| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Everything Old Is New Again
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
John Smith wrote: We need to scale back NASA and any space plans, other then the pursuit of maintaining military superiority in space, But, but, but.... We had to break a Treaty to attempt that. The no-servers don't like that plan. 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. and terrorist induced disruptions. A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests... The time for that was 1973 (1st oil embargo), 1977 (second oil embargo), 1991 (first Gulf War), 2001 (WTC/Pentagon attacks), and 2003 (2nd Gulf War). In that time frame, we've only succeeded in developing an -interruptable- power supply. ;^) I support alternative fuel development from a national security standpoint, not a global warming view. Priorities need to be examined here... Ooops. Congress just re-examined those priorities and decided to "Spring Forward." Huge effort, that, making people change their clocks. What would it have taken for the environmentalists Clinton/Gore to have merely extended the EPA Fleet Mileage requirements for and additional 10 years??? What would it have taken for Clinton/Gore to tighten up the standards and lessen our dependence on foreign oil??? Answer: A $00.25 Bic pen. Instead, there is no longer an EPA Fleet Mileage requirement. None. Nada. Zip. So let's buy behemoth V-8 and V-10 vehicles, raise the speed limit to 70mph, and roll them down the highway at 85mph on underinflated tires. Talk about a highway to hell. |
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 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 |
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 |
From: "an_old_friend" Tues 9 Aug 2005 10:41
wrote: The Space Shuttle made it back safely this morning. (Collective sigh of relief). Anyone living in or near Los Angeles HEARD it most distinctly. Double boom a few minutes after 5 AM. But it will be a while before any more Space Shuttles fly again. More problems to fix. [Jimmie know how to fix, he gots two degrees and reads a lot] 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: Not quite an AMATEUR RADIO POLICY subject but that doesn't deter good old Rev. Jimmie. 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... 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 That's how it goes without "official" Jimmie approval... :-) 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 that it has some use is of course true Nah, Mark, Jimmie wasn't in on the STS "high council" so it is a terrible failure or something. 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 NASA never put any morse code thingy in the shuttle, Mark, THAT"S why Jimmie thinks so badly of it... 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. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one. Jimmie KNEW what went wrong! [AFTER the fact...] 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. Let's all ask Shrub to put Jimmie in NASA as its new chief! 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 "They are poor little lambs who have lost their way, blah, blah, blah..." Better idea...let's all LAUNCH JIMMIE into outer space! out odd |
an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: What does this have to do with ham radio? Plenty! For one thing, ham radio is mentioned in the second article. mentioned Yep. The Space Shuttle was promoted as the "next big thing" in space travel - as a "space truck" that would cut the cost of getting to orbit, reducing the waste of one-time rockets, etc. We were told of turnaround times of a few weeks, and missions costing 10 to 20 million dollars total - none of which has ever come to pass, 30 years after the program began. yea the shutle was and is a failure Based upon WHAT data, Mark? Based on the specs when the project started The shuttle was supposed to take cargo to Geostationary orbit instaed NASA settled for LEO And who says it can't? The Shuttle does (and today proved) that is can and does operate in the manner designed for... And unless I missed something, this mission flew some part of every profile that the Shuttle was envisoned doing. That people have been killed flying it? So what? People die on commecial airliners on a monthly basis. Are airliners a failure? as normal off target and not related Sure it's "on target" and absolutely related. YOU suggested, without explaining why, that the Shuttle was a failure. People have died on Shuttle missions. That is a fact. The fact that people HAVE died on Shuttle missions IS a popular argument for the program's termination by those who think that "space travel" ought to be like flying on the Starship Enterprise of TV fame. E V E R Y future manned space mission, near or deep space, will be predicated upon missions learned from the Space Shuttle era. That, in-and-of iteslf makes the Shuttle Program a success. wrong again Stevie, your premise that learning from something means the something was a sucess Oh? It seems to be an adequate-enough justification for every scientist since the dawn of time. What's your rationale for stating otherwise? Yes we have learned a great deal from the Shuttle, which we would regrardless of wether it was a sucess or failure, Indeed we Likely will learn more from it being a failure than we would have from a success I bet not. We've learned more about orbital dynamics and extra vehicular working than we would have in a million "deep tank" simulations. What wasn't promoted nearly so heavily was its planned role as a Cold War DoD resource, for doing things like snatching Soviet satellites from polar orbit, and setting up SDI platforms. Nor the predicted failure rate of about 1 in 100. yep the shuttle is and has been from its first launch a failure at preforming the missions promised The "shuttle" has never failed in performing it's mission. the Shuttle can't fufill the mission it was designed for It can't fulfill what it's already surpassed, Mark? the Shuttle has falied utterly in being able to try it designed for mission Oh? "utterly"...?!?! I take the word "utterly" to mean a nearly complete failure of all designed mission parameters. The Challenger and Columbia disaters notwithstanding, I'd say YOUR suggestion is unsubstantiated at many, MANY levels. The Shuttle is the best real world example of Dumbing down expectations Sure glad we have you to counter lots of REAL scientists who have said otherwise, Mark! Of the two catastrophic failures of Shuttle missions, one was due to the boosters carrying it, and the other was due to damage inflicted on the orbiter by its', ahem...booster. We can "implicate" NASA safety deficits as a morbidly contributing factor. that it has some use is of course true That is was and continues to be a scientific milestone of our age is even more true. milstone yea it is that That it's obviously in need of re-engineering is true too, but then what machine made by man was ever cast in one form then NOT "re-engineered" for better performance? that reengineering is not even planned for the shuttle shows it failure What do you mean that there's no re-engineering planned? They just got done with 2 years of it... Can you imagine where the "Internet" would be if we were all still using Commodore 64's and TRS-80's...?!?! To call the Shuttle program a "failure" is ludicrous. it is the plain and simple truth Nope. What it is is a bit of failed argument on your part. You need to be reading something other than "Pagan Monthly", Mark. Most of all, the amazingly complex technology of the Space Shuttle hasn't been adequate to prevent two complete losses of vehicle and crew. amazing complex I slikely part of the reason they were lost and NASA refusual to listen to anybody else What, Mark? As for Jim's comments, I ask WHAT transportation technology has proven itself 100% error free? I just watched a special on Discovery Channel about a Canadian Airbus that had to deadstick into the Azores because there was a fuel leak and the crew absolutely refused to believe the technology (read that "the gauges") that were telling them they were losing fuel. And there are countless "recalls" of motor vehicles due to design, engineering and manufacturing errors. They've been building motor vehicles for over a century now...the last Shuttle as finished in what...1992? Now some may scoff at these words from a non-rocket-scientist. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one. It doesn't take a Von Braun to see that if your mission-vital systems like the reentry heat shield are exposed to being hit at hypersonic speeds by anything from a bird to ice to foam, there's a good chance of damage on the way up that will result in big trouble on the way down. now you are fibbing jim Challenger blew up becuase NASA decided that PR was more important than safety, the problem was Oring, not the heat sheild What "fibbing", Mark? Jim said the Chalenger was destroyed by a heat shiled related problem No he didn't. You didn't understand what he wrote. Allow me. QUOTE: Jim said, quote: But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one. Where is there a "fib" in there, Mark? taking stuff out of context ...again Nope. Mark, that was quoted line-for-line from YOUR post. Are you now saying that YOU took it out of context? Becasue there it is.... ONCE MORE FOR MARK'S EDIFICATION: Now some may scoff at these words from a non-rocket-scientist. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one. END QUOTE. Now...WHERE did Jim say Challenger's probelm was a heat shield issue? (Now patiently awating Mark to acknowledge he mis-read Jim's post where he DID say that COLUMBIA'S problem was due to exposing the heat shield to a foreign object strike) And there was no ONE fault in the Challenger tragedy...it was a compilation of errors that resulted in the mishap. Any positive effort to mitigate any of the contributing factors may well have resulted in a different outcome. None of this is meant to belittle the accomplishments of NASA or the bravery of the Space Shuttle crews. It does seem odd, though, that such bravery should even be needed after 30 years and billions of dollars spent on the Space Shuttle program. Perhaps the most important legacy of the Space Shuttle will be the lessons learned from its problems... not by NASA, the poor folks have lost thier way it is sad realy Oh? And you base this opinion upon what credentials or experience? experence sure I got it I have folowed the Space program as far back as I can remember I remember it back to BEFORE the first Mercury shots went up. I got to follow each Mercury, Gemini and Apollo misison, INCLUDING Apollo-Soyuz. That includes the Skylab missions. We started in 60 with the Goal of getting to the moon and we did then we started to build a space born truck that was supposed to reach GEO stationary orbit and be able to turn around in 2 weeks we settled for LEO and months of turnaround We haven't "settled" for anything yet. Steve, K4YZ |
|
Russia could, China might be able to, NASA would need a lot more
|
K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote: wrote: What does this have to do with ham radio? Plenty! For one thing, ham radio is mentioned in the second article. mentioned Yep. Did anyone besides me actually read the articles I linked? The Space Shuttle was promoted as the "next big thing" in space travel - as a "space truck" that would cut the cost of getting to orbit, reducing the waste of one-time rockets, etc. We were told of turnaround times of a few weeks, and missions costing 10 to 20 million dollars total - none of which has ever come to pass, 30 years after the program began. yea the shutle was and is a failure Based upon WHAT data, Mark? It's a fact that the Space Shuttle program has not reached *some* of the goals set for it. OTOH it has reached and exceeded some of the goals, too. The Space Shuttle program is neither a complete success nor a total failure. It's done many great things, but not everything that was expected. But that's not the point I was making. That people have been killed flying it? So what? No Americans died flying the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo missions. The Apollo 1 fire that killed astronauts Grissom, Chaffee and White happened during a ground training/checkout session. People die on commecial airliners on a monthly basis. Are airliners a failure? There's a big difference. The chances of dying in a commercial airliner accident are extremely small. The failure rate of commercial airline flights (where "failure" equals "people died") is extremely small. In fact if you drive to the airport, fly around the world on First World commercial airliners (returning to your point of origin), and drive home, the most dangerous part of the trip is the drive to and from the airport, statistically speaking. I've read reports that the reliability of the Space Shuttle (where "reliability" equals "chances there will be a total loss-of-mission-and-crew accident") was calculated to be between 1 in 75 to 1 in 250. Unfortunately those calculations have been quite accurate. But that's not the point I ws making. E V E R Y future manned space mission, near or deep space, will be predicated upon missions learned from the Space Shuttle era. That, in-and-of iteslf makes the Shuttle Program a success. No, that's just one of the successes of the Space Shuttle program. What wasn't promoted nearly so heavily was its planned role as a Cold War DoD resource, for doing things like snatching Soviet satellites from polar orbit, and setting up SDI platforms. Nor the predicted failure rate of about 1 in 100. yep the shuttle is and has been from its first launch a failure at preforming the missions promised The "shuttle" has never failed in performing it's mission. Of the two catastrophic failures of Shuttle missions, one was due to the boosters carrying it, and the other was due to damage inflicted on the orbiter by its', ahem...booster. We can "implicate" NASA safety deficits as a morbidly contributing factor. We can also implicate the extreme complexity of the system, too. Also the basic design. In the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions, the main rockets were all below/behind the capsule that had the people inside. Stuff falling off the rockets could not hit the capsule. The reentry rockets and heatshield were hidden away under the capsule, and not exposed to damage from outside until it was almost time to use them. The Shuttle's tiles are out in the breeze the whole time. that it has some use is of course true That is was and continues to be a scientific milestone of our age is even more true. Yet it's less expensive to launch satellites using a one-use rocket like the Ariane. That it's obviously in need of re-engineering is true too, but then what machine made by man was ever cast in one form then NOT "re-engineered" for better performance? We're still driving cars that (mostly) use internal-combustion gasoline-burning piston engines. The changes in them have been evolutionary, not revolutionary. Can you imagine where the "Internet" would be if we were all still using Commodore 64's and TRS-80's...?!?! If you're using a Wintel machine, you are basically using an upgraded IBM PC AT. To call the Shuttle program a "failure" is ludicrous. Agreed - it's too complex to be described by a single word. Most of all, the amazingly complex technology of the Space Shuttle hasn't been adequate to prevent two complete losses of vehicle and crew. amazing complex I slikely part of the reason they were lost and NASA refusual to listen to anybody else What, Mark? As for Jim's comments, I ask WHAT transportation technology has proven itself 100% error free? I just watched a special on Discovery Channel about a Canadian Airbus that had to deadstick into the Azores because there was a fuel leak and the crew absolutely refused to believe the technology (read that "the gauges") that were telling them they were losing fuel. Yet nobody died on that flight. And there are countless "recalls" of motor vehicles due to design, engineering and manufacturing errors. They've been building motor vehicles for over a century now...the last Shuttle as finished in what...1992? Shall we do the Challenger/Titanic parallels again? Now some may scoff at these words from a non-rocket-scientist. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one. It doesn't take a Von Braun to see that if your mission-vital systems like the reentry heat shield are exposed to being hit at hypersonic speeds by anything from a bird to ice to foam, there's a good chance of damage on the way up that will result in big trouble on the way down. now you are fibbing jim Challenger blew up becuase NASA decided that PR was more important than safety, the problem was Oring, not the heat sheild What "fibbing", Mark? Jim said, quote: But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one. Where is there a "fib" in there, Mark? You're missing the point, Steve. And there was no ONE fault in the Challenger tragedy...it was a compilation of errors that resulted in the mishap. Any positive effort to mitigate any of the contributing factors may well have resulted in a different outcome. None of this is meant to belittle the accomplishments of NASA or the bravery of the Space Shuttle crews. It does seem odd, though, that such bravery should even be needed after 30 years and billions of dollars spent on the Space Shuttle program. Perhaps the most important legacy of the Space Shuttle will be the lessons learned from its problems... not by NASA, the poor folks have lost thier way it is sad realy Oh? And you base this opinion upon what credentials or experience? Do not be distracted from the main point, Steve. Here it is again: The Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs used "disposable" rockets and capsules. The Shuttle was a radical departure from that design philosophy, meant to be reusable and economic. But in reality, some of the Shuttle's goals have not been met, and never will be. Now NASA is looking at the disposable-rocket/capsule idea again for the next generation of people-carrying space flights. See the point? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: K4YZ wrote: an_old_friend wrote: wrote: What does this have to do with ham radio? Plenty! For one thing, ham radio is mentioned in the second article. mentioned Yep. The Space Shuttle was promoted as the "next big thing" in space travel - as a "space truck" that would cut the cost of getting to orbit, reducing the waste of one-time rockets, etc. We were told of turnaround times of a few weeks, and missions costing 10 to 20 million dollars total - none of which has ever come to pass, 30 years after the program began. yea the shutle was and is a failure Based upon WHAT data, Mark? Based on the specs when the project started break The shuttle was supposed to take cargo to Geostationary orbit instaed NASA settled for LEO And who says it can't? NASA The Shuttle does (and today proved) that is can and does operate in the manner designed for... nope not even close it misses the mark by a mere 20,000 miles or there abouts And unless I missed something, this mission flew some part of every profile that the Shuttle was envisoned doing. only the first 200 miles of the 23,000 some part indeed That people have been killed flying it? So what? People die on commecial airliners on a monthly basis. Are airliners a failure? as normal off target and not related Sure it's "on target" and absolutely related. Not really and it is unrelated that Men died is bad of course but that men died isn't the reason the shuttle is a failure, although it was supposed ot bring the men back alive YOU suggested, without explaining why, that the Shuttle was a failure. I certainly explained why It can't reach the orbits it was designed for that is failure People have died on Shuttle missions. That is a fact. The fact that people HAVE died on Shuttle missions IS a popular argument for the program's termination by those who think that "space travel" ought to be like flying on the Starship Enterprise of TV fame. so what? again off target and ilrelavant E V E R Y future manned space mission, near or deep space, will be predicated upon missions learned from the Space Shuttle era. That, in-and-of iteslf makes the Shuttle Program a success. wrong again Stevie, your premise that learning from something means the something was a sucess Oh? It seems to be an adequate-enough justification for every scientist since the dawn of time. What's your rationale for stating otherwise? failure to meet it goals that we have learned something from thsi failure is a good thing but it is still a failure and you realy don't undersatnd science stavie you just don't Yes we have learned a great deal from the Shuttle, which we would regrardless of wether it was a sucess or failure, Indeed we Likely will learn more from it being a failure than we would have from a success I bet not. you still owe me 500$ from your last bet We've learned more about orbital dynamics and extra vehicular working than we would have in a million "deep tank" simulations. which has nothing to do with anything under discusion What wasn't promoted nearly so heavily was its planned role as a Cold War DoD resource, for doing things like snatching Soviet satellites from polar orbit, and setting up SDI platforms. Nor the predicted failure rate of about 1 in 100. yep the shuttle is and has been from its first launch a failure at preforming the missions promised The "shuttle" has never failed in performing it's mission. the Shuttle can't fufill the mission it was designed for It can't fulfill what it's already surpassed, Mark? It can't deviler what it promised BTW Id call the last mission f Chalenger and Colombia failures the Shuttle has falied utterly in being able to try it designed for mission Oh? yep "utterly"...?!?! only come 20,000 out of 23,000 miles short I call that utterly I take the word "utterly" to mean a nearly complete failure of all designed mission parameters. well a major mission was satelite repair, geo sat repair, It has never manged that it has never manged to reach teh desred orbit of its planers The Challenger and Columbia disaters notwithstanding, I'd say YOUR suggestion is unsubstantiated at many, MANY levels. No It is on the record from NASA, they defined the mission mid ay though building the shuttles to a new and lessor mission set The Shuttle has always failed to met it original mission parameters The Shuttle is the best real world example of Dumbing down expectations Sure glad we have you to counter lots of REAL scientists who have said otherwise, Mark! not really and it is the engineers that say so Of the two catastrophic failures of Shuttle missions, one was due to the boosters carrying it, and the other was due to damage inflicted on the orbiter by its', ahem...booster. We can "implicate" NASA safety deficits as a morbidly contributing factor. that it has some use is of course true That is was and continues to be a scientific milestone of our age is even more true. milstone yea it is that That it's obviously in need of re-engineering is true too, but then what machine made by man was ever cast in one form then NOT "re-engineered" for better performance? that reengineering is not even planned for the shuttle shows it failure What do you mean that there's no re-engineering planned? They just got done with 2 years of it... not really and nothing on the board to suceed the shuttle in five years they have tried to cover the failures and cobbled together nature of the beast Can you imagine where the "Internet" would be if we were all still using Commodore 64's and TRS-80's...?!?! To call the Shuttle program a "failure" is ludicrous. it is the plain and simple truth Nope. What it is is a bit of failed argument on your part. No just a case of you eading Press releases rather than looking at the facts, but nothing new there You need to be reading something other than "Pagan Monthly", Mark. more bashing Most of all, the amazingly complex technology of the Space Shuttle hasn't been adequate to prevent two complete losses of vehicle and crew. amazing complex I slikely part of the reason they were lost and NASA refusual to listen to anybody else What, Mark? As for Jim's comments, I ask WHAT transportation technology has proven itself 100% error free? I just watched a special on Discovery Channel about a Canadian Airbus that had to deadstick into the Azores because there was a fuel leak and the crew absolutely refused to believe the technology (read that "the gauges") that were telling them they were losing fuel. And there are countless "recalls" of motor vehicles due to design, engineering and manufacturing errors. They've been building motor vehicles for over a century now...the last Shuttle as finished in what...1992? Now some may scoff at these words from a non-rocket-scientist. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what went wrong in the Challenger disaster, nor in the Columbia one. It doesn't take a Von Braun to see that if your mission-vital systems like the reentry heat shield are exposed to being hit at hypersonic speeds by anything from a bird to ice to foam, there's a good chance of damage on the way up that will result in big trouble on the way down. now you are fibbing jim Challenger blew up becuase NASA decided that PR was more important than safety, the problem was Oring, not the heat sheild What "fibbing", Mark? Jim said the Chalenger was destroyed by a heat shiled related problem No he didn't. cutinng more of stevie out of context rating And there was no ONE fault in the Challenger tragedy...it was a compilation of errors that resulted in the mishap. Any positive effort to mitigate any of the contributing factors may well have resulted in a different outcome. None of this is meant to belittle the accomplishments of NASA or the bravery of the Space Shuttle crews. It does seem odd, though, that such bravery should even be needed after 30 years and billions of dollars spent on the Space Shuttle program. Perhaps the most important legacy of the Space Shuttle will be the lessons learned from its problems... not by NASA, the poor folks have lost thier way it is sad realy Oh? And you base this opinion upon what credentials or experience? experence sure I got it I have folowed the Space program as far back as I can remember I remember it back to BEFORE the first Mercury shots went up. I got to follow each Mercury, Gemini and Apollo misison, INCLUDING Apollo-Soyuz. That includes the Skylab missions. so? you are older than I we all knew that We started in 60 with the Goal of getting to the moon and we did then we started to build a space born truck that was supposed to reach GEO stationary orbit and be able to turn around in 2 weeks we settled for LEO and months of turnaround We haven't "settled" for anything yet. we sure did Steve, K4YZ |
NASA could not but maybe the Russians or even the Chiness likely could
|
|
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 |
John Smith wrote:
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. Why can't we have both? And what constitutes military superiority in space? A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests... What's needed is a long-term path to energy independence that's not run by a large bureaucratic organization, nor that is politically beholden to so many groups. Which pretty much leaves government out of the picture. -- The problem is bigger than fuel - it's all about how Americans live and what they expect life to be like. Also their isolation from cause-and-effect. For example, it's easy to say the solution is to require better gas mileage from new cars. Right now the price of gasoline focuses attention on gas-guzzling SUVs and the like. But if the price of gasoline drops to, say, under $2/gallon, too many people forget all about the problem, and buy themselves a Hummer. Gasoline may seem expensive today, as the price nears $3/gal in some places. But when you adjust for inflation, the price isn't that high, compared to, say, the late 1970s. The problems go way beyond gasoline. The big question is whether Americans will change the way they live in order to achieve energy independence. From what I've seen in the past 20-25 years, the answer is pretty much "no". Or rather, "HELL NO!" What's more, the solutions are complex. A 20 mpg minivan isn't the most efficient vehicle in the world - unless you have, say, six people aboard, who would otherwise be in separate vehicles. One 20 mpg van with six passengers is more energy-efficient than six 100 mpg supereconoboxes. But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their consumption of energy to balance the equation? That's the real challenge. Much tougher problems than space flight, because if the solutions can't survive in the real-world marketplace, they'll disappear. 25 years ago I bought a new car that got 40 mpg city, 50 mpg highway, and met all the pollution and safety regs. The descendants of such cars still exist today. But how many are sold? There *are* new processes out there, like TDP. Might be snake oil, might be the real thing. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, and get the good systems working? Priorities need to be examined here... Agreed. But do you think the current administration will deal with it in any way that will result in energy self-sufficiency? Heck, Shrub thinks "intelligent design" (which is just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo") is real science - but that global warming isn't. How much are *you* willing to change, spend, and give up for energy independence? |
N2EY:
Well, if you know a way to force some private corp or corps into starting now, go for it, I don't--but we can, as american citizens, fund development of alternative energy sources and hire employees to do it for us. "Military superiority?" Simple, that is the ability to win any conflict another nation or nations may engage us in--or, if that fails, to totally destroy their country so that if there are any survivors here, we may at least begin to try to put things together again with out a evil foreign powers control. Perhaps you have an alternative energy source you are working on in your garage, if so, step forward man, all I see are a bunch of kooks with "free energy devices", and while a free energy device may indeed be possible, all I have seen are scams! John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:56:44 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: 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. Why can't we have both? And what constitutes military superiority in space? A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests... What's needed is a long-term path to energy independence that's not run by a large bureaucratic organization, nor that is politically beholden to so many groups. Which pretty much leaves government out of the picture. -- The problem is bigger than fuel - it's all about how Americans live and what they expect life to be like. Also their isolation from cause-and-effect. For example, it's easy to say the solution is to require better gas mileage from new cars. Right now the price of gasoline focuses attention on gas-guzzling SUVs and the like. But if the price of gasoline drops to, say, under $2/gallon, too many people forget all about the problem, and buy themselves a Hummer. Gasoline may seem expensive today, as the price nears $3/gal in some places. But when you adjust for inflation, the price isn't that high, compared to, say, the late 1970s. The problems go way beyond gasoline. The big question is whether Americans will change the way they live in order to achieve energy independence. From what I've seen in the past 20-25 years, the answer is pretty much "no". Or rather, "HELL NO!" What's more, the solutions are complex. A 20 mpg minivan isn't the most efficient vehicle in the world - unless you have, say, six people aboard, who would otherwise be in separate vehicles. One 20 mpg van with six passengers is more energy-efficient than six 100 mpg supereconoboxes. But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their consumption of energy to balance the equation? That's the real challenge. Much tougher problems than space flight, because if the solutions can't survive in the real-world marketplace, they'll disappear. 25 years ago I bought a new car that got 40 mpg city, 50 mpg highway, and met all the pollution and safety regs. The descendants of such cars still exist today. But how many are sold? There *are* new processes out there, like TDP. Might be snake oil, might be the real thing. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, and get the good systems working? Priorities need to be examined here... Agreed. But do you think the current administration will deal with it in any way that will result in energy self-sufficiency? Heck, Shrub thinks "intelligent design" (which is just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo") is real science - but that global warming isn't. How much are *you* willing to change, spend, and give up for energy independence? |
wrote But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their consumption of energy to balance the equation? I just love you east-coast liberals with your "feel-good conservation village" notions. Such societies exist (in Europe primarily) --- if you want to live in one, move there. Personally, I prefer my fuel-inefficient 6.0L 32-valve turbocharged engine to your "50mpg highway" wimp-mobile. Since I'm willing to pay the price to run it, and enjoy the freedom it gives me, your "walkable towns" have zero appeal to me. Sooner or later, of course, the democrats will again ascend to power and attemp to social-engineer such crapola into the law of the land, rather than inconvenience a few reindeer with drilling rigs in the neighborhood. beep beep de Hans, K0HB |
N2EY:
Most of these guys will soon be checking into motorized wheelchairs, if they aren't already driving one... those walkers get tiring yanno! John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:56:44 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: 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. Why can't we have both? And what constitutes military superiority in space? A scientific project on the scale of NASA and designed to develop a new fuel, or new fuels, would be in our best interests... What's needed is a long-term path to energy independence that's not run by a large bureaucratic organization, nor that is politically beholden to so many groups. Which pretty much leaves government out of the picture. -- The problem is bigger than fuel - it's all about how Americans live and what they expect life to be like. Also their isolation from cause-and-effect. For example, it's easy to say the solution is to require better gas mileage from new cars. Right now the price of gasoline focuses attention on gas-guzzling SUVs and the like. But if the price of gasoline drops to, say, under $2/gallon, too many people forget all about the problem, and buy themselves a Hummer. Gasoline may seem expensive today, as the price nears $3/gal in some places. But when you adjust for inflation, the price isn't that high, compared to, say, the late 1970s. The problems go way beyond gasoline. The big question is whether Americans will change the way they live in order to achieve energy independence. From what I've seen in the past 20-25 years, the answer is pretty much "no". Or rather, "HELL NO!" What's more, the solutions are complex. A 20 mpg minivan isn't the most efficient vehicle in the world - unless you have, say, six people aboard, who would otherwise be in separate vehicles. One 20 mpg van with six passengers is more energy-efficient than six 100 mpg supereconoboxes. But will most people carpool? Will they pay for public transit, wind farms, and higher-efficiency appliances? Will they live in walkable towns and cities rather than sprawling into suburbia where every trip requires a car? How much are Americans willing to reduce their consumption of energy to balance the equation? That's the real challenge. Much tougher problems than space flight, because if the solutions can't survive in the real-world marketplace, they'll disappear. 25 years ago I bought a new car that got 40 mpg city, 50 mpg highway, and met all the pollution and safety regs. The descendants of such cars still exist today. But how many are sold? There *are* new processes out there, like TDP. Might be snake oil, might be the real thing. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, and get the good systems working? Priorities need to be examined here... Agreed. But do you think the current administration will deal with it in any way that will result in energy self-sufficiency? Heck, Shrub thinks "intelligent design" (which is just "creationism in a cheap tuxedo") is real science - but that global warming isn't. How much are *you* willing to change, spend, and give up for energy independence? |
commander:
Why two-thirds of the oceans are composed of hydrogen, and the oceans themselves cover two-thirds of the planets surface... course it takes more energy to get the hydrogen out of the sea water than you get back when you burn/use the hydrogen--but, if we can develop a new generation energy source so we have cheap and abundant energy to extract the hydrogen from sea water!!! However, at that time watch, some A$$HOLES will step forward and ask the question, "Why not just use the cheap and abundant source of newly developed energy directly, and not be wasteful in converting sea water to hydrogen and oxygen--there are always trouble makers yanno... John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:29:18 -0700, Cmdr Buzz corey wrote: Nomen Nescio wrote: Hydrogen fuel cells, bountiful, renewable resource. So what non-poluting source are you going to generate all this hydrogen from? |
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 |
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Hydrogen fuel cells, bountiful, renewable resource. So what non-poluting source are you going to generate all this hydrogen from? |
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 |
John Smith wrote:
commander: Why two-thirds of the oceans are composed of hydrogen, and the oceans themselves cover two-thirds of the planets surface... course it takes more energy to get the hydrogen out of the sea water than you get back when you burn/use hydrogen--but, if we can develop a new generation energy source so we have cheap and abundant energy to extract the hydrogen from What are the byproducts? - Mike - |
Mike:
Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen you get water, and that is all... John On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:52:28 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: commander: Why two-thirds of the oceans are composed of hydrogen, and the oceans themselves cover two-thirds of the planets surface... course it takes more energy to get the hydrogen out of the sea water than you get back when you burn/use hydrogen--but, if we can develop a new generation energy source so we have cheap and abundant energy to extract the hydrogen from What are the byproducts? - Mike - |
John Smith wrote:
Mike: Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen you get water, and that is all... And if we should ever get hydrogen powered cars, watch the tree huggers complain about all the water on the streets. |
John Smith wrote:
Mike: Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen you get water, and that is all... John What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen? Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue. Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density. Interestingly enough, a gallon of gasoline contains more hydrogen than a gallon of liquid H2 - it's a great way to store hydrogen. But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2 would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water) So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct. Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the first place. On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:52:28 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: commander: Why two-thirds of the oceans are composed of hydrogen, and the oceans themselves cover two-thirds of the planets surface... course it takes more energy to get the hydrogen out of the sea water than you get back when you burn/use hydrogen--but, if we can develop a new generation energy source so we have cheap and abundant energy to extract the hydrogen from What are the byproducts? - mike KB3EIA - |
Cmdr Buzz corey wrote: John Smith wrote: Mike: Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen you get water, and that is all... And if we should ever get hydrogen powered cars, watch the tree huggers complain about all the water on the streets. And I wan't talking about the byproducts of burning Hydrogen. I was talking about the byproducts of producing hydrogen. Specifically making H2 from seawater..... You don't need to be a treehugger to have a problem with that one. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 |
Michael:
I figured out the problem, you don't have a news reader which threads posts, or you are NOT using it correctly. Don't pose my EXACT same arguments back to me, YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT WHEN YOU DO! Else, you haste for character assassination has drive you over the edge. Get a clue man--you are on the verge of looking like some insane, blathering nut case! Give us a break! John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:25:30 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: Mike: Last time I took a chemistry class, when you burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen you get water, and that is all... John What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen? Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue. Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density. Interestingly enough, a gallon of gasoline contains more hydrogen than a gallon of liquid H2 - it's a great way to store hydrogen. But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2 would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water) So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct. Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the first place. On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:52:28 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: John Smith wrote: commander: Why two-thirds of the oceans are composed of hydrogen, and the oceans themselves cover two-thirds of the planets surface... course it takes more energy to get the hydrogen out of the sea water than you get back when you burn/use hydrogen--but, if we can develop a new generation energy source so we have cheap and abundant energy to extract the hydrogen from What are the byproducts? - mike KB3EIA - |
Michael Coslo wrote: What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen? Mostly salt. Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue. Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density. Which means it is compressed and your fuel tank becomes a highpressure canister. Not only is the stuff flammable, like gasoline, but it's under high pressure. Two ways to go boom. But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2 would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water) So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct. Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the first place. Maybe. There are all sorts of possible technologies to extract, transport and store hydrogen. For example, there's work being done to store the gas in metal hydrides. It could be extracted by using electricity made photovoltaically. Etc. The big question is whether such processes can be made economically competitive. How much will a hydrogen car cost? How much will they cost to drive per mile? What are the maintenance costs? The big problem is that there's probably no single magic long-term solution. Rather there are a bunch of small solutions that add up. Here's two favorites of mine: Imagine a tall (couple of hundred feet) hollow tower, in the desert. A vertical pipe, as it were, with holes around the bottom. Around its base is a large circular greenhouse whose roof slants toward the tower. When the sun is out, the air under the greenhouse roof is heated, and rises. This creates an artificial wind towards the tower. The warmed air goes up the tower, which contains a wind-driven generator. Works whether or not there is a breeze. The generator and its impeller are near ground level. Etc. also There's a process called TDP (Thermal Depolymerization Process) that can supposedly break down various types of waste into fuel oil, gas and other usable products. For example, there's a pilot plant here in Philadelphia that takes sewage sludge (ugh) and breaks it down into a type of fuel oil, methane gas, water, and some other things that are usable as fertilizer. The result is also sterilized. Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it. The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas, steel, fiberglass and carbon black. The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself. Of course the above pilot plants produce fuel at the rate of a few hundred barrels a day. It's doubtful that either of the above will solve all our energy problems. It's also unclear as to whether they are economically feasible on a large scale. But if they are doable, they can sure help. In the case of TDP, a big part of the waste-disposal problem can be dealt with. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY:
As far as the danger of hydrogen, it is safer than gasoline, in an accident--hydrogen being lighter than air heads for the far upper atmosphere, gasoline lays around you burning (really bad if you are trapped in the vehicle.) In a hydrogen explosion more energy is directed upwards, in the direction of the hydrogen itself, with gasoline the energy is expended outwards towards people and property... hydrogens danger from a "spill" quickly disappears, gasoline/diesel stays there a long time... Gasoline/diesel is toxic and is devastating to the environment, hydrogen is almost benign (but large scale use would have to evolve to truly know the real consequences.) Danger is not a good reason to skip hydrogens use, propane is much more dangerous than hydrogen and used inside buildings on forklifts and other industrial equipment (even some city buses (and natural gas too) and other vehicles.) Hydrogen is a scam at this point in time, I think it always will be, when you finally have enough energy to remove hydrogen from sea water--why bother, the energy can already be used! But, if some alchemist discovers a way to remove it from sea water with little or no energy, GREAT! But, even hybrid vehicles are mostly a scam at this point, you are wearing out two different systems, maintaining them, with all the related use of energy to do so. And, this ignores the the manufacturing expenditure of energy which occurs in making the extra electrical components for the vehicle. It is mainly a "feels good campaign" used by politicians to soothe the people, and manufacturing for "gov't pork money." It looks to me a lot like putting props on jet aircraft... John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:37:59 -0700, N2EY wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen? Mostly salt. Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue. Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density. Which means it is compressed and your fuel tank becomes a highpressure canister. Not only is the stuff flammable, like gasoline, but it's under high pressure. Two ways to go boom. But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2 would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water) So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct. Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the first place. Maybe. There are all sorts of possible technologies to extract, transport and store hydrogen. For example, there's work being done to store the gas in metal hydrides. It could be extracted by using electricity made photovoltaically. Etc. The big question is whether such processes can be made economically competitive. How much will a hydrogen car cost? How much will they cost to drive per mile? What are the maintenance costs? The big problem is that there's probably no single magic long-term solution. Rather there are a bunch of small solutions that add up. Here's two favorites of mine: Imagine a tall (couple of hundred feet) hollow tower, in the desert. A vertical pipe, as it were, with holes around the bottom. Around its base is a large circular greenhouse whose roof slants toward the tower. When the sun is out, the air under the greenhouse roof is heated, and rises. This creates an artificial wind towards the tower. The warmed air goes up the tower, which contains a wind-driven generator. Works whether or not there is a breeze. The generator and its impeller are near ground level. Etc. also There's a process called TDP (Thermal Depolymerization Process) that can supposedly break down various types of waste into fuel oil, gas and other usable products. For example, there's a pilot plant here in Philadelphia that takes sewage sludge (ugh) and breaks it down into a type of fuel oil, methane gas, water, and some other things that are usable as fertilizer. The result is also sterilized. Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it. The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas, steel, fiberglass and carbon black. The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself. Of course the above pilot plants produce fuel at the rate of a few hundred barrels a day. It's doubtful that either of the above will solve all our energy problems. It's also unclear as to whether they are economically feasible on a large scale. But if they are doable, they can sure help. In the case of TDP, a big part of the waste-disposal problem can be dealt with. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
.... sorry, the post above is mis-placed, I hope he is able to find it! grin .... don't fret, I do that all the time--make mistakes, no reason to point it out, I already am aware of it and working on the problem--problem is, alzheimers is on the way and most likely defeat the efforts of a lifetime. frown John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:51:01 -0700, John Smith wrote: N2EY: As far as the danger of hydrogen, it is safer than gasoline, in an accident--hydrogen being lighter than air heads for the far upper atmosphere, gasoline lays around you burning (really bad if you are trapped in the vehicle.) In a hydrogen explosion more energy is directed upwards, in the direction of the hydrogen itself, with gasoline the energy is expended outwards towards people and property... hydrogens danger from a "spill" quickly disappears, gasoline/diesel stays there a long time... Gasoline/diesel is toxic and is devastating to the environment, hydrogen is almost benign (but large scale use would have to evolve to truly know the real consequences.) Danger is not a good reason to skip hydrogens use, propane is much more dangerous than hydrogen and used inside buildings on forklifts and other industrial equipment (even some city buses (and natural gas too) and other vehicles.) Hydrogen is a scam at this point in time, I think it always will be, when you finally have enough energy to remove hydrogen from sea water--why bother, the energy can already be used! But, if some alchemist discovers a way to remove it from sea water with little or no energy, GREAT! But, even hybrid vehicles are mostly a scam at this point, you are wearing out two different systems, maintaining them, with all the related use of energy to do so. And, this ignores the the manufacturing expenditure of energy which occurs in making the extra electrical components for the vehicle. It is mainly a "feels good campaign" used by politicians to soothe the people, and manufacturing for "gov't pork money." It looks to me a lot like putting props on jet aircraft... John On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:37:59 -0700, N2EY wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: What are the byproducts of converting seawater to hydrogen and oxygen? Mostly salt. Hydrogen is seen as some sort of saving angel in the energy issue. Producing the hydrogen is a bit of a problem though. It takes a lot of energy to produce it. It has a pretty low volumetric energy density. Which means it is compressed and your fuel tank becomes a highpressure canister. Not only is the stuff flammable, like gasoline, but it's under high pressure. Two ways to go boom. But to the problem at hand, a somewhat practical method of producing H2 would be to electrolyze it, using Nuc power. The electrolysis plant would probably be set up near the ocean (let's not even talk of fresh water production - just ask the folks on the left coast about fresh water) So now we have an extraction plant that is powered by an unpopular power source, and has one big nasty polluting byproduct. Or we can use the other methods of generating H2. Of course, they cause as much pollution producing the fuel as if we just used the fuel in the first place. Maybe. There are all sorts of possible technologies to extract, transport and store hydrogen. For example, there's work being done to store the gas in metal hydrides. It could be extracted by using electricity made photovoltaically. Etc. The big question is whether such processes can be made economically competitive. How much will a hydrogen car cost? How much will they cost to drive per mile? What are the maintenance costs? The big problem is that there's probably no single magic long-term solution. Rather there are a bunch of small solutions that add up. Here's two favorites of mine: Imagine a tall (couple of hundred feet) hollow tower, in the desert. A vertical pipe, as it were, with holes around the bottom. Around its base is a large circular greenhouse whose roof slants toward the tower. When the sun is out, the air under the greenhouse roof is heated, and rises. This creates an artificial wind towards the tower. The warmed air goes up the tower, which contains a wind-driven generator. Works whether or not there is a breeze. The generator and its impeller are near ground level. Etc. also There's a process called TDP (Thermal Depolymerization Process) that can supposedly break down various types of waste into fuel oil, gas and other usable products. For example, there's a pilot plant here in Philadelphia that takes sewage sludge (ugh) and breaks it down into a type of fuel oil, methane gas, water, and some other things that are usable as fertilizer. The result is also sterilized. Another plant in Carthage, MO, takes the waste from a turkey-processing plant and extracts oil, gas and some other products from it. The company claims that many other feedstocks can be used. Old tires, a chronic disposal problem, can allegedly be broken down into oil, gas, steel, fiberglass and carbon black. The process supposedly uses 15% of the product to run itself. Of course the above pilot plants produce fuel at the rate of a few hundred barrels a day. It's doubtful that either of the above will solve all our energy problems. It's also unclear as to whether they are economically feasible on a large scale. But if they are doable, they can sure help. In the case of TDP, a big part of the waste-disposal problem can be dealt with. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com