How long can spacecraft be stored?
Hallerb
launched today?
Climate controled clean room environment, some maintenance etc?
I relize theres no infrastructre and technologically its a looser I just wonder
how long things can be stored and still used....
Craig Fink
Hallerb wrote:
The Saturn booster at JSC is stored outside and falling apart. If you
walk around it, you can see corrosion holes in various parts of the
vehicle. Sad. To bad they didn't put it in an air-conditioned building,
instead of making it a lawn ornament.
Craig Fink :-(
Dave Downing
news:3DCBBA5D...@houston.rr.com:
> The Saturn booster at JSC is stored outside and falling apart.
> Craig Fink :-(
I seem to remember one of the manned Saturn 1B launches delayed because of
cracks in the fins the booster sits on. Possibly one of the Skylab
missions. That was in the seventies, imagine what they would be like now.
Shame.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Dave Downing, UK
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Henry Spencer
Hallerb <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
>launched today?
>Climate controled clean room environment, some maintenance etc?
Not right away, even ignoring infrastructure issues. At the very least,
you'd want to do a minute inspection of the whole damn thing looking for
stress-corrosion cracks -- those were found on a couple of the Saturn IBs
for Skylab and ASTP, after only a few years of storage -- and you'd want
to run some very careful engine tests, and likewise you'd have to test all
the electronics (some of the more leading-edge parts don't necessarily
have an unlimited shelf life). It's not impossible but it would be
complicated.
--
Socialists always tell us they're going to | Henry Spencer
do better next time. -- Ed Wright | he...@spsystems.net
OM
>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
>launched today?
...Gantry issues aside, anyone who's been to see the Lawn Ornament at
JSC knows that Baxter obviously had never done the same before he
wrote _Titan_. The S-II stage has so many holes in it from salt air
deterioration that there are some fears that within the next decade it
will collapse upon itself. That honeycombed aluminum alloy does *not*
hold up well in the Houston sea smog.
OM
--
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb bastard die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society
- General George S. Patton, Jr
OM
wrote:
>In article <20021108075437...@mb-cd.aol.com>,
>Hallerb <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
>>launched today?
>>Climate controled clean room environment, some maintenance etc?
>
>Not right away, even ignoring infrastructure issues. At the very least,
>you'd want to do a minute inspection of the whole damn thing looking for
>stress-corrosion cracks -- those were found on a couple of the Saturn IBs
>for Skylab and ASTP, after only a few years of storage -- and you'd want
>to run some very careful engine tests, and likewise you'd have to test all
>the electronics (some of the more leading-edge parts don't necessarily
>have an unlimited shelf life). It's not impossible but it would be
>complicated.
...Henry, I beg to differ. Have you *seen* the current condition of
the Saturn V at JSC?
Hallerb
>...Gantry issues aside, anyone who's been to see the Lawn Ornament at
>JSC knows that Baxter obviously had never done the same before he
Obviously the only trip the lawn ornament will be making is to be restored for
display or junked. That would be truly a sad end.
What I meant was IF NASA had wanted to could one or more of these vehicles have
been kept for a later launch?
Given clean room care and controlled conditions? One pad could of been left in
Apollo configuration as well for later heavy lift flights.
I KNOW its not practical now but would it have been possible?
OM
>What I meant was IF NASA had wanted to could one or more of these vehicles have
>been kept for a later launch?
...There were issues of stress fracturing of the various alloys due to
both environment and just sitting there. We're talking climate control
a necessity, and special load-bearing supports that would reduce the
stress fracturing that would occur when that much weight is allowed to
sit under gravity. The S-II stage at JSC actually appears to have a
very -slight- sag at the top of the stage now, although it may be lens
distortion. One day I hope to get the equipment to do laser
measurements over time to verify this is actually happening.
Henry Spencer
OM <om@CT_is_a_troll_AND_a_putz.too> wrote:
>>>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
>>>launched today?
>>>Climate controled clean room environment, some maintenance etc?
>
>...Henry, I beg to differ. Have you *seen* the current condition of
>the Saturn V at JSC?
Irrelevant; note that the question explicitly stipulated "proper storage".
Kevin Willoughby
> OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
> launched today?
Not without being remanufactured, replacing most of the components.
Lubricants gum up over time. Moving parts can cold-weld and gall,
causing them to stick. Plastics -- including perhaps the insulation on
wires -- become brittle and falls apart with time. Capacitors dry out.
Electrical contacts develop a high resistance surface oxide (gold
contacts excepted).
Getting replacement parts would be seriously tough -- not only are the
production lines long gone, but the suppliers to the production lines
are long gone.
The *people* are mostly retired at this time.
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwi...@scispace.org.invalid
Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as
public relations problems. -- Bruce Schneier
MattWriter
What I meant was IF NASA had wanted to could one or more of these vehicles have
been kept for a later launch? >>
I don;t know the costs involved, but it's certainly possible. Titan IIs kept
on alert duty, fully fueled, in missile silos for up to about 22 years (twice
the design life) were pulled out, inspected, and used for space launch, with
100% success. In the silos, temp and humidity were controlled, and limited
inspections were made daily. Should be much easier to do with an un-fueled
rocket, although I suspect things like seals and gaskets would be thoroughly
checked and maybe just replaced wholesale. Some types of insulation for
electric wiring degrade over time as well.
Some of the current Minuteman III missiles have been in their silos almost 30
years (again, almost twice design life) and are expected to last another 20
years, although each missile, at the end of that time, will have had its solid
fuel washed out and replaced twice and its electronics updated. The Inertial
Measurement Units, however, will still be the originals. Also, the
fiberglass-cased third stages will have been replaced at least once (first two
stages are steel-cased and are repoured).
Matt Bille
(MattW...@AOL.com)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR
Kevin Willoughby
>
> ...Henry, I beg to differ. Have you *seen* the current condition of
> the Saturn V at JSC?
I'm not sure that is rel event.
When I saw the JSC S-V, it was a bittersweet experience. The once
wonderful creation had been left outdoors, subject to acid rain, harsh
sunlight, and neglect. Lots of neglect. Not even a spray job of WD-40,
much less a good coat of cosmolene. Not at all the same thing as
mothballing the bird and placing it into protected storage in the hope
she would fly again.
OM
<ke...@scispace.org.invalid> wrote:
>OM said:
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:18:35 GMT, he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
>> wrote:
>> >Not right away, even ignoring infrastructure issues. [...]
>>
>> ...Henry, I beg to differ. Have you *seen* the current condition of
>> the Saturn V at JSC?
>
>I'm not sure that is rel event.
...Actually, it is when the original query was worded so that it came
across as if the poster was asking whether they could take any of the
three remaining Saturn V's and refurbish them.
J. Steven York
and corrosion everywhere. Just horrible.
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:47:47 -0500, Kevin Willoughby
<ke...@scispace.org.invalid> wrote:
>OM said:
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:18:35 GMT, he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
>> wrote:
>> >Not right away, even ignoring infrastructure issues. [...]
>>
>> ...Henry, I beg to differ. Have you *seen* the current condition of
>> the Saturn V at JSC?
>
>I'm not sure that is rel event.
>
>When I saw the JSC S-V, it was a bittersweet experience. The once
>wonderful creation had been left outdoors, subject to acid rain, harsh
>sunlight, and neglect. Lots of neglect. Not even a spray job of WD-40,
>much less a good coat of cosmolene. Not at all the same thing as
>mothballing the bird and placing it into protected storage in the hope
>she would fly again.
J. Steven York - "Bolo, Old Guard," "Bolo, Cold Steel" (Now available from Baen Books)
"Star Trek SCE, Enigma Ship" -
http://www.psiphi.org/cgi/upc-db/XSCE000020.html
Craig Fink
thousand to store it, so that it will be around for future generations
to see.
Craig Fink
ed kyle
The 14 Titan 23G expendable launch vehicles, only a few of which
remain today, consist of refurbished Titan II ICBM airframes that
were manufactured in the 1964-1967 timeframe. This is the same
period when the Saturn V rockets were built. The Titan ELVs
consist of parts from 26 ICBMs (mix-and-math stages mostly) that
served active duty until the early 1980s. They were then
mothballed in the desert at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona until
pulled for conversion as space launchers after 1986. Nearly
40 Titan IIs remained in storage a few years ago, but no plans
for their conversion as space launchers have been announced.
I'm not sure if they still exist.
Hallerb
>NASA spends billions to build it, but can't see spending a few hundred
>thousand to store it, so that it will be around for future generations
>to see.
Well looking back the Simthsonian should of been given the job of preserving
all the historic NASA infrastructure along with the $ to do it.
The demolition of pads, leaving the saturns to rot away, scrapping of the first
missioon control room in florida used before JSC came online.
This all bothers me very much.
Craig Fink
ed kyle wrote:
Good example. Although, the military may have had different design
requirements than NASA, in that the ICBM had to be designed to be stored
for long periods of time and be ready for launch on a moments notice.
Craig Fink
Craig Fink
Hallerb wrote:
Yeah, me too. Makes me wonder if any of the historical artifacts here on
earth will survive the Moon Hoaxers.
At least the lower half of six LEMs are being preserved for posterity.
Craig Fink
Craig Fink
years ago.
Craig Fink :-(
------------------------------
Date: 16 Feb 1982 1049-PST
From: Tom Wadlow <TAW at S1-A>
Subject: Delivering the goods...
To: space at MIT-MC
Date: 16 February 1982 04:04-EST
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Hauling cargo into orbit
The Shuttle technologies are very advanced; the one
thing I have against Bruce Murray's notins of buying Titans is
why bother with 30-year-old propulsoin technology when you have
something a little more modern?
Who was it that said ''Better is the enemy of Good Enough''???
Sorry, just couldn't resist that. I agree with your comments above
entirely. The problem with using Titans *to the exclusion of the
SRB-X concepts* is that thirty year technology gap. If, however,
we could develop SRB-X *and* turn some of the Titan boosters
into cargo ships (presumably as DOD decides to replace the siloed
ICBMs with fresh Titans, or new technology) then we would be winning
all around. The more launch capacity we have, the better.
The nice thing about SRB class ships is that you are using the same
technology all up and down the line. No more of this custom rocket
jazz. Replaceable, reusable and mass produceable want to be the
design philosophy of spacecraft. But I would hate to see all those
lovely Titans go the way of the Saturn 5 sitting on the Kennedy Space
Center lawn (When you think of all the millions of man-hours that
went into producing a flyable bird, only to have it become the world's
most expensive lawn ornament..... weep for Congress, they know not
what they have done.)
------------------------------
Pat Flannery
J. Steven York wrote:
>Same here. Broke my heart. There were birds nesting in it, cracks
>and corrosion everywhere. Just horrible.
>
From "Ozymandius" by Shelly:
"....Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
Pat
David Lesher
>>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
>>launched today?
>>Climate controled clean room environment, some maintenance etc?
>Not right away, even ignoring infrastructure issues. At the very least,
>you'd want to do a minute inspection of the whole damn thing looking for
>stress-corrosion cracks -- those were found on a couple of the Saturn IBs
>for Skylab and ASTP, after only a few years of storage -- and you'd want
>to run some very careful engine tests, and likewise you'd have to test all
>the electronics (some of the more leading-edge parts don't necessarily
>have an unlimited shelf life). It's not impossible but it would be
>complicated.
I seem to recall a ?Centaur? being removed from one of the tunnels at
LeRC after many years, because post-Challenger, they needed to fly it.
(I think it was the icing research tunnel...)
It was a big project because they had to disassemble the tunnel to
extract it; the tunnel had been built up around the unit, or such.
Jorge R. Frank
news:20021108163825...@mb-fj.aol.com:
> What I meant was IF NASA had wanted to could one or more of these
> vehicles have been kept for a later launch?
You mean, "If NASA had been given the funding..."
The level of climate control and stress reduction required here is
expensive.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Jorge R. Frank
news:777osuc4cfsemrmb5...@4ax.com:
> On 08 Nov 2002 12:54:37 GMT, hal...@aol.com (Hallerb) wrote:
>
>>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
>>launched today?
>
> ...Gantry issues aside, anyone who's been to see the Lawn Ornament at
> JSC knows that Baxter obviously had never done the same before he
> wrote _Titan_. The S-II stage has so many holes in it from salt air
> deterioration that there are some fears that within the next decade it
> will collapse upon itself. That honeycombed aluminum alloy does *not*
> hold up well in the Houston sea smog.
The S-II center engine is also in bad shape. If I were charitable, I'd say
that it's just gimballed hard over. But I'm not, so I'll say that it's
sagging in its mount and looks like it could fall off at any time.
OM
<jrf...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
>OM <om@CT_is_a_troll_AND_a_putz.too> wrote in
>news:777osuc4cfsemrmb5...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 08 Nov 2002 12:54:37 GMT, hal...@aol.com (Hallerb) wrote:
>>
>>>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
>>>launched today?
>>
>> ...Gantry issues aside, anyone who's been to see the Lawn Ornament at
>> JSC knows that Baxter obviously had never done the same before he
>> wrote _Titan_. The S-II stage has so many holes in it from salt air
>> deterioration that there are some fears that within the next decade it
>> will collapse upon itself. That honeycombed aluminum alloy does *not*
>> hold up well in the Houston sea smog.
>
>The S-II center engine is also in bad shape. If I were charitable, I'd say
>that it's just gimballed hard over. But I'm not, so I'll say that it's
>sagging in its mount and looks like it could fall off at any time.
...I looked at some stills taken of that engine in '96 and compared
them to my 2001 tape. Sure enough it's drooped about 10 degrees since
that date. I'd love to have compared this to current, but thanks to
CT's grampa, Osama Bin Laden, the tours aren't stopping at the Saturn
V for the forseeable future.
Stuf4
news:<5499970a.02111...@posting.google.com>
~ CT
Hallerb
I gwet not valid message:( Please paste here...
