wrote:
From: "an_old_friend" Tues 9 Aug 2005 10:41

In any event, the Shuttle program is nearing its conclusion. NASA is
already looking to the next generation of people-carrying space
vehicles:

Not quite an AMATEUR RADIO POLICY subject but that doesn't
deter good old Rev. Jimmie.

We'll remember this exactly when you lauch into yet another of your
"...there I was at ADA in 53.." tales...

What does this have to do with ham radio? Plenty! For one thing,
ham radio is mentioned in the second article.

mentioned

Yawn. Jimmie still thinks this newsgroup is HIS blog...

From the guy who's published his (alleged) CV in it's entirety in
this same newsgroup...

Now some may scoff at these words from a non-rocket-scientist.

You betcha! I'm not a scientist but I've worked ON the
SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engines) instrumentation at
Rocketdyne.

Cleaned those floors really well, too, I hear...

Better idea...let's all LAUNCH JIMMIE into outer space!

NASA could put several craft into orbit with the gas you've
expelled here, Lennie.

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Russia could, China might be able to, NASA would need a lot more

NASA could put several craft into orbit with the gas you've
expelled here, Lennie.

Putz.


4 Q


dit not

wrote:
NASA could put several craft into orbit with the gas you've
expelled here, Lennie.

Putz.


4 Q

I'd suggest you refer that solicitation to Markie...

He's into that kinda thing, though I doubt guys your age are on
his list of "things to do..."

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

NASA could not but maybe the Russians or even the Chiness likely could

We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of
maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on
developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening
to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies.

A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new
fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests...

Priorities need to be examined here...

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:32:33 -0700, N2EY wrote:

The Space Shuttle made it back safely this morning. (Collective sigh of
relief).

But it will be a while before any more Space Shuttles fly again. More
problems to fix.

I noted that NASA made a point of referring to this mission as a "test
flight"...

In any event, the Shuttle program is nearing its conclusion. NASA is
already looking to the next generation of people-carrying space
vehicles:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...L&type=science

which is a lot less cumbersome as:

http://tinyurl.com/aevvs

The "new" designs are much closer to the old, one-time-use, pre-Shuttle
rockets. Reusability, gliders and large cargo bays are out, simpler,
one-shot capsules are in.

An interesting look at the Space Shuttle's history, ideology and
lessons hopefully learned can be seen at:

http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_r...ere.htm#school

which is less cumbersome as:

http://tinyurl.com/cws82


---


What does this have to do with ham radio? Plenty! For one thing,
ham radio is mentioned in the second article.

But more importantly, there's the whole issue of "new" vs. "old"
technology, fads and fashions, and politics vs. engineering and
science.

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.

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.

Most of all, the amazingly complex technology of the Space Shuttle
hasn't been adequate to prevent two complete losses of vehicle and
crew.

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.

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...

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: John Smith on Aug 9, 10:53 am

We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of
maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on
developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening
to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies.

A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new
fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests...

Priorities need to be examined here...

For an alternate way to reach terrestrial orbit, one possibility
is shown in the August 2005 issue of the IEEE SPECTRUM. It is the
cover story. In the same issue (beginning page 12) is a story
where Europe is joining Russia in building the "next" space shuttle.

SPECTRUM is viewable on the IEEE website, www.ieee.org.

Len:

SPECTRUM? My gawd that just sounds impressive, I don't think I can even
look, must be a project of "God Awful Proportions!"

Hey, they didn't get that idea from an old bond movie did they?

Isn't that what goldfinger was working on?

(I am partial to the "space elevator" constructed from carbon nano-tubes...)

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:32:04 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: John Smith on Aug 9, 10:53 am

We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of
maintaining military superiority in space, if needed and focusing on
developing a fuel source which is not harming the planet and threatening
to bring us to our knees from dwindling supplies.

A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new
fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests...

Priorities need to be examined here...

For an alternate way to reach terrestrial orbit, one possibility
is shown in the August 2005 issue of the IEEE SPECTRUM. It is the
cover story. In the same issue (beginning page 12) is a story
where Europe is joining Russia in building the "next" space shuttle.

SPECTRUM is viewable on the IEEE website, www.ieee.org.

wrote:
From: John Smith on Aug 9, 10:53 am

Priorities need to be examined here...

For an alternate way to reach terrestrial orbit, one possibility
is shown in the August 2005 issue of the IEEE SPECTRUM. It is the
cover story. In the same issue (beginning page 12) is a story
where Europe is joining Russia in building the "next" space shuttle.

SPECTRUM is viewable on the IEEE website, www.ieee.org.

From that site:

QUOTE

We need something better, and that something is a space elevator-a
superstrong, lightweight cable stretching 100 000 kilometers from
Earth's surface to a counterweight in space.

UNQUOTE

I kept looking for the link to Todd's "Inventions" page but
couldn't find it.

Maybe we could anchor this "cable" at the center of one of Todd's
cryogenically cooled storage capacitors, using the resulting explosion
to force the "elevator" into orbit...?!?!

In all seriousness...I wonder if the resulting oscillations in the
cable from it hitting an object in space (or something hitting it...)
will be adequately dampened by the time it get's to the cable's
antipode...?!?!

Now we don't only have to worry about an aquatic earthquate
casuing a tsunami, we have to worry about The Cable falling.

And for the "counterweight" to remain in one place relative to
Earth's surface, it would have to be of considerable mass, sped-up to
phenominal speeds in order to reach station-keeping over the desired
target.

Now the eggheads at IEEE suggest we can orbit a counterweight to
support a 100K Km cable capable of supporting trans-orbital flight
loads...?!?!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ:

Don't forget the fact that cable will be traveling at over 1,000 miles
per hour, the centrifical force is going to add some force to "pull" it
out from the earth, also, it will be spinning in magnetic fields--you know
what happens when you spin a conductor around in a magnetic
field--however, most physicists say it looks very doable.

John

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:59:54 -0700, K4YZ wrote:


wrote:
From: John Smith on Aug 9, 10:53 am

Priorities need to be examined here...

For an alternate way to reach terrestrial orbit, one possibility
is shown in the August 2005 issue of the IEEE SPECTRUM. It is the
cover story. In the same issue (beginning page 12) is a story
where Europe is joining Russia in building the "next" space shuttle.

SPECTRUM is viewable on the IEEE website, www.ieee.org.

From that site:

QUOTE

We need something better, and that something is a space elevator-a
superstrong, lightweight cable stretching 100 000 kilometers from
Earth's surface to a counterweight in space.

UNQUOTE

I kept looking for the link to Todd's "Inventions" page but
couldn't find it.

Maybe we could anchor this "cable" at the center of one of Todd's
cryogenically cooled storage capacitors, using the resulting explosion
to force the "elevator" into orbit...?!?!

In all seriousness...I wonder if the resulting oscillations in the
cable from it hitting an object in space (or something hitting it...)
will be adequately dampened by the time it get's to the cable's
antipode...?!?!

Now we don't only have to worry about an aquatic earthquate
casuing a tsunami, we have to worry about The Cable falling.

And for the "counterweight" to remain in one place relative to
Earth's surface, it would have to be of considerable mass, sped-up to
phenominal speeds in order to reach station-keeping over the desired
target.

Now the eggheads at IEEE suggest we can orbit a counterweight to
support a 100K Km cable capable of supporting trans-orbital flight
loads...?!?!

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Steve, K4YZ