Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: eagl on July 01, 2006, 11:32:49 AM
-
Watch the shuttle launch prep and launch itself on http://www.nasa.gov. Follow the links to nasa tv. Great coverage, they have cameras everywhere.
-
Neat, got it running.
-
I wonder if this luanch and reentry will go successfully
-
cnx'd for today due to weather.
-
Twas scratched for today.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
I wonder if this luanch and reentry will go successfully
Quit being pessimistic.
-
well they said they had a problemwith 1 of the boosters so if they woulda luanched......
-
Not a booster... they had a temperature problem on an attitute control jet. 1 hundred lb thrust, not 1 million lb thrust.
-
We have NASA TV here, and its boreing because there is NO SOUND!!! WHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!
-
well didn't get my info from a very good source then.........
There is a space shuttle simulator you can download
Shuttle Simulator (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html)
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
well didn't get my info from a very good source then.........
There is a space shuttle simulator you can download
Shuttle Simulator (http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html)
You shouldn't get any of your information from places you download it.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
You shouldn't get any of your information from places you download it.
The only reliable source of info is the AH O'club.
-
lol
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The only reliable source of info is the AH O'club.
True true...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The only reliable source of info is the AH O'club.
Sig material.
-
The news anchors on CNN were also extremely frightened that something else would fall off and damage the shuttle again. Do you believe them?:rolleyes:
:lol CNN
-
Challenger (http://youtube.com/watch?v=OZy8YC7QBvc&search=challenger%20shuttle)
-
Challenger wasn't struck by anything but good try.
-
[upper crust English accent] I'd say it was struck by a dose of misfortune.[/upper crust English accent]
I think matrix dude was just posting for information....
-
Yeah, the media has been a joke the last few years... The other day on CNN they had a head line 'Shuttle crew has 1-100 chance of death' something like that..
What they don't bother to tell you is that when the shuttle entered service Nasa officially put the odds at 1 in 40... So the survivablity has actually more than doubled.... Stupid CNN.
Anyhow, Raider is correct, there was a problem with a thruster (not a booster) they were having trouble keeping one of the thrusters properly heated and were seeking a waiver for that (I think it was granted) so they could fly without it... The RCS thrusters are redundant, and the loss of one is not a threat to the flight... Just a technical problem.
But of course the wx was the main reason for the scrub. I'm sure they'll fix up that thruster with the extra time they have.
-
Columbia (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zuZE_qZWvcE&search=STS-107)
-
Shuttle luanch was scrubed for today but it is ironic that it is luanching on July 4th
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
Shuttle luanch was scrubed for today but it is ironic that it is luanching on July 4th
It's just a coincidence.
"Irony is the misuse of the word ironic" - Some character from a TV/Movie/Thing on the tube I can't remember...which is kinda funny.
-
Shuttle Luanch postponed due to bad weather
-
What point atr you trying to make Raider? Columbia exploded on takeoff, Challenger exploded on reentry....are you trying to tell us to be wary or that the shuttle is an unsafe, cruel and unusual enviornment?
-
Originally posted by nirvana
What point atr you trying to make Raider? Columbia exploded on takeoff, Challenger exploded on reentry....are you trying to tell us to be wary or that the shuttle is an unsafe, cruel and unusual enviornment?
Actually, you've got those backwards. Challenger failed on takeoff, Columbia on re-entry.
Second, neither exploded. Challenger detached from the external fuel tank and hit the airstream at the wrong angle and was torn apart by the multi-mach wind shear.
Columbia also didn't explode, it broke apart on re-entry because plasma burned through the structure. In the end, it was aerodynamic shear that tore it apart too, just like Challenger.
All of this doesn't change the fact that the Shuttle is missionless, super expensive, overly complicated, and an experimental vehicle being sold to the public as an operational launcher. It has a worse safety record than the Soyuz, the russian launcher, and is 10x as expensive too.
-
I stand corrected, my apologies.
-
This thing is going to be what NASA should have built 25 years ago..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_V
-
weather will probably delay it tomorrow. nasty weather has been kicking up in the afternoon. if it were a morning launch, it'd have a chance ..
