In two years time...

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
"Alan Erskine" wrote:

What will this group be called; sci.space.orion?

It will still be here to discuss the shuttle, because its retirement
won't stop people from wanting to discuss it.

There will be a new newsgroup created for the new manned space
transportation system.

I think that's a better idea. I like that.

It will still be here to discuss the shuttle, because its retirement
won't stop people from wanting to discuss it.


i doubt it will be retired on schedule............

On Mar 4, 8:36 am, bob haller safety advocate wrote:
It will still be here to discuss the shuttle, because its retirement
won't stop people from wanting to discuss it.

i doubt it will be retired on schedule............


Define schedule. There are no more ET's being built so it will be
retired in 3 years

Always have to look at the bad side of things?

safety advocate? I think not, just a smoke screen. Just change it to
plain anti shuttle/NASA.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

"Alan Erskine" wrote:

What will this group be called; sci.space.orion?

It will still be here to discuss the shuttle, because its retirement
won't stop people from wanting to discuss it.

When the Shuttle retires, it discussion properly belongs in .history,
and .shuttle should be decommissioned. That being said,
decommissioning a newsgroup is basically impossible.

There will be a new newsgroup created for the new manned space
transportation system.

I suggested long ago a sci.space.* hierarchy based on functions, the
proposal went nowhere.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Mar 4, 9:34�am, wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:36 am, bob haller safety advocate wrote:

It will still be here to discuss the shuttle, because its retirement
won't stop people from wanting to discuss it.

i doubt it will be retired on schedule............

Define schedule. �There are no more ET's being built so it will be
retired in 3 years

Always have to look at the bad side of things?

safety advocate? I think not, just a smoke screen. � Just change it to
plain anti shuttle/NASA.

production lines can be both stopped and started........

i think the shuttle will fly intill a new manned vehicle is
operational unless it kills again..........

bob haller safety advocate wrote:

production lines can be both stopped and started........

i think the shuttle will fly intill a new manned vehicle is
operational unless it kills again..........

NASA seems to be dead set on a course to ensure the Shuttle's life
cannot be extended. Internally, it might be leaving some drap doors
opened to enable a restart of the programme, but that doesn't appear to
be visible to the public.


Since no change in course can happen until January 19th 2009, and since
NASA is rarely a priority when a new government takes office, I think it
unlikely that NASA would be retasked to drop that CEV thing and continue
with Shuttle before it is really too late to restart the Shuttle. And
politically, it would be fairly hard to do because of the image (whether
correct or not) that the Shuttle costs more than that mythical CEV project.

What it would really take is for some very respected scientist to
convince the next president that the shuttle would be far more useful in
developing a mission to mars than some glorified Apollo capsule. (aka:
use Shuttle to assemble the mars expedition ship).


What is likely/possible is that should there be more launch delays due
to glitches etc, they would agree to lift the date-based deadline and
allow the already planned missions/flights to launch. (aka: deadline
based on number of flights).

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:13:26 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
wrote:

When the Shuttle retires, it discussion properly belongs in .history,
and .shuttle should be decommissioned. That being said,
decommissioning a newsgroup is basically impossible.

....Correct. Sci.space is still around, and actually gets a post or two
on rare occasions. I honestly can't recall the last time I looked
there, tho. Might have been '03 or thereabouts. But again, because of
the way usenet is designed, decommissioning a group is practically
impossible. There have been rare occasions, but those haven't occured
since the days of Spaf, and IIRC Tale was the last one who had a
couple of racist-based groups purged.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Mar 4, 4:38 pm, bob haller safety advocate wrote:

operational unless it kills again

why do you keep saying that? Statistics and history say otherwise

wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 4:38 pm, bob haller safety advocate wrote:

operational unless it kills again

why do you keep saying that? Statistics and history say otherwise

Oh really? So Bush's decision to end the shuttle program and begin VSE were
simply a coincidence after Columbia was destroyed?



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

Oh really? So Bush's decision to end the shuttle program and begin VSE
were
simply a coincidence after Columbia was destroyed?

Two years after it was destroyed! There's only three problems with the
shuttle: 1: there's only three Orbiters left; 2: the location of the Orbiter
itself - on top of the stack would have been fine for Columbia at least; 3:
using solid boosters - the original liquid design would mean that Challenger
and her crew would still be with us.

Problem (2) is due to a bad design choice (hindsight being what it is).

Problems (1) and (3) are political. Typical. The total development saving,
at the time the decision to use solids instead of liquids was said to be
$600 million - 6% of total (claimed) development costs. It's also cost more
because the cleaning of the solids is highly dangerous and very difficult
work.

Liquids would have been less expensive on launch and would have made the
entire stack lighter at launch - less propellant for a smaller ET. Simply
using liquid boosters, with the Orbiter in its current position would
probably have saved Challenger too.