Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Shuttle / July 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Shuttle fleet grounded again!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Carlos Santillan - 28 Jul 2005 04:28 GMT
There goes the overhyped return of America to the Moon, Mars and
beyond, I wonder if it was not done on purpose in order to deviate
them uch needed funds to the global domination scheme aka "War on
terror".

What happened? 2 years and 1 billion plus dollars later it's suddenly
anounced that the problem of falling foam was not corrected? Why don't
they build a fleet of automated shuttles while taking astronauts into
orbit on board the reliable Soyuz vehicles instead?

Carlos M. Santillan H.
John - 28 Jul 2005 04:43 GMT
> There goes the overhyped return of America to the Moon, Mars and
> beyond, I wonder if it was not done on purpose in order to deviate
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> they build a fleet of automated shuttles while taking astronauts into
> orbit on board the reliable Soyuz vehicles instead?

Well actually if you watch the conference (as opposed to the overactive
press saying what happened at the conference) the NASA types said that
they were unhappy with the performance of the tank foam and that it would
need to be fixed before the next flight.  A press member said "Is the
shuttle fleet grounded?"  and the response was if you want to call it
that.  But work on readying the next shuttle flight(s) will continue as a
tank solution is sought.
John Horner - 28 Jul 2005 05:49 GMT
> Well actually if you watch the conference (as opposed to the overactive
> press saying what happened at the conference) the NASA types said that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> that.  But work on readying the next shuttle flight(s) will continue as a
> tank solution is sought.

The poor dog is too old to hunt.  The old girl needs to rest in peace
instead of throwing good money after bad and risking more lives for no
good reason.

Let the shuttle park next to the resting-is-piece Concorde supersonic
yet.  Both are from the same era and both have seen the end of the line.

John
will you bite the hand that feeds you...will you stay down on your knees - 28 Jul 2005 05:18 GMT
"Carlos Santillan" <cmsahe@hotmail.com> wrote...
> There goes the overhyped return of America to the Moon, Mars and
> beyond, I wonder if it was not done on purpose in order to deviate
> them uch needed funds to the global domination scheme aka "War on
> terror".

Uh, yeah, that's what I just said a moment ago in another newsgroup
(at least that Bush intended to destroy NASA by giving it a mission
impossible for its budget), and I said it when Bush originally
announced the Moon/Mars missions then no mention was made of it
afterwards.  Bush intends to devote NASA's paltry budget to
missions that are impossible at that price, the cost overrun will
be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and the whole thing
scrapped including NASA's successful and cheap unmanned robotic
missions.  I have no idea why Bush wants to do this, he is truly
a supreme a.shole.  Maybe he's thinking along the lines of St.
Ronnie's Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who honestly
believed that protecting the environment was of no importance
because the Apocalypse was just about to happen.

> What happened? 2 years and 1 billion plus dollars later it's suddenly
> anounced that the problem of falling foam was not corrected? Why don't
> they build a fleet of automated shuttles while taking astronauts into
> orbit on board the reliable Soyuz vehicles instead?

Damn, you either read my post or my mind.  My post to another newsgroup
(I forget which but it was crossposted) said exactly that, that for all
our hi-tech shuttle technology, we can't get into space while the
Russians with their clunky 1960s-era technology get there safely and
reliably each and every time.  Neither technology is supreme, both have
their advantages and flaws, but NASA pursued an untested technology
while completely ignoring a tried & true technology so now we are stuck
here on earth while the Russkies, Chinese, and soon Indians are all
going into space.  Thanks so f.cking much, Bush!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Por lo visto, había habido hasta manifestaciones para agradecerle al
Gran Hermano el aumento de la ración de chocolate a 20g cada semana.
Ayer mismo, pensó, se había anunciado que la ración SE REDUCIRÍA a 20g
semanales.  ¿Cómo era posible que pudieran tragarse aquello, si no
habían pasado más que 24 horas?  Sin embargo, se lo tragaron.  Parsons
lo digería con toda facilidad, con la estupidez de un animal.  El
individuo de las gafas con reflejos, en la otra mesa, lo aceptaba
fanática y apasionadamente con un furioso deseo de descubrir, denunciar
y vaporizar a todo aquel que insinuase que la semana pasada la ración
fue de 30g.  Syme también se lo había tragado aunque el proceso que
seguía para ello era algo más complicado, un proceso de doblepensar.
¿Es que sólo él, Winston, seguía poseyendo memoria?"
-- 1984
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos_Santillan - 28 Jul 2005 17:51 GMT
I'm a spaceflight enthusiast and I really wish that all the problems be
fixed so that the manned space exploration can continue. BTW I
recommend this excellent book on the history of the Soyuz spacecraft:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1852336579/qid=1122569441/sr=2-2/ref=pd_b
bs_b_ur_2_2/102-6228066-5858553

Brian Thorn - 29 Jul 2005 00:29 GMT
>There goes the overhyped return of America to the Moon, Mars and
>beyond,

Not really, as Shuttle isn't planned for use in the Moon/Mars program.
Shuttle is scheduled for retirement in 2010. (Now, I wager, retirement
will be on August 7, 2005.)

>I wonder if it was not done on purpose in order to deviate
>them uch needed funds to the global domination scheme aka "War on
>terror".

If anything, cancelling Shuttle now frees up NASA money to speed up
work on the Moon/Mars program.

Brian
John Doe - 29 Jul 2005 04:09 GMT
> If anything, cancelling Shuttle now frees up NASA money to speed up
> work on the Moon/Mars program.

Nop. It would require NASA indefitely postpone the Moon/Mars stuff and focus
on replacing the functionality of the Shuttle ASAP.

And if the USA is unable to fulfill its commitment to launch the partner's
modules, then it may have to dish outr real dollars to the partners so they
can pay for russians or arianne launches to get their modules up.

Lets not forget the solar arrays and truss structure. Those are needed to
provide sufficient power for the parther's modules.

I would even say that NASA should plan on dual launches of shuttles to the
station so that truss will always be symetric. And if one shuttle is crippled,
the crew can return on the other shuttle.

(Yes, it would mean putting PMA3 back in action).
Brian Thorn - 29 Jul 2005 04:33 GMT
>> If anything, cancelling Shuttle now frees up NASA money to speed up
>> work on the Moon/Mars program.
>
>Nop. It would require NASA indefitely postpone the Moon/Mars stuff and focus
>on replacing the functionality of the Shuttle ASAP.

Of course, you can kill two birds with one stone.

NASA wants a new manned spacecraft for Moon/Mars. An early "Block 1"
version of this could be used as a crew ferry to the Space Station.
Launched on SRB, Atlas 5, what have you.

NASA wants a new heavy-lift launch vehicle. A side-mounted
Shuttle-derived launch vehicle (like Shuttle-C) gets that ball rolling
at a relatively modest cost and timetable and could be used to launch
the remaining Space Station components in the interim.

Brian
Jeff Findley - 29 Jul 2005 19:26 GMT
> NASA wants a new heavy-lift launch vehicle. A side-mounted
> Shuttle-derived launch vehicle (like Shuttle-C) gets that ball rolling
> at a relatively modest cost and timetable and could be used to launch
> the remaining Space Station components in the interim.

And exactly how would such a vehicle deliver the components to the space
station?

Jeff
Signature

Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Brian Thorn - 29 Jul 2005 23:09 GMT
>> NASA wants a new heavy-lift launch vehicle. A side-mounted
>> Shuttle-derived launch vehicle (like Shuttle-C) gets that ball rolling
>> at a relatively modest cost and timetable and could be used to launch
>> the remaining Space Station components in the interim.

>And exactly how would such a vehicle deliver the components to the space
>station?

Using the OMS pods from the Shuttle fleet for propulsion buys you a
head-start for the first three flights. I don't seen anything inherent
in existing Shuttle rendezvous that can't be automated. Ku radar and
handheld laser rangefinders can't be automated?

We're talking about Shuttle's $3.5 Billion annual budget suddenly
becoming available (or a big chunk of it, anyway). If NASA can't do
_this_ it has no business even contemplating manned flights to the
moon or Mars.

Brian
Rogelio Perea - 29 Jul 2005 01:08 GMT
> There goes the overhyped return of America to the Moon, Mars and
> beyond, I wonder if it was not done on purpose in order to deviate
> them uch needed funds to the global domination scheme aka "War on
> terror".

For any successful manned mission to the Moon and beyond, the ISS needs to
become a true orbital space port, it's going to take quite an effort to see
that come up anytime soon.

> What happened? 2 years and 1 billion plus dollars later it's suddenly
> anounced that the problem of falling foam was not corrected? Why don't
> they build a fleet of automated shuttles while taking astronauts into
> orbit on board the reliable Soyuz vehicles instead?

Soyuz's track record is indeed a very good one, but comparing it to the
Shuttle it's doing the Oranges vs Apples things, totally different vehicles,
totally different purpose. For starters, the Soyuz cargo capabilities
scratch the 6 ton mark, while the Shuttle can carry about 28 tons into orbit
and then bring some back, the Soyuz can't do that as it is not designed to.
Now, once the ISS is properly setup there's nothing shabby on the idea of
using Soyuz-class vehicles launched from orbit.

NASA's budget in today's dollars pales in comparison to the 60's figures
when the race to the Moon was on. Bush indeed tried to pull a fast one
making that wild and moronic announcement on a manned mission to Mars... the
Monkey Brain :-P
Brian Thorn - 29 Jul 2005 01:41 GMT
>> There goes the overhyped return of America to the Moon, Mars and
>> beyond, I wonder if it was not done on purpose in order to deviate
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>become a true orbital space port, it's going to take quite an effort to see
>that come up anytime soon.

Nope. ISS does not figure in the Moon/Mars plans, either. Except
possibly as a training ground for hardware and techniques for
Moon/Mars. US involvement in ISS is scheduled to end in 2015, before
the first mission back to the Moon.

Brian
Derek Lyons - 29 Jul 2005 02:00 GMT
>> There goes the overhyped return of America to the Moon, Mars and
>> beyond, I wonder if it was not done on purpose in order to deviate
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>become a true orbital space port, it's going to take quite an effort to see
>that come up anytime soon.

ROTFLMAO.

>Soyuz's track record is indeed a very good one,

ROTFLMAO.

D.
Signature

Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Carlos_M_Santillan_H - 30 Jul 2005 19:41 GMT
>>Soyuz's track record is indeed a very good >>one,

>ROTFLMAO
Soyuz record stands at one fatal accident Soyuz 1 and to accidents were
the cosmonuats survived. If the shuttle had the security measures than
soyuz does the Challenger crew could have survived.

The soyuz is superior to the shuttle, it even has interplanetary
capabilities (The Soyuz launcher R7):

Mars Express:
http://www.esa.int/mex_mm/images/8N2G4001.jpg
Greg D. Moore (Strider) - 30 Jul 2005 19:45 GMT
> >>Soyuz's track record is indeed a very good >>one,
>
> >ROTFLMAO
> Soyuz record stands at one fatal accident Soyuz 1 and to accidents were
> the cosmonuats survived. If the shuttle had the security measures than
> soyuz does the Challenger crew could have survived.

Umm, try two fatal accidents.

> The soyuz is superior to the shuttle, it even has interplanetary
> capabilities (The Soyuz launcher R7):
>
> Mars Express:
> http://www.esa.int/mex_mm/images/8N2G4001.jpg
Jorge R. Frank - 30 Jul 2005 20:11 GMT
>>>Soyuz's track record is indeed a very good >>one,
>
>>ROTFLMAO
> Soyuz record stands at one fatal accident Soyuz 1 and to accidents were
> the cosmonuats survived.

Incorrect. The Soyuz 11 crew was killed as well. That's two fatal accidents
in 92 manned flights, compared to two accidents in 113 manned flights for
the shuttle The current Soyuz (93rd) and shuttle (114th) flights aren't
counted yet since they're still in flight.

The fatality rates are practically identical as well: four out of 219 for
Soyuz, fourteen out of 672 for the shuttle.

Do the math: they all come out to around one in fifty.

The Soyuz 11 accident was 34 years ago but that is deceptive due to the low
flight rate of Soyuz. Soyuz has had 82 safe landings since Soyuz 11, while
the shuttle had 87 between the 51L and 107 accidents.

> The soyuz is superior to the shuttle, it even has interplanetary
> capabilities (The Soyuz launcher R7):
>
> Mars Express:
> http://www.esa.int/mex_mm/images/8N2G4001.jpg

Don't confuse the Soyuz launcher with the Soyuz spacecraft. The Soyuz
launcher is incapable of carrying the Soyuz spacecraft on an interplanetary
trajectory.

Signature

JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Lynndel K. Humphreys - 30 Jul 2005 20:19 GMT
The sample size is much larger. And statistics are not taking into account
the risk factor. And essentially you are comparing apples to oranges, The
shuttle is a vastly different kind of bird to ride on.  IMHO

> The fatality rates are practically identical as well: four out of 219 for
> Soyuz, fourteen out of 672 for the shuttle.
Dr. P. Quackenbush - 31 Jul 2005 18:13 GMT
> >>Soyuz's track record is indeed a very good >>one,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> The soyuz is superior to the shuttle, it even has interplanetary
> capabilities (The Soyuz launcher R7):

That's at least two fatal accidents, and then some science fiction.
hop - 29 Jul 2005 02:00 GMT
> Soyuz's track record is indeed a very good one
Actually, it isn't statistically any better than the shuttle. You can
argue various ways, but based on the available data and small sample
size, it's a wash.

Both have had two incidents fatal to the entire crew. Soyuz (the manned
spacecraft/booster combo, not the booster of the same name) has flown
less flights.  Both have had some close calls, to the point it was just
a matter of luck that those weren't fatal. In the case of Soyuz, some
of these have resulted in complete failure of the mission, and fairly
serious injury to the crew.

* Fatal Soyuz accidents:
Soyuz 1 http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz1.htm
Soyuz 11 http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz11.htm

* Some close calls:
Soyuz 5 http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz5.htm
Soyuz 18 http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz181.htm
Soyuz T 10 http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyzt101.htm
(note the latter 2 were re-flown under the same designation)

Nor is this strictly confined to the early days of the Soyuz program.
Almost all the recent TMA flights have encountered a significant
failure or loss of redundancy. It is not at all clear that those
responsible are taking this as a the kind of warning sign that they
should.

Non-space groups trimmed.
Paul F. Dietz - 29 Jul 2005 02:17 GMT
> For any successful manned mission to the Moon and beyond, the ISS needs to
> become a true orbital space port, it's going to take quite an effort to see
> that come up anytime soon.

Pity it's in the wrong orbit for that.  </irony>

    Paul
 
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



©2008 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.