Space Forum / Shuttle / July 2005

If they(?) saw the foam nearly miss were there attempts to abort the
mission?
(H. Knight/ M. Chapman)
Producer: Trevor Horn

Why is the space shuttle, all of a sudden, after so many successful flights,  
suddenly unfit for service ?
Is it obsolete, un-economical, or just plain neglected like many of our senior citizens ?
If so, why is NASA risking seven lives on it ?

can anyone tell me over what region of the Earth was the Shuttle when
it was going through its backflip

Talk about launching Atlantis on a hypothetical rescue mission apparently
assumes its launch would go flawlessly, with none of the problems that
plagued the Shuttle crew its going up to rescue.
And if *it* got crippled on asecent, then what? With two unlandable Shuttles

   This statement from the Spaceflightnow story puzzles me
    Two WB-57 jet aircraft, flying to either side of the shuttle's
    ground track at an altitude of 60,000 feet, used nose-cone mounted
    telescopes and high-definition TV cameras to monitor the shuttle

Is there another rocket presently in production that could carry a shuttle
into orbit? Energia and Saturn V probably could IIRC, but are no longer in
production. Even if not, surely it wouldn't take long to build a new
launcher, either based on the old Saturn V specs, or completely ...

I think the decision is the correct one and illustrates the right approach.
In the past NASA has done things like CRATER analysis and basically said,
"ok, nothing hit the shuttle, we're safe."
Or rather, "something happened, but we dodged the bullet."

Assuming there is no need for STS-300, is it safe to assume Atlantis
will once again be forced to demate just days before being rolled out
to the launch pad?

Non other than Bush!
Bush must be some sort of a f.cking god.  Bush is now capable of causing
foam to fall of the shuttle's external tank.   I guess this really isn't all
that much of a feat since he is already capable of causing hurricanes,

I bet there are people in Nasa who are now dreaming about foam.
Is there a part of the tank where no foam has ever been lost?
What marks out the areas where is is lost, as against the areas where it is
not?

Isnt there a requirement that the payload doors must open immediatly
upon orbit, to allow the radiators to be exposed and allow electronic
heat disipation or the shuttle must make immedialy landing plans.
If the doors fail to open, the shuttle would have to land without the

ATK Supports Successful Return to Flight of Space Shuttle Discovery
ATK Solid Rocket Boosters Lift Shuttle into Orbit with More Than 6 Million
Pounds of Thrust
STS-114 Mission to Test Repair Technology Developed Jointly by NASA and ATK

I'm sure this was asked long ago as an idea to make the take reusable,
by why not tile the tank like the orbiter? That could solve the foam
problem and also make the tank reusable. Is the issue added weight? I
know the white paint alone on STS-1 and STS-2 added 600 pounds, so

Yes, I understand that, but the same stack would be used for STS-300
that has been prepped for STS-121, no? My question is this ...

windows media stream :
- DISCOVERY RENDEZVOUS PITCH MANUEVER - ISS
http://space44.sp.funpic.de/gigashare15.php
- DISCOVERY - ISS DOCKING