Here read this fool.  It is shows that the shuttle was design with the
military in mind for day one

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/sp4221.htm

There was no change in policy by Reagan,

On Mar 10, 1:25 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:



Here read this fool. It is shows that the shuttle was design with the
military in mind for day one

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/sp4221.htm

The Carter space policy is described here:

I fail to see how any of this sounds like a vehicle designed for the
military.

Because that was not all inclusive. You can't use the absence of

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.

On Mar 10, 4:40 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:

On Mar 10, 1:25 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:

Here read this fool.  It is shows that the shuttle was design with the
military in mind for day one

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/sp4221.htm

The Carter space policy is described here:
I fail to see how any of this sounds like a vehicle designed for the
military.

Because that was not all inclusive.  You can't use the absence of
something as proof.  

Also not every policy results in a NSDD.  It was
the Carter's policy that forced the DOD to use the shuttle.

Any ways, you chose to ignore my link which is filled with references
of the DOD planning for use of the shuttle in the 1970's.

Your ignorance of   this information just shows that you have an
agenda with blinded by preconceived notions, with no objectivity and
total disregard of the facts.

Wait, here is a fact you can't wave away.

Modifications of SLC-6 into a shuttle pad (which was a DOD
requirement) started in Jan, 1979, which was two years before Reagan
took office.

Let's see you spin that and change it to fit your warped reality.

Face it, you are wrong.  the shuttle and DOD were hand in hand from
day 1.

And also, I was there, in the USAF, so you can't say anything
different.  

A pion engineer, like you, at KSC wouldn't know anything
different

On Mar 10, 4:04 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Mar 10, 4:40 pm, "max...@mission51l.com" <max...@mission51l.com
wrote:

On Mar 10, 1:25 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:



Prove it.

Any ways, you chose to ignore my link which is filled with references
of the DOD planning for use of the shuttle in the 1970's.

Your link ends with Nixon talking to the astronauts on Apollo. Get
real. If you have relevant references, quote them.

Wait, here is a fact you can't wave away.

Modifications of SLC-6 into a shuttle pad (which was a DOD
requirement) started in Jan, 1979, which was two years before Reagan
took office.

Show proof of the date on which it became a DOD requirement.

You fool. It was the USAF (and not NASA) that modified it for the

Your link ends with Nixon talking to the astronauts on Apollo. Get
real. If you have relevant references, quote them.

You didn't read the document, loser,  

Read the whole thing and you might learn something.

But then again, you have a closed mind with
preconceived opinions that can't be swayed with the facts

Read this chapterhttp://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm

"Having carried through its elaborate courtship (some people would
prefer a different word) of the Air Force, NASA was now about to reap
its reward. This came in March 1971, when Air Force Secretary Seamans
presented testimony before the Senate space committee:
    Now let me address the Air Force views regarding development of
the Space Transportation System. The DOD supports its development if
the results of current NASA Phase B studies and our own complementary
studies show that such a system is feasible and can offer the desired
performance and cost advantages over current systems. Preliminary
indications from these studies are that such a system can be
developed. If the final study results confirm this, and we think they
will, the Air Force will provide a strong recommendation that Shuttle
development be authorized. When the operational system is achieved, we
would expect to use it to orbit essentially all DOD payloads, "phasing
out" our expendable booster inventory with the possible exception of
very small boosters such as the SCOUT."

"The 15 foot diameter by 60 foot length payload bay size previously
stated as the DOD requirement is based upon payloads presently in the
inventory, on the potential use of a reusable upper stage to
accomplish our high energy missions, and on a capability to provide
limited payload growth. This requirement is still considered valid."

Wait, here is a fact you can't wave away.

Modifications of SLC-6 into a shuttle pad (which was a DOD
requirement) started in Jan, 1979, which was two years before Reagan
took office.

Show proof of the date on which it became a DOD requirement.

You fool.  It was the USAF (and not NASA) that modified it for the
shuttle.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm#233
"A month later, on January 19 and 20, 1971, NASA hosted a meeting in
Williamsburg, Virginia, that included representatives from shuttle
study contractors and from the Air Force. This meeting had the purpose
of defining shuttle requirements that would guide the work of these
contractors. NASA used the occasion to give the Air Force everything
it wanted. In particular, the Shuttle would have a delta wing, with
crossrange of 1100 n.mi. Its payload capacity, 40,000 pounds into
polar orbit, would correspond to 65,000 pounds in a due-east launch
from Cape Canaveral. 61

One sometimes hears that when two parties are in a relationship, the
one that wants it more is the weaker. NASA certainly had been pursuing
support for the Shuttle with unmaidenly eagerness, and the
Williamsburg rules were the result. The agency now was promising to
build a bigger and heavier shuttle than it had wanted for its own
uses, with considerably more thermal protection. It also was prepared
to treat the Shuttle as a national asset-which meant the Air Force
would not pay for its development or production and yet would receive
the equivalent of exclusive use of one or more of these vehicles,
entirely gratis. That service would not receive the Shuttle on a
silver platter, but would pay for construction of its own launch
facilities at Vandenberg AFB. '

Face the facts, you are wrong. Wrong about everything.

Admit that you are wrong wrt to DOD requirements and Reagan. Admit
that you are wrong wrt to DOD requirements and shuttle in the 1970's.
Failing to admit you are wrong in the face of overwhelming facts means
you have no credence

On Mar 7, 8:30 am, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com> wrote:

shuttle will fly till it kills again


You are a fool

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

On Mar 10, 5:56 pm, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote:

Read the whole thing and you might learn something.

All I did in order to discredit you was go through each chapter at
your link and search on "military." ANYONE who does that will find
NOTHING to support your numerous but unprovable "military" claims for
that link.

But then again, you have a closed mind with
preconceived opinions that can't be swayed with the facts

You're grasping for straws.

Read this chapterhttp://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm

"Having carried through its elaborate courtship (some people would
prefer a different word) of the Air Force, NASA was now about to reap
its reward. This came in March 1971, when Air Force Secretary Seamans
presented testimony before the Senate space committee:
Now let me address the Air Force views regarding development of
the Space Transportation System. The DOD supports its development if
the results of current NASA Phase B studies and our own complementary
studies show that such a system is feasible and can offer the desired
performance and cost advantages over current systems. Preliminary
indications from these studies are that such a system can be
developed. If the final study results confirm this, and we think they
will, the Air Force will provide a strong recommendation that Shuttle
development be authorized. When the operational system is achieved, we
would expect to use it to orbit essentially all DOD payloads, "phasing
out" our expendable booster inventory with the possible exception of
very small boosters such as the SCOUT."

"The 15 foot diameter by 60 foot length payload bay size previously
stated as the DOD requirement is based upon payloads presently in the
inventory, on the potential use of a reusable upper stage to
accomplish our high energy missions, and on a capability to provide
limited payload growth. This requirement is still considered valid."

This is all predicated on "ifs" and "potential" that never
materialized -- until Reagan's inauguration.

Wait, here is a fact you can't wave away.

Modifications of SLC-6 into a shuttle pad (which was a DOD
requirement) started in Jan, 1979, which was two years before Reagan
took office.

Show proof of the date on which it became a DOD requirement.

You fool. It was the USAF (and not NASA) that modified it for the
shuttle.

Irrelevant. Where's the date I asked for? You're big on personal
attacks, light on solid proof.

Wrong, the date is irrelevant, fool. The fact USAF was doing the mods

Stupid fool, search on "DOD"  and you will see numerous entries
But then again, you don't want to see the truth.  Only those things
that agree with your warped reality

Huh? the payload bay didn't change size once Reagan .   The payload
bay sized was fixed way before the rollout of Enterprise in 1976.

The fact USAF was doing the mods is proof enough.

I am glad you are no longer working on the shuttle.  I would fear for
the crews and workers.  You have no grasp of reality.

YOU ARE JUST PLAIN FUCKING CRAZY!

nasa did partner with military on the shuttle. and flew some secret
payloads. unfortunately the compromises that military required like
large wings for cross range capability led to the built by commitee to
serve no one well.........

the shuttle tried to be all things to all people and ended up serving
no one well..........

combining heavy lift cargo with manned operations wasnt a good idea,
why put human life at risk to launch a satellite

large cross range create landing troubles

mounting the shuttle on the side of the ET was a piss poor idea.

solids should never be on a manned vehicle. that includes the new crew
replacement nasa is mucking around with

all manned vehicles must have launch boost escape ability.

Ah, I get it. In your grade school math, DOD equates to proof of
overwhelmingly military considerations in the pre-Reagan design/
development of the shuttle.

What mods? Describe them in detail, shuttle wise. What if anything was
accomplished at VLS in Carter years, relative to the military design
of the shuttle? Was it even *called* the VLS prior to Reagan? I think
not. The SPC did that.

Killfile Maxon. He's a troll. Don't feed the trools!

Brian Thorn wrote: (re automated docking to ISS)
Nope. The Shuttle is just too different (gi-normous in comparison) to
anything else coming down the pike. The tech probably wouldn't be all
that transferrable.

Is it really ?

When you consider the telemetry equipment, whatever hardware is needed
on the ISS to guide the vehicle, and harware on the vehicle to "see" the
docking port and calculate how to get to it, wouldn't that be quite
similar ?

I understand that implementing the "how to get to it" would be different
since the shuttle has differents RCS, mass etc, but wouldn't the core of
the system be transferable to that CEV/Orion/whatever ?