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

Load and Go a Go



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 22nd 18, 04:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go a Go

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 21 Aug 2018
11:55:18 -0400:

On 2018-08-21 05:06, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Unnecessary. Any dummies will get the same g forces as the rest of
the capsule.


Do the seats/couches provide any G force reduction? Or are they "fixed"
and protect the occupants by being perfectly moulded like on Soyuz?


No. Seats can reduce 'jolt', but until we get antigravity no seat can
reduce g forces.


If there is some suspension provided by the seats to cushion landing,
you will want to have human-like mass on the seats with G force sensors.


Why? If the capsule doesn't exceed 3.5g, stuff in the capsule won't
exceed 3.5g, either.


Things that don't matter just don't matter. That doesn't matter.


Ensuring that the capsule re-enters correctly when the mass it carries
is that of a crew would be important.


The unnecessary testing you suggest will take forever, since you would
need to 'test' with from zero to seven passengers each weighing from
105 to 200 pounds, plus varying return cargo from zero to maximum
capacity.


A different mass means different F
forces during re-entry interface and during the actual landing.


Not enough different to matter. You act as if nothing is known and we
just build the things and shoot them up there on a wing and a prayer.
Not at all how it works.


And it would presumably also test the software when firing thrusters to
ensure it can handle the mass of the crew.


You seem under the delusion that the crew will mass MORE than a cargo
variant will carry.


CG would still presumably be different. You seem to be trying to make
the argument that the only way to man rate a system is to fly people
on it,


I said dummies, not people.


They're not going to send you, Mayfly.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #12  
Old August 22nd 18, 04:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go a Go

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 21 Aug 2018
12:04:07 -0400:

On 2018-08-21 06:32, Jeff Findley wrote:

Yes. The rocket doesn't care what payload is on top when you're going
through pre-launch procedures like fueling.


In a cargo, you need not provide for emergency egress since the cargo is
unlikely to get scared and want to exit ASAP if things go wrong.


You need not provide that for a manned vehicle, either. Name one
other than the Shuttle that did so.


I assume that a bridge from tower to capsule will remain for some time
during fueling to allow such egress. (or would SpaceX just train
astronauts to press the big red button for capsule jettison and do away
for emergency egress ?


You assume incorrectly. The crew would probably never get a chance to
'push a button'. If telemetry detects a problem with the booster the
capsule goes.


Will SpaceX provide emergency egress joy ride in a basket down a long
rope like for Shuttle?


No. That would be stupid.


I take it NASA will want astronauts all tucked in and hatches closed
before fueling begins, or would it allow that operation to be done while
fueling is happening?


You need to stop 'taking' things and do some actual research instead
of just bleating out stupid remarks.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #13  
Old August 22nd 18, 04:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go a Go

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 21 Aug 2018
19:51:37 -0400:

In article ,
says...

On 2018-08-21 05:06, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Unnecessary. Any dummies will get the same g forces as the rest of
the capsule.


Do the seats/couches provide any G force reduction? Or are they "fixed"
and protect the occupants by being perfectly moulded like on Soyuz?


Seats don't reduce G forces. If we could do that, we'd have literal
anti-gravity beds here on earth so that patients in the hospital would
never get bedsores.

If there is some suspension provided by the seats to cushion landing,
you will want to have human-like mass on the seats with G force sensors.


Like Fred said, dummies. Specifically, instrumented "crash test"
dummies. They're used in the aerospace industry as well as the
automotive industry. They mimic the mass, strength, and etc of a human
and are instrumented to measure the accelerations at various parts of
the dummy's body. They're literally "off the shelf" items.


Actually, I think the whole 'dummy test' scenario is unnecessary. Were
dummies used to test the Shuttle or Apollo or Gemini or Mercury?


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #14  
Old August 22nd 18, 04:22 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go a Go

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 21 Aug 2018
21:41:35 -0400:

On 2018-08-21 19:51, Jeff Findley wrote:

Like Fred said, dummies. Specifically, instrumented "crash test"
dummies.


Pardon me? I am the one who said that, with Fred, predictably satting it
instrumented dummies woudln't be used because the aircraft already has
instruments.


Spacecraft, not aircraft.

With regards to seats, springs and cushions would reduce impact of
landing, woudln't it ? Not talking about anti gravity beds.


So you're talking about 'jolt' and not 'g forces'. 'Jolt' isn't
really an issue for any system I'm aware of other than Soyuz and
derivatives that use a 'last blast' landing on dirt. Dragon V2 was
never going to do that it that way, even when they were still planning
on propulsive landings. Max g on capsules is during reentry, not
landing, and it's sustained for some time so seats don't do jack.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #15  
Old August 22nd 18, 11:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Load and Go a Go

In article ,
says...

Will SpaceX provide emergency egress joy ride in a basket down a long
rope like for Shuttle?


No. That would be stupid.


And yet that is exactly what they are doing. SpaceX will reuse the
shuttle system, just attached higher on the fixed service structure.
ULA will have its own version of the egress system which will consist of
individual harnesses sliding along the ziplines instead of the larger
multi-person basket(s) at pad 39A.

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/t.../04/03/atlasv-
rocket-boeing-starliner-astronauts-emergency-egress-system-commercial-
crew/99972784/

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.
  #16  
Old August 22nd 18, 11:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Load and Go a Go

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 21 Aug 2018
19:51:37 -0400:
Like Fred said, dummies.


I got the attribution wrong. You didn't say "dummies".

Specifically, instrumented "crash test"
dummies. They're used in the aerospace industry as well as the
automotive industry. They mimic the mass, strength, and etc of a human
and are instrumented to measure the accelerations at various parts of
the dummy's body. They're literally "off the shelf" items.


Actually, I think the whole 'dummy test' scenario is unnecessary. Were
dummies used to test the Shuttle or Apollo or Gemini or Mercury?


Monkeys were the human analog used to test Mercury. Gemini and Apollo
had instrumented uncrewed test flights. The STS-1 was a mistake. There
were several issues with that first flight that could have resulted in
LOC.

For current uncrewed test flights using off the shelf crash test dummies
(i.e. min size female and max size male) is the cheapest way to
instrument the vehicle to see what accelerations the meat bags will have
to endure.

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.
  #17  
Old August 22nd 18, 01:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go a Go

Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 22 Aug 2018
06:41:13 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Will SpaceX provide emergency egress joy ride in a basket down a long
rope like for Shuttle?


No. That would be stupid.


And yet that is exactly what they are doing. SpaceX will reuse the
shuttle system, just attached higher on the fixed service structure.
ULA will have its own version of the egress system which will consist of
individual harnesses sliding along the ziplines instead of the larger
multi-person basket(s) at pad 39A.

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/t.../04/03/atlasv-
rocket-boeing-starliner-astronauts-emergency-egress-system-commercial-
crew/99972784/


OK, I have to ask the obvious question. Why? If it's really an
emergency, how long does it take to unbutton the capsule and get
everyone out as opposed to just firing the escape system?


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #18  
Old August 22nd 18, 01:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go a Go

Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 22 Aug 2018
06:41:34 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 21 Aug 2018
19:51:37 -0400:
Like Fred said, dummies.


I got the attribution wrong. You didn't say "dummies".

Specifically, instrumented "crash test"
dummies. They're used in the aerospace industry as well as the
automotive industry. They mimic the mass, strength, and etc of a human
and are instrumented to measure the accelerations at various parts of
the dummy's body. They're literally "off the shelf" items.


Actually, I think the whole 'dummy test' scenario is unnecessary. Were
dummies used to test the Shuttle or Apollo or Gemini or Mercury?


Monkeys were the human analog used to test Mercury.


They had a lot of untested stuff, so needed a living analog to test
with. The Russians used dogs for the same purpose.


Gemini and Apollo had instrumented uncrewed test flights.


Which is what I would expect Dragon V2 to do. I just don't see the
necessity of dummies on those flights.


The STS-1 was a mistake. There
were several issues with that first flight that could have resulted in
LOC.


They didn't have a choice. Fly it unmanned and it was a guaranteed
loss of vehicle, since the thing couldn't land without a pilot.


For current uncrewed test flights using off the shelf crash test dummies
(i.e. min size female and max size male) is the cheapest way to
instrument the vehicle to see what accelerations the meat bags will have
to endure.


You get the same data without the dummies from sensors on the capsule.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #19  
Old August 23rd 18, 03:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Load and Go a Go

JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 22 Aug 2018
14:09:45 -0400:

On 2018-08-22 08:26, Fred J. McCall wrote:

OK, I have to ask the obvious question. Why? If it's really an
emergency, how long does it take to unbutton the capsule and get
everyone out as opposed to just firing the escape system?


Consider theye are also pad crews at some periods (the ones who tuck
crews in, close hatches etc etc). They need some means of emergency
egress as they do not have a capsule jettison system.


But when they 'tuck the crew in' there's no fuel in the rocket, so
there's not really anything that can 'go wrong' that would endanger
ground crew. Besides, would such an emergency escape system have much
utility for ground crew? They'd all have to gather where the basket
is, get in, hope the basket has sufficient room for them all, then get
away. Easier to just take cover in place.


jeff mentioned that for Dragon itself, it is more likely an automated
capsule jettison gets triggered than crews unstrapping themselves and
leaving capsiule to take the joy ride down the zip line.


Quite right, so the utility of the zip line is what, again?


However, during crew ingress when the hatch is opened and there are both
flilght cerws and pad crews in capsule, doubtful that the capsule
jettison would be armed. So egress via bridge and then down the zip line
more likely.


But there's nothing to blow up, since there's no fuel in the rocket
yet.


With fueling happening after crew are strapped in and hatches closed,
the odds of problems while crews get into capsule are much lower.


Essentially non-existent.


At the time crews will ingress, will any part of the stack be alreayd
fueled? Or does fueling "at last minute" involved fueling not only stage
1, but also stage 2 and fuel inside Dragon ?


Everything is empty but the hypergolic fuel in the capsule itself. If
THAT goes wrong (and the odds of that are virtually zero), there is no
escape. Capsule, basket, zip line, and all go up.

So I'm still puzzled at the actual utility of such a system.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #20  
Old August 23rd 18, 11:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Load and Go a Go

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 22 Aug 2018
06:41:13 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Will SpaceX provide emergency egress joy ride in a basket down a long
rope like for Shuttle?


No. That would be stupid.


And yet that is exactly what they are doing. SpaceX will reuse the
shuttle system, just attached higher on the fixed service structure.
ULA will have its own version of the egress system which will consist of
individual harnesses sliding along the ziplines instead of the larger
multi-person basket(s) at pad 39A.

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/t.../04/03/atlasv-
rocket-boeing-starliner-astronauts-emergency-egress-system-commercial-
crew/99972784/


OK, I have to ask the obvious question. Why? If it's really an
emergency, how long does it take to unbutton the capsule and get
everyone out as opposed to just firing the escape system?


I personally don't see the utility of the ziplines and slide baskets. I
have no idea when you'd actually use it as opposed to just staying
strapped into your seats and either manually activating the abort system
or simply waiting to see if the automatic abort system fires (we've had
at least one incident like that in the past where the astronauts "should
have" aborted according to the rules, but instead just sat there knowing
the stack hadn't really moved).

Again, these systems are simply there to keep NASA happy (and enable
astronauts to do lots of training for abort scenarios to make management
feel good about "safety"). In my opinion, they add little cost to the
pads, so both NASA and SpaceX are willing to provide these so called
"escape mechanisms". But, IMHO, they're also quite slow and not at all
effective in a true emergency. Makes you wonder exactly what types of
scenarios would call for the use of them.

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.
 




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
Load and Go Fred J. McCall[_3_] Policy 15 May 30th 18 09:16 AM
Why load payload at pad? David Findlay Space Shuttle 14 July 8th 07 08:04 PM
Why does SpaceX load the LOX first? richard schumacher Policy 3 February 17th 06 04:30 PM
RCS Load Simulators LaDonna Wyss History 84 July 9th 04 06:41 PM
SS1 propellant load Ian Policy 42 July 7th 04 02:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:33 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.