wrote:
The Space Shuttle made it back safely this morning. (Collective sigh of
relief).

But it will be a while before any more Space Shuttles fly again. More
problems to fix.

I noted that NASA made a point of referring to this mission as a "test
flight"...

In any event, the Shuttle program is nearing its conclusion. NASA is
already looking to the next generation of people-carrying space
vehicles:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...L&type=science

which is a lot less cumbersome as:

http://tinyurl.com/aevvs

The "new" designs are much closer to the old, one-time-use, pre-Shuttle
rockets. Reusability, gliders and large cargo bays are out, simpler,
one-shot capsules are in.

An interesting look at the Space Shuttle's history, ideology and
lessons hopefully learned can be seen at:

http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_r...ere.htm#school

which is less cumbersome as:

http://tinyurl.com/cws82


---



What does this have to do with ham radio? Plenty! For one thing,
ham radio is mentioned in the second article.

mentioned

But more importantly, there's the whole issue of "new" vs. "old"
technology, fads and fashions, and politics vs. engineering and
science.


break

The Space Shuttle was promoted as the "next big thing" in space travel
- as a "space truck" that would cut the cost of getting to orbit,
reducing the waste of one-time rockets, etc. We were told of turnaround
times of a few weeks, and missions costing 10 to 20 million dollars
total - none of which has ever come to pass, 30 years after the program
began.

yea the shutle was and is a failure

What wasn't promoted nearly so heavily was its planned role as a Cold
War DoD resource, for doing things like snatching Soviet satellites
from polar orbit, and setting up SDI platforms. Nor the
predicted failure rate of about 1 in 100.

yep the shuttle is and has been from its first launch a failure at
preforming the missions promised

that it has some use is of course true


Most of all, the amazingly complex technology of the Space Shuttle
hasn't been adequate to prevent two complete losses of vehicle and
crew.

amazing complex I slikely part of the reason they were lost and NASA
refusual to listen to anybody else

Now some may scoff at these words from a non-rocket-scientist. But it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the
Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one. It doesn't take a Von
Braun to see that if your mission-vital systems like the reentry heat
shield are exposed to being hit at hypersonic speeds by anything from a
bird to ice to foam, there's a good chance of damage on the way up that
will result in big trouble on the way down.

now you are fibbing jim Challenger blew up becuase NASA decided that PR
was more important than safety, the problem was Oring, not the heat
sheild

None of this is meant to belittle the accomplishments of NASA or the
bravery of the Space Shuttle crews. It does seem odd, though, that such
bravery should even be needed after 30 years and billions of dollars
spent on the Space Shuttle program.



Perhaps the most important legacy of the Space Shuttle will be the
lessons learned from its problems...

not by NASA, the poor folks have lost thier way it is sad realy

73 de Jim, N2EY