K4YZ wrote:
nobodys old friend wrote:

did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures

Funny...no one else is saying that.

I'd like to see a quote of what was actually said.

Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two
spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts
without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would
describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did
not reach every goal set for them.

Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space
Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday
morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come.

Not too many, though...

Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it.

You really think so?

I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has
outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle,
esentially 1970's technology,
should be updated...

Agreed!

Just like the automakers bring out new model years.

More like the automakers rethink the basic design.

Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine,
rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are
unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s,
and radial tires.

No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned
space program.

Yes, they did. The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that
would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule
systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of
the shuttle system and other design features (like having the
heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its
success and performance.

It's just time to go on to bigger and better.

I'd say "smaller and smarter".

Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants
to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion.
Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort
will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part
of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new
systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model"

Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few
folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities
effectively here on earth.

73 de Jim, N2EY