Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/31/2005 10:18:33 AM EDT

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050731/ap_on_sc/space_shuttle_1;_ylt=AtwlFCxbVsh5iEeCvDvPUIYYAjMB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl



NASA Looks Into Possible Shuttle Problem

By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer
1 hour, 26 minutes ago



SPACE CENTER, Houston - A couple of short strips of filler material dangling from Discovery's belly had NASA scrambling Sunday to determine whether the protrusions might endanger the space shuttle during re-entry and whether the astronauts might need to attempt a repair.


The potential trouble has nothing to do with launch debris — for a change — but rather material used to fill the spaces between thermal tiles, a common problem in the past although not necessarily to this extent.

Flight director Paul Hill said engineers will spend the next day analyzing the situation and decide Monday whether to have the crew's two spacewalkers cut, pull out or shove back in the hanging material.

It could be that it's perfectly safe for Discovery and its crew of seven to fly back with the two drooping pieces, Hill stressed, as shuttles have done on many previous flights.

One is sticking out an inch between thermal tiles, the other six-tenths of an inch. The longest protruding gap filler seen on a returning shuttle before was a quarter-inch, but Hill cautioned that measurement was taken following re-entry, and the intense heat could have burned some of it off. The extremely thin gap fillers are made of a feltlike material and ceramic, and are held in place with glue and by the tight fit.

Any repair, if deemed necessary, could be performed during the third spacewalk of the mission, now set for Wednesday or a fourth unplanned spacewalk might be required, Hill said. The astronaut would have to stand on a long robotic arm in order to reach the two areas, located on the shuttle's belly near the nose.

One extreme option under consideration is to put an astronaut on the end of the brand new 100-foot inspection crane, but it could be a bouncy ride and that makes lots of experts "understandably nervous," Hill said.

He said there are strong arguments for and against most of the options.

Anything dangling from the bottom of the shuttle during re-entry will overheat the area, as well as downstream locations. The ongoing analysis is to decide whether that overheating will be within safety limits.

A hole in Columbia's left wing, left there by a large chunk of flyaway fuel-tank foam, led to the spacecraft's destruction during re-entry on Feb. 1, 2003. All seven astronauts were killed.

NASA has cleared all of Discovery's thermal tiles for landing on Aug. 8. The only remaining issues, before the final go-ahead can be given for descent, are the reinforced carbon panels that line the wings and nose cap, and the two hanging gap fillers.



Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:27:13 AM EDT



It could be that it's perfectly safe for Discovery and its crew of seven to fly back with the two drooping pieces, Hill stressed, as shuttles have done on many previous flights.




You would think a NASA official had more sense than to say something like this after everything that's happened.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:30:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 10:31:37 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:41:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:
Jeez!!! How much more can go wrong with this thing!…

At this rate the next one will be sponsored by……

tinypic.com/9r0kkl.jpg


Chances are things like this were happening the enitre time, but it is only now being noticed due to the increased inspections after Columbia.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:43:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Jeez!!! How much more can go wrong with this thing!…

At this rate the next one will be sponsored by……

tinypic.com/9r0kkl.jpg


Chances are things like this were happening the enitre time, but it is only now being noticed due to the increased inspections after Columbia.



+ the new cameras
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:43:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Jeez!!! How much more can go wrong with this thing!…

At this rate the next one will be sponsored by……

tinypic.com/9r0kkl.jpg


Chances are things like this were happening the enitre time, but it is only now being noticed due to the increased inspections after Columbia.



No, no they weren't. Much of the problem with the foam is that Freon is no longer allowed to be used as a propellant to apply the foam.

Environmentalist are what kill our space program and they should be charged with murder.

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:47:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Jeez!!! How much more can go wrong with this thing!…

At this rate the next one will be sponsored by……

tinypic.com/9r0kkl.jpg


Chances are things like this were happening the enitre time, but it is only now being noticed due to the increased inspections after Columbia.



No, no they weren't. Much of the problem with the foam is that Freon is no longer allowed to be used as a propellant to apply the foam.

Environmentalist are what kill our space program and they should be charged with murder.

Sgat1r5



Yeah, but the problem they're talking about now doesn't have anything to do with the tank insulation foam. This has to do with the seals between the tiles. You're right about the foam though.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:48:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Jeez!!! How much more can go wrong with this thing!…

At this rate the next one will be sponsored by……

tinypic.com/9r0kkl.jpg


Chances are things like this were happening the enitre time, but it is only now being noticed due to the increased inspections after Columbia.



No, no they weren't. Much of the problem with the foam is that Freon is no longer allowed to be used as a propellant to apply the foam.

