|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
And that will assure that the mission is too expensive to be funded. Look theres NO WAY we should be operating ISS and Shuttle without a fast parts to orbit capacity. Do too much with too little and one day you might loose the entire station for lack of a spare part. HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
Richard Schumacher wrote: What a bunch of worthless pussies we've become. Now don't get down on pussies...kittens grow up to be pussies, a kittens _rock_: http://www.rathergood.com/punk_kittens/ Pat |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:44:11 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: What a bunch of worthless pussies we've become. Now don't get down on pussies...kittens grow up to be pussies, a kittens _rock_: http://www.rathergood.com/punk_kittens/ But not like badgers. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/badgers.html |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
Rand Simberg wrote: But not like badgers. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/badgers.html Try the Zoology Dragon on for size, you vicious pawn of the powers of reaction: http://www.rathergood.com/zoology/ Pat |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
On Wed, 05 May 2004 01:06:08 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: But not like badgers. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/badgers.html Try the Zoology Dragon on for size, They're cute, but they're not badgers, with snakes. They're also not irritating enough to be in the "I like the Moon!" class. you vicious pawn of the powers of reaction I like it--I appreciate your reaction to my blog. Maybe I should make it my new blog motto. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
Sander Vesik wrote in message ...
Having them within 10000 KM vs on earth is not majorly different. Look at teh Mars rovers which are essentialy teleoperated. The limit is not just not being stretched, its not even being looked at seriously. Are you even paying attention to the mission? With a twenty-minute round trip for commands, and a much longer latency for returning images, they're lucky to get one decision cycle in a day. With astronauts in Mars orbit, they could drive more-or-less real-time, probably getting fifteen or twenty decision cycles of the type were discussing in a day. With astronauts on the ground, even more so. When I look at the MER missions so far, they're certainly doing a lot of good science, but it's taken them three months to do what a geologist on the surface could do in about a day. Why do you care about the time it takes? Because Mars is a big planet, and I'd like to see it explored while I'm still young enough to dream about going there. At the rate we're going, it'll take us thirty years. Too long. -jake |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
On or about Tue, 4 May 2004 17:49:23 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
made the sensational claim that: In sci.space.policy LooseChanj wrote: 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? you would be wallowing inthe same fear,a s it has nothig to do with ISS. Yes it does. ISS only uses some of the shuttle's capabilities, which makes other uses appear more frivolous. Such as hubble servicing. It's easier to think of that *one* other planned use as expendable than in the case of having a large backlog of a variety of flights. Another reason is the ISS safe haven fallacy. It occurs to me that a major difference between Challenger's aftermath and Columbia's is "let's make sure that doesn't happen again" and "what if that _does_ happen again". I'm afraid the next time it'll be "ok, this *IS* going to happen again". If it's a shuttle, and I think it just might be, that's it and STS is gone forever, and the will to take CEV anywhere interesting is kicked in the nuts. If we lose a crew to the CEV, well oh **** wings *and* capsules kill, and if a crew is lost with CEV in LEO, then we'll be off seriously debating whether it's worth it to send men into space at all. I certainly don't wish death on anyone, but I do sometimes wonder how a lost astronaut during Mercury or Gemini would have influenced this. (Or, for that matter, a real lost cosmonaut during Vostok.) Would people be more ready to perceive space not as a conquered ground, but as something real and dangerous and not expect absolute and utterly impractical zero loss perfection? IMO, this might have actually made for a safer program, especially after the near tragedy on Apollo 13. Not having lost anyone till that point, it's easier to come away with the impression NASA could have gotten a crew back from the middle of being interrogated by St. Peter. Please note I'm talking about public perception in this post, the common man, and not anyone with a technical background, and most certainly not an aerospace one. And since I'm so smart, I'll predict the next shuttle failure (if one happens) as being a more severe (at least in terms of consequences) repeat of STS-93. Mainly because the gremlins do seem to enjoy pointing out we're not as safe or as knowledgable as we'd like to think in terms of spaceflight, and an STS-93 type incident would put an end to the idea that we're safer on ISS flights because there's somewhere to go to. Ok I'm not that smart and my opinions are definately not the most informed. And f**k anyone who even *thinks* I'm sounding like hallerb, because I *am* willing to accept accidents and not insist on PR safety stunts to keep me happy till the "next one" I can whine about. Oh, and f**k hallerb, sideways with a rusty ginsu. Stuffie, whose existence I was reminded of a few minutes ago via quoting, deserves much worse. And gosh dammit if you DO want to reply via email take the hint in the middle of sig. Anything else I'm ****ed off about isn't making itself known to my brane atm, so I'll end this post here before it ends up being my magnum opus. And just might be too late anyhow. -- 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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Details Risks to Astronauts on Mission to Hubble
Look theres NO WAY we should be operating ISS and Shuttle without a fast parts to orbit capacity. Why not? Do too much with too little and one day you might loose the entire station for lack of a spare part. Only in a chicken-little universe. D. -- Heres something to ponder. A week from today the station has a failure requiring some spare parts they dont have onboard. The parts would of come up on the shuttle but with it grounded spares are in short supply. The trouble is a oxygen envioonmeental one, with spares it would be no big deal. After a couple weeks its decided to bring the crew home on soyuz. The partners are concerned, they dont like leaving the station unmanned. Worse the present soyuz just arrived, so no more will be available for many months. Russia tries to speed the next one up, but really cant do much. While the station is unmanned a slow leak is discovered and things go downhill. another gyro fails, and russia is now using thrusters for station keeping. At 3 nmonths unmmanned control is completely lost. They really aerent sure of the cause, it nmight have been a minor debris impact. Worse the attached progress isnt successful in statrion keeping attempts. Military cameras indicate the station is in a tumble, it looks like the debris impact migfht be the cause but without telementary no one is certain. The stations batteries are all dead, and besides communication was lost quickly when the tumble affected antenna pointing With the shuttle still grounded, and soyuz unable to dock with a tumbling station the death watch begins. Everyone under the ground track worries it may hit them. Now the 1 in a 1000 chance of killing someone doesnt is small comfort to friends and family of those who died when the station broke apart pepering the world with parts. fortunately some came down in the pacific. But others hit europe china, and the US. Russia was spared any majior hits, the start of a new conspiracy theory.The idiots think Russia was trying to bomb us. Some blame terrorists. But really it was our own stupidity A simple case of lack of quick spare parts to orbit capacity Oh yeah in the aftermath of the disaster nasa is neutered, only allowed to do unmanned science probes that will burn up completely in the case of a unplanned deorbit. ISS ansd shuttle died together. In another disaster!!! The shuttle returns to operation. Its second flight aborts to orbit. Minor damage prevents a regular landing. If they had a way to get some supplies to the crew the problem could be fixed. With no way to do this the crew hangs out for a long 2 weeks. Its finally decided to try a pacific bail out loosing the orbiter. Fortunately most of the crew survives, but with the high profile loss of the orbiter the public starts asking why we didnt have after columbia the ability to send spare parts and supplies to the crew. NASA is trashed in the press, as being unprepared. The shuttle program ended with the last lost flight. The partners decided to deorbit ISS for lack of public support. Now BOTH of these situations are entirely possible, and in both cases a fast parts to orbit capacity could make all the difference in the world. BOth of these would also make a wonderful disaster movies. Will nasa assist whenb a movie might make them appear careless? HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
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 |