Shuttle Certification Question

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

My thesis is that all this talk about "recertification" of the Shuttle
to fly it past 2010 is post-Columbia hooey, but I'd like to verify
that.

Part of the problem with "recertification" is that Shuttles were never
(AFAICT) formally "certified" in the first place.

OTOH, I'd argue that this "certification" debate is nothing but
another inappropriate attempt to shoehorn the Shuttle/space travel
into the aviation metaphor.

I tend to agree and Jorge has posted previously that some have argued all
the work after Columbia is essentially equivalent to a recert anyway.

FWIW - the method outlined in Rand's blog entry isn't so different
from how the boats are "certified"... Performance is compared to the
spec and known problems are closed out. (Either by fixing the problem
or by placing the system/boat under a performance limitation.)

But, as Rand (?) points out WRT aviation, there's an extensive
engineering and experience database for us to work from.

Is "certifying" the Shuttle once again an attempt to apply operational
standards to an experimental craft?

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Cite?

Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
"certificates"?

It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember
reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other
aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and
STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's
plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late
1999.

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.

Brian

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
OM wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:39:33 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

OM wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
"certificates"?
...Rand brings up a good point for once: In all this talk about
"certification", there's one thing I've yet to see: certified by
"whom"? The FAA? NARA?
By NASA itself.
...Which will no doubt lead to cranks and crackpots claiming that will
be a case of the "fox guarding the henhouse". This in turn begs the
question: if not NASA, then what agency would be qualified to perform
such a certification? Would the FAA be able to do the job more than
satisfactory?
No.

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.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Cite?

Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
"certificates"?

It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember
reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other
aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and
STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's
plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late
1999.

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.

No one is questioning the notion of assuring the safety of flying the
Shuttle post-Columbia. The issue is the notion of "certifying" it.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Cite?

Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the
"certificates"?

It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember
reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other
aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and
STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's
plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late
1999.

If it wasn't called "recertification," it wasn't recertification.

I'm a little astouded by this enthusiasm for the concept of
"recertifying" the Orbiters, when they were never "certified" in the
first place.

On Jan 21, 9:52�pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Cite?

Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for
ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. �Where are the
"certificates"?

It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember
reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other
aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and
STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's
plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late
1999.

If it wasn't called "recertification," it wasn't recertification.

I'm a little astouded by this enthusiasm for the concept of
"recertifying" the Orbiters, when they were never "certified" in the
first place.

well they wouldnt pass todays man rating specs since they lack launch
boost escape

wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 9:52?pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

well they wouldnt pass todays man rating specs since they lack launch
boost escape


Unless of course they were given a waiver. Or the rules changed. NASA is
policing itself here.

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

"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?

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

"Jeff Findley" writes:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
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?

If I recall from Heppenheimer's book about the development of
the space shuttle accurately, the FAA came to the decision that the
space shuttle was a space vehicle, outside their jurisdiction, and that
it spent a little bit of time in the atmosphere flying from its launchpad
to orbit, or from orbit to landing, was too incidental to give the FAA a
regulatory authority over it.

(One might wonder how the Shuttle program would have developed
had the FAA decided it should oversee its operations. I don't expect
the FAA would be a particularly onerous overseer, although having a more
independent set of eyes might help in borderline decisions.)

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Joseph Nebus" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" writes:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
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?

If I recall from Heppenheimer's book about the development of
the space shuttle accurately, the FAA came to the decision that the
space shuttle was a space vehicle, outside their jurisdiction, and that
it spent a little bit of time in the atmosphere flying from its launchpad
to orbit, or from orbit to landing, was too incidental to give the FAA a
regulatory authority over it.

(One might wonder how the Shuttle program would have developed
had the FAA decided it should oversee its operations. I don't expect
the FAA would be a particularly onerous overseer, although having a more
independent set of eyes might help in borderline decisions.)

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense since FAA rules pretty much don't
apply to government craft in the first place.



--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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