Environmentalist are what kill our space program and they should be charged with murder.

Sgat1r5


Yes they have happened before. We're talking about gap fillers now. OV-102's (Columbia) last successful flight, STS-109, had a gap filler debond and protrude from the tiles surfac quite a bit, and burn marks were seen trailing a few feet aft of it..this was towards the aft of the orbiter, near either the body flap or left hand elevon, I don't recall exactly which. It's generally not a good thing to have a gap filler debond--but missing tile have the potential to be catastrophic (the zipper effect).
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:49:08 AM EDT
I don't even understand why they are still using tiles...there was GOT to be a better way. Apollo didn't have problems like this!

Is NASA stupid now?

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:51:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Jeez!!! How much more can go wrong with this thing!…

At this rate the next one will be sponsored by……

tinypic.com/9r0kkl.jpg


Chances are things like this were happening the enitre time, but it is only now being noticed due to the increased inspections after Columbia.



No, no they weren't. Much of the problem with the foam is that Freon is no longer allowed to be used as a propellant to apply the foam.

Environmentalist are what kill our space program and they should be charged with murder.

Sgat1r5


RIF.
The problem they are talking about is the material used to fill the spaces between the thermal tiles. The filler material is sticking out, and it HAS been noticed before. They noticed it AFTER the shuttle had already landed. One segment is sticking out 1" another 6/10". The most sticking out that has been noticed before was 1/4", but that was AFTER the shuttle had landed and was probably burned down to that length during re-entry.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:52:27 AM EDT
It seems to me that an ablative heat shield which could be replaced after each flight would be an option, but hell, I'm no rocket scientist. Too heavy? Cost too much? too hard to replace?
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 10:52:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
I don't even understand why they are still using tiles...there was GOT to be a better way. Apollo didn't have problems like this!

Is NASA stupid now?

Sgat1r5


Apollo didn't care if they reused the capsule. Also it was quite a bit smaller. So the re-entry shield did not have as much surface area. As I understand it, if you built a re-entry shield like Apollos large enough for the shuttle the weight would make it impracticle, if not impossible, to launch.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:00:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:07:41 AM EDT
Bottom line is this. We have the Space Shuttle because a bunch of Star Trex nerds wanted something that looked like a plane regardless of how well it preformed.


The design is FLAWWED!


Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:09:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 11:11:58 AM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:10:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:10:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Bottom line is this. We have the Space Shuttle because a bunch of Star Trex nerds wanted something that looked like a plane regardless of how well it preformed.


Sgat1r5



Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:10:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:11:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-And I suspect they are noticing minor things like this gap filler because they never really looked before in-flight





Fixed it--and I concur with everything else in the post.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:14:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:20:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Let me expain something to you guys, they are not going to make any major revisions to the shuttle because it aint gonna fly but a dozen or so times untill it is replaced.

See this:

Future lunar program takes shape:

www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo




Have they even started designing the CEV?

Anyway… 34 years after Apollo 17 landed on the Moon the best NASA can come up with is this?

tinypic.com/9r12kx.jpg


Back to the Future!


If it works and is mostly proven, why change it? To change it only invites delays and cost increases. There will be enough of them on its own.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:22:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:

No we have a space shuttle that looks like a plane because the USAF specified a ridiculous cross-range landing ability for the orbiter. Also, because of USAF dictates on vehicle size and weight , we had to use fragile tiles instead of a metallic heat shield.



Great info! Thanks! I was wondering why the hell we use tiles instead of a shield.

Sgat1r5
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:23:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:32:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Bottom line is this. We have the Space Shuttle because a bunch of Star Trex nerds wanted something that looked like a plane regardless of how well it preformed.


The design is FLAWWED!


Sgat1r5



I'd think it would HAVE to "look like a plane" if we plan to land it in the fashion that we do. How else are you going to glide down to ground? Or are you saying we need to start landing them in the ocean again?

It does seem like we should have a better way to insulate against the heat. I don't know how else they would do it though with the current technology. I think part of the reason they wanted to use tiles, was to replace a damaged section easily..
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:32:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 11:33:50 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:38:50 AM EDT
Scrap the damn program. We have 3 out of 5 built left. Not a great attrition rate by any standard.

The whole system be design is flawed. It is STILL cheaper to but payload into orbit with conventional, disposable rockets. Its simple economics. It is also cheaper to put people into and out of orbit with the same system. The shuttle is a crappy people mover because it has all the structure dedicated to payload bay.

IF the system had been completely reusable and had a responsive turn around time, and if the shuttle could actually break low orbit then it might be worth keeping.

We can design a LOW RISK replacement for the shuttle. It should consist of multiple systems.

