NASA Columbia survival report question.

[Efthimios]

In the following link you can download NASA Columbia survival report
released by the agency.

http://www.nasa.gov/news/reports/index.html

I was impressed from the detail, the simplicity and the structure of
the report. It is a good example of structured work.

The question is, why NASA is releasing information to the public that
can help rival agencies (Chines) to improve their missions. What is
their moto?

It is obvious that they did not released confidential information or
structural drawings but still they publish their know how and how they
tackle problems and how to improve future missions.

E

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

In the following link you can download NASA Columbia survival report
released by the agency.

http://www.nasa.gov/news/reports/index.html

I was impressed from the detail, the simplicity and the structure of
the report. It is a good example of structured work.

The question is, why NASA is releasing information to the public that
can help rival agencies (Chines) to improve their missions. What is
their moto?

It is obvious that they did not released confidential information or
structural drawings but still they publish their know how and how they
tackle problems and how to improve future missions.

E

If the Chinese are copying the shuttle they're screwed.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

What exactly is the problem with having a stronger Chinese civilian
space program?

If it were not for the Russians (ex USSR), our space station project
would be screwed.

It should have been screwed from the start - a total waste of money that
would have been better spent on ultra-cheap heavy lift rockets.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Sylvia Else]

In the following link you can download NASA Columbia survival report
released by the agency.

http://www.nasa.gov/news/reports/index.html

I was impressed from the detail, the simplicity and the structure of
the report. It is a good example of structured work.

The question is, why NASA is releasing information to the public that
can help rival agencies (Chines) to improve their missions. What is
their moto?

It is obvious that they did not released confidential information or
structural drawings but still they publish their know how and how they
tackle problems and how to improve future missions.

E

It was an awful lot of work to determine the failure mode of a system
that is already known to be excessively dangerous, and is due for
retirement.

I felt that the Shuttle should have been grounded after Columbia (at the
time, I expressed the view that it would be). If anything has been
learnt about external foam insulation, it must be that it's best avoided.

Sylvia.

 

[krw]

It was an awful lot of work to determine the failure mode of a system
that is already known to be excessively dangerous, and is due for
retirement.

I felt that the Shuttle should have been grounded after Columbia (at the
time, I expressed the view that it would be). If anything has been
learnt about external foam insulation, it must be that it's best avoided.

I didn't. Then as now, I believe that space is a naturally
dangerous endeavor and risks are part of the price of admission.
Everyone knows this, except the PR shills who keep telling the
press and Obama voters that it's safe as crossing the street
(though they never said which street).

OTOH, I now see no purpose in continuing the program as it is.
There is nothing to be learned from the space station other than
how to live on the space station. Another moon program is equally
stupid, for much the same reasons.

 

[krw]

Why heavy lift? Better to concentrate on unmanned missions (robotic) and
the technology to make the payloads smaller and lighter.

Because small payloads are covered six ways from Sunday, already?

At some point, if we need a large, unmanned satellite, we can develop
the technology to launch components and have them assemble autonomously.

That's not cheap either.

 

[Richard Henry]

[email protected] says...>







I didn't.  Then as now, I believe that space is a naturally
dangerous endeavor and risks are part of the price of admission.  
Everyone knows this, except the PR shills who keep telling the
press and Obama voters that it's safe as crossing the street
(though they never said which street).  

I believe the original NASA estimate of a fatal shuttle mission was
about 1 in 10,000, before the Challenger explosion. The latest public
estimate is about 2 in 100

OTOH, I now see no purpose in continuing the program as it is.  
There is nothing to be learned from the space station other than
how to live on the space station.  Another moon program is equally
stupid, for much the same reasons.

I sense that you are so old that you see no future benefit.

 

[Sylvia Else]

I didn't. Then as now, I believe that space is a naturally
dangerous endeavor and risks are part of the price of admission.
Everyone knows this, except the PR shills who keep telling the
press and Obama voters that it's safe as crossing the street
(though they never said which street).

OTOH, I now see no purpose in continuing the program as it is.
There is nothing to be learned from the space station other than
how to live on the space station. Another moon program is equally
stupid, for much the same reasons.

I'm by no means opposed to space exploration, nor to manned space
exploration, and agree that it's a dangerous environment, and that
people will die in the task.

But the space shuttle was a flawed design, compromised by USAF
requirements (once around abort being a particular one), and by being
built to a budget.

Money spent on keeping it in service was money not available for
developing a safer replacement.

Sylvia.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Maybe not now. But that's why we've got to get to work on the
technology. That money will be better spent than sending up astronauts
with the requisite life support just to have them drop tools.

Well, the idea is to ship enough people offworld to create a viable
autonomous colony. That means (as the SpaceX guy puts it) reducing the
cost of transporting a single Human to Mars to under $2m.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[mpm]

[email protected] says...>







I didn't.  Then as now, I believe that space is a naturally
dangerous endeavor and risks are part of the price of admission.  
Everyone knows this, except the PR shills who keep telling the
press and Obama voters that it's safe as crossing the street
(though they never said which street).  

OTOH, I now see no purpose in continuing the program as it is.  
There is nothing to be learned from the space station other than
how to live on the space station.  Another moon program is equally
stupid, for much the same reasons.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree completely.
But would add:

Bush (43) had the wet-dream to get back in space with a lunar mission.
Probably had nothing to do with science. (Like he would even know
what that was?!)

Maybe he thought it would impress his daddy?
Like the majority of his "decisions", this one too makes no sense.

I have so little faith in anything the government undertakes these
days its downright scary.

-mpm

 

[mpm]

I believe the original NASA estimate of a fatal shuttle mission was
about 1 in 10,000, before the Challenger explosion.  The latest public
estimate is about 2 in 100

Yeah, but is that in meters or feet?

 

[krw]

Yep. If we sent leftist weenies we could at least get some disposal
value ;-)

Perhaps as fuel.

 

[krw]

I believe the original NASA estimate of a fatal shuttle mission was
about 1 in 10,000, before the Challenger explosion. The latest public
estimate is about 2 in 100

None, not even CBS news ever believe 1:10000. I believe the
post-Challenger number is more like 1:100, which for such a stack of
bailing wire and bubblegum isn't all that bad.

I sense that you are so old that you see no future benefit.

Age has nothing to do with it. Even NASA doesn't pretend it has a
mission anymore.

 

[J.A. Legris]

It should have been screwed from the start - a total waste of money that
would have been better spent on ultra-cheap heavy lift rockets.

How much was spent on the shuttle program? A few dozen $billion?
That's small change compared to the sums that are sloshing around
Washington and Wall Street these days. Let's go to Mars. Manned?
Robotic? What the hell - we'll do both! One thing this financial
crisis has taught me is that everything can be free if we just print
enough cash. Maybe the treasury could get things moving a little
faster by issuing blanket licenses and free ink cartridges to
everyone.

 

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

How much was spent on the shuttle program? A few dozen $billion?
That's small change compared to the sums that are sloshing around
Washington and Wall Street these days. Let's go to Mars. Manned?
Robotic? What the hell - we'll do both! One thing this financial
crisis has taught me is that everything can be free if we just print
enough cash. Maybe the treasury could get things moving a little
faster by issuing blanket licenses and free ink cartridges to
everyone.

Well, if dubya can piss away a few trillion in the Iraqi sand what's a
mission to mars?

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

 

[Don Klipstein]

'Boston Legal' on TV last night. William Shatner's character was
going on about the legality of using fat from liposuction to make
biodiesel. That's what I get for not turning the TV off right after the
news is over. I shut it off as fast as I could get to my feet, and to
the remote, which is none to fast these days. I need to run a piece of
RG/6 to the computer room so the TV is in the same room.

Third time in a day I was glad to not have beverages in my mouth while
reading sci.electronics.design!

Meanwhile, my TV and my computer are in the same room! And I suspect my
liking for riding bicycles and eating veggies will keep me nice and nimble
well into an old age!

What I all-too-often see on the TV during the small amount of time
(especially other than news) that I have the darn thing on makes me happy
that I don't keep bricks, large wrenches, 50-VA - to - KVA range
transformers or shooting irons within reach of my TV-viewing seat!

(OK, I would not do such evil deeds to my TV set anyway - the producers
of the rubbish ought to be thankful that they tend to be beyond range of
viewers throwing bricks, iron or lead.)

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Sylvia Else]

I believe the original NASA estimate of a fatal shuttle mission was
about 1 in 10,000, before the Challenger explosion.

Which was never reasonable, because of the implied reliability of better
than 1 in 20,000 for each solid fuel boosters. When did they ever have a
reason to think that SRBs were that reliable?

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

I believe the original NASA estimate of a fatal shuttle mission was
about 1 in 10,000, before the Challenger explosion. The latest public
estimate is about 2 in 100

In any other field, (except war, I suppose) exposing people to those
sorts of risks would be seen as criminal.

Sylvia.

 

[Don Klipstein]

That's what Gitmo will be for. By the time they figure out it's not
South Florida, It'll be too late.

Any way to send there the ones still in office and managing to get
re-elected? Such as probably a majority of those chairing congressional
committees?

=============================================

Then again, my fater proposed a USA Constitution amendment that I now
find to make sense:

"No person may be elected to either House of US Congress or elected to
be US President during a term of elected political office in the United
States or any political subdivision thereof that such person has been
elected to."

No exception for resigning from a term of elected office before that
term ends.

Politicians cannot be re-elected to a Federal office that they are
already serving or less-than-1-term-ago resigned from.

Politicians cannot be elected to Federal office before original
expiration date of term of office of the stepping stone that they are
running from (usually January, while "general election" is November.
Gives a break of usually minimum 9.5-10 months, minimum 21.5-22 months if
running while most recent previous elected job position was a Federal
one.)

I would think it's fine and dandy of politicians that are merely members
of township legislative branches or borough legislative branches need to
do something else for a living for 9.5-10 months before being elected to a
Federal office.
Heck, I would be happy to see any restriction on those of the usual
types that run for HOA boards!

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[krw]

In any other field, (except war, I suppose) exposing people to those
sorts of risks would be seen as criminal.

Nonsense. Ever hear of mountain climbing?