Paul Blay
I gwet google groups
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=5499970a.02111...@posting.google.com
I sugwest don't bother.
OM
>>Comment posted at new thread...
...Who cares? You were killfiled en masse by the group on 10/01/02.
Begone!
>I gwet not valid message:( Please paste here...
...Hal, please killfile CT immediately. The group will appreciate you
for it.
Thanks!
Julian Bordas
Hallerb wrote:
> OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
> launched today?
>
I'd say yes.
How long are aircraft stored in the desert in nevada?
Julian
G EddieA95
>> launched today?
>>
>
>I'd say yes.
>
>How long are aircraft stored in the desert in nevada?
Years, probably more, but you first have to get the rocket to Nevada. As the
lower S-V stages were transported only by sea, I don't know if NASA could
realistically have gotten them there.
Stuf4
> I sugwest don't bother.
I posted that info for anyone who might have an interest. For all you
know, Paul, 'Hallerb' may be planning to visit JSC's rocket park soon
and he (or someone else) might actually see the post as useful.
~ CT
Hallerb
>I posted that info for anyone who might have an interest. For all you
>know, Paul, 'Hallerb' may be planning to visit JSC's rocket park soon
As a matter of fact I am planning a trip including a day there this spring.
Thanks much for the info. I have been to KSC many times but not JSC. Its a must
see for me.
Hallerb
>Years, probably more, but you first have to get the rocket to Nevada. As the
>lower S-V stages were transported only by sea, I don't know if NASA
Seems in a nice clean room with minimum maintenance would be better than
sitting exposed in the desert.
G EddieA95
>>lower S-V stages were transported only by sea, I don't know if NASA
>
>Seems in a nice clean room with minimum maintenance would be better than
>sitting exposed in the desert
Sure. But building and maintaining a clean facility of that size at the Cape
for decades, would have been even harder to achieve and finance than dragging
the rockets to Nevada.
ed kyle
> ed kyle wrote:
>
> > hal...@aol.com (Hallerb) wrote in message news:<20021108075437...@mb-cd.aol.com>...
> >
> >>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
> >>launched today?
> >>
> >>Climate controled clean room environment, some maintenance etc?
> >>
> > consist of refurbished Titan II ICBM airframes that
> > served active duty until the early 1980s. They were then
> > mothballed in the desert at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona until
> Good example. Although, the military may have had different design
> requirements than NASA, in that the ICBM had to be designed to be stored
> for long periods of time and be ready for launch on a moments notice.
True. Some Titan II ICBMs sat fully fueled in their
underground silos for several years at a time. Their
corrosive (and toxic) propellants were a bit of a
challenge, to say the least (some of the early
missiles developed slow leaks), but they were housed
in a conditioned, low-humidity atmosphere the entire
time.
Still, the Titan tank walls were very thin. When
left outside in a humid environment for a few years,
holes corrode right through the tanks. A Titan I
parked in front of a high school in Titusville,
Florida ended up rusting into something that
looked like swiss cheese.
Sam Seiber
>
> As a matter of fact I am planning a trip including a day there this spring.
> Thanks much for the info. I have been to KSC many times but not JSC. Its a must
> see for me.
I have been to both and have to rate KSC as the more fun of the two.
Be sure to take the tram tour. And when you get back, report to us
what stuff you got to see on the tram tour. When I went to JSC, oh
about 3 years ago, one of the highlights for me was Mission Control.
I was told on that tour that they were going to get one of the old
Mission Control rooms restored to Apollo era style, and it would
then be part of the tour. Now, OM, if you are reading, did you
get a chance to see Mission Control, or did 911 screw that up for
everyone?
Also, as you may have read from OM, the tram does NOT STOP by the
Saturn V stack. But I remember a parking lot on the other side of
the stack (as viewed from the tram). I just parked there after
taking the pay tour, and looked all I wanted (the stories about
its bad shape are sadly true). IIRC, to get to the parking lot,
head toward the JSC main gate, but just before you get the guard
station,
the lot is on the left. But this is from memory, but is prolly
good enough to get you to the lot.
Someday, Hallerb, you will have to take in Huntsville.
Sam Seiber
OM
<tingr...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>Now, OM, if you are reading, did you get a chance to see
>Mission Control, or did 911 screw that up for everyone?
...Sort of. The current MOCR observation lounge is visible, but unlike
the past they don't allow you to stick around and catch the next tram.
The old MOCR is only open during JSC OH, which means that it's been
closed since last year. Dim and I went early and had the honor of
chatting for a while with Lee Briscoe, a former Flight during the
early STS era. Lee confirmed the rumors that part of NASA orientation
on e-mail is that "thou shalt not write Tindallgrams"; official policy
is to keep things professional and practically sterile when it comes
to any sort of humor or irony, lest the less-intelligent taxpayers
fail to get the joke.
>Also, as you may have read from OM, the tram does NOT STOP by the
>Saturn V stack. But I remember a parking lot on the other side of
>the stack (as viewed from the tram). I just parked there after
>taking the pay tour, and looked all I wanted (the stories about
>its bad shape are sadly true). IIRC, to get to the parking lot,
>head toward the JSC main gate, but just before you get the guard
>station,
...That's been curtailed too, alas. I have heard thru some sources,
however, that quite a few visitors have shown up at JSC and have been
*really* pissed about the security changes. They're not mad at the JSC
security staff, as they've all been 100% polite and understanding as
hell about the situation. Some have begun to petition their
representatives to ask NASA to lighten up a bit on the grounds that by
denying us the right to see our history and our tax dollars at work,
they're essentially winning Bin Laden's war for us in this particular
theater of terror. They also cite that the Ballunar Festival was held
without incedent on the NASA grounds, and they didn't even have a near
miss of the MOCR like they did the previous year(*). Everyone
understood this year's cancellation. Next year's won't be so easily
tolerated.
(*) Right over our heads while we waited to get inside. Damn balloon
jockeys...
Hallerb
>parked in front of a high school in Titusville,
>Florida ended up rusting into something that
>looked like swiss cheese.
>
I visited that several times. They were trying to get it restored, was that
successful?
Jeff Clark
news:20021114172814...@mb-ct.aol.com:
See
http://www.nbbd.com/NewsObserver/archives/020207/
for the final word on what's going to happen. I live about five miles
south of the Titan, and when I drove past it on Wednesday, it looked the
same as it always has, no obvious signs of restoration.
Jeff Clark
Hallerb
>same as it always has, no obvious signs of restoration.
>
Sad, its collapsing from the weight where it sits on the pipes supporting it. I
suppose one day it will fall apart and be hauled away as scrap.
Of course this appears to be the fate of the Saturn JSC rocket as well.
So sad...
Dave Michelson
>
> Of course this appears to be the fate of the Saturn JSC rocket as well.
I'm surprised that nothing has been done to save the Saturn V at JSC.
Is it considered redundant given that KSC's is under cover now?
