| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#4
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 |
Threaded Mode
