Author Topic: Shuttle destroyed! (Read 28328 times)

CP5670 · **Reply #140 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:08:01 pm

an0n and beatspete: you really expressed my opinions well there.

The main setback here is that it is going to be quite a blow to the space program as a whole and will definitely result in the postphoning or even cancellation of some future missions.

kode · **Reply #141 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:08:01 pm

well... wasting my time with giving you an answer wouldn't do any of us any good, since I am being ignored by you.

be my guest.

Nobilis Draco · **Reply #142 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:08:58 pm

anyway! back on track this is the space shuttle tearing itself apart in a firey catastrope thread. please divert "I hate empieralist american pig dogs!" and other pointless political comments to someplace with people who care.

after listening to the technicle debriefing it sounds like the failure was associated with the left wing. first the thermal sensor for one of the left control sufaces went out. then the left tire preasure and wheelwell then structural temperature showed an increase. then boom! also coincidentaly during lift off a piece of something i think insalation detached and struck the left wing.

from what i could see in the video. something comes off, followed by two disturbances in the vapor trail which could have been caused explosively or areodynamicly but i would wager explosively. then the orbiter apears to rotate into a verticle position shortly after this rotation, dissintigration occurs.

but I could be compleatly wrong.

StratComm · **Reply #143 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:09:03 pm

Quote

Originally posted by karajorma

Actually you`re both missing the biggest point. The shuttle blew not on launch but on re-entry.

While orion might be great for launching things (if you don`t care about pollution) how would you land it?

I do realize that, but I was simply saying (at first) that the use of that drive in Earth's atmosphere, period, is not a suitable use for that form of propulsion. The latter posts have been clarification on why one wouldn't use them in the atmosphere, including launch and re-entry. Read on.

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
I suppose you are right there, but that would really seem to undermine the effectiveness of the thing, since the amount of fuel used while in space is very small compared to that used up when leaving the atmosphere.

Not really, it was designed to get from planet A to planet B in the shortest time possible, not to launch from planet A or land on planet B. The nukes were there to provide acceleration toward the destination (and probably to slow the approach as well) and so would not ever be in contact with a planet. They were supposed to be constructed in orbit, not launched from the surface. We just realized that there wasn't really a good way to do that with our current level of technology.

Sorry, can't resist...

Quote

Originally posted by kode
If I was, it'd be working in your case, wouldn't it?

Arguing for the sake of argument (that post) and being belligerant = my case. You have shown both, so I rest my case. Period.

an0n · **Reply #144 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:09:08 pm

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670
an0n and beatspete: you really expressed my opinions well there. The main setback here is that it is going to be quite a blow to the space program as a whole and will definitely result in the postphoning or even cancellation of some future missions.

Not so. If NASA falls, then all the skilled technicians and staff will quickly be recuited by China.

karajorma · **Reply #145 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:09:37 pm

Quote

Originally posted by CP5670

It still had a little bit of extra fuel in it though, and even that is enough to cause a massive explosion if ignited incorrectly.

The old parachute ocean landing system, maybe? Although even the shuttle apparently does not use any fuel for landing, but rather utilizies the Earth's gravity to get it going.

See my point? That's not safer than the shuttles method of landing is it. We were discussing orion as a safer replacement for the shuttle and it obviously isn`t.

And that's without getting into the parallel arguement of what happens when the Orion comes down to land with "a little bit of extra fuel in it"

karajorma · **Reply #146 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:10:51 pm

Quote

Originally posted by kode

humour me.

I`m NOT american. Strange how you seem to assume everyone is.

an0n · **Reply #147 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:12:17 pm

Quote

Originally posted by karajorma
I`m NOT american. Strange how you seem to assume everyone is.

........You're pro-america. Same difference.

kode · **Reply #148 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:12:57 pm

Quote

Originally posted by StratComm

Arguing for the sake of argument (that post) and being belligerant = my case. You have shown both, so I rest my case. Period.

right. I said I was gonna shut up. truly sorry, jolly fella. but aren't you also arguing just for arguments sake?

don't bother to answer. I'm gonna have some dumb semi-witty reply to that too

kode · **Reply #149 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:13:37 pm

Quote

Originally posted by karajorma

I`m NOT american. Strange how you seem to assume everyone is.

what an0n said.

ShadowWolf_IH · **Reply #150 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:15:04 pm

Quote

There's an ignore function?

User control panel....edit ignore list.

an0n · **Reply #151 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:15:30 pm

Quote

Originally posted by kode

what an0n said.

[isaac-hayes]Daaaamn, straight.[/isaac-hayes]

an0n · **Reply #152 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:16:11 pm

Quote

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH

User control panel....edit ignore list.

I'd better not have to start using [sarcasm] tags again.

Solatar · **Reply #153 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:16:28 pm

kode, for some reason you are starting to remind me of vadar_1.
Vadar_1 was a complete asshole, just so you know. And you are slowly becoming a Troll, and Trolls are a major part of what shut down the VBB.

__________

My family, and some of your arguements have changed my mind about the value of the shuttle and its crew.

The space program is one of the symbols of national pride for the United States. Losing seven highly trained, worthwhile human beings is much worse than losing seven drug lords, or seven muggers, or seven rapists.

an0n · **Reply #154 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:17:41 pm

Oh, Christ..........

*grabs anti-flame suit*

LtNarol · **Reply #155 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:17:47 pm

Kode, it amazes me how ingorant, arrogant, and incredibly stupid you are. Realize it or not, some people care for more than their own personal benefit; those 7 astronauts that died today put their lives on the line in the first place for the advancement of humanity, the very least you can do is show them and their families some respect.

I agree with ShadowWolf, welcome to ignore.

CP5670 · **Reply #156 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:18:18 pm

Quote

Not so. If NASA falls, then all the skilled technicians and staff will quickly be recuited by China.

That would work out, but the problem then is that they would have to start over from an earlier stage (building shuttles again and so on), which would be a setback.

Quote

See my point? That's not safer than the shuttles method of landing is it. We were discussing orion as a safer replacement for the shuttle and it obviously isn`t.

eh? It can utilize the same method of landing without using any engines.

Quote

And that's without getting into the parallel arguement of what happens when the Orion comes down to land with "a little bit of extra fuel in it"

Still, they will not do anything unless properly armed and cannot just explode in flames accidently like the usual fuel can.

Quote

Not really, it was designed to get from planet A to planet B in the shortest time possible, not to launch from planet A or land on planet B. The nukes were there to provide acceleration toward the destination (and probably to slow the approach as well) and so would not ever be in contact with a planet. They were supposed to be constructed in orbit, not launched from the surface. We just realized that there wasn't really a good way to do that with our current level of technology.

As far as that goes though, the conventional oxidation approach would work fine, since the amount of fuel used for these purposes is pretty small. There would be a slight benefit in costs, but not quite as much as those articles posted before seemed to imply.

an0n · **Reply #157 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:18:52 pm

Respect for those aboard is one thing. Sorrow and sympathy are an entirely different matter, as is respect for their families.

ShadowWolf_IH · **Reply #158 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:19:01 pm

Quote

I'd better not have to start using [sarcasm] tags again.

You might want to start........you are beginning to have trouble recognizing it.

an0n · **Reply #159 on:** February 01, 2003, 05:20:16 pm

Quote

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
You might want to start........you are beginning to have trouble recognizing it.

.................................****.

News:

Author Topic: Shuttle destroyed! (Read 28328 times)

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?

Shuttle destroyed?