1. Payload Lift System for putting big payloads into orbit. Modern Saturn V type only scalable. Doesn't have to be single stage to orbit but I think some of the stages could be made to be reusable, like the boosters on the Shuttle are now. For chucking up anything from a TV sat to huge pieces of the space station.


2. Personnel Lift System that is SSTO and has a high turn around time. Payload doesn't need to be all that much (1 to 2 500-1000lb space JDAMs is all). Used for personnel transfers and possibly to cruise around out of orbit if it can some how be refueled once up there; or if it lifted using the payload lift system, so it would retain fuel it would have used on lift off.


3. Some sort of modular space craft that could be easily assembled in orbit for out of orbit missions. Shouldn't need to take more than a few (4-5) lifts from the Heavy Lift System. Should be able to going to the moon and back. Get some real space flight expirence back under out belts for longer range exploration missions.

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:45:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
Let me expain something to you guys, they are not going to make any major revisions to the shuttle because it aint gonna fly but a dozen or so times untill it is replaced.

See this:

Future lunar program takes shape:

www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo




Have they even started designing the CEV?

Anyway… 34 years after Apollo 17 landed on the Moon the best NASA can come up with is this?

tinypic.com/9r12kx.jpg


Back to the Future!


If it works and is mostly proven, why change it? To change it only invites delays and cost increases. There will be enough of them on its own.




I think your missing my point… they are going to design a new vehicle which is basically little, if any, advance over the old and very proven Saturn 1B and LEM. Why not just dust off the old designs? They were designed to a standard of virtual perfection (Von Braun knew his stuff and was obsessed with success!) and are flight proven.

What I am trying to say is, after the 34 year detour down the shuttle route, NASA seems to be walking away and picking up were it left off in 1972. I remember reading the NASA press stuff back then talking about nuclear rockets and stuff by the 90's!


ANdy


Because the old designs use such new innovations as transistors. Who says they aren't using the old designs as a basis for the new designs? Technology has advanced, might as well take advantage of the new tech and the proven principles and designs.

NASA is picking up where it left off in the 70s because the politics are leading them back there. After the last moon landing, hell before the last moon landing, there was no longer the political will to explore space. NASA had to sell the shuttle as a cheap reusable design with which they could conduct experiments in space and build space stations and orbit satellites. It never lived up to that billing for whatever reason-we could be here all day listing contributing factors.

Now the climate has shifted a bit. The President has outlined a vision of space exploration vice spac experimentation. Well, if you're going to go back into the business of manned exploration why not start out where you left off? Why not use the designs that worked for the current engineers fathers and grandfathers? It's low-risk and relatively low cost.

As for nuke powered space vehicles, they promised me flying cars by the year 2000, I'm still waiting.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:48:33 AM EDT
NASA should just outsource the whole space program to China or India.

That way, if it blows up or falls apart, at least it'll be cheap.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:50:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 12:06:37 PM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:54:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:59:42 AM EDT
The SS ET foam issues have been around since the earliest Shuttle launches. It is still not clear what the root cause of the problem is or how to fix it. NASA engineers have spent the last two years working on the problem. The problem(s) are more complicated then just the use of EPA approved foam propellants.

In typical ARFCOM 20-20 hindsight Monday morning quarterbacking fashion some of you seem to have completely overlooked the many accomplishments of the SS program. I think you are also forgetting that it's only been a hundred years since the first powered flight of 120 feet.

The SS was designed with 1970's technology and design methods with severe budget restrictions. For the most part it has done what has been asked of it very well.

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:08:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:09:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:10:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:10:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:15:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rkbar15:
The SS ET foam issues have been around since the earliest Shuttle launches. It is still not clear what the root cause of the problem is or how to fix it. NASA engineers have spent the last two years working on the problem. The problem(s) are more complicated then just the use of EPA approved foam propellants.

In typical ARFCOM 20-20 hindsight Monday morning quarterbacking fashion some of you seem to have completely overlooked the many accomplishments of the SS program. I think you are also forgetting that it's only been a hundred years since the first powered flight of 120 feet.

The SS was designed with 1970's technology and design methods with severe budget restrictions. For the most part it has done what has been asked of it very well.





+1

I am not a big proponent of space exploration.....I think its a waste of tax money that could be put to better use here on earth, in our country, helping Americans...not tooling around in space trying to figure out how to colonize another planet. That being said, Im not one to criticize the engineering staff of NASA....these are some of the best minds on the planet. The best of the best get to work on the space program. Mistakes have been made, true....but I think there are some folks that presume an awful lot, thinking that they have enough information to speculate as to the underlying causes of catastrophic failures with the ill-fated SS missions.

