A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA leaders weigh impact of hurricanes on return to flight plans



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 2nd 04, 12:49 PM
Jacques van Oene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA leaders weigh impact of hurricanes on return to flight plans

Melissa Mathews/Allard Beutel
Headquarters, Washington Oct. 1, 2004
(Phone: 202/358-1272/4769)

RELEASE: 04-328

NASA LEADERS WEIGH IMPACT OF HURRICANES ON RETURN TO FLIGHT
PLANS

NASA is working to determine how four hurricanes that
affected several centers this year will impact efforts to
return the Space Shuttle to flight. The agency has been working
toward a launch-planning window that opens in March 2005.

Top officials in NASA's human space flight program met today.
They determined the March-April window is no longer achievable.
The Space Flight Leadership Council met in an executive session
at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston. The council directed
the Space Shuttle Program to assess how it would meet Return to
Flight milestones for the next available launch window, which
opens May 14, 2005. The Shuttle program will present its
analysis at a late October leadership council meeting.

"More than a year ago, we set out a specific plan for Return to
Flight with specific milestones. Right now, those milestones
are pointing us toward a new launch window," said William
Readdy, NASA's associate administrator for Space Operations. "I
am proud of our Shuttle team for taking good care of our
orbiters during this terrible storm season. I am pleased they
are taking the time to make a careful assessment of the
hurricanes' impact. Their thoroughness will help us make the
right decision," he said.

During this year's Atlantic hurricane season, four storms
affected four NASA facilities in the southeastern United
States. Thankfully, no workers were injured and no spacecraft
or hardware damaged. However, Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and
Jeanne closed down NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., for
approximately nine days and damaged several facilities.
Hurricane Ivan caused shorter closures at NASA's Stennis Space
Center, Miss.; Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.;
and the Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans. Many NASA
workers and contractors are still coping with damage to their
homes and other impacts on their families.


NASA's Space Flight Leadership Council is co-chaired by Readdy
and Walter Cantrell, deputy chief engineer for the Independent
Technical Authority. The council also includes the directors
for NASA's four space operations centers; Chief Officer for
Safety and Mission Assurance Bryan O'Connor; and Deputy
Associate Administrator for International Space Station and
Space Shuttle Programs, Michael Kostelnik.

For more information on NASA's Return to Flight efforts, visit:

www.nasa.gov/returntoflight

For information about NASA and agency programs on the Internet,
visit:

http://www.nasa.gov


-end-


--
---------------------------

Jacques :-)

www.spacepatches.info



  #2  
Old October 2nd 04, 03:41 PM
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I trust the VAB will not this time be constructed from Lego?

If I was a building designer right now, I'd be revamping my designs for any
kind of building, I think. it takes only the weather to show us that we are
not as clever as we think we are, i guess.

Brian



--

Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.771 / Virus Database: 518 - Release Date: 28/09/2004


  #3  
Old October 2nd 04, 04:19 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


If I was a building designer right now, I'd be revamping my designs for any
kind of building, I think. it takes only the weather to show us that we are
not as clever as we think we are, i guess.


THEORITICALLY a building can be designed to survive anything....

but the trouble is being able to afford whats built

Design the world trade center to survive direct impact from a airliner. yep we
can do it

but the building will be so horrendously expensive it doesnt matter....

The VAB was built fast, as part of the moon race. Its amazing its still
standing today....
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....
  #4  
Old October 3rd 04, 02:01 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jacques van Oene wrote:
They determined the March-April window is no longer achievable.


I have a feeling that the timing was already tight enough that the launch
window probably woudln't have been met even without the hurricanes. (or it may
have been met by cutting corners)

How many days did NASA lose roughly ? Would 15 days be a fair number of days
lost due to hurricanes ?
  #6  
Old October 4th 04, 01:02 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gary Coffman wrote:
in July of 1945. There were design features of the WTC that made it
much more vulnerable to aircraft strikes than buildings like the ESB.


Actually, the WTC survived the aircraft crashes very well. It is the fires its
didn't survive.

workmanship used in the construction. The VAB was designed with hurricanes
in mind, and most of the people who built it were highly competent and took
pride in their work. (My uncle worked on that job.)


An undamaged building is far stronger against hurricanes than a damaged one.

The fact that the VAB didn't lose all its skin after parts of it flew off is
an indication that there was some strength in the building. A bad building
would have sustained far more damage the minute it started to lose some of its integrity.

fact that it did suffer some damage does mean that it was not rated for
category 2 winds. Whether that i was a design/contruction issue or just
age/maintenance is the big question.

Far more worrysome is the tile processing facility. The damage sustained on
its roof seems to indicate that that one was not properly designed.
  #7  
Old October 4th 04, 01:09 AM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The Empire State Building survived a B25 crashing into the 79th floor
in July of 1945. There were design features of the WTC that made it
much more vulnerable to aircraft strikes than buildings like the ESB.
The ESB was cheaper to construct than the WTC also. The design
differences which make buildings like it more robust against aircraft
strikes don't necessarily make them more expensive to build.


well lets design the WTC to survive a magnitude 10 earthquake, a direct tornado
hit, plus airliners and other bombs, might as well design it to survive a
tasctical nuclear strike too. a direct 20k nuclerar bomb?: That might be a bit
harder.

The more you design for the cost keeps going up, and lets not forget how to
evacuatre everyone in a matter of minutes.

if you ask me the WTC site should remain as a memorial to those who died, like
a nice park. the biggest building in the world, you are assuring it will be
attacked again. no one will want to work there.

The VAB was built fast, as part of the moon race. Its amazing its still
standing today....


Speed of construction doesn't necessarily correlate with poor survivability.
It is the design which matters, as well as the quality of the materials and
workmanship used in the construction. The VAB was designed with hurricanes
in mind, and most of the people who built it were highly competent and took
pride in their work. (My uncle worked on that job.)

Gary


It was a great design but hasnt been maintained well. no offense but the steel
structure with aluminimum panels probably wasnt a good choice, dissimiliar
metal corrode..
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....
  #9  
Old October 12th 04, 06:11 PM
EAC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message ...
The WTC in New York WAS designed to survive a direct impact
from an airliner - a 707 in fact.


Correct. An impact from a 707 flying at its maximum speed and its
maximum mass. It's also designed to handle the fire caused by its
fuel.


767 has twice the mass of a 707 and twice the fuel capacity.


Incorrect, the 767 has roughly the same fuel capacity and the same
mass in comparison with the 707. Don't believe me? Check out the books
that told about these crafts, books that were published before 11th
September 2001. The Internet? Don't bother, facts on the Internet can
be easily changed.

It should be noted that the direct descendant of the 707 is the 747.
The 757 and the 767 were descendants of the 727, only the 767 is the
bigger one of the two, since after some reviews, they decided to make
the 767 larger.


As for the fires were the caused of the two tower downfall.

Well... That's the 'official' story, which doesn't actually make sense
at all, considering tower 1 (which was hit much later and suffered
less structural damage and fire, not to mention the tower where the
craft spilled much of its fuel outside the building) was the first of
the two towers to fall. And the idea that a kerosene fire capable of
causing a steel tower to drop down in an orderly fashion is never
heard off until 11th September 2001.

A much more reasonable reasoning is that the two towers were
demolished in a controlled demolition style.

It should be noted that both towers were also designed to handle
extreme fires. And remember both towers were designed before the days
of Computer Aided Design, so they overengineered and overbuild the
whole thing.


Back to the V.A.B. building.

Well... It's an old building, but it was build and designed to be
quite sturdy, like many buildings in the past (including the WTC and
the ESB), it was overbuild and overengineered. I think that it capable
handling a lot of hurricanes in the future.
  #10  
Old October 12th 04, 06:30 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"EAC" wrote in message
m...

As for the fires were the caused of the two tower downfall.

Well... That's the 'official' story, which doesn't actually make sense
at all, considering tower 1 (which was hit much later and suffered
less structural damage and fire, not to mention the tower where the
craft spilled much of its fuel outside the building) was the first of
the two towers to fall. And the idea that a kerosene fire capable of
causing a steel tower to drop down in an orderly fashion is never
heard off until 11th September 2001.

A much more reasonable reasoning is that the two towers were
demolished in a controlled demolition style.

It should be noted that both towers were also designed to handle
extreme fires. And remember both towers were designed before the days
of Computer Aided Design, so they overengineered and overbuild the
whole thing.


You're missing some vital pieces of information. Perhaps if you'd take the
time to actually read a detailed analysis of what caused the WTC towers to
collapse, you'd understand all of the issues.

Back to the V.A.B. building.

Well... It's an old building, but it was build and designed to be
quite sturdy, like many buildings in the past (including the WTC and
the ESB), it was overbuild and overengineered. I think that it capable
handling a lot of hurricanes in the future.


Except for the problems it's having with its roof (needs maintenance badly)
and its side panels (which seem to pop off during high winds). Higher winds
would likely have popped off more panels, leading to much worse damage to
the interior. Worst case, you'd end up with the VAB structure still
standing, but the exterior panels and roof would largely be gone, with the
falling and flying debris damaging the shuttles stored inside.

Remember the Russian shuttle that was badly damaged when the roof collapsed
on top of it?

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA is coming along just fine now. Cardman Policy 2 July 8th 04 07:33 PM
NASA presents return to flight update Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 June 18th 04 09:42 AM
NASA announces Space Shuttle return to flight telepone update Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 March 20th 04 10:09 PM
NASA TV Covers Return To Flight Briefings Ron Baalke Space Station 0 September 12th 03 07:29 PM
NASA: Gases Breached Wing of Shuttle Atlantis in 2000 Rusty Barton Space Shuttle 2 July 10th 03 01:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.