Hubble to be abandoned

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:41:57 -0600, OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote:

...Which begs the question as to what shape mods would have had to
been made to the F-100 to accomodate mounting an onboard radar?

See the XF-107 Ultra Sabre

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes...ultra_sabre.pl.

Brian

In article ,
(Henry Spencer) writes:
In article ,
Peter Stickney wrote:
So, the F-102 numbers don't look so bad, in context. Don't forget
that, compared to earlier fighters, like the F-86, the Century Series
was about an order of magnitude increase in cost and complexity to
build and maintain.

And the one with the conspicuously biggest production run -- the F-100 --
was also the simplest of the lot. (Partly because its design solidified
shortly before it became clear that fighters needed their own radar, and
the shape it solidified to was severely unsuited to adding radar.)

Very true, but the size of teh F-100's production run is, if not a bit
deceptive, a bit misleading. Basically, an early F-100 (A or C
model) filled the same niche as a slightly faster F-86 - a guns-only,
eyeballs-only day fighter, with a non-existant (F-100A) or moderate
(F-100C) capability as a Fighter-Bomber. This limitation on
capability meant that you needed lots of airplanes, because you
couldn't switch from from one role to another.
It also menat that as quickly as possible, the A and C models were
retired and replaced with the safer, more capable, and more flexible D
models. Yes, F-100Cs did serve for nearly 10 years in the Air
National Guard, but not in anywhere near the numbers of the D models
that followed.

Teething troubles wre extremely difficult, and nearly cased the
cancellation of the program at several points.
The airplane was also rather dangerous to fly, as well, and losses
were high. - by 1960, when it had been in service for 5 years, more
than 500 had been totally destroyed in flying accidents.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:52:44 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery writes:


Henry Spencer wrote:


The eventual compromise was a rather smaller F-106 production run, and
reluctant acceptance that many of the F-102As would continue in service
until more advanced interceptors joined the F-106s. But the F-103 and
F-108 ended up being canceled, and so the F-102As stuck around a while.


Don't forget how Canada's Voodoos and Bomarcs became an integral part of
the air defense equation after the Avro Arrow got canceled. I wonder how
many Canadians know that their country once possessed nuclear weapons?

And the Canadian CF-104s in France and Germany were Nuke-Only
airplanes, as well. It wasn't until the Trudeau Administration that
they received any ability to use conventional weapons.

Oh, and the Canadian Army in Germany relied on Nuke-warhead Honest
John rockets, as well.
FOr a small-peace-loving country, they were awfully willing to jump
onto teh Nuclear Bandwagon. (Even more than we were, in fact.)


Weren't the warheads under US control though?

On 15 Feb 2004 23:37:22 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Keith F.
Lynch" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Henry Spencer wrote:
Quite apart from exaggerated ideas of how reliable the shuttle was
going to be, in hard cold practical terms, the orbiter is much more
valuable than the crew. So it makes no sense to fly it unmanned if
this adds the slightest extra risk of orbiter loss, which it does.

You are not politically correct. Sure, each orbiter costs more than
any seven people will earn in a lifetime, unless all seven are named
Bill Gates. But in political terms, an orbiter is worth about two
astronauts, or twenty airline passengers, or two hundred motorists,
or two hundred thousand bicyclists or pedestrians.

Where do you come up with those numbers?

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..

Irrelevant what you *thought*. The South Pacific was a safe place to
dump spacecraft.

According to you and Jorge. Have either of you done an Environmental
Impact Statement on the effect of dumping 17 tons of extremely toxic
chemicals in the South Pacific?

Just because you're dumping your toxic chemicals in someone else's
backyard doesn't mean they're "safe."

Why is their non-existent spacecraft so much easier for you to get
behind than a relatively simple modification to a spacecraft that has
flown 113 times?

It would be cheaper than a Shuttle flight.

Promises, promises. We've heard that before. Titan IV anyone?

You're ranting. The Orbital Recovery mission has no relationship to
the Titan IV, so your comparison is completely irrelevant.

It would entail less risk than a Shuttle flight.

Not if it fails, which is considerably more likely than a Shuttle
flight.

In your opinion. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

And NASA has already rejected the possibility
of a Shuttle flight.
Do you know someone other than NASA who can provide a Shuttle
flight?

The U.S. Congress and the U.S. President.

I don't think Senator Nelson can fly the Shuttle all by himself, and
the man appointed by the President to run NASA has already said no to
the mission.

You'll also find that there are many members of Congress who don't
share your views on dumping toxic chemicals into the oceans. Rep.
Sherman Boehlert, the head of the House Science Committee, which
oversees NASA, happens to be an environmentalist, and he's not the
only one.

However, as you say, my thoughts don't matter, only yours do, so I
encourage you and Jorge to take your thoughts to Capitol Hill.

When did Soyuz have an accident that was fatal to people on the
ground? Or a near miss. You know full well that is the risk I was
talking about. Astronauts are *not* the only people whose lives
matter.

When did Shuttle have an accident that was fatal to people on the
ground? A near miss? Columbia came down in the heartland of America
and didn't hurt anyone.

And if you think that wasn't a near miss, then you have learned
nothing from the accident. The lack of third-party fatalities was
sheer luck.

And if you think Soyuz is immune to such
dangers, ask yourself where the Soyuz boosters come down.

I never said Soyuz was immune to dangers. Will you never tire of
misquoting me?

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Not so. The man who got heads was constitutionally barred from running
again.


Aw geez... that's bad, Greg!




That's not what she said.


But he got it all over her blew...excuse me...blue, dress.
Oh God; those were the days... budget surpluses, no wars, and the
riotously funny day-by-day revelations of what Bill did or didn't do
with cigars and pizza delivery girls; as house Republicans are quite
literally caught with their pants down....Watergate was scary and kind
of tragic; Reagan was pathetic and kind of sad...this was pure...I was
going to say unadulterated, but that definitely wouldn't be
appropriate... fun.

Pat

OM wrote:

...Which begs the question as to what shape mods would have had to
been made to the F-100 to accomodate mounting an onboard radar?



Something like this?:
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes...ultra_sabre.pl
There was another drawing I once saw of a modified F-100 that placed a
small radar in the upper intake lip, but the antennae was none-too-big.
It's interesting that the F-100 was designed the way it was after they
had to add the radome to the F-86D to track the target and aim the
Mighty Mouse rockets. The aircraft suffered from its lack of radar, much
like the F-11 Tiger.

Pat

In article ,
Scott Ferrin writes:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:52:44 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

In article ,
Pat Flannery writes:


Henry Spencer wrote:


The eventual compromise was a rather smaller F-106 production run, and
reluctant acceptance that many of the F-102As would continue in service
until more advanced interceptors joined the F-106s. But the F-103 and
F-108 ended up being canceled, and so the F-102As stuck around a while.


Don't forget how Canada's Voodoos and Bomarcs became an integral part of
the air defense equation after the Avro Arrow got canceled. I wonder how
many Canadians know that their country once possessed nuclear weapons?

And the Canadian CF-104s in France and Germany were Nuke-Only
airplanes, as well. It wasn't until the Trudeau Administration that
they received any ability to use conventional weapons.

Oh, and the Canadian Army in Germany relied on Nuke-warhead Honest
John rockets, as well.
FOr a small-peace-loving country, they were awfully willing to jump
onto teh Nuclear Bandwagon. (Even more than we were, in fact.)


Weren't the warheads under US control though?

It was a "Dual key" arrangement. The warheads were kept (un-mated, of
course) in a secure area manned by U.S. Personnel, guarded from the
outside by Local Nation (Canada, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Greeve,
Denmark, Netherlands, or Belgian) personnel. The decision to prep &
upload live weapons was bilateral - The U.S. couldn't unilaterally
order weapons uploaded, and the Local Nation couldn't order the
weapons mated & prepped. Note that a release order wouldn't have to
be a last-minute thing, though.

The interesting thing about the Canadian defence posture in the early
1960s was just how much they decided to go nuclear. The RCAF had no
credible conventional capability whatsoever, for example. Even the
NATO F-104Gs could carried their guns, Sidewinder AAMs, and iron
bombs, as well as nukes. The CF-104s carried fuel intead of the gun,
and nothing that wasn't a nuke or a recce pod. They didn't even have
gunsights. That's much firther than the U.S., or, for that matter,
anyone else went.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney wrote:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/resea...hter/f107a.htm

The North American F-107A. One of the best airplanes we never bought.



Ah, hell...ya beat me to it. Of course that was basically an attack jet;
here's a mock-up with a more conventional take on the nose earlier in
the F-107 program:
http://cloud.prohosting.com/hud607/u...7/na211_01.jpg
; the North American NA-211 design.

Pat

Brian Thorn wrote:

See the XF-107 Ultra Sabre

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes...ultra_sabre.pl.




Just like the Sperry Ball Turret, we all know about the F-107, don't we?

Pat