Official: Genesis Pre-Launch Test Skipped

rk wrote:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...is_update.html

Official: Genesis Pre-Launch Test Skipped

Lockheed Martin, builder of the Genesis probe that crashed in the Utah
desert in 2004, skipped a critical pre-launch test that would have uncovered
a design flaw, an investigator said Friday.

The independent board plans to release its final 15-page report on the
Genesis crash later this month detailing the events leading up to the
accident and recommending increased testing oversight.

-- end excerpt --

--
rk, Just an OldEngineer


Lockheed also made the Stardust reentry capsule. Let's hope NASA won't
make another divot in a planet. NASA has a "Deep Impact" probe. Maybe
they could rename Genesis and Stardust, "Shallow Impact I & II".

;-)

Rusty

Rusty wrote:
rk wrote:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...is_update.html

Official: Genesis Pre-Launch Test Skipped

Lockheed Martin, builder of the Genesis probe that crashed in the Utah
desert in 2004, skipped a critical pre-launch test that would have uncovered
a design flaw, an investigator said Friday.

The independent board plans to release its final 15-page report on the
Genesis crash later this month detailing the events leading up to the
accident and recommending increased testing oversight.

-- end excerpt --

--
rk, Just an OldEngineer


Lockheed also made the Stardust reentry capsule. Let's hope NASA won't
make another divot in a planet. NASA has a "Deep Impact" probe. Maybe
they could rename Genesis and Stardust, "Shallow Impact I & II".

One report said that the Stardust design *was* tested, but that
the design was modified for Genesis and that the modified Genesis
design was *not* tested.

We will know soon enough.

I'm hoping Lockheed succeeds in getting the New Horizons RTG into
deep space without mishap. A failure of that launch would have
much, much bigger repercussions than a Stardust auger in the
desert.

Hopefully, both missions - one inbound and one outbound - will fly
true.

- Ed Kyle

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:35:54 -0800, Ed Kyle wrote:

I'm hoping Lockheed succeeds in getting the New Horizons RTG into
deep space without mishap. A failure of that launch would have
much, much bigger repercussions than a Stardust auger in the
desert.

Yeah, after the fuel elements are picked
up, dusted off, and stuck back in a new
probe the no-nukes will... ... still be
screaming "NO NUKES!". Big change.

Hopefully, both missions - one inbound and one outbound - will fly
true.

I hope so, because it's two centuries
till next spring

- Ed Kyle

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

Chuck Stewart wrote:

Yeah, after the fuel elements are picked
up, dusted off, and stuck back in a new
probe the no-nukes will... ... still be
screaming "NO NUKES!". Big change.



Yeah, considering some of the tests they put those things through.
Do they have any sort of tracking device on the RTG so they could find
it if it fell into the sea?

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in news:11s60i9cdblk296
@corp.supernews.com:


Yeah, considering some of the tests they put those things through.
Do they have any sort of tracking device on the RTG so they could find
it if it fell into the sea?

They're thermally hot enough enough that an infrared
camera ought to do for locating either the main body
of the RTG or any pieces if it gets chunked.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

They're thermally hot enough enough that an infrared
camera ought to do for locating either the main body
of the RTG or any pieces if it gets chunked.



I hadn't thought about the thermal plume. I wonder if it would boil the
water?

Pat

Chuck Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:35:54 -0800, Ed Kyle wrote:

I'm hoping Lockheed succeeds in getting the New Horizons RTG into
deep space without mishap. A failure of that launch would have
much, much bigger repercussions than a Stardust auger in the
desert.

Yeah, after the fuel elements are picked
up, dusted off, and stuck back in a new
probe the no-nukes will... ... still be
screaming "NO NUKES!". Big change.

So *that* is why the U.S. Energy Department "will have sixteen
mobile emergency field teams and two radiological control centers
positioned discretely around Cape Canaveral" during the launch.
"http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18675"

Sure, the RTG plutonium is packaged in a "blast resistant"
container, but that doesn't mean that it is "blast proof", or that
it couldn't be compromised in the worst-case event - a pad CATO
and long-duration fire that could spread the stuff around. Think
about how big the fenced-in containment perimeter would have to
be for that one. Such an event could require months to years of
cleanup at the launch site at a cost of billions of dollars.

I wouldn't be nervous about this launch if it weren't being performed
by the very first Atlas 551 - an unproven variant. This Atlas will,
for example, produce more thrust at liftoff than a Delta 4 Heavy.
It will have to complete nine major separation events. It will be
the first Atlas 5 topped by a Star 48, etc. Yes, Atlas 5 has flown
flawlessly to date, but so had Delta 4 until Boeing pushed the
button on the first Heavy in December 2004. Then there is the
unsettling background news about the hurricane damage that
required Lockheed to replace one of the boosters, the news
about the CCB tank failure that required an inspection of the
AV-010 tank, etc.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:

Sure, the RTG plutonium is packaged in a "blast resistant"
container, but that doesn't mean that it is "blast proof", or that
it couldn't be compromised in the worst-case event - a pad CATO
and long-duration fire that could spread the stuff around. Think
about how big the fenced-in containment perimeter would have to
be for that one. Such an event could require months to years of
cleanup at the launch site at a cost of billions of dollars.



They put the RTG elements through some extremly tough testing:
http://www.nuclearspace.com/facts_about_rtg.htm

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

Sure, the RTG plutonium is packaged in a "blast resistant"
container, but that doesn't mean that it is "blast proof", or that
it couldn't be compromised in the worst-case event - a pad CATO
and long-duration fire that could spread the stuff around. Think
about how big the fenced-in containment perimeter would have to
be for that one. Such an event could require months to years of
cleanup at the launch site at a cost of billions of dollars.



They put the RTG elements through some extremly tough testing:
http://www.nuclearspace.com/facts_about_rtg.htm

Pat

The testing and analysis helps to reduce the odds of radiological
release, but does not eliminate it. See the following for details.

"http://spacescience.nasa.gov/admin/pubs/plutoeis/NH-FEIS_Vol1.pdf"

There is a 0.4% predicted chance of radiological release during
the AV-010 launch. If an accident occurs during the pre or early
launch phase, the probability that a radiological release will occur
is predicted to be 1 in 620. If the thing blows up just prior to
launch,
say due to a Centaur pressurization failure ala SpaceX, there is a
*78%* chance of radiological release. If the rocket does a
"Full Stack Intact Impact", there is a 25% chance of radiological
release. These pad events would be no fun, because they would
create big post-impact fires that could cause a "partial vaporization
of PuO2" (see around page 119 for example).

The odds are low, but they are not zero. The Cape has seen
pad explosions before. Old timers around the Cape on launch day
will be paying attention to wind directions.

- Ed Kyle

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...
I wouldn't be nervous about this launch if it weren't being performed
by the very first Atlas 551 - an unproven variant.

Hmm...that gives me *some* cause for concern, though not too much because
I'm upwind.

If it does explode, please let the RTG hit Bruce Gagnon.