Drive on Opportunity

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

On Jun 9, 9:58 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" wrote in message

...



Again, the folks who are giving this a lot of thought aren't idiots.

The demands for ISS are very different from the demands of a Mars
mission.

hey shuttles were sold as being safe, to the point launch boost escape
was deleted from their requirements, they would fly at least 50 times
per year, be turned around in less than 2 weeks, few gave much thought
to disengrating on return to earth..

Yeah, and anyone who knew anything about them knew that was a load of
********.



and ISS has lots in common with a mars mission, a extended mission for
2 or 3 years with the added issue of no resupply....

No, it has practically nothing in common other than "being in space".

It has very precise pointing requirements in order to maintain adequate
power and a micro-gravity environment while orbiting the Earth.

A Mars craft doesn't have those requirements.

It's designed with the assumption it will be crewed the entire time.
Most
likely a Mars craft will be designed with a completely different set of
requirements.

It's assumed that in a worst case scenario, Earth is available. So it
can
afford a lower level of redundancy. A Mars craft won't be.

It's the difference between a riverboat and an ocean liner.



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

very smart people designed these vehicles and still failure occured...

Yes. "**** happens".

But note, I'm talking about DESIGN philosophies.

Also note, that both major failures of the Space shuttle were due to
operating outside the design parameters.




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

On Jun 9, 2:52*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Again, the folks who are giving this a lot of thought aren't idiots.

The demands for ISS are very different from the demands of a Mars mission.

hey shuttles were sold as being safe, to the point launch boost escape
was deleted from their requirements, they would fly at least 50 times
per year, be turned around in less than 2 weeks, few gave much thought
to disengrating on return to earth..

yawn



and ISS has lots in common with a mars mission, a extended mission for
2 or 3 years with the added issue of no resupply....

Thanks for once again demonstrating your ignorance of, well, pretty
much everything.


NASA sold ISS based on earthshaking scientific discoveries but now
says the purpose of ISS is long term manned operations in space

On Jun 9, 2:58*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
http://www.universetoday.com/42167/t...rs-in-39-days/

If you're willing to wait another 30 years to START to develop
exploration vehicles....

--


Cite on your statement about 30 years ...........

On Jun 9, 2:22*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message

...







On Jun 9, 9:58 am, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message

....

Again, the folks who are giving this a lot of thought aren't idiots..

The demands for ISS are very different from the demands of a Mars
mission.

hey shuttles were sold as being safe, to the point launch boost escape
was deleted from their requirements, they would fly at least 50 times
per year, be turned around in less than 2 weeks, few gave much thought
to disengrating on return to earth..

Yeah, and anyone who knew anything about them knew that was a load of
********.

and ISS has lots in common with a mars mission, a extended mission for
2 or 3 years with the added issue of no resupply....

No, it has practically nothing in common other than "being in space".

It has very precise pointing requirements in order to maintain adequate
power and a micro-gravity environment while orbiting the Earth.

A Mars craft doesn't have those requirements.

It's designed with the assumption it will be crewed the entire time.
Most
likely a Mars craft will be designed with a completely different set of
requirements.

It's assumed that in a worst case scenario, Earth is available. *So it
can
afford a lower level of redundancy. *A Mars craft won't be.

It's the difference between a riverboat and an ocean liner.

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

very smart people designed these vehicles and still failure occured...

Yes. "**** happens".

But note, I'm talking about DESIGN philosophies.

Also note, that both major failures of the Space shuttle were due to
operating outside the design parameters.


if challenger had launch boost escape the crew could of survived....

the shuttle design wasnt robust enough, launch boost escape would of
given columbias crew a chance to survive.

since it would of included a pressurized escape pod

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


if challenger had launch boost escape the crew could of survived....


Sure, because it would have been to heavy to do its mission and would never
have flown.

Of course you miss the point. It was flying outside its design criteria.
THAT never should have happened.

My car is unlikely to protect me if I do 100mph down slick roads in bald
tires. No matter how well it is built.


the shuttle design wasnt robust enough, launch boost escape would of
given columbias crew a chance to survive.

since it would of included a pressurized escape pod

Again, Columbia was too heavy as it was.

And again, had they NOT accepted debris and fixed the real problem, the
issue would have never happened.

Look, one of the things I do on the side is teach vertical caving. We're
very clear in explaining the difference between fall PROTECTION and fall
PREVENTION. In vertical caving your gear is designed for fall PREVENTION,
not PROTECTION. If you shock the system with a toothed climbing device, you
might DIE. The solution is NOT to increase the amount of equipment and
change everything. It's to learn to use the equipment CORRECTLY in the way
it is designed... i.e don't shock load the system.

Now, for folks doing rope access on structures, OSHA requires fall
PROTECTION. Very different requirements and very different equipment.

Neither is more "right" than the other. Both are designed for the
environment and use they'll typically be used in. Use it outside those
parameters and all bets are off.

Now, yes, even with all that sometimes, "**** happens" and you have a very
bad day. But the odds are EXTREMELY low.

The Columbia and Challenger astronauts died because the system was being
operated outside its design parameters.





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

On Jun 9, 7:47*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"bob haller" *wrote in message

...



if challenger had launch boost escape the crew could of survived....

Sure, because it would have been to heavy to do its mission and would never
have flown.

Of course you miss the point. It was flying outside its design criteria.
THAT never should have happened.

My car is unlikely to protect me if I do 100mph down slick roads in bald
tires. *No matter how well it is built.

the shuttle design wasnt robust enough, launch boost escape would of
given columbias crew a chance to survive.

since it would of included a pressurized escape pod

Again, Columbia was too heavy as it was.

And again, had they NOT accepted debris and fixed the real problem, the
issue would have never happened.

Look, one of the things I do on the side is teach vertical caving. We're
very clear in explaining the difference between fall PROTECTION and fall
PREVENTION. *In vertical caving your gear is designed for fall PREVENTION,
not PROTECTION. *If you shock the system with a toothed climbing device, you
might DIE. *The solution is NOT to increase the amount of equipment and
change everything. *It's to learn to use the equipment CORRECTLY in the way
it is designed... i.e don't shock load the system.

Now, for folks doing rope access on structures, OSHA requires fall
PROTECTION. *Very different requirements and very different equipment.

Neither is more "right" than the other. Both are designed for the
environment and use they'll typically be used in. Use it outside those
parameters and all bets are off.

Now, yes, even with all that sometimes, "**** happens" and you have a very
bad day. *But the odds are EXTREMELY low.

The Columbia and Challenger astronauts died because the system was being
operated outside its design parameters.



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

shuttle design was a compromse for military missions needing large
cross range that required large heavy wings. the added weight helped
make the vehicle too heavy for launch boost escape. plus a shuttle 2
of high tech composites could of been built to add safety while
cutting weight.....

along with a shuttle C cargo variant..... but none of these were funded

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


shuttle design was a compromse for military missions needing large
cross range that required large heavy wings. the added weight helped
make the vehicle too heavy for launch boost escape. plus a shuttle 2
of high tech composites could of been built to add safety while
cutting weight.....


And if I could fart pixie dust I'd fly to Mars.

Bob, I'm quite familiar with the shuttle design and the various compromises.

Note that you didn't say anything about the design involving:
A) foam shedding hit the vehicle (in fact the design required that NOT to
happen.)
B) burn thru of the O-rings. And in fact that was a very specific issue
that should have caused an immediate halt in flights.

Again, you can't engineer against every possible failure. But when you fly
in contradiction to your design, you WILL have issues.

along with a shuttle C cargo variant..... but none of these were funded



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

Note that 6 months is the 'normal' ISS rotation. *People have flown
longer than a year.

ISS is not in deep space, its close to earth and protected by the van
allen belts

On Jun 9, 11:07*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Note that 6 months is the 'normal' ISS rotation. *People have flown
longer than a year.

ISS is not in deep space, its close to earth and protected by the van
allen belts

Which has nothing to do with anything, you ignorant ****.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

you tried to compare 6 months in orbit on ISS with 6 months in deep
space in transit to mars....

they are very different....

and you are extremely ignorant...

On Jun 9, 11:32*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:07*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Note that 6 months is the 'normal' ISS rotation. *People have flown
longer than a year.

ISS is not in deep space, its close to earth and protected by the van
allen belts

Which has nothing to do with anything, you ignorant ****.

you tried to compare 6 months in orbit on ISS with 6 months in deep
space in transit to mars....

they are very different....

and you are extremely ignorant...

You were talking about vision problems.

In that regard they are not different at all.


I was talking about far more than vision troubles.

plus isnt it fascinating that the vision troubles were kept secret for
all these years?

Certinally skylab crews must of had at east some of the issue, let
alone long term crews on mir, both american and russian......

I wonder if there are more undisclosed troubles that we havent been
told about YET?

apparently astronauts are controlled by nasa.......

a long term flight in deep space may have other troubles that we have
no knowldge of...