NASA Issues new Safety Guidelines
Craig Fink
Headquarters, Washington March 22, 2005 (Phone: 123/456-7890)
MEDIA ADVISORY: M03-119
NASA CHANGES SAFETY GUIDELINE FOR VEIWING SHUTTLE LAUNCHES
NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain announced today that NASA has complete a
review of the Space Shuttle Launch Viewing Safety Guidelines for the
general public. In the announcement, new guidelines were presented which
NASA feels will insure the safety of all those wishing to view the shuttle
launch safely.
First, it was decided to limit the number of people at KSC to less than
25,000 people. NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain said, "Our studies
indicate that 25,000 people is the maximum number of people that we can
allow to travel to KSC at any one time. It's dangerous out there. People
might actually get in their cars and drive long distances to see a Shuttle
Launch. Cars just aren't safe, we wouldn't want to be responsible for
people getting into accidents and possibly killed on there way to watch a
Shuttle Launch."
"Furthermore", Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "People might actually fly to
Florida to see a Shuttle Launch, because of the great distances involved.
They might actually get on an aircraft to do this. You've watched the news
haven't you. Those things fall out of the sky all the time. Can you
imagine the bad press that we at NASA would get if an airplane full of
Shuttle Launch viewers were to fall out of the sky killing everyone on
board and possibly someone on the ground. Such a large number of people
all dying in the same place, at the same time, could mean the end of NASA,
and my cushy job."
Iwishi Hadabrain continued, "These and other concerns were used to
determine the maximum viewers that will be allowed KSC. The launch complex
at KSC only occupies 25,000 acres. We figured out that if we put one seat
and one person on each of those 25,000 acres, we greatly reduce the
probability of killing more than one person at any one Shuttle Launch,
thus insuring the continuation of my cushy job."
Some additional changes included a new NASA developed spectator safety
suit for children, and NASA developed blindfolds for residents of Cocoa
Beach. Since children who will be viewing the launch will be separated by
great distance from their parents, the new NASA developed "Bubble Wrap
Suit" will reduce injures if they should happen to fall. Iwishi Hadabrain
commented, "Children have been known to fall down, and residents of Cocoa
Beach also, that is, if they were to accidentally look up and get an
unauthorized view of the Shuttle Launch. We feel that blindfolding all the
residents of Cocoa Beach was the best option to reduce injuries caused by
residents being distracted by the Shuttle Launch and tripping over
things."
When it was pointed out that the last Shuttle Disaster actually occurred
during entry, Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "Yes, Yes, NASA is currently
working on new guidelines for viewing landings, but you must realize this
is a much, much, harder problem. We're just not sure we can come up with a
solution. This Space Stuff is really hard. You have to understand that,
it's just really, really, hard. Harder than you can imagine. We're
considering all kinds of stuff to insure the safety of the general public.
But remember, we here and NASA have the right stuff, we have the rocket
scientists, and damn near all the astronauts in the world working on this
problem. Our current concept that we feel insures the safety of the
general public requires the help of the general population. If everyone in
the country cooperates we feel we can again land safely again in Florida
with little or no risk to the general public. We'll be issuing a statement
just after the deorbit burn so that everyone in the nation can climb under
their Kitchen Tables. Everyone has a Kitchen Table, don't they? And for
those wishing to watch the landing, we're also urging them to move their
televisions under the Table too."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/3098226
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBe...@GMail.Com
Craig Fink
Headquarters, Washington March 22, 2005 (Phone: 123/456-7890)
MEDIA ADVISORY: M03-119
NASA CHANGES SAFETY GUIDELINE FOR VEIWING SHUTTLE LAUNCHES
NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain announced today that NASA has complete a
review of the Space Shuttle Launch Viewing Safety Guidelines for the
general public. In the announcement, new guidelines were presented which
NASA feels will insure the safety of all those wishing to view the shuttle
launch safely.
First, it was decided to limit the number of people at KSC to less than
25,000 people. NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain said, "Our studies
indicate that 25,000 people is the maximum number of people that we can
allow to travel to KSC at any one time. It's dangerous out there. People
might actually get in their cars and drive long distances to see a Shuttle
Launch. Cars just aren't safe, we wouldn't want to be responsible for
people getting into accidents and possibly killed on their way to watch a
Shuttle Launch."
"Furthermore", Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "People might actually fly to
Florida to see a Shuttle Launch, because of the great distances involved.
They might actually get on an aircraft to do this. You've watched the news
haven't you. Those things fall out of the sky all the time. Can you
imagine the bad press that we at NASA would get, if an airplane full of
Shuttle Launch viewers were to fall out of the sky, killing everyone on
board and possibly someone on the ground. Such a large number of people
all dying, in the same place, at the same time, could mean the end of
NASA, and my cushy job."
Iwishi Hadabrain continued, "These and other concerns were used to
determine the maximum viewers that will be allowed at KSC. The launch
complex at KSC only occupies 25,000 acres. We figured out that if we put
one seat and one person on each of those 25,000 acres, we greatly reduce
the probability of killing more than one person at any one Shuttle Launch,
thus insuring the continuation of my cushy job."
Some additional changes included a new NASA developed spectator safety
suit for children, and NASA developed blindfolds for residents of Cocoa
Beach. Since children viewing the launch will be separated by great
distance from their parents, the new NASA developed "Bubble Wrap Suit"
will reduce injures if they should happen to fall. Iwishi Hadabrain
commented, "Children have been known to fall down, and residents of Cocoa
Beach also. Especially, if they were to accidentally look up and get an
unauthorized view of the Shuttle Launch. We feel that blindfolding all the
residents of Cocoa Beach was the best option to reduce injuries caused by
residents being distracted by the Shuttle Launch and tripping over
things."
When it was pointed out that the last Shuttle Disaster actually occurred
during entry, Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "Ahhh, Yes, Yes, NASA is currently
working on new guidelines for viewing landings, but you must realize this
is a much, much, harder problem. We're just not sure we can come up with a
solution. This Space Stuff is really hard. You have to understand that.
It's just really, really, hard. Harder than you can imagine. We're
considering all kinds of stuff to insure the safety of the general public.
But remember, we here at NASA have the right stuff, we have the rocket
scientists, and damn near all the astronauts in the world working on this
problem. Our current concept that we feel insures the safety of the
general public requires the cooperation of the general population. If
everyone in the country will cooperate, we feel we can safely land in
Florida again with little or no risk to the general public. We'll be
issuing a statement just after the deorbit burn so that everyone in the
nation can climb under their Kitchen Tables. Everyone has a Kitchen Table,
don't they? And for those wishing to watch the landing, we're also urging
that they move their televisions under their Tables too."
Rand Simberg
<WeBe...@GMail.Com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Is this your work? Can I republish it on my blog, with attribution?
Craig Fink
> Is this your work? Can I republish it on my blog, with attribution?
Yes, it's mine. Sure, I give you permission to republish it on your blog
with attribution one time. All other rights reserved.
Here a copy of version 3 with a little word smithing to make it more
readable. Feel free to proof read it and make any other small changes
required to make it more presentable.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBe...@GMail.Com
Version 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iwishi Hadabrain
Headquarters, Washington March 22, 2005 (Phone: 123/456-7890)
MEDIA ADVISORY: M03-119
NASA CHANGES SAFETY GUIDELINE FOR VEIWING SHUTTLE LAUNCHES
NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain announced today that NASA has completed a
review of the Space Shuttle Launch Viewing Safety Guidelines for the
general public. In the announcement, new guidelines were presented which
NASA feels will insure the safety of all those wishing to view the shuttle
launch safely.
First, it was decided to limit the number of people at KSC to less than
25,000 people. NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain said, "Our studies
indicate that 25,000 people is the maximum number of people that we can
allow to travel to KSC at any one time. It's dangerous out there. People
might actually get in their cars and drive long distances to see a Shuttle
Launch. Cars just aren't safe, we wouldn't want to be responsible for
people getting into accidents and possibly killed on their way to watch a
Shuttle Launch."
"Furthermore", Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "People might actually fly to
Florida to see a Shuttle Launch, because of the great distances involved.
They might actually get on an airplane to do this. You've watched the news
haven't you. Those things fall out of the sky all the time. Can you
imagine the bad press that we at NASA would get, if an airplane full of
Shuttle Launch viewers were to fall out of the sky, killing everyone on
board and possibly someone on the ground. Such a large number of people
all dying, in the same place, at the same time, could mean the end of
NASA, and my cushy job."
Iwishi Hadabrain continued, "These and other concerns were used to
determine the maximum viewers that will be allowed at KSC. The launch
complex at KSC only occupies 25,000 acres. We figured out that if we put
one seat and one person on each of those 25,000 acres, we greatly reduce
the probability of killing more than one person at any one Shuttle Launch,
thus insuring the continuation of my cushy job."
Some additional changes included a new NASA developed spectator safety
suit for children, and NASA developed blindfolds for residents of Cocoa
Beach. Since children viewing the launch will be separated by a great
distance from their parents, the new NASA developed "Bubble Wrap Suit"
will reduce injures if they should happen to fall. Iwishi Hadabrain
commented, "Children have been known to fall down, and also, residents of
Cocoa Beach. Especially, if they were to accidentally look up and get an
unauthorized view of the Shuttle Launch. We feel that blindfolding all the
residents of Cocoa Beach was the best possible solution to reduce
injuries caused by residents being distracted by Shuttle Launches and
tripping over things."
When it was pointed out that the last Shuttle Disaster actually occurred
during entry, Iwishi Hadabrain stated, "Ahhh, Yes, Yes, NASA is currently
working on new guidelines for viewing landings, but you must realize this
is a much, much, harder problem. We're just not sure we can come up with a
solution. This Space Stuff is really hard. You have to understand that.
It's just really, really, hard. Harder than you can imagine. We're
considering all kinds of stuff to insure the safety of the general public.
But remember, we here at NASA have the right stuff, we have the rocket
scientists, and damn near all the astronauts in the world working on this
problem. Our current concept that we feel insures the safety of the
general public requires the cooperation of the general population. If
everyone in the country will cooperate, we feel we can safely land in
Florida again with little or no risk to the general public. We'll be
issuing a statement just after the deorbit burn so that everyone in the
nation can climb under their Kitchen Tables. Everyone has a Kitchen Table,
don't they? And for those wishing to watch the landing, we're also urging
that they move their televisions under their Tables too."
Jim Oberg
It should have been dated ten days ahead...
..and in fact in the 1980's I wrote a series of April 1
NASA press releases that I've GOT to dig out
and scan to share...
Jorge R. Frank
news:pan.2005.03.22....@GMail.Com:
> Iwishi Hadabrain
> Headquarters, Washington March 22, 2005 (Phone:
> 123/456-7890)
>
> MEDIA ADVISORY: M03-119
>
> NASA CHANGES SAFETY GUIDELINE FOR VEIWING SHUTTLE LAUNCHES
>
> NASA spokeswoman Iwishi Hadabrain announced today that NASA has
> complete a review of the Space Shuttle Launch Viewing Safety
> Guidelines for the general public. In the announcement, new guidelines
> were presented which NASA feels will insure the safety of all those
> wishing to view the shuttle launch safely.
