Space Shuttle commentary

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 07:04:12 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:


I think a honkin' big hole in the wing would have been a little hard
to miss,

A black hole in a dark material with a dark void within, against a
black background. Yah, it would have shown up like a searchlight in a
wheatfield.

Dark material? The RCC is light grey...

especially since they'd have been looking at tiles in the vicinity
anyway.

Yes - at the *tile*, that does not imply a close look at the *RCC*.

"Houston, Columbia... we just sent EV1 over the side and he says the
tiles look fine, but he wants to know if that big hole in the wing
leading edge he had to climb past is important..."

Brian

On 29 Oct 2006 04:25:47 -0800, "www.spaceboot.eu"
wrote:


think again, the spare parts are used to build Endeavour: OV-105

All of them? Is the shuttle fleet even going to make 2010 then?

The spare parts in question were major structural spares, not extra
spark plugs...

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 07:04:12 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:


I think a honkin' big hole in the wing would have been a little hard
to miss,

A black hole in a dark material with a dark void within, against a
black background. Yah, it would have shown up like a searchlight in a
wheatfield.

Dark material? The RCC is light grey...

especially since they'd have been looking at tiles in the vicinity
anyway.

Yes - at the *tile*, that does not imply a close look at the *RCC*.

"Houston, Columbia... we just sent EV1 over the side and he says the
tiles look fine, but he wants to know if that big hole in the wing
leading edge he had to climb past is important..."

To be fair, I think Derek was referring to photography by "national
assets", not an EVA inspection.

Derek is possibly correct to say that remote photographic inspection would
not have revealed the hole. If NASA had asked for photos, they would have
optimized the sun angle for the tiles, and at non-optimal sun angles, the
RCC can indeed appear darker, so the contrast may not have enough to show
anything - "black on black", as Derek put it.

An EVA inspection would obviously have found the hole, since the EV would
have to look past the RCC in order to see the tiles.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

www.spaceboot.eu wrote:

Aah, that's why you're such an abusive guy, you think you're in the
wilds, and this is YOUR turf, YOU're the alpha male here. Sorry for
intruding, Mr.Lyons

I see that Mr. Lyons is up to his old tricks.

sigh

--
Dave Michelson

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 04:25:47 -0800, "www.spaceboot.eu"
wrote:


think again, the spare parts are used to build Endeavour: OV-105

All of them? Is the shuttle fleet even going to make 2010 then?

The spare parts in question were major structural spares, not extra
spark plugs...

Brian

But say a crack in one of the exhaust nozzles would be a problem then?
Trying to get an idea to what extent spares are available, or in other
words, what problem would be fatal to the shuttle in question, even if
not for the mission.

Na rijp beraad schreef www.spaceboot.eu :
Brian Thorn wrote:
On 29 Oct 2006 04:25:47 -0800, "www.spaceboot.eu"
wrote:


All of them? Is the shuttle fleet even going to make 2010 then?

The spare parts in question were major structural spares, not extra
spark plugs...

Brian

But say a crack in one of the exhaust nozzles would be a problem then?
Trying to get an idea to what extent spares are available, or in other
words, what problem would be fatal to the shuttle in question, even if
not for the mission.

In this case think of spare parts like wings, cargobay doors, vertical
stabilizer etc.
SSME can be excanged if needed, for example with that crack in the
nozzle (there was actually a minor crack in one nozzle this year, have
nu URL present at the moment)

André

"www.spaceboot.eu" wrote in message
ups.com...

*Ariane 501, 502 (partial), 510 (partial), 517

Having fun with stats too? Ariane 501 en 502 were the first two
launches of the Ariane 5 series, so one could argue that these were
'tests'.

Tell that to the 'customer' on Ariane 501.


Ariane 517 was the first flight of the ECA variant.
You could also say that 2 out of 5 or 6 flying shuttles failed but that
wouldn't be fair since the shuttle is reusable.

And 94 out of 95 Soyuz's flown are now longer in service.

Big deal.

Dave Michelson wrote:

www.spaceboot.eu wrote:

Aah, that's why you're such an abusive guy, you think you're in the
wilds, and this is YOUR turf, YOU're the alpha male here. Sorry for
intruding, Mr.Lyons

I see that Mr. Lyons is up to his old tricks.

sigh

Yep. I'm right here contributing facts and information to the
newgroup as I have been for years. You on the other hand contribute
nothing but the occasional snide comment.

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

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

"www.spaceboot.eu" wrote in message
oups.com...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
And tell the crew of a 747 cargo jet they don't need life-support. They
may
disagree.

It's not the crew that doesn't need life-support, it's the 747 that
doesn't need a crew. :-)

And how many 747 cargo jets fly without crews?

Look at how much money the USAF has poured into UAV development for
literally decades and look at where we are today. If transportation of
cargo were important to do unmanned you'd expect the USAF to be doing it.
The fact is, it isn't. It's cheaper and more reliable to put a crew on a
C-17 than it is to fly it unmanned like Predator. In fact, a C-17 is so
valuable to the USAF I doubt they'd ever want to fly one unmanned. Putting
a crew on board increases the chance of mission success and decreases the
chance that you're going to lose an expensive piece of hardware.

It's a fallacy that launching billions of unmanned "cargo" into space
without a crew is somehow a good idea. If it's safe enough for billions of
"cargo", it ought to be safe enough for people as well. If it isn't, then
why in the hell are we risking billions of dollars on an unreliable launcher
in the first place?

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Derek Lyons wrote:

www.spaceboot.eu wrote:

Aah, that's why you're such an abusive guy, you think you're in the
wilds, and this is YOUR turf, YOU're the alpha male here. Sorry for
intruding, Mr.Lyons

I see that Mr. Lyons is up to his old tricks.

sigh


Yep. I'm right here contributing facts and information to the
newgroup as I have been for years.

That's commendable. However, you're also bullying and intimidating
people, as per usual. You might consider knocking the latter off.

--
Dave Michelson