NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:28:52 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Nobody's been given money to attempt to do it better. And in fact,
the Russians do it better.

"Nobody does it better...makes me feel sad for the rest...nobody does
it, half as good as you...baybeeee....you babe, you're the
bessssttttt...."

[/carly]


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:28:52 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Nobody's been given money to attempt to do it better. And in fact,
the Russians do it better.

"Nobody does it better...makes me feel sad for the rest...nobody does
it, half as good as you...baybeeee....you babe, you're the
bessssttttt...."

[/carly]


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[



Simply predictable, and pathetic reply om. It's really funny how a
killfile excuse releases you rand and many others of the responsibility
of previously posted words, and somehow you think you can bully your
way through usenet over people who point out the contradictions. Now
om can you dispute any of the facts I have posted, or are you just
tainting the messenger.

The Honorable Michael D. Griffin
Administrator
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546

Dear Dr. Griffin
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has been a key element in
maintaining independent oversight of NASA, and by acting as an advisory
panel in the safety process the ASAP has actively improved the safety
in our nations space program. Private launch companies who have
benefited from years of research and technology transfers from NASA,
most certainly will return those benefits in many known and unknown
ways, but future manned space flight businesses must maintain the
safety standards established from those same years of experience, as
reduce the risks of future tragedies. Maintaining such high safety
standards will make each private entity better prepared to handle the
internal business pressures that comes associated with needing to
generate a profit or maintain a schedule, with that of public safety.
Dr. Griffin please refer the rogers commison report and the caib
report, and the many other studies as to how managerial and scheduling
pressures were found to be contributing factors in both Columbia and
Challenger tragedies, therefore it is necessary to apply the same
safety standards and independent oversight with the private launch
industry as with our nations manned space program.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On 8 Dec 2006 10:18:40 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
:a way as to indicate that:
:
: I think there is room for both opinions, still. The first thing NASA will
: probably outsource is putting cargo up. OTOH, when is the last time a
: private carrier put people up or brought anything down? And even with taking
: payload up, I think if I were orbiting, I would want NASA to control the
: upper stage.
:
: You mean the agency that's killed fourteen people, out of a few
: hundred? Why?
:
: Because no one does it better, as can be seen by tonight's scrub.
:
: What an absurd and illogical argument.
:
: Nobody's been given money to attempt to do it better. And in fact,
: the Russians do it better.
:
:Been given money? By whom?
:
:By everyone, you moron. Why would you ask who hasn't given someone
:money? What kind of idiotic question is that? When are you going to
:learn to read? Or think?

When are you going to learn what a business case looks like and
recognize that your whining for some piece of the government pie
doesn't constitute one?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

And whether or not NASA's record is the same as the Russians, or
better, or worse, depends on how you keep the books. They've only
lost crew on one flight, and never on ascent.

Er... two flights: Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. And unless your crew is never
planning to return to Earth, I fail to understand the "never on
ascent" caveat.

Stats...

Shuttle: 692 astronauts flown, 14 fatalities (2.02%)
Soyuz: 228 cosmonauts flown, 4 fatalities (1.75%)

US Spaceflights: 147 (incl. X-15 Flights 90 and 91, and SS1 flights)
Failures: 5 (Gemini 8, Apollo 13, STS-51L, STS-83, STS-107)
Failure Rate: 3.40%

Soviet/Russian Spaceflights: 105
Failures: 6 (Soyuz 1, 11, 18A, 25, 33, T-10A)
Failure Rate: 5.71%

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

And whether or not NASA's record is the same as the Russians, or
better, or worse, depends on how you keep the books. They've only
lost crew on one flight, and never on ascent.

Er... two flights: Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. And unless your crew is never
planning to return to Earth, I fail to understand the "never on
ascent" caveat.

Stats...

Shuttle: 692 astronauts flown, 14 fatalities (2.02%)
Soyuz: 228 cosmonauts flown, 4 fatalities (1.75%)

US Spaceflights: 147 (incl. X-15 Flights 90 and 91, and SS1 flights)
Failures: 5 (Gemini 8, Apollo 13, STS-51L, STS-83, STS-107)
Failure Rate: 3.40%

Soviet/Russian Spaceflights: 105
Failures: 6 (Soyuz 1, 11, 18A, 25, 33, T-10A)
Failure Rate: 5.71%

Brian

Here is some information about the faa's safety performance goal, of
no fatalities in the private launch industry.

Commercial Space Launches GAO-07-16
FAA Has Met Its Safety Performance Goal of No Fatalities or Substantial
Property Damage
Page 16
"FAA has met its annual performance goal to have no fatalities,
serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public during
licensed space launches and reentries since establishing this goal in
2003. Moreover, according to FAA, none of the 179 commercial launches
that occurred between March 1989 and August 2006 resulted in casualties
or substantial property damage. Of these 179 launches, FAA had joint
oversight responsibility with other federal agencies for 152 (about 85
percent) and sole responsibility for 27 (about 15 percent) that
included sea launches and the launches of SpaceShipOne from Mojave
Spaceport. FAA shared responsibility with the Air Force for 132
launches at Air Force launch sites and with NASA, the Army, or foreign
governments for 20 launches at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in
Virginia, the Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, and
other facilities. Thus, the majority of commercial space launches
during this period took place at Air Force launch sites where the Air
Force had primary responsibility for safety oversight. We discuss later
in this report the challenges that FAA faces in the future in assuming
sole responsibility for launch safety oversight at spaceports."

tom

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:46:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

And whether or not NASA's record is the same as the Russians, or
better, or worse, depends on how you keep the books. They've only
lost crew on one flight, and never on ascent.

Er... two flights: Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. And unless your crew is never
planning to return to Earth, I fail to understand the "never on
ascent" caveat.

It wasn't a "caveat." It was a detailed description of the failures.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:46:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:27:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

And whether or not NASA's record is the same as the Russians, or
better, or worse, depends on how you keep the books. They've only
lost crew on one flight, and never on ascent.

Er... two flights: Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11. And unless your crew is never
planning to return to Earth, I fail to understand the "never on
ascent" caveat.

It wasn't a "caveat." It was a detailed description of the failures.

rand you do not have the right to post here without addressing the fact
you have a bias, and you do not want independent oversight in the
private space launch industry because of costs, not because of public
safety... Ignoring me does not ignore that simple fact of ethical
professional responsibility, as you have no free pass simply because
you make illogical declarations, as you are responsible for your own
posts now put up or...

Now rand simberg, do you have a personal bias for posting how safety
oversight may effect an industry you are associated with?

tom

Rand Simberg wrote:

NASA's overall fatality rate is still less than 2%, equal to the Russians.
Nobody else has enough flights to even compare, in a statistically
significant way.



The point is, that's no reason to prefer NASA over the private sector.



Which has made two manned spaceflights up to the moment. :-)

Pat

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:17:59 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

NASA's overall fatality rate is still less than 2%, equal to the Russians.
Nobody else has enough flights to even compare, in a statistically
significant way.



The point is, that's no reason to prefer NASA over the private sector.



Which has made two manned spaceflights up to the moment. :-)

Three, actually. All of them successful...

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:17:59 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

NASA's overall fatality rate is still less than 2%, equal to the Russians.
Nobody else has enough flights to even compare, in a statistically
significant way.



The point is, that's no reason to prefer NASA over the private sector.



Which has made two manned spaceflights up to the moment. :-)

Three, actually. All of them successful...


Hey guys how's the group thing going with the gorilla, the dolphin,
rand and pat.

Oh yeah you see rand believe it or not, you are not better than anybody
else, nor do you have rights that nobody else does, nor do you have
some authority around here that nobody else does, you I, and everybody
else here are equals whether you would like to acknowledge that fact is
your choice, so yes you and others will be held responsible for words
posted without citation or factual backing, and yes rand you do have a
personal bias that is rather obvious and I will call you out every time
you market your crap..

Now if you believe in independent oversight in the private launch
industry than copy and sign the letter I composed, otherwise your
hypocrisy is extremely obvious and the all of the off topic posts you
and your friends make do not change the simple facts I have posted and
will continue to post.

Oh yeah rand if you could keep your belligerence down to a minimum
tomorrow, out of respect it would be much appreciated.

tom