 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / November 2004Enterprise OV-101 missing OMS pods
Pictures of OV-101 in its newly opened museum show that its OMS pods have been removed sometime in the last year. Anyone know why? Now you seem them: http://imageevent.com/ralf/virginia/airmuseum Now you don't: http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/everydaylife/nasm_enterprise.html > Pictures of OV-101 in its newly opened museum show that its OMS pods > have been removed sometime in the last year. Anyone know why? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now you don't: > http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/everydaylife/nasm_enterprise.html Yeesh. it's too fricken' *clean*. It looks like a Buran mockup like this... > Yeesh. it's too fricken' *clean*. It looks like a Buran mockup like > this... Was there actually any real equipment in Enterprise's OMS pods? Are they scrounging for spares for the 3 remaining operational shuttles? Pat In sci.space.history Scott Lowther <scottlowther@ix.netcomSPAMBLOK.com> wrote: >> Pictures of OV-101 in its newly opened museum show that its OMS pods >> have been removed sometime in the last year. Anyone know why? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Now you don't: >> http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/everydaylife/nasm_enterprise.html Now that you mention it - I have some pictures from June 21 which show a distinct lack of OMS pods. (Also missing bits of RCC on one wing, but that's accounted for). I didn't even notice at the time - must have been paying too much attention to our 11-year-old as he ran off toward the Enola Gay... Bill Keel Isn't the US flag backwards? > Now that you mention it - I have some pictures from June 21 which > show a distinct lack of OMS pods. (Also missing bits of RCC on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bill Keel > Isn't the US flag backwards? They're aligned on either side of the fuselage so that they appear as if the flagpole they are on were at the front of the vehicle and they're streaming back from it in the airstream. Pat ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.space.shuttle.] >> Isn't the US flag backwards? > > They're aligned on either side of the fuselage so that they appear as > if the flagpole they are on were at the front of the vehicle and they're > streaming back from it in the airstream. Snopes, IIRC, has a page on this as it pertains to US military uniforms (the flag being "backwards" on one side)  Signature-Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk >Pictures of OV-101 in its newly opened museum show that its OMS pods >have been removed sometime in the last year. Anyone know why? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Now you don't: >http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/everydaylife/nasm_enterprise.html I don't think that proper OMS pods were ever built for OV-101. Kelly McDonald Allen Newman <anewmanagn@excite.com> wrote in news:anewmanagn- 10B765.19391305112004@news.isp.giganews.com: > Pictures of OV-101 in its newly opened museum show that its OMS pods > have been removed sometime in the last year. Anyone know why? No, but it's interesting that they kept the name on the cargo bay doors instead of moving it to the crew compartment like other shuttles. > Allen Newman <anewmanagn@excite.com> wrote in news:anewmanagn- > 10B765.19391305112004@news.isp.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, but it's interesting that they kept the name on the cargo bay doors > instead of moving it to the crew compartment like other shuttles. It's also interesting that they didn't meatball the shuttle, either. She still has the worm on the cargo bay doors and the pre-Goldin wing markings. >> Allen Newman <anewmanagn@excite.com> wrote in news:anewmanagn- >> 10B765.19391305112004@news.isp.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It's also interesting that they didn't meatball the shuttle, either. She >still has the worm on the cargo bay doors and the pre-Goldin wing markings. She's a "museum piece" that should be preserved as she was as a test article. NASA didn't continually update her markings along with the spacefaring fleet, did it? Dale > >> Allen Newman <anewmanagn@excite.com> wrote in news:anewmanagn- > >> 10B765.19391305112004@news.isp.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Dale If you're saying the marking should have never been changed after the ALTs in the 70s, I agree. Adding the black paint around the windows, mock RCS near the nose, and speed brake to make the orbiter look more like the operationsl shuttle was bogus, in my mind, and it still doesn't looks them. > >> Allen Newman <anewmanagn@excite.com> wrote in news:anewmanagn- > >> 10B765.19391305112004@news.isp.giganews.com: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > NASA didn't continually update her markings along with the spacefaring fleet, > did it? NASA only updated OV-101's markings during the timeframe that she was considered "in service". This also included the timeframe she was used as an ambassador at the Paris Air Show, and as a test article at VAFB in the early to mid-80's. Afterwords, when she was retired, and particularly after she was turn over to NASM, Enterprise wound up being left "as is". There's just no point in upgrading a vehicle that is no longer being used, and is no longer specifically under one's direct ownership, even if the changes are only cosmetic. -Mike Mike wrote: Afterwords, when she was retired, and particularly after she was turn over to NASM, Enterprise wound up being left "as is". There's just no point in upgrading a vehicle that is no longer being used, and is no longer specifically under one's direct ownership, even if the changes are only cosmetic. <<<<<< For way too long, the X-1 at the Smithsonian (before the NASM was built) was left in the paint pattern it had on its last flight. When it was used in the movie "Test Pilot" with John Wayne (a movie Howard Hughes was involved in getting made). One of the wings was painted white, as was the upper tunnel (and maybe continuing to the vertical tail). Before it was moved to the NASM, it was overhauled to regain the appearance it had and was best known as, "Glamorous Glennis" in all-orange. No more silly white paint added for a grade B or grade C movie. So if Enterprise got the same treatment as that, it indeed would go back to how it looked for when it actually flew as a test vehicle (and not how some public affair flack decided to have it made over in the early 80's). Unfortunately, compared to all the other orbiters, that would make it look "wrong". But the way things are going, Udvar-Hazy might nudge Enterprise back into the cold and rain in about 6-7 years to swap for a more historic one.... *Big-F'ing-SIGH* - George Gassaway >So if Enterprise got the same treatment as that, it indeed would go back to how >it looked for when it actually flew as a test vehicle (and not how some public [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >cold and rain in about 6-7 years to swap for a more historic one.... >*Big-F'ing-SIGH* Then again, if they get one of the remaining orbiters, the curators may be moved to restore Enterprise as she appeared during the ALT flights, since she would no longer be playing the role of a "stand-in" for a "real" orbiter. Putting her tailcone on and mounting her on the back of a 747 would make for a very satisfactory display :) Dale On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 00:02:53 -0800, I wrote: >Putting her tailcone on and mounting her on the back of a 747... Sorry- that was a great opening for some dirty song lyrics from Pat. But I refuse to be held responsible, should they be posted :) Dale >Then again, if they get one of the remaining orbiters, the curators may be >moved >to restore Enterprise as she appeared during the ALT flights, since she would >no >longer be playing the role of a "stand-in" for a "real" orbiter. Why should NASM have 2 orbiters? Better send the test article somewhere else. DEFINETELY NOT OUTSIDE!!:( . . End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... > >So if Enterprise got the same treatment as that, it indeed would go back to how > >it looked for when it actually flew as a test vehicle (and not how some public [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >cold and rain in about 6-7 years to swap for a more historic one.... > >*Big-F'ing-SIGH* Given an orbiter that's flown into space, I'd hope that Udvar-Hazy would use that as an opportunity to raise enough money to build yet another hangar, rahter than kick out Enterprise. > Then again, if they get one of the remaining orbiters, the curators may be moved > to restore Enterprise as she appeared during the ALT flights, since she would no > longer be playing the role of a "stand-in" for a "real" orbiter. > > Putting her tailcone on and mounting her on the back of a 747 would make for > a very satisfactory display :) Once the shuttle program is ended and NASA lets the remaining (flight worthy) orbiters available to museums, this would be an excellent thing to do for Enterprise. Of course, the new hangar you'd have to build would be pretty big. Everyone tells me how impressive Pathfinder is out in Huntsville, but calling Pathfinder an "orbiter" is more than a little stretch. At least Enterprise flew (if only subsonic) and landed several times. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. >Then again, if they get one of the remaining orbiters, the curators may be moved >to restore Enterprise as she appeared during the ALT flights, since she would no >longer be playing the role of a "stand-in" for a "real" orbiter. I think they already repainted her back to the ALT appearance. The fake RCS nose markings added in the '80s are gone now. Brian >It's also interesting that they didn't meatball the shuttle, either. She >still has the worm on the cargo bay doors and the pre-Goldin wing markings. As well she should- that is the form of markings she did her drop tests in, so that is the form she should now wear. She's an historic aircraft, and should be preserved in the form she made history in- rather than say making her into a ice-cream stand in Gorky Park. Pat > >It's also interesting that they didn't meatball the shuttle, either. She > >still has the worm on the cargo bay doors and the pre-Goldin wing markings. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > She's an historic aircraft, and should be preserved in the form she made > history in- rather than say making her into a ice-cream stand in Gorky Park. Actually, the markings that Enterprise has on her now are NOT the ones she had during the ALT test flights. In the early 80's, OV-101 was altered to more closely resemble the "production" OVs in TPS pattern, and markings (Columbia's markings being excepted, of course). -Mike >Actually, the markings that Enterprise has on her now are NOT the ones >she had during the ALT test flights. In the early 80's, OV-101 was >altered to more closely resemble the "production" OVs in TPS pattern, >and markings (Columbia's markings being excepted, of course). Now that that has been mentioned, I remember when that was done... at the time I didn't think much about it, but in retrospect it should have been a warning. Columbia was basically being treated as a tourist attraction and propaganda tool rather than a historic item. Which reflected the way the whole Shuttle program was treated by NASA...not as a operational "pick-up-truck-to-orbit", but rather as the "NEW! EXCITING! EXOTIC! SPLENDIFEROUS! SUPER SPACE SHUTTLE! EVERYMAN'S...EXCUSE US...EVERYPERSON'S SPACESHIP!!! AND NOW, MEMBERS OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE SECRET SOCIETY, SET YOUR RINGS TO 'F-4'- REPEAT- 'F-4'- AND GET READY TO DECODE JOHN YOUNG'S SECRET SPACE SHUTTLE MESSAGE TO YOU!!!" Which was one of the big problems with the program. It was the perceived snickering by the news media and embarrassment to NASA of Challenger's multiple scrubbed launch attempts that led to the decision to launch on that cold morning. Pat > Which was one of the big problems with the program. It was the perceived > snickering by the news media and embarrassment to NASA of Challenger's > multiple scrubbed launch attempts that led to the decision to launch on > that cold morning. It's b.s. like this that makes me seriously want to killfile you Pat. You're dangerously close to joining Bob Haller in killfile hell. You might want to do some reading on the decisions that lead up to the launch of Challenger as it's nowhere near as simple as you say. There are many, many reports and articles available. Some are even online: http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/special/challenger/docs/report.html http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/challenger/challtoc.html http://www.open2.net/forensic_engineering/methods/advances/advances_12.htm http://onlineethics.org/edu/ncases/EE18.html http://www.library.ubc.ca/scieng/engineeringfailure/EngFailures.htm http://www.fas.org/spp/51L.html http://slp.icheme.org/incidents.html Read a few of these, you might learn something. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. >>Which was one of the big problems with the program. It was the perceived >>snickering by the news media and embarrassment to NASA of Challenger's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It's b.s. like this that makes me seriously want to killfile you Pat. >You're dangerously close to joining Bob Haller in killfile hell. Jeeze, that would break my heart. "Mini-P, get the spare Chrono-Inverter Grenade ready; after we use the first one to convert Kid Rock into a fertilized egg cell, we use the spare one to get this Findley guy...no...he's not blocking our path to Pamela Anderson like Mr. Rock is...this is different. No, we have his postings...we don't need his Mojo in this case..." >You might want to do some reading on the decisions that lead up to the >launch of Challenger as it's nowhere near as simple as you say. Well, I don't now where you were but I lived through those days, and after all the hype about the President's "teacher-in-space" mission, the news media was noting the continued launch scrubs with some bemusement. Remember a certain pair of comments related to the loss? "My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?" "It's time to take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat." Challenger was supposed to get airborne before the President's State Of The Union Address on the the evening of the 28th (which NASA wrote a paragraph of, by the way), so that the Old Coot would have something to talk about in the best Soviet propaganda-space-launch-on-historic-date tradition. Of course, when the actual launch occurred, the O.C. was too busy to be watching it, and his remark "That's tragic...was that the one with the teacher on board?" rings down through the ages in regards to his insight and interest into the outcome of things that he initiated (remember when he was helping to strengthen the Islamic fundamentalist rebels in Afghanistan? That also worked out well in the long run, didn't it?). He ended up having to talk about that nice teacher he had sacrificed on the Moloch's altar of political gain with a few well-stolen words from the prayer "High Flight" (which used to run on a lot of TV at sign-off around here....just before the static engulfed everything, rather like the O.C.'s addled brainwaves)...proving a master politician- like a corrupt TV evangelist- can turn most anything to their advantage with a disarming look and a well-placed mention of the Almighty. >There are many, many reports and articles available. Some are even online: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Read a few of these, you might learn something. > I've read most of that stuff years ago; I'm just saying that media and political pressure regarding the launch played a part in the decision to launch on that morning despite the cold weather. Why don't you read this article: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04zl.html We did it once; we did it twice; and now we're getting ready to do it a third time. The Shuttle is our very own little Voskhod program. Pat > >>Which was one of the big problems with the program. It was the perceived > >>snickering by the news media and embarrassment to NASA of Challenger's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It's b.s. like this that makes me seriously want to killfile you Pat. > >You're dangerously close to joining Bob Haller in killfile hell. <snip> > I've read most of that stuff years ago; I'm just saying that media and > political pressure regarding the launch played a part in the decision to > launch on that morning despite the cold weather. That's not what you said. > Why don't you read this article: > http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04zl.html > We did it once; we did it twice; and now we're getting ready to do it a > third time. > The Shuttle is our very own little Voskhod program. I read the article. It's clear that the shuttle will never be 100% safe. However, NASA is doing many reasonable things to reduce and mitigate the risk. The foam risk dates back to the very beginnings of the program with foam consistently shedding from the ET during flight. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >That's not what you said. Here's specifically what I said: "Which was one of the big problems with the program. It was the perceived snickering by the news media and embarrassment to NASA of Challenger's* multiple scrubbed launch attempts that led to the decision to launch on that cold morning." * my slip- I should have said "the Shuttles"- but Challenger's 51-L mission had a very convoluted path from original conception to launch pad also, having been postponed 3 times, and had its first launch attempt scrubbed the day before. Both those statements I quoted ("My God, Thiokol, when do you want me to launch, next April?" "It's time to take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat.") indicate that NASA wanted a Shuttle launched that particular morning with no further delays. The STS 61-C mission of Columbia had suffered a total of four straight scrubs (all in the last 10 minutes of countdown) in the month preceding the 51-L launch (2 equipment-related; 2 weather-related), finally getting airborne only on January 12. To have Challenger's 51-L mission scrubbed a second time on account of weather, like Columbia's twice was- especially at the beginning of "Our Biggest Year In Space" as 1986 was being advertised as- would have made the "Space Transportation System" look laughably undependable. Add to that the fact that the president was about to talk about his "teacher in space" program during his State Of The Union Address later the same day, and you've got a tremendous amount of pressure on NASA to kick the tires, light the fires, and get the Shuttle launched that day...not to do so could well involve budget scrutiny in Congress, and not much sympathy from the O.C.- who would have to use a new script at the last moment. >I read the article. It's clear that the shuttle will never be 100% safe. Nothing is, but it's hideously expensive to operate, doesn't do much that advances human knowledge that couldn't be done by unmanned systems, and also isn't safe on top of all of that... and two separate Shuttle accident investigations have told NASA that it isn't safe, and that they should do things to it to make it safer....and NASA basically says "Well, that would take time and money we don't have...and may not even be practical; so we'll just keep doing things the way we have been." >However, NASA is doing many reasonable things to reduce and mitigate the >risk. The foam risk dates back to the very beginnings of the program with >foam consistently shedding from the ET during flight. Which it was not supposed to do- the specs for the ET stated that it was _not_ to shed foam of _any_ size during ascent. I'm keen to see if we lose another one before we quietly ground them. I've got a sneaking hunch it will be fewer that 50 (maybe 25) flights before the next one is lost, due to the aging of the orbiters. Pat >>I read the article. It's clear that the shuttle will never be 100% safe. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >"Well, that would take time and money we don't have...and may not even >be practical; so we'll just keep doing things the way we have been." I was under the impression that NASA is indeed doing "things to make it safer" right now. Not exactly "safe"- like a car ride with Jayne Mansfield, but at least safer, as best as they can do in the current real world. >>However, NASA is doing many reasonable things to reduce and mitigate the >>risk. The foam risk dates back to the very beginnings of the program with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I've got a sneaking hunch it will be fewer that 50 (maybe 25) flights >before the next one is lost, due to the aging of the orbiters. I can't really say I'm "keen" to see if we lose another one. More like very apprehensive. But trying to minimize, if not eliminate, foam shedding, using ISS as a possible safe haven and inspecting (and adding sensors to) the TPS rather than reentering blind strikes me as a reasonable strategy, while also bearing in mind that astronauts are not conscripted- they fly voluntarily and presumably understand all the risks. Dale >>I'm keen to see if we lose another one before we quietly ground them. >>I've got a sneaking hunch it will be fewer that 50 (maybe 25) flights >>before the next one is lost, due to the aging of the orbiters. >> > >I can't really say I'm "keen" to see if we lose another one. With me it's gotten to the point of watching lemmings heading toward the cliff again in their migration. Some will survive, others won't, and you keep wondering why they do it at all...and of course the reason they do it is instinct- they don't use their brains, they just keep doing the same thing that they've always done in the way they've always done it. At least with the Hindenburg everyone figured out that hydrogen-filled passenger airships weren't a good idea, and quit making them...rather than giving the passengers parachutes and making sure they never flew to a place that didn't have a first class fire department handy. >More like very >apprehensive. But trying to minimize, if not eliminate, foam shedding, using >ISS as a possible safe haven and inspecting (and adding sensors to) the >TPS rather than reentering blind strikes me as a reasonable strategy, The CAIB suggested a lot more than NASA did in regards to risk mitigation; orbital repair of TPS damage? "Nope, not feasible, so don't do it." No one said "Nope, not feasible, so ground the Shuttle." And we still haven't had that destructive SSME failure during ascent that the Rogers commission saw as the next likely failure mode. > while >also bearing in mind that astronauts are not conscripted- they fly voluntarily >and presumably understand all the risks. Challenger's crew didn't know about the cold weather/SRB O-ring sealing problem, they simply trusted the higher-ups to watch out for their safety. Their higher-ups simply revised their safety rules to match the current situation, and declared it safe. Colombia's crew was assured on-orbit that that little foam impact on the wing during ascent was nothing to get concerned about. If they had gone out and had a look, they probably would have seen the hole...and although it took NASA a fair amount of time to admit it, there would have been a good chance of launching a rescue flight prior to their supplies and life support running out. Heroically dying on a interplanetary flight to Mars? Yup, probably worth it. Heroically dying on a orbital flight to determine the effects of a few days of weightlessness on rats, silkworms, spiders, carpenter bees, harvester ants, Japanese killfish, tiny worms, roses, moss, bacteria, and slime mold? Well, unless you intend to crew your Mars ship with rats, silkworms, spiders, carpenter bees....or have around $500,000,000 just burning a hole in your wallet....and a deep desire to know the effects of a few days weightlessness on rats, silkworms, spiders, carpenter bees.... :-\ Pat > At least with the Hindenburg everyone figured out that hydrogen-filled > passenger airships weren't a good idea, and quit making them... I do believe things are not quite as simple with regard to the Hindenburg as you make them out to be, Pat. Have a look at the wikipedia.org article to see why. Jan >> At least with the Hindenburg everyone figured out that >> hydrogen-filled passenger airships weren't a good idea, and quit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > as you make them out to be, Pat. Have a look at the wikipedia.org article > to see why. Actually, I could probably check in one of my nine books on Zeppelins and dirigibles (I'm a heliumhead, as LTA fans are known) note how I stated "hydrogen-filled passenger airships"; not "passenger airships"....Hindenburg pretty well killed the concept of using hydrogen for a passenger-carrying dirigible (R-101 didn't help either), as people saw the film of it crashing at Lakehurst, and decided that being incinerated wasn't really part of their travel plans. There is a really good book that goes into what killed the whole concept of air travel via dirigible called "Airshipmen, Businessmen, and Politics, 1890-1940" by Henry Cord Meyer (Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991, ISBN 1-56098-031-1) What really made the whole concept impractical was the need for expensive infrastructure at any aerodrome where they operated from- 1000 foot long hangers for storage and maintenance don't come cheap, and that was what sounded the death knell for them as such structures were needed where ever they took off from and landed at, if there was a possibility of bad weather during their stay. Henry Ford gave serious thought to building passenger dirigibles by the hundreds, but realized that the future belonged to passenger aircraft- not passenger dirigibles- so put the Ford Trimotor into production instead. It had the advantage of being able to operate in primitive conditions with little infrastructure. What kept the construction of dirigibles going was the fact that they were objects of national pride, and therefore good propaganda (at least until they crashed...like the R-101 and Hindenburg), even if they were unwieldy, fragile, expensive to operate, maintenance-intensive, and dangerous to fly in bad weather. Like the Shuttle. Pat (you can download free paper models of the R-100, R-101, and the Vickers Transoceanic Airship here: http://www.currell.net/models/mod_free.htm) > >> At least with the Hindenburg everyone figured out that > >> hydrogen-filled passenger airships weren't a good idea, and quit [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > stated "hydrogen-filled passenger airships"; not "passenger > airships"....Hindenburg pretty well killed the concept of using hydrogen If your books talk about the Hindenburg fire being fed by hydrogen, you might want to invest in more current books. The cellulose and aluminum mixture used to dope the skin is what really burned. There wasn't enough free oxygen available for H combustion, it didn't ignite until it was far above the skin fire, and even then it burned in the ultraviolet and couldn't have been captured by the film of the day. JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** >If your books talk about the Hindenburg fire being fed >by hydrogen, you might want to invest in more current [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the ultraviolet and couldn't have been captured by the >film of the day. Yeah...okay... I'm think that it was Little Gray sabotage in payback for the Nazis backing out of that deal to trade them the Spear Of Destiny in exchange for the antigravity technology used in the BMW "Flugelrad" saucers.... but the baleful influence of the the Tibetan Secret Chiefs and their army of Yetis can't be ruled out either. I'll check up on this with the All Highest's brain next time I fly down to Mount Erebus. The Thule Society says "Hi", and reminds you to be on the lookout for falling Cosmic Ice near the time of Lunar eclipses. Or falling moons, for that matter. ;-) Pat > >If your books talk about the Hindenburg fire being fed > >by hydrogen, you might want to invest in more current [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Pat I'll take some of what you're smoking... On second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea after all. :) JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** >Pat Flanner > >I'll take some of what you're smoking... Not of course till you're used to Dr. Mokele-M'Bembe Jones' fine lines of Mandrake Root tobacco products, or posses the jackal-femur pipe that that should be properly smoked in. UTULU! Pat Rorke's Drift >>I can't really say I'm "keen" to see if we lose another one. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >it is instinct- they don't use their brains, they just keep doing the >same thing that they've always done in the way they've always done it. OK, I can understand stepping back from emotional involvement and being almost amused by the lemmings, and maybe that's a perfectly valid way to prepare yourself for a possible future loss of orbiter and crew, but I prefer to give the people of NASA a bit more credit than that- as emotionally risky as that may be. >The CAIB suggested a lot more than NASA did in regards to risk >mitigation; orbital repair of TPS damage? "Nope, not feasible, so don't >do it." No one said "Nope, not feasible, so ground the Shuttle." My understanding is that while they haven't come up with a fix for the RCC panels, they will have at least some capability to repair other TPS damage. And if they can't fix it, they'll wait at ISS for a better plan. >And we still haven't had that destructive SSME failure during ascent >that the Rogers commission saw as the next likely failure mode. Well, let's hope they don't in the few remaining flights. I'm sure the SSME people are doing everything they can to avoid being the cause of the next disaster. Government employee/contractor does not equal total asswipe, IMO. But perhaps I'm naive. >Challenger's crew didn't know about the cold weather/SRB O-ring sealing >problem, they simply trusted the higher-ups to watch out for their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >have been a good chance of launching a rescue flight prior to their >supplies and life support running out. Yeah, I agree. And I'm haunted by wondering if the CDR and PLT blew off the assurances from the ground