NASA May Face Shuttle Worker Shortage, Report Says

Doug... wrote:
says...
"dave schneider" scribbled:
[...]
Well, my grey cells are beginning to poof at the effort, but I'll go
with Al Bean.
[...]
I think it's Pete Conrad... Thank god I watched my DVDs of From The
Earth to the Moon last night ;-)

Give that man a cigar!

Actually, Terrell quoted Pete saying, in an interview 20 years after
Apollo 12, what he had *intended* to say. Pete actually said "Whoopeee!
Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but it's a long one for
me!"

Okay, FTETTM *is* overdue on my list -- but I'm impressed that I even
came close. (Off by 33% ;-} )

/dps

Or better yet, NASA just under license, get the plans and make Soyuz
space crafts? Like how the Chinese are doing it, and I suspect others as
well..

Soyuz has a long term track record, while Shuttle has lost two so far
out of how many?

Soyuz, cheap to make, no major accidents that I remember, while the
Shuttle is big, bulky, complex and I suspect to make one underlicense,
you would have alot of money to use it..

Biofilters next?

Mike


washer of kegs wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:
Any chance they will build a new shuttle?

No. Not when the whole shuttle system has only a few years of operational
life left -- a new orbiter would only just be entering service by that
time, and it would cost several billion.

Enterprise, can it be made operational versus a test bed?

Not quickly or cheaply. It would be a bit easier than starting from
scratch, but only a bit. Enterprise does not have a spaceworthy cabin,
for example, and not only would you have to build one, you'd have to split
the structure open to get it in. Same story: it would cost too much and
it wouldn't be ready in time to be very useful.

Another ding against using Enterprise is the structure. If I recall
correctly, she has the same basic structure that Columbia and Challenger
had that is is heavier than the others. After the first couple of flights
by Columbia the last two (later three) spacecraft had redesigned wings that
were stronger and lighter. therefore, If they did make Enterprise flight
worthy it would not help for ISS servicing missions. Have to check with
old timers here for details.

In article ,
Abrigon Gusiq wrote:

Or better yet, NASA just under license, get the plans and make Soyuz
space crafts?

Against federal law to do such a thing.

Like how the Chinese are doing it, and I suspect others as
well..

I think your suspicions are a bit suspect . . .

Soyuz has a long term track record, while Shuttle has lost two so far
out of how many?

Five flight vehicles - Columbia, Challenger, Atlantis, Discovery,
Endeavour

Soyuz, cheap to make,

Because it was designed and built originally by a State-sponsored
socialistic business entity.

no major accidents that I remember,

Um, do a little bit more research, please.

while the
Shuttle is big, bulky, complex and I suspect to make one underlicense,
you would have alot of money to use it..

Biofilters next?

Mike

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

"Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message
...
Or better yet, NASA just under license, get the plans and make Soyuz
space crafts? Like how the Chinese are doing it, and I suspect others as
well..


The Chinese craft is clearly derived from Soyuz, but it is still a different
craft.


Soyuz has a long term track record, while Shuttle has lost two so far
out of how many?

113 flights, two accidents.

There 87 flights between the two accidents.



Soyuz, cheap to make, no major accidents that I remember, while the
Shuttle is big, bulky, complex and I suspect to make one underlicense,
you would have alot of money to use it..

Soyuz has had two fatal accidents and since the last fatal accidents has
flown fewer times than the span of 87 flights the shuttle had.

In addition it's had a series of non-fatal problems, including recently
missing its landing zone by 460 km.

It's by no means perfect.