| Author | Message | ||
     Jim2 |
Here is a link to a short video that explains the Orion test flight that launches this Thursday morning (12/04/2014) at 7AM (East Coast Time, USA) and lands around 11:15 AM. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZqSWWKmHQ | ||
| Jim2 |
Watch live Currently in launch hold http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv (Message edited by jim2 on December 04, 2014) | ||
| Jim2 |
The launch is scrubbed. Next attempt is Friday 12/5 @6:05 US Central Standard Time | ||
| Hughlysses |
 So aggravating. You know, it seems like after doing this for ~60 years, launching a rocket would be like launching a commercial air flight. | ||
| Hootowl |
Doing it for 60 years gives you a great deal of knowledge about when to scrub a launch. All that stuff is hand built under cleaner-than-an-operating-room conditions. Watching millions of dollars go boom is not high on their list of things to do.  | ||
| Jim2 |
Successful liftoff! | ||
| Spiderman |
So aggravating. You know, it seems like after doing this for ~60 years, launching a rocket would be like launching a commercial air flight. They learned their lesson with the Challenger. As they say, if you can do it better, build it an launch it! | ||
| Hughlysses |
Looks like it lifted off with no hiccups this morning and everything is going well.  | ||
| Blake |
Tony, I wish that were true. Unfortunately, I don't think they've really learned anything, or people would be in prison for Challenger and for Columbia. Both of those disasters were due to professional malpractice/negligence. The problems were obvious, well-documented, and clear. The threats they posed were dire. Yet they were not seriously confronted by executive management. Fuel system/engine issues in the liquid fuel systems are always respected and scrutinized. But when chunks of material are breaking off during launch, management shrugged and offered the equivalent of "ain't never been a problem before." Then when scrutiny of launch video revealed that a chunk of material actually impacted the wing leading edge, again, they refused due diligence, didn't inform the crew, and behaved like delusional fools. The result was all too predictable. Disgraceful. You or I would have done better. Maybe all mission commanders should ride Buell motorcycles. It's a real sore spot for me. I recognize that part of the problem is in human nature, most folks are inherently optimistic; they should not be engineers or in charge of life critical projects. I wish I could tell about similar situations with the B2 where initially unforeseen structural integrity issues were identified and diligently corrected rather than ignored. And yes, they too were the result of some PhD pie-in-the-sky theoretically based assertions that proved horribly inaccurate. | ||
| Hootowl |
In their defense, there was nothing the crew or mission control could have done. It was done. They were on orbit, and there was no repair capability. Reentry had to happen. Crossing their fingers was all they could do. The shuttle didn't have a lifeboat like ISS does. | ||
| Blake |
That is the story told by the executive management. It is complete BS. They had the capability to spacewalk. Had they known, you don't think they could have scrounged a means to protect the internal structure from direct exposure to catastrophic heating? They would have. If they had been informed, they would have inspected, saw the damage, figured a means to mitigate heat exposure, landed safely. They could have also adjusted re-entry attitude. | ||
| Jim2 |
De-orbit is happening now | ||
| Reindog |
It is live on the NASA channel. Uverse channel 264. | ||
| Jim2 |
Direct tv ch 346 I gave a link to nastv at top of the thread Entry interface is happening now | ||
| Jim2 |
Its landed! I'm not sure that there wasnt a problem with the chutes. I'll find out on Monday. | ||
| Hootowl |
I understand the sentiment Blake, but there were no spare tiles aboard. Each one is uniquely shaped to fit the hull. It isn't just a matter of protecting the hull from heat, they would have to protect it from 20K MPH air, which causes the heat. Air is quite abrasive at those speeds. Nothing they could have rigged up would have survived that torturous environment. I know that you know that, so I'm a bit taken aback at your position on this. | ||
| Aesquire |
NASA, one of the good organizations we have, has had bad appointed management for some time. The last guy was a felon who used your money to campaign for select politicians and push lies about climate change to get more of your money. It hasn't blown up yet attitude directly contributed to the Columbia and Challenger disasters. The broken part that failed on re-entry wasn't a tile. It was the carbon-carbon leading edge. Some bureaucrat decided they didn't need a repair kit. They could have had one. The reason the foam was falling off was the formula had been changed by EPA edict. Freon. Politics. Negligent homicide. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Interesting take on NASA and Orion: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/ 05/nasa-orion-launch-space-startup | ||
| Hootowl |
"The broken part that failed on re-entry wasn't a tile. It was the carbon-carbon leading edge." Thanks. I was misinformed. | ||
| Fb1 |
"The broken part that failed on re-entry wasn't a tile. It was the carbon-carbon leading edge." Which was struck by a tile on liftoff, right? | ||
| Sifo |
Which was struck by a tile on liftoff, right? Nope. New, environmentally friendly insulating foam on the external fuel tank that fell off. | ||
| Fb1 |
So I'm remembering right that something fell off during liftoff and struck the leading edge of one of the wings, causing the soon-to-be-fatal damage? | ||
| Hughlysses |
Correct. As Tom says, piece of "environmentally friendly" foam from the big orange/brown external fuel tank fell off during launch, struck the leading edge of the wing, and made a hole. Maybe there was nothing they could have done, but if I was on it, I'd damn sure want to know the situation and I'd have tried everything I could to rig something to patch it. |
