|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 ? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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.... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
... On 02 Oct 2004 15:19:21 GMT, (bob haller) wrote: 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.... This is the problem with Haller; he doesn't check the basics before commenting. The WTC in New York WAS designed to survive a direct impact from an airliner - a 707 in fact. This can be discovered with some rudimentary (simple, but too complex for Haller) web searching. 767 has twice the mass of a 707 and twice the fuel capacity. If 757's had hit the WTC, they would probably have survived. -- Alan Erskine We can get people to the Moon in five years, not the fifteen GWB proposes. Give NASA a real challenge |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |