Oct PopSci: "Get Out Now!" (Shuttle Escape System)

(Stuf4) writes:
The way I see it, following the Columbia wreck the primary factor that
saved the US space program was...

The Chinese!

You're such a troll.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(Mark) writes:

stmx3 wrote in message ...
NASA can *always* build another shuttle, despite
the difficulties,

So where's Columbia's replacement?

Sitting in a museum, waiting for a couple of billion dollars to appear
so it can be rebuilt as a flight-worthy vehicle.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Mark wrote:
stmx3 wrote in message ...

NASA can *always* build another shuttle, despite
the difficulties,


So where's Columbia's replacement?

Mark

Never said they *will* build a replacement.

NASA can *always* build another shuttle, despite
the difficulties,


So where's Columbia's replacement?

NASA does not build spacecraft. Corporations do, and they have long since
retired the tooling to build the OV-type craft.

From Jeff Findley:
(Stuf4) writes:
The way I see it, following the Columbia wreck the primary factor that
saved the US space program was...

The Chinese!

You're such a troll.

I was addressing a topic under discussion. Stmx3 offered a commentary
regarding the "only thing keeping NASA going" and I responded with my
opinion as to why George Bush took only a matter of minutes to arrive
at the conclusion that the US Space Program would go on. George Bush
is a huge promoter of missile defense. In putting together the
threats to the USA of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile
capability, China comes out at the top.

With a solid understanding of why the US and USSR launched people into
orbit, it becomes obvious as to why China has chosen to invest in this
same show of strength.


There are many Americans who are calling out for tax dollars to get
dried up for NASA. There are even those who want to see NASA
terminated. But the roots of NASA have always been in national
defense. This was the case in 1957. It is still the case today in
2003. George Bush is well aware of this.


And even if no one else on this forum agrees with this fundamental
motivation for the space program, I see no need for any hostility.


~ CT

stmx3 wrote in message ...
Never said they *will* build a replacement.

So you're saying that the reason that NASA aren't replacing Columbia
is that they're perfectly happy with only three shuttles, and not
because they don't have a hope in hell of getting the money to do so?

Mark

In article , Mark wrote:
stmx3 wrote in message news:
...
Never said they *will* build a replacement.

So you're saying that the reason that NASA aren't replacing Columbia
is that they're perfectly happy with only three shuttles, and not
because they don't have a hope in hell of getting the money to do so?

You know, I'm not so sure they do want one. Well, okay, of course they
*want* one... but barring a slight scheduling blip over the nexe couple
of years where Columbia was manifested - and everything's gone out the
window due to the standdown anyway - they pretty much had a
three-shuttle program in the cards *before* STS-107. The plan was for
Columbia to do one station flight soon, then a Hubble mission in '05,
and then sit in a hangar until ~2009; indeed, there's now debate if
these latter two missions will fly in any form.

In 1986, NASA had a full - some would say overfull - schedule, relying
on a four-orbiter fleet; today, they don't - they have a
moderately-paced schedule for a three-orbiter fleet and a very sparse
schedule for a fourth. Whilst there'll be factors which would benefit
from a fourth orbiter being present - if, say, Atlantis had an accident
in flow, you could use the "spare orbiter" to prevent too great a
slippage - these aren't major enough to warrant having a sixth orbiter
built, and I deel this is why we haven't seen NASA making loud hints
about replacing Columbia now (versus increasing OSP work).

So, anyway, that's my reading; they're not pushing to get an OV-106,
becuase they don't need one. They wouldn't get one, but I don't think
that's the only reason ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

From Andrew Gray:
In article , Mark wrote:
stmx3 wrote in message news:
...
Never said they *will* build a replacement.

So you're saying that the reason that NASA aren't replacing Columbia
is that they're perfectly happy with only three shuttles, and not
because they don't have a hope in hell of getting the money to do so?

You know, I'm not so sure they do want one. Well, okay, of course they
*want* one...
snip

I'll pipe in here to disagree with that (and support your first take).
I'd say that if you offer NASA another shuttle (for free even) they
might just turn it down. Remember back to when NASA wanted to
mothball Columbia.

There are many at NASA who will breathe a collective sigh of relief at
the final wheelstop of the very last shuttle mission.

It's kind of like the Apollo days when the LLTV had its final flight.
The longer you fly that thing, the more you're inviting a funeral.
There were too many things that could go wrong with the LLTV. All of
the close calls pointed toward future fatality. And the designed crew
escape system was not totally adequate.

In these respects, flying the space shuttle poses very similar risks.


~ CT

Mark wrote:
stmx3 wrote in message ...

Never said they *will* build a replacement.


So you're saying that the reason that NASA aren't replacing Columbia
is that they're perfectly happy with only three shuttles, and not
because they don't have a hope in hell of getting the money to do so?

Mark

No...I'm saying that a new shuttle can be built. It won't happen
because of the difficulties (money, retooling costs, politics, time,
requirements)...but it is a physical possibility.

Perhaps I was being a little sentimental about equating human lives over
the shuttle machine. It's been pointed out that their was nothing
special about the jobs of the lost crew that can't be replaced, and I agree.

Now, if you want to tell me that it is physically impossible to build
another shuttle, despite the difficulties, then I think that will be the
start of an interesting debate.

stmx3 wrote:
Now, if you want to tell me that it is physically impossible to build
another shuttle, despite the difficulties, then I think that will be the
start of an interesting debate.

There was a discussion here a while back of building a Shuttle 1a,
moldline and plug compatible with the existing facilities, but
starting from a clean sheet other than those limits.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.