-
Originally posted by xNOVAx
This thing is going to be what NASA should have built 25 years ago..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_V
Yeah, but they needed the equipment they gained in the shuttle program to build it, so I guess one feeds the others. You can't just build the perfect spaceship... You learn it.
Everyone is so down on Nasa and the shuttle... many young people here who don't remember all the shuttle success stories I suppose.
Space is HARD. Nasa hasn't killed its last astronaut. How many died to get the airliners we have today? Why do you expect space flight to be easier?
Cut them some slack. I guarantee that the nasa controllers know much more about it than anyone here in the AH board.
If you're an American show a little pride in what we have done in space, and what we can do..
And if you're not an American, and you're not a Russian... Shut the hell up, because you haven't flown any one without borrowing equipment or knowledge from the U.S. or Russia. (an exclusion for China here... They did get it done... 30 years later.)
The U.S. and Russia (and now China) have every right to show great pride in their accomplishiments in space. Everyone else is just preaching from a leather chair.
-
Agreed.
-
I'm dissapointed with the design of the new crew vehicle... If they put a winged re-entry vehicle on the top of a largely expendable booster, they could still land at a runway... on top instead of bolted to the side solves the foam shedding problem.
Scale this up and we could bring launch and bring back 10 at a time...
(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-38/Small/EC01-0339-33.jpg)
-
Just saw that they found a crack in the foam on the fuel tank..bet this one is scrubbed altogeher
-
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/151522main_Foam-3-m.jpg)
High resolution (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/151519main_BestImage3.JPG)
Looks like a corner came off of the bracket just below center image
-
The space shuttle was shoved down NASA's throat. It was in the name of politics they got stuck with it. It is not the original vehicle NASA wanted to do.
-
USAF Dynasoar
(http://www.geocities.com/npmar23/photo11.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
USAF Dynasoar
(http://www.geocities.com/npmar23/photo11.jpg)
looks like a modern shuttle on top of a saturn 5
-
History lesson time, why did NASA shy away from the capsule on top of a rocket from the 60's and 70's and move into the shuttle we have today? Or was that already covered by the politics comment? Perhaps it was more expensive to send up large amount of metal and then jettison them in space. Anyone know?
-
The concept of the shuttle was to make a totally reusable do all spacecraft -- a cargo lifter that carried people.
They got close, losing only the external tank, but many of the design by committee items that got tacked on caused many compromises.
Seperate vehicles for cargo and for people and a rendevous in orbit mentality would have been a better concept than the all in one swiss army knife concept the shuttle is, but to abandon the reusable winged reentry vehicle is a dissapointment.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Seperate vehicles for cargo and for people and a rendevous in orbit mentality would have been a better concept than the all in one swiss army knife concept the shuttle is, but to abandon the reusable winged reentry vehicle is a dissapointment.
I'd rather see more people in space than to see NASA struggling to get that crappy design of a space craft flying safely. Capsules are the most proven spaceflight vehicle and it should have been kept that way. Lifting bodies might be the future, but there needs to be a solid reason to build them. Right now they need to focus on getting equipment and people up and back without incident with a quicker turn around time than the shuttle. It looks like the Ares rockes will accomplish this.
-
I'd like to see a stop to people using terms they learned watching 'From the Earth to the Moon' coming in here acting like they are authorities on space travel.
I'd like to see an American public place a little freakin faith in their space program.
The space shuttle out performed any design expectation. Much like almost every NASA design in the past 40 years. And yet, you all watch a little MSNBC and you think you have the engineering savvy to throw up your own plan.
Laughable.
NASA knows full well what needs to be done, but President after President... Congress after Congress deny them the funds they need to do the job well. Nasa doesn't fail you in space... Washington fails you in space.
Commercial private space flight will be the way of the future, people without congress stepping on their funds... But only if the FAA (people with Congress stepping on their funds will make it happen).
Anyhow, my point is, Scientists aren't messing up our space program... Engineers aren't messing up our space program... Our CONGRESS is messing up our space program. Our President (who claims to want a man on Mars but won't pony up the cash) is messing up our space program.
I think it is a shame that nasa takes the heat for money cut in Congress. Congress killed Venture Star which was supposed to already be in flight... Congress killed funding that could have prevented two shuttles being destroyed... Bush makes his 'return to the moon' speech and effectively kills all useful space flight with a return to capsules and parachutes...
Space is expensive... And those who will not spend the money will lose... Lose to the Chinese who are currently willing to spend any money available to make us look like asses.
Everyone who won't support the U.S. program is just guaranteeing a new 'red moon'.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
I'd like to see a stop to people using terms they learned watching 'From the Earth to the Moon' coming in here acting like they are authorities on space travel.
Ok, so what you're saying is Andrew Chaikin, Tom Hanks, and oh, Dave Scott, just made up new terms for the mini-series? Or are you saying people that watched FTETTM actually learned something?
Besides that little stickler I agree with you. NASA has been and always will be a pawn to politics and a marionette to Congress.
It will be a Red Moon...just not USSR red.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
I'd like to see a stop to people using terms they learned watching 'From the Earth to the Moon' coming in here acting like they are authorities on space travel.
I'd like to see an American public place a little freakin faith in their space program.
The space shuttle out performed any design expectation. Much like almost every NASA design in the past 40 years. And yet, you all watch a little MSNBC and you think you have the engineering savvy to throw up your own plan.
Laughable.
NASA knows full well what needs to be done, but President after President... Congress after Congress deny them the funds they need to do the job well. Nasa doesn't fail you in space... Washington fails you in space.
Commercial private space flight will be the way of the future, people without congress stepping on their funds... But only if the FAA (people with Congress stepping on their funds will make it happen).
Anyhow, my point is, Scientists aren't messing up our space program... Engineers aren't messing up our space program... Our CONGRESS is messing up our space program. Our President (who claims to want a man on Mars but won't pony up the cash) is messing up our space program.
I think it is a shame that nasa takes the heat for money cut in Congress. Congress killed Venture Star which was supposed to already be in flight... Congress killed funding that could have prevented two shuttles being destroyed... Bush makes his 'return to the moon' speech and effectively kills all useful space flight with a return to capsules and parachutes...
Space is expensive... And those who will not spend the money will lose... Lose to the Chinese who are currently willing to spend any money available to make us look like asses.
Everyone who won't support the U.S. program is just guaranteeing a new 'red moon'.
what is teh source of your expert pwnage?
-
That POS should be renamed the "USS Porkbarrel".
-
Originally posted by Debonair
what is teh source of your expert pwnage?
I've never claimed to have any expert pwnage Deb... You don't see me in here saying I've got better ideas or saying that this vehicle or that vehicle does the job better than some other vehicle...
My posts have only been making a couple simple points... Space is hard, expensive and deadly... And that Nasa can take us anywhere if the government will give them the money. Lastly that private commercial space flight can only be viable if the FAA can figure out a way to regulate it without making it impossible. The FAA has too many problems and budget concerns as it is. I don't think the FAA will do well in the role of space flight controller.
So if you thought you saw me saying I had a degree in astrophysics, or aerodynamics I'm afraid you just read me wrong.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
The FAA has too many problems and budget concerns as it is. I don't think the FAA will do well in the role of space flight controller.
Above FL600 everything's Class E airspace. What's the FAA have to do with VFR see and avoid?
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Above FL600 everything's Class E airspace. What's the FAA have to do with VFR see and avoid?
:lol
Well said Golfer. That was funny. I know we'll have no trouble with the cloud clearances.
But we all know that once they start drawing up serious rules, its going to be somewhat more complex... Such as orbital passenger flights etc.
Anyhow, all I'd like to see (from the Americans in the board anyhow) is a little pride in what we have done. For all the problems and failures we have done more than anyone else in space. Its fourth of July, a little patriotism all around, and a little faith in the program and the people we have would be appropriate.;)
-
Originally posted by Kurt
I've never claimed to have any expert pwnage Deb... You don't see me in here saying I've got better ideas or saying that this vehicle or that vehicle does the job better than some other vehicle...
My posts have only been making a couple simple points... Space is hard, expensive and deadly... And that Nasa can take us anywhere if the government will give them the money. Lastly that private commercial space flight can only be viable if the FAA can figure out a way to regulate it without making it impossible. The FAA has too many problems and budget concerns as it is. I don't think the FAA will do well in the role of space flight controller.
So commercial space travel will only work if the FAA finds a way to REGULATE it? What part of regulation makes it physically possible?
When I read your post earlier, I was left with the impression that you were a shuttle fanboy who felt that it was unpatriotic to discuss shortcomings of the vehicle design or the medusalike bureaucracy that has grown at NASA that has the following priorities:
1. Stay employed.
2. Produce technical papers.
3. Produce space artwork.
...
...
...
124. Keep the vending machines at Goddard stocked.
125. Make sure all the flourescent lights in the administration building are working.
126. Fly people to space occasionally.
While I'm glad to see 126 makes it to the list, I'm sure that if they could keep their funding without it, they'd be satisfied. They've made a parody of the phrase 'risk averse'.
Russia has launched roughly the same number of Soyuz missions. 4 fatalities. The shuttle: 14.
The Soyuz costs 1/10th that of a shuttle launch, and THAT assumes the $500 million shuttle launch cost from a 'standard' year. The last couple launches (including today) have been in the multi-billion dollar range each.
Shuttle carries cargo? Fine, the Russians carry roughly the same amount of cargo to orbit with the Proton boosters, unmanned launchers with an excellent record. Shuttle can use crew to dock the cargo with robot arm? Fine, the russians developed automated docking technology in the 70s and have developed it since to the current KORS one that the ESA has licensed for their ATP cargo ship. Shuttle can carry 6-7 people? Fine, TWO soyuz launches can carry 6 people and still cost 1/5th the amount of a shuttle launch.
Kurt, your enthusiasm is fine. I'm a long time shuttle follower, but I have a realistic view about the limitations of the design, the problems with the organization running it, and the costs of continuing to use it. I'm ALSO aware of problems with the X-33/Venturestar programs that you appear not to be and know why they were cancelled. The short version? Expensive new technology that wasn't performing as expected (composite cryotanks), contractor that was taking NASA for a ride (Lockmart), and unclear mission (X-33 demonstrator=teh suck, in technical terms).
Be enthusiastic, I am. Support our astronauts, I will. Cheer you head off when the shuttle launches today, I'll be shouting along with you.
But when the fireworks are over, don't give NASA any blank checks. Scrutinize your investment and decide where the money should go.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
The space shuttle out performed any design expectation.
Except cost to orbit and frequency of flight. It exceeds expected cost (even allowing for inflation) by an order of of magnitude, and originally each one was s'posed to fly like 3 or 4 times a year. Expectation was to fly shuttles every couple of weeks.
As for winged crew re-entry, xNOVAx, the USA has done it 120 +/- times. Capsule re-entry... 6 in Mercury, 7? in Gemini, 15? times with Apollo equipment.
We have 5 times as much experience with winged re-entry. Winged re-entry is a mature technology. A small crew only re-usable winged re-entry vehicle is as easily achieveable as the Apollo on steriods we are going to get.
-
NASA = Communism, no wonder it's ****ed up.
-
Holden, a couple things about winged re-entry:
1. Added complexity. Moving control surfaces that need to operate during high-temp re-entry.
2. Added risk. A misflown entry profile is possible, causing vehicle loss.
3. Added weight. The lifting surfaces require extra structure that translates to extra weight.
Currently, there are more advantages to the capsule than to the winged configuration. That may change as vehicle requirements change.
A capsule with a steerable Rogallo parachute can land on ground with the same precision as a winged vehicle, so that advantage is no longer a gimme.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'm ALSO aware of problems with the X-33/Venturestar programs that you appear not to be and know why they were cancelled. The short version? Expensive new technology that wasn't performing as expected (composite cryotanks), contractor that was taking NASA for a ride (Lockmart), and unclear mission (X-33 demonstrator=teh suck, in technical terms).
Actually I did know about this... Specifically a bonding problem with the two hemispheres of the tanks. As I heard it NASA then requested to scrap the idea of the carbon fiber (I believe it was Carbon fiber, clue me in if I am wrong) tanks and to revert to the tried and true alloy tanks used on every other NASA craft. The contracter couldn't or wouldn't consider it and the infighting brought the project down... It was a shame.
