 |
 | 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 / August 2006Hale expects shuttle launch at end of september...
... and a night launch, to boot! >... and a night launch, to boot! Very interesting.....doesn't that violate a rule or three?? ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 >>... and a night launch, to boot! > Very interesting.....doesn't that violate a rule or three?? No. Daylight launch was and is a guideline; it was not a CAIB recommendation and in fact the CAIB recommendation for ascent photography was carefully worded so as not to require it.  SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >>>... and a night launch, to boot! >> Very interesting.....doesn't that violate a rule or three?? > > No. Daylight launch was and is a guideline; it was not a CAIB > recommendation and in fact the CAIB recommendation for ascent photography > was carefully worded so as not to require it. But it is a really good idea while they're still working out the foam problems. They could have some potentially catastrophic failure occur, make it to Orbit and never even know it occurred. Like the cable tray being overloaded, bending but not breaking. Then launching again with the same problem because it went unnoticed. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com >>... and a night launch, to boot! >Very interesting.....doesn't that violate a rule or three? The last I heard, the launch in December is scheduled for nighttime. >>>... and a night launch, to boot! >>Very interesting.....doesn't that violate a rule or three? > > The last I heard, the launch in December is scheduled for nighttime. That's correct. STS-115 is the last flight to use the day launch guideline. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. > >>>... and a night launch, to boot! > >>Very interesting.....doesn't that violate a rule or three? > > > > The last I heard, the launch in December is scheduled for nighttime. > > That's correct. STS-115 is the last flight to use the day launch guideline. That being based on the assumption that the STS-115 ET performs at least as well as the STS-121 one. -Mike >> That being based on the assumption that the STS-115 ET performs at > least as well as the STS-121 one. In a scenario where the ET sheds lots of foam, but none of it impacts the orbiter itself, wouldn't there be some pressure for NASA to downplay the shedding and claim success so that it would allow much greater flexibility in launch schedules from now on ? Or is the transparancy now such that it would be impossible to hide/downplay any foam shedding even if it didn't cause any damage ? >>> That being based on the assumption that the STS-115 ET performs at >> least as well as the STS-121 one. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Or is the transparancy now such that it would be impossible to > hide/downplay any foam shedding even if it didn't cause any damage ? I think we've already seen the scenario your talking about here with STS-114, too many cameras (transparency) to hide/downplay the loss of large pieces of foam. And the delay to fix it before STS-121. Essentially, this is the Columbia Disaster scenario too. Large chunk of foam missing the Orbiter, downplay or ignored as not a problem. Then the Columbia impact, and NASA management doing parametric studies of the type that should have been prior to flight. Really justifying their decision to launch Columbia, post facto and during the flight instead of actually assessing the damage. A case of management covering their ... prior to the Disaster and during the flight. You can see this in the minutes of the MMT when the chair of the MMT talks about the lousy rational used to clear the prior loss of foam. Also, the MMT minutes about pulling together a parametric study that ended up being the Boeing Study. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com |
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.