A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Space Shuttle commentary



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 26th 06, 09:15 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
www.spaceboot.eu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default 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  
Old October 26th 06, 10:19 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Skunk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default 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  
Old October 27th 06, 12:22 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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
  #5  
Old October 27th 06, 01:50 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default 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  
Old October 27th 06, 04:22 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 510
Default 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  
Old October 27th 06, 04:54 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 510
Default 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  
Old October 27th 06, 05:07 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default 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  
Old October 27th 06, 05:45 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old October 27th 06, 02:09 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Aaron Lawrence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.