Foam pings have traces of foam, micrometeor pings have traces of (or embedded?!) micrometeors, bird pings have traces of flesh and bird poop pings have traces of guano <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />edit: Plus all pings probably look quite different from each other, hard micrometeor impacting maybe NN km/sec while (relatively) soft foam hits with much lesser velocities.
- Status
"If the word of the United States is not going to be honored in this instance, how would we ever expect that any other countries would ever cooperate with the US in any other large projects?"<br /><br />Honest to God frodo, I'm not stalking your replies. I share your enthusiasm for manned spaceflight.<br /><br />Yes we gave our word. And we did so in good faith. "Good faith" being the operative words. And when we gave that word, we hadn't foreseen the loss of 7 astronauts, and a 5 billion dollar orbiter.<br /><br />We had no way of knowing that shuttle launches would be suspended for 2 1/2 years thereby further delaying the construction of the ISS.<br /><br />The "life expectancy" of the ISS is 15 years. However, the NASA site on the ISS states that it could be operated for up to 30 years.<br /><br />But let's work with the expected 15 years. The clock starts ticking in 1998 when Zarya and Unity hit orbit.<br /><br />As things stood before the debris problem on Tuesday, the ISS was slated for completion in 2010. 15 years would put us at 2013. I won't speculate on how long shuttle flights will be suspended. But you see where I'm going.<br /><br />For completion timetable, I'm using this link:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station<br /><br />Should the ISS mission be extended beyond 2013, the US will then be spending money on the ISS that could and should be going to the Moon/Mars initiative.<br /><br />It's very unfortunate and frustrating the way things have turned out. We undertook this project in good faith. And have a bad outcome. It's time to make our apologies and mitigate the damage.<br /><br />Personally, I've always felt that the purpose of the ISS was very ambiguous and very arbitrary. And any of the "reasons" that proponents of the ISS could hang onto aren't able to be fulfilled. Very little science is getting done, and it would be a long time before any WOULD get <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
>> <i>"If the word of the United States is not going to be honored in this instance, how would we ever expect that any other countries would ever cooperate with the US in any other large projects?"</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Yes we gave our word. And we did so in good faith. "Good faith" being the operative words. And when we gave that word, we hadn't foreseen the loss of 7 astronauts, and a 5 billion dollar orbiter.</font>/i><br /><br />Don't forget to add in the roughly $8-12 billion spent before the shuttle returns to operational capability. So there is a $13-17 billion unexpected cost following the Columbia loss.<br /><br />There is also the risk of life issue. The always polemic Jeffrey Bell has an interesting comparison:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How can we possibly ask our astronauts to assume a %2 risk of death per flight for this idiotic project?<br /><br />To put this number in perspective, the combat loss rate of the most dangerous American WWII aircraft (B-17) was only %1.61. The peacetime operations of the Space Shuttle are more dangerous than wartime missions against the most efficient enemy air force the USA has ever faced!<br /><br />[But given that B-17 crews usually survived loss of the craft, whereas the shuttle astronauts do not...]<br /><br />So the ugly truth is that every time that NASA launches astronauts on the Shuttle, they face a risk of death that is SIX TIMES HIGHER than that of combat aircrews in the most dangerous aircraft in the most intense air war ever fought!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zq.html</i>
Excellent news! It seems that the Media did jump the gun on what Bill Parsons said at the press breifing.<br /><br />NASA: Another Shuttle Could Launch Soon<br /><br />http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPACE_SHUTTLE?SITE=ALMON&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME
back to the original idea of this thread:<br /><br />|<br />|<br />|<br />V <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
fine, put the remaining shuttles in museums. it was-and still is, the best manned spacecraft we have. but that's a cause for shame for our lack of commitment to space exploration, not for pride in an achievement 30 years old 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>I totally agree with anvel's sentiment. The next time one of you nay-sayers look upon the splendor of a Hubble photo, take the time to thank the stars for the shuttle while your at it. That being said, I am beginning to get frustrated with the nit-picking and anal caution our space program has inherited due to pressure to look 100% flawless in the Press' eye. This paranoia crap never would have been tolerated during the 60's when the risks were so much greater. It's time to ask the engineers and the astronauts if they'd be willing to accept (within reason) and fly the shuttle as is. And, if the answer is "yes!", then lets give the Press the finger and move forward with our ambitions. There's no reason to permanently hold, ground or scrap anything at this point.
"It's time to ask the engineers and the astronauts if they'd be willing to accept (within reason) and fly the shuttle as is."<br /><br />Ok - here's your answer:<br /><br />"The shuttle Discovery's crew was surprised and disappointed to learn about foam insulation falling off their ship's external tank during launch. Commander Eileen Collins said today the shuttle program should remain grounded until the problem is fixed, ...."
You're welcome. I think it's what sooo many of us are feeling inside but many (in important positions) are afraid to express. It's emotional, true. But just what about the exploration of space isn't? For gawd sake, this isn't a job interview we as humans are trying to pass. It's space exploration, and emotion (tempered with science and engineering common sense) is what drives us. Well, anyways, I hope they launch Atlantis when they want, right on schedule.
Nice try, askold. Do you honestly think the commander of the shuttle is gonna say anything beyond what is politically correct to the press? When you get the chance, when she returns to Earth, ask her privately if she'd fly the shuttle as it is now. I guarantee you the answer would be yes. THAT'S the drive I'm talking about.
What shishka says does make sense. The only problem is NASA willing to do this? Personally, if every trip left is going to go to the relative safe harbor of the ISS anyway, then why not do what can be done and just go on! I am sorry shuttle-guy but I have to think that if NASA doesn't do something THIS year there is going to be BIG trouble with the American public, and through them to congress. It will not be just the usual nay sayers on places like SDC that will be a problem.<br /><br />I also believe that NASA has become so gun-shy as to become its own problem. When Apollo 1 had the fire the ENTIRE Apollo space capsule had to be completely redesigned and rebuilt. It was this kind of can-do kind of attitude that got NASA the repect of the American people (and whatever funding it took to solve such problems from congress). The negativists on these boards are not entirely wrong here.<br /><br />I say, "Fly the shuttle" not "Scuttle the shuttle". If this means some extra risk then see to it that any astronauts that are going to fly ARE truly volunteers. And use more of the soyus capsules to take up enough people to keep the number of astronauts that have to fly on the shuttle to an absolute minimum. <br /><br />If this means that congress has to scuttle something of its own, then so be it. What I mean is that congress should take all retrictions off of buying space hardware from the Russians. I personally think that restricting such purchases is one of the most asinine things I have ever herd of congress doing, and they have indeed done some asinine things in their history!<br /><br />Also, if the shuttle is kept flying, make sure that ANY such flight is ONLY taking such modules up to the ISS that ONLY the shuttle can take. I can't believe that some kind of method of allowing at least some of the ISS to be carried up on such vehicles as the Delta IV, or the Atlas V Heavy can't be arrainged! Hopefully, this would allow for the station to be completed for far less
During the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs combined there was a total of 3 casualties, and not even in flight.<br />Can't compare the supposed 'risks' of the past with the Shuttle's murderous record.<br />Shuttle_guy, I understand that you might be attached to the shuttle, especially since it's your bread so to speak, but please, open your eyes, man! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Please don't mistake me. I was GLUED to the NASA webcast of Discovery's launch.<br /><br />When the first posters came to SDC talking about foam coming off the tank I was angry. Damned angry. I felt like people were looking for any small problem they could find to poo-poo the STS program.<br /><br />But as the facts poured in, I had to pay attention. And now, as a taxpayer, I'm faced with spending more of my money to see yet more delays in resumption of shuttle flights.<br /><br />If you can get one more up, by all means, do what you can for Hubble. That telescope has done EPIC science.<br /><br />But to complete an ISS that has no specific and/or vital mission? No thank you. Spend my money on the Moon and Mars, please. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>but please, open your eyes, man!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Advice you would do very well to take yourself, spacefire. And, when you've done that, you might like to exercise those eyes acquainting yourself with US Space Program history.<br /><br />Such were the number of near-fatal f***-ups, if any of the programs you mention were being flown in today's risk-adverse culture, it's highly likely NASA would still be flying Apollo missions today. That's how many years they would be behind schedule now by going on 'indefinite flight hold' everytime they had to sort out a glaringly obvious problem. Problems they were damned lucky to get away with in flight without loss of life.<br /><br />And, frankly, some of those make this current foam problem look like a non-event. <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>
<br />We did really well in those first phases of space flight. But do you really think the Saturn V would have a particuarly shining safety record if we flew it 100 times? Not to be critical of the Saturn nor the engineers that created it, but I suspect it would have had a worse performance record than the Shuttle over an equivalent service.<br /><br />Having said that, the o-ring disaster was an outstanding disapointment in so many ways. This was a fault of the operators, not the machine as far as I understand it.
"if any of the programs you mention were being flown in today's risk-adverse culture, it's highly likely NASA would still be flying Apollo missions today."<br /><br />In some ways, I think that's part of what's wrong with the US manned space program of today.<br /><br />If we were in an Apollo mentality, we probably would have been to Mars already.<br /><br />The idea of a vehicle that ferries things to and from LEO isn't a bad idea. But we could have built Hubble in a way to boost it to space on a rocket.<br /><br />Granted, repair missions of the sort the shuttles have done would be impractical at best, but in the average taxpayer's eyes, has it been worth the cost to keep Hubble sending pretty pictures to Earth?<br /><br />Everyone here seems to keep missing that one very important point. Scientists and knowledgable laypersons aren't funding this. People with a 6th grade reading level are.<br /><br />We have a President and Congress that want men on the Moon and Mars. The public sees this. Another giant Leap for Mankind.<br /><br />That's the kind of stuff that enthralls the taxpayer. Then, they see their money get spent over 2 1/2 years and the very first time we finally launch a shuttle, there are more problems that suspend flights and will cost more money.<br /><br />The dogged pursuit of the shuttle and ISS at any cost is going to alienate the average American taxpayer. The majority of our public's interest in manned spaceflight is tenuous at best. And not without merit. We have some terrestrial concerns that in the big picture are far more important in the short term.<br /><br />We space advocates see things very differently, but we're not the majority.<br /><br />If we are to salvage public support for manned spaceflight, it's time to move onto the next best thing. Feel free to quote me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
<font color="yellow">We did really well in those first phases of space flight. But do you really think the Saturn V would have a particuarly shining safety record if we flew it 100 times? Not to be critical of the Saturn nor the engineers that created it, but I suspect it would have had a worse performance record than the Shuttle over an equivalent service.</font><br /><br />on top of the Apollo capsule there was a solid rocket called an escape tower. granted, it was never used, but it was tehre <br />the Shuttle doesn't have any equivalent crew rescue device. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<br />the Shuttle doesn't have any equivalent crew rescue device. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div><font color="yellow">Please do not think that I am a blind engineer. I have done what I could do however I have stayed with it to do what I can to make it work.</font><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
and finally... the monster. as you can see the design became more and more retrograde. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
S_G, I honest to God hope you can in an expedient maner.<br /><br />But there's this sticky issue of how much more time and money NASA spends on a program that's to be phased out in half a decade.<br /><br />And regardless of the honest and passionate arguments of some of the posters here, Hubble and the ISS don't justify the added cost and time.<br /><br />I want Hubble to do science for 20 more years. But at some point, it's cheaper to design and deploy a replacement.<br /><br />And honestly, the ISS is a politically motivated white elephant. I'll admit that the US is culpable to the extent that we made promises we weren't positive we could keep, but at some point, common sense and feasibility must prevail.<br /><br />I want to see guys like you working towards the next step forward. Not maintaining stagnation or taking steps back.<br /><br />If I sound harsh, it's only because as a manned exploration fan, I want to see our eggs put in the best basket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
"But as the facts poured in, I had to pay attention. And now, as a taxpayer, I'm faced with spending more of my money to see yet more delays in resumption of shuttle flights. <br />But to complete an ISS that has no specific and/or vital mission? No thank you. Spend my money on the Moon and Mars, please."<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with finishing and operating the ISS. It was put there to do studies and there is nothing to prevent that station from fulfilling its promise AND pursuing the Moon and beyond. Nothing except our courage, that is. <br /><br />Like I said before, we need to see that the STS is better now than it was over 2 years ago...less damage after ascent, more camera eyes than before to understand and gain knowledge from...in my opinion, Discovery is one of the fittest shuttle ever flown. But do we -- the public -- see this? Noooo. We see (like never before, via technology and the drive of the nightly news) a piece of foam....a nick, a chip. We warp our thoughts on the things that we THINK are bad but, in actuality, are nothing at all in relation to past missions. We see a piece of FOAM -- now an everyday common household word -- and BOO!, its like seeing the boogie man. <br /><br />I swear, if it wasn't for the perception that the Press generates, NASA wouldn't hesitate to launch Atlantis is September. But we lost the courage. Get that back and we could have it all.
If the now projected completion date of the ISS wasn't within 3 years of its life expectancy shiska, I might be inclined to agree with you.<br /><br />The 2 people currently AT the ISS can't do much science. It takes most of what they have just to maintain it.<br /><br />It boils down to a simple question. Do we rob the Moon/Mars initiative to complete and run the ISS at extended cost vs limited time. <br /><br />Personally, I think not. I don't honestly believe there is any meaningful science that can be done at ISS that wasn't done on Mir. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
I don't know why you forget one simple thing here. Mire no longer exists, and ISS is as yet incomplete. So how does your crystsl ball tell you that the ISS isn't going to be far better than the MIR when it IS finished?<br /><br />
> <i><font color="yellow">But there's this sticky issue of how much more time and money NASA spends on a program that's to be phased out in half a decade.</font>/i><br /><br />Assuming ~4 flights a year (which seems to be what Griffin is estimating) until the shuttle is retired in 2010 you get the following rule of thumb: <i>Every 3 month delay in shuttle operations costs about $1 billion and reduces the number of missions to ISS by 1.</i></i>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
Introduce yourself! (And show us your swag)- Started by sward
- Replies: 271
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram