone was suing
:an airline after the deployment and use of some since the bags didn't
:inflate and that scared him. Geesh. :-)
:

Well, that passenger should get a heartfelt apology.

"Sir, we're terribly sorry that you are simply too effing stupid to
listen to the briefing given by the flight attendant prior to
takeoff."

Yeah. That was the basic discussion my friends and I had and I think what
the court ultimately decided.


:
:Now, masks for the flight crew definitely make a difference.
:

Yeah. Passengers blacking out isn't great, but they'll recover if you
can get low enough fast enough. Pilots blacking out really sucks,
because then you tend to get too low fast enough...

Nice quote.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Brian Thorn wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "non-flight-capable orbiter", and it
turned as much as the X-15 did to line up with the runway, etc.

I should have said "non-orbital-flight-capable orbiter".
Another problem was that Enterprise was considerably lighter during the
tests than the orbital Shuttles would be, so it had to be flown
differently during the glide tests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_and_Landing_Tests

"After flying missions on Columbia (STS-2) and Discovery (STS-51-I),
Engle reported that the flight and handling characteristics of the
operational orbiters were similar to Enterprise, except that he had to
fly a steeper profile with the prototype as it was much lighter than the
operational spacecraft."

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:

None of which changes the fact - the emergency oygen system has killed
110 people without ever saving a single life.


We're heading into trollville here, aren't we?
This would read better if it were in Attic Latin.

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
When it came time to design the Shuttle, NASA wasn't about to paint itself
into that corner, so it was _going_ to require people to fly it come hell
or high water.


You're putting the cart before the horse. Of course the Shuttle was going
to have people on it. That was sort of the point.

Once you accept that design requirement, you discard the need to make it
entirely autonomous.

Although it would have been interesting to make it totally autonomous
for simple satellite boost missions (Buran was going to have the ability
to fly unmanned operational missions if so desired), I was thinking
along the lines of just flying it unmanned for the first orbital test or
so for safety's sake, like the intention was for Dyna-Soar, another
system intended to be always manned when operational.*
The Air Force thought that was doable by November, 1965; it should have
been doable fifteen years later.

*Although it might have occurred to them that if they did give it the
ability to fly unmanned missions, its time on-orbit could be greatly
extended, and you would end up with something along the lines of the
X-37B decades sooner.

Pat

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

I didn't say they were killed by the failure of the emergency oxygen
mask system did I? I said they were killed by the *existence* of the
emergency oxygen system.

They were *not* killed by the emergency oxygen system fitted to that
aircraft. They were killed by oxygen system *components* that were
being carried in the hold in contravention of the regulations.

None of which changes the fact - the emergency oygen system has killed
110 people without ever saving a single life.

They were not killed by the jet aircraft's emergency oxygen system. They
were killed by hazardous materials in the cargo hold (in violation of FAA
rules) which happened to be out of date oxygen generator canisters from
another aircraft. This is an important distinction that seems to be
completely lost on you.

The lesson here is to follow FAA regulations instead of trying to cut costs
by breaking them.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Jeff Findley wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...

None of which changes the fact - the emergency oygen system has killed
110 people without ever saving a single life.

They were not killed by the jet aircraft's emergency oxygen system. They
were killed by hazardous materials in the cargo hold (in violation of FAA
rules) which happened to be out of date oxygen generator canisters from
another aircraft. This is an important distinction that seems to be
completely lost on you.

Not forgetting the claim that oxygen systems have never saved a life.
They've been deployed at altitude on numerous occasions. It seems
entirely credible that a number of people with heart conditions, etc.,
*do* owe their lives to the systems.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

I didn't say they were killed by the failure of the emergency oxygen
mask system did I? I said they were killed by the *existence* of the
emergency oxygen system.

They were *not* killed by the emergency oxygen system fitted to that
aircraft. They were killed by oxygen system *components* that were
being carried in the hold in contravention of the regulations.

None of which changes the fact - the emergency oygen system has killed
110 people without ever saving a single life.

They were not killed by the jet aircraft's emergency oxygen system.

Had I claimed they were killed by the jet's emergency oxygen system,
you'd have a point. But I didn't, despite the fact that keep feeling
the need to claim I did so that you can debunk a strawman of your own
creation rather than adressing the claim I did make.

They were killed by hazardous materials in the cargo hold (in violation
of FAA rules) which happened to be out of date oxygen generator canisters
from another aircraft. This is an important distinction that seems to be
completely lost on you.

No, I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it is irrelevant. Had the system
not existed, then the cannisters wouldn't have existed to be shipped.
The disaster was a direct consequence of the existence of the
cannisters in a clear straight line.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
.. .
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

It's worth pointing out that the emergency oxygen masks have yet to
save anyone inflight - but has killed 110 people. So far.

That's a new one on me - how?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592

I call b.s. on this. The ValuJet fire and crash wasn't caused by a
failure of the emergency oxygen mask system.

I didn't say they were killed by the failure of the emergency oxygen
mask system did I? I said they were killed by the *existence* of the
emergency oxygen system.

And if there was a truck driver who had these in his load got hit by a car
and killed, would you make that number 102?

If his death was caused by the cannisters (I.E. by them exploding and
incenerating him), yes. If his death was caused by his truck going
cab first into a bridge abutment, no.

I mean he's carrying the load which exists. What if it's a guy working at a
plant that makes them and a guy has a heart attack from the stress. Does
that make it 103?

Maybe. Did he have a pre existing condition or genetic disposition?

But then, any arguement can be nullified by exagerating edge cases
into the center.

The fire and crash was caused by a failure to follow FAA regulations
forbidding the transport of hazardous materials in aircraft cargo holds.
The fact that in this case the hazardous cargo was expired chemical oxygen
generators is completely irrelevant. If the expired chemical oxygen
generators would have been shipped by ground in properly marked
containers, this accident never would have happened.

And if pigs had wings, we'd all be wearing hats to keep the pig****
out of our eyes. There's tons of accidents that wouldn't have
happened had the proper procedures been followed, so what?

So, equate the accident with the proximate cause.

shrug OK. Then the Challenger accident happened because of frozen
O-rings. The flawed design of the SRB joints that was retained
despite known problems is thus irrelevant. The budgetary and
political considerations that lead to that flawed design and its
retention as also thus irrelevant. After all, had they operated it
within specs there would never have been an accident.

Except of course for all the other near accidents, but they must have
been improper operation too. After all, it was the proximate cause of
the one actual accident.

Sometimes looking beyond the proximate cause leads one to deeper
truths. Rejecting out of hand arguement does not. Rejecting a
strawman version of an arguement doesn't either.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

None of which changes the fact - the emergency oygen system has killed
110 people without ever saving a single life.


We're heading into trollville here, aren't we?

Nope. just hoping desperately, that people would be willing to
actually discuss things rather than constructing a strawman and
debunking that and then declaring the discussion over.

One of the reasons for the decline of these groups is that they slowly
devolved into repeating the same slogans, the same dogma, the same
groupthink, the same, the same.

When that happens - what reason is left to continue?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL