BIGELOW Aerospace- See new website!

[NEberly]

Here:

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/index.htm

You can now fly personal items into space on a Bigelow vehicle and get video...
More to come...

Cheers,
N-

[josh_simonson]

Hey, wasn't 'by your command' already trademarked by the Cylons?

I like the new site and found his mission statement quite inspiring.

[mlorrey]

Nice stuff. Great graphics, though the questionnaire was IMHO a bit minimalist.

[nacnud]

That is very scary, I hope they know more about spaceship design than they do about web design. I mean an alien head as a cursor? Fun yes, confidence inspiring no.

Perhaps I'm just not 'with it' anymore.

[mlorrey]

nacnud - 1/6/2006  4:14 PM

That is very scary, I hope they know more about spaceship design than they do about web design. I mean an alien head as a cursor? Fun yes, confidence inspiring no.

Perhaps I'm just not 'with it' anymore.

The alien head is apparently a reference to Bigelow and Lear's work in the 90's exposing to the light of day the stories of people who allegedly worked at Area 51. I suspect that there is a significant motivation on the part of Bigelow to get "out there" himself to verify or debunk things for himself, given what he thinks he knows about US gov't black and public space operations, but that is just speculation on my part. That he named his moon cruiser "Nautilus" is telling, given that there is a story in the Area 51 conspiracy crowd that the US has operated a space station named Nautilus for the past 20-30 years that is way in advance of NASA stuff.

Frankly, I don't care what his motives are, so long as the people building his equipment are competent engineers producing reliable stuff. If he intends going up there himself, one hopes he gives more care to safety and reliability, at least out of care for his own skin, than one would expect from political appointees.

I don't mind alien heads, though I'm partial to Marvin the Martian, myself.

[Jim]

"one hopes he gives more care to safety and reliability, at least out of care for his own skin, than one would expect from political appointees. "

Was that remark necessary?

[ApolloLee]

There's more to that alien head..... Turn it to the side... See the "B" and the "A"?
It a marketing trick to but letters or other objects in logos... For example, look for the arrow pointing right in the FedExlogo, or the "M" on the forehead of the horse in the logo for the Dallas Mavericks...

[mlorrey]

Jim - 2/6/2006  6:54 AM

"one hopes he gives more care to safety and reliability, at least out of care for his own skin, than one would expect from political appointees. "

Was that remark necessary?

Actually, Jim, you'd be surprised at how much commentary I cut out of that reply before I posted it. Nacnud broached the topic by questioning the credibility of a company that has an alien head on its website. I have to ask in reply if any NASA official has ever been held personally responsible for an astronauts death. We can argue about credibility till the cows come home. You can claim private space flight doesn't have a track record, while I can point to the fact that SS1 hasn't had a single death while the X-15 program did.

It is a fact that in the private sector, when people get killed due to corporate actions, huge sums get paid out, executives get fired, and some people even go to jail and/or are subject to wrongful death lawsuits. Entrepreneurs know this, and if they put their own bodies on the line, one can have confidence in their product.

In the public sector, when a bureaucrats official actions, or lack thereof, result in death, they rarely, if ever, get canned. Often they get promoted. They enjoy immunity from lawsuits as well. The only time a bureaucrat is held accountable is if they defy a Mandamus Order, or if the government actually finds they acted criminally.

I have never heard of any middle or high level manager ever get fired or otherwise held responsible in any spaceflight disaster. If you know of one or more, I'd love to hear about it.

[Space Lizard]

I can point to the fact that SS1 hasn't had a single death while the X-15 program did.

Weak comparison. X-15 was a high-mach vehicle and flew almost 200 highly-demanding missions. SS1 is just an altitude stunt with only a dozen flights. The key difficulty for X15 was speed while SS1 is designed to get up at relatively slow velocity to avoid the X15's most difficult flight envelope.

[Jim]

And the SS1 had the benefit of increasing in computing power both for control, simulation and CFD

[Jim]

mlorrey - 2/6/2006  10:43 PM

Jim - 2/6/2006  6:54 AM

"one hopes he gives more care to safety and reliability, at least out of care for his own skin, than one would expect from political appointees. "

Was that remark necessary?

Actually, Jim, you'd be surprised at how much commentary I cut out of that reply before I posted it. Nacnud broached the topic by questioning the credibility of a company that has an alien head on its website. I have to ask in reply if any NASA official has ever been held personally responsible for an astronauts death. We can argue about credibility till the cows come home. You can claim private space flight doesn't have a track record, while I can point to the fact that SS1 hasn't had a single death while the X-15 program did.

It is a fact that in the private sector, when people get killed due to corporate actions, huge sums get paid out, executives get fired, and some people even go to jail and/or are subject to wrongful death lawsuits. Entrepreneurs know this, and if they put their own bodies on the line, one can have confidence in their product.

In the public sector, when a bureaucrats official actions, or lack thereof, result in death, they rarely, if ever, get canned. Often they get promoted. They enjoy immunity from lawsuits as well. The only time a bureaucrat is held accountable is if they defy a Mandamus Order, or if the government actually finds they acted criminally.

I have never heard of any middle or high level manager ever get fired or otherwise held responsible in any spaceflight disaster. If you know of one or more, I'd love to hear about it.

Joesph Shea, Apollo spacecraft manager, Stormy Harrison NAR

The managers wrt Challenger all resigned

[mlorrey]

SS1 reached mach 3.5, which is in no way "relatively slow". SS1 did not try for hypersonic speeds because that was not its mission, just as X-15's mission was high speed and altitude was an afterthought. In fact, the one death that did occur was on one of its altitude missions, not one of its high speed missions. X-15 rarely exceeded Mach 4 on its altitude missions.

[mlorrey]

Jim - 3/6/2006  12:07 PM

mlorrey - 2/6/2006  10:43 PM

I have never heard of any middle or high level manager ever get fired or otherwise held responsible in any spaceflight disaster. If you know of one or more, I'd love to hear about it.

Joesph Shea, Apollo spacecraft manager, Stormy Harrison NAR

The managers wrt Challenger all resigned

Thank you, I stand corrected. They are the rare exceptions, that only prove how badly a government bureaucrat has to screw up before he's expected to fall on his sword or be fired.

[Jim]

mlorrey - 5/6/2006  6:30 PM

Jim - 3/6/2006  12:07 PM

mlorrey - 2/6/2006  10:43 PM

I have never heard of any middle or high level manager ever get fired or otherwise held responsible in any spaceflight disaster. If you know of one or more, I'd love to hear about it.

Joesph Shea, Apollo spacecraft manager, Stormy Harrison NAR

The managers wrt Challenger all resigned

Thank you, I stand corrected. They are the rare exceptions, that only prove how badly a government bureaucrat has to screw up before he's expected to fall on his sword or be fired.

Rare exceptions?  Name more missions other than Columbia.

Your USAF has the same issues, basically every organization has problems

Commercial entities are not exempt or any better

[mlorrey]

Well,
a) the ET workers who dinged a tank.
b) A rocket fuel fire during atmospheric re-entry that ended in explosions on the Edwards Air Force Base runway in 1983.
c) A launch pad fire with six astronauts aboard a fully fueled shuttle in 1984.
d) A brake failure and blown tire during a 1985 landing with a U.S. Senator aboard.
e) An orbital debris strike in 1992 that caused the type of wing damage that doomed Columbia and seven astronauts in 2003.
f)In one incident in January, workers accidentally started a fire while repairing the roof of the Vehicle Assembly Building.
g) In March, broken glass from a lamp fell into Discovery's payload bay. Workers cleaning it up the next day accidentally dented Discovery's robotic arm. Three days later, an X-ray film container was dropped on shuttle Endeavour.
h) Space center director James Kennedy called a two-hour work stand-down in mid-March to re-emphasize safety after another fire was accidentally started by roofers at the assembly building. But the accidents didn't stop.
i) The next day, roofer Steven Owens, 51, tripped on a wire and fell off a warehouse, the first worker death in years at the space center.
j) in the first week of April, electronic equipment was damaged at a spare parts depot when the electricity was reversed,
k) and workers from New Orleans dropped a lamp on the nose of the external fuel tank while repairing it.

http://www.space.com/news/ap_060407_shuttle_mishaps.html
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_050702_shuttle_closecalls.html

At the same time, NASA doesn't have any trouble zeroing out truly promising technologies, and the researchers who are developing them (Chang-Diaz, as one sterling example).

[Jim]

So nothing happened when you were in the Air Force? or any other place you worked

Crap Happens!

Most of these incidents have nothing to do with specific organizations.

Assembly line workers mess up once in a while and damage hardware, the work is corrected.  Ask Boeing and Airbus.  Heads don't always have to roll.

B. was only a fire
C.  was due to SSME shutdown which always happens when they shutdown.
i.  What is that so different than any other construction site?  

[mlorrey]

Jim - 5/6/2006  6:12 PM

So nothing happened when you were in the Air Force? or any other place you worked

Crap Happens!

Most of these incidents have nothing to do with specific organizations.

Assembly line workers mess up once in a while and damage hardware, the work is corrected.  Ask Boeing and Airbus.  Heads don't always have to roll.

B. was only a fire
C.  was due to SSME shutdown which always happens when they shutdown.
i.  What is that so different than any other construction site?  

In the entire time I was in the USAF, only one plane crashed out of all the planes in all the units I worked in, an obsolete F-111D with a hydraulic failure while flying nape of the earth. Nobody died, because the capsule ejected properly (and that hydraulic tech who was found responsible was held accountable by a courts martial, his supervisor and trainer were both given an Article 15), though the crew did suffer back injuries due to the rough landing.

I've worked through exercises producing hundreds of sorties in a few days, without mishap, in all kinds of weather. When lives are on the line, failure is not an option, anybody who brings anything but total focus to the job doesn't belong there. I don't care what the motivation is: fear of a court martial, or being positively motivated for success by the profit motive. Carrots need to be balanced by sticks. Making excuses for failure (as you do above) is unacceptable.

When I got out of the military, and opened my lighting business in Seattle, a friend had built a TA-4J Skyhawk out of a couple hulks he'd bought from the boneyard, and equipped it with an engine he bought from the Guatamalan Air Force (our State Dept didn't like that). His crew were all Navy squids, his pilot a former Blue Angel. I found their practices to be the sloppiest I'd ever seen. At the first engine test after installation, the crew chief had apparently inspected the intakes with a screwdriver in his jumpsuit pocket, which fell out without his noticing. While prepping for the engine test, I was standing about 20' behind the crew chief. As the engine spun up, I noticed some FOD bouncing around INSIDE the port intake FOD screen. It was the screwdriver, having been popped out after first impacting on the first compressor disk (damaging it). As the engine spun up more, the crew chief was so obtuse he didn't even notice what was clear to me, even though I was 20' further away than he was, I had to go up, grab him by the shoulder, point at the FOD screen and yell FOD in his ear. Of course the FAA and FTSB was called, but I knew from experience that the crew was slipshod. I warned my friend afterward that his crew needed replacing, at least the crew chief, but he didn't believe me, paranoiacally thinking it was a government sabotage job.

[Jim]

"Making excuses for failure (as you do above) is unacceptable. "
I am not making excuses.   How is NASA responsible for a civilian general contractor's death?  It could have happened anywhere.

In the real world accidents and failure happen.
http://www.micom.net/oops/

Fire during the pad abort is not the "problem"   The engines shut down like they were suppose to, the fires were an artifact that were dealt with.  It did cause some changes in procedures and some ground hardware mods, but they still will happen under the same conditions.

The USAF/USN have had times were they have stood down from flying.

[mlorrey]

Jim - 5/6/2006  11:49 PM

"Making excuses for failure (as you do above) is unacceptable. "
I am not making excuses.   How is NASA responsible for a civilian general contractor's death?  It could have happened anywhere.

In the real world accidents and failure happen.
http://www.micom.net/oops/

Fire during the pad abort is not the "problem"   The engines shut down like they were suppose to, the fires were an artifact that were dealt with.  It did cause some changes in procedures and some ground hardware mods, but they still will happen under the same conditions.

The USAF/USN have had times were they have stood down from flying.

Safety is a habit driven phenomenon. Sloppy habits result in accidents. Inattention to detail, lack of morale, poor management, ineffective safety training, and a lack of accountability are all contributing factors, and all come from work habits.

I know of no time that the entire USAF or USN has stood down from flying. Sometimes a single unit stands down, generally due to a lack of unit effectiveness, or simply poor leadership resulting in unsafe habits creeping into the workplace.  Then lets compare to the airline industry: the accident rate per sortie, or per flight hour, or passenger mile: private enterprise turns circles around both NASA and the military.

[Jim]

Cohen Orders Aviation Stand Down, Services Expand It
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep1997/n09191997_9709197.html
Flight stand-down planned
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1578809.php

As you said, "Safety is a habit driven phenomenon", that's why higher flight rates are better.  More launches (no matter who is the operator), the better record.

[mlorrey]

Jim - 7/6/2006  12:07 PM

Cohen Orders Aviation Stand Down, Services Expand It
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep1997/n09191997_9709197.html
Flight stand-down planned
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1578809.php

As you said, "Safety is a habit driven phenomenon", that's why higher flight rates are better.  More launches (no matter who is the operator), the better record.

Ha, you got conned (or as we used to say, "Cohened"). See "Cohen's Sept. 17 order "

In the USAF, late september is ALWAYS dead time, but not for safety reasons, but for budget reasons. There is simply no money to fly with before the start of the new fiscal year. And in particular, that was 1997, when Clinton was stripping the US military bare. I knew of buddies in units that hadn't flown since July due to lack of money and were in danger of certification issues due to lack of flight time. "Cohen's Sept 17 order" was a scam to make an excuse for shutting the whole military down that wouldn't point to the real budgetary issue of Clinton's stripping our defenses to pay for his other priorities.

If you aren't flying at all, you won't have any accidents....

[ApolloLee]

Maybe that's why the Bigelow folks are being so guarded with their information... They want to get this right.

[publiusr]

I hope.