X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-iy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.210.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPS id 5061376 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 16:24:05 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.180; envelope-from=fluffysheap@gmail.com Received: by iyh42 with SMTP id 42so4319805iyh.25 for ; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:23:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=MISHV6wbHw3wq4E9O0WXynlukGiJb4W0FwDNZdmNAbY=; b=u4LnFMt0qKyCB00FqKmLgIoKxLNi9pKyfdcGWsiOTZeysuL5TwFPGZs6Sa574n4jk7 x6z19OYmxbJ0fu177/Ik/53iJRJ8KEjtgEJ7I4UhkNT0KN1EnQgb4phILbwpg44VUIjj Gwu6NmM1paO0qIP05arlshLJkcbj7qHNUHLC8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.91.5 with SMTP id k5mr9129ibm.178.1311452611045; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:23:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.156.82 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 13:23:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:23:30 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Off Subject From: William Wilson To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5431eec0568dd04a8c25bab --bcaec5431eec0568dd04a8c25bab Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In the 60's, for whatever reason, there was a willingness to accept risk in the space program, probably because of the competition with the USSR. In effect, the risk of letting the USSR "get ahead" - signifying loss of military and geopolitical influence - was judged to be a greater risk than the possibility that some people might get blown up. (And let's not forget that some did, and others almost did). Today the culture has shifted so that risk is less tolerated, and the external motivator is gone. The risk aversion is not only a government phenomenon, but has infiltrated all levels of society - probably because of sensationalized media coverage, everybody is constantly worried about safety, even though almost everything is far, far safer than it has been at any time ever in history. But it's especially bad in government, which, generally speaking, would rather sacrifice actual safety in favor of covering their ass. As an example, it's almost impossible to get a new aircraft certified, so most progress is made in homebuilt aircraft, even though certified aircraft are far safer generally speaking. The relatively few available certified aircraft are either 50 year old designs, cost 5-10 times as much (adjusted for inflation) as new aircraft did in the 50s and 60s, or both - and they all still perform worse than the homebuilts. But somebody has to stick their neck out to approve something, and that's hard to get - even though the overall safety of general aviation is reduced as a result. The space program is just as bad. The Columbia accident, essentially, was caused by the government's tendency to assume that if something has been done before, it must be OK, and if something has changed, that's terrible - even if the change is for the better. Again it's all about covering their ass. If something has been done before, nobody can point the finger - even if everybody knows that something is unsafe. Everybody always knew that foam fell off the shuttle tank, but since it has been flown that way before= , it must have been OK - even though everyone knew that falling foam was a hazard ever since the very first orbital shuttle flight was hit by foam in 1981. In software, this sort of thing is called "cargo cult" thinking, and it's considered a great shame and embarrassment if you get caught doing it. In aerospace, it's not only business as usual, but to do otherwise is discouraged and comes at great personal career and even legal risk. Unsurprisingly, in the past 40 years, since all this took root, computing has made enormous progress and aerospace has made essentially none - except to the extent that computer technology has enabled things like GPS and glas= s cockpits. (The exception being the improvement in the efficiency of jet engines). So if you want to look at the root of why there's no "safety culture" in NASA, it's because the safety everyone is worried about is that of their ow= n career, via avoidance of blame. Attempts to improve this have mostly centered around creating more blame, or creating extra redundancy where failures are unlikely anyway. Nobody wants to try to improve a part that's actually dangerous, because they might get blamed if something goes wrong. Unsurprisingly, it doesn't help much. On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Bryan Winberry wrote: > ** ** ** > > William,**** > > Nice read, but one question:**** > > ** ** > > Why can=92t a government sponsored program work? **** > > As you yourself said, it seemed to with Apollo.**** > > ****Bryan******** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *O= n > Behalf Of *William Wilson > *Sent:* Saturday, July 23, 2011 2:04 PM > > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Off Subject > **** > > ** ** > > For the last two decades or so, the shuttle has existed mostly as a way t= o > deliver things to the ISS, and the ISS has existed mostly as a place for = the > shuttle to fly to. While the Hubble repairs were a great accomplishment,= it > probably would have been cheaper to just build an entirely new telescope = and > send it up on some sort of unmanned rocket whenever the original one wore > out. > > This is not to say that I think manned spaceflight is a bad idea - but th= e > reality is that there is really nothing to do in Earth orbit, and that is > the only place the manned space program has been able to go for decades. > Manned spaceflight needs to be focused on setting up a permanent settleme= nt > on Mars, the only worthwhile goal for manned spaceflight in the foreseeab= le > future. And for the cost and casualties of the shuttle program over its > lifetime, with the knowledge and technology base that existed right after > Apollo, that probably could have been accomplished. (Much of the Apollo > know-how has been lost due to simple retirement and/or death of so many > people that worked on it, and in the much more risk-averse environment of > today compared to the 60's, this knowledge probably cannot be recovered, = at > least not by a government-sponsored program). > > I think a lot of the disappointment over the retirement of the shuttle ha= s > to do with a sense of the ****US**** losing its place of leadership, or > even going backwards in capability. To some degree that is a concern, bu= t > to an even greater degree, the shuttle has become a case of throwing good > money after bad. We can't go forward and bring the shuttle with us.**** > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:47 AM, ****Tracy**** > wrote:**** > > I grew up dreaming of space travel but I'm even more driven by reality. > **** > > ** ** > > If you understand the goal of the space shuttle, you are forced to > acknowledge that it was a monumental failure. It was touted to be a low > cost space transportation system but on a cost per pound delivered to orb= it, > it was by far the most expensive system ever built. The throwaway Satur= n 5 > rocket was far cheaper and more reliable to boot. The Lowest cost for a > shuttle mission was about 500 million not including mission payload costs= . > The Russians charge us 125 million per space station resupply missions > including all payload costs. **** > > > And don't get me started on the "international space station " itself. I= t > has no commercial sponsors as originally intended because it has no > commercial use and darn little scientific use. And the ****US**** pays > very near 100% of the costs. **** > > ** ** > > The only worthwhile accomplishment of the shuttle was the launch and repa= ir > of the Hubble telescope. It replacement (the much larger and powerful Ja= mes > Webb telescope) will be launched by the French Ariane 5 rocket. THAT so= rry > state of affairs is the fault of the shuttle program which ate up all > development funds that could have gone to something worthwhile.**** > > ** ** > > OK, end of rant : )**** > > ** ** > > ****Tracy**** > Sent from my iPad**** > > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 12:13 PM, "Bobby J. Hughes" wrote:= * > *** > > Makes me feel a little sick. > > Sent from my iPad**** > > > On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:53 AM, "Kelly Troyer" < > keltro@att.net> wrote:**** > > *Sorry State of affairs!!***** > > **** > > > Russia Says End Of Shuttle Program Ushers In The 'Era Of Soyuz' Points To > 'Reliability' Of Its Spacecraft In A Post-Shuttle > World > > Russia says the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program marks the > beginning of the "Era Of Soyuz" for transportation to the > International Space Station. > > "From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in manned space > flight, the era of reliability," the Russian space agency Roscosmos > said in a statement. > > The French news service AFP reports that the Soyuz design has > changed little since Yuri Gagarin first climbed aboard one to > become the first man in orbit. But the Russian space agency says > they have continuously improved the spacecraft, and the fact that > it is still flying as the shuttle program ends is a testament to > the "reliability and not to mention cost efficiency" of the older > design. > > In a nod to the U.S. Space program, the statement said "Mankind > acknowledges the role of American space ships in exploring the > cosmos." > > But ****Russia**** is clearly basking in the fact that it now has the > only vehicle capable of transporting humans to the ISS and back > likely until 2016 at the earliest. > FMI: > www.roscosmos.ru/main.php**** > > **** > > Kelly Troyer > *"DYKE DELTA JD2"** **(Eventually)***** > > "13B ROTARY"_ Engine > "RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2 > "MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold**** > > "TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo**** > > ** ** > --bcaec5431eec0568dd04a8c25bab Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In the 60's, for whatever reason, there was a willingness to accept ris= k in the space program, probably because of the competition with the USSR.= =A0 In effect, the risk of letting the USSR "get ahead" - signify= ing loss of military and geopolitical influence - was judged to be a greate= r risk than the possibility that some people might get blown up.=A0 (And le= t's not forget that some did, and others almost did).

Today the culture has shifted so that risk is less tolerated, and the e= xternal motivator is gone.=A0 The risk aversion is not only a government ph= enomenon, but has infiltrated all levels of society - probably because of s= ensationalized media coverage, everybody is constantly worried about safety= , even though almost everything is far, far safer than it has been at any t= ime ever in history.=A0 But it's especially bad in government, which, g= enerally speaking, would rather sacrifice actual safety in favor of coverin= g their ass.

As an example, it's almost impossible to get a new aircraft certifi= ed, so most progress is made in homebuilt aircraft, even though certified a= ircraft are far safer generally speaking.=A0 The relatively few available c= ertified aircraft are either 50 year old designs, cost 5-10 times as much (= adjusted for inflation) as new aircraft did in the 50s and 60s, or both - a= nd they all still perform worse than the homebuilts.=A0 But somebody has to= stick their neck out to approve something, and that's hard to get - ev= en though the overall safety of general aviation is reduced as a result.
The space program is just as bad.=A0 The Columbia accident, essentially= , was caused by the government's tendency to assume that if something h= as been done before, it must be OK, and if something has changed, that'= s terrible - even if the change is for the better.=A0 Again it's all ab= out covering their ass.=A0 If something has been done before, nobody can po= int the finger - even if everybody knows that something is unsafe.=A0 Every= body always knew that foam fell off the shuttle tank, but since it has been= flown that way before, it must have been OK - even though everyone knew th= at falling foam was a hazard ever since the very first orbital shuttle flig= ht was hit by foam in 1981.

In software, this sort of thing is called "cargo cult" thinki= ng, and it's considered a great shame and embarrassment if you get caug= ht doing it.=A0 In aerospace, it's not only business as usual, but to d= o otherwise is discouraged and comes at great personal career and even lega= l risk.=A0 Unsurprisingly, in the past 40 years, since all this took root, = computing has made enormous progress and aerospace has made essentially non= e - except to the extent that computer technology has enabled things like G= PS and glass cockpits.=A0 (The exception being the improvement in the effic= iency of jet engines).

So if you want to look at the root of why there's no "safety c= ulture" in NASA, it's because the safety everyone is worried about= is that of their own career, via avoidance of blame.=A0 Attempts to improv= e this have mostly centered around creating more blame, or creating extra r= edundancy where failures are unlikely anyway.=A0 Nobody wants to try to imp= rove a part that's actually dangerous, because they might get blamed if= something goes wrong.=A0 Unsurprisingly, it doesn't help much.

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Bryan Winbe= rry <br= yanwinberry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

William,=

Nice read, but one= question:

=A0<= /span>

Why can=92t a gove= rnment sponsored program work? =A0

As you yourself sa= id, it seemed to with Apollo.

Brya= n

=A0<= /span>

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of William Wilson
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 201= 1 2:04 PM


To: Rotary motors in aircraf= t
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Off Subject

=A0

For the last two deca= des or so, the shuttle has existed mostly as a way to deliver things to the ISS= , and the ISS has existed mostly as a place for the shuttle to fly to.=A0 While the Hubble repairs were a great accomplishment, it probably would hav= e been cheaper to just build an entirely new telescope and send it up on some sort of unmanned rocket whenever the original one wore out.

This is not to say that I think manned spaceflight is a bad idea - but the reality is that there is really nothing to do in Earth orbit, and that is t= he only place the manned space program has been able to go for decades.=A0 Manned spaceflight needs to be focused on setting up a permanent settlement= on Mars, the only worthwhile goal for manned spaceflight in the foreseeable future.=A0 And for the cost and casualties of the shuttle program over its lifetime, with the knowledge and technology base that existed right after Apollo, that probably could have been accomplished.=A0 (Much of the Apollo know-how has been lost due to simple retirement and/or death of so many peo= ple that worked on it, and in the much more risk-averse environment of today compared to the 60's, this knowledge probably cannot be recovered, at l= east not by a government-sponsored program).

I think a lot of the disappointment over the retirement of the shuttle has = to do with a sense of the US losing its place of leadership, or even going backwards in capability.=A0 T= o some degree that is a concern, but to an even greater degree, the shuttle h= as become a case of throwing good money after bad.=A0 We can't go forward = and bring the shuttle with us.

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Trac= y <rwstracy@gmail.= com> wrote:

I grew up dreaming of space travel but I'm even = more driven by reality. =A0=A0

=A0

If you understand the goal of the space shuttle, you= are forced to acknowledge that it was a monumental failure. =A0It was touted to be a low cost space transportation system but on a cost per pound delivered to orbit= , it was by far the most expensive system ever built. =A0 The throwaway Saturn 5 rocket was far cheaper and more reliable to boot. =A0The Lowest cost for a shuttle mission was about 500 million not including mission payload costs. =A0The Russians charge us 125 million per space station resupply missions including all payload costs. =A0


And don't get me started on the "international space station "= ; itself. =A0It has no commercial sponsors as originally intended because it has no commercial use and darn little scientific use. =A0 And the US pays very near 100% of the costs. =A0

=A0

The only worthwhile accomplishment of the shuttle wa= s the launch and repair of the Hubble telescope. =A0It replacement (the much larger and powerful James Webb telescope) will be launched by the French Ariane 5 rock= et. =A0 THAT sorry state of affairs is the fault of the shuttle program which ate up all development funds that could have gone to something worthwhile.<= u>

=A0

OK, end of rant : )

=A0

Tracy<= /span>
Sent from my iPad<= /u>


On Jul 23, 2011, at 12:13 PM, "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes@qnsi.net> wrote:=

Makes me feel a little sick.=A0

Sent from my iPad


On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:53 AM, "Kelly Troyer" <keltro@att.net> wrote:<= /p>

Sorry State of affairs!!

=A0


Russia Says End Of Shuttle Program Ushers In The 'Era Of Soyuz' Poi= nts To 'Reliability' Of Its Spacecraft In A Post-Shuttle
World

Russia says the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program marks the
beginning of the "Era Of Soyuz" for transportation to the
International Space Station.

"From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in manned space
flight, the era of reliability," the Russian space agency Roscosmos said in a statement.

The French news service AFP reports that the Soyuz design has
changed little since Yuri Gagarin first climbed aboard one to
become the first man in orbit. But the Russian space agency says
they have continuously improved the spacecraft, and the fact that
it is still flying as the shuttle program ends is a testament to
the "reliability and not to mention cost efficiency" of the older=
design.

In a nod to the U.S. Space program, the statement said "Mankind
acknowledges the role of American space ships in exploring the
cosmos."

But Russia is clearly basking in the fact that it now has the
only vehicle capable of transporting humans to the ISS and back
likely until 2016 at the earliest.
FMI: www.roscosmos.ru/main.p= hp

=A0

Kelly Troyer
"= ;DYKE DELTA JD2" <= b>(Eventually)

"13B ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold

"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo

=A0


--bcaec5431eec0568dd04a8c25bab--