Shuttle ET crack

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:38:44 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

That's why I think you and Pat are idiots on this subject.

Takes one to know one, buddy! :-D

I apologize for that. That was too harsh. Sorry!

If the Shuttle were doing something really new and exciting, like going
to the Moon or Mars, you could tolerate its safety record.

Trouble is, you don't get to do the "something really new and
exciting" without laying the groundwork first. Apollo bypassed that to
sprint to the moon, but once that was done, look what happened to
Apollo. We have to build an infrastructure first, and we can't shy
away from it because we have a fatal accident now and then.
Constellation looked to be on the same trajectory as Apollo. Does
*anyone* think Constellation was sustainable? I don't. I think we
should be funding a commercial service to support and expand the
Station into a spaceport that can be a staging areat for
Moon/Lagrange/Asteroid missions. By and large, the experience we need
to do that came from Shuttle.

Taking repair parts for a space station's toilet into orbit somehow just
doesn't rank up.

If Shuttle weren't retiring, it would stil be doing crew exchanges on
the same flights as the toilet parts. That does rank up.

Brian

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:44:01 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

flying on shuttle is less safe than flying a fighter in combat...
thats sad.

So is climbing Mt. Everest.

and before columbia loss another shuttles wing nearly burned thru from
foam loss damage. thats criminal neglect.....

No, that (STS-27) was SRB debris damage, not foam from the External
Tank. The SRB debris problem was solved long before Columbia.

Brian

Pat Flannery wrote:
That's why it's so important for the last Shuttle flights to go
well...because they are probably carrying the US's survival as a major
space power on their shoulders.

Is the last Shuttle flight really all that much different in that
regard from any of the other post-Columbia flights?

rick jones
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

On Dec 1, 6:39*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 18:44:01 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
flying on shuttle is less safe than flying a fighter in combat...
thats sad.

So is climbing Mt. Everest.

and before columbia loss another shuttles wing nearly burned thru from
foam loss damage. thats criminal neglect.....

No, that (STS-27) was SRB debris damage, not foam from the External
Tank. The SRB debris problem was solved long before Columbia.

Brian

sorry i believe there was a foam loss near wing burn thru before
columbia, but much later in the program. there was a report on this
after columbia stating it nearly happened before

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:43:32 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

sorry i believe there was a foam loss near wing burn thru before
columbia, but much later in the program. there was a report on this
after columbia stating it nearly happened before

Cite?

Brian

On 12/1/2010 4:28 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
Pat wrote:
That's why it's so important for the last Shuttle flights to go
well...because they are probably carrying the US's survival as a major
space power on their shoulders.

Is the last Shuttle flight really all that much different in that
regard from any of the other post-Columbia flights?

It has been only recently that NASA's manned space plans have been in
such a confused state, so a third Shuttle mission failing before the
whole Constellation program had started falling apart would have been
very bad for NASA, but not as bad as it would be now, when it looks like
NASA's manned hopes of any sort are hanging by a thread anyway.

Pat

On 12/2/2010 6:03 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:

It has been only recently that NASA's manned space plans have been in
such a confused state, so a third Shuttle mission failing before the
whole Constellation program had started falling apart would have been
very bad for NASA, but not as bad as it would be now, when it looks like
NASA's manned hopes of any sort are hanging by a thread anyway.

Discovery's flight may be getting kicked back again:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,6551386.story

Pat

On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:03:57 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Is the last Shuttle flight really all that much different in that
regard from any of the other post-Columbia flights?

It has been only recently that NASA's manned space plans have been in
such a confused state,

I disagree. Confusion has reigned supreme for 40 years. "Build a
reusable Space Shuttle! Wait, we'll only give youn 75% of the funding
it needs, cut some corners now! We want you to build a space station!
No wait, we don't want you to build a Space Station! Go to Mars! No
wait, that's too expension, don't go to Mars! Build a Shuttle
replacement like VentureStar! No wait, that doesn't work, build a
capsule instead!". If there is a more stop-start, micromanaged entity
in the government, I've not heard of it.

so a third Shuttle mission failing before the
whole Constellation program had started falling apart would have been
very bad for NASA, but not as bad as it would be now, when it looks like
NASA's manned hopes of any sort are hanging by a thread anyway.

I think the worst that would happen would be Congress telling NASA,
"no more toys for you, from now on buy rides from the commercial
sector", and I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

But that's worst case. Congress bumped *up* NASA's budget after the
two previous accidents, there is no reason to think pork in their
districts and the cry of "save the jobs!" won't have exactly the same
effect if STS-133 or STS-134 ended badly.

And the GOP is only saying it wants to move discretionary spending
back to 2008 levels, not zero out everything. 2008 spending paid for
Shuttle and Space Station (and Curiosity, and Webb, and...) Shuttle's
budget would go a long way toward paying for Dragon or CST-100 on
Atlas V.

Brian

On 12/3/2010 7:37 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:

It has been only recently that NASA's manned space plans have been in
such a confused state,

I disagree. Confusion has reigned supreme for 40 years. "Build a
reusable Space Shuttle! Wait, we'll only give youn 75% of the funding
it needs, cut some corners now! We want you to build a space station!
No wait, we don't want you to build a Space Station! Go to Mars! No
wait, that's too expension, don't go to Mars! Build a Shuttle
replacement like VentureStar! No wait, that doesn't work, build a
capsule instead!". If there is a more stop-start, micromanaged entity
in the government, I've not heard of it.

Hey, don't knock it...the companies who bid on all the projects that
were first redesigned constantly then canceled (and Space Station
Freedom comes immediately to mind) made a hell of a lot of profit while
never having to actually make anything tangible.
Great work if you can get it, and you can get it if you try.
Look at VentureStar...Lockheed could make any claims they wanted to for
it, even if they knew that the thing's mass ratio meant it wouldn't work
if it was actually built, because if it gets canceled before it actually
got built and showed itself to be a obvious lemon, they could pocket all
the money the government gave them to work on it and just walk away.
It doesn't really matter if the whole concept would actually work if you
know you are never going to have to actually build the damn thing.


so a third Shuttle mission failing before the
whole Constellation program had started falling apart would have been
very bad for NASA, but not as bad as it would be now, when it looks like
NASA's manned hopes of any sort are hanging by a thread anyway.

I think the worst that would happen would be Congress telling NASA,
"no more toys for you, from now on buy rides from the commercial
sector", and I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

That I completely agree on. The commercial sector can do things on a lot
lower budget than NASA, and a lot faster as well.
Apparently, this morning's static test of the Falcon 9 went just fine:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/status.html
If it did, then the launch is supposed to occur on Dec. 7, with backup
launch dates on the 8th and 9th.
I'm keen to see how they are going to do the recovery for the Dragon
capsule, as they intend to fly between one and three orbits, and that
means three different possible touchdown points for it.

Pat

On 12/3/2010 12:17 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:

Apparently, this morning's static test of the Falcon 9 went just fine:

No, it didn't work just fine...it shut down early...they may try again
tomorrow:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/status.html
IIRC, didn't this exact same thing happen on the first Falcon 9
strap-down test?

Pat