Posted on 07/03/2006 6:30:52 PM PDT by wagglebee
Shuttle Ping.
I still can't believe we both use the shuttles, and that they are this delicate.
Get the private sector on this. I want comic book-level space travel technology in 10 years.
Sounds like a gamble to do this on July 4th.
I've been thinking for years that the private sector could do it better and cheaper.
And their track record with "gambles" isn't that great.
The decision was based on the fact that it won't fall off and damage any tiles during launch because it's already fallen off.
They put a borescope on a long piece of plastic tube and
viewed the area closely, the decision is go for launch.
God Speed.
I grew up reading Asimov, Heinlein, etc. and all these years later I can't believe that this country's space program consists of trying to get a '78 Cutlass to start and keep running.
This PUR foam is elastic and despite the low temp, this is an aberration that should not be tolerated.
I hear ya!
LOL it's a shame isn't it.
I couldn't imagine how the astronauts feel about this. Not only to get totally pschyed up about the launch only to be let down, not once but twice, and now the higher powers that be say a 5" crack in the foam is okay and no big deal with only ONE successful launch under thier belts since Columbia went down in flames do to the foam.
And they say air traffic controllers have the MOST stressful job. I'll bet those astronauts would argue that fact.
Good thing they did not put a boroscope up to some libeals they would have seen some really scary stuff!
OK, here's the problem with the no-nothing press and luddite hoard.
The "foam chunk that brought down Columbia" didn't bring down Columbia. It was the multi thousand degree temperatures of reentry that doomed Columbia. The foam chunk broke a piece of the fragile insulation on launch. Yet Columbia flew safely for a week after that. What killed the crew was three things:
All of those circumstances have been dealt with in planning since the Columbia went down. They have the ability to do detailed inspections of all of the critical thermal insulation. From the material I've seen it is better than a visual inspection while on the launch pad. That's pretty impressive. They also have built at least some (so far untested) ability to repair (minor) damage to the thermal insulation. And finally they have plans for using the ISS as a "life boat" for the crew in case they can't repair any hypothetical damage.
No one, I repeat, no one, is suggesting any risk to the crew on launch, such as what happened to the Challenger crew. That would be a totally different argument. This decision is based on having what is unarguably a reasonable set of alternatives in case there is any damage of the type that happened to Columbia.
This isn't gardening. Launching people on top of tons of high explosives at speeds faster than any other humans have ever traveled isn't "safe." They have identified the likely risks and have reasonable answers for any of those recognized risks.
The problem here, for me, is that the press, and too many of the "smart people" are spending their energy on second guessing the responses to those identified risks. Instead we should be pushing those minds to contemplate the risks that no one has thought of so that they can be identified and assessed.
When the Apollo 1 fire happened way back in the 60s the conclusion, offered by Frank Borman in Congressional testimony, was that the problem was a "failure of imagination." Everyone is obsessing about the response to what we have already thought of. That's foolish. Yes, it can still go wrong, but reasonable steps have been taken. What's needed is to think the "unthinkable" and try to find ways to mitigate (notice, not eliminate) those risks.
I'm going to say many, many prayers. I'm going to have my heart in my throat the entire time that they're up there, particularly during the ascent. I can still give you nearly all of the check list items from t-2 minutes through the final orbital insertion OMS burns and I'll chew my fingernails at every critical check point. But I agree with the "GO" decision.
This isn't "GO" fever. Nor is this gardening.
"And their track record with "gambles" isn't that great."
-- --
Before the PC abominations in technolgy in the '90s and '00s (ie during the '60's), there were PLENTY of gambles taken. Mercury 3 was fired after two big failures of the Mercury, with probably the second best astronaut of all time aboard, Alan Shepard.
Neil Armstrong was almost killed twice, once on Gemini 8 with David Scott in 1966 during the first-ever docking maneuver when a control thruster stuck open and sent them in a high speed spin, and a year before the Apollo 11 launch when he was training in an LLTV that failed and he ejected only 400 miliseconds before he would have been killed.
It is the bravery of these guys and other explorers that carves the way for the rest of us.
If this were the '60's, they would have told Al Gore to stuff his PC up his 4$$, and put the foam on correctly, and if it still peeled off, they would fix it and launch again on schedule.
LOL!!! I've always thought of it as an outdated space bus but '78 Cutlass is about right.
"Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them. They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects. Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources.""For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
from:
Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle, by R.P. Feynman
Still being ignored, 20 years later.....
The astronauts had input in the decision. If any or all of them were against the launch they could pull out. They haven't done so.
I wonder how it feels to train for years then get bumped by an old fart US Senator. I was in one of the buildings at JSC when Glenn was there training. The people I was there with asked me if I wanted to meet him. I said "yes, I want to ask him how it feels to bump someone who has been training for years so he can stroke his own overblown ego". The guys I was visiting with were old school JSC and one said "go ahead" but someone else stopped me before I got across the building to get to Glenn. In Glenn's defense several of the "old hands" liked him.
Over the past couple of years several of my buddies have left JSC. Every one of them told me that the shuttle should never ever fly again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.