Ares I-X Rocket's Test Launch

Beeker

ynotdu wrote: »

In the meantime Where is BEEKER?He Started this thread?

My guess is he is on a cargo ship to the USA and will be sitting alongside LL at 129's launch:D,{ "STS is Mine says BeeKer,Ya Can't have ANY:mad: Lol}

Gone nowhere, but wish I was on my way to see 129. I was working but watched the launch on NASA TV, Very smooth and clean. Did not get a chance to interact on the forum at the time.
All set now for Atlantis with our own on the spot reporter LL;)
Here hoping it all goes well!!!

Beeker

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Just saw the launch on Sky News, loved the way the supersonic shockwave formed over the upper stage, never saw that in any shuttle launches before.

Yeah its pretty cool to see that. It does happen with the Shuttle aswell.

lord lucan

Stargate wrote: »

Lol You mercenary LL! So long as STS-129 is ok Huh?



Lol ynotdu poor LL be a nervous wreak after this week haha

Your bags all packed now LL ??

I had my fingers crossed for you today !!!

It was weird watching all the attempts to launch Ares,it had a 4 hour window each day unlike the shuttle which has a much shorter window(usually minutes!). Perversely the weather would have been green for most of both windows that Ares had if it was a Shuttle launch!!

2 weeks to go til i'm off Stargate,awaiting a firm date(don't expect it to change) tonight from the Flight Readiness Review,

goose2002

Beeker wrote: »

Yeah its pretty cool to see that. It does happen with the Shuttle aswell.

And Apollo,



And aircraft,



And even nuclear explosions under the right conditions,


Its called the Prandtl–Glauert effect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl%E2%80%93Glauert_singularity

Azelfafage

The Shuttle was one of the most badly designed machines in the history of technology.

Even during the NEXT launch we will be looking out for the lethal flying foam.

The shuttle has killed 14 brave people already.

Good riddance to it.
.

ynotdu

Azelfafage wrote: »

The Shuttle was one of the most badly designed machines in the history of technology.

Even during the NEXT launch we will be looking out for the lethal flying foam.

The shuttle has killed 14 brave people already.

Good riddance to it.
.

Read the STS-127 & 128 threads You will find that what You say is well recognised even by the most ardent supporters of the programme.With all it's faults and the political interference it suffered from during it's development, it STILL gave us the ISS and Hubble!

NOT a bad legacy IMO.

Turtwig

ynotdu wrote: »

Read the STS-127 & 128 threads You will find that what You say is well recognised even by the most ardent supporters of the programme.With all it's faults and the political interference it suffered from during it's development, it STILL gave us the ISS and Hubble!

NOT a bad legacy IMO.

Feeding the troll eh,,

Allow me,

Given that the original failure estimate for shuttles was one in 60 and we've only had 2 in almost 130 that's hardly a disaster in my book.
Space exploration is a really risky business and while deaths are unwanted, expecting them to never happen is foolish.
There is a saying that with every aeroplane crash air travel becomes a safer thing (indeed the safety of todays Jets is astoundingly brilliant) I hope that the same will remain true for space travel.

Now to what it has achieved, very briefly,
Hubble (incl Maintenance).
Chandra.
ISS.
Compton
Magellan,
Galileo,
Not to mention numerous LEO experiments.

Also, I hoping someone can cite a source for me on this (so I can include it in wikipedia:)) but I remember reading somewhere (long time ago) that the lethal foam on Columbia was only a factor because NASA changed the thermal insulation solution to a more eco-friendly one.

ynotdu

Malty_T wrote: »

Feeding the troll eh,,

Allow me,

Given that the original failure estimate for shuttles was one in 60 and we've only had 2 in almost 130 that's hardly a disaster in my book.
Space exploration is a really risky business and while deaths are unwanted, expecting them to never happen is foolish.
There is a saying that with every aeroplane crash air travel becomes a safer thing (indeed the safety of todays Jets is astoundingly brilliant) I hope that the same will remain true for space travel.

Now to what it has achieved, very briefly,
Hubble (incl Maintenance).
Chandra.
ISS.
Compton
Magellan,
Galileo,
Not to mention numerous LEO experiments.

Also, I hoping someone can cite a source for on this (so I can include it in wikipedia:)) but I remember reading somewhere (long time ago) that the lethal foam on Columbia was only a factor because NASA changed the thermal insulation solution to a more eco-friendly one.

Malty T,I take people at face value{until proven otherwise:)}
NASA,s origional estimate for a LOV&C was ONE in one hundred.Hope this helps You on Wiki:)

Oh and Augustine placed a Lovc at 1 in 8 NOW!

Turtwig

ynotdu wrote: »

Malty T,I take people at face value{until proven otherwise:)}
NASA,s origional estimate for a LOV&C was ONE in one hundred.Hope this helps You on Wiki:)

Oh and Augustine placed a Lovc at 1 in 8 NOW!

I normally do too, just the day that in it..:)


Em, who's Augustine?:o
Edit : Nm

Ehh is that 1 in 8 for STS? If so it means NASA employees should play the lottery

lord lucan

jumpguy wrote: »

Is it just me or does anyone else the water sound suppression system activating just before launch is pretty cool?

Here ya go:

Turtwig

Em, not sure if this has been posted before but I think this is awesome..

ynotdu

Malty_T wrote: »

I normally do too, just the day that in it..:)


Em, who's Augustine?:o
Edit : Nm

Ehh is that 1 in 8 for STS? If so it means NASA employees should play the lottery

Lol yeah 1 in 8 for a Shuttle,but NASA were very annoyed at the report and let it be known they thought so:)

I suppose whats important is if the 1 in 100 is at the start of each hundred or at the end:D

Turtwig

ynotdu wrote: »

Lol yeah 1 in 8 for a Shuttle,but NASA were very annoyed at the report and let it be known they thought so:)

I suppose whats important is if the 1 in 100 is at the start of each hundred or at the end:D

Well if that be the case then I gotta track down the shuttle designers and chip in to buy some lottery tickets..
No of Launches ~130.
No of LOV&Cs ~ 2.
Predicted LOV&C ~ 1/8

Hmm someones winning the lottery a lot!
I gotta say I'm very skeptical of such a figure, it may be true but if it is Napoleon would have been well pleased with NASA.

ynotdu

OK even if i am falling into a troll.
When the STS was conceived NASA,s best estimate for a Loss Of Vehicle And Crew was one in one hundred.

It lost TWO in about 120,the Independant reports into Challenger{in particulor} and Columbia were damning of NASA and political pressure, not to mention the drip feed of funding that left NASA having to 'please' Senators, Congressmen, and Joe public it was worth their 'Tax dollars' .

Yes the report that is under Baracks nose now estimates if the Shuttle were to continue the LOV&C best estimate would be one in eight! Read it,it's freely available!:).

Turtwig

ynotdu wrote: »

OK even if i am falling into a troll.
When the STS was conceived NASA,s best estimate for a Loss Of Vehicle And Crew was one in one hundred.

It lost TWO in about 120,the Independant reports into Challenger{in particulor} and Columbia were damning of NASA and political pressure, not to mention the drip feed of funding that left NASA having to 'please' Senators, Congressmen, and Joe public it was worth their 'Tax dollars' .

Yes the report that is under Baracks nose now estimates if the Shuttle were to continue the LOV&C best estimate would be one in eight! Read it,it's freely available!:).

No you aren't.

Everyone here will admit that the shuttle had it's flaws, but to say it's the most badly designed machine in history is absurd.

I never really like it when the general public demand silly stunts or payoffs for the science being done, sure we need their funding, but the attitude I got towards most for CERNs latest epic was a tad depressing. They seemed to think that if even in the most ridiculous of ridiculous of off-chances it did create a black hole was warranty enough for no such money being spent on an experiments of its nature. So to be clear here, NASA has made mistakes but we should not damn it for what the organisations has achieved and more importantly the resources it provides (it's website and youtube for example).
It's easy to build a skyscraper when a hundred have been built before you, but to build the first and in a totally different environment to the one in which you have lived?

People complain with CERN and NASA for the mistakes that happen what they fail to recognise though is that there will be mistakes(CERN had fatalities too),some that were fairly simple and in hindsight should have been obvious, but when you're doing something for the first time it is never going to be easy no matter how well you plan it out in advance.

ynotdu

Malty-T You get few arguments from Me on that.
Having read the reports Challenger was launched when most of the SRB engineers new and tried to tell NASA that the O-rings would most likely fail,An 'Important' Senator was at the cape the following day and after NASA could not get a go at First tele-confer with the SRB,s manufacturors they said they would like them to reconsider and would get back in touch in half an hour{It was a barely concealed threat that the subby would never get another contract, half an hour later NASA got it's GO}

Columbia was diffrient,but really apart from a shuttles need to repair the Hubble,It Should always have had the ability to check it's tiles x 360 and Science missions like Columbia could Always have stayed close to the ISS orbit{once Livable in,NASA i am sure would have got them home as they did Apollo 13} plenty of internal emails went around nasa about Columbia's foam strike.IMO it is just as well the crew were not told about the concerns,they at least got to enjoy their last days alive without no more worries than any other Shuttle crew.

jumpguy

ynotdu wrote: »

IMO it is just as well the crew were not told about the concerns,they at least got to enjoy their last days alive without no more worries than any other Shuttle crew.

Actually that got me thinking, what could they have possibly done, even if they did know the panels would cause a fatal re-entry? Did they have enough fuel to reach ISS orbit? Could an EVA have fixed it? Could they have launched another shuttle to rescue it?

Turtwig

jumpguy wrote: »

Actually that got me thinking, what could they have possibly done, even if they did know the panels would cause a fatal re-entry? Did they have enough fuel to reach ISS orbit? Could an EVA have fixed it? Could they have launched another shuttle to rescue it?

Shuttle Rescue mission was definitely a possibility. As for EVA, I remember reading before, that it may have been possible but it would have been very difficult.

@Ynotdu, the managements decisions for Challenger were definitely reckless and against safety protocol however the fact remains NASA had that safety protocol it was just ignored. This leads me to question whether big experiments should have so much political influence behind them because it could easily be argued that a similar thing happened at Chernobyl. When under pressure and fear people tend to make mistakes; a fact the movies love to ignore.

Captain Chaos

Columbia was in orbit for 16 days which I think is the limit for crew supplies. They possibly could have made it to the ISS. Its missions to Hubble that are much higher up, leaves the shuttle no chance of dropping down and matching the ISS orbit without re-entry.

Stargate

jumpguy wrote: »

Actually that got me thinking, what could they have possibly done, even if they did know the panels would cause a fatal re-entry? Did they have enough fuel to reach ISS orbit? Could an EVA have fixed it? Could they have launched another shuttle to rescue it?

Interesting thought jumpguy , imagine if they had known and " Couldnt " fix it and were doomed and knew it , perish the thought :eek:

ynotdu

jumpguy wrote: »

Actually that got me thinking, what could they have possibly done, even if they did know the panels would cause a fatal re-entry? Did they have enough fuel to reach ISS orbit? Could an EVA have fixed it? Could they have launched another shuttle to rescue it?

NONE of the above unfortunatly Jumpguy:o
Even if Columbia had the ability to check it's tiles as a shuttle does now, it could not have changed orbits to the ISS,{not enough fuel and no way to dock with the ISS}
If it checked it's tiles on day one as they do now all they could have done was a powering down of all but it's most basic systyms leaving the crew freezing and in darkness for about 30 days.
I have a suspiscion that at least a few at NASA knew Columbia was in deep trouble,but there really was no point in telling the crew.
Oh and they had no repair kit for a repair EVA{how shortsighted was that?again though it was all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The closest Two Shuttles EVER launched was a 17 day gap(courtesy of BEEKER)

There was not a 2nd one even on a pad!:(

Turtwig

ynotdu wrote: »

NONE of the above unfortunatly Jumpguy:o
Even if Columbia had the ability to check it's tiles as a shuttle does now, it could not have changed orbits to the ISS,{not enough fuel}
If it checked it's tiles on day one as they do now all they could have done was a powering down of all but it's most basic systyms leaving the crew freezing and in darkness for about 30 days.
I have a suspiscion that at least a few at NASA knew Columbia was in deep trouble,but there really was no point in telling the crew.
Oh and they had no repair kit for a repair EVA{how shortsighted was that?again though it was all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The closest Two Shuttles EVER launched was a 17 day gap(courtesy of BEEKER)

There was not a 2nd one even on a pad!:(

Wow:eek:

Then they were properly screwed then iirc NASA engineers reported on the second day that the foam had the hit the shuttle during launch (Don't think the crew were made aware though).

jumpguy

ynotdu wrote: »

NONE of the above unfortunatly Jumpguy:o
Even if Columbia had the ability to check it's tiles as a shuttle does now, it could not have changed orbits to the ISS,{not enough fuel}
If it checked it's tiles on day one as they do now all they could have done was a powering down of all but it's most basic systyms leaving the crew freezing and in darkness for about 30 days.
I have a suspiscion that at least a few at NASA knew Columbia was in deep trouble,but there really was no point in telling the crew.
Oh and they had no repair kit for a repair EVA{how shortsighted was that?again though it was all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The closest Two Shuttles EVER launched was a 17 day gap(courtesy of BEEKER)

There was not a 2nd one even on a pad!:(

A 17 day gap could easily be reduced if you got people working 24/7, and alot of them. That'd depend though if another shuttle was near a pad and another EFT and SRBs were available. If these weren't availiable, then I'd imagine with incredible work, you'd get another shuttle up in 30 days. Again, the rescue mission would've been unimaginably risky. It'd either be a disastrous failure, spelling the end for the shuttle programme, or a daring success.

The repair kit...Jesus. That's negligence right there for ya. NASA has been aware of a panel problem, after all. They were made extremely aware of it after STS-27:


Note the tile damage.

ynotdu

Malty_T wrote: »

Wow:eek:

Then they were properly screwed then iirc NASA engineers reported on the second day that the foam had the hit the shuttle during launch (Don't think the crew were made aware though).

Yes they were aware{the NASA Engineers but the only emails available were the most junior of the mission crew sadly},but unlike the Challenger crew they at least reached their dream.

I dont know the 'human' inner workings of NASA,or if right at the top NASA know they have a 'screwed 'Spacecraft they 'have to tell the Crew or their family' if their is no hope for them.
to be fair about it even IF nasa kept stumpf it was because they had worries about the foam strike but no certainty that it would lead to a Lovc.

Jumpguy the STS was meant to fly every two weeks,The 17/18 days was a once-off and a miracle once the STS became a reality!

Turtwig

ynotdu wrote: »

Yes they were aware{the NASA Engineers but the only emails available were the most junior of the mission crew sadly},but unlike the Challenger crew they at least reached their dream.

I dont know the 'human' inner workings of NASA,or if right at the top NASA know they have a 'screwed 'Spacecraft they 'have to tell the Crew or their family' if their is no hope for them.
to be fair about it even IF nasa kept stumpf it was because they had worries about the foam strike but no certainty that it would lead to a Lovc.

Jumpguy the STS was meant to fly every two weeks,The 17/18 days was a once-off and a miracle once the STS became a reality!

They had their worries but a computer program which was based on inaccurate experimental foam collisions models told them it was not a threat to flight safety. The engineers reported their doubts but management or whoever claimed that it was not a major flight concern and events of the kind had happened before. Furthermore, the place on the wing where the collision happened was thought to be almost 'indestructible'. The engineers suspected that if it were to cause damage the foam would have struck tiles underneath the shuttle : it was only when advanced photographic analysis was made available to investigators that they became aware exactly the shuttle had been struck and it was a bit of a shock for everyone involved (the investigators had also hypothesised that it was the body hit and were left a bit puzzled).

ynotdu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcvtIsZv12E

Turtwig

ynotdu wrote: »

<doom>

This video offers hope

I think this explains why though... the culture with NASA's higher ups was somewhat disturbing e.g

wikipedia greatest netz resource ever wrote:

Linda Ham squelched requests for external photos to be taken after the requests had been sent by two individual departments at NASA. Engineers in these departments were concerned that the foam strike on the left wing, clearly captured by launch-day video recorded for every launch, had caused more damage than initially thought. Based on computer modeling later proven inadequate, Ham's belief was that the damage was not serious, and that if anything it would merely lengthen the time necessary to refurbish Columbia between missions. Referring to the supposed minor damage in a review meeting, she was quoted as saying that "...there's nothing we can do about it anyway." Ham decided to quash the request for high-resolution imaging of the shuttle, based on her belief that the damage was too minor to be of consequence.
Ham's on-the-job persona was reported to be somewhat brusque, and she was perceived by some below her in the chain of command as being occasionally less than willing to embrace dissenting points of view. This was part of a larger cultural problem within NASA which was addressed at length by the CAIB. Even if the hole in the left wing had been discovered immediately, according to flight director LeRoy Cain, (it was assumed that) there were few if any realistic options to either circumvent the damage or launch a rescue mission, though two realistic options were worked out later. Ham was subjected to intense criticism after the accident.

Interesting though

Former Flight Director Wayne Hale worked outside of proper NASA channels in an effort to get imaging of the damage, even though Ham had the authority over this decision. In the aftermath of the mishap, Hale got promoted to Space Shuttle Program Manager and then on to NASA Headquarters and Ham was dealt her demotion.

ynotdu

Malty-t aw C'mon that Video is like a work of fiction almost!
The specs for a shuttle would NO way have even allowed for a transfer of Astronauts,or anything like an extension of suggested time to launch supplys to the 'stranded Astronauts,no amount of powering down even on day one would have allowed for another Shuttle Launch in time to save them.even if it got there in time there was no available hardware to transfer SEVEN Astronauts to another Shuttle that would still have had to get a GO for launch as strict as any other{Like NASA was going to lose two crews instead of one? It must be an excerpt from Discovery channel documentry{that channel gloss's over what suits it}

The whole culture at NASA had slipped away from Astronaut safety AGAIN! A guarenteed 20-30 year budget would have ensured that NASA would not have got itself into its current or previous missions mess's.
they are all the time playing deal or no deal there,It really IS the poloTHICKins that fcuk them up.
without interference about budget and constant fears about everything the engineers are capable of doing,they would proably have landed on Mars by now!
{although giving them an UN-limited budget would proably be worse as they would by now proably returned Martians safely:eek: to the Earth.

Turtwig

ynotdu wrote: »

Malty-t aw C'mon that Video is like a work of fiction almost!
The specs for a shuttle would NO way have even allowed for a transfer of Astronauts,or anything like an extension of suggested time to launch supplys to the 'stranded Astronauts,no amount of powering down even on day one would have allowed for another Shuttle Launch in time to save them.even if it got there in time there was no available hardware to transfer SEVEN Astronauts to another Shuttle that would still have had to get a GO for launch as strict as any other{Like NASA was going to lose two crews instead of one? It must be an excerpt from Discovery channel documentry{that channel gloss's over what suits it}

The whole culture at NASA had slipped away from Astronaut safety AGAIN! A guarenteed 20-30 year budget would have ensured that NASA would not have got itself into its current or previous missions mess's.
they are all the time playing deal or no deal there,It really IS the poloTHICKins that fcuk them up.
without interference about budget and constant fears about everything the engineers are capable of doing,they would proably have landed on Mars by now!
{although giving them an UN-limited budget would proably be worse as they would by now proably returned Martians safely:eek: to the Earth.

:o:o
I had kinda suspected it but was just saying the possibilities...
NASA execs seems to have the attitude that it didn't matter eitherway.

p.s you can call me Malt or Malty (The '_T' is there because somebody stole the name:mad:)

ynotdu

Malty_T wrote: »

:o:o
I had kinda suspected it but was just saying the possibilities...
NASA execs seems to have the attitude that it didn't matter eitherway.

p.s you can call me Malt or Malty (The '_T' is there because somebody stole the name:mad:)

Can i call You T-Minus? Lol well us nightworkers even have to do a 'crew rotation'

g,nite or gd,mornin !