|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
At this point in time I would have to say, craig, pat, derek and om
have essentially walked away, without the honor of at least tipping their king over. But most importantly understanding that stopping the tragic launch of sts-51l the morning of jan 28 1986, is much more than derek portrays, as he would like to bury his head in the sand and repeat mistakes of the past. But when it came down to it, derek could not back up his critique of roger boisjoly's actions with facts, therefore they are just dereks unsupported opinions, which are contradicted by the rogers commission, and diaz report to the caib. So since derek (or any of his buddies) wasn't honorable enough to retract his words, he falls very short of even coming close to answering the question of how would he have stopped the launch of challenger jan 28, 1986. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch2.htm "Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Chapter II: Events Leading Up to the Challenger Mission Flight Readiness Review The Level I Flight Readiness Review for mission 51-L took place on January 15, 1986. The Flight Readiness Review should address all aspects of flight preparation about which any questions have arisen. In addition, attendees confirm that all equipment and operational plans have been certified ready by the responsible manager within NASA. Solid Rocket Booster joints were not discussed during the review on January 15. The period during the day when a particular flight can be launched is determined by the requirements of the Orbiter and the payloads. The launch period for mission 51-L was limited in order to provide the best lighting conditions for Spartan's observations of Halley's Comet. The resulting «launch window" was a topic of some discussion at the Flight Readiness Review. The Challenger launch originally had been scheduled for a morning lift off. When Spartan was added to the mission, the launch window was changed to the afternoon. This change would have required a landing at night if a transatlantic abort landing had become necessary. Because the alternate transatlantic site, Casablanca, was not equipped for a night landing, the afternoon launch eliminated that back-up site. As January drew to a close, however, the conditions for optimum telescopic viewing of the comet could not be met. The launch window was shifted back to the morning hours so that the transatlantic abort site would be in daylight and a back-up site (Casablanca) would be available. The results of the flight design process were summarized at the Flight Readiness Review. The predicted ascent performance, including expected trajectory, main engine throttling profile, expected dynamic pressure and the amount of propellant reserve expected at main engine cutoff, were presented and discussed. The expected landing parameters, weight and center of gravity figures were also presented for a variety of contingencies. It should be noted that a waiver was required because the weight of the Orbiter exceeded the allowable limits for an abort landing. The flight design data presented at the Flight Readiness Review are available in the Appendix in the NASA Mission Planning and Operations Team Report. No outstanding concerns were identified in the discussion of flight design." ROGERS COMMISSION TESTIMONY http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch5.htm Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Chapter V: The Contributing Cause of The Accident. [82] The decision to launch the Challenger was flawed. Those who made that decision were unaware of the recent history of problems concerning the O-rings and the joint and were unaware of the initial written recommendation of the contractor advising against the launch at temperatures below 53 degrees Fahrenheit and the continuing opposition of the engineers at Thiokol after the management reversed its position. They did not have a clear understanding of Rockwell's concern that it was not safe to launch because of ice on the pad. If the decisionmakers had known all of the facts, it is highly unlikely that they would have decided to launch 51-L on January 28, 1986. Flaws In The Decision Making Process In addition to analyzing all available evidence concerning the material causes of the accident on January 28, the Commission examined the chain of decisions that culminated in approval of the launch. It concluded that the decision making process was flawed in several ways. The actual events that produced the information upon which the approval of launch was based are recounted and appraised in the sections of this chapter. The discussion that follows relies heavily on excerpts from the testimony of those involved in the management judgments that led to the launch of the Challenger under conditions described. That testimony reveals failures in communication that resulted in a decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict between engineering data and management judgments, and a NASA management structure that permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key Shuttle managers. The Shuttle Flight Readiness Review is a carefully planned, step-by-step activity, established by NASA program directive SPO-PD 710.5A, 1 designed to certify the readiness of all components of the Space Shuttle assembly. The process is focused upon the Level I Flight Readiness Review, held approximately two weeks before a launch. The Level I review is a conference chaired by the NASA Associate Administrator for Space Flight and supported by the NASA Chief Engineer, the Program Manager, the center directors and project managers from Johnson, Marshall and Kennedy, along with senior contractor representatives. The formal portion of the process is initiated by directive from the Associate Administrator for Space Flight. The directive outlines the schedule for the Level I Flight Readiness Review and for the steps that precede it. The process begins at Level IV with the contractors formally certifying-in writing-the flight readiness of the elements for which they are responsible. Certification is made to the appropriate Level III NASA project managers at Johnson and Marshall. Additionally, at Marshall the review is followed by a presentation directly to the Center Director. At Kennedy the Level III review, chaired by the Center Director, verifies readiness of the launch support elements. The next step in the process is the Certification of Flight Readiness to the Level II Program Manager at Johnson. In this review each Space Shuttle program element endorses that it has satisfactorily completed the manufacture, [83] assembly, test and checkout of the pertinent element, including the contractors" certification that design and performance are up to standard. The Flight Readiness Review process culminates in the Level I review. In the initial notice of the review, the Level I directive establishes a Mission Management Team for the particular mission. The team assumes responsibility for each Shuttle's readiness for a period commencing 48 hours before launch and continuing through post-landing crew egress and the safing of the Orbiter. On call throughout the entire period, the Mission Management Team supports the Associate Administrator for Space Flight and the Program Manager. A structured Mission Management Team meeting-called L-1-is held 24 hours, or one day, prior to each scheduled launch. Its agenda includes closeout of any open work, a closeout of any Flight Readiness Review action items, a discussion of new or continuing anomalies, and an updated briefing on anticipated weather conditions at the launch site and at the abort landing sites in different parts of the world. It is standard practice of Level-I and II officials to encourage the reporting of new problems or concerns that might develop in the interval between the Flight Readiness Review and the L-1 meeting, and between the L-1 and launch. In a procedural sense, the process described... At approximately 8:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Phase 2 of the teleconference commenced, the Thiokol charts and written data having arrived at Kennedy Space Center by telefax. (A table of teleconference participants is included with Chronology of Events.) The charts presented a history of the O-ring erosion and blow-by in the Solid Rocket Booster joints of previous flights, presented the results of subscale testing at Thiokol and the results of static tests of Solid Rocket Motors. In the following testimony, Roger Boisjoly, Allan McDonald and Larry Mulloy expressed their recollections of this teleconference up to the point when an off-net caucus was requested: 9 Mr. Boisjoly: I expressed deep concern about launching at low temperature. I presented Chart 2-1 with emphasis-now, 2-1, if you want to see it, I have it, but basically that was the chart that summarized the primary concerns, and that was the chart that I pulled right out of the Washington presentation without changing one word of it because it was still applicable, and it addresses the highest concern of the field joint in both the ignition transient condition and the steady state condition, and it really sets down the rationale for why we were continuing to fly. Basically, if erosion penetrates the primary O-ring seal, there is a higher probability of no secondary seal capability in the steady state condition. And I had two sub-bullets under that which stated bench testing showed O-ring not capable of maintaining contact with metal parts, gap, opening rate to maximum operating pressure. I had another bullet which stated bench testing showed capability to maintain O-ring contact during initial phase (0 to 170 milliseconds of transient). That was my comfort basis of continuing to fly under normal circumstances, normal being within the data base we had. I emphasized, when I presented that chart about the changing of the timing function of the O-ring as it attempted to seal. I was concerned that we may go from that first beginning region into that intermediate region, from O to 170 being the first region, and 170 to 330 being the intermediate region where we didn't have a high probability of sealing or seating. I then presented Chart 2-2 with added concerns related to the timing function. And basically on that chart, I started off talking about a lower temperature than current data base results in changing the primary O-ring sealing timing function, and I discussed the SRM-15 [Flight 51-C, January, 1985] observations, namely, the 15A [Left SRM, Flight 51-C] motor had 80 degrees arc black grease between the O-rings, and make no mistake about it, when I say black, I mean black just like coal. It was jet black. And SRM-15B [Right SRM, Flight 51-C] had a 110 degree arc of black grease between the O-rings. We would have low O-ring squeeze due to low..... [89] ....temperature which I calculated earlier in the day. We should have higher O-ring Shore hardness. Now, that would be harder. And what that material really is, it would be likened to trying to shove a brick into a crack versus a sponge. That is a good analogy for purposes of this discussion. I also mentioned that thicker grease, as a result of lower temperatures, would have a higher viscosity. It wouldn't be as slick and slippery as it would be at room temperature. And so it would be a little bit more difficult to move across it. We would have higher O-ring pressure actuation time, in my opinion, and that is what I presented.... These are the sum and substance of what I just presented. If action time increases, then the threshold of secondary seal pressurization capability is approached. That was my fear. If the threshold is reached, then secondary seal may not be capable of being pressurized, and that was the bottom line of everything that had been presented up to that point. Chairman Rogers: Did anybody take issue with you? Mr. Boisjoly: Well, I am coming to that. I also showed a chart of the joint with an exaggerated cross section to show the seal lifted off, which has been shown to everybody. I was asked, yes, at that point in time I was asked to quantify my concerns, and I said I couldn't. I couldn't quantify it. I had no data to quantify it, but I did say I knew that it was away from goodness in the current data base. Someone on the net commented that we had soot blow-by on SRM-22 [Flight 61-A, October, 1985] which was launched at 75 degrees. I don't remember who made the comment, but that is where the first comment came in about the disparity between my conclusion and the observed data because SRM-22 [Flight 61-A, October, 1985] had blow-by at essentially a room temperature launch. I then said that SRM-15 [Flight 51-C, January, 1985] had much more blow-by indication and that it was indeed telling us that lower temperature was a factor. This was supported by inspection of flown hardware by myself. I was asked again for data to support my claim, and I said I have none other than what is being presented, and I had been trying to get resilience data, Arnie and I both, since last October, and that statement was mentioned on the net. Others in the room presented their charts, and the main telecon session concluded with Bob Lund, who is our Vice President of.... [90] ....Engineering, presenting his conclusions and recommendations charts which were based on our data input up to that point. Listeners on the telecon were not pleased with the conclusions and the recommendations. Chairman Rogers: What was the conclusion ? Mr. Boisjoly: The conclusion was we should not fly outside of our data base, which was 53 degrees. Those were the conclusions. And we were quite pleased because we knew in advance, having participated in the preparation, what the conclusions were, and we felt very comfortable with that. Mr. Acheson: Who presented that conclusion? Mr. Boisjoly: Mr. Bob Lund. He had prepared those charts. He had input from other people. He had actually physically prepared the charts. It was about that time that Mr. Hardy from Marshall was asked what he thought about the MTI [Morton Thiokol] recommendation, and he said he was appalled at the MTI decision. Mr. Hardy was also asked about launching, and he said no, not if the contractor recommended not launching, he would not go against the contractor and launch. There was a short discussion that ensued about temperature not being a discriminator between SRM-15 [Flight 51-C] and SRM-22 [Flight 61-A], and shortly after, I believe it was Mr. Kilminster asked if- excuse me. I'm getting confused here. Mr. Kilminster was asked by NASA if he would launch, and he said no because the engineering recommendation was not to launch. Then MTI management then asked for a five-minute caucus. I'm not sure exactly who asked for that, but it was asked in such a manner that I remember it was asked for, a five-minute caucus, which we put on- the line on mute and went off-line with the rest of the net. Chairman Rogers: Mr. Boisjoly, at the time that you made the-that Thiokol made the recommendation not to launch, was that the unanimous recommendation as far as you knew? Mr. Boisjoly: Yes. I have to make something clear. I have been distressed by the things that have been appearing in the paper and things that have been said in general, and there was never one positive, pro-launch statement ever made by anybody. There have been some feelings since then that folks have expressed that they would support the decision, but there was not one positive statement for launch ever made in that room." Open sharing of information is crucial to improving everybody's understanding of the universe around us. Tom Craig Fink wrote: On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:32:19 -0600, Jorge R. Frank wrote: wrote in : That previous RCC oxidation data were wrong and a repair like CAIB suggested therfore impossible - thats far beyond "the sake of a silly argument on Usenet." If your claim be true NASA would have long ago informed the Congress and the public about it. Managers at the program level may not necessarily have