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

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.

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

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

"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

(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.

If CT and Craig are examples of what NASA hires, the source of many
problems become obvious.

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.

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

(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.

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

(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.