| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
August 9th 05, 07:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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? That people have been killed flying it? So what? People die on commecial airliners on a monthly basis. Are airliners a failure? 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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, 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? 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? Steve, K4YZ |
|
#3
August 9th 05, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. 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? Based on the specs when the project started The shuttle was supposed to take cargo to Geostationary orbit instaed NASA settled for LEO 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 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 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 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 the Shuttle has falied utterly in being able to try it designed for mission The Shuttle is the best real world example of Dumbing down expectations 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 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 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 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? taking stuff out of context ...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 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 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#4
August 10th 05, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
an_old_friend wrote: 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. 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? Based on the specs when the project started The shuttle was supposed to take cargo to Geostationary orbit instaed NASA settled for LEO And who says it can't? The Shuttle does (and today proved) that is can and does operate in the manner designed for... And unless I missed something, this mission flew some part of every profile that the Shuttle was envisoned doing. 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. YOU suggested, without explaining why, that the Shuttle was a 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. 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? 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. We've learned more about orbital dynamics and extra vehicular working than we would have in a million "deep tank" simulations. 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? the Shuttle has falied utterly in being able to try it designed for mission Oh? "utterly"...?!?! I take the word "utterly" to mean a nearly complete failure of all designed mission parameters. The Challenger and Columbia disaters notwithstanding, I'd say YOUR suggestion is unsubstantiated at many, MANY levels. 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! 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... 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. You need to be reading something other than "Pagan Monthly", Mark. 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. You didn't understand what he wrote. Allow me. QUOTE: 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? taking stuff out of context ...again Nope. Mark, that was quoted line-for-line from YOUR post. Are you now saying that YOU took it out of context? Becasue there it is.... ONCE MORE 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) 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. 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. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#5
August 10th 05, 04:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: 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. 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? Based on the specs when the project started break The shuttle was supposed to take cargo to Geostationary orbit instaed NASA settled for LEO And who says it can't? NASA 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 BTW Id call the last mission f Chalenger and Colombia failures the Shuttle has falied utterly in being able to try it designed for mission Oh? yep "utterly"...?!?! only come 20,000 out of 23,000 miles short I call that utterly 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 it has never manged to reach teh desred orbit of its planers 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 The Shuttle has always failed to met it original mission parameters 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 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 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 You need to be reading something other than "Pagan Monthly", Mark. more bashing 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 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 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 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#6
August 10th 05, 01:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
August 10th 05, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 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 I don't think so. and neither do I 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 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? I'll take those as more-than-adequate evidence that the comments were germane. then you are in error of course 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 The Shuttle wasn't the problem. BOTH disasters were directly related to the boosters or external fuel tank. well you see how far the shuttle gets without either of them but then in calling the shuttle a failure I am not referring to loss of either shuttle, although these event don't exactly imporve the shuttles scorecard of sucess verus failure 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. so? This is HARDLY failure. sure is None of them to the orbits promised. No shuttle has been turned around in the time promised No GEO sat captured and repaired No more polar launchs at all No Cheap launchs The shuttle does NOT do what it is supposed to Does not mean it is Useless, merely unsucessfull at it designed/promised mission 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 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 cuting more off topic crap 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, BBWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! You have some very unique perspective out of what determines "failure", Markie... nope you simply don't face facts 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 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' 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 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. 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 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 which has nothing to do with simulations 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 It has not provided chaep access to space It has manged to find usefull propose in lessor roles 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 the Shuttle doesand can't do these things 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." I said the Shuttle PROGRAM is not a failure. not according to you 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 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? "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 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 And what fo the multiple launches FROM Shuttls and satellites recovered from and returned to orbit by the shuttle? what about them? 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 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 The Shuttle has always failed to met it original mission parameters Nope. It's met and exceeded almost evry one. nope 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 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 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 You need to be reading something other than "Pagan Monthly", Mark. more bashing more evasion 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 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 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 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 (abet really well off ones) can do reuseableflight vechiles beter than NASA and its billions Our space program is in sad shape, i really wish it wasn't, but them is the facts Steve, K4YZ |
|
#8
August 10th 05, 03:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
August 12th 05, 04:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
August 13th 05, 02:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: 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. One of the statistics that is trotted out when speaking of airline safety is passenger miles. I suspect the shuttle would fare *very* well if we applied passenger miles to it! ;^) Not really. Let's do the math... The following are rough numbers. Those willing to do more looking-up are invited to give more exact numbers, and see how close my approximations are. IIRC, there have been 113 Shuttle missions that "went the distance" so far. Missions last about a week and have about seven astronauts on each one. Orbital velocity is about 18,000 miles per hour and a week is 168 hours long. So a typical mission is about 3 million miles long. With seven astronauts aboard, that's 21 million passenger miles per mission. 113 x 21 = about 2.4 billion passenger miles in the entire shuttle history. But two missions ended with total loss of the crew - 14 deaths. That's one death for every 171 million passenger miles. Compare that to the commercial airliner rate... Or take a look at another measu Number of deaths per million aircraft departures. Commercial airlines are well under one per million. The Shuttle is around 1 in 8. Of course both measures are a bit off the mark. Most commercial airline accidents have some survivors. Perhaps the most accurate measure would be "what are the chances that a flight will be completed without an accident that results in the death of a passenger? In the case of the Shuttle, the demonstrated odds are 1 in 57. Commercial airliners are a lot better.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Hybrid Mode
