|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames by Jim O
Great read!
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5412 Yikes! I want the ISS partnership to work, but jeez folks...why not let the rocket scientists figure out what's wrong with the capsule?! This is getting to be ridiculous. e.g. The Americans get blamed almost immediately for a power surge during solar array construction...etc...then it turns out it was in fact something else (Look...I'm not pointing fingers). I listen to John Shannon on the MMT meeting briefs dissect dings in the Shuttle TPM in full disclosure, then I read this article on the finger pointing going on over there and it really concerns me. It seems like we're at least trying to learn from our mistakes. I think our Russian partners need to be a bit more objective. The Soyuz vehicle is overall safe, but they need to let the scientist do to science and get the damn politicians out of the loop. Uh...we all just want it fixed...we're not trying to screw anyone here! -- Lenny |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames by Jim O
"Space Balls" wrote:
I listen to John Shannon on the MMT meeting briefs dissect dings in the Shuttle TPM in full disclosure, then I read this article on the finger pointing going on over there and it really concerns me. It seems like we're at least trying to learn from our mistakes. I think our Russian partners need to be a bit more objective. 'We' (presuming you mean NASA) aren't trying to learn from our mistakes - but are engaged in covering up problems with Soyuz as we have been for years. The Soyuz vehicle is overall safe, but they need to let the scientist do to science and get the damn politicians out of the loop. Uh...we all just want it fixed...we're not trying to screw anyone here! So do you think the Shuttle is safe? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames by Jim O
I read somewhere about the Rogers report, and particularly, Feyman's
"Appendix 12". He used a safety factor technique. I think it translates that if a machine has 100,000 parts, and each part has a 1/100,000 chance of failing, the machine will never work; is that about right? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames by Jim O
So do you think the Shuttle is safe?
Did I say that? I just read back through my post and I can't seem to find where I said the shuttle is a safe vehicle. My point was having the experts go back and do the analysis is the correct course of action. Politicians firing off comments in the media isn't helpful to anyone. That's All. "Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Space Balls" wrote: I listen to John Shannon on the MMT meeting briefs dissect dings in the Shuttle TPM in full disclosure, then I read this article on the finger pointing going on over there and it really concerns me. It seems like we're at least trying to learn from our mistakes. I think our Russian partners need to be a bit more objective. 'We' (presuming you mean NASA) aren't trying to learn from our mistakes - but are engaged in covering up problems with Soyuz as we have been for years. The Soyuz vehicle is overall safe, but they need to let the scientist do to science and get the damn politicians out of the loop. Uh...we all just want it fixed...we're not trying to screw anyone here! So do you think the Shuttle is safe? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames by Jim O
"Space Balls" wrote in message
news:sZGRj.2439$Yo2.2380@trndny01... So do you think the Shuttle is safe? Did I say that? I just read back through my post and I can't seem to find where I said the shuttle is a safe vehicle. My point was having the experts go back and do the analysis is the correct course of action. Politicians firing off comments in the media isn't helpful to anyone. That's All. And quite a correct point it is too. The Russians still haven't learned how to deal with the media. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames by Jim O
"Alan Erskine" wrote:
I read somewhere about the Rogers report, and particularly, Feyman's "Appendix 12". He used a safety factor technique. I think it translates that if a machine has 100,000 parts, and each part has a 1/100,000 chance of failing, the machine will never work; is that about right? Sounds kinda like the 'proof' that a bumblebee cannot fly. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames by Jim O
"Space Balls" wrote:
So do you think the Shuttle is safe? Did I say that? I just read back through my post and I can't seem to find where I said the shuttle is a safe vehicle. My point was having the experts go back and do the analysis is the correct course of action. Politicians firing off comments in the media isn't helpful to anyone. That's All. First off - it's considered very bad manners to hack up a message you are replying to in that fashion, especially since you left the original message intact below your (incorrectly) top posted reply. Secondly - It's a simple question and derives directly from your comment on Soyuz safety. If you comment is merely about politics, why bring up safety? And if you do bring up safety, expect it to possibly be discussed. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames byJim O
