|
Planetfurry BBS Forums for Planetfurry Site Members and more
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Kinsfire Site Owner
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 Posts: 380 Location: Roselle, NJ
|
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2003 1:43 pm Post subject: AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!! DAMMIT! |
|
|
Why?
Can we line the higher-ups at NASA up against a wall and shoot them?
I had just said on my site, on the 28th (4 eff'ing days ago, dammit!) that I didn't want to see any more disasters!
I have a personal coat of arms (it'd never make it through the SCA, but who cares?) that has a scroll on a black field, reading "Ad Astra Per Aspera". surrounding the scroll was a series of fourteen stars. Ten silver, and four gold.
The gold stood for:
Soyuz 1
Vladimir Komarov
Soyuz 1
Viktor Patsayev
Georgi Dobrovolsky
Vladislav Volkov
The silver stood for:
Apollo 1
Virgil "Gus" Ivan Grissom
Edward Higgins White, II
Roger Bruce Chaffee
STS 51-L
Sharon Christa McAuliffe
Francis R. Scobee
Michael J. Smith
Ronald E. McNair
Ellison S. Onizuka
Judith A. Resnik
Gregory B. Jarvis
Now I must add:
STS 107
Rick Husband
Michael P. Anderson
Kalpana Chawla
William McCool
Ilan Ramon
David M. Brown
Laurel Clark
(Data: "I seem to be talking about myself. Did I miss the point?")
Dammit, Columbia started the American shuttle space program. Did it just end the space program? _________________ That which does not kill me probably hurt like a sonuvabitch.
Last edited by Kinsfire on Sun Feb 02, 2003 3:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Elfen_Furry Moderator
Joined: 18 Jun 2002 Posts: 2601 Location: NYC NY
|
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2003 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What can I tell you , Kinsfire?
How many must die before it becomes an everyday miracle where casulties are held at a minimum? Who hear remembers the days of the DeHavellin Comet? But now, Jet Travel is an everyday occurance with at least 1 or 2 major accidents a year.
As risk takers, to go beyond the envelope and come back to take us to a higher level, such risks are accepted. For the rewards that we gain is more then if we just stayed in place and cowarded in the shadows. We would all remaining in the bowels of the caves we used to seek shelter from the elements.
Within our generation, we will go to the other planets, hypersonic travel across our world, all because all people like these would take chances to see if what can be done, what is considered as "normal operations", and what to do in case of an emergency when ever possible. In short, it is a learning process.
Personally, Kinsfire, I'm about to get yelled at by a very close group of friends. Perhaps a prediction, or premenition (sp?), but over 20+ years ago, as a teen, I senses that the Shuttle Mission would be halted for a time around 2004-2005. Almost 6 years later, Challenger happened, and many thought, I sensed that accident and the NASA shut down. For some reason, I always thought it was wrong. Now, many will be looking into the ancient records again, and I'll be getting those phone calls again...
The Shuttle Program will be flying again; mostly in secret missions like the last time, but the public will be flying again. Columbia will be replaced, like Challenger was with the Endevor.
Mourn for those who gave up their lives, but understand that they wanted to do the dangerous of jobs. Like the climbing of Mount Everest was said by Sir Edmond Hilary, "...because, it was there."
And sooner or later, things will seem to be normal again.
I'll be around, somewhere. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tygon Site Owner
Joined: 03 Apr 2001 Posts: 2497 Location: Isernhagen, Lowersaxony, Germany
|
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2003 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, it is a catastophe, no question but Challenger was how many years ago?
I'd say: Be glad that it didn't happened earlier!
And franky, 7 people died. In a plane crash hundreds of people die but I still see lots of planes flying around.
Spacetravel is still in its beginnings. Over here we have a saying. "When you're learning to ride a bike and you fall of, get back on instantly!"
The shuttles will keep flying. They'll be refitted and everything but they'll keep flying until they're all destroyed or we find something better.
