Searching \ for '[OT] FW: NASA RELEASES PLANS FOR NEXT GENERATION S' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=nasa+releases+plans
Search entire site for: 'FW: NASA RELEASES PLANS FOR NEXT GENERATION S'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] FW: NASA RELEASES PLANS FOR NEXT GENERATION S'
2005\09\19@221809 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face


-----Original Message-----
From: spam_OUTowner-press-releaseTakeThisOuTspamspinoza.public.hq.nasa.gov> [.....owner-press-releaseKILLspamspam@spam@spinoza.public.hq.nasa.gov]On Behalf Of
NASANewsspamKILLspamhq.nasa.gov
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 02:20
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: NASA RELEASES PLANS FOR NEXT GENERATION SPACECRAFT


Dean Acosta/Michael Braukus
Headquarters, Washington                     Sept. 19, 2005
(Phone: 202/358-1400/1979)

RELEASE: 05-266

NASA RELEASES PLANS FOR NEXT GENERATION SPACECRAFT

    NASA Administrator Michael Griffin today released the results of the
agency's exploration architecture study - a blueprint for the next
generation of spacecraft to take humans back to the moon and on to Mars and
other destinations.

The study makes specific design recommendations for a vehicle to carry crews
into space, a family of launch vehicles to take crews to the moon and
beyond, and a "lunar mission architecture" for landing on the moon.  It also
recommends the technologies NASA should pursue in the near term.

The study will assist NASA in achieving President Bush's Vision for Space
Exploration, which calls for the agency to safely return the space shuttle
to flight, complete the International Space Station, return to the moon, and
continue exploration of Mars and beyond.

America's next generation spacecraft will use an improved, blunt-body crew
capsule, and will accommodate up to six people. "This spacecraft and its
systems will build upon the foundation of the proven designs and
technologies used in the Apollo and space shuttle programs, while having far
greater capability," Griffin said. "It will be able to carry larger and
heavier cargos into space and allow more people to stay on the moon for
longer periods of time."

The new spacecraft can be configured either to support human explorers or
fly unpiloted to carry cargo. Its design allows the flexibility to ferry
crews of three astronauts, plus additional supplies, to and from the
International Space Station, take four crew members to lunar orbit, and
eventually maintain up to six astronauts on a mission to Mars.

Crews and cargo will be carried into orbit by a space shuttle-derived launch
system, consisting of a solid rocket booster and an upper stage powered by a
shuttle main engine that can lift 25 metric tons. The spacecraft also will
be 10 times safer than the space shuttle because of its in-line design and
launch-abort system.

NASA chose the shuttle-derived option for its launch system due to its
superior safety, cost and its availability.

Specifically, the space shuttle's main engines and solid rocket boosters are
reliable and rated for human space flight. Much of the industrial base and
hardware to support this option are already in place, which will
significantly lower development costs.

Future lunar exploration missions will be supported by a heavy cargo launch
vehicle consisting of five space shuttle main engines, and two five-segment
shuttle solid-propellant rocket boosters. This combination yields a lift
capability of 106 metric tons to low Earth orbit, and 125 metric tons, if it
incorporates an Earth-departure stage. Although primarily designed to carry
cargo, this system can be human-rated to carry crew into orbit.

The study lays out a deliberate, milestone-driven journey to the moon for
NASA. Returning to the moon and sustaining a presence there will demonstrate
humans can survive on another world, and will build confidence that
astronauts can venture still farther into space and stay for longer periods.
NASA's return to the moon will open opportunities for fundamental science in
astrobiology, lunar geology, exobiology, astronomy and physics.

The journey will start with robotic missions between 2008 and 2011 to study,
map and learn about the lunar surface. These early missions will help
determine lunar landing sites and whether resources, such as oxygen,
hydrogen and metals, are available for use in NASA's long-term lunar
exploration objectives.

All NASA field centers will participate in the new exploration initiative.

For more information about the Exploration Systems Architecture Study and
its results, visit:
http://www.nasa.gov/home
-end-




                           * * *

NASA press releases and other information are available automatically
by sending an Internet electronic mail message to .....domoKILLspamspam.....hq.nasa.gov.
In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type
the words "subscribe press-release" (no quotes).  The system will
reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription.  A second
automatic message will include additional information on the service.
NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command
GO NASA.  To unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail
message to EraseMEdomospam_OUTspamTakeThisOuThq.nasa.gov, leave the subject blank, and type only
"unsubscribe press-release" (no quotes) in the body of the message.


2005\09\20@185845 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
>
> NASA chose the shuttle-derived option for its launch system due to its
> superior safety, cost and its availability.


Ha! I have heard that before... Cost and availability? Maybe... Superior
Safety? Never!

2005\09\21@071446 by olin piclist

face picon face
Sean Schouten wrote:
> Ha! I have heard that before... Cost and availability? Maybe... Superior
> Safety? Never!

Unless you have some figures to back that up, it sounds like an emotional
knee jerk statement to me.  I don't know if the shuttle is in fact safer
than other alternatives, but it's far from obvious that it's not.  How many
people have gone into space on the shuttle?  Of those, what percentage died?
What is the record of other manned space flight?  At first pass it seems
Apollo was far worse.  Didn't at least 1 out of about 16 blow up?  I don't
think the Soviet program was any better either.  I know there were accidents
in Mercury and Gemini too.  Even one lost flight out of the small number
would appear to make it considerably less safe than the shuttle.  So far 2
shuttles have been lost out of over a hundred (?) flights.  Again, I don't
have the hard figures.  This is just a quick estimates from what I remember,
at first blush it looks like NASA is right.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\09\21@083413 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Ha! I have heard that before... Cost and availability? Maybe...
>> Superior
>> Safety? Never!

> Unless you have some figures to back that up, it sounds like an
> emotional
> knee jerk statement to me.  I don't know if the shuttle is in fact
> safer
> than other alternatives, but it's far from obvious that it's not.

Given the rather small sample size in statistical terms, the Shuttle
is about as safe as other systems. It may in reality be less or more
safe but the data set is too small to know with certainty. Apollo
managed to kill 3 men on the ground, and that was systems failure
every bit as much as was the loss of the two Shuttles - and if
anything more "stupid" and more predictable with 20/20 hindsight
(sadly). Apollo 13 tried very hard indeed to kill another 3 - which
would have made Shuttle safer.

One point to note is that it can make more sense to measure fatalities
in terms of vehicle losses or incidents involving fatalities. This
allows sensible comparison of losses for single person and eg 20
person spacecraft. It is reasonable to compare the loss of a 7 person
Shuttle to that of a 3 person Apollo or Soyuz.

There have been about 450 person-flights into space. There have been
22 deaths "in spacecraft". 1 in an X15 (X15-3 uncontrollable spin on
descent and subsequent in flight breakup), 3 in Apollo 1 (pad fire due
to pure Oxygen atmosphere at full atmospheric pressure (!)), 1 in
Soyuz 1 (parachute malfunction due to design error)*, 3 in Soyuz 11
(depresssurisation during re-entry), and 7 each in Challenger and
Columbia. * Soyuz 2 was a lucky save - it was have to been orbited in
conjunction with Soyuz 1 but circumstances prevented the launch. It
was subsequently found to suffer from the same fatal design error as
Soyuz 1.

All spaceflight to date pushes the state of the art closely enough and
involves such immense energy levels that death is never avoidable with
certainty. One can reasonably expect that NASA will try extremely hard
to improve safety and overcome the types of organisational (rather
than engineering) problems which caused the loss of both Shuttles to
date.



       Russell McMahon






2005\09\21@084045 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
I said :

> Given the rather small sample size in statistical terms, the Shuttle
> is about as safe as other systems.

For some absolutely fascinating accounts of the things that have gone
wrong see

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_disasters

It's clear that there could very easily have been far more fatalities
than there have been.
The Gemini "spin" problem that is mentioned in passing was saved
because Neil Armstrong happened to be in control. Someone of lesser
ability may well have died.


       RM




2005\09\21@090741 by R. I. Nelson

picon face
part 0 44 bytes
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
part 1 1304 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed (decoded 7bit)

Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

It would be very interesting to see the accidents around the world when  
man first started to fly.  If we only had the news coverage then that we
have now.

I know as a boy growing up of a 14 yr. old boy building a glider. He got
it to the top of a farm silo 90 ft tall.  the wings failed and he died
but it was listed as a farm accident.  But was really an aviation
experiment.

I would think if you got the facts on ALL the flying accidents for
airplanes in the lower atmosphere and compared them to the outer space
travel  You would  find that manned rocket and space travel is  pretty
safe.



part 2 391 bytes content-type:text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
(decoded 7bit)

begin:vcard
fn:Robert I. Nelson
n:Nelson;Robert I.
org:RIN Designs
adr:;;P.O. BOX 373;RIPON;WI;54971;USA
email;internet:rindesignsspamspam_OUTcharter.net
tel;work:1-(920)-229-7152
tel;home:1-(920)-748-7443
note;quoted-printable:Custom design and building of small electro mechanical devices.=0D=0A=
       AUTOCAD work ver2002
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard



part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2005\09\21@091506 by James Humes

picon face
I liked the philosophy of the plane that won the X-prize. I'm not clear if
it made it far enough up to get OUT into space, but I think it proved the
concept. Why not get into space with a smaller vessel that is less expensive
to launch and then fly over to a space dock to pick up your space-only
plane. Then you could maybe dock the earth-space vessel to your space-only
craft and carry it with you as you go to where ever you're going. You'd use
the earth-space vessel as a shuttle craft to the planets we visit (after, of
course, having Mr. Data launch unmanned probes to the planet to let us know
what kind of atmosphere we're dealing with and what kind of fuel we'll need
to get home).
Just a thought...
James

