OV-99

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
eb.com...

On 13-02-28 23:12, bob haller wrote:

no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa, demanding replacement
with a safer design.

They would have demanded NASA build NCC-1701 :-)

I have a CD with the blueprints for NCC-1701-D at home. I could lend it
to NASA if it needs it :-)


Sure. BTW, as soon as we have working fusion reactors and warp drives,
we'll be good to go.






--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:12:44 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa

We did anyway, Bob. I suspect you're too young to actually remember.
I'm not.

"The cast and crew of Star Trek
dedicate this film to the men and women
of the Spaceship Challenger
whose courageous spirit will endure
into the 23rd Century and beyond"

- Dedication at beginning of "Star Trek IV" (1986)

On Mar 1, 6:55*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:12:44 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa

We did anyway, Bob. I suspect you're too young to actually remember.
I'm not.

"The cast and crew of Star Trek
dedicate this film to the men and women
of the Spaceship Challenger
whose courageous spirit will endure
into the 23rd Century and beyond"

*- Dedication at beginning of "Star Trek IV" (1986)

I am 56 and old enough to remember.

A dedication is one thing, a grass roots effort to support nasa and
enterprise are two different things

In article 01a9e762-8e9e-4235-a3a7-dc2a8d5ba165
@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Mar 1, 6:55*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:12:44 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa

We did anyway, Bob. I suspect you're too young to actually remember.
I'm not.

"The cast and crew of Star Trek
dedicate this film to the men and women
of the Spaceship Challenger
whose courageous spirit will endure
into the 23rd Century and beyond"

*- Dedication at beginning of "Star Trek IV" (1986)

I am 56 and old enough to remember.

A dedication is one thing, a grass roots effort to support nasa and
enterprise are two different things

The name of the shuttle lost does not change the names of the dead
astronauts.

There was no *need* for a grass roots effort to support NASA and the
shuttle program. The nation was united in mourning for the astronauts
(not the lost shuttle). NASA, and the politicians who controlled the
funding, were very clear that the accident would be investigated, the
problems fixed, and the program would continue. The public was
satisfied with this course of action. Again, on grass roots effort was
needed for any sort of "change" beyond what was coming.

The SRB's were redesigned (making another Challenger like disaster very
unlikely) and upgrades to *several* other shuttle systems were made in
order to increase reliability and safety. Pressure suits were added for
launch and entry. Parachutes and the escape pole were added to handle
cases where the shuttle could fly, but could not reach a runway (water
ditching was suicide).

And finally, Challenger would be replaced by a new orbiter assembled
from the structural spares that the program had acquired.

What more could anyone reasonably expect? Replacing the SRB's with
liquids would have taken on the order of 10 years and would not have
solved the problems with foam and ice hitting the TPS (so a Columbia
like accident was still just a matter of time before it happened).
Columbia was unfortunate, but not obviously avoidable, except in
hindsight.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Mar 2, 11:41*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 01a9e762-8e9e-4235-a3a7-dc2a8d5ba165
@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...







On Mar 1, 6:55*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:12:44 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa

We did anyway, Bob. I suspect you're too young to actually remember.
I'm not.

"The cast and crew of Star Trek
dedicate this film to the men and women
of the Spaceship Challenger
whose courageous spirit will endure
into the 23rd Century and beyond"

*- Dedication at beginning of "Star Trek IV" (1986)

I am 56 and old enough to remember.

A dedication is one thing, a grass roots effort to support nasa and
enterprise are two different things

The name of the shuttle lost does not change the names of the dead
astronauts.

There was no *need* for a grass roots effort to support NASA and the
shuttle program. *The nation was united in mourning for the astronauts
(not the lost shuttle). *NASA, and the politicians who controlled the
funding, were very clear that the accident would be investigated, the
problems fixed, and the program would continue. *The public was
satisfied with this course of action. *Again, on grass roots effort was
needed for any sort of "change" beyond what was coming.

The SRB's were redesigned (making another Challenger like disaster very
unlikely) and upgrades to *several* other shuttle systems were made in
order to increase reliability and safety. *Pressure suits were added for
launch and entry. *Parachutes and the escape pole were added to handle
cases where the shuttle could fly, but could not reach a runway (water
ditching was suicide).

And finally, Challenger would be replaced by a new orbiter assembled
from the structural spares that the program had acquired.

What more could anyone reasonably expect? *Replacing the SRB's with
liquids would have taken on the order of 10 years and would not have
solved the problems with foam and ice hitting the TPS (so a Columbia
like accident was still just a matter of time before it happened).
Columbia was unfortunate, but not obviously avoidable, except in
hindsight.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Launch boost escape was considered but not implemented

No manned launcher should of ever been designed without that necessary
feature.

Truly how much would it of mattered if LFBB would of taken 10 years to
implement? Could of been done in half that if enough resources had
been invested in it! Look how long the program ran after
challenger .... LFBB would of saved money during processing and been a
natural to support a shuttle C cargo variant.

The star trek people would of rallied around nasa to get the extra
money to make enterprise space worthy.

But no nasa left enterprise too never fly in space......

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


The star trek people would of rallied around nasa to get the extra
money to make enterprise space worthy.

But no nasa left enterprise too never fly in space......



You know, there was nothing stopping the Trek fans to rally around
Enterprise as it was.

The fact is, fans just aren't that big of supporters. Sorry.



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

It would of helped if enterprise had been designed from the beginning
to be easy to upgrade...


Which would have driven up the cost even more, which means it was even less
likely to happen.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article 68bc950c-8673-4e53-a1a7-
, says...

On Mar 2, 11:41*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 01a9e762-8e9e-4235-a3a7-dc2a8d5ba165
@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...







On Mar 1, 6:55*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:12:44 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

no start trek fans would of rallied around nasa

We did anyway, Bob. I suspect you're too young to actually remember.
I'm not.

"The cast and crew of Star Trek
dedicate this film to the men and women
of the Spaceship Challenger
whose courageous spirit will endure
into the 23rd Century and beyond"

*- Dedication at beginning of "Star Trek IV" (1986)

I am 56 and old enough to remember.

A dedication is one thing, a grass roots effort to support nasa and
enterprise are two different things

The name of the shuttle lost does not change the names of the dead
astronauts.

There was no *need* for a grass roots effort to support NASA and the
shuttle program. *The nation was united in mourning for the astronauts
(not the lost shuttle). *NASA, and the politicians who controlled the
funding, were very clear that the accident would be investigated, the
problems fixed, and the program would continue. *The public was
satisfied with this course of action. *Again, on grass roots effort was
needed for any sort of "change" beyond what was coming.

The SRB's were redesigned (making another Challenger like disaster very
unlikely) and upgrades to *several* other shuttle systems were made in
order to increase reliability and safety. *Pressure suits were added for
launch and entry. *Parachutes and the escape pole were added to handle
cases where the shuttle could fly, but could not reach a runway (water
ditching was suicide).

And finally, Challenger would be replaced by a new orbiter assembled
from the structural spares that the program had acquired.

What more could anyone reasonably expect? *Replacing the SRB's with
liquids would have taken on the order of 10 years and would not have
solved the problems with foam and ice hitting the TPS (so a Columbia
like accident was still just a matter of time before it happened).
Columbia was unfortunate, but not obviously avoidable, except in
hindsight.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

Launch boost escape was considered but not implemented

Wasn't possible to do on the shuttle without a huge redesign effort and
sacrifice of *a lot* of payload. NASA didn't have the money for this,
even if it were possible to do, which I doubt by looking at the size of
the launch escape booster on top of Orion.

No manned launcher should of ever been designed without that necessary
feature.

Why, to satisfy your warped desire for "safety"? Grow a pair and let
the "big boys and girls" fly. They know the risks. They aren't as
clueless as you.

Truly how much would it of mattered if LFBB would of taken 10 years to
implement? Could of been done in half that if enough resources had
been invested in it! Look how long the program ran after
challenger .... LFBB would of saved money during processing and been a
natural to support a shuttle C cargo variant.

To what end? It wouldn't have stopped the Columbia disaster. Again,
grow a pair and let the astronauts choose to fly. There is no shortage
of volunteers ready to go. NASA turns away hundreds (possibly
thousands) of people every time they open up applications for a new
astronaut class.

The star trek people would of rallied around nasa to get the extra
money to make enterprise space worthy.

Bull. The "Star Trek people" moved on to X-files, believing that the US
government stole the ability to go faster than light from aliens who
crashed their UFOs in the US desert.

But no nasa left enterprise too never fly in space......

Yawn.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:41:49 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:


And finally, Challenger would be replaced by a new orbiter assembled
from the structural spares that the program had acquired.

What more could anyone reasonably expect?

We could expect a Shuttle replacement on the horizon. And that's
exactly what President Reagan said he would do. He announced the
Orient Express one week after Challenger.

I have no idea what Bob is going on about this time.

Birn

On Fri, 1 Mar 2013 19:44:16 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


I am 56 and old enough to remember.

A dedication is one thing, a grass roots effort to support nasa and
enterprise are two different things

Bob, there was no reason for a grass roots movement. You're
complaining that we would have gotten a Shuttle replacement or a
Shuttle Mk.II or something, if only Challenger had been named
Enterprise?

But what you're forgetting is that the country did begin the effort to
replace the Shuttle. President Reagan was scheduled to make his annual
State of the Union Address the day Challenger was lost. Instead, it
was given a week later, and in it President Reagan announced the
Orient Express, which would later be called the X-30 National
Aerospace Plane.

What more do you want? We got a continuation of the Shuttle program
(many called for its cancelation), we got a direct replacement for
Challenger, and we got a start on a fresh Shuttle successor.

You think losing Enterprise would have caused Trekkies to rally around
NASA, but most of us did anyway, even though at the time NASA Bashing
seemed to be a national pasttime. The "Need Another Seven Astronauts"
and "Never A Straight Answer" slams were widespread, and very hard to
shout-down. I was there, on the BBSs of the day. Where were YOU?

Brian