| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#3
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 |
Threaded Mode
