Skip to comments.
Astronauts uncover long line of nicks on shuttle
Google News (AP) ^
| 5/12/2009
| n/a
Posted on 05/12/2009 11:58:16 AM PDT by Pyro7480
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-116 last
To: ejonesie22
That actually makes more sense. I should have realized what you were trying to say. At altitude (after the SRBs are jettisoned), the shuttle engines do the rest. That works out to be 50% of the job. Thanks.
101
posted on
05/13/2009 2:20:06 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Pres__ent Obama's own grandmother says he was born in Kenya. She was there.)
To: Born to Conserve
They could float a camera out of the cargo bay Easier said than done. If they impart any speed to the camera at all, it would continue to float away from the shuttle and potentially rotate away from view. So the only way to do what you are suggesting is to build a mini self-guided jet propelled camera enclosure...
Remember there are always telescopes and/or military reconnaissance satellites. For all we know they may already have other options that they cannot disclose...
102
posted on
05/13/2009 3:30:17 PM PDT
by
mwilli20
(BO. Making communists proud all over the world.)
To: mwilli20
“Easier said than done. If they impart any speed to the camera at all, it would continue to float away from the shuttle and potentially rotate away from view. So the only way to do what you are suggesting is to build a mini self-guided jet propelled camera enclosure...”
Wrong.
It would be easy. The more spinning the camera does, the better. The spinning would guarantee shots of what they want. A fast shutter (digital of course) would preclude blurring. As for recovery, a string would work.
You should work on your naysaying.
To: Born to Conserve
For this mission (far away from the Space Station) they can only take pictures with the Canada arm. That arm is incapable of reaching this vantage point.
I'm not sure that's true about the vantage point. Since Columbia the shuttles go up with a camera and laser-equipped boom the length of the cargo bay that attaches to the side of the shuttle opposite the Canadarm. After orbit is reached the Canadarm grabs the boom and uses it to survey, in very minute detail, the underside of the Orbiter. My understanding is that it can reach *everywhere* that damage to the TPS could endanger the craft and crew during reentry.
The backflip the Orbiters now do prior to docking to the space station is redundant.
To: ejonesie22
Thinking back the SRBs provide the main thrust to get the shuttle off the pad and fire for the first two minutes of flight. Other than the SRBs the shuttle only has it's own main engines which are feed from the external tank (source of many of the issues) that supplement the SRBs and then finish the rest of the 5-8 minute flight into space.
The SSMEs boost the entire weight of the shuttle plus some of the ET. The SRBs boost the rest of the ET, and are separated once the SSMEs can, on their own, carry the weight of the Orbiter and the ET and remaining fuel into orbit.
To: Evil Slayer
The Hubble repair will probably be aborted. The crew will probably focus on repair of shuttle via space walks. If not successful, the rescue shuttle will be sent up. Transfer of crew to rescue shuttle and back home. Atlantis will be left as a museum piece in space.They can't do both? And if they have to, effect what repairs (to Hubble and Atlantis) they can, rescue the crew (maybe do another round of patching on Atlantis), and bring Atlantis down on auto pilot?
106
posted on
05/13/2009 6:13:05 PM PDT
by
BradyLS
(DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
To: Evil Slayer
Shuttle. Poster boy for government boondogle.
107
posted on
05/13/2009 6:30:13 PM PDT
by
GreyMountainReagan
(Liberals do not view the book 1984 as a warning but as a textbook.)
To: tanknetter
I thought that too but never did the math, but the SRBs do the bulk of the initial lifting, had it confirmed via NASA web site.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html
I should have realized the SRBs did the heavy hauling, each is rated at 2.3 million lbs of thrust with a max of 3.1 million during flight. The SSMEs are only rated at 400,000 LBs of thrust each so even combined all 3 don't equal one SRB in power.
108
posted on
05/13/2009 6:30:16 PM PDT
by
ejonesie22
(Mitt Romney is a more subtle version of Arlen Specter with better hair...)
To: Pyro7480
The real problem is Environmental Whackos.
As I understand the problem, a number of years ago, someone decreed that the foam insulation on the liquid fuel tank was somehow “damaging” the environment.
So, NASA changed the formula, and pieces of foam began to shed off of the tank at launch.
Lo! And Behold! Every Shuttle incurred some damage at launch FRom improperly formulated and attached foam insulation — one, you will recall, fatally.
The USA has paid, and continues to pay, a much too high a price for Environmental Whackos.
And, don’t get me started about solid booster segment seals!
109
posted on
05/13/2009 9:30:54 PM PDT
by
Taxman
(So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
To: Pyro7480
thermal tiles
Thermal tiles
THERMAL tiles
THERMAL TILES
So apparently this Country can’t figure out another way to protect during re-entry besides using stinking T H E R M A L freaking T I L E S!!!!
hOOOOW Long have we had this problem? How many yearrrrrs?
NASA needs to start retiring the entire TILE department. Time for a new way of dealing with this problem.
110
posted on
05/14/2009 1:10:26 AM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
To: FreepShop1
I cant believe we keep sending them up knowing the tile problem is so acute.
//////////////////////
x Act LEE!!!
111
posted on
05/14/2009 1:12:48 AM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
To: TomasUSMC; FreepShop1
It is not a tile problem.
It is a foam insulation problem.
See my post #109.
112
posted on
05/14/2009 4:51:50 AM PDT
by
Taxman
(So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
To: DoughtyOne
One could certainly make the case that the problem (with you name the “program”) is politicians.
113
posted on
05/14/2009 5:03:07 AM PDT
by
Taxman
(So that the beautiful pressure does not diminish!)
To: Taxman
No doubt about it. That’s why our founders framed a society where the politicians would have very little to do with our daily existence.
Look at how many ways the government touches us constantly today. You can’t turn on the lights without the government coming into play. You can’t take a job, without the government coming into play. You can’t travel without the government coming into play. You can’t buy anything without the government coming into play. You can’t raise your kids without the government coming in to play on day one. You can’t education your kids without the government coming into play, even if you home school.
If we could some way eliminate 75% of the government’s daily intrusion into our lives, it would still be a very different life than our founders envisioned.
114
posted on
05/14/2009 10:41:48 AM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Pres__ent Obama's own grandmother says he was born in Kenya. She was there.)
To: Taxman
Yeah I remember ....something about asbestos.....just reading the Russians used fiberglass and asbestos.
115
posted on
05/14/2009 11:43:34 AM PDT
by
TomasUSMC
( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
To: Born to Conserve
The more spinning the camera does, the better. The spinning would guarantee shots of what they want. A fast shutter (digital of course) would preclude blurring. As for recovery, a string would work. To quote Rush, "Sometimes it just doesn't pay to get out of bed in the morning"
116
posted on
05/14/2009 4:17:25 PM PDT
by
mwilli20
(BO. Making communists proud all over the world.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-116 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson