|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
Prior to the CAIB, did *anyone* ever talk about "certifying" Orbiters,
or is that entirely a post-Columbia phenomenon? Because I can't recall it in history, and that includes eleven years in Downey in the eighties. The reason that I ask is that I've acquired part of the appendix on the subject on a recent study that NASA did, and wonder if they just came up with the "certification" language to satisfy the CAIB's question about flying past 2010. I've never before heard of a "certification reverification." What is being described here is basically a reverification. I've posted the text, with a figure for schedule post 2010, at my blog. http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=16160 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
... Prior to the CAIB, did *anyone* ever talk about "certifying" Orbiters, or is that entirely a post-Columbia phenomenon? Because I can't recall it in history, and that includes eleven years in Downey in the eighties. The reason that I ask is that I've acquired part of the appendix on the subject on a recent study that NASA did, and wonder if they just came up with the "certification" language to satisfy the CAIB's question about flying past 2010. I've never before heard of a "certification reverification." What is being described here is basically a reverification. I've posted the text, with a figure for schedule post 2010, at my blog. http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=16160 My only thought (and I don't have a copy of Jenkin's with me in DC) is that Jenkin's mentions each airframe is carded at something like a 1.6 load factor (I may be using the wrong term). But pretty much, the rest seems to be nebulous numbers like, "100 uses" for the SSME, etc. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:27:59 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... Prior to the CAIB, did *anyone* ever talk about "certifying" Orbiters, or is that entirely a post-Columbia phenomenon? Because I can't recall it in history, and that includes eleven years in Downey in the eighties. The reason that I ask is that I've acquired part of the appendix on the subject on a recent study that NASA did, and wonder if they just came up with the "certification" language to satisfy the CAIB's question about flying past 2010. I've never before heard of a "certification reverification." What is being described here is basically a reverification. I've posted the text, with a figure for schedule post 2010, at my blog. http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=16160 My only thought (and I don't have a copy of Jenkin's with me in DC) is that Jenkin's mentions each airframe is carded at something like a 1.6 load factor (I may be using the wrong term). But pretty much, the rest seems to be nebulous numbers like, "100 uses" for the SSME, etc. The load factor (actually structural safety factor, or margin) is 1.4 (the difference between manned aircraft and rockets, which are less, but I can't remember the number), but that's not really on point. Thanks for the try, though. 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:08:23 -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 01:39:11 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: 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. I think there was vague talk of it after the 1999 flow liner issues. Cite? Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the "certificates"? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... My only thought (and I don't have a copy of Jenkin's with me in DC) is that Jenkin's mentions each airframe is carded at something like a 1.6 load factor (I may be using the wrong term). But pretty much, the rest seems to be nebulous numbers like, "100 uses" for the SSME, etc. The load factor (actually structural safety factor, or margin) is 1.4 Hmm, thought it was 1.2 on Columbia and the later OVs had been built to 1.6 and Columbia upgraded. (the difference between manned aircraft and rockets, which are less, but I can't remember the number), but that's not really on point. Thanks for the try, though. Actually it sort of was. My point was basically that that's the ONLY number I've seen that has any sort of documentation. The 100 flights, 10 years I think was like the numbers that Feynman mentions on chance of a disaster. Basically made up and wishful thinking. In fact, I can't really think of any real way that the "100 flights" number could be any more than a "made up" number. There's no real database to compare against. And given the generally mild conditions the orbiters fly in, I can't really see that number couldn't be 200, 500 or even 1000. Now, the "10 year" number I can see based on the known aging of materials, but then again, that's hard to judge because there's not much of a database to compare against. 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. 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. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
"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. The ARocket list archives has a lot of info on this. Not long ago, there was a big stink on that list about needing launch permits for tethered flights (details in the archives). Jeff -- "Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today. My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
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? Not only by *whom*, but to *what standard*? Do aviation standards even apply? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question about shuttle / ISS | vag-com | Space Shuttle | 41 | September 21st 06 07:00 PM |
Shuttle-Mir question | Rainer Kresken | Space Shuttle | 8 | August 22nd 05 10:07 PM |
Rutan on FAA certification | Jim Kingdon | Space Science Misc | 0 | November 1st 04 07:09 AM |
Some thoughts on regulation and certification | Rand Simberg | Policy | 5 | September 18th 03 01:38 AM |
Space Flight Demonstrator Completes Design Certification | Ron Baalke | Technology | 0 | August 21st 03 09:25 PM |