New Columbia loss report out today

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Jorge R. Frank wrote:
1) Columbia did not carry the RMS on STS-107.


Without a payload to drop off and pick up there was no reason to carry the
RMS.


And personally I've always thought this was a poor argument. Sure, removing
the extra mass helps, but you lose functionality. And you increase workflow
in the processing steps.

Would it have made a difference in Columbia, probably not since it was never
routine to scan the exterior. Though, perhaps in this case they might have
taken a look.






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

On Dec 30 2008, 8:46*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=6577730

Pat

Is there anything our NASA did right?

Perhaps that part of the report could have been contained in one small
paragraph.

~ BG

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Without a payload to drop off and pick up there was no reason to carry the
RMS.



And personally I've always thought this was a poor argument. Sure, removing
the extra mass helps, but you lose functionality. And you increase workflow
in the processing steps.


Columbia though always had poorer performance in regards to payload than
the other Shuttles as it was heavier than they were; so the mass saved
by not carrying the RMS could be used to carry more experiments for the
flight aboard the SPACEHAB module.

Would it have made a difference in Columbia, probably not since it was never
routine to scan the exterior. Though, perhaps in this case they might have
taken a look.


If they could have, I'm sure they would have, as they did consider doing
a EVA to see if any damage could be detected.

Pat

Craig Fink wrote:
One of the other interesting failure was in some of the seat
structure, "broom-straw" fractures 3.1-16. Aluminum is a good conductor of
heat, but it also has a huge thermal expansion coefficient. I haven't seen
a "broom-straw" fracture before. Seems that Aluminum 7075 is a laminate
material.


It looked like that in the photos - it seemed to have a "grain" to it
like wood.
I've never seen aluminum fracture that way either; it looked like
something you'd encounter with a layered composite material more than a
metal.

Pat

Old tech that was left out cause of weight, but can it be retrofitted
into current shuttles or not left out off any future shuttle or like
vehicles.

Such as will the USMC and Air Force get their Space Assault vehicle?

Why they need it, so they don't have to beg for air space access to
anti-American countries, as they chase down people like Osama or ...
just fun to have as an idea?

But things like shielding of the cock pit, ejectors and like? Old tech
but can it be done today with newer tech that could not be done or was
left out when the shuttles was originally built? But could they have
helped the crews in the lost shuttles?

Mike
Alaska

Poker Flats is down the road? Fairbanks

Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Old tech that was left out cause of weight, but can it be retrofitted
into current shuttles

No.

or not left out off any future shuttle or like
vehicles.

There won't be any.

Pat Flannery wrote:



Craig Fink wrote:
One of the other interesting failure was in some of the seat
structure, "broom-straw" fractures 3.1-16. Aluminum is a good conductor
of heat, but it also has a huge thermal expansion coefficient. I haven't
seen a "broom-straw" fracture before. Seems that Aluminum 7075 is a
laminate material.


I've never seen aluminum fracture that way either; it looked like
something you'd encounter with a layered composite material more than a
metal.

Broom Straw Fractures occur when the metal fails at temperatures near its
melting point. They're fairly common in airplane crashes, and can occur in
other materials than aluminum - I've seen it in steel.
Not unexpected, considering the environment that it was in.

--
Pete Stickney
The better the Four Wheel Drive, the further out you get stuck.

On Jan 6, 10:20�am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Old tech that was left out cause of weight, but can it be retrofitted
into current shuttles

No.

or not left out off any future shuttle or like
vehicles.

There won't be any.

well convert shuttles to cargo ONLY, and give pilot and co pilot
ejection seats whih were on first 2 flights, so its possible

wrote in message
...
On Jan 6, 10:20?am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Old tech that was left out cause of weight, but can it be retrofitted
into current shuttles

No.

or not left out off any future shuttle or like
vehicles.

There won't be any.

well convert shuttles to cargo ONLY, and give pilot and co pilot
ejection seats whih were on first 2 flights, so its possible


For a VERY small part of the flight regime. You've been told this many
times, but continue to ignore it.




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

On Jan 6, 5:05�pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Jan 6, 10:20?am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Old tech that was left out cause of weight, but can it be retrofitted
into current shuttles

No.

or not left out off any future shuttle or like
vehicles.

There won't be any.

well convert shuttles to cargo ONLY, and give pilot and co pilot
ejection seats whih were on first 2 flights, so its possible



For a VERY small part of the flight regime. �You've been told this many
times, but continue to ignore it.

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

well its the most hazardous.just ask the challenger crews familys..
dont ask but see my point?

of course they could give the 2 crew mini capsule ejection systems

nasa has publically stated all future crew systems will require launch
boost escape