Posted on 02/28/2006 8:13:51 PM PST by neodad
NASA will try for three shuttle flights this year if the space agency is able to launch Discovery in May or July, a top NASA official said Tuesday.
But that's a big "if," said space shuttle program manager Wayne Hale.
Engineers are still are working out problems with the external fuel tank and other details.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Ping.
foam, foam, foam.
Man I remember when I was a kid in the late 70s and early 80s and they were talking about launches every two weeks.
And the military, who most of these fights were actually going to be for, expected to lose 1-2 shuttles per year.
In Memory of Challenger and Columbia...
Call me cynical, buy I think we've seen the last space shuttle flight.
Heinlein wrote:
When the need arises - and it does - you must be able to shoot your own dog.So, I can't disagree. The sooner we move on the better.
Otherwise, brush up on your foreign languages.
The Space Shuttle external tank rolls out at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans at the start of its journey to the Kennedy Space Center. The imminent arrival of a remodeled fuel tank for NASA's second shuttle launch since the 2003 Columbia disaster has bolstered hopes that shuttle flights will be able to resume in May, space agency managers said on Tuesday. REUTERS/Lockheed Martin/Handout
The NASA space shuttle Discovery launching from pad 39-B at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, in July 2005. The United States risks "loss of leadership" in space exploration, if it fails to replace quickly its ailing shuttle fleet with a new reliable space vehicle, the head of NASA has warned(AFP/NASA/File)
Shhhh! There are major layoffs (90%) of contract companies at Patrick AFB involved with launches.
That was such a beautiful launch, but I wonder how many times we came close to a catastrophic failure and didn't even know it because of the optics of the time?
Huh?
Do you have any actual citation to back up that absurd claim, that actually applies to the NASA Space Shuttle? There were certainly military missions planned for (and performed by) the Shuttle, but I've never heard anything like that, and I'm quite familiar with the history of the program.
Wasn't the number 1 in every hundred missions?
No. That's the new, realistic number. If anyone thought that had been the number when it was under development, the program would have died stillborn. And even then, it wasn't imagined that most of the missions would be military.
Imagine that would you wrote was true. If they thought they would lose that many per year, why did they only build five vehicles?
When the shuttle was sill being designed, the plan was for 20+ launches per year from Vandenberg. These would be flown by military crews on classified missions. Later, when the shuttle program was cut back (due to the fact it was massively more expensive than predicted) only Atlantis was going to be based at Vandenberg. The loss of Challenger basically ended the plans for launching from Vandenberg.
Just Google search and you'll find it all. My info comes from a book I read shortly after the loss of Columbia.
Sorry, but this is nonsense.
There was even an entire shuttle launch complex built at Vandenberg Air Force Base for this purpose.
The Vandenberg site wasn't just for military missions--it was for any mission that required high inclination. And many military missions would have required flights from the Cape. The two locations weren't military versus civilian, they were high versus low orbital inclination.
When the shuttle was sill being designed, the plan was for 20+ launches per year from Vandenberg. These would be flown by military crews on classified missions. Later, when the shuttle program was cut back (due to the fact it was massively more expensive than predicted) only Atlantis was going to be based at Vandenberg. The loss of Challenger basically ended the plans for launching from Vandenberg.
Military missions were flown out of the Cape, but not many. No Orbiter was "based" or planned to be based at Vandenberg. No more than a couple flights per year were planned out of there even in the early eighties. Challenger was a catalyst for the end to the Vandenberg plans, but there were many causes, including design issues at the launch site.
My info comes from a book I read shortly after the loss of Columbia.
Oh, so it must be true. Funny that you can't even cite the book.
My info comes from working on the program for a quarter of a century, for both the Air Force and NASA. But I guess someone who read a book that they can't even name knows more than I do.
Sorry, but this is nonsense.
There was even an entire shuttle launch complex built at Vandenberg Air Force Base for this purpose.
The Vandenberg site wasn't just for military missions--it was for any mission that required high inclination. And many military missions would have required flights from the Cape. The two locations weren't military versus civilian, they were high versus low orbital inclination.
When the shuttle was sill being designed, the plan was for 20+ launches per year from Vandenberg. These would be flown by military crews on classified missions. Later, when the shuttle program was cut back (due to the fact it was massively more expensive than predicted) only Atlantis was going to be based at Vandenberg. The loss of Challenger basically ended the plans for launching from Vandenberg.
Military missions were flown out of the Cape, but not many. No Orbiter was "based" or planned to be based at Vandenberg. No more than a couple flights per year were planned out of there even in the early eighties. Challenger was a catalyst for the end to the Vandenberg plans, but there were many causes, including design issues at the launch site.
My info comes from a book I read shortly after the loss of Columbia.
Oh, so it must be true. Funny that you can't even cite the book.
My info comes from working on the program for a quarter of a century, for both the Air Force and NASA. But I guess someone who read a book that they can't even name knows more than I do.
Good points but you have to admit that COEXERJ145's tag line should entitle them to a lot of slack. ;)
The Saturn V, now that was a fine rocket. That would be a good starting point for a replacement.
Bet they get off no more then one.
yes yes....FOAM!!!
get back out the CFC's and screw the tree huggers......
please delete me from the ping list; lots of posts
Three whole flights, eh??
gee whiz!
if the space agency is able to launch Discovery in May or July...we'll all be pretty surprised. Same goes for Falcon.
if the space agency is able to launch Discovery in May or July...we'll all be pretty surprised. Same goes for Falcon.
That being said the original design was based on r-12 based foam, which was great.
The original study that got the tree huggers jumpin' was funded by dupe punt (DuPont) because the patent was running out & they wanted to maintain dominance in Freon.
They've yet to develop a better Froen than r-12, so they've marketed inferior Freon developed over half a century ago before r-12.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.