 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / May 2004If we had spent more $ on the original shuttle design
Do you believe it would still be scheduled for retirement today? Lets imagine a alternate design with launch boost escape, and easier cheaper servicing. Say motors rather than APUs, being rid of those nasty fuels. Liquid boosters rather than solids. Would we still be schudeling their end of life today? The challenger crew, and perhaps the columbia crew may still be alive today. How much of ground shuttles is because people have died? HAVE A GREAT DAY! >Do you believe it would still be scheduled for retirement today? Probably, if the orbiters flew as advertised I'd imagine they'd have flown well beyond the 100 flights per vehicle we were promised by now. >The challenger crew, and perhaps the columbia crew may still be alive today. Fantasy speculation that we could never know. Something else for all we know could have gone wrong. I recall reading in "Deke!" something to this effect: "They've flown 50 shuttle missions and lost one. I guarantee if we flew 50 Apollo missions we'd have killed somebody eventually. As it was we lost one crew on the ground and came damn close to losing another." >How much of ground shuttles is because people have died? I think we'd be having this same discussion of retiring the shuttles if Columbia held together long enough to allow the crew to bail out. At least, I hope we would. -A.L. >Would we still be schudeling their end of life today? Yes. Because at the end of the day, they are still getting long in the tooth. (That day might not be as soon as currently contemplated, but it wouldn't be much further off.) >The challenger crew, and perhaps the columbia crew may still be alive today. It's equally likely that while those two crews would be alive, that one or more other crews would be dead. D.  SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. > Yes. Because at the end of the day, they are still getting long in > the tooth. (That day might not be as soon as currently contemplated, > but it wouldn't be much further off.) A year or two before Columbia, NASA had decided on increasing the orbiters' lifetime from 25 to 65 years. Evidently they weren't planning on retiring them anytime soon. SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen > It's equally likely that while those two crews would be alive, that > one or more other crews would be dead. Which wouldn't stop Copy Boy from complaining, in spite of the mountain of evidence against him, nor would it stop him from whining about me continuing to point out that, almost 15 months later, he still hasn't kept his promise to answer my question: Please provide verifiable documentation to show that, had NASA management had the meetings that you claim the flight rules required, *even though* NASA management says that they would have been unproductive, Columbia *would have*, as opposed to merely might have, returned safely to Earth. You said you had the information, Bob, and you promised to provide it. Where is it? The CAIB report isn't it, since one of the conditions of the original question was that the documents be dated *before* the date Columbia reentered, so what other information were you talking about? > Do you believe it would still be scheduled for retirement today? Yes, it's after all was designed to be in service for at least for a few decades, and then it will be replaced by its sucessor. The whole project started in the 70's after all. The question should be instead, "would the Space Shuttle still be able to receieve its recertification?" > Lets imagine a alternate design with launch boost escape, and easier cheaper > servicing. Say motors rather than APUs, being rid of those nasty fuels. Liquid > boosters rather than solids. Actually, you're taking something about putting the Orbiter in top of the Saturn V booster. And that's exactly what it was proposed in the past. Due the repeated budget slash, that's the design that was proposed. It used existing booster (at that time), and it's quite inexpensive enough. Until the military step in and denied that design, it asked to be built a design that could carry a payload of a certain requirement. And then the current Space Shuttle design creeped in and the budget was raised to build that design. As you can see, the budget has got nothing to do with it, it was the design. > Would we still be schudeling their end of life today? Yes, you generally don't want to still keep flying Orbiters that are a few decades old. > The challenger crew, and perhaps the columbia crew may still be alive today. The Challenger crew are still alive after the explosion. Now, from that point till the point when the cabin crashed, were they rescued or not? What make one so sure that somebody didn't said "we got a lock on them"? As for the Columbia crew, I will presume that they are missing, as in just gone, without knowing that they're dead or not. For all I know they could have landed somewhere else and living somewhere in the world in luxury, provided that they don't buzz around about their previous life. Either that, or their bodies are scattered all over Texas. Remember that the only reason people know that big fireball over Texas is the Orbiter Columbia is because that's what they have been told. And the people aren't allowed to examine the debris closely. > How much of ground shuttles is because people have died? I have no idea the meaning of your question. > HAVE A GREAT DAY! >The Challenger crew are still alive after the explosion. Now, from >that point till the point when the cabin crashed, were they rescued or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >is the Orbiter Columbia is because that's what they have been told. >And the people aren't allowed to examine the debris closely. I hope this is sarcasim. And not some point about how easy a conspiracy is to formulate. -A.L. >Actually, you're taking something about putting the Orbiter in top of >the Saturn V booster. And that's exactly what it was proposed in the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >As you can see, the budget has got nothing to do with it, it was the >design. I was alivwe back then, I THOUGHT the move away from saturn was to save money. HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.