2005\09\21@094336 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
space ship 1 flew 100km (and change) straight up then came down again (like
a rock)
to actually stay "up" at that point you have to execute a left turn and
accelerate to 25 times the speed of sound or 7 kilometers per second (give
or take)
IE there is a fair way to go yet

> {Original Message removed}

2005\09\21@094414 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
especially if you compare it per man mile traveled per flight ;->

{Quote hidden}

2005\09\21@101219 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 11:43 PM 9/21/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>space ship 1 flew 100km (and change) straight up then came down again (like
>a rock)
>to actually stay "up" at that point you have to execute a left turn and
>accelerate to 25 times the speed of sound or 7 kilometers per second (give
>or take)
>IE there is a fair way to go yet
>
> > {Original Message removed}

2005\09\21@101559 by James Humes

picon face
I see. Well, why didn't they outfit Spaceship One with a warp drive?
 Don't flame me, I know!:)
James

On 9/21/05, Jake Anderson <RemoveMEgrooveeeTakeThisOuTspamoptushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> especially if you compare it per man mile traveled per flight ;->
>
> > {Original Message removed}

2005\09\21@102541 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 11:43 PM 9/21/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>space ship 1 flew 100km (and change) straight up then came down again (like
>a rock)
>to actually stay "up" at that point you have to execute a left turn and
>accelerate to 25 times the speed of sound or 7 kilometers per second (give
>or take)
>IE there is a fair way to go yet

Exactly. I'm sure it's a better ride than popping up to 25km in a MIG on
afterburners, but a bit of a sham as far as real space travel goes.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
spamBeGonespeffspamBeGonespaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2005\09\21@105308 by Mike Hord

picon face
> > NASA chose the shuttle-derived option for its launch system due to its
> > superior safety, cost and its availability.
>
> Ha! I have heard that before... Cost and availability? Maybe... Superior
> Safety? Never!

Safety for the CEV WILL BE BETTER than the shuttle.  Period.

Reasons:
1.  The "bugs" in the shuttle have been worked out, and the
same technology (SSME, SRB, external tank) will be applied
to the CEV.
2.  For the first time since Apollo, an escape tower will be used,
which would have saved the crew in the Challenger accident.
3.  The mounting of the actual crew vehicle, ahead of all launch
hardware, eliminates the possibility of damage caused by bits
falling off the launch hardware.  That eliminates the accident
that killed Columbia.

That's not to say there can't be accidents, just that the accidents
which have hit the shuttles won't be repeated.  A reduction in the
potential accident pool is an improvement in safety.  And most
likely, in this case, a significant increase in safety.

The shuttle's "flaws" are caused by its dual role as a people
transporter and a cargo hauler.  Very few things can lift as
much mass to LEO as the space shuttle.  The CEV is "just"
a crew vehicle- large loads needed by the crew on orbit will
be lifted by a different vehicle.

It'll also be cheaper to develop than the shuttle, since it uses
existing shuttle technology, which allows them to bypass the
incredible expense of "man-rating" that technology.

Mike H.

2005\09\21@111352 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> Ha! I have heard that before... Cost and availability?
>> Maybe... Superior Safety? Never!
>
>Unless you have some figures to back that up,
>it sounds like an emotional knee jerk statement
>to me.  I don't know if the shuttle is in fact
>safer than other alternatives, but it's far
>from obvious that it's not.

Perhaps I can point people at a letter in the Sept 12 "Space News" by
Stephen A Evans.

Titled "Throwing out the Wheat and keeping the Chaff" it appears he was
involved in some of the design studies, and has some interesting comments.

Quote 1
"Engine design decisions started with aerospike vs staged combustion engine
and progressed to details like extendible vs fixed nozzles. When the
re-usable booster was abandoned, we knew that most of the promise of the STS
was lost."

Quote 2
"Two items assumed to be low technology, an O-ring and foam insulation,
caused the loss of the Challenger and Columbia orbiters, while many
high-technology items operated as planned."

Quote 3
"The orbiter itself has never experienced a failure. The parts of the STS
that have caused mission loss are the solid rocket boosters and the external
tank. Neither performed as originally designed. By treating the solid rocket
booster and the external tank out of specification performance as
maintenance issues, NASA doomed two orbiters and their crews. Maintenance
only applies to re-useable parts. The solid rocket booster and external tank
are non-conforming parts whose problems are caused by a faulty design or
manufacturing process.

NASA is thinking of retaining the external tank and the solid rocket
booster. The logic seems to be that by eliminating the orbiter, the part
that works, the other parts can be used because there will be no orbiter for
them to damage."

He has a number of other things to say along the same line.

2005\09\21@111810 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Safety for the CEV WILL BE BETTER than the shuttle.  Period.
>
>Reasons:
>1.  The "bugs" in the shuttle have been worked out,
>and the same technology (SSME, SRB, external tank)
>will be applied to the CEV.

I have some doubts. To quote a bit more from the letter I quoted in my last
mail

""For non-reusable parts like the solid rocket booster and the external
tank, each launch is a new statistical event for an item that has never
flown or been test fired on the ground. Once a re-useable part works it will
work every time if maintained to specification"

2005\09\21@114316 by olin piclist

face picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> ""For non-reusable parts like the solid rocket booster and the external
> tank, each launch is a new statistical event for an item that has never
> flown or been test fired on the ground. Once a re-useable part works it
> will work every time if maintained to specification"

I don't think it's that clear.  Reusable parts suffer fatigue.  This can be
non-obvious and unpredictable and therefore not always in the maintenence
schedule.  Look at a number of aircraft accidents caused by fatigued parts.
Yes, some of these should have been caught by the established maintenence
procedures, but not all.  If I remember correctly, the Aloha Airlines
accident where a large part of the outer skin blew off was due to fatigue,
but not something that was expected and therefore not in the maintenence
procudures.

It comes down to the relative likelyhood of early failures versus unforseen
wear and tear or aging failures.  I don't think either can be dismissed out
of hand.  The fact that the person you quote did puts all his other comments
in question too.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\09\21@114658 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Sep 21, 2005, at 6:43 AM, Jake Anderson wrote:

> Space ship 1 flew 100km straight up then came down again.  To actually
> stay "up" at that point you have to execute a left turn and accelerate
> to 25 times the speed...

Very nicely phrased!  I'll have to remember that one...

BillW

2005\09\21@115338 by Mike Hord

picon face
> Perhaps I can point people at a letter in the Sept 12 "Space News" by
> Stephen A Evans.
>
> Titled "Throwing out the Wheat and keeping the Chaff" it appears he was
> involved in some of the design studies, and has some interesting comments.

While I'm certain I can't claim expert status as I'm sure Mr. Evans can, I
do see some flaws in his points.

> Quote 1
> "Engine design decisions started with aerospike vs staged combustion engine
> and progressed to details like extendible vs fixed nozzles. When the
> re-usable booster was abandoned, we knew that most of the promise of the STS
> was lost."

We aren't talking about another STS, just reusing some of the proven parts.

> Quote 2
> "Two items assumed to be low technology, an O-ring and foam insulation,
> caused the loss of the Challenger and Columbia orbiters, while many
> high-technology items operated as planned."

The O-ring problem is fixed- there hasn't been another SRB failure
since then.  I think the SRBs can be considered a proven and solid
piece of equipment.  As for the foam, the piece that has been a problem,
repeatedly, is the piece of foam covering the joint between the orbiter and
the tank.  No orbiter, no joint.  Plus, nothing for any foam falling off to
damage.

Worth noting is that a very similar problem occured in prior generations
of spacecraft- bits falling off as the ship ascends.  In that case, it was
usually ice from condensation freezing on the side of the rocket due to
the super cold LOX.  It just never caused a problem before because
there was never anything for the debris to hit on its way by.

{Quote hidden}

What NASA is really doing here is spinning chaff into gold.  Despite Mr.
Evans assertion that an orbiter never failed, the "truth" is that the central
failure in both cases was the orbiter- it failed to pull the crew to safety
when the SRB blew up, and it failed to bring the crew back to earth
safely after being struck by a relatively small piece of debris.

Of course, it's all opinion.  Obviously, NASA's opinion is that the bits
worth saving are the SRBs and SSMEs.  To save the SSMEs, you
need to save some variation on the ET.  Remember, the STS was
built as a cargo plane that flies a little higher than most.  Even the
Delta IV Heavy can't deliver the load a space shuttle can to orbit.

During an early Mercury test lauch (MA-3?), the Atlas booster exploded,
violently, shortly after liftoff.  Gus Grissom and Gordon Cooper were
both almost killed, flying chase planes following it up, but the ship on
top was pulled to safety by the escape tower and its crew would have
survived.  The shuttle doesn't have such an abort mode- it's tethered
to the ET, at least, until quite late in the game.  The CEV is intended
to shear away these shortcomings and leave just the best elements
of the STS.

Mike H.

2005\09\21@120300 by Mike Hord

picon face
> I have some doubts. To quote a bit more from the letter I quoted in my last
> mail
>
> ""For non-reusable parts like the solid rocket booster and the external
> tank, each launch is a new statistical event for an item that has never
> flown or been test fired on the ground. Once a re-useable part works it will
> work every time if maintained to specification"

I agree with Olin- fatigue is a HUGE factor in reusable parts.  I think
a reusable part, even maintained to spec, is still more likely to fail
than a disposable part which is manufactured to spec.

QC can add a lot of nines to the reliability of a product, especially
when one factors in the money and effort NASA puts into it.  Say
an external tank is 99.999% reliable.  Each tank has that reliability,
per launch episode.

Launch the same 99.999% shuttle over and over, and fatigue will,
over time and in ways unpredicted by engineering studies, start
to reduce the number of nines in the equation.

Furthermore, the shuttle really can't be considered an efficient
reusable vehicle.  The effort involved in testing, replacing, and
bonding the heatshield tiles on the underside of the ship takes
similar effort to the building of a brand new Apollo-type craft.
After every mission.  AND the shuttles were speced for 100
flights or 10 years.  Columbia, at the time she was lost, was
22 years past her first flight.

Mike H.

2005\09\21@133848 by Gus Salavatore Calabrese

face picon face
> Ha! I have heard that before... Cost and availability? Maybe...  
> Superior
> Safety? Never!


I agree

the priorities could be cost, innovation, availability in that order  
with
safety way down the list.  This is exploration,  &^%@#

AGSC

2005\09\21@150932 by gacrowell

flavicon
face

1.  I didn't notice anything in the NASA announcements about whether
they would try to recover/reuse the SRB's that are used on these 'next
generation' spacecraft.  Anyone know?  Of course IIRC, the last thing I
read on this subject was that it wasn't turning out to be cost effective
to reuse them anyway.

2.  The reason the orbiter was on the side of the shuttle/tank combo was
that they wanted the SSME's to be recoverable, so they had to be on the
orbiter, so the orbiter had to be on the 'side' of the stack to make the
3 engines useable.  With the 'next generation' it looks like they are
tossing 5 SSME's with each cargo launch.  Other ELV's are using
cheap(er) engines.  Of course IIRC, the last thing I read on this
subject was that it wasn't turning out to be cost effective to reuse the
SSME's anyway.  Is the 'next generation' cargo ship really going to do
anything that can't be done with current and under development ELV's,
cheaper?

3.  Losing the shuttle concept takes away one capability that was nice
to have - the ability to return a cargo to earth.  Made re-usable
experiment pallets possible, etc.  Other than the crew, the 'next
generation' return from space is limited.

Gary Crowell

2005\09\21@171516 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
>
> Unless you have some figures to back that up, it sounds like an emotional
> knee jerk statement to me.



I just don't believe in "superior safety".... I'm sorry!

2005\09\21@171927 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
On 9/21/05, Mike Hord <TakeThisOuTmike.hordEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > NASA chose the shuttle-derived option for its launch system due to its
> > > superior safety, cost and its availability.
> >
> > Ha! I have heard that before... Cost and availability? Maybe... Superior
> > Safety? Never!
>
> Safety for the CEV WILL BE BETTER than the shuttle. Period.
>
> Reasons:
> 1. The "bugs" in the shuttle have been worked out, and the
> same technology (SSME, SRB, external tank) will be applied
> to the CEV.



Isn't the shuttle's technology a little outdated by todays standards though?

2005\09\21@173004 by Peter

picon face


On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, James Humes wrote:

> I see. Well, why didn't they outfit Spaceship One with a warp drive?
>  Don't flame me, I know!:)

The 3rd world country that has the only source of dilithium crystals is
at war with the US.

Peter

2005\09\21@173010 by Peter

picon face

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, James Humes wrote:

> I liked the philosophy of the plane that won the X-prize. I'm not clear if
> it made it far enough up to get OUT into space, but I think it proved the

Getting out into space and staying out there are 2 different things. The
first requires 1e6 J/kg and the second 3e6 J/kg, roughly three times
more. Disregarding small problems such as navigation, communications and
(remote) control well over about 2000km (the flyer will be beyond the
local radio horizon in 15 minutes or less), you have to handle reentry
during which the 3e6 J/kg will turn into heat.

To put this into more normal figures, a coke can considered of
negligible weight a third full of water coming down from orbit with say
2e6 J/kg will weigh about 100 grams and if it reenters in about 6
minutes it will be equivalent to being heated with ~550 Watts for that
amount of time. Its temperature will increase with about 1.4 degrees /
second. The water will boil after about 60 seconds (asuming a valve
keeps the internal pressure at 1 atm and starting at 20C) and then ~80%
of the water will evaporate to absorb the heat leaving about 20 grams of
water in the can. Thus you expend 80% of the starting mass for cooling
purposes. Not good. With a heat shield it could probably return with 80%
payload. You get to design the heatshield.

Peter

2005\09\21@173427 by Mike Hord

picon face
> 2.  The reason the orbiter was on the side of the shuttle/tank combo was
> that they wanted the SSME's to be recoverable, so they had to be on the
> orbiter, so the orbiter had to be on the 'side' of the stack to make the
> 3 engines useable.  With the 'next generation' it looks like they are
> tossing 5 SSME's with each cargo launch.  Other ELV's are using
> cheap(er) engines.  Of course IIRC, the last thing I read on this
> subject was that it wasn't turning out to be cost effective to reuse the
> SSME's anyway.  Is the 'next generation' cargo ship really going to do
> anything that can't be done with current and under development ELV's,
> cheaper?

I have no answer for that.  It seems to me that you might be right-
why not use a current ELV (say, Delta IV Heavy) to put the big load
into orbit, and just use the new system with the CEV?

I guess I don't know what the "new system" capacity is- 5 SSMEs
and 2 SRBs would almost certainly outlift anything on the market.

> 3.  Losing the shuttle concept takes away one capability that was nice
> to have - the ability to return a cargo to earth.  Made re-usable
> experiment pallets possible, etc.  Other than the crew, the 'next
> generation' return from space is limited.

Less necessary now, with the ISS.  Any experimental labs can be
static on the ISS.  Remember, the primary reasons for the CEV are
travel to and from the ISS and the moon (and maybe Mars).  With the
shuttle, many missions were turning out to be 7 people with a big
empty cargo bay.  Or at least, a cargo bay that could have been
much more full.

Mike H.

2005\09\21@173819 by Mike Hord

picon face
> > Safety for the CEV WILL BE BETTER than the shuttle. Period.
> >
> > Reasons:
> > 1. The "bugs" in the shuttle have been worked out, and the
> > same technology (SSME, SRB, external tank) will be applied
> > to the CEV.
>
> Isn't the shuttle's technology a little outdated by todays standards though?

The SSME is still one of the most advanced engines in existance,
which is kind of sad considering that it IS pretty long in the tooth.

Plus, one huge benefit of all is that all that equipment (ET, SRB,
SSME) has gone through the man-rating necessary to transport
people into space.  Cutting that out saves a lot of time and money.

Mike H.

2005\09\21@174946 by olin piclist

face picon face
Sean Schouten wrote:
> I just don't believe in "superior safety".... I'm sorry!

I'm not sure what you mean.  Certainly some things are more safe than
others.  It's certainly possible, for example, to go back and compute the
fraction of person-flights where the person got killed for the space shuttle
and for other space craft like the Apollo or Soyuz.  If that fraction is
significantly lower for the space shuttle, then how can you say it doesn't
have superior safety?


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\09\21@180314 by Sean Schouten

face picon face
Superior as opposed to the space shuttle; I was reffering to supperior
safety in the sence of: There is nothing that can go wrong. Might be wrong
of me to think of it in that sence.

Anyway, I just looked at the material they have on the NASA website, and the
craft doesn't seem all too re-usable... Now when they say "Low-Cost" they're
talking about maintenance? Is it the stellar equal of a throw-away lighter?
It seems that the human race is out to pollute space as well... I find it
shamefull!

2005\09\21@181652 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, James Humes wrote:
>
> > I see. Well, why didn't they outfit Spaceship One with a warp drive?
> >  Don't flame me, I know!:)
>
> The 3rd world country that has the only source of dilithium
> crystals is at war with the US.
>
> Peter


Actually, they have been invaded by the US because someone thought they were
preparing to go to war with the US, but we haven't been able to find the
"doomsday machine" they were said to be building. That gaff is being covered
up because they look sort of like these other people who actually did strike
against the USA and the President has been able to confuse the people so
they think the people who struck at the US were the same people that we
invaded.

And the dilithium mines are only now being repaired after the war and have
not yet started producing to meet demand levels. Also, the companies that
process the dilithium, are finding that they have a captive market so they
can raise prices, and have a nice little "profit taking"

In any case, people in the US have been assured that there is no lack of
Dilitium in the long run and are happily purchasing larger and larger
spaceships to commute back and forth to work in.

And as of today, 1,907 US men and women have died invading that country.

10 miles per gallon, 2 soldiers per day.

http://www.massmind.org/images/IraqShirt.pdf

Onward to the stars...

2005\09\21@182118 by David Van Horn

picon face
> Anyway, I just looked at the material they have on the NASA website,
and
> the
> craft doesn't seem all too re-usable... Now when they say "Low-Cost"
> they're
> talking about maintenance? Is it the stellar equal of a throw-away
> lighter?
> It seems that the human race is out to pollute space as well... I find
it
> shamefull!

Recycling was a big fad when the shuttle was proposed, and it wouldn't
have worked politically if it weren't "recyclable".

I've heard that they recycle the SRBs even though they cost more to
recycle than making new ones.




2005\09\21@233700 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Well....

I haven't read all the messages on this thread (yet) but I am surprised I
haven't yet seen mention of the _real_ safety problem with the shuttle: the
'we gotta fly or else' mindset of NASA.

Unless this mindset changes (can it?) the new program will still be faced
with the biggest safety issue from the shuttle age.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

2005\09\22@004738 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 23:33 -0400, Bob Ammerman wrote:
> Well....
>
> I haven't read all the messages on this thread (yet) but I am surprised I
> haven't yet seen mention of the _real_ safety problem with the shuttle: the
> 'we gotta fly or else' mindset of NASA.
>
> Unless this mindset changes (can it?) the new program will still be faced
> with the biggest safety issue from the shuttle age.

IMHO this mindset will always be with us, to an extent.

Flying to space is a risk. It is impossible to make it 100% safe.
Somewhere you draw a line where safety ends and "has to go" begins.

The unfortunate truth is sometimes this line wanders a little to far to
the "has to go" side, and then things end up happening (it's scary to
think about all the things that probably go wrong that the public isn't
aware of).

This "has to go" mindset is inherent to all human endeavour involving
risk. If safety were #1 nobody would get out of bed in the morning.

TTYL


-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

2005\09\22@080458 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> 2.  For the first time since Apollo, an escape tower will be used,
> which would have saved the crew in the Challenger accident.

The sad thing is that a parachute on the crew module might have saved
the crew in Challenger.


       RM



2005\09\22@085221 by Aaron

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

>> 2.  For the first time since Apollo, an escape tower will be used,
>> which would have saved the crew in the Challenger accident.
>
>
> The sad thing is that a parachute on the crew module might have saved
> the crew in Challenger.
>
I thought the real sad thing was that if management would've listened to
the Morton Thiokol engineers about the o-ring problem, they wouldn't
have even needed a parachute.

http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~jackh/eod/engineer/engineer-219.html

Aaron

2005\09\22@100229 by Denny Esterline

picon face
> Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> >> 2.  For the first time since Apollo, an escape tower will be used,
> >> which would have saved the crew in the Challenger accident.
> >
> >
> > The sad thing is that a parachute on the crew module might have saved
> > the crew in Challenger.
> >
> I thought the real sad thing was that if management would've listened to
> the Morton Thiokol engineers about the o-ring problem, they wouldn't
> have even needed a parachute.
>
> http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~jackh/eod/engineer/engineer-219.html
>

I recently read an accounting of the events from Roger M. Boisjoly the
Morton Thiokol engineer that originally raised the concern. According to his
account it wasn't NASA that refused to listen, Morton Thiokol management
overrode his recommendation to not launch.

The article I read was in Computer and Engineering Ethics by Deb Johnson,
but a quick google turned up this online copy of his article:
http://onlineethics.org/essays/shuttle/ Especially notice the part titled
Telcon Meeting.

-Denny

2005\09\23@161417 by Peter

picon face

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, James Newtons Massmind wrote:

>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, James Humes wrote:
>>
>>> I see. Well, why didn't they outfit Spaceship One with a warp drive?
>>>  Don't flame me, I know!:)
>>
>> The 3rd world country that has the only source of dilithium crystals
>> is at war with the US.
>>
>> Peter
>
> Actually, they have been invaded by the US because someone thought
> they were preparing to go to war with the US, but we haven't been able
> to find the "doomsday machine" they were said to be building. That
> gaff is being covered up because they look sort of like these other
> people who actually did strike

James, I do not think that we were thinking about that one. At least I
was not. Around here we have not so fond memories from the 1st gulf war
when they did have some items which they did use.

Peter

2005\09\23@164414 by Barry Gershenfeld

face picon face
Dr Richard Feynman (known not-exactly-accurately as "the guy who discovered
the O-ring problem") wrote his own addition to the official report on the
Challenger accident.  In it he warns that judging safety in terms of "Well
it's worked so far" doesn't prove what it seems to.   A google on "feynman
report challenger" turned up the report on the first hit.  The first two
paragraphs follow:

 * * *

It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the
probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The
estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures
come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management.
What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1
part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for
300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask "What is the
cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?"

We have also found that certification criteria used in Flight Readiness
Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The argument that
the same risk was flown before without failure is often accepted as an
argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because of this, obvious
weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes without a sufficiently
serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a flight because of their
continued presence.

2005\09\23@172929 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> The
> argument that
> the same risk was flown before without failure is often
> accepted as an
> argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because of
> this, obvious
> weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes without a
> sufficiently
> serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a flight because of their
> continued presence.

Note that the failure of the first Ariane 5 was caused by using software
that was space proven (but on another rocket!) instead of writing new
software (even testing with the new rpcket parameters was not deemed
necessarry, because the software was space-proven!).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\09\23@174901 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 01:43 PM 9/23/2005 -0700, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I particularly liked the burning of an o-ring seal 1/3 of the way through
(for basically unknown reasons) described as a 3:1 safety factor.

That's the sort of garbage you'd expect from marketdroids, not rocket
scientists.

>Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
RemoveMEspeffspamTakeThisOuTinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2005\09\23@190759 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:56:57 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

>
> I particularly liked the burning of an o-ring seal 1/3 of the way through
> (for basically unknown reasons) described as a 3:1 safety factor.

Good Grief!  I suppose they could say the same thing of the 737 that landed on Wednesday with the nose-gear at
90 degrees to the designed angle - two of the three undercarriage legs were working fine!  :-)

> That's the sort of garbage you'd expect from marketdroids, not rocket
> scientists.

I get the feeling from reading about Challenger, that a lot of the management involved were much more worried
about their image (and blame-shifting) than about technology or even safety!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\09\23@191828 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Wouter,

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 23:29:28 +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> Note that the failure of the first Ariane 5 was caused by using software
> that was space proven (but on another rocket!) instead of writing new
> software (even testing with the new rpcket parameters was not deemed
> necessarry, because the software was space-proven!).

Makes you wish there was a crime of "Negligent Software Management", doesn't it?  

Makes me wonder why I bothered with the level of detail of test-cases I had to write for a pensions system
once:  there was an "effective" date and the logic had to behave differently depending on where it fell in
relation to a Start and End date.  The tests had to have the effective date well before, the day before, the
day of, and the day after the Start date, well after, the day after, the day of and the day before the End
date, and in between the Start and End dates well clear of both.  9 tests just for one item of data!  

And these rocket scientists were allowed to do no testing at all???

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\09\24@035757 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> And these rocket scientists were allowed to do no testing at all???

No, the software was extensively tested (but only with Ariane 4
parameters).

Skipping tests is a management choice. (In the Ariane case this was
heavily influenced by the French attitude "spaceproven is spaceproven".
note that in some cases this attitude is actaully better than any bunch
of ground tests).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\09\26@090711 by gacrowell

flavicon
face

> Subject: Re: [OT] FW: NASA RELEASES PLANS FOR NEXT GENERATION
> SPACECRAFT
>
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:56:57 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
> >
> > I particularly liked the burning of an o-ring seal 1/3 of
> the way through
> > (for basically unknown reasons) described as a 3:1 safety factor.
>
> Good Grief!  I suppose they could say the same thing of the
> 737 that landed on Wednesday with the nose-gear at
> 90 degrees to the designed angle - two of the three
> undercarriage legs were working fine!  :-)

OT and just to be picky, it was an Airbus.  And, its happened a
half-dozen times before.

GC

2005\09\26@103602 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 07:07 AM 9/26/2005 -0600, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Right, it's the Airbus planes that keep having spectacular problems that
cause no deaths (the above one and the Air France runway overshoot in
Toronto), while 737s are killing hundreds (140 in Medan, 161 in Venezuela,
and 121 in Greece). (All incidents since August).

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
speffEraseMEspam.....interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2005\09\26@111816 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:07:07 -0600, EraseMEgacrowellspammicron.com wrote:

> > Good Grief!  I suppose they could say the same thing of the
> > 737 that landed on Wednesday with the nose-gear at
> > 90 degrees to the designed angle - two of the three
> > undercarriage legs were working fine!  :-)
>
> OT and just to be picky, it was an Airbus.  

Was it?  I only saw it on a television in a restaurant, and it looked like a 737 from where I was sitting.  I
presume it was an A319 or A320 then?

> And, its happened a half-dozen times before.

Well if I was that pilot I would have refused to fly it... Oh, you don't mean to *that* aircraft?  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\09\26@120316 by gacrowell

flavicon
face



{Quote hidden}

I don't see the one in Venezuela, but there was one in Peru (39), also
in August.

Fatal Event Rate Per Million Flights
Model                   Rate  Flights  FLE* Events
Airbus A300             0.65   9.26M   5.99   9
Airbus A310             1.29   3.57M   4.62   5
Airbus A320/319/321     0.15  17.64M   2.61   5
Boeing 737-100/200**    0.56  54.14M  30.54  43
Boeing 737-300/400/500  0.24  45.95M  10.99  14
Boeing 737 (all models) 0.41 100.09M  40.66  54

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm

GC

2005\09\26@131404 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 10:03 AM 9/26/2005 -0600, you wrote:

>I don't see the one in Venezuela, but there was one in Peru (39), also
>in August.

Yes, I mixed them up, the Venezuela one was an MD82.


{Quote hidden}

Too bad they don't show the numbers of flights for the A330 or A340. I
assume they're not listed because they've not (yet) had a passenger fatality.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
RemoveMEspeffEraseMEspamEraseMEinterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2005\09\26@133654 by gacrowell

flavicon
face
> Fatal Event Rate Per Million Flights
> Model                   Rate  Flights  FLE* Events
> Airbus A300             0.65   9.26M   5.99   9
> Airbus A310             1.29   3.57M   4.62   5
> Airbus A320/319/321     0.15  17.64M   2.61   5
> Boeing 737-100/200**    0.56  54.14M  30.54  43
> Boeing 737-300/400/500  0.24  45.95M  10.99  14
> Boeing 737 (all models) 0.41 100.09M  40.66  54
>
> www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm
>

I suppose I should comment on that table (use fixed font) before someone
suggests that I am making unfavorable comparisons between Boeing/Airbus
(on either side).  I don't think it indicates the Airbus A300/310 are
unsafe; I think it means its too early to tell - I suspect those rates
will improve significantly.  I think it indicates the 737-100/200 (the
"**" means out of production) are end-of-life and probably should be
retired, particularly with the recent history.  I think that if I have a
choice between an aircraft introduced (and possibly built) in the '70's
vs. one introduced in the '90, I'd prefer the latter.  I notice the
737-100/200 are no longer in use by any U.S. carriers; I wonder how many
are still in use elsewhere?

GC

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...