|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Not exactly "Best and Brightest" (was: RTF presentation)
(ref http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/rtf/mw0903.html)
In perusing the RTF slides, I was shocked to find these statements: ________ For all rendezvous missions, the earth rotates the launch pad under the target satellite's (ISS) orbital plane once per day .... The effect of nodal regression causes the launch pad to rotate into the target plane in less than 1 day (~23 hours and 36 minutes). *Therefore, the launch time shifts ~24 minutes earlier each day. *Why? -The earth is not a perfect sphere; but rather broader around theequatorial mid-section (oblate shaped). -This oblate earth effect imparts a torque on the orbit which rotates the plane to the west (clockwise as seen from above the north pole) ________ (From slides 5&6, http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/...ow_media1b.pdf) It's evident that academic deficiencies at NASA run lots deeper than just "zero gravity"! * Here's another statement that jumped out at me: "The Shuttle Program would not knowingly expose the public, nor the crew to any potentially catastrophic/risky environment" (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/...ght_media1.pdf) ~ CT |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Not exactly "Best and Brightest" (was: RTF presentation)
Stuf4 wrote:
(ref http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/rtf/mw0903.html) In perusing the RTF slides, I was shocked to find these statements: ________ For all rendezvous missions, the earth rotates the launch pad under the target satellite's (ISS) orbital plane once per day That is the one which caught me. The launch pad goes through the orbital plane twice a day. Not once. It is just that one of the two requires a launch to south east, which the shuttle isn't allowed to do. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Not exactly "Best and Brightest" (was: RTF presentation)
From Michael Garibaldi:
Stuf4 wrote: (ref http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/rtf/mw0903.html) In perusing the RTF slides, I was shocked to find these statements: ________ For all rendezvous missions, the earth rotates the launch pad under the target satellite's (ISS) orbital plane once per day That is the one which caught me. The launch pad goes through the orbital plane twice a day. Not once. It is just that one of the two requires a launch to south east, which the shuttle isn't allowed to do. This is stuff that's covered in a _first_course_ on astrodynamics, let alone those who are supposed to know this as their *career*. It scares me to think of the scores of people at NASA that these slides got by before getting posted for public consumption. NASA wants to build public confidence, but here they're falling way short. If you fail an undergraduate course in college, you can take it over. The consequences of error at NASA are far more severe. ~ CT |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Not exactly "Best and Brightest" (was: RTF presentation)
Stuf4 wrote:
From Michael Garibaldi: Stuf4 wrote: (ref http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/rtf/mw0903.html) In perusing the RTF slides, I was shocked to find these statements: ________ For all rendezvous missions, the earth rotates the launch pad under the target satellite's (ISS) orbital plane once per day That is the one which caught me. The launch pad goes through the orbital plane twice a day. Not once. It is just that one of the two requires a launch to south east, which the shuttle isn't allowed to do. This is stuff that's covered in a _first_course_ on astrodynamics, let alone those who are supposed to know this as their *career*. It scares me to think of the scores of people at NASA that these slides got by before getting posted for public consumption. NASA wants to build public confidence, but here they're falling way short. If you fail an undergraduate course in college, you can take it over. The consequences of error at NASA are far more severe. You think that ones bad, next time your in the "Disney Land" visitor's center at JSC take a look at some of the educational materials. In particular, there is a hands on orbital rendezvous simulation. The simulation looks like it has two circular orbital stations at different altitudes, but they have the same orbital period. Same orbital period for two different diameter orbits. Craig Fink |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Not exactly "Best and Brightest" (was: RTF presentation)
"Craig Fink" wrote in message nk.net... Stuf4 wrote: From Michael Garibaldi: Stuf4 wrote: (ref http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/rtf/mw0903.html) In perusing the RTF slides, I was shocked to find these statements: ________ For all rendezvous missions, the earth rotates the launch pad under the target satellite's (ISS) orbital plane once per day That is the one which caught me. The launch pad goes through the orbital plane twice a day. Not once. It is just that one of the two requires a launch to south east, which the shuttle isn't allowed to do. This is stuff that's covered in a _first_course_ on astrodynamics, let alone those who are supposed to know this as their *career*. It scares me to think of the scores of people at NASA that these slides got by before getting posted for public consumption. NASA wants to build public confidence, but here they're falling way short. If you fail an undergraduate course in college, you can take it over. The consequences of error at NASA are far more severe. You think that ones bad, next time your in the "Disney Land" visitor's center at JSC take a look at some of the educational materials. In particular, there is a hands on orbital rendezvous simulation. The simulation looks like it has two circular orbital stations at different altitudes, but they have the same orbital period. Same orbital period for two different diameter orbits. National Space Centre here in Leicester in the UK is similarly full of chronic errors. Do US museums etc. totally over-look the military influence ( i.e. V2's etc ) at the early stages of the space program (i.e. without the money ploughed into V2 development, the entire space program would have been about 5 years backward) - that happens a lot here. Doug |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Not exactly "Best and Brightest" (was: RTF presentation)
From Derek Lyons:
(Stuf4) wrote: This is stuff that's covered in a _first_course_ on astrodynamics, let alone those who are supposed to know this as their *career*. It scares me to think of the scores of people at NASA that these slides got by before getting posted for public consumption. It scares me to think that folks seriously confuse a general briefing with a detailed astrodynamics lectures, and then claim to be insiders in NASA. No one criticized the briefing for lack of detail. It was being criticized for error on the first order. What's ironic in your rebuttal is that the slide *did* go way deep in to orbital perturbation effects (as a detailed astro lecture might do) while neglecting to mention the most easy to understand, most easy to explain, and *most significant* cause of launch window shift from one day to the next. By the way, I don't recall ever sharing with this forum at large whether I worked inside or outside of the space program (or whether I work any job at all for that matter). If CT and Craig are examples of what NASA hires, the source of many problems become obvious. If one or two people can break a system, then I'd say that the system was broken to begin with. And that strikes to the heart of my motivation for starting this thread. It matters little that a couple slides got messed up. What matters a lot is the pattern of errors creeping past quality control checks. NASA does a slide show on RTF, but the presentation advertises indications that the system is still broken. As of now, I file that under "ironic". If this problem persists, it may join the list of "tragic". ~ CT |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Not exactly "Best and Brightest" (was: RTF presentation)
(Stuf4) wrote:
From Derek Lyons: (Stuf4) wrote: This is stuff that's covered in a _first_course_ on astrodynamics, let alone those who are supposed to know this as their *career*. It scares me to think of the scores of people at NASA that these slides got by before getting posted for public consumption. It scares me to think that folks seriously confuse a general briefing with a detailed astrodynamics lectures, and then claim to be insiders in NASA. No one criticized the briefing for lack of detail. It was being criticized for error on the first order. An error that has little real effect on flight planning. The shuttle gets one daytime window per day. What's ironic in your rebuttal is that the slide *did* go way deep in to orbital perturbation effects (as a detailed astro lecture might do) while neglecting to mention the most easy to understand, most easy to explain, and *most significant* cause of launch window shift from one day to the next. I found no such slide in the link referenced at the head of this thread. I invite correction. By the way, I don't recall ever sharing with this forum at large whether I worked inside or outside of the space program (or whether I work any job at all for that matter). You've certainly gone to great lengths to imply that you are 'inside'. If CT and Craig are examples of what NASA hires, the source of many problems become obvious. If one or two people can break a system, then I'd say that the system was broken to begin with. It's called being indicative of a pattern Stuffie. And that strikes to the heart of my motivation for starting this thread. Your intention is to play semantic games and then claim injury when once again shown to be wrong. What matters a lot is the pattern of errors creeping past quality control checks. One doubts the same QA/QC is applied to the significant procedures and systems as to one-off briefings. (If one-off briefing recieve any at all.) NASA does a slide show on RTF, but the presentation advertises indications that the system is still broken. Only to those whose lifeblood is based on playing semantic games and other such tactics as opposed to realistic discussion. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Not exactly "Best and Brightest" (was: RTF presentation)
From Derek Lyons:
This is stuff that's covered in a _first_course_ on astrodynamics, let alone those who are supposed to know this as their *career*. It scares me to think of the scores of people at NASA that these slides got by before getting posted for public consumption. It scares me to think that folks seriously confuse a general briefing with a detailed astrodynamics lectures, and then claim to be insiders in NASA. No one criticized the briefing for lack of detail. It was being criticized for error on the first order. An error that has little real effect on flight planning. The shuttle gets one daytime window per day. This is known as "getting the right answer for the wrong reasons". Scary to think of shuttle flights that have succeeded for the "wrong reasons". But as many an aviator will tell you... I'd rather be lucky than good, any day. What's ironic in your rebuttal is that the slide *did* go way deep in to orbital perturbation effects (as a detailed astro lecture might do) while neglecting to mention the most easy to understand, most easy to explain, and *most significant* cause of launch window shift from one day to the next. I found no such slide in the link referenced at the head of this thread. I invite correction. The error was in slide 6 as pointed out in the first post of this thread. Their explanation as to why "...the launch time shifts ~24 minutes earlier each day" is grossly deficient. (This issue has been discussed on this forum on past threads about geosynch/geostationary orbits.) By the way, I don't recall ever sharing with this forum at large whether I worked inside or outside of the space program (or whether I work any job at all for that matter). You've certainly gone to great lengths to imply that you are 'inside'. Great lengths? I remember being pressed persistently and I replied with *one post* that hinted toward my actual situation. I also specifically remember replying to degrading posts that they can imagine me to be a schoolgirl or a NASA janitor if they'd like. I also remember repeatedly advocating a shift in focus *away* from credentials to instead focus on *content* of discussion. Consider, for example, the current discussion on "zero gravity". For someone to post a statement... "I work at NASA. I've worked there for over 20 years. I have a PhD in physics. (more prolific credentials offered, etc)." ....I would consider this to be a distraction from any points of substance that get posted. It sets the stage for an appeal to authority, which would make for an argument resting upon a logical fallacy. (And perhaps this explains the popularity of the bogus term "microgravity".) snip What matters a lot is the pattern of errors creeping past quality control checks. One doubts the same QA/QC is applied to the significant procedures and systems as to one-off briefings. (If one-off briefing recieve any at all.) In such a case, I would suggest a caveat templated to such slides. They could say: "Slide not quality checked.", or something along the lines of... "Briefing not guaranteed for accuracy." Alternatively, the board chair could *insist* upon getting accurate briefings. NASA does a slide show on RTF, but the presentation advertises indications that the system is still broken. Only to those whose lifeblood is based on playing semantic games and other such tactics as opposed to realistic discussion. I don't see exposure of deficient knowledge to be a game of any kind. Particularly when lives and irreplaceable assets are at stake. Also, if any topic does not meet my standard of "realistic discussion", I stop *reading* it (let alone post to it). ~ CT |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Not exactly "Best and Brightest" (was: RTF presentation)
(Stuf4) wrote:
The error was in slide 6 as pointed out in the first post of this thread. Their explanation as to why "...the launch time shifts ~24 minutes earlier each day" is grossly deficient. For an astrodynamics lecture maybe. For a general brief no. You appear unable to discern the meaning of 'scale'. Also, if any topic does not meet my standard of "realistic discussion", I stop *reading* it (let alone post to it). ROTLFMAO. Your inability to understand material presented bluntly to you once again exceeds expectations. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|