K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
What does this have to do with ham radio? Plenty!
For one thing,
ham radio is mentioned in the second article.
mentioned
Yep.
Did anyone besides me actually read the articles I linked?
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
Based upon WHAT data, Mark?
It's a fact that the Space Shuttle program has not reached *some*
of the goals set for it. OTOH it has reached and exceeded some
of the goals, too.
The Space Shuttle program is neither a complete success nor a total
failure. It's done many great things, but not everything
that was expected.
But that's not the point I was making.
That people have been killed flying it? So what?
No Americans died flying the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo missions. The
Apollo 1 fire that killed astronauts Grissom, Chaffee and White
happened during a ground training/checkout session.
People die on
commecial airliners on a monthly basis. Are airliners a
failure?
There's a big difference.
The chances of dying in a commercial airliner accident are extremely
small. The failure rate of commercial airline flights (where "failure"
equals "people died") is extremely small. In fact if you drive to the
airport, fly around the world on First World commercial airliners
(returning to your point of origin), and drive home, the most dangerous
part of the trip is the drive to and from the airport, statistically
speaking.
I've read reports that the reliability of the Space Shuttle (where
"reliability" equals "chances there will be a total
loss-of-mission-and-crew accident") was calculated to be between 1 in
75 to 1 in 250. Unfortunately those calculations have been quite
accurate.
But that's not the point I ws making.
E V E R Y future manned space mission, near or deep space, will
be predicated upon missions learned from the Space
Shuttle era. That,
in-and-of iteslf makes the Shuttle Program a success.
No, that's just one of the successes of the Space Shuttle program.
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
The "shuttle" has never failed in performing it's mission.
Of the two catastrophic failures of Shuttle missions,
one was due
to the boosters carrying it, and the other was due to damage
inflicted
on the orbiter by its', ahem...booster. We can "implicate"
NASA safety deficits as a morbidly contributing factor.
We can also implicate the extreme complexity of the system, too.
Also the basic design.
In the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions, the main rockets were all
below/behind the capsule that had the people inside. Stuff falling off
the rockets could not hit the capsule.
The reentry rockets and heatshield were hidden away under the capsule,
and not exposed to damage from outside until it was almost time to use
them. The Shuttle's tiles are out in the breeze the whole time.
that it has some use is of course true
That is was and continues to be a scientific milestone
of our age is even more true.
Yet it's less expensive to launch satellites using a one-use rocket
like the Ariane.
That it's obviously in need of re-engineering is true too,
but then
what machine made by man was ever cast in one form then NOT
"re-engineered" for better performance?
We're still driving cars that (mostly) use internal-combustion
gasoline-burning piston engines. The changes in them have been
evolutionary, not revolutionary.
Can you imagine where the "Internet" would be if we
were all still
using Commodore 64's and TRS-80's...?!?!
If you're using a Wintel machine, you are basically using an upgraded
IBM PC AT.
To call the Shuttle program a "failure" is ludicrous.
Agreed - it's too complex to be described by a single word.
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
What, Mark?
As for Jim's comments, I ask WHAT transportation technology has
proven itself 100% error free?
I just watched a special on Discovery Channel about a Canadian
Airbus that had to deadstick into the Azores because there was a fuel
leak and the crew absolutely refused to believe the technology (read
that "the gauges") that were telling them they were losing fuel.
Yet nobody died on that flight.
And there are countless "recalls" of motor vehicles due to
design,
engineering and manufacturing errors. They've been building
motor
vehicles for over a century now...the last Shuttle as finished in what...1992?
Shall we do the Challenger/Titanic parallels again?
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
What "fibbing", Mark?
Jim said, quote:
But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the
Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one.
Where is there a "fib" in there, Mark?
You're missing the point, Steve.
And there was no ONE fault in the Challenger tragedy...it was a
compilation of errors that resulted in the mishap. Any positive effort
to mitigate any of the contributing factors may well have resulted in a
different outcome.
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
Oh?
And you base this opinion upon what credentials or experience?
Do not be distracted from the main point, Steve.
Here it is again:
The Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs used "disposable" rockets and
capsules. The Shuttle was a radical departure from that design
philosophy, meant to be reusable and economic. But in reality,
some of the Shuttle's goals have not been met, and never will be.
Now NASA is looking at the disposable-rocket/capsule idea again
for the next generation of people-carrying space flights.
See the point?
73 de Jim, N2EY