It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Crack found in foam on shuttle's fuel tank

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It really worries me that this attitude of "We can get away with it" has come back to NASA. Yes, they need to get the shuttle back up there, but the whole "We got away with it before, we can get away with it again" mentality was what killed Challenger in 86. They KNEW they had blowback issues with the O-rings, and they knew that it was going to be freezing that morning, but Morton Thiocol and NASA decided that since nothing had happened on previous flights, this one would be ok too. Now, 20 years later that same attitude is coming back. They KNOW there's a crack in the foam and pieces are falling off, but "It's so small and weightless it won't hurt the shuttle." That's exactly what they thought about Columbia too.


I was eight years old when I saw Challenger explode on TV. I had some flashbacks of being in my old room when watching the video I found here:
Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster

I also read this here:
Space Shuttle Challenger

Challenger was constructed using a body frame (STA-099) that had initially been built as a test article. STA-099 had not been meant for spaceflight, but NASA discovered that recycling it would be cheaper than refitting the test shuttle Enterprise (OV-101) to be spaceworthy, as originally planned. The spacecraft was named after a British corvette which carried out a pioneering global marine research expedition in the 1870s[1].

It is probably noteworthy to look at the history of the other space shuttles that are listed on the right side under Flights.




posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by dgtempe



Originally posted by grimreaper797
did you here the thing on the radio "if the astronauts make it to the space station...." IF?!?!?!! lol if I were the astronauts I would be like "what the...if?? I don't think Ill be going up..." come one now. If they make it?


There's an element of danger in all space exploration, manned and unmanned. So far there is no launch system with a 100% success rate, though the Shuttle has come close with a 98.25%. So I fail to see why it's considered so dangerous, when all the other lift systems have nothing close to that.

[edit on 7/3/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]
There is a risk in everything. But supposedly, you are about to embark on a VEHICLE that WORKS.
Things can go wrong, and do.
But dont tell me, as you sit on your computer chair that you would be willing to go on a "broken" piece of equipment.


Would you go on a Disney ride if it had an out of place piece of wire hanging?

Would you go on the Titanic if they fixed it? (supposing they could)
Would you board a plane that just crashed but everyone made it out alive?


Please, be realistic. There are normal people too.
If this shuttle is deemed unsafe- GET OUT. This is the real life- its not Bruce Willis on a mission to save the world!!!
Honestly.......




[edit on 4-7-2006 by dgtempe]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 06:01 AM
link   
speaking from a F-16 crew cheif standpoint, i know i wouldnt wanna send my pilot up when i KNEW there was a F.O.D. Issue either about to happen or with a High % to happen....(reguardless of Size)

These are people's Lives, We dont goto the moon anymore, we just goto a space station to conduct (already paid by big companies) projects an experiments, thats not alot to risk people's lives about when some Scientists start spoutin F.O.D.

This Shuttle gets a Big Fat Red X from me........ "Unable to FLy untill problem is fixed"

discoveries or not, people live one life in the body they're in, the shuttle can be rebuilt.... you do the math.....



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It really worries me that this attitude of "We can get away with it" has come back to NASA.

Worries me, too! I'm
at the whole situation!!

What the heck is wrong with these people?

This is not urgent--I'm not even sure it's necessary--what for?

People homeless, people hungry, people overseas fighting wars and raping women and all sorts of crap--and we're worried about experiments in space?!? What are they doing up there, anyway? Seriously?

And I thought I was a poor financial manager! This is LIFE they are tossing around like dice! For what? Let's kill this planet while we're finding another place to live?!?

Good GOD, maude!



the whole "We got away with it before, we can get away with it again" mentality was what killed Challenger in 86.
(..)
and NASA decided that since nothing had happened on previous flights, this one would be ok too. Now, 20 years later that same attitude is coming back.

That's what I'm screamin'! What, they think they can 'fess up to their foolhardy decisions twice in the past, and the third time's a charm?


That's exactly what they thought about Columbia too.

Yes--that's the deadly flaw in this situation--not the frozen stiff rubber rings or the consistently mutinous foam--but the lack of foresight and devaluation of people's lives! Not just the astronauts but their spouses, their children...

And not to mention they wanted to launch this thing 2 or 3 days ago--even with that asteroid zooming toward us? I don't care what the 'projected path' is or any of that--an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. AKA prudence!

I say three strikes and you're out!

God forbid it should be three strikes--but if it ever is--then God forbid we, as human beings, don't protest so loudly that they dare not take such risks ever again! :shk:


CX

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Here we go again, take a look on your US news channels.


No links to put up at the moment but they are saying now that technicians are investigating a blown circuit breaker. In the same breath they are still talking about a launch go-ahead.

Is it just me or would you be a little apprehensive right now if you were one of those astronauts? I'm almost waiting for them to say a flower situated on the dashboard shot water out when they pressed the launch button! Thats what all the clowns cars did at the last circus i went to.

Do you think they are desperate to get an Independance Day launch? Maybe so desperate that they'd take a couple of risks? I know that sounds ludicrous, but then again so does launching this thing when they are having so many hiccups.

CX.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Its amazing to think that the large chunks of Challenger are still kept hidden away. I recall during the last shuttle lift off one of the reporters for Sky News said that the commander of that flight had been in situations where she had launched with all sorts of warning lights and alarms going off around her.


Apart from weight, was Endeavour ever built slight differently given it was built in the late 80’s



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
NASA's budgetary problems are all due to virtually unlimited funding for military research projects.

Especially those highly classified " black budgets "

I can't help but wonder if just maybe the powers that be, know just how vulnerable we are
to higher intelligence, so this is why all there efforts have been concentrated on defensive
measures rather than further exploration.

Otherwise, why would the military always be involved to such extremes to suppress any knowledge
of higher intelligence?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
There is a risk in everything. But supposedly, you are about to embark on a VEHICLE that WORKS.


Do you drive a car? Do you check the oil, the fuel quality, the tire pressure, the radiator or transmission fluids, etc, etc every day? Do you look underneath the car to see if anything looks broken, out of place, or otherwise how it should not be? Probably not.

NASA, on the other hand, does that before every launch of any launch vehicle. How do you think they even took notice of this crack? Do you know of all the little cracks, bumps, and things that are "wrong" with your car, but still allowing it to drive?

How many people have died from malfunctions of any certain model of car? Is that going to stop people from driving that car? No, they do a recall on the car and fix it. What did they do with the Shuttle when there were accidents caused by malfunctions? They did a recall and fixed it. The Shuttle does work.



If this shuttle is deemed unsafe- GET OUT. This is the real life- its not Bruce Willis on a mission to save the world!!!


Except, the only people deeming the Shuttle unsafe are those who know little to nothing about it. Those behind the launch - the administrators, the crew, the engineers, etc all say it's fine to go. So why not believe them, since they know what they're doing and talking about?


Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
These are people's Lives, We dont goto the moon anymore, we just goto a space station to conduct (already paid by big companies) projects an experiments, thats not alot to risk people's lives about when some Scientists start spoutin F.O.D.


What do you mean by "already paid by big companies?" The majority of experiments done in space are backed by universities around the nation, both large and small. Also, the Shuttle goes to the ISS to finish construction (it's the only vehicle of taking up the parts), boost the ISS into a higher orbit (which needs to be done, unless you're willing to allow the ISS to crash to Earth), and bring much needed supplies and crew to the station (yes, some Russian craft can do that, but not to the extent of the Shuttle.)

On top of that, this chunk of foam isn't where it could cause FOD with the heatshield.



discoveries or not, people live one life in the body they're in, the shuttle can be rebuilt.... you do the math.....


Actually... The Shuttle cannot be rebuilt. If it could, why didn't we build a new one after Challenger? Why are we not working on a replacement for Columbia right now? Because we no longer have the technology or the facilities to build such craft.


Originally posted by queenannie38
This is not urgent--I'm not even sure it's necessary--what for?


Actually, it is... The ISS can no longer support its own orbit, and without a boost from the Shuttle and a refueling of the ISS tanks, it'll crash to Earth.



People homeless, people hungry, people overseas fighting wars and raping women and all sorts of crap--and we're worried about experiments in space?!? What are they doing up there, anyway? Seriously?


Right. Knock on the space program, where a lot of your household technology has come from, when the military and defense budgets are hundreds of times larger than that of NASA's. Besides, why would we want to waste money on the bettering of mankind through peaceful science when we could be wasting it on ways to kill each other!



Originally posted by CX
No links to put up at the moment but they are saying now that technicians are investigating a blown circuit breaker. In the same breath they are still talking about a launch go-ahead.


Do you know the cause of a blown circuit breaker? It could be anything, but more than likely, just a bad circuit breaker. There are litterally thousands of them on the Shuttle, each with back ups that have back ups that have back ups that... You need a minimum of two backups to launch the Shuttle.

Aside from that, circuit breakers go out on the Shuttle all the time. It's a very complex piece of machinery, if not the most complex in the world. They're prepared to handle small glitches like that with fixes or work-arounds in a short matter of time.

I can guarantee you, just as foam fell off the external tank, that circuit breakers blew on every launch before. You just never heard about it because there wasn't any real danger for it. Though now, in today's media, they like to blow everything out of proportion to scare people, and you're all just buying into it. Congratulations!



Originally posted by The Director
Apart from weight, was Endeavour ever built slight differently given it was built in the late 80’s


When Endeavour was built it did have some slight modifications over the original design, but it was all incorporated into the other Shuttles later. Mainly, it had the plumbing to stay aloft for 28 days, upgraded computers and APUs, and a larger drag chute.


Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I can't help but wonder if just maybe the powers that be, know just how vulnerable we are to higher intelligence, so this is why all there efforts have been concentrated on defensive measures rather than further exploration.


So we haven't been exploring the outer solar system and other planets with a myriad of probes? We don't have plans to send man back to the Moon and then to Mars?

Besides, if we're vulnerable to a higher intelligence, which I firmly believe we would be, don't you think that our defenses would be just as vulnerable and that building them up would be nothing more than an exercise in futility?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Cmdrkeenkid, I recall hearing before the very first shuttle launch, that the chance of a catastrophic failure would be 1 out 25 missions. At the time, while that seemed high, people could not even fathom so many missions. With 114 missions we have beat those odds. How many people can understand the workings of a car engine, let alone the complexities and workings of the Shuttle as you described
Humans are relatively newbies to space; generations from now will look back as to how primitive our efforts are now. I wish national budget priorities had given more to NASA, instead of directed to more harmful ideological efforts on Earth. (Did we win the space race and rest on our laurals?) It would be better if we were further along than we are now. However, as long as we do not deny the Daedalus in us, we will be on the correct heading.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
So far it's still a go. I have the web tv feature running on it now. Here's a link:

www.nasa.gov...

I hope they launch today, that would be a great event for the fourth.

wupy



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
speaking from a F-16 crew cheif standpoint, i know i wouldnt wanna send my pilot up when i KNEW there was a F.O.D. Issue either about to happen or with a High % to happen....(reguardless of Size)

These are people's Lives, We dont goto the moon anymore, we just goto a space station to conduct (already paid by big companies) projects an experiments, thats not alot to risk people's lives about when some Scientists start spoutin F.O.D.

This Shuttle gets a Big Fat Red X from me........ "Unable to FLy untill problem is fixed"

discoveries or not, people live one life in the body they're in, the shuttle can be rebuilt.... you do the math.....



Completely agree with you. There are some posters hear stating things like 1 outta 114 ain't so bad (although hasn't there been 2 disasters ????). Kinda makes you scratch your head a bit to hear people say this. Regardless it's a shallow view to dismiss this problem as nothing new or otherwise. It is nothing short of complete irresponsibility. You cannot compare the billion flight to driving a car as one poster did, pure manure in a comparative sense.

The space program/NASA dumps buckets of money into this and there are a lot of obviously well qualified people involved with each mission. If the mission has the possibility to be scrapped then it should. What's more important here......ensuring the average idiot is happy because they can commemorate July 4 fireworks in unison with a launch or watch people being used as real fireworks. If there are problems fix it. You have the money and resources.

brill

[edit on 4-7-2006 by brill]

[edit on 4-7-2006 by brill]

[edit on 4-7-2006 by brill]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
HaHa, yeah, right. If you think some puny crack in the foam is the real reason why they're delaying the launch then good luck with life.


Here's a picture of the real reason why the Columbia exploded, and here's what someone had to say about that picture.
www.thunderbolts.info...



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Discovery is up there now!


I would have chosen another day than July 4th in case something went wrong...



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I was watching an interview on ABC News. I believe the guy was retired Air Force and NASA .. Anyway, he said that all of the electronics, circuitry, wiring etc of the shuttle are all from the mid-70's. He said .. "Think about that, and then try to think of any appliance in your home that was built in the 1970's and that you can still use." He made an interesting point that made me ask a question. With all of the new technology and advances in computers, flight controls, safety measures etc. Why hasn't NASA either A) Rebuilt the shuttle integrating the new technology. .. OR .. B) Designed and Built a new shuttle type?

The first thing to come to mind was the X-33 pictured here ....


Instead of launching the way they do now, why can't The X-33 (or even the current shuttle) be tethered piggy back style onto a larger aircraft like they do when they are moving it? Either one could be launched at the maximum altitude of the larger aircraft. Once they have broken away, the shuttle( or X-33) could fire their launch thrusters to take them the short distance into orbital space. There has to be a safer, better, easier, and more economical way of launching than their current routine.

Which then got me thinking about something else ... With all of the talk about the U.S. Government having their own UFO's or their own space fleet, Solar Warden etc. ... How can any of that even be remotely true or possible if our current "known" method of space travel can be completely destroyed by something like a leaking O-Ring (Challenger) or a piece of FOAM that weighed next to nothing (Columbia)?? If they have control of the highly advanced and sophisticated space flight technology and vehicles .. Why then would they have to cancel a shuttle launch because of bad weather or because clouds rolled in??

And don't give me that same old song and dance .."Because their hiding it! or Because they think the public isn't ready to be informed of Alien civilizations beyond the stars and that the Government has been reverse engineering UFO technology." I don't buy it. I think that if they had the technology that so many people claim they do .. We would have seen some pretty fantastic leaps in our Space Exploration programs. We would have certainly seen a New Shuttle with more up to date technology.

Do I believe in UFO's .. Yes.
Do I believe that the U.S. Gorvernment has control over the technology or Alien races? No, not likely.

But to get back on subject .. What is stopping NASA from building a new S.E.V. (Space Exploration Vehicle)? Hell, there are private companies and individuals our there right now designing and building their own SEV's that are leaps and bounds ahead of the current NASA Shuttle Design. Shouldn't NASA get involved with these private builders and work with them on developing their ideas? It seems to me that NASA just wants to repair the same old problems instead of rebuilding to eliminate the problem. There's always a better way to do something. Build a better mouse trap, so to speak.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
OMG!


a news ticker at BBC :


BBC
LATEST: Pieces of debris fell off space shuttle as it began flight - Nasa. More soon.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


[edit on 2006/7/4 by Hellmutt]


jra

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
OMG!


BBC
LATEST: Pieces of debris fell off space shuttle as it began flight - Nasa. More soon.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


That's nothing to freak out about. Stuff always falls off the fuel tank. We don't know if any of it hit the Shuttle. Let's just wait till they do an inspection before thinking the worst.


Originally posted by Digital Zombie
he said that all of the electronics, circuitry, wiring etc of the shuttle are all from the mid-70's. He said .. "Think about that, and then try to think of any appliance in your home that was built in the 1970's and that you can still use."


Well they've upgraded the computers as well as redoing the cockpit with full colour, flat panel screen displays and all that stuff. The Space Shuttles Main Engines have also had several improvements too.

I also have a few kitchen appliances in my home that are from the 70's. They work perfectly fine.


With all of the new technology and advances in computers, flight controls, safety measures etc. Why hasn't NASA either A) Rebuilt the shuttle integrating the new technology. .. OR .. B) Designed and Built a new shuttle type?


Lack of money is NASA's biggest problem and that blame should probably be put on the US Government. And like I said above, the Shuttle has been upgraded.


Instead of launching the way they do now, why can't The X-33 (or even the current shuttle) be tethered piggy back style onto a larger aircraft like they do when they are moving it? Either one could be launched at the maximum altitude of the larger aircraft. Once they have broken away, the shuttle( or X-33) could fire their launch thrusters to take them the short distance into orbital space.


I believe launching something that's sitting on top of an aircraft is a lot more dangerous. It's better and safer to hang it from underneath. I don't think a 747 would be able to get the Shuttle high enough or be able to carry a shuttle fully loaded with cargo and fuel. Plus the shuttle would probably still need some sort of extermal tank. I don't think it could carry enough inside it.

The idea would probably work better with the X-33 since it was ment to be a single stage to orbit and it would carry all it's fuel inside, but the fuel tanks and other things were just too hard to build.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
The 747 can barely carry an EMPTY shuttle. Flying it from California to Florida, they have to stop at least once to refuel. The reason that Hawaii is no longer an emergency landing site is because the only way to get it back is to remove the engines and other systems from the orbiter, so the 747 would have enough range just to make it to California.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   
wow, people need to calm down.

Also...Congrats to Nasa for a successfull lift off!





posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Lets Just Hope Make It Back Safely



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by brill
There are some posters hear stating things like 1 outta 114 ain't so bad (although hasn't there been 2 disasters ????).


Hey, way to take my comments out of context. Good job! I said one accident out of 114 caused by foam falling off of the external tank... But who needs to completely read what anyone says, anyway, right?


Also, as has already been said, NASA expected an accident after only 25 launches.


You cannot compare the billion flight to driving a car as one poster did, pure manure in a comparative sense.


Oh, right... I forgot that the auto industry doesn't invest billions of dollars into design, development, and production of its automobiles... Oh, wait a second. Yes. Yes, it does.




If the mission has the possibility to be scrapped then it should.


Then we never would have left the ground. There is a possibility to have to scrub the launch with every launch. Space exploration is in its infancy, just as aviation was 100 years ago. Imagine if the pioneers of aviation had said, "Hey, there's a chance something may go wrong here... Maybe we should give this up now?" Do you think we would have the aircraft we have today if we took that stance?


You have the money and resources.


Except NASA doesn't have the money, time, or resources...



Originally posted by iamjman
HaHa, yeah, right. If you think some puny crack in the foam is the real reason why they're delaying the launch then good luck with life.


No, no... Good luck to you. The "science" of that website you provided is even more laughable.


Originally posted by Digital Zombie
Why hasn't NASA either A) Rebuilt the shuttle integrating the new technology. .. OR .. B) Designed and Built a new shuttle type?


A.) NASA has upgraded the technology of the Shuttles several times, though no "major" overhauls. Mainly this is because of the fact that a lot of the newer technology is far too sensitive to cosmic radiation and just won't work up there. With the newer tech they would need to invest more on shielding for it, which would decrease the usable payload of the craft significantly. So it's just cheaper and easier to use what they have now. On top of that, the computers and everything on board the Shuttle works just fine, so why change it and create more problems?

B.) Because NASA doesn't have the immense budget that it had when it was designing the Shuttle in the late 60s and early 70s.

Anyway, I have some appliances my family has given me that are older than me. A toaster, a blender, a waffle iron, and an electric griddle... All from the mid/late 1970s. They're working fine and dandy.




Instead of launching the way they do now, why can't The X-33 (or even the current shuttle) be tethered piggy back style onto a larger aircraft like they do when they are moving it? Either one could be launched at the maximum altitude of the larger aircraft.


I believe I've already answered this question in depth. I suggest going back and rereading this thread.




Hell, there are private companies and individuals our there right now designing and building their own SEV's that are leaps and bounds ahead of the current NASA Shuttle Design.


Not really... Sure, they use innovative designs, but can they lift the payload that the Shuttle or any of the heavy lift vehicles NASA has can?


Originally posted by Murcielago
wow, people need to calm down.


Originally posted by Rade On Earth
Lets Just Hope Make It Back Safely


Agreed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join