A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Which Apollo landing site would you revisit?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 11th 03, 06:04 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which Apollo landing site would you revisit?


Since we're comparing the safety of the Apollo and shuttle vehicles, I
think we need to realize that Apollo probably wasn't as safe as its
flight record might indicate. It's true that, the Fire aside (which was
a result of a lot of developmental factors and the unforgiving aspects of


Apollo was also the first vehicle designed to take man to another planetary
body.

The shuttle was 4th vehicle designed for manned operations in LEO, although it
was designed as the first space truck.

mercury, gemini, apollo, shuttle.


  #2  
Old July 11th 03, 08:28 PM
Mike Speegle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which Apollo landing site would you revisit?

In news:Hallerb typed:
Since we're comparing the safety of the Apollo and shuttle
vehicles, I
think we need to realize that Apollo probably wasn't as safe as its
flight record might indicate. It's true that, the Fire aside
(which was
a result of a lot of developmental factors and the unforgiving
aspects of


Apollo was also the first vehicle designed to take man to another
planetary body.

The shuttle was 4th vehicle designed for manned operations in LEO,
although it was designed as the first space truck.

mercury, gemini, apollo, shuttle.


Here we go again, Bob. You neglected to add the word "American."
Otherwise you're looking like an ignorant ass. On the other hand...
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.


  #3  
Old July 11th 03, 09:00 PM
Hallerb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which Apollo landing site would you revisit?


Here we go again, Bob. You neglected to add the word "American."


Well it was obviously american since thats what were talking about. American
launch vehicles incremental improvements changes between models.

I hope everyone realizes that If I were saying GO NASA LETS FLY others would
ignore my grammar and spelling, and issues like this.

I am not one of the boys here.

Thats fine BTW I am more interested in a good space program than the biased
folks here.

Many here depend directly or indirectly on NASA for jobs.

Someone saying lets fly tomorrow may be hurting becauise they sell stuff to
tourists attracted to launches. Or family may be huirting for same reason.

As a retired PAD rat at the apollo one memorial service said.

FOR US THIS IS A JOBS PROGRAM.

He was one of the workers who disassembled Apoloo one after the fire
  #4  
Old July 11th 03, 09:03 PM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which Apollo landing site would you revisit?


"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
|
| Apollo was also the first vehicle designed to take man to
| another planetary body.

Be that as it may, it was also designed with a deadline in mind.

| The shuttle was 4th vehicle designed for manned operations
| in LEO, although it was designed as the first space truck.

The shuttle shares some superfluous similarities with its forebears. The
problem of getting to the moon (excluding the lunar lander and associated
rendezvous problems) is not that much of a stretch over operations in low
earth orbit. The problem of creating a REUSABLE spacecraft of that size is
awesome. The Apollo CSM was a logical extension of Gemini technology, which
was a logical extension of Mercury technology. The space shuttle was a
major leap beyond all of that, despite the fact that it is limited to
orbital operations. And with that leap comes a lot of uncertainty that can
manifest itself in failure. You cannot unilaterally equate complexity of
the vehicle with the distance of the destination.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

  #5  
Old July 11th 03, 09:29 PM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Which Apollo landing site would you revisit?


"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
|
| Thats fine BTW I am more interested in a good space program
| than the biased folks here.

Consider that people disagree with you because your conclusions are
ill-founded, not because some speculated bias compels them to.

| Many here depend directly or indirectly on NASA for jobs.

Not me. Even if it were otherwise, the correctness of your conclusions is
not proved by the shortcomings of others.

If I'm standing in a pile of dog ****, and a blind man comes up and tells me
that I'm standing in a pile of dog ****, my telling him he's blind doesn't
make the dog **** go away.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM
Which Apollo landing site would you revisit? MondoMor History 2 July 11th 03 02:32 PM
Which Apollo landing site would you revisit? Keith F. Lynch History 0 July 11th 03 03:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.