A poll - do you think the shuttle will launch in July?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

askold

Guest
The new ramps failed the wind tunnel test, there's indecision about the tanking test, technicians keep banging up the craft, a possible swap out of main engine No. 2, tin whiskers ...<br /><br /><span method="POST" action="/dopoll.php"></span> <br /> <br />
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
I voted yes, though I'm unsure. Boy, I hope there's not too many delays, I miss the excitement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
B

baktothemoon

Guest
I say yes, the window begins on the first, so even if the launch gets delayed they still have more time launch by the end of July.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
You know, I grow almost as tired of fighting with you on this issue as I do some of the super conservatives over on free space with the more politically oriented issues!<br /><br />Parhaps we should indeed just give up on the shuttle and the ISS, and even just cancel ALL human space flight from the US. We could then just totally cancel NASA and turn the whole thing over to the National Science groups! Then we could sit back and relax and let the Russians and the Chinese have all the problems and worries of human space flight! <br /><br />Of course, at some point in the future they will also be the only benificiaries of these efforts. When the resources of the world start to run down, which they will eventually and inevitably, then perhaps they will let us survive by buying the base essentials from them! After all, we have already basically turned over our entire manufacturing capability to the Chinese anyway, why not just give up on aerospace also! It is the only item that we still sell more to the rest of the world that we purchase from the rest of the world. <br /><br />But then it is rather obvious that people like yourself are not bothered by this state of affairs anyway!
 
A

askold

Guest
This isn't a fight - I'm just interested to see what people who follow the space program closely think about how NASA is handling the run-up to the launch. Hale wants to test, test, test and nothing but test. 2010 will be here and Hale will still be testing.<br /><br />On your other point: the shuttle is not NASA; the shuttle is not the US space program. The shuttle is just one tired little vehicle that has overstayed its welcome. NASA will be better off when this albatross is lifted from its neck.
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
Quite so, and frodo, you and the NASA fanboys need to stop associating criticism of NASA, STS, or ISS with opposition to HSF. It is a cheap demonization tactic that only drives away those who want to support you if only GHSF were not so wasteful.
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
I really want the shuttle to be ready by July because then I might be able to go down there to watch the launch but at this point in time I don't think the odds are good enough to actually plan a trip down there. I guess all that we can do now is just hope that they can resolve all the issues and get these birds flyin again! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
Well, go ahead then and write a positive post about how well NASA is handling the shuttle debacle. I, for one, could use some good news.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Thats not possible, your minds already made up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
M

mlorrey

Guest
Its a little late to NOT have a mind made up. Its about as conclusive as watching a bunch of caravaneers kicking a dead camel over and over again: no matter how many times they kick it, cajole it, give it water, lighten its load, it just ain't gonna get up and finish the caravan route. That animal was dying as soon as it left the oasis, just bury it already and get on with the trip...
 
S

SpaceKiwi

Guest
I voted Yes. Lindsey recently said they are looking good to go in July. He also said there comes a point whereby the testing has to stop on the ground and they go fly and see what happens. I get the impression he thinks they're at that point, and I tend to agree with him. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Hope springs eternal: I voted yes. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
You're right - we should get the facts straight. Here are the complete facts:<br /><br />"During wind tunnel tests earlier this week, NASA subjected a full-scale mockup of a shuttle external tank section to aerodynamic forces greater than a real tank would experience during launch. In one series of tests, unmodified foam insulation used to prevent ice buildups around external fittings suffered only minor damage while a redesigned "ice/frost ramp" suffered major foam loss. <br /><br />The redesign is being considered in a bid to remove as much insulation as possible from the tank to minimize the threat of debris shedding during launch. The old ice/frost ramps, which insulate the fittings used to hold two pressurization lines and an electrical cable tray in place, featured long, sloping ramps to smooth the flow of air. <br /><br />But those very ramps, it was believed, were susceptible to cracks and failure, providing a potential source of debris that could strike a shuttle during launch. The redesigned ramps are much more blunt. But in initial wind tunnel tests at the Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tullahoma, Tenn., the old design fared better than the redesign. During two sets of test runs this week, the new design suffered major foam loss. <br /><br />"That's exactly what testing is all about," said one official. "This is where you want to find a problem, not on launch day." <br /><br />More tests are planned and other design changes are under consideration, along with the option of flying the ramps "as is." But a decision on how to proceed is needed by the end of the month to give engineers time to make any required changes before NASA's planned July launch of the shuttle Discovery on the second post-Columbia mission."<br /><br />OK, these modifications have not been performed on the ET. But, 2 1/2 months before launch, NASA does not have a design it's happy with. This concernes me.
 
