K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
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?
in every PR about the shuttles current capicites
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?
In the 70/s when the project was funded
BTW you are changing your story in the middle of post now
a few lines ago you were dening that the shuttle could not get to GEO
orbit now you are impling it was never suposed to
break
Then you're reading what you want into this.
nope I am reading what you have written
As usual, facts are of little concern to you.
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?
never said it was
YOU said the Shuttle is an "utter" failre. That means nearly
complete in current American use of the term.
and so it is
Facts are that it's anything but.
no they are not
the Shuttle can't deliever on it promises
either for orbit, reliableity turn arround time or cost
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.
nope nothing about the loss of life is related to why the shuttle is a
failure
So people dying is a success...?!?!
nope only you would suggest that
merely that their deaths while obviously regreatable are related to the
standards being used to call the shuttle a failure
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.
so?
You you're not paying attention again.
Yes I have been just got little to do with the matter
I'll take those as more-than-adequate evidence that the comments
were germane.
then you are in error of course
Of course NOT.
of course so
The loss of those shuttles which certainly doesn't help one make a case
that the shuttle is a sucess has little else to do with wether the
shuttle can, when working properly do its designed mission
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.
No I meant men in one of the senses in which english uses the word
Then you grossly insulted the women who died on those missions
too.
Scumbag.
(SNIP)
The Shuttle's flown 113 missions as of yesterday.
so?
This is HARDLY failure.
sure is
None of them to the orbits promised.
Every Shuttle launched with the exception the last Challenger
mission made it to the orbit promised.
not the orbit promised in the design specs
No shuttle has been turned around in the time promised
Sure they have. Several.
No shuttel has ever been turned arround in 2 weeks
the record is I believe about a month
No GEO sat captured and repaired
None scheduled.
But many were promised
No more polar launchs at all
Was one necessary? Was one scheduled?
they were part of the original specs
No Cheap launchs
No launch is cheap.
you agree finaly facing a fact
The shuttle does NOT do what it is supposed to
Sure it does.
nope
Does not mean it is Useless, merely unsucessfull at it
designed/promised mission
It does far more than it was inteded. That i may have not met
some of it's INITIAL parameters does NOT make it an "utter failure".
It mets none of of design parameters
I am gald that we have found mission for the multibillion dollar
shuttle, ifwe had not it would be a failure at it original mission, but
an absolute disaster
You've not proven your assertion of "utter failure" yet.
already have
"Absolute disaster" is far and beyond that.
and never claimed it was an absolute disaster
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.
nope it isn't
Sure it does!
but it isn't relavant
cuting more off topic crap
The "crap" is you cutting out those things you don't want to deal
with, especially when it provides a relevent example of facts:
none relavant facts was presented
nothing to do with the shuttle at all
QUOTE
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 fix things...
UNQUOTE
and stevie is lying when he claims that the above has anything to do
with the Shuttle program
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...?!?!
Orbit, turn around time, cost, realiablity,
It's met almost all of those, Markie.
met none of them
Never met orbit
never been reliable
never met planed turn over time
was always over budjet
As for cost...Name me a major development program that DOESN'T go
overbudget...?!?!
if that was the shuttles only failure I gladly forgive it that
BBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !
!
You have some very unique perspective out of what determines
"failure", Markie...
nope you simply don't face facts
Sure I do.
then start at any time
You've just not provided any so far.
sure have
Of course you've made a life-long habit out of manufacturing
failure in order to have excuses for non-success, haven't you?
more stevie lies
More Markie WISHING he wasn't so transparent.
nope
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
cuting speling cop'
cuting speling cop
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.
how about 5
None.
yep orbit, turn around, relaiablity, safety and cost, all missed
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"
yep
Nope. You've yet to prove a thing.
already done you just refuse to pay up
Nope. Not even close, Markie. You actually have to have some
"proof" in order to get that...
you bet that an english of my chioce would flunk my sentence and give
you an "A" you lost
Not of YOUR choice, Markie.
that was your bet
cuting stevie evading his wleched bet
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.
and failing to prefroms it designed mission
It's performed all except one mission. Challenger never made
orbit. Columbia's mission was completed and it was coming home.
well crew death is kida serious don't you think. I was being generous
but leaving out the NASA negliance with humna life but since you insist
which has nothing to do with simulations
Your lack of English comprehension is apparent again.
nope
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.
nope it has not repaired a single satelite of the the type promised,
(only the hubble in leo orbit
Ah ah ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Better ask the Indians about that.
It has not provided chaep access to space
But it's provided access where access wouldn't have been had,
including the flying of various educational experiements
so that wasn't the mission, yea somebody did agood job of covering up
for the failure of the shuttle to prefom as planned, and I am glad they
did
It has manged to find usefull propose in lessor roles
Funny how your miniscule mind tries to minimize everything that
goes through it.
funny how you ignore facts
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...
"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."
form the original post Jim words
Jim's opinion.
and the NASA
PR
Both NASA assessments and assessments of the scientific community
in general that have lauded the Shuttle say otherwise.
NASA lied
the Shuttle does and can't do these things
Make up your mind, IdiotBoy.
BTW Id call the last mission f Chalenger and Colombia failures
I didn't say there weren't failure IN the program.
you said all mission acheieved thier goals or in your exact words "The
"shuttle" has never failed in performing it's mission."
The SHUTTLE itself has never failed.
yep I call blowing up a failure, I call burning up a failure
The falures were directly related to the external tanks/boosters.
which are part of the shuttle see how far it gets without em
I said the Shuttle PROGRAM is not a failure.
not according to you
There's that English comprehension problem again, Markie.
And as I have CORRECTLY pointed out before, the catastrophies were
both due to problems with the external fuel tank/boosters.
which are part and parcel of the shuttle program
But the SHUTTLES were not the problem.
"I said the Shuttle PROGRAM is not a failure."
your words
the shuttle program inludes the Bosster and feuls tank, their failures
are failure of the shuttle program
you don't get it both ways
And even with the fuel tank/booster issues, the overall program is
STILL a success.
not according to the design specs
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.
such as?
Such as "...the shuttle is an utter failure..."
find an engineer at Morten (or any NASA) that says the shuttle's
preform accroding to the design
"utterly"...?!?!
only come 20,000 out of 23,000 miles short
I call that utterly
I call your assertion utterly rediculous.
of course you do
but then you lie about anything you find in your way
It's not "in my way".
You assertion is utterly rediculous.
not at all
LEO orbit is LONG way from GEO Orbit
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?
I call Hubble a cluster ####, and I am amazed that any science has
surrvivied the stupidity involed in Hubble, but the Shuttle was the
subject not Hubble and the less said about a couple of recent Mars
missions the better
BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! !
Of COURSE you would call it a "cluster ####"
becuase hubble is a cluster ****, and general **** up, that is being
polite
Because your profanity in place of reasonable argument is the sign
of a weak and feeble mind.
IYO
BUt I know a **** up when I see one
And again the Hubble is anything BUT the "cluster ####" you call
it!
Sure is amazing it survied NASA
And what fo the multiple launches FROM Shuttls and satellites
recovered from and returned to orbit by the shuttle?
what about them?
They prove you wrong.
NO GEO orbit work therefore failure to meet spec
it has never manged to reach teh desred orbit of its planers
Still focusing on ONE parameter, Markie...Still misses your mark
of "utter"
I mentioned the others as has Jim
And STILL misses your "utter failure" assertion by a
loooooooooooooooong way.
not really
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.
right they could not deliver the promised and paid for vechile, so they
presented this fraud and pluged intot the shuttle program
Now it's a "fraud"........
Yes it was a fraud preptrated by NASA on the American Tax payers
There's never any ending to your victim role, is there...?!?!
you are part of the victum yourself
The Shuttle has always failed to met it original mission parameters
Nope.
It's met and exceeded almost every one.
nope
Yep.
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?
as soon as you fulfill your debits on reffernces I'll think about it
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....One of those "evasions" you say you don't do...
Nope just using your standards
Fair is fair
What did I expect from a known pathological liar!
more lies from stevie
You can't even back up THIS rant, and
already have
and what...?
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...
not at all
Absolutely.
the thing is colection bad design and bailing wire
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...
again with your Faith in PR's
Nope.
yep
Those press releases along with about a ton of documentation from
Scientific American, AW&ST, "Air and Space" magazine, etc.
and which of them talks about the shuttle that was planed and promised
Are you suggestiong that ALL "PR" on the Shuttle is fabricated and
controlled by NASA...?!?!
Most of it
after all any one wanting something done for them by NASA better toe
the line
You need to be reading something other than "Pagan Monthly", Mark.
more bashing
more evasion
Nope.
yep
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:
cuting stvie playing yet again with the facts
cuting spelling cop
WHY ARE YOU AVOIDING ACKNOWLEDGING YOUR ERROR OF FACTS?
no erro of facts was made
cutinng more of stevie out of context rating
cuting it again
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.
nope
you asserted that the Shuttle is cappble...(SNIP)
Why would the Space Shuttle wear a cap?
(UNSNIP)...of Geo Orbit flight ay one
point in this thread then chnaged your story, proving you know very
little of the history of the program
I know more of it than you, Markie, as is obvious from the
foregoing.
nope
you don't know what the NASA promised when they sold the shuttle you
did ntknow the shuttle could do in point of fact
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.
sure did
the shuttle can only reach LEO we settled for that
Private hobbiests [hobbyists] (abet[albeit] really well off ones) can do reuseableflight
vechiles beter than NASA and its billions
Oh?
WHICH "hobbyists" have managed to put a multi-ton, multipassenger
spacecraft into Earth orbit, up to two weeks at a time?
never said they could yet, but they can turn around a spacecraft much
faster and much cheaper than NASA can
Please include the answer to THIS question along with your
acknowledgement of your error vis-a-vis your claim of Jim's "fib".
strawman again red herrings
Our space program is in sad shape, i really wish it wasn't, but them is
the facts
Out space program will only "suffer" if it's not allowed to grow
and mature.
"Out Space program"
what needs to happen at NASA is a good house cleaning. The space
program is not being allowed to grow right now. It needs goals it can't
refine, it needs real money. It needs some vision a bit of leadership
I don't see much of this in the near future, some maybe, but not a lot
we are stuck with the ISS and its bills, paying the shuttles bills tile
we finsish the ISS and then developing something new, hopefully with a
purpose in mind
the Euros developed their rockets having a goal and made it the
chinesse are doing the same
we are still ****ing around with old tech that does not do the jobs we
need done
Lying about it's accomplishments won't help it, so please stop.
I adknowledge what it has done, it just is not what it was supposed to
do
Steve, K4YZ