Well, nice try guys

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 15:49:38 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:


As to my end shuttle NOW I never expected the program end without a
replacement ready to fly

That's 100% Bovine Excrement, Bob, and you know it.

Here is what you wrote on March 2, 2003, a month or so after Columbia
was lost.

Bottom line the shutte has way too many your dead critical paths. Plus a lack of $ or will to make it safer.
Its time to retire the shuttles and put the 30 something years of experience into building a new safer system."

Note: not "retire Shuttle after the new system", you said retire the
Shuttles and THEN build a new system.

Bob has always been, and always will be, crazy. His thought processes
simply aren't rational.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On Jul 12, 11:28*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...







On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 15:49:38 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

As to my end shuttle NOW I never expected the program end without a
replacement ready to fly

That's 100% Bovine Excrement, Bob, and you know it.

Here is what you wrote on March 2, 2003, a month or so after Columbia
was lost.

Bottom line the shutte has way too many your dead critical paths. Plus a lack of $ or will to make it safer.
Its time to retire the shuttles and put the 30 something years of experience into building a new safer system."

Note: not "retire Shuttle after the new system", you said retire the
Shuttles and THEN build a new system.

Bob has always been, and always will be, crazy. *His thought processes
simply aren't rational. *

Jeff

I am a voice of reason and look at possiible failures.

like pre columbia could a shuttle get stuck at station??

jeff and others laughed and called me chicken little

after coulmbia nasa planned for just such a situation

In article d3193e9a-0455-40ea-8469-bdec6dd4deb2
@d1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

I am a voice of reason and look at possiible failures.

No, you're a chicken little who irrationally sees impending death and
destruction at every decision point. You never take the time to do any
serious risk assessment, which I assure you, NASA spends a lot of time
and money doing.

like pre columbia could a shuttle get stuck at station??

jeff and others laughed and called me chicken little

True, because it was, and still is, a very unlikely scenario.

after coulmbia nasa planned for just such a situation

Sure they did, but mostly to "cover their @$$". The plan was never
needed because it proved to be a very unlikely scenario.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On Jul 13, 1:37*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article d3193e9a-0455-40ea-8469-bdec6dd4deb2
@d1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...



I am a voice of reason and look at possiible failures.

No, you're a chicken little who irrationally sees impending death and
destruction at every decision point. *You never take the time to do any
serious risk assessment, which I assure you, NASA spends a lot of time
and money doing.

like pre columbia could a shuttle get stuck at station??

jeff and others laughed and called me chicken little

True, because it was, and still is, a very unlikely scenario.

after coulmbia nasa planned for just such a situation

Sure they did, but mostly to "cover their @$$". *The plan was never
needed because it proved to be a very unlikely scenario.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

if columbia had gone to ISS the damaged heat shield might have been
spooted.........

and the crew stuck at station.

In article 9b38e0b9-3cb7-4525-b69d-
, says...

if columbia had gone to ISS the damaged heat shield might have been
spooted.........

Would have, could have, should have. We've discussed this all before.

and the crew stuck at station.

Only until another shuttle, or several Soyuz craft, could have returned
them home. To reduce the load on ISS, I'd guess the Soyuz which was
docked would bring the current ISS crew home as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, Progress would have been pressed into service to bring
up enough food, water, O2, and etc. necessary to keep the larger crew
going.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On 7/14/2011 6:02 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

and the crew stuck at station.

Only until another shuttle, or several Soyuz craft, could have returned
them home.

Would they do another Shuttle flight though until they figured out what
caused the foam to shed and damage the RCC panel?
I would think the damage would have almost certainly been spotted during
the docking process, particularly as the foam debris almost certainly
chipped the tiles behind the impact point leading to a "V" shaped area
of damaged tiles with the point on the leading edge RCC hole.
To reduce the load on ISS, I'd guess the Soyuz which was
docked would bring the current ISS crew home as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, Progress would have been pressed into service to bring
up enough food, water, O2, and etc. necessary to keep the larger crew
going.

The rescue Soyuz vehicles would carry only one crewman on the way up, so
additional supplies could be carried in their orbital modules to make
up for the weight of the other two crew.
The real problem would be how fast the Russians could launch four of
them, as that's how many would be needed in total, assuming that the
docking would be done under manned control, as is standard for the Soyuz
TMA.
Using the one already attached to the ISS would drop that to three new
launches, but would leave it without any escape ability at all until the
first new one arrived - and of course you would still need an extra one
to get things back to normal on the ISS after all the Shuttle crew was
evacuated.
This is one of the scenarios, like the RTLS abort, having only one SRB
ignite on lift-off*, or running into a situation where the Shuttle
couldn't even reach one of its transatlantic abort sites due to multiple
SSME failures during early ascent, that I'm really glad didn't occur
during the program.

* That's the one that really spooked me; that would have been the
biggest explosion since the second N-1 fell back onto its launchpad.

Pat