SpaceShipOne News Coverage just a little rough on the edges

Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:

Yes, a point where so many others have failed. You could even see it in just
reading past messages about the SS1 roll problem. As far as I know no-one
suggested such a simple solution. And just forget what present-day NASA
would do to solve it.


Still, it's something they will want to fix in the passenger version.
NASA? Oh, NASA would do a study of the problem, find out that it would
be expensive and time-consuming to fix, and continue to fly exactly the
way they had before finding it...after talking themselves into the idea
that it was safe to do so, because they hadn't lost a vehicle yet- even
with the problem.
They are presently trying to talk themselves into ditching some of the
CAIB's recommendations- on the grounds that to implement them would be
expensive and time-consuming.....

Pat

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:13:24 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

They are presently trying to talk themselves into ditching some of the
CAIB's recommendations- on the grounds that to implement them would be
expensive and time-consuming.....

They will be. Many of them are unrealistic.

NASA either has to decide to fly the Shuttle, with whoever wants to
fly it (astronauts are free to leave any time--they knew the job was
dangerous when they took it), or retire it, but they should stop
****ing away billions in a futile attempt to make it "safe."

In article ,
says...
Still, it's something they will want to fix in the passenger version.

True, but the fix may be the same as for the prize-winning SS1 flight:
if going straight up makes it spin, then just don't go straight up.

Sometimes the simplest solution is the best.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

After that, I believe, I undertook to take apart and assemble the clocks
of my grandfather. In the former operation I was always successful, but
often failed in the latter. -- attributed to Nicola Tesla

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:13:24 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Still, it's something they will want to fix in the passenger version.
NASA? Oh, NASA would do a study of the problem, find out that it would
be expensive and time-consuming to fix, and continue to fly exactly the
way they had before finding it...after talking themselves into the idea
that it was safe to do so, because they hadn't lost a vehicle yet- even
with the problem.

Well, they'd probably call in the flight research people and we'd tell
the pilot to watch what he did with the stick, since he said it was
his fault.

They are presently trying to talk themselves into ditching some of the
CAIB's recommendations- on the grounds that to implement them would be
expensive and time-consuming.....

And some of them aren't really going to solve any particular problem.
NASA went through the "satisfying dumb recommendations" business after
Challenger and produced, among some real improvements, the Orbiter
bail-out system. Expensive and time-consuming and not a solution to
any real problem.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
And some of them aren't really going to solve any particular problem.

That's the rub, ain't it? Some problems may not be solvable within the
available constraints. The existing shuttle bail-out system is next to
useless, because it solves the problem of bail-out for an extremely small
part of the bail-out envelope. Does it solve the problem (or at least as
much as possible)? Does it cause new problems? Has the problem been
sufficiently well defined so that these questions can even be answered?

In short, is the fix worse than the cure? Is the problem significant enough
to warrant fixing?