Shuttle fleet grounded again!
|
|
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
|
|
|