Leaning tower of falcon 9

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


snip

Buy a ****ing dictionary and look it up, Chimp****.

manufactu the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery,
especially on a large scale

goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise


Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done.

wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods

merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business

goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise


Note that orbital services are 'wares'.


services: the performance of any duties or work for another

SpaceX is a delivery service who's business model is almost identical
to UPS and FedX, i.e. all three accept cargo to be delivered to a
specific location.


The difference is that SpaceX is also the truck manufacturer in your
inapt example.

Both FedEx and UPS use highly customized COTS delivery vehicles.


Note: "COTS delivery vehicles".


As there are no COTS orbital delivery vehicles (at the present time),
SpaceX has little choice in the matter.

But they are still nothing more than a freight delivery service.


That manufactures rockets and orbital capsules.


So what?


So that's 'production', you stupid ****. Just like Ford produces the
trucks that the companies in your inapt comparison to freight delivery
services use.

Ford sells the trucks it makes, SpaceX only sells delivery service.


--
Jim Pennino

In article ,
says...

Jonathan wrote:

Please stop bothering these nice people.


I was here when this newsgroup was formed, you stupid ****e.

This is true. As long as I've been around, Fred has been around. And
I've been here since 1988 or so. Nearly three decades. Fred's a
dinosaur in Internet years. ;-)

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-07-03 00:43, Fred J. McCall wrote:

And where do you think they get the initial values for those proposed
maintenance regimes? Can you say "engineering performance estimates"?

Component manufacturers provide MTBF values, and those, along with the
ai9rcraft sructure are validated during flight test period. And during
initial years of service, glitches that arise cause changes to the
maintenance procedures and schedules.


But if the MINIMUMS aren't good, you're going to have a lot of
airplanes falling out of the sky.

And their engineering performance estimates say at least ten flights
per booster.

But until they have empirical evidence, they cannot validate engineering
estimates.


Do you know what "at least" means, Mr Mezei?

Is the Sun going to rise tomorrow, Mr Mezei?

You can't know until it does, after all...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-07-04 01:43, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
inspection?

Wasn't ot you who argued that FAA imposed maintenance intervals on new
aircraft ?


No, that would have been Jimp the Chimp, who you dragged in by
crossposting back to an airplane group when we're talking about a
rocket.


Maintenance intervals have to be demonstrated to the FAA during
certification.


But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of
service.


MTBF must also be demonstrated to get ETOPS rating, and generally a
plane gets low ETOPS first and after a year or two in service, once MTBF
is more reliably known, ETOPS is augmented.


But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of
service.


I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
certify different construction.

Starting with the Airbus A320, FAA and other certification agencies
learned an important lesson: they can't apply old rules to new planes.
For the A320, they failed to properly test the software that ran the
plane because they weren't used to doing so and allow a buggy aircraft
to enter service.


Wow, it only took 'em how many decades to figure that out?


If the FAA were to regulate SpaceX, it would not accept engineers "we
think this is good for 11 flights". They would want to see actual
experience duringa flight test period and this is exactly what SpaceX
is doing.


Well, that will never happen, thank God. If it were to happen, where
do you think they're going to get the numbers they start with; pull
'em out of some bureaucrat's ass? No, they'll get them from those
engineers whose opinions you say they wouldn't accept.

You understand that SpaceX currently is NOT in 'flight test', right.
They're selling rocket launches.


And SpaceX will have a very good idea of how many times a stage can be
re-used, how much it costs to refurb between flights, how many they can
succesfully land etc.


They have a pretty good idea of most of that now, because, unlike you,
engineers don't just pull **** out of their asses and shout 'Eureka!'.


It may exceed 11 flights, it be less than that.


If you roll two dice, the total may meet or exceed three or it may be
less than that. If you think those odds are even approximately equal,
you must lose fortunes at the craps tables.

Do you know what a three sigma confidence estimate is?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-07-04 01:43, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
inspection?

Wasn't ot you who argued that FAA imposed maintenance intervals on new
aircraft ?


No, that would have been Jimp the Chimp, who you dragged in by
crossposting back to an airplane group when we're talking about a
rocket.

Nope, I never said FAA did that.

What I said was a manufacturer MAY specify maintenance and inspection
schedules that are MORE stringent than FAA requirements in the maintenance
manual.

Maintenance intervals have to be demonstrated to the FAA during
certification.


But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of
service.

You got that part correct.

The manufacturers maintenance manual has to be PRODUCED during cerification.

That does not mean any procedure has to be actually performed during
cerification.

MTBF must also be demonstrated to get ETOPS rating, and generally a
plane gets low ETOPS first and after a year or two in service, once MTBF
is more reliably known, ETOPS is augmented.


But Chimp says they're fixed; 100 hours or annual based on type of
service.

ETOPS has nothing to do with periodic inspections or aircraft certification,
but rather is about aircraft operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS


--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-07-06 20:17, wrote:

ETOPS has nothing to do with periodic inspections or aircraft certification,
but rather is about aircraft operations.

There is more to ETOPS than operations. In order to get ETOPS xxx
certification, the airplane has to demonstrate high MTBF numbers while
in operation.

So you agree it is "about aircraft operations" as I said.


--
Jim Pennino

wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

snip

What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.


So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.

Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:

An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.

snip


And just what do they inspect?


Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of
calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables
and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion,
tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc.

The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers
maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the
first place.


In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and
how frequently based on performance estimates.


So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
"inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".

See above; annual or 100 hours.

As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.

snip


So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
inspection?

I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
certify different construction.

That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections.


But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part
of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said
to be, well, what I said.

The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.


So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
that.

What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
the requirements accordingly.

snip


And which part of "people develop new **** so there is no 'cummulative
history'" did you not understand?

What part of certification and inspection are two different things
did you not understand?


What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of
the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now?


And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.


I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.

I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
since 1926.

snip


Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
other hand...

Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper
level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago.


But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English
very well, do you?


I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.


Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.

I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
from accumulated history.


And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.

Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely
nothing to do with the on going inspection process.


Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place."

If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
and set standards based on the analysis.


It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
history'. So what the **** does the FAA do then, other than duck the
question?

There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with
the on going inspection process.



Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place."


Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material,
means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker
has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works.


Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that.


The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights,
i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft.


And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that
"exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place".


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2016-07-01 22:55, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You still don't get it; the FAA most certainly does have "initial
inspection times" for new designs.

Airworthiness certificate is given after a very extensive flight test
campaign by manufacturer to prove that the new aircraft passes all
requirements from safety, performance and maintenance. If it exceeds
those minumumns, nothing prevents changes to maintenance intervals.

Example: Boeing's 787 doesn't have to worry about corrosion for its all
composite fuselage, but has to worry about delamination. So the flight
test campaign would have to demonstrate to FAA that the proposed
maintenance regime was fine for that plane.


And where do you think they get the initial values for those proposed
maintenance regimes? Can you say "engineering performance estimates"?

Nope 100 hours.


And they inspect WHAT? And no, it's not 'inspect at 100 hours'. For
many things that's pointless and for others it may be too long.


The what is spelled out in the aircraft maintenance manual, which is a
required item for aircraft certification.


So they inspect what the engineers tell them needs inspecting based on
the engineering estimates of wear performance on the parts. Gee, I
could swear I've been saying that since Day One and you've been
arguing with me.


And again, 100 hour inspections are cummulative inspections that over
the course of 12 months address all the items of an annual inspection.


'Again'? That's the first time you've said that. Before you claimed
it was "annual" or "100 hour" based on class of service, with at least
the implication that the 'annual' and '100 hour' inspections inspected
exactly the same thing and the difference was because of the
difference in 'annual' flight hours.


FAA inspections apply AFTER the certification process is complete.


You've about convinced me we should fire the FAA, given your views on
what it does.

You've about convinced me you are utterly clueless how aircraft certificaion
and continued airworthyness works.

You could read 14 CFR instead of being an argumentative, knee jerking twit.


And you could tell the same story twice in a row instead of being a
huge ego accompanied by a little tiny intellect and constantly
changing your mind based on arguing because of the former.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:


snip

Buy a ****ing dictionary and look it up, Chimp****.

manufactu the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery,
especially on a large scale

goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise


Note nothing about 'selling' the results. You're done.

wares: articles of merchandise or manufacture; goods

merchandise: the manufactured goods bought and sold in any business

goods: articles of trade; wares; merchandise


Note that orbital services are 'wares'.


services: the performance of any duties or work for another

SpaceX is a delivery service who's business model is almost identical
to UPS and FedX, i.e. all three accept cargo to be delivered to a
specific location.


The difference is that SpaceX is also the truck manufacturer in your
inapt example.

Both FedEx and UPS use highly customized COTS delivery vehicles.


Note: "COTS delivery vehicles".


As there are no COTS orbital delivery vehicles (at the present time),
SpaceX has little choice in the matter.

But they are still nothing more than a freight delivery service.


That manufactures rockets and orbital capsules.


So what?


So that's 'production', you stupid ****. Just like Ford produces the
trucks that the companies in your inapt comparison to freight delivery
services use.


Ford sells the trucks it makes, SpaceX only sells delivery service.


Which is irrelevant to the idea of 'production'.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

snip

What I said was that a manufacturer may impose in it's maintenance
procedures inspections/replacements at shorter intervals than the
FAA regulations. Note the use of the word "may". That means they
do not have to do that. This has nothing to do with FAA regulations.


So the FAA would be fine if a manufacturer came in and just said "We
don't need no steenking inspections"? Yeah, sure.

Yes, that is correct, meaning no special inspections beyond the minimum
required by the FAA for ALL airplanes, which is basically:

An annual inspection or if flown with other than required crew for hire
or flight instruction for hire 100 hour inspections in a plan that during
the course of 12 months covers all the items of an annual inspection.

snip


And just what do they inspect?


Basically everything that can wear, crack, corrode, or get out of
calibration, such as: compression in a piston engine, wear in cables
and pullys, hinges, altimeter accuracy, structural cracks or corrosion,
tires, deicing boots, door and hatch latches, etc.

The exactly what for modern aircraft is detailed in the manufacturers
maintenance manual which is a required item for certification in the
first place.


In other words, the engineers decide what needs to be inspected and
how frequently based on performance estimates.

Not quite.

The maintenance manual details what equipment the aircraft actually
has, e.g. retractable gear, deicing boots, hydraulic actuated control
surfaces, etc..

The manufacturer MAY require an inspection of some system on a more
stringent schedule than required by the FAA, but that is not generally
done as people generally do not wish to own high maintenance aircraft.

It is the engineers at the FAA that have decided that 100 hour progressive
inspections are what is required for commercial aircraft carrying
passengers.

An individual item on an aircraft on a 100 hour inspection schedule
is not likely to be inspected more than once during a 12 month interval.


So if someone builds something that is an advance on state of the art
FAA has no inspections ever? Or do they do stupid things like require
"inspect wing rivets every X hours of flight" and for the new airplane
the result is always "Yes, still hasn't grown any wing rivets".

See above; annual or 100 hours.

As to WHAT gets inspected, that is spelled out in the Part of 14 CFR
that covers the type of aircraft and how it is operated and is the
same for ALL aircraft of a specifice type, e.g. turbine transport,
and type of operation, e.g. carriage of passengers.

snip


So if I build a passenger airliner that uses a brand new type of
turbofan and totally different structural materials, I get the same
inspection?

I don't think so. One of the problems that Beech had with the
Starship was that the FAA couldn't pull their head out of their ass to
certify different construction.

That is part of the certification process, not on going inspections.


But you just said above that what requires ongoing inspection is part
of certification. Not only that, but you're 'correcting' what I said
to be, well, what I said.

The DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
certification. That does not mean it will be inspected during certification.

