Jensenman wrote: eviscerate the pioneer spirit in the name of ultimate safety
The summary line for today's society. Every action is dictated by liability and the insurance companies with a proper risk assessment done beforehand.
Jensenman wrote: eviscerate the pioneer spirit in the name of ultimate safety
The summary line for today's society. Every action is dictated by liability and the insurance companies with a proper risk assessment done beforehand.
confuZion3 wrote:racerdave600 wrote: Also, most people don't know that the space shuttle originated in the mid '60's, its extremely old and outdated. It was never intended to have a service life this long, budget cuts have kept it flying in its current form.Many of you drive cars that originated in the 60s. Can they not get you to the grocery store time after time again just like they did in the 60s? The duty of going to the store, holding groceries, and then docking with your garage has not changed - why change the vehcile? Just a little bit of devil advocation . . .It would be nice to see an orbiter that can easily sling shot itself out of orbit, given proper timing, and fly to the moon. Although, I think the next vehicle they want to send there will be a multi-stage rocket, similar to the Apollo ships. Edit: also, it would be nice to see a ship that can be launched, flown through space safely, and brought home without breaking the bank every time.
The current shuttle has a couple of major problems that need re-engineering, mainly the use of solid rocket motors for propulsion, and the fact that it's payload limited. The problem with using solid rocket motors are that once you light them, you're going somewhere, there's no way to shut them down in case of a problem.
Most of the original safety precautions have been jettisoned over the years in the name of hauling more payload. A bit of trivia, did you know that if the shuttle had blown on its maiden flight as opposed to 1986 the outcome could have been different? It was originally fitted with a survival cell, but was taken out afterwards, as were many other systems. Also, the shuttle charges money for the cargo it carries, its a profit making exercise to some degree, and payload is profit. Its very limited in that regard, and its expensive to service in its current form. Not to mention the airframes on most of them are getting pretty old.
I like the old car comparison, but I'm not flying a '68 Plymouth Fury into orbit!
^^ I'd be willing to fly a '69 Hemi Daytona Charger into orbit, if they could figure it out
racerdave600 wrote: A bit of trivia, did you know that if the shuttle had blown on its maiden flight as opposed to 1986 the outcome could have been different? It was originally fitted with a survival cell, but was taken out afterwards, as were many other systems.
The challenger did have the survival cell in place. Several of the astronauts survived the explosion. IIRC, at least 3 of them deployed their supplamental breathing apparatus. The official word though is that while they were alive at the point of impact, they were unconcious. I'm not sure I buy it, but it makes for a better press release.
I sure hope so! The "Space Race" of he 60's did a great job of taking our attention from the War!
But the economy was booming then too.
Not the same now....it's about to crash hard.
But back to the 60's .... what a great time, we had newer better , bigger capsules with more "astronaunts".
And longer filghts and "Space walks " and even a wonderfully staged Moon landing !
( Why can't anyone show me a picture of any APOLLO debris on the moon?)
Wait, with the cost of fuel today, a Saturn V would break the banks of all but the largest Oil kingdom
Too bad the damn thing can't even achieve high orbit.
SoloSonett wrote: Too bad the damn thing can't even achieve high orbit.
The Shuttle that is... what a boondogle
neon4891 wrote: ^^ I'd be willing to fly a '69 Hemi Daytona Charger into orbit, if they could figure it out
DILYSI Dave wrote:racerdave600 wrote: A bit of trivia, did you know that if the shuttle had blown on its maiden flight as opposed to 1986 the outcome could have been different? It was originally fitted with a survival cell, but was taken out afterwards, as were many other systems.The challenger did have the survival cell in place. Several of the astronauts survived the explosion. IIRC, at least 3 of them deployed their supplamental breathing apparatus. The official word though is that while they were alive at the point of impact, they were unconcious. I'm not sure I buy it, but it makes for a better press release.
The orginal flight actually had a cell with a 'chute. Assuming it wasn't a ball of fire at that point, they would have floated back to earth after the explosion. My dad had to go down to Florida after the crash and identify their parts of the shuttle. He confirmed that I believe all but 2 were alive upon impact with the water. The other 2 died of heart failure or other similar due to the rapid decent.
not to bring threads back from the dead buuuut crazy how the world has changed since this thread. just saying. space travel is predominately private companies now.
Zombie, but yeah the changes are quite surprising.
Wow, 10 year old thread. That's gotta be a forum record.
It saddens me to read posts from forum members who are no longer with us. Godspeed Mike.
You'll need to log in to post.
