Re: BTW Stevie were watch the news lately about NASA


Mike Coslo wrote:
> N2EY@xxxxxxx 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

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: should space shuttle be cancelled?
    ... So the environment causing stress on the shuttle caused the break-up. ... No space launch system has ever come close ... NASA has not yet owned a manned space vehicle that could be considered ... > All this proves is that the *shuttle* is a fragile design. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article
    ... > always run the risk of things falling off and damaging the vehicle. ... I think the big advantage of the "stick" design is that the orbital ... As long as NASA is told it can't fly until it fixes the foam, ... People complain about the shuttle being a 1970s vehicle. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... >> If the shuttle really is a death trap, ... >> design and build something newer and better then put it out there to ... >is, literally an *experimental* vehicle. ... were to have been lifted to the space station with Saturn V's produced ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... >>> If the shuttle really is a death trap, ... >>> design and build something newer and better then put it out there to ... the Air Force came in and told NASA that they'd support the ... But, as you say, it was really an experimental vehicle ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: National Aerospace Plane (X-30) announced 20 years ago
    ... :>:philosophy used for design, flight test, and operations that you'd ... Is a philosophy and process appropriate to pursuit of a prize ... :order to win the prize that would not be made for a commercial vehicle. ... The technology developed at a very ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)