space shuttle PROBLEM

We got the same picture here with a translated summery of the article in the newspaper Maariv.Without zionist and war criminal
The links given to the article:

http://images.maariv.co.il/cache/ART429331.html

http://www.nbc.com/

http://www.nasa.gov/

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/

I wonder what the black things on the wing might be.
You can find images in the NASA gallery showing wings.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/867336.asp

Timber

If they published a picture of osama bin laden riding a missile through space I would think, you know, I'm not going to give this much credence.

But if they picture damage to the left wing of the shuttle after nasa admit the left wing was damaged, I might just think, hey this is a picture of the left wing of the shuttle nasa were talking about.

Be open minded but not so open minded that your brains fall out.

It looks as if everything that could have gone wrong did including the decisions made by those on the ground who controlled the flight.

Most disasters require a lengthy and intertwined chain of successive errors, failures, and misinterpretations to come about.
There would be no reason to expect this disaster to be any different. We can hope only to learn, and to avoid similar shortcomings in future. We have great capacity for coming up with new and unforeseen shortcomings; that's where disasters come from. Those responsible for the construction and certification of RMS Titanic were certain they'd though it all through, too.
Life is full of surprises. Success is the avoiding by anticipation and experience of old surprises, so that more attention can be paid to new surprises. There will always be new surprises. Sadly, we are too often taken unaware by surprises with which we should have been more familiar.



timber

It's time for Americans to re-think the significance and importance of space research. Should we continue or pull back right now?

Continue!

The early shuttle missions had a tile repair kit on board. This one didn't. Nor did it have the capability of examining the damage externally, or a docking module with the ISS. It was a pure science mission.

NASA were well aware there had been some damage shortly after lift off. But as there was absolutely nothing they could do about it, they ran the simulations, concluded it was not critical damage and went on as normal. No doubt crossing lots of fingers on re entry.

Its all down to squeezing more out of a system for less. They squeezed too hard.

"I think... very slowly over the years Nasa's culture of safety became eroded" Don Nelson, former Nasa engineer

I'm fairly certain that is NOT a picture of the wing. I don't know what it is, but it's not the wing.

I used to support the manufacturing of the shuttle tiles. The thermal properties of the material are nothing short of incredible. You can hold a cube of it, heated to 2000 degrees F, by the corners and not burn yourself. If the tiles were damaged in any way, such that a tile was missing, or thinner than it was supposed to be, you'd have a huge problem. They lost tiles in the past, but I guess they were in areas that didn't experience the highest temperatures.

I suppose there could have been worse scenarios. They could have survived reentry and lost control of the shuttle. Not only would this have dragged out their inevitable death but also potential for huge losses on the ground.

God speed to all of them.

New Haven
If humankind stopped and pulled back at every mishap on the way to discovery we would still be living in caves. Of course we should continue every failure is a learning experience even those that are tragic as this one was.

What's needed is a scram jet powered space plane. Not a space truck designed to haul military satellites into orbit. The shuttle was always too big, too complicated and is now too old and dangerous. It should never fly again, but of course probably will just for prestige purposes. The Russians always made the best rocket engines, America should swallow some pride and get fully into bed with Energiya.

One of the saddest things I heard in the NASA news conference over the weekend was one simple statement of fact, repeated over and over: even if they'd known the thermal tiles on the underbelly of the shuttle had been fatally damaged, there was nothing they could have done about it anyway.

Nothing.

(It occured to me that had they truly been aware something like this was going to happen, they could have housed the astronauts, on an emergency basis, on the space station until they came up with some way to get them down. But I'm told there is at least one reason why this was not doable: the Columbia lacked the proper docking apparatus.

It turns out that back in 1980, while NASA was trying to work out the kinks on this particular ship, Columbia, an article in The Washington Monthly questioned just how spaceworthy the whole design really was. Here's an excerpt:

Some suspect the tile mounting is the least of Columbia's difficulties. "I don't think anybody appreciates the depths of the problems," Kapryan says. The tiles are the most important system NASA has ever designed as "safe life." That means there is no back-up for them. If they fail, the shuttle burns on reentry. If enough fall off, the shuttle may become unstable during landing, and thus un-pilotable. The worry runs deep enough that NASA investigated installing a crane assembly in Columbia so the crew could inspect and repair damaged tiles in space. (Verdict: Can't be done. You can hardly do it on the ground.)

Beam Me Out of This Death Trap, Scotty

Steve, I dunno if I'd say The Russians built "The Best" rocket engines ... that's pretty subjective. The Soviet practice was focussed on achieving enormous lifting capacity ... "throw-weight". This they accomplished admirably. Russian rockets are huge, and involve essentially straight-forward engineering.

The US, relatively more sophisticated in miniaturization and solid-state circuitry, developed rocket engines of lower thrust but very much higher efficiency and reliability than their Eastern Counterparts. US rocket engines are more costly and technology-intensive to produce, but produce relatively greater thrust per unit of fuel or powerplant weight, and experience statistically significant lower rate of system failure.

Which is better?



timber

Feb. 3 ;  The families of Columbia;s crew Monday urged the nation to go beyond its grief and pursue ;the bold exploration of space; to improve life on Earth for future generations. ;Although we grieve deeply, as do the families of Apollo I and Challenger before us, the bold exploration of space must go on; said Evelyn Husband, the wife of shuttle commander Rick Husband, reading statement on behalf of the astronauts; families on NBC;s ;Today;
http://www.msnbc.com/news/867335.asp?0si=-

please look at this today

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2875&start=40

Well its interesting that the Americans are now using Russian engines instead of their own.

From Pratt and Whitney

"The RD-180 is a total propulsion unit with hydraulics for control valve actuation and thrust vector gimbaling, pneumatics for valve actuation and system purging, and a thrust frame to distribute loads, all self contained as part of the engine. The engine, employing a LOX lead start, staged combustion cycle and LOX rich turbine drive, delivers a 10 percent performance increase over current operational U.S. booster engines and provide clean reusable operation."

http://www.aerospaceguide.net/rocketengines/rd-180.html

the basic difference between the two designs is the manner in which fuel is compressed, ("staged combustion cycle") The Americans used an open cycle, the Russians a closed cycle, which is acknowledged to be superior.

Steve, the RD-180 is essentially a half-scale derivation of the RD-170. It is a joint development of P&W and NPO Energomash, through a facillitating sub-corporation called RD Amross. The engine uses Russian core design, augmented and enhanced by American production capabilities and miniaturization technology. Some development cost savings were realized, as much of the componentry of the new (Mid-'90s) engine derives from the RD-170. The versions used in American rockets are produced in West Palm Beach Fl. The RD-180 is a synthesis of Russian Design and American Refinement.

The "Selection" of the RD-180 for use in the Atlas V was something of a political footbal, involving The International Space Station and Russia's financial ability to remain a partner in the program. An enormous part of Russia's current space program is funded by American dollars. As it would be politically inexpedient to simply give the Russians the money, a labrynthine network of commercial deals has been worked out to "Keep the Russians in the game", and encompasses far more than just rocket engines.

There are folks at P&W, Lockheed-Martin (including, among others, a cousin of mine, who has an office with a view, a door with her name on it, a vestibule, and her own personal staff), and DOD who are not real happy with the arrangements. The Russians, conversely, are delighted.



timber

Timber,

Dont deny the Russians are short of cash, but they produced the first closed cycle rocket engine.

This week's NASA e-mail newsletter:

Feb. 4th, 2003: At the dawn of the space age some 40 years ago, we always knew who was orbiting Earth or flying to the Moon. Neil Armstrong, Yuri Gagarin, John Glenn. They were household names--everywhere.

Lately it's different. Space flight has become more "routine." Another
flight of the shuttle. Another visit to the space station. Who's onboard
this time? Unless you're a NASA employee or a serious space enthusiast,
you might not know.

Dave Brown, Rick Husband, Laurel Clark, Kalpana Chawla, Michael Anderson, William McCool, and Ilan Ramon.

Now we know. Those are the names of the seven astronauts who were
tragically lost on Saturday, Feb. 1st, when the space shuttle Columbia
(STS-107) broke apart over Texas.

Before the accident, perhaps, they were strangers to you. But if that's
so, why did you have a knot in your gut when you heard the news? What were those tears all about? Why do you feel so deep-down sad for seven
strangers?

Astronauts have an unaccountable hold on us. They are explorers. Curious,
humorous, serious, daring, careful. Where they go, they go in peace. Every
kid wants to be one. Astronauts are the essence of humanity.

They are not strangers. They are us.

While still in orbit Dave Brown asked, jokingly, "do we really have to
come back?"

No. But we wish you had.

The Science@NASA team, as does all of NASA and the world, extends
heartfelt sympathies to the family, friends and colleagues of the STS-107
crew. Please see the NASA Home Page (http://www.nasa.gov) for more
information on the Columbia Investigation.

--Tony Phillips, Ron Koczor, Bryan Walls, Becky Bray, Patrick Meyer.


This is a free service.

NASA is looking for Teachers to be Astronauts! Are you
the right person, or do you know someone who might be?
Check out http://edspace.nasa.gov/?science.nasa.gov for information.

Home page: http://science.nasa.gov

Steve, I perhaps carelessly failed to give credit where due for Russian Innovation. It was Ivan who first made practical "Throttalable" rocket engines, as well. Contemporary Space Transport derives linearly from Ballistic Missile Research and Development. We were able to build relatively smaller, more efficient rocket engines and launch vehicles due to our relatively greater technologic sophistication. We more or less went for "Bang-for-theBuck", The Soviets trended toward more "Bang", period, regardless of "Buck". Their Offensive Thermonuclear Devices were less accurate, but far larger, heavier, and of greater destructive potential than were ours. Our rockets were more accurate, efficient, and reliable than were theirs, while theirs lifted more tonnage than did ours, and, as in so many times during WWII and with some frequency since, The Russians settled on a "Pretty Good" design and made a helluva lot of it.

The RD-180 is a synthesis of Russian and American Design and Production Capability. Among Soviet or Post-Soviet Rocket Engines, it represents a quantum leap in Thrust-Per-Unit-Of-Cost-of-Operation. The Russians admittedly figured it out, but it took The Americans to refine and produce it. The Current Production Russian RD-180 incorporate proprietary technology from Lockheed-Martin, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric, Boeing, and others, as well as production technique licensed from such. The RD-180 is not a Russian Rocket Engine so much as it is an American Interpretation of a Russian Rocket Engine.

It is a damned good engine, for a Disposeable. The US still makes far and away the best Reuseable Rocket Engines.



timber