that all was AOK, and realized very early into the descent anomalies that they'd bitten the big one. I suspect they at least realized it some time before the last incomplete message to Houston. >Heroically dying on a interplanetary flight to Mars? Yup, probably worth it. >Heroically dying on a orbital flight to determine the effects of a few [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >hole in your wallet....and a deep desire to know the effects of a few >days weightlessness on rats, silkworms, spiders, carpenter bees.... :-\ Can't disagree with that at all. But then again, my butt isn't on the line, so all I can do is wish future shuttle crews the best of luck, and hope they are prepared for whatever awaits them. I think I posted here a month or so after the Columbia tragedy that I would pass on a chance to fly on the shuttle, even for free. That was the result of a pretty rude awakening, so you're kinda preaching to the choir on this :) Dale >OK, I can understand stepping back from emotional involvement and being >almost amused by the lemmings, and maybe that's a perfectly valid way >to prepare yourself for a possible future loss of orbiter and crew, but I prefer >to give the people of NASA a bit more credit than that- as emotionally risky as >that may be. The whole program has a life of its own, just like the ISS. Everyone knows that its not what it was intended to be, but a combination of pride- and more importantly, lots of jobs and billions of dollars being involved in keeping it flying- keeps it happily moving along no matter how much it costs and how little it does. The thing is a public works project for the aerospace industry. (snip) >Yeah, I agree. And I'm haunted by wondering if the CDR and PLT blew >off the assurances from the ground that all was AOK, and realized very early >into the descent anomalies that they'd bitten the big one. I suspect they >at least realized it some time before the last incomplete message to Houston. They were looking at damage scenarios before reentry according to those internal e-mails that were discussing that they might want to figure out what to do if the port landing gear didn't come down on approach, due to reentry damage. I think that anyone who saw that video of the amount of debris that came off the the bottom of the wing after the foam impact would have a pretty hard time talking themselves into the idea that something pretty serious hadn't happened. Pat > With me it's gotten to the point of watching lemmings heading toward the > cliff again in their migration. Some will survive, others won't, and you > keep wondering why they do it at all...and of course the reason they do > it is instinct- they don't use their brains, they just keep doing the > same thing that they've always done in the way they've always done it. When you compare the shuttle program with lemmings, you sound like a kook to me. > At least with the Hindenburg everyone figured out that hydrogen-filled > passenger airships weren't a good idea, and quit making them...rather > than giving the passengers parachutes and making sure they never flew to > a place that didn't have a first class fire department handy. Actually, hydrogen filled passenger airships aren't such a bad idea, depending on what materials you use to make the gas bags, structure, outer covering, and etc. The coating on the outer fabric of the Hinderberg has been compared to solid rocket fuel, due to its composition. That wasn't a smart thing to do. Even if your airship is filled with helium, it's not a good thing to have a highly flammable outer coating. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. >When you compare the shuttle program with lemmings, you sound like a kook to >me. Did I ever mention the effect that the HAARP project is having on lemming behaivor? The little bastards are coming out of the sea and trying to scale cliffs now! :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >depending on what materials you use to make the gas bags, structure, outer >covering, and etc. Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case....would you like to fill the airship up with something that burns really well and will make the pasengers scream and die horribly, or something with a little less lift that will put fires out and make the passengers talk funny and die laughing? > The coating on the outer fabric of the Hinderberg has >been compared to solid rocket fuel, due to its composition. That wasn't a >smart thing to do. Oh God, no- that one dorky bit of propagandistic pseudoscience from The Hydrogen Institute hangs around forever, doesn't it? The fabric DOESN'T explode! There is NO Loch Ness Monster! They are NEVER going to discover a race of three-foot-high people! Okay, two out of three ain't bad. > Even if your airship is filled with helium, it's not a >good thing to have a highly flammable outer coating. The coating burns...but it wasn't highly flammable or explosive... the scene in the show where the guy starts it on fire with an electric arc is really impressive- if you don't know much about electric arcs. I've burned holes in aluminum foil and melted lead with electric arcs; the air is heated to very high temperatures in the region of the arc, and anything combustable that comes in contact with it is going to burn. His recreated Hindenburg envelope sample burned less well than a sheet of paper would- the rubber content slowed down the rate of combustion, and the aluminum powder in the coating didn't seem to make any differance at all. I discussed this in detail before: A man who shall remain nameless (but whose initals are A.L.) wrote: >Well, one thing that I'll add to this matter, was brought to my attention >by a viewing of a recent documentary on the loss of the Hindenburg. In [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >causeds and fueled the fire, with the hydrogen only coming into play >once the gas bags were penetrated. OH GOD! Not that again! Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine bought that load of hogwash too... if you look at his tests, he shoots a high voltage Jacob's Ladder electrical arc through it, and the stuff barely burns... I've melted metal with a Jacob's Ladder discharge- it's like sticking it in front of a Bernz-O-Matic torch as far as heat generated goes- the guy is an employee of The Hydrogen Institute, who are trying to convince everyone that hydrogen is nice and benign so they can get wider use of it. Hindenburg is their main public relations obstacle to achieving this end. Here is what in all probability happened: 1.) At some point before landing at Lakehurst, Hindenburg suffered a rip in one of it's rearmost gas bags; bag #4, probably from a snapping guy wire. 2.) The hydrogen began filling the back of the hull, and then began escaping through the gas vent just in front of the upper fin. 3.) This made the airship tail heavy as it came in to land; which is why Captain Pruss jettisoned water ballast astern to level the ship. 4.) As the landing lines hit the ground, people started noticing what they thought was bluish St. Elmo's fire in front of the top fin...this wasn't St. Elmo's fire, which would be hard to see in daylight- it was burning hydrogen which was escaping from the top vent; ignited by an electrostatic discharge from the upper hull as the landing lines grounded the airship. 5.) Inside the airship, there was now an air/hydrogen mixture inside the upper hull. 6.) At some point shortly after the escaping hydrogen ignited above the airship, the fire propagated down to the upper hull and burnt through the covering fabric at some point. 7.) Burning fabric fell into the hull, and as it descended past the ruptured gas cell, reached the area of air/hydrogen mixing 8.) This resulted in a huge fuel/air explosion that almost instantaneously destroyed the back 300 feet of the airship while shaking up the flight crew in the control car. 9.) The blast was propagated down the axial walkway nearly all the way to the bow, starting the ignition of of the forward gas cells from the ship's center outward. Look at this photo: http://www.nlhs.com/images/hindenburg/big_hindenburg_explodes_over_lakehurst.jpg ...and notice how the height of the flames is almost even from the stern to halfway down the hull- the reason it's at the same height is that the explosion has just occurred in the back third of the Hindenburg and the fire is rising at the same speed- also notice that the blast is so violent that is blasting fire _downwards_ past the lower tail fin. In this photo: http://www.yale.edu/yale300/democracy/may1text/images/Hindenburg.jpg ....the mass of exploding hydrogen has had time to rise, yet the fire still hasn't begun to work it's way down the hull much Finally, in this photo: http://er1.org/docs/photos/Disaster/Hindenburg%2001.jpg The airship's stern has crashed, and the tongue of flame that was driven down the axial walkway has begun to exit the nose- yet, the dread "High explosive fabric" is still largely intact on the forward half of the airship- so how exactly did the fire get to the nose? Pat > Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case....would you like to fill the > airship up with something that burns really well and will make the > pasengers scream and die horribly, or something with a little less lift > that will put fires out and make the passengers talk funny and die laughing? Actually, Helium gives slightly more lift than Hydrogen. Although the atomic weight of helium is twice that of the molecular weight of Hydrogen (since the Hydrogen bonds with itself to form molecules of two Hydrogens), Helium is very nearly a perfect gas, and Hydrogen is about as far from it as a gas gets. >> ...or something with a little less lift that will put >> fires out and make the passengers talk funny and die laughing? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >is very nearly a perfect gas, and Hydrogen is about as far from it as a gas >gets. An interesting theory, but it's the work of a second with a reference book to discover that the density of hydrogen is 0.0899 kg/m^3 and of helium is 0.179 kg/m^3 (both at S.T.P.). That is, the densities *are* almost exactly in the ratio of the molecular weights, perfect gas or not. The relevant number for lift, of course, is the density of ambient air minus the density of the lift gas. At S.T.P. air is 1.2928 kg/m^3, so hydrogen lift is 1.2029 kg/m^3, and helium lift is 1.1138 kg/m^3 -- that is, slightly greater for hydrogen, as originally stated. (Lift properly ought to be stated in N/m^3... but in fact it is independent of the local gravitational field, so stating it in kg/m^3 is defensible.) Signature"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | henry@spsystems.net > >> ...or something with a little less lift that will put > >> fires out and make the passengers talk funny and die laughing? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 0.179 kg/m^3 (both at S.T.P.). That is, the densities *are* almost > exactly in the ratio of the molecular weights, perfect gas or not. Quite correct as usual. I was remembering something I had read quite a long time ago, and I probably got it wrong. I will send you a (virtual) "I corrected Ami" helium filled balloon animal... :) >> >> >Quite correct as usual. I was remembering something I had read quite a long >time ago, and I probably got it wrong. I will send you a (virtual) "I >corrected Ami" helium filled balloon animal... :) Helium has the unusual characteristic of high thermal conductivity; take a helium-filled balloon outside in subzero weather sometime, and watch how fast it starts shrinking. Pat >The airship's stern has crashed, and the tongue of flame that was driven >down the axial walkway has begun to exit the nose- yet, the dread "High >explosive fabric" is still largely intact on the forward half of the >airship- so how exactly did the fire get to the nose? It's pretty sad when you dis a theory without seeming to understand a single word of it... D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >It's pretty sad when you dis a theory without seeming to understand a >single word of it... Well jeeze, Derek, I read the article in Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine, and saw the television show about it...I can understand where the TV show was coming from, as around 75% of what's on television is B.S. anyway, but how the Smithsonian got suckered into this is beyond me. Yes, the fabric of the Hindenburg was combustible; pretty much any fabric on the aircraft of the time was (the W.W. I DH-4 got the nickname "The Flying Coffin" because the dope used on its fabric was very flammable after it dried, causing the aircraft to burn readily when damaged in combat) but the fabric wasn't anywhere near solid rocket fuel in combustibility as the author of the theory stated; his own tests on the TV program show it burning at about the same rate as any rubberized fabric would. If you want to talk about a static discharge from the differential electrostatic fields of various sections of the dirigible's skin being the ignition source for the leaking hydrogen as the landing lines grounded the airship, sure, that's a very reasonable conclusion to reach... there's a four minute time lag between the first landing lines hitting the ground and the fire starting, but it may not have grounded immediately. But if you're saying that the fire being seen in this photo: http://er1.org/docs/photos/Disaster/Hindenburg%2001.jpg Is due to burning fabric, then that's crazy. The Hydrogen Institute knows that a lot of people think Hydrogen = Hindenburg, and wants to get the Lakehurst curse off of the stuff so that people will trust it in day-to-day use...but fabricating (pun intended) a theory that the Hindenburg didn't suffer a hydrogen fire but was somehow incinerated from the outside-in due to a high-explosive fabric covering is complete hogwash. Any dirigible crew knew that while hydrogen in it's pure form was combustible, but not explosive, hydrogen in a gas cell that had been contaminated with air (this was called a "sweet" gas cell) was extraordinarily dangerous, as it had the potential of being a fuel/air explosive if it encountered an ignition source- the gas mixture wouldn't ignite- it would explode. The airship was 1000 kg tail-heavy as it approached to land, and even jettisoning a total of 1,100 kg of water ballast couldn't get the airship on a even keel- the obvious reason for the tail-heaviness would be that the dirigible was losing hydrogen from one or more of its aft gas cells. The reports of two of the surviving crew members who were in the stern of the airship when the fire started are at direct odds with the burning fabric theory. Helmut Lau heard a muffled detonation that reminded him of someone lighting the burner of a gas stove, and looked up from his position on the lower catwalk that was located along the port side of the lower fin; he saw that Gas Cell No. 4 was being lit up from inside somewhere above and beyond his line of sight. Rudolph Sauter thought that the fire originated somewhere near the axial catwalk that led from the stern to the nose of the ship along its centerline. In a matter of seconds the fire grew into a huge blaze that caused gas cell No. 4 to completely disintegrate into a mass of flames, and then spread rapidly both forwards and backwards. As to what the ignition source was for the hydrogen...we'll probably never know, St. Elmo's Fire, sabotage, a snapping magnesium rigging wire generating a spark, or static discharge of some sort....but what the photos of the crash show is primarily and plainly burning hydrogen, not burning fabric. Pat >But if you're saying that the fire being seen in this photo: >http://er1.org/docs/photos/Disaster/Hindenburg%2001.jpg >Is due to burning fabric, then that's crazy. Hmm... I see a fire typical of a burning solid, not the fire of a venting and burning (and lighter-than-air) gas which is very visible in the earlier photographs of the sequence. So it's crazy to not deny the evidence of one's own eyes? >but what the photos of the crash show is primarily and plainly >burning hydrogen, not burning fabric. Not to those with eyes to see. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Not to those with eyes to see. And from the back of the bar came the words "If ya got burnin' gas, it's probably from them damn pickled eggs- they get me the same way..." :-) Pat > >>but what the photos of the crash show is primarily and plainly > >>burning hydrogen, not burning fabric. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And from the back of the bar came the words "If ya got burnin' gas, it's > probably from them damn pickled eggs- they get me the same way..." :-) My husband was just telling me about a guy who lived in the same dorm at Iowa State and had a habit of setting his farts on fire. The guy got some back flash on the last one he's known to have lit off and ended up in the hospital for quite some time (and sitting carefully for much longer). Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >My husband was just telling me about a guy who lived in the same dorm >at Iowa State and had a habit of setting his farts on fire. The guy >got some back flash on the last one he's known to have lit off and >ended up in the hospital for quite some time (and sitting carefully >for much longer). I saw a "Lit-Off Bomber" migrate back into a guy's pants (he did this with his pants in the up position) and set fire to his pubic hair in shop class around 1974....one of the highlights of my high school education. Another student could open his mouth and shoot twin streams of spit out of his salivary glands to a distance of three or four feet. Yes, our class was like something you would find in an X-Men wannabe school. Magneto: "What's your _real_ name, Bob?" Bob: "Spito" Magneto: "You are a maniac among morons, Spito." (Hands him back his spittoon.) :-) Pat > With me it's gotten to the point of watching lemmings heading toward the > cliff again in their migration. Just in case anyone still thinks lemmings jump off cliffs on purpose: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C1074699%2C00.html >> With me it's gotten to the point of watching lemmings heading toward >> the cliff again in their migration. > > Just in case anyone still thinks lemmings jump off cliffs on purpose: > http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0%2C3604%2C1074699%2C00.html Nope, they just get accidentally pushed off cliffs during mass migrations by their fellow lemmings. Still, ranks right up there with Ostriches with their heads in the ground as an allegory. Pat > Nope, they just get accidentally pushed off cliffs during mass > migrations by their fellow lemmings. Or helpful Disney production assistants. Wait, is there a difference? ;-) >I've got a sneaking hunch it will be fewer that 50 (maybe 25) flights >before the next one is lost, due to the aging of the orbiters. BTW, is there yet any solid number anywhere as to the number of flights needed to complete the ISS? I saw 28 mentioned someplace, but I don't recall where. I don't think anybody is contemplating 50 more flights... Dale The crew of that last flight should get their pictures on a postage stamp the day after their safe return. Part of the USPS's "Men and Women with Balls" series :) >BTW, is there yet any solid number anywhere as to the number of flights >needed to complete the ISS? I saw 28 mentioned someplace, but I don't >recall where. I don't think anybody is contemplating 50 more flights... > >Dale Russia offered to launch all but 3 of the modules on expendables. the cupola is one of those they cant take, too big and heavy. so a half dozen flights could finish it. 3 modules and 3 general supply flights. of course nasa wouldnt like this. it ends the flights fast. they would rather roll the dice with peoples lives to save jobs:( . . End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... > >BTW, is there yet any solid number anywhere as to the number of flights > >needed to complete the ISS? I saw 28 mentioned someplace, but I don't > >recall where. I don't think anybody is contemplating 50 more flights... > > > >Dale It seems that my killfile on Haller has expired and I can once again see his posts. Before I re-PLONK! him, I just make some quick reponses to his ignorant babbling... > Russia offered to launch all but 3 of the modules on expendables. the cupola is > one of those they cant take, too big and heavy. Hello? The Russians had better have a damn powerful new expendable launcher, if they want to even have a hope of lifting the remaining large modules. They also are going to need a decent-sized space tug to move said modules from from the initial orbit to ISS, and the modules will have to have the CBM ports replaced with something like APAS or the probe & drouge docking mechanisms, which will in turn cost quite an additional sum for the conversion. None of this is either cheap, nor inexpensive. The modules themselves will also have to be structurally recertified for the launch loads as well, probably also driving the costs and the weight even higher. > so a half dozen flights could finish it. 3 modules and 3 general supply > flights. > > of course nasa wouldnt like this. it ends the flights fast. they would rather > roll the dice with peoples lives to save jobs:( It wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Assuming it were only a matter of up-lift capability, the modules would still need a considerable amount of outfitting done on-orbit, preferably using the logistics modules since they are the only thing can be used to deliver the critical ISPER racks through the CBM ports. Given that the modules have to go up nearly empty for a Proton rocket to even lift them, and still have room left over for a viable large tug to get the module to ISS, it will actually take as many flights, or more to outfit them. But that little matter probably never occured to your addled brain. And so once again... PLONK! -Mike >BTW, is there yet any solid number anywhere as to the number of flights >needed to complete the ISS? I saw 28 mentioned someplace, but I don't >recall where. I don't think anybody is contemplating 50 more flights... It varies depending on what they consider "completed" as..."completed" seems to always be getting smaller. >The crew of that last flight should get their pictures on a postage stamp >the day after their safe return. Part of the USPS's "Men and Women with >Balls" series :) I want to see the "Space Slime Mold With Balls" stamp...how would you like to lick the back of that thing? Maybe they could use this as the stamp image: http://www.horror-wood.com/slime.12.jpg Pat >I want to see the "Space Slime Mold With Balls" stamp...how would you >like to lick the back of that thing? Hopefully, that will be one of them newfangled "self adhesive" stamps :) Dale > Which it was not supposed to do- the specs for the ET stated that it was > _not_ to shed foam of _any_ size during ascent. > I'm keen to see if we lose another one before we quietly ground them. > I've got a sneaking hunch it will be fewer that 50 (maybe 25) flights > before the next one is lost, due to the aging of the orbiters. Absolutely true. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that all foam shedding can be eliminated. So, we're left with a choice. Do everything reasonable to reduce and mitigate the risk and keep flying, or stop flying. That choice has already been made. One could argue that the decision to keep flying was influenced more by politics than engineering, but the engineering does seem to be doing an adequate job of managing the risks. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. > > Which was one of the big problems with the program. It was the perceived > > snickering by the news media and embarrassment to NASA of Challenger's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You might want to do some reading on the decisions that lead up to the > launch of Challenger as it's nowhere near as simple as you say. The White House said at the time that they hadn't put any pressure on NASA to get the launch off and I'm inclined to believe them. However, that wouldn't have kept NASA from putting pressure on themselves. Couple the normal desire to launch an already-delayed flight with the State of the Union address and you're bound to get some internal pressure to go. It might not have been formal, but it was surely there. I've seen it at Dryden. I've even been involved, although I did end up calling the flight off. It took hours to get to that point, though. Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer miliff@qnet.com >The White House said at the time that they hadn't put any pressure on >NASA to get the launch off and I'm inclined to believe them. That, Ms. Shafer.. makes an individual vote of one for that particular hypothesis. ;-) Pat > >The White House said at the time that they hadn't put any pressure on > >NASA to get the launch off and I'm inclined to believe them. > > That, Ms. Shafer.. makes an individual vote of one for that particular > hypothesis. ;-) And if true, is just one small piece in a very large puzzle. You simply can't point to one single cause for Challenger or Columbia. Like most disasters, the causes are not singular but are many related events tied into a complex web of causality. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. > The White House said at the time that they hadn't put any pressure on > NASA to get the launch off and I'm inclined to believe them. However, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pressure to go. It might not have been formal, but it was surely > there. There's a line from the Watergate investigation along the same lines, "So Mr X, who ordered the cover-up?" "Nobody ever suggested there *wouldn't* be a cover-up" Anthony >There's a line from the Watergate investigation along the same lines, > >"So Mr X, who ordered the cover-up?" > >"Nobody ever suggested there *wouldn't* be a cover-up" "Plausible deniability." Pat >>There's a line from the Watergate investigation along the same lines, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pat "But I love Dick!" "Yes, but you can't let Dick rule your life." >"But I love Dick!" >"Yes, but you can't let Dick rule your life." That was a hilarious movie. I spotted one about Napoleon recently called "The Emperor's New Clothes" that was also a ball. Pat > Which was one of the big problems with the program. It was the perceived > snickering by the news media and embarrassment to NASA of Challenger's > multiple scrubbed launch attempts that led to the decision to launch on > that cold morning. Sorry, Pat. But you're smoking the same crack that Bob Haller is, if you actually think that was the actual cause of the decision to fly STS-51L. Schedule pressure was only a small part of the reason, but was not THE main driver. Other people have commented on this to you, so I'll just save bandwidth here by not going into details. -Mike > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >you actually think that was the actual cause of the decision to fly >STS-51L. So the fact that the President was going to give his State Of The Union Speech on the night the Shuttle carried his "teacher in space" into orbit after the scrub the day before was purely coincidental...and the total of four scrubs on the last Shuttle flight, and the first scrub on 51-L played no part in NASA's decision to launch? Yeah. right. :-D > Schedule pressure was only a small part of the reason, but >was not THE main driver. What, pray tell, was the main driver then? >Other people have commented on this to you, so I'll just save >bandwidth here by not going into details. Nice way out. It certainly has brevity on its side, doesn't it? Pat >Sorry, Pat. But you're smoking the same crack that Bob Haller is, if >you actually think that was the actual cause of the decision to fly >STS-51L. Schedule pressure was only a small part of the reason, but >was not THE main driver. Well I have NEVER used illegal drugs, and frankly dont like presciption ones either. Schedule pressure, sloppy management and I dont care attitude all contribuited to both losses. RTF today has EVERYTHING to do with jobs jobs jobs...... . . End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... The OMS pods were there when I visited Udvar-Hazy two months ago. Perhaps NASA repossesed them for use in cross-country orbiter ferry flights. Matthew Ota > Pictures of OV-101 in its newly opened museum show that its OMS pods > have been removed sometime in the last year. Anyone know why? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now you don't: > http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/everydaylife/nasm_enterprise.html > The OMS pods were there when I visited Udvar-Hazy two months ago. You sure? The definitely weren't there when I visited on 23 Aug: http://www.giantspliff.org/space/enterprise.jpg SignatureRichard W Kaszeta rich@kaszeta.org http://www.kaszeta.org/rich >Pictures of OV-101 in its newly opened museum show that its OMS pods >have been removed sometime in the last year. Anyone know why? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Now you don't: >http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/everydaylife/nasm_enterprise.html How can you trust a place that would call a Talos a cruise missile? D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >Enterprise OV-101 missing OMS pods NASA in searchong for spare parts has been reclaiming pieces from miseums nationwide... . . End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts.... >How can you trust a place that would call a Talos a cruise missile? Talos could be used in a surface-to-surface mode as well as its primary surface-to-air mode, and was jet (ramjet) powered. It also was capable of carrying the W-30 nuclear warhead of 5 KT yield for attacks on ships or large formations of aircraft. So yes, you might be able to refer to it as a sort of cruise missile....although that would be a bit misleading in regards to its primary function. In actual wartime service, its main operational use was as a ship launched long range anti-radiation missile for attacks on North Vietnamese radar sites: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~buzznau/bmblbee.html Pat > Pictures of OV-101 in its newly opened museum show that its OMS pods > have been removed sometime in the last year. Anyone know why? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now you don't: > http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/everydaylife/nasm_enterprise.html The museum workers removed them to work on them. They will be reattached. Donald |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.