We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!
Looks like I was right about the future workhorse of the US Space program!
Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
I'm more concerned with the posts other than from Space is Cool, as they are from people who obviously have an understanding on the whole Space Flight situation. Space is Cool is basically just full of it looking for attention. <br /><br />As mentioned, I'll start a new thread specific to the lack of loyality to the Shuttle - that has been seen on this tread.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Shuttles are the worst part of NASA. They are dangerous old-fashioned piles of garbage, run and maintained by un-professional cowboys who are totally responsable for the deaths of 14 astronaunts.<br /><br />They should scrap the Shuttles immediately, sack anyone that had anything to do with them and progress to a more professional NASA with rockets and forget the mistake of the Shuttle ever happened.<br /><br />Anyone that likes the Shuttle, anyone that worked with the Shuttle should hang their heads in shame.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You do realize a shuttle engineer reads these boards, right? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>run and maintained by un-professional cowboys who are totally responsable for the deaths of 14 astronaunts. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Watch who you're insulting! The shuttle engineers are all doing an excellent job to make sure the shuttle is safe for RTF and they do the best they can with what they are given. The space shuttles ARE old and in need of a well deserved retirement, but that's hardly the fault of those who work on them! If you must blame someone for the loss of the two orbiters, then blame management, not the engineers -- both times, in fact, it was engineers who tried to PREVENT tragedy and were over-ruled. <br /><br />Speaking of, has anyone seen our resident shuttle engineer recently? I hope he's all right after the hurricanes and such ...
<font color="yellow">"They should scrap the Shuttles immediately, sack anyone that had anything to do with them and progress to a more professional NASA with rockets and forget the mistake of the Shuttle ever happened."</font><br /><br />That sounds imature. Sounds like something that the communist Soviet Union would have done. Why do that? We need to learn from our mistakes, which I don't consider the Shuttle as is anyway.<br /><br />If we sack everyone who worked on the Shuttle, then Nasa is screwed and we would be out of a space work force. We can't afford to do that, and it is not right anyway, since it is not their fault.<br /><br />Why did you say <font color="yellow">"The Shuttles are the worst part of NASA. They are dangerous old-fashioned piles of garbage, run and maintained by un-professional cowboys who are totally responsable for the deaths of 14 astronaunts."</font>? Do you not like the Shuttles just because of that accident? Explain your exteme dislike of the shuttles to us please.<br /><br />One last thing. A word of advice: I would not advise saying stuff like that the way you said it. Most of us visit this site because we like NASA and the <b>Shuttles</b>, and even some who come here work on the Shuttles. You could get on alot of people's bad sides with claims like yours, that all people who work on the Shuttles are bad people and etc..
it's okay for you to not like the shuttles... I have made a few anti-shuttle posts myself, as I believe they represent stagnation. It's not what you say that can get you in trouble but how you say it. Attacking a group of people, especially when a member of such a group is our friend, is much worse than just attacking the principles of the shuttle and shuttle-mentality.
<font color="yellow"><i>"... The upper stage is the difference. The RL-50 that Delta proposes is more effecient....however it does not exist. "</i></font><br /><br />That's true. Although it says RL-60 on the chart <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />There were many trades going between whether a new upper stage engine should be 60K lbf thrust or a 50K lbf thrust, hence the RL-60 vs. RL-50 nomenclature. But P&W has been quiet as to the status of RL-60/50 development for sometime now, I'd suspect it has not receive any contract funding for full development.<br /><br />The current RL10B-2 engine used on Delta has a much bigger nozzle than the RL10A engines used on Atlas, therefore is more efficient in terms of engine Isp which enables a higher payload for a long burn mission to GTO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
> <i><font color="yellow">it's okay for you to not like the shuttles... I have made a few anti-shuttle posts myself, as I believe they represent stagnation.</font>/i><br /><br />I also have a history of criticizing the shuttle (and ISS), but cutting and running is very difficult.<br /><br />First, as has been mentioned here many times, for technical reasons the shuttle is the <i>only</i> vehicle that can launch most of the rest of the equipment for the ISS. Because so many other countries have invested money in equipment for ISS, the US is pretty much stuck with having to continue building out the ISS. And this means keeping the shuttle flying.<br /><br />Second, as I am starting to discover, NASA is to a great extent a government funded jobs program. This was drilled home for me when during a Q&A for the Moon2Mars report Aldridge said if they had proposed closing a NASA facility their report would have been dead on arrival. I have also read several times where Congresspeople have gone on the record saying there will be no closing of NASA facilities (at least in their district or state). Killing the shuttle program will kill a lot of jobs, and that will cost votes.<br /><br />Third, while I hope the replacement vehicle will be safer, we will have no guarantees until it has flown 50-100 flights. We often brag about how successful the Apollo program was with respect to launches, but the total number of flights were just a fraction of what the shuttle has flown. Perhaps by the time we had gotten to flight Apollo 63 we might have had some fatalities too.</i>
>>run and maintained by un-professional cowboys who are totally responsable for the deaths of 14 astronauts.<<<br /> <br />More than anyone who has ever used these boards, you DO NOT know what the hell you're talking about. I've seen what mayhem that insults and lies can cause on this excellent forum, and I don't want to see anymore.<br /> <br />If we all agreed 100%percent all the time, this would be a boring forum. But you, "spaceiscool", have far overstepped the bounds of decency.<br /> <br />I strongly suggest, even DEMAND you apologise publicly for the extreme hurt you have caused with that post. <br /><br />If you wont apologise, I suggest you leave this board an NEVER come back!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!! LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>