The same thing it does for all airplanes in the certification category,
which is based on the cumulative history of aircraft since 1926.


So you'll have the new airplane inspecting things that don't exist and
not looking at things that matter. Yeah, I believe *YOU* would do
that.

What part of "cumulative history" did you not understand? The FAA is
aware of things like piston engines and turbine engines and sets
the requirements accordingly.

snip


And which part of "people develop new **** so there is no 'cummulative
history'" did you not understand?

What part of certification and inspection are two different things
did you not understand?


What part of your own statement that "what gets inspected is part of
the certification package" is it that you're waffling on now?

What part of the DOCUMENTATION of what requires ongoing inspection is part of
certification is it you do not understand?

That means the maker has to write and submit a maintenance manual.

It does NOT mean the maker does any of it.

And this method applies to all FAA regulations, including things like
how often must a commercial pilot of age 45 get a medical and what
medical conditions are significant to pilot performance.


I wasn't aware that pilots were built into the airplanes.

I never said they were, what I said was the method for determining
how often things are required to be done is based on history accumulated
since 1926.

snip


Which is great if you're flying aircraft designed and developed in
1926. And that's not what you said. The technology of 'pilots'
hasn't changed much since Ikarus. The technology of aircraft, on the
other hand...

Medical standards have changed a lot since flying began, e.g. the upper
level for uncontrolled blood pressure was changed just a few years ago.


But the thing being inspected has not. You really don't read English
very well, do you?

Well, yes things have changed alot in the past few decades.

What the FAA expects for composite skin versus aluminum skin versus
linen skin are all different.

Composite skin is a relatively new thing.

ADS-B equipment is a very new thing.


I'd say you never had to deal with 14 CFR.


Quite right, since you say engineering has nothing to do with it.

I never said that either, what I said was that things are determined
from accumulated history.


And you duck the question I've asked several times now, of just what
they do when there is no 'accumulated history'. I know what they do,
from having watched what happened with the Beech Starship. They
dither and try to avoid the question, just like you do here.

Again, you are talking about the certification process which has absolutely
nothing to do with the on going inspection process.


Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place."

The GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual is a required
item for certification. Actually performing all the steps in it is not.

As for what happens when new technology appears, consult part 15 of
14 CFR which details certification for transport aircraft.

Here is a SMALL part of it:

25.307 Proof of structure.

"(a) Compliance with the strength and deformation requirements of this
subpart must be shown for each critical loading condition. Structural
analysis may be used only if the structure conforms to that for which
experience has shown this method to be reliable. In other cases,
substantiating tests must be made to load levels that are sufficient to
verify structural behavior up to loads specified in 25.305."

Which means if you are using something that has lots of engineering
history such as aluminum, you use industry standard analysis techniques,
but if you are using some brand new composite material for which there
is little to no engineering history, you have to do real testing.

If you think real hard about it instead of knee jerking, you might be
able to deduct what sort of people analyze all that accumulated history
and set standards based on the analysis.


It's a simple concept. If something is 'new' there is no 'accumulated
history'. So what the **** does the FAA do then, other than duck the
question?

There is the certification process, which again, has nothing to do with
the on going inspection process.



Well, it has "absolutely nothing to do with it" except that "The
exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place."

And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.

Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
performing the actions in a document?


Getting something new, such as a never before used construction material,
means the certification process becomes extremely complex as the maker
has to prove, through extensive testing, that the material actually works.


Oh, the manufacturer may have to do far more than that.

See 25.307 14 CFR above.

The FAA may do things like require hundreds of hours of test flights,
i.e. accumulate history, before certifying the aircraft.


And they 'accumulate history' by inspecting what? Rumour has it that
"exactly what [gets inspected] for modern aircraft is detailed in the
manufacturers maintenance manual which is a required item for
certification in the first place".

See 25.307 14 CFR above.

And one more time, the GENERATION of the manufacturers maintenance manual
is a required item for certification, but not the performance of it.

Do you understand the difference between generating a document and
performing the actions in a document?


--
Jim Pennino