Its easy to point the finger after the fact, but just how many post doctoral physicists, electrical engineers, and chemists are here posting in GD?

Guys, if you arent a professional scientist, try to accept that maybe, just maybe, there is more to the design that the sound bites in the news.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:27:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macro:
I am not a big proponent of space exploration.....I think its a waste of tax money that could be put to better use here on earth, in our country, helping Americans...not tooling around in space trying to figure out how to colonize another planet.



2006 Budget
Defense: $419B
DHS: $32B

NASA: $16B
NSF: $5B

This means that totality of our nation's
government sponsored science spending
is just 0.175% of our GDP.

That is a pissant sum that we should
increase, not attempt to eliminate.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:40:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

That is a pissant sum that we should
increase, not attempt to eliminate.



Why?
What is out there that we need to know?
Im not saying that we shouldn't attempt to advance as a society, but I fail to see how exploring space is prudent while the human race is extincting itself in the name of political correctness back hear on Earth.

I have to say, yeah...I am facinated with space, always have been.
Putting communication satelites in orbit has changed the way we live.
If it were'nt for spy satelites, our military would be blind....

But water on mars? A tenth planet? A trip back to the moon?
My President wants to put men on Mars....how about putting them at the border, and stopping the illegals and terrorists from wandering in.

I support the privatization of the space program...let it become a 'for profit' business.
There is enough money in the private sector to sustain it, and it would probably be run better than it is today.

I guess at this point in history, I percieve other tasks to be priorities.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:42:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macro:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

That is a pissant sum that we should
increase, not attempt to eliminate.



Why?
What is out there that we need to know?
Im not saying that we shouldn't attempt to advance as a society, but I fail to see how exploring space is prudent while the human race is extincting itself in the name of political correctness back hear on Earth.

I have to say, yeah...I am facinated with space, always have been.
Putting communication satelites in orbit has changed the way we live.
If it were'nt for spy satelites, our military would be blind....

But water on mars? A tenth planet? A trip back to the moon?
My President wants to put men on Mars....how about putting them at the border, and stopping the illegals and terrorists from wandering in.

I support the privatization of the space program...let it become a 'for profit' business.
There is enough money in the private sector to sustain it, and it would probably be run better than it is today.

I guess at this point in history, I percieve other tasks to be priorities.



Why sacrifice space exploration on the altar of shit that will never happen anyway? Cutting the space program does not equal magically secure borders.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:44:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By macro:
I am not a big proponent of space exploration.....I think its a waste of tax money that could be put to better use here on earth, in our country, helping Americans...not tooling around in space trying to figure out how to colonize another planet.



2006 Budget
Defense: $419B
DHS: $32B

NASA: $16B
NSF: $5B

This means that totality of our nation's
government sponsored science spending
is just 0.175% of our GDP.

That is a pissant sum that we should
increase, not attempt to eliminate.




Total B.S. Nasa isn't the only science spending by the U.S. Gov.

And even if it was, so what, Gov. isn't the way to advancment, people like Burt Rutan are.
Great minds, on a shoestring budget, creating brilliant designs.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:50:29 PM EDT
Now that everyone's watching, small things that happen all the time are making people nervous.

It happened all the time before! We just didn't know about it! Calm down!
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 12:57:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By macro:
I am not a big proponent of space exploration.....I think its a waste of tax money that could be put to better use here on earth, in our country, helping Americans...not tooling around in space trying to figure out how to colonize another planet.



2006 Budget
Defense: $419B
DHS: $32B

NASA: $16B
NSF: $5B

This means that totality of our nation's
government sponsored science spending
is just 0.175% of our GDP.

That is a pissant sum that we should
increase, not attempt to eliminate.




How much of the $16B is being spent for enviromental B.S. that is used against the U.S. by the left. Ozone hole study B.S...

For Christ sakes... Everytime we have a hot day around here the weatherman complains about ozone in the air. The left complains about the depletion of ozone layer at high altitude.

Why don't we take the ozone at the lower levels and fan it up to the higher levels if its such a problem. All we need to do is use all the fricken liberals to suck up all the ozone and blow it up a tall stack to a higher altitude. We all know that liberals are are bunch of blow hard gas bags, It should be a sinch for them.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:01:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By postpostban:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
NASA: $16B
NSF: $5B



Total B.S. Nasa isn't the only science spending by the U.S. Gov.



Between the NSF and NASA, you've got
the majority of the pure science spending.
The DoD makes advancements for
military applications and the NIH pays
for biological science. I'm sure that
other departments contribute some, but
I'll bet that most of that goes through
NSF grants.


Originally Posted By postpostban:
And even if it was, so what, Gov. isn't the way to advancment, people like Burt Rutan are.
Great minds, on a shoestring budget, creating brilliant designs.



Unfortunately, most science advancement
does not immediately equate to commerical
applications. Therefore, you have to include
some governmental monies or else you get
only commerical advancement.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:07:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 1:08:56 PM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:10:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Bottom line is this. We have the Space Shuttle because a bunch of Star Trex nerds wanted something that looked like a plane regardless of how well it preformed.


The design is FLAWWED!


Sgat1r5



No we have a space shuttle that looks like a plane because the USAF specified a ridiculous cross-range landing ability for the orbiter. Also, because of USAF dictates on vehicle size and weight , we had to use fragile tiles instead of a metallic heat shield.


The "ridiculous" cross-range landing capabilities (and launch capabilities from the WTR) were dictated not by the USAF but by your friendly congresscritters that specified the shuttle as being the nation's sole heavy launch vehicle. The AF just translated that requirement into the range capabilities requirement that was necessary to provide service to the many satellites that needed launch support, including abort scenarios.

Get your facts right before you post.

CW
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:17:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macro:

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

That is a pissant sum that we should
increase, not attempt to eliminate.



Why?
What is out there that we need to know?



Wow. I probably can stop the discussion
now if this is the direction we are going to
go. I'll trudge on: the answer to your
question is 'everything.' There is only
so much we can learn from earth.


Originally Posted By macro:
Im not saying that we shouldn't attempt to advance as a society, but I fail to see how exploring space is prudent while the human race is extincting itself in the name of political correctness back hear on Earth.



This will always be the case. Human
advancement cannot stop because of
some barbarous animals. Scientific
isolationism is just as harmful and
dangerous as national isolationism.


Originally Posted By macro:
But water on mars? A tenth planet? A trip back to the moon?



A single manned mission to Mars would
generate more scientific understanding
than we could ever hope to accomplish
stuck here on Earth. Geology, physics,
engineering, biology, etc would all benefit
from such an endevor.


Originally Posted By macro:
how about putting them at the border, and stopping the illegals and terrorists from wandering in.



The DHS has twice the budget of NASA. This
is not an "either or" situation.


Originally Posted By macro:
I support the privatization of the space program...let it become a 'for profit' business.
There is enough money in the private sector to sustain it, and it would probably be run better than it is today.



I agree for the heavy lifting aspect. Industry
can do it better. But leave the science alone.


Originally Posted By macro:
I guess at this point in history, I percieve other tasks to be priorities.



Yeah and those other priorities are being
funded to the tune of 30x the NASA budget.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:21:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 1:22:16 PM EDT by Mach1]
I'd rather take a trip on the Soyuz than the Shuttle.

Been going strong for close to 50 years.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:25:41 PM EDT
Well its not really a tenth planet or is it.. Lets waste more NASA funding and over the shuttle program.. If it screws over the rest of our space edge it will please the libs.. They dont want the US to be the leaders in space..

Its not right for the 3rd world nations you know.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:38:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mach1:
I'd rather take a trip on the Soyuz than the Shuttle.

Been going strong for close to 50 years.




Here Soyuz


here is the Shenzhou 3




Your choice.. One in the same..

Wonder if the Chinese fixed the hatch problem?

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:42:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Win_88:

Originally Posted By Mach1:
I'd rather take a trip on the Soyuz than the Shuttle.

Been going strong for close to 50 years.




Here Soyuz
www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuztm_iso_bottom_2.jpg

here is the Shenzhou 3
a52.g.akamaitech.net/f/52/827/1d/www.space.com/images/shenzhou2a_010110_01.jpg

Your choice.. One in the same..

Wonder if the Chinese fixed the hatch problem?




Yep, the Chinese cloned the most reliable space booster/capsule.

Can't say I blame them.

But , I'll go with the Russian version- their track record is more impressive.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 1:47:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
No our shame isn't our aging space program. Our shame is the next generation isn't on the launching pad. If companies were ran like NASA, we'd still have dial telephones and black and white TVs. Continuing as is one day our children will be living in a third world country and looking up at the sky saying "Boy how innovated those Chinese are?"



And you can thank the Congress critters, out-of-control political process and special interest groups that are using every means possible to destroy what this great nation has accomplished over the past 229 years.

We pick leaders not for their vision, leadership or what they stand for and have accomplished but what they can give you so you don't have to actually work for it yourself. The after they are elected we do everything possible to make their administration as impotent as possible.

We have met the enemy and he is us. - Walt Kelly
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top