Shuttle Discover doomed? Launch is go.

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Shuttles fly all the time. Why it's still newsworthy is beyond me.

well you know, sometimes they explode and stuff.

And it happens a lot more often with commercial airliners, but we don't read the news when they take off

well maybe we should:|

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This thread is very, very misleading.

People are talking as if the tank is cracked. It's not. The foam that's covering the tank is cracked. Huge difference there.

The foam cracking loosing material, which hit the heat shielding is what doomed Columbia. I wonder if painting the exterior tank like they did in the early years would prevent the cracking. Iirc they stopped painting them because it was expensive.

I don't know why they don't just do away with the foam myself. If they can launch it without the foam, as they've done in the past, why can't they just eliminate the primary cause of the last failure?

I'm sure the cost of paint is nothing compared to the cost of a $1 billion launch

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Horus


An airliner has to fly up to 25 thousand feet on a pair/quad of turbine engines. The space shuttle flies into FREAKIN SPACE, behind millions of tons of thrust, and then re-enters the earth's atmosphere, subjecting the skin of the shuttle to several thousand degrees celcius.

Don't compare the two. You can't.

Stop talking nonsense. Use some factual facts, not fake facts.

yep - IIRC, it's around 7 million pounds of thrust.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This thread is very, very misleading.

People are talking as if the tank is cracked. It's not. The foam that's covering the tank is cracked. Huge difference there.

The foam cracking loosing material, which hit the heat shielding is what doomed Columbia. I wonder if painting the exterior tank like they did in the early years would prevent the cracking. Iirc they stopped painting them because it was expensive.

I don't know why they don't just do away with the foam myself. If they can launch it without the foam, as they've done in the past, why can't they just eliminate the primary cause of the last failure?

I'm sure the cost of paint is nothing compared to the cost of a $1 billion launch

Reference?? I've never heard of that before.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I don't know why they don't just do away with the foam myself. If they can launch it without the foam, as they've done in the past, why can't they just eliminate the primary cause of the last failure?

I'm sure the cost of paint is nothing compared to the cost of a $1 billion launch

You lose a LOT of LOX if you don't insulate.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This thread is very, very misleading.

People are talking as if the tank is cracked. It's not. The foam that's covering the tank is cracked. Huge difference there.

The foam cracking loosing material, which hit the heat shielding is what doomed Columbia. I wonder if painting the exterior tank like they did in the early years would prevent the cracking. Iirc they stopped painting them because it was expensive.

I don't know why they don't just do away with the foam myself. If they can launch it without the foam, as they've done in the past, why can't they just eliminate the primary cause of the last failure?

I'm sure the cost of paint is nothing compared to the cost of a $1 billion launch

IIRC, the foam is there to prevent ice buildup on the tank and avoid ice hitting the relatively fragile orbiter on launch.

I'm guessing that since capsules are at the top they are out of that kind of danger so they never bothered with it.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This thread is very, very misleading.

People are talking as if the tank is cracked. It's not. The foam that's covering the tank is cracked. Huge difference there.

The foam cracking loosing material, which hit the heat shielding is what doomed Columbia. I wonder if painting the exterior tank like they did in the early years would prevent the cracking. Iirc they stopped painting them because it was expensive.

I don't know why they don't just do away with the foam myself. If they can launch it without the foam, as they've done in the past, why can't they just eliminate the primary cause of the last failure?

I'm sure the cost of paint is nothing compared to the cost of a $1 billion launch

Reference?? I've never heard of that before.

look at the tank

Edit: Correction, they omitted the white latex paint that they used to use, but there was always foam underneath the paint. So now the foam is exposed. I suggest putting the paint back on top. All to save 600 lbs. So I was mistaken about them launching with no foam.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Shuttles fly all the time. Why it's still newsworthy is beyond me.

well you know, sometimes they explode and stuff.

And it happens a lot more often with commercial airliners, but we don't read the news when they take off

there hasn't been a fatality on a U.S. commercial airliner in over 3 years. if they had the accident rate of the shuttle, no one would fly.

19 October 2004; AmericanConnection (Corporate Airlines) BAe Jetstream 32; near Kirksville, MO: The aircraft was on a scheduled flight from St. Louis to Kirksville when it crashed about four miles (6.4 km) south of the destination airport. According to the National Weather Service, visibility was about four miles at the time of the crash, with low clouds created a 300-foot ceiling. Both crew members and 11 of the 13 passengers were killed.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This thread is very, very misleading.

People are talking as if the tank is cracked. It's not. The foam that's covering the tank is cracked. Huge difference there.

The foam cracking loosing material, which hit the heat shielding is what doomed Columbia. I wonder if painting the exterior tank like they did in the early years would prevent the cracking. Iirc they stopped painting them because it was expensive.

I don't know why they don't just do away with the foam myself. If they can launch it without the foam, as they've done in the past, why can't they just eliminate the primary cause of the last failure?

I'm sure the cost of paint is nothing compared to the cost of a $1 billion launch

Reference?? I've never heard of that before.

look at the tank

Edit: Correction, they omitted the white latex paint that they used to use, but there was always foam underneath the paint. So now the foam is exposed. I suggest putting the paint back on top. All to save 600 lbs. So I was mistaken about them launching with no foam.

Hey, that's what I said. Glad I got something from space camp

 

[So]

Originally posted by: jspeicher
What do you think. Success or catastrophe. They just found a crack they are going to repair on an external tank. My money is on disaster.

My money is on you being an idiot. This is going to be the safest flight ever for the shuttle with all the attention they're giving it.

we todd did.

 

[puffpio]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Armitage

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
This thread is very, very misleading.

People are talking as if the tank is cracked. It's not. The foam that's covering the tank is cracked. Huge difference there.

The foam cracking loosing material, which hit the heat shielding is what doomed Columbia. I wonder if painting the exterior tank like they did in the early years would prevent the cracking. Iirc they stopped painting them because it was expensive.

I don't know why they don't just do away with the foam myself. If they can launch it without the foam, as they've done in the past, why can't they just eliminate the primary cause of the last failure?

I'm sure the cost of paint is nothing compared to the cost of a $1 billion launch

Reference?? I've never heard of that before.

look at the tank

Edit: Correction, they omitted the white latex paint that they used to use, but there was always foam underneath the paint. So now the foam is exposed. I suggest putting the paint back on top. All to save 600 lbs. So I was mistaken about them launching with no foam.

yeah but what is the cost?
I think it was something like every pound cost $15000 or something to put into space..so if you save 600 lbs..that is a lot of money

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: pio!pio!

yeah but what is the cost?
I think it was something like every pound cost $15000 or something to put into space..so if you save 600 lbs..that is a lot of money

It's something like that, but that figure is a bit misleading due to the way they came up with that number. It costs around $15,000 for each pound of useful payload to put in space, but that's because you're including the cost of the rocket. If you added a little bit of weight it's not going to change the cost much, and if you took the payload away it's not going to change the cost much. Either way you're paying for the rocket under the payload whether you put anything useful in space or not. Send up a rocket with an empty payload pay and it's still going to cost full price.

Let's say a rocket launch costs $150 million and can loft a 10,000 lb payload. That works out to $15,000 per pound. If your satellite only weighs 8,500 lbs, it's still going to cost you $150 million to launch it. Add another 1000 lbs and it's not going to change the launch cost since it's still within the capability of the rocket. Even if you only wanted to launch the rocket with no payload, it's still going to cost about $150 million.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Shuttles fly all the time. Why it's still newsworthy is beyond me.

Not since the last one blew up on the last leg of their journey.

AUsm

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Shuttles fly all the time. Why it's still newsworthy is beyond me.

well you know, sometimes they explode and stuff.

And it happens a lot more often with commercial airliners, but we don't read the news when they take off

there hasn't been a fatality on a U.S. commercial airliner in over 3 years. if they had the accident rate of the shuttle, no one would fly.

19 October 2004; AmericanConnection (Corporate Airlines) BAe Jetstream 32; near Kirksville, MO: The aircraft was on a scheduled flight from St. Louis to Kirksville when it crashed about four miles (6.4 km) south of the destination airport. According to the National Weather Service, visibility was about four miles at the time of the crash, with low clouds created a 300-foot ceiling. Both crew members and 11 of the 13 passengers were killed.

march 30th or something, west lafayette IN. a plane just after take off crashed into th ground and killed the 2 passengers onboard.

MIKE

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Shuttles fly all the time. Why it's still newsworthy is beyond me.

well you know, sometimes they explode and stuff.

And it happens a lot more often with commercial airliners, but we don't read the news when they take off

There have only been about 100 shuttle launches and two of those resulted in a catostrophic accident.

And a 2% loss rate was predicted when they first signed the contract. Gee, that's what you agreed to with the manufacturers, and yet you almost give up the entire damn thing because you actually hit that rate?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Shuttles fly all the time. Why it's still newsworthy is beyond me.

well you know, sometimes they explode and stuff.

And it happens a lot more often with commercial airliners, but we don't read the news when they take off

there hasn't been a fatality on a U.S. commercial airliner in over 3 years. if they had the accident rate of the shuttle, no one would fly.

Umm, yes there has.

 

[sharkeeper]

What are they blasting a credit card into the sky? What a way to increase interest rates!

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: sharkeeper
What are they blasting a credit card into the sky? What a way to increase interest rates!

Ever heard of the term 'sky-rocketing interest'?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Shuttles fly all the time. Why it's still newsworthy is beyond me.

well you know, sometimes they explode and stuff.

And it happens a lot more often with commercial airliners, but we don't read the news when they take off

There have only been about 100 shuttle launches and two of those resulted in a catostrophic accident.

And a 2% loss rate was predicted when they first signed the contract. Gee, that's what you agreed to with the manufacturers, and yet you almost give up the entire damn thing because you actually hit that rate?

First of all, my point was that the shuttle vehicle loss rate was not comparable to that commercial aviation per launch/takeoff.

I?d scrap the program because it turned out to be an order of magnitude more expensive and complex than envisioned. It is high time we developed something better.

 

[dderidex]

This thread needs MOAR POLE!!!