NASA: Shuttle Temperature Rose Suddenly

Yahoo News ^ | 2/2/03 | Paul Recer - AP

[_Jim]

Dittemore is out of his league.

Looking for a compforting song and dance eh?

Or is it that you want to be lied to *nicely*?

I would guess that your time in retail sales just hasn't properly readied you for the world of the engineer and his totally concrete thought processes ...

[_Jim]

That being said, from my amateurish take on the situation, couldn't this vehicle have been designed better?

Sure ... break out the Lego or Tinker Toy set and have a crack at it ...

Most people have difficulty changing their car's oil or installing a relatively simple CD player (and FORGET upgrading their PC!) -

- yet, they think the space shuttle can be radically redesigned in favor of safety with no performance or payload carrying penalty!

THAT amazes me ...

[_Jim]

LOL!

[VRWC For Truth]

If you bothered to read my posts on this thread, then maybe you'd get the gist.

[_Jim]

Artifact.

And they were showing *clean*, continuous video of that here in the Dallas area ...

Professional TV photogs like John Pronk who *shot* that video for WFAA CH 8 here in Dallas know when they have an image out-of-focus - why do you think it clears up so damn fast?

[No Truce With Kings]

"I know, but inclination changes can be made with thrust."

As I recall, the deltaV for an inclination change is the sine of the angle times the velocity. To do a 1 deg plane change would take about 450 ft/sec delta-V. The Orbiter was in a 38 deg inclination orbit (I think). ISS is in a 50 something degree orbit. You do the math.

[Will_Zurmacht]

I am not saying that I could do it...I thought that I made it pretty clear from my self deprecating remarks that I have the utmost respect for the true engineers and was just curious about the design.

Your flippant response amazes me.

I pray that you are not an engineer or scientist. If you are, God help us all........

[NormsRevenge]

The challenge in here is not to believe the "experts", it is to disprove them. The problem here is, a lot of folks in here are dead nuts on as they do know their stuff. I struggle to keep up with a lot of folks in here so don;t feel alone.

The key benefits of the shuttle design was its ability to deliver a good sized payload and or crew into orbit and then be able to re-use the vehicle.

Unfortunately, it hasn;t performed like a PeterBilt or Mack truck, tho it has been a workhorse for a lot of years. But we do need a new approach and better vehicles if we ever hope to travel further out into the solar system.

[Resolute]

Some folks are having a problem believing it could have damaged anything, I mean it was foam , right?

Here's a link to a NASA report that acknowledges that insulation probably damaged thermal times during ascent for STS-87:

. . . significant damage to the tiles (STS-87) . . .

[No Truce With Kings]

"If you bothered to read my posts on this thread, then maybe you'd get the gist."

I did. High on rhetoric and emotion. Low on fact. Someone is out of their league, but I doubt it is Mr. Dittemore.

Again, please list the bases for your statement. FACTS, not blather.

[hole_n_one]

You've completely captivated me with your intelligent, articulate and insightful posts.

[Lael]

I mean it was foam , right?

It was foam...PLUS ICE!!!

That was disclosed by some reporters who had been clued in by a "Whistleblower" on background. In other words, it is NO ACCIDENT that both "happened" in January in bitter cold. Challenger, it was O-Rings.

Columbia it was ICE that formed around the top of the Liquid Hydrogen insulating foam that literally RIPPED the insulating foam off at maximum Acceleration.

Later reports didn't mention the ICE, only foam.

Kinda like the way the "take" on OKC changed over time.

[HighWheeler]

"You have to opt for an RTLS or a TAL almost immediately after liftoff. Four minutes into the mission and you lose RTLS."

(Besides being such an obnoxious person), You are wrong on both counts.

From the NASA press kit:

-------------

Return to Launch Site

The RTLS abort mode is designed to allow the return of the orbiter, crew, and payload to the launch site, Kennedy Space Center, approximately 25 minutes after lift-off.

The RTLS profile is designed to accommodate the loss of thrust from one space shuttle main engine between lift-off and approximately four minutes 20 seconds, at which time not enough main propulsion system propellant remains to return to the launch site.

An RTLS can be considered to consist of three stages-a powered stage, during which the space shuttle main engines are still thrusting; an ET separation phase; and the glide phase, during which the orbiter glides to a landing at the Kennedy Space Center. The powered RTLS phase begins with the crew selection of the RTLS abort, which is done after solid rocket booster separation. The crew selects the abort mode by positioning the abort rotary switch to RTLS and depressing the abort push button. The time at which the RTLS is selected depends on the reason for the abort. For example, a three-engine RTLS is selected at the last moment, approximately three minutes 34 seconds into the mission; whereas an RTLS chosen due to an engine out at lift-off is selected at the earliest time, approximately two minutes 20 seconds into the mission (after solid rocket booster separation).

------------------

so your rude statement to me: "I suggest you come back to this discussion when you can make informed recommendations,..." has a particular delicious karma to it.

I love it when such a pompous ass is delivered his due.

[_Jim]

Don't you think the best minds possessing BS, MS and PhD degrees have beat this design nearly to death to perfect it?

Do you think the space shuttle design was just the result of a senior class project handed out by an overly-driven teaching assitant?

Holey Moses man!

What did you expect me to say?

[Will_Zurmacht]

I am just an average joe with a passing interest in space. I was born after the last man walked on the moon, so for a lot younger folks, space shuttles "seem" routine, though events like this weekend remind us that they are not. For many, it appears to be no different than a flight to London, as odd as that sounds

As a normal citizen, and no scientist, I occasionally pick up a book or two on space, just for the interest of it. We normal folks pick up books with "Mars Direct" missions and think "Why not?"

Then I read that every time we launch a shuttle we are essentially rolling dice. So for a simpleton like myself, the question is " If we have a hard time managing this, how will we ever get to Mars?"

But once again, I am just a simpleton who would like the see the first man on Mars wearing an American Flag on his arm.......

[No Truce With Kings]

"Your flippant response amazes me.

I pray that you are not an engineer or scientist. If you are, God help us all........"

My bet is that there are quite a few engineers on this thread whose patience is wearing thin. I know mine is. Not really from a comment like yours, but from those determined to see conspiracy and coverup in all of NASA activities.

The real problem with your question is that it hits a raw spot for anyone that has worked for NASA, because the answer is yes, we *could* have designed it better. We could have come up with better systems and a more robust platform -- if we had the money to do so.

The Shuttle is a compromise, a kludge. We were asked to deliver a quart in a pint pot, and all we got in was a pint-and-a-half. There are lots of things we could have built better, that we argued for, pleaded to get, but didn't. Instead we got what we got. And it irks us. But it was the best that we can do with the time and money allocated.

So when someone asks us couldn't we have designed it better? It's pulling a scab off all the old scars we accumulated trying to do just that.

[TheDon]

I'm saying your analogy does not apply to the situation being discussed.

[NormsRevenge]

Your point is well taken. The shuttle wasn't built by DUmmies.. I remember the first launch and landing. A lot of folks were sure it would fall like a rock from the sky.. And it did.. but it fell gracefully.. and landed like a bird.

Can we do better? Sure. Show our engineers the money and we can do it better, safer and cheaper. That's if space exploration is made a priority again, and not just a hobby for some politicians.

[mikegi]

You don't need to slam people in the future about the "Shuttle Sideways" issue, simply point them to my site: www.gibsonridgesoftware.com/shuttle/shuttle.htm. I've updated it to include an image I produced tonight with my own camcorder. It verifies FreedomCalls' explanation of zoom, out of focus, and aperture combining to produce an image which can look like a rear view of the shuttle.

I wish I'd kept my original interpretation to myself. If I did, I wouldn't feel like such a fool and I'd have those 2GB's of data transfer back (I only have 3GB DT/month included in my hosting account!).

[_Jim]

How so?

You slight NASA on so little real, actual undertsnding of the risks versus benefits -

- yet you will drive a car in unknown condition?

Who's loonier now - NASA or ???

At least NASA has done actual risk analysis ...