And sounds a lot like what was being accomplished by Bush. Unpatriotic was the charge leveled repeatedly. The insane spending was initiated by Bush. The only howls are because a few different groups are getting the payouts and bribes than the Republicans would have given. Many of the payouts are the same under either party. The key to recognize is that the corporations don't care which party is in charge as long as they have been thoroughly bought. In fact, by having 2 and only two parties, the parties can fight over 'issues' and make voting seem important, when the (big) corporations still win. And having small companies die is great for the big corporations because they get them for a song. And it's not stockholders who make out like bandits, it's the actual bandits, CEO's, CFO's and cronies, who have the SEC in their back pocket.
You mean Columbus is going back to America (West Indies)? He did that already. How is that going to inspire anybody?
Well I have checked the public, particularly that reported by the media and I have the perfect solution: Send Paris Hilton or Britney Spears with a camera focused on them 24/7 (probably between their legs) and have the other astronauts have sex with them regularly. This way the government makes money back on selling the videos. It'll be the first pay per view coverage of the astronauts. Plus this gives NASA another way of getting vital technology to the masses: either VD cures or a means of prevention transmission of VD. Now since it will likely take NASA years before such a plan could go into effect, Paris and Brit will be too old, but the next talentless 'celebrity' will be readily available.
Public goes cold on photo ops rather quickly building a plan based on the photo ops is likely doomed to fail. I don't even think it's all that necessary to build the public support as long as the goals are clear and supportable. I am not so sure about that for the current NASA plan
The LES at that time in flight should work as designed and get it away from the propellant. The time is outside of the range specified in the Air Force briefing. Plus there's much less propellant so the danger should be less even if the results are different than estimated.
Actually the range safety charges do NOT go down the entire length of the Shuttle SRB. They are not present on the aft segment, which might cause a definitely unsafe fragment, at least early in flight, which of course is about the only time people might be in danger. NASA is supposedly going to fix that mistake with the Ares.
Exactly. Similar for the early airplanes. Lot of folks died, but there were plenty still willing to fly. There's a similar load of astronauts willing to fly even with problems. They should still try to fix problems, but the goal shouldn't necessarily be the most reliable rocket that can be built. There's an optimization level there in the faster, better, cheaper triangle. You overload on better and cheaper and faster go right out the window. There's also something to be said about test flights. Especially the flight version, not a downgraded version like the Ares I-X.
Heck it's worse than that. A coworker was t-boned by a guy running a red light and nearly died. Lifetime of medical problems. Because she didn't die, he was charged only with traffic offense(s). And because of that accident, I am slower to move out at that green light (and others) because of fear of other stupid/aggressive/ignorant/clueless drivers.
The last accident I was in I was on the cell phone. But I was stopping at the red light as I was supposed to, the guy behind me did not and rear ended me. The problem with these studies is that they study the effects of using a cell phone, which should have the effect of reducing a driver's skill in almost every case. The problem is that the top 50% of drivers using a cell phone may still be better than the bottom 25% without. If true, the better law would be to limit who has a driver's license, more than is currently done. I don't have any data to support that of course, but it should also be studied before concluding that cell phone laws will fix anything.
Eventually, the rockets start heading toward land and the Flight Control Officers active the destruct system which unzipped one side of the rockets. By that point the rockets had very little propellant left. The big concern over solid rockets is early in flight when large amounts could fall back to land and deflagrate (not detonate) 100000 lbs of propellant impacting land at terminal velocity would likely cause a significant overpressure wave (bigger than any the Mythbusters have tried). SRB starts with over 10 times that amounts.
I was military too (though Air Force--chair force) and yes, in case of war, that is what you signed up for. If armies can't inflict casualties they're doing it wrong. So unless you're going up against the junior varsity you should expect to take casualties. And if they have chemical warfare in their arsenal, 50% seems right. US doesn't go 20 years without some sort of conflict, so there's a good chance a ground pounder could see some action in his career. I knew basic math, so I avoided Army and Marine Corps. The key difference is the odds to any one individual. The astronauts are still more likely to die than any specific person in the military. The key is that NASA only has 4 or 5 opportunities a year at the cost of about a billion or so in equipment and mission each time. Military has many thousands of opportunities a year for something to go wrong and someone to die with much smaller opportunity costs. NASA does that a couple times and no more NASA. Military does it 100 times and it gets explained as the cost of protecting the country and volunteer military and a couple guys get early retirement.
I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure there was no 'bidding' per se on Ares. It was designed to use existing equipment and therefore existing contracts and contractors.
Actually, of all vehicles flown 5 times in the past 30 years, their record is the worst. That of course ignores all those vehicles that never made it to 5 flights, of which there are several. They're getting cash from NASA, but not much else...which is probably a good thing.
How many flights (and years) did it take to make airplanes reliable? I agree with your statements but where state of the art is with rockets is probably the equivalent of 1920s in airplanes--they work most of the time but a problem, especially a fatal one, is not unexpected. Because we launch (and test) so very few rockets, I expect at least 20 years before we get significant reliability upgrades. And statistically, longer than that before we 'prove' that increased reliability.
Look at the video from the Delta II failure back in 1997 that happened about 10 seconds above the pad and realize there were people in the blockhouse right near the launch pad. No casualties, but that was the last launch with people in that blockhouse. That early in the launch and I don't think it was 3 mile wide...only 1-2 miles at most.
Do you have a reference for his statement? Not doubting you, in fact I believe that he probably did say it. I just want to see the quote and any additional information. Hanley was also quoted as saying the likelihood of an Ares failure was about 1 in 3000 (see Orlando Sentinel or Florida Today) which is complete nonsense.
The Air Force is the one calculating the risk to the public. For every launch from the Cape or KSC. So the Air Force accepts risk on every launch. Air Force doesn't care if your launch is 100% guaranteed to fail...as long as that flight termination system works and public safety is kept reasonable (reasonable is defined in regulations). Likewise, astronauts on a shuttle are going to die during a failure. The Air Force doesn't stop NASA from launching the Shuttles. The briefing was provided to NASA as informational, not directive. NASA made it public, probably by someone who wants Ares to die a quick death.
Except 3 of the 5 Falcon I launches have failed. And odds are the first Falcon 9 will fail too. The good news is that's fairly typical with 'rocket science' Though 3 failures in 4 like the Falcon I rarely leads to launch #5 in the past 25 years (actually I think you have to go back about 40 years or so to see that kind of managerial acceptance of a learning curve.
Except that SpaceX has been successful only twice in 5 tries. And while I agree that SpaceX would do it cheaper and likely faster, I'm not as sure of the better part with them.
I don't have many bad things to say about current NASA engineers. Not a lot of good, but little bad. NASA managers on the other hand...I attribute both Shuttle failures to the managers and basically so do the accident investigation boards. NASA Management is responsible for the mess that is Ares. Griffin for Ares existing at all, and many levels of management for the current messes.
The examples you provide are an on pad failure, and a second stage failure. Both of which are outside the time period of danger mentioned by the Air Force. The NASA system would probably succeed near 100% in those instances as well. With the Soyuz being liquid, the problems with the NASA system (inability to shutdown the rocket without spreading burning propellant) would not be present.
At the time mentioned in the briefing, the vehicle is barely over the ocean, and a slight turn back towards the launch site could put it into the local community, Orlando is unlikely, but the county is a half-million people or so.
I am a rocket scientist. The Orion does have an escape motor. And outside of the range specified in the briefing it gets it safely away from the SRB propellant. The problem is due to it being a solid propellant booster, when you decide to get out of Dodge, you only have three choices: Blow up the SRB at the same time, blow it up shortly after the escape motor lights, or don't blow it up at all. For public safety and some other reasons, #3 is not acceptable. #1 is not acceptable because now you're always going to have flaming debris around the capsule. So #2 is the solution with the detail being how long of a delay. NASA's simulation have determined the most optimal time delay, for their purposes. The Air Force has agreed with that value. But that delay is the time the SRB keeps following the capsule. And it's still accelerating. And it's accelerating faster because it no longer has to push the capsule. This is a problem that can occur with ANY solid propellant choice, so the Direct crowd and NASA's shuttle alternative may also have this potential problem. Only a purely liquid propellant vehicle that could be shutdown immediately on activating of the escape motor could avoid this problem.
From the Air Force's point of view, this would not affect Ares' launch as long as the flight termination system works--Air Force is responsible for public safety, not the astronauts, that's NASA responsibility. Air Force sent their analysis to NASA, NASA (someone at NASA) made it public.
Slashdot Mirror
I just know I don't want to be in charge of the Fully User Capable Key Encryption Device program.
And sounds a lot like what was being accomplished by Bush. Unpatriotic was the charge leveled repeatedly. The insane spending was initiated by Bush. The only howls are because a few different groups are getting the payouts and bribes than the Republicans would have given. Many of the payouts are the same under either party. The key to recognize is that the corporations don't care which party is in charge as long as they have been thoroughly bought. In fact, by having 2 and only two parties, the parties can fight over 'issues' and make voting seem important, when the (big) corporations still win. And having small companies die is great for the big corporations because they get them for a song. And it's not stockholders who make out like bandits, it's the actual bandits, CEO's, CFO's and cronies, who have the SEC in their back pocket.
You mean Columbus is going back to America (West Indies)? He did that already. How is that going to inspire anybody?
Well I have checked the public, particularly that reported by the media and I have the perfect solution: Send Paris Hilton or Britney Spears with a camera focused on them 24/7 (probably between their legs) and have the other astronauts have sex with them regularly. This way the government makes money back on selling the videos. It'll be the first pay per view coverage of the astronauts. Plus this gives NASA another way of getting vital technology to the masses: either VD cures or a means of prevention transmission of VD. Now since it will likely take NASA years before such a plan could go into effect, Paris and Brit will be too old, but the next talentless 'celebrity' will be readily available.
Public goes cold on photo ops rather quickly building a plan based on the photo ops is likely doomed to fail. I don't even think it's all that necessary to build the public support as long as the goals are clear and supportable. I am not so sure about that for the current NASA plan
The LES at that time in flight should work as designed and get it away from the propellant. The time is outside of the range specified in the Air Force briefing. Plus there's much less propellant so the danger should be less even if the results are different than estimated.
Actually the range safety charges do NOT go down the entire length of the Shuttle SRB. They are not present on the aft segment, which might cause a definitely unsafe fragment, at least early in flight, which of course is about the only time people might be in danger. NASA is supposedly going to fix that mistake with the Ares.
Exactly. Similar for the early airplanes. Lot of folks died, but there were plenty still willing to fly. There's a similar load of astronauts willing to fly even with problems. They should still try to fix problems, but the goal shouldn't necessarily be the most reliable rocket that can be built. There's an optimization level there in the faster, better, cheaper triangle. You overload on better and cheaper and faster go right out the window. There's also something to be said about test flights. Especially the flight version, not a downgraded version like the Ares I-X.
Heck it's worse than that. A coworker was t-boned by a guy running a red light and nearly died. Lifetime of medical problems. Because she didn't die, he was charged only with traffic offense(s). And because of that accident, I am slower to move out at that green light (and others) because of fear of other stupid/aggressive/ignorant/clueless drivers.
The last accident I was in I was on the cell phone. But I was stopping at the red light as I was supposed to, the guy behind me did not and rear ended me. The problem with these studies is that they study the effects of using a cell phone, which should have the effect of reducing a driver's skill in almost every case. The problem is that the top 50% of drivers using a cell phone may still be better than the bottom 25% without. If true, the better law would be to limit who has a driver's license, more than is currently done. I don't have any data to support that of course, but it should also be studied before concluding that cell phone laws will fix anything.
Eventually, the rockets start heading toward land and the Flight Control Officers active the destruct system which unzipped one side of the rockets. By that point the rockets had very little propellant left. The big concern over solid rockets is early in flight when large amounts could fall back to land and deflagrate (not detonate) 100000 lbs of propellant impacting land at terminal velocity would likely cause a significant overpressure wave (bigger than any the Mythbusters have tried). SRB starts with over 10 times that amounts.
I was military too (though Air Force--chair force) and yes, in case of war, that is what you signed up for. If armies can't inflict casualties they're doing it wrong. So unless you're going up against the junior varsity you should expect to take casualties. And if they have chemical warfare in their arsenal, 50% seems right. US doesn't go 20 years without some sort of conflict, so there's a good chance a ground pounder could see some action in his career. I knew basic math, so I avoided Army and Marine Corps. The key difference is the odds to any one individual. The astronauts are still more likely to die than any specific person in the military. The key is that NASA only has 4 or 5 opportunities a year at the cost of about a billion or so in equipment and mission each time. Military has many thousands of opportunities a year for something to go wrong and someone to die with much smaller opportunity costs. NASA does that a couple times and no more NASA. Military does it 100 times and it gets explained as the cost of protecting the country and volunteer military and a couple guys get early retirement.
I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure there was no 'bidding' per se on Ares. It was designed to use existing equipment and therefore existing contracts and contractors.
Actually, of all vehicles flown 5 times in the past 30 years, their record is the worst. That of course ignores all those vehicles that never made it to 5 flights, of which there are several. They're getting cash from NASA, but not much else...which is probably a good thing.
How many flights (and years) did it take to make airplanes reliable? I agree with your statements but where state of the art is with rockets is probably the equivalent of 1920s in airplanes--they work most of the time but a problem, especially a fatal one, is not unexpected. Because we launch (and test) so very few rockets, I expect at least 20 years before we get significant reliability upgrades. And statistically, longer than that before we 'prove' that increased reliability.
Ignore what I said about the reference. I saw the comment in the article.
That is exactly NASA's currentl design and what the Air Force was examining. The study was for the Ares I, not the I-X with no astronauts.
Look at the video from the Delta II failure back in 1997 that happened about 10 seconds above the pad and realize there were people in the blockhouse right near the launch pad. No casualties, but that was the last launch with people in that blockhouse. That early in the launch and I don't think it was 3 mile wide...only 1-2 miles at most.
Do you have a reference for his statement? Not doubting you, in fact I believe that he probably did say it. I just want to see the quote and any additional information. Hanley was also quoted as saying the likelihood of an Ares failure was about 1 in 3000 (see Orlando Sentinel or Florida Today) which is complete nonsense.
The Air Force is the one calculating the risk to the public. For every launch from the Cape or KSC. So the Air Force accepts risk on every launch. Air Force doesn't care if your launch is 100% guaranteed to fail...as long as that flight termination system works and public safety is kept reasonable (reasonable is defined in regulations). Likewise, astronauts on a shuttle are going to die during a failure. The Air Force doesn't stop NASA from launching the Shuttles. The briefing was provided to NASA as informational, not directive. NASA made it public, probably by someone who wants Ares to die a quick death.
Except 3 of the 5 Falcon I launches have failed. And odds are the first Falcon 9 will fail too. The good news is that's fairly typical with 'rocket science' Though 3 failures in 4 like the Falcon I rarely leads to launch #5 in the past 25 years (actually I think you have to go back about 40 years or so to see that kind of managerial acceptance of a learning curve.
Except that SpaceX has been successful only twice in 5 tries. And while I agree that SpaceX would do it cheaper and likely faster, I'm not as sure of the better part with them.
I don't have many bad things to say about current NASA engineers. Not a lot of good, but little bad. NASA managers on the other hand...I attribute both Shuttle failures to the managers and basically so do the accident investigation boards. NASA Management is responsible for the mess that is Ares. Griffin for Ares existing at all, and many levels of management for the current messes.
The examples you provide are an on pad failure, and a second stage failure. Both of which are outside the time period of danger mentioned by the Air Force. The NASA system would probably succeed near 100% in those instances as well. With the Soyuz being liquid, the problems with the NASA system (inability to shutdown the rocket without spreading burning propellant) would not be present.
At the time mentioned in the briefing, the vehicle is barely over the ocean, and a slight turn back towards the launch site could put it into the local community, Orlando is unlikely, but the county is a half-million people or so.
The wing commander and the vice commander at the 45th Space Wing are both African-American. Brig Gen Bolton, http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=9511 and http://www.patrick.af.mil/library/biographies/index.asp
I am a rocket scientist. The Orion does have an escape motor. And outside of the range specified in the briefing it gets it safely away from the SRB propellant. The problem is due to it being a solid propellant booster, when you decide to get out of Dodge, you only have three choices: Blow up the SRB at the same time, blow it up shortly after the escape motor lights, or don't blow it up at all. For public safety and some other reasons, #3 is not acceptable. #1 is not acceptable because now you're always going to have flaming debris around the capsule. So #2 is the solution with the detail being how long of a delay. NASA's simulation have determined the most optimal time delay, for their purposes. The Air Force has agreed with that value. But that delay is the time the SRB keeps following the capsule. And it's still accelerating. And it's accelerating faster because it no longer has to push the capsule. This is a problem that can occur with ANY solid propellant choice, so the Direct crowd and NASA's shuttle alternative may also have this potential problem. Only a purely liquid propellant vehicle that could be shutdown immediately on activating of the escape motor could avoid this problem.
From the Air Force's point of view, this would not affect Ares' launch as long as the flight termination system works--Air Force is responsible for public safety, not the astronauts, that's NASA responsibility. Air Force sent their analysis to NASA, NASA (someone at NASA) made it public.