Damage or no damage, safe return still questionable?

Who here thinks a safe return is still not guaranteed even if there is no
damage from the falling tile? Is the shuttle up to a safe re-entry even if
it is intact? I believe that should be the question instead.

Is NASA getting sidetracked and forgetting even if there is no damage after
liftoff that it still may not be up to the job?

"Raptor05" wrote in message
u...
Who here thinks a safe return is still not guaranteed even if there is no
damage from the falling tile? Is the shuttle up to a safe re-entry even
if
it is intact? I believe that should be the question instead.

Is NASA getting sidetracked and forgetting even if there is no damage
after
liftoff that it still may not be up to the job?


The shuttle has returned safely with much more damage than it currently has
experienced.

That pretty much answers my question. Thanks George. And yep, as Ian said,
nothing can be guaranteed. Was just a thought I had, nothing more.

" George" wrote in message
news:qxIGe.197505$x96.191810@attbi_s72...

The shuttle has returned safely with much more damage than it currently
has
experienced.

Raptor05 wrote:
Who here thinks a safe return is still not guaranteed even if there is no
damage from the falling tile? Is the shuttle up to a safe re-entry even if
it is intact? I believe that should be the question instead.

Is NASA getting sidetracked and forgetting even if there is no damage after
liftoff that it still may not be up to the job?

The shuttle has never failed, or had a near fatal incident on the way
down, other than tile problems.
(there were nasty unexpected things that happened in the first 5 landings,
but those have been fixed)

Of course nothing is guaranteed.

On 2005-07-30, Ian Stirling wrote:

The shuttle has never failed, or had a near fatal incident on the way
down, other than tile problems.

Catching up... STS-9. Two independent sets of problems.

One involved various computer screwups, with the GPCs intermittently
crashing; they didn't glitch during the landing, but they did after
landing and just before deorbit.

The second, slightly more impressively, involved two valve assemblies
exploding, setting the APUs on fire; the orbiter landed with a merry
little fire burning in the aft compartment. One of these APUs was the
one which powered the nose-wheel steering, though thankfully that one
only blew after it was on the ground. Both were burning before
touchdown, though - and consider the potential nastiness of an orbiter
without steering ability trying to land.

I'd certainly class the latter as a major incident even if we accept the
former as okay, but as I understand it the computer problems could have
appeared during descent - it was luck they didn't.

One later flight, pre-Challenger, blew a tyre on landing - this was
after touchdown, though, so may not be counted.

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote:
On 2005-07-30, Ian Stirling wrote:

The shuttle has never failed, or had a near fatal incident on the way
down, other than tile problems.

Catching up... STS-9. Two independent sets of problems.

One involved various computer screwups, with the GPCs intermittently
crashing; they didn't glitch during the landing, but they did after
landing and just before deorbit.

The second, slightly more impressively, involved two valve assemblies
exploding, setting the APUs on fire; the orbiter landed with a merry
little fire burning in the aft compartment. One of these APUs was the
one which powered the nose-wheel steering, though thankfully that one
only blew after it was on the ground. Both were burning before
touchdown, though - and consider the potential nastiness of an orbiter
without steering ability trying to land.

I remembered this happening earlier on.
However, I was only 10 at the time.

"Raptor05" wrote in message
u...
Who here thinks a safe return is still not guaranteed even if there is no
damage from the falling tile? Is the shuttle up to a safe re-entry even
if
it is intact? I believe that should be the question instead.

Is NASA getting sidetracked and forgetting even if there is no damage
after
liftoff that it still may not be up to the job?

What's the value in preemptive worry about something that you can't affect?

--
Scott

"We have not journeyed all this way across the centuries, across the oceans,
across the mountains, across the prairies, because we are made of sugar
candy...but if anybody likes to play rough, we can play rough too." - Sir
Winston Churchill
http://tinyurl.com/8v9qz

Making discussion in a newsgroup?

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
What's the value in preemptive worry about something that you can't
affect?

--
Scott

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
"Raptor05" wrote in message


What's the value in preemptive worry about something that you can't
affect?

The time to preemptively worry about it was before it was launched. The way
to change it would have been to not launch it.