[Gator Lager]

wow, time has gone by fast. and the Shuttle program is scheduled to be over in 2010.
when I hired in at the Cape, I listened to the old Apollo guard telling stories of 'back in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days' with great interest. well fast forward 20 plus years and now I'm the old fart that'll hopefully be telling young'en new hires stories of 'back in the Shuttle days...'
anyway while we where looking for in-flight photos of the current mission, we found these.
beam me up... http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL...000-001363.jpg
check out the clothes style. that was hip.
main page. http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/howtouse.html
tons of historical photo info there.

[ghporter]

I remember the rollout. I was on vacation with my family in Northern Michigan for the test flights, and mom and dad made sure we had TV to watch them. Yes, that makes me an old fart too.

In spite of what some might think today, the folks in the rollout picture (mostly Star Trek cast around The Great Bird of the Galaxy) are wearing pretty conservative styles. This was the mid-70s... Boy could you find "interesting" clothes then!

Just one note: those young kids asking about your experience are actually going to be old farts one day-so make sure any wool you pull over their eyes gets shorn properly. Don't actually send them out for a spool of flight line, don't expect them to believe that you used six gallons of prop wash on that airplane, and so on. It comes back to bite you. Trust me on this.

[mitchell_pgh]

I was just a little guy when I remember the shuttles. I was hooked. I find it amazing that the Russians also build a shuttle... and technically, it could have been better than our own shuttle.

Also, wasn't our shuttle an amazing story of how compromise, on occasion, can really hurt an engineering project.

Too small to launch large satellites, can't haul all that many people into space, not really 100% (or anywhere near) reusable, etc. etc.

[Gator Lager]

[QUOTE=ghporter;3517218
Just one note: those young kids asking about your experience are actually going to be old farts one day-so make sure any wool you pull over their eyes gets shorn properly. Don't actually send them out for a spool of flight line, don't expect them to believe that you used six gallons of prop wash on that airplane, and so on. It comes back to bite you. Trust me on this. [/QUOTE]




they're not hiring at the cape at the moment. but with the most recent add ons and with exception of young engineers, everyone else has a military background. so they're are savvy and most important, thick skin. cause we have a saying at the pad(s)/vab kick-'em when they are down. but we are a tight group because of the philosophy. a outsider would be shocked, but that's how we are.

my first visit to edward air force base, I fell for the, look a ' B ONE R D ' (a bird)

[Gator Lager]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I was just a little guy when I remember the shuttles. I was hooked. I find it amazing that the Russians also build a shuttle... and technically, it could have been better than our own shuttle.

Also, wasn't our shuttle an amazing story of how compromise, on occasion, can really hurt an engineering project.

Too small to launch large satellites, can't haul all that many people into space, not really 100% (or anywhere near) reusable, etc. etc.

the russians had our blueprints for shuttle. they added jet engines and we didn't tell them about the need for filler-bar. the stuff the goes between the tiles to prevent the plasma to burn through. oops.

that damn foam on the tank is the problem.

I really wish outsiders could get close to the shuttles. but with todays world political climate, well you know. as for it's limitations yes and no. deploying payloads we do and have, but yes we are limited in size and weight. but it the we can fix them on orbit. can't remember which mission it was, some time ago (early 90's), but the astro's fixed, I think it was a ? european or Japanese sate.
that was really cool.

for people payload, we can fly 7 with no problems. limited because of the human physical requirements, food/waste/oxygen and yep it's kinda small. those camera's they use to broadcast use fisheye lens, makes it bigger. I'll post some pics later. got to find them ? I'm good at hiding stuff from myself.

now for anyone who is interest in the space program. the shuttle program is coming to a close but they are currently working on the replacement program. so if you're a engineer/scientist...etc check out lockheed martin/boeing/united space alliance/ artic slope (yep they be out of alaska) and a few other companys.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I was just a little guy when I remember the shuttles. I was hooked. I find it amazing that the Russians also build a shuttle... and technically, it could have been better than our own shuttle.

