Aren't we coming up to the 20th anniversary of the space shuttle Challenger 'tragedy'?

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"volkfolk" wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...
We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space
shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in
the 'space race'. Those 7 astronauts didn't die in a tragedy...they
were sacrificed to the gods.\

How do you figure? The "Space Race" was over in July of 1969. The proof of
this is that NASA's budget was slashed dramaticly in the months following
the return of Apollo 11. At least three lunar landings were completely
scrapped (Apollos 18, 19 and 20)

For a self proclaimed 'space geek' - you sure don't know much. The
*first* dramatic slashing (and the cancellation of two of the flights
you mention) came in 1967 - before Apollo had even flown. The post
-11 cutbacks were modest compared to those.

My understanding is that 18, 19 and 20 were canceled by the Nixon
Administration in early 1970. Here is a link to one site I am aware of that
backs up my assertion

http://www.retroweb.com/apollo_retrospective.html

This timeline had been altered slightly even before the Apollo 13 mission,
when in January, 1970, Apollo 20 was cancelled in order to reserve the last
production Saturn V for use in launching the planned Skylab orbiting
laboratory a few years later. This change shifted the planned Apollo 18 and
19 lunar missions to 1974 to follow Skylab, but further budget-cutting in
late 1970 also resulted in the cancellation of Apollo 18 and 19.

If you have information that contridicts this, please post it along with
whatever links maybe appropriate. (otherwise STFU)

The Space Shuttle was a very poor investment, especially considering the
fact that we had bought and paid for the tooling and manufacturing for
the most powerful snd reliable launch vehicle ever built (The Saturn V)

For a self proclaimed 'space geek' - you sure don't know much. The
Saturn V had significant problems on almost half it's flights. (And
there were not enough flights in the first place to make a
statistically valid claim of reliability.) In addition, it was
hideously expensive by any measurement - no matter how much it
impresses the phallic oriented.

Be specific. What problems are you refering to? The lightining strike during
the launch of Apollo 12? The "Pogo" effect on the Apollo 6 launch? The
premature shutdown of the center J-2 engine on the second stage on Apollo
13? Granted, thirteen launches doesn't provide much basis for statistical
analysis, but other than the problems which I just mentioned, I don't know
of any other issues with the Saturn V. Certainly the Launch Escape System
provided the Apollo crew with a much better opportunity for survival than
the Shuttle does in the event of a catastrophic failure during launch.

So far as the hideous expense, which was more expensive, the Saturn V or the
Space Shuttle? The Space Shuttle has never lived up to expectations, has
commited all of our manned flights to low earth orbit, and is incredibly
labor intensive to keep flying. Not too mention the fact that two out of
five vehicles in the fleet have killed a total of fourteen astronauts in
catastrophic failures. Certainly the original launch schedule that was
envisioned for the Shuttle was worthy of an episode of Fantasy Island.

The Apollo Hardware was far more versatile, and would have allowed us to
launch a lot more meaninful missions. There were plans to place a Skylab in
Geo Synchronous. That would have happened a good ten years before Hubble was
launched. For that matter we could have saved Skylab, and had the basis for
a permamently manned space station, 25 years before the ISS. Not to mention
that we could have easily had a permanent base on the moon by now. All with
flight tested hardware. So which program was more expensive again? If it had
been my decision, I would have stayed with the Apollo/Saturn V/Saturn
IB/Skylab hardware, rather than retool and start from scratch with a
completely unproven vehicle

IMO the Space Shuttle looked great on paper, but never worked as advertised.
The irony is that now the crew of the ISS is reliant on a 40 year old
spacecraft and a 55 year old launch vehicle-made in Russia.

And no matter exactly when specific Apollo flights were cancelled, the Nixon
Administration is responsible for having the Space Shuttle be the United
State's primary launch vehicle. Which was short sighted at best, and has
created some real issues for NASA flight planners, and Administrators IMO

YMMV,

Scot

"volkfolk" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"volkfolk" wrote:

wrote in message
groups.com...
We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space
shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in
the 'space race'. Those 7 astronauts didn't die in a tragedy...they
were sacrificed to the gods.\

How do you figure? The "Space Race" was over in July of 1969. The proof of
this is that NASA's budget was slashed dramaticly in the months following
the return of Apollo 11. At least three lunar landings were completely
scrapped (Apollos 18, 19 and 20)

For a self proclaimed 'space geek' - you sure don't know much. The
*first* dramatic slashing (and the cancellation of two of the flights
you mention) came in 1967 - before Apollo had even flown. The post
-11 cutbacks were modest compared to those.

My understanding is that 18, 19 and 20 were canceled by the Nixon
Administration in early 1970. Here is a link to one site I am aware of that
backs up my assertion

http://www.retroweb.com/apollo_retrospective.html

This timeline had been altered slightly even before the Apollo 13 mission,
when in January, 1970, Apollo 20 was cancelled in order to reserve the last
production Saturn V for use in launching the planned Skylab orbiting
laboratory a few years later. This change shifted the planned Apollo 18 and
19 lunar missions to 1974 to follow Skylab, but further budget-cutting in
late 1970 also resulted in the cancellation of Apollo 18 and 19.

If you have information that contridicts this, please post it along with
whatever links maybe appropriate. (otherwise STFU)

Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books.

That website relates NASA's plans on what they hoped would happen -
not what actually happened. Even though Saturn V production has been
canceled in 1967 and budget money routinely denied for Apollo's 18-20,
they continued to delude themselves that this was of a temporary
nature and the near blank checks would shortly return. In some ways
NASA still operates under that delusion.

The Space Shuttle was a very poor investment, especially considering the
fact that we had bought and paid for the tooling and manufacturing for
the most powerful snd reliable launch vehicle ever built (The Saturn V)

For a self proclaimed 'space geek' - you sure don't know much. The
Saturn V had significant problems on almost half it's flights. (And
there were not enough flights in the first place to make a
statistically valid claim of reliability.) In addition, it was
hideously expensive by any measurement - no matter how much it
impresses the phallic oriented.

Be specific. What problems are you refering to? The lightining strike during
the launch of Apollo 12? The "Pogo" effect on the Apollo 6 launch? The
premature shutdown of the center J-2 engine on the second stage on Apollo
13? Granted, thirteen launches doesn't provide much basis for statistical
analysis, but other than the problems which I just mentioned, I don't know
of any other issues with the Saturn V. Certainly the Launch Escape System
provided the Apollo crew with a much better opportunity for survival than
the Shuttle does in the event of a catastrophic failure during launch.

ROTFLMAO. Virtually *every* flight prior to 14 had Pogo problems.

So far as the hideous expense, which was more expensive, the Saturn V or the
Space Shuttle?

It really doesn't matter - what does matter is that neither was/is
cheap enough to support sustained operations.

The Space Shuttle has never lived up to expectations, has
commited all of our manned flights to low earth orbit, and is incredibly
labor intensive to keep flying. Not too mention the fact that two out of
five vehicles in the fleet have killed a total of fourteen astronauts in
catastrophic failures. Certainly the original launch schedule that was
envisioned for the Shuttle was worthy of an episode of Fantasy Island.

So what? You think that the Saturn V/IB and Apollo CSM combo wouldn't
have racked up a similar record had it flown a similar number of
times? In 13 launches in killed one crew (Apollo 1) and tried to kill
three others (12, 13, ASTP). Not to mention at least two flights that
should have been aborted (14 - docking problems, and 17 - SPS
problems) by the flight rules in place at that time.

The Apollo Hardware was far more versatile, and would have allowed us to
launch a lot more meaninful missions.

The Apollo CSM was highly optimized for the lunar missions - which
would cause problems in the Skylab era because it was too heavy for a
LEO spacecraft. (In particular the heatshield was vastly overweight.)

There were plans to place a Skylab in Geo Synchronous.

No, there were pie-in-the-sky fantasies - which like the rest of AAP,
foundered quickly on the rocks of budgetary reality. There's a reason
why Skylab B was never launched.

That would have happened a good ten years before Hubble was
launched. For that matter we could have saved Skylab, and had the basis for
a permamently manned space station, 25 years before the ISS.

Only in an alternate fantasy world where Congress continued to provide
a near blank check.

Not to mention that we could have easily had a permanent base on the moon
by now. All with flight tested hardware.

Only in an alternate fantasy world where Congress continued to provide
a near blank check.

If it had been my decision, I would have stayed with the Apollo/Saturn V/Saturn
IB/Skylab hardware, rather than retool and start from scratch with a
completely unproven vehicle

I find that unlikely if you use the facts and suppositions in place
*then* rather than 20/20 drooling fanboy hindsight.

And no matter exactly when specific Apollo flights were cancelled, the Nixon
Administration is responsible for having the Space Shuttle be the United
State's primary launch vehicle. Which was short sighted at best, and has
created some real issues for NASA flight planners, and Administrators IMO

Proof positive that you are drooling fanboy with utterly ****-all
knowledge about the evolution of the US space program.

NASA started working on the Shuttle in the mid-60's. When asked by
Congress what they wanted to do post Apollo, NASA (despite the budget
cutbacks already in progress) responded with a plan for a Shuttle,
Station, Moonbase, and Mars mission whose price tag made Apollo look
like a bargain basement remnant. When that was tossed back in their
face - NASA limited the program to the Shuttle as the only thing that
could be salvaged from the disaster (politically speaking) they had
got themselves mired in.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"volkfolk" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"volkfolk" wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...
We all have Ronald Reagan to blame for sending up that space
shuttle...all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in
the 'space race'. Those 7 astronauts didn't die in a tragedy...they
were sacrificed to the gods.\

How do you figure? The "Space Race" was over in July of 1969. The proof
of
this is that NASA's budget was slashed dramaticly in the months
following
the return of Apollo 11. At least three lunar landings were completely
scrapped (Apollos 18, 19 and 20)

For a self proclaimed 'space geek' - you sure don't know much. The
*first* dramatic slashing (and the cancellation of two of the flights
you mention) came in 1967 - before Apollo had even flown. The post
-11 cutbacks were modest compared to those.

My understanding is that 18, 19 and 20 were canceled by the Nixon
Administration in early 1970. Here is a link to one site I am aware of
that
backs up my assertion

http://www.retroweb.com/apollo_retrospective.html

This timeline had been altered slightly even before the Apollo 13 mission,
when in January, 1970, Apollo 20 was cancelled in order to reserve the
last
production Saturn V for use in launching the planned Skylab orbiting
laboratory a few years later. This change shifted the planned Apollo 18
and
19 lunar missions to 1974 to follow Skylab, but further budget-cutting in
late 1970 also resulted in the cancellation of Apollo 18 and 19.

If you have information that contridicts this, please post it along with
whatever links maybe appropriate. (otherwise STFU)

Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books.

I have read plenty of them. Andrew Chaikin, Lovell,.Shepard, Borman, Collins
to name only a few.

That website relates NASA's plans on what they hoped would happen -
not what actually happened.

Well that's pretty much a statement of the obvious. since 19-20 never
happened. But it also would seem to go against your claim that all of these
flights were canceld prior to Nixon's election in 1968. Again how about some
attribution to back up your claim, be it a book or a web link

Even though Saturn V production has been
canceled in 1967 and budget money routinely denied for Apollo's 18-20,
they continued to delude themselves that this was of a temporary
nature and the near blank checks would shortly return.


The Space Shuttle was a very poor investment, especially considering the
fact that we had bought and paid for the tooling and manufacturing for
the most powerful snd reliable launch vehicle ever built (The Saturn V)

For a self proclaimed 'space geek' - you sure don't know much. The
Saturn V had significant problems on almost half it's flights. (And
there were not enough flights in the first place to make a
statistically valid claim of reliability.) In addition, it was
hideously expensive by any measurement - no matter how much it
impresses the phallic oriented.

Be specific. What problems are you refering to? The lightining strike
during
the launch of Apollo 12? The "Pogo" effect on the Apollo 6 launch? The
premature shutdown of the center J-2 engine on the second stage on Apollo
13? Granted, thirteen launches doesn't provide much basis for statistical
analysis, but other than the problems which I just mentioned, I don't know
of any other issues with the Saturn V. Certainly the Launch Escape System
provided the Apollo crew with a much better opportunity for survival than
the Shuttle does in the event of a catastrophic failure during launch.

ROTFLMAO. Virtually *every* flight prior to 14 had Pogo problems.

How about some attribution? Either a weblink, or a Book?

So far as the hideous expense, which was more expensive, the Saturn V or
the
Space Shuttle?

It really doesn't matter - what does matter is that neither was/is
cheap enough to support sustained operations.

ROTFLMAO!!!!! Of course manned space flight is hideously expensive. So is
the defense budget. World War II and FTM the War in Iraq were/are too.
Having said that, NASA's budget is a miniscule part of the federal budget.
If we had national leadership with long term vision, and the ability to sell
an idea, we could probably double NASA's budget. NASA is an easy target but
the reality is that it is small fraction of the budget.

The Space Shuttle has never lived up to expectations, has
commited all of our manned flights to low earth orbit, and is incredibly
labor intensive to keep flying. Not too mention the fact that two out of
five vehicles in the fleet have killed a total of fourteen astronauts in
catastrophic failures. Certainly the original launch schedule that was
envisioned for the Shuttle was worthy of an episode of Fantasy Island.

So what? You think that the Saturn V/IB and Apollo CSM combo wouldn't
have racked up a similar record had it flown a similar number of
times? In 13 launches in killed one crew (Apollo 1) and tried to kill
three others (12, 13, ASTP). Not to mention at least two flights that
should have been aborted (14 - docking problems, and 17 - SPS
problems) by the flight rules in place at that time.

Actually Apollo flew 15 manned flights-and had zero fatalities. Not to
mention at least six additional unmanned flights. The Apollo One fire was a
"Block One" spacecraft that had some very signifigant design differences (no
docking tunnel, hatch or probe, different electrical system, different main
hatch)and occured during a "plugs out" test on the launch pad. The fire was
a result of using pure oxygen at 15 psi with no way to dump the cabin
pressure. In orbit the cabin pressure would have only been about 4-5 PSI.
The fire would likely have not even been able to sustain itself in that
environment. The fire was as much a result of recklessness as equipement
failure. The Block I manned flights were never flown; All the manned flights
were flown using Block II spacecraft. For all intents and purposes The Block
I and Block II were different spacecraft.
The Apollo 12 lightning strike was hardly the fault of the hardware, it was
based on a bad "Go/No Go" decision by the launch team. It should have been
obvious that launching in the weather conditions that they had that day
presented the possibility that the entire vehicle would become a lightning
rod. (Which is exactly what happened)

Al Shepard, Stu Roosa and Edgar Mitchell were able to fix the problems with
the probe and drogue, The problem only occurred during the Transpostion and
Docking phase, and never recurred. I am not aware of ANY SPS problems during
the Apollo 17 flight. How about a link to back up your claim about the
Apollo 17 SPS problems?

The Apollo Hardware was far more versatile, and would have allowed us to
launch a lot more meaninful missions.

The Apollo CSM was highly optimized for the lunar missions - which
would cause problems in the Skylab era because it was too heavy for a
LEO spacecraft. (In particular the heatshield was vastly overweight.)

There were plans to place a Skylab in Geo Synchronous.

No, there were pie-in-the-sky fantasies - which like the rest of AAP,
foundered quickly on the rocks of budgetary reality. There's a reason
why Skylab B was never launched.

No **** Sherlock, that doesn't change the fact that there was serious talk
about launching such a mission, Funding is why none of the missions I
mentioned ever happened.

That would have happened a good ten years before Hubble was
launched. For that matter we could have saved Skylab, and had the basis
for
a permamently manned space station, 25 years before the ISS.

Only in an alternate fantasy world where Congress continued to provide
a near blank check.

Not if we had decided to stay with Apollo instead of killling the program in
favor of a new program,

Not to mention that we could have easily had a permanent base on the moon
by now. All with flight tested hardware.

Only in an alternate fantasy world where Congress continued to provide
a near blank check.

Not if we had decided to stay with Apollo instead of killling the program in
favor of a new program, The Shuttle has been at least as expensive as Apollo
was. Hell,the spent close to $2 Billion dollars in safety "improvements"
after the Columbia disaster.

If it had been my decision, I would have stayed with the Apollo/Saturn
V/Saturn
IB/Skylab hardware, rather than retool and start from scratch with a
completely unproven vehicle

I find that unlikely if you use the facts and suppositions in place
*then* rather than 20/20 drooling fanboy hindsight.

Actually I felt that way then too. I was never much of a fan of the Shuttle,
because it killed any US manned spaceflight for six years and had no where
to go until we started going to Mir in the mid 90's and then started
building the ISS.

And no matter exactly when specific Apollo flights were cancelled, the
Nixon
Administration is responsible for having the Space Shuttle be the United
State's primary launch vehicle. Which was short sighted at best, and has
created some real issues for NASA flight planners, and Administrators IMO

Proof positive that you are drooling fanboy with utterly ****-all
knowledge about the evolution of the US space program.

I haven't seen much evidence that you know what the **** you are talking
about either. You have made several claims that border on being seriously
erronious (the number of actual manned flights being the most glaring) and
have provided not one link or attribution to back up your assertions
regarding specific problems on specific flights.

Nizon was the one who killed Apollo.

NASA started working on the Shuttle in the mid-60's. When asked by
Congress what they wanted to do post Apollo, NASA (despite the budget
cutbacks already in progress) responded with a plan for a Shuttle,
Station, Moonbase, and Mars mission whose price tag made Apollo look
like a bargain basement remnant. When that was tossed back in their
face - NASA limited the program to the Shuttle as the only thing that
could be salvaged from the disaster (politically speaking) they had
got themselves mired in.

There were numerous plans on the drawing board for various shuttle
configurations, some of which date back to the 1950's, as well as the Air
Force DynaSoar and X-20 projects. There have always been guys who draw
"artist conceptions" of idealised flight hardware, starting with Von Braun's
collaboration with Walt Disney right on through today with CG graphics of
possible missions to Mar's on the Discovery Channel. Ther was no serious
work done on the shuttle untill after the cancelation of the last Apollo
flights by the Nizon Administration. If you have a link that says
differently, post it or STFU

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Not doing a very good job, are you?

Scot

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message

crickets

Scot

"volkfolk" wrote:
Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books.

I have read plenty of them. Andrew Chaikin, Lovell,.Shepard,
Borman, Collins to name only a few.

You name all the books I'd expect a drooling fanboy to list - I.E. all
books about the Apollo era, which isn't under discussion, and none
about AAP and the Shuttle, which is.

Nizon was the one who killed Apollo.

Only in the drug addled fantasy world you inhabit.

There were numerous plans on the drawing board for various shuttle
configurations, some of which date back to the 1950's, as well as the Air
Force DynaSoar and X-20 projects. There have always been guys who draw
"artist conceptions" of idealised flight hardware, starting with Von Braun's
collaboration with Walt Disney right on through today with CG graphics of
possible missions to Mar's on the Discovery Channel. Ther was no serious
work done on the shuttle untill after the cancelation of the last Apollo
flights by the Nizon Administration. If you have a link that says
differently, post it or STFU

Try reading Jenkins. Be warned though, it's serious history - not the
lightweight stuff you list above.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Not doing a very good job, are you?

My restraint does not apply to idiot trolls.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"volkfolk" wrote:
Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books.

I have read plenty of them. Andrew Chaikin, Lovell,.Shepard,
Borman, Collins to name only a few.

You name all the books I'd expect a drooling fanboy to list - I.E. all
books about the Apollo era, which isn't under discussion, and none
about AAP and the Shuttle, which is.

How about trying to read for comprehension?

My original point was that the Shuttle never lived up to it's promise that
it would be a cheap, reliable way of putting men and big payloads into
orbit. It has been neither. We would have been far better off to continue
using the Saturn/Apollo hardware, The Russian's continue to use Soyuz, and
it looks quite likely that if we don't get our **** together, we will be
using Soyuz too. The ultimate irony is that almost 40 years after this
country that first put a man on the moon our only means of putting men into
orbit will be using the Space craft that the competition used.

I have read about the shuttle to. I

Nizon was the one who killed Apollo.

Only in the drug addled fantasy world you inhabit.

Ok Smart guy, who did kill Apollo? The Johnson Administration? According to
what I have read the, Nixon adminstration decided to cancel what ever
funding Apollo had left. The tooling was still in place in 1970, there were
still several launch vehicles yet to be delivered at that time. While the
funding might have been in question, it would have still been possible
restart the program.

There were numerous plans on the drawing board for various shuttle
configurations, some of which date back to the 1950's, as well as the Air
Force DynaSoar and X-20 projects. There have always been guys who draw
"artist conceptions" of idealised flight hardware, starting with Von
Braun's
collaboration with Walt Disney right on through today with CG graphics of
possible missions to Mar's on the Discovery Channel. Ther was no serious
work done on the shuttle untill after the cancelation of the last Apollo
flights by the Nizon Administration. If you have a link that says
differently, post it or STFU

Try reading Jenkins. Be warned though, it's serious history - not the
lightweight stuff you list above.

Autobiographies by people who were part of the program aren't real history?
They are lightweight stuff? I am sure that Jim Lovell, Mike Collins, Frank
Borman and others who were actually there would be surprised to hear that
their experiences aren't "real history"

Here are several other books that I have read on the subject

"Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race for the Moon" by Mike Gray

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014...lance&n=283155

'Chariots for Apollo'
by Charles R. Pellegrino
and Joshua Stoff

http://www.cnn.com/books/reviews/9911/26/chariots/

I suppose that neither one of these count as "real history" in your opinion
either?

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Not doing a very good job, are you?

My restraint does not apply to idiot trolls.

How am I a troll? True, I did respond to a cross posted troll, but I don't
see how anything I have posted to you counts as a troll. I have tried to be
polite to you ( a courtesy that you seem to be unwilling to extend to me) I
suppose that I am a "fanboy" as you called me, but you have yet to
articulate any position that I can see, other than to insult me and my
knowledge.

So smart guy, I maintain that we would have been better off sticking with
the Apollo/Saturn hardware (which is the philosophy that the Russians
followed staying with the Soyuz) instead of building the Space Shuttle, an
incredibly maintaince intensive, fragile and expensive vehicle which limits
manned spaceflight to low earth orbit.(not to mention offers the crew no
real possibility of escape in the event of a catastrophic launch failure)

Other than call me a fan boy, insult my knowledge of the Space Program and
otherwise act like an arrogant, intellectually superior asshole, you have
yet to address my point. (That the Shuttle was a lousy investment vs staying
with a program which already had the tooling and manufacturing in place and
paid for)

So instead of insulting me, how about arguing your position on it's merits
vs using as hominems and bluster to make yourself feel superior.

Scot

volkfolk wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"volkfolk" wrote:
Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books.

I have read plenty of them. Andrew Chaikin, Lovell,.Shepard,
Borman, Collins to name only a few.

You name all the books I'd expect a drooling fanboy to list - I.E. all
books about the Apollo era, which isn't under discussion, and none
about AAP and the Shuttle, which is.

How about trying to read for comprehension?

My original point was that the Shuttle never lived up to it's promise that
it would be a cheap, reliable way of putting men and big payloads into
orbit. It has been neither. We would have been far better off to continue
using the Saturn/Apollo hardware, The Russian's continue to use Soyuz, and
it looks quite likely that if we don't get our **** together, we will be
using Soyuz too. The ultimate irony is that almost 40 years after this
country that first put a man on the moon our only means of putting men into
orbit will be using the Space craft that the competition used.

I have read about the shuttle to. I

Nizon was the one who killed Apollo.

Only in the drug addled fantasy world you inhabit.

Ok Smart guy, who did kill Apollo? The Johnson Administration? According to
what I have read the, Nixon adminstration decided to cancel what ever
funding Apollo had left. The tooling was still in place in 1970, there were
still several launch vehicles yet to be delivered at that time. While the
funding might have been in question, it would have still been possible
restart the program.

There were numerous plans on the drawing board for various shuttle
configurations, some of which date back to the 1950's, as well as the Air
Force DynaSoar and X-20 projects. There have always been guys who draw
"artist conceptions" of idealised flight hardware, starting with Von
Braun's
collaboration with Walt Disney right on through today with CG graphics of
possible missions to Mar's on the Discovery Channel. Ther was no serious
work done on the shuttle untill after the cancelation of the last Apollo
flights by the Nizon Administration. If you have a link that says
differently, post it or STFU

Try reading Jenkins. Be warned though, it's serious history - not the
lightweight stuff you list above.

Autobiographies by people who were part of the program aren't real history?
They are lightweight stuff? I am sure that Jim Lovell, Mike Collins, Frank
Borman and others who were actually there would be surprised to hear that
their experiences aren't "real history"

Here are several other books that I have read on the subject

"Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race for the Moon" by Mike Gray

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014...lance&n=283155

'Chariots for Apollo'
by Charles R. Pellegrino
and Joshua Stoff

http://www.cnn.com/books/reviews/9911/26/chariots/

I suppose that neither one of these count as "real history" in your opinion
either?

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Not doing a very good job, are you?

My restraint does not apply to idiot trolls.

How am I a troll? True, I did respond to a cross posted troll, but I don't
see how anything I have posted to you counts as a troll. I have tried to be
polite to you ( a courtesy that you seem to be unwilling to extend to me) I
suppose that I am a "fanboy" as you called me, but you have yet to
articulate any position that I can see, other than to insult me and my
knowledge.

So smart guy, I maintain that we would have been better off sticking with
the Apollo/Saturn hardware (which is the philosophy that the Russians
followed staying with the Soyuz) instead of building the Space Shuttle, an
incredibly maintaince intensive, fragile and expensive vehicle which limits
manned spaceflight to low earth orbit.(not to mention offers the crew no
real possibility of escape in the event of a catastrophic launch failure)

Other than call me a fan boy, insult my knowledge of the Space Program and
otherwise act like an arrogant, intellectually superior asshole, you have
yet to address my point. (That the Shuttle was a lousy investment vs staying
with a program which already had the tooling and manufacturing in place and
paid for)

So instead of insulting me, how about arguing your position on it's merits
vs using as hominems and bluster to make yourself feel superior.

Scot

*Being called a troll by the ghoulish and the arrogant is a *Badge of
Honor*, Scot. You've mopped the floor with these maniacs! They'll never
give you credit for a great argument.
May the force be with you. ;-)
Carrie

"Space...the final frontier."

"volkfolk" wrote:

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"volkfolk" wrote:
Not everything is on the web - try reading actual books.

I have read plenty of them. Andrew Chaikin, Lovell,.Shepard,
Borman, Collins to name only a few.

You name all the books I'd expect a drooling fanboy to list - I.E. all
books about the Apollo era, which isn't under discussion, and none
about AAP and the Shuttle, which is.

How about trying to read for comprehension?

My original point was that the Shuttle never lived up to it's promise that
it would be a cheap, reliable way of putting men and big payloads into
orbit. It has been neither. We would have been far better off to continue
using the Saturn/Apollo hardware,

I've never been interested in debating that point. You however,
insist on doing so. If you actually read for comprehension, you'll
note I addressed a *different* point in the form of a claim you made
about your knowledge.

I have read about the shuttle to. I

Nizon was the one who killed Apollo.

Only in the drug addled fantasy world you inhabit.

Ok Smart guy, who did kill Apollo? The Johnson Administration? According to
what I have read the, Nixon adminstration decided to cancel what ever
funding Apollo had left. The tooling was still in place in 1970, there were
still several launch vehicles yet to be delivered at that time. While the
funding might have been in question, it would have still been possible
restart the program.

Even with the tooling in place, the political and economic base for an
ongoing series of space spectaculars had vanished. Nobody 'killed'
Apollo. Again, well known to students of space issues, an anathema to
the drooling fanboy.

There were numerous plans on the drawing board for various shuttle
configurations, some of which date back to the 1950's, as well as the Air
Force DynaSoar and X-20 projects. There have always been guys who draw
"artist conceptions" of idealised flight hardware, starting with Von
Braun's
collaboration with Walt Disney right on through today with CG graphics of
possible missions to Mar's on the Discovery Channel. Ther was no serious
work done on the shuttle untill after the cancelation of the last Apollo
flights by the Nizon Administration. If you have a link that says
differently, post it or STFU

Try reading Jenkins. Be warned though, it's serious history - not the
lightweight stuff you list above.

Autobiographies by people who were part of the program aren't real history?

Try reading for comprehension - I didn't say they weren't real
history, I said they were lightweight history. There is a difference.

(And I notice you fail to address the issue of Jenkins. A *very*
significant omission when one is discussing the history of the Shuttle
and wished to be taken seriously around these parts.)

They are lightweight stuff? I am sure that Jim Lovell, Mike Collins, Frank
Borman and others who were actually there would be surprised to hear that
their experiences aren't "real history"

I am sure they would be too. I am equally sure that the being the
intelligent and talented people they are that they would know the
difference between autobiographies and serious technical and political
works.

Here are several other books that I have read on the subject

"Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race for the Moon" by Mike Gray

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014...lance&n=283155

Well known as a self important piece of puffery with much sizzle but
little steak.

'Chariots for Apollo'
by Charles R. Pellegrino
and Joshua Stoff

http://www.cnn.com/books/reviews/9911/26/chariots/

Ditto.

I suppose that neither one of these count as "real history" in your opinion
either?

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Not doing a very good job, are you?

My restraint does not apply to idiot trolls.

How am I a troll? True, I did respond to a cross posted troll, but I don't
see how anything I have posted to you counts as a troll. I have tried to be
polite to you ( a courtesy that you seem to be unwilling to extend to me) I
suppose that I am a "fanboy" as you called me, but you have yet to
articulate any position that I can see, other than to insult me and my
knowledge.

I've given you multiple positions - ones well known to any scholar of
space issues, but little known to the fanboys. You reply with a
fanboy level of adulation and no understanding of the issues involved.

*You* started by claiming to be a knowledgeable space geek, who would
'stack his knowledge against anyone'. I took you at your word and
compared your knowledge to facts - you came off a poor second and
insist on trying for third.

Other than call me a fan boy, insult my knowledge of the Space Program

You lack the knowledge to insult.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

just to hop in on this part of the rant

wrote in message
groups.com...
..all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in
the 'space race'. Those 7 astronauts didn't die in a tragedy...they
were sacrificed to the gods.\

yeah, they were sacrificed. so?

no one held a pistol to their heads, all types of travel have fatalities. no
one dropped out after this happened.

I am working on (re?) creating the little joe. a lil single seater that
might go into space. might.

the first hundred flights are already taken. one of the things i try to
explain to them is that they might die. One of the biggest things slowing me
down is how I would tell these peoples partents is that their son or
daughter died because i missed something in the updated design.

I am still working on it.

"Tater Schuld" wrote in message
...
just to hop in on this part of the rant

wrote in message
egroups.com...
..all in the name of staying one foot ahead of the Ruskies in
the 'space race'. Those 7 astronauts didn't die in a tragedy...they
were sacrificed to the gods.\

yeah, they were sacrificed. so?

They weren't sacrificed. They were victims of a bad decision making process,
but they all knew the risks. As did every astronaut and cosmonaut who has
ever strapped themselves to the equivalent of a small nuclear weapon in
order to launch themselves into space. Story Musgrave has said that the only
part of space flight that made him nervous was the launch.

no one held a pistol to their heads, all types of travel have fatalities.
no one dropped out after this happened.

He is 100% right you know.

I am working on (re?) creating the little joe. a lil single seater that
might go into space. might.

the first hundred flights are already taken. one of the things i try to
explain to them is that they might die. One of the biggest things slowing
me down is how I would tell these peoples partents is that their son or
daughter died because i missed something in the updated design.

I am still working on it.

Got a website? I'll go : )

Scot