View Full Version : Return to Flight/STS-114
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/110116main_rtf_banner_0305.gif
7/13/05 @ 3:51pm. God's speed crew!
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/main/index.html?skipIntro=1
Only a 10-minute launch window, so any wx delay is a major delay.
-Kevin
Insomniac
07-12-05, 07:49 PM
We will all be watching at work. Everyone expects things to go smoothly.
indyfan31
07-12-05, 07:55 PM
Just heard that a "window covering" fell off and damaged some of the tiles on one of the wings. They expect to have it repaired before launch time.
(EDIT: Maybe it wasn't the wing.)
Insomniac
07-12-05, 08:07 PM
Here's the story:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050712/D8BA49000.html
Good luck to NASA, Discovery and the crew. :thumbup:
pfc_m_drake
07-13-05, 09:35 AM
We definitely wish them all the best. Here's hoping for a nice smooth mission. :thumbup:
I'm hoping that someday soon a new shuttle program will be funded, so that we don't keep sending those folks up in a 30+ year old compromise of a design.
I'm hoping that someday soon a new shuttle program will be funded, so that we don't keep sending those folks up in a 30+ year old compromise of a design.
IMO they should have started 20 years ago. Now the deadline is supposed to be 2010. Only 5 years to develop whatever the next technology will be. :(
indyfan31
07-13-05, 12:33 PM
Astronauts are boarding right now. NASA TV is too cool. :cool:
indyfan31
07-13-05, 01:37 PM
Bad News.
1:32 p.m. - Launch Director Mike Leinbach has scrubbed the launch for today. One of four low-level fuel cutoff sensors is not functioning properly.
:(
Insomniac
07-13-05, 02:57 PM
I'm hoping that someday soon a new shuttle program will be funded, so that we don't keep sending those folks up in a 30+ year old compromise of a design.
A new program is funded. Two contractors have been selected to compete for the final award. they will demonstrate designs next year and be selected by the Fall. The current shuttles are planned for retirement in 2010 at which time the new CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) will be put into service.
cartman
07-13-05, 03:14 PM
I'm sure that it's not very comforting for military or NASA personnel to know that all of their equipment is being built by the cheapest bidder.
Why does this dude have a sub machine gun? Is someone gonna try to hijack the shuttle? :rolleyes:
http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2005/07/13/amn-220x194-shuttle_guard.jpg
indyfan31
07-13-05, 04:33 PM
Why does this dude have a sub machine gun? Is someone gonna try to hijack the shuttle? :rolleyes:
I'm assuming your kidding. But these guys are KSC's on-base SWAT team, in addition to the standard base security.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/122151main_SWAT-and-VAB.jpg
Article (http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/main/swat_feature.html)
Scrubbed until @ least Sat.
-Kevin
Insomniac
07-13-05, 10:10 PM
I'm sure that it's not very comforting for military or NASA personnel to know that all of their equipment is being built by the cheapest bidder.
They don't take the cheapest bidder. They give it to the people they like best. ;)
To be honest though, most of the proposals/bidding I've been involved with, they tossed out the cheapest one unless there was a compelling reason. That tends to be the first indication that there will most likely be problems (overruns or bad results).
cartman
07-14-05, 11:25 AM
They don't take the cheapest bidder. They give it to the people they like best. ;)
To be honest though, most of the proposals/bidding I've been involved with, they tossed out the cheapest one unless there was a compelling reason. That tends to be the first indication that there will most likely be problems (overruns or bad results).
Good to know, I was hoping I was wrong.
coolhand
07-14-05, 12:07 PM
The space program is pretty weak and unexciting. Nuclear Submarines are more complex now.
The international space station is just an expensive program that does not get anyone more excited about space.
Considering the tax money they are spending they should be doing alot better.
look what we got done in the 1960s and compare it to now.
Insomniac
07-14-05, 12:45 PM
The space program is pretty weak and unexciting. Nuclear Submarines are more complex now.
The international space station is just an expensive program that does not get anyone more excited about space.
Considering the tax money they are spending they should be doing alot better.
look what we got done in the 1960s and compare it to now.
NASA does not have anywhere close to the budget that the DoD does. And it is partially because of the DoD that the shuttle program has been so costly. In addition to the constant cutting of the NASA budget until they were left with only one program (Space Shuttle) and evem then needed the DoD on board to get enough money. Then they were forced to build a larger shuttle (and method to get that shuttle in space) to carry enormous payloads. NASA is still trying to achieve the same goals as far as manned space flight as it was trying to do in the 1970s.
However, NASA does a lot more than putting a space shuttle in space.
However, NASA does a lot more than putting a space shuttle in space.
That reminds me, after a year and a half those two little rovers are still hard at it on Mars. They were I think originally only supposed to last 90 days or so.
Hopefully once we get past finishing the construction of the ISS, NASA can get back to manned exploration rather then the construction business.
No launch this weekend. A new launch date will be announced this afternoon.
-Kevin
No launch this weekend. A new launch date will be announced this afternoon.
-Kevin
Probably this fall!
Funny....yet sad. :shakehead
I can`t believe I was alive when they walked on the Moon, and now......this.
Probably this fall!
Funny....yet sad. :shakehead
I can`t believe I was alive when they walked on the Moon, and now......this.
Well, NASA's site sez they are hopeful for launch by the end of the month. I wonder if the flight windows will affect the launch date?
Where's our resident rocket scientist through all of this? :gomer:
-Kevin
Insomniac
07-15-05, 03:30 PM
That reminds me, after a year and a half those two little rovers are still hard at it on Mars. They were I think originally only supposed to last 90 days or so.
Hopefully once we get past finishing the construction of the ISS, NASA can get back to manned exploration rather then the construction business.
Those two things have been doing great! About a month ago Opportunity got out of a bind. It was stuck in a sand dune for 5 weeks and they managed to get it out. They've travelled much farther than expected.
Insomniac
07-15-05, 03:34 PM
Well, NASA's site sez they are hopeful for launch by the end of the month. I wonder if the flight windows will affect the launch date?
Where's our resident rocket scientist through all of this? :gomer:
-Kevin
The current window closes July 31. The next one opens up in September.
Insomniac
07-15-05, 03:36 PM
Probably this fall!
Funny....yet sad. :shakehead
I can`t believe I was alive when they walked on the Moon, and now......this.
They have a couple weeks. If it is just the sensor, then they should be able to get it launched in this window provided the weather cooperates.
Don't they know to never trust the gage? Always go by the mileage. :)
The space program is pretty weak and unexciting. Nuclear Submarines are more complex now.
The international space station is just an expensive program that does not get anyone more excited about space.
Considering the tax money they are spending they should be doing alot better.
look what we got done in the 1960s and compare it to now.
alot of people think they know something about the space program...
herad of JIMO? thought so.
heard of VASIMR? thought so.
hypervelocity cannons? thought so.
X-43 and all the related hypersonic data which DARPA now owns to design hypersonic strike vehicles? thought so.
single stage to orbit? thought so.
Linear Aerospike Engine? thought so.
how about this, you go bone up on the federal budget first, then go bone up on the 60's budget... then come back and bitch about NASA's appropriations,
after that go look up DoD spending on DARPA programs, DD(X), FCS, Challenger, Comanche, THAADS, ABL, and the slew of other defense programs which employ millions waste billions and deliver nothing.
the purpose of NASA isn't to get you "excited about space." go to Six Flags instead.
alot of people think they know something about the space program...
herad of JIMO? thought so.
heard of VASIMR? thought so.
hypervelocity cannons? thought so.
X-43 and all the related hypersonic data which DARPA now owns to design hypersonic strike vehicles? thought so.
single stage to orbit? thought so.
Linear Aerospike Engine? thought so.
how about this, you go bone up on the federal budget first, then go bone up on the 60's budget... then come back and bitch about NASA's appropriations,
after that go look up DoD spending on DARPA programs, DD(X), FCS, Challenger, Comanche, THAADS, ABL, and the slew of other defense programs which employ millions waste billions and deliver nothing.
the purpose of NASA isn't to get you "excited about space." go to Six Flags instead.
Damn. Grumpy? Need a beverage? :p
-Kevin
No new launch date announced. Four days from when the problem is fixed.
-Kevin
after that go look up DoD spending on DARPA programs, DD(X), FCS, Challenger, Comanche, THAADS, ABL, and the slew of other defense programs which employ millions waste billions and deliver nothing.
Maybe that should be NASA's new slogan. "Other government agencies waste even more than we do."
BTW, weren't you the guy who said GM engineers can't design a car? I owned a GM car for 13 years. At least none of the parts fell off.
BTW, weren't you the guy who said GM engineers can't design a car? I owned a GM car for 13 years. At least none of the parts fell off.
Great comparison. A car is just as complex as the space shuttle. :shakehead
-Kevin
Insomniac
07-15-05, 06:57 PM
Maybe that should be NASA's new slogan. "Other government agencies waste even more than we do."
Which is absolutely true. NASA's budget is cut year after year and yet somehow they are able to accomplish quite a lot. Even after President Bush decided he wanted to go back to the moon and Mars, he still didn't increase their budget. In fact, they cut it some more.
But, you know what? The engineers (both gov't and contractors) just keep working and doing some amazing things. There was barely any coverage of shuttle launches on the news anymore. No one paid attention, or does, until something bad happens. One good thing about the shuttle program is it sent astronauts up on many missions and most people never knew what they were doing in space or why. No one complained then about a 30 year old shuttle program. They were doing their jobs.
Anyone else totally blown away that they were able to shoot a hole through a comet that was a bazillion miles away?
NASA geeks rock. They pwn space, dude.
Insomniac
07-15-05, 08:18 PM
Anyone else totally blown away that they were able to shoot a hole through a comet that was a bazillion miles away?
NASA geeks rock. They pwn space, dude.
I'm still blown away by the fact that they sent people into space and brought them back. Knowing things about the heat generated by renetry, required angles for re-entry or they could bounce off into space, etc. Just all the unknowns and they were successful.
And somehow Michelin can't make a tire for the USGP. :) (Sorry Ank, I had to say it. :P)
I'm still blown away by the fact that they sent people into space and brought them back. Knowing things about the heat generated by renetry, required angles for re-entry or they could bounce off into space, etc. Just all the unknowns and they were successful.
And somehow Michelin can't make a tire for the USGP. :) (Sorry Ank, I had to say it. :P)
no hate, you're right :D
hey, when you get that clunky Lumina into Low-Earth Orbit, lemme know and drop Mike Griffin a friendly email too, he's mighty interested in a cheap commercial launch vehicle for station cargo :gomer:
hey, when you get that clunky Lumina into Low-Earth Orbit, lemme know and drop Mike Griffin a friendly email too, he's mighty interested in a cheap commercial launch vehicle for station cargo :gomer:
Ain't there a better chance of gettin' a cr@pwagon into orbit rather than a Lumina? Wait, that might be the same thing. :gomer:
-Kevin
the purpose of NASA isn't to get you "excited about space." go to Six Flags instead.
http://www.wiskate.com/fun/6flags.jpg
2.5 years, billions of dollars and they've gone from parts falling off during launch to parts falling off before launch. :thumbup:
Insomniac
07-16-05, 06:08 PM
2.5 years, billions of dollars and they've gone from parts falling off during launch to parts falling off before launch. :thumbup:
I suppose you're upset with the $600k cost to scrub the launch. Just send the astronauts up. Who cares about their safety, the gov't can save $600k! Since the gov't uses their money (and then some) so wisely and all...
Nope. I'm in favor of the "spend $0 and be 100% certain that no one ever dies going around in circles for no reason" plan. For both NASA and the IRL.
Nope. I'm in favor of the "spend $0 and be 100% certain that no one ever dies going around in circles for no reason" plan. For both NASA and the IRL.
:shakehead
-Kevin
The Doctor
07-17-05, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by FTG
Nope. I'm in favor of the "spend $0 and be 100% certain that no one ever dies going around in circles for no reason" plan. For both NASA and the IRL.
:thumdown: :shakehead
I tried to come up with a smarmy response, but there just doesn't exist the right combination of words. So I'll still just shake my head.
:shakehead
Okay, so now they say Tuesday fo' sho' no backsies, double super pinkie swear, they gua-ran-tee, scout's honor, just do it.
Can we bet on this in Vegas yet?
Once again, Good Luck to Discovery and the crew. :thumbup:
indyfan31
07-26-05, 09:43 AM
Is anyone else having trouble getting the live feed?
I've had it up for about 45 minutes. No problems for me.
I used the Yahoo link on this (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html) page.
Joelski
07-26-05, 10:30 AM
Also available on HDNet. :)
We have liftoff! :thumbup:
-Kevin
Way to go NASA!
Cool view from the camera mounted on the external fuel tank. :cool:
Cool view from the camera mounted on the external fuel tank. :cool:
No doubt.
-Kevin
indyfan31
07-26-05, 11:54 AM
I've had it up for about 45 minutes. No problems for me.
I used the Yahoo link on this (http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html) page.
I did finally get it to work. I switched to Mozilla and it came right up (stupid Explorer!).
I'm still amazed at how they can get a multi-million pound vehicle to practically leap off the pad, it cleared the tower in less than 3 seconds!!
They've been replaying the launch from the myriad of cameras set up all around the shuttle and the base. :thumbup:
Grounded again. :(
from cnn: NASA grounds the space shuttle progam while engineers determine the effects of debris falling from Discovery during blastoff.
the foam piece from the external tank is an amorphous chunk about 2'-3' x 3"-8" generally
and they've just found a crack not long ago in the RCC with the OBSS sensor they're using but it's really small... they're cool for now.
fourrunner
07-27-05, 09:10 PM
the foam piece from the external tank is an amorphous chunk about 2'-3' x 3"-8" generally
and they've just found a crack not long ago in the RCC with the OBSS sensor they're using but it's really small... they're cool for now.
Exactly what I was going to say!!! ;)
the RCC being the Reinforced Carbon Carbon composite stuff that makes up the nosecap and the leading edge of the wings...
Night Train
07-27-05, 10:48 PM
Uneducated layman's question.... How did they get the first x number of shuttles off the ground without the foam problems of this magnitude? Have they changed something significant?
I seem to remember that there have always been minor tile issues, but one of you guys in the know may know better.....
Thanks in advance.
Uneducated layman's question.... How did they get the first x number of shuttles off the ground without the foam problems of this magnitude? Have they changed something significant?
I seem to remember that there have always been minor tile issues, but one of you guys in the know may know better.....
Thanks in advance.
The foam has always been an issue, the odds just caught up w/NASA when Columbia went down. Now there is a heightened sensitivity and more data to review. IIRC, there were a few other flights before Columbia that revealed some significant tile damage post-flight. Unfortunately no changes were made to minimize the problem as a result.
-Kevin
it's always been an issue, they've been lucky, and there's been many close calls involving other issues which were just as close to resulting in lost orbiters, you just never hear about those... I have a Boeing doc in front of me showing all the damage photos from sts-87, but they dont really want that shown to the public so yea... but yea, tiles have had huge chunks knocked out of them before, just never the leading edge RCC which is different from tile....
Lizzerd
07-27-05, 11:26 PM
I read somewhere a few years ago that the original adhesive or the insulation (asbestos?) in the early flights wasn't environmentally friendly, so the tree hugger lobby (my words) forced it to be changed, which is when the problems began. Correct me if I'm wrong, rocket scientists, but that's what I remember.
it's always been an issue, they've been lucky, and there's been many close calls involving other issues which were just as close to resulting in lost orbiters, you just never hear about those... I have a Boeing doc in front of me showing all the damage photos from sts-87, but they dont really want that shown to the public so yea... but yea, tiles have had huge chunks knocked out of them before, just never the leading edge RCC which is different from tile....
More info on dat mission:
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/space/updates/sto32.html
STS-86 was also affected, but due to night launch conditions, there was little if any photographic evidence of the launch. As such, it was written off as an anomaly.
-Kevin
I read somewhere a few years ago that the original adhesive or the insulation (asbestos?) in the early flights wasn't environmentally friendly, so the tree hugger lobby (my words) forced it to be changed, which is when the problems began. Correct me if I'm wrong, rocket scientists, but that's what I remember.
Correct. The formulation of the foam insulation was changed to remove freon. The change was made in the mid-90s.
-Kevin
Chitowncartfreak
07-28-05, 08:20 AM
I remember hearing how NASA almost lost a couple of shuttles due to the same o-ring problem in the rocket boosters that doomed Challenger in 1986. Although Challenger and Columbia were victims of different mechanical problems, the common thread between the two is politics within NASA. People lower down in the food chain discover these problems, but nothing is ever done until something goes wrong. I'm happy to hear that they grounded the shuttle fleet immediately after discovering that they still have issues with the foam - let's hope that the lessons have finally been learned and that Discovery has an uneventful mission.
Insomniac
07-28-05, 09:22 AM
I remember hearing how NASA almost lost a couple of shuttles due to the same o-ring problem in the rocket boosters that doomed Challenger in 1986. Although Challenger and Columbia were victims of different mechanical problems, the common thread between the two is politics within NASA. People lower down in the food chain discover these problems, but nothing is ever done until something goes wrong. I'm happy to hear that they grounded the shuttle fleet immediately after discovering that they still have issues with the foam - let's hope that the lessons have finally been learned and that Discovery has an uneventful mission.
I don't recall this ever happeneing. After Challenger, they added a third o-ring and no longer launched shuttles when the temperatures were that low.
I think Discovery will be fine. As others have said, the foam has always been a problem and the worst case scenario happened with Columbia. I read somewhere they have found 15,000 damaged tiles on the previous 111 returned orbiters. Before they didn't have the knowledge or data to know the full risk of what that damage can do and now they are being extremely cautious. The last thing they want to do is cost the astronauts their lives.
They are going to have to find a way to permanently afix the insulation to the fuel tank and reduce the maximum payload of the shuttle. They can't control how foam is going to separate and fall. The odd thing is they said they reduced the chances, but still knew it would/could come off. I wonder what changed.
This is very disappointing. Two years of work and we still have the same problem that caused the destruction of Columbia. :(
I'm starting to think the money may be better spent developing the next generation of vehicles if there is not a fairly quick fix in the works.
At least it appears Discovery is in good shape. :)
Insomniac
07-28-05, 12:38 PM
This is very disappointing. Two years of work and we still have the same problem that caused the destruction of Columbia. :(
I'm starting to think the money may be better spent developing the next generation of vehicles if there is not a fairly quick fix in the works.
At least it appears Discovery is in good shape. :)
Part of the problem is that ISS is not finished, and I'm not sure if the planned CEV will be able to deliver the necessary payloads to finish it. It could be twenty years from now before the CEV can handle that kind of payload. That would just kleave the space station in space unused for 20 years.
Part of the problem is that ISS is not finished, and I'm not sure if the planned CEV will be able to deliver the necessary payloads to finish it. It could be twenty years from now before the CEV can handle that kind of payload. That would just kleave the space station in space unused for 20 years.
I do understand the ISS issue and our responsibility to complete it. I'm not as knowledgable on the current CEV discussions as I'd like to be but it seems to me we have to have a heavy lift capability in the not too distant future if we plan on going back to the moon and then on to Mars. Would it really take 20 years? I don't know. Looking back at how much we accomplished in the 60's it seems to me it shouldn't take that long.
I guess I'm just a frustrated 'spacehead' from the 60's. I can't believe we haven't advanced farther then we have in the last 30 years. :(
Chitowncartfreak
07-28-05, 01:18 PM
I don't recall this ever happeneing. After Challenger, they added a third o-ring and no longer launched shuttles when the temperatures were that low..
I was referring to pre-Challenger flights, not post-Challenger. You're correct - they haven't had o-ring problems since Challenger, but they had a few close calls for the same issue prior to 1986.
Looking back at how much we accomplished in the 60's it seems to me it shouldn't take that long. :(
This is a case of "ignorance is bliss", I think. Looking back from today, a lot of people thought it was amazing they even got in orbit. I remember watching something on the Apollo missions on The History Channel and one of the interviewees saying that there is no way that those ships would have gone up today with the safety standards we have now.
This is a case of "ignorance is bliss", I think. Looking back from today, a lot of people thought it was amazing they even got in orbit. I remember watching something on the Apollo missions on The History Channel and one of the interviewees saying that there is no way that those ships would have gone up today with the safety standards we have now.
We were more willing to accept risks back in those days I think. But I don't think the technical achievements can be minimized.
NASA goofed IMO by trying to present the shuttle as routine access to space. We haven't developed a 'safe' technology yet to get to space. We also haven't spent much time trying either as so much of the funding is tied up in the shuttle/ISS.
Here (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1040) is what Griffin is apparently proposing as the next steps. The heavy launch vehicle is based on using some of the shuttle technology.
think. But I don't think the technical achievements can be minimized.
