What next?

Jeff Findley wrote:
And none of the above might have happened had the Russian Cosmos 954
spacecraft spewed radioactive debris over a large area of northern
Canada due to an uncontrolled reentry in 1978. Because of the press and
political pressure, NASA was forced to "do something" about Skylab. If
Cosmos 954 not have happened, the press might have paid little attention
to an uncontrolled Skylab's reentry.

Jeff

Baker Lake!

Just look at what it did for the fish!

http://www.canadafishingonline.net/nunavut_fishing.html


Ah but as I've pointed out here before if the Shuttle had been on-time we'd
have missed out on a Comedy Classic! I suppose now we'll have to give credit
to the Russians for inspiring the national psyche to rise to the occasion?

OTOH now that we have the ISS, perhaps, all in all, an even trade?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAr2HkQr1YM

Dave

Didnt nasa recently suggest keeping ONE shuttle in flyable condition
just n case it was needed?

Actually rather than ARES they should of built shuttle C and keeping
the same mold lines could of launched shuttles at a low rate
indefinetely, had a pretty good cargo capacity and perhaps a shuttle C
variant as a capsule launcher.....

So sad missed opportunities

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:51:09 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:


Didnt nasa recently suggest keeping ONE shuttle in flyable condition
just n case it was needed?

No, United Space Alliance talked about keeping two Shuttles flying
commercially. Not just one, because they knew NASA would never approve
having no LON Shuttle.

The proposal went nowhere.

Actually rather than ARES they should of

(should have)

Brian

On 06/23/2011 06:19 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:51:09 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

Actually rather than ARES they should of

(should have)

(lost cause)