NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:55:59 -0600, in a place far, far away, OM
made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:47:14 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

When are his good moments? I must have missed them.

...I don't see how.

Easy. He has none.

You respond to every one of his trollings!

No, I don't. I'd have no time for anything else if I did.

mmm, you have time to act with malice and bait fights with chomko, but
somehow you dont have time to debate me, interseting, yeah rand stick
to your fluffy polictical one line posts...

h (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...

And none of them even close to orbital...

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Soyuz 1.
One of the solar arrays never deployed so it was short of power and
couldn't maneuver properly because the center of balance was off due to
the undeployed panel.
They managed to get it lined up for retrofire eventually, but the main
chute didn't deploy properly due to a design defect, and when the reserve
chute was deployed it tangled with the main one, so that cosmonaut Komarov
was killed on impact:
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz1.htm

Soyuz had a lot of problems during this period of development. Both the US
and the Soviets were eager to get their new craft up and flying due to the
race to the moon.

Had the Block 1 Apollo CSM flown, it wouldn't have been surprising to have
similarly serious failures during the flight. Of course, the (Block 1)
Apollo 1 fire was a deadly serious failure...

After the Soyuz 1/Apollo 1 failures, the Soviets and the Americans both went
back to the drawing board and fixed some serious, lingering, problems with
their respective designs.

After that, the US was lucky it didn't lose the Apollo 13 crew. Had it not
been for the LEM, the failure would have lead to death in a similar manner
to that of Soyuz 11's crew.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
They're not pushing boundaries. They're retreating back to the
concepts of forty years ago.

Partly. They're also trying to build ISS 2, but on the lunar surface. They
want to return to the old days in terms of capsules and lunar landers, but
scale up the lander so it's big enough to land ISS like modules on the moon.

So they're really returning to the conceps of 20 to 40. ;-)

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:Had the Block 1 Apollo CSM flown, it wouldn't have been surprising to have
:similarly serious failures during the flight.

It would have surprised me.

:Of course, the (Block 1)
:Apollo 1 fire was a deadly serious failure...

Yes, and it wasn't the sort of thing that would occur during flight,
was it?

:After the Soyuz 1/Apollo 1 failures, the Soviets and the Americans both went
:back to the drawing board and fixed some serious, lingering, problems with
:their respective designs.

Could you provide a list of what you think were the "serious,
lingering, problems" in the Apollo Block I design that were fixed that
you consider most likely to cause a fatal accident?

:After that, the US was lucky it didn't lose the Apollo 13 crew. Had it not
:been for the LEM, the failure would have lead to death in a similar manner
:to that of Soyuz 11's crew.

No, it wouldn't have been "in a similar manner to that of Soyuz 11's
crew" at all. Start with the difference between freezing to death on
a Moon flight and dying of hypoxia on reentry from an orbital flight
and go from there.

The main reason for getting out of the main module and using the LEM
was because there was concern about main module damage from the
explosion and a desire to 'save' it for reentry. The issue for Apollo
13 was electrical power, not breathable atmosphere.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

Jeff Findley wrote:

Soyuz had a lot of problems during this period of development. Both the US
and the Soviets were eager to get their new craft up and flying due to the
race to the moon.



They really rushed it... the unmanned tests hadn't gone well at all.
The problem with the parachute was due to the fact that they covered the
inside of the parachute storage housing with a spray-on insulation used
on the descent module's exterior. This caused the chute to stick when
they attempted to deploy it due to the roughness of the insulation.
If the launch of Soyuz 1 had gone well they would have launched Soyuz 2
the next day and docked the two ships to transfer two of Soyuz 2's three
crew to Soyuz 1.
The unlaunched Soyuz 2 had the same problem as Soyuz 1 in regards to its
parachutes, so you would have ended up with a total of four dead
cosmonauts and two piles of burning debris on the ground in Russia when
they tried to land.

Pat

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:Had the Block 1 Apollo CSM flown, it wouldn't have been surprising to
have
:similarly serious failures during the flight.

It would have surprised me.

:Of course, the (Block 1)
:Apollo 1 fire was a deadly serious failure...

Yes, and it wasn't the sort of thing that would occur during flight,
was it?

Possibly not in the same way it did on the ground (due to the high pressure
O2 atmosphere during the ground test), but the subsequent investigation
uncovered some serious problems with the spacecraft as designed, built,
managed, and tested.

:After the Soyuz 1/Apollo 1 failures, the Soviets and the Americans both
went
:back to the drawing board and fixed some serious, lingering, problems
with
:their respective designs.

Could you provide a list of what you think were the "serious,
lingering, problems" in the Apollo Block I design that were fixed that
you consider most likely to cause a fatal accident?

There are lots of details he

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1980011953.pdf

There were issues with the cooling system, the wiring, tank welds, certain
mylar capacitors, and etc.

As with the Challenger and Columbia disasters, the Apollo 1 fire was not
only a setback, but an opportunity to address these sorts of lingering
problems, especially since the first crewed vehicle would be a Block II CSM.

:After that, the US was lucky it didn't lose the Apollo 13 crew. Had it
not
:been for the LEM, the failure would have lead to death in a similar
manner
:to that of Soyuz 11's crew.

No, it wouldn't have been "in a similar manner to that of Soyuz 11's
crew" at all. Start with the difference between freezing to death on
a Moon flight and dying of hypoxia on reentry from an orbital flight
and go from there.

The main reason for getting out of the main module and using the LEM
was because there was concern about main module damage from the
explosion and a desire to 'save' it for reentry. The issue for Apollo
13 was electrical power, not breathable atmosphere.

Without the LEM there was enough oxygen for the crew to die from
hypothermia? I wrote "had it not been for the LEM" since I was thinking of
either the explosion happening on, say, Apollo 8, or on a landing mission
after the LEM was spent and discarded. In either case, I thought the only
O2 left to the crew would be in the CM's tanks.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

George Evans wrote:
in article , Eric Chomko
at wrote on 12/8/06 10:23 AM:

Rand Simberg wrote:

snip

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

How about going into space vs. not going into space? I prefer going into space
and since NASA is the only one that is going into space, NASA wins by default.

Thank you, it was time to clean off my screen anyway.

Oops, besides the Russians of course...


George Evans

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 8 Dec 2006 11:06:10 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

And this constant whining about no one gives us money has got to go.

It's not "whining." It's stating of a fact to point out how
nonsensical your argument is.

Your whining is disproving his point?

No, you moron. Learn to read.

So you whined just to whine?

I didn't whine.

Call me a moron but never say I'm unproductive.

I never would. When it comes to spouting idiocy, your output is
prodigious. I wouldn't be proud of it, though.

Nor shall I be ashamed of it simply for you to use it against me.
You're no team player, Simberg. You work alone for a reason. Commercial
spaceflight needs all types, but mostly team players. Your personality
is the exact opposite of what your goal is centered around.

You're like a short guy trying to play basketball rather than being a
jockey.

Eric

On 11 Dec 2006 13:20:17 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Call me a moron but never say I'm unproductive.

I never would. When it comes to spouting idiocy, your output is
prodigious. I wouldn't be proud of it, though.

Nor shall I be ashamed of it simply for you to use it against me.
You're no team player, Simberg. You work alone for a reason.

I don't work alone, you moron.