Plotting an orbit

wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 7:32 pm, Marissa Taylor wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:20 pm, bob haller wrote:

SL6 was built, kinda poorly and abandoned for shuttle launches

That is a load of bunk. It wasn't poorly constructed

1. Incorrect. Several audits found significant quality control issues
with
the SLC-6 shuttle launch pad construction.

2. In addition, the water
suppressant system was found to be incapable of preventing major damage
during a shuttle launch and

3. the equipment would not have withstood the
extra weight of a fully loaded shuttle after the 1986-1988 SRB redesign.

All wrong and far way of base

1. This is no different than any other large project. And that is
the point of the audits. The findings were corrected later

-----------------
In other words, "Yes, I was wrong, there were problems, but I'm too arrogant
to admit it.
-----------------

2. No, this was the H2 entrapment problem and a fix was found
----------------
No, the h2 entrapment problem was a separate issue.
----------------

3. Totally wrong, it had nothing to do with the pad supporting the
vehicle, it was due to loss of payload capacity



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Mar 16, 8:23*am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

In other words, "Yes, I was wrong, there were problems, but I'm too arrogant
to admit it.

In other words, you are missing the point and making an irrelevant
asinine remark.
I was countering the statement that SLC-6 was "poorly constructed"
Every major construction has issues KSC had settling pads during
construction

SLC-6 seems to work fine for Delta IV