STS-114 Mission Update Thread (Part 5)

[erauskydiver]

He should make that his signature... it would save on typing time.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">The EVA today was great. In general NASA is finally getting the idea. Now when they report that they also tested the Foam to failure and figured out what to do I will be happy. </font><br /><br />you know what the idea is? the idea is there should not be another shuttle flight. ever.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[rvastro]

Jerry Linenger...<br />same guy they nicknamed "Hollywood"?

 

[ehs40]

now all we have to worry about is that damn foam problem

 

[rvastro]

Do you have a link to that? I want to print that out and place it on my cubicle wall.

 

[gpurcell]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The instruments and video equipment developed to assess the launch performance and monitor debris falling from the tank worked superbly. For the first time, the mission team knows what is happening, when it is happening and the flight conditions under which it occurred. This was a major mission objective, and it is an impressive achievement. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Then why didn't you do it when you were in charge, Gene? You know, a couple of DECADES ago?<br />

 

[drwayne]

Cameras of the sort on the external tank, with the quality of image, survivability and reliable transmission were not avalable a couple of decades ago.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[rvastro]

It is possible they did not have the ablility to record and transmit the images in real time 20 years ago like they can do now.

 

[rvastro]

Wayne..we were thinking the same thing! Either I am becoming an ubernerd or just thinking better! Pretty scary!

 

[Testing]

Thank you SG for posting the words of Mr Kranz. Can you tell us how you came by this letter or where it was published please? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[botch]

Ditto the Amen. Those words by Gene Kranz are spot on, it's a perfect antidote to the naysayers.

 

[spacefire]

I just love the new culture at NASA: now they say that being bold is to continue to fly an expensive and unsafe craft and hope for the best instead of starting work on a succesor. It's bold indeed...if bold equals reckless. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[haywood]

Agreed Testing.<br />The words of Mr. Kranz are inspirational.<br />I remember Mr. Kranz from my late teen days when Apollo was in it's hayday.<br />He has seen it all and gives a unique insight into today's problems.<br />Due to the abundance of information now available, especially over the internet there are a lot of "Monday night quarterbacks" with quick fixes...I am guilty of it too.<br />Gene brings us back to earth.<br />

 

[erauskydiver]

They have started work on a successor! In the mean time we use what we have.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow"><br />They have started work on a successor! In the mean time we use what we have. </font><br /><br /><br />the CEV is nothing like the shuttle, it's just a means to get a few people to LEO. The SDHLV is unmanned and hardly reusable. <br />A succesor for the shuttle would be something equivalent in functionality but better, like the Venture Star was supposed to be, albeit that would have alternated manned flights and payload delivery, which makes a whole lot of sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

We wont need a vehicle like the Space Shuttle or Venture Star for the VSE. You build a spacecraft to suit the mission you desire to accomplish. <br /><br />VSE as I understand it is more concerned with getting stuff into space. Maybe later on we will decide that we need to bring a bunch of stuff back down from space... which would require a winged RLV, but right now, that need just isnt there.

 

[spacefire]

how long till the mission changes back to: let's try to get cheap access to LEO instead of sending 3 or 4 people to Mars at astronomical prices, pardon my pun?<br /><br />oh wait, the private industry is going to develop that, and NASA is going to have to buy rides to orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>A succesor for the shuttle would be something equivalent in functionality but better, like the Venture Star was supposed to be...</i><p>VentureStar was not going to equivalent in function to the Space Shuttle. For one thing, it was never intended to be a crewed vehicle.<p>----------------<br />*edit* Anyway, this is a discussion for another thread - this thread is supposed to be about the ongoing STS-114 mission.</p></p>

 

[erauskydiver]

With a sarcastic negative attitude like that, we'll never go anywhere. Luckily, most people seem to be positive and upbeat about the direction we are taking.

 

[spacefire]

thirty years of blunders warrant some sarcasm, don't you think? <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Anyway, this is a discussion for another thread - this thread is supposed to be about the ongoing STS-114 mission</font><br /><br />you're right NajaB, I'll shut up.<br /><font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">By Eugene F. Kranz <br />TO read and listen to the coverage of the ongoing mission of Space Shuttle Discovery, you would think NASA’s mission team have taken careless risks with the lives of the seven astronauts who went into space last Tuesday.</font>/i><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> If there is a single fundamental point to be found in the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board – beyond identifying the technical and cultural causes of the mishap – it is that the nation’s human spaceflight program has for decades lacked a unifying theme or purpose worthy of the cost and risk endemic to the enterprise. I believe it is now widely accepted that circling endlessly in low Earth orbit does not qualify as such a theme.<br /><br />-- Michael Griffin, 10 March 2004<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There are two major problems that I see. First, neither NASA, Congress, nor the White House has clearly identified the expected reward the US will receive from building out the rest of ISS that equals the potential loss in life and the cost in dollars. This is <i>not</i> to say that orbital research is not important or that even manned orbital research is not worth it. The problem is that the ISS as designed and executed is not worth it.<br /><br />Second, the shuttle, and now the shuttle-ISS duopoly are so expensive and subject to such constant cost overruns that they drained any resources from developing any new spacecraft. How many projects have been cancelled because of the continued increased costs of these two systems?<br /><br />The goal should not be to simply abandon the shuttle-ISS but an orderly and accelerated drawdawn of resources devoted to it. And by all accounts, when the "60-day reports" are finally unveiled, that is what we will probably see.</i>

 

[georgeniebling]

What is the URL for a Windows Media version of the NASA TV feed? The feed from USA via Realaudio seem to have developed an ... echo ....

 

[lunatio_gordin]

I lost it... It quit feeding to me. i don't know why. and I can't get it to work anymore.

 

[j05h]

I'm with Radar on this.<br /><br /> /> How many projects have been cancelled because of the continued increased costs of these two systems? <br /><br />a very long list, includes X-38/CRV, several Earth-sensing projects, current stretch-out of Mars projects, the actual science the station was supposed to perfom have all been delayed or cancelled to make funds available for ISS. <br /><br /> />The goal should not be to simply abandon the shuttle-ISS but an orderly and accelerated drawdawn of <br /> />resources devoted to it. And by all accounts, when the "60-day reports" are finally unveiled, that is what we will probably see.<br /><br />Yes! We (the usa) can fulfill our obligations via creative thinking while moving faster toward the Moon and Mars. NASA can't succeed at the VSE without the status-quo changing. I think that Shuttle-derived HLVs are a great opportunity to put the remaining ISS components up while retiring the Shuttle Orbiter stack. An added benefit is that Node, Kibo and Columbus could theoretically be integrated together on the ground, then the station arm would only make one docking. Finishing station will be either a creative exercise or failure. It can be done quickly, cheaper than current plan and successfully. I'm holding my breath for the 60 Day Report, too. Dr. Griffin has been doing great so far.<br /><br />Josh<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Google 'NASA TV' and you get this page.