Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/3/2005 3:07:59 PM EDT
I can't believe such a big deal is being made a about small piece of fabric sticking out of a tile and now the stuff under the window. I mean come on.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:09:26 PM EDT
Ever since they took off the door gunners, things have just gone downhill for the space shuttles
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:10:04 PM EDT
it's not. but the media loves fear mongering
they said previous shuttles have had far more dings in the tiles than this one
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:10:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 3:11:42 PM EDT by leelaw]
Because the media is really friggen bored and love to fearmonger. They would love this shuttle to blow up so they could go "LOOK! We TOLD you it would happen! Tune in for more speculation, er.. details at 5:00PM"
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:12:55 PM EDT
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:14:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.



+1

Sgtar15
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:35:15 PM EDT
I had the good fortune to talk to a former astronaut that teaches on campus shortly after the Columbia disaster. He said they were very aware of the risks, and the fact that they were willing to go should speak volumes more than the people sitting at desks writing reports to cover their asses.

Basically, its never going to be as safe as driving a car. Demanding that level of safety will kill the entire manned space program.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:38:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 3:38:34 PM EDT by Lord_Grey_Boots]
Remember, a big part of this mission was to try all these repair methods. I'm not surprised they aren't out there with a little can of touch up paint....
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:43:02 PM EDT
We will go back to capsule-based human space flight. How many times would you reload 40S&W brass?

Use once, learn, discard. We've gained little from a reusable vehicle. Fewer launches, fear of failure, etc.

Even the captured German scientists after WWII were anti-manned space flight. Not worth the extra cost to lug a fish out of his element.

Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:46:12 PM EDT
If that little piece of packin makes the difference then they need to figure out a better skin for the shuttle. I wish they would go back to the moon instead of targeting Mars. Mars is just to damn far away.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:47:31 PM EDT
In my viewpoint, NASA is marketing itself to the taxpaying public for more program support (read tax dollars) by re-creating Apollo 13th's "finest hour". However, I bet they feel safer with these odds.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:50:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 3:57:12 PM EDT
its because if this one blows up in the sky after all of the 'revisions' for the past 2 years, you realize the manned flights with the current shuttle are done. absolutely done, there will be no funding. the space station will be a waste, and it wont be used as a stepping stone to start a base on the moon in _ years from now.

the whole world is watching, they cant f' up

NASA is extremely underfunded these days. they cant afford to lose more $ (or lives)
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:01:19 PM EDT
It didn't survive all those other trips.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:03:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:
it's not. but the media loves fear mongering
they said previous shuttles have had far more dings in the tiles than this one



Supposedly this one has 10 times less dings than NORMAL (every other shuttle that returned after they switched to enviro-friendly death foam )

Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:04:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JoeWang:
How many times would you reload 40S&W brass?

Use once, learn, discard. We've gained little from a reusable vehicle.

Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:05:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.



+1

Sgtar15


+2.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:15:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 4:15:53 PM EDT by david_g17]

Originally Posted By soccermike7:
its because if this one blows up in the sky after all of the 'revisions' for the past 2 years, you realize the manned flights with the current shuttle are done. absolutely done, there will be no funding. the space station will be a waste, and it wont be used as a stepping stone to start a base on the moon in _ years from now.

the whole world is watching, they cant f' up

NASA is extremely underfunded these days. they cant afford to lose more $ (or lives)




you know, when it was going up this time; i thought "there's no way a piece of foam is gonna fall off that thing and bust a tile; there's just no way. anything might happen to it, but i'm sure no foam will fall off and hit a tile."

then came the drudgereport headlines

oh well, it's not like it's rocket science...
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:28:42 PM EDT
I think this whole stunt was an unneccesary risk of life (space walks are the most dangerous part of any mission) for nothing more than the drama. NASA played this to the media perfectly, and of course, the media eager to frighten Americans into submission was all over any opportunity for live feeds of "reality TV'.

If the shuttle lands safely, the shuttle crew will be heralded as heros....and if it doesnt make it back to Earth (God forbid)....then the media already has a 'lead-in' audience.

Win-Win for the Media....and they used the crew like pawns through the whole damn thing

I hope the crew gets their feet back on Earth safely, and then they pull the shuttle design out of service and archive it for ever. If NASA wants to continue space exploration, build a modern craft.....it is long overdue. And while they are at it, please go mine for funding from the private sector....like the media companies that are making billions off of the com sats.

I am fine with tax dollars used for space exploration in the name of national defense....but for the purpose of colonization of other planets, there are better uses for public money.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:31:38 PM EDT
It isn't just the space shuttle that is fubar. My good friend did accounting at NASA and he bitches constantly about how backassward everthing is from the bottom to the top. Apperently, the organization has over 40 different divisions all running accross eachother with funding coming from one source. So whenever funding comes in, all forty of these divisions make a mad dash for the money because if they don't, the other divisions will run away with it all. Whever projects ran over budget, they would basically write IOU's and have rediculous cost overruns to the tune of 2X thier original budget.

Whenever my friend would fix an accounting problem, people up higher never knew there was a problem to begin with and often brushed him aside. From what I gathered, NASA is a shitty organization that if operated in the private sector would be out of business in a matter of days. If it were audited by an independant accounting firm, people would go to jail (I suspect that this is the same throughout the .gov). Anyhow, it is no suprise to me that the Shittle is having so many problems considerin the way NASA is run. If the shuttle program were contracted out to the private sector in the 1970's, we would have twice as many shuttles, many times more reliable for a fraction of the cost. The future of manned space flight lies in the private sector.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:32:03 PM EDT
50% of shuttles have wrecked...not great numbers.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:32:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.



... And just how else do you propose getting our top secret, critical military payloads into low earth orbit?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:32:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.



+1

Sgtar15



Yeah I'm with these guys on this one. We used to make fun of the Russians for this kinda shit.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:34:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.



... And just how else do you propose getting our top secret, critical military payloads into low earth orbit?



There was nothing wrong with the M1 Garand, we just came up with something a little better.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:38:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
50% of shuttles have wrecked...not great numbers.



2 out of 6 = 50%

Is that new math ?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:38:33 PM EDT
2 major disasters in 20+ years= a good track record in my book.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:42:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ANGST:

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
50% of shuttles have wrecked...not great numbers.



2 out of 6 = 50%

Is that new math ?



I thought there was four...?

Challenger, Columbia, Discovery, Endevor (sp?)
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:43:27 PM EDT
1 in 57.

That's the known odds of a major catastrophic failure during a space shuttle flight.

The people that ride that bird have a set all right. Great big brass ones.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:46:39 PM EDT
If they would let my fat ass on there I would go tomorrow.

Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:46:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.



... And just how else do you propose getting our top secret, critical military payloads into low earth orbit?



There was nothing wrong with the M1 Garand, we just came up with something a little better.



... Hindsight is always 20/20. We developed a successful system with the technology available at the time. The Space Shuttle directly contributed to our winning the Cold War. Understand, there are new concepts with new materials and processes on the drawing board (I hate that term, we use CAD/CAM/CAE, not boards), but big-ass money doesn't grow on trees. Democrats despise space exploration money allocations and Republicans prefer not to raise taxes needed to fund a new system.

... It's not a perfect platform, it has it's risks. All spaceflight has been, is and always will be risky - that's what sets Americans apart from other counties - it's one willing to accept those risks with bravery and foresight.

.... We'll get a new space-plane someday. But for now the SST is an adequate, somewhat archaic, means to achieve our space-related military and scientific charters.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:48:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:

Originally Posted By ANGST:

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
50% of shuttles have wrecked...not great numbers.



2 out of 6 = 50%

Is that new math ?



I thought there was four...?

Challenger, Columbia, Discovery, Endevor (sp?)



Atlantis, Enterprise (and if you want to count Buran too russian shuttle that flew in space)
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:48:34 PM EDT
Don't they have a mandatory retirement in a year or so?
~m38a1
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:55:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macro:
I think this whole stunt was an unneccesary risk of life (space walks are the most dangerous part of any mission) for nothing more than the drama. NASA played this to the media perfectly, and of course, the media eager to frighten Americans into submission was all over any opportunity for live feeds of "reality TV'.

If the shuttle lands safely, the shuttle crew will be heralded as heros....and if it doesnt make it back to Earth (God forbid)....then the media already has a 'lead-in' audience.

Win-Win for the Media....and they used the crew like pawns through the whole damn thing

I hope the crew gets their feet back on Earth safely, and then they pull the shuttle design out of service and archive it for ever. If NASA wants to continue space exploration, build a modern craft.....it is long overdue. And while they are at it, please go mine for funding from the private sector....like the media companies that are making billions off of the com sats.

I am fine with tax dollars used for space exploration in the name of national defense....but for the purpose of colonization of other planets, there are better uses for public money.



WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!

How are we ever going to be able to "nuke the whole thing from orbit" if you made the rules?
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:56:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 4:58:39 PM EDT by natedogg42]

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:

Originally Posted By ANGST:

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
50% of shuttles have wrecked...not great numbers.



2 out of 6 = 50%

Is that new math ?



I thought there was four...?

Challenger, Columbia, Discovery, Endevor (sp?)



Atlantis for one...cant remember the other.
ETA: Googled and ENTERPRISE was used for testing.
ETA (again): Too slow...
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 4:57:34 PM EDT
Enterprise isnt capable of space flight, it was a mock-up to test landing characteristics.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:02:50 PM EDT

From what I gathered, NASA is a shitty organization that if operated in the private sector would be out of business in a matter of days. If it were audited by an independant accounting firm, people would go to jail (I suspect that this is the same throughout the .gov).


I worked for .gov for 12 years. Your suspicions are correct.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:09:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.



... And just how else do you propose getting our top secret, critical military payloads into low earth orbit?

They're already launched from Vandenburg.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:11:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ANGST:

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:

Originally Posted By ANGST:

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
50% of shuttles have wrecked...not great numbers.



2 out of 6 = 50%

Is that new math ?



I thought there was four...?

Challenger, Columbia, Discovery, Endevor (sp?)



Atlantis, Enterprise (and if you want to count Buran too russian shuttle that flew in space)



Enterprise doesn't really count. Never flew in space
buran flew once, unmanned
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:18:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By natedogg42:

Originally Posted By macro:
I think this whole stunt was an unneccesary risk of life (space walks are the most dangerous part of any mission) for nothing more than the drama. NASA played this to the media perfectly, and of course, the media eager to frighten Americans into submission was all over any opportunity for live feeds of "reality TV'.

If the shuttle lands safely, the shuttle crew will be heralded as heros....and if it doesnt make it back to Earth (God forbid)....then the media already has a 'lead-in' audience.

Win-Win for the Media....and they used the crew like pawns through the whole damn thing

I hope the crew gets their feet back on Earth safely, and then they pull the shuttle design out of service and archive it for ever. If NASA wants to continue space exploration, build a modern craft.....it is long overdue. And while they are at it, please go mine for funding from the private sector....like the media companies that are making billions off of the com sats.

I am fine with tax dollars used for space exploration in the name of national defense....but for the purpose of colonization of other planets, there are better uses for public money.



WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!

How are we ever going to be able to "nuke the whole thing from orbit" if you made the rules?



If you promise me that we will in fact nuke it from orbit I will help fund the project personally!
Hell, I will even press the red button!
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:26:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.



... And just how else do you propose getting our top secret, critical military payloads into low earth orbit?

They're already launched from Vandenburg.

Kharn



... Not the bigger payloads
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:33:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By stator:
In my viewpoint, NASA is marketing itself to the taxpaying public for more program support (read tax dollars) by re-creating Apollo 13th's "finest hour". However, I bet they feel safer with these odds.



I was thinking the same thing. They are acting like this is Apollo 13 except the danger of blowing up on re-entry is low.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:33:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M38A1:
Don't they have a mandatory retirement in a year or so?
~m38a1



The Shuttle program is scheduled to be scraped by 2010.

It might be sooner, or later. Who knows.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:43:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 5:47:20 PM EDT by FNBrowning]

Originally Posted By macro:
I am fine with tax dollars used for space exploration in the name of national defense....but for the purpose of colonization of other planets, there are better uses for public money.



WRONG!

We have to explore and later colonize space, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, getting hit by a dinosaur killer asteroid - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Jesus, Einstein, Michelangelo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars.

Don't be a dirt-worshiping Luddite - - support manned space exploration!



The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.
--Robert A. Heinlein


Link Posted: 8/3/2005 5:58:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 5:59:02 PM EDT by dave223]

Originally Posted By AcidGambit:
It didn't survive two of them...

Personally, it seems like a fairly unreliable POS to me.



Too bad the fucking sheep in this country are too lazy and gullible to really understand the impact the space program/space shuttle has on this country and the generations that will follow. The majority of the posters to this thread, or their fellow citizens, do not have a clue about the reliablity or function of the shuttle. Keep on believing what you see and hear on the news folks, it is very accurate non-biased reporting.


Definitely don't listen to someone like me, I don't have a clue. God Bless the US space program, and all who support it, past, present, and future.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:06:39 PM EDT
The STS was doomed by bureacracy. Engineer's experience and judgment was replaced by procedure and politics. That is what cost the lives of the Challenger 7 and what doomed Columbia.

Had BOTH shuttles used the original, tested components, the success rate would be 100%. But for one reason or another, components were substituted without adequate testing with catastrophic consequences.

Amazing that Robinson's EVA was a smashing success even though it was completely unplanned at time of launch.

Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:13:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 6:16:14 PM EDT by macro]

Originally Posted By FNBrowning:

...it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Jesus, Einstein, Michelangelo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars.




How do you know for a fact that all of it wasn't for nothing?

I would think that one would need to understand the meaning of life to be able to make that assessment. For that matter...does anyone seriously beleive that humans will still exist as a species by the time the sun begins to expand and the surface temperatures on Earth begin to render the planet un-inhabitable?

Homosapiens will have been extint for billions of years by the time we would need to be gone by.
Im not saying I dont find the exploration interesting....hell, I think its absolutely facinating....but I dont believe its neccesary.


ETA: I just realized that you are equating the gravity of the lost memory of Buddy Holly to that of Jesus.....Wow.....just WOW! At the very least, he might have been mentioned first.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 6:14:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FNBrowning:

Originally Posted By macro:
I am fine with tax dollars used for space exploration in the name of national defense....but for the purpose of colonization of other planets, there are better uses for public money.



WRONG!

We have to explore and later colonize space, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, getting hit by a dinosaur killer asteroid - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Jesus, Einstein, Michelangelo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars.

Don't be a dirt-worshiping Luddite - - support manned space exploration!



The Earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in.
--Robert A. Heinlein





You said it alot better than I could.


+1000000000



Vulcan­94
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 7:13:42 PM EDT
When I was a kid I thought the shuttle looked cool...

As I got older and learned more about space flight I realized that spacecraft don't need to look like airplanes, they don't need to look cool, and they don't need to be reusable. They just need to be reliable and cost effective.

The shuttle looks cool, but is neither reliable nor cost effective. Of 5 shuttles that NASA has built for space flight, 2 have been destroyed with all hands lost. The shuttle is still by far the most expensive way to put payload into space. It is an enormously costly machine, and has been draining the NASA budget for many years now.

The ugly little Soyuz that the Russians use for manned spaceflight has not a fatality since 1971, and has proven to be both cost effective and reliable. It is modular, can be easily reconfigured for different types of missions, and shares components with other Russian space systems (such as the Progress resupply ship).

NASA needs a new system ASAP, and it needs to be a capsule!
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 7:21:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dave223:
Too bad the fucking sheep in this country are too lazy and gullible to really understand the impact the space program/space shuttle has on this country and the generations that will follow. The majority of the posters to this thread, or their fellow citizens, do not have a clue about the reliablity or function of the shuttle. Keep on believing what you see and hear on the news folks, it is very accurate non-biased reporting.

images.andale.com/f2/112/111/7410906/1123697902094_silversnoopy.jpg
Definitely don't listen to someone like me, I don't have a clue. God Bless the US space program, and all who support it, past, present, and future.



+1
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 7:35:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/3/2005 7:40:06 PM EDT by DnPRK]

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:

Originally Posted By ANGST:

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
50% of shuttles have wrecked...not great numbers.



2 out of 6 = 50%

Is that new math ?



I thought there was four...?

Challenger, Columbia, Discovery, Endevor (sp?)


You forgot Atlantis and Enterprise. Enterprise was the first built and is too heavy to fly. (Oops! ANGST beat me by 3 hours)

The gap filler is there to keep super heated air from getting to the RTV 550 that glues the tiles to the aluminum airframe. The gap filler can trip the airflow causing turbulence that greatly increases heat transfer to the thermal tiles. The tiles can superheat and fail. Even the oils from a fingerprint can cause a hot spot that will destroy a tile.
Link Posted: 8/3/2005 7:59:36 PM EDT
For those that say the shuttle is a useless POS...here are some of the benefits of the shuttle program.

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/benefits_of_space_program.html

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

http://www.fas.org/news/usa/2000/usa-001012.htm

"Slick Products

A lubricant used on the transporter that carries a Space Shuttle to

the launch pad has resulted in a commercial penetrating-spray lube,

which is used for rust prevention and loosening corroded nuts. It's

also a cleaner and lubricant for guns and fishing reels, and can be

used to reduce engine friction."


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top