NASA Issues new Safety Guidelines

Iwishi Hadabrain
Headquarters, Washington March 22, 2005 (Phone: 123/456-7890)

MEDIA ADVISORY: M03-119

NASA CHANGES SAFETY GUIDELINE FOR VEIWING SHUTTLE LAUNCHES

NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain announced today that NASA has complete a
review of the Space Shuttle Launch Viewing Safety Guidelines for the
general public. In the announcement, new guidelines were presented which
NASA feels will insure the safety of all those wishing to view the shuttle
launch safely.

First, it was decided to limit the number of people at KSC to less than
25,000 people. NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain said, "Our studies
indicate that 25,000 people is the maximum number of people that we can
allow to travel to KSC at any one time. It's dangerous out there. People
might actually get in their cars and drive long distances to see a Shuttle
Launch. Cars just aren't safe, we wouldn't want to be responsible for
people getting into accidents and possibly killed on there way to watch a
Shuttle Launch."

"Furthermore", Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "People might actually fly to
Florida to see a Shuttle Launch, because of the great distances involved.
They might actually get on an aircraft to do this. You've watched the news
haven't you. Those things fall out of the sky all the time. Can you
imagine the bad press that we at NASA would get if an airplane full of
Shuttle Launch viewers were to fall out of the sky killing everyone on
board and possibly someone on the ground. Such a large number of people
all dying in the same place, at the same time, could mean the end of NASA,
and my cushy job."

Iwishi Hadabrain continued, "These and other concerns were used to
determine the maximum viewers that will be allowed KSC. The launch complex
at KSC only occupies 25,000 acres. We figured out that if we put one seat
and one person on each of those 25,000 acres, we greatly reduce the
probability of killing more than one person at any one Shuttle Launch,
thus insuring the continuation of my cushy job."

Some additional changes included a new NASA developed spectator safety
suit for children, and NASA developed blindfolds for residents of Cocoa
Beach. Since children who will be viewing the launch will be separated by
great distance from their parents, the new NASA developed "Bubble Wrap
Suit" will reduce injures if they should happen to fall. Iwishi Hadabrain
commented, "Children have been known to fall down, and residents of Cocoa
Beach also, that is, if they were to accidentally look up and get an
unauthorized view of the Shuttle Launch. We feel that blindfolding all the
residents of Cocoa Beach was the best option to reduce injuries caused by
residents being distracted by the Shuttle Launch and tripping over
things."

When it was pointed out that the last Shuttle Disaster actually occurred
during entry, Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "Yes, Yes, NASA is currently
working on new guidelines for viewing landings, but you must realize this
is a much, much, harder problem. We're just not sure we can come up with a
solution. This Space Stuff is really hard. You have to understand that,
it's just really, really, hard. Harder than you can imagine. We're
considering all kinds of stuff to insure the safety of the general public.
But remember, we here and NASA have the right stuff, we have the rocket
scientists, and damn near all the astronauts in the world working on this
problem. Our current concept that we feel insures the safety of the
general public requires the help of the general population. If everyone in
the country cooperates we feel we can again land safely again in Florida
with little or no risk to the general public. We'll be issuing a statement
just after the deorbit burn so that everyone in the nation can climb under
their Kitchen Tables. Everyone has a Kitchen Table, don't they? And for
those wishing to watch the landing, we're also urging them to move their
televisions under the Table too."


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3098226


--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:18:17 +0000, Rand Simberg wrote:



Is this your work? Can I republish it on my blog, with attribution?


Yes, it's mine. Sure, I give you permission to republish it on your blog
with attribution one time. All other rights reserved.

Here a copy of version 3 with a little word smithing to make it more
readable. Feel free to proof read it and make any other small changes
required to make it more presentable.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Version 3

-------------------------------------------------------------

Iwishi Hadabrain
Headquarters, Washington March 22, 2005 (Phone: 123/456-7890)

MEDIA ADVISORY: M03-119

NASA CHANGES SAFETY GUIDELINE FOR VEIWING SHUTTLE LAUNCHES

NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain announced today that NASA has completed a
review of the Space Shuttle Launch Viewing Safety Guidelines for the
general public. In the announcement, new guidelines were presented which
NASA feels will insure the safety of all those wishing to view the shuttle
launch safely.

