On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:25:59 GMT, fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
wrote:


Assuming the contract is modified to allow it to pushed down the line
- and all the planning and preparation that accompanies all this
accomplished.

The contract has already been modified out the wazoo since 107. One
more modest change ("fix the foam and IFRs on ET-94") won't make much
difference.

And that's just for the tank, the mission itself is whole 'nother ball
of wax.

Eh. I don't see it. The JSC mission planning guys aren't paid per
mission ("Sorry, I've already done my four missions this year, you
want one more... go talk to the union rep...")

We'd have to pay to prep AMS and a logistics carrier with a some more
spare parts (a spare CMG?) at KSC, but I think it would be a pretty
good investment to make use of a brand-new ET that would otherwise
become a lawn ornament somewhere.

Assuming it can be done before the facility has to be handed over for
conversion to Ares production.

No, they go "where's my accounting code?". Unless money has been
budgeted for them to do the planning - the planning won't get done.
Yes, it is nonsensical, but thats how goverment accounting works.

We'd have to pay to prep AMS and a logistics carrier with a some more
spare parts (a spare CMG?) at KSC, but I think it would be a pretty
good investment to make use of a brand-new ET that would otherwise
become a lawn ornament somewhere.

If only it were that simple. None of the hurdles are showstoppers,
but none of them are trivial either.

On Mar 8, 6:24�pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 8, 6:13 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

although the next accident will be the last accident..............

Let's overstate the obvious.

But then again, the statement doesn't say the shuttle program ends.

no matter what a lost vehicle and crew accident shuts down the entire
shuttle program instantly.

people die in car accidents daily, from DUIs and other preventable
reasons, but they are still called accidents.

probably all accidents are preventable, human or mechanical error,
mechanical failure, etc etc.

incidently the first launces had ejection seats, but truly it wasnt a
escape system since it wasnt usable for the entire 7 astronauts, that
flew on later flights

On Mar 8, 6:24?pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 8, 6:13 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

although the next accident will be the last accident..............

Let's overstate the obvious.

But then again, the statement doesn't say the shuttle program ends.

no matter what a lost vehicle and crew accident shuts down the entire
shuttle program instantly.

As I've stated in previous posts, Reagan rushed to a premature
declaration that the shuttle was "operational," so that he could use
it unsafely in a clandestine program for which it was not designed --
classified military missions launched more or less on demand. There
was a non-lethal way to stand down the civilian space shuttle -- the
democratic American way.

JTM

, Sat, 8 Mar 2008 23:39:41, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net
posted:

At the very least, simply refly STS-130 (the last MPLM flight) and cut
down a lot of the prep work (the same way STS-94 was launched with
only 3 months preparation.) But I think with two years notice, we
should be able to get AMS onto a Shuttle.

In sci.space.shuttle message <h986t31rnjntjk1p9lmf6n1877d40eeuuc@4ax.com
, Sat, 8 Mar 2008 23:39:41, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net
posted:
At the very least, simply refly STS-130 (the last MPLM flight) and cut
down a lot of the prep work (the same way STS-94 was launched with
only 3 months preparation.) But I think with two years notice, we
should be able to get AMS onto a Shuttle.

ISS will then have six crew as standard. Reduce that to 5 with the
previous shuttle, leaving a female majority (they eat less). Send the
extra mission with experienced commander and pilot, AMS, and a good
supply of consumables for transfer to ISS.

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.shuttle message <h986t31rnjntjk1p9lmf6n1877d40eeuuc@4ax.com
, Sat, 8 Mar 2008 23:39:41, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net
posted:
At the very least, simply refly STS-130 (the last MPLM flight) and cut
down a lot of the prep work (the same way STS-94 was launched with
only 3 months preparation.) But I think with two years notice, we
should be able to get AMS onto a Shuttle.

ISS will then have six crew as standard. Reduce that to 5 with the
previous shuttle, leaving a female majority (they eat less). Send the
extra mission with experienced commander and pilot, AMS, and a good
supply of consumables for transfer to ISS.

A crew of two for an ISS assembly flight? No way, no how. Not going to
happen.

A crew of two for an ISS assembly flight? No way, no how. Not going to
happen.

out of the box thinking suggests that the ISS crew should be able to
help. after all thats why they are there...........

On Mar 9, 10:57 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:

As I've stated in previous posts, Reagan rushed to a premature
declaration that the shuttle was "operational," so that he could use
it unsafely in a clandestine program for which it was not designed --
classified military missions launched more or less on demand. There
was a non-lethal way to stand down the civilian space shuttle -- the
democratic American way.

JTM

That is complete bullcrap

The shuttle was designed for military launches from the beginning.

There is nothing in the military requirements that lead to any of the
disasters.  

And  Reagan had nothing to do with it,

the plan for DOD use goes back to Nixon/Ford era.

Also, it wasn't clandestine program.  It was well known that the DOD
was going to use the shuttle.

Just another unfounded claim like the rest of the excrement that you
post

The shuttle was designed for military launches from the beginning.

Proof? Something from Jimmy Carter's NSDDs?

Proof? No Ronnie Reagan NSDDs? No manifested missions with nuclear
reactors aboard? No manifested Centaur launches considered "flying
bombs?" Etc., etc.

Also, it wasn't clandestine program. It was well known that the DOD
was going to use the shuttle.

Irrelevant. I defined what I meant by clandestine program -- secret
missions.

On Mar 10, 11:08 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:

The shuttle was designed for military launches from the beginning.

Proof? Something from Jimmy Carter's NSDDs?

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4407/vol4/cover.pdf

"In its first space policy statement after taking office in January
1981, the Reagan administration set
out its policy for the Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle).
This policy, assigning NASA the
continuing lead role in the Shuttle program and declaring the Shuttle
to be the primary launch system
for all government missions, essentially endorsed existing plans
developed during the Carter
administration."

Carter, in a speech at KSC in 1979, was the first president who
acknowledged reconnaissance satellites.  This was in context of the
importance of the shuttle's missions since it was going to launch them

Proof? No Ronnie Reagan NSDDs? No manifested missions with nuclear
reactors aboard? No manifested Centaur launches considered "flying
bombs?" Etc., etc.

Those were NASA missions and not DOD

Also, it wasn't clandestine program.  It was well known that the DOD
was going to use the shuttle.

Irrelevant. I defined what I meant by clandestine program -- secret
missions.

And yes, it is irrelevant that the shuttle flew secret missions.  It
was designed  for them from the beginning.

Again.  You have no basis for your points.

On Mar 10, 10:57 am, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Mar 10, 11:08 am, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:

The shuttle was designed for military launches from the beginning.

Proof? Something from Jimmy Carter's NSDDs?

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4407/vol4/cover.pdf

"In its first space policy statement after taking office in January
1981, the Reagan administration set
out its policy for the Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle).
This policy, assigning NASA the
continuing lead role in the Shuttle program and declaring the Shuttle
to be the primary launch system
for all government missions, essentially endorsed existing plans
developed during the Carter
administration."

Carter, in a speech at KSC in 1979, was the first president who
acknowledged reconnaissance satellites. This was in context of the
importance of the shuttle's missions since it was going to launch them

You have presented nothing from Carter's NSDDs. What NASA may have
*later* considered "context" (like what you are trying to refer to as
"military") is irrelevant here. Prove that in 1979 Carter considered
future shuttle satellites military.

A crew of two for an ISS assembly flight? No way, no how. Not going to
happen.

The Shuttle crew never do any ISS assembly until they have docked to
ISS.

then there would be several people available. IIRC, there's been
at least one two-man space-walk that left ISS empty, and several done
with three ISS crew and no Shuttle.
And modules are routin
ssembled
onto ISS by one arm operator.

There'd be no need to train CDR or PLT to do the assembly; a couple if
ISS crew can have had AMS-assembly training beforehand.