The only position where Credit History should ever come into play in getting a job is one that deals with national security.
That is a Federal Intelligence, Security or Law Enforcment agency or someone that works in the private sector that deals with national security,
That's it.
The unless you are hiding something arguement is BS. A private sector employeer that isn't involved in national security has no right or cause for credit history.
Sony took a laptop drive and slapped 802.11 on it.
My iPod doesn't require an external power supply to operate, the Sony does.
Re:EDO and Orbiter mission durations
on
Columbia Coverage
·
· Score: 1
Columbia had the ability to dock with ISS if it'd had the Orbiter Docking System on this flight. It didn't have it installed but the capability to use it was added to Columbia. ISS has 2 Russian and 2 US suits, Columbia had 2 suits so an EVA transfer could have been done.
Columbia able to dock in general - Yes Columbia had docking system - No Columbia able to dock on STS-107 - No
No, there was no way for NASA to prep and launch in space of time that Columbia had consumables for this mission.
If they'd decided to launch the moment the insulation fell of the External Fuel Tank there'd still not have been enough time (16-24 days).
NASA could not have saved the crew of Columbia. The Russian Space Agency could not have saved the crew of Columbia.
As of thursday Atlantis was getting ready for a March 1 launch. Endeavour was getting ready for a May 23 launch and Discovery was in modification.
Atlantis wasn't on it's external tank or solid rocket boosters yet as of last week.
I am using Dennis Jenkins Space Shuttle - The History of the National Space Transportation System - The First 100 Missions - 3rd Edition as my reference point.
Shuttle's Electrical Power System uses hydrogen and oxygen to create electricity through 3 fuel cells. The Shuttle's cooling system also depends on this power.
For supporting Spacelab and long duration missions NASA and Rockwell developed the Extended Duration Orbitor (EDO) cryo kit. It wieghs 7000 pounds and is 15 feet in diameter. It attaches to the payload bay rear bulkhead on OV-102 (Columbia). OV-104 (Atlantis) was modified to be EDO compatable but it's not been finished. OV-105 (Endeavour) also had the EDO capability deleted to save weight. I am unsure of Discovery's EDO compatablity.
As for life-support, a lithium hydroxide canister is used to remove CO2 from the cabin air, Columbia had another system which used a regenerable carbon dioxide removal system which will operate for 10-16 days.
A LiOH canister will last 48 man-hours and up to 30 can be carried. If Columbia had 30 canisters and it's RCRS, then it'd have up to 24 days of CO2 removal capability.
NASA has Columbia's flight duration as 15 days, 22 hours, 20 minutes
A couple extra days would not have saved the crew, and it isn't comparable to Apollo 13 because without a thermal protection system that worked, they'd be dead.
Apollo 13's recovery operated under the assumption (correct) that the heat shield was intact.
Another Shuttle couldn't be launched in time to rescue Columbia, it couldn't make it to ISS and the thermal protection system wasn't repairable on orbit.
Columbia didn't have enough fuel to change it's orbit to that of ISS.
"*1* - COLUMBIA IS TOO HEAVY TO GO TO THE SPACE STATION ALPHA.
FALSE. Columbia is capable of going to the space station. However, because Columbia's mass is greater than other orbiters, its cargo capacity is reduced by the same amount. By using the other orbiters, station assembly requires fewer flights since those orbiters can carry greater mass.
During its latest heavy maintenance, Columbia's weight was greatly reduced, but it still has a significant mass difference with the other orbiters. Columbia was scheduled to go to the station later in 2003.
*2* - COLUMBIA CANNOT DOCK TO THE SPACE STATION ALPHA.
FALSE. During the last heavy maintenance, Columbia was modified to allow the installation of the Orbiter Docking System (ODS). Columbia was scheduled to go to the station later in 2003.
*3* - COLUMBIA COULD HAVE GONE TO SPACE STATION ALPHA ON STS 107 (I).
FALSE. For STS 107, Columbia did not carry the orbiter docking system. So it could not have docked. In a bind, however, transvers via EVA (space suits) might have been possible. The station has 2 Russian suits and 2 US suits. Columbia has 2 US suits.
*4* - COLUMBIA COULD HAVE GONE TO SPACE STATION ALPHA ON STS 107 (II).
FALSE. Orbital mechanics and basic laws of physics make this impossible. When a shuttle takes off, it aims in one direction and then accelerates until it reaches its orbital speed of about 28,000km/h. This direction is called orbital inclination.
Consider a large round frozen lake with smooth ice. You slide at 100 km/h from 12:00 to 06:00 (south) without any skates. A friend travels from 02:00 to 08:00 (south west) at 100 km/h.
The goal is for you to shake hands with your friend while both travelling at 100 km/h. To achieve this, you would not only have to change your direction of travel to match that of your friend, but also do this such that your track will match that of your friend, after which, you can simply accelerate to catch up to him. If both are going in same direction but 100m apart (parralel courses), you can't shake hands. Now, think about what is required for you to change direction while sliding on ice.
Columbia launched to a 39 degree inclination. The Space station is at a 51.6 degree inclination. If you do a bit of simple algebra, changing course 12.6 degrees while maintaining 100km/h requires about 24 km/h acceleration or roughly one quarter of the acceleration that gave your your 100km/h.
The shuttle accelerates from 0 to 28,000km/h during launch. Once in orbit, the main engines are without any fuel. Only the OMS and RCS engines are available, and their capability is roughly 1250 feet per second, or about 1400 km/h speed change (delta v). Subtract from that the amounts used to complete the orbit, on-orbit attitude control, as well de-orbit burn.
If you need one quarter of the 28,000 km/h speed to change orbital inclination, it means is 7000 km/h. So the shuttle has nowhere near what is needed to perform a orbital plane change of 12 degrees.
Japan doesn't have Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles nor do they have the anti-ship version.
The Kongo class DDG has a VLS that is compatable with T-LAM but they do not have Tomahawks at this time.
"The Aegis foreign military sales (FMS) efforts began in 1984, resulting in the first Japanese FMS case in 1988. Three additional FMS ships were then authorized in 1990, 1991, and 1993. The USN furnished the Aegis AAW system and selected combat system elements, but the ship and the other remaining systems were built in Japan. Not all portions of the US Aegis system are installed on the Japanese ship. The Tomahawk system is not exported, and there is no equivalent Japanese-supplied function. Several other functions are also deleted in the Japanese ship."
Take a moment and look at the position of Senator Mondale in the 1960s.
http://www.ad-astra.net/cgi-bin/BBS/SpacePolicy/ re ad/30103
"The worse thing about Mondale is his unrelenting, unbending opposition to the exploration of space. This opposition was dramatized in the wonderful HBO series on the Apollo Program when Mondale pops up as a charector making political hay after the Apollo Fire. While he did not openly oppose the Apollo Program, it being a done deal by the time he entered the Senate, Mondale's views on human space flight were no secret, even then. After Apollo 11 he helped to lead fights against any and all efforts to expand human presence in space. The crippling of the human space program can in part be laid at his door."
" 'A Webb aid remembers him (Webb) asking Mondale, "In all due humility, Senator, what have we done wrong? Why are you so down on us?" Webb wanted to know why Mondale was upset and what he could do to rectify the situation. He and other visitors from NASA were standing in front of Mondale's desk. The Senator leaned back in his chair and instructed Webb, "I intend to ride this for every nickle's worth of political power I can get out of it. I don't give a hoot in hell about the space program or your future," a NASA official with Webb recalls Mondale saying.'"
"For example, Faries cites the reduction in NASA's budget over the five years since Weldon came to office. But he fails to point out that in each of those years, President Clinton sent a budget to Congress that cut NASA from his prior request. And Faries ignores the fact that in response to Clinton's cuts, Congress found money to increase NASA's budget above the president's request for the last three years."
Then look at what the OMB and Congress did to NASA and DoD space prgram funding from 1965 on, cut, cut, cut, cut.
You are right, NASA is what it is today because of the Democrats, instead of getting Dyna-Soar, Skylab, heavy-Lift and a re-usable by 1982 we got Shuttle. When DoD and NASA said we needed 5 Shuttles, three at KSC and 2 at Vandenberg, they got 3, and had to fight and scrouge for funding the 4th one in 1977.
Highlights of 2002 NASA Funding: A Blueprint for New Beginnings -- A Responsible Budget for America's Priorities
Provides $14.5 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a two-percent increase over 2001 and a seven-percent increase over 2000.
Look down at Chart 33-1 From 1998 to '99 funding drops. Then it is back to '98 level in 2000 (but no increase to offset inflation) then it is up in '01 and '02
OMS does have motors and fuel, but the OMS do not use the same lines and fuel as Main Engines.
"orbital maneuvering system provides the thrust for orbit insertion, orbit circularization, orbit transfer, rendezvous, deorbit, abort to orbit and abort once around and can provide up to 1,000 pounds of propellant to the aft reaction control system. The OMS is housed in two independent pods located on each side of the orbiter's aft fuselage. The pods also house the aft RCS and are referred to as the OMS/RCS pods. Each pod contains one OMS engine and the hardware needed to pressurize, store and distribute the propellants to perform the velocity maneuvers. The two pods provide redundancy for the OMS. The vehicle velocity required for orbital adjustments is approximately 2 feet per second for each nautical mile of altitude change."
"Before the deorbit thrusting period, the flight crew maneuvers the spacecraft to the desired deorbit thrusting attitude using the rotational hand controller and RCS thrusters. Upon completion of the OMS thrusting period, the RCS is used to null any residual velocities, if required. The spacecraft is then maneuvered to the proper entry interface attitude using the RCS. The remaining propellants aboard the forward RCS are dumped by burning the propellants through the forward RCS thrusters before the entry interface if it is necessary to control the orbiter's center of gravity.
The aft RCS plus X jets can be used to complete any planned OMS thrusting period in the event of an OMS engine failure. In this case, the OMS-to-aft-RCS interconnect would feed OMS propellants to the aft RCS.
From entry interface at 400,000 feet, the orbiter is controlled in roll, pitch and yaw with the aft RCS thrusters. The orbiter's ailerons become effective at a dynamic pressure of 10 pounds per square foot, and the aft RCS roll jets are deactivated. At a dynamic pressure of 20 pounds per square foot, the orbiter's elevons become effective, and the aft RCS pitch jets are deactivated. The rudder is activated at Mach 3.5, and the aft RCS yaw jets are deactivated at Mach 1 and approximately 45,000 feet.
The OMS in each pod consists of a high-pressure gaseous helium storage tank, helium isolation valves, dual pressure regulation systems, vapor isolation valves for only the oxidizer regulated helium pressure path, quad check valves, a fuel tank, an oxidizer tank, a propellant distribution system consisting of tank isolation valves, crossfeed valves, and an OMS engine. Each OMS engine also has a gaseous nitrogen storage tank, gaseous nitrogen pressure isolation valve, gaseous nitrogen accumulator, bipropellant solenoid control valves and actuators that control bipropellant ball valves, and purge valves.
In each of the OMS pods, gaseous helium pressure is supplied to helium isolation valves and dual pressure regulators, which supply regulated helium pressure to the fuel and oxidizer tanks. The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide. The propellants are Earth-storable liquids at normal temperatures. They are pressure-fed to the propellant distribution system through tank isolation valves to the OMS engines. The OMS engine propellant ball valves are positioned by the gaseous nitrogen system and control the flow of propellants into the engine. The fuel is directed first through the engine combustion chamber walls and provides regenerative cooling of the chamber walls; it then flows into the engine injector. The oxidizer goes directly to the engine injector. The propellants are sprayed into the combustion chamber, where they atomize and ignite upon contact with each other (hypergolic), producing a hot gas and, thus, thrust."
"...but STS-107 was *delayed* for 6 months (original launch date 19 Jul 2003) because of cracks in the propellant feed lines to the 3 main engines. A defect that could have caused catastrophic failure. Did the fix work or not?"'
Yes the fix worked. Columbia made it to orbit and it went around and around from Thursday, Jan. 16 until deorbit this morning.
When Shuttle is deorbiting-entering it uses OMS until Mach 10, then it transitions to using it's aerodynamic surfaces for control, all the while it is not using it's main engines.
Had there been a fuel feed failure it would have been during main engine use during the first two stages.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/sh ut ref/events/deorbit/ http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/s huttle/reference/shut ref/events/
Plus, North Korea for all of it's xenophobia and wackyness has shown an ability and a desire to cut deals with Japan, the US, China and South Korea.
North Korea may export terrorist and technology but it hasn't invaded anyone in 50 years and it doesn't gas it's civilians nor does it do shitty things to wetlands or coastal areas.
Iraq invades and invades and shots anti-ship missiles and generally carries on.
North Korea is the wacky guy with the gun, but he'll at least talk about things.
"With the demise of an actual draft in this country, we have developed a poverty draft, where for many kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, the military seems to be the only viable career option, and a good way to pay for college. Obviously there are exceptions, but the military is disproportionaly black and working-class compared to society at large. There's a reason you see more recruiting stations in poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones."
While the military at a whole has higher numbers of minorities, the Combat Arms do not. Infact in combat arms there are fewer minorities than in society as a whole. A poor black from North Portland who is fueling bombers on Diego Garcia isn't in the line of fire, while the farm kid from Faith South Dakota is in the 1st Cav as an M-2 gunner.
"So what? They volunteered, therefore our leaders shouldn't give a second thought to risking their lives?"
Duty, honor, country. Thats what you sign up for when you join the Military. Ours is not to ask why, ours is to do and die.
"Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have nothing to do with it. Plenty of governments around the world possess WMDs (including nuclear weapons, which Iraq does not have) in flagrant violation of international law. Several of them, most notably Pakistan, receive the support of the United States. Hell, North Korea is openly posturing itself as an agressive nuclear power, and the administration hardly seems to care. Moreover, Saddam developed his WMD programs in the 1980s with the active support of the Reagan and Bush I administrations."
Iraqi nuclear reactors are French and Russian. The chemical facilities were designed and built by German firms.
"No, U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf has everything to do with oil. Nobody in the foreign policy establishment denies it."
So does French, Chinese and Russian opposition to regime change in Iraq. However, the fact is that if it was ALL about oil, and oil drove everything in the Administration then the sanctions would be lifted and Saddam would be undercutting OPEC. If it was ALL about oil, then there are much easier places to take over and control. Like Nigeria, the Sudan (cut a deal with Egypt, they'd love it), the North Slope of Alaska, the former Soviet Republics, Mexico, Venezuela, South China Sea, or Iran. Iraq isn't the easy way or the simple way, it's a hard way.
The United States occupied Japan for 5 years, and some Japanese territories until 1971, does that make Japan a part of some "American Empire"? Is South Korea part of this "Empire"? Of course not.
The young men and women the Administration is sending off all volunteered to be in the service, then volunteered again to be in an MOS that would put them in harms way.
This morning a kid I knew growing up AIM'ed to say he was shipping out. He is a Marine Sniper-scout so you can imagine he's not that shocked about being sent off to war. I asked if his rifle was sighted in and he responded with a "Hell yea and I hope I get to go hunting".
The oil interest arguement always makes me shake my head.
Iraq used to export lots of oil to the US, Iraq told the US over and over in the 90s that Iraq would sell the US oil at 2 dollars below market price. Iraq told the US it would cut special deals with US companies.
So what freaking sense is there to going to war for that oil? If it wa all about oil interests it would be cheaper and more responsable t let Iraq keep killing civilians and sell the west oil.
Think GM, Ford, Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton are excited about the prospect of oil hitting 60 dollars a barrel and cutting corporate income?
Show me this empire you speak of, are the Aghanis or Iraqis going to be paying the US taxes? Are we going to force our excess Crystal-meth into thier markets for some income? Are we going to make them change thier customs and language?
If you think the US is empire building, then you need to take a look at what happens when empires are built.
When I first got cancer in 1980 they applied paper tape to my back after a bone marrow asperation.
A couple hours later it was time for a spinal tap and they needed to remove the bandage. Well I learned that day I was allergic to paper tape adhesive. It pulled my skin off with the tape so I was sent home with 3 cans of Topostat to help stave off infection (I had ALL and a depressed imune system.)
Neat damn stuff, had cans of it around for about 2 years then all of a sudden we couldn't get any from out doctors.
It really helped out on the farm, one of the farm hands lost a finger tip in some machinery and started to bleed bad, the spray came in handy.
There wasn't money spent by the US to put the Taliban in power.
NATO and China spent money arming the locals against the Soviets. The USSR go away and the West stops pouring money in. Place turns into a prison riot with tanks and RPGs.
Arab states don't like all these well-trained Islamists coming back from the war and eyeing revolt. So Egpyt and Saudi Arabia and et all give the Islamists cash to leave. They go to Sudan, Somalia, the US and Afghanistan, eventually alot of them end up in Afghanistan and the civil wars kick into high gear.
There was no budget line-item titled "Money to Taliban".
"We may not have legally annexed any territory since 1898."
The United States Federal Government has not annexed any territory since 1898. The US did take territory from Japan in a number of United Nations Trusts, as did the UK and France which were turned over and made into new nations. A few islands were taken by the US after WW2 from Japan, but that's no Imperialism.
US Corporations making money isn't US Imperialism. That's like saying an American working in London is an imperialist seizing British territory.
Yes, look at our history in Central America and look at how many times the US military spent lives and money opposing the interests of American corporations. Check out Savage Wars of Peace. US military interventions in before 1941 were usually NOT for corporations.
Imperialism is the taking and controlling of people or territories so that the mother country makes money, not spends it.
You show me the camps where we put Homosexuals, Jews, Communists, Gypsies and outspoken religous leaders and I'll ponder your point for a moment. Where are the slave labor camps? Why aren't American roads and launch facilities built by slave workers if we are so friggin' Naziesque?
For all the "Imperialism" the United States has been accused of, the US hasn't taken a square inch of territory and made money from it since Guam and Puerto Rico in 1898.
Why is it that when American soliders and equipment are lost helping Africa, Europe, or Muslims we are the bad guys?
The USS Cole was refueling in Yemen to bolster the local economy and look what that got us? The F-117 lost over Yugoslavia was there fighting on the side of Muslims. Billions spent to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan, now girls in Kabul aren't killed if they learn to read and write and we are the Nazis.
If the US wasn't playing "world cop" and we sat behind the seas the world would be a worse place. Western Europe showed the world that from 1500-1941.
Slashdot Mirror
The only position where Credit History should ever come into play in getting a job is one that deals with national security.
That is a Federal Intelligence, Security or Law Enforcment agency or someone that works in the private sector that deals with national security,
That's it.
The unless you are hiding something arguement is BS. A private sector employeer that isn't involved in national security has no right or cause for credit history.
The iPod is a 1.8 inch hard disk.
Sony took a laptop drive and slapped 802.11 on it.
My iPod doesn't require an external power supply to operate, the Sony does.
Columbia had the ability to dock with ISS if it'd had the Orbiter Docking System on this flight. It didn't have it installed but the capability to use it was added to Columbia. ISS has 2 Russian and 2 US suits, Columbia had 2 suits so an EVA transfer could have been done.
Columbia able to dock in general - Yes
Columbia had docking system - No
Columbia able to dock on STS-107 - No
No, there was no way for NASA to prep and launch in space of time that Columbia had consumables for this mission.
If they'd decided to launch the moment the insulation fell of the External Fuel Tank there'd still not have been enough time (16-24 days).
NASA could not have saved the crew of Columbia. The Russian Space Agency could not have saved the crew of Columbia.
As of thursday Atlantis was getting ready for a March 1 launch. Endeavour was getting ready for a May 23 launch and Discovery was in modification.
Atlantis wasn't on it's external tank or solid rocket boosters yet as of last week.
I am using Dennis Jenkins Space Shuttle - The History of the National Space Transportation System - The First 100 Missions - 3rd Edition as my reference point.
Shuttle's Electrical Power System uses hydrogen and oxygen to create electricity through 3 fuel cells. The Shuttle's cooling system also depends on this power.
For supporting Spacelab and long duration missions NASA and Rockwell developed the Extended Duration Orbitor (EDO) cryo kit. It wieghs 7000 pounds and is 15 feet in diameter. It attaches to the payload bay rear bulkhead on OV-102 (Columbia). OV-104 (Atlantis) was modified to be EDO compatable but it's not been finished. OV-105 (Endeavour) also had the EDO capability deleted to save weight. I am unsure of Discovery's EDO compatablity.
As for life-support, a lithium hydroxide canister is used to remove CO2 from the cabin air, Columbia had another system which used a regenerable carbon dioxide removal system which will operate for 10-16 days.
A LiOH canister will last 48 man-hours and up to 30 can be carried. If Columbia had 30 canisters and it's RCRS, then it'd have up to 24 days of CO2 removal capability.
NASA has Columbia's flight duration as 15 days, 22 hours, 20 minutes
A couple extra days would not have saved the crew, and it isn't comparable to Apollo 13 because without a thermal protection system that worked, they'd be dead.
Apollo 13's recovery operated under the assumption (correct) that the heat shield was intact.
Another Shuttle couldn't be launched in time to rescue Columbia, it couldn't make it to ISS and the thermal protection system wasn't repairable on orbit.
Columbia didn't have enough fuel to change it's orbit to that of ISS.
The EDO kit allows an Orbiter to remain up for 16 days.
Atlantis does not have EDO capability.
After 16 days fuel for the electrical system will run out.
From the sci.space.shuttle FAQs
"*1* - COLUMBIA IS TOO HEAVY TO GO TO THE SPACE STATION ALPHA.
FALSE. Columbia is capable of going to the space station. However,
because Columbia's mass is greater than other orbiters, its cargo
capacity is reduced by the same amount. By using the other orbiters,
station assembly requires fewer flights since those orbiters can carry
greater mass.
During its latest heavy maintenance, Columbia's weight was greatly
reduced, but it still has a significant mass difference with the other
orbiters. Columbia was scheduled to go to the station later in 2003.
*2* - COLUMBIA CANNOT DOCK TO THE SPACE STATION ALPHA.
FALSE. During the last heavy maintenance, Columbia was modified to allow
the installation of the Orbiter Docking System (ODS). Columbia was
scheduled to go to the station later in 2003.
*3* - COLUMBIA COULD HAVE GONE TO SPACE STATION ALPHA ON STS 107 (I).
FALSE. For STS 107, Columbia did not carry the orbiter docking system. So
it could not have docked. In a bind, however, transvers via EVA (space
suits) might have been possible. The station has 2 Russian suits and 2 US
suits. Columbia has 2 US suits.
*4* - COLUMBIA COULD HAVE GONE TO SPACE STATION ALPHA ON STS 107 (II).
FALSE. Orbital mechanics and basic laws of physics make this impossible.
When a shuttle takes off, it aims in one direction and then accelerates
until it reaches its orbital speed of about 28,000km/h. This direction is
called orbital inclination.
Consider a large round frozen lake with smooth ice. You slide at 100
km/h from 12:00 to 06:00 (south) without any skates. A friend travels
from 02:00 to 08:00 (south west) at 100 km/h.
The goal is for you to shake hands with your friend while both
travelling at 100 km/h. To achieve this, you would not only have to
change your direction of travel to match that of your friend, but also do
this such that your track will match that of your friend, after which,
you can simply accelerate to catch up to him. If both are going in same
direction but 100m apart (parralel courses), you can't shake hands. Now, think
about what is required for you to change direction while sliding on ice.
Columbia launched to a 39 degree inclination. The Space station is at a
51.6 degree inclination. If you do a bit of simple algebra, changing
course 12.6 degrees while maintaining 100km/h requires about 24 km/h
acceleration or roughly one quarter of the acceleration that gave your
your 100km/h.
The shuttle accelerates from 0 to 28,000km/h during launch. Once in
orbit, the main engines are without any fuel. Only the OMS and RCS
engines are available, and their capability is roughly 1250 feet per
second, or about 1400 km/h speed change (delta v). Subtract from that the
amounts used to complete the orbit, on-orbit attitude control, as well
de-orbit burn.
If you need one quarter of the 28,000 km/h speed to change orbital
inclination, it means is 7000 km/h. So the shuttle has nowhere near what
is needed to perform a orbital plane change of 12 degrees.
Japan doesn't have Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles nor do they have the anti-ship version.
The Kongo class DDG has a VLS that is compatable with T-LAM but they do not have Tomahawks at this time.
"The Aegis foreign military sales (FMS) efforts began in 1984, resulting in the first Japanese FMS case in 1988. Three additional FMS ships were then authorized in 1990, 1991, and 1993. The USN furnished the Aegis AAW system and selected combat system elements, but the ship and the other remaining systems were built in Japan. Not all portions of the US Aegis system are installed on the Japanese ship. The Tomahawk system is not exported, and there is no equivalent Japanese-supplied function. Several other functions are also deleted in the Japanese ship."
Really?
/ re ad/30103
e s/ 2000a/012400e.htm
Take a moment and look at the position of Senator Mondale in the 1960s.
http://www.ad-astra.net/cgi-bin/BBS/SpacePolicy
"The worse thing about Mondale is his unrelenting, unbending opposition to the exploration of space. This opposition was dramatized in the wonderful HBO series on the Apollo Program when Mondale pops up as a charector making political hay after the Apollo Fire. While he did not openly oppose the Apollo Program, it being a done deal by the time he entered the Senate, Mondale's views on human space flight were no secret, even then. After Apollo 11 he helped to lead fights against any and all efforts to expand human presence in space. The crippling of the human space program can in part be laid at his door."
" 'A Webb aid remembers him (Webb) asking Mondale, "In all due humility, Senator, what have we done wrong? Why are you so down on us?" Webb wanted to know why Mondale was upset and what he could do to rectify the situation. He and other visitors from NASA were standing in front of Mondale's desk. The Senator leaned back in his chair and instructed Webb, "I intend to ride this for every nickle's worth of political power I can get out of it. I don't give a hoot in hell about the space program or your future," a NASA official with Webb recalls Mondale saying.'"
http://www.floridatoday.com/space/explore/stori
"For example, Faries cites the reduction in NASA's budget over the five years since Weldon came to office. But he fails to point out that in each of those years, President Clinton sent a budget to Congress that cut NASA from his prior request. And Faries ignores the fact that in response to Clinton's cuts, Congress found money to increase NASA's budget above the president's request for the last three years."
Then look at what the OMB and Congress did to NASA and DoD space prgram funding from 1965 on, cut, cut, cut, cut.
You are right, NASA is what it is today because of the Democrats, instead of getting Dyna-Soar, Skylab, heavy-Lift and a re-usable by 1982 we got Shuttle. When DoD and NASA said we needed 5 Shuttles, three at KSC and 2 at Vandenberg, they got 3, and had to fight and scrouge for funding the 4th one in 1977.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=3959
l
Highlights of 2002 NASA Funding: A Blueprint for New Beginnings -- A Responsible Budget for America's Priorities
Provides $14.5 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a two-percent increase over 2001 and a seven-percent increase over 2000.
Look down at Chart 33-1
From 1998 to '99 funding drops. Then it is back to '98 level in 2000 (but no increase to offset inflation) then it is up in '01 and '02
http://www.sdsc.edu/SDSCwire/v1.8/5012.NASA.htm
It's going to be quicker this time I think.
Computer modeling is *much* more advanced as is our understanding of hypersonic dynamics and materials science.
In 86-87 there was a Democratic House and Congress and the Democrats have a history of dragging thier feet on space*.
As soon as we know what happened it will be a little easier to figure out a work around, model it, then scale test and finally implement it.
Unlike '86 when Shuttle was powered up and there were more variables, this time may be easier.
OMS does have motors and fuel, but the OMS do not use the same lines and fuel as Main Engines.
"orbital maneuvering system provides the thrust for orbit insertion, orbit circularization, orbit transfer, rendezvous, deorbit, abort to orbit and abort once around and can provide up to 1,000 pounds of propellant to the aft reaction control system. The OMS is housed in two independent pods located on each side of the orbiter's aft fuselage. The pods also house the aft RCS and are referred to as the OMS/RCS pods. Each pod contains one OMS engine and the hardware needed to pressurize, store and distribute the propellants to perform the velocity maneuvers. The two pods provide redundancy for the OMS. The vehicle velocity required for orbital adjustments is approximately 2 feet per second for each nautical mile of altitude change."
"Before the deorbit thrusting period, the flight crew maneuvers the spacecraft to the desired deorbit thrusting attitude using the rotational hand controller and RCS thrusters. Upon completion of the OMS thrusting period, the RCS is used to null any residual velocities, if required. The spacecraft is then maneuvered to the proper entry interface attitude using the RCS. The remaining propellants aboard the forward RCS are dumped by burning the propellants through the forward RCS thrusters before the entry interface if it is necessary to control the orbiter's center of gravity.
The aft RCS plus X jets can be used to complete any planned OMS thrusting period in the event of an OMS engine failure. In this case, the OMS-to-aft-RCS interconnect would feed OMS propellants to the aft RCS.
From entry interface at 400,000 feet, the orbiter is controlled in roll, pitch and yaw with the aft RCS thrusters. The orbiter's ailerons become effective at a dynamic pressure of 10 pounds per square foot, and the aft RCS roll jets are deactivated. At a dynamic pressure of 20 pounds per square foot, the orbiter's elevons become effective, and the aft RCS pitch jets are deactivated. The rudder is activated at Mach 3.5, and the aft RCS yaw jets are deactivated at Mach 1 and approximately 45,000 feet.
The OMS in each pod consists of a high-pressure gaseous helium storage tank, helium isolation valves, dual pressure regulation systems, vapor isolation valves for only the oxidizer regulated helium pressure path, quad check valves, a fuel tank, an oxidizer tank, a propellant distribution system consisting of tank isolation valves, crossfeed valves, and an OMS engine. Each OMS engine also has a gaseous nitrogen storage tank, gaseous nitrogen pressure isolation valve, gaseous nitrogen accumulator, bipropellant solenoid control valves and actuators that control bipropellant ball valves, and purge valves.
In each of the OMS pods, gaseous helium pressure is supplied to helium isolation valves and dual pressure regulators, which supply regulated helium pressure to the fuel and oxidizer tanks. The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide. The propellants are Earth-storable liquids at normal temperatures. They are pressure-fed to the propellant distribution system through tank isolation valves to the OMS engines. The OMS engine propellant ball valves are positioned by the gaseous nitrogen system and control the flow of propellants into the engine. The fuel is directed first through the engine combustion chamber walls and provides regenerative cooling of the chamber walls; it then flows into the engine injector. The oxidizer goes directly to the engine injector. The propellants are sprayed into the combustion chamber, where they atomize and ignite upon contact with each other (hypergolic), producing a hot gas and, thus, thrust."
"...but STS-107 was *delayed* for 6 months (original launch date 19 Jul 2003) because of cracks in the propellant feed lines to the 3 main engines. A defect that could have caused catastrophic failure. Did the fix work or not?"'
h ut ref/events/deorbit/s huttle/reference/shut ref/events/
Yes the fix worked. Columbia made it to orbit and it went around and around from Thursday, Jan. 16 until deorbit this morning.
When Shuttle is deorbiting-entering it uses OMS until Mach 10, then it transitions to using it's aerodynamic surfaces for control, all the while it is not using it's main engines.
Had there been a fuel feed failure it would have been during main engine use during the first two stages.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/s
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/
There is an article in that issue about Shuttle Orbiter re-entry that is very good.
It starts on page 324 through 328.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/PS/ramon.html
The news people are freaking stupid.
Foxnews had Jim Lovell on and was comparing Apollo 13 to Shuttle. Lovell put the smack down on them.
CNN is getting a little better, but there are alot of Umms going on.
Well, it couldn't be a SAM due to the altitude of the Shuttle on breakup.
At 200,000 feet, there'd be no way to survive.
Plus, North Korea for all of it's xenophobia and wackyness has shown an ability and a desire to cut deals with Japan, the US, China and South Korea.
North Korea may export terrorist and technology but it hasn't invaded anyone in 50 years and it doesn't gas it's civilians nor does it do shitty things to wetlands or coastal areas.
Iraq invades and invades and shots anti-ship missiles and generally carries on.
North Korea is the wacky guy with the gun, but he'll at least talk about things.
Same old false view of the military.
"With the demise of an actual draft in this country, we have developed a poverty draft, where for many kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, the military seems to be the only viable career option, and a good way to pay for college. Obviously there are exceptions, but the military is disproportionaly black and working-class compared to society at large. There's a reason you see more recruiting stations in poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones."
While the military at a whole has higher numbers of minorities, the Combat Arms do not. Infact in combat arms there are fewer minorities than in society as a whole. A poor black from North Portland who is fueling bombers on Diego Garcia isn't in the line of fire, while the farm kid from Faith South Dakota is in the 1st Cav as an M-2 gunner.
"So what? They volunteered, therefore our leaders shouldn't give a second thought to risking their lives?"
Duty, honor, country. Thats what you sign up for when you join the Military. Ours is not to ask why, ours is to do and die.
"Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have nothing to do with it. Plenty of governments around the world possess WMDs (including nuclear weapons, which Iraq does not have) in flagrant violation of international law. Several of them, most notably Pakistan, receive the support of the United States. Hell, North Korea is openly posturing itself as an agressive nuclear power, and the administration hardly seems to care. Moreover, Saddam developed his WMD programs in the 1980s with the active support of the Reagan and Bush I administrations."
Iraqi nuclear reactors are French and Russian. The chemical facilities were designed and built by German firms.
"No, U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf has everything to do with oil. Nobody in the foreign policy establishment denies it."
So does French, Chinese and Russian opposition to regime change in Iraq. However, the fact is that if it was ALL about oil, and oil drove everything in the Administration then the sanctions would be lifted and Saddam would be undercutting OPEC. If it was ALL about oil, then there are much easier places to take over and control. Like Nigeria, the Sudan (cut a deal with Egypt, they'd love it), the North Slope of Alaska, the former Soviet Republics, Mexico, Venezuela, South China Sea, or Iran. Iraq isn't the easy way or the simple way, it's a hard way.
The United States occupied Japan for 5 years, and some Japanese territories until 1971, does that make Japan a part of some "American Empire"? Is South Korea part of this "Empire"? Of course not.
Same thing goes for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thank you.
Things were alot different then than now.
They don't do radiation anymore. No more weekly bone marrows and monthly spinal taps, no more tri-weekly bloodtests...
It was hardcore back then, and alot lower 5 year survival rates. When I got it there was no 10 year survival.
It's been since October 16th 1980 for me and the numbers are getting better for the poor kids than are getting ALL today.
The young men and women the Administration is sending off all volunteered to be in the service, then volunteered again to be in an MOS that would put them in harms way.
This morning a kid I knew growing up AIM'ed to say he was shipping out. He is a Marine Sniper-scout so you can imagine he's not that shocked about being sent off to war. I asked if his rifle was sighted in and he responded with a "Hell yea and I hope I get to go hunting".
The oil interest arguement always makes me shake my head.
Iraq used to export lots of oil to the US, Iraq told the US over and over in the 90s that Iraq would sell the US oil at 2 dollars below market price. Iraq told the US it would cut special deals with US companies.
So what freaking sense is there to going to war for that oil? If it wa all about oil interests it would be cheaper and more responsable t let Iraq keep killing civilians and sell the west oil.
Think GM, Ford, Exxon-Mobil and Halliburton are excited about the prospect of oil hitting 60 dollars a barrel and cutting corporate income?
Show me this empire you speak of, are the Aghanis or Iraqis going to be paying the US taxes? Are we going to force our excess Crystal-meth into thier markets for some income? Are we going to make them change thier customs and language?
If you think the US is empire building, then you need to take a look at what happens when empires are built.
I had some of this.
When I first got cancer in 1980 they applied paper tape to my back after a bone marrow asperation.
A couple hours later it was time for a spinal tap and they needed to remove the bandage. Well I learned that day I was allergic to paper tape adhesive. It pulled my skin off with the tape so I was sent home with 3 cans of Topostat to help stave off infection (I had ALL and a depressed imune system.)
Neat damn stuff, had cans of it around for about 2 years then all of a sudden we couldn't get any from out doctors.
It really helped out on the farm, one of the farm hands lost a finger tip in some machinery and started to bleed bad, the spray came in handy.
There wasn't money spent by the US to put the Taliban in power.
NATO and China spent money arming the locals against the Soviets. The USSR go away and the West stops pouring money in. Place turns into a prison riot with tanks and RPGs.
Arab states don't like all these well-trained Islamists coming back from the war and eyeing revolt. So Egpyt and Saudi Arabia and et all give the Islamists cash to leave. They go to Sudan, Somalia, the US and Afghanistan, eventually alot of them end up in Afghanistan and the civil wars kick into high gear.
There was no budget line-item titled "Money to Taliban".
The president that drank the most and had the most corrupt administration?
The General that threw more Americans into a meat-grinder than anyone else?
I understand the purpose of Government money well. It's a fountain of waste to throw at problems like racism, poverty and international relations.
Having lived on a Federal Indian Reservation, I know it alot better than the dotcom boom.
"We may not have legally annexed any territory since 1898."
The United States Federal Government has not annexed any territory since 1898. The US did take territory from Japan in a number of United Nations Trusts, as did the UK and France which were turned over and made into new nations. A few islands were taken by the US after WW2 from Japan, but that's no Imperialism.
US Corporations making money isn't US Imperialism. That's like saying an American working in London is an imperialist seizing British territory.
Yes, look at our history in Central America and look at how many times the US military spent lives and money opposing the interests of American corporations. Check out Savage Wars of Peace. US military interventions in before 1941 were usually NOT for corporations.
Imperialism is the taking and controlling of people or territories so that the mother country makes money, not spends it.
I'll bite. The game is boring as hell.
Patriotic American equals Nazi Germans huh?
You show me the camps where we put Homosexuals, Jews, Communists, Gypsies and outspoken religous leaders and I'll ponder your point for a moment. Where are the slave labor camps? Why aren't American roads and launch facilities built by slave workers if we are so friggin' Naziesque?
For all the "Imperialism" the United States has been accused of, the US hasn't taken a square inch of territory and made money from it since Guam and Puerto Rico in 1898.
Why is it that when American soliders and equipment are lost helping Africa, Europe, or Muslims we are the bad guys?
The USS Cole was refueling in Yemen to bolster the local economy and look what that got us? The F-117 lost over Yugoslavia was there fighting on the side of Muslims. Billions spent to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan, now girls in Kabul aren't killed if they learn to read and write and we are the Nazis.
If the US wasn't playing "world cop" and we sat behind the seas the world would be a worse place. Western Europe showed the world that from 1500-1941.