BB27 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 In case anyone is interested.... http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 In case anyone is interested....http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html 380456[/snapback] Cool. Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I love this stuff!!! I took the wife and kids to Nasa in Florida last year and we got to see a rocket lauch! Very cool!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duey Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I love this stuff!!! I took the wife and kids to Nasa in Florida last year and we got to see a rocket lauch! Very cool!! 380524[/snapback] RRRRR! We were down at Disney a couple of weeks ago, and were supposed to see a rocket launch. Unfortunatley, they postponed it a couple of days before. I was crushed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Back in the 90's I actually got to see the shuttle launch from inside Cape Canaveral. We were very close to the launch. You have no idea of the power until you can hear the sound the shuttle makes when being launched. Absolutely awesome, there are no words to describe the sound it makes. The best I can do is it sounds like it is ripping through the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I'm going to watch it from my back yard... should be awesome, but I wish it was at night! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewin Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Back in the mid 80's I had multiple stints in Boca Raton as a college co-op - I remember actually being able to see the shuttle from that far away when it launched. Very Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Thanks for the link. I have had the video on all day. I wish that was me getting suited up for the ride! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 DAMN, Launch scrubbed due to an equipment malfunction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 It is sounding like they are scrubbing the launch because of a fuel cut off sensor. They have the green light to start taking the crew off the ship. DAMN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Just scrubbed because of a faulty sensor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Just scrubbed because of a faulty sensor. 380759[/snapback] Apparently that qualifies as a "major" issue...whereas sh-- falling off the orbiter and damaging the heat shield while it's stationary on the pad is "minor" and "expected". I'm all for the space program...but can we get someone other than NASA to do it? Maybe someone who knows what the !@#$ they're doing? Please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Apparently that qualifies as a "major" issue...whereas sh-- falling off the orbiter and damaging the heat shield while it's stationary on the pad is "minor" and "expected". I'm all for the space program...but can we get someone other than NASA to do it? Maybe someone who knows what the !@#$ they're doing? Please? 380800[/snapback] How about that Virgin records dude. Virgin Space Shuttles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Apparently that qualifies as a "major" issue...whereas sh-- falling off the orbiter and damaging the heat shield while it's stationary on the pad is "minor" and "expected". I'm all for the space program...but can we get someone other than NASA to do it? Maybe someone who knows what the !@#$ they're doing? Please? 380800[/snapback] Exactly what I have been saying for years. NASA has an AWESOME unmanned probe program, but they bite the big one when it comes to manned flight, especially that flying death trap and wussy space station... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Exactly what I have been saying for years. NASA has an AWESOME unmanned probe program, but they bite the big one when it comes to manned flight, especially that flying death trap and wussy space station... 380951[/snapback] It's the bureaucrats. I have to believe the engineers are competent...but calling it "minor" when things are falling off on the launch pad hours before liftoff (and falling off because they were taped on) is bureacracy run amok. And "flying deathtrap" is a bit of an exaggeration. Considering it hasn't actually flown in more than two years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 It's the bureaucrats. I have to believe the engineers are competent...but calling it "minor" when things are falling off on the launch pad hours before liftoff (and falling off because they were taped on) is bureacracy run amok. And "flying deathtrap" is a bit of an exaggeration. Considering it hasn't actually flown in more than two years... 380959[/snapback] You are correct, the bureaucrats are the problem. In 1986, the engineers at Thikol were screaming that you couldn't launch the shuttle at those freezing temperatures, and they ok'd the launch anyways, because Columbia flew two weeks before without incident... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 You are correct, the bureaucrats are the problem. In 1986, the engineers at Thikol were screaming that you couldn't launch the shuttle at those freezing temperatures, and they ok'd the launch anyways, because Columbia flew two weeks before without incident... 380964[/snapback] Actually, the story about Challenger's worse than that. NASA's risk analysis for the O-ring/temperature issue was basically a graph that charted the amount of O-ring burn-through versus ambient temperature. Perfectly valid method...except they decided that missions where there was NO burn-through wouldn't be included in their data set. Thus, their partial data set showed no correllation between O-ring performance and temperature...whereas the complete data set showed that O-ring failure never occured below about 10C, but was rather common below that - which is a pretty damned strong correllation between O-ring performance and temperature. Between that, and NASA management's judgement that "since it didn't fail completely, it's acceptable performance even though it's not supposed to fail at all", losing a shuttle was a matter of when and not if. Columbia had the same basic problem: engineers were screaming "We need to look at this!", but management's thinking was "We've had ice come off the tank and hit the shuttle before, and we've had damaged tiles before, but it's never been a problem before so it won't be one now." And quite frankly...the 30 month post-Columbia witch hunt hasn't changed that at all; if anything it's probably made it worse by ensuring that more bureaucrats spend more time covering their asses in case of a mistake (the bureaucratic definition of "risk management": don't mitigate error, mitigate blame) while ignoring the fundamental realities of natural physical law. It's not that the shuttle's a death-trap - it's a complicated (overly so, in my opinion) piece of machinery that comes nowhere CLOSE to living up to its hype, but its failure modes are well known to the engineers (Columbia died precisely how the engineers said it would - they weren't surprised by it, only management). It's that NASA's bureaucracy is a death-trap, and they will almost certainly lose another shuttle before the fleet's grounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Actually, the story about Challenger's worse than that. NASA's risk analysis for the O-ring/temperature issue was basically a graph that charted the amount of O-ring burn-through versus ambient temperature. Perfectly valid method...except they decided that missions where there was NO burn-through wouldn't be included in their data set. Thus, their partial data set showed no correllation between O-ring performance and temperature...whereas the complete data set showed that O-ring failure never occured below about 10C, but was rather common below that - which is a pretty damned strong correllation between O-ring performance and temperature. Between that, and NASA management's judgement that "since it didn't fail completely, it's acceptable performance even though it's not supposed to fail at all", losing a shuttle was a matter of when and not if. Columbia had the same basic problem: engineers were screaming "We need to look at this!", but management's thinking was "We've had ice come off the tank and hit the shuttle before, and we've had damaged tiles before, but it's never been a problem before so it won't be one now." And quite frankly...the 30 month post-Columbia witch hunt hasn't changed that at all; if anything it's probably made it worse by ensuring that more bureaucrats spend more time covering their asses in case of a mistake (the bureaucratic definition of "risk management": don't mitigate error, mitigate blame) while ignoring the fundamental realities of natural physical law. It's not that the shuttle's a death-trap - it's a complicated (overly so, in my opinion) piece of machinery that comes nowhere CLOSE to living up to its hype, but its failure modes are well known to the engineers (Columbia died precisely how the engineers said it would - they weren't surprised by it, only management). It's that NASA's bureaucracy is a death-trap, and they will almost certainly lose another shuttle before the fleet's grounded. 381066[/snapback] I tend to over-generalize at times. But the point is that the management of NASA nearly reaches the criminal level of negligence. In fact, what happened to Columbia nearly happened in 1998 to Atlantis. I have seem photos with holes the size of your fist in the RCC edge of the wing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I'm all for the space program...but can we get someone other than NASA to do it? Maybe someone who knows what the !@#$ they're doing? Please? First step in passing the interview is agreeing to scrap the shuttle program altogether. It's an impressive feat technically (I was just about to leave the house, take the family for a drive to the coast to watch the launch when they cancelled), but a financial and safety disaster. Americans and Russians have had hundreds of manned space program launches, and three fatal losses in flight. Two were shuttles. The only reason we need a shuttle is to service the ISS. The only reason we need the ISS is to have somewhere for the shuttle to fly to. It's a self-licking ice cream cone - a government aerospace contractor's dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I tend to over-generalize at times. But the point is that the management of NASA nearly reaches the criminal level of negligence. In fact, what happened to Columbia nearly happened in 1998 to Atlantis. I have seem photos with holes the size of your fist in the RCC edge of the wing... 381145[/snapback] And what happened to Challenger nearly happened to Atlantis...and what could have happened to Discovery if they'd pushed ahead today has nearly happened on a bunch of different missions (they've actually aborted at least one mission to orbit when a main engine has shut down prematurely). Sure, the shuttle's a flawed vehicle. It was doomed the moment the Air Force demanded it be able to recover recon satellites (a vehicle complex enough for manned missions, but with enough volume for meaningful cargo capacity, with a structure robust to survive reentry in reusable condition? Dumb set of requirements). But, like Bledsoe, in a system that understands its weaknesses and maximizes its strengths, it can be servicable. Sadly, NASA's management is so blinded by budgetary greed that they're completely incapable of seeing the shuttle's flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts