MSNBC (JimO) Scoops more Inside-NASA Shuttle Documents

http://www.msnbc.com/news/970180.asp?0dm=C25AT

Thanks. This is an informative article about return to flight
planning

Any word on what kind of tests of the tile repair they are planning?
I suppose to fill in some of the routine dings in the tiles which
happen on every mission, so they can see what the repair looks like
after reentry? Or will they stick with something like doing a repair
on a test rig in the payload bay, and bring it back in the payload
bay? (which would test the ability to apply the fix in vacuum, but
which wouldn't give a good idea of how it would fare in reentry).

"Gene Seibel" wrote in message
om...
I shudder at the effect on young minds, with no interest in space,
science, exploration, or anything else that challanges their mind, of
watching thousands of murders on TV during their lifetime. They need
to know that SOMETHING is worth dying for, and it's not a pair of
Nikes.

Amen to that. Pointless death is everywhere these days.

Amen to that. Pointless death is everywhere these days.


And whats thew point of outting a teacher n a development vehicle?

Should teachers be test pilots? Thats what you want??

And whats the point of putting a teacher n a development vehicle?

Should teachers be test pilots? Thats what you want??

Jim Kingdon wrote:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/970180.asp?0dm=C25AT

Thanks. This is an informative article about return to flight
planning

Any word on what kind of tests of the tile repair they are planning?
I suppose to fill in some of the routine dings in the tiles which
happen on every mission, so they can see what the repair looks like
after reentry? Or will they stick with something like doing a repair
on a test rig in the payload bay, and bring it back in the payload
bay? (which would test the ability to apply the fix in vacuum, but
which wouldn't give a good idea of how it would fare in reentry).

Reentry enviroment testing can (will) be done in a arc-jet facility
postlanding.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

From Roger Balettie:
"Stuf4" wrote:
Imagine a young child getting to watch mom or dad playing Russian
roulette on national television. Even if the empty chamber gets
clicked, it still has to be a traumatic experience.

Congratulations, Bob (hallerb)... Stuf4 just took the lead in the "Chicken
Little" title.

Buk... buk... buk-KAW.

I don't see anyone declaring that the sky is falling. On the
contrary, I expect STS-114 to go off without a hitch.

On top of that, I am of the opinion that NASA could push STS-114's
launch up to October (that's next month, Oct 2003) and they can still
fly with perfect safety ("Damn the CAIB...full speed ahead").

My post was not about any sky falling. My post was about bogus
excuses. And it was about underrecognized trauma that astronaut
families endure.

*

I'd like to emphasize the danger of distortions in justification.
Certainly it is of little consequence if one news article writes a
caption supporting the notion that crew size is limited to four due to
need for more "room".

Now consider this distortion...

The shuttle upgrade designed to strengthen the WLEs was couched under
the title "MMOD". This justification spells out to
"Micro-Meteoroid/Orbital Debris". I am of the opinion that the
accurate justification was well known by those involved with the
design:

"Look Pat, we need to design stronger Wing Leading Edges because
they've been getting dinged on every flight by that SOFI stuff that
keeps shedding."

"OK, but how bout we call it -MMOD-? That term really sounds high
tech, much better than -foamguard-."

This supposed interaction gets followed by confusion of those who
can't see through the distortion...

"Why are we spending all this money on MMOD protection? We can just
have the orbiter fly tail first. Problem solved!"

No, the problem wasn't solved. The problem was forgotten.

*

I don't know what potential consequences may arise from propagating a
bogus story that STS-114 "needs more room". But I'd rather not find
out.


~ CT

From Dave Fowler:
(Stuf4)

I understand that this is a sensitive topic. I understand that many
people won't want to discuss it.

You don't discuss things, ever.

You prevaricate, misdirect, insult and basically ramble on endlessly, without
the benefit of verifiable facts, so that you can listen to the sound of your
own voice in usenet, and feel pleased with yourself.

And you still don't have the courage of standing behind your so-called
convictions, as you continue to post anonymously. You're still a coward.

I respect your freedom to your own opinions.


~ CT

From stmx3:
snip
Jim Kelly:
"...four children."

(http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/kellyjm.html)

Soichi Noguchi:
"Three children..."

(http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/noguchi.html)


Steve Robinson appears to have no spousal or parenthood attachment.


If the actual reason behind scaling the crew back to just four is to
minimize the risk to human lives, NASA could do better in considering
the impact to family members left behind on the planet.

(Note that the current ISS crew had no such attachments as well when
they were selected and launched.)


Imagine a young child getting to watch mom or dad playing Russian
roulette on national television. Even if the empty chamber gets
clicked, it still has to be a traumatic experience.


~ CT

Are you talking about leaving home every morning and getting in your car
to go to work? Picture yourself in the poster holding your child, with
the caption "Are you ready for Daddy to go to work?"

You can't eliminate risk...but you can avoid unnecessary risk.

I would be interested to hear how astronauts convince their families
that doing laps around the planet is *necessary*.

If I were an astronaut and I were saying goodbye to my family just
before launch, I could think of lots of reasons why it will be fun.
Lots of reasons why it will be beneficial. Lots as to why it will be
important.

....but *zero* reasons as to why it would be _necessary_.

*

Tangentially...

I have a friend who is a Navy test pilot who made the Navy cut and is
preparing for his NASA interview for this next astronaut class. In my
last conversation with him, I chose not to ask him how his family
feels about the whole thing. If he gets selected, I will be very
happy for him. And I hope his family will be as well. And I hope he
has a safe and long career.


~ CT

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
(Hallerb) writes:

I shudder at the effect of another generation watching more deaths of
teachers
in space.

Crew should be test pilots ONLY!

Barbara Morgan isn't an idiot. She's also a NASA astronaut, an actual
Mission Specialist. Unless you want to ban all Mission Specialists
from flying on the shuttle, you'd better re-think your statement.

Jeff

Jeff, on these groups, most people spell "Hallerb" T. R. O. L. L. That's
what he's become.

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au

"for 'aiming at the stars,' both literally
and figuratively, is a problem to occupy
generations, so that no matter how much
progress one makes, there is always the
thrill of just beginning."
- Robert H Goddard.

Jeff, on these groups, most people spell "Hallerb" T. R. O. L. L. That's
what he's become

I am not a troll just a source of reason. Read the investigation report, its
all about minimizing risks, not adding new ones as exhuibitions.