Subj : NASA, shuttle, anyone?
To   : CHARLES ANGELICH
From : WAYNE CHIRNSIDE
Date : Sun Aug 14 2005 10:04 pm

-> CA>>> Have been a bit surprised at the lack of interest in this
-> CA>>> echo of the sloppiness of the recent space shuttle launch? 

-> ->> sloppiness?? 

-> WC> Yup. Rules stated no launch without all four tank fuel
-> WC> sensors working. Shuttle not rolled back but delayed. 

-> WC> Intermittent problem with the faulty fuel sensor never
-> WC> pinned down it happened to be working when they launched
-> WC> after deciding to override their own safety rules. 

-> That's #1. 

-> The need to remove some sort of 'packing' material that was
-> protruding from between some tiles and a heat-shielding
-> 'blanket' near the cockpit area that was torn. They removed the
-> protruding packing but I'm thinking it was in there for a
-> _reason_ which made me wonder why they were so happy it came
-> out easily. 
   
Yeah though I hadn't commented to it it occured to me queer qas well.

-> They decided not to even try to fix the torn
-> blanket (probably didn't have a replacement for it anyhow).       

Case of the _fix_ being potentially worse than the problem.
Anyhow with all that ionized plasma coming off the underside tiles I'd
think any debris from around the cockpit window would fly away from the
craft and upwards.
Anyway that's my guess.

-> I would prefer that NASA discontinue launchings of the shuttles
-> but I have a feeling they will continue until there is another
-> horrific outcome. :-( 

To complete the international space station and do a Hubble 
service they need a minimum of 19 more flights or about one chance of
another catastrophic loss.

IMO it never was the right craft for the job.

The proposed replacement doesn't impress me either. a glorified
Saturn 5 we got to land on the moon from in 1969.

I think it's time to consult Burt Ruttan.

I *always* thought cutting the Dynasoar program out in the moon
race with the Russians was a mistake as that craft somewhat resembled
SpaceShip One but using lower tech construction than the light
composites Burt Ruttan used.

Burt turned his craft around in under ten days and his entire program
to two flights cost 20 million from concept to 60+ miles altitude!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

.