›
Existing Users: Because of an update to the forum software you will need to reset your password. Please use the "Forgot?" link on the sign in form to do so. If that doesn't work, send me an email at feedback@forzaminardi.com and I'll sort you out!

TILES A TIRED TALE

FactyCrab
in ForzaMinardi.com Forum -- The Pub
who should be held accountable? shouldn't some heads in nasa roll? pity those astronauts.

Comments

  • Minardus
    I heard on the news today, that NASA decided not to send anymore spaceshuttels into space !!!

    So, what are they gonna do now?? Stop the Spaceprogramm?? Or do they already have a new type of spacecraft in deveopment ????
  • Neil_s
    We will soon have some first hand knowledge from MCSF.
  • Telstar
    Correct they have decided not to send anymore shuttles into space, but that is because they are going back to work on reducing foam loss. The shuttles will fly again, don't know how long that will take though.

    As for a new craft development, I believe I had read that they are supposed to be looking at concepts and bids this year and to stay on schedule they must pick one by 2006. Unfortunately it will not be ready for when the shuttle fleet is retired, but I prefer them to get it right rather than rush it into use.

    Most of my information comes from the Houston Chronicle which gets its info from the Johnson Space Center, aka mission control.
    Quig most likely knows more than me and feel free to correct or elaborate.
  • Lease
    Went back over my May edition of Air & Space (yes Quig, I've been known to dwell in such rags), to a longish article about "The FOAM".

    One quote from a senior engineer caught my eye . It said (paraphrased) "If we are to target a 'zero debris' policy, then we have to find a different material."

    In other words, yes, the possibility (likelyhood) of foam detatching from the main tank during launch is high. The possibility of it happenning around parts of the tank upstream of the important bits of the orbiter has been 'taken care of'.

    Thinking back to the first ever launch that my daddy and me watched awed from the loungeroom floor at some ridiculous hour of the morning, I seem to recall that a total of 12 (is that the number, memory is such an unreliable thing) ceramic tiles were dislodged from the orbiter on its first launch and that was considered tickety pooh at the time (so long as they weren't from the bit that gets a tad hot on the way back).
  • MCSF
    I'm on vacation - I'll fix it when I get back.
  • max_torq
    Nasa has a new director, one that has been sensibly championing a new system based on the shuttle tanks and boosters, and a much simpler lighter orbiter. The orbiter might even sit on the maintank where foam wouldn't be an issue. Except where will the money come from to develop such a system...

    Stop the ISS support launches, the hubble service mission, and the existing shuttle program, of course!
  • dst
    Since there already is a permanent station orbiting............why is there any need at all for a new or adapted shuttle orbiter?
  • MCSF
    Since there already is a permanent station orbiting

    Kinda - it is not all that it should be and needs a heavy duty upkeep program. They should have built the one Regan wanted...
    ...........why is there any need at all for a new or adapted shuttle orbiter?
    To handle maintenance missions - rockets can do but are not as flexible (IMO) as a reusable. The next gen reusables, killed (or at least put to sleep for a while) by Clinton were a logical next step. They took off and landed like an airplane - designed to at least. The prottypes launch from the wing of a B 52.

    I say can the SS as it is 60's technology.
  • dst
    Anything you need to get up there can be done with rockets, manned or unmanned, although excepting station crew rotation the reasons for a flight crew to throw up supplies to the station escapes me. Correct me if I'm wrong but that can all be done remotely with a lot less fuss?

    Launch, dock and the crew on the station can take care of the the maintenance, if it's unmanned you don't have the expense (weight) of people and what it takes to keep them alive (a lot more weight, no?), leaving more flexibility to increase the payload staying in orbit. Proven technology a hell of a lot less costly.

    The military has been throwing stuff (heavy stuff) up, unmanned with rockets for a long time and it gets the job done.

    The shuttle seems a white elephant, never coming anything close to advertised capabilities.

    Are you talking about the station? If so from what I recall NASA released it's real cost schedule before construction started, big mistake.
Sign In or Register to comment.