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Hallerb
>I'm surprised that nothing has been done to save the Saturn V at JSC.
>Is it considered redundant given that KSC's is under cover now?
>
What about the third one? Isnt there another one somewhere in even worse shape?
David Vaughn
--
--
http://members.tripod.com/davon96720
Pc's used for Seti @ home
AMD 1200 Me
P2 300 95/Nt/Xp
Registered 7/9/99
Ranking 96.502% CPU time 1.56 yrs
Avg CPU time 14:21:50 CPU dedication 47.9%
No of SETI units returned: 1006
Processing time: 1 years, 221 days, 6 hours.
(Total hours: 14070)
www.setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu
"Craig Fink" <WeBe...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3DCBBA5D...@houston.rr.com...
>
>
> Hallerb wrote:
>
> > OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still
be
> > launched today?
> >
> > Climate controled clean room environment, some maintenance etc?
> >
> > I relize theres no infrastructre and technologically its a looser I just
wonder
> > how long things can be stored and still used....
> >
>
> The Saturn booster at JSC is stored outside and falling apart. If you
> walk around it, you can see corrosion holes in various parts of the
> vehicle. Sad. To bad they didn't put it in an air-conditioned building,
> instead of making it a lawn ornament.
>
> Craig Fink :-(
>
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Dave Michelson" <da...@ece.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:3DD4C9EC...@ece.ubc.ca...
> Hallerb wrote:
> >
> > Of course this appears to be the fate of the Saturn JSC rocket as well.
>
> I'm surprised that nothing has been done to save the Saturn V at JSC.
> Is it considered redundant given that KSC's is under cover now?
It all comes down to money.
>
> --
> Dave Michelson
> da...@ece.ubc.ca
Sam Seiber
It is in Huntsville AL. I saw that one, oh, about 5 years ago.
IIRC, the JSC version is in the worst shape.
Sam
Jeff Clark
news:20021115051305...@mb-cr.aol.com:
>>same as it always has, no obvious signs of restoration.
>>
>
> Sad, its collapsing from the weight where it sits on the pipes
> supporting it. I suppose one day it will fall apart and be hauled away
> as scrap.
In addition to that there's also vandals/thieves. At some point someone
made off with one of the engines from the Titan's first stage.
The restoration project's home page is http://www.geocities.com/saverocket/
Jeff
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Sam Seiber" <tingr...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:3DD53C...@earthlink.com...
Probably due to being much closer to the Ocean and salt air I believe.
>
> Sam
OM
<jcla...@NO.cfl.SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>In addition to that there's also vandals/thieves. At some point someone
>made off with one of the engines from the Titan's first stage.
...You know, once upon a time all you did was steal your rival's
mascot, and that usually was a goat.
Chosp
"Hallerb" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021108163825...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> >
> >...Gantry issues aside, anyone who's been to see the Lawn Ornament at
> >JSC knows that Baxter obviously had never done the same before he
>
for
> display or junked. That would be truly a sad end.
>
> What I meant was IF NASA had wanted to could one or more of these vehicles
have
> been kept for a later launch?
>
> Given clean room care and controlled conditions? One pad could of been
left in
> Apollo configuration as well for later heavy lift flights.
>
> I KNOW its not practical now but would it have been possible?
Physically, yes.
Economically and/or politically, no.
Nixon and the Congress made sure they would never fly again.
By the way, the one in Florida has been restored and is enclosed
for posterity. No corrosion holes. No bird nests.
It will never, under any circumstances, be flightworthy again - but
it is not a rotting, exposed lawn ornament either.
The others can be restored also. Not to fly. Way too late for that.
Just money and political will are lacking.
Mary Shafer Iliff
>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 05:05:58 GMT, Jeff Clark
> <jcla...@NO.cfl.SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >In addition to that there's also vandals/thieves. At some point someone
> >made off with one of the engines from the Titan's first stage.
>
> ...You know, once upon a time all you did was steal your rival's
> mascot, and that usually was a goat.
They boiled the Rice owl and I think they barbecued
Beevo, though.
The real answer on how long you can store a spacecraft
(and use it at the end of storage, which is the actual
question if I remember the beginning of the thread
right) is, of course, as long as you're willing to pay
for it. Included in this cost is how much you're
willing to pay for replacemant part in the years on
down the road.
What storage involves is more than just tossing the item
into a room, though. I know that there were stored
satellites down at TRW that were kept in active storage
for quite some time. They actually went in regularly and
extended the solar panels, checked the electronics, looked
over everything else, and so on. I think they cocooned at
least one to keep it in a dry N2 atmosphere between these
inspections.
While it's not a spacecraft like a satellite, the SR-71 in
active storage needs all kinds of servicing at regular
intervals--motoring the engines, topping off the tires and
struts, keeping the hydraulics clean and full, and so on.
You can't just park and forget an airplane, let alone a
spacecraft.
G EddieA95
>> mascot, and that usually was a goat.
>
>They boiled the Rice owl and I think they barbecued
>Beevo, though.
It's 'Bevo' with one 'e'. And that was done by both UT Longhorns and Aggies in
a rare instance of amity. :)
Did you guys really eat the owl?
In recent times, the Texas A&M mascot (Reveille) was dognapped to Austin, and
filmed drinking out of toilets at UT; a fiberglass Bevo was stolen from Austin
and thrown on the A&M bonfire; and A&M's 12th-man statue was painted orange,
etc.
Mary Shafer Iliff
>
> >you did was steal your rival's
> >> mascot, and that usually was a goat.
> >
> >They boiled the Rice owl and I think they barbecued
> >Beevo, though.
>
> It's 'Bevo' with one 'e'. And that was done by both UT Longhorns and Aggies in
> a rare instance of amity. :)
>
> Did you guys really eat the owl?
I have no idea what they did with the owl. I've only
heard about these incidents as examples of the Texan
obsession with, er, fondness for friendly rivalries on
the football field.
We just painted Tommy Trojan in Bruin blue and gold.
We never laid a hand on any of the Travelers (the
Trojans' white horse), but we almost kidnaped his
rider once.
> In recent times, the Texas A&M mascot (Reveille) was dognapped to Austin, and
> filmed drinking out of toilets at UT;
Reveille was just being a collie, taking it upon herself
to remedy the negligence of the humans around her, who
were not providing her with sufficient fresh water. At
least that's what my collies seem to think, judging by
the reproachful look I get as they head toward the hall.
Mary
OM
>>you did was steal your rival's
>>> mascot, and that usually was a goat.
>>
>>They boiled the Rice owl and I think they barbecued
>>Beevo, though.
>
>It's 'Bevo' with one 'e'. And that was done by both UT Longhorns and Aggies in
>a rare instance of amity. :)
...Not that I don't support the Aggies every Thanksgiving. Of course,
the downside of the demise of the Southwest conference is that the
annual A&M vs Texas U. game occurrs on the day *after* Thanksgiving,
so it doesn't *quite* have the impact it used to. I blame ESPN, natch.
>Did you guys really eat the owl?
...The story we were always told was that he was stuffed and is
mounted currently somewhere over in the Texas U Athletic department,
on display but not where anyone can see him. Then again, there's the
tale about how the Charles Whitman Memorial Clock Tower, when viewed
from any of the corner edges, takes on the abstract visage of an owl.
The tower's designer graduated from Rice, or so the legend goes.
ObSSH: "Why *does* Rice bother to play Texas?" - Anonymous Kennedy Aid
following the Rice Address.
>In recent times, the Texas A&M mascot (Reveille) was dognapped to Austin, and
>filmed drinking out of toilets at UT; a fiberglass Bevo was stolen from Austin
>and thrown on the A&M bonfire; and A&M's 12th-man statue was painted orange,
>etc.
...In order:
1) The toilets were in the old Business Economics Building (BEB). That
was gutted and rebuilt in the early 80's, so those toilets do not
exist. Which is a shame, because one of the bathrooms had some really
interesting graffitti slamming David Lee Roth that had been gouged
into the bathroom tile, and added on to for several semesters before
the BEB was razed. It had even been colored at one point by someone
with some semblance of acrylic art talent.
2) The "Bevo" was designed by a local fiberglass artist by the name of
Eichenbaum. Old Man Eichenbaum was a bit of a...well, let's just say
some claim he was an eccentric, while others say he was just a kook.
Anyway, he originally built the damn thing 100% anatomically correct,
complete with testicals and a Longhorn-sized sheathed penis, and wound
up as the figurehead of a popular downtown restaurant located just a
block from the state capitol.
...However, about a month after the restaurant opened, local
politician and loudmouth Emma Long, without even asking the owner to
correct the "obscenity", went before the City Council she served on to
demand an immediate order be issued to either neuter it or take it
down. The Mayor tabled the issue and told Long she was overreacting
(again) as she failed to talk to the owner first. The Mayor then
called the owner that night after the council meeting, informed him of
what happened, and suggested he do something just to shut Long up.
...So the owner called Old Man Eichenbaum to get him to perform the
excessive bris. However, Eichenbaum assumed "pretentious art pouf"
mode and refused to mutilate his creation. That's how, at 2am that
morning, the owner found himself on a ladder, with a hacksaw, a
fiberglass patch kit designed for car repair, and a can of brown spray
paint.
...That wasn't the end of it, however. While Long was placated, the
bull was harassed yet again when the Aggies came to town. A group of
drunken cadets saw the bull while driving down Congress, and two of
them climbed up on top to ride it for photos. Both fell off, and one
broke his arm in three places. All got arrested by the cops who drove
by about a minute after the two Aggies stopped bouncing. They were
released the next morning, but before leaving town that night they
drove by and put two 22-caliber bullet holes in the fiberglASS. So
back up the ladder the owner went, repair kit in hand.
...Some years later, the restaurant was closed down following changes
in the way Downtown Austin's economy was neutered in the same way the
bull was. The bull was sold to a restaurant further down Congress,
where it stayed until it was stolen in the mid 90's. From there it
wound up on the A&M bonfire, where footage of the tossing uponst was
aired locally by the TV station I used to work at and was located just
up the street from the restaurant.
How do I know these stories? That restaurant was my Pop's. Go figure.
3) A&M's 12th man statue has also been painted pink, and the local
hippies have spilled fake blood on it as part of an anti-military
protest, They did that to our pet missile next to Steindam Hall in
'82, but when they tried that again the following semester we were
waiting on the roof with a fire hose. And a strategically placed
midshipman with a camera got the before-hosing photos of the hippies
so the usually-inept UT gestapo could track them down and arrest them
all for vandalism. In a rare example of professionalism, they nailed
all seven of them based on our photos, and four were suspended by the
Dean in another rare example of professionalism.
OM
<mil...@qnet.com> wrote:
>Reveille was just being a collie, taking it upon herself
>to remedy the negligence of the humans around her, who
>were not providing her with sufficient fresh water. At
>least that's what my collies seem to think, judging by
>the reproachful look I get as they head toward the hall.
...I'd look mean at you too if I had to show off blue teeth after
getting a drink of water. :-P
G EddieA95
>from any of the corner edges, takes on the abstract visage of an owl.
>The tower's designer graduated from Rice, or so the legend goes.
That is *NOT* the name of the tower (for the benefit of nontexans on the ng).
It is the "Main Building." And BTW, its architect was a Frenchman who had no
connection whatever with Rice University.
>1) The toilets were in the old Business Economics Building (BEB). That
>was gutted and rebuilt in the early 80's,
The Reveille incident took place long after the early 80s.
>bull was sold to a restaurant further down Congress,
>where it stayed until it was stolen in the mid 90's. From there it
>wound up on the A&M bonfire
Wasn't it on Bevos Bookstore in Guadalupe?
OM
>> the Charles Whitman Memorial Clock Tower, when viewed
>>from any of the corner edges, takes on the abstract visage of an owl.
>>The tower's designer graduated from Rice, or so the legend goes.
>
>That is *NOT* the name of the tower (for the benefit of nontexans on the ng).
>It is the "Main Building." And BTW, its architect was a Frenchman who had no
>connection whatever with Rice University.
>
>>1) The toilets were in the old Business Economics Building (BEB). That
>>was gutted and rebuilt in the early 80's,
>
>The Reveille incident took place long after the early 80s.
...The one you're referring to did. This one was in '78. Revelle has
been kidnapped something like five times since they started keeping a
dog as a mascot.
>>bull was sold to a restaurant further down Congress,
>>where it stayed until it was stolen in the mid 90's. From there it
>>wound up on the A&M bonfire
>
>Wasn't it on Bevos Bookstore in Guadalupe?
...Not this one. The one on Bevo's - worst place to get used
textbooks, by the way - was about half a size bigger. Then again, I
wasn't aware the Aggies got that one too.
Either way, mox nix. Texas U has only one redeeming factor these days,
and that's their keeping a nutcase like Bill Clark out of the grad
program...
Michael Walsh
Mary Shafer Iliff wrote:
>
>
> We just painted Tommy Trojan in Bruin blue and gold.
> We never laid a hand on any of the Travelers (the
> Trojans' white horse), but we almost kidnaped his
> rider once.
>
Worst of luck to you and your Bruins next week
when they meet in Pasadena.
One year UCLA fans dumped blue and gold on
Tommy Trojan from a helicopter. After that the
Trojan guards made sure to protect the statue
from above.
Mike Walsh
MattWriter
>Tommy Trojan from a helicopter. After that the
>Trojan guards made sure to protect the statue
>from above.
>
>Mike Walsh
Mike, do I take it you're a fellow USC alum? When I was there in '77-81, we
were told that an attempt had once been made to dump manure onto Tommy from a
helicopter. That gets UCLA points for originality (I wonder who suggested it
to them), but the Bruins (naturally) missed by a half-block.
P.S. Actually, we should be sympathetic with UCLA. Seems one of their
grass-smoking hippie professors managed to start a fire that burned the school
library down. They lost both books. One hadn't even been colored in yet.
Matt Bille
(MattW...@AOL.com)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR
OM
>P.S. Actually, we should be sympathetic with UCLA. Seems one of their
>grass-smoking hippie professors managed to start a fire that burned the school
>library down. They lost both books. One hadn't even been colored in yet.
...You know it's getting bad out there in California when they have to
resort to recycling Aggie jokes.
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s"
>On 16 Nov 2002 17:44:03 GMT, gedd...@aol.com (G EddieA95) wrote:
>
>>>you did was steal your rival's
>>>> mascot, and that usually was a goat.
>>>
>>>They boiled the Rice owl and I think they barbecued
>>>Beevo, though.
>>
>>It's 'Bevo' with one 'e'. And that was done by both UT Longhorns and Aggies in
>>a rare instance of amity. :)
>
>...Not that I don't support the Aggies every Thanksgiving.
You suck.
>>Did you guys really eat the owl?
>
>...The story we were always told was that he was stuffed and is
>mounted currently somewhere over in the Texas U Athletic department,
>on display but not where anyone can see him. Then again, there's the
>tale about how the Charles Whitman Memorial Clock Tower, when viewed
>from any of the corner edges, takes on the abstract visage of an owl.
>The tower's designer graduated from Rice, or so the legend goes.
I first heard the "owl in the clock tower" story during freshman orientation in
fall 1984.
>ObSSH: "Why *does* Rice bother to play Texas?" - Anonymous Kennedy Aid
>following the Rice Address.
Not because it is easy, but because it is hard, of course.
>
>>In recent times, the Texas A&M mascot (Reveille) was dognapped to Austin, and
>>filmed drinking out of toilets at UT; a fiberglass Bevo was stolen from Austin
>>and thrown on the A&M bonfire; and A&M's 12th-man statue was painted orange,
>>etc.
>
>2) The "Bevo" was designed by a local fiberglass artist by the name of
>Eichenbaum. Old Man Eichenbaum was a bit of a...well, let's just say
>some claim he was an eccentric, while others say he was just a kook.
>Anyway, he originally built the damn thing 100% anatomically correct,
>complete with testicals and a Longhorn-sized sheathed penis, and wound
>up as the figurehead of a popular downtown restaurant located just a
>block from the state capitol.
I thought the one that got stolen was the one on top of the building formerly
known as Bevo's Bookstore (before the Co-op co-opped it and Texas Textbooks).
There was another?
--
Michael R. Grabois -//- http://chili.cjb.net
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96
OM
\"s\"" <wizardimp$1...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:44:10 -0600, OM <om@CT_is_a_KILLFILED_troll_AND_a_putz.too> wrote:
>>...Not that I don't support the Aggies every Thanksgiving.
>
>You suck.
...Hey, after seven years on both sides of the academic fence, I'm
entitled to pick and choose which "bastion of intellect" to support.
Texas U ain't it. Not until Dr. Cogdell dies painfully. Dr. Fannin
already did from what I've heard.
>I first heard the "owl in the clock tower" story during freshman orientation in
>fall 1984.
...First time I heard it was in '75 during a Texas Ex's event I got
dragged to by my uncle who was catering the event. At that time I also
got explained the logic behind understanding the concepts *behind*
one's native language rather than just learning how to speak it. Too
bad that old prof was retiring at that year, because the Texas U
english department needed more like her.
>>ObSSH: "Why *does* Rice bother to play Texas?" - Anonymous Kennedy Aid
>>following the Rice Address.
>
>Not because it is easy, but because it is hard, of course.
...I thought it was because Rice had quite a few suckers who donated
money, and the athletic department needed to at least put up an
attempt at a good show.
>I thought the one that got stolen was the one on top of the building formerly
>known as Bevo's Bookstore (before the Co-op co-opped it and Texas Textbooks).
>There was another?
...Three of them, actually. My Pop's restaurants had the other two.
Never did find out what happened to the third one, but the guy who
bought the restaurant in '74 said he'd sold it to some college kids.
While I was at Texas U none of the frats I visited for Rush Week had
any knowledge of it. For all I know it ended up on the bonfire as
well.
...On a side note, I've heard that last year some Aggies stole cows
off the Chik-Fil-A billboards & tried to toss them on the bonfire, but
the local cops had been tipped off to be on the lookout for them. Damn
Aggies should know you can't sub a cow for a steer. Go figure.
Lou Scheffer
> hal...@aol.com (Hallerb) wrote in
> news:20021115051305...@mb-cr.aol.com:
> >>Titan, and when I drove past it on Wednesday, it looked the
> >>same as it always has, no obvious signs of restoration.
> > Sad, its collapsing from the weight where it sits on the pipes
> > supporting it. I suppose one day it will fall apart and be hauled away
> > as scrap.
>
> In addition to that there's also vandals/thieves. At some point someone
> made off with one of the engines from the Titan's first stage.
If whoever stole it keeps it indoors, it's probably in a lot better
shape than if it had been left where it was. Perhaps it's the doing
of some vigilante space historian.
Lou Scheffer
G EddieA95
>Texas U ain't it. Not until Dr. Cogdell dies painfully. Dr. Fannin
>already did from what I've heard
What do you have against those 2 profs?
Justin Wigg
news:erpB9.20405$Ay3.1...@news1.west.cox.net...
> By the way, the one in Florida has been restored and is enclosed
> for posterity. No corrosion holes. No bird nests.
> It will never, under any circumstances, be flightworthy again - but
> it is not a rotting, exposed lawn ornament either.
The Saturn V on display at KSC never was flight-worthy in the first place.
The first stage is a test article (S-IC-T) that was not a flight article and
has since been painted to resemble the first stage of the Apollo 11 booster
(S-IC-6). The second and third stages are from the SA-514 booster.
--
SQL> select * from users | Justin Wigg - Hobart, AUSTRALIA
where clue > 0; | http://www.icsmultimedia.com.au
no rows selected | Reply: jus...@icsmultimedia.com.au
Justin Wigg
> IIRC, the JSC version is in the worst shape.
...which is unfortunate because the Saturn V at JSC is the only one on
display that consists on all flight-rated stages. The other two at KSC and
MSFC are partly (or wholly in the case of MSFC) comprised of test article
stages.
Derek Lyons
>In article <20021108075437...@mb-cd.aol.com>,
>Hallerb <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
>>launched today?
>>Climate controled clean room environment, some maintenance etc?
>
>Not right away, even ignoring infrastructure issues. At the very least,
>you'd want to do a minute inspection of the whole damn thing looking for
>stress-corrosion cracks -- those were found on a couple of the Saturn IBs
>for Skylab and ASTP, after only a few years of storage -- and you'd want
>to run some very careful engine tests, and likewise you'd have to test all
>the electronics (some of the more leading-edge parts don't necessarily
>have an unlimited shelf life). It's not impossible but it would be
>complicated.
Some perspective:
The USN very carefully put the IOWA's into storage, and it still cost
a great deal to put them back into servicable shape. (A major problem
was in getting people who could operate the FCS and boilers.)
D.
Derek Lyons
>What I meant was IF NASA had wanted to could one or more of these vehicles have
>been kept for a later launch?
>
>Apollo configuration as well for later heavy lift flights.
>
You forget the *FIRST* step and absolutely overriding consideration;
You must convince Congress that it's a good idea.
>I KNOW its not practical now but would it have been possible?
Almost certainly it would have been *im* possible. Mothballing is a
non-trival process, and a hell of a lot more is involved than simply
sticking it into a clean room.
D.
Derek Lyons
>In article <20021108075437...@mb-cd.aol.com>,
>Hallerb <hal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>OK dumb question. Given proper storage could the Saturn boosters still be
>>launched today?
>>Climate controled clean room environment, some maintenance etc?
>
>Not right away, even ignoring infrastructure issues. At the very least,
>you'd want to do a minute inspection of the whole damn thing looking for
>stress-corrosion cracks -- those were found on a couple of the Saturn IBs
>for Skylab and ASTP, after only a few years of storage -- and you'd want
>to run some very careful engine tests, and likewise you'd have to test all
>the electronics (some of the more leading-edge parts don't necessarily
>have an unlimited shelf life). It's not impossible but it would be
>complicated.
Not to mention the ordinance, ullage and separation motors, o-rings
and seals, wiring and insulation, any lubrication points... All
things that are very age sensitive.
D.
Derek Lyons
>I don;t know the costs involved, but it's certainly possible. Titan IIs kept
>on alert duty, fully fueled, in missile silos for up to about 22 years (twice
>the design life) were pulled out, inspected, and used for space launch, with
>100% success. In the silos, temp and humidity were controlled, and limited
>inspections were made daily.
Not to mention that they were routinely pulled from their silos and
sent to a depot for extensive maintenance. They didn't just sit for
20 years.
>Some of the current Minuteman III missiles have been in their silos almost 30
>years (again, almost twice design life) and are expected to last another 20
>years, although each missile, at the end of that time, will have had its solid
>fuel washed out and replaced twice and its electronics updated.
Which means they *won't* have been in their silo's for twenty years,
nor have the existing units actually been around for thirty... Many
parts and pieces have been and will be removed and replaced.
>The Inertial Measurement Units, however, will still be the originals.
Unlikely as hell. They do fail and parts do get replaced.
>Also, the fiberglass-cased third stages will have been replaced at least once
>(first two stages are steel-cased and are repoured).
Which disproves the point you seem to be trying to make.
D.
Derek Lyons
>Still, the Titan tank walls were very thin. When
>left outside in a humid environment for a few years,
>holes corrode right through the tanks. A Titan I
>parked in front of a high school in Titusville,
>Florida ended up rusting into something that
>looked like swiss cheese.
Did they swap it out? I saw it last week and while is was in sad
shape, there were no holes visible from the road. (I was staying in
the hotel across the road.)
D.
OM
wrote:
>You must convince Congress that it's a good idea.
...My method would have been pulling a "Batman" on every single
congressional slimeball who voted against NASA funding. This would
involve visiting each one in the middle of the night, and then asking
him whether he could permanently change his mind in favor of funding
before his foot slipped loose from his bedslipper and he fell down
from the top of a ten-story building.
OM
wrote:
>The USN very carefully put the IOWA's into storage, and it still cost
>a great deal to put them back into servicable shape. (A major problem
>was in getting people who could operate the FCS and boilers.)
...Yup. However the overall corrosion problems were surprisingly low,
proving that with proper care you *can* store something in sea water
and not have it do fizzies impressions in slow motion.
Jeff Clark
@supernews.seanet.com:
> Did they swap it out? I saw it last week and while is was in sad
> shape, there were no holes visible from the road. (I was staying in
> the hotel across the road.)
No, they haven't done any repair work that I've heard of. The holes aren't
obvious until you get up next to it as they're down low on the sides.
Jeff Clark
Henry Spencer
Derek Lyons <derek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>you'd want to do a minute inspection of the whole damn thing looking for
>>to run some very careful engine tests, and likewise you'd have to test all
>
>Not to mention the ordinance, ullage and separation motors...
I doubt they'd have been stored with ordnance and solid motors aboard. Of
course, that means you have to find or make suitable hardware. (I'd vote
for make, such things often don't age well.)
>o-rings
>and seals, wiring and insulation, any lubrication points... All
>things that are very age sensitive.
Seals in general, definitely. Wiring/insulation ought to be less of a
problem than it used to be, but certainly should be checked. Lubrication
ought to be a non-issue in stuff properly stored, but you'd want to check
for residues, and you'd certainly need to *re*lubricate anything that
needed lubrication.
--
Socialists always tell us they're going to | Henry Spencer
do better next time. -- Ed Wright | he...@spsystems.net
Derek Lyons
>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 04:49:47 GMT, derek...@yahoo.com (Derek Lyons)
>wrote:
>
>>The USN very carefully put the IOWA's into storage, and it still cost
>>a great deal to put them back into servicable shape. (A major problem
>>was in getting people who could operate the FCS and boilers.)
>
>...Yup. However the overall corrosion problems were surprisingly low,
>proving that with proper care you *can* store something in sea water
>and not have it do fizzies impressions in slow motion.
The problem(s) with bringing naval ships back from mothballs is almost
never corrosion, we've known how to prevent/fix that since around WWI.
The problems almost always come in ageing of wiring and other
non-metallic components (seals etc...).
D.
OM
wrote:
>The problem(s) with bringing naval ships back from mothballs is almost
>never corrosion, we've known how to prevent/fix that since around WWI.
>The problems almost always come in ageing of wiring and other
>non-metallic components (seals etc...).
...Agreed. CIP: inside the house, RG-59U coaxial cable will last for
years without breaking, cats chewing notwithstanding. Outside, the
stuff actually has about a 10 year life expectancy before the outer
jacket becomes brittle and prone to cracking. Yet most cable companies
*never* replace the cable runs. Granted, jacket cracks aren't that
detrimental to reception, but were this transmission line the SWRs
would gradually peak to dangerous levels over time. Back in high
school I had both a CB base station and several baluns set up for < 30
meter reception on shortwave. When CB died due to having too many
channels thrust upon the masses too quickly(*), I absentmindedly left
the antenna, coax and all, up on an old TV mast. In '98, a really bad
night of rain & high winds finally brought that mast down. During the
cleanup, the 20 year old RG-8U coax was so brittle that it practically
disintegrated while being coiled up for disposal.
And then there's the rubber seals around the starbord side windows of
my LTD. The less said about their doing an impression of polycron
infected by Andromeda, the less my blood pressure will go up...
(*) An old theory of mine I'll explain one day...
Jonathan Silverlight
<he...@spsystems.net> writes
>In article <3dea1630...@supernews.seanet.com>,
>Derek Lyons <derek...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>you'd want to do a minute inspection of the whole damn thing looking for
>>>stress-corrosion cracks ... and you'd want
>>>to run some very careful engine tests, and likewise you'd have to test all
>>>the electronics...
>>
>>Not to mention the ordinance, ullage and separation motors...
>
>I doubt they'd have been stored with ordnance and solid motors aboard. Of
>course, that means you have to find or make suitable hardware. (I'd vote
>for make, such things often don't age well.)
>
>>o-rings
>>and seals, wiring and insulation, any lubrication points... All
>>things that are very age sensitive.
>
>Seals in general, definitely. Wiring/insulation ought to be less of a
>problem than it used to be, but certainly should be checked. Lubrication
>ought to be a non-issue in stuff properly stored, but you'd want to check
>for residues, and you'd certainly need to *re*lubricate anything that
>needed lubrication.
Has anyone mentioned Galileo yet?
--
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome
Henry Spencer
Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>Seals in general, definitely. Wiring/insulation ought to be less of a
>>problem than it used to be, but certainly should be checked. Lubrication
>>ought to be a non-issue in stuff properly stored, but you'd want to check
>>for residues, and you'd certainly need to *re*lubricate anything that
>>needed lubrication.
>
>Has anyone mentioned Galileo yet?
The issue there (probably; nobody can be certain) was not storage, but
vibration from extensive ground transport.
OM
wrote:
>In article <z59o$4mWz+...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk>,
>Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Seals in general, definitely. Wiring/insulation ought to be less of a
>>>problem than it used to be, but certainly should be checked. Lubrication
>>>ought to be a non-issue in stuff properly stored, but you'd want to check
>>>for residues, and you'd certainly need to *re*lubricate anything that
>>>needed lubrication.
>>
>>Has anyone mentioned Galileo yet?
>
>The issue there (probably; nobody can be certain) was not storage, but
>vibration from extensive ground transport.
...Interesting. And here I thought the primary suspect was contact
welding caused by improper long-term storage. What's your source on
this one, Henry?
Alex R. Blackwell
> ...Interesting. And here I thought the primary suspect was contact
> welding caused by improper long-term storage. What's your source on
> this one, Henry?
Speaking only for myself, I'll note that there is a plethora of
"sources," most notably from the Galileo HGA anomaly investigation board
but also AW&ST and numerous other trade publications, indicating that
the most probable cause for the Galileo HGA non-deployment stemmed from
lubricant loss from the antenna's standoff pins, which in turn was
probably "due to vibration the antenna experienced during those
cross-country truck trips." That said, what's your source for your
suspecting "contact welding caused by improper long-term storage"?
At any rate, below is an excerpt from the Lunar and Planetary
Information Bulletin (Summer,1995/Number 76):
NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY AIMED AT MAXIMIZING RETURN FROM
GALILEO'S LOW-GAIN ANTENNA
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/newsletters/lpib/lpib76/gal76.html
"The Problem
"On April 11, 1991, after Galileo had traveled far enough from the heat
of the Sun, the spacecraft executed stored computer commands to unfurl
the large high-gain antenna. But telemetry received minutes later at JPL
showed that something went wrong. The motors had stalled and the antenna
had only partially opened.
"In a crash effort over the next several weeks, a team of more than 100
technical experts from JPL and industry analyzed Galileo's telemetry and
conducted ground tests with an identical spare antenna. They deduced
that the problem was most likely due to the sticking of a few antenna
ribs, caused by friction between their standoff pins and sockets.
"The excessive friction between the pins and sockets has been attributed
to etching of the surfaces that occurred after the loss of a dry
lubricant that had been bonded to the standoff pins during the antenna's
manufacture in Florida. The antenna was originally shipped to JPL in
Pasadena by truck in its own special shipping container. In December
1985, the antenna, again in its own shipping container, was sent by
truck to Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida to await launch. After
the Challenger accident, Galileo and its antenna had to be shipped back
to JPL in late 1986. Finally, they were reshipped to KSC for integration
and launch in 1989. The loss of lubricant is believed to have occurred
due to vibration the antenna experienced during those cross-country
truck trips.
"Extensive analysis has shown that, in any case, the problem existed at
launch and went undetected; it is not believed to be a result of sending
the spacecraft on the VEEGA trajectory, delaying antenna deployment."
--
Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii
Henry Spencer
OM <om@CT_is_a_troll_AND_a_putz.too> wrote:
>>>Has anyone mentioned Galileo yet?
>>The issue there (probably; nobody can be certain) was not storage, but
>>vibration from extensive ground transport.
>
>...Interesting. And here I thought the primary suspect was contact
>welding caused by improper long-term storage. What's your source on
>this one, Henry?
Aviation Week, Flight International, NASA's own reports, pick one. For
example, from the Jupiter Arrival Press Kit:
...They deduced that the problem was most
likely due to the sticking of a few antenna ribs, caused by
friction between their standoff pins and sockets.
The excessive friction between the pins and sockets has been
attributed to etching of the surfaces that occurred after the
loss of a dry lubricant that had been bonded to the standoff pins
during the antenna's manufacture in Florida. ... The loss of
lubricant is believed to have occurred due to vibration the antenna
experienced during those cross-country truck trips...
Jonathan Silverlight
<al...@nospam.com> writes
>OM wrote:
>
>> ...Interesting. And here I thought the primary suspect was contact
>> welding caused by improper long-term storage. What's your source on
>> this one, Henry?
>
>Speaking only for myself, I'll note that there is a plethora of
>"sources," most notably from the Galileo HGA anomaly investigation board
>but also AW&ST and numerous other trade publications, indicating that
>the most probable cause for the Galileo HGA non-deployment stemmed from
>lubricant loss from the antenna's standoff pins, which in turn was
>probably "due to vibration the antenna experienced during those
>cross-country truck trips."
Could they have shipped it by air? It seems very sad that a
billion-dollar project was crippled by the state of the roads in the
USA.
Hallerb
>
>Could they have shipped it by air? It seems very sad that a
>billion-dollar project was crippled by the state of the roads in the
>USA.
>--
Ah but that would of cost more money the beancounters won...
Henry Spencer
Jonathan Silverlight <jsi...@merseia.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>probably "due to vibration the antenna experienced during those
>>cross-country truck trips."
>
>Could they have shipped it by air? It seems very sad that a
>billion-dollar project was crippled by the state of the roads in the USA.
It could have gone by air, but that would have run up the price tag quite
noticeably -- Galileo is large -- at a time when the project was running
on a shoestring due to its launch slipping repeatedly.
Moreover, as Griffin&French point out in "Space Vehicle Design", because
you cannot fly something from the JPL loading dock to the pad at the Cape,
transporting a spacecraft by air involves repeated transfers from one
vehicle to another, and it is by no means clear that air transport gives
it a gentler trip overall.
G EddieA95
>environment [dry nitrogen IIRC] and a low probability of accident.
>
Don't know about the nitrogen but almost any cargo jet is safer than 5,000 km
in a truck.
G EddieA95
>> than 5,000 km in a truck.
>
Would the shipment not have flown from Edwards AFB???