Bye-bye Moonbase and hello more Shuttle flights?

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
There's very little evidence to back up this claim Bob and you know it.

Remember between Challenger and Columbia, the shuttle flew MORE than
Soyuz had total.

True no longer; Soyuz now has 89 consecutive successful manned landings
since Soyuz 11, compared to 87 for the shuttle between 51L and 107.

Sucesfull only in the limited sense of "didn't actually kill anyone
despite trying".

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

Derek Lyons wrote:
True no longer; Soyuz now has 89 consecutive successful manned landings
since Soyuz 11, compared to 87 for the shuttle between 51L and 107.


Sucesfull only in the limited sense of "didn't actually kill anyone
despite trying".


This is a 180 degree flip from Jorge's normal point of view...Enquiring
minds want to know why it happened.
Ah: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...s_to_begi.html
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/11/7a2/55b
No connection there, certainly.
"How sharper than a serpent's tooth..." as Shakespeare would say. ;-)

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Jorge R. Frank wrote:

True no longer; Soyuz now has 89 consecutive successful manned landings
since Soyuz 11, compared to 87 for the shuttle between 51L and 107.

As much as I like the inherent toughness of Soyuz in coming down with the
crew alive in off-nominal reentries, some of those "successful" landings
were _incredibly_ close calls.
James Oberg did a report on this for NASA:
http://www.jamesoberg.com/soyuz.html
Soyuz is sort of like a military plane with some severe inherent problems,
but a top-notch ejection seat.
Yeah, when things screw up on a flight you will probably survive... but
things screw up _way_ too often. :-)

You could do the same sort of article about the shuttle. There have been
near disasters aplenty on both sides.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

On May 5, 1:01*am, kT wrote:
wrote:

[snip idiotic libertarian blog references]

Isn't it striking how Americans ( the method i am currently using to
identify your nationality )always manage to make even discussions
about space shuttle's ideological? Any chance that a discussion about
the material might follow?

I think you're full of ****. It was the best thing that ever happened
for America and manned space flight.

How was this massively inefficient 'reusable' ( it really wasn't)
system the best thing that ever happened to American space flight? Did
i not just point out the difference in launch volumes and cost? What
did the decades of reliance on the shuttle bring the American space
industry? Why is it claimed that it will take NASA another ten years
to get back to, for some reason, the moon? How was the shuttle program
good for America when manned space flight is now behind where it was
before the introduction of the shuttle?

What are you gonna do, fly into the sun? Fine by me, you go first. After
that, we'll explore the empty space in your head.

I suppose i should have considered the possibility that ignorant or
spiteful posters might be around and said solar system instead; my
mistake and i apologise for it.

Basically i am trying to show that despite long years of experience
with the shuttle the US came to depend on the much smaller Russian
space program to pick up it's slack in supplying the ISS and meeting
other commitments in space. That should at least embarrass the
'defenders' of the shuttle program but perhaps they will just redirect
their feelings of inadequacy and make jokes about Soyuz?

I suspect so that will be the case but do feel free to find a
alternative approach.

Stellar

wrote:
On May 5, 1:01 am, kT wrote:
wrote:

[snip idiotic libertarian blog references]

Isn't it striking how Americans ( the method i am currently using to
identify your nationality )always manage to make even discussions
about space shuttle's ideological? Any chance that a discussion about
the material might follow?

Sure, if you are willing to take the time to listen to reason.

I think you're full of ****. It was the best thing that ever happened
for America and manned space flight.

How was this massively inefficient 'reusable' ( it really wasn't)
system the best thing that ever happened to American space flight?

Well, let's see, first nearly maximally efficient high pressure reusable
cryogenic rocket engines - the SSMEs, flown almost 400 engines flights.

We demonstrated reusable winged reentry for the very first time. And
then we went on to refine it to full repeatability, over and over again.

We flew in excess of 100 HEAVY LIFT launches, and almost 800 passengers.

Hmmmm, we built a very large space station too.

Did I forget anything?

Did i not just point out the difference in launch volumes and cost?

And we went on to DEMONSTRATE that, in real life. Yes, now we know that
unmanned high flight rate reusable heavy lift cargo is COMPLEMENTARY to
manned flight, and guess what, we still have a DOZEN SSMEs with which to
put that concept to a demonstrable test.

What did the decades of reliance on the shuttle bring the American space
industry?

It gave us motivation to develop two EELVs and now two COTS vehicles.

Why is it claimed that it will take NASA another ten years
to get back to, for some reason, the moon?

Why would we want to repeat something we did 40 years ago?

Oh, I get it, you voted for George W. Bush, twice.

How was the shuttle program
good for America when manned space flight is now behind where it was
before the introduction of the shuttle?

We aren't behind. Going back to the moon is a fools folly.

We're going to the moons of Mars, the asteroids, and the planet Ceres.

What are you gonna do, fly into the sun? Fine by me, you go first. After
that, we'll explore the empty space in your head.

I suppose i should have considered the possibility that ignorant or
spiteful posters might be around and said solar system instead; my
mistake and i apologise for it.

Basically i am trying to show that despite long years of experience
with the shuttle the US came to depend on the much smaller Russian
space program to pick up it's slack in supplying the ISS and meeting
other commitments in space. That should at least embarrass the
'defenders' of the shuttle program but perhaps they will just redirect
their feelings of inadequacy and make jokes about Soyuz?

The key word is EXPERIENCE. The shuttle gave US that experience, and
that should have gave us the experience to make the right choices, but
nooooooooooo ... you idiots had to glom onto every god damn thing Bush
said and did, no matter how nutty and how deadly. Ares I - QED.

I suspect so that will be the case but do feel free to find a
alternative approach.

I did, and I published it, as a COTS proposal :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/COTS.doc

Read it. Or write your own. I didn't sit on my butt all through the
shuttle era, and I didn't remain silent after this process ran seriously
awry September 20, 2005. I spoke up, I did the work and I published.

On May 3, 9:26*am, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.space.history message

, Fri, 1 May 2009 20:06:59, Brian Thorn
posted:
On Fri, 1 May 2009 16:18:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

The X-33 debacle? *Or the Space Shuttle? *Lets face it, the Shuttle
has killed more astronauts than any other manned space vehicle
in history.

Shuttle has also flown 755 souls into space to date, 14 of whom died.
1.8 %

Soyuz has flown 243 souls into space to date, 4 of whom died.
1.6%

Those are history. 1986 & 2003; 1967 & 1971.

One should consider what they mean for future missions. *Include in that
how long ago they were, and how much relevant parts of the design have
since been changed, and whether the basic design is still considered
worth producing.

--
*(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. *Turnpike v6.05 *MIME.
*Web *URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
* Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
*No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

You and others like William Mook that consider history (anything over
24 hours old) as irrelevant should get a real kick out of the next 7
dead astronauts, because 24 hours later they too will not have
mattered.

~ BG