I'm sorry if I sound cruel or heartless here but that's the way it is. _________________ Tygon Panthera - name and species
www.planetfurry.com/~tygon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cateagle Site Owner
Joined: 20 Nov 2000 Posts: 1004 Location: Ft. Worth, TX
|
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2003 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Given the President's comments, I don't think the shuttle will be shut down. This is a wake up call that, hey, it's still not "cut and dried" and it is important to keep development going.
As someone in the business, I'm going to be very interested in seeing the final report. I just hope that, given the other things going down on this world and the nationality of one of those astronauts, that it wasn't a "nefarious device".
Thoughtfully,
Cateagle _________________ "But the wildest of all the wild animals was the Cateagle. He walked by himself and all places were alike to him."
-- With apologies to Rudyard Kipling |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Galadrion Registered User
Joined: 17 Aug 2001 Posts: 378 Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2003 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed, Cateagle. For more reasons than the obvious. With the degree of security involved, the only way I can see for it to have been malicious would mean that the "Black Hats" have a plant on the inside. I don't like to think what that means. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Elfen_Furry Moderator
Joined: 18 Jun 2002 Posts: 2601 Location: NYC NY
|
Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2003 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Me Again.
In a worse case scenero, NASA will shut down for a couple of years until it can sort things out again. In a best case scenero, the next shuttle mission (In March '03) will go up without delays.
Astronauts will die, as will race car drivers, airplane pilots, and many other situations where the risk of one's job out-weighs safety concern becuase the envelope of safety is always being pushed beyond its limits. Its a matter of accounting for all the known variables and hoping to you favorate deity that the unknown ones wont bite you on the arse.
STS 107's an unfortunate accident.
As was TWA 800.
and many other incidents...
But Life Goes on.
And we learn. And we continue to keep when, especially when there is a possibility of getting ourselves splattered and smeared across a large area or eaten by something larger than we are. But the rewards are worth it; when we either succeed or fail. _________________ SHARKS In The Gene Pool South of Kosovo!
*CHOMP!* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kinsfire Site Owner
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 Posts: 380 Location: Roselle, NJ
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll admit - I'm highly biased about the space program. I'll never make it into space, unless someone shoots my ashes up there, but I like to hold the dream of space, of looking back at the Earth from above it. I want to "get it" as Spider Robinson once said of those who've watched a launch in person, as opposed to those who've seen it on TV.
Every time something awful happens, the people who want to wrap everyone up "for their own safety" gets loud, and I'm afraid that someday, someone's going to listen.
Besides, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe has basically doomed the shuttle space program. He's the one who shelved the new designs and commited NASA to running with the current designs for the next 10 to 15 years. The Columbia was the first one to go up, seventeen years ago. The Endeavour is the newest one, I think. Were these things designed to be used for 30 years? Things get old, and the harder that you stress them, the faster they wear out. Was today an example of what we can expect for the next decade and a half?
I'm sorry for being so pessimistic, but I want so badly for someone to develop a working space plane, so that I can see the Earth from orbit before I die. The more that happens like this, and the further that dream gets away from me.
Bugger. _________________ That which does not kill me probably hurt like a sonuvabitch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Elfen_Furry Moderator
Joined: 18 Jun 2002 Posts: 2601 Location: NYC NY
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you think you can survive another 30 years, your dream of seeing earth from orbit will come true.
Seriously, there will be a time, like in Space Odessy (sp?) 2001, where instead of NASA running the show, but big travel companies. The Technologies are there, though considering that AirBus wsant to build a plane capable of carrying 800 people (SHEESH- WHAT WERE THEY SMOKING!), the first one of those crashing will ground the fleet, leaving 1 option left:
High Speed Super or Hypersonic Transport. Fuel effiecent, "safe" and fast, though it would be like the Concord, several flying at the sametime, hell, it might even be profitable!
But its a matter of time. You willing to wait? I am. _________________ SHARKS In The Gene Pool South of Kosovo!
*CHOMP!* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Kinsfire Site Owner
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 Posts: 380 Location: Roselle, NJ
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I've said it before: I'm going to be immortal, or die trying.
I'm hoping this is one of your premonitions.
Kinsfire _________________ That which does not kill me probably hurt like a sonuvabitch. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fishburne Administrator
Joined: 23 Jul 2002 Posts: 596 Location: Plano, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
NO airframe is built to last 30 years.
NASA's stuff is built better to last longer, but the incredible stresses placed on an airframe during each mission...
After each mission is complete, the NASA engineers do a careful teardown and rebuild of MANY components of the shuttle, but....not the ENTIRE airframe.
Cateagle? care to comment? _________________ "Do not Taunt Happy Fun God" -Cthulhu |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nameless Site Owner
Joined: 06 Sep 2002 Posts: 1368 Location: Vienna, Austria
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fishburne wrote: | NO airframe is built to last 30 years. |
There are plenty of commercial airliners which are 30 years or so.
And my country (Austria) still uses the Saab Draken fighter plane that was produced in the sixties or early seventies.
http://www.warbirdalley.com/draken.htm _________________ I'm a nut, but there are those who appreciate me for it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tygon Site Owner
Joined: 03 Apr 2001 Posts: 2497 Location: Isernhagen, Lowersaxony, Germany
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nameless wrote: | Fishburne wrote: | NO airframe is built to last 30 years. |
There are plenty of commercial airliners which are 30 years or so.
And my country (Austria) still uses the Saab Draken fighter plane that was produced in the sixties or early seventies.
http://www.warbirdalley.com/draken.htm |
Yeah, but I wouldn't want to fly with any of them.
And is any of these airliners or the Draken exposed to the stresses of a vertical lift-off with who know how many thousand HP? Or leaving and re-entering the atmosphere? A temperature change from -260°C to a few thousand in a matter of seconds?
I think we can say that the spaceshuttles are much too old. As I said, they should be glad that it didn't happen earlier. _________________ Tygon Panthera - name and species
www.planetfurry.com/~tygon/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fishburne Administrator
Joined: 23 Jul 2002 Posts: 596 Location: Plano, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nameless wrote: | Fishburne wrote: | NO airframe is built to last 30 years. |
There are plenty of commercial airliners which are 30 years or so.
And my country (Austria) still uses the Saab Draken fighter plane that was produced in the sixties or early seventies.
http://www.warbirdalley.com/draken.htm |
Yes, the DESIGN is that old, but I doubt very much that you will find a single airframe from those days.
The Draken is still a VERY cool looking jet.
As for passenger aircraft, there are plenty of airframes around that still fly, much to the chagrin of the FAA and other regulatory commissions.
Aicraft are put under considerable stress on each takeoff and landing, not to mention shearing winds during flight, as well as turbulence. Yes, I am seperating them out as I am not sure what to call those pockets of "dead air". I am sure there is a correct term, but as to what it is, I cannot say.
so, we have aircraft airframes that fail after so many hours of flight, who thinks that a shuttle would be any different? Especially since the initial thrust is monstrous. Now lets talk about extreme heat and extreme cold.
this thing goes like a bat out of hell to orbital velocity. LOTS of friction due to air pressure...then to the vacuum of space. Brrr...
Then we need to discuss the radiation from direct sunlight. LOADS of heat. Ever wonder why the shuttle "flies" upside down? radiation and heat.
Then lets talk the landing sequence...
1 - de orbital burn - rotate on two axis and slow rate of speed to begin entering atmosphere.
2. Angle of attack - hit the right glide path - a few degrees either way and its over, too shallow - skipping off the atmosphere. Too sharp - burn on reentry, from sub zero temp to Hotter'n'Hell Texas Summer Day in 0 seconds.
3. Glide path - yeehaw! Mach 18 to 20, slowing as we get closer to Mama earth - Guess what! Now there's friction and shearing winds...
4. S-Turns - Gotta bleed that speed! LOADS OF SHEAR WINDS and Friction
5. Final Approach - NO POWER LANDING. Yeah thats a controlled crash.
So, we have incredible stresses being placed on that airframe from DAY 0 of launch in 1981. Thats right. 1981. Pre- Duran Duran era.
And the thing has been used repeatedly with only a break in the latter 80's as the shuttle program got its stuffing torn out.
So, was it smart to send out a 22 year old airframe? Only the rocket scientists can tell us now. This is talking head number 34971245.03 signing off.
Hey Cateagle!!! How about some wisdom here!!!! _________________ "Do not Taunt Happy Fun God" -Cthulhu |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cateagle Site Owner
Joined: 20 Nov 2000 Posts: 1004 Location: Ft. Worth, TX
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 9:52 pm Post subject: Airframe Age and Useful Life |
|
|
While the Draken is a design from the 1950's, with preliminary design efforts back to 1949, the aircraft operated by Austria are of early-1960's manufacture and received a thorough rebuild and life extension program before delivery to Austria.
The existing shuttle design evolved in the late 1960's, early 1970's (I know it did, I watched the low-speed tunnel model evolve at the large subsonic wind tunnel at school where I was a student assistant; we were the closest such facility to NASA-Houston) and represents the best that could be done at the time. I'd have to do some research to see just what kind of operational life was expected, but given that the originally projected utilization rate was decidedly higher than what really happened, I doubt we're at the edge of airframe life. (Interesting bit of trivia, the shuttle's payload bay was sized for a nominal module for a projected Mars mission)
To the best of my knowledge, there have been re-evaluations of the shuttle's operational life based on actually observed conditions and the vehicles still have a fair bit of life left. Now, whether they'll last as long as O'Keefe thinks is another question and I don't have access to the data to answer that.
Current maintenance is based primarily on monitoring of component performance rather than some arbitrary time period, it's been found that removing and checking/replacing often shortens a component's life more than just leaving it be.
Now, if someone wants to know why we don't have even a glimmer of a replacement in the works, part of the answer is that on the X-33, NASA chose the most risky design instead of one building on proven, demonstrated tech - I'm referring to a development of the DC-X. (sarcasm-on) Of course, in the previous adminstration, the DC-X suffered by having been funded by those evil militarists in the BMDO (Ballistic Missile Defense Office) rather than by NASA or a civilian company (/sarcasm).
The one thing I'd really like to know is what monitoring did they have of the connections to the external tank; to make sure they retracted and stowed properly. Something like that hanging out in the re-entry gas flow could cause all sorts of trouble. Mind you, I'm just speculating here.
As to 30-year old airliners, they are becoming more common; they are also a growing concern worldwide. Still, it's more operational cycles than total hours that affect airframe life. That 737 in Hawaii that became a "convertible" didn't have excessively long a life, but it had intense cyclic usage.
That's the best I can do, at this point, to answer questions raised here. If someone has more questions, I'll do my best to answer them.
Thougthfully,
Cateagle _________________ "But the wildest of all the wild animals was the Cateagle. He walked by himself and all places were alike to him."
-- With apologies to Rudyard Kipling |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Fishburne Administrator
Joined: 23 Jul 2002 Posts: 596 Location: Plano, Texas
|
Posted: Sun Feb 02, 2003 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The shuttles were designed as "Trucks" for NASA. Had an expected life of 100 missions max. Of course, with the advent of more powerful systems (PC's here people) NASA engineers have to rely on buying replacement parts from such varied sources. Remember, this thing had 8086 chips in it.
Also, Cloumbia was the oldest in the operational fleet, and also the heaviest. It was nearly mothballed several times, due to things like chafed wiring, excessive pitting, tile placement not adhering, etc. (as for the tile placement, I don't recall that source, but I do remember thinking OUCH!!!
If O'Keefe can keep his head above water, and determine the cause of this accident, NASA may just live to see another day. _________________ "Do not Taunt Happy Fun God" -Cthulhu |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|