an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

The shuttle was supposed to take cargo to Geostationary orbit instaed
NASA settled for LEO

And who says it can't?

NASA

Where?

The Shuttle does (and today proved) that is can and does operate
in the manner designed for...

nope not even close it misses the mark by a mere 20,000 miles or there
abouts

When/where has there been a geostationary mission that required
the Shuttle?

And unless I missed something, this mission flew some part of
every profile that the Shuttle was envisoned doing.

only the first 200 miles of the 23,000 some part indeed

That was the ONLY mission for the Shuttle, Markie?

I don't think so.

That people have been killed flying it? So what? People die on
commecial airliners on a monthly basis. Are airliners a failure?

as normal off target and not related

Sure it's "on target" and absolutely related.

Not really and it is unrelated

Absolutely ontarget and absolutely related.

There has hardly been a news item on the Internet in the last 6
months mentioning the Shuttle that didn't mention the COlumbia and
Challenger disasters.

I'll take those as more-than-adequate evidence that the comments
were germane.

that Men died is bad of course but that men died isn't the reason the
shuttle is a failure, although it was supposed ot bring the men back
alive

I am sure you meant men AND women.

The Shuttle wasn't the problem. BOTH disasters were directly
related to the boosters or external fuel tank.

YOU suggested, without explaining why, that the Shuttle was a
failure.

I certainly explained why

It can't reach the orbits it was designed for

that is failure

The Shuttle's flown 113 missions as of yesterday.

This is HARDLY failure.

People have died on Shuttle missions. That is a fact. The fact
that people HAVE died on Shuttle missions IS a popular argument for the
program's termination by those who think that "space travel" ought to
be like flying on the Starship Enterprise of TV fame.

so what?

again off target and ilrelavant

What's "ilrelavant"...?!?!

Of course it's RELEVANT, Markie. TV fantasy shapes people's
ideations of what REAL life should be.

For one example...You'd not beleive the number of people (some of
them very educated persons) who come to my ER thinking they are going
to be in-and-out in an hour. Why? Becasue that's the length of time
an episode of "E.R." takes to kix things...

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.

wrong again Stevie, your premise that learning from something means the
something was a sucess

Oh?

It seems to be an adequate-enough justification for every scientist
since the dawn of time. What's your rationale for stating otherwise?

failure to meet it goals

"A" goal out of dozens...?!?!

BBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !
!

You have some very unique perspective out of what determines
"failure", Markie...

Of course you've made a life-long habit out of manufacturing
failure in order to have excuses for non-success, haven't you?

that we have learned something from thsi failure is a good thing but it
is still a failure

and you realy don't undersatnd science stavie you just don't

"And"

"really"

"understand"

"Stevie"

Sure I understand it.

And I understand you.

You think you've found ONE issue that you can dig into and hold on
to, yet it's fleeting already. That the Shuttle program has had
"failures" is evident, but the Shuttle program overall is NOT a
failure.

Yes we have learned a great deal from the Shuttle, which we would
regrardless of wether it was a sucess or failure, Indeed we Likely will
learn more from it being a failure than we would have from a success

I bet not.

you still owe me 500$ from your last bet

"$500"

Nope. Not even close, Markie. You actually have to have some
"proof" in order to get that...

You're a looooooooooooooooooooooooong way away from that.

We've learned more about orbital dynamics and extra vehicular
working than we would have in a million "deep tank" simulations.

which has nothing to do with anything under discusion

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Sure it is!

YOU claim the Shuttle is a failure based upon having never gone to
geostationary orbit.

I say you're bonkers because the Shuttle has MORE than fulfilled
it's rolls in supporting scientific missions, satellite repair, and
supporting both the MIR and ISS programs.

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.

the Shuttle can't fufill the mission it was designed for

It can't fulfill what it's already surpassed, Mark?

It can't deviler what it promised

Sure it has "deviler(ed)"...And more...

BTW Id call the last mission f Chalenger and Colombia failures

I didn't say there weren't failure IN the program.

I said the Shuttle PROGRAM is not a failure.

And as I have CORRECTLY pointed out before, the catastrophies were
both due to problems with the external fuel tank/boosters.

the Shuttle has falied utterly in being able to try it designed for
mission

Oh?

yep

You're making assertions that reknowned scientists say otherwise,
Markie.

"utterly"...?!?!

only come 20,000 out of 23,000 miles short

I call that utterly

I call your assertion utterly rediculous.

I take the word "utterly" to mean a nearly complete failure of all
designed mission parameters.

well a major mission was satelite repair, geo sat repair, It has never
manged that

Uh...Hubble's not geostationary, but YOU call that a failue?

And what fo the multiple launches FROM Shuttls and satellites
recovered from and returned to orbit by the shuttle?

it has never manged to reach teh desred orbit of its planers

Still focusing on ONE parameter, Markie...Still misses your mark
of "utter"

The Challenger and Columbia disaters notwithstanding, I'd say YOUR
suggestion is unsubstantiated at many, MANY levels.

No It is on the record from NASA, they defined the mission mid ay
though building the shuttles to a new and lessor mission set

Soooooooooooo! Even before it flew the mission had ALREADY been
re-taasked, so BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION the Shuttle's flying now were NOT
designed for geostationary flight.

The Shuttle has always failed to met it original mission parameters

Nope.

It's met and exceeded almost evry one.

A looooooooooooooooong way from YOUR assertion of "utter" failure.

The Shuttle is the best real world example of Dumbing down expectations

Sure glad we have you to counter lots of REAL scientists who have
said otherwise, Mark!

not really

and it is the engineers that say so

Which engineers?

Names? URL's to discussions on the issue please?

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.

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.

milstone yea it is that


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?

that reengineering is not even planned for the shuttle shows it failure

What do you mean that there's no re-engineering planned?

They just got done with 2 years of it...

not really and nothing on the board to suceed the shuttle in five years

they have tried to cover the failures and cobbled together nature of
the beast

What's getting "cobbled together" here is your story. You're
trying to design it as you're laying bricks...

Can you imagine where the "Internet" would be if we were all still
using Commodore 64's and TRS-80's...?!?!

To call the Shuttle program a "failure" is ludicrous.

it is the plain and simple truth

Nope. What it is is a bit of failed argument on your part.

No just a case of you eading Press releases rather than looking at the
facts, but nothing new there

Reading press releases ARE part of the facts...

You need to be reading something other than "Pagan Monthly", Mark.

more bashing

Nope.

More evidence that your story holds slightly less water than
toilet paper

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.

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?

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 the Chalenger was destroyed by a heat shiled related problem

No he didn't.


cutinng more of stevie out of context rating

Putting what I said back in so Markie can face his foolishness one
more time:

ONCE MORE (AGAIN) FOR MARK'S EDIFICATION:

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.

END QUOTE.

Now...WHERE did Jim say Challenger's probelm was a heat shield
issue?

(Now patiently awating Mark to acknowledge he mis-read Jim's post
where he DID say that COLUMBIA'S problem was due to exposing the heat
shield to a foreign object strike)

END QUOTE

So, Mark...

You going to answer this, or can I just go ahead and start
appending it to every post of yours where YOU accuse others of
"evasion"...?!?!?

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?

experence sure I got it I have folowed the Space program as far back as
I can remember

I remember it back to BEFORE the first Mercury shots went up. I
got to follow each Mercury, Gemini and Apollo misison, INCLUDING
Apollo-Soyuz. That includes the Skylab missions.

so?

you are older than I we all knew that

Yep.

I am also more well versed in the goals and milestones of the
progam, obviously, not that it took much to do.

We started in 60 with the Goal of getting to the moon and we did then
we started to build a space born truck that was supposed to reach GEO
stationary orbit and be able to turn around in 2 weeks

we settled for LEO and months of turnaround

We haven't "settled" for anything yet.

we sure did

Nope.

Steve, K4YZ