Shuttle ET crack

On Nov 5, 10:29*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/st...ub/index2.html
Did the crack in the ET insulation occur during the fueling process, or
did NASA stack this thing and move it to the pad without spotting that
there was a crack in the foam?

Pat

i would assume it cracked after fueling.

wasnt this the katrina damaged tank that was fixed?

On 6/11/2010 1:29 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/st...ub/index2.html
Did the crack in the ET insulation occur during the fueling process, or
did NASA stack this thing and move it to the pad without spotting that
there was a crack in the foam?

Pat

Nice spot for it too - right at the top of the intertank structure.
Maximum airflow, then BOOM! - no more shuttle.

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/st...ub/index2.html
Did the crack in the ET insulation occur during the fueling process, or
did NASA stack this thing and move it to the pad without spotting that
there was a crack in the foam?

Pat

On 11/5/2010 3:54 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 6/11/2010 1:29 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/st...ub/index2.html
Did the crack in the ET insulation occur during the fueling process, or
did NASA stack this thing and move it to the pad without spotting that
there was a crack in the foam?

Pat

Nice spot for it too - right at the top of the intertank structure.
Maximum airflow, then BOOM! - no more shuttle.

That's just what I thought also; Columbia all over again.
There's a photo of the crack he
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1472
IIRC, this ET was the one that got damaged during hurricane Katrina and
was repaired.

Pat

this ET was the one that got damaged during hurricane Katrina and
was repaired.

OK now I understand - the problem dates to Katrina - so it's George Bush's
fault.

There's an old song about This Old House. Maybe they should rethink these
last two missions. The thing seems to be failing quicker than they can fix
it.

On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:40:47 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

i would assume it cracked after fueling.

Yes.

wasnt this the katrina damaged tank that was fixed?

No, that's ET-122 (which would fly STS-135 if funded). This is ET-137.

Brian

On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 19:48:50 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:


That's just what I thought also; Columbia all over again.
There's a photo of the crack he
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1472
IIRC, this ET was the one that got damaged during hurricane Katrina and
was repaired.

Nope. This is ET-137. The Katrina victim was ET-122.

Brian

" One thing people had better carefully consider regarding the operational
history of the Shuttle in regards to any future reusable launch vehicle is
how often launches were delayed due to either mechanical problems or
weather constraints ........scheduled launch dates could not be counted on
with any degree of certainty during the entire program.

There are many who believe that global warming - no matter what the cause -
will result in more extreme weather such as stronger more frequent
hurricanes and storms. The Cape launch site, major rocket assembly
facilities in the Gulf, and JSC are all located where hurricanes and other
extreme weather is already a consistent problem. Not to mention having
facilities across the country that would be used to test things that have to
be built close to the launch site because they aren't easily transported
over large distances. And it's not just Canaveral - there was one Atlas they
fueled 16 days in a row at VAFB hoping the high altitude winds would
disappate in time each night.



Val Kraut

On 11/6/2010 4:39 AM, Val Kraut wrote:


There's an old song about This Old House. Maybe they should rethink these
last two missions. The thing seems to be failing quicker than they can fix
it.

One thing people had better carefully consider regarding the operational
history of the Shuttle in regards to any future reusable launch vehicle
is how often launches were delayed due to either mechanical problems or
weather constraints.
Between the complexity of the system, and the need for the orbiter to
have good weather conditions not only at the launch site but also at the
emergency landing sites on the other side of the Atlantic in case it
needed to abort, scheduled launch dates could not be counted on with any
degree of certainty during the entire program.

Pat

One thing people had better carefully consider regarding the operational
history of the Shuttle in regards to any future reusable launch vehicle
is how often launches were delayed due to either mechanical problems or
weather constraints.
Between the complexity of the system, and the need for the orbiter to
have good weather conditions not only at the launch site but also at the
emergency landing *sites on the other side of the Atlantic in case it
needed to abort, scheduled launch dates could not be counted on with any
degree of certainty during the entire program.

Pat

a capsule design would be much more robust as to emergency abort
sites, a good design could come down nearly anywhere