First, it was decided to limit the number of people at KSC to less than
25,000 people. NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain said, "Our studies
indicate that 25,000 people is the maximum number of people that we can
allow to travel to KSC at any one time. It's dangerous out there. People
might actually get in their cars and drive long distances to see a Shuttle
Launch. Cars just aren't safe, we wouldn't want to be responsible for
people getting into accidents and possibly killed on their way to watch a
Shuttle Launch."

"Furthermore", Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "People might actually fly to
Florida to see a Shuttle Launch, because of the great distances involved.
They might actually get on an airplane to do this. You've watched the news
haven't you. Those things fall out of the sky all the time. Can you
imagine the bad press that we at NASA would get, if an airplane full of
Shuttle Launch viewers were to fall out of the sky, killing everyone on
board and possibly someone on the ground. Such a large number of people
all dying, in the same place, at the same time, could mean the end of
NASA, and my cushy job."

Iwishi Hadabrain continued, "These and other concerns were used to
determine the maximum viewers that will be allowed at KSC. The launch
complex at KSC only occupies 25,000 acres. We figured out that if we put
one seat and one person on each of those 25,000 acres, we greatly reduce
the probability of killing more than one person at any one Shuttle Launch,
thus insuring the continuation of my cushy job."

Some additional changes included a new NASA developed spectator safety
suit for children, and NASA developed blindfolds for residents of Cocoa
Beach. Since children viewing the launch will be separated by a great
distance from their parents, the new NASA developed "Bubble Wrap Suit"
will reduce injures if they should happen to fall. Iwishi Hadabrain
commented, "Children have been known to fall down, and also, residents of
Cocoa Beach. Especially, if they were to accidentally look up and get an
unauthorized view of the Shuttle Launch. We feel that blindfolding all the
residents of Cocoa Beach was the best possible solution to reduce
injuries caused by residents being distracted by Shuttle Launches and
tripping over things."

When it was pointed out that the last Shuttle Disaster actually occurred
during entry, Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "Ahhh, Yes, Yes, NASA is currently
working on new guidelines for viewing landings, but you must realize this
is a much, much, harder problem. We're just not sure we can come up with a
solution. This Space Stuff is really hard. You have to understand that.
It's just really, really, hard. Harder than you can imagine. We're
considering all kinds of stuff to insure the safety of the general public.
But remember, we here at NASA have the right stuff, we have the rocket
scientists, and damn near all the astronauts in the world working on this
problem. Our current concept that we feel insures the safety of the
general public requires the cooperation of the general population. If
everyone in the country will cooperate, we feel we can safely land in
Florida again with little or no risk to the general public. We'll be
issuing a statement just after the deorbit burn so that everyone in the
nation can climb under their Kitchen Tables. Everyone has a Kitchen Table,
don't they? And for those wishing to watch the landing, we're also urging
that they move their televisions under their Tables too."


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3098226


--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

It should have been dated ten days ahead...

...and in fact in the 1980's I wrote a series of April 1
NASA press releases that I've GOT to dig out
and scan to share...

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:40:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Craig Fink
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Iwishi Hadabrain
Headquarters, Washington March 22, 2005 (Phone: 123/456-7890)

MEDIA ADVISORY: M03-119

NASA CHANGES SAFETY GUIDELINE FOR VEIWING SHUTTLE LAUNCHES

NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain announced today that NASA has complete a
review of the Space Shuttle Launch Viewing Safety Guidelines for the
general public. In the announcement, new guidelines were presented which
NASA feels will insure the safety of all those wishing to view the shuttle
launch safely.

First, it was decided to limit the number of people at KSC to less than
25,000 people. NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain said, "Our studies
indicate that 25,000 people is the maximum number of people that we can
allow to travel to KSC at any one time. It's dangerous out there. People
might actually get in their cars and drive long distances to see a Shuttle
Launch. Cars just aren't safe, we wouldn't want to be responsible for
people getting into accidents and possibly killed on there way to watch a
Shuttle Launch."

"Furthermore", Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "People might actually fly to
Florida to see a Shuttle Launch, because of the great distances involved.
They might actually get on an aircraft to do this. You've watched the news
haven't you. Those things fall out of the sky all the time. Can you
imagine the bad press that we at NASA would get if an airplane full of
Shuttle Launch viewers were to fall out of the sky killing everyone on
board and possibly someone on the ground. Such a large number of people
all dying in the same place, at the same time, could mean the end of NASA,
and my cushy job."

Iwishi Hadabrain continued, "These and other concerns were used to
determine the maximum viewers that will be allowed KSC. The launch complex
at KSC only occupies 25,000 acres. We figured out that if we put one seat
and one person on each of those 25,000 acres, we greatly reduce the
probability of killing more than one person at any one Shuttle Launch,
thus insuring the continuation of my cushy job."

Some additional changes included a new NASA developed spectator safety
suit for children, and NASA developed blindfolds for residents of Cocoa
Beach. Since children who will be viewing the launch will be separated by
great distance from their parents, the new NASA developed "Bubble Wrap
Suit" will reduce injures if they should happen to fall. Iwishi Hadabrain
commented, "Children have been known to fall down, and residents of Cocoa
Beach also, that is, if they were to accidentally look up and get an
unauthorized view of the Shuttle Launch. We feel that blindfolding all the
residents of Cocoa Beach was the best option to reduce injuries caused by
residents being distracted by the Shuttle Launch and tripping over
things."

When it was pointed out that the last Shuttle Disaster actually occurred
during entry, Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "Yes, Yes, NASA is currently
working on new guidelines for viewing landings, but you must realize this
is a much, much, harder problem. We're just not sure we can come up with a
solution. This Space Stuff is really hard. You have to understand that,
it's just really, really, hard. Harder than you can imagine. We're
considering all kinds of stuff to insure the safety of the general public.
But remember, we here and NASA have the right stuff, we have the rocket
scientists, and damn near all the astronauts in the world working on this
problem. Our current concept that we feel insures the safety of the
general public requires the help of the general population. If everyone in
the country cooperates we feel we can again land safely again in Florida
with little or no risk to the general public. We'll be issuing a statement
just after the deorbit burn so that everyone in the nation can climb under
their Kitchen Tables. Everyone has a Kitchen Table, don't they? And for
those wishing to watch the landing, we're also urging them to move their
televisions under the Table too."

Is this your work? Can I republish it on my blog, with attribution?

Craig Fink wrote in
news
Iwishi Hadabrain
Headquarters, Washington March 22, 2005 (Phone:
123/456-7890)

MEDIA ADVISORY: M03-119

NASA CHANGES SAFETY GUIDELINE FOR VEIWING SHUTTLE LAUNCHES

NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain announced today that NASA has
complete a review of the Space Shuttle Launch Viewing Safety
Guidelines for the general public. In the announcement, new guidelines
were presented which NASA feels will insure the safety of all those
wishing to view the shuttle launch safely.

OK, now that everyone has had a nice little laugh at NASA PAO's expense
(they're an easy target, like shooting dead fish in an ice chest), time to
spoil the party.

The CAIB observed (O10.1-1 and O10.1-2) that "NASA should develop and
implement a public risk acceptability policy for launch and re-entry of
space vehicles and unmanned aircraft" and "NASA should develop and
implement a plan to mitigate the risk that Shuttle flights pose to the
general public."

Last December, the USAF blasted NASA for taking "unacceptable risks by
allowing too many people to flock to Kennedy Space Center viewing sites for
up-close looks at shuttle launches."

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/spacestoryN1205BLASTZONE0.htm

The new rules, in fact, merely bring NASA's KSC policies into line with
what the USAF has always enforced for launches from CCAFS. Strange, I don't
see Craig Fink - or anyone else, for that matter - writing satirical press
releases about USAF public risk policies.

OK, enough of the inconvenient facts. You may now resume your regularly
scheduled mindless bashing.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:50:24 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

OK, now that everyone has had a nice little laugh at NASA PAO's
expense (they're an easy target, like shooting dead fish in an ice
chest)

Ooooohhhh, nice metaphor extension. Can we extend it to Eric?

Go for it. I probably would have used it on him myself by now, had I not
killfiled him.

While I think that the policies for both sites are stupid (and I
hadn't previously been aware of AF policy--thanks),

I agree - I fall into the crowd that says informed adults should be allowed
to make their own decisions about what risks they take with themselves.

I'm particularly
amused by the notion that NASA now thinks that it has to make sure
that any debris from future entry accidents falls into the (deep)
Pacific. Had this policy been in place pre-Columbia, we would have
had no forensic evidence to work with for accident investigation other
than telemetry.

It's a difficult trade. Ideally you'd want the entry groundtrack to be over
sparsely-populated land so that you could recover the debris without
endangering the public - after all, they're third parties that never signed
onto this particular risk. But there's fairly few deorbit opportunities
that result in such a groundtrack.

However, I do appreciate the reminder that this was a result of the
CAIB. I'll note that if I write anything about it in future.

If I had to apportion blame, I'd put a lot more on the USAF than the CAIB.
The CAIB statements on public risk were classed as "Observations", not
"Recommendations", and I think NASA wouldn't have made nearly as big a deal
about them had the USAF (and the CCAFS 45th Space Wing in particular) not
repeatedly squawked about it.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:50:24 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

OK, now that everyone has had a nice little laugh at NASA PAO's expense
(they're an easy target, like shooting dead fish in an ice chest)

Ooooohhhh, nice metaphor extension. Can we extend it to Eric?

time to spoil the party.

The CAIB observed (O10.1-1 and O10.1-2) that "NASA should develop and
implement a public risk acceptability policy for launch and re-entry of
space vehicles and unmanned aircraft" and "NASA should develop and
implement a plan to mitigate the risk that Shuttle flights pose to the
general public."

Last December, the USAF blasted NASA for taking "unacceptable risks by
allowing too many people to flock to Kennedy Space Center viewing sites for
up-close looks at shuttle launches."

http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/spacestoryN1205BLASTZONE0.htm

The new rules, in fact, merely bring NASA's KSC policies into line with
what the USAF has always enforced for launches from CCAFS. Strange, I don't
see Craig Fink - or anyone else, for that matter - writing satirical press
releases about USAF public risk policies.

OK, enough of the inconvenient facts. You may now resume your regularly
scheduled mindless bashing.

While I think that the policies for both sites are stupid (and I
hadn't previously been aware of AF policy--thanks), I'm particularly
amused by the notion that NASA now thinks that it has to make sure
that any debris from future entry accidents falls into the (deep)
Pacific. Had this policy been in place pre-Columbia, we would have
had no forensic evidence to work with for accident investigation other
than telemetry.

However, I do appreciate the reminder that this was a result of the
CAIB. I'll note that if I write anything about it in future.

In article ,
says...

snip

Ideally you'd want the entry groundtrack to be over
sparsely-populated land so that you could recover the debris without
endangering the public - after all, they're third parties that never signed
onto this particular risk. But there's fairly few deorbit opportunities
that result in such a groundtrack.

OK -- Columbia's ground track during STS-107's entry passed over
moderately heavily populated areas, and indeed it broke up over a major
city. Some pretty large pieces fell in and around urban and suburban
areas.

And not one piece hit anyone, out of tens of tons of debris that
survived and hit the ground. No one was poisoned by leaking fuel tanks.
Not one person on the ground was hurt by falling debris.

I don't even recall hearing about any dogs or cats, or even pet birds,
being harmed by Columbia's debris.

I can't even recall anyone *ever* being killed or injured by falling
space debris. And hundreds of tons of debris have fallen from orbit
over the years.

Truthfully, isn't it a little paranoid to worry about the extremely
unlikely possibility of debris injuring people in the now even-more-
unlikely event of an entry failure?

Or was the lack of any personal injury to people on the ground from
falling Columbia debris an example of extreme luck and a very unlikely
pattern of debris fall that spared anyone from being struck by debris
falling into urban and suburban population centers? After all, we've
only seen one large vehicle disintegrate over populated land, and one
event isn't a very good statistical sample.

In other words, was the lack of ground injuries atypical? Or do we even
know enough to say whether it was or not?

--

"The problem isn't that there are so | Doug Van Dorn
many fools; it's that lightning isn't |
distributed right." -Mark Twain

Doug... wrote in
:

In article ,
says...

snip

Ideally you'd want the entry groundtrack to be over
sparsely-populated land so that you could recover the debris without
endangering the public - after all, they're third parties that never
signed onto this particular risk. But there's fairly few deorbit
opportunities that result in such a groundtrack.

OK -- Columbia's ground track during STS-107's entry passed over
moderately heavily populated areas, and indeed it broke up over a
major city. Some pretty large pieces fell in and around urban and
suburban areas.

And not one piece hit anyone, out of tens of tons of debris that
survived and hit the ground. No one was poisoned by leaking fuel
tanks. Not one person on the ground was hurt by falling debris.

Agreed on the first and third, but not the second. A group of recovery
workers were hospitalized for hydrazine exposure after handling an RCS
manifold that was not properly identified and "sniffed" before they picked
it up.

I don't even recall hearing about any dogs or cats, or even pet birds,
being harmed by Columbia's debris.

I recall reports of one head of livestock (cow? sheep? can't remember
offhand) being hit.

I can't even recall anyone *ever* being killed or injured by falling
space debris. And hundreds of tons of debris have fallen from orbit
over the years.

Truthfully, isn't it a little paranoid to worry about the extremely
unlikely possibility of debris injuring people in the now even-more-
unlikely event of an entry failure?

Keep in mind that these new entry rules do not cover all shuttle entries,
only entries where the orbiter is known in advance to be compromised.

Or was the lack of any personal injury to people on the ground from
falling Columbia debris an example of extreme luck and a very unlikely
pattern of debris fall that spared anyone from being struck by debris
falling into urban and suburban population centers? After all, we've
only seen one large vehicle disintegrate over populated land, and one
event isn't a very good statistical sample.

In other words, was the lack of ground injuries atypical? Or do we
even know enough to say whether it was or not?

The CAIB commissioned a public safety analysis of the accident that found
that the probability of a casualty from debris (in that particular
accident) ranged from 9-24%, dependent on assumptions of what fraction of
the orbiter survived to ground impact and the degree of sheltering of the
population. So the actual outcome (zero casualties) would not be
unexpected. Given the time (Saturday 8:00 AM) and location (rural east
Texas) of the breakup, it is likely that low population density coupled
with a high percentage of sheltering (i.e. people indoors) were key factors
in the low probability. Had the breakup occurred a few minutes earlier, the
debris footprint would have covered the southern suburbs of Dallas-Fort
Worth; a few minutes later, New Orleans. Had the deorbit been waved off one
orbit, and breakup occurred at the same altitude, the footprint would have
been over Houston.

The CAIB's level of concern in this matter may be gauged by the fact that
their statements were classed as observations, rather than recommendations.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Doug... wrote in
:
Truthfully, isn't it a little paranoid to worry about the extremely
unlikely possibility of debris injuring people in the now even-more-
unlikely event of an entry failure?

Keep in mind that these new entry rules do not cover all shuttle entries,
only entries where the orbiter is known in advance to be compromised.

This isn't so different than picking an airfield to land a damaged aircraft.
If possible, it's preferable to attempt a landing at an airfield that isn't
located squarely in the middle of an urban area. There have been incidents
in the past where the selection of a particular airfield has been a
contributing factor in the deaths of people on the ground.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.