A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shuttle Certification Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 20th 09, 11:44 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default 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  
Old January 21st 09, 02:27 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default 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  
Old January 21st 09, 02:39 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default 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.
  #5  
Old January 21st 09, 03:14 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default 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  
Old January 21st 09, 04:12 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default 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.


  #9  
Old January 21st 09, 05:41 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.