Nasa

[Mr. P]

What the hell is up with these people these days? They wanna launch the shuttle, no wait, well maybe, we’re not sure yet. Hell, main tank insulation has a crack in it! I wouldn’t fly it!

I've never seen NASA act like this. Are they under some outside pressure to launch, perhaps?

 

[USViking]

What the hell is up with these people these days? They wanna launch the shuttle, no wait, well maybe, we’re not sure yet. Hell, main tank insulation has a crack in it! I wouldn’t fly it!

I've never seen NASA act like this. Are they under some outside pressure to launch, perhaps?

I thought Shuttle delays were commonplace,
and I sure as hell do not want to send one up
with a cracked anything.

 

[Mr. P]

Live if yer interested.
http://www.nasa.gov/55644main_NASATV_Windows.asx

 

[no1tovote4]

Scuttled launches are so commonplace that they no longer keep track of how many there are.

NASA is paranoid, they no longer are willing to take risks in order to advance...

 

[Mr. P]

Scuttled launches are so commonplace that they no longer keep track of how many there are.

NASA is paranoid, they no longer are willing to take risks in order to advance...

paranoid Nahhh, causus Another one would shut em down.
This should be routine now. But they lost a piece of foam off the main fuel tank due to ice during defueling. I’m sure you recall that foam is what damaged the Columbia.

Paranoid? Nahhh, Cautious another one for the same reason would shut em down.

 

[no1tovote4]

paranoid Nahhh, causus Another one would shut em down.
This should be routine now. But they lost a piece of foam off the main fuel tank due to ice during defueling. I’m sure you recall that foam is what damaged the Columbia.

Paranoid? Nahhh, Cautious another one for the same reason would shut em down.

During the first 15 years there never was foam at all present at the launches... Hmmm... I wonder if we simply removed the foam if we'd still have the issues? There is also the matter of the CFC producing foam that caused no problems, it was only when they started using the stiffer non-CFC producing foam that they started having these issues.... There are several things they could do to fix the "problem". Paranoid is a better description than "cautious".

 

[dmp]

BillyBadAss works in a NASA Safety Office.

 

[Mr. P]

Hey my edit thingy is gone..

Nevermind, it's back..sorta.

 

[USViking]

Live if yer interested.
http://www.nasa.gov/55644main_NASATV_Windows.asx

Thanks for the link, I don't got audio, though.

So I am a bit confused about the Maya ruins
and the global-warming-induced disappearance
of the rain forest.

I guess I don't need audio if the message is that NASA
is now producing global warming PR when I am not sure
it should be involved in the issue as such an advocate.

It definitely should be devoting more of its resources to
enforcing quality assurance on its fuel tank suppliers.

NASA has been notorious for producing Sunday Funnies
cartoon level PR crap, and missing shit like the chromatic aberration
of the Hubble mirror.

Speaking of the Hubble, I think we have had another mirror,
defect-free, warhoused for since before the defective one
was put in orbit. I hope we can make use of this warhoused
mirror some day. If NASA hasn't allowed it to deteriorate in
storage, that is.

An honest to God bar room buddy of mine says his brother
has a big job with NASA. Like way the hell up there big.

I have only had one or two conversations with him involving NASA.
Next time I run into him I will try to develop more information about
Maya ruins, and that spare mirror.

 

[Mr. P]

repeat of press brief on now viking..same link.

 

[USViking]

BillyBadAss works in a NASA Safety Office.

Has he posted anything here about NASA?

I'd like to read it if he has.

One safety thing I hope NASA has the right stuff
to at least get us started on is a reverse Star Wars,
or something, for those goddam meteors.

One of the fucking things got as close as the Moon???!!!

Today???!!!

Ai-yai-yai!

 

[USViking]

repeat of press brief on now viking..same link.

Thanks again.

I enjoy reading when I am on boards, though.

Could you please do me a favor and put the view into words?

Just a short summary of the content of the video.

In 100 words or less.

 

[Mr. P]

Thanks again.

I enjoy reading when I am on boards, though.

Could you please do me a favor and put the view into words?

Just a short summary of the content of the video.

In 100 words or less.

:rotflmao: They're looking into it, but don't know what they're going to do yet.
Weather guy says, 40% chance of scrub (Do to weather)Tues, 60% Weds & Thurs.

 

[USViking]

:rotflmao: They're looking into it, but don't know what they're going to do yet.
Weather guy says, 40% chance of scrub (Do to weather)Tues, 60% Weds & Thurs.

I got what I asked for, including the laughter.

Screw getting to the point, huh?- you gotta talk
in riddles all the time, huh? Make a joke of everything, right?

I was hoping for a learned conversation here.

I am disappointed. I won't let it stop me.
I'll make it keep me going.

 

[Mr.Conley]

NASA should throw away the shuttles and use the 6 billion they spend each year keeping the fleet grounded on developing the CEV. Better yet, set up a prize. First person to build a privately manned space vehicle that can orbit the planet multiple times and is reusable gets a billion dollars. Build a private space station that is larger and better than the ISS, can dock with aforementioned private vehicle, and stays in orbit for at least 2 years, gets 2 billion dollars. Whoever get a vehicle to the moon, and builds a reuseable, lunar base that is manned for at least 6 months get three billion dollars.

 

[KarlMarx]

NASA should throw away the shuttles and use the 6 billion they spend each year keeping the fleet grounded on developing the CEV. Better yet, set up a prize. First person to build a privately manned space vehicle that can orbit the planet multiple times and is reusable gets a billion dollars. Build a private space station that is larger and better than the ISS, can dock with aforementioned private vehicle, and stays in orbit for at least 2 years, gets 2 billion dollars. Whoever get a vehicle to the moon, and builds a reuseable, lunar base that is manned for at least 6 months get three billion dollars.

An article in National Review said that NASA could get a lot more bang for the buck by scuttling the Shuttle and the International Space Station and putting its emphasis on probes instead. It claims that both the Shuttle and the International Space Station, for all their expense, have contributed little.

As for your idea on a prize for privately developed space flight, one already exists, it's called the "X Prize"
http://www.xprizefoundation.com/index.asp

 

[Mr. P]

Launch set for 8:30am EDT

 

[Mr. P]

Now launch is 2:38pm EDT

 

[Mr. P]

Just a reminder...I've been watching the prep most of the day.
Some very interesting stuff and I've learned things I never knew.

Example..if you go to the link an see the view of the launch pad you'll see a water tower. They release all that water on the pad just before main engine ignition, it's purpose is noise dampening, so vibrations don't damage equipment on the shuttle.

http://www.nasa.gov/55644main_NASATV_Windows.asx

 

[Otter_Creek]

Flawless liftoff! What a ride. I gotta get me one of those.