News NASA Nearly Crashed the Vomit Comet on a Reckless Trip to Greenland

[GLS]

NASA Nearly Crashed the Vomit Comet on a Reckless Trip to Greenland

NASA's infamous “Vomit Comet” zero gravity airplane briefly served as a delivery plane for the Navy and a private company owned by an ex astronaut, which some of the plane’s crew members who filed formal complaints felt was a misuse of the craft, according to documents obtained by Motherboard.

https://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-vomit-comet-cratered

:facepalm::facepalm:

 

[Urwumpe]

:facepalm: That is soo wrong.

 

[Artlav]

How is it possible that someone who decided to send a different-mission-optimized non-winterproofed airplane with no polar region navigation equipment and an untrained crew to an unprepared arctic airport during bad weather managed to get and keep a job at NASA?

 

[Urwumpe]

How is it possible that someone who decided to send a different-mission-optimized non-winterproofed airplane with no polar region navigation equipment and an untrained crew to an unprepared arctic airport during bad weather managed to get and keep a job at NASA?

Worst of all - who approved this and which pilot was crazy enough to do such a stunt?

 

[boogabooga]

This pretty much sums it up:

There had been intense pressure to complete this mission to provide a business case for keeping the airplane.

Shocked, but not surprised.

 

[Ravenous]

Apparently Johnson's Director at the time was Mike Coats. I can't imagine him personally approving something so dumb...

 

[Urwumpe]

This pretty much sums it up:



Shocked, but not surprised.

Well, shortly after this flight, the C-9 was retired for NASA and since then, a private company provides the flights.

 

[N_Molson]

That wouldn't happen in northern Russia. That's the daily routine there :lol:

No navigation means... In very surprised GPS (even hand-held) wasn't an option ? :idk: It should be a backup from integrated navigation systems, but it works.

Anyway I wouldn't support one "side" there. There is obviously some internal administrative warfare there, and I'm pretty sure we don't have the whole story.

 

[Urwumpe]

No navigation means... In very surprised GPS (even hand-held) wasn't an option ? :idk:

GPS doesn't work reliable at high latitudes, the satellite constellations only cover a large part of the Earths surface. For seeing a satellite at a pole, it has to be at least at 39° latitude (Out of +/- 55° possible). And you need 4 of them visible over the horizon.

This tool can be used for creating so called polar plots for the GPS constellation, at a point on Earth.

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/gps-toolbox/skyplot.htm

 

[Artlav]

Huh?
I thought GPS was latitude-irrelevant, due to satellites being spaced evenly over the planet.

Wasn't the whole point of GPS to prevent accidents like KAL-007 in the polar regions?

 

[Urwumpe]

Huh?
I thought GPS was latitude-irrelevant, due to satellites being spaced evenly over the planet.

Wasn't the whole point of GPS to prevent accidents like KAL-007 in the polar regions?

No, the main point of GPS was having a more reliable and faster system to establish the position of nuclear submarines before launching SLBMs. And provide navigation data to military units on most places of the planet.

At the poles, it is much harder to get a 4 satellite constellation.

 

[N_Molson]

No, the main point of GPS was having a more reliable and faster system to establish the position of nuclear submarines before launching SLBMs. And provide navigation data to military units on most places of the planet.

I agree, but remember that one of the main strength of Soviet nuclear subs (like the Typhoon) is that they were able to launch SLBMs from (northern) polar locations, hiding under the thick arctic pack and breaking through thin ice of sorts of natural "ice wells" to attack or retaliate. They even demonstrated this with a famous missile test-fire that was recorded and made public as a tool of propaganda.

In that case the system was seriously flawed, as the most dangerous threat was lying in GPS "black zones" (that would also explain why Soviets developped that "polar strategy") ?

And that implies that the ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast) is going to be useless for any aircraft transiting over polar regions (a lot of intercontinental commercial flights do that routinely) ?

 

[Hielor]

And that implies that the ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast) is going to be useless for any aircraft transiting over polar regions (a lot of intercontinental commercial flights do that routinely) ?

ADS-B would be useless for polar regions anyway since it requires ground stations...

 

[N_Molson]

ADS-B would be useless for polar regions anyway since it requires ground stations...

Sure, but I understood that those could be relatively small devices, requiring minimal maintenance, power supply and crew. Putting those on the northernmost islands could certainly reduce the "black hole" to a sector that could be avoided ? (no idea of their possible range though)

Edit :

The nearest land [from the North Pole] is usually said to be Kaffeklubben Island, off the northern coast of Greenland about 700 km

Well I guess that 700 km is far too much, indeed...

 

[Artlav]

This tool can be used for creating so called polar plots for the GPS constellation, at a point on Earth.

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/gps-toolbox/skyplot.htm

I tried to get it to work without much success.
Today's GMT is not compatible with it's output, and even after all the tweaks it does not produce a readable map.

What it does produce is a list of satellites, as far as i can tell, and several runs with high latitudes consistently gave me 10+ of them.

Add to that the orbits themselves as described on the Wiki - the spacing of the rings is evenly distributed across the whole sphere.

So, not so sure about there being polar limits.

 

[Urwumpe]

What it does produce is a list of satellites, as far as i can tell, and several runs with high latitudes consistently gave me 10+ of them.

Can't work out: Even at rather mild latitudes of 50°N, I have few times with just 6 satellites here. 14 satellites including Glonass above the horizon is a very good time.

Maybe you had 10 satellite plots, but 10+ visible satellites at all times should be rare.

 

[Andy44]

Having read Mike Mullane's book and remembering some of the poor decisions made by NASA and their treatment of astronauts who dare to rock the boat, this doesn't surprise me too much. As Orbinauts we tend to look up to NASA but the organization is, of course, a government bureaucracy which is just as capable of boneheadedness as any other. The true job of any government bureaucrat is to find a way to preserve his bureau and expand its power and influence. So maybe whoever was in charge of the C9 program decided to take a needless risk to preserve the program.

NASA is also, unlike say, the USAF, always a bit paranoid about remaining relevant and proving its own reason for existing, and the budget is not nearly as lush as it is for defense-related agencies.

 

[Linguofreak]

NASA is also, unlike say, the USAF, always a bit paranoid about remaining relevant and proving its own reason for existing, and the budget is not nearly as lush as it is for defense-related agencies.

Unlike the USAF?

Why do you think that the USAF has fought so hard to make sure that the Army is forbidden by policy from flying fixed-wing aircraft?

 

[Urwumpe]

Unlike the USAF?

Why do you think that the USAF has fought so hard to make sure that the Army is forbidden by policy from flying fixed-wing aircraft?

And why the USAF fought against allowing the Navy to have nuclear weapons. :lol:

 

[Andy44]

Fair points, but I was mainly talking about the DoD's "space program". NASA always has to justify its existence and beg for every probe they launch. The DoD by comparison gets plenty of cash to launch its military stuff. Because "national security".