New Columbia loss report out today

Jeff Findley wrote:

The shuttle's design seems to be tweaked a bit after each flight. Something
gets added, or deleted, or modified.

That makes sense when there are so few of them and they fly so rarely.

wrote:

yeah BUT the astronauts fly assuming others are doing their job.

Whenever you get on a plane, a bus or a train, you do that too.

Jeff Findley wrote:

True. And if you look hard enough, you'll see that the STS is still being
tweaked. That just *screams* experimental vehicle.

That just *screams* 'this thing is not absolutely 100% perfect', to me. A good attitude.

On Jan 14, 8:43�am, Neil Gerace wrote:
wrote:
yeah BUT the astronauts fly assuming others are doing their job.

Whenever you get on a plane, a bus or a train, you do that too.

yeah and many have died because of cost cutting, oversite and general
accidents

but not in a 5 billion a year government funded system.

the failures that challenger and columbia had were schedule before
safety issues

On or about Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:45:43 -0800, Kathy Rages made the sensational claim that:
In article ,
"Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)"
wrote:

As I said in about 1989, perfect safety is for people who don't have
the balls to live in the real world.

Mary "Thirty years later and it's still the stone truth."

Uh, Mary . . .

It's only 20 years later. But still the stone truth, of course.

Not if she meant 1979.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Yep. The problem is we started treating the Shuttles like they
weren't experimental vehicles, putting teachers and such on them.

Some of us remember the statement (and the argument it was made
during) and agree with it. At some point, it's time to kick the
tires, light the fires, and GO...

True. And if you look hard enough, you'll see that the STS is still being
tweaked. That just *screams* experimental vehicle.

The 747 is still being tweaked too. So is the 726 class submarine.

If you have to "look hard enough" to justify the designation of
'experimental vehicle' because of 'tweaks' - you're looking too hard.

The shuttle's design seems to be tweaked a bit after each flight. Something
gets added, or deleted, or modified.

Certainly 747's are still being tweaked a bit, but after each flight?

In other words, you're looking to hard and willingly blinding yourself
to the difference between apples and oranges. Dogma is more important
than common sense.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

LooseChanj wrote:

:On or about Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:45:43 -0800, Kathy Rages made the sensational claim that:
: In article ,
: "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer)"
: wrote:
:
: As I said in about 1989, perfect safety is for people who don't have
: the balls to live in the real world.
:
: Mary "Thirty years later and it's still the stone truth."
:
: Uh, Mary . . .
:
: It's only 20 years later. But still the stone truth, of course.
:
:Not if she meant 1979.
:

I think she must have meant 1986 (the year Challenger blew up) or
thereabouts. 1989 seems a little late to me, given what I remember
the argument being about.

[However, I *have* slept since then, so who can be sure?]


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

wrote:
The vehicle was at hypersonic speeds and the very definition of
hypersonic is that the surface of the vehicle and the atmosphere
interact. The interaction creates all sorts of strange species, even
in normal, controlled flight. Consider the catalysis caused by the
sea salt deposited on the tiles or the smear of metal oxides
downstream of the instrumentation covers, for example.

Mary "Oddness is to be expected, in other words."


As defined where, by whom?

Surely the Hyper-X Mach 7 flight had none of this interaction yet it was
considered hypersonic flight, no? Seems to me the "basic" definition would
appear to be of flight at/above Mach 5 by most available sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...&btnG= Search


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_flight

"Hypersonic flight is flight through the atmosphere at speeds above
about Mach 5.5, a speed where disassociation of air begins to become
significant and high heat loads exist."

Mary was describing the air heating to the point where it begins to
break down, and the various gases in it affect the surface of the
vehicle passing through it.

Pat

On Jan 16, 11:05*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Mary was describing the air heating to the point where it begins to
break down, and the various gases in it affect the surface of the
vehicle passing through it.

Gunna say. When a car moves, its surfaces interact with the
atmosphere, generating drag which can be felt and heard, and even lift
if you go fast enough and happen to be driving the wrong kind of
car

But of course it's a physical (electromagnetic, if you want to be
picky) interaction, not a chemical one.

Neil Gerace wrote:
But of course it's a physical (electromagnetic, if you want to be
picky) interaction, not a chemical one.


But many cars in the 1950's - early 1960's moved so fast that they
encountered severe aerodynamic heating:
http://www.dallasclassicchevy.com/im...7%20flames.jpg

Pat