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

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

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

Then you're reading what you want into this.

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.

Facts are that it's anything but.

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...?!?!

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.

I'll take those as more-than-adequate evidence that the comments
were germane.

then you are in error of course

Of course NOT.

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.

No shuttle has been turned around in the time promised

Sure they have. Several.

No GEO sat captured and repaired

None scheduled.

No more polar launchs at all

Was one necessary? Was one scheduled?

No Cheap launchs

No launch is cheap.

The shuttle does NOT do what it is supposed to

Sure it does.

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".

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.

"Absolute disaster" is far and beyond that.

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!

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:

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

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.

As for cost...Name me a major development program that DOESN'T go
overbudget...?!?!

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.

You've just not provided any so far.

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.

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'

Allow me to put it back since you obviously didn't fix it the
first time.

"really" "understand" "Stevie" "cutting" "spelling"

A capital leter begins the sentence and a period or question mark
typically ends it.

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.

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.

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.

So let's go through THAT sentence and see WHY you are NOT entitled
to $500:

Sentence not started with a capital letter.

"english" not capitalized.

"chioce"

And every post you've made SINCE then has been just as terrible.

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.

which has nothing to do with simulations

Your lack of English comprehension is apparent again.

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

It has manged to find usefull propose in lessor roles

Funny how your miniscule mind tries to minimize everything that
goes through it.

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.

Both NASA assessments and assessments of the scientific community
in general that have lauded the Shuttle say otherwise.

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.

The falures were directly related to the external tanks/boosters.

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.

And even with the fuel tank/booster issues, the overall program is
STILL a success.

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..."

"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.

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 ####"

Because your profanity in place of reasonable argument is the sign
of a weak and feeble mind.

And again the Hubble is anything BUT the "cluster ####" you call
it!

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.

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.

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"........

There's never any ending to your victim role, is there...?!?!

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...

What did I expect from a known pathological liar!

You can't even back up THIS rant, and

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.

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.

Those press releases along with about a ton of documentation from
Scientific American, AW&ST, "Air and Space" magazine, etc.

Are you suggestiong that ALL "PR" on the Shuttle is fabricated and
controlled by NASA...?!?!

You need to be reading something other than "Pagan Monthly", Mark.

more bashing

more evasion

Nope.

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

"Cutting" "Stevie"

Facts are facts.

WHY ARE YOU AVOIDING ACKNOWLEDGING YOUR ERROR OF FACTS?

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 THE THIRD TIME) 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

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.

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?

Please include the answer to THIS question along with your
acknowledgement of your error vis-a-vis your claim of Jim's "fib".

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.

Lying about it's accomplishments won't help it, so please stop.

Steve, K4YZ

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

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

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

Facts are that the Shuttle remains a viable on-orbit delivery
system.

Period.

People with REAL credentals say so.

Huge Snip

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

Proved WHAT...?!?!

That your fractured, broken DRECK is acceptable English
composition...?!?!

BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! !

NO ONE IN THIS FORUM, WHETEHR THEY "LIKE" ME OR NOT WOULD AGREE
THAT WAHT YOU "WRITE" IS ACCEPTABLE ENGLSIH COMPOSITION! ! ! ! !
! !

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

Hardly!

And where's this "expert" of yours..?!?!

We're supposed to take this on your "say so"..?!?!

A pathologiocal LIAR...?!?!

"Proof" is the statement of a CERTIFIED English teacher who
actually SAMPLES what you "write" in this forum and then attests to it
IN WRITING, LiarBoy!

I snipped the rest...Mark's lost what little bit of credibility he
had...

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

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

Facts are that the Shuttle remains a viable on-orbit delivery
system.

that can't pull off a full mission without being grounded


Period.

People with REAL credentals say so.

People with real credentals say the economy is doing great, doesn't
make it so



Huge Snip

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

Proved WHAT...?!?!

That your fractured, broken DRECK is acceptable English
composition...?!?!

that you made a bet and then cheated on it


BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! !

NO ONE IN THIS FORUM, WHETEHR THEY "LIKE" ME OR NOT WOULD AGREE
THAT WAHT YOU "WRITE" IS ACCEPTABLE ENGLSIH COMPOSITION! ! ! ! !
! !

the bet was on an given sentense

and you are of course cheating, again


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

Hardly!

And where's this "expert" of yours..?!?!

William R Morgan license teacher

I agreed he wasn't exactly an unbaised choice


We're supposed to take this on your "say so"..?!?!

A pathologiocal LIAR...?!?!

"Proof" is the statement of a CERTIFIED English teacher who
actually SAMPLES what you "write" in this forum and then attests to it
IN WRITING, LiarBoy!

done and ready where is the money


I snipped the rest...Mark's lost what little bit of credibility he
had...

Steve, K4YZ