Shuttle Certification Question

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:13:51 -0500, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
They don't have the qualifications to "look under the hood". ;-)

I believe, if I remember correctly, that the FAA *is* involved in
oversight of private launches done by any person who is a US citizen,
even if the launch does not take place in the US. For private launches
there are permits to get and paperwork to fill out and everything had
better be in order *before* you launch.

FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the
same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard to
certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience.

True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?

Only for the aircraft that are only used to carry people around in
much the same manner as commercial aircraft. The research and support
aircraft at Dryden, like F-18s and F-15s and stuff, aren't covered by
FAA rules, but the KingAirs used to haul management and other staff to
and from Ames are.

This doesn't include certification, just maintenance and operation.
Military aircraft aren't certified and the KingAirs were bought from
the maker, who did the certification before introducing the aircraft
to the market.

These rules, requiring adherence to FAA regs for aircraft used like
commercial aircraft, apply to all Federal agencies. It's mostly only
agencies like NASA and the military that also have aircraft to which
the rules don't apply.

Mary "Works until you want to hang an experiment on the KingAir."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, Brian Thorn
wrote:

The idea didn't appear out of the blue after Columbia, especially
since Columbia's age played no role in the accident, but the CAIB put
all its weight behind the idea.

The age of the leading edge material, and the number of reentries it
had made, was a factor in the accident, I thought. It had become
brittle in extended use and was, therefore, not resistant to the
impact of the foam.

Mary "Or was this just a hypothesis?"
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" writes:

True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?

Only for the aircraft that are only used to carry people around in
much the same manner as commercial aircraft. The research and support
aircraft at Dryden, like F-18s and F-15s and stuff, aren't covered by
FAA rules, but the KingAirs used to haul management and other staff to
and from Ames are.

This doesn't include certification, just maintenance and operation.
Military aircraft aren't certified and the KingAirs were bought from
the maker, who did the certification before introducing the aircraft
to the market.

These rules, requiring adherence to FAA regs for aircraft used like
commercial aircraft, apply to all Federal agencies. It's mostly only
agencies like NASA and the military that also have aircraft to which
the rules don't apply.


I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

BUT BUT
Most/all had to obey the FAR's just as if they did; in many cases because
their insurance companies required same, in others because there was an
edict err policy requiring same. Is that what you mean?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

On Jan 23, 6:51�pm, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)"
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, Brian Thorn

wrote:
The idea didn't appear out of the blue after Columbia, especially
since Columbia's age played no role in the accident, but the CAIB put
all its weight behind the idea.

The age of the leading edge material, and the number of reentries it
had made, was a factor in the accident, I thought. �It had become
brittle in extended use and was, therefore, not resistant to the
impact of the foam.

Mary "Or was this just a hypothesis?"
--
Mary Shafer � Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my blog athttp://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/� �

did nasa try the foam hit on a new panel and if so how bad was the
damage?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:51:19 -0800, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
Shafer)" wrote:


The idea didn't appear out of the blue after Columbia, especially
since Columbia's age played no role in the accident, but the CAIB put
all its weight behind the idea.

The age of the leading edge material, and the number of reentries it
had made, was a factor in the accident, I thought. It had become
brittle in extended use and was, therefore, not resistant to the
impact of the foam.

Mary "Or was this just a hypothesis?"

From the CAIB...

"Findings:
F3.3-1 The original design specifications required the RCC components
to have essentially no impact resistance.
F3.3-2 Current inspection techniques are not adequate to assess
structural integrity of the RCC components.
F3.3-3 After manufacturer's acceptance non-destructive evaluation,
only periodic visual and touch tests are conducted.
F3.3-4 RCC components are weakened by mass loss caused by oxidation
within the substrate, which accumulates with age. The extent of
oxidation is not directly measurable, and the resulting mission life
reduction is developed analytically.
F3.3-5 To date, only two flown RCC panels, having achieved 15 and 19
missions, have been destructively tested to determine actual loss of
strength due to oxidation.
F3.3-6 Contamination from zinc leaching from a primer under the paint
topcoat on the launch pad structure increases the opportunities for
localized oxidation."

Sounds to me like they're saying the RCC panels weaken over time, but
they don't know how much and the panels weren't supposed to take any
impacts anyway. :-/

In any case, age wasn't a contributing factor in the accident. The
SWRI impact test would have smashed a brand-new RCC panel too.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

In any case, age wasn't a contributing factor in the accident. The
SWRI impact test would have smashed a brand-new RCC panel too.


When they shot the foam at the fiberglass panel that was supposed to be
as strong as a RCC panel, it caused a crack in it but not a hole. They
had to put NASA's feet to the fire to get them to give the CAIB a actual
flown RCC panel...NASA said it was too expensive to destroy one of
those, and the fiberglass one would behave the same way the real one would.
Besides, the crack in the fiberglass one would have been fatal, so there
was no reason to do the test with a real panel.
I think NASA had a sneaking suspicion about what was going to happen
when that foam hit a actual panel, and was trying to figure out some way
to prevent that test from happening...the end result was that they came
out of it looking like they were trying to cover things up. It would
have been better if they had given the CAIB a real panel in the first
place, and just taken their lumps over getting their strength estimates
of the panel wrong.

Pat

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:50:15 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
wrote:

"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" writes:

True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they?

Only for the aircraft that are only used to carry people around in
much the same manner as commercial aircraft. The research and support
aircraft at Dryden, like F-18s and F-15s and stuff, aren't covered by
FAA rules, but the KingAirs used to haul management and other staff to
and from Ames are.

This doesn't include certification, just maintenance and operation.
Military aircraft aren't certified and the KingAirs were bought from
the maker, who did the certification before introducing the aircraft
to the market.

These rules, requiring adherence to FAA regs for aircraft used like
commercial aircraft, apply to all Federal agencies. It's mostly only
agencies like NASA and the military that also have aircraft to which
the rules don't apply.

I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

Fairly new rule, maybe less than ten years old. It only applies to
public aviation that mimics private aviation, sort of. It doesn't
apply to other public aviation. It covers less than a dozen NASA
aircraft, mostly KingAirs and QueenAirs and whatever NASA 1 is.

I don't think it applies to the pilots or mechanics, just to the
aircraft. I think they're regular NASA pilots, with NASA medicals and
NASA job assignments (NASA doesn't issue licenses, per se, but puts it
into the job description). I know the mechanics don't have FAA
licenses, at least at Dryden. They use the regular Dryden inspection
system, which the FAA has agreed to.

BUT BUT
Most/all had to obey the FAR's just as if they did; in many cases because
their insurance companies required same, in others because there was an
edict err policy requiring same. Is that what you mean?

No. The USG doesn't have insurance companies, because it
self-insures. I don't know about smaller units and insurance. The
NASA directives instruct us to follow the FARs as much as is
applicable and doesn't interfere with the stuff we're doing. I mean,
we don't need FAA permission to launch or drop the Orbiter through the
controlled air space. We tell them, not ask them. That's pretty
typical of public aviation, except for when the mission is just
hauling people around.

In general, the various exceptions to the FARs are mission related.
For example, the damned LACo Sheriff's helicopter that flies over my
neighborhood at 200 ft at Oh-Dark-Thirty is allowed to descend much
lower than the FARs allow because it's required to look for criminals
(and to awaken more sleeping citizens to let us know our sheriff is at
work).

NASA and the military adhere to the relevant FARs when traveling
cross-country under ATC, but do so with uncertified aircraft and
unlicensed pilots. These agencies break a lot of FARs, too, but
usually within special areas. Oil Burner/Olive Branch routes, MOAs,
restricted areas. We used to fly the SR-71s above the controlled air
space (above 65,000 ft), going Mach 3 over US ground. We still fly
the U-2s there, only slower. So does the USAF.

Mary "Yes, it's an odd rule, if you ask me."
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or
Visit my blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/

"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)" wrote in
message ...
In general, the various exceptions to the FARs are mission related.
For example, the damned LACo Sheriff's helicopter that flies over my
neighborhood at 200 ft at Oh-Dark-Thirty is allowed to descend much
lower than the FARs allow because it's required to look for criminals
(and to awaken more sleeping citizens to let us know our sheriff is at
work).


The worst case I've heard of a government agency not following regulations
that civilian craft would have to follow was after a rotor strike between
the State Police medivac copter and the civilian one. The pilot flew the
unrepaired SP helicopter off the helipad (10+ stories up in an urban area).

The civilian medivac copter couldn't fly until appropriate inspections and
repairs were done.



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

David Lesher wrote:

I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

Except the FCC does govern USG freq assignments - who do you think
assigns the freq to the goverment? The USG can't just use any ol'
freq it feels like. (Since the whole spectrum is subject to various
international agreements that the US is a party to.)

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

(Derek Lyons) writes:


I thought FAA jurisdiction did not cover USG/state aircraft. (Just as the
FCC does not govern USG freq. assignments.)

Except the FCC does govern USG freq assignments - who do you think
assigns the freq to the goverment? The USG can't just use any ol'
freq it feels like. (Since the whole spectrum is subject to various
international agreements that the US is a party to.)

I believe that's a NTIA Office of Spectrum Managment job.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433