operational unless it kills again

production lines can be both stopped and started........

i think the shuttle will fly intill a new manned vehicle is
operational unless it kills again..........

When the Shuttle retires, it discussion properly belongs in .history,
and .shuttle should be decommissioned. That being said,
decommissioning a newsgroup is basically impossible.

On Mar 4, 4:38 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

operational unless it kills again

why do you keep saying that? Statistics and history say otherwise

Oh really? So Bush's decision to end the shuttle program and begin VSE
were
simply a coincidence after Columbia was destroyed?

On Mar 4, 11:28�pm, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote:



"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote in messagenews:13ss3dh5hv06vfc@corp.supernews.com...

Oh really? �So Bush's decision to end the shuttle program and begin VSE
were
simply a coincidence after Columbia was destroyed?

Two years after it was destroyed! �There's only three problems with the
shuttle: 1: there's only three Orbiters left; 2: the location of the Orbiter
itself - on top of the stack would have been fine for Columbia at least; 3:
using solid boosters - the original liquid design would mean that Challenger
and her crew would still be with us.

Problem (2) is due to a bad design choice (hindsight being what it is).

Problems (1) and (3) are political. �Typical. �The total development saving,
at the time the decision to use solids instead of liquids was said to be
$600 million - 6% of total (claimed) development costs. �It's also cost more
because the cleaning of the solids is highly dangerous and very difficult
work.

Liquids would have been less expensive on launch and would have made the
entire stack lighter at launch - less propellant for a smaller ET. �Simply
using liquid boosters, with the Orbiter in its current position would
probably have saved Challenger too.

the original design had launch boost escape too, all that remained of
that was the strong crew area, thats why it survived breakup. it was
originally supposed to be a pod, with parachute.

probably both crews would still be with us today

if the shuttle were liquid with launch boost escape it could of been
modernized elminating the hydrazine, and cut operating costs, to
continue flying........

On Mar 4, 8:36 am, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
It will still be here to discuss the shuttle, because its retirement
won't stop people from wanting to discuss it.


Define schedule. There are no more ET's being built so it will be
retired in 3 years

building a manned system with solids and no launch boost escape. that
was pure insanity, done just to save a few bucks:(

What it would really take is for some very respected scientist to
convince the next president that the shuttle would be far more useful in
developing a mission to mars than some glorified Apollo capsule. (aka:
use Shuttle to assemble the mars expedition ship).

On Mar 4, 4:38 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

operational unless it kills again

why do you keep saying that? Statistics and history say otherwise

One spare ET will be build (to my information) and could enable an
ultimate STS-134. There would be a lot of equipment to bring up yet.

The real reason why Energia won't be making a come back is also simple -
it
no longer exists. The stages for Energia 3 were damaged when the building
roof collapsed. I think all the equipment was destroyed afterwards.

On Mar 6, 8:42 am, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote:


building a manned system with solids and no launch boost escape. that
was pure insanity, done just to save a few bucks:(

And not having enough life boats was sane?

Using the most flammable gas?

Hindsight is 20/20

Ocean ranger
Alexander Kielland
Harbor Cay Condominium
Hyatt Regency walkway
I-35W Mississippi River bridge

Seems to me your "safety advocacy" would be better spent on other
areas, than on a system that has only 12 fatalities

"Albert Blauensteiner" <albert.blauensteiner@tuwien.ac.at> wrote in
message news:47ce7c66$0$11868$3b214f66@tunews.univie.ac.at...
One spare ET will be build (to my information) and could enable an
ultimate STS-134. There would be a lot of equipment to bring up yet.

Wouldn't the spare be reserved in case there was the need to fly a rescue
mission on the last shuttle flight? If you flew the last ET, there
wouldn't be one left to fly a rescue mission.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:6d739$47d002df$927a2cda$11169@FUSE.NET...
Wouldn't the spare be reserved in case there was the need to fly a rescue
mission on the last shuttle flight? If you flew the last ET, there
wouldn't be one left to fly a rescue mission.

Yes and no. The only flight you absolutely positively need a stand-by
shuttle is the Hubble mission.

For station missions, if you plan in advance, you probably could
reasonably fly a last one and rely on other measures to help ensure crew
safety.