| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
October 6th 05, 06:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
BTW Stevie were watch the news lately about NASA
did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as
failures |
|
#2
October 6th 05, 08:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
nobodys old friend wrote: did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures Funny...no one else is saying that. Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come. Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it. I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle, esentially 1970's technology, should be updated...Just like the automakers bring out new model years. No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned space program. It's just time to go on to bigger and better. Heck, Mark...The Shuttle's "younger" than YOU are, yet done far more in it's lifetime than you've done in yours. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#3
October 6th 05, 12:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys old friend wrote: did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures Funny...no one else is saying that. I'd like to see a quote of what was actually said. Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did not reach every goal set for them. Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come. Not too many, though... Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it. You really think so? I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle, esentially 1970's technology, should be updated... Agreed! Just like the automakers bring out new model years. More like the automakers rethink the basic design. Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s, and radial tires. No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned space program. Yes, they did. The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of the shuttle system and other design features (like having the heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its success and performance. It's just time to go on to bigger and better. I'd say "smaller and smarter". Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion. Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model" Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities effectively here on earth. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#5
October 6th 05, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: K4YZ wrote: Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did not reach every goal set for them. I am sure that some aspect of "A" mission failed, ergo Mark thinks he can write it off as an "I Win"...If that's what float's his boat, let him be happy. Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come. Not too many, though... ISS is sceheduled to stay manned through 2020-somenthing... But not the shuttle. In fact it's grounded - again. I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle, esentially 1970's technology, should be updated... Agreed! MY biggest disappointment is that we are as close to Mars as we've been in centuries, but we don't have a manned mission there yet. ??? Not sure what you mean, Steve. Going to Mars is at least 100 times more difficult than going to the moon. Mars never gets closer than 30 million miles - more than 100 times farther away than the moon. A Mars mission would be years long rather than a week or two. Martian gravity and atmosphere make the problems even worse. If it costs $100-200 billion or more to go to the moon, what would Mars cost? Just like the automakers bring out new model years. More like the automakers rethink the basic design. Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s, and radial tires. And 20 years from now they'll look back at THOSE cars and laugh... "THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now... Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy (almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the 1970s. Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy problems? The White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of what needs to be done for the future, but where's the leadership? Forward...always forward... The question is: which way is "forward"? Should we all drive SUVs? No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned space program. Yes, they did. Oh? Yes. They were going to fly the Shuttle and then call it quits after that? No. They said that the future of space flight was in reusable craft rather than one-use rockets. Turns out the reusables have not solved the problems. The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of the shuttle system and other design features (like having the heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its success and performance. That doesn't support an "opposition" to what I said... Yes, it does. The "old" one-shot rockets are almost certainly the key to the "way forward"... It's just time to go on to bigger and better. I'd say "smaller and smarter". Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion. Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model" Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities effectively here on earth. Several issues there, Jim. First of all, much of the radio and TV media had been talking about the storm swinging wide and not causing "that much" damage. Not the TV and radio I saw! That was misleading and I am sure "reassured" the local populace that this was rideable. Yet the NWS said the opposite. Secondly, the topography is such that moving mass numbers of folks OUT of NO in a hurry is a gridlock nightmare in and of itself. All the more reason to get out early. And what about Houston? Why was that evacuation such a fiasco? You can't blame it on the Dems... Third, the residents themselves have to swallow some culpability for CHOOSING to live on a below-sea level chunk of real estate in a region known for hurricaines and high sea states. Agreed - and so can the various levels of govt. for allowing and encouraging them to live there and build more. The govt. builds the levees and issues the building permits. If we become so presumptuous as to assume the government can bail us out of each and every conceiveable disaster, there will be precious little money left for anything else. I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away. Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into rebuilding than it would take to relocate? Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession alone that have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down" effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and deep felt. Can you guarantee that those advances would not have happened if the money had been spent on research in the fields directly affected? IOW, why not simply go after a problem directly? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#6
October 6th 05, 11:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
October 7th 05, 11:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
October 7th 05, 03:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures Funny...no one else is saying that. I'd like to see a quote of what was actually said. Me too. I did a web search, and didn't find anything. Mark, can you give us a source? Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did not reach every goal set for them. The shuttle is our attempt to do a job with 1970's (and some earlier) technology. As such, it was a huge task that we were barely able to produce to do some of the goals that were set. The good news is that we were able to get it off the ground and into space. The bad news (and I don't really consider it that) is that it is an expensive and finicky bitch. Would we produce it that way today? Not even. Time moved on, technology advanced, and I have no doubt that that a machine produced with 2000's technology would be much safer, less expensive to produce and maintain, and much more capable. But to call it a failure is absolutely wrong, and misses the whole point. We DID make several machines that DID ride to orbit, DID perform their missions, DID return to earth, and DID outfit for many return trips to space. It is interesting that the failures in the system that led to the loss of two of the orbiters were due to peripheral systems that failed largely to human error. Some failure. Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come. Not too many, though... Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it. You really think so? I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle, esentially 1970's technology, should be updated... Agreed! Just like the automakers bring out new model years. More like the automakers rethink the basic design. Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s, and radial tires. No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned space program. Yes, they did. The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of the shuttle system and other design features (like having the heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its success and performance. I thing there is some confusion here, Jim. I doubt that the shuttle was designed to be the last "space truck" we ever designed! It's just time to go on to bigger and better. I'd say "smaller and smarter". I dunno. I think that we might be at the point of vehicle specialization now. I can envision a heavy lift vehicle that is just that- a minimalist vehicle that provides basic life support and maneuvering, then returns to earth after delivering its cargo. It could be a reusable vehicle. Wouldn't be quite like the shuttle in that it wouldn't have that expensive main engine on it. Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion. Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model" If people are *not* going to be in space, I support a NASA budget of $0.00 dollars. I support great sums of money going to them if people are going to go to space. And there are plenty of people that feel the same as I do. All the scientists who make the claims about how space science is so much cheaper and safer just don't get it. Their work is cool and all, but they are the tail of the dog.... Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities effectively here on earth. I wouldn't, because the two things aren't related. Reminds me of the old "We can put a man on the moon, so why can't we cure the common cold" questions that used to make the rounds. The failures of the latest hurricane disaster responses are the logical end game of placing people in charge more because of their political connections, and less because of their competency. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#9
October 11th 05, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures Funny...no one else is saying that. I'd like to see a quote of what was actually said. Me too. I did a web search, and didn't find anything. Mark, can you give us a source? Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did not reach every goal set for them. The shuttle is our attempt to do a job with 1970's (and some earlier) technology. As such, it was a huge task that we were barely able to produce to do some of the goals that were set. Well, if you go back to the original design of next generation of space vehicles at the time, you will find that they said that the shuttle could not fullfill its duty in any economic way or physical reality! The good news is that we were able to get it off the ground and into space. The bad news (and I don't really consider it that) is that it is an expensive and finicky bitch. Would we produce it that way today? Not even. Time moved on, technology advanced, and I have no doubt that that a machine produced with 2000's technology would be much safer, less expensive to produce and maintain, and much more capable. But to call it a failure is absolutely wrong, and misses the whole point. We DID make several machines that DID ride to orbit, DID perform their missions, Yes! The exploding Water Baloon in space is worth many billions of dollars: http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/balloon/blob.htm#cool DID return to earth, Some at terrific speeds! and DID outfit for many return trips to space. It is interesting that the failures in the system that led to the loss of two of the orbiters were due to peripheral systems that failed largely to human error. Some failure. Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come. Not too many, though... Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it. You really think so? I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle, esentially 1970's technology, should be updated... Agreed! Just like the automakers bring out new model years. More like the automakers rethink the basic design. Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s, and radial tires. No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned space program. Yes, they did. The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of the shuttle system and other design features (like having the heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its success and performance. I thing there is some confusion here, Jim. I doubt that the shuttle was designed to be the last "space truck" we ever designed! It's just time to go on to bigger and better. I'd say "smaller and smarter". I dunno. I think that we might be at the point of vehicle specialization now. I can envision a heavy lift vehicle that is just that- a minimalist vehicle that provides basic life support and maneuvering, then returns to earth after delivering its cargo. It could be a reusable vehicle. Wouldn't be quite like the shuttle in that it wouldn't have that expensive main engine on it. Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion. Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model" If people are *not* going to be in space, I support a NASA budget of $0.00 dollars. I support great sums of money going to them if people are going to go to space. And there are plenty of people that feel the same as I do. All the scientists who make the claims about how space science is so much cheaper and safer just don't get it. Their work is cool and all, but they are the tail of the dog.... I agree = 0.00 dollars for Space Exploration! Stop All Space Exploration Now: http://wolfbat359.com/space.htm Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities effectively here on earth. I wouldn't, because the two things aren't related. Reminds me of the old "We can put a man on the moon, so why can't we cure the common cold" questions that used to make the rounds. The failures of the latest hurricane disaster responses are the logical end game of placing people in charge more because of their political connections, and less because of their competency. - Mike KB3EIA - Much like putting a Missile Defense Man in Charge of NASA!: http://tinyurl.com/8skkz |
|
#10
October 7th 05, 01:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
K4YZ wrote: nobodys old friend wrote: did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures Funny...no one else is saying that. BUZZ wrong again wildy reported on Foxnews that the head of NASA said that shuttle and ISS are failure cut Steve, K4YZ |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Beware of hams planting dis-information... | CB | |||
| Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
| Open Letter to K1MAN | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
