Plotting A New Course for NASA

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.

"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.

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.


shuttle C should of been built, with infrastructure supporting not
only the existing shuttle, used just for its unique abilities, in a
minimally manned capacity, but C cargo variant.

this would of allowed a smoth transistion and retention of lots of
abilties.....

all lost now

but the current path although disruptive, is likely better for the
long term.

private industry launchers, cutting costs dramatically.

if private industry can loft people and lower weight cargo theres no
reason they cant provide heavy lift too

On Nov 30, 4:15*am, bob haller 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.

shuttle C should of been built, with infrastructure supporting not
only the existing shuttle, used just for its unique abilities, in a
minimally manned capacity, but C cargo variant.

this would of allowed a smoth transistion and retention of lots of
abilties.....

all lost now

but the current path although disruptive, is likely better for the
long term.

private industry *launchers, cutting costs dramatically.

if private industry can loft people and lower weight cargo theres no
reason they cant provide heavy lift too

Not politically possilbe at the moment: and YOU KNOW IT. In case
you've been living under a rock, Congress, while reluctantly agreeing
with Commercial Crew and Cargo, gave them only about 45% of the
requested funds in FY 12: and fully funded Orion and SLS. Guess what?
Congress is providing more direction to NASA than the current
Administration. You may now return to your cave.....