|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... 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. Part of the problem with "recertification" is that Shuttles were never (AFAICT) formally "certified" in the first place. OTOH, I'd argue that this "certification" debate is nothing but another inappropriate attempt to shoehorn the Shuttle/space travel into the aviation metaphor. 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. FWIW - the method outlined in Rand's blog entry isn't so different from how the boats are "certified"... Performance is compared to the spec and known problems are closed out. (Either by fixing the problem or by placing the system/boat under a performance limitation.) But, as Rand (?) points out WRT aviation, there's an extensive engineering and experience database for us to work from. Is "certifying" the Shuttle once again an attempt to apply operational standards to an experimental craft? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
Jeff Findley wrote:
"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. FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard to certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -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 02:14:54 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Cite? Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. Where are the "certificates"? It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late 1999. If it wasn't called "recertification," it wasn't recertification. I'm a little astouded by this enthusiasm for the concept of "recertifying" the Orbiters, when they were never "certified" in the first place. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
On Jan 21, 9:52�pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote: On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:55:36 -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 02:14:54 GMT, (Rand Simberg) wrote: Cite? Even if true, the notion that Orbiters were originally "certified" for ten years and a hundred flights were nonsensical. �Where are the "certificates"? It may not have been called "recertification", but I do remember reading of thorough inspections and/or overhauls to check for other aging problems in the wake of the flow liners, frayed wiring, and STS-93 launch anomalies, and there were already concerns about NASA's plan to fly until 2020. Probably either Space News or Av Week, late 1999. If it wasn't called "recertification," it wasn't recertification. I'm a little astouded by this enthusiasm for the concept of "recertifying" the Orbiters, when they were never "certified" in the first place. well they wouldnt pass todays man rating specs since they lack launch boost escape |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
wrote in message
... On Jan 21, 9:52?pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote: well they wouldnt pass todays man rating specs since they lack launch boost escape Unless of course they were given a waiver. Or the rules changed. NASA is policing itself here. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... Jeff Findley wrote: 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. FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard to certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience. True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they? Jeff -- "Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today. My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
"Jeff Findley" writes:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard to certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience. True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they? If I recall from Heppenheimer's book about the development of the space shuttle accurately, the FAA came to the decision that the space shuttle was a space vehicle, outside their jurisdiction, and that it spent a little bit of time in the atmosphere flying from its launchpad to orbit, or from orbit to landing, was too incidental to give the FAA a regulatory authority over it. (One might wonder how the Shuttle program would have developed had the FAA decided it should oversee its operations. I don't expect the FAA would be a particularly onerous overseer, although having a more independent set of eyes might help in borderline decisions.) -- Joseph Nebus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle Certification Question
"Joseph Nebus" wrote in message
... "Jeff Findley" writes: "Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... FAA AST does launch licenses, not vehicle certification. They're not the same thing at all. Airplanes get certified because there is a standard to certify them to, and that standard arose from decades of experience. True. These rules don't apply to NASA, do they? If I recall from Heppenheimer's book about the development of the space shuttle accurately, the FAA came to the decision that the space shuttle was a space vehicle, outside their jurisdiction, and that it spent a little bit of time in the atmosphere flying from its launchpad to orbit, or from orbit to landing, was too incidental to give the FAA a regulatory authority over it. (One might wonder how the Shuttle program would have developed had the FAA decided it should oversee its operations. I don't expect the FAA would be a particularly onerous overseer, although having a more independent set of eyes might help in borderline decisions.) That doesn't make a whole lot of sense since FAA rules pretty much don't apply to government craft in the first place. -- Joseph Nebus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shuttle Certification Question | Rand Simberg[_1_] | Policy | 38 | January 26th 09 05:09 AM |
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 06:09 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 |