OK, now that everyone has had a nice little laugh at NASA PAO's expense
(they're an easy target, like shooting dead fish in an ice chest), time to
spoil the party.
The CAIB observed (O10.1-1 and O10.1-2) that "NASA should develop and
implement a public risk acceptability policy for launch and re-entry of
space vehicles and unmanned aircraft" and "NASA should develop and
implement a plan to mitigate the risk that Shuttle flights pose to the
general public."
Last December, the USAF blasted NASA for taking "unacceptable risks by
allowing too many people to flock to Kennedy Space Center viewing sites for
up-close looks at shuttle launches."
<http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/spacestoryN1205BLASTZONE0.htm>
The new rules, in fact, merely bring NASA's KSC policies into line with
what the USAF has always enforced for launches from CCAFS. Strange, I don't
see Craig Fink - or anyone else, for that matter - writing satirical press
releases about USAF public risk policies.
OK, enough of the inconvenient facts. You may now resume your regularly
scheduled mindless bashing.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Rand Simberg
R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>OK, now that everyone has had a nice little laugh at NASA PAO's expense
>(they're an easy target, like shooting dead fish in an ice chest)
Ooooohhhh, nice metaphor extension. Can we extend it to Eric?
>time to spoil the party.
>
>The CAIB observed (O10.1-1 and O10.1-2) that "NASA should develop and
>implement a public risk acceptability policy for launch and re-entry of
>space vehicles and unmanned aircraft" and "NASA should develop and
>implement a plan to mitigate the risk that Shuttle flights pose to the
>general public."
>
>Last December, the USAF blasted NASA for taking "unacceptable risks by
>allowing too many people to flock to Kennedy Space Center viewing sites for
>up-close looks at shuttle launches."
>
><http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/spacestoryN1205BLASTZONE0.htm>
>
>The new rules, in fact, merely bring NASA's KSC policies into line with
>what the USAF has always enforced for launches from CCAFS. Strange, I don't
>see Craig Fink - or anyone else, for that matter - writing satirical press
>releases about USAF public risk policies.
>
>OK, enough of the inconvenient facts. You may now resume your regularly
>scheduled mindless bashing.
While I think that the policies for both sites are stupid (and I
hadn't previously been aware of AF policy--thanks), I'm particularly
amused by the notion that NASA now thinks that it has to make sure
that any debris from future entry accidents falls into the (deep)
Pacific. Had this policy been in place pre-Columbia, we would have
had no forensic evidence to work with for accident investigation other
than telemetry.
However, I do appreciate the reminder that this was a result of the
CAIB. I'll note that if I write anything about it in future.
Jorge R. Frank
news:43723d0d....@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:50:24 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
> R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>OK, now that everyone has had a nice little laugh at NASA PAO's
>>expense (they're an easy target, like shooting dead fish in an ice
>>chest)
>
> Ooooohhhh, nice metaphor extension. Can we extend it to Eric?
Go for it. I probably would have used it on him myself by now, had I not
killfiled him.
> While I think that the policies for both sites are stupid (and I
> hadn't previously been aware of AF policy--thanks),
I agree - I fall into the crowd that says informed adults should be allowed
to make their own decisions about what risks they take with themselves.
> I'm particularly
> amused by the notion that NASA now thinks that it has to make sure
> that any debris from future entry accidents falls into the (deep)
> Pacific. Had this policy been in place pre-Columbia, we would have
> had no forensic evidence to work with for accident investigation other
> than telemetry.
It's a difficult trade. Ideally you'd want the entry groundtrack to be over
sparsely-populated land so that you could recover the debris without
endangering the public - after all, they're third parties that never signed
onto this particular risk. But there's fairly few deorbit opportunities
that result in such a groundtrack.
> However, I do appreciate the reminder that this was a result of the
> CAIB. I'll note that if I write anything about it in future.
If I had to apportion blame, I'd put a lot more on the USAF than the CAIB.
The CAIB statements on public risk were classed as "Observations", not
"Recommendations", and I think NASA wouldn't have made nearly as big a deal
about them had the USAF (and the CCAFS 45th Space Wing in particular) not
repeatedly squawked about it.
richard schumacher
Doug...
says...
>
> <snip>
>
> Ideally you'd want the entry groundtrack to be over
> sparsely-populated land so that you could recover the debris without
> endangering the public - after all, they're third parties that never signed
> onto this particular risk. But there's fairly few deorbit opportunities
> that result in such a groundtrack.
OK -- Columbia's ground track during STS-107's entry passed over
moderately heavily populated areas, and indeed it broke up over a major
city. Some pretty large pieces fell in and around urban and suburban
areas.
And not one piece hit anyone, out of tens of tons of debris that
survived and hit the ground. No one was poisoned by leaking fuel tanks.
Not one person on the ground was hurt by falling debris.
I don't even recall hearing about any dogs or cats, or even pet birds,
being harmed by Columbia's debris.
I can't even recall anyone *ever* being killed or injured by falling
space debris. And hundreds of tons of debris have fallen from orbit
over the years.
Truthfully, isn't it a little paranoid to worry about the extremely
unlikely possibility of debris injuring people in the now even-more-
unlikely event of an entry failure?
Or was the lack of any personal injury to people on the ground from
falling Columbia debris an example of extreme luck and a very unlikely
pattern of debris fall that spared anyone from being struck by debris
falling into urban and suburban population centers? After all, we've
only seen one large vehicle disintegrate over populated land, and one
event isn't a very good statistical sample.
In other words, was the lack of ground injuries atypical? Or do we even
know enough to say whether it was or not?
--
"The problem isn't that there are so | Doug Van Dorn
many fools; it's that lightning isn't | dvan...@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com
distributed right." -Mark Twain
Jorge R. Frank
news:MPG.1cac04a1e...@news-server.mn.rr.com:
> In article <Xns9622C7B3...@216.196.97.131>,
> jrf...@ibm-pc.borg says...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Ideally you'd want the entry groundtrack to be over
>> sparsely-populated land so that you could recover the debris without
>> endangering the public - after all, they're third parties that never
>> signed onto this particular risk. But there's fairly few deorbit
>> opportunities that result in such a groundtrack.
>
> OK -- Columbia's ground track during STS-107's entry passed over
> moderately heavily populated areas, and indeed it broke up over a
> major city. Some pretty large pieces fell in and around urban and
> suburban areas.
>
> And not one piece hit anyone, out of tens of tons of debris that
> survived and hit the ground. No one was poisoned by leaking fuel
> tanks. Not one person on the ground was hurt by falling debris.
Agreed on the first and third, but not the second. A group of recovery
workers were hospitalized for hydrazine exposure after handling an RCS
manifold that was not properly identified and "sniffed" before they picked
it up.
> I don't even recall hearing about any dogs or cats, or even pet birds,
> being harmed by Columbia's debris.
I recall reports of one head of livestock (cow? sheep? can't remember
offhand) being hit.
> I can't even recall anyone *ever* being killed or injured by falling
> space debris. And hundreds of tons of debris have fallen from orbit
> over the years.
>
> Truthfully, isn't it a little paranoid to worry about the extremely
> unlikely possibility of debris injuring people in the now even-more-
> unlikely event of an entry failure?
Keep in mind that these new entry rules do not cover all shuttle entries,
only entries where the orbiter is known in advance to be compromised.
> Or was the lack of any personal injury to people on the ground from
> falling Columbia debris an example of extreme luck and a very unlikely
> pattern of debris fall that spared anyone from being struck by debris
> falling into urban and suburban population centers? After all, we've
> only seen one large vehicle disintegrate over populated land, and one
> event isn't a very good statistical sample.
>
> In other words, was the lack of ground injuries atypical? Or do we
> even know enough to say whether it was or not?
The CAIB commissioned a public safety analysis of the accident that found
that the probability of a casualty from debris (in that particular
accident) ranged from 9-24%, dependent on assumptions of what fraction of
the orbiter survived to ground impact and the degree of sheltering of the
population. So the actual outcome (zero casualties) would not be
unexpected. Given the time (Saturday 8:00 AM) and location (rural east
Texas) of the breakup, it is likely that low population density coupled
with a high percentage of sheltering (i.e. people indoors) were key factors
in the low probability. Had the breakup occurred a few minutes earlier, the
debris footprint would have covered the southern suburbs of Dallas-Fort
Worth; a few minutes later, New Orleans. Had the deorbit been waved off one
orbit, and breakup occurred at the same altitude, the footprint would have
been over Houston.
The CAIB's level of concern in this matter may be gauged by the fact that
their statements were classed as observations, rather than recommendations.
Jeff Findley
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:Xns9622EEC2...@216.196.97.131...
> > unlikely possibility of debris injuring people in the now even-more-
> > unlikely event of an entry failure?
>
> Keep in mind that these new entry rules do not cover all shuttle entries,
> only entries where the orbiter is known in advance to be compromised.
This isn't so different than picking an airfield to land a damaged aircraft.
If possible, it's preferable to attempt a landing at an airfield that isn't
located squarely in the middle of an urban area. There have been incidents
in the past where the selection of a particular airfield has been a
contributing factor in the deaths of people on the ground.
Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
Craig Fink
NASA and the USAF are supposed to be two different entities. One is
supposed to be Civilian, the other Military. What is in the best interest
of the Military may not be in the best interests of a Civilian space
agency.
The Military, by it's very nature actually has an interest in limiting
access to the things it does. Really, even to try to keep them secret. It
makes sense for them to want to blindfold everyone on the east coast of
the Florida when they launch a classified satellite. Few, if any, Military
bases give tours to the general public on a daily basis, and with good
reason, their in the business of blowing thing up.
But, NASA a Civilian space program has interests that are really just the
opposite in many regards. No Bucks, no Buck Rogers. People want to see
Buck Rogers, not just read about him. They want for experience it. I can
think of no better way for the general public to experience it, than feel
the rumble of those engines vibrating their chest cavities. Instead, NASA
now what's to give them a speck with flame coming out of it, and a whisper
of a sound that doesn't reach them until the speck is below the horizon.
I'm sorry if it disturbers NASA that the general public wants to come away
with an experience rather than just an tiny tiny image of a Shuttle
Launch.
What about those "experience" seeking people who spend their own time and
own money to "attempt" to watch a shuttle launch. Are they getting their
money's worth? What do they think when the "privileged few", many of whom
are having their trips paid for, get a much better experience at the up
close and personal VIP viewing area? Which now will have even fewer seat
than ever, the "privileged" just got fewer. NASA should really be working
on how to treat all those who show up for a Shuttle Launch as a VIP, or at
least give them the same VIP experience.
Who are these "experience" seeking people? Aren't they the Trekkies, the
Space Buffs, not really the general public, but a subset that NASA could
describe as their best constituents? The ones that NASA should be courting
for their support. Future advocates for more Buck and for more Buck
Rogers? Just because the money is flowing well this year doesn't mean NASA
should ignore these people. Really, it kind of like NASA is shooting
themselves in the foot, not now but 10 or 20 years down the road.
The main target of this little piece of satire really wasn't the PAO, who
should be screaming advocates for giving the "experience" seeking public
more of what they want. It's just good publicity to have whole bunch of
people returning home telling everybody they see about their great
experience at the latest Shuttle Launch. The PAO was just a minor target
for not expressing what should be their own interests at all the meeting.
The real target is all the new Safety People who after having read the
CAIB's observations who couldn't figure out that NASA already had a safety
plan for the general public to view Shuttle Launches. And, very
restrictive revisions had already been made to the plan in the past. Who
didn't fight the urge or need to say, "Gee, we're all sitting here at this
meeting so we better do something to show the boss just how useful we
are."
Back to those experience seeking space enthusiasts. How could NASA give
them all the VIP treatment and launch experience they want? Is it
possible? I think so, just ask the military. While they have the lots of
experience at blowing things up, they also have lots of experience at
trying to not get blown up. Just the thing you need if you want to get up
close and personal with a Shuttle Launch. A fenced off field of cheap
bunkers starting at ten miles out extending to within three miles might
work. At seven miles out some guy is asking me to buy an activated
charcoal painter's mask. At six miles out he wants to rent me a real gas
mask. At five miles he's selling me a disposable hazmat suit, and at four,
a spot in a bunker just three miles from the pad ... that actually has a
door! Let the space enthusiast decide how much expense and risk they are
willing to take to get up close and personal with a Shuttle Launch. We now
return you to your regularly scheduled Disney program, "What NASA is
all about."
Personally, I've always wanted to sit on the beach and watch the Shuttle
take off, rotate and fly right over my head. But, as I've gotten older and
wiser, I've come to the realization that it might be better to anchor my
boat in sixty or seventy feet of water. That way if it were to actually
blow up during the 10 or 15 seconds that I'd be exposed to debris, I could
fall over the side of the boat with my scuba tank and have sixty feet of
water between me and the raining debris. I'm sure a lot of people might
find that crazy, but to each his own. BTW, loading yourself up at the tip
of a rocket (that goes double for one with solid rockets) is kind of
crazy, but I've always wanted to do that too.
New NASA spokeswoman Nowi Havabrain announced today that Dr. Michael Griffin
has an impressive set of credentials.
Ed Kyle
>
> While I think that the policies for both sites are stupid (and I
> hadn't previously been aware of AF policy--thanks), I'm particularly
> amused by the notion that NASA now thinks that it has to make sure
> that any debris from future entry accidents falls into the (deep)
> Pacific. Had this policy been in place pre-Columbia, we would have
> had no forensic evidence to work with for accident investigation
other
> than telemetry.
>
The overwater reentry policy sounds like a tacit
admission that the next accident will be the end
of the program.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
<edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
Maybe, but I think you may be giving them too much credit for having
thought it through.
Craig Fink
Yeah, I agree, it's more of a knee jerk response for being so stupid as to
think the "Best Possible Position" was "not" to look for damage and reenter
with a huge hole in the wing.
It's still safe to fly over everyone's heads with an undamage vehicle.
Reunite Gondwanaland
wrote:
> New NASA spokeswoman Nowi Havabrain announced today that Dr. Michael Griffin
> has an impressive set of credentials.
Ken knows him and says he's a great guy. That's a pretty impressive
credential in itself, considering what he thinks of management in
general.
Of course, Ken also thinks Henry Spencer is a great guy, just to give
you an idea about his standards.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
Rand Simberg
Gondwanaland <reunite....@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:19:46 GMT, Craig Fink <WeBe...@GMail.Com>
>wrote:
>
>
>> New NASA spokeswoman Nowi Havabrain announced today that Dr. Michael Griffin
>> has an impressive set of credentials.
>
>Ken knows him and says he's a great guy.
You mean Mike Griffin, or Nowi Havabrain?
Jorge R. Frank
You're missing the point (and obviously didn't read, or read but didn't
comprehend, the Florida Today article). The USAF provides range safety for
the entire Eastern Test Range - both KSC and CCAFS. That gives them both a
voice in, and veto over, NASA launch decisions. In practice, they've
rubber-stamped NASA in the past, but they've publicly given subtle hints
that they aren't willing to do that any more. Privately it's probably gone
far beyond hints. Challenging the USAF in public over safety regulations is
probably not a smart thing for NASA to do.
<snipped irrelevant points>
Henry Spencer
Jorge R. Frank <jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>...The USAF provides range safety for
>voice in, and veto over, NASA launch decisions. In practice, they've
>rubber-stamped NASA in the past, but they've publicly given subtle hints
It would be interesting to know the internal politics behind this one.
Almost certainly there is more here than meets the eye. There are a lot
of judgement calls in the safety rules, and a *lot* of politics in which
ones get enforced to the letter and which ones don't, either by formal
waiver or just by being quietly disregarded.
I'm told that to launch a Titan IVB in strict conformance with all Cape
safety rules, you would have to evacuate most of Florida first. And you
could not launch a Titan IVA, 34D, or IIIC/D/E at all.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert | he...@spsystems.net
Craig Fink
Kind of like the Air Force has given NASA a wavier for every Shuttle
flight isn't it? Ignoring NASA's problem, and NASA ignoring it's own
problems and the Air Force's valid concerns. Sound familiar? But, the Air
Force doesn't want to do that anymore, they don't want to testify before
Congress about all the VIP's in the bleachers who spent the last 30
seconds of their lives watching burning solid rocket debris approaching,
with no where to go.
In some respects, the KSC safety guy is correct, not the reporter trying
to sensationalize his article. Viewers of a Shuttle Launches On-site are
not the "general" public, and really don't fall under the rule that
"Missiles and space launch vehicles should pose no more risk to the public
than airplanes flying overhead." But the people of Cocoa Beach do. BTW
people are more likely to get struck by lighting than have an airplane
fall on there head.
I think you missed my point, there are other ways of mitigating risk
besides moving everybody back to the point were they can't see anything.
One was in the first posting, which you must have missed being too busy
laughing or maybe crying. Just spread everybody out, so only a few people
have debris raining down on them at any one time, the viewing area is not an airplane.
Now that everybody's spread out, how about give them somewhere to go if
something goes wrong. People are going to pay a lot more attention and
think about the risks they're taking if they're required to buy
breathing protection, a disposable hazmat suit, or space in a bunker as
the get closer and closer to the point of liftoff. Really a great
opportunity to teach people about safety, accepting risks, mitigating risk
and the dangers rockets in general. Much better than an announcement over
the public address system stating, "Space Stuff is dangerous to view sitting in
those bleachers with no where to go." But, if they want to get a good view
of the next Shuttle launch, I guess that's the risk they'll have to take.
NASA's current solutions seem to actually increase risk to the views as they
get closer to the liftoff point, herding them onto bleachers. Then
complaining about it and move "everybody" back. People on the
Causeways already have reasonably good bunkers with them, they're called
cars. Something the VIPs don't have. I wonder if all the safey studies
include people getting into their cars when they see the debris coming at
them?
I hope you noticed who I thought should bear the cost of mitigating the
risk. Wouldn't want NASA building gold plated bunkers, when a Boy Scout
jamboree and a new blast shelter merit badge would do.
Craig Fink
Scott Hedrick
"Doug..." <dvan...@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cac04a1e...@news-server.mn.rr.com...
> Truthfully, isn't it a little paranoid to worry about the extremely
> unlikely possibility of debris injuring people in the now even-more-
> unlikely event of an entry failure?
WHat have the actual facts got to do with the potential liability,
particularly with an American jury?
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <o7K2e.9316$f%4.6...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>):
Scott, you need to read some jury verdict research using real numbers
from the last 15 years or so before spouting nonsense like that. I've
got the last years' worth from the Nashville/Davidson county circuit
courts (the originals are monthly .pdf newsletters) sitting on my desk
right here if you'd like a headstart. Should I email them to you?
Alternately I can send you a download link if you like. I have similar
national reports but they're not free court-provided newsletters and we
pay for the service so I can't redistribute them.
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
<http://www.angryherb.net>
Scott Hedrick
"Herb Schaltegger" <herb.sch...@NOSPAMgmail.com.INVALID> wrote in
message news:0001HW.BE715BF5...@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:33:46 -0600, Scott Hedrick wrote
> (in article <o7K2e.9316$f%4.6...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>):
>
> > "Doug..." <dvan...@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1cac04a1e...@news-server.mn.rr.com...
> >> Truthfully, isn't it a little paranoid to worry about the extremely
> >> unlikely possibility of debris injuring people in the now even-more-
> >> unlikely event of an entry failure?
> >
> > WHat have the actual facts got to do with the potential liability,
> > particularly with an American jury?
>
> Scott, you need to read some jury verdict research using real numbers
> from the last 15 years or so before spouting nonsense like that.
I have. I was just stirring some shit.
The *fact* is, it's merely an *impression* that there is a problem. Once
again, anecdotes are being presented as trends. Liability insurance costs
are increasing, less because of a real increase in awards, but because of
the *perception* because of widespread publicity given to a few absurd
awards (which are often reduced either by the trial judge or the appeals
court, said reduction not being nearly as "newsworthy" as talking about
spilled coffee awards). Much of the mandatory course I just took in
Albuquerque for my real estate continuing ed had to do with risk management,
and that's the title of one of the CD courses I bought when I got there. The
concept of "malpractice" drove me away from the medical field, where I had
quite a bit of potential, to the legal field, where I can be a right bastard
at times. I wish I'd kept a copy of the letter I sent to a rookie lawyer who
clearly hadn't been informed of all the facts by his client (who had stiffed
my dad on a mortgage and did 20K$ to the house before bailing). They had
disappeared, and somehow a tax lien had been placed on them personally and
not the property. They were threatening my dad with a suit for the lien. My
dad had paid the tax (which was their responsibility), but we weren't going
to tell them that. I thanked the attorney for informing me that his clients
now had assets I could go after. My dad's attorney framed the copy of the
letter I gave him, and my copy was passed around my paralegal school for a
long time. I wish I could have seen the face of the attorney :) Bluff me,
will you? My father and I have collected over 70% of the dollar value of the
judgments he's received, and that's pretty good.
As the one challenged to the dual, I get to choose the weapon. I choose
litigation.
I've
> got the last years' worth from the Nashville/Davidson county circuit
> courts (the originals are monthly .pdf newsletters) sitting on my desk
> right here if you'd like a headstart. Should I email them to you?
Please- send me an email and I'll reply with a real address.
> Alternately I can send you a download link if you like.
Yeah, that's probably better.
I have similar
> national reports but they're not free court-provided newsletters and we
> pay for the service so I can't redistribute them.
Bummer- that's where the cool stuff is. I run a self-help shop, but I still
try to keep up-to-date. I can at least read the headlines at LexisOne.
Wish I could afford Westlaw or LexisNexus- I want to update a paper on
pharmacist liability I wrote 11 years ago. I'm considering volunteering for
a few days for a local attorney in exchange for a bit of time with Westlaw.
Automation, increased use of pharmacy techs, mail order and now Mexican and
Canadian drugs- heck, I could probably expand it into a book.
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <5Fn3e.19832$f%4.6...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>):
>> got the last years' worth from the Nashville/Davidson county circuit
>> courts (the originals are monthly .pdf newsletters) sitting on my desk
>> right here if you'd like a headstart. Should I email them to you?
>
> Please- send me an email and I'll reply with a real address.
>
>> Alternately I can send you a download link if you like.
>
> Yeah, that's probably better.
Hey, Scott - I'm not sure if your addy is munged or not. Mine here on
the newsgroups is, but it's pretty easy to figure it out. Drop me a
line and I'll send you those .pdfs and a link for the originals.
Craig Fink
> I hope you noticed who I thought should bear the cost of mitigating the
> risk. Wouldn't want NASA building gold plated bunkers, when a Boy Scout
> jamboree and a new blast shelter merit badge would do.
>
>
>
Even a "gold plated" bunker isn't such a far fetched an idea with respect to
mitigating the risk involved in viewing a Shuttle Launch up close. People
are already willing to pay $37 a head for tickets to get an "ok" view of
the launch, http://www.ksctickets.com/kennedyspacecenter/maaclavifrke.html
. Really not as good as the causeway or VIP viewing area. They're willing
to pay this even though little or no protection for the viewer is
provided. In some respects NASA is actually increasing the risk to views
by seating them in grand stands.
Many people would probably be willing to pay even more for a better view
of the launch than at the visitors center. A long underground pedestrian
walkway/bunker five miles long could easily be built with thousands of
entrances along the way. It would give NASA easy security and crowd
control, while giving viewer a nice, safe, up close opportunity to watch a
rocket launch.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.566341,-80.652866&spn=0.093727,0.108662&t=k&hl=en
They have tons of empty land around the cape that such a bunker/tunnel
could be built, with lots of area that could be fenced off for viewing
areas along the way. It could be used for both shuttle and elv, and could
possibly pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time.
At $50 a ticket for 100,000 visitors, that's $5,000,000 per launch, or
$100,000,000 over the last 20 launches, not counting ELV launches. No
buses, just a large parking lot, a tunnel with plenty of entrances and
some fences. The long walk would help sort out the weak from the strong,
who are more willing and able to move fast to get inside the entrance of a
bunker if something goes wrong. And if something does go wrong, the tunnel
would eliminate evacuation concerns with respect to moving all those
people off site. Add some nature trails and exhibits along the way and it
could be a really pleasant experience to spend the day watching a launch.
People would probably be willing to spend $100 or more for such a ticket.
They just spent a heck of a lot more on hotel rooms and travel just to be
there.
Jorge R. Frank
> Many people would probably be willing to pay even more for a better
> view of the launch than at the visitors center. A long underground
> pedestrian walkway/bunker five miles long could easily be built with
> thousands of entrances along the way. It would give NASA easy security
> and crowd control, while giving viewer a nice, safe, up close
> opportunity to watch a rocket launch.
Feel free to suggest that to the USAF 45th Space Wing. Again, NASA is *not*
in charge of range safety at KSC. Legally, they never have been - the USAF
has *always* had the statutory responsibility - but it hasn't been until
recently that the USAF has asserted that responsibility de facto as well as
de jure.
Chuck Stewart
> Feel free to suggest that to the USAF 45th Space Wing.
Do they patrol the coast in heavily armed
Martin X-24B's? And under the sea, do they
have X-15s mounted on the noses of Seawolf
submarines, ready to launch?
Darnit, a group with with such a cool name
should have more cool stuff! :)
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
LooseChanj
> Do they patrol the coast in heavily armed
> Martin X-24B's? And under the sea, do they
> have X-15s mounted on the noses of Seawolf
> submarines, ready to launch?
Sorry, no. It's mostly contractors in black airboats and such.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen
Craig Fink
> Craig Fink <WeBe...@GMail.Com> wrote in
> news:pan.2005.04.11....@GMail.Com:
>
>> Many people would probably be willing to pay even more for a better
>> view of the launch than at the visitors center. A long underground
>> pedestrian walkway/bunker five miles long could easily be built with
>> thousands of entrances along the way. It would give NASA easy security
>> and crowd control, while giving viewer a nice, safe, up close
>> opportunity to watch a rocket launch.
>
> Feel free to suggest that to the USAF 45th Space Wing. Again, NASA is
> *not* in charge of range safety at KSC. Legally, they never have been -
> the USAF has *always* had the statutory responsibility - but it hasn't
> been until recently that the USAF has asserted that responsibility de
> facto as well as de jure.
You have a point there, the USAF has had the cape for 50 years or so now.
With no improvements for civilian viewer safety, just a lot of complaining
to NASA about those awful Solids. Understandably though, the Military's
solution to civilian safety has and always will be "stand back and close
your eyes".
Maybe it's really time for the Civilian Space program to have it's own
launch site, totally under civilian control so that viewer safety will be
addressed properly. Where's that letter I started awhile ago to my Congress
Critter? Maybe I'll have to add some more to it, if there is to be any
chance at all (short of hell freezing over) of camping there in the
future. I think the cape might be around for at least another 50 years or
so. That is unless, the real civilian space program (Private Enterprise)
takes off with launch vehicles that don't need Military officials sitting
in front of buttons connected to range safety packages.
Anybody else want to camp here,
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.566341,-80.652866&spn=0.093727,0.108662&t=k&hl=en ,
before a launch? It's probably going to take more than just one letter.
Craig Fink
>
> Anybody else want to camp here,
> http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.566341,-80.652866&spn=0.093727,0.108662&t=k&hl=en ,
> before a launch? It's probably going to take more than just one letter.
Oops, should have put a close up view of the best spot. But others in the area would do too.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.453796,-80.525268&spn=0.001826,0.003068&t=k&hl=en
Pat Flannery
Craig Fink wrote:
>You have a point there, the USAF has had the cape for 50 years or so now.
>With no improvements for civilian viewer safety, just a lot of complaining
>to NASA about those awful Solids.
>
>
Of course the Air Force has had some first hand experience with those
awful solids:
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/lanceurs_US/titan/titan%2034D%20explosion1986.jpg
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/titan_explosion.jpg
http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/images/02_03.jpg
This isn't the sort of stuff you want coming down on people's heads.
Pat
Scott Dorsey
>Of course the Air Force has had some first hand experience with those
>awful solids:
>http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/lanceurs_US/titan/titan%2034D%20explosion1986.jpg
>http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/titan_explosion.jpg
>http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/images/02_03.jpg
>This isn't the sort of stuff you want coming down on people's heads.
Actually, I believe the Air Force mission _is_ to drop exploding stuff
on people's heads.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Rand Simberg
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Actually, I believe the Air Force mission _is_ to drop exploding stuff
>on people's heads.
They've no need for that level of precision.
Peter Stickney
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>>Of course the Air Force has had some first hand experience with those
>>awful solids:
>>http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/lanceurs_US/titan/titan%2034D%20explosion1986.jpg
>>http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/titan_explosion.jpg
>>http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/images/02_03.jpg
>>This isn't the sort of stuff you want coming down on people's heads.
>
> Actually, I believe the Air Force mission _is_ to drop exploding stuff
> on people's heads.
Yeah - but you're supposed to drop it where they are, not where we are.
Otherwise you have to mop it up.
Apochrypical transcripte of a Little Rock AFB LCC conversation when a
dropped socket wrench bounced off the work platforms on the way down &
punctured the fuel & oxidizer tanks on a Titan II"
"Fire in the Launch Bay, Site XYZ!"
"Prepare to launch!"
"What? That thing's gonna blw!"
"Yeah, and I want it the f*** out of Arkansas when it does!"
--
Pete Stickney
p-sti...@nospam.adelphia.net
Without data, all you have are opinions
Pat Flannery
Scott Dorsey wrote:
>Actually, I believe the Air Force mission _is_ to drop exploding stuff
>on people's heads.
>
>
Only if the heads have some sort of Islamic headgear on them at the
moment. :-P
Pat
Pat Flannery
Peter Stickney wrote:
>
>Apochrypical transcripte of a Little Rock AFB LCC conversation when a
>dropped socket wrench bounced off the work platforms on the way down &
>punctured the fuel & oxidizer tanks on a Titan II"
>"Fire in the Launch Bay, Site XYZ!"
>"Prepare to launch!"
>"What? That thing's gonna blw!"
>"Yeah, and I want it the f*** out of Arkansas when it does!"
>
>
I still remember those interesting hours where they were looking for the
warhead, which had to be around there _somewhere_. :-D
Pat
Craig Fink
>
>
> Craig Fink wrote:
>
>>You have a point there, the USAF has had the cape for 50 years or so now.
>>With no improvements for civilian viewer safety, just a lot of complaining
>>to NASA about those awful Solids.
>>
>>
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=392
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=404
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=417
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=476
>
> Of course the Air Force has had some first hand experience with those
> awful solids:
> http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/lanceurs_US/titan/titan%2034D%20explosion1986.jpg
> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/titan_explosion.jpg
> http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/images/02_03.jpg
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=482
> This isn't the sort of stuff you want coming down on people's heads.
>
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=494
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=500
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=506
http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?strip_ID=524
Or, just use the Next>> button the whole series is pretty good.
Chuck Stewart
> Chuck Stewart made the sensational claim that:
>> Do they patrol the coast in heavily armed Martin X-24B's? And under the
>> sea, do they have X-15s mounted on the noses of Seawolf submarines,
>> ready to launch?
> Sorry, no. It's mostly contractors in black airboats and such.
Black stealth airboats...
Black stealth airboats with ducted fanjets...
Heavily armed black stealth airboats with ducted fanjets...
... and afterburners... :)
Pat Flannery
Chuck Stewart wrote:
>Black stealth airboats...
>Black stealth airboats with ducted fanjets...
>Heavily armed black stealth airboats with ducted fanjets...
>... and afterburners... :)
>
>
And crewed by the hottest marionettes you ever laid eyes on:
http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/destiny.html
http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/symphony.html
http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/melody.html
http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/rhapsody.html
http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/harmony.html
Homepage for a great site:
http://www.spectrum-headquarters.com/index.html
...though my heart will always belong to Dr. Venus from the XL-5.
Problem is...did a relationship with any of these beauties ever come
with no strings attached? :-)
Pat