If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:55:19 -0600, "John Carrier" wrote: "If everything goes perfectly on a mission, I would say it's comparable risk," says Grunsfeld. "But we've seen from Columbia that things don't always go perfectly. And it's that fundamental difference that on a Hubble flight if something goes wrong you run out of options very quickly. And on these space station flights we have lots of options." What I don't understand is - even if the Columbia mission had been to the ISS it may have all still ended in tragedy. That is true. But future shuttle flights won't be conducted in the same "come home as you are" fashion". A mission to the ISS that results in the detection of damage that prohibits a timely reentry and landing means the crew becomes extended guests on the ISS; detection of the same damage during a Hubble repair/service mission does not leave them that option and results in a rather short timeline within which to launch and complete some sort of rescue effort. It only takes a small leading edge crack to expand in the way we saw, so unless they're planning doing *very* thorough orbital "walk arounds" of the orbiter to inspect fro cracks, you're still likely to come back in pieces. After all the Columbia didn't know their wing was damaged when they attempted reentry. Because they did no investigation at all? Agreed that in-flight inspection, be it by space walk, remote viewing, or a camera mounted on the end of the shuttle arm, or the likely combination of all three, will not be foolproof, but you can bet that they pay particular attention to leading edge surfaces. Oh, and my vote would be to keep Hubble going, but it isn't my bum on the line, so I won't second guess NASA. I think it is a shame that it may be allowed to die--but like you I have pretty good confidence in the professionals' assessment. Brooks --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"John Carrier" wrote in message ... Was worth it, but evidently no longer? We've all been there ... lose a wingman, watch a friend hit the ramp ... when the risks suddenly seem very real, very personal, and quite possible. Then you shake it off, put your gear on, strap in and do it. NASA has to develop a vehicle to go to the Moon before the Chinese get there. The use of Mars as a destination is only a metaphor for wherever. NASA has been given their priorities from the Executive and no new money. How else can NASA continue to visit planets on less money than to use robots? The 2% loss rate for shuttles was acceptable when they were to build large space structures for military applications as a stopgap measure. The militarization of space race pretty well ended with Reagan's bluff in the 80's and so there was no follow on vehicle. The fact is, without a new vehicle NASA may as well cease to exist as a manned flight program shortly after 2010. Cherie Mills responds: Militarization of space race "did not end" with Reagan's bluff in the 80s. Cherie Mills ********************* U.S. Space Warriors: (Quotations from article below): "According to James Roche, the U.S.A.F. Secretary, America's allies would have "no veto power" over projects like the military space plane that are designed to give the U.S. military control of space." "The NRO, the super secret spy agency that is responsible for U.S. satellites, has been given the job to develop the strategy to ensure American allies or enemies never gain access to space without U.S. permission. European efforts to build the multi-billion dollar Galileo satellite navigational system is seen as a direct threat to U.S. plans for space dominance." "NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, who claims everything NASA does from now on will be ‘dual use' (meaning it will serve both military and civilian purposes) has said, ‘propulsion power generation advances that are so critical to the purposes of achieving our exploration and discovery objectives are the same technologies that national security seeks to utilize.' It has long been claimed by the Pentagon that they will require nuclear reactors in space to power space-based weapons." ------------------------------- SPACE WARRIORS - IRAQ WAR EMBOLDENS BUSH SPACE PLANS Bruce Gagnon, NPRI (Nuclear Power Research Institute) Board of Advisors, Counterpunch 08/08/2003 http://www.counterpunch.org/gagnon08082003.html Military victory in the Iraq war has emboldened the Pentagon in their claims that space technology gives the U.S. total advantage in time of war. According to Peter Teets, undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), American capability in space, "must remain ahead of our adversaries' capabilities, and our doctrine and capabilities must keep pace to meet that challenge." "I think the recent military conflict has shown us, without a doubt, how important the use of space is to national security and military operations," Teets, a former Lockheed Martin executive recently said. In order to accomplish the goal of technologically leapfrogging the space program to the point of global "control and domination" a new agreement has been signed by NASA, U.S. strategic Command, the NRO and the Air Force Space Command to fully mesh all their research and development efforts together. Thus, we witness the takeover of the U.S. space program by the military and the weapons corporations. One such example of this new emphasis on technology sharing is the Bush administration announcement of Project Prometheus, a multi-billion dollar program to create a nuclear rocket. NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, who claims everything NASA does from now on will be "dual use" (meaning it will serve both military and civilian purposes) has said, "propulsion power generation advances that are so critical to the purposes of achieving our exploration and discovery objectives are the same technologies that national security seeks to utilize." It has long been claimed by the Pentagon that they will require nuclear reactors in space to power space-based weapons. Another example of this new dual use relationship is the effort to replace the unstable space shuttle fleet. A $4.8 billion development program is now focusing on the "military space plane," with the Air Force playing a larger role in calling the shots. A fleet of space planes will be designed to attack and destroy future satellites of enemies and rivals. A prototype is expected by 2005 with deployment envisioned around 2014. According to James Roche, the U.S.A.F. Secretary, America's allies would have "no veto power" over projects like the military space plane that are designed to give the U.S. military control of space. The NRO, the super secret spy agency that is responsible for U.S. satellites, has been given the job to develop the strategy to ensure American allies or enemies never gain access to space without U.S. permission. European efforts to build the multi-billion dollar Galileo satellite navigational system is seen as a direct threat to U.S. plans for space dominance. In a computer wargame held at the Air Force's Space Warfare Center at Schriever A.F.B. in Colorado this past spring, the U.S. practiced such space "negation." The wargame, set in the year 2017, pitted the blue team (U.S.) against the red team (China). Its scenario was fairly complex, incorporating several "opportunities for conflict in southwest and southern Asia." Unlike the last such game in 2001, this year's version urged participants not to get "bogged down in discussions about space law and policies, which disrupted the game's military operations," reported Aviation Week & Space Technology. This time around the ABM Treaty with Russia was no longer in existence. Russia and China are renewing their call for a global ban on weapons in space. On July 31, 2003 the two powers delivered their pleas at a session of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Both countries worry that Bush's call for early deployment of National Missile Defense (NMD) will create a new and costly arms race in space that will be difficult to call back. So far the U.S. refuses to discuss a moratorium or ban on weapons in space * saying there is no problem and thus no need to begin negotiations. Bush is calling for deployment of six NMD missile interceptors in Alaska, and four in California, by September 30, 2004. Ten more are due in Fort Greely, Alaska by 2005. The $500 million silo construction project is headed by Boeing and Bechtel corporations. The big problem for Bush's deployment plan, to be carried out just prior to the 2004 national elections, is that the testing program of the interceptor missiles is not going well. In addition to the fact that the hit-to-kill mechanisms are proving unreliable (trying to have a bullet hit a bullet in deep space), the booster rockets that are supposed to launch the "kill vehicle" into space are months behind schedule in development. The Bush solution to the problem has been to say that future testing will be done in secrecy. Each of these Missile Defense Agency (MDA) tests cost over $100 million. Boeing was recently promised a $45 million bonus if it could carry out a successful test, but failed to do so. In fact Boeing has other troubles. Last January, two Boeing managers stationed at Cape Canaveral, Florida were charged with conspiring to steal Lockheed Martin trade secrets involving another Air Force rocket program. Despite such fraud, delays, cost overruns and technology problems the U.S. House and Senate continue to grant the Pentagon virtually every penny they request for Star Wars. In 2004 $9.1 billion will be awarded to the MDA for space weapons research and development. Bush has, in his first three years in office, created the largest budget deficit in U.S. history. As money for education, health care, social security, environmental clean-up, and the like are cut, military spending now accounts for the majority of federal spending in nearly every state. The U.S. now accounts for 43% of world military spending. The U.S. is anxious for Australia, UK, India, Israel, Russia, and others to become international partners in Star Wars. The program will be so expensive (some say the largest industrial project in the history of the planet) that even the U.S. can't pay for it alone. By pulling in the aerospace sectors of other countries, Bush knows he can blunt international opposition to his goals of a new and very expensive arms race that will clearly benefit the aerospace industry and the politicians that get the kick-backs. As we recall George W. Bush's post 9-11 statement that, "It's going to be a long, long war" our eyes must turn to the larger issue of U.S. plans for global empire. Recent disclosures in U.S. News (7/21/03) about Pentagon "Operations Plan 5030" reveal a new war plan for North Korea. One scenario calls for U.S. surveillance flights bumping up alongside North Korean airspace in hopes of creating the right incident to spark the pretext for war. Expanding U.S. military presence worldwide is intended to secure scarce resources like oil and water for U.S. corporate control. Growing "global strike capability" means smaller but more maneuverable troop deployments to rapidly suppress any opposition to U.S. dominance. The people of the world are being told to submit to U.S. authority or pay the price. U.S. space technology is intended to tie this global military package together and to ensure that no military competitor can emerge. The global peace movement we witnessed prior to the recent U.S. attacks and occupation of Iraq is the other superpower in the world today. U.S. ambitions for global control and domination in the end will fail because the people of the world will not allow any one nation to be the over lord of the planet. On October 4-11 the Global Network will hold its annual Keep Space for Peace Week: International Days of Protest to Stop the Militarization of Space. Local events are expected to be held on virtually every continent of the world to show the growing consciousness within the peace movement about the current U.S. plan for control of space. We urge local groups to organize actions in solidarity with other groups on this day. Check our website at www.space4peace.org for details. Let us all do what we can to non-violently resist this frightening global strategy. Bruce K. Gagnon is coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space based in Brunswick, ME, and a member of the NPRI Board of Advisors. 2003 NPRI. All rights reserved. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Cherie Mils" wrote in message om... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "John Carrier" wrote in message ... Was worth it, but evidently no longer? We've all been there ... lose a wingman, watch a friend hit the ramp ... when the risks suddenly seem very real, very personal, and quite possible. Then you shake it off, put your gear on, strap in and do it. NASA has to develop a vehicle to go to the Moon before the Chinese get there. The use of Mars as a destination is only a metaphor for wherever. NASA has been given their priorities from the Executive and no new money. How else can NASA continue to visit planets on less money than to use robots? The 2% loss rate for shuttles was acceptable when they were to build large space structures for military applications as a stopgap measure. The militarization of space race pretty well ended with Reagan's bluff in the 80's and so there was no follow on vehicle. The fact is, without a new vehicle NASA may as well cease to exist as a manned flight program shortly after 2010. Cherie Mills responds: Militarization of space race "did not end" with Reagan's bluff in the 80s. The money dried up for manned vehicles in the '80s. ********************* U.S. Space Warriors: (Quotations from article below): "According to James Roche, the U.S.A.F. Secretary, America's allies would have "no veto power" over projects like the military space plane that are designed to give the U.S. military control of space." A dead program. "The NRO, the super secret spy agency that is responsible for U.S. satellites, has been given the job to develop the strategy to ensure American allies or enemies never gain access to space without U.S. permission. European efforts to build the multi-billion dollar Galileo satellite navigational system is seen as a direct threat to U.S. plans for space dominance." Galileo is more of a threat to TACAN navigation in Europe than it is to the US. MLS with GPS substituted for DME looks to be a promising system instead of Galileo. "NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe, who claims everything NASA does from now on will be 'dual use' (meaning it will serve both military and civilian purposes) has said, 'propulsion power generation advances that are so critical to the purposes of achieving our exploration and discovery objectives are the same technologies that national security seeks to utilize.' It has long been claimed by the Pentagon that they will require nuclear reactors in space to power space-based weapons." No change then. NASA's true purpose was and is the development of military capability in space, without being overtly threatening. This is no different from the Chinese space agency and it is a good thing. NASA was about ICBMs and then it was about Large Space Structures for Polar Orbit. The money ran out on the destroy the Earth vehicles with the Soviet's caving to Reagan's bluff. Now NASA must engage in a friendly race to the Moon with China and continue to explore the solar system. That way some science gets done along the way and manned space flight can continue for the US program. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
really there was no plan B, but apollo 13 showed that a plan B could work
if absolutely neccesary by using the LEM as a lifeboat, How true. NASA's finest hour IMO. R / John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"John Carrier" wrote in message ... really there was no plan B, but apollo 13 showed that a plan B could work if absolutely neccesary by using the LEM as a lifeboat, How true. NASA's finest hour IMO. NASA's ICBM R&D is complete, it is time to move on. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
... Peter Kemp wrote: Oh, and my vote would be to keep Hubble going, but it isn't my bum on the line, so I won't second guess NASA. Had the bum on the line for 20 years. I'll be happy to second guess for you. It's my understanding the decision to discard Hubble is currently under review. So it appears. Lots of upset astronomers and cosmologists out there when word of its "retirement" came out. Then the thing turns around and makes more discoveries, like the farthest object yet known in space, a mere 750 million years after the big bang. A shame to lose such a wonderful resource, especially when a replacement isn't going to be on-line for years to come. Regarded as one of the greatest scientific programs of all time. R / John |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
yes i agree with that!!
"John Carrier" wrote in message ... really there was no plan B, but apollo 13 showed that a plan B could work if absolutely neccesary by using the LEM as a lifeboat, How true. NASA's finest hour IMO. R / John |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's afraid of another crew loss. So man the shuttle with old heads
like me. I'll go in a heart beat. That sucker can't be much trickier to land than a 104 from its 15,000 foot high key. Wonder if John Glenn would side me. I'd a damn sight rather die in the shuttle than in a hospital bed from prostate cancer, my little souvenir from Vietnam and Agent Orange. Walt BJ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"WaltBJ" wrote in message om... NASA's afraid of another crew loss. So man the shuttle with old heads like me. I'll go in a heart beat. That sucker can't be much trickier to land than a 104 from its 15,000 foot high key. Wonder if John Glenn would side me. I'd a damn sight rather die in the shuttle than in a hospital bed from prostate cancer, my little souvenir from Vietnam and Agent Orange. Walt BJ Which part would you play in Space Cowboys? Eastwood, Sutherland, Jones or Garner? Pete |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helicopter headset plug - help needed | NewsGroups | Home Built | 4 | September 8th 04 05:21 PM |
Fiberglass release agent? | [email protected] | Home Built | 14 | July 9th 04 10:26 PM |
OV-10A Bronco Shameless ebay plug | DavidG35 | Military Aviation | 0 | November 7th 03 06:17 AM |
WTB: Turbine ignition exciter unit, single plug | Juan E Jimenez | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 25th 03 12:48 AM |