Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GovernmentShrinker
Hi,

Thanks for catching that no one else has, not even me.

ET Stands for External Tank Number, so Yes the Mfg. Michoud numbers each one different. They are not reusable and burn up in the atmosphere on re-entry usually over an Ocean.

Whereas STS stands for the Mission Number.

STS-113 Had an ET of 116. The Et's are assigned a mission so they will not always be in chronological order.

STS-107 ET-93

STS-113 ET-116

STS-112 ET-115

STS-111 ET-113

STS-110 ET-114

STS-109 ET-112

STS-108 ET-111

STS-105 ET-110

STS-104 ET-109

Mission dates are available here in PDF Format. Start at the bottom and work backwards, Its quicker.

Michoud Shuttle Flight ET Info:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/michoud/et/shuttle_flight_info.pdf

Michoud has the best info as the Shuttle Press Kit info is wrong, as was confirmed by my emails to Michoud.

Michoud lists ET dates and Missions in the above file.

Thanks,
Joe


20 posted on 02/04/2003 11:51:00 AM PST by Sonar5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: honway; Vic3O3; leadpenny
ping
21 posted on 02/04/2003 11:54:51 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Sonar5
2) Will the Insulation sprayed on the ET degrade over a period of 2 years such that it will break off on Launch. (Which it appears has happened)

Have you established when and where this insulation is foamed on? I.e., does the fact that the tank was shipped to NASA in 2000 actually establish that the foam had been sitting on it all this time?

22 posted on 02/04/2003 12:00:30 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson