Plotting A New Course for NASA

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:31:48 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

Those were a long way from being usable tanks though. We're
essentially talking about restarting External Tank production to get
them done. This isn't the same as the two built-but-not-flown Saturn
Vs that Nixon left to be lawn ornaments.

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

ET-94 is also 14-ish years old and was sliced and diced by the CAIB
after STS-103. I highly doubt NASA would have trusted a manned mission
to it. That's why it is only being considered for use by SLS.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:31:48 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but
my
browser is acting up right now.)

Those were a long way from being usable tanks though. We're
essentially talking about restarting External Tank production to get
them done. This isn't the same as the two built-but-not-flown Saturn
Vs that Nixon left to be lawn ornaments.

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. Which for post
construction
flights was less of an issue.

ET-94 is also 14-ish years old and was sliced and diced by the CAIB
after STS-103. I highly doubt NASA would have trusted a manned mission
to it. That's why it is only being considered for use by SLS.


Thanks. Didn't realize those 3 were that far our or that ET-94 was in that
bad shape.


Brian



--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Nov 29, 11:37*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 29, 1:26*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Nov 29, 3:07*am, bob haller wrote:

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nasa could of mated a new capsule and service module on a existing
expendable very quickly and not had to design a new booster at all.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh? The hearings from Augustine mentioned EELVs. You know how long it
takes to human-rate an EELV? Three years, minimium. And that's without
politics getting involved. Need I remind you, Bobbert, that there's a
grand total of ONE member of Congress that's pushing that approach:
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and he's not doing this out of the
goodness of his heart. There's several NewSpace (or Commercial Space,
or ObamaSpace, take your pick) companies in SoCal, and even if he's
got none of their facilities in his district, he probably has
constitutents who do work at those companies. IF he was Chair of House
Science and Technology Committee (which deals with NASA), he'd be in a
much better position to push that strategy (yeah, and untried and
unproven propellant depots, too-wait for the technology demonstrator
first before committing anything more to that approach), but he's not.
Got that?

On 11/29/2011 05:35 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message ...


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
On 11/28/2011 08:00 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:

Thanks for the update. Then it's LBJ we should blame for shutting down
Saturn. You may now print out a pic of LBJ at leisure and throw
however many darts at the man as you see fit.

Nixon bears about as much responsibility for the end of Apollo/Saturn as
Obama does for the end of shuttle. In both cases it was not a decision
to cancel the program; it was a choice not to reverse a predecessor's
decision. Which still means that both men "bought into" the decisions,
in my opinion.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" - Neil Peart

I'll go along with that: they still should've at least flown the last
three
Apollos and Skylab-B.

That would have been a good trick with only two Saturn Vs leftover. ;-)

Right. If you're going to fly both Skylab and Skylab-B, you only have
one left for an Apollo mission.

As always, though, it raises the question of what to cancel to pay for them.

On 11/29/2011 07:04 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 00:31:48 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it
but my
browser is acting up right now.)

Those were a long way from being usable tanks though. We're
essentially talking about restarting External Tank production to get
them done. This isn't the same as the two built-but-not-flown Saturn
Vs that Nixon left to be lawn ornaments.

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. Which for post
construction
flights was less of an issue.

ET-94 is also 14-ish years old and was sliced and diced by the CAIB
after STS-103. I highly doubt NASA would have trusted a manned mission
to it. That's why it is only being considered for use by SLS.


Thanks. Didn't realize those 3 were that far our or that ET-94 was in
that bad shape.

Wasn't quite that bad. ET-94's structure was fine, it was the foam that
was sliced and diced. It would have needed an extensive respraying.

ET-139 was structurally complete, but needed final assembly and
spraying. Wouldn't have needed the whole assembly line to be brought
back up.

ET-140 and 141 were structurally incomplete and would have needed major
portions of the production line to be restarted.

On 11/29/2011 12:26 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:07 am, bob wrote:
He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.

It depends on when the choice was made. If Griffin had chosen in 2005 to
design CEV to be flown on existing vehicles, and not develop Ares I, CEV
would probably be close to flight test by now.

On 11/28/2011 11:23 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:35:36 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:

Personally I'd argue Obama is a bit more culpable as I believe (I will admit
to not checking the timeline too closely) it would have been easier for
Obama to reverse the shuttle decision (or even to simply get a couple more
flights with some of the remaining tanks)

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight.

Not sure "he" did it. IIRC Congress forced both of those actions through
legislation, but I'd have to check the timeline.

On Nov 29, 6:48*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
On 11/29/2011 12:26 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Nov 29, 3:07 am, bob *wrote:
He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.

It depends on when the choice was made. If Griffin had chosen in 2005 to
design CEV to be flown on existing vehicles, and not develop Ares I, CEV
would probably be close to flight test by now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The original CxP plan had Ares I and CEV ready for flight test in
2013. Now we'll get Orion on EFT-1 in 2014 on a Delta IV Heavy. IF,
and I do mean if, NASA chose an EELV for Orion crew launches to LEO,
it'd still take three years to human-rate an existing vehicle.
Something the Bobbert doesn't seem to get-but then again, he's living
in his fantasy world anyway. He seems to think that all you need to do
is stick the capsule on the rocket and that's it. Wrong. But also, the
Bobbert's been against any HSF, so.....his general ignorance and naive
thinking show where he is.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

On 11/29/2011 05:35 AM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message ...
I'll go along with that: they still should've at least flown the last
three
Apollos and Skylab-B.

That would have been a good trick with only two Saturn Vs leftover. ;-)

Right. If you're going to fly both Skylab and Skylab-B, you only have one
left for an Apollo mission.

As always, though, it raises the question of what to cancel to pay for
them.


Or just go deeper in debt. But that's easier today than back then. :-)


--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

On 11/29/2011 07:04 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

Wasn't quite that bad. ET-94's structure was fine, it was the foam that was
sliced and diced. It would have needed an extensive respraying.

ET-139 was structurally complete, but needed final assembly and spraying.
Wouldn't have needed the whole assembly line to be brought back up.

ET-140 and 141 were structurally incomplete and would have needed major
portions of the production line to be restarted.



So maybe two more flights. Still could have helped I think. Keep flight
controllers trained, more up/down cargo for another two years.

Oh well. It's in the past.


--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.