Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 14-07-2005, 07:34 PM
rowena
Registered User

rowena is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South East Qld
Posts: 477
I want NASA to bring back the Saturn 5's!!! That would rock seeing one of them being launched!!!

The shuttle should be scrapped, but unfortunatly its the only thing big enough at the moment to take up the peices left to build the rest of the ISS. With the amount of money they have spent on Return to Flight they could of invested in a totally new system, which has a less likelyhood of failing compared to a 20-30yr old brick on wings!

As for the 20min/2hr left on the count down clock.. it is both!.. just to confuse everyone.... it was 20minutes left on the count down clock, however they pause the count down clock between 20mins to 1 min for various periods to do their checks, which in this case they were saying to equate to around 2 hrs of realtime.

For a typical countdown with holds see http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/l...ntdown101.html

and taken from http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/Realtim...me-launch.html

"Countdown Clock &
Time to Liftoff
Countdown Clock

10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Liftoff
The countdown clock would be simple to explain except for the "holds". The countdown clock is a method of representing what pre-launch events or milestones have been accomplished. If an event is late, the clock will hold until that event occurs. Also, the countdown will contain several "built-in" holds. Sometime built-in holds are included to allow synchronization with other countdown clocks (for example, a payload countdown). Other built-in holds allow people to take a break. The built-in holds vary significantly from day-launch missions to night-launch missions.

The shuttle countdown clock typically starts counting at about 43 hours. "
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 14-07-2005, 07:49 PM
asimov's Avatar
asimov (John)
Planet photographer

asimov is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bundaberg
Posts: 8,819
Nice find there Rowena!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 14-07-2005, 07:53 PM
rowena
Registered User

rowena is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: South East Qld
Posts: 477
hehehe it is hard to find some stuff on the NASA website, but if you do see something interesting you tend not to forget!

I think the NASA website is poorly organised! Trying to find current or up to date info is hard sometimes too! even clicking on their latest news links!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 14-07-2005, 10:59 PM
Iddon's Avatar
Iddon
Registered User

Iddon is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 226
I think an early risk assessment was 1 hull loss after 100 launches. Then Challenger, and that safety program took the estimate well above 1/100. Guess they were wrong (2 in 126 ??). I think the current safety drive should take them into the 1 in the hundreds. I would ride it.

I have done a lot of reading on the Apollo/Saturn program. From what I recall their risk number were worse than Shuttle.

Last edited by Iddon; 14-07-2005 at 11:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 14-07-2005, 11:09 PM
ballaratdragons's Avatar
ballaratdragons (Ken)
The 'DRAGON MAN'

ballaratdragons is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Dark at Snake Valley, Victoria
Posts: 14,412
Actually, what happened to all the work on the Space Plane.

I'm sure with a bit of Modification (OK, lots of Mods) it could be used to replace the Shuttle!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 14-07-2005, 11:24 PM
Iddon's Avatar
Iddon
Registered User

Iddon is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 226
the Dynosoar ??
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 15-07-2005, 09:03 AM
slice of heaven
Registered User

slice of heaven is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: S.A.
Posts: 1,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iddon
I think an early risk assessment was 1 hull loss after 100 launches. Then Challenger, and that safety program took the estimate well above 1/100. Guess they were wrong (2 in 126 ??). I think the current safety drive should take them into the 1 in the hundreds. I would ride it.

I have done a lot of reading on the Apollo/Saturn program. From what I recall their risk number were worse than Shuttle.
2 in 113.

Each shuttle was expected to complete 100 flights when designed.

Flying in one would be great, you only have to worry about takeoff and landing.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 16-07-2005, 07:00 AM
cometcatcher's Avatar
cometcatcher (Kevin)
<--- Comet Hale-Bopp

cometcatcher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloudy Mackay
Posts: 6,542
I think they should make the next "shuttle" look like this Klingon Bird Of Prey complete with disruptor cannon and photon torpodoes.
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (KlingonBirdofPrey.jpg)
19.1 KB20 views
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 16-07-2005, 01:41 PM
Chrissyo's Avatar
Chrissyo (Chris)
Is always sleepy

Chrissyo is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia
Posts: 410
After the shuttles, we won't be seeing any (overly) reusable craft for quite some time. They are just not good enough (saftey risks. Safer to make something new than repeatly patch up holes in something old). This is where the Crew Exploration Vehicle comes in. Its gonna be basicly similar to the Russian Soyuz, only more modern. NASA also plans to use it in a similar style to the Saturns, using it as a Comand Module to the Moon and eventually Mars.

A little while ago, the Nasa/airforce X projects included several space vehicles, such as the CRV, X-33 and eventually X-37. The project got scrapped however. Apparently, the CRV should be making a reapperance though.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 17-07-2005, 12:19 AM
ballaratdragons's Avatar
ballaratdragons (Ken)
The 'DRAGON MAN'

ballaratdragons is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In the Dark at Snake Valley, Victoria
Posts: 14,412
NASA would like to say 'Thank You' to all U.S. Tax payers for letting us use up Billions of dollars on experimental craft we will never use, coz we keep going back to the Shuttle.

Thank You America.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 17-07-2005, 02:47 PM
Chrissyo's Avatar
Chrissyo (Chris)
Is always sleepy

Chrissyo is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sunshine Coast, Australia
Posts: 410
The project was cancelled because of budget cuts. If the us public had of been willing to continue paying a little extra in taxes, they probably would have seen something come out of it. Besides, they have the CRV to look forward to (not for a long time though), and as far as I can tell, the X-31 will be useful for future fighter jets. And NASA knows where it stands in relation to Lifting Bodies.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement