UAopsMGR From Croatia, joined Mar 2005, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2777 times:
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 3): They can still push it back a few more weeks to say nothing of the @ launch time delays.
No kidding. We're getting into thunderstorm season. I've made atleast 10 trips across country to watch launches that have been scrubbed for t-storms, wind, lighting within the designated launch radius, poor TAL weather, ETC. ETC. You know the deal. However, I have been fortunate enough to actually see 3 of them, including Columbia's final flight. I think your advice about the hotel is prudent.
Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.- Homer Simpson
TedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2745 times:
Quoting UAopsMGR (Reply 6): I've never seen a landing, however the sonic booms have scared the hell out of me a few times when landing at EDW. Not a fun way to wake up in the morning.
That's what I was getting at.. Besides seeing a white dot become something pretty significant, the only thing that I think (speed and decent rates aside) that is cool about the landing is the double boom.
I have only seen it/heard it once, before I moved to central Florida after the Columbia disaster.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2702 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8): Don't take this wrong - I think the USA needs to continue to press on with space exploration in a big way - but am I alone in thinking we're really wasting a lot of frickin' money on NASA?
What's NASAs budget? Maybe 1 percent of the federal budget.. DoD alone wastes more than that.
The trouble with shuttle started when Congress tried to cut shuttle devlopment costs. So NASA got DoD involved to share costs. DoD imposed requirements above and beyond what NASA needed and nearly doubled the costs. The capabilities DoD insisted on have never been used. Then Congress refused to fund development of a reusable liquid booster - so NASA went with the cheaper but more dangerous solid booster, approx $4 billion went down the shitter on that decision alone (Challenger disaster)....
If were going to do space exploration we need to give NASA the resources it needs to do the job right in the first place and then get out of the way.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2677 times:
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 9): I guess you don't get much in the way of timely news up there do you? Bush has funded and the new NASA admin is behind beating the goal of developing the CEV before 2016.
I get plenty of news here - even the same day .
I simply opine that the result for the $$$ spent is less than adequate. Shit, that's my opinion - it could be incorrect - but I'm entitled to it. Dang fellas!
I see a bunch of money sitting in 3 Shuttles and nothing is flying.
As originally envisioned, the shuttle was to literally be a space plane, reusable on a rapid turn around basis. The Columbia disaster notwithstanding I think it's reliability to be much less than adequate.
Quoting SATL382G (Reply 10): If were going to do space exploration we need to give NASA the resources it needs to do the job right in the first place and then get out of the way.
I would absolutely concur - as long as there is result for the money.
I, for one, simply don't see it. Sorry fellaz.
I'm all for space exploration - hell I think we should have already colonized the moon and should have landed men on Mars a decade ago . . . so don't take my opinion the wrong way . . . . I am on your side of the argument, just posting a question of concern . . . .
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12): I would absolutely concur - as long as there is result for the money.
For the record, I also believe it's too expensive. Trouble is though, to complain about the cost now is to complain 30 years too late. If we want to reduce the cost now we'll have to spend even more dough to develop something new that's cheaper to operate. Guess what? There's no $$$ to develop something that's cheaper. NASA is generating development cash for CEV by cutting programs that don't support Ws Exploration vision, like aeronautics. Which states have NASA Centers that are taking cuts in aeronautics programs? California (Ames), Ohio (Glenn), and Virginia (Langley).
If we want resource efficient space exploration, we need to pay the piper up front. Can't have it both ways.
Currently the 13th IS the NET date and scheduled launch date (Time: 03:45:00 PM EST ) , and they have 5 days to 'mess around with' between now and then. I wouldn't bet the farm on the 13th, but whatever you do, do not book anything until a few days before launch (IE the 10th at this time)
Okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3533 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2435 times:
Yes, ordered tickets months ago on line from above link that TedTAce has for you. They are suppose to ship to arrive about 1 week before launch. Since the Columbia mishap and after 9-11 they do not let anyone very close anymore because of "security reasons" All public viewing areas are at least a few miles away now. Boo!!! All public viewing areas are where you cannot see the launch until the shuttle clears the trees.
I have heard from friends that the launches are really spectacular!!! It makes a lot of noise and smoke from the Solid Rocket Boosters. Sort of get to see some of my tax money go up in smoke so to speak. Right now waffling around on vacation plans until they get a firmer launch date.
Once I get the tickets then I will fill my pockets full of money to keep the H2 full of gas and make a few stops along the way otherwise I would fly but I figure there will be at least one delay of several days and go on down to the Keys.