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

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.

mentioned

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


break

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

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


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

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

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

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