|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
Hi,
I would like your comments on the following article: http://www.spaceboot.eu/index.php?op...20&Itemi d=47 thanks, Andy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
www.spaceboot.eu wrote:
Hi, I would like your comments on the following article: http://www.spaceboot.eu/index.php?op...20&Itemi d=47 thanks, Andy America did it. Everybody else quit. We learned volumes from the Shuttle. I say keep it going until the Station is built. Move on after the Station is done and when we have another system. If the new launch system is not ready keep the Shuttle active until it is. We should never depend on the Russians or anybody else to get into Space or to the ISS. However, in the long run private industry will do much better than Government moving people and product into near Earth Space. Leave NASA for the cutting edge stuff and interplanetary/moon travel and evolve near Earth orbit missions toward private enterprise.Government has a very poor track record when it comes to financial efficiency. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
"www.spaceboot.eu" wrote:
Hi, I would like your comments on the following article: http://www.spaceboot.eu/index.php?op...20&Itemi d=47 Pretty typical of the armchair astronaut/engineer genre - an idealistic proposal utterly inoccent of any contamination from political, economic, or engineering reality. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
"www.spaceboot.eu" wrote in message ups.com... Hi, I would like your comments on the following article: http://www.spaceboot.eu/index.php?op...20&Itemi d=47 thanks, Andy Full of typos and errors. Repeats the first paragraph twice for no apparent reason. Examples of errors: One could argue that 6 airframes where built: STA-99 which became OV-99 OV-101 Enterprise which never flew into space but was built to be spaceworthy OV-102 Columbia OV-103 Discovery OV-104 Atlantis OV-105 Endeavour It's not accurate to say "The shuttle has become agigantic (sic) cargo ship..." it was designed that way. It hasn't become that since built which is the way that reads. The MLP is the pad. You make several claims without any clear backing for them. For example, "... but the ideal cargo ship is an automated and unmanned one: it costs less, weighs less and is expandable.' Why? Name one case on earth where that's true? All cargo ships have crews, as do all cargo aircraft. "I suppose one could build a new shuttle in 6 months, no? " Umm, no you couldn't. "...but has been proven necesarry and ineffective none the less." How has it been proven to be ineffective? That's just a smackling of thoughts. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:50:45 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote: The MLP is the pad. Eh, I'd give Andy that one. There is a huge concrete pad out there, too, where the Crawler parks the MLP. Brian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
On 26 Oct 2006 13:15:52 -0700, "www.spaceboot.eu"
wrote: Hi, I would like your comments on the following article: http://www.spaceboot.eu/index.php?op...20&Itemi d=47 thanks, Andy "After launch the shuttle's SRB return to Earth hanging from a parachute. The gigantic external tank does not return and is lost each launch. Sidenote: this was different in the Russian Buran design." No, it wasn't. While Russia had vague notions of adding wings or otherwise somehow recovering the Energia core, they never came remotely close to designing this, so to say Buran's design was different is a major overstatement. Buran Mk.II, maybe. "I suppose one could build a new shuttle in 6 months, no? " Multiply that number by 10. Five years is how long it took to build Endeavour after Challenger was destroyed. "I could get further into the way the launch stack is put together in the vehicle assembly building and then driven at a stunning speed of 1.6 kph to its launch pad, but I thought 1 number would say enough: 1 YEAR!" Exactly how fast do you think Soyuz rides its rails out to the launch pad? Anyway, your "fun with statistics" makes it seem as if Shuttles never turn around in less than 1 YEAR! In fact, the fastest turnaround is around 2 months (Atlantis in 1985) or 3 months post-Challenger (Columbia in 1997.) All else being equal, Shuttles usually fly twice a year. There have been a few ocassions where they've flown three times a year (Endeavour in 1993, Columbia in both 1996 and 1997, Atlantis in 1991 and 1997.) "From the beginning on the protecting tiles from the heat-shield on the shuttle were quite fragile and some came off even in the earliest flights." Columbia was not destroyed by damaged tiles. It was destroyed by a damaged Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) panel on the wing leading edge, something no one had considered vulnerable before. Tiles are very different things, and were the original prime suspect in the Columbia accident, but they were later exonerated. Brian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:50:45 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: The MLP is the pad. Eh, I'd give Andy that one. There is a huge concrete pad out there, too, where the Crawler parks the MLP. It's a quibble, yes. But I figure since the stack launches from the MLP, the pad isn't a "launch pad" ;-) Brian |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
Brian Thorn wrote:
"I suppose one could build a new shuttle in 6 months, no? " Multiply that number by 10. Five years is how long it took to build Endeavour after Challenger was destroyed. And it was only that fast because most of the components were already sitting on the shelves as spares. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Space Shuttle commentary
On a pleasant day while strolling in sci.space.shuttle, a person by the
name of Brian Thorn exclaimed: Exactly how fast do you think Soyuz rides its rails out to the launch pad? I'm quite curious about this. Is soyuz transported horizontally? (Buran was) If so I assume it IS a bit faster than shuttle. -- aaronl at consultant dot com For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Discovery and competitiveness: the keywords in Europe's policies and programmes for space | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | December 3rd 05 11:46 AM |
Shuttle News from 1976 | Gareth Slee | Space Shuttle | 7 | August 2nd 05 04:26 AM |
JimO writings on shuttle disaster, recovery | Jim Oberg | Policy | 0 | July 11th 05 06:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 1 | March 2nd 05 05:35 PM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 05:29 PM |