To: anymouse
..."Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."...The agreement on the orbit inclination was an appeasment to the Russians.
That orbit has cost us millions (and perhaps 7 astronauts) in upgrades to the shuttle components.
In order to reach that orbit the SSME's have to run at 105% (IIRC), the ET had to be redesigned to be lighter (which may have contributed to the Columbia disaster)and the SRB's had to have modifications done.
10 posted on
09/28/2005 9:11:24 AM PDT by
FReepaholic
(I don't look good naked anymore.)
To: tscislaw
That orbit has cost us millions (and perhaps 7 astronauts) Wrong. Changing the composition of the foam to appease the greenies cost the 7 astronauts.
40 posted on
09/28/2005 9:35:30 AM PDT by
PAR35
To: tscislaw
From what I understand, the Columbia was using one of the older style external tanks that was a bit heavier, which was part of why it was in a lower orbit and couldn't reach the space station. They figured that a lower orbit science mission would be a good use of a tank they couldn't use to service the space station.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson