Reality vs SF

[Mako]

Sometime the real world is just plain cooler than even the best SF: http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ ... f62023.jpg

I saw a similar setup way beack when Columbia(?) made a pit stop at DMAFB in Tucson in '86 - very impressive stuff then and still impressive, to me anyways, now

CYa!
Mako

[Kellogg]

Neat pic!

[ZOMBIE USER 8613]

Nah, I'd bet money that pic is of "Enterprise". I remember when they used to do the 'flight testing' with her on the back of the 747. Was always disappointed that they had to build the next shuttle before the whole project actually worked. I like the name Enterprise.

Seems to me (so my creaking memory tells me) that Enterprise couldn't maintain either a steady yaw or a steady pitch without the tailcone.. ? Sumthin like that.

Then again, if this is a fairly recent photo I could be entirely wrong, and they're just using the tailcone for fuel saving purposes. I do remember hearing about a fairly big squabble that happened years and years ago, regarding the landing site selection for the shuttle.

*Everybody* wants the shuttle to land in their town, right? (In high school, I remember hearing that the massively large runway in Lincoln, NE where I lived was #4 on the alternate landing site list...) Well, it takes umpteen million $$s to set the poor brick on the back of Momma-747 and fly it back to Florida... so the official word came down that the Orbiter should be set down at Canaveral unless there was a seriously good reason not to.

You hear all kinds of stuff here in Huntsville. This town builds Space Hardware of all kinds and you can't throw a rock without hitting a rocket scientist. <heh> Anyway, I learned when I moved here a couple years ago and married a software developer who's worked for NASA *many* times in the past that the politics are so top-heavy that it takes decent political entities running the store to keep NASA from folding over and going broke. Seriously.

We'll never put men, women or foxes on Mars with the current system. Or even the Moon. The truth may set you free, but it's currently kinda depressing. I know a *lot* of people in this town who work at Marshall, and most of them desperately want NASA to be something better than the underpriveleged little political football it is right now.

Anyway.. (</unrant>) Neat pic.

KO

[ZOMBIE USER 6611]

Nah, I'd bet money that pic is of "Enterprise". I remember when they used to do the 'flight testing' with her on the back of the 747.

Hello, KOakaKO. Discoloration on the surfaces, particularly on the underside of the OMS pods, make me think that this vehicle has been in space. The name is not quite discernable, but looks more like "Discover" to me, which is plausible.

Was always disappointed that they had to build the next shuttle before the whole project actually worked. I like the name Enterprise.

It is hard not to like, and as you probably recall was the result of a massive write-in campaign in the 70s. But the Enterprise was never intended to go into space -- it was for landing and aerodynamic tests -- and so the name campaign misfired. There was talk of "rebuilding" Enterprise for space, but the effort was too large -- and the Smithsonian wouldn't let it go. So Endeavor was built instead.

Seems to me (so my creaking memory tells me) that Enterprise couldn't maintain either a steady yaw or a steady pitch without the tailcone.. ? Sumthin like that.

The problem stemmed from the 747, not the Shuttle orbiter itself. The Orbiter's ungraceful hindquarters disturbed airflow over the 747's vertical tail. Anticipating this, the 747 had additional vertical tail surfaces installed outboard on the horizonal tail ends. The last three test flights of the Enterprise were performed without the tail cone.

Then again, if this is a fairly recent photo I could be entirely wrong, and they're just using the tailcone for fuel saving purposes.

The tail cone has been used for ferrying later shuttles back to Florida. I do not know if it is used every time, but I was able to locate internal releases showing that the Discovery (which had an orbital maneuving system engine fail on-orbit in 1990) had to delay the process of re-mounting the tail cone until the OMS engine could be dismounted and sent back to the vendor.
http://spacelink.nasa.gov/NASA.Projects ... us.Reports
Also, the news photo Mr. Kelloggt posted seems to bear Friday's date.

*Everybody* wants the shuttle to land in their town, right?

I am able to regularly hear the Shuttle's double sonic boom. It's most pleasant. I've attended all the early launches, but have not gone out to Edwards.

(In high school, I remember hearing that the massively large runway in Lincoln, NE where I lived was #4 on the alternate landing site list...)Not to mention reprogramming the three HP hand-held computers that store the alternate landing instructions -- seriously. There is a 400MHz specialized instrument landing system that must be installed at the runway for the Shuttle, and various other support needed as you said.

so the official word came down that the Orbiter should be set down at Canaveral unless there was a seriously good reason not to.

And the seriously good reasons have been Florida weather, for the most part. Plus the fact that this little bitty runway (little compared to the needs of a supersonic dead stick glider that is the second most difficult aircraft in the world to fly) ends in the ocean. Edwards, at least, has lots of room.

You hear all kinds of stuff here in Huntsville. This town builds Space Hardware of all kinds and you can't throw a rock without hitting a rocket scientist.

A buddy of mine was telling me that someone threw a rock at him. Was that you?

Anyway, I learned when I moved here a couple years ago and married a software developer who's worked for NASA *many* times in the past that the politics are so top-heavy that it takes decent political entities running the store to keep NASA from folding over and going broke. Seriously.

That figures into my story as well. If you'd like to be involved in doing something about the situation, let me know.

We'll never put men, women or foxes on Mars with the current system. Or even the Moon.

Yes: "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we put a man on the moon?":/

[ZOMBIE USER 8613]

Discoloration on the surfaces, particularly on the underside of the OMS pods, make me think that this vehicle has been in space. The name is not quite discernable, but looks more like "Discover" to me, which is plausible.

Okay... I noticed a 'weathered' look in the pic, but didn't take the time to enlarge it or study it in detail. Could be that it's one of the others, since I'm fairly sure that they use the tailcone when flight-transporting the Orbiters.

It is hard not to like, and as you probably recall was the result of a massive write-in campaign in the 70s. But the Enterprise was never intended to go into space -- it was for landing and aerodynamic tests -- and so the name campaign misfired. There was talk of "rebuilding" Enterprise for space, but the effort was too large -- and the Smithsonian wouldn't let it go. So Endeavor was built instead.

Umm... you mean Columbia, right? Columbia was shipped to Florida in '79, Challenger in '82, Discovery in '83, Atlantis in '85.... and Endeavor was built to replace Challenger, was delivered in '91.

There are people I know here in town who dispute that Enterprise was 'never meant to fly in space', and who will tell you it was only after the discovery of aerodynamic flaws that the 'mission statement' for Enterprise was retroactively changed to more favorably reflect the way events actually unfolded. (cough, wink, nudge nudge.) [This stuff happens more often than most people realize, actually...]

The problem stemmed from the 747, not the Shuttle orbiter itself. The Orbiter's ungraceful hindquarters disturbed airflow over the 747's vertical tail. Anticipating this, the 747 had additional vertical tail surfaces installed outboard on the horizonal tail ends. The last three test flights of the Enterprise were performed without the tail cone.

Right... sounds familiar. I actually haven't read about it in many years, so I'm sure what I remember has been shot full of holes in the meantime. <shrug>

I do not know if it is used every time, but I was able to locate internal releases showing that the Discovery...

Yeah. I'm willing to bet they use it every time. Turnaround on a shuttle flight is well over a year and shipping the cone from Canaveral to Edwards would have to cost less that flying without it. (Besides the flight-safety issues, which we generally stopped ignoring... oh, 16 years ago or so...)

Also, the news photo Mr. Kelloggt posted seems to bear Friday's date.

Yes, but the pic could have been from anywhen. File photo, y'know?

I am able to regularly hear the Shuttle's double sonic boom. It's most pleasant. I've attended all the early launches, but have not gone out to Edwards.

My wife's *been* to five shuttle launches at Canaveral, but has yet to actually see one. At the time she was always working... and software geeks are always forced to work in damp little caves, far away from humans or sunlight, of course... <heh>

I got to hear the sonic boom a couple years ago. That was fun... Was staying with my Dad when I first moved down here (to da Sowth), just South of Nashville. And, since the Amazing Shrinking Space Station was put in such a high declination for the benefit of the Russians (who now can't afford to built their promised pieces...), the Orbiter was going to come in for landing directly over where we lived. Way too high to see, in Tennessee, but even being that high we heard it go overhead on it's way to Florida.

Not to mention reprogramming the three HP hand-held computers that store the alternate landing instructions -- seriously. There is a 400MHz specialized instrument landing system that must be installed at the runway for the Shuttle, and various other support needed as you said.

Cool... Shame they can't use Pentiums. <LOL>

And the seriously good reasons have been Florida weather, for the most part. Plus the fact that this little bitty runway (little compared to the needs of a supersonic dead stick glider that is the second most difficult aircraft in the world to fly) ends in the ocean. Edwards, at least, has lots of room.

Yes, of course. Darned hurricanes never do follow the schedule, do they?

A buddy of mine was telling me that someone threw a rock at him. Was that you?

Quite possibly. I've been known to toss random rocks. :

[ZOMBIE USER 6611]

It is hard not to like, and as you probably recall was the result of a massive write-in campaign in the 70s. But the Enterprise was never intended to go into space -- it was for landing and aerodynamic tests -- and so the name campaign misfired. There was talk of "rebuilding" Enterprise for space, but the effort was too large -- and the Smithsonian wouldn't let it go. So Endeavor was built instead.

Umm... you mean Columbia, right? Columbia was shipped to Florida in '79, Challenger in '82, Discovery in '83, Atlantis in '85.... and Endeavor was built to replace Challenger, was delivered in '91.

No. The Enterprise was completed first, and its name was the result of a very large number of people -- mostly Star Trek fans -- writing letters to have the first Shuttle named Enterprise. Endeavor, the replacement for the ill-fated Challenger, was named by a school-children campaign, much like the Mars Sojourner -- that last was very politically correct. :

[ZOMBIE USER 8613]

[quote="LevelHead"]No. The Enterprise was completed first, and its name was the result of a very large number of people -- mostly Star Trek fans -- writing letters to have the first Shuttle named Enterprise. Endeavor, the replacement for the ill-fated Challenger, was named by a school-children campaign, much like the Mars Sojourner -- that last was very politically correct. :

[Mako]

That photo was take last week as the shuttle was re-routed to Edwards due to crappy Fla weather.

So yes, it's current

CYa!
Mako

PS: Yahoo files it's photos by date, looking at the url: .../20020628/mdf62023.jpg time stamps it.

[ZOMBIE USER 6611]

That photo was take last week as the shuttle was re-routed to Edwards due to crappy Fla weather. So yes, it's current

What's this? An on-topic post? I was expecting Mr. Kellogg to come around and show us the door.

Yes, I had seen the time stamp, although a file photo was still possible. But I note that the 747 is in landing configuration -- it clearly is NOT taking off -- and it is not landing in Florida. So, it is stopping at a waypoint, and this could well be the Texas stop that Mr. Kellogg mentioned. Those mountains in the background cannot be in Flatland.

[Baxtrr]

There have been any number of reasons why the space program has not gone forward in the way many people believe it should, and most of these come from an inability to grasp what space does for anyone. The Soviet system, where they plowed forward despite setbacks (well, aside from the big kaboom in the late 1960s that stopped them beating us to the moon), worked better than the American technique of striding forward until either the money got yanked or someone got hurt, resulting in a massive fadeback... but their economy was set up to do this at the time, and when people are given a choice about where to spend money, space often ain't it.

Consider the possibilities: telling everyone in the Southern states that there's a hurricane on the way, but golly gosh, there's no funding for the weather satellites...pony up or get a nasty surprise if it happens to be heading your way. Or just shutting down all the comsats for an hour during Prime Time, then explaining that lack of space research leads to such outages. The system would be rolling in dough.

Not likely, is it? It's always good to remember this: in the year 1970, the political cartoon that won the award for Best Of Year was of a poor, ragged black child, trying hard to smile as he held a tray full of moon rocks instead of food, saying, "Oh yes suh, dey's beeYOOtiful moon rocks, suh." Space research is always perceived as taking money away from problems we face on earth, with few people ever allowing for the possibility that space may hold some solutions.

The next shuttle to blow up will kill NASA's manned program along with its crew. I doubt we'll have anything to replace it. My daughter doesn't dream of going into space like her mom did; what's the point?

bax

[Kellogg]

*sigh*

I'm afraid I find it very sad that folks our age were encouraged to dream about going into space, and that that is all we may ever do: Dream.

I will be 101 years old when 2066 rolls around. It'd be nice if it all came true. But, I want to be there.

Scott
PS! Thanks for the Space Frontier Website! Neat!

http://www.space-frontier.org/

[Icefox]

Consider the possibilities: telling everyone in the Southern states that there's a hurricane on the way, but golly gosh, there's no funding for the weather satellites...pony up or get a nasty surprise if it happens to be heading your way. Or just shutting down all the comsats for an hour during Prime Time, then explaining that lack of space research leads to such outages. The system would be rolling in dough.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[Marc_s]

Definitely NOT the Enterprise. The NASA logo is the new logo,
based on the old '60's era logo. The Enterprise was tested in'77.

The '70's NASA logo was the red "worm" logo.

Here is the Enterprise and the worm logo:

http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/images/enterprise.jpg

They came up with the "new" logo in '92.

[ZOMBIE USER 6611]

Definitely NOT the Enterprise. The NASA logo is the new logo, based on the old '60's era logo. The Enterprise was tested in'77. They came up with the "new" logo in '92.

Excellent catch, Mark_S. And obvious -- in retrospect.

[Kellogg]

They came up with the "new" logo in '92.

Hey! You're right! I thought there was something funny
there but couldn't put my finger on it.

On the other hand, it's not likely I would have noticed. I
hadn't realized they'd given up the "Worm" logo and gone
to the retro one.

I still like the original one best.

Thanx Marc!

Scott

[Marc_s]

I like the original insignia best too.
They call it the meatball.

See here:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 2PC-14.jpg

The pc has made graphics design, design of household items, cars, and
movie and television special effects, both easier, and cheaper.
And DULLER.

As a side note, you might want to fill up a cd or two with cool nasa pix,
such as the above, and like this:


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 1C-883.jpg

At:

http://www.apolloarchive.com

Take my word for it kids - The future is, uh... then!

[Kellogg]

The pc has made graphics design, design of household items, cars, and
movie and television special effects, both easier, and cheaper.
And DULLER.

I'm afraid that's often very true.

I have nothing to support my supposition, but I really think that the
added difficulty of doing a design on a computer rather than a pencil
and paper (at least in the concept stage) constrains ideas and rough
drafts. It's now so hard to come out with a rough draft, that no one
wants to run through 50 of them before they get a good idea for an
exciting design.

http://www.apolloarchive.com

Neat pics!

Here's an archive I found that's fun too!
http://www.belmont.k12.ca.us/ralston/pr ... t/art.html

Enjoy!

Scott

[ZOMBIE USER 8613]

The pc has made graphics design, design of household items, cars, and
movie and television special effects, both easier, and cheaper.
And DULLER.

I'm afraid that's often very true.
I have nothing to support my supposition, but I really think that the
added difficulty of doing a design on a computer rather than a pencil
and paper (at least in the concept stage) constrains ideas and rough
drafts. It's now so hard to come out with a rough draft, that no one
wants to run through 50 of them before they get a good idea for an
exciting design.

Ummm.. I have to disagree there. My sister is a commercial artist, who uses a Mac when at work, and she routinely spends time drawing quick sketches of logo ideas by hand to demonstrate what may or may not appeal to the clients. (I assume she just shows them the sketchs.) It's certainly far from a lost art, though Debra is like me.. wants to spend time to make something worthwhile. <shrug>

KO

[Kellogg]

Ummm.. I have to disagree there. My sister is a commercial artist, who uses a Mac when at work, and she routinely spends time drawing quick sketches of logo ideas by hand to demonstrate what may or may not appeal to the clients. (I assume she just shows them the sketchs.) It's certainly far from a lost art, though Debra is like me.. wants to spend time to make something worthwhile. <shrug>

Okay! I said I had nothing to support my supposition!

At least *somebody* out there is doing some good work!

Scott