The Shuttle and American Space Program - A New Strategy
- Thread starter SouthAmerica
- Start date
.
Invaliduser: Spend the money on the power grid.
**********
SouthAmerica: The US can do both; space and power grid.
**********
Gideonspy: I total agree with you on--------the shuttle is old technology, but currently no one has the capability to send 7 crew astronauts into space and dock in a space station. Chinese are a concern in the future (especially in spending cost 2.3 billion in six months for the NASA
shuttle)------please read this article âwill space be Chineseâ----- I hope not, but I agree âAmerica needs to get on the ballâ
**********
SouthAmerica: The Russians have been sending their astronauts to the international space station.
NASA did spend over $ 2.3 billion in six months to be able to lift the shuttle into space.
In the meantime someone spent one million dollars to build a simple vehicle to go into space. He was able to get in space a get the $ 10 million dollar prize.
In one hand we have NASA spending billions of dollars trying to fly 30-years old technology, and in the other hand we have someone spending almost nothing in new technology and accomplishing a lot.
I think that it is unbelievable that the Shuttle almost crashed at lift off, the astronauts have to spend a lot of time in space figuring out how to patch the old thing to be able to return to earth in one piece, and the American media treated the entire fiasco (the PR people and the spin doctors) as if it was a great development for the American space program.
A few days ago I am watching television, and they were showing the astronauts fixing the outside of the Shuttle for them to be able to return to earth.
Today, the NASA program is in such a shambles that they consider a great victory just the fact that the Shuttle was able to lift off without blowing up. And tomorrow morning NASA will make a big deal that they managed to re-entry the earthâs atmosphere without breaking up in thousands of pieces.
I guess the NASA program is back to 1969 all over again - At that rate NASA will be competing with the âSputnickâ in no time.
.
**********
Jem: china has a good gig going right now. They stole they protected and they were not pushed because we figured better industrialized and friedly.
But let us see how they do 20 years from now.
Notice Japan ran into problems. We have problems so of them because of our meathead educators. China will have problems too. Let us see how they deal with a society that revolts against the dictatorship.
**********
SouthAmerica: China has the most advanced technology being developed today at its disposal in Taiwan.
China is no Japan.
Chinese technology will grow in space by leaps and bounds in the coming years.
**********
nononsense: I wouldn't bank on it.
Historical examples galore showing 'advanced' slave civilizations lasting hundreds, sometimes a thousand years.
***********
SouthAmerica: In my opinion, not in the 21st Century, because of the internet and advanced communication systems.
***********
SouthAmerica: I hope the Shuttle does not blow up tomorrow morning on re-entry.
And I hope those clowns in the US government realize that even if they manage to bring the Shuttle back to earth in one piece â that is not a victory â this entire fiasco has shown to the rest of the world the decaying state of affairs the US space program today.
Please keep the bullshit for the people who are brain dead â the reality is: it is time to start investing in future technology and send the Shuttle fleet to museums around to country for people to see the state-of-the-art in space technology from 30 years ago.
The Shuttle is technology developed before IBM marketed the first PCâs in 1979, and the first PCâs did not have even hard disks.
At the end of the day NASA has to learn that putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig, and not a beautiful woman.
.
Invaliduser: Spend the money on the power grid.
**********
SouthAmerica: The US can do both; space and power grid.
**********
Gideonspy: I total agree with you on--------the shuttle is old technology, but currently no one has the capability to send 7 crew astronauts into space and dock in a space station. Chinese are a concern in the future (especially in spending cost 2.3 billion in six months for the NASA
shuttle)------please read this article âwill space be Chineseâ----- I hope not, but I agree âAmerica needs to get on the ballâ
**********
SouthAmerica: The Russians have been sending their astronauts to the international space station.
NASA did spend over $ 2.3 billion in six months to be able to lift the shuttle into space.
In the meantime someone spent one million dollars to build a simple vehicle to go into space. He was able to get in space a get the $ 10 million dollar prize.
In one hand we have NASA spending billions of dollars trying to fly 30-years old technology, and in the other hand we have someone spending almost nothing in new technology and accomplishing a lot.
I think that it is unbelievable that the Shuttle almost crashed at lift off, the astronauts have to spend a lot of time in space figuring out how to patch the old thing to be able to return to earth in one piece, and the American media treated the entire fiasco (the PR people and the spin doctors) as if it was a great development for the American space program.
A few days ago I am watching television, and they were showing the astronauts fixing the outside of the Shuttle for them to be able to return to earth.
Today, the NASA program is in such a shambles that they consider a great victory just the fact that the Shuttle was able to lift off without blowing up. And tomorrow morning NASA will make a big deal that they managed to re-entry the earthâs atmosphere without breaking up in thousands of pieces.
I guess the NASA program is back to 1969 all over again - At that rate NASA will be competing with the âSputnickâ in no time.
.
**********
Jem: china has a good gig going right now. They stole they protected and they were not pushed because we figured better industrialized and friedly.
But let us see how they do 20 years from now.
Notice Japan ran into problems. We have problems so of them because of our meathead educators. China will have problems too. Let us see how they deal with a society that revolts against the dictatorship.
**********
SouthAmerica: China has the most advanced technology being developed today at its disposal in Taiwan.
China is no Japan.
Chinese technology will grow in space by leaps and bounds in the coming years.
**********
nononsense: I wouldn't bank on it.
Historical examples galore showing 'advanced' slave civilizations lasting hundreds, sometimes a thousand years.
***********
SouthAmerica: In my opinion, not in the 21st Century, because of the internet and advanced communication systems.
***********
SouthAmerica: I hope the Shuttle does not blow up tomorrow morning on re-entry.
And I hope those clowns in the US government realize that even if they manage to bring the Shuttle back to earth in one piece â that is not a victory â this entire fiasco has shown to the rest of the world the decaying state of affairs the US space program today.
Please keep the bullshit for the people who are brain dead â the reality is: it is time to start investing in future technology and send the Shuttle fleet to museums around to country for people to see the state-of-the-art in space technology from 30 years ago.
The Shuttle is technology developed before IBM marketed the first PCâs in 1979, and the first PCâs did not have even hard disks.
At the end of the day NASA has to learn that putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig, and not a beautiful woman.
.
.
Sputdr: South America,
It's funny to be told how stupid your country is from somebody who lives in a 3rd world country.
Do you ride a donkey to work?
**************
SouthAmerica: You are right about that â very often I have the feeling that I live in a 3rd world country - a place with blackouts â crumbling infrastructure â very hard to find a job even for the best qualified people, and so onâ¦
No, I donât ride a donkey to work. The last time I bought an American car was in the early 1970âs when I had a Chrysler Imperial (that car made 8 miles to a gallon of gas, but the car was very fast) I sold that car after the gas crisis of 1974. Since then I have been driving more advanced technologies such as Japanese cars and Volvos.
By the way, I live right outside of New York City.
.
Sputdr: South America,
It's funny to be told how stupid your country is from somebody who lives in a 3rd world country.
Do you ride a donkey to work?
**************
SouthAmerica: You are right about that â very often I have the feeling that I live in a 3rd world country - a place with blackouts â crumbling infrastructure â very hard to find a job even for the best qualified people, and so onâ¦
No, I donât ride a donkey to work. The last time I bought an American car was in the early 1970âs when I had a Chrysler Imperial (that car made 8 miles to a gallon of gas, but the car was very fast) I sold that car after the gas crisis of 1974. Since then I have been driving more advanced technologies such as Japanese cars and Volvos.
By the way, I live right outside of New York City.
.
Quote from Drastion:
Heeeyyy Burt, you need to get a life and shave your eye brows and maybe you would be able to see the truth. I think they should just strap an ACME rocket to the top of an 18-wheeler and send it into orbit. I mean, that sounds about like what your suggesting. Do you even work with a company affiliated with any space program or do you just sit around and watch the discovery channel all day long. I have heard better assesments of where the NASA Shuttle program should go from my older brother. So do us all a favor and leave your ignorant, ill advised suggestions to yourself and leave the thinking to the grown ups. Need I say more?
And if you feel like further debating the topic, give me a call. I'm pretty sure you know my number.
I talked with your older brother brother about this. He said I was pretty sharp, unlike his younger borther. He also said that you should really learn to keep your mouth shut when you don't have a clue, which basically means you should never under any circumstances open your pie hole.
.
SouthAmerica: Prior to the Challenger disaster, NASA management estimated the shuttle's probability of failure as 1 in 100,000.
After the Challenger disaster and the re-entry explosion of the Columbia and the almost disastrous launch of the Discovery a few days ago the probability of a the Discovery disintegrating on re-entry must be ranging from 1 in 2 to 1 in 10
Riding these things into space it is almost like playing Russian roulette the odds of surviving the way up and the way down are not good for the astronauts. If the spaceship does not explode in the way up it does in the way down. You have to be a crazy to fly one of these old things.
Now we have to wait until tomorrow morning to see if NASA will be able to manage bringing back to earth the Discovery astronauts - âAliveâ
*********
From graduation address in December 20, 1995
â¦For a fascinating and highly entertaining discussion of an overall system failure that should be of direct interest to all industrial engineers, I strongly recommend the book entitled "What Do You Care What Other People Think?": Further Adventures of a Curious Character by Professor Richard P. Feynman of the California Institute of Technology. As you may know, Professor Feynman was a physicist who in 1965 won the Nobel Prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics and who played a prominent role in the presidential commission that investigated the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986. The second part of this book is Professor Feynman's account of the investigation of the Challenger disaster and his conclusions about the causes of this failure.
The main focus of much of Professor Feynman's discussion concerns the tremendous differences of opinion on the probability of a major failure of the space shuttle that would result in loss of the vehicle and consequent loss of human life. Prior to the Challenger disaster, NASA management estimated the shuttle's probability of failure as 1 in 100,000 while at the same time the engineers working on the Solid Rocket Boosters and the Space Shuttle Main Engines gave estimates of the probability of a major engine failure ranging from 1 in 100 to 1 in 300. Whereas the engineers based their reliability estimates on the observed operating characteristics of the Solid Rocket Boosters and the Space Shuttle Main Engines, NASA's top-level managers appeared to base their reliability estimates on wishful thinking that is strongly reminiscent of the attitude expressed by the resident engineer for the first Quebec Bridge.
The most dramatic episode in Professor Feynman's book is of course the experiment he conducted during a televised hearing of the Challenger commission in which he squeezed a piece of an O-ring in a C-clamp and put the clamp into a glass of ice water.
Then several moments later when he pulled the clamp out of the ice water and undid it, the piece of O-ring failed to spring back, demonstrating clearly the lack of resilience of the O-ring material under freezing conditions.
From a larger perspective, Professor Feynman explores the organizational weaknesses at NASA that contributed to the Challenger disaster. This book will become a standard case study in the dangers of nonscientific reliability analyses as well as a breakdown in communications between management and working engineers. My own conclusion on reading this book is that NASA needs more industrial engineers in the upper management of the agency as well as in the ranks of the working engineers.
Source: http://www.ie.ncsu.edu/jwilson/gradf95.html
.
SouthAmerica: Prior to the Challenger disaster, NASA management estimated the shuttle's probability of failure as 1 in 100,000.
After the Challenger disaster and the re-entry explosion of the Columbia and the almost disastrous launch of the Discovery a few days ago the probability of a the Discovery disintegrating on re-entry must be ranging from 1 in 2 to 1 in 10
Riding these things into space it is almost like playing Russian roulette the odds of surviving the way up and the way down are not good for the astronauts. If the spaceship does not explode in the way up it does in the way down. You have to be a crazy to fly one of these old things.
Now we have to wait until tomorrow morning to see if NASA will be able to manage bringing back to earth the Discovery astronauts - âAliveâ
*********
From graduation address in December 20, 1995
â¦For a fascinating and highly entertaining discussion of an overall system failure that should be of direct interest to all industrial engineers, I strongly recommend the book entitled "What Do You Care What Other People Think?": Further Adventures of a Curious Character by Professor Richard P. Feynman of the California Institute of Technology. As you may know, Professor Feynman was a physicist who in 1965 won the Nobel Prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics and who played a prominent role in the presidential commission that investigated the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986. The second part of this book is Professor Feynman's account of the investigation of the Challenger disaster and his conclusions about the causes of this failure.
The main focus of much of Professor Feynman's discussion concerns the tremendous differences of opinion on the probability of a major failure of the space shuttle that would result in loss of the vehicle and consequent loss of human life. Prior to the Challenger disaster, NASA management estimated the shuttle's probability of failure as 1 in 100,000 while at the same time the engineers working on the Solid Rocket Boosters and the Space Shuttle Main Engines gave estimates of the probability of a major engine failure ranging from 1 in 100 to 1 in 300. Whereas the engineers based their reliability estimates on the observed operating characteristics of the Solid Rocket Boosters and the Space Shuttle Main Engines, NASA's top-level managers appeared to base their reliability estimates on wishful thinking that is strongly reminiscent of the attitude expressed by the resident engineer for the first Quebec Bridge.
The most dramatic episode in Professor Feynman's book is of course the experiment he conducted during a televised hearing of the Challenger commission in which he squeezed a piece of an O-ring in a C-clamp and put the clamp into a glass of ice water.
Then several moments later when he pulled the clamp out of the ice water and undid it, the piece of O-ring failed to spring back, demonstrating clearly the lack of resilience of the O-ring material under freezing conditions.
From a larger perspective, Professor Feynman explores the organizational weaknesses at NASA that contributed to the Challenger disaster. This book will become a standard case study in the dangers of nonscientific reliability analyses as well as a breakdown in communications between management and working engineers. My own conclusion on reading this book is that NASA needs more industrial engineers in the upper management of the agency as well as in the ranks of the working engineers.
Source: http://www.ie.ncsu.edu/jwilson/gradf95.html
.
.
Burtakus: From reading your blathering, my conclusion is that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about!
***
SouthAmerica:
1) Challenger
2) Columbia
3) â¦â¦. ?
.
Burtakus: From reading your blathering, my conclusion is that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about!
***
SouthAmerica:
1) Challenger
2) Columbia
3) â¦â¦. ?
.
.
SouthAmerica: As of July 26, 2005 there were only three shuttles remaining in the American Shuttle fleet â Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour.
American Shuttles:
Columbia
Challenger
Discovery
Enterprise
Pathfinder
Atlantis
Endeavour
****
Challenger:
Challenger was the second shuttle orbiter to be placed into service (after Columbia) and was constructed using a body frame (STA-099) that had initially been produced for use as a test article. Its maiden voyage was on April 4, 1983, and made eight subsequent round trips to low earth orbit before it was destroyed during the launch of its tenth mission, mission 51-L, on January 28, 1986. It is one of two space shuttles destroyed in an accident during a mission, the other being Columbia.
Flights
Space Shuttle Challenger flew 10 flights, spent 62.41 days in space, completed 995 orbits, and flew 25,803,940 miles (41,527,416 km) in total, including its final mission.
Final mission
On January 28, 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger destroyed during launch and all seven astronauts on board killed.
****
Columbia:
Construction began on Columbia in 1975 primarily in Palmdale, California.
After construction, the orbiter arrived at John F. Kennedy Space Center on March 25, 1979 to prepare for its first launch. However, before its first mission, two workers were killed and four injured during a ground test of the orbiter on March 19, 1981.
Flights
Space Shuttle Columbia flew 28 flights, spent 300.74-days in space, completed 4,808 orbits, and flew 125,204,911 miles in total, including its final mission.
Final mission
On the morning of February 1, 2003, the shuttle re-entered the atmosphere after a 16-day scientific mission. NASA lost radio contact at about 9 a.m. EST, only minutes before the expected 09:16 landing at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Video recordings show the craft breaking up in flames over Texas, at an altitude of approximately 39 miles (63 km) and a speed of 12,500 mph (5.6 km/s).
*****
Enterprise:
The Space Shuttle Enterprise (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first shuttle built for NASA. It was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield and was therefore not capable of space operations without a refit. It was intended to be the second space shuttle to fly after the Space Shuttle Columbia even though Enterprise was built first; however, it was found to be cheaper to refit a test article (STA-099) into the Space Shuttle Challenger. Similarly, it was considered for refit to replace Challenger, but Space Shuttle Endeavour was built from spares instead.
Enterprise was used by NASA for a variety of ground and flight tests intended to validate aspects of the shuttle program. The initial nine-month testing period was referred to by the acronym ALT for "Approach and Landing Test". These tests included a maiden "flight" on February 18, 1977 atop a Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) to measure structural loads and ground handling and braking characteristics of the mated system.
****
Pathfinder:
The Space Shuttle Orbiter Pathfinder (unofficial Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-098) is a 75-ton Space Shuttle mock-up made of steel. It was initially built and used by NASA to practice handling and moving of actual Space Shuttles (as made possible by the mock-up's similarity in size, weight and shape). This allowed facilities to be tested without requiring the use of Enterprise.
Later, a Japanese organization funded the refurbishment of the steel mock-up to more closely resemble an actual Space Shuttle and named it Pathfinder, for purposes of showing it in a Tokyo, Japan space exhibition. Pathfinder has since been returned to the U.S. and is presently on display at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
****
Endeavour:
Shuttle Orbiter Endeavour (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-105) is the fifth operational NASA space shuttle to be built, and the most recent.
The United States Congress authorized the construction of Endeavour in 1987 to replace Challenger, which was lost in an accident in 1986. Structural spares from the construction of shuttles Discovery and Atlantis were used in its assembly. The decision to build Endeavour was favored over refitting Enterprise because it was cheaper.
Endeavour was first launched in 1992 and on its first mission captured and redeployed the stranded INTELSAT VI communications satellite.
****
Atlantis:
Shuttle Orbiter Atlantis (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-104) is one of five NASA space shuttles. It was the fourth operational shuttle built and as of 2005 is one of only three shuttles remaining in the fleet.
As the fourth shuttle, Atlantis benefited from experience gained in the construction of its predecessors. On roll-out it weighed nearly 7,000 lb (3 t) less than the first operational shuttle, Columbia, and required about half the time to build. Structural spare parts also built along with Atlantis were used in the later construction of the fifth shuttle, Endeavour.
Atlantis made its first flight in October 1985, conducting classified military activities, one of five such flights.
****
Discovery:
Shuttle Orbiter Discovery (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-103) is a NASA Space Shuttle.
First flown on August 30, 1984, Discovery is the third operational shuttle (excluding test shuttle Enterprise), and the oldest remaining in service. The orbiter is still operational today, and has performed both research and International Space Station (ISS) assembly missions.
Flights
Space Shuttle Discovery flew 31 flights.
Final mission
After 21 years of service, on July 26, 2005 Space Shuttle Discovery was launched for its final flight - this story still in progress as of today.
Tomorrow morning NASA will try to bring the Discovery home in one piece â¦â¦â¦
Discovery was set for retirement only in 2010 - before this last flight.
.
SouthAmerica: As of July 26, 2005 there were only three shuttles remaining in the American Shuttle fleet â Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour.
American Shuttles:
Columbia
Challenger
Discovery
Enterprise
Pathfinder
Atlantis
Endeavour
****
Challenger:
Challenger was the second shuttle orbiter to be placed into service (after Columbia) and was constructed using a body frame (STA-099) that had initially been produced for use as a test article. Its maiden voyage was on April 4, 1983, and made eight subsequent round trips to low earth orbit before it was destroyed during the launch of its tenth mission, mission 51-L, on January 28, 1986. It is one of two space shuttles destroyed in an accident during a mission, the other being Columbia.
Flights
Space Shuttle Challenger flew 10 flights, spent 62.41 days in space, completed 995 orbits, and flew 25,803,940 miles (41,527,416 km) in total, including its final mission.
Final mission
On January 28, 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger destroyed during launch and all seven astronauts on board killed.
****
Columbia:
Construction began on Columbia in 1975 primarily in Palmdale, California.
After construction, the orbiter arrived at John F. Kennedy Space Center on March 25, 1979 to prepare for its first launch. However, before its first mission, two workers were killed and four injured during a ground test of the orbiter on March 19, 1981.
Flights
Space Shuttle Columbia flew 28 flights, spent 300.74-days in space, completed 4,808 orbits, and flew 125,204,911 miles in total, including its final mission.
Final mission
On the morning of February 1, 2003, the shuttle re-entered the atmosphere after a 16-day scientific mission. NASA lost radio contact at about 9 a.m. EST, only minutes before the expected 09:16 landing at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Video recordings show the craft breaking up in flames over Texas, at an altitude of approximately 39 miles (63 km) and a speed of 12,500 mph (5.6 km/s).
*****
Enterprise:
The Space Shuttle Enterprise (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first shuttle built for NASA. It was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield and was therefore not capable of space operations without a refit. It was intended to be the second space shuttle to fly after the Space Shuttle Columbia even though Enterprise was built first; however, it was found to be cheaper to refit a test article (STA-099) into the Space Shuttle Challenger. Similarly, it was considered for refit to replace Challenger, but Space Shuttle Endeavour was built from spares instead.
Enterprise was used by NASA for a variety of ground and flight tests intended to validate aspects of the shuttle program. The initial nine-month testing period was referred to by the acronym ALT for "Approach and Landing Test". These tests included a maiden "flight" on February 18, 1977 atop a Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) to measure structural loads and ground handling and braking characteristics of the mated system.
****
Pathfinder:
The Space Shuttle Orbiter Pathfinder (unofficial Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-098) is a 75-ton Space Shuttle mock-up made of steel. It was initially built and used by NASA to practice handling and moving of actual Space Shuttles (as made possible by the mock-up's similarity in size, weight and shape). This allowed facilities to be tested without requiring the use of Enterprise.
Later, a Japanese organization funded the refurbishment of the steel mock-up to more closely resemble an actual Space Shuttle and named it Pathfinder, for purposes of showing it in a Tokyo, Japan space exhibition. Pathfinder has since been returned to the U.S. and is presently on display at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
****
Endeavour:
Shuttle Orbiter Endeavour (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-105) is the fifth operational NASA space shuttle to be built, and the most recent.
The United States Congress authorized the construction of Endeavour in 1987 to replace Challenger, which was lost in an accident in 1986. Structural spares from the construction of shuttles Discovery and Atlantis were used in its assembly. The decision to build Endeavour was favored over refitting Enterprise because it was cheaper.
Endeavour was first launched in 1992 and on its first mission captured and redeployed the stranded INTELSAT VI communications satellite.
****
Atlantis:
Shuttle Orbiter Atlantis (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-104) is one of five NASA space shuttles. It was the fourth operational shuttle built and as of 2005 is one of only three shuttles remaining in the fleet.
As the fourth shuttle, Atlantis benefited from experience gained in the construction of its predecessors. On roll-out it weighed nearly 7,000 lb (3 t) less than the first operational shuttle, Columbia, and required about half the time to build. Structural spare parts also built along with Atlantis were used in the later construction of the fifth shuttle, Endeavour.
Atlantis made its first flight in October 1985, conducting classified military activities, one of five such flights.
****
Discovery:
Shuttle Orbiter Discovery (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-103) is a NASA Space Shuttle.
First flown on August 30, 1984, Discovery is the third operational shuttle (excluding test shuttle Enterprise), and the oldest remaining in service. The orbiter is still operational today, and has performed both research and International Space Station (ISS) assembly missions.
Flights
Space Shuttle Discovery flew 31 flights.
Final mission
After 21 years of service, on July 26, 2005 Space Shuttle Discovery was launched for its final flight - this story still in progress as of today.
Tomorrow morning NASA will try to bring the Discovery home in one piece â¦â¦â¦
Discovery was set for retirement only in 2010 - before this last flight.
.
.
Burtakus: Flying into space and coming back is not like going down to the local 7-11 in your Volvo.
****
SouthAmerica: After over 100 flights of the Shuttle since 1979 one expects that NASA has fixed the bugs related to the spacecraft survival during the lift off and the re-entry process â NASA had 25 years to fix these bugs.
Here we are 25 years later and the major news about the flight of the Shuttle Discovery is if the Shuttle was going to blow up in the way up or in the way down.
What happened to advancements in technology since 1979?
Please donât give me this Volvo business. NASA had 25 years to fix all the problems related to the Shuttle. There is no excuse for them to have the kind of problems they are having 25 years later.
If I were running that organization many people would be fired after the Shuttle Discoveryâs return to earth, and I would try to replace them with more competent people.
.
Burtakus: Flying into space and coming back is not like going down to the local 7-11 in your Volvo.
****
SouthAmerica: After over 100 flights of the Shuttle since 1979 one expects that NASA has fixed the bugs related to the spacecraft survival during the lift off and the re-entry process â NASA had 25 years to fix these bugs.
Here we are 25 years later and the major news about the flight of the Shuttle Discovery is if the Shuttle was going to blow up in the way up or in the way down.
What happened to advancements in technology since 1979?
Please donât give me this Volvo business. NASA had 25 years to fix all the problems related to the Shuttle. There is no excuse for them to have the kind of problems they are having 25 years later.
If I were running that organization many people would be fired after the Shuttle Discoveryâs return to earth, and I would try to replace them with more competent people.
.