I think you took my remark about not having a degree in aerospace to mean that I don't know any details.. I do. Living here in Southern Cal I have friends in JPL and Rocketdyne, Raytheon Space Sytems etc... I get a lot of information via those channels. I know better than to come in here spouting numbers though... Because I've no doubt at all that some of the AH Board members are actually in the space industry, and know a lot more about it than I do..
Don't get me wrong Chairboy, they do have WAY too many pencil pushers over at NASA, but generally speaking the job gets done and done well... Just 15 years behind schedule.
The Russians do have a fantastic program, thats why you'll not hear me bad mouthing them... But the comparison of lost astronauts is void... Their space craft only carry a maximum crew of 3... They would need 7 accidents to make up the difference. We carry 7 typcially per flight, so yes, the human toll is higher for a space shuttle failure.
Soyuz is well proven technology, no doubt about it. If you fly the same relatively simple design for 30 years you better believe you're gonna have the bugs out of it. And there is a lot of merit to that approach.
I'm not a shuttle fan boy. I just don't want the space program terminally in neutral. And when the public goes negative on it, we risk losing it.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Holden, a couple things about winged re-entry:
1. Added complexity. Moving control surfaces that need to operate during high-temp re-entry.
2. Added risk. A misflown entry profile is possible, causing vehicle loss.
3. Added weight. The lifting surfaces require extra structure that translates to extra weight.
Currently, there are more advantages to the capsule than to the winged configuration. That may change as vehicle requirements change.
A capsule with a steerable Rogallo parachute can land on ground with the same precision as a winged vehicle, so that advantage is no longer a gimme.
AFAIK Russians don't steer parachutes... then they get down and retro rocket the last little bit and land "somewhere in Kasakstan".... within a few miles of target is still pretty good.
A misfire of a guidance jet can cause a bad profile in re-entry, winged or not. Complexity and weight, you may have some good points...
I think the shortcoming of the shuttle is not that it is a winged reentry vehicle, but that as NASA says, "The space shuttle, the most complex machine ever built,"
Winged re-entry with a KISS design criterion might look and work much differently than the shuttle. Something developed from Dynasoar and the abandoned emergency crew return vehicle (x-38) is what I am talking about.
-
Everytime I watchthat I always think the same thing....That was cool.
-
I know the Russians don't steer their parachutes, I was trying to be pro-active on the "but what about landing on runways?" argument. Steerable Rogallo parachutes were considered for later Gemini missions, but skipped. They were later added to the X-38 project, which was regrettably cancelled.
I hope the project Constellation will revisit these so they can touchdown on land instead of water.
Reynolds, simple is good. Soyuz is simpler, and has a reliability and safety that the shuttle can never hope to meet. The first 2.5 minutes of flight, if anything goes wrong, the shuttle astronauts are dead. Even if they had known about the Challenger failure in the right SRB at the moment of SRB ignition, they couldn't have done anything. They would have had a little over a minute to tell them that they were gonna die, and that's it.
Soyuz has a zero-zero ejection capabillity, and it has been succesfully used once when a Soyuz failed on the launch pad back in the 60s. Safe cosmonauts.
-
I figured you knew about the parachute thing...
And a steered parachute thing may be a good idea, but you still need to get close to where you want to land before you deploy...
The only space vehicle to land on the dot has been the shuttle and it has done it 120 times. There are advantages to the winged concept that are to be thrown out with the bathwater.
-
We need to stop wasting our time on rockets and think big like Project Orion.. :)
-
Well I watched it on HDTV. Was beautiful. Awsome to see.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Well I watched it on HDTV. Was beautiful. Awsome to see.
Yup, always proud of my Country when they light the big candles, especially on her birthday!
Happy 4th!
-
Chunks of foam flying off on takeoff...
i wish them luck on re-entry.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Chunks of foam flying off on takeoff...
i wish them luck on re-entry.
Media got you bought on to the blood wagon eh?
They'll be fine. Foam always has and always will fall from that tank. One time it actually did damage.
Lots and lots of debis falls from a launch.
-
What kind of foam and space age epoxies are they using that it fa;;s off anyway? I mean...it's foam. Granted it's most likely not styrofoam, but wow.
Always good watching it go up though Brave souls.