That I would never do. I think it is pretty cool to send someone to the moon. If you have a spare $100,000,000.00, you can do an orbit around the moon with the Russians in a couple of years.
If you have a spare $100,000,000.00, you can do an orbit around the moon with the Russians in a couple of years.
I might have to cut back a race weekend or two ;)
We were more willing to accept risks back in those days I think. But I don't think the technical achievements can be minimized.
NASA goofed IMO by trying to present the shuttle as routine access to space. We haven't developed a 'safe' technology yet to get to space. We also haven't spent much time trying either as so much of the funding is tied up in the shuttle/ISS.
Here (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1040) is what Griffin is apparently proposing as the next steps. The heavy launch vehicle is based on using some of the shuttle technology.
I posted those proposals in my other STS-114 thread... they're good ideas because they keep New Orleans (Michoud external tank), Mississippi (Stennis rocket testing center), and Huntsville (rocket city) in operation between CEV and Shuttle so they don't lose their manufacturing expertise. plus it's cheaper than whole new launch vehicles, and they can already get 100 metric tons into orbit as opposed to going with some version of the Titan or Delta IV Heavy Lift rockets...
I have the intitial presentation from the Boeing and USA guys about the tile damage in .pdf if anyone wants it, and also a couple of very crude initial photo analysis conducted, similar to the shots from the newscasts but ganked from presentations... both are being passed around amongst the peoples...
I guess I'm just a frustrated 'spacehead' from the 60's. I can't believe we haven't advanced farther then we have in the last 30 years. :(
we don't have the $ we had 30 years ago...
and if Bush had never appointed your average pentagon bean counting shmuck w 0 f'ing technical ability 5 years ago we might very well have an X-33 and an X-38 by now instead of millions of dollars pissed away and an x-38 sitting in mothballs waiting for a flight test...
all hail The Griffin. http://www2.hornfans.com/wwwthreads/images/icons/hookem.gif
I have the intitial presentation from the Boeing and USA guys about the tile damage in .pdf if anyone wants it, and also a couple of very crude initial photo analysis conducted, similar to the shots from the newscasts but ganked from presentations... both are being passed around amongst the peoples...PM's Ank. :thumbup:
I might have to cut back a race weekend or two Dat's a lotta beer and brats man. $100,000,000.00? :eek:
Insomniac
07-28-05, 08:06 PM
I do understand the ISS issue and our responsibility to complete it. I'm not as knowledgable on the current CEV discussions as I'd like to be but it seems to me we have to have a heavy lift capability in the not too distant future if we plan on going back to the moon and then on to Mars. Would it really take 20 years? I don't know. Looking back at how much we accomplished in the 60's it seems to me it shouldn't take that long.
I guess I'm just a frustrated 'spacehead' from the 60's. I can't believe we haven't advanced farther then we have in the last 30 years. :(
I'm was saying 20 years based on the proposed schedule for the CEV. They want to do it in stages. Get into orbit/ISS, go to the moon, go to Mars. As I write this, I realize 20 years is overkill. That's probably the time frame for getting to Mars. 10 years is probably more accurate. They are also trying to accelerate this project (from the original plan). They recently selected 2 teams to compete and want the new CEV in space shortly after the current shuttle is retired in 2010.
http://www1.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jun/HQ_05146_contractor.html
Insomniac
07-28-05, 08:15 PM
I guess I'm just a frustrated 'spacehead' from the 60's. I can't believe we haven't advanced farther then we have in the last 30 years. :(
It took a pretty long time to get where they got in the 60s. Developing the rocket technology, unmanned flights, manned flights, eventually getting to the Moon. There were a lot of programs. Voyager, Mercury and Gemini before Apollo.
Also then, NASA had a specific purpose. The Soviet Union had put Sputnik up before the U.S. and it was a race to get to the moon. The focus was there. With the Space Shuttle, NASA's budget was constantly being cut (exact opposite of the late 50s and 60s) and their was no clear mission or goal. The DoD got involved with the Shuttle, abandoned it, I think got back in and they ended up with something neither really wanted. It wasn't ideal for the DoD (they still launch satellites using modified Titan II rockets) or NASA (too large). None of this has helped NASA.
Chitowncartfreak
07-28-05, 09:38 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/28/space.shuttle/index.html
Now they are saying that foam MAY have hit the wing. However, still doesn't seem to be a great deal of concern and they now have contingency plans in the event that the shuttle is too damaged to return.
I posted those proposals in my other STS-114 thread... they're good ideas because they keep New Orleans (Michoud external tank), Mississippi (Stennis rocket testing center), and Huntsville (rocket city) in operation between CEV and Shuttle so they don't lose their manufacturing expertise. plus it's cheaper than whole new launch vehicles, and they can already get 100 metric tons into orbit as opposed to going with some version of the Titan or Delta IV Heavy Lift rockets...
I have the intitial presentation from the Boeing and USA guys about the tile damage in .pdf if anyone wants it, and also a couple of very crude initial photo analysis conducted, similar to the shots from the newscasts but ganked from presentations... both are being passed around amongst the peoples...
Always interested in additional insight on these subjects, including yours f00boy. I gotta agree that NASA mgmt finally seems like it has a clue.
That pitch manuever today was just ****ing amazing. :thumbup: If y'all dint catch it, there's a clip available from the Return to Flight site:
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/main/index.html?skipIntro=1
On a side note, I'm a space exploration champion, and I find it difficult to bash NASA, et al., but I understand the shuttle is flawed, and not simply because it's 70's (really 60's) tech refurbished for the new millenium....but DAMN each time these birds go up, it's simply astonishing. It seems like there are many correlations between the space program and auto racing between then and now, and how much the focus on safety has improved. :thumbup:
But, hey...I'm just a homer from Ohiya enjoying a whiskey on the rocks (or three) on a fine summer's eve in OCNJ. Ain't this a great country?!? :)
Back to yer usual bashing....
-Kevin
coolhand
07-29-05, 02:23 AM
alot of people think they know something about the space program...
herad of JIMO? thought so.
heard of VASIMR? thought so.
hypervelocity cannons? thought so.
X-43 and all the related hypersonic data which DARPA now owns to design hypersonic strike vehicles? thought so.
single stage to orbit? thought so.
Linear Aerospike Engine? thought so.
I am aware of other NASA endevours that are quite successful, but thier highest profile program is getting little done for thier budget, i dont care how much other agency's spend, NASA has a large budget they can do alot better with.
but people in the space shuttle program are to comfortable in their little feifdoms and like most beuracracies you cannot break them up that easily.
how about this, you go bone up on the federal budget first, then go bone up on the 60's budget... then come back and bitch about NASA's appropriations,
i dont "bone up on" anyone. I speak english too
after that go look up DoD spending on DARPA programs, DD(X), FCS, Challenger, Comanche, THAADS, ABL, and the slew of other defense programs which employ millions waste billions and deliver nothing.
again, like my original point. NASA could do alot more with their budget versus spending so much time and man power on keeping a anciuent program afloat.
the purpose of NASA isn't to get you "excited about space." go to Six Flags instead.
The purpose of NASA as a government angency is to expand our knowledge of space and potentially find future benefits for all of us.
and if it looses the support and faith of the people you might see its budget start to shrink.
but your right, its not important what people who elect officals who dictate the budget of NASA think :rolleyes:
coolhand
07-29-05, 02:25 AM
Interesting.........
Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:27 a.m. EDT
Shuttle Foam Loss Linked to EPA Regs
As recently as last month, NASA had been warned that foam insulation on the space shuttle's external fuel tank could sheer off as it did in the 2003 Columbia disaster - a problem that has plagued space shuttle flights since NASA switched to a non-Freon-based type of foam insulation to comply with Clinton Administration Environmental Protection Agency regulations.
"Despite exhaustive work and considerable progress over the past 2-1/2 years, NASA has been unable to eliminate the possibility of dangerous pieces of foam and ice from breaking off the external fuel tank and striking the shuttle at liftoff," the agency's Return-to-Flight Task Force said just last month, according to the Associated Press.
But instead of returning the much safer, politically incorrect, Freon-based foam for Discovery's launch, the space agency tinkered with the application process, changing "the way the foam was applied to reduce the size and number of air pockets," according to Newsday.
"NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, freon-based foam," warned space expert Robert Garmong just nine months ago.
In fact, though NASA never acknowledged that its environmentally friendly, more brittle foam had anything to do with the foam sheering problem, the link had been well documented within weeks of the Columbia disaster.
coolhand
07-29-05, 02:32 AM
Uneducated layman's question.... How did they get the first x number of shuttles off the ground without the foam problems of this magnitude? Have they changed something significant?
I seem to remember that there have always been minor tile issues, but one of you guys in the know may know better.....
Thanks in advance.
see above
coolhand
07-29-05, 02:41 AM
This is very disappointing. Two years of work and we still have the same problem that caused the destruction of Columbia. :(
I'm starting to think the money may be better spent developing the next generation of vehicles if there is not a fairly quick fix in the works.
At least it appears Discovery is in good shape. :)
becareful saying that, insiders will tell you
alot of people think they know something about the space program...
our opinions are meaningless :shakehead
becareful saying that, insiders will tell you
Nah, I support the program. If it were up to me I'd like to see the budget increased to support both finishing the ISS via the shuttle and developing the next vehicles at the same time.
I have the intitial presentation from the Boeing and USA guys about the tile damage in .pdf if anyone wants it, and also a couple of very crude initial photo analysis conducted, similar to the shots from the newscasts but ganked from presentations... both are being passed around amongst the peoples...
Your PM's are full. :gomer:
Insomniac
07-29-05, 11:30 AM
I am aware of other NASA endevours that are quite successful, but thier highest profile program is getting little done for thier budget, i dont care how much other agency's spend, NASA has a large budget they can do alot better with.
again, like my original point. NASA could do alot more with their budget versus spending so much time and man power on keeping a anciuent program afloat.
Can't you say this about the entire federal government (and state and local)?
coolhand
07-29-05, 12:19 PM
Can't you say this about the entire federal government (and state and local)?
pretty much
JLMannin
07-29-05, 12:29 PM
STS-114 tile hits vs average (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn7750)
NASA officials pointed out that Discovery is estimated to have 80% fewer impact sites than previous missions. Based on the best-ever images used for these checks - resolving details as small as 1.25 cm - NASA says it has seen 26 separate impact sites on Discovery’s heat shield. Historically, the average number of heat shield dings per flight is 150.
If the average is program average is 150, and there was a huge step increase at STS-86, I wonder just how many hits there were in the post freon age! :eek:
but people in the space shuttle program are to comfortable in their little feifdoms and like most beuracracies you cannot break them up that easily.
whatever, everything on these boards is politics to you. you don't know anything about this program, there are many fair criticisms and my aerothermal friends and I will be the first ones to say the shuttle is a fundamentally bad design.
however, YOU would have ZERO clue about that. www.politicsforum.com if you want to be you. if you've got anything apolitical to say that's an actual educated criticism about the program go ahead, because I'm one of the biggest critics, but I really doubt you'll ever come up with anything to say on your own.
your hero is the one who put O'Keefe in charge,and O'Keefe is the bean counter who scuttled x-33 and x-38 right before flight testing. but obviously you had ZERO clue about that. read up on rocketdyne and U of Michigan and Linear and Polar Spike engines, then come tell me this agency has flawed priorities. VASIMR's taking CEV to mars, care to tell me how vasimr is flawed?
our opinions are meaningless
if you mean yours in particular, yes, it is. if you care to offer any kind of educated comment, go ahead. if you want to spew your uninformed opinion without dealing with comments in return from your fellow forum members, then be prepared to deal with it.
know anything about GMD or ABL? how about JTRS? THAADS? X-43 and DARPA?
tell you want, the day GMD succeeds in a mid-course phase kill, i'll stfu...
btw: it'll never matter what you think, much as you said, because you will never make up your own opinion, it will always come from some talkshow or something equally as inane.
STS-114 tile hits vs average (http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn7750)
If the average is program average is 150, and there was a huge step increase at STS-86, I wonder just how many hits there were in the post freon age! :eek:
dude, you have noooooo idea.... it used to be sooooo bad... actually, many of the pockets on the flat underside help, the pressure relief provides a cooling effect,there's a shockwave on teh trailing end of the cup with local heating, but overall there's a far great cooling effect, instead of a 1.1 or 1.2 bump in heating effect there's a .8 factor as far as testing has shown...
Your PM's are full. :gomer:
ehh.... I was in trans-texas transit, eat me :p clear now... I'm at my best friend's place, but I don't think he has any of the info at home, I do have it locally on my laptop at my folks' once I'm back I'll send it out... nothing mind blowing mind you, just what they've been using in the meetings and it's more than the news....
and any fellatio i've been giving to the agency recently, take it back, they're making their minds up on future flights this sunday, guess when my boys are gonna conduct test analysis on foam debris? f'ing WEDNESDAY...
makes tons of sense don't it? decide before analysis? oh ya... :mad:
but hey, I've got linguini frutta del mar and caesar dressing to finish making, so peace out. njoy the hating toolio.
Night Train
07-29-05, 08:20 PM
see above
Thanks!
I'm not a rocket scientist (since Junior year of college ;) ), but logic dictates that if a problem goes from irritant to fatal flaw, there must be a reason.
No, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
pfc_m_drake
07-29-05, 09:55 PM
This isn't really particularly related to anything, but I just wanted to take this moment to give a tip of the hat to all the designers, analysts, engineers, and technicians that make/made the Shuttle program go 'round. They don't get nearly enough credit for what they do, and they're obviously under a very powerful magnifying glass for every little thing that goes astray.
So, guys and gals, we know you're doing your best, and we know that you'll keep up the good work. :thumbup:
that gap-filler's showing some undesireable heating rates right now... and it's so far upstream (by the nose of the orbiter) it's causing a laminar to turbulent flow transition further down the body... they'll definitely have to cut it or pull it out, either that or deal with eveyrone saying "why did you fly back like that?"
that gap-filler's showing some undesireable heating rates right now... and it's so far upstream (by the nose of the orbiter) it's causing a laminar to turbulent flow transition further down the body... they'll definitely have to cut it or pull it out, either that or deal with eveyrone saying "why did you fly back like that?"
Looks like they're gonna take a walk to fix the fillers. Prolly prudent rather than take a chance. f00boy, how thick are these things anyway?
-Kevin
cameraman
08-01-05, 07:13 PM
So is this the first time that the filler material has pulled out or is it just the first time it has been seen prior to being back on the ground? This seems to be the first public discussion of the filler material's existence muchless pieces of it sliding out of place.
So is this the first time that the filler material has pulled out or is it just the first time it has been seen prior to being back on the ground? This seems to be the first public discussion of the filler material's existence muchless pieces of it sliding out of place.
It's happened previously. They have found 1/4"-1/2" long pieces after earlier flights, but they probably burned down some during re-entry. These are >1" in length. Looks like the fillers are like thick paper (ala construction paper).
-Kevin
this is the first time the shuttle's been inspected top to bottom with laser imaging, cameras, and other sensors... I bet it's happened before they just didn't know about it, but now that they know they can't just let it sit there...
the material is just fabric'ish, not like bed sheets but it's not sheet metal either...
coolhand
08-03-05, 01:10 AM
whatever, everything on these boards is politics to you.
Politics? how about you return to my original statment Linked here (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showpost.php?p=113385&postcount=18) If stating my feelings on the Space shuttle program is political i am guilty as charged, but so would everyone else here. You singling me out in a thread about your pet subject falsly accusing me of things shows you have a personal problem with me. get over it.
you don't know anything about this program, there are many fair criticisms and my aerothermal friends and I will be the first ones to say the shuttle is a fundamentally bad design.
So am i right? your aerothermal friends seem agree with my statements that the Shuttle is flawed and NASA could and should reapply their large resources to something newer and better. I am sure NASA could do it.
however, YOU would have ZERO clue about that.
Your aerothermal friends might disagree. :gomer:
www.politicsforum.com if you want to be you. if you've got anything apolitical to say that's an actual educated criticism about the program go ahead, because I'm one of the biggest critics, but I really doubt you'll ever come up with anything to say on your own.
Lets review this thread. in your post linked here (http://www.offcamber.net/forums/showpost.php?p=115174&postcount=74) you stated:
we don't have the $ we had 30 years ago...
and if Bush had never appointed your average pentagon bean counting shmuck w 0 f'ing technical ability 5 years ago we might very well have an X-33 and an X-38 by now instead of millions of dollars pissed away and an x-38 sitting in mothballs waiting for a flight test...
all hail The Griffin.
well my gosh you are the guilty one of bringing politics to this thread. Take your own advice and post here www.politicsforum.com , or continue to look like a hypocrite. hail the giffin over there.
your hero is the one who put O'Keefe in charge,and O'Keefe is the bean counter who scuttled x-33 and x-38 right before flight testing. but obviously you had ZERO clue about that. read up on rocketdyne and U of Michigan and Linear and Polar Spike engines, then come tell me this agency has flawed priorities. VASIMR's taking CEV to mars, care to tell me how vasimr is flawed?
My Hero? is this a political statement again? www.politicsforum.com
ZERO clue? you think i have been living in a hole? Fact is, a replacment is sorely needed. Some of those programs have flaws, cost to much, or DoD wanted them.
So tell me why NASA cannot come up with replacment? without saying "Bush".
if you mean yours in particular, yes, it is. if you care to offer any kind of educated comment, go ahead. if you want to spew your uninformed opinion without dealing with comments in return from your fellow forum members, then be prepared to deal with it.
I am sure you are a model example about how to deal with critcism. you have driven this into a pissing match and brought it to a personal level. I am sure NASA is proud of the professionalism you demonstrated in this thread. you should learn to deal with it better, i am not the one feeling threatened did not jump on a fellow poster untill you singled me out. No educated opinion needed to see that the Space shuttle program is falling apart. ;)
know anything about GMD or ABL? how about JTRS? THAADS? X-43 and DARPA?
GMD-missle defense
X-43-hypersonic test vehicle
ABL-the airborn laser mounted in the nose of a 747
JTRS-communications among warfighters
THAADS-similar to missle defense
DARPA-great organization (I heard rumors they picked up the x-33)
I know about other things illrelvent to our discussion about the space shuttle program. you are so convinced i know nothing about NASA's other programs and the aerospace wings of companies like Boeing its funny. i guess i had no clue what i saw when i recently toured Boeings El Segundo plant or Jet Propulsion Labs (i have had to sit throught enough of their lectures). And guess what? they all complained about the Problems with the space shuttle and how things have been put on hold due to it being grounded. they want somthing that works and takes their own projects to space.
tell you want, the day GMD succeeds in a mid-course phase kill, i'll stfu...
cool
btw: it'll never matter what you think, much as you said, because you will never make up your own opinion, it will always come from some talkshow or something equally as inane.
what talkshow talks about the space shuttle? tell me, it sounds interesting. I have drawn my opinions from conversations with many people involved at places like JPL. and none were so condescending and conceited as you, they could also take critcism in stride. Take a look back at this thread, i made a general statement about my feelings about the Space Shuttle, then you came along with a personal hatred for me carried over from other threads. You proceeded to take this thread to a personal level, laced with attacks and insults and now we have a pissing match. I dont even have to try to make you blow your top. Well you might end up getting this thread locked. good work. NASA would be proud.
P.S. Next time you are at the track, ask KK (who is wanting to become a major player in the private space industry) how he feels about NASA. Maybe after you loose your cool with him you my begin to follow another series that happens to specialize on expensive airborn vehicles.
so you are aware of the myriad failed or soon to fail defense programs that suck up billions of dollars after a quick google, that's a start...
So tell me why NASA cannot come up with replacment? without saying "Bush". they can, and they have, it was scuttled due to an administrator with 0 technical ability who thinks you cant send 3 kids to college on a salary of less than $500K, his words not mine. and this has nothing to do with bush, only that his first appointment is and was an utterly incompetent douche. Huntsville, AL: "go kill that x-33 that Houston's working on... we can get you a reusable vehicle in 10 years for $10B" <--wrong.
wow, KK wants to be a "player." care to tell me which viable market he intends to pursue? you realize there are commercial companies that already exist right? too many companies and too little demand for commercial sattys...
criticism of the shuttle doesn't bother me, empty talk and soundbytes do
The space program is pretty weak and unexciting. Nuclear Submarines are more complex now.
The international space station is just an expensive program that does not get anyone more excited about space.
Considering the tax money they are spending they should be doing alot better.
look what we got done in the 1960s and compare it to now.
comments like that completely demonstrate your level of understanding, yea, very informed "criticism"... when a nuclear sub goes hypersonic please let us know.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.