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Alan Erskine wrote: | I read somewhere about the Rogers report, and particularly, Feyman's | "Appendix 12". He used a safety factor technique. I think it translates | that if a machine has 100,000 parts, and each part has a 1/100,000 chance of | failing, the machine will never work; is that about right? | Well, high-school probability tells me that, given that a part has a probability of 1/100000 of failing, and any one of 100000 parts failing causes the machine to "fail", the probability of the machine failing is: ~ 1 - (1-1/100000) ** 100000 == approx 0.63, or 63%. Beyond that, I think the failure/safety analysis of a real machine is far more subtle then "if a part fails" and "machine has N parts." - -- Steve Williams "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. steve at icarus.com But I have promises to keep, http://www.icarus.com and lines to code before I sleep, http://www.picturel.com And lines to code before I sleep." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIF04yrPt1Sc2b3ikRAo32AJ4nhFrlpRkJo3sAmqOvQn 8t2y7+jQCgkN8O XX2m5iChi5zHknqDUUUW4KI= =xw7Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Real Soyuz Problem - Looking Past the Smoke and Flames by Jim O
Space Balls wrote:
Great read! Yeah, I agree. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5412 Yikes! I want the ISS partnership to work, but jeez folks...why not let the rocket scientists figure out what's wrong with the capsule?! This is getting to be ridiculous. lol, shows the Russians also have bad managers in charge, just like NASA. e.g. The Americans get blamed almost immediately for a power surge during solar array construction...etc...then it turns out it was in fact something else (Look...I'm not pointing fingers). Old habits are hard to break. Blame the Americans, we'll also blame the Cosmonauts. One of the articles I read had the Soyuz commander quickly defending himself, stressing the fact that he followed procedures. He wanted to make sure he didn't become the focus of the problem, like what apparently happened on Dennis Tito's flight. I listen to John Shannon on the MMT meeting briefs dissect dings in the Shuttle TPM in full disclosure, then I read this article on the finger pointing going on over there and it really concerns me. It seems like we're at least trying to learn from our mistakes. I think our Russian partners need to be a bit more objective. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/5722676.html ....Apollo 15 was in use by the U.S. the last time there was a Soyuz fatality... No graveyard engineering going on in Russia, what is it? Over 30+ years now without a fatality. The Soyuz vehicle is overall safe, but they need to let the scientist do to science and get the damn politicians out of the loop. Uh...we all just want it fixed...we're not trying to screw anyone here! http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/5732136.html ....Griffin has said the normal 1-in-75 risk of having a fatal shuttle accident would rise to 1-in-12 if the shuttle flew two missions a year for five more years... Wow, Griffin quotes reasonable risk numbers. So, the Shuttle if extended would be around the same risk as the new Soyuz with no fix. Assuming the new TMA Soyuz has a problem that was introduced with it's last upgrade that was made to extend it's on-orbit design lifetime. They are up to TMA-12, if the next one causes fatalities, it'll be 1-in-12. So, if the TMA upgrade introduced the problem, I wonder what they did? More insulation / debris protection? Tighter tolerances on various fittings? New manufacturing techniques to make it cheaper to build? Look at the last problem NASA had with the ET wiring problem, years to just figure out that the swage (compression) fittings needed to be soldered. Lots of extra, expensive, long lead time hardware changes just to debug what was fairly obvious. A thermal problem, open circuit, only when cooled. Maybe that's what's wrong with the Soyuz, fitting gets stuck when heated or cooled? Wiring get loose when heated or cooled? Maybe all the ballistic entry's occurred because of too much sunshine in the days leading up to the entry? Or, the connectors being in the shadow too long? There is still a lot of time to mitigate the risks of another occurrence before the entry of the current Soyuz. I totally disagree with Mr. Oberg's conclusion that... http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5412 ....With future Soyuz flights becoming the sole crew access to the space station for many years, NASA needs to be an integral part of every incident investigation - not just be on the distribution list for executive summaries, whenever they are ultimately issued. There is a window of opportunity for NASA to press for this participation, due to the naming of an outside expert to head the investigation... NASA knowingly dug the hole they find themselves, they should quit digging and hand the shovel to Private Enterprise. Going down this path to get a budget increase from Congress, or permission to purchase more tickets to ride the Soyuz, isn't the solution. And, trying to turn the Russians into just another NASA contractor, most definitely isn't. When Peggy Whitson flies home from Moscow, and she doesn't want to fly on a Tupolev aircraft she shouldn't purchase a ticket from Aeroflot, or ask the FAA to inspect Aeroflot to make sure they're Tupolev's are up to date. Flying the Shuttle, or relying on one vehicle for Station access is a recipe for disaster. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flames near the pad ? | John Doe | Space Shuttle | 2 | March 11th 08 08:52 AM |
Russian Soyuz Landing Capsule Has Pressurization Problem During Descent | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 6 | October 15th 05 07:26 PM |
Soyuz on-orbit rendezvous burns delayed -- problem fixed? | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 8 | October 16th 04 05:19 AM |
Soyuz w/ Exp-10 Delayed "5-10 days" for "docking system problem" | Jim Oberg | Space Station | 3 | September 19th 04 08:13 PM |
Soyuz w/ Exp-10 Delayed "5-10 days" for "docking system problem" | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | September 15th 04 02:09 PM |