Q

qso1

Guest
After the Columbia accident, Discovery reflight was anything but a dead camel. Granted, NASA is having a tough time getting back into operation but I suspect that has more to do with NASA workers wanting to make sure no stone is unturned considering the recent spate of mishaps and the shuttle ET problems.<br /><br />Besides, with the shuttle scheduled for retirement in 2010 so that plan is already in place. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
I'm sure it probably would do just fine. The problem is, NASA cannot afford to just launch without covering every base possible given the way another accident would be recieved in the media, and that the program would be shut down IMO if there is another accident. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
Because you didn't specify the <i>year</i> I voted yes <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> There will be many Julys to try...
 
L

llivinglarge

Guest
Given the shuttle's current track record... I'd say less than a 2% chance.
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Considering the enormous chunk that came off on the last flight, I'd say the chances are about 50/50.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
NFI! Shuttle_guy may have some insight, but since I don't have ANY data on the wind tunnel tests, the analysis of the probability of the "whiskers" actually causing problems, nor anything else that will fit in the decision, I won't even hazard (no pun intended!) a guess.<br /><br />Bad cases of "Go! fever" have already killed 31 crewmembers of U.S. launches, and I'm sure Mike Griffin does NOT want anything like to happen on his or anybody elses' watch! On the other hand, if we analyze and flaggilate on EVERY possible failure scenario, we may NEVER launch another crewed mission involving the Shuttle! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />BTW, IF we get another DDT&E flight SUCCESSFULLY under our belts, and start flying Ops missions again, successfully, I would suspect that other things being equal, the September 2009 termination of the STS system might NOT be cast in concrete, especially if there are more critical flights, such as the Hubble Rescue mission that need to be flown.<br /><br />We'll just have to wait and see!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra! (How do you say that in Chinese?)<br /><br />P.S. My urologist just annouced his retirement... Can we PLEASE stop these...uh, "irrigation" contests!
 
D

drwayne

Guest
"31 crewmembers of U.S. launches"<br /><br />31?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I count 17, of which 14 died during actual flights. (The Apollo 1 disaster happened during an on-pad test, not a launch attempt.)<br /><br />Abroad, the Soviets lost a total of four during actual missions (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11). So the global death toll stands at 18 or 21, depending on whether or not you include Apollo 1. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
"What makes you think NASA is unhappy with the old configuration?"<br /><br />Now you're playing with semantics - not very attractive for an engineer. Why is NASA considering alternative designs if it's "not unhappy" with the original design? Does NASA routinely design and test stuff for no reason?
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
I will now beat my own dead horse again.<br /><br />If we used another fuel other than hydrogen... One with a higher boiling point. Would that reduce some of the insulation problems we are having?<br /><br />Now I know, it is completely impossible to change the shuttle from hydrogen to something else.<br /><br />And I also know that the insulation problems wouldn't be such a problem with an inline launcher where there really isn't anything critical and/or fragile in the direct path of falling debris.<br /><br />So, this is a shuttle specific problem and NASA is planning on fixing one of the two problems by going to an inline launcher in the next generation.<br /><br />I'm assuming that foam and ice falling onto the nose cone of an SRB doesn't do that much damage.
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
The downside of room temp LH2 is that it has the same density as room temp GH2....<br /><br />Doh!!!!!
 
D

drwayne

Guest
And of course some of those do not qualify as "US" or "launches", not to mention how one factors in "go fever" into training crashes.<br /><br />But thanks for the reminders sir.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts