Att: Shuttle Bashers! *DELETED*

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Read all of my comments..."</font><br /><br />That <b>was</b> all of the comments you made in the post he was replying to. The only reason you made additional ones was because I jumped on you for the same thing -- albeit I didn't use both feet and spiked shoes.<br /><br />The two-liner you put into the post he's replying to about capsules and only physics geeks was ill-conceived. That fact that you backtracked later in the thread isn't really relevant to his reply.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I followed up the comments, not "backtracked" for any reason whatsoever.

 

[nacnud]

Well I'm a physics major and a geek and I'm following the CEV capsule development so it must be true, just need to find an arts major and jock who isn’t in order to prove the rule... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

So am I, but you can bet the public isn't.<br /><br />The public is following the Shuttle.<br /><br />That's the bloody point lost on some people here.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I followed up the comments, not "backtracked" for any reason whatsoever. "</font><br /><br />My bad. It seemed (seems) to me that:<br /><br /><i>"I support moving on to the next generation of vehicles (and that includes In-Line Saturn 5 style Shuttle Derived launchers with capsuals etc.) I know we aren't going to be flying winged craft to the Moon and Mars - I know the wings are only needed for one purpose and it's not in space! "</i><br /><br />...is really not in line with:<br /><br /><i>"You'll all probably get your uninspiring capsuals to play with in the years to come. Where space flight will be following by physics majors and geeks and that's about it. "</i><br /><br />...and might well be labeled 'backtracking'. You call it 'followup comments'. Tuh-May-Toh/Tuh-Mah-Toh <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mrmorris]

nacnud: <font color="orange">"I'm following the CEV capsule development...</font><br /><br />Shuttle_RTF: <font color="yellow">So am I, but you can bet the public isn't. The public is following the Shuttle. </font><br /><br />Do you really think the public followed the shuttle <b>development</b>? You would be wrong in that. Once the CEV is developed, and is running missions to the moon... if the public isn't following it, why don't you post an 'I told you so' note. Until that time, pretend you're a shuttle basher and ask yourself to just give it a rest.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

You know, I wasn't surprised to see shipper wars between the Spuffies and the Bangles on 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' websites, or between the Harmonians and the Herons on Harry Potter websites, but I am somewhat surprised to see similar passions on this website! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />Although not quite so viscious!

 

[grooble]

The moon missions this time will eclipse the original landings because of the internet and modern media. <br /><br />Billions will be able to watch it live on their computers in high definition colour video.

 

[spacefire]

umm yeah but where's the 'newness'? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

Yeah, I think that shuttle bashing is totally unproductive. They are slated to be retired, so there is no need for bashing. The bashing energy really needs to be focused on helping to ensure that CEV gets developed and flown properly. And everybody on this forum has the power to do that. <br /><br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Once the CEV is developed, and is running missions to the moon... if the public isn't following it, why don't you post an 'I told you so' note.<<br /><br />And I'll write one back saying "WTF are you going on about".<br /><br />Talking about banging one's head into a brick wall.

 

[grooble]

It'll be new for me and a lot of people under 40 who were not around then. And it isn't just about newness anyway, although i'm hoping they do things now that they didn't before. Explore more, go for long drives in a buggy, maybe there are caves or hollows underground.<br /><br />And most importantly, start building infrastructure so that it is permanent.

 

[the_ten]

grooble said:<br /><font color="yellow">"We shall hit the shuttle with our shoes, arab style!"</font><br /><br />Shuttle_RTF said:<br /><font color="yellow">"No, it would knock tiles off"</font><br /><br /><br />I couldn't stop laughing when I read that. Thanks for the humor!

 

[racer7]

Nitpick.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>sorry but in no way can you draw any analogies between the two. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The OP did say he wasn't trying to draw any analogies, but in his defence (and with the help of a dictionary):<br /><br /><b>analogy</b>: correspondence in some respects between things otherwise dissimilar.<br /><br />It seems that it would be rather easy (and a correct use of the term) to draw analogies between the two.<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">It'll be new for me and a lot of people under 40 who were not around then. And it isn't just about newness anyway, although i'm hoping they do things now that they didn't before. Explore more, go for long drives in a buggy, maybe there are caves or hollows underground. </font><br /><br />I'd love to see a permanent moon base, I'll give you that.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

Personally, I chuckled at labeling the A380 as a cattle herder. I think that truely and accurately describes the airline industry today.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Yeah, I think that shuttle bashing is totally unproductive. They are slated to be retired, so there is no need for bashing. The bashing energy really needs to be focused on helping to ensure that CEV gets developed and flown properly.</font><br />the Shuttle is taking resources away from the CEV. Again, I have to state that it was all political trickery. Focusing the public's attention on these last, 'heroic' shuttle flights, Republicans and NASA avoid having to answer embarassing questions about the development (or lack thereof) of the CEV.<br /><br /><br /> <font color="yellow">And everybody on this forum has the power to do that. </font><br /> This is very inspiring, I feel very empowered <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

NASA has put the big aerospace contractors in a competition against each other to win a big contract. I'm sure they are working very hard a coming up with great configurations to beat out their competitors. I think the competition alone is all that is required right now.

 

[spacefire]

the X33 was in a much more advanced stage when it was cancelled...and before the VSE there was the SLI with the OSP and it all went to POO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jonschoen]

Re: Hitting it with your shoes! Whoever posted that, I couldn't stop laughing! Exactly! The tiles would fall off, and the foam, and the fabric, and the kitchen sink, and chicken coup wire holding it all together......<br /><br />And whoever said the Shuttle is a marvel od modern engineering...there's nothing modern about it.....

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I like their laptop on the flight deck is three months old, and the OMSS is pretty cool. Not a shoe in sight, though.

 

[erauskydiver]

X-33 was rightfully cancelled. Why? Because it didnt work! I for one am glad they killed it. The Venture Star configuration was evolving just like the shuttle. One requirement/ capability reduction after another. Heck, the payload went from internal to external! It's just too bad that the design flaw was realized so late in the game.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

The X-33 did work, they just contracted out the tanks to the wrong people. The Tanks failed and that's what killed it................for now.

 

[erauskydiver]

How can you say that it worked? The thing never even flew. Even if X-33 did work, Venture Star would have been much bigger and more complicated. <br /><br />However, we do know that the X-33 tanks did not work because they were tested and they failed. A lot of effort was put into fixing the problem. Geesh, they considered going from composite to aluminum for crying out loud. Thank goodness they just killed it. <br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="yellow">"X-33 was rightfully cancelled. Why? Because it didnt work! I for one am glad they killed it."</font><br /><br />They had invested too much in X-33 to just kill it outright like that. Such a waste, and they probably could have gotten something out of it. I sure would have loved to see those linear aerospike engines in action!<br /><br />And why was X-34 cancelled? It was progressing a lot more smoothly than X-33.