|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
Thankfully both McCain and Obama have sent a letter to the
administration and Dr. Griffin to put the decision on hold to retire the shuttle for 1 year... why... because everyone can see the "coolness" developing. Its just silly to think that if we have a direct conflict with Russia that they will continue the space relationship with NASA beyond what is necessary. This is especially true if sanctions occur. Which is unlikely, unless the Russians invade the rest of Georgia, which is possible. Depending on how much Putin is feeling his cheerios. So Shuttle should continue to be made available to the USA and our European and Japanese partners so we don't have a repeat Skylab experience and watch the ISS drop out of the sky and burn into a million pieces while the press destroys NASA for the failure of ISS. NASA can't and won't let this happen, if Orion is put on hold for 5 years oh well, welcome to the real world of geopolitics, the space programs very familiar and old hunting ground. This will definitely probably stop Atlantis from being mothballed. As a bonus this will give time to work out Orion and Ares 5 problems that may not have been able to occur before the current time table. As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built. Why not, all the blueprints are in the vault aren't they? Don't answer that last question. Its just something that's possible as all things are like just retooling the existing Apollo base design and redoing the electronics. Welcome back... to ideas that are proven. Jonathan On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:46:57 GMT, "Brian Gaff" wrote: Hang on a moment, I seem to recall that Mike Griffin did in fact say a long time ago that there was no fundamental reason why it could not fly, except that at some point the tooling for tanks etc, and the modification to the pads for the next craft may mean that some decision were to be made on this, it would have to be fairly fast. In my view, its the apparent disagreement with Russia over policies on the ground etc, which may have made this a higher priority. After all, you can hardly fly Americans on Soyuz, if you are daggers drawn over policies in Eastern Europe. From over here, I cannot see why the US seems to be going out of its way to annoy Russia, if the boot, so to speak was on the other foot regarding missile bases and for that matter, a neighbouring country threatening etchic Americans (OK no such thing) I'm sure the response would have been very similar. Anyway, I think I said back in the start, that they may wish to fly longer. The bottom line really is the bottom line though, and that is will it be funded as well as Orion, or is the return to the moon etc, going to be quietly forgotten? The are old and someone needs to make a long term decision not overturn by any administration coming up in a few years. Brian |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
J Waggoner wrote:
As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built. Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon under my own power. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Sep 2, 2:59�am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
J Waggoner wrote: As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built. Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon under my own power. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL The current pads have lived a proud and historic life. Perhaps its time to retire them as exhibits and build new pads for whatever replaces the shuttle? a add on to existing ewxpendable pads would likely cost way less than rebuilding 39 a and b. so how much would a new pad set cost in comparison to the program cost? its likely low, and new pads could be built with a retractable roof so rockets sitting stacked at the pad arent out in the weather... something every pad rat would likely appreciate |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"bob haller safety advocate" wrote in message
... On Sep 2, 2:59�am, (Derek Lyons) wrote: J Waggoner wrote: As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built. Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon under my own power. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL The current pads have lived a proud and historic life. Perhaps its time to retire them as exhibits and build new pads for whatever replaces the shuttle? a add on to existing ewxpendable pads would likely cost way less than rebuilding 39 a and b. so how much would a new pad set cost in comparison to the program cost? its likely low, and new pads could be built with a retractable roof so rockets sitting stacked at the pad arent out in the weather... something every pad rat would likely appreciate ================================ A launch pad with a retractable roof? ?? ...!! I think the problem here has two prime roots. Root1 is the nontechnical/religious character of far too many Americans. America is not a spacefaring nation. Root2 is the system has politicians making engineering decisions. Politicians make *really* bad engineers. Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Sep 02] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Sep 2, 8:17*am, bob haller safety advocate wrote:
The current pads have lived a proud and historic life. Perhaps its time to retire them as exhibits *and build new pads for whatever replaces the shuttle? No a add on to existing ewxpendable pads would likely cost way less than rebuilding 39 a and b. No, it wouldn't be so how much would a new pad set cost in comparison to the program cost? Too much its likely low, and new pads could be built with a retractable roof so rockets sitting stacked at the pad arent out in the weather... something every pad rat would likely appreciate No, that defeat the purpose of the VAB. The key is to minimize work at the pad and do most of it in the VAB |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
Derek Lyons wrote: Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon under my own power. No, you must use a Dean Drive equipped submarine: http://davidszondy.com/future/space/dean_drive02.jpg Pat |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Sep 2, 11:43�am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon under my own power. No, you must use a Dean Drive equipped submarine:http://davidszondy.com/future/space/dean_drive02.jpg Pat so what could a replacement for 39A & B cost? what percentage of a new launcher program would that be? certinally if retractable roofs can be built over stadiums they could in a fashion be built to protect a pad and vehicle. would have to be perfect but keep thew rain off would certinally help. workers do a better job when comfortable I wonder how structurally sound they aRE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS? steel re bar in salt environment is tough, rebar rusts and grows, |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... J Waggoner wrote: As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built. Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon under my own power. More likely the shuttle will continue flying and Ares I problems will keep getting worse, to the point where that program is cancelled. Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:38:39 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote: "Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... J Waggoner wrote: As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built. Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon under my own power. More likely the shuttle will continue flying and Ares I problems will keep getting worse, to the point where that program is cancelled. Jeff This wasn't about the pads first all, that was an aside. If you want to start a pad thread go ahead, be my guest. There is no reason the shuttles can't be maintained thru 2020 if necessary. Lets face it Griffin has been campaigning for this since Bush announced the back to the moon plan. The Russians have given shuttle fans a gift in this way. Remember the Shuttles were not to blame for the loss of Columbia or challenger. It was the SRB joint and the tank foam. The real blame of course sits with engineers who are human. Another method of launching the shuttle could always be revived. But I do think Orion will be slowed down and perfected. Its not good to rush a new program, you end up with disaster like Apollo One or Challenger. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
J Waggoner wrote:
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:38:39 -0400, "Jeff Findley" wrote: "Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... J Waggoner wrote: As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built. Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and fly to the moon under my own power. More likely the shuttle will continue flying and Ares I problems will keep getting worse, to the point where that program is cancelled. This wasn't about the pads first all, that was an aside. If you want to start a pad thread go ahead, be my guest. There is no reason the shuttles can't be maintained thru 2020 if necessary. Lets face it Griffin has been campaigning for this since Bush announced the back to the moon plan. You are either delusional or a liar. Where do you cranks come up with this ****? I do think Orion will be slowed down and perfected. Perhaps washing machines really do fly.\ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shuttle program extension? | Flyguy | Space Shuttle | 175 | September 22nd 08 04:18 PM |
No Shuttle launch, Shuttle program mothballed? | Widget | Policy | 1 | July 4th 06 03:51 PM |
The shuttle program needs some comedy!!! | Steve W. | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 9th 05 09:59 PM |
More Evidence The Shuttle Program Should Be Scrapped | John Slade | Space Shuttle | 7 | August 2nd 05 04:35 AM |
Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program | JazzMan | Space Shuttle | 23 | February 19th 04 02:21 AM |