Discovery landing IS scrubbed - Low Cloud Deck

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Discovery landing IS scrubbed - Low Cloud Deck

Posted: 8/7/2005 10:58:42 PM EDT

About 45 minutes to go (0240 CDT) until de-orbit burn. Weather at the Cape is kinda deteriorating. They are proceeding with the landing checklist.

UPDATE:
Astronaut Kent Rominger continues shooting approaches in the STA. What a job!!!

UPDATE 0218 CDT:
Re-cycle and prepare for landing on next cycle, basically about 90 minutes later. Clouds at 1000 ft above runway, but expected to dissipate. However, with that forecast comes an opportunity for scattered showers. Next opportunity is de-orbit burn at 0415 CDT with touchdown at 0522 CDT.

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:02:36 PM EDT

[#1]

Ya know what? If they can't find a reliable way to shoot someone into space then FUCK IT! we don't need to go...that simple.

Let tht aliens that live on the darkside of the moon come and suck our brains through our ears, because I just don't give a damn about space anymore.

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:04:02 PM EDT

[#2]

I love that they stream Nasa tv over the internet now...

I miss having nasa tv when I'm here in OR.

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:06:10 PM EDT

[#3]

I haven't kept up with all this for several years. Don't they still have/use an alternate landing site on the west coast?

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:07:23 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I haven't kept up with all this for several years. Don't they still have/use an alternate landing site on the west coast?

Edwards AFB. I always thought that was the primary landing site....

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:08:25 PM EDT

[#5]

You know what, 34 US personnel died in Iraq last month. How much coverage did they get?

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:09:23 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I haven't kept up with all this for several years. Don't they still have/use an alternate landing site on the west coast?

They've pretty much quit using Edwards since it costs so much to ferry the Orbiter back to the Cape. It is still considered if FL weather is bad for extended periods. THere is another landing window this morning, but not sure when. They can probably stay at least another day, maybe two if required.

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:10:31 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
You know what, 34 US personnel died in Iraq last month. How much coverage did they get?

Lots. It was on the front page of the paper and the lead story on the radio. I read all the names in the Sunday paper, like I always do.

And what does one thing have to do with another? I. personally, am able to fit more than one piece of salient information in my brain at a time. You?

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:11:51 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I haven't kept up with all this for several years. Don't they still have/use an alternate landing site on the west coast?

Edwards AFB. I always thought that was the primary landing site....

Edwards WAS a primary site, until NASA could get the Cape up to speed to land the obiter there. It save NASA $100,000 because they don't have too fly the Orbiter from Edwards back to the Cape.

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:14:35 PM EDT

[#9]

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:17:30 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
You know what, 34 US personnel died in Iraq last month. How much coverage did they get?

Both "too much" and "not enough."

"Not enough" in that these brave men and women gave their all to defend this country, yet all they got was their name, age, and hometown mentioned.

"Too much" in that the MSM is exploiting their deaths in their continuing attack on America.

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:21:21 PM EDT

[#11]

Scrubbed for this orbit - try again next rev.

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:25:33 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Scrubbed for this orbit - try again next rev.

once more around the block...

Well next opritunity is somewhere between 4:30 and 5:00 am... I'll be asleep.

Prayers... are always good even when it looks like they aren't needed... like now... So I'll be praying

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:26:51 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I haven't kept up with all this for several years. Don't they still have/use an alternate landing site on the west coast?

Edwards AFB. I always thought that was the primary landing site....

Edwards WAS a primary site, until NASA could get the Cape up to speed to land the obiter there. It save NASA $100,000 because they don't have too fly the Orbiter from Edwards back to the Cape.

$100,000 measly bucks? Thats it? I would think they would save much more than that. And if it is $100,000, I would think that it is a small price to pay considering the astronomical price it takes to get the damn thing up there to begin with. $100K seems like a small price to pay when it comes to having a reliable landing spot. How much more does it cost to scrub landings and stay in space longer? Do astronauts get hazard pay?

Posted: 8/7/2005 11:39:11 PM EDT

[#14]

tag

Posted: 8/8/2005 12:00:38 AM EDT

[#15]

Welp, gotta sack out. I'll try to wake up in 1:15 to update, but don't bet on it.

Posted: 8/8/2005 12:00:56 AM EDT

[#16]

Sewer_Urchin: NASA is counting every nickel is has, because they are pretty much at the tail end of the budgeting process.

Posted: 8/8/2005 12:05:27 AM EDT

[#17]

It's like getting masturbated, and now she stopped......I hate it, 0622 if the skies are clear, if not Edwards or another site in New Mexico for tuesday or wednesday.....

Posted: 8/8/2005 1:12:27 AM EDT

[#18]

It seems that they have scrapped the second attempt at landing today due to cloud cover. (Just got this from Nasa TV)

Posted: 8/8/2005 2:36:13 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Sewer_Urchin: NASA is counting every nickel is has, because they are pretty much at the tail end of the budgeting process.

I have a buddy who does accounting for NASA. Thier accounting is so fucked up they don't know where to begin. I'm talking clusterfuck with 40 different divisions grabbing for one source of funding. Over spending to the point of being over budget by three times. When accounting glitches are fixed, people whine until they break it again so people can get money. $100,000 measly dollars is a drop in the ocean of NASA's budget. Until they give me a goddamn Saturn V ride to the moon I'll say NASA hasn't done much for me in the past ten years. Being at the tail end of thier budget is a good thing. Cut out NASA, give space contracts to the private sector and buy a bunch of Raptors n' call it a day.

Posted: 8/8/2005 2:39:13 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
$100,000 measly bucks? Thats it? I would think they would save much more than that. And if it is $100,000, I would think that it is a small price to pay considering the astronomical price it takes to get the damn thing up there to begin with. $100K seems like a small price to pay when it comes to having a reliable landing spot. How much more does it cost to scrub landings and stay in space longer? Do astronauts get hazard pay?

Its a mil, not 100k, IIRC.

Kharn

Posted: 8/8/2005 2:48:58 AM EDT

[#21]

Damn the evil Assault Cloud!

Posted: 8/8/2005 3:23:39 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
$100,000 measly bucks? Thats it? I would think they would save much more than that. And if it is $100,000, I would think that it is a small price to pay considering the astronomical price it takes to get the damn thing up there to begin with. $100K seems like a small price to pay when it comes to having a reliable landing spot. How much more does it cost to scrub landings and stay in space longer? Do astronauts get hazard pay?
Its a mil, not 100k, IIRC.

Kharn

$100K is not going to begin to cover the fuel needed to fly the 747 from Edwards to KSC and then back to Edwards. While carrying the Shuttle the 747 has to stop and refuel at least twice en route to KSC.

Hell, I know it's going to cost $20K+ just in added security cost (I worked part-time as a guard at NASA DFRC for two years) if it lands at Edwards.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Discovery landing IS scrubbed - Low Cloud Deck

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us