|
|
#12
February 26th 13, 05:08 AM
posted to sci.space.shuttle
|
|||
|
|||
OV-99
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:12:18 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote: The orbiter structural design changed enough that STA-99 was far easier and cheaper to refit. Despite the frequent assertion that STA-099 was cheaper to refit, it was actually a wash on the cost and time. We hear that Enterprise would have needed a new vertical stabilizer and thrust structure, for example, but those were needed for OV-099, too. The clincher was that STA-099 weighed less than OV-101 and would buy more bang for the buck. With no funding for OV-103 or OV-104 yet and the prospect of only having two Orbiters for an indefinite period of time, NASA hedged its bets and chose the most capable airframe. Brian 
|
|
#13
February 26th 13, 01:30 PM
posted to sci.space.shuttle
|
|||
|
|||
|
OV-99
In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says... On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:12:18 -0500, Jeff Findley wrote: The orbiter structural design changed enough that STA-99 was far easier and cheaper to refit. Despite the frequent assertion that STA-099 was cheaper to refit, it was actually a wash on the cost and time. We hear that Enterprise would have needed a new vertical stabilizer and thrust structure, for example, but those were needed for OV-099, too. The clincher was that STA-099 weighed less than OV-101 and would buy more bang for the buck. With no funding for OV-103 or OV-104 yet and the prospect of only having two Orbiters for an indefinite period of time, NASA hedged its bets and chose the most capable airframe. I'd have thought that disassembly of Enterprise would have entered into the equation in terms of cost and schedule. STA-99 didn't have that issue. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
|
|
#14
February 27th 13, 03:59 AM
posted to sci.space.shuttle
|
|||
|
|||
|
OV-99
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:30:09 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote: Despite the frequent assertion that STA-099 was cheaper to refit, it was actually a wash on the cost and time. We hear that Enterprise would have needed a new vertical stabilizer and thrust structure, for example, but those were needed for OV-099, too. The clincher was that STA-099 weighed less than OV-101 and would buy more bang for the buck. With no funding for OV-103 or OV-104 yet and the prospect of only having two Orbiters for an indefinite period of time, NASA hedged its bets and chose the most capable airframe. I'd have thought that disassembly of Enterprise would have entered into the equation in terms of cost and schedule. STA-99 didn't have that issue. That was offset by other issues, including taking everything out of Enterprise that could be used and re-installing it in the STA. Brian
|
|
#15
February 28th 13, 10:47 PM
posted to sci.space.shuttle
|
|||
|
|||
|
OV-99
On Feb 26, 10:59*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:30:09 -0500, Jeff Findley wrote: Despite the frequent assertion that STA-099 was cheaper to refit, it was actually a wash on the cost and time. We hear that Enterprise would have needed a new vertical stabilizer and thrust structure, for example, but those were needed for OV-099, too. The clincher was that STA-099 weighed less than OV-101 and would buy more bang for the buck. With no funding for OV-103 or OV-104 yet and the prospect of only having two Orbiters for an indefinite period of time, NASA hedged its bets and chose the most capable airframe. I'd have thought that disassembly of Enterprise would have entered into the equation in terms of cost and schedule. *STA-99 didn't have that issue. That was offset by other issues, including taking everything out of Enterprise that could be used and re-installing it in the STA. Brian In any case NASA missed a big boost in popularity and political support by not making enterprise space worthy... Yet nasa went on to hire nichelle nichols for a spokes person, which ruined her star trek presentations  She became way to preachy about it
|
|
#16
February 28th 13, 10:58 PM
posted to sci.space.shuttle
|
|||
|
|||
|
OV-99
"bob haller" wrote in message
... In any case NASA missed a big boost in popularity and political support by not making enterprise space worthy... And by your logic, NASA would have lost even more popularity when Enterprise was destroyed STS-51-L. Yet nasa went on to hire nichelle nichols for a spokes person, which ruined her star trek presentations She became way to preachy about it -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
|
|
#17
March 1st 13, 04:12 AM
posted to sci.space.shuttle
|
|||
|
|||
|
OV-99
On Feb 28, 5:58*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote: "bob haller" *wrote in message ... In any case NASA missed a big boost in popularity and political support by not making enterprise space worthy... And by your logic, NASA would have lost even more popularity when Enterprise was destroyed STS-51-L. Yet nasa went on to hire nichelle nichols for a spokes person, which ruined her star trek presentations She became way to preachy about it -- Greg D. Moore * * * * * * * * *http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa, demanding replacement with a safer design. That would of been a excellent time to move to a LFBB and a shuttle C...
|
|
#18
March 1st 13, 11:38 AM
posted to sci.space.shuttle
|
|||
|
|||
|
OV-99
"bob haller" wrote in message ... On Feb 28, 5:58 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote: "bob haller" wrote in message ... In any case NASA missed a big boost in popularity and political support by not making enterprise space worthy... And by your logic, NASA would have lost even more popularity when Enterprise was destroyed STS-51-L. Yet nasa went on to hire nichelle nichols for a spokes person, which ruined her star trek presentations She became way to preachy about it -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa, demanding replacement with a safer design. That would of been a excellent time to move to a LFBB and a shuttle C... I just have one question Bob. What color is the sky in your world? -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
|
|
#19
March 1st 13, 12:37 PM
posted to sci.space.shuttle
|
|||
|
|||
|
OV-99
On Mar 1, 6:38*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote: "bob haller" *wrote in message .... On Feb 28, 5:58 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote: "bob haller" *wrote in message .... In any case NASA missed a big boost in popularity and political support by not making enterprise space worthy... And by your logic, NASA would have lost even more popularity when Enterprise was destroyed STS-51-L. Yet nasa went on to hire nichelle nichols for a spokes person, which ruined her star trek presentations She became way to preachy about it -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa, demanding replacement with a safer design. That would of been a excellent time to move to a LFBB and a shuttle C... I just have one question Bob. What color is the sky in your world? -- Greg D. Moore * * * * * * * * *http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net blue when its not snowing...... weather lately has been sucky
|
|
#20
March 1st 13, 01:29 PM
posted to sci.space.shuttle
|
|||
|
|||
|
OV-99
In article 51841fdd-1b18-44b2-ad80-
, says... On Mar 1, 6:38*am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote: "bob haller" *wrote in message ... On Feb 28, 5:58 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote: "bob haller" *wrote in message ... In any case NASA missed a big boost in popularity and political support by not making enterprise space worthy... And by your logic, NASA would have lost even more popularity when Enterprise was destroyed STS-51-L. Yet nasa went on to hire nichelle nichols for a spokes person, which ruined her star trek presentations She became way to preachy about it -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa, demanding replacement with a safer design. That would of been a excellent time to move to a LFBB and a shuttle C... I just have one question Bob. What color is the sky in your world? -- Greg D. Moore * * * * * * * * *http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net blue when its not snowing...... weather lately has been sucky This whole thread is becoming nothing but Bob's baseless speculations based on nothing but his own deluded fantasies. As if the name of a vehicle truly makes any difference in public interest in what NASA is doing. The fact is that the shuttle program was dull, dull, dull to most Americans. Yes they knew it was flying missions, but it appeared routine since all they ever did was go round and round the earth in LEO. ISS is much the same. Sure people know there are astronauts on ISS, but most have no clue what they're even doing there. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
