macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) (08/06/88)
In article <2087@silver.bacs.indiana.edu> konath@silver.UUCP (kannan) writes: :In article <3763@teklds.TEK.COM: dant@mrloog.LA.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque) writes: ::<My idea is that they launch Discovery on or before July 20, 1989, even ::<if its faucets do leak. Any others? :Anniversary or no anniversary, launch Discovery only when Crippen :is absolutely sure that there is nothing wrong and the Challenger :tragedy should not as far as it is humanly possible be repeated. If :there were no human lives at stake, go ahead and launch it but since :it is a manned mission all precautions have to be taken. I disagree, strongly. There should have been an investigation of the Challenger disaster, and when they found that the O rings failed below a certain temperature, they should have continued launching >above that temperature<, while working on a better engineering solution. There are many, many qualified scientists and pilots willing to risk their lives in spaceflight. The engineering effort necessary to move from a 95% safety record to a 99.9% safety record has stunted the US space program, focussed its energy in introverted paranoia instead of a healthy adult acceptance of risk, and mave have given the Soviets an unbeatable lead in space travel. To me, the latter also implies the potential for Soviet domination of the entire Earth. Michael Sloan MacLeod (amdahl!drivax!macleod)
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (08/08/88)
Interesting discussion. Extreme full-speed ahead discussion tend to get
ignored in NASA (especially when dealing with lives, especially
when some are the scientific creme of America). Also note
the McNeil-Lehrer discussion with Bruce Murray and Fletcher.
If the problem were one simply of temperature (Yeager also put this argument
forward, and launching above them temp), it would make the problem easier.
It is not. There are other long-term problems, suffice it to say.
The problem, as Feynman pointed out, is how do you quanitify this?
I can easily say 99.9 or 95 percent based on some metric, but which.
Anyway, the point is partly moot, we are here now, we are dealing with lots
of unknowns (I don't work in manned space, and we don't launch based
on popular democracy). [A good reference on pressure BTW is "Normal
Risks" which I am currently rereading].
Another gross generalization from
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov
resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:
"Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology."
{uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene
"Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
You can send money to NASA or you can send it to the Richard Feynman
Memorial Fund for Cancer Research [UCLA], P.O. Box 70021, Pasadena, CA 91107
or both.kerog@eneevax.UUCP (Keith Rogers) (08/08/88)
In article <3659@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes: >I disagree, strongly. There should have been an investigation of the >Challenger disaster, and when they found that the O rings failed below >a certain temperature, they should have continued launching >above that >temperature<, while working on a better engineering solution. I couldn't agree more. This has been my attitude ever since the Challenger disaster. I just don't see why they have to spend more than two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle, when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety. Sure the O ring thing had to be fixed, but did it have to kill the entire U.S. space program in the meantime? Keith Rogers
dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) (08/08/88)
In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: > I just don't see why they have to spend more than >two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows >for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle, >when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety. It has been stated many times before, but let's do it again. The Rogers commission did NOT say that the shuttle would be safe to launch in warm weather. They said that so many things were wrong with the joint design that it was impossible to determine what actually caused the leak. Cold was a contributing factor, but O ring damage has occured on launches in hot weather, too. Paul F. Dietz dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu
mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) (08/08/88)
In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP> kerog@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: > >I just don't see why they have to spend more than >two years without a single flight, missing many important launch windows >for various projects, just to have an all temperature space shuttle, >when they could have just flown it on a warm day in almost perfect safety. > >Keith Rogers Right after the event, NASA did announce that they intended to go ahead with Crippin's Vandenburg launch in June of '86 since the SRBs were of a different design and so couldn't suffer the same failure. Plus, the warmer West coast weather would also ease problems. But we all know what happened to those plans, don't we. . . Remember though, that the Accident Review Board came up with a list of "Criticality 1" problems which were fixable during the downtime. So, I imagine that they simply decided that it wouldn't be wise to risk another failure from another problem which could be repaired. -- *** mike (starship janitor) smithwick *** "Due to the Writer's Guild of Amierica strike, this signature is temporarily cancelled". [disclaimer : nope, I don't work for NASA, I take full blame for my ideas]
rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) (08/09/88)
In article <1231@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >The problem, as Feynman pointed out, is how do you quanitify this? >I can easily say 99.9 or 95 percent based on some metric, but which. Well, the current launch-to-correct-orbit reliability for Delta-class expendibles is 95%. A fairly generous metric, and one that I sure wouldn't want to ride in. -- Rob Horn UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn ...ulowell!infinet!rhorn, ..decvax!infinet!rhorn Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA
jkw@a.lanl.gov (Jay Wooten) (08/09/88)
In article <1704@eneevax.UUCP>, kerog@eneevax.UUCP (Keith Rogers) writes: > Sure the O ring thing had to be fixed, but did it have to kill > the entire U.S. space program in the meantime? You can bet the Soviets would have hardly missed a beat in sending up another one (something they've proved several times in the past). Isn't it interesting that the space "program" of the (once) pioneering leader has become so hamstrung by politics and public/media pressure not to fail, while the otherwise world leader in repressive bureaucracy plods ahead unflinchingly to world leadership in space. ~ Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare ~ ~ The lone and level sands stretch far away................. ~ Jay Wooten Los Alamos National Lab ARPA: jkw@lanl.gov
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/10/88)
In article <20043@cornell.UUCP> dietz@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Paul F. Dietz) writes: >... The Rogers >commission did NOT say that the shuttle would be safe to launch in warm >weather. They said that so many things were wrong with the joint design >that it was impossible to determine what actually caused the leak... True, as far as it goes. From the data they supplied, though, it is reasonable to infer that the combination of warmer temperatures and going back to the old low-pressure leak-test procedure would greatly reduce the risks. Neither cold nor high-pressure leak tests had a perfect correlation with joint problems, but both correlations were quite strong and the combined correlation was even stronger. Since there is no such thing as perfect safety, reduction of risk is all one can realistically discuss. Many people thought that a handful of simple precautions, including those mentioned above, should reduce risk enough to permit urgent missions to be flown by volunteer crews. Sigh, NASA didn't agree... -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/10/88)
In article <646@a.lanl.gov> jkw@a.lanl.gov (Jay Wooten) writes: >You can bet the Soviets would have hardly missed a beat in sending up >another one (something they've proved several times in the past). As somebody wrote in Aviation Week a few months afterward (roughly, from memory): "If the same thing had happened to the Soviets, they would have swept the debris off the launch pad, hoisted the next launcher onto the pad, and started the countdown. Anyone who objected would have been told where to go, or sent there." -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (08/23/88)
In article <1988Aug19.182401.20602@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <579@proxftl.UUCP> greg@proxftl.UUCP (Gregory N. Hullender) writes: >>I imagine they would also have sent various officials from Morton Thiokol >>and Nasa off to the Gualag, if not had them shot. > >Sounds like a fine idea to me. A good many of them deserved it. Yaw vol, mein herr, vhere do you vant us to line up? Das thou plan to pull the trigger, thein self? >there would have been no shortage of >volunteers to fly high-priority missions before definitive fixes were made. >Bear in mind that you've seen a biased sample: the safety-first astronauts >like Sally Ride were the ones who got the publicity. Well, we can see there's not schedule pressure in this newsgroup. No one has brought up loss of a second craft if the first problem had not be isolated. I'm surprised to the contribution to greater loss of "investment." Also what ever happened to making making space safe for every one [i.e., eventually doing away with astronaut requirements] which everyone was interested for such a time? Just a progression...... >>Fortunately, we don't live in the Soviet Union; Oh! Am I on the wrong side of the Pacific? Anyways, let's get back on track shall we? Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "Mailers?! HA!", "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {uunet,hplabs,ncar,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize."
link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) (08/25/88)
>Well, we can see there's not schedule pressure in this newsgroup.
Yo! Careful with that axe, Eugene!
I live and die according to NASA schedules. We can get our experiments
delivered on time. You wanna know how many launch dates have slipped?
Dr. Richard Link
Earth and Planetary Atmospheres Group
Space Sciences Laboratoy
University of California, Berkeley
link@ssl.berkeley.edulink@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) (08/26/88)
> >Well, we can see there's not schedule pressure in this newsgroup. I didn't get any responses from my first posting, so I'm going to try again. I worked at the Max Planck Institut fur Aeronomy on the design of particle detectors for the Giotto (Comet Halley) and Galileo (Jupiter Orbiter) spacecraft. Giotto (a European Space Agency project) has returned some spectacular images of comets. Galileo has not been launched yet. I worked on these projects in 1980. Well, I can see there's not any pressure from NASA personnel in this newsgroup. Come on, Eugene, do you only readnews or do you NASA types also contribute to the space program? Dr. Richard Link Earth and Planetary Atmospheres Group Space Sciences Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley link@ssl.berkeley.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/27/88)
In article <1366@eos.UUCP> eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) writes: >Yaw vol, mein herr, vhere do you vant us to line up? Das thou plan to >pull the trigger, thein self? Line up in vront of der nozzle of der next SRB tezt. I schall push der button myzelf iff nezezzary. If du canst not liff honorably, putting der interests ovf your profession and your country -- not to mention a zertain zeven aztronauts -- ahead of zose of your company und your career, at leazt you can die honorably vhen your venality und cowvardice cauze disaster! >No one has brought up loss of a second craft if the first problem had not >be isolated... If one evaluates the loss of another orbiter as absolutely unacceptable, then one must ground the entire fleet permanently. >... Also what ever happened to making making space safe >for every one [i.e., eventually doing away with astronaut requirements] >which everyone was interested for such a time? I'd be willing to settle for making space only mildly dangerous for everyone. You don't need to meet astronaut requirements to be able to look at the risk and say "yes, this is worth taking". >Oh! Am I on the wrong side of the Pacific? Well, the way the US space program is going lately, it's starting to look like all of us in North America are on the wrong side of some ocean or other... -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu