Shuttle ET crack

nasas manned budget may get zeroed by republicans and tea party.....

if republicans really do all the cost cutting they promised ..........

government is such a large part of our economy, the spending cuts will
likely tank whats left of our economy.....

On Nov 25, 6:21*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 11/25/2010 10:08 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:



The press conference showed a very different attitude from the
paranoia you're suggesting.

Okay, if everything's hunky-dorky, why did they drop the launch date
back from Dec. 3? The stringers have been repaired, the foam is back on
over them, so why delay the launch two weeks...into the period where
they said the Sun angle on the orbiter wouldn't be good for temperature
control on it?

* They specifically said this isn't a design

flaw but was a handling/assembly flaw that happened before but was
somehow missed this time before leaving Michoud.

Michoud miss anything else we should know about?
The ET looked fine till they started fueling it and the foam cracked
over the damaged stringers. So any other surprises lurking under the foam?
If more cracks appear during fueling this time, they can scrub the
launch...but what if more form, and the foam doesn't crack over them
till it's in flight, causing either major foam shedding or structural
failure between the LOX and LH2 tanks?
Sure, I seem way over-cautious about this; but those cracks got through
the ET inspection process somehow, or formed during fueling...and even
though the odds are very good that the launch will go just fine,
consider for a moment what's going to happen if the Shuttle fails during
ascent or suffers severe enough TPS damage that it gets stranded at the
station.
NASA's in a tough enough battle to get funding for any sort of future
manned spaceflight already; if there's another congressional
investigation of why they flew a spacecraft that they knew had problems,
you can see the congressional budget hawks using it as the perfect
excuse to pretty much kill NASA.
So real care with these last Shuttle flights is very important for
NASA's future, as in this case more than the life of the crews is riding
on them. NASA may not be really be happy about retiring the Shuttle, but
at least having the last flights go well lets them go out with their
reputation somewhat intact, even though the concept that the Shuttle was
going to make spaceflight cheaper, safer, and more routine will be
looked back on by history as a major technological flop, ranking up with
those hundreds of Concorde SSTs flying over the Atlantic on a daily basis..

Pat

if nasa decdes to not launch and return stack to VAB a good test would
be
repeatedly tanking the ET at least the number of times ANT tank has
been refuled.

then take it back to the VAB stip the foam and inspect.

before launching any more shuttles

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:21:15 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

The press conference showed a very different attitude from the
paranoia you're suggesting.

Okay, if everything's hunky-dorky, why did they drop the launch date
back from Dec. 3?

Michoud miss anything else we should know about?

That's why.

Brian

On 11/26/2010 3:38 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:21:15 -0800, Pat
wrote:

The press conference showed a very different attitude from the
paranoia you're suggesting.

Okay, if everything's hunky-dorky, why did they drop the launch date
back from Dec. 3?

Michoud miss anything else we should know about?

That's why.


How come the solar illumination constraints that said if you can't
launch by Dec. 6, then you have to wait for the February launch window's
opening...just somehow got revised to allow a launch on Dec. 17?:
http://www.internetbits.com/space-sh...ristmas/55459/
Earth's inclination in regards to the Sun just somehow changed?
I sure hope you are right about this all, Brian...because the
ramifications to the future of the US space program are staggeringly
negative if you just happen to be wrong.

Pat

On 11/26/2010 8:35 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:

I sure hope you are right about this all, Brian...because the
ramifications to the future of the US space program are staggeringly
negative if you just happen to be wrong.

BTW, as anyone who has read my postings over the past decade or so has
figured out, I'm not "anti-space", but rather favor unmanned space
exploration over the manned form (at the present time) as giving you a
lot more "bang for your buck" on worthwhile returns versus dollars spent
than manned concepts.
If NASA does somehow cock-up the final couple of Shuttle flights, then
the baby is probably going to go out with the bathwater in regards to that.

Pat

BTW, as anyone who has read my postings over the past decade or so has
figured out, I'm not "anti-space", but rather favor unmanned space
exploration over the manned form (at the present time) as giving you a
lot more "bang for your buck" on worthwhile returns versus dollars spent
than manned concepts.
If NASA does somehow cock-up the final couple of Shuttle flights, then
the baby is probably going to go out with the bathwater in regards to that.

Pat


hey Pat we agree


Unmanned robotic missions with artificial intelligence are way more
affordable, and could help with robotic developments on earth.

Have nasa license any technology and use the proceeds to fund future
nasa operations. which could help fund eventual manned operations

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:35:55 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

How come the solar illumination constraints that said if you can't
launch by Dec. 6, then you have to wait for the February launch window's
opening...just somehow got revised to allow a launch on Dec. 17?:

The Beta Angle Cut Out is not the only obstacle between the Dec 6 and
late February launch windows. There were also Soyuz, HTV, and ATV
operations in between that prevented NASA using most of Dec-Feb for
STS-133. Dec 6 was the cutoff because STS-133 would still have been
docked when Soyuz TMA-20 arrived on Dec 17 and NASA doesn't allow a
Shuttle to be docked at ISS when another vehicle docks. The Beta Angle
Cut Out was actually Jan 1 to Feb 1. HTV and ATV eat up most of
February.

Earth's inclination in regards to the Sun just somehow changed?

No, the explanation is simple and should come as no surprise: NASA has
learned a little more about what the thermal limits are on the
Shuttle/Station stack with each flight. They've been looking at
reducing the cutouts for a while now, gathering data on each flight
since the Station reached its current configuration (all four solar
array and radiator sets) with STS-119. Data from flights since then
(Mar 2009) has shown that the maximum angle could be safely increased
from +/-60 degs to +/-65 degs. The rule relaxation was originally
proposed to allow a mid-November launch if STS-133 missed the
early-November window. That has since been overcome by events and now
the +/-65 rule is being applied to early January, allowing the Shuttle
to launch after the Soyuz arrives. +/-60 to +/-65 only buys you a few
more days, but it allows a four day launch window beginning Dec 17 and
then a few more days a couple of days later to avoid the Shuttle being
in free-flight during Year End Roll Over (NASA has also figured out it
is safe for a Shuttle to be in space when the year changes, as long as
it is docked at ISS so its computers can be completely rebooted...
something it began studying a few years ago for STS-116.)

Brian

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:53:13 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

I sure hope you are right about this all, Brian...because the
ramifications to the future of the US space program are staggeringly
negative if you just happen to be wrong.

BTW, as anyone who has read my postings over the past decade or so has
figured out, I'm not "anti-space", but rather favor unmanned space
exploration over the manned form (at the present time) as giving you a
lot more "bang for your buck" on worthwhile returns versus dollars spent
than manned concepts.

But you have become a *lot* more of a Nervous Nellie about manned
flight in the last few years, Pat. Definitely looks like you've been
hanging around our Crown Prince of Paranoia, Bob Haller too much.

Brian

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 08:01:01 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

BTW, as anyone who has read my postings over the past decade or so has
figured out, I'm not "anti-space", but rather favor unmanned space
exploration over the manned form (at the present time) as giving you a
lot more "bang for your buck" on worthwhile returns versus dollars spent
than manned concepts.

hey Pat we agree

Surprise, surprise!

Unmanned robotic missions with artificial intelligence are way more
affordable, and could help with robotic developments on earth.

But curtailing manned spaceflight in the past has not resulted in more
money for unmanned space. You're only hurting yourselves with the
"kill manned spaceflight, it's too dangerous!" rhetoric.

Have nasa license any technology and use the proceeds to fund future
nasa operations. which could help fund eventual manned operations

Nope. Its the other way around. NASA uses robot tech that has already
matured in industry/academia. Otherwise, the risk is far too great for
a $400 million space probe.

Brian

On Nov 28, 1:00*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 20:53:13 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

I sure hope you are right about this all, Brian...because the
ramifications to the future of the US space program are staggeringly
negative if you just happen to be wrong.

BTW, as anyone who has read my postings over the past decade or so has
figured out, I'm not "anti-space", but rather favor unmanned space
exploration over the manned form (at the present time) as giving you a
lot more "bang for your buck" on worthwhile returns versus dollars spent
than manned concepts.

But you have become a *lot* more of a Nervous Nellie about manned
flight in the last few years, Pat. Definitely looks like you've been
hanging around our Crown Prince of Paranoia, Bob Haller too much.

Brian

yeah seeing 2 crews die unnecessarily may have something to do with it
too.......

and in this economy theres few bucks... we can either have a very
limited ISS operation with no buck rogers.

Or real buck rogers unmanned..

our country can no longer afford big buck spending.....