known the details. The Orbiter Return-to-Flight Working Group was a fairly low-level meeting. Sometimes technical presentations at that level are later presented directly to higher level meetings, but this particular presentation was never brought before either the PRCB or the Daily PRCB. And as you are the only one who draw that conclusion, isn`t it your duty to allert higher managment, Congress or even the New York Times about it? (What some regulars here accused Boisjoly in 1986 failed to do) No, not at all. I would if I thought NASA was ignoring a conclusion from the report that bears on *future* life-or-death situations. But NASA management has already drawn the correct conclusions from the report: RCC repair is hard, NASA needs to pay more attention to small cracks and holes than previously assumed. And the results of their conclusions are evident in every facet of the current RCC inspection/repair effort. There is no need for me to point out what they already know well. The other conclusion I drew from that report (a hypothetical STS-107 improvised RCC repair would have been futile) is all in the past. Unlike the Boisjoly situation, it has no bearing on any future life-or-death scenarios. It is, like I said, just a silly argument on Usenet, all delusions of importance aside. The argument really comes down to is; Is the glass half empty or half full? You can go on believing the glass is half empty, that's fine with me. I did find it interesting that the CAIB gave NASA a quiz on an improvised repair. Giving them essentially the same amount of time that they would have had if some managers had done their jobs. And, NASA failed miserably. Not one piece of material made it into the arc jet facility. They must have spent half their time arguing about what to do, then the other half arguing about how to write it up for the CAIB. A bunch of arguing about some analytical studies that most likely done with simulations that didn't have the proper models in them. Because, it probably takes NASA at least 6 months to find, implement, and test the models that Dr. Wendall pointed out were missing. She even had to tell them where to go get the models everyone else in the World was using. Man, did they look confused. If you noticed, the earlier arc jet testing sure looked like it was at the stagnation point. The worst location, and really at only one location on the Orbiter, the nose. The worst location and not representative of 99.95% of the RCC. Which has different aerodynamics, temperatures, cooling. It's only a material test facility, and small hole or crack propagation is going to be different at other locations other than the stagnation point on the tip of the nose of the Orbiter. The damage of the materials in the ealier tests didn't even look like the damaged Columbia material collected. There was a knife edge pattern to the damage, the knife edge was probably the SIC that didn't burn, melt or disappear. Because it wasn't at the stagnation point, it stayed were it was. If NASA was really interested in finding out what the problem wrt hole propagation, they'd have to most like do some DTOs with material placed were they can do any damage, and vary the aero on those material. What is the document name and number you are referring to? Do you have that? I'd be interested in reading it. In my view, we sucessfully traced back at least one of the Usenet Columbia myths. And killed another about the alleged need of a smooth RCC repair surface. All in all it was an interesting thread with you. There are indeed myths being propagated here, but they're not mine. Like the myth that the tiles are too fragile to touch. Propagated here, right up the the point where astronauts started hacking away with hack saw blades to remove gap fillers, tapping on them, got them between their fingers. Hey these things aren't too fragile after all. Half empty or Half full? To me, looking at the Columbia Repair from a perspective of Half Full, would actually help in any future "plan" repair. To me, it seems that NASA is trying to come up with a repair option while focusing on the Empty Half glass. It'll be an Half Empty Repair too, if they want it to be. The glass is half full, and Columbia would have been sitting on the ground. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
Craig Fink wrote: Like the myth that the tiles are too fragile to touch. Propagated here, right up the the point where astronauts started hacking away with hack saw blades to remove gap fillers, tapping on them, got them between their fingers. Hey these things aren't too fragile after all. They are very _fragile_; someone here on the newsgroup had one, and dropped it on a table from a few inches up; the densified covering cracked. Pat |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
Pat Flannery wrote: Craig Fink wrote: Like the myth that the tiles are too fragile to touch. Propagated here, right up the the point where astronauts started hacking away with hack saw blades to remove gap fillers, tapping on them, got them between their fingers. Hey these things aren't too fragile after all. They are very _fragile_; someone here on the newsgroup had one, and dropped it on a table from a few inches up; the densified covering cracked. Pat Gee pat it seems you have forgotten to take responsibility for the illogical posts you have made, so once again At this point in time I would have to say, craig, pat, derek and om have essentially walked away, without the honor of at least tipping their king over. But most importantly understanding that stopping the tragic launch of sts-51l the morning of jan 28 1986, is much more than derek portrays, as he would like to bury his head in the sand and repeat mistakes of the past. But when it came down to it, derek could not back up his critique of roger boisjoly's actions with facts, therefore they are just dereks unsupported opinions, which are contradicted by the rogers commission, and diaz report to the caib. So since derek (or any of his buddies) wasn't honorable enough to retract his words, he falls very short of even coming close to answering the question of how would he have stopped the launch of challenger jan 28, 1986. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch2.htm "Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Chapter II: Events Leading Up to the Challenger Mission Flight Readiness Review The Level I Flight Readiness Review for mission 51-L took place on January 15, 1986. The Flight Readiness Review should address all aspects of flight preparation about which any questions have arisen. In addition, attendees confirm that all equipment and operational plans have been certified ready by the responsible manager within NASA. Solid Rocket Booster joints were not discussed during the review on January 15. The period during the day when a particular flight can be launched is determined by the requirements of the Orbiter and the payloads. The launch period for mission 51-L was limited in order to provide the best lighting conditions for Spartan's observations of Halley's Comet. The resulting «launch window" was a topic of some discussion at the Flight Readiness Review. The Challenger launch originally had been scheduled for a morning lift off. When Spartan was added to the mission, the launch window was changed to the afternoon. This change would have required a landing at night if a transatlantic abort landing had become necessary. Because the alternate transatlantic site, Casablanca, was not equipped for a night landing, the afternoon launch eliminated that back-up site. As January drew to a close, however, the conditions for optimum telescopic viewing of the comet could not be met. The launch window was shifted back to the morning hours so that the transatlantic abort site would be in daylight and a back-up site (Casablanca) would be available. The results of the flight design process were summarized at the Flight Readiness Review. The predicted ascent performance, including expected trajectory, main engine throttling profile, expected dynamic pressure and the amount of propellant reserve expected at main engine cutoff, were presented and discussed. The expected landing parameters, weight and center of gravity figures were also presented for a variety of contingencies. It should be noted that a waiver was required because the weight of the Orbiter exceeded the allowable limits for an abort landing. The flight design data presented at the Flight Readiness Review are available in the Appendix in the NASA Mission Planning and Operations Team Report. No outstanding concerns were identified in the discussion of flight design." ROGERS COMMISSION TESTIMONY http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch5.htm Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Chapter V: The Contributing Cause of The Accident. [82] The decision to launch the Challenger was flawed. Those who made that decision were unaware of the recent history of problems concerning the O-rings and the joint and were unaware of the initial written recommendation of the contractor advising against the launch at temperatures below 53 degrees Fahrenheit and the continuing opposition of the engineers at Thiokol after the management reversed its position. They did not have a clear understanding of Rockwell's concern that it was not safe to launch because of ice on the pad. If the decisionmakers had known all of the facts, it is highly unlikely that they would have decided to launch 51-L on January 28, 1986. Flaws In The Decision Making Process In addition to analyzing all available evidence concerning the material causes of the accident on January 28, the Commission examined the chain of decisions that culminated in approval of the launch. It concluded that the decision making process was flawed in several ways. The actual events that produced the information upon which the approval of launch was based are recounted and appraised in the sections of this chapter. The discussion that follows relies heavily on excerpts from the testimony of those involved in the management judgments that led to the launch of the Challenger under conditions described. That testimony reveals failures in communication that resulted in a decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict between engineering data and management judgments, and a NASA management structure that permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key Shuttle managers. The Shuttle Flight Readiness Review is a carefully planned, step-by-step activity, established by NASA program directive SPO-PD 710.5A, 1 designed to certify the readiness of all components of the Space Shuttle assembly. The process is focused upon the Level I Flight Readiness Review, held approximately two weeks before a launch. The Level I review is a conference chaired by the NASA Associate Administrator for Space Flight and supported by the NASA Chief Engineer, the Program Manager, the center directors and project managers from Johnson, Marshall and Kennedy, along with senior contractor representatives. The formal portion of the process is initiated by directive from the Associate Administrator for Space Flight. The directive outlines the schedule for the Level I Flight Readiness Review and for the steps that precede it. The process begins at Level IV with the contractors formally certifying-in writing-the flight readiness of the elements for which they are responsible. Certification is made to the appropriate Level III NASA project managers at Johnson and Marshall. Additionally, at Marshall the review is followed by a presentation directly to the Center Director. At Kennedy the Level III review, chaired by the Center Director, verifies readiness of the launch support elements. The next step in the process is the Certification of Flight Readiness to the Level II Program Manager at Johnson. In this review each Space Shuttle program element endorses that it has satisfactorily completed the manufacture, [83] assembly, test and checkout of the pertinent element, including the contractors" certification that design and performance are up to standard. The Flight Readiness Review process culminates in the Level I review. In the initial notice of the review, the Level I directive establishes a Mission Management Team for the particular mission. The team assumes responsibility for each Shuttle's readiness for a period commencing 48 hours before launch and continuing through post-landing crew egress and the safing of the Orbiter. On call throughout the entire period, the Mission Management Team supports the Associate Administrator for Space Flight and the Program Manager. A structured Mission Management Team meeting-called L-1-is held 24 hours, or one day, prior to each scheduled launch. Its agenda includes closeout of any open work, a closeout of any Flight Readiness Review action items, a discussion of new or continuing anomalies, and an updated briefing on anticipated weather conditions at the launch site and at the abort landing sites in different parts of the world. It is standard practice of Level-I and II officials to encourage the reporting of new problems or concerns that might develop in the interval between the Flight Readiness Review and the L-1 meeting, and between the L-1 and launch. In a procedural sense, the process described... At approximately 8:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Phase 2 of the teleconference commenced, the Thiokol charts and written data having arrived at Kennedy Space Center by telefax. (A table of teleconference participants is included with Chronology of Events.) The charts presented a history of the O-ring erosion and blow-by in the Solid Rocket Booster joints of previous flights, presented the results of subscale testing at Thiokol and the results of static tests of Solid Rocket Motors. In the following testimony, Roger Boisjoly, Allan McDonald and Larry Mulloy expressed their recollections of this teleconference up to the point when an off-net caucus was requested: 9 Mr. Boisjoly: I expressed deep concern about launching at low temperature. I presented Chart 2-1 with emphasis-now, 2-1, if you want to see it, I have it, but basically that was the chart that summarized the primary concerns, and that was the chart that I pulled right out of the Washington presentation without changing one word of it because it was still applicable, and it addresses the highest concern of the field joint in both the ignition transient condition and the steady state condition, and it really sets down the rationale for why we were continuing to fly. Basically, if erosion penetrates the primary O-ring seal, there is a higher probability of no secondary seal capability in the steady state condition. And I had two sub-bullets under that which stated bench testing showed O-ring not capable of maintaining contact with metal parts, gap, opening rate to maximum operating pressure. I had another bullet which stated bench testing showed capability to maintain O-ring contact during initial phase (0 to 170 milliseconds of transient). That was my comfort basis of continuing to fly under normal circumstances, normal being within the data base we had. I emphasized, when I presented that chart about the changing of the timing function of the O-ring as it attempted to seal. I was concerned that we may go from that first beginning region into that intermediate region, from O to 170 being the first region, and 170 to 330 being the intermediate region where we didn't have a high probability of sealing or seating. I then presented Chart 2-2 with added concerns related to the timing function. And basically on that chart, I started off talking about a lower temperature than current data base results in changing the primary O-ring sealing timing function, and I discussed the SRM-15 [Flight 51-C, January, 1985] observations, namely, the 15A [Left SRM, Flight 51-C] motor had 80 degrees arc black grease between the O-rings, and make no mistake about it, when I say black, I mean black just like coal. It was jet black. And SRM-15B [Right SRM, Flight 51-C] had a 110 degree arc of black grease between the O-rings. We would have low O-ring squeeze due to low..... [89] ....temperature which I calculated earlier in the day. We should have higher O-ring Shore hardness. Now, that would be harder. And what that material really is, it would be likened to trying to shove a brick into a crack versus a sponge. That is a good analogy for purposes of this discussion. I also mentioned that thicker grease, as a result of lower temperatures, would have a higher viscosity. It wouldn't be as slick and slippery as it would be at room temperature. And so it would be a little bit more difficult to move across it. We would have higher O-ring pressure actuation time, in my opinion, and that is what I presented.... These are the sum and substance of what I just presented. If action time increases, then the threshold of secondary seal pressurization capability is approached. That was my fear. If the threshold is reached, then secondary seal may not be capable of being pressurized, and that was the bottom line of everything that had been presented up to that point. Chairman Rogers: Did anybody take issue with you? Mr. Boisjoly: Well, I am coming to that. I also showed a chart of the joint with an exaggerated cross section to show the seal lifted off, which has been shown to everybody. I was asked, yes, at that point in time I was asked to quantify my concerns, and I said I couldn't. I couldn't quantify it. I had no data to quantify it, but I did say I knew that it was away from goodness in the current data base. Someone on the net commented that we had soot blow-by on SRM-22 [Flight 61-A, October, 1985] which was launched at 75 degrees. I don't remember who made the comment, but that is where the first comment came in about the disparity between my conclusion and the observed data because SRM-22 [Flight 61-A, October, 1985] had blow-by at essentially a room temperature launch. I then said that SRM-15 [Flight 51-C, January, 1985] had much more blow-by indication and that it was indeed telling us that lower temperature was a factor. This was supported by inspection of flown hardware by myself. I was asked again for data to support my claim, and I said I have none other than what is being presented, and I had been trying to get resilience data, Arnie and I both, since last October, and that statement was mentioned on the net. Others in the room presented their charts, and the main telecon session concluded with Bob Lund, who is our Vice President of.... [90] ....Engineering, presenting his conclusions and recommendations charts which were based on our data input up to that point. Listeners on the telecon were not pleased with the conclusions and the recommendations. Chairman Rogers: What was the conclusion ? Mr. Boisjoly: The conclusion was we should not fly outside of our data base, which was 53 degrees. Those were the conclusions. And we were quite pleased because we knew in advance, having participated in the preparation, what the conclusions were, and we felt very comfortable with that. Mr. Acheson: Who presented that conclusion? Mr. Boisjoly: Mr. Bob Lund. He had prepared those charts. He had input from other people. He had actually physically prepared the charts. It was about that time that Mr. Hardy from Marshall was asked what he thought about the MTI [Morton Thiokol] recommendation, and he said he was appalled at the MTI decision. Mr. Hardy was also asked about launching, and he said no, not if the contractor recommended not launching, he would not go against the contractor and launch. There was a short discussion that ensued about temperature not being a discriminator between SRM-15 [Flight 51-C] and SRM-22 [Flight 61-A], and shortly after, I believe it was Mr. Kilminster asked if- excuse me. I'm getting confused here. Mr. Kilminster was asked by NASA if he would launch, and he said no because the engineering recommendation was not to launch. Then MTI management then asked for a five-minute caucus. I'm not sure exactly who asked for that, but it was asked in such a manner that I remember it was asked for, a five-minute caucus, which we put on- the line on mute and went off-line with the rest of the net. Chairman Rogers: Mr. Boisjoly, at the time that you made the-that Thiokol made the recommendation not to launch, was that the unanimous recommendation as far as you knew? Mr. Boisjoly: Yes. I have to make something clear. I have been distressed by the things that have been appearing in the paper and things that have been said in general, and there was never one positive, pro-launch statement ever made by anybody. There have been some feelings since then that folks have expressed that they would support the decision, but there was not one positive statement for launch ever made in that room." Open sharing of information is crucial to improving everybody's understanding of the universe around us. Tom |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
The argument really comes down to is; Is the glass half empty or half full? You can go on believing the glass is half empty, that's fine with me. I did find it interesting that the CAIB gave NASA a quiz on an improvised repair. Giving them essentially the same amount of time that they would have had if some managers had done their jobs. And, NASA failed miserably. Not one piece of material made it into the arc jet facility. They must Wait a moment Craig. I got it from this thread that this sentence is a claim or asumption by Jorge ("JRF"). I saw no direct evidence whether its true. Missed I something? If true it would by a scandal of its own in the whole scandalous Columbia disaster. (Your other text is unfortunately obvious and very sadly true.) -- Craig Fink ## CrossPoint v3.12d R ## |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:51:00 +0200, SENECA wrote:
The argument really comes down to is; Is the glass half empty or half full? You can go on believing the glass is half empty, that's fine with me. I did find it interesting that the CAIB gave NASA a quiz on an improvised repair. Giving them essentially the same amount of time that they would have had if some managers had done their jobs. And, NASA failed miserably. Not one piece of material made it into the arc jet facility. They must Wait a moment Craig. I got it from this thread that this sentence is a claim or asumption by Jorge ("JRF"). I saw no direct evidence whether its true. Missed I something? If true it would by a scandal of its own in the whole scandalous Columbia disaster. This is just my opinion, why would they only give them three weeks to complete a Columbia Repair Options study? Whatever their reason for giving them only three weeks, they probably did have one. I can also imagine they might have even followed them around a little, just to get an idea of what they would do with very limited time. Managers tend to take much more that three weeks to do anything. A few really good Engineers, three days might have been enough to come up with something. Maybe they were just investigating the culture at NASA. Sad that the Columbia Repair Option was only spun for three weeks, instead of fixed in three weeks. Exactly what did they do with their three weeks? As to Jorge's three weeks statement or the no materials tests, I have no idea if it's true or not. First I've heard or seen anything about it was from Jorge's statement. Jorge is a truthful guy, another opinion. But how do Myths get propagated here on Usenet? Opinions stated as fact might be one way. But, that's just another opinion. I'm sure there are other ways too. But once out there, a Myth seems to take on a life of it's own. Your right Seneca. Without some corroborating evidence, it's the beginning of the CAIB three week Columbia Repair "quiz" myth. Keep us honest Seneca, some of us aren't as formal as you. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
Craig Fink wrote: On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:51:00 +0200, SENECA wrote: The argument really comes down to is; Is the glass half empty or half full? You can go on believing the glass is half empty, that's fine with me. I did find it interesting that the CAIB gave NASA a quiz on an improvised repair. Giving them essentially the same amount of time that they would have had if some managers had done their jobs. And, NASA failed miserably. Not one piece of material made it into the arc jet facility. They must Wait a moment Craig. I got it from this thread that this sentence is a claim or asumption by Jorge ("JRF"). I saw no direct evidence whether its true. Missed I something? If true it would by a scandal of its own in the whole scandalous Columbia disaster. This is just my opinion, why would they only give them three weeks to complete a Columbia Repair Options study? Whatever their reason for giving them only three weeks, they probably did have one. I can also imagine they might have even followed them around a little, just to get an idea of what they would do with very limited time. Managers tend to take much more that three weeks to do anything. A few really good Engineers, three days might have been enough to come up with something. Maybe they were just investigating the culture at NASA. Sad that the Columbia Repair Option was only spun for three weeks, instead of fixed in three weeks. Exactly what did they do with their three weeks? As to Jorge's three weeks statement or the no materials tests, I have no idea if it's true or not. First I've heard or seen anything about it was from Jorge's statement. Jorge is a truthful guy, another opinion. But how do Myths get propagated here on Usenet? Opinions stated as fact might be one way. But, that's just another opinion. I'm sure there are other ways too. But once out there, a Myth seems to take on a life of it's own. Your right Seneca. Without some corroborating evidence, it's the beginning of the CAIB three week Columbia Repair "quiz" myth. Keep us honest Seneca, some of us aren't as formal as you. The DTO for testing the repair for limited damaged rcc can be found in the sts-121 press kit, and the return to flight task group stated the following with respect to in orbit repair of damaged rcc in july 2005. "NASA is investigating two complementary repair concepts - plug and crack - that together could, in the future, allow the emergency repair of limited RCC damage." Final Report of the Return to Flight Task Group jul7 2005 Chapter 3 ASSESSMENT OF THE CAIB RECOMMENDATIONS page 89, par 2 3.13.3.2.1 RCC Repair "NASA has evaluated RCC repair concepts with participation from six NASA Centers, 11 contractors, and the United States Air Force Research Laboratory. The main challenges to repairing RCC are maintaining a bond to the RCC coating during entry heating and meeting stringent aerodynamic requirements for repair patches and fills. NASA is investigating two complementary repair concepts - plug and crack - that together could, in the future, allow the emergency repair of limited RCC damage. Both concepts have limitations in terms of damage characteristics, damage location, and amount of testing and analysis completed to-date." STS-121 press kit page 47 "DTO 848 ORBITER THERMAL PROTECTION SYSTEM (TPS) REPAIR TECHNIQUES Reinforced carbon carbon (RCC) samples will be flown in a thermal protection system sample box located on the upper surface of the LMC (lightweight mission peculiar equipment support structure carrier). If consumables allow an extra day and a third spacewalk, the crew will perform setup activities on the SSRMS (space station remote manipulator system) and the payload bay to allow them to perform RCC sample repairs. The samples within the box provide the crew with the capability to perform RCC crack repairs using a material called NOAX or Non Oxide Adhesive experimental. An applicator similar to a caulking gun will be used to insert the material into the crack. The NOAX will come out of the applicator gun looking like thick, dark chocolate pudding. The crew will then use a trowel to apply the material, layering it, over the damaged area. The objective is to thoroughly fill the cracks creating a smooth surface and to gather information about how the material responds in zero G. The samples repaired by the crew will be returned for ground testing. NOAX combines a pre ceramic polymer sealant and carbon silicon carbide powder. It was developed to survive very high temperatures, such as those experienced during reentry of the shuttle." Open sharing of information is crucial to improving everybody's understanding of the universe around us. Tom |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
In message . com,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation writes Open sharing of information is crucial to improving everybody's understanding of the universe around us. Is this supposed to be a sig? If so, it's not correctly formatted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block -- Open sharing of information is crucial to improving everybody's understanding of the universe around us. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message . com, columbiaaccidentinvestigation writes Open sharing of information is crucial to improving everybody's understanding of the universe around us. Is this supposed to be a sig? If so, it's not correctly formatted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block -- Open sharing of information is crucial to improving everybody's understanding of the universe around us. Interesting jonathon, perhaps i might misunderstand you but are you trying to speak for others with youre above post? Would you like to attempt to state what you would do in boisjoly's situation? http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch2.htm "Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Chapter II: Events Leading Up to the Challenger Mission Flight Readiness Review The Level I Flight Readiness Review for mission 51-L took place on January 15, 1986. The Flight Readiness Review should address all aspects of flight preparation about which any questions have arisen. In addition, attendees confirm that all equipment and operational plans have been certified ready by the responsible manager within NASA. Solid Rocket Booster joints were not discussed during the review on January 15. The period during the day when a particular flight can be launched is determined by the requirements of the Orbiter and the payloads. The launch period for mission 51-L was limited in order to provide the best lighting conditions for Spartan's observations of Halley's Comet. The resulting «launch window" was a topic of some discussion at the Flight Readiness Review. The Challenger launch originally had been scheduled for a morning lift off. When Spartan was added to the mission, the launch window was changed to the afternoon. This change would have required a landing at night if a transatlantic abort landing had become necessary. Because the alternate transatlantic site, Casablanca, was not equipped for a night landing, the afternoon launch eliminated that back-up site. As January drew to a close, however, the conditions for optimum telescopic viewing of the comet could not be met. The launch window was shifted back to the morning hours so that the transatlantic abort site would be in daylight and a back-up site (Casablanca) would be available. The results of the flight design process were summarized at the Flight Readiness Review. The predicted ascent performance, including expected trajectory, main engine throttling profile, expected dynamic pressure and the amount of propellant reserve expected at main engine cutoff, were presented and discussed. The expected landing parameters, weight and center of gravity figures were also presented for a variety of contingencies. It should be noted that a waiver was required because the weight of the Orbiter exceeded the allowable limits for an abort landing. The flight design data presented at the Flight Readiness Review are available in the Appendix in the NASA Mission Planning and Operations Team Report. No outstanding concerns were identified in the discussion of flight design." ROGERS COMMISSION TESTIMONY http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch5.htm Report of the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Chapter V: The Contributing Cause of The Accident. [82] The decision to launch the Challenger was flawed. Those who made that decision were unaware of the recent history of problems concerning the O-rings and the joint and were unaware of the initial written recommendation of the contractor advising against the launch at temperatures below 53 degrees Fahrenheit and the continuing opposition of the engineers at Thiokol after the management reversed its position. They did not have a clear understanding of Rockwell's concern that it was not safe to launch because of ice on the pad. If the decisionmakers had known all of the facts, it is highly unlikely that they would have decided to launch 51-L on January 28, 1986. Flaws In The Decision Making Process In addition to analyzing all available evidence concerning the material causes of the accident on January 28, the Commission examined the chain of decisions that culminated in approval of the launch. It concluded that the decision making process was flawed in several ways. The actual events that produced the information upon which the approval of launch was based are recounted and appraised in the sections of this chapter. The discussion that follows relies heavily on excerpts from the testimony of those involved in the management judgments that led to the launch of the Challenger under conditions described. That testimony reveals failures in communication that resulted in a decision to launch 51-L based on incomplete and sometimes misleading information, a conflict between engineering data and management judgments, and a NASA management structure that permitted internal flight safety problems to bypass key Shuttle managers. The Shuttle Flight Readiness Review is a carefully planned, step-by-step activity, established by NASA program directive SPO-PD 710.5A, 1 designed to certify the readiness of all components of the Space Shuttle assembly. The process is focused upon the Level I Flight Readiness Review, held approximately two weeks before a launch. The Level I review is a conference chaired by the NASA Associate Administrator for Space Flight and supported by the NASA Chief Engineer, the Program Manager, the center directors and project managers from Johnson, Marshall and Kennedy, along with senior contractor representatives. The formal portion of the process is initiated by directive from the Associate Administrator for Space Flight. The directive outlines the schedule for the Level I Flight Readiness Review and for the steps that precede it. The process begins at Level IV with the contractors formally certifying-in writing-the flight readiness of the elements for which they are responsible. Certification is made to the appropriate Level III NASA project managers at Johnson and Marshall. Additionally, at Marshall the review is followed by a presentation directly to the Center Director. At Kennedy the Level III review, chaired by the Center Director, verifies readiness of the launch support elements. The next step in the process is the Certification of Flight Readiness to the Level II Program Manager at Johnson. In this review each Space Shuttle program element endorses that it has satisfactorily completed the manufacture, [83] assembly, test and checkout of the pertinent element, including the contractors" certification that design and performance are up to standard. The Flight Readiness Review process culminates in the Level I review. In the initial notice of the review, the Level I directive establishes a Mission Management Team for the particular mission. The team assumes responsibility for each Shuttle's readiness for a period commencing 48 hours before launch and continuing through post-landing crew egress and the safing of the Orbiter. On call throughout the entire period, the Mission Management Team supports the Associate Administrator for Space Flight and the Program Manager. A structured Mission Management Team meeting-called L-1-is held 24 hours, or one day, prior to each scheduled launch. Its agenda includes closeout of any open work, a closeout of any Flight Readiness Review action items, a discussion of new or continuing anomalies, and an updated briefing on anticipated weather conditions at the launch site and at the abort landing sites in different parts of the world. It is standard practice of Level-I and II officials to encourage the reporting of new problems or concerns that might develop in the interval between the Flight Readiness Review and the L-1 meeting, and between the L-1 and launch. In a procedural sense, the process described... At approximately 8:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, Phase 2 of the teleconference commenced, the Thiokol charts and written data having arrived at Kennedy Space Center by telefax. (A table of teleconference participants is included with Chronology of Events.) The charts presented a history of the O-ring erosion and blow-by in the Solid Rocket Booster joints of previous flights, presented the results of subscale testing at Thiokol and the results of static tests of Solid Rocket Motors. In the following testimony, Roger Boisjoly, Allan McDonald and Larry Mulloy expressed their recollections of this teleconference up to the point when an off-net caucus was requested: 9 Mr. Boisjoly: I expressed deep concern about launching at low temperature. I presented Chart 2-1 with emphasis-now, 2-1, if you want to see it, I have it, but basically that was the chart that summarized the primary concerns, and that was the chart that I pulled right out of the Washington presentation without changing one word of it because it was still applicable, and it addresses the highest concern of the field joint in both the ignition transient condition and the steady state condition, and it really sets down the rationale for why we were continuing to fly. Basically, if erosion penetrates the primary O-ring seal, there is a higher probability of no secondary seal capability in the steady state condition. And I had two sub-bullets under that which stated bench testing showed O-ring not capable of maintaining contact with metal parts, gap, opening rate to maximum operating pressure. I had another bullet which stated bench testing showed capability to maintain O-ring contact during initial phase (0 to 170 milliseconds of transient). That was my comfort basis of continuing to fly under normal circumstances, normal being within the data base we had. I emphasized, when I presented that chart about the changing of the timing function of the O-ring as it attempted to seal. I was concerned that we may go from that first beginning region into that intermediate region, from O to 170 being the first region, and 170 to 330 being the intermediate region where we didn't have a high probability of sealing or seating. I then presented Chart 2-2 with added concerns related to the timing function. And basically on that chart, I started off talking about a lower temperature than current data base results in changing the primary O-ring sealing timing function, and I discussed the SRM-15 [Flight 51-C, January, 1985] observations, namely, the 15A [Left SRM, Flight 51-C] motor had 80 degrees arc black grease between the O-rings, and make no mistake about it, when I say black, I mean black just like coal. It was jet black. And SRM-15B [Right SRM, Flight 51-C] had a 110 degree arc of black grease between the O-rings. We would have low O-ring squeeze due to low..... [89] ....temperature which I calculated earlier in the day. We should have higher O-ring Shore hardness. Now, that would be harder. And what that material really is, it would be likened to trying to shove a brick into a crack versus a sponge. That is a good analogy for purposes of this discussion. I also mentioned that thicker grease, as a result of lower temperatures, would have a higher viscosity. It wouldn't be as slick and slippery as it would be at room temperature. And so it would be a little bit more difficult to move across it. We would have higher O-ring pressure actuation time, in my opinion, and that is what I presented.... These are the sum and substance of what I just presented. If action time increases, then the threshold of secondary seal pressurization capability is approached. That was my fear. If the threshold is reached, then secondary seal may not be capable of being pressurized, and that was the bottom line of everything that had been presented up to that point. Chairman Rogers: Did anybody take issue with you? Mr. Boisjoly: Well, I am coming to that. I also showed a chart of the joint with an exaggerated cross section to show the seal lifted off, which has been shown to everybody. I was asked, yes, at that point in time I was asked to quantify my concerns, and I said I couldn't. I couldn't quantify it. I had no data to quantify it, but I did say I knew that it was away from goodness in the current data base. Someone on the net commented that we had soot blow-by on SRM-22 [Flight 61-A, October, 1985] which was launched at 75 degrees. I don't remember who made the comment, but that is where the first comment came in about the disparity between my conclusion and the observed data because SRM-22 [Flight 61-A, October, 1985] had blow-by at essentially a room temperature launch. I then said that SRM-15 [Flight 51-C, January, 1985] had much more blow-by indication and that it was indeed telling us that lower temperature was a factor. This was supported by inspection of flown hardware by myself. I was asked again for data to support my claim, and I said I have none other than what is being presented, and I had been trying to get resilience data, Arnie and I both, since last October, and that statement was mentioned on the net. Others in the room presented their charts, and the main telecon session concluded with Bob Lund, who is our Vice President of.... [90] ....Engineering, presenting his conclusions and recommendations charts which were based on our data input up to that point. Listeners on the telecon were not pleased with the conclusions and the recommendations. Chairman Rogers: What was the conclusion ? Mr. Boisjoly: The conclusion was we should not fly outside of our data base, which was 53 degrees. Those were the conclusions. And we were quite pleased because we knew in advance, having participated in the preparation, what the conclusions were, and we felt very comfortable with that. Mr. Acheson: Who presented that conclusion? Mr. Boisjoly: Mr. Bob Lund. He had prepared those charts. He had input from other people. He had actually physically prepared the charts. It was about that time that Mr. Hardy from Marshall was asked what he thought about the MTI [Morton Thiokol] recommendation, and he said he was appalled at the MTI decision. Mr. Hardy was also asked about launching, and he said no, not if the contractor recommended not launching, he would not go against the contractor and launch. There was a short discussion that ensued about temperature not being a discriminator between SRM-15 [Flight 51-C] and SRM-22 [Flight 61-A], and shortly after, I believe it was Mr. Kilminster asked if- excuse me. I'm getting confused here. Mr. Kilminster was asked by NASA if he would launch, and he said no because the engineering recommendation was not to launch. Then MTI management then asked for a five-minute caucus. I'm not sure exactly who asked for that, but it was asked in such a manner that I remember it was asked for, a five-minute caucus, which we put on- the line on mute and went off-line with the rest of the net. Chairman Rogers: Mr. Boisjoly, at the time that you made the-that Thiokol made the recommendation not to launch, was that the unanimous recommendation as far as you knew? Mr. Boisjoly: Yes. I have to make something clear. I have been distressed by the things that have been appearing in the paper and things that have been said in general, and there was never one positive, pro-launch statement ever made by anybody. There have been some feelings since then that folks have expressed that they would support the decision, but there was not one positive statement for launch ever made in that room." Open sharing of information is crucial to improving everybody's understanding of the universe around us. Tom |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Dear NASA Administrator Michael Griffin ( NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others))
Dear...Columbia's Tiles...not of Museum Quality...I'd like to...
... .. Thanks, Craig Fink Electronic Mail Address; .... ... .. -- On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:06:00 +0200, SENECA and ... wrote: Like the myth that the tiles are too fragile to touch. Propagated here, right up the the point where astronauts started hacking away with hack saw blades to remove gap fillers, tapping on them, got them between their fingers. Hey these things aren't too fragile after all. They are very _fragile_; someone here on the newsgroup had one, and dropped it on a table from a few inches up; the densified covering cracked. ....Yeah, I agree...throw it against a... Not a surprise. Colliding rigid objects with low elasticity and no plasticity can get high local pressures. Maybe 100 to 1000 times the pressure an astronaut finger could create. Unlike at a RCC, a crack on a tile surface is no big issue. Probably most tiles today have small cracks on its surface. If an astronaut wants to powderize a tile he may be able to do it with one hand only. But as we know from NASA, he may also be able to handle tile parts: For a missing portion of T-seal, the best option would have been to fill the resulting gap between the RCC panels with tile fragments harvested by the EVA crew. The tile fragments would be shaped by the crew IVA and then pushed into the gap by the EVA crew. [NASA Report to CAIB] The alleged danger to tiles by EVA astronauts was considered by NASA and CAIB to unimportant to mention. Seems a typical Columbia Myth keept alive by some regulars here. Misspellings and grammer corrected by; Criag Fink |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Dear NASA Administrator Michael Griffin
Not the right letter, but Privatizing Earth to LEO might be.
So what would a letter to Michael Griffin look like to privatize Earth to LEO manned space flight? To get NASA to push for legislation to encourage it? What would the legislation look like to encourage, nurture, support and transition to thriving Earth to LEO market? Private Enterprise? Ideas? Henry's probably right, money is people and NASA really wouldn't want to lay off some of there own. But, I would think Contractors are fair game, and really that's what a private market place to LEO looks like. No NASA contractors in the Earth to LEO market, just purchased rides. It would have to set up incentives to encourage Private Investment, instead of Public Spending. What other attributes should Private Enterprise Legislation have? To make in a Win-Win situation all around? NASA's perspective? Major Contractor's (BoingLockMart) perspective? Small Business's (Entrepreneurial) perspective? Investment Capitalists perspective? Large Banks perspective? Average US Citizens perspective? -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ -- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Spacewalking astronaut completes unique repair | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 1 | August 3rd 05 08:01 PM |
NASA Spacewalking astronaut completes unique repair | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | August 3rd 05 07:52 PM |
AP: NASA Still Lacks Repair Kits for Astronauts in Orbit, Nearly Two Years After Columbia Disaster | Mr. White | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 6th 04 10:41 PM |
NAVY recognizes Columbia astronaut | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 9th 03 06:59 PM |
NAVY recognizes Columbia astronaut | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | July 9th 03 06:59 PM |