Author Topic: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site  (Read 234059 times)

Offline sbt

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #100 on: 11/20/2010 11:52 PM »
Important point to keep in mind in these discussions...

When a Government Body lets a contract for a service it, rightly or
wrongly, accrues much of the consequences of failure. It may not do so
legally (although often it does) but it does so in the minds of the
press, a legal and investigatory system that tends to be harsher on
mistakes made by government bodies and employees than those made by
commercial entities, and Politicians (who will rapidly step away from a
decision that they may have pressurised the body to make). Some of this
is or course justified, people are held to higher standards when
spending 'other people money' rather than their own.

This is one of the major reasons why government bodies are risk averse,
sometimes overly so. If people want to ease the 'regulatory burden'
they need to ensure that the pressures that work against government
bodies doing so are also eased. Otherwise the excessive paperwork will
either remain in place or be legislated out of existence - and we
should all realise what a blunt, inflexible, instrument, with many
attached 'unintended consequences', legislation is.

A lot of modern external oversight and failure investigations tend to
criticise 'lack of paper'. Reasonable judgement calls or a 'hands off'
approach are not accepted by an external investigation process
that is often looking to attach blame rather than discover underlying
causes (although NASA has been rather fortunate in the way its
investigations have been carried out). Unless the external oversight
and investigation process is willing to relax its strong attachment to
paperwork then its unlikely the bodies they oversee and investigate
will relax their attachment.

In short, if people want to see the causes of excessive regulation they
need to look within themselves, within the press and to their Political
Representatives as well as at the bodies actually implementing it.

Rant/lecture/sermon over! :)

(Edited for slight miswording)
« Last Edit: 11/21/2010 06:24 PM by sbt »
I am not interested in your political point scoring, Ad Hominem attacks, personal obsessions and vendettas. - No matter how cute and clever you may think your comments are.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #101 on: 11/21/2010 01:33 PM »
Important point to keep in mind in these discussions... if people want to see the causes of excessive regulation they need to look within themselves, within the press and to their Political Representatives as well as the bodies actually implementing it.

In the "looking within themselves" part, first, they should realize that the truth exists outside of their opinions.  Should they resolve to tell the truth as they know it, to research what the truth might be, and learn to revise their opinions accordingly, the regulations would soon become sufficiently simple and efficiently effective.

Ahhh.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline MP99

Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #102 on: 11/21/2010 07:00 PM »
The question I'm not clear on is how much unique knowledge/experience NASA has from it's various manned programmes, which is not otherwise available to startup companies such as SpaceX? Are requirements the best way to make these available to commercial crew providers?

Getting the launch element out of the way (presumably a small part of the total requirements), does it need to have much more than "LOC must be 1:000 or better - you prove you can meet that"?

I presume that most of the requirements to approach ISS are already covered in the two COTS contracts, which don't seem to have been too expensive for SpaceX & Orbital to take on.

cheers, Martin

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #103 on: 11/22/2010 01:53 PM »
As to LOC:  I decree that the shuttle's track record stand as the applicable standard.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #104 on: 12/01/2010 06:59 PM »
I was browsing through past TSR articles and came across this really great read & thought others might like it as well (if they haven't already).
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/709/1

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • Liked: 1387
  • Likes Given: 875
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #105 on: 12/02/2010 05:57 PM »
For those wondering what Wayne was alluding to in his blog. It's likely related to this:

From the CCDev-2 Questions and Answers:

Quote
Background: Requirement 3.3.1.5 states “The CTS shall provide an overall abort effectiveness of 0.95 (TBC) for all single abort events along the nominal and dispersed ascent trajectory profile.”
95% Abort Effectiveness seems to be a rather aggressive requirement given the fact that NASA’s own calculations for the Ares I (which was suppose to be one of the safest crew vehicles NASA had ever designed) showed that this vehicle had an abort effectiveness of about 80% to 85%. Enclosed is a transcript from one of the recent Augustine Committee public hearings where one of NASA’s safety & reliability experts (highlighted in the document) specifically says that “95% effectiveness is a very difficult thing to achieve” – the transcript is available at www.nasa.gov/doc/378830main_Huntsville_Transcript_part4b.doc

Question: If one of NASA’s own experts in this area has already stated publically that a 95% abort effectiveness is very difficult to achieve, is this requirement reasonable to be placed on commercial crew providers? Moreover, requirement 3.2.1.2 states “The mean LOC risk for any ISS mission ascent phase shall be no greater than 1 in 1000” so since the mean LOC risk is simply the probability of launch vehicle failure that ends the mission (also called Loss-of-Mission or LOM Risk) multiplied by 1 – abort effectiveness, why not let the commercial crew providers determine how best to meet the 1 in 1000 LOC risk regardless of how effective the abort portion of this equation is?

Answer: The requirement documents referenced in the Announcement are in draft form and are intended to inform participants on the development of NASA’s crew transportation certification requirements.  NASA will continue to openly develop these requirements for eventual use in development and use in an ISS crew transportation system.  NASA is not requiring compliance as part of CCDev 2 but is informing industry as early as possible the considerations being given by NASA as part of crew rating space systems.

See:
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccdev2/Questions%20and%20Answers%20Round%202%20final.docx

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6673
  • Liked: 980
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #106 on: 12/02/2010 06:43 PM »
"So, what is my recommendation?  Simple.  Do what the Launch Services Program does:  require that providers HAVE standards and follow them – don’t make them pick particular processes or standards, let the flexible, nimble, [your adjective here] commercial firms pick what suits their business best.  As long as they have standards and stick to them – that is what we should require." --Wayne Hale

Another thought to consider.

When you build a house or a building, you have to follow a standard called the "National Electric Code" (among others).  It's a very rigorous (and long) standard on how electric *installations* shall be built.  It leaves very little to interpretation and almost no room for creativity.  It's designed for one primary purpose - to prevent electrical fires.

However, when you purchase an item that is to be installed in such a building, the internal construction of that item does not have to meet the rules of the National Electric Code.  You can buy a microwave with wire inside that doesn't meet NEC requirements, you can buy a stove with wire that isn't even described by the NEC, you can buy a dryer that doesn't have circuit protection consistent with the NEC, and so on.  Why is this possible?  Because devices have to meet an entirely different requirement - they have to be UL certified.

UL certification is an entirely different type of standard from the NEC.  The NEC tells you how to build things.  The UL tests your things for how they were built - it's a *performance* standard.  It doesn't matter how you build your widget, as long as it can pass some tests spelled out in standards documents and executed by Underwriters Laboratories or another accredited testing lab.  If your gizmo performs okay (from an electrical point of view), it can be sold and used in the US, regardless of its actual internal construction.

Just a thought.

P.S.  I realize there were a number of simplifications posted above.

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #107 on: 12/06/2010 10:16 PM »
Here is more of Mr Hale's insight from the latest issue of
ASK, NASA's in-house systems engineering magazine.

v/r,
F=ma

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7057
  • SpaceShip Earth
  • Liked: 3433
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #108 on: 12/10/2010 09:49 AM »
Mr. Hale had some time to post another blog update:
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/abort-request-command/

Below the STS-51F Hi-Res image of the Abort Mode switch set to ATO
« Last Edit: 12/10/2010 09:50 AM by Jester »

Offline Paul Howard

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #109 on: 12/21/2010 01:52 AM »
Mr. Hale had some time to post another blog update:
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/abort-request-command/

Below the STS-51F Hi-Res image of the Abort Mode switch set to ATO

Here's the abort video

Offline Fequalsma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #110 on: 01/06/2011 11:02 AM »
Another excellent post by Mr Hale on leadership.  Glad to see he gave credit to Scouting.  I was an Explorer, both scout and leader, and learned much from that experience as well. 

Offline Mark Dave

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1101
  • Ruined
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #111 on: 01/07/2011 12:07 AM »
Welcome Mr. Hale. :) It's an honor to have one of the NASA legends here.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2011 12:08 AM by MarkD »

Offline Space Pete

Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #112 on: 01/07/2011 04:31 PM »
Latest post: Certifying Soyuz.
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/certifying-soyuz

On this subject, I wonder if the Russian modules of the ISS comply with the same safety standards as are used for the USOS modules?
« Last Edit: 01/07/2011 04:31 PM by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6673
  • Liked: 980
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #113 on: 01/19/2011 12:16 AM »
The UL tests your things for how they were built - it's a *performance* standard.

Mr. Hale addresses this concept in his latest blog post, which I failed to notice until just now:

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/certifying-soyuz/

"Airworthiness regs are generally considered to be performance based."
« Last Edit: 01/19/2011 12:18 AM by Lee Jay »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #114 on: 01/21/2011 09:40 AM »
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/space-architecture/

I wish we could pick a plan and stick to it long enough to get it to work.  Orbital Space Plane was a good plan, it could have worked.  X-33/Venture Star was a good plan, it could have worked.  X-38 was a GREAT idea that was just on the cusp of working.  Even Constellation was a good plan, it could have worked. Don’t write me any emails saying that they were unsustainable from the political/economic viewpoint.  I get that.  I’m speaking as an operator, an engineer, a manager.  Those programs, those vehicles, could have worked.  Any one of them.  And we would be years down the road, and money ahead. But we always stop. Just pick one.  And see it through.

Common sense talk.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28360
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8210
  • Likes Given: 5436
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #116 on: 01/25/2011 09:15 PM »
http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/space-architecture/


Just read this.  I like Wayne, good guy. 
Thanks for posting that. While I have my opinions about the architecture mode (and the level of sustainability), I really would not complain about what rocket we use to get to Mars, as long as we get there!

Heck, I don't care if we go to Mars using SRB-X, as long as we get there! http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19248.msg498455#msg498455
« Last Edit: 01/25/2011 09:30 PM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline edfishel

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #117 on: 01/25/2011 09:21 PM »
I love reading Wayne Hale's articles. No wonder he was such a good manager.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #118 on: 01/26/2011 02:13 AM »
Required reading.

"X-33/Venture Star was a good plan, it could have worked."

My favorite deceased SSTO there.

Offline iamlucky13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: Wayne Hale sets up his own blog site
« Reply #119 on: 01/28/2011 06:34 PM »
Venture Star was an inspiring concept, but the level of ambition behind it still makes me hesitant to mourn that it was canceled.

His references to all these past canceled programs was a minor trip back to reading about them as a kid in Popular Mechanics. As a kid, each one of them seemed absolutely like the future.

Which brings me to another thought - as a kid I had no concept of the size of Venture Star. It was only recently that I saw a size comparison to the shuttle on Wikipedia. Gigantic!

Anyways, Mr. Hale's thoughts very much echo my own - Let's commit to something, build it, and start flying missions!!! Too much running in circles.

Tags: