What's the buzz, Buzz?

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

That would be an interesting questions. What are landing opportunities like
for the Shuttle vs. Soyuz? Shuttle has a wider cross-range, but I have to
imagine the Soyuz has less stringent weather restrictions.

Another thing to consider is that Soyuz can land just about anywhere if
it has to, including on water.
In fact, by international agreement and due to its flatness, North
Dakota is a emergency Soyuz landing area:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Ugol/Ugol.html

Pat

"David Spain" wrote in message
...

OTOH, why do I have the sneaky suspicion that when it's all said and done,
we'll find that we're spending the same on Orion/Aries ops that we spend
on
shuttle ops today?


I think we'll be lucky if it's only that much. :-/

Honestly, I don't think we'll see any savings. KSC is expensive. If there
was a higher flight rate, the fixed costs would be spread out more. But
with Orion, I suspect we'll have as few flights as we do now.


Dave



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

That would be an interesting questions. What are landing opportunities
like for the Shuttle vs. Soyuz? Shuttle has a wider cross-range, but I
have to imagine the Soyuz has less stringent weather restrictions.

Another thing to consider is that Soyuz can land just about anywhere if it
has to, including on water.

True. On the other hand, with what, a 800 mile cross range the shuttle has
a pretty wide range of landing opportunities.

When was the last unscheduled landing of a spacecraft, Gemini 8? I exclude
Apollo 13 since they had a long time to prepare for that.


In fact, by international agreement and due to its flatness, North Dakota
is a emergency Soyuz landing area:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Ugol/Ugol.html

Pat




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Pat Flannery" sez:

Then you will want to be the first on your block to support him* by buying
the entire "Buzz Aldrin Rocket Hero" collection of model kits!
http://www.revell.com/model-kits/lic...cket-hero.html
...and remember, these StarBuzz licensed kits each contain a replica of
the gold olive branch left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts!
http://www.revell.com/catalog/images/free_pin-lg.jpg
And that's just the beginning of your journey into Buzzdom!
Don't forget to purchase several copies of Buzz's book: "Magnificent
Desolation", which make great Christmas gifts!
And in fact, any StarBuzz licensed item makes a great gift!:
http://buzzaldrin.com/?q=hero
It may have been one small step for Neal, but it was one giant marketing
opportunity for Buzz.

Pat

* And I mean that financially.

I take it you have a problem with any and all celebrities using their name
to market, endorse and sell products?

a écrit :
OTOH, why do I have the sneaky suspicion that when it's all said and done,
we'll find that we're spending the same on Orion/Aries ops that we spend on
shuttle ops today?

Dave

probably the same, given its nasa. their main interest is spending
money not accomplishing anything.


NASA has explored

Mercury, Venus, the moon,
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn Neptune Uranus and Pluto.

Today, NASA has machines in orbit around Mars and Saturn
Machines are traveling towards Mercury and Pluto.

NASA has sent machines beyond the solar system, into interplanetary
space (Voyager 1 and 2, and the Pioneer probes)

Nasa sent humans to the Moon, and has participated to the building
of the international space station.

This organization will be remembered forever in all school books of the
future. To say that Nasa "accomplished nothing" proves only the stupidity
of the anonymous coward that wrote those words.

nasa doesnt need a new dedicated launcher. just go with private
industry on existing expendables


"Private industry" has accomplished nothing till now, but a few shots
of experimental hardware.

On Nov 30, 12:46�pm, jacob navia wrote:
a �crit :

OTOH, why do I have the sneaky suspicion that when it's all said and done,
we'll find that we're spending the same on Orion/Aries ops that we spend on
shuttle ops today?

Dave

probably the same, given its nasa. their main interest is spending
money not accomplishing anything.

NASA has explored

Mercury, Venus, the moon,
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn Neptune Uranus and Pluto.

Today, NASA has machines in orbit around Mars and Saturn
Machines are traveling towards Mercury and Pluto.

NASA has sent machines beyond the solar system, into interplanetary
space (Voyager 1 and 2, and the Pioneer probes)

Nasa sent humans to the Moon, and has participated to the building
of the international space station.

This organization will be remembered forever in all school books of the
future. To say that Nasa "accomplished nothing" proves only the stupidity
of the anonymous coward that wrote those words.

nasa doesnt need a new dedicated launcher. just go with private
industry on existing expendables

"Private industry" has accomplished nothing till now, but a few shots
of experimental hardware.

yeah the original nasa did accomplish a lot.

but the new manned launcher is all political pork piggie payoffs.

existing atlas and delta expendables would cost less, hep the industry
with a increased launch rate, and could of been ready to fly by now.

we cant afford to pay off shuttle contractors.........

make private space launchers income tax free for 20 years and watch
that industry explode.

even john young says the new launchger is too big, too expensive and
no one wants it........

nasa specked the vehicle to lock out all existing vehicles

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


I think we'll be lucky if it's only that much. :-/

Honestly, I don't think we'll see any savings.


I don't think we are going to see any Ares/Orion for that matter.

Pat

True.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


I think we'll be lucky if it's only that much. :-/

Honestly, I don't think we'll see any savings.


I don't think we are going to see any Ares/Orion for that matter.

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

True. On the other hand, with what, a 800 mile cross range the shuttle has
a pretty wide range of landing opportunities.

Needs a landing airfield with the proper navaids to allow it to land,
and a long enough runway.
Also, not good at holding in the pattern for other aircraft to land. ;-)

When was the last unscheduled landing of a spacecraft, Gemini 8?

There was the Soyuz 18A mission abort that almost put them down in China
in 1975, and the Soyuz 23 mission that came down on the semi-frozen lake
during the blizzard because of a faulty retro burn in 1976.
Soyuz 23 used batteries for power rather than solar arrays, but after
that the solar arrays were returned to the design to give the crew more
time to plan a landing if docking failed.
Soyuz TM-6 landed a day late due to computer problems aborting the
retrofire in 1988, but details of that flight are still somewhat sketchy.

Pat

Peter Cushing's Ghost wrote:

It may have been one small step for Neal, but it was one giant
marketing opportunity for Buzz.

Pat

* And I mean that financially.

I take it you have a problem with any and all celebrities using their
name to market, endorse and sell products?

Yes.
Especially Rocket Heroes.
The problem is that he considers himself a "celebrity" rather than
someone who did something historic at great expense to the taxpayer.
His antics cheapen him, Project Apollo, and NASA in general.

Luckily, I have a solution...NASA must establish a "Sandman" division
that terminates astronauts with extreme prejudice if age, greed, ego, or
craziness makes their behavior become erratic and embarrassing to the
agency.
These terminations must be handled carefully, so that there is plausible
deniability, but a clear warning is sent to other members of the
astronaut corps that they had better shape up and fly right or they too
will soon be "retired".
For instance, Aldrin may be found dead in his bathroom after apparently
trying to shave with a machete and slipping on a bar of soap into a
bathtub that he was using to raise piranhas.
I know this suggestion may not be popular, but it is for the
astronaut's, NASA's, and our nation's own good. ;-)

Pat