Russian electronics was waaaaay far behind during this time. Their space shuttle would have used vacuum tubes. While it would have made their sound system sound warmer, it wouldn't do much for the shuttle itself.

[ghporter]

Actually, the Russians were pretty much wizards with vacuum tubes. In the Foxbat they did stuff with tubes that we used solid state for simply because they HAD to. And to put it bluntly, tubes are pretty damn rugged if you build them right. The Buran had serious promise, but it was too expensive to fly.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Actually, the Russians were pretty much wizards with vacuum tubes.

This I will agree with. And some of the best tubes made were Russian. Still are. But I don't think such technology belongs into the space shuttle.. IMHO Tubes and vibration and movement usually don't go hand in hand.

Not that the electronics in Shuttle now isn't outdated as well. (Well the original shuttle anyhow)

Tubes still rule the sound world as far as musical instruments go. And sound reproduction. But that is as as about far as their advantage goes. They simply SOUND better.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

This I will agree with. And some of the best tubes made were Russian. Still are. But I don't think such technology belongs into the space shuttle.. IMHO Tubes and vibration and movement usually don't go hand in hand.

Back in our early Air Force days, my wife taught the maintenance of a tube-based TACAN system for fighters. You want vibration? Fighters have it! It takes specially made miniature tubes and attention to vibration in the construction of the box, but it works and works well.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not that the electronics in Shuttle now isn't outdated as well. (Well the original shuttle anyhow)

One thing that we've done fairly well with the Shuttle is keep its electronics up to date. The computers on the Shuttle are both solid and modern, and comm, navigation, and everything else is as current as possible.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Tubes still rule the sound world as far as musical instruments go. And sound reproduction. But that is as as about far as their advantage goes. They simply SOUND better.

That sound difference is something you CAN replicate with solid state devices-and for less money than one of those top-end, $15,000 tube amps too. It's just that there doesn't seem to be a demand for "warm-sounding" solid state devices, and cool/retro tube amps are very popular right now. They're horribly inefficient, and very hot, but they have a cool factor that trumps all that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Back in our early Air Force days, my wife taught the maintenance of a tube-based TACAN system for fighters. You want vibration? Fighters have it! It takes specially made miniature tubes and attention to vibration in the construction of the box, but it works and works well.

I was thinking more along the lines of power tubes. Like EL34s and such. That is why I was always told never to move an amp until it has cooled down. You could mess up the hot filaments. I've also had to replace those power tubes at least once a year. And then get it biased properly. I have a transistor amp that has never had anything replaced. And I have had it longer. Having said that, I go through the trouble of tubes because they sound better. But to tell you the truth, lately I've been using GuitarRig. As they have somehow almost digitally recreated not only the tube sound, but also it's response and feel. Now I say almost because it's not quite there yet. But it will be. And when it is, I will happily ditch my tube amps.

.One thing that we've done fairly well with the Shuttle is keep its electronics up to date. The computers on the Shuttle are both solid and modern, and comm, navigation, and everything else is as current as possible.

That is good to hear.

That sound difference is something you CAN replicate with solid state devices-and for less money than one of those top-end, $15,000 tube amps too.

It's just not the sound, but the response as well. I am referring to guitar amplifiers BTW. While they have come VERY VERY close in the last year or so with modeling software, it's still not there yet. That is why ALL top guitar amps still use tubes. But that will change before long.

It's just that there doesn't seem to be a demand for "warm-sounding" solid state devices, and cool/retro tube amps are very popular right now. They're horribly inefficient, and very hot, but they have a cool factor that trumps all that.

Tube amps have been popular since the 70s. During the 60s and 70s the transistor amps got a bad name because they sounded more HARSH and didn't distort with the same harmonic content that transistors did. Nor did they respond to the user's playing and feel like tubes did. Most all modern guitar amp heads use tubes. Not just the retro ones.

Modeling however, has gained a lot of fans. It being "good enough" for now. Esp for me. It's easier to plug my guitar in my computer, get a decent sound, than load my amp up, fine the right mic placement etc.

Esp when I am just doing it for my own amusement. Like I said, it's almost there.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Gator Lager 

and now I'm the old fart that'll hopefully be telling young'en new hires stories of 'back in the Shuttle days...'
anyway while we where looking for in-flight photos of the current mission, we found these.
beam me up...

No, I am the old one since I was there for Apollo drinking at the Mousetrap when the fire occurred and living at the Palms East. Didn't they close in the glass elevator in the VAB years ago. It was and is a young man's game going all night without sleep to get ready for a launch. sam

[Gator Lager]

Originally Posted by SVass 

No, I am the old one since I was there for Apollo drinking at the Mousetrap when the fire occurred and living at the Palms East. Didn't they close in the glass elevator in the VAB years ago. It was and is a young man's game going all night without sleep to get ready for a launch. sam

there are still quite a few people out their that worked on the Apollo program. the mousetrap, what about grahams lounge. the moon hut is gone. sad, that place was cool. now it's all about the cruise ships and condos.

and palms east is still their. as for the glass elevators in the VAB, yep still their. I was told by the Apollo folks, the glass elevators were installed so that lady bird johnson could see the Apollo stack.
as for the VAB, I still marvel at that big ole building.

and for a tidbit of info we stacked Atlantis last night.

[ghporter]

Ever see the "bootleg" video from Bay St Louis of the main engine test that went bad? Just before the engine cracks up, you can see a paper shuttle model fly through the frame. Someone was having fun...and then that huge engine just cut loose. Not funny then, but pretty funny now. I was stationed in Mississippi then and yeah, I remember that stuff.

I was also stationed in Mississippi in about 1994 when they started talking about building SRBs in Iuca MS. and testing them at Bay St. Louis. Let's see, we could have the solid rocket experts build these things in Utah and test them on the range they've already turned into a lifeless wreck with decades of such testing, or we could spend hundreds of millions on a new facility that would require lots of transport support, and then test the motors in an ecologically fragile environment... No, I don't think so. Fortunately, the Mississippi Congressional delegation didn't have enough pull to pull that one off.

[Gator Lager]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Ever see the "bootleg" video from Bay St Louis of the main engine test that went bad? Just before the engine cracks up, you can see a paper shuttle model fly through the frame. Someone was having fun...and then that huge engine just cut loose. Not funny then, but pretty funny now. I was stationed in Mississippi then and yeah, I remember that stuff.

ha, do you have a link ? I'd like to see that one.


I was also stationed in Mississippi in about 1994 when they started talking about building SRBs in Iuca MS. and testing them at Bay St. Louis. Let's see, we could have the solid rocket experts build these things in Utah and test them on the range they've already turned into a lifeless wreck with decades of such testing, or we could spend hundreds of millions on a new facility that would require lots of transport support, and then test the motors in an ecologically fragile environment... No, I don't think so. Fortunately, the Mississippi Congressional delegation didn't have enough pull to pull that one off.

go to metacafe.com and do a search for " Marshmallow Factory Explosion "
(it is not a marshmallow factory. it's the propellent plant for the solid rocket boosters.)
after seeing this video I bet those that suggested moving the plant to Mississippi all said the same thing. WHEW.

[Railroader]

Totally unrelated to the current thread's dicsussion, but here's a link to some pictures I found while at another forum.

A friend

[olePigeon]

I find it hard to believe they'll have a shuttle replacement in 2 years.

[The Mick]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Ever see the "bootleg" video from Bay St Louis of the main engine test that went bad? Just before the engine cracks up, you can see a paper shuttle model fly through the frame. Someone was having fun...and then that huge engine just cut loose. Not funny then, but pretty funny now. I was stationed in Mississippi then and yeah, I remember that stuff.

Link?

[driven]

I remember the original shuttle launches had a big white tank. Yep, they painted it. No foam. I was there for the first launch of the orange tank. They claimed it was to save weight (something like 80,000 pounds just in paint.)

With the ongoing foam issues, I wonder why they didn't reconsider the heavier paint?

Oh yeah, here is an article on the Russian space shuttle:
Buran program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by driven 

I remember the original shuttle launches had a big white tank. Yep, they painted it. No foam. I was there for the first launch of the orange tank. They claimed it was to save weight (something like 80,000 pounds just in paint.)

With the ongoing foam issues, I wonder why they didn't reconsider the heavier paint?

Oh yeah, here is an article on the Russian space shuttle:
Buran program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I remember the original white middle rocket. I always wondered why they changed that. Thanks.

[Gator Lager]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I remember the original white middle rocket. I always wondered why they changed that. Thanks.

not a rocket. it's the external tank. and I don't know why they painted it white to begin with ? maybe to make it look cool or the Apollo rockets were white ? beats me. I'll ask my bosses.
but the weight of the paint came to around 450 lbs. so not painting the tank saved on weight to orbit and that means we can fly more payload.


" Originally Posted by ghporter
Ever see the "bootleg" video from Bay St Louis of the main engine test that went bad? Just before the engine cracks up, you can see a paper shuttle model fly through the frame. Someone was having fun...and then that huge engine just cut loose. Not funny then, but pretty funny now. I was stationed in Mississippi then and yeah, I remember that stuff."


do you have a link to this. I'd like to see this one. have some friends that worked up their at that time. maybe they know who did it. ha.

[driven]

I got the 80,000 number from the NASA tour guide "back in the day". :-)

Wouldn't painting the tank solve the foam problem? They didn't have foam back then.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by The Mick 

Link?

This was from 1980 or so-no such thing as a Youtube then. I'm not sure the video exists in cyberspace, but I'll look...

[Gator Lager]

Originally Posted by driven 

I got the 80,000 number from the NASA tour guide "back in the day". :-)

Wouldn't painting the tank solve the foam problem? They didn't have foam back then.

yeah the tour guide people say all kinds of weird stuff ? oh well.
as for the foam, I asked the same question as have others. and I think with the right kind of paint it could keep the foam from falling off. the problem is when they spray on the foam, it adheres to the tank surface with no problem. but once the tank is filled with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen (liquid hydrogen is minus 434 degree f) and that makes the metal of the tank to constrict and seprarate from the foam, causing air gaps. creating weak points in the foam....blah blah....

[Gator Lager]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

This was from 1980 or so-no such thing as a Youtube then. I'm not sure the video exists in cyberspace, but I'll look...

thanks

[MRTrauffer]

Originally Posted by Gator Lager 

there are still quite a few people out their that worked on the Apollo program. the mousetrap, what about grahams lounge. the moon hut is gone. sad, that place was cool. now it's all about the cruise ships and condos.

and palms east is still their. as for the glass elevators in the VAB, yep still their. I was told by the Apollo folks, the glass elevators were installed so that lady bird johnson could see the Apollo stack.
as for the VAB, I still marvel at that big ole building.

and for a tidbit of info we stacked Atlantis last night.

I grew up in Titusville, and clearly remember the many traffic jams prior to a launch. I went back down there for a visit about a year and a half ago to find that the main viewing sites along US1 are now blocked by condos. What a shame.

Still, the 3 years I worked over in the industrial area were the coolest 3 years of my life.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

When I was in the 6th grade (1978), I was obsessed with all things NASA/space. I wrote a report on the Space Shuttle. It was very difficult--there was very little information out there. I remember going to the library and finding most of my material from an issue of US News & World Report, of all places.

That said, I suspect there won't be so much nostalgia for the Shuttle program. Although it performed some admirable tasks, the cost (both financial and human) and technical deficiencies hang over it too much, I think.

[Kevin]

I disagree. I think there already is Nostalgia for the Shuttle. Those of us that watched the first few go up in class at school.. some memorable times.

The average person doesn't care about the cost effectiveness in the Shuttle when nostalgia kicks in IMHO.