Terry Tate Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Just walked outside my house to watch the launch. Looked good from here (60mi away). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Thank God.....they were saying if they had even one more problem, there would be talk of scrapping the entire program. Glad to hear everything is going well thus far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Very cool, good news to hear indeed. I've got a friend who is on the shuttle team, so she's pretty psyched now too. I'm expecting her to send some really cool pictures from the launch and I'll ask if I can post them somewhere if people are itnerested (no promises though). CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Awesome news indeed. I'm glad they worked hard to get it right, but all this talk of how 'if it doesn't work this time it'll set our space program back decades' was pissing me off. I'm with Stephen Hawking, exploring space is likely mans only hope to warding off our extinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Just walked outside my house to watch the launch. Looked good from here (60mi away). 718307[/snapback] "Up", as far as I heard, isn't the issue. They seriously ought to scrap that white elephant of an X-plane post-haste and build a real space vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 "Up", as far as I heard, isn't the issue. They seriously ought to scrap that white elephant of an X-plane post-haste and build a real space vehicle. 718326[/snapback] I vote for the Millennium Falcon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted July 4, 2006 Author Share Posted July 4, 2006 "Up", as far as I heard, isn't the issue. They seriously ought to scrap that white elephant of an X-plane post-haste and build a real space vehicle. 718326[/snapback] I agree. And it's still cool to watch a launch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpbillsfan Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 I vote for the Millennium Falcon 718330[/snapback] Along with X-Wing fighters........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 4, 2006 Share Posted July 4, 2006 Well, the jury is still out on whether the launch went ok. It will be days before all the film and data are analyzed to be sure that no problems occured during launch. The issue with scraping the program now is a bit complex. On one hand, without the shuttle, there can be no more modules for the ISS. NASA insists that we fulfill our obligations to the international community, as the shuttle is currently the only "functional" heavy launch vehicle on Earth. Remember without the shuttle there is no ISS, therefore, no shuttle is required. If the shuttle is not required, guess what happens to NASAs budget? That assumes that Constellation is not ready to go, which it isn't right now. From that standpoint it is easy to see why STS-121 had to launch. The pressure on NASA to "get it right" is enormous, with people in their own management questioning the very validity of the program. If they didn't launch this year, they might never have had the chance. NASA does not want to be Earth bound like they were between STS and Apollo. On that note, it is quite disturbing to hear NASA's current attitude regarding safety. After essentially firing a former astronaut who dared question the saftey of the current mission, to thier "Go Fever" the past few days, it will be quite a miracle if they get through the final missions without another catastrophe. The shuttle is a fataly flawed, 1960's-era technology that needs to be in a museum, not space... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 The shuttle is a fataly flawed, 1960's-era technology that needs to be in a museum, not space... 718339[/snapback] Considering that space flight involves sitting on a million pounds of highly explosive rocket fuel and launching one's self into a highly physically stressful flight that, if successful, terminates in what is quite possibly the most hostile environment imaginable, only to return via a flight path that will burn away solid rock...I'd say the shuttle's no more fatally flawed than any other manner of space flight. A product of stupid design trade-offs, sure...but no more fatally flawed than Soyuz or Apollo. The rest of your sentence, I agree with wholeheartedly...save that some of it's 1970's era technology. And the SSME's may actually be 1980's era...great big steaming piles of elephant sh-- though they are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 "Up", as far as I heard, isn't the issue. They seriously ought to scrap that white elephant of an X-plane post-haste and build a real space vehicle. 718326[/snapback] So what would you design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 God's Speed, Discovery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 What an awesome display on the 4th no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 So what would you design? 718389[/snapback] Something suitable for a one-legged spherical gecko. Of course, I'm assuming your question is merely rhetorical and sarcastic, and choose not to respond seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puhonix Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 "Up", as far as I heard, isn't the issue. They seriously ought to scrap that white elephant of an X-plane post-haste and build a real space vehicle. 718326[/snapback] By definition, a real space vehicle is not intended to de-orbit, so the ISS is a real space vehicle. But yes, we need to use our current knowledge and tchnology to get a new shuttle, the ones we currently have alwready have outlived the Apollo program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 By definition, a real space vehicle is not intended to de-orbit, so the ISS is a real space vehicle. 718481[/snapback] I question that definition. Not that I don't see your point...I just don't agree with it. It's almost like saying a real airplane isn't intended to land, or a real submarine isn't intended to surface. While the operating environment may not require the functionality, the transit certainly does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Considering that space flight involves sitting on a million pounds of highly explosive rocket fuel and launching one's self into a highly physically stressful flight that, if successful, terminates in what is quite possibly the most hostile environment imaginable, only to return via a flight path that will burn away solid rock...I'd say the shuttle's no more fatally flawed than any other manner of space flight. A product of stupid design trade-offs, sure...but no more fatally flawed than Soyuz or Apollo. The rest of your sentence, I agree with wholeheartedly...save that some of it's 1970's era technology. And the SSME's may actually be 1980's era...great big steaming piles of elephant sh-- though they are... 718365[/snapback] One huge disadvantage shuttle has over Soyuz or Apollo is that by it's piggyback design, there is no crew evacuation possible during powered flight. Where the crew could (theoretically) escape a catastrophic Saturn V failure, no such system is possible on shuttle. Although, they did have jet fighter type ejection seats on Enterprise, which were later removed. Interesting point on the SSMEs. In fact, I would say that they are the best thing about the engineering involved in the STS program. They remain the most powerful rocket engine ever produced, and are essentially different engines now than the ones that flew on Columbia in 1981. And I wholeheartedly agree, the launch on the 4th was indeed spectacular... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 Something suitable for a one-legged spherical gecko. 718451[/snapback] Ah, the memories... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 5, 2006 Share Posted July 5, 2006 One huge disadvantage shuttle has over Soyuz or Apollo is that by it's piggyback design, there is no crew evacuation possible during powered flight. Where the crew could (theoretically) escape a catastrophic Saturn V failure, no such system is possible on shuttle. Although, they did have jet fighter type ejection seats on Enterprise, which were later removed. Although an even bigger problem is the SRBs are, in fact, solid rocket boosters. Solid rockets can't be controlled in-fligh; they burn until they're out (the SRB thrust is actually modulated in-flight by the changing shape of the central cavity in the solid fuel, which increases or decreases the burn rate - so it's actually pre-defined and fixed). At any point in flight after the SRBs, the shuttle engines can be powered down (or up, sometimes) in case of an emergency. While the SRBs are burning, it's "Ride it until they're done, and God help you if something goes wrong." For that reason alone, crew evac is virtually impossible from a rising shuttle. Those are also the only solid rockets in history to be man-rated, for the simple reason that the thrust is uncontrollable real-time. Even the Soviets, with their greater willingness to take casualties, never man-rated a solid rocket. Interesting point on the SSMEs. In fact, I would say that they are the best thing about the engineering involved in the STS program. They remain the most powerful rocket engine ever produced, and are essentially different engines now than the ones that flew on Columbia in 1981. 718513[/snapback] They'd have to be. And that in itself says volumes about how badly managed the shuttle program has been. Had the SSMEs been properly engineered from the start, they wouldn't need to be completely different engines now. Instead, they still had unexplained failure modes on the shuttle's 60th "operational" flight and beyond. And in saying the SSME's were "1980's era", I meant that they were at the time of design. They unquestionably pushed the state-of-the-art well beyond where it was at the time; one could make an excellent argument that they pushed it far too far. One rarely manages to combine "bleeding edge" with "high reliability" in engineering, particularly when engineering practices as God-awfully horrible as how the SSME project was managed are applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts