A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shuttle program extension?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 2nd 08, 03:16 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
J Waggoner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default 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


Ads
  #2  
Old September 2nd 08, 07:59 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 08, 01:17 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 08, 04:12 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Martha Adams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 08, 04:32 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 558
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 08, 04:43 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 08, 05:40 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default 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  
Old September 2nd 08, 08:38 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 08, 02:01 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
J Waggoner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 08, 02:09 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.