Posted on 07/27/2005 3:25:59 PM PDT by MindBender26
NASA realizes debris that fell of external fuel tank yesterday came close to causing irrepairable damage to shuttle now in orbit.
Fleet GROUNDED. More later
Chances to return to flight again, no better than 50/50.
A drop in the bucket of a bureaucracy.
Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-20_DynaSoar
and if just one person is able to convince the world that freon is not so bad then it could be produced and marketed by any company and their profits would drop immediately
My name....Jose......Jimenez.
I have experience with liquid nitrogen, which is about -320. I figured LOX and LH2 were close in comparison....
As I archived the many lessons learned from the Columbia (and NASA) disaster this article from Feb 2003 had one of the best analyses IMO. The last four paragraphs (below) give you the gist:
"If government can't be counted upon to perform something as relatively uncomplicated as mail delivery, how can they be relied upon to launch and maintain humans in space? The question we should ask our leaders is: Should government (and its contractors) remain the sole-source providers of launch services, and the gatekeepers for the High Frontier, after 42 years of marginal performance?
"It's time we returned to that incremental, market-driven approach to space development. NASA should get out of the launch business, opening up specific functions to private competition. NASA's own study of suborbital space tourism, released last year, suggested a potential $100 billion market. We need enabling legislation to spark investment and creativity in the private sector, so such things can come to pass.
"A thriving commercial space sector, driven from the ground up by individual initiative and competitive incentives, as opposed to a top-down, hierarchical, bureaucratic command-and-control system, would have not been able to prevent the tragedy of February 1st. But at the very least, we would not be collectively wringing our hands over humanity's future in space, for that future would be assured, regardless of NASA's decisions.
"After watching the memorial service for the Columbia Seven, I should be getting reservations online for the Boeing Spaceplane service to the Trump Orbiting Hotel and Casino, for a second honeymoon with my wife. If NASA had shared its toys and talent with the private sector 30 years ago, I'd be doing just that. I don't want to see the promise of another generation, the sons and daughters of the "Orphans of Apollo", so sadly wasted.
from:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040411102613/http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe210-20030210-06.html
Yeah, the oxygen and nitrogen are pretty similar since the molecules are pretty similar in mass. But, for one thing, hydrogen and helium are so quick (because of their low masses) at a given temperature that they aren't as able to stick together.
A rule of thumb is that the more massive the molecule, the easier it is to liquefy. Doesn't hold exactly, of course. Water is a notable exception. At first glance, it shouldn't be a liquid at room temperature.
"Imagine you owned the patent for Freon, and that patent was about to expire.
The product makes BILLIONS of dollars for your company because it is the best coolant ever invented."
1) It was not the best coolant ever invented. There are lots of great viable coolants. Just about any gas can be used. FREON was great because it was non-flammable and non-toxic. But it is just as easy to use Propane, Butane, Ammonia, CO2, etc. and they are all very cheap.
"So you spend a few million to convince the world that your own product is bad for the 'environment' and then introduce a NEW coolant that (coincidentally) you own the patent for."
This was pushed by the environmentalists - NOT by DuPont.
"Why would you do such a thing? re-read the first sentence- BILLIONS OF DOLLARS~! If others start producing freon after the patent expires your profits would go from billions to a small fraction of that."
Really? And what keeps the other countries from making and using FREON now? Nothing.
"The new, but much more corrosive, product keeps you making BILLIONS."
The new product IS NOT CORROSIVE.
"It doesn't matter if it does not work as good. And people actually die using it. Or that places in africa cannot deliver vaccines that need to be cooled..."
It does work as good. People do not die from using it. In fact, it is one of the more commonly used inhalants for delivering medicine - such as asthma medication.
No, I don't work for the company who's 'patents were about to expire'. I work for their competition making the new refrigerant and we are kicking their but.
If you want to comment on an issue, please get some knowledge on the issue first instead of just spouting complete, utter, rubbish.
Russians do space better.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=409
"We know the foam formulation WAS changed due to enviromental concerns, and that foam shedding worsened after this change." http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/45331main_hcfc5_002.pdf
Billy Jeff Clinton eliminating Freon by fiat. G. Bush needs to revise the order and allow for limited scientific programs...
No more Shuttle tile problems...
As I watched a recent documentary about NASA's billion dollar effort to prevent precisely what happened on this launch, it hit me that virtually EVERYTHING on which NASA was spending that taxpayer money was so the shuttle could return more like a meteor than an airship.
Rutan -- working with far fewer resources than NASA -- recently sent a small ship into space and brought it safely back to earth with a "feather" wing arrangement. His ship reenters the atmosphere floating like a feather until close enough to enable its control surfaces. The benefit? NO HEAT!!
If the shuttle IS retired early and NASA doesn’t put Rutan to work designing the NEXT generation of craft - larger, of course -- heads should roll at NASA.
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.