Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Beware of hams planting dis-information... | CB | |||
Utillity freq List; | Shortwave | |||
Open Letter to K1MAN | Policy |