A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old November 16th 06, 10:59 PM posted to sci.space.history
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)


Nicholas Fitzpatrick wrote:
In article .com,
Eric Chomko wrote:
I want to know who has you in their killfile, OM.


A lot of us don't use killfiles ... at least not on people, I admit
I use a killfile for one group that simply deletes all cross-posts.
Besides, neither does OM ... he just spouts on about it, but if you watch,
eventually, he can't resist replying to stuff that someone on his
"killfile" posted.


Yes, that is the fun part.


You seem to have an inflated opinion of yourself.


That he does - he's just a small-minded person full of hate at people,
based on race, colour, creed, sexuality, and if they agree with him
or not.

Your website sucks and you don't use your
real name. I basically think that you are a sheep that tires to act
like a wolf.


Well, in his defence, it's no secret, and he will tell you himself.
OM stands for Omega Man (why I don't know ... perhaps it's part of his
superego), and his real name is Bob Mosley ... with one of those Yankee
number things on the end, or something.


Yankee number things? You mean Roman numerals?

Also I note that you killfile those that don't share your political
views, unless they are Henry that is.


Yes, he does seem to have his tongue rather deep up Henry's ass ... I've
always thought that was a little odd ...


Yes, you noticed it too? Yeah well, maybe his hatred for others will
create like-minded allies?

Eric


Nick


  #82  
Old November 16th 06, 11:00 PM posted to sci.space.history
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:38:56 +0100, in a place far, far away, Jochem
Huhmann made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Oh, come on; Mook can come up with some incredibly strange fun ideas.


And killfiling him is absolutely pointless, because he only posts very
rarely. He also has no habit to engage in endless threads.


He has in the past. I recall one long one in which he was attempting
to convince us that humans are natural vegetarians, and that we should
switch to an all-fruit diet, based on dentition.
  #83  
Old November 16th 06, 11:34 PM posted to sci.space.history
Eric Chomko
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,630
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)


Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:38:56 +0100, in a place far, far away, Jochem
Huhmann made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Oh, come on; Mook can come up with some incredibly strange fun ideas.


And killfiling him is absolutely pointless, because he only posts very
rarely. He also has no habit to engage in endless threads.


He has in the past. I recall one long one in which he was attempting
to convince us that humans are natural vegetarians, and that we should
switch to an all-fruit diet, based on dentition.


Well since he's 110 it's hard to argue against him.

  #84  
Old November 17th 06, 12:50 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

wrote in
:

They had several months to do some tests. But they never published
what they did. They have this test facility and they were ordered
by Gehman to do it. So they did something. And no action in such
a facility without a report. This reports are somewhere.


No, that is incorrect. The CAIB asked NASA to perform the In-Flight
Options Assessment in mid-April 2003 and to deliver it in 3 weeks. In
that timeframe no material testing was possible, only analysis. The
Admiral accepted that limitation. All the material testing that has been
done was done after that assessment was completed, and was for the
purpose of establishing RCC damage criteria and repair methods for
future flights, not revisiting the "what-if" question of 107.

In simple words you assume the hole in the RCC would grow up until
most the RCC was consumed and the ice block was no longer a
blockade. That would be a clear "no way to repair". But I doubt
that the delamination would spread that fast.


What data are you basing that doubt on?


The fact that NASA never mentioned this failure mode in the repair
option discussion during CAIB.


Because they didn't know about it at the time. They didn't discover it
until they started doing actual arcjet tests on damaged RCC specimens,
which didn't occur until after the CAIB report was published.

As a matter of fact, you're
wrong. A 15-minute arcjet test on an RCC specimen with a 0.03" crack
had to be aborted a little after the five minute mark because the
specimen was eroding so fast.


Ok, let us look in this example. Show me the source. I`m very
interested in the details of this test.


I'm sure you are. But as far as I know, the presentation is unpublished,
and I have no intention of jumping through the export-control hoops it
would take to publish it.

4. on other missions Columbia had several early BL trips without
serious damage or without any damage at all.


The earliest of those BL trips was around Mach 19, more than halfway
through the peak heating period. I'm talking about a BL that goes
turbulent from the *very beginning*, at Mach 25.


I have not checked this. But as others have pointed out, the heat load
at Mach 25 is rather low.


Irrelevant. What's relevant is that at Mach 25, the entire period of
peak heating is in the future. By Mach 19 a great deal of it is in the
past and the total heating load from there to the end of the peak
heating period will be far less.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #85  
Old November 17th 06, 01:00 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)



Rand Simberg wrote:

What's so frustrating is that we aren't even asking to do everything
right. We'd just like to do it so everything isn't so damned *wrong*.



Believe it or not, a completely agree with you on this one.
NASA's manned spacecraft design programs and advanced launch vehicle
designs have been a complete screwed-up mess for around a decade or
more. It's not that one of the designs has been a flop, it's that _all_
of them have been flops.

Pat
  #86  
Old November 17th 06, 02:39 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)



Jochem Huhmann wrote:



The idea being that the exhaust gas is always moving subsonicly compared
to the gas sheath surrounding it.



Might be quite useful some day in the future when you have spacecraft
lifting off everywhere daily... Yeah, that's the "disconnected from
reality" part. Still, I enjoy his postings usually. There're too many
people around here being much too connected to our boring reality
anyway.



The problem is that the center Mach 5 jet is efficient, but the outer
ones suck from a ISP point of view.
  #87  
Old November 17th 06, 03:23 AM posted to sci.space.history
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

In article .com,
Eric Chomko wrote:

Well, in his defence, it's no secret, and he will tell you himself.
OM stands for Omega Man (why I don't know ... perhaps it's part of his
superego), and his real name is Bob Mosley ... with one of those Yankee
number things on the end, or something.


Yankee number things? You mean Roman numerals?


You know, those odd things Yankees put after their name sometimes that
seems so pretentious. Senior, Junior, IIII, etc.

Nick
  #88  
Old November 17th 06, 03:26 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,858
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

Three weeks, three days, three hours. If there is a problem, you start by
throwing the most promising things into the test facility first. What was
first, (water), second (tools), third??????

They didn't have three weeks. If they had, then the Turkey might have made
it in the test facility. That is, if they had one. Are you saying it takes
more that three weeks to fire up the testing facility?

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
--

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:50:53-0600, Jorge R. Frank wrote:

No, that is incorrect. The CAIB asked NASA to perform the In-Flight
Options Assessment in mid-April 2003 and to deliver it in 3 weeks.


  #89  
Old November 17th 06, 03:30 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,858
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

Since when have Turkeys been added to the export-control hoops? Well, I
guess you could be right?????

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
--

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:50:53 -0600, Jorge R. Frank wrote:

I'm sure you are. But as far as I know, the presentation is unpublished,
and I have no intention of jumping through the export-control hoops it
would take to publish it.



  #90  
Old November 17th 06, 03:35 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,858
Default NASA Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others)

Two flight ago, what Mach number did the gap filler turbulent boundary
layer study start at? Closer to Mach 19 or Mach 25?

You have no idea what the failure mode looks like from the outside of the
wing. Only the inside of the wing, like what happened to Columbia. I found
it interesting that the "Studies" done during Columbia's last Mission
didn't include the Chemistry of the Fluid field. How could they have ever
expected to study the tinyest of breaches without the additional heat due
to burning structure?

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
--


On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:50:53-0600, Jorge R. Frank wrote:


Irrelevant. What's relevant is that at Mach 25, the entire period of
peak heating is in the future. By Mach 19 a great deal of it is in the
past and the total heating load from there to the end of the peak
heating period will be far less.



 




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 Astronaut on Columbia Repair (and others) [email protected] Space Shuttle 301 December 11th 06 10:34 PM
NASA Spacewalking astronaut completes unique repair Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 1 August 3rd 05 08:01 PM
NASA Spacewalking astronaut completes unique repair Jacques van Oene News 0 August 3rd 05 07:52 PM
AP: NASA Still Lacks Repair Kits for Astronauts in Orbit, Nearly Two Years After Columbia Disaster Mr. White Space Shuttle 0 December 6th 04 11:41 PM
Navy Recognizes Columbia Astronaut Ron Baalke Space Shuttle 0 July 9th 03 07:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:18 PM.


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.