-
#40
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:04
-
-
#41
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:05
-
-
#42
by
DaveS
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:09
-
Well, as a KSC worker said about the STS-114 rollback: "We're rolling in the wrong direction, but for the right reasons."
-
#43
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:12
-
DaveS - 4/3/2007 2:09 PM
"...but for the right reasons."
Exactly, and to say I'm annoyed by the media reports using this rollback as another excuse to blurt their Nowak/bad year for NASA crap is an understatement.
What the hell has become of the US media? I thought the UK tabloids were bad enough.
-
#44
by
jmjawors
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:15
-
Most media outlets are owned by large corporations now... they only care about the bottom line (i.e. viewership) and not good reporting. And I can name at least one large news organization that has actually been rolled into their entertainment department.
Oh... and:
-
#45
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:18
-
-
#46
by
nathan.moeller
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:28
-
Chris Bergin - 4/3/2007 8:12 AM
DaveS - 4/3/2007 2:09 PM
"...but for the right reasons."
Exactly, and to say I'm annoyed by the media reports using this rollback as another excuse to blurt their Nowak/bad year for NASA crap is an understatement.
What the hell has become of the US media? I thought the UK tabloids were bad enough.
It really is sad Chris. I refuse to watch the news here for these very reasons. They focus in on all the crap that comes out of Hollywood and the White House and try to deal NASA one from time to time and say it's not worth it. Very much a travesty.
-
#47
by
nathan.moeller
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:31
-
And call me an idiot, but for some reason I'd forgotten that rollback was today
Sad to see her go, but the excitement will be that much greater come launch day. As for the mainstream media reports who frown upon the rollback, I think they are unpleasable. They said NASA never did enough for safety back when Columbia was lost, but now they say it's a bad year when they go to great lengths to fix the problem that brought her down by taking the tank back to the VAB for repair.
-
#48
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:35
-
Getting ready for the handbrake turn coming out of the pad complex
-
#49
by
haywoodfloyd
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:38
-
Is that a large white scratch on the lower portion of the ET or is it just a camera artifact?
-
#50
by
nathan.moeller
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:38
-
Distance between the VAB and 39A is about 3.2 miles right?
-
#51
by
nathan.moeller
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:40
-
haywoodfloyd - 4/3/2007 8:38 AM
Is that a large white scratch on the lower portion of the ET or is it just a camera artifact?
Newer foam that was applied in the VAB checkout cell.
-
#52
by
Flightstar
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:42
-
haywoodfloyd - 4/3/2007 8:38 AM
Is that a large white scratch on the lower portion of the ET or is it just a camera artifact?
Newer foam, nothing to worry about.
-
#53
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:43
-
-
#54
by
haywoodfloyd
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:43
-
Roger That.
-
#55
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:44
-
For those not on L2, I'm writing up Lockheed Martin's presentation to the PRCB document into an article on the repair plan. Will be on site in an hour.
For those on L2, it's page nine of the "Hail Damage to STS-117 ET - Internal notes and images pages."
-
#56
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Mar, 2007 13:56
-
Scrrreecchhhh!
-
#57
by
Chandonn
on 04 Mar, 2007 14:03
-
-
#58
by
Chandonn
on 04 Mar, 2007 14:16
-
Of course the "white room" at the orbiter access arm looks odd without the shuttle hatch in view...
-
#59
by
Chandonn
on 04 Mar, 2007 14:17
-
Sad to see her go, but the excitement will be that much greater come launch day. As for the mainstream media reports who frown upon the rollback, I think they are unpleasable. They said NASA never did enough for safety back when Columbia was lost, but now they say it's a bad year when they go to great lengths to fix the problem that brought her down by taking the tank back to the VAB for repair.
