|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible
Seems pretty expensive testing to be crappy thinking.. I think the tax
payers should demand there money back on the test if its so crappy. Or course it was hole. And if they can see license plate detail from space they should be able to see a big crack or hole. Either way its the only logical explanation that hot gases got in, or do you have another theory Dosco? "Dosco Jones" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Jim Ancona" wrote in message 4.196... "Dosco Jones" wrote in thlink.net: "Jim Ancona" wrote in message 4.196... Note that the gas cannon test blew a 16" x 16" hole in RCC 8. See: http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html I think they would have been able to see that. You're assuming the hole in the wing was the same as the hole created during the final test. Big assumption. Bad logic. The article I linked also says that the radar data that showed an object separating from Columbia the day after launch "likely was a large section of RCC 8 that worked its way free in the weightlessness of orbit". So it's an assumption that's consistent with what the investigation board is thinking. Where's the bad logic? Jim That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy thinking that killed Columbia. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible
What killed Columbia was the inability for any of the people inside to put
their job on the line and go to the press if they weren't heard about the damage. Just like on Challenger.. take your engineering hat off and put your management hat on. :? If somebody had said the hell with my job I'm going to CNN or holding a press conference you can be damned sure NASA would have imaged Columbia and done an EVA. And its bull**** that they can't cause I have the tape of an engineer saying they can do an EVA to close the ET camera door if it doesn't work. So there has to be a contingency plan. And what about Atlantis? Why are we just now hearing about hot gases getting into the wing on that flight? Seems to be bad news is always hidden from the press, not a way to improve relations. Not to mention loss of crew and vehicle if they had made it through the atmosphere and then they tried a belly landing, as they said in the letters that flew back and forth, "A very bad day." All we can do is improve the future now. And hope that more foresight for an escape pod is a requirement for the next generation spacecraft. Launch dangers still haven't evaporated. Like the bolts for instance on the SRBs? but that's the way it goes... back to flying ASAP with problems solved, if you please. I watched those people for 14 days on Nasa TV so I'm a little bitter...anyway.. "Jonathan Waggoner" wrote in message ... Seems pretty expensive testing to be crappy thinking.. I think the tax payers should demand there money back on the test if its so crappy. Or course it was hole. And if they can see license plate detail from space they should be able to see a big crack or hole. Either way its the only logical explanation that hot gases got in, or do you have another theory Dosco? "Dosco Jones" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Jim Ancona" wrote in message 4.196... "Dosco Jones" wrote in thlink.net: "Jim Ancona" wrote in message 4.196... Note that the gas cannon test blew a 16" x 16" hole in RCC 8. See: http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html I think they would have been able to see that. You're assuming the hole in the wing was the same as the hole created during the final test. Big assumption. Bad logic. The article I linked also says that the radar data that showed an object separating from Columbia the day after launch "likely was a large section of RCC 8 that worked its way free in the weightlessness of orbit". So it's an assumption that's consistent with what the investigation board is thinking. Where's the bad logic? Jim That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy thinking that killed Columbia. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible
You're changing the subject and wasting my time. Dosco "Jonathan Waggoner" wrote in message ... Seems pretty expensive testing to be crappy thinking.. I think the tax payers should demand there money back on the test if its so crappy. Or course it was hole. And if they can see license plate detail from space they should be able to see a big crack or hole. Either way its the only logical explanation that hot gases got in, or do you have another theory Dosco? "Dosco Jones" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Jim Ancona" wrote in message 4.196... "Dosco Jones" wrote in thlink.net: "Jim Ancona" wrote in message 4.196... Note that the gas cannon test blew a 16" x 16" hole in RCC 8. See: http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html I think they would have been able to see that. You're assuming the hole in the wing was the same as the hole created during the final test. Big assumption. Bad logic. The article I linked also says that the radar data that showed an object separating from Columbia the day after launch "likely was a large section of RCC 8 that worked its way free in the weightlessness of orbit". So it's an assumption that's consistent with what the investigation board is thinking. Where's the bad logic? Jim That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy thinking that killed Columbia. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible
"Dosco Jones" wrote in
rthlink.net: That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy thinking that killed Columbia. Note that the articles I'm quoting are reporting what the CAIB members are saying. Perhaps you can explain why you think their thinking is "crappy", instead of just asserting it. Some quotes from the latest update at http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html: "[Board member Scott] Hubbard said a similar fragment, having a surface area of 90 square inches or more, is perhaps the best explanation for a mysterious object detected by ground radar systems the day after launch that was seen slowly separating from the shuttle. The idea is a large fragment could have lodged in the breach during launch and then floated free after a day of maneuvering in orbit." "Board member James Hallock said the actual breach probably was in the six- to 10-inch-wide range. A larger hole would have let so much heat into the wing during the initial stages of re-entry that Columbia probably would not have survived all the way to Texas." Getting back to the original point of this thread, it still seems like a 6 to 10 inch wide hole would have been visible during an EVA inspection. Jim |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible
I don't have time to give classes in logical thinking. Go about your business. "Jim Ancona" wrote in message 4.196... "Dosco Jones" wrote in rthlink.net: That would be another assumption that is consistent with the first assumption. So now you're two levels deep into the same crappy thinking that killed Columbia. Note that the articles I'm quoting are reporting what the CAIB members are saying. Perhaps you can explain why you think their thinking is "crappy", instead of just asserting it. Some quotes from the latest update at http://cbsnews.cbs.com/network/news/space/current.html: "[Board member Scott] Hubbard said a similar fragment, having a surface area of 90 square inches or more, is perhaps the best explanation for a mysterious object detected by ground radar systems the day after launch that was seen slowly separating from the shuttle. The idea is a large fragment could have lodged in the breach during launch and then floated free after a day of maneuvering in orbit." "Board member James Hallock said the actual breach probably was in the six- to 10-inch-wide range. A larger hole would have let so much heat into the wing during the initial stages of re-entry that Columbia probably would not have survived all the way to Texas." Getting back to the original point of this thread, it still seems like a 6 to 10 inch wide hole would have been visible during an EVA inspection. Jim |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible
"Dosco Jones" wrote in
thlink.net: I don't have time to give classes in logical thinking. Oh well. Just to finish up, I wasn't arguing that an EVA was either feasible or a good idea. I was simply responding to the assertion that: "There would have been no reason for Brown and Anderson to pay much attention to the RCC, and from all accounts the likely damage there would have been *extremely* hard to detect on orbit, whether from a reconsat image or through a helmet visor." I pointed out the _new_ information that the gas cannon test had shown that the actual RCC breach might be quite a bit larger, and hence more visible, than previously thought. I still fail to see the flawed logic. Jim |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible
"Dosco Jones" writes: You're changing the subject and wasting my time. Your top posting one line responses on top of dozens of lines of included text is wasteful. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible
....Yes, it is. And he should know better, too.
On 14 Jul 2003 14:34:00 -0400, jeff findley wrote: "Dosco Jones" writes: You're changing the subject and wasting my time. Your top posting one line responses on top of dozens of lines of included text is wasteful. Jeff OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps | Immortalist | Policy | 52 | June 17th 04 02:02 AM |
Cheap, easy to handle fuels/oxidizers | Earl Colby Pottinger | Technology | 41 | December 23rd 03 01:04 AM |
Examine hull before re-entry, a new standard procedure? | Ross C. Bubba Nicholson | Space Shuttle | 28 | July 29th 03 12:22 AM |
EVA inspection of STS-107 was "easy" possible | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 19 | July 14th 03 07:34 PM |
'In orbit' inspection craft.. | [email protected] | Technology | 5 | July 12th 03 05:19 PM |