|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:07:33 -0600, OM
wrote: ...Lessee, if we had to come up with a "Strongly Urged Killfile List", who'd be on that one permanently? Brad Guth Craig Fink Wbua Znkfba(#) Charleston "jonathan"(*) Thomas Lee Elfritz (**) ~CT aka "Stuff4" Eric Chomko Bob Haller aka "hallerb" William Mook Alan Erskine (***) "scott grissom" (**) Greg Kuperberg Fred J. McCall Nicholas Fitzpatrick Nomen Nescio Andre Lieven BlagooBlanaa Daniel Joseph Min(**) Secret987 ....Whoops! Forgot JF Mezei on that list. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:08:17 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: One of the most striking things about discussions of space is the widespread disconnect between the ugly real world of aerospace engineering and an imagined, beautiful "how it oughta be" where the engineers always get to do everything right without any interference from managers, Congress (for NASA) or investors (for private ventures). What's so frustrating is that we aren't even asking to do everything right. We'd just like to do it so everything isn't so damned *wrong*. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
"Terrell Miller" wrote in message
news the thing that still galls me about that particular Musgrave Maneuver is that, the evening of the Columbia disaster, he was on CNN *bragging* about doing that entry, going on and on about all the neat stuff he saw out the window. At some point he must have seen Miles's face, or he just suddenly realized what he was saying, because he got very serious all of a sudden, and they cut to somebody else. Trauma makes people do and say some very unfortunate things. Some people just won't be told to wear a seat belt, I suppose |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
"Danny Dot" wrote in message ... "Neil Gerace" wrote in message ... "Danny Dot" wrote in message ... I have worked for several other large organizations, I found NASA to be the worst. Recall two commissions have found a problem with NASA's culture. True, but I think it's by no means unique or even unusual. I worked for a large bank until recently, and it was just as bad. If the bully process was as bad as it is at NASA, I can understand why you don't work there anymore ;-) I think the common thread is: nobody likes a smartarse. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
"Monte Davis" wrote in message ... om (awavey) wrote: One of the most striking things about discussions of space is the widespread disconnect between the ugly real world of aerospace engineering and an imagined, beautiful "how it oughta be" where the engineers always get to do everything right without any interference from managers, Congress (for NASA) or investors (for private ventures). Private ventures have to deal with governments too ;-) |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
"Because the NASA team could not verify that the repairs would survive even a modified re-entry, the rescue option had a considerably higher chance of bringing Columbia's crew back alive." (CAIB Vol. 1) In effect, the same guys who immediately after the diasater openly stated "there was no way to repair" (they even said it that line as the astronauts were still alive) did later the task to investigate whether their statement was correct. They did it the NASA disaster way: "inconclusive" That's about all they could do, under the time constraints required by the CAIB. They had several months to do some tests. But they never published what they did. They have this test facility and they were ordered by Gehman to do it. So they did something. And no action in such a facility without a report. This reports are somewhere. It seems the astronaut corps got knowledge of its content and thats where Sid Gutierrez statment about wet towels came from. It seems the results were too unwanted obvious: Gutierrez is wrong. And it turns out, so were NASA's results from the CAIB report. The three years of work that have gone into RCC repair capability since that report have made clear that the in-flight repair options for Columbia would not have worked. What is your source? Was it you who said something the same line over a year ago claiming some knowledge of NASA tests not yet released? As we got no source it was dismissed as one of the many Columbia Usenet myths. But maybe there is a report out now. I`m not the only one eager to read it! It depends on what you mean by "report". NASA has published no report directly addressing Columbia repair on STS-107. But then again, that's not necessary. What I did was to read the CAIB report, both Volume 1 section 6.4 and Appendix D.13, and make careful note of the assumptions both stated and implicit. Then I read on NASA's work on RCC repair and entry aerothermodynamics since the CAIB report was published. This work does not directly address 107, but the results of it invalidate the assumptions from CAIB. It's as simple as that. First, the results of the RCC impact tests at SwRI demonstrate that the area around the hole in panel 8L almost certainly had surrounding areas where the RCC was cracked and delaminated. Arcjet tests at Ames and JSC demonstrate that RCC damage propagates rapidly along these cracks. So it doesn't matter what the crew puts in the hole behind the panel to try to stop the flow of superheated air; the damage will quickly spread and allow the superheated air to simply go around the repair. In simple words you assume the hole in the RCC would grow up until most the RCC was consumed and the ice block was no longer a blockade. That would be a clear "no way to repair". But I doubt that the delamination would spread that fast. What data are you basing that doubt on? The fact that NASA never mentioned this failure mode in the repair option discussion during CAIB. NASA had to know for +30 years how a crack in the RCC will behave during reentry. So the oxidation at the hole of Columbia never was an issue because they did know it was none. As a matter of fact, you're wrong. A 15-minute arcjet test on an RCC specimen with a 0.03" crack had to be aborted a little after the five minute mark because the specimen was eroding so fast. Ok, let us look in this example. Show me the source. I`m very interested in the details of this test. Its a plasma oxidation of an otherwise covered RCC layer on the open crack surface. The hole may be 2 cm wider after reentry, but not 4 times its size. As you read it otherwise somewhere (or you got that impression there), please give me your source. My source was a presentation on RCC arcjet test results given to the Orbiter Return-To-Flight Working Group, sometime in the spring of 2004. What we need it a transcript or the technical report on it. Look, how can you be sure that the words you heard(!) had realy your interpretation as the only one? Mayby it was a test of some proposed new RCC material or of repair stuff or operational limits of the arcjet facility were tested... Keep in mind that we are talking about a very emotional issue in a highly tragic event. All people (I too) would prefere the "there was no way to save them" notion. But it was not true. And worse, this notion was main factor in what killed them. You and a lot of others (remember Phil Chiens postings here) were subconsciously searching for arguments to let it be true. I think you were the first or even the only one who found the delamination issue. As longer away the time you heard it as more and more you were convinced on it. And others here were happy to read it in the slight feeling it may perhaps be true. Thats the way myths got spread, in Usenet and reality. 2. there was no evidence of BL trip related damage by CAIB, it all developed at the RCC There was no evidence *remaining*. The RCC panel in question eroded away quickly; *none* of its lower surface was recovered. Likewise the lower surface of the wing behind it. The CAIB noted there was very little debris recovered from the left wing. The remaining evidence was extern the shuttle. The telemetry showed no indication of BL trip. The CAIB reconstruction of the destruction process explained all evidence (even the lost bright glowing tiles) by events just behind the leading edge. 3. required smoothness criteria for the shuttle was to protect it against any thermal damage to the tiles. This was to keep the tiles reusable. In case of an emergency some tile damage would be accecptable. It depends on where the damage is. 4. on other missions Columbia had several early BL trips without serious damage or without any damage at all. The earliest of those BL trips was around Mach 19, more than halfway through the peak heating period. I'm talking about a BL that goes turbulent from the *very beginning*, at Mach 25. I have not checked this. But as others have pointed out, the heat load at Mach 25 is rather low. -- JRF ## CrossPoint v3.12d R ## |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
What's so frustrating is that we aren't even asking to do everything right. We'd just like to do it so everything isn't so damned *wrong*. I feel your pain, quite sincerely. My comment was directed not at those (like you) with hands-on experience, but at those DerekL recently described as "fanboys, opium dreamers, and folks eager to prove that _their_ penile substitute is not only bigger, but faster and cheaper too." I've spent too much time as a citizen watching other agencies' R&D and procurement to believe that NASA + primes is an especially awful case within government. And I've spent too much time in my career watching dysfunction (failing but unstoppable projects, managerial and divisional infighting, and all the rest) at ABB, United Technologies, Philips, Con Edison, and most of the big players in energy, IT, comm and pharmaceuticals -- to believe that private enterprise and market discipline automatically produce better results. I think it's just especially frustrating to us because we love space and are impatient for progress. Monte Davis http://montedavis.livejournal.com |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:12:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: (Rand Simberg) wrote: What's so frustrating is that we aren't even asking to do everything right. We'd just like to do it so everything isn't so damned *wrong*. I feel your pain, quite sincerely. My comment was directed not at those (like you) with hands-on experience, but at those DerekL recently described as "fanboys, opium dreamers, and folks eager to prove that _their_ penile substitute is not only bigger, but faster and cheaper too." I've spent too much time as a citizen watching other agencies' R&D and procurement to believe that NASA + primes is an especially awful case within government. And I've spent too much time in my career watching dysfunction (failing but unstoppable projects, managerial and divisional infighting, and all the rest) at ABB, United Technologies, Philips, Con Edison, and most of the big players in energy, IT, comm and pharmaceuticals -- to believe that private enterprise and market discipline automatically produce better results. I think it's just especially frustrating to us because we love space and are impatient for progress. They may not always produce good results, but if they're operating in a free market (Con Ed, for example, wouldn't count), they have to provide *better* results. If not, they eventually go out of business (e.g., GM's recent woes). |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)
I want to know who has you in their killfile, OM. You seem to have an
inflated opinion of yourself. Your website sucks and you don't use your real name. I basically think that you are a sheep that tires to act like a wolf. Mook has at least twice your intellect as does Jonathon. Also I note that you killfile those that don't share your political views, unless they are Henry that is. Eric OM wrote: On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:58:50 -0600, Herb Schaltegger wrote: Now you understand why many of us finally killfiled him - he spouts the same nonsense over and over again and just completely ignores information to the contrary. ...Lessee, if we had to come up with a "Strongly Urged Killfile List", who'd be on that one permanently? Brad Guth Craig Fink Wbua Znkfba(#) Charleston "jonathan"(*) Thomas Lee Elfritz (**) ~CT aka "Stuff4" Eric Chomko Bob Haller aka "hallerb" William Mook Alan Erskine (***) "scott grissom" (**) Greg Kuperberg Fred J. McCall Nicholas Fitzpatrick Nomen Nescio Andre Lieven BlagooBlanaa Daniel Joseph Min(**) Secret987 ...And, of course, anyone from talk.bizarre or the net.kooks types who crosspost from their respective pigpens to our group. Note that I may be missing one or two, like that one moron who was bitching about the Texas U. AeroEng department for kicking him out because he was a psychotic, or that fat retarded bitch who was "scott grissom's" little sycophant a few years back. ...Note that I didn't list Tony Lance there. While his drivel hasn't been seen around here for a while, the "Big Bertha" posts are sometimes too stupid to pass up for a laugh, especially since there's some concensus that Lance might have been using a modded copy of Racter all along to generate those things. [Thinks] ...Heh, I finally posted that killfile list after all. Took me long enough, huh? Either way, this list comprises the most known, regular or semi-regular trolls that pollute this newsgroup - not to mention usenet - way too much for most people's tastes. (#) Filtering on just the last name will be sufficient to remove all of this psychotic troll's postings and those of his equally psychotic family's, save for those of "Charleston". (*) Absolutely NOT to be confused with Jonathan Silverlight, who is a valued contributor to this group. (**) Uses many aliases. (***) Alan's not actually a troll per se, but he's raised the ire of quite a few trolls who pollute the group with accusations of his being a child molester/pervert/democrat to the point that it's easier to just killfile his name to get rid of them all. OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others) | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 301 | December 11th 06 09:34 PM |
NASA Spacewalking astronaut completes unique repair | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 1 | August 3rd 05 08:01 PM |
NASA Spacewalking astronaut completes unique repair | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | August 3rd 05 07:52 PM |
AP: NASA Still Lacks Repair Kits for Astronauts in Orbit, Nearly Two Years After Columbia Disaster | Mr. White | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 6th 04 10:41 PM |
Navy Recognizes Columbia Astronaut | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 9th 03 07:38 PM |