|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
Richard Schumacher writes:
So we can either send willing astronauts to Hubble to perform uniquely valuable work while risking unknown dangers, or send them to the International Space Station to do jack **** in relative safety. What a bunch of worthless pussies we've become. Without a doubt. Apollo 1 killed three astronauts before any manned Apollo capsule ever flew, Apollo 13 very nearly killed three more, and there were "tense moments" on several other Apollo flights. An overwhelming desire to keep the crew safe isn't what stopped Apollo capsules from flying, but it appears to be what is killing any non-ISS shuttle missions. Even if NASA does start flying missions to ISS, it's going to be hard for them to justify risking a crew on the relatively new CEV beyond the "safety" of ISS. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
Joann Evans writes:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote: The agency's bottom line: Any flight to Hubble or elsewhere "is clearly riskier than a flight to the station," NASA deputy shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said. There, "you have friends that have air and electricity and food and water and all the necessary means to hang out and give you options to fix the problem," he said. "That's just common sense." Wow. What did we ever do before ISS...? We had balls. Somewhere, somehow, the US has been neutered. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
George Kasica wrote:
35 (almost) years after Apollo 11's landing I wonder what that group of NASA folks (astronauts, engineers, etc.) would have to say to this line of thinking....my guess would be they are none too thrilled at our lack of to use a polite term "backbone". In fairness, there is a big difference between Apollo and Shuttle. Apollo was meant to be single use aka "disposable". Shuttle is meant to be reusable. Shuttles are now a precious vehicle produced in extremely limited quantities and irreplaceable. So like a piece of rare artwork, they need to treat the 3 remaining babies with extreme TLC. However, this doesn't negate the fact that a mission to Hubble has no more risks of damage than a mission to Station. Both have similar launches and re-entries. The risk is the same, the procedures are different. And NASA still has plenty of time to fine tune its procedures and stuill make it to Hubble safely and prove to the world that it is capable to adapt and take on difficult challenges. By abandonning Hubble and risking all the bad PR when it falls back on earth uncontrolled, NASA is admitting that it is incompetent, unable to tackle a fairly simple challenge (in the grand scheme of things). And if it can't even fly to somewhere it used to fly regularly before, how the hell is anyone supposed to believe NASA is able to design a new space vehicle ? |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
Stephen Bolton wrote: .. Richard Schumacher wrote in : http://www.floridatoday.com/news/spa...cestoryN0501SH UTTLE.htm NASA details risks to astronauts on mission to Hubble _FLORIDA TODAY_ - May 1, 2004 So we can either send willing astronauts to Hubble to perform uniquely valuable work while risking unknown dangers, or send them to the International Space Station to do jack **** in relative safety. What a bunch of worthless pussies we've become. The ISS is the millstone around NASA's neck. After all the hype and effort involved in its construction none of its leaders seem capable of standing back and applying rational analysis to the situation that has evelved. If I were the US president I would not just withdraw ISS support but actively support the destruction of the station so that no country can waste its valuable resources. Start agan with a clean slate. Mind you, there is a VERY strong argument that un-manned space activity is far more scientifically productive (actually the argument should be conceded). Best spend the money to invent the warp drive or else we will be forever limited to marginal (from a biological perspective) operations in the solar system. The Apollo program returned orders-of-magnitude more scientific information about the Moon than all the unmanned flights put together. And, had cost been an issue, it could have been done for far less money. Nobody denies that unmanned spacecraft do a good job of collecting particles and fields data, or taking pictures from orbit, but for lunar and planetary *exploration*, or for such things as building advanced astronomical observatories on the lunar farside, the presence of humans is virtually mandatory. This issue, thus far, has been confused by the sorry state-of-the-art in space transportation. Once we have reliable, fully-reusable launch vehicles (and we could have had them 20 years ago), the situation will become a lot clearer. The argument is most definitely not conceeded. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
On or about 03 May 2004 14:38:16 -0400, jeff findley
made the sensational claim that: An overwhelming desire to keep the crew safe isn't what stopped Apollo capsules from flying, but it appears to be what is killing any non-ISS shuttle missions. And that's the ****er of it all. We'd already pretty much thrown away the need for the shuttle's versatility (with the lone exception of Hubble), so the Columbia accident actually made more of an impact than it might have otherwise. If ISS weren't the *only* priority, would we be so willing to wallow in this fear of losting another crew? -- This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
"Jorge R. Frank" writes:
Indeed, what is the probability of *any* spacecraft in a 28.45 degree inclination orbit coming down on NYC (latitude 40.4 deg N) or Moscow (latitude 55.45 deg N)? Especially if said spacecraft has no propulsion system and an L/D of zero? I'm going to guess zero. ;-) Seriously, this isn't worth spending money on. I'm sure NASA will give the public the appearance they're keeping their options open (they always do), but it all comes down to funding, doesn't it? If congress and the administration think Hubble is worth saving, they'll ask NASA how much money it will take and will put that money into NASA's budget. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
Henry Spencer wrote:
I There is much engineering still to be done, and the extremely high production cost of antimatter is a major problem, but at the level of basic physics, there is no question that antimatter rockets are feasible. Positrons are straightforward to produce, at the ~10% efficiency level. Unfortunately, storing them isn't easy. The best way may be a very large magnetic bottle with a very weak magnetic field, storing a cold electron/positron plasma. At a density of 10^6/cm^3 the positrons should last about a year, IIRC. Since the plasma is cold, the energy of the magnetic field is the annihilation energy of the plasma (this is not true of Penning traps.) Using the positrons is also not easy, since the energy comes out as gammas. Paul |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
jeff findley wrote in
: "Jorge R. Frank" writes: Indeed, what is the probability of *any* spacecraft in a 28.45 degree inclination orbit coming down on NYC (latitude 40.4 deg N) or Moscow (latitude 55.45 deg N)? Especially if said spacecraft has no propulsion system and an L/D of zero? I'm going to guess zero. ;-) Seriously, this isn't worth spending money on. Not a whole lot of money, anyway - like I said earlier, any competent insurance actuary would tell you that, and were this a commercially-insured operation, probably nothing would be done. This being a government operation, the decision will be made on political and diplomatic bases rather than an actuarial basis. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
George Kasica wrote in
: 35 (almost) years after Apollo 11's landing I wonder what that group of NASA folks (astronauts, engineers, etc.) would have to say to this line of thinking....my guess would be they are none too thrilled at our lack of to use a polite term "backbone". If they're honest, they'll place it in the general context of US society in general becoming more litigious and risk-averse. The process of hallerbization is not confined to NASA, nor did it occur overnight. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 03:33 AM |
Requirements / process to become a shuttle astronaut? | Dan Huizenga | Space Shuttle | 11 | November 14th 03 07:33 AM |
Booster Crossing | Chuck Stewart | Space Shuttle | 124 | September 15th 03 12:43 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |