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

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

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

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

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

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

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.


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.

One of the statistics that is trotted out when speaking of airline
safety is passenger miles. I suspect the shuttle would fare *very* well
if we applied passenger miles to it! ;^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
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.


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.

One of the statistics that is trotted out when
speaking of airline
safety is passenger miles. I suspect the shuttle
would fare *very* well
if we applied passenger miles to it! ;^)

Not really.

Let's do the math...

The following are rough numbers. Those willing to do more looking-up
are invited to give more exact numbers, and see how close my
approximations are.

IIRC, there have been 113 Shuttle missions that "went the distance" so
far. Missions last about a week and have about seven astronauts on each
one.

Orbital velocity is about 18,000 miles per hour and a week is 168 hours
long.

So a typical mission is about 3 million miles long. With seven
astronauts aboard, that's 21 million passenger miles per mission.

113 x 21 = about 2.4 billion passenger miles in the entire shuttle
history.

But two missions ended with total loss of the crew - 14 deaths. That's
one death for every 171 million passenger miles. Compare that to the
commercial airliner rate...

Or take a look at another measu Number of deaths per million
aircraft departures. Commercial airlines are well under one per
million. The Shuttle is around 1 in 8.

Of course both measures are a bit off the mark. Most commercial airline
accidents have some survivors.

Perhaps the most accurate measure would be "what are the chances that a
flight will be completed without an accident that results in the death
of a passenger? In the case of the Shuttle, the demonstrated odds are 1
in 57. Commercial airliners are a lot better....

73 de Jim, N2EY

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