Skip to comments.
NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet While Probing Columbia Disaster
voanews.com ^
| 02 Feb 2003, 01:22 UTC
| David McAlary
Posted on 02/01/2003 8:02:03 PM PST by Destro
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141 next last
To: dts32041
any other public paid for conveyance with that miserable of a safety record. The only thing that comes quickly to mind are the Navy dirigibles Akron and Macon. The Akron crashed 4 April 1933 on her 74th flight. The Macon's final flight also ended in a crash on 12 February 1935, on her 54th flight.
The Macon's flight ended the Navy's rigid airship program, though they continued to fly nonrigid blimps until 31 August 1962 with a much better safety record.
To: CharacterCounts; Centurion2000
The advertising--TV rights etc would pay a lot and for example 15% of a billion dollars is still 150 million dollars bonus profit. My proposal is to cover all expenses and offer a 15% bonus. So the 15% would be pure profit will all expenses of the Mars trip payed off.
42
posted on
02/01/2003 8:56:31 PM PST
by
Destro
To: Destro
Russians seem to enjoy building gargantuan hardware. Their 58 megaton nuke they set off in the 60s was dropped from a bomber. That was a huge contraption.
To: RightWhale
As the article I just posted shows-they can also build small cheap stuff too.
44
posted on
02/01/2003 8:59:14 PM PST
by
Destro
To: silverlizzard
shut it down That isn't in the cards; a fresh, new program to explore and develop outer space with renewed American determination is. International cooperation will be welcomed. Foreign astronauts will be encouraged to participate.
Israel was very proud of their astronaut and happy to participate with the American space program. They will be more than pleased to continue, especially considering the sacrifices made by all parties. The bond is stronger than ever.
To: Privatize NASA
Gee, how original; what does this make, 10 or 12 times you've posted that same rant today?
46
posted on
02/01/2003 9:04:48 PM PST
by
Howlin
To: Destro
. So the 15% would be pure profit will all expenses of the Mars trip payed off. You can make 15% selling toothpaste. Further, a billion dollars won't even get you started. The R & D alone would cost many times that.
Imagine yourself sitting in front of the board of directors proposing to put all of the assets of the company on the line for a 15% profit if you succeed. Now imagine convincing a bunch of bankers to finance this project.
Boeing is having some dificulties getting financing for its next generation passenger jumbo jet because of the huge costs. There is simply no company which can or would take this kind of risk.
To: Destro
The Russians have built boosters that only cost around $800/lb. to LEO. Of course we negotiated a deal with them that artificially raised launch costs.
Open the Space Frontier, Buy Russian
48
posted on
02/01/2003 9:11:12 PM PST
by
Brett66
To: Lord Voldemort
Plus powdered graphite is corrosive. Doesn't make that great a difference in your home or office, but in a weightless atmoshpere with thousands of moving parts it could make a difference.
49
posted on
02/01/2003 9:11:39 PM PST
by
Hillarys Gate Cult
("Read Hillary's hips. I never had sex with that woman.")
To: Destro
Bump for a later read
50
posted on
02/01/2003 9:12:43 PM PST
by
Brad C.
To: Palladin
The soyuz modules are decades old, but remember they can be upgraded with each new launch. But you can only overhaul a shuttle every 5 to 10 years. So it means in terms of safty and components, the Soyuz is technologically ahead of any shuttle.
To: Destro
No matter how we do it, it must be done.
Space is our future. We must get off this rotting apple and go to the frontier of space. It is our destiny, our future and our right.
If we do not, we will all perish in our own excrement.
To: CharacterCounts
Christ man I was offering an example of a billion dollor amount. I can't do the math without round figures. You make 15% selling toothpaste? Good! Welcome to private sector Space exploration.
53
posted on
02/01/2003 9:15:22 PM PST
by
Destro
To: Destro
We should now rethink our space transportation system, what we need are three different vehicles if we are truly serious about conquering space.
THE TANKER We need a heavy lift un-manned vehicle for bringing materials and supplies into orbit.
We have done this before; it was called the Saturn V.
THE BUS We need a truly maneuverable personnel carrier. It must be lightweight, capable of launch and powered during landing.
This vehicle would have survivability as its primary mission.
THE TRAILER For the times that we need to bring equipment and materials back, this vehicle would be similar to the current shuttle, but would have an escape capsule for a cockpit and only two or three member crew.
It would only be used for returning equipment not for bringing anything into orbit.
SPACE STATIONS As to the foolishness of the current International Space Station, it is a complete waste of money.
It has been re-designed for cost reductions to the point of total failure.
We should do what we can to place at least one station (if not three for communications) in geo-synchronous orbit
and to then place a station where it will do us the most good with less need for fuel to maintain an orbit.
LaGrange Points At this station is where we build the launch facilities for planetary exploration.
To: dts32041
To: NP-INCOMPLETE
Soyuz is technologically ahead of any shuttle.LOL! The Soyuz is comparable to Apollo without the frills. It can't carry large payloads, It can only carry 3 to four people like sardines. It is nothing but a tin can on a bunch of bottle rockets.
I think a space plane is more the proper vehicle. Large payload capacity. (it could be built to about any size) A re-usable airframe and no expensive polluting boosters.
Larger transport vehicles could be built in space if a dock were available. That is why a large payload capacity is needed.
Rocket boosters are terribly obsolete.
To: Destro
I'm not trying to be argumentative and I agree with your main premise; the space shuttle is inefficient way to get payloads into space.
However, I am saying that there is no economical reason to go to Mars. If it doesn't make good business sense, it probably won't happen in the private sector. Private companies can build the hardware but only the government can absorb the costs involved.
To: Destro
Laurel Clark was a Racine, Wisconsin native (just south of Milwaukee, for the geographically challenged) and the Milwaukee media has been interviewing everyone imaginable for their comments.
One of the radio stations talked with Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) about some of the questions you have raised. His thoughts (very loose paraphrasing of what I remember) were in synch with yours. He did state the shuttle was 40-year old technology and he hoped NASA would not replace Columbia and start phasing out the shuttle program.
I was left with the impression that he was not the only elected official with this point of view. Could be the public needs to start putting some pressure on Congress to nudge NASA along to the next step in the space exploration process.
To: wirestripper
The Russians have the largest payload capacity boosters period. Larger cargo payloads than the space shuttle. I do not know the name of this rocket off hand though.
59
posted on
02/01/2003 9:54:24 PM PST
by
Destro
To: Destro
NASA should keep working on the upcoming mission as a back-up plan to get the astronauts off the space station. The next shuttle mission was on the
schedule to launch on March 1, 2003.
Primary payloads -- ISS seventeenth flight (ULF1)/Multi-Purpose Logistics Module, crew rotation
Bowersox, Budarin and Pettit are up there now:
I can't imagine what today's been like for them up there.
60
posted on
02/01/2003 10:16:10 PM PST
by
P.O.E.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson