NASA STS-114 UFO Footage - Can it be debunked?

page: 63
96
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Given that the shuttle was traveling at such a massive speed and taking into account that maybe things are a bit distorted in the vastness of space, it could be a UFO and it could be something else. I'm sure atronauts see these things all the time. Pretty interesting though.




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

RF, get a grip. None of the things you state the Energiya CAN do, has it ever really done. They are the claims of salesmen who want your (well, your country's) money. And you believe them?


Heh, speaking of "salesmen"...you expect us to believe NASA's "salespitch" every time they want to spend several hundred million of OUR tax dollars to go look at rocks and debris and tell us there is nothing out there?

I will buy the Russian sales pitch ANY DAY OF THE WEEK to our tilted salesmen pitches.


Originally posted by JimOberg
But we're well off topic from the shuttle video... except to demonstrate again the level of reliable space expertise being offered here from different people.


A matter of opinion..and opinions are like the holes in our heads...everyone has em. To some, those opinions are relevant, to others, irrelevant. See how that works! Its called freedom of choice, freedom to think freely, freedom to believe what you want to believe...freedom to tell the other guy to go fly a kite.




Originally posted by JimOberg
added note -- couldn't resist:


Neither could I.



Originally posted by JimOberg
"Jet engines for the Buran shuttle were also to be installed, so as to give a little added safety to the shuttle on landing, as most people know shuttle tend to glide into landing like bricks, a few engines up back certainly will be appreciated if you’re landing in adverse weather conditions."

Right, carry 30,000 pounds of engines into orbit, just remove your payload and carry a few boxes of sandwiches for the space station crew. The Russians THOUGHT about having jet engines and finally decided that it was a BAD idea, after flight testing on a modified Ilyushin showed the engines often failed to ignite during the final approach. They're only useful below Mach 1 anyway -- with about 60 seconds of air time left, little chance to make any difference in bad weather or any other contingency. So they removed them a few months before launch -- just as NASA had done in its design years earlier.


If you bother to even comprehend the article as it is written, the jets were to be used for LANDINGS!! Oh I guess I need to put it in "A-B-C-D" terminoligy for you....in other words..spell it out for you.

The jets are to supplement the landing sequence during adverse weather conditions. It allows that craft to have some engine power for forward motion..critical to flight ability. Without forward motion applied to an airfoil or wing, no lift is produced, hence no flight. With the added room of not needing main engines on the craft itself because the Energia lift vehicle puts that craft at intended orbital altitude, installing two jets takes up less room than the main engines on our shuttles as well as weight. And if you want to compare apples to oranges, there is never 30,000 pounds of food carried by any shuttle for the astronauts.

You show us a jet engine or combination of jet engines that weigh 30,000 pounds.

GET ER DONE!!!

Their idea Jim, was to add extra safety margins to the landing sequence. Simply relying on gliding is a 50/50 chance at best. One thing that the Soviet engineers considered was its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Something NASA has yet to understand.

So far, the shuttle has been incredibly lucky to not hit any downsheer upon approaching that runway, which ANY aircraft pilot will tell you, is a risk even in powered flight. However, any aircraft pilot will also tell you that having engine power at your command will save your butt more so than not having any engine power at all.

Tell you what Jim...ask those flight commanders who pilot that brick to a landing if they would feel safer knowing that at a flip of a switch, they could have added thrust power from a couple of jet engines during that landing phase. Make sure you quote them verbatim.



Originally posted by JimOberg
This just shows again how little you really know about space technology versus how much you are positive you do know.


Apparently I know a hell of a lot more than you do..you seem to think that jets will be used to launch a shuttle into orbit. You said that, not me, nor does the article.



Originally posted by JimOberg
What was that quotation from Will Rogers? "It ain't what you don't know what'll make you look like a fool -- it's what you DO know, what ain't so."

Meet RF, the poster child of Will Rogers' joke.



Ahh, revert to the personal insults again. No sweat there Jim, everyone knows what the score is already..you just keep adding negative points on your darkening star chart.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 18-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
I will buy the Russian sales pitch ANY DAY OF THE WEEK to our tilted salesmen pitches.


Since it's about 'Buran', don't you mean the 'Soviet' sales pitch??

Glad to get this calibration of your sympathies out on the table, tovarishch.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg
"Jet engines for the Buran shuttle were also to be installed, so as to give a little added safety to the shuttle on landing, as most people know shuttle tend to glide into landing like bricks, a few engines up back certainly will be appreciated if you’re landing in adverse weather conditions."

Right, carry 30,000 pounds of engines into orbit, just remove your payload and carry a few boxes of sandwiches for the space station crew. The Russians THOUGHT about having jet engines and finally decided that it was a BAD idea, after flight testing on a modified Ilyushin showed the engines often failed to ignite during the final approach. They're only useful below Mach 1 anyway -- with about 60 seconds of air time left, little chance to make any difference in bad weather or any other contingency. So they removed them a few months before launch -- just as NASA had done in its design years earlier.


If you bother to even comprehend the article as it is written, the jets were to be used for LANDINGS!! Oh I guess I need to put it in "A-B-C-D" terminoligy for you....in other words..spell it out for you.


My point, RF, is that if you use them for landings, you carry them dead weight for launchings. Or do you imagine you find them lying about somewhere in orbit?



The jets are to supplement the landing sequence during adverse weather conditions. It allows that craft to have some engine power for forward motion..critical to flight ability. Without forward motion applied to an airfoil or wing, no lift is produced, hence no flight. With the added room of not needing main engines on the craft itself because the Energia lift vehicle puts that craft at intended orbital altitude, installing two jets takes up less room than the main engines on our shuttles as well as weight. And if you want to compare apples to oranges, there is never 30,000 pounds of food carried by any shuttle for the astronauts. You show us a jet engine or combination of jet engines that weigh 30,000 pounds.


A pair of high-thrust jet engines, fuel tankage, thermal shielding -- what's your estimate of how much it should weigh? Whatever it comes to, it's dead weight during ascent, and is subtracted 1:1 from payload performance.

You didn't address my other issue -- the jets would only be able to operate below Mach 1, when the Buran is within 60 seconds of the airfield and already within the 'bad weather' that you're worried about. That doesn't give a whole lot of avoidance or loiter capability.


Their idea Jim, was to add extra safety margins to the landing sequence. Simply relying on gliding is a 50/50 chance at best. One thing that the Soviet engineers considered was its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Something NASA has yet to understand.


That was the original idea. Then the Soviet designers realized it was wrong, and removed the two engines from their first Buran orbiter. It flew without them. Didn't you get the memo?



Apparently I know a hell of a lot more than you do..you seem to think that jets will be used to launch a shuttle into orbit. You said that, not me, nor does the article.


Uh, no, I didn't say that. You're imagining things, again....



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
I will buy the Russian sales pitch ANY DAY OF THE WEEK to our tilted salesmen pitches.


Since it's about 'Buran', don't you mean the 'Soviet' sales pitch??

Glad to get this calibration of your sympathies out on the table, tovarishch.



If you bother..once again..to read the articles and note their publish dates, you will see that they are published well after the collapse of the Soviet Union..so any "salespitch" as you call it is Russian.

My my Jim, are we in that nit pick mood today? Taking it to the nth decimal point of desperation?




Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Anything done after the fall of the Soviet Union, is then decalred otherwise..or in this case.."The Russian Deomcratic Republic".


Now THIS gets interesting. When you google
""The Russian Democratic Republic"" you find it is
not the name of the current Russian regime at all --
it's the precise name of the government Lenin set up
in Moscow in 1919 before evolving into the 'USSR'.

Lenin's precise phrase, tripping from RF's keyboard --
who wooda thunk it?

Nah, it's just an accident. No, seriously, I don't see any
deeper significance to it, just random noise.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

My point, RF, is that if you use them for landings, you carry them dead weight for launchings. Or do you imagine you find them lying about somewhere in orbit?


Ya, dead weight during launch by a launch vehicle that wont even break a sweat with two mere jet engines and just enough fuel for them to supplement landings.

Now you want to nit pick at nat s***? Ok....lets do just that.

Dead weight....those 3 main engines on our shuttles....are completely USELESS and DEAD WEIGHT on landings. Hell, they are dead weight the second that external tank drops. So not only is there dead weight up in orbit on our shuttle, there is more DEAD WEIGHT on that thing during a glide landing!!!

Sure enough.



Originally posted by JimOberg


The jets are to supplement the landing sequence during adverse weather conditions. It allows that craft to have some engine power for forward motion..critical to flight ability. Without forward motion applied to an airfoil or wing, no lift is produced, hence no flight. With the added room of not needing main engines on the craft itself because the Energia lift vehicle puts that craft at intended orbital altitude, installing two jets takes up less room than the main engines on our shuttles as well as weight. And if you want to compare apples to oranges, there is never 30,000 pounds of food carried by any shuttle for the astronauts. You show us a jet engine or combination of jet engines that weigh 30,000 pounds.


A pair of high-thrust jet engines, fuel tankage, thermal shielding -- what's your estimate of how much it should weigh? Whatever it comes to, it's dead weight during ascent, and is subtracted 1:1 from payload performance.


All together, probably 10 to 15 k above 30k empty weight. Again, you want to nit pick...lets do that.


The lift vehicle Energia wont even break a sweat with that 30 or so extra thousand pounds. And becasue there is that added safety margin of thrust available on landing, the extra weight is nothing in comparison to having that extra margin of safety and ability.

From the engineering point of view, it makes perfect sense to ignore added weight when you got a launch vehicle capable of lifting far more than 30k of added weight. And that added weight is not just dead weight like the main engines on our shuttle during the entire time the thing is up in orbit and upon landing.


Originally posted by JimOberg
You didn't address my other issue -- the jets would only be able to operate below Mach 1, when the Buran is within 60 seconds of the airfield and already within the 'bad weather' that you're worried about. That doesn't give a whole lot of avoidance or loiter capability.


Jim..you dont land at speeds of Mach 1. Why the hell do you even bring that up, its a moot point. The jets would be used well below any Mach speed. And again, they would be intended for supplemental thrust power when needed. You know, that added safety net that is good to have in place even though it may not be used, which is far better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.



Originally posted by JimOberg

Their idea Jim, was to add extra safety margins to the landing sequence. Simply relying on gliding is a 50/50 chance at best. One thing that the Soviet engineers considered was its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Something NASA has yet to understand.


That was the original idea. Then the Soviet designers realized it was wrong, and removed the two engines from their first Buran orbiter. It flew without them. Didn't you get the memo?


Umm..the first spaceworthy Buran had NO jet engines on it Jim. The only Buran to have any jets was the atmospheric test model. That test model provided the data they needed to assert the effectiveness of the idea to have jets on the spaceworthy craft. Since the program was haulted, the idea was never implemented.

Again, another point you make is moot.


Originally posted by JimOberg

Apparently I know a hell of a lot more than you do..you seem to think that jets will be used to launch a shuttle into orbit. You said that, not me, nor does the article.


Uh, no, I didn't say that. You're imagining things, again....



Read your own post there Jim. You wrote it..not me. Your own words suggest on the onset that these jets are to be used for launching, and be dead weight. Perhaps you should examine more closely what your writting because for someone who apparently does write articles, your being extremely broad in your statements meanings here.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Dead weight....those 3 main engines on our shuttles....are completely USELESS and DEAD WEIGHT on landings. Hell, they are dead weight the second that external tank drops. So not only is there dead weight up in orbit on our shuttle, there is more DEAD WEIGHT on that thing during a glide landing!!! Sure enough.


Buran jet engines going uphill subtract directly from payload performance -- maybe 50%, maybe 30% -- but massively. That's somewhere betwen 12,000 and 15,000 pounds penalty.

SSMEs sitting in orbit add less than 10% to the mass of the vehicle, so increase its deorbit prop usage by about the same. That comes out to what, maybe 400 or 500 pounds of extra prop, taken off the payload performance.

Payload penalties of 12-15,000 pounds for jets engines, versus 500 pounds for SSMEs -- which one do you find preferable [let me guess]. I mean to ask, which one would a reasonable person find preferable?

We also actually LIKE 'dead weight' aft on the Orbiter, and sometimes several thousand pounds of extra ballast is loaded there when flying payloads that leave you 'nose heavy' (which is bad) during return. You probably didn't know that, but it's documented (which is another difference between the 'inside' space information I've provided, and the stuff that you've offered).




Originally posted by JimOberg
You didn't address my other issue -- the jets would only be able to operate below Mach 1, when the Buran is within 60 seconds of the airfield and already within the 'bad weather' that you're worried about. That doesn't give a whole lot of avoidance or loiter capability.


Jim..you dont land at speeds of Mach 1. Why the hell do you even bring that up, its a moot point. The jets would be used well below any Mach speed. And again, they would be intended for supplemental thrust power when needed. You know, that added safety net that is good to have in place even though it may not be used, which is far better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.


You land at speeds "below Mach 1", exactly as I wrote and you proved incapable of reading. Your statement that the jets could be used at "any Mach speed" is factually phony -- above Mach 1, both the NASA shuttle and the Buran are pitched up more than 40 degrees (to maximize aero braking forces across the belly) and there is not enough air flow across the top to sustain an air-breathing jet engine. The jet's thrust, even if could operate in that non-standard turbulent airflow regime, would then be mostly 'upwards', anyway, considering the attitude the shuttles (of both design) are in, during the supersonic flight regime. You probably didn't know that but it's documented all over the Internet.

The shuttle performs its entry with excess energy all the way down, far more than could be provided by any jet engines firing for a minute or two at the end. During descent, as the navigation confirms the runway is in range, the excess energy is bled off in wide swerving turns, banking up to 80 degrees left or right (to turn far off to the side of a ground track, you stay banked one way -- on a straighter track, you do a series of roll reversals to bleed off the no-longer-needed margin of energy). For final approach, excess energy for additional flying within the range uncertainty is also slowly bled off, so you arrive at the end of the runway with a little more -- just a little -- than needed, and land long if needed (it's why a 35,000 ft runway is preferred).




Originally posted by JimOberg

RF: Their idea Jim, was to add extra safety margins to the landing sequence. Simply relying on gliding is a 50/50 chance at best. One thing that the Soviet engineers considered was its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. Something NASA has yet to understand.


That was the original idea. Then the Soviet designers realized it was wrong, and removed the two engines from their first Buran orbiter. It flew without them. Didn't you get the memo?


Umm..the first spaceworthy Buran had NO jet engines on it Jim. The only Buran to have any jets was the atmospheric test model. That test model provided the data they needed to assert the effectiveness of the idea to have jets on the spaceworthy craft. Since the program was haulted, the idea was never implemented. Again, another point you make is moot.


No, the idea WAS implemented, the first orbital Buran DID have jets installed, but they were removed in the year leading up to flight when the idea turned out to be bad. Photos show the thermal protection system scarring where the twin jets were removed, before the areas were later tiled over.

BTW, the atmospheric test model had four jet engines on it; only two were to be installed on the orbital version because it did not need the capability of a runway takeoff.




Originally posted by JimOberg

RF: Apparently I know a hell of a lot more than you do..you seem to think that jets will be used to launch a shuttle into orbit. You said that, not me, nor does the article.


Uh, no, I didn't say that. You're imagining things, again....



Read your own post there Jim. You wrote it..not me. Your own words suggest on the onset that these jets are to be used for launching, ...


I really cannot see that interpretation in any of the words I wrote. Can anybody else help me figure out how RF got this impression?

Added: Could these be them, where I referred to the jet-engine-equipped Buran analog and the testing it performed, including RF's claims that the flight tests included 'launch'?

posted on 18-3-2009 @ 08:21 AM
...(Buran took off for space attached to an 'Energiya' super-rocket -- jet engines don't 'test' that phase).







[edit on 18-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
There is a great photo and explanation site called "DARK ROASTED BLEND" it has loads of impressive pic's of BURON.

This shuttle was very advanced really for the time, it was able to land it's self and i believe it did so on a drop from that huge carrier plane. give the site a look you will get hooked for hours like me i promise



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthyaroura
There is a great photo and explanation site called "DARK ROASTED BLEND" it has loads of impressive pic's of BURON.

This shuttle was very advanced really for the time, it was able to land it's self and i believe it did so on a drop from that huge carrier plane. give the site a look you will get hooked for hours like me i promise


Thanks, I'll look at the images -- always something new to discover.

There's no evidence Buran ever made drop tests from any carrier aircraft, however. That's what they had the four-jet aero test bed for.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Anything done after the fall of the Soviet Union, is then decalred otherwise..or in this case.."The Russian Deomcratic Republic".


Now THIS gets interesting. When you google
""The Russian Democratic Republic"" you find it is
not the name of the current Russian regime at all --
it's the precise name of the government Lenin set up
in Moscow in 1919 before evolving into the 'USSR'.

Lenin's precise phrase, tripping from RF's keyboard --
who wooda thunk it?

Nah, it's just an accident. No, seriously, I don't see any
deeper significance to it, just random noise.



I think I am going to refer you as Mr. NitPik Oberg from now on.

You seem to only want to nit pick at no one else but me on this entire board.

Thats fine...at least you can focus on something..besides the subject of the thread..

..what was it you said earlier today...what to DO next to resume the theme of the thread....funny...you seem to be experiencing memory lapse to your own questions...so clearly evident now.

Get some sleep Jim....it sounds like you need it..badly.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by RFBurns
Dead weight....those 3 main engines on our shuttles....are completely USELESS and DEAD WEIGHT on landings. Hell, they are dead weight the second that external tank drops. So not only is there dead weight up in orbit on our shuttle, there is more DEAD WEIGHT on that thing during a glide landing!!! Sure enough.


Buran jet engines going uphill subtract directly from payload performance -- maybe 50%, maybe 30% -- but massively. That's somewhere betwen 12,000 and 15,000 pounds penalty.


Thats based on your limited knowledge of the Nazi Alliance Space Agency's SRB limitations, not on Energia's capabilities.

Expand your mind there Jim...if capable.



Originally posted by JimOberg
SSMEs sitting in orbit add less than 10% to the mass of the vehicle, so increase its deorbit prop usage by about the same. That comes out to what, maybe 400 or 500 pounds of extra prop, taken off the payload performance.


Still dead weight..useless load that has no further use once the tank is let loose.


Originally posted by JimOberg
Payload penalties of 12-15,000 pounds for jets engines, versus 500 pounds for SSMEs -- which one do you find preferable [let me guess]. I mean to ask, which one would a reasonable person find preferable?


I would prefer to have something when needed than to be in something that has nothing but dead weight and is useless when it should become needed.

Its called safety first there Jim..and to some in this world, as it is obviously to the Russians, safety is more important than payload.

Which even with the jet engines installed with fuel, their shuttle cargo bay is still capable of carrying more payload than our shuttle with those useless dead weight engines taking up the rear.



Originally posted by JimOberg
We also actually LIKE 'dead weight' aft on the Orbiter, and sometimes several thousand pounds of extra ballast is loaded there when flying payloads that leave you 'nose heavy' (which is bad) during return. You probably didn't know that, but it's documented (which is another difference between the 'inside' space information I've provided, and the stuff that you've offered).


You still get the same weight on the rear with the jets on Buran, cept you have USEFUL weight on the tail, which is better than USELESS weight on the tail. Face it Jim, the concept and design is just simply better any way you look at it...obviously the Russians thought so. If its good for them, thats all that matters.



Originally posted by JimOberg
You land at speeds "below Mach 1", exactly as I wrote and you proved incapable of reading. Your statement that the jets could be used at "any Mach speed" is factually phony -- above Mach 1, both the NASA shuttle and the Buran are pitched up more than 40 degrees (to maximize aero braking forces across the belly) and there is not enough air flow across the top to sustain an air-breathing jet engine. The jet's thrust, even if could operate in that non-standard turbulent airflow regime, would then be mostly 'upwards', anyway, considering the attitude the shuttles (of both design) are in, during the supersonic flight regime. You probably didn't know that but it's documented all over the Internet.


I read it as exactly as you wrote it..you just wanted to nit pick so that you can ramble on about something you obviously tried to imply is incorrect.

Nice try there Jim...but just so you know..in case you have not figured it out yet..we can play this game till the world comes to an end, or one of us croaks first....IM game...hope you are too.

It takes the shuttle LONGER than 60 seconds to get to the landing zone once it drops out of Mach speed there Jim. Hell anyone can time that just by watching the landing feeds live on NASA TV..and will be able to do just that when STS 119 lands. Time it yourself, those jet engines would be useful at any point from the time it slips out of Mach speed, to the pont of touchdown.

My you are so defensive for NASA. Tsk Tsk. I love it when I ruffle your feathers like that.




Originally posted by JimOberg
The shuttle performs its entry with excess energy all the way down, far more than could be provided by any jet engines firing for a minute or two at the end. During descent, as the navigation confirms the runway is in range, the excess energy is bled off in wide swerving turns, banking up to 80 degrees left or right (to turn far off to the side of a ground track, you stay banked one way -- on a straighter track, you do a series of roll reversals to bleed off the no-longer-needed margin of energy). For final approach, excess energy for additional flying within the range uncertainty is also slowly bled off, so you arrive at the end of the runway with a little more -- just a little -- than needed, and land long if needed (it's why a 35,000 ft runway is preferred).


Blah blah blah...your throwing in more nonsense to the entire point of Buran having jets and their purpose for being considered. Perhaps the weather conditions are somehwat different between the landing strip at the Cape than it would be at their landing strips in Russia??

No you dont ever put in all the facts do you, or considerations, just only that which you need to play your little game...well lets play Jim..I got plenty of time...hope you do too..cuz your gonna need it.



Originally posted by JimOberg
No, the idea WAS implemented, the first orbital Buran DID have jets installed, but they were removed in the year leading up to flight when the idea turned out to be bad. Photos show the thermal protection system scarring where the twin jets were removed, before the areas were later tiled over.


You just dont get it do you..the FACT is Buran DID NOT fly into SPACE with those jets. PERIOD. Dance all you want to around the facts boy, but all you do is nit pic at nat s*** and try to stand tall on it. Well all anyone has to do is simply look it up themselves. You seem to forget that people have that capability and do not need to follow your BS. Remember, its the 21st century, the era of the net, google and search ability. No longer is the days of just words from NASA cover ups and their puppets to go by.



Originally posted by JimOberg
BTW, the atmospheric test model had four jet engines on it; only two were to be installed on the orbital version because it did not need the capability of a runway takeoff.


No kidding there Jim. There was never any intent on the thing taking off from a runway to go into orbit. Where the hell did you get that from..your NASA influenced imagination?? I would think so.


Originally posted by JimOberg

RF: Apparently I know a hell of a lot more than you do..you seem to think that jets will be used to launch a shuttle into orbit. You said that, not me, nor does the article.


Uh, no, I didn't say that. You're imagining things, again....



Good lord the man is loosing it!!! You need help Jim.


Originally posted by JimOberg
I really cannot see that interpretation in any of the words I wrote. Can anybody else help me figure out how RF got this impression?


Added: Could these be them, where I referred to the jet-engine-equipped Buran analog and the testing it performed, including RF's claims that the flight tests included 'launch'?

posted on 18-3-2009 @ 08:21 AM
...(Buran took off for space attached to an 'Energiya' super-rocket -- jet engines don't 'test' that phase).


Nice altered quote of what I actually wrote Jim.. how about quoting it exactly as it is written instead. That way you cant try to use the nit pik tactic to cover up your own screw ups.

Sheesh...the man IS loosing it.

PSST...is there a NASA doctor in the house?




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 19-3-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
It might be best to start a new thread for discussion/debate concerning the Buran vs. the space shuttle and all the inclusive details. It was enlightening reading your discussion on the topic and I did learn alot.. It just started to stray from the main topic a couple pages back.

Just thought I would comment on the semi-off-topic discussion here.
RF, after reading the whole thread again and reading all the new posts I think your overall point is sound. The point is that the Russians were considering safety far more in their design and testing process than the U.S. was with the space shuttle. It is absolutely the case that if more time was spent designing the shuttle it could have been at least on par, maybe better than the duran as far as safety is concerned. This definately would have saved alot of lives given the problems that led to the Columbia and Challenger disasters..

I may be speaking to the choir here but we still run and maintain an economically inefficient shuttle program that probably still has a myriad of inherent design flaws that noone knows about yet because we've been extremely lucky. It just seems like the shuttle program was far too unsafe and costed us far too much for far too long only to eventually be phased-out completely... I guess we did learn alot. It just seems like a big waste of time and money. Over the years, the Shuttle program has become a bottomless money pit of sorts that only acts to continue putting our astronauts at risk and bleed off money that could be going to other NASA programs and technologies. There are far more efficient NASA uses for taxpayer dollars (especially in this economy) especially when you consider NASA's current fiscal budget problems.

The space shuttle program has been active long enough for us to notice alot of the defects and problem areas. It is still inherently unsafe.. It is just more safe than it was when it was originally designed. If the Duran had been used as much as our shuttle fleet (or whats left of it) its inevitable that alot of different problems and design flaws would have become more evident. We simply have the foreknowledge and experience to know where we originally screwed up because of how much we use our shuttles. We have no way of knowing all the Duran's design flaws though unless it were rebuilt and tested (that takes alot of money and time when we could just build a completely new system with superior materials, technology and computers that would probably far exceed the capabilities of the Duran). I like the idea of a much safer shuttle but not when you consider how expensive and unsafe this concept is regardless of what safety measures you put in place. Stuff is going to get overlooked.

As far as the Duran goes, When all these extra systems and safety additions are included in such of an already complex design, it could have caused alot of additional safety and design problems that weren't fully realized at the time. It sounds safe to have all these extra systems and additional hardware.. But it makes the overall design more complex and could have, potentially, made it more unsafe than our shuttle. A more complex design also means there's more problems that engineers and designers can overlook. We have no way of knowing all of the Duran's design flaws of coarse.. This, to me, is what makes the Duran seem almost legendary though.

I guess I've almost become lost in the debate here in trying to figure out the purpose for the in-depth detailed discussion. What does it come down to? I've become so lost in the details I don't even remember what the back and forth arguments are even taking place over. We know that the Duran design considered safety and usability more than our space shuttle design. I think we can all agree on that. I guess I'm just trying to get us back on track here.

-ChriS



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


You raise valid points BlasteR. The Buran design is more robust, and had standard features built in that our shuttle did not have.

Much of this added features were included becasue of the launch vehicle's ability for brunt load lift capability. The Energia lift vehicle is simply a huge work horse and is far more adaptable to various lifting requirements than our own shuttle's lift system.

Because of the Energia's brute force lifting capability, the Buran shuttle could have the extra loading of a more robust heat shield system, the added jet engines, and other systems such as automatic landing system and a few other neat bells and whistles.

Since the Buran did not need to rely on any lift engine on its own becasue of the Energia vehicle, that left more room for the cargo bay, which means the Buran can take up more cargo payload than our shuttle. Even with the addition of the jet engines in the rear, they were much smaller in size and space requirement than our shuttle's 3 main engines, which in turn means the cargo bay in Buran is still larger in square meters than our shuttle.

As discussed earlier, the jets were to suppliment landings in adverse weather conditions if needed. Although our shuttle has proven that the design can land safely by sheer gliding, it never hurts to have added safety mesures even though that extra safety equipment may not even be used all the time.

No doubt that the Buran shuttle is almost exactly like our shuttles, but there are significant differences in the engeineering approaches as well as other differences in the intended use of it. The mere fact that Buran was built with a stout body, heat shield system, and added jet propulsion, suggests that their intent for Buran was more than just to ferry up satellites and sections of space stations. Had they continued with Buran, I would bet anything that they would have had at least one of those Buran's capable of taking up passengers in that cargo bay, much like how an airliner takes passengers up into the air.

It makes sense, becasue the entire Buran ship is more robust from nose to tail. And if you were to take up passengers in a passenger compartment that is pressureized and filled with atmosphere, you want that entire ship to be very strong and durable, which is exactly how the Buran was built.

That is just my take on it. The Russians always did things in a big way, and they always took their engineering very seriously, not saying that we dont or never have, its just that the Russians were not aiming for a "shuttle trucking company" to haul up commercial satellite cargo and sell cargo space to companies needing satellites up in orbit. Their program had a whole different intent.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I'll meet you over on the new thread -- can we transfer all of these comments to date, thither?



[edit on 19-3-2009 by JimOberg]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
You didn't address my other issue -- the jets would only be able to operate below Mach 1, when the Buran is within 60 seconds of the airfield and already within the 'bad weather' that you're worried about. That doesn't give a whole lot of avoidance or loiter capability.


To clarify -- the shuttle drops out of Mach 1 only about 60 seconds before entering its landing pattern, the 'heading alignment circle', after which its approach is preset. That's the only brief phase that additional jet propulsion could be used -- not before, and not after. Once 'on the HAC' it can be several minutes -- depending on the shuttle's approach angle to the chosen runway -- to complete the turn and the final straightaway and get on the ground.

Both NASA and the Russians considered jet augmentation post entry. NASA decided early it wasn't worth the performance penalty. The Russians clearly felt it was and installed jets on the flight Buran. Late in the launch preparation, they came to the realization the weight penalty (and safety penalty -- what if you rely on the jets and they don't ignite below Mach 1?) was unacceptable, and they gained confidence (justifiably) in their ability to drop the spaceplane into the proper entry zone, so the jets were removed.

Am I hearing arguments that the Russians made a wrong decision on this? The other arguments -- that 'on paper' the Buran was a superior system to NASA's shuttle (heck, 'on paper', NASA's OWN shuttle was superior to the shuttle we actually flew) -- are interesting to pursue elsewhere. Let's.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
That is just my take on it. The Russians always did things in a big way, and they always took their engineering very seriously, not saying that we dont or never have, its just that the Russians were not aiming for a "shuttle trucking company" to haul up commercial satellite cargo and sell cargo space to companies needing satellites up in orbit. Their program had a whole different intent.


And whenever they bit off a really complex spaceflight challenge -- send men to the Moon and back, land robot explorers on the surface of Mars (or Phobos) or send them to any but the closest planets, deploy a space-to-space communications relay satellite constellation to advance beyond limited ground stations with minimal coverage, build and fly an operational space shuttle -- they somehow never got it to work. But boy, could they build killer satellites and orbital H-bombs -- for sure.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
RFBurns: "Thats based on your limited knowledge of the Nazi Alliance Space Agency's SRB limitations, not on Energia's capabilities. "

That's three.

We know what this gimmick means regarding the strength of logic and facts of the side that uses it.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

RFBurns: "Thats based on your limited knowledge of the Nazi Alliance Space Agency's SRB limitations, not on Energia's capabilities. "

That's three.

We know what this gimmick means regarding the strength of logic and facts of the side that uses it.



You just keep on presisting to attack me instead of attacking the issue.

You already been spotted fella...no one is impressed anymore.

Nothing to see, nothing new to add...move along.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by JimOberg

RFBurns: "Thats based on your limited knowledge of the Nazi Alliance Space Agency's SRB limitations, not on Energia's capabilities. "

That's three.

We know what this gimmick means regarding the strength of logic and facts of the side that uses it.



You just keep on presisting to attack me instead of attacking the issue.


Uh, who's the guy (and his buddies) using 'Nazi' attributions as a 'figure of speech'? Complaining about the people doing it is an 'attack' on them, now?





new topics
top topics
 
96
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join