Space Shuttle Flies Again!

On 12 Mar 2004 20:03:21 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:


This Huge News comes as NASA has just announced that -
uh ...nothing. What the Hell happened to NASA? I think
they are all sleeping. or something


Latest news is the speed brakes are bad and RTF is likely delayed to 2006.

Thats better than having a shuttle come in too fast to land.

Agreed, but the craft has been flying for 20+ years minus the years
it's been grounded. How many more problems have been ignored or parts
not examined closely enough?
The shuttle program has been profoundly mismanaged from its inception.
A 20 year old vehicle still being refered to as a test vehicle?
Better yet, attempting to build a space station with a " test
vehicle"?
How responsible is that?
Returning the shuttle to flight status at all should be the debate not
when it will fly again.

Botch
ROMAN: I tell you what I see when I look out there. I see the undeveloped resources of Minnesota, Northern Wisconsin, and Michigan. I see a syndicated development consortium exploiting over a billion and a half dollars in forest products. I see a paper mill and if the strategic metals are there, a mining operation. A greenbelt between the condos on the lake and a waste management facility focusing on the newest rage in toxic waste, medical refuse. Infected bandages, body parts, IV tubing, contaminated glassware, entrails,syringes, fluids, blood, low grade radioactive waste all safely contained sunken in the lake and sealed for centuries. Now I ask you what do you see?


CHET: I just see trees.

There are Reports that the United States Space Shuttle
Fleet will resume Lift-Off in January 17, 2026!

This Huge News comes as NASA has just announced that -
uh ...nothing. What the Hell happened to NASA? I think
they are all sleeping. or something

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:23:39 -0600, Brian Thorn
wrote:



This "test vehicle" has completed more flights than any other manned
spacecraft in history... including Soyuz, which is also used for Space
Station missions, and is not statistically any worse than Proton or
the Soyuz booster, which also were used to build Space Stations.

How responsible is that?

Very, so long as you accept the reality that the odds favor loss of a
vehicle at some point during construction, and plan accordingly. It
seems NASA did not plan accordingly.


The term was not used until the troubles with the shuttle/shuttle
program began coming home to roost. Up until that point NASA referred
to the shuttle as a space truck, among other things, then as soon as
the problems cropped up the shuttle became a "test vehicle".
If we accept the ridiculous premise that NASA always considered the
shuttle a test vehicle then it's totally irresponsible to attempt the
construction of a station with a vehicle that they didn't consider a
fully functional, reliable craft.
Yes the shuttle flew many flights, yes it's done great things, but at
what cost? If it's accomplishments are compared to what was
originally promised then it's one of the biggest and most expensive
failures in US history.
They didn't plan ahead at all, at least in a realistic manner. Lack
of spare parts, craft not as durable or reliable as their plans
required, and they based the fate of a major project on the
reliability of a craft that had proven most unreliable.


Returning the shuttle to flight status at all should be the debate not
when it will fly again.

The people that make that decision are the President of the United
States and the Congress of the United States. They have already
decided that the Space Shuttle will fly again.


They follow the recomendation of NASA, and what we have is a program
that's had too much money invested in it and no one with the guts to
say it's time to end it.
For the record, I want a manned program, a good vehicle, a space
station, return to moon and mars, but from that first shuttle lift off
I saw as a senior in highschool to today, I see a manned space
program that's essentially wasted the past 20 years or so because no
one was willing to admit their failure.

Botch
ROMAN: I tell you what I see when I look out there. I see the undeveloped resources of Minnesota, Northern Wisconsin, and Michigan. I see a syndicated development consortium exploiting over a billion and a half dollars in forest products. I see a paper mill and if the strategic metals are there, a mining operation. A greenbelt between the condos on the lake and a waste management facility focusing on the newest rage in toxic waste, medical refuse. Infected bandages, body parts, IV tubing, contaminated glassware, entrails,syringes, fluids, blood, low grade radioactive waste all safely contained sunken in the lake and sealed for centuries. Now I ask you what do you see?


CHET: I just see trees.

This Huge News comes as NASA has just announced that -
uh ...nothing. What the Hell happened to NASA? I think
they are all sleeping. or something


Latest news is the speed brakes are bad and RTF is likely delayed to 2006.

Thats better than having a shuttle come in too fast to land.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 20:03:21 +0000, Hallerb wrote:

snip troll

Latest news is the speed brakes are bad and RTF is likely delayed to 2006.

Bob... this rases the question, again, of just how stupid are you?

This trollcrap has been hitting the aci.space newsgroups and you didn't
notice?

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

On 12 Mar 2004 20:03:21 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:


This Huge News comes as NASA has just announced that -
uh ...nothing. What the Hell happened to NASA? I think
they are all sleeping. or something

Latest news is the speed brakes are bad and RTF is likely delayed to 2006.

"Likely" is something you made up. The article in question cites a
nine-month delay as only a possibility.

Brian

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:39:50 +0000, Botch wrote:

A 20 year old vehicle still being refered to as a test vehicle?
Better yet, attempting to build a space station with a " test
vehicle"?

This "test vehicle" has completed more flights than any other manned
spacecraft in history... including Soyuz, which is also used for Space
Station missions, and is not statistically any worse than Proton or
the Soyuz booster, which also were used to build Space Stations.

How responsible is that?

Very, so long as you accept the reality that the odds favor loss of a
vehicle at some point during construction, and plan accordingly. It
seems NASA did not plan accordingly.

Returning the shuttle to flight status at all should be the debate not
when it will fly again.

The people that make that decision are the President of the United
States and the Congress of the United States. They have already
decided that the Space Shuttle will fly again.

Brian

"Likely" is something you made up. The article in question cites a
nine-month delay as only a possibility.

Brian


Well there are no existing spare parts for a system that was never designed to
be inspected or serviced from the time the vehicle was designed.

Now unless they safety waiver it just how will this get fixed quickly?

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:23:39 -0600, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:39:50 +0000, Botch wrote:

A 20 year old vehicle still being refered to as a test vehicle?
Better yet, attempting to build a space station with a " test
vehicle"?

This "test vehicle" has completed more flights than any other manned
spacecraft in history... including Soyuz, which is also used for Space
Station missions, and is not statistically any worse than Proton or
the Soyuz booster, which also were used to build Space Stations.

Are you sure? I thought there was a press release about Soyuz
launching it's 500th flight a few launches ago. The shuttle hasn't
flown that much has it? Not arguing, just checking a faulty memory
core.

How responsible is that?

Very, so long as you accept the reality that the odds favor loss of a
vehicle at some point during construction, and plan accordingly. It
seems NASA did not plan accordingly.

Returning the shuttle to flight status at all should be the debate not
when it will fly again.

The people that make that decision are the President of the United
States and the Congress of the United States. They have already
decided that the Space Shuttle will fly again.

Brian

Mister Fixit wrote in
:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:23:39 -0600, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:39:50 +0000, Botch wrote:

A 20 year old vehicle still being refered to as a test vehicle?
Better yet, attempting to build a space station with a " test
vehicle"?

This "test vehicle" has completed more flights than any other manned
spacecraft in history... including Soyuz, which is also used for Space
Station missions, and is not statistically any worse than Proton or
the Soyuz booster, which also were used to build Space Stations.

Are you sure? I thought there was a press release about Soyuz
launching it's 500th flight a few launches ago. The shuttle hasn't
flown that much has it? Not arguing, just checking a faulty memory
core.

Don't confuse the Soyuz *spacecraft* with the Soyuz *booster*. The Soyuz
booster has indeed launched hundreds of times, but most of the time with
payloads other than the Soyuz spacecraft.

The Soyuz spacecraft has two fatal accidents in 89 flights (the 90th is
still in-flight, docked to ISS), and 79 successful flights in a row since
the last accident (Soyuz 11). It has four fatalities among the 210 people
to have flown on it (a successful landing for the current flight would
raise that to 212).

The space shuttle has two fatal accidents in 113 flights, and 87 successful
flights in a row between its two accidents (STS-51L and STS-107). It has
fourteen fatalities among the 672 people to have flown on it.
--
JRF

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