|
Author
|
Topic: Shuttle's scary flights!
|
Mónica Ortiz Mendoza
unregistered
|
posted 04-18-2005 12:06 AM
 
In my opinion Shuttles no longer should fly,they have demonstrated twice,to be nothing but a risk to the crews. I am concerned to hear about Discovery's having technical problems?, now that it is soon to be launched and docked to the ISS. I understand that shuttles play an important role for the ISS construction, but NASA should DEFINITELY start working in the construction of a more efficient and better spacecraft. |
eurospace
Member Posts: 2610
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 04-18-2005 12:28 AM
 
.. and in the meantime, NASA should buy Soyuz spacecraft, that have a proven reliability and safety record. Or maybe set up a Soyuz launch pad at the Cape.------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2031
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 04-18-2005 12:40 AM
Monica,You will no doubt be pleased to learn that NASA has begun implementing plans to retire the space shuttle, and they have already called for 118 preliminary contracts requesting ideas from industry and universities for a new spaceship - the Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV to give it a provisional name. A final CEV design will be chosen by 2006, and the first unmanned flight is scheduled for 2008. Colin |
lunarrv15
Member Posts: 1355
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, Hamilton
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 04-18-2005 01:01 AM
they demostrated twice out of their 24 years of being flown. total flowm mission 113will your country loan money for a new shuttle? small loan of 5 billion maybe |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 04-18-2005 02:29 AM
..... and it might be appropriate for those critical of the space shuttle to remember that the 51L and 107 accidents were attributable to an SRB and an external tank .... not the vehicle itself.
|
michaelSN99
Member Posts: 153
From: heilbronn,germany
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-18-2005 07:36 AM
....and a shuttle flight is no sunday afternoon walk thru the backyard...and monica remember no shuttle no further ISS assembly.... i believe it would be better doing all russian and american power together...and maybe we europeans could take our administrative bureaucratice hurdles some day....for constructing a new reusable heavy laucher ------------------
michael may www.ag-99.de/spacenet/main/main.html |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 04-18-2005 09:06 AM
Jurgen, although the loss of Challenger and Columbia produced far higher fatalities, I am not sure one should recommend the Soyuz based on its safety and reliability records. Oberg certainly has taken the Soviets/Russians to task for hiding or failing to reveal problems with their craft and its launch vehicle. The orbiter remains an incredibly complex machine and any flight into space still carries inherent risks. A simple, safe and efficient means for travel into space remains many decades away. Like it or not, we will lose more lives in the future. Perhaps in part because it is not my tush on the line, I do not see any reason why that reality should slow down or halt our development into space and space exploration. While a new vehicle is needed, calls for the cancelation of the shuttle program are misplaced. |
John K. Rochester
Member Posts: 1292
From: Rochester, NY, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 04-18-2005 10:35 AM
I was watching "To the Moon" videotape..originally on NOVA ..yesterday and saw the satellite pictures of the N-1 post explosion devastation..killing how many? Roger Chaffee's dad was asked earlier in the show if after the fire he was upset with NASA.." The price of progress is sometimes very high" .. point is, all space programs have had their share of successes, and unfortunately failures. It all comes back to the price of progress...if those who participate are willing to pay it, who are we to argue. |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 04-18-2005 11:58 AM
Seems to me that you're blasting the shuttle (no pun intended) when in fact the reasons behind the failures of Challenger and Columbia were attributed to decision quality made by NASA management. Any complex machine can fail and take lives if you do not work within the safety guidelines of that machine. Going into space is risky business; no system (in the near future) can eliminate that risk. |
michaelSN99
Member Posts: 153
From: heilbronn,germany
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-18-2005 12:56 PM
nobody should ever blast the shuttleits the most complex and best manned vehicle wich ever was build on this planet and what a pity... now when it reached its best time by serving as a transporter for a real amazing space station it only has 5 more years at the clock.... ------------------
michael may www.ag-99.de/spacenet/main/main.html |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 04-18-2005 06:37 PM
Hasn't Soyuz had two "bad" flights also and almost another where the abort system worked in the 80's. The only safe flight is to stay on the ground. The Soyuz cannot return the payload like the shuttle. Look at the pic's from the inside of Mir and compare to the ISS when the shuttle flys, 114 will bring down more than it is taking up. |
eurospace
Member Posts: 2610
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 04-27-2005 12:00 PM
OV-105,The difference between "almost" and inflight break up is 14 dead people. An important difference, if you ask me. A good vehicle only has almost failures that were brought back under control. A bad vehicle has uncontrollable problems. And that has happened twice. And it was not an alien monster that killed those birds, it were inherent management and engineering failures.
------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies |
michaelSN99
Member Posts: 153
From: heilbronn,germany
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 04-27-2005 12:54 PM
the four killed soviet cosmonauts,flying on soyuz, also were´nt killed by alien monsters...
if soviet managers and leaders would have come as result to the decision, they could not overcome the obvious "inherent managment and engineering failures" just after eleven Soyuz-flights , we were not able to watch this amazing vehicle untill now !!!!and... "almost" disasters are depending of the same mistakes then this onces, wich really happened !!!
sometimes there have been just fortunate circumstances that nothing bad happend...and sometimes the coin shows the other side ! it doesn´t matter wich time an accident happend...in the 60ies, the 70ies , 80ies or in our days...every life we loose is to much.... and we shouldn´t end in that statistics discussion , how many people transported the Soyuz into space and how many the shuttle...and how much we loose ------------------
michael may www.ag-99.de/spacenet/main/main.html [This message has been edited by michaelSN99 (edited April 27, 2005).] |
DavidH
Member Posts: 1217
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted 04-27-2005 02:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by eurospace:
The difference between "almost" and inflight break up is 14 dead people. An important difference, if you ask me. A good vehicle only has almost failures that were brought back under control. A bad vehicle has uncontrollable problems.
Jürgen, your defense of Soyuz is arguably the same logic that led to the loss of Challenger and Columbia. Yes, there had been "almost" problems, but they appeared to be "under control," thus they don't take away from being a "good vehicle." In fact, the only difference between an "almost" problem with foam shedding and an "uncontrollable problem" with foam shedding was luck.
But, rather than understanding that an "almost" problem is a real problem, NASA engineers thought the way you do, that there's a difference in how the two should be viewed.
------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972 |
Mónica Ortiz Mendoza
unregistered
|
posted 05-05-2005 12:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MCroft04:
Seems to me that you're blasting the shuttle (no pun intended) when in fact the reasons behind the failures of Challenger and Columbia were attributed to decision quality made by NASA management. Any complex machine can fail and take lives if you do not work within the safety guidelines of that machine. Going into space is risky business; no system (in the near future) can eliminate that risk.
For all the people who have said about me blasting the shuttle space program, i say how do you dare to say such things about me?, you have no basis of making comments like this!.
|
Mónica Ortiz Mendoza
unregistered
|
posted 05-05-2005 12:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by lunarrv15:
they demostrated twice out of their 24 years of being flown. total flowm mission 113will your country loan money for a new shuttle? small loan of 5 billion maybe
My country does not have to contribute, it is not even into space program issues!.
|
sts205cdr
Member Posts: 649
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Jun 2001
|
posted 05-05-2005 12:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mónica Ortiz Mendoza:
For all the people who have said about me blasting the shuttle space program, i say how do you dare to say such things about me?, you have no basis of making comments like this!.
"In my opinion Shuttles no longer should fly,they have demonstrated twice,to be nothing but a risk to the crews..." That's how they dare, dear. --John |
Mónica Ortiz Mendoza
unregistered
|
posted 05-05-2005 12:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sts205cdr:
"In my opinion Shuttles no longer should fly,they have demonstrated twice,to be nothing but a risk to the crews..."That's how they dare, dear. --John
So what? it was just an opinion
not an attack, see that is
the problem with you
people!. |
Mónica Ortiz Mendoza
unregistered
|
posted 05-05-2005 12:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by sts205cdr:
"In my opinion Shuttles no longer should fly,they have demonstrated twice,to be nothing but a risk to the crews..."That's how they dare, dear. --John
And... I am not
your dear...
MR.
|
sts205cdr
Member Posts: 649
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Jun 2001
|
posted 05-05-2005 01:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mónica Ortiz Mendoza: And... I am not your dear...
MR.
Sorry to be condescending, but you were wondering what basis previous posters had for opposing your opinion of the Shuttle ("...you have no basis of making comments like this!"). They have a basis and a right to express those opposing opinions. Right? --John [This message has been edited by sts205cdr (edited May 05, 2005).] |
albatron@aol.com
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 05-05-2005 04:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mónica Ortiz Mendoza:
So what? it was just an opinion
not an attack, see that is
the problem with you
people!.
Ahh, a SHARP opinion not an attack - the attack came above in the "you people" comment I suppose. 
But hey no you DONT have to contribute, you just dont have to participate in the program.
|
michaelSN99
Member Posts: 153
From: heilbronn,germany
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-07-2005 11:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mónica Ortiz Mendoza:
For all the people who have said about me blasting the shuttle space program, i say how do you dare to say such things about me?, you have no basis of making comments like this!.
i cannot see any sign in my post , mentioning your name Monica !!!
so where are the "things" i said about you ???
the people here just are discussing things about interesting topics and questions in space exploration, NOT about the persons who bring in these questions !!!
------------------
michael may www.ag-99.de/spacenet/main/main.html |
Mónica Ortiz Mendoza
unregistered
|
posted 05-07-2005 05:42 PM
OK well you guys THANKS for keeping my topic in the first places for the last weeks!!!. |
advertisement