Shuttle disaster

Hector Medina

Questioning Roman Catholic
May 10, 2002
845
6
42
San Antonio,Texas USA
Visit site
✟16,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
LewisWildermuth typed,

I want to see a manned Mars landing in my life time, I want a moon base ASAP and I want a real space station, not the joke that is up there now put up.

=====================================================

On that I agree w/o a doubt!


In Christ,

Hector
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by DivineOb
So where was God anyway?

Where is God? Right now the Father and the Son are in Heaven. The Holy Spirit is here on Earth, but He does not fix broken space ships. The angels of God help us out sometimes, but there is only so much they can do.  They try to work with us, but sometimes men will not work with them. They always do the will of the father in Heaven, so to work with the angels, you have to be doing the will of the Father.

Man built that space ship and man is responsible, not God. He is not going to take responsability for what man has done.

Luke 13:34
    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

God the Father is wanting to protect us. But sometimes man is not willing to allow the Father to protect them.

Hebrews 12:15 looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; 
 
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
I work at JSC. It has been a long weekend for us, and many long weeks to come.

First, my own personal opinion*, I think it's time the Shuttle was updated. Not piecemeal, but from the ground up.

I think that the requirements should be pretty simple: We want something roughly Shuttle-size and shaped, to minimize changes to the stack.

We want it tougher, stronger, and simpler. No fragile tiles, modern engines (which are far simpler than the Shuttle's mains).

Redesigned frame, on the same scale as the Shuttle, but hopefully with a better reentry profile. Hopefully lighter, but with a hull and wings than can withstand reentry (and space) without being as fragile and easily damaged as tiles.

Improved avionics, eletronics, computer and sensor systems. Better "automatic" diagnostics, better data on ship's systems, and far more efficiency. With fewer parts.

Ditto engines. Ditto fuel cells. Ditto everything.

It'd be swifter, and faster, to start with what we know, and simply do it better, than to build one entirely from scratch.
















* Not affiliated with NASA in any way, and I'm a software engineer, not an aerospace engineer. I do know that if I'd actually gotten around to applying for MER access (it was low priority), that I wouldn't be here, but in the MER trying to recover data. Which sucks. I could be helping, but because I didn't fill out the MER form because it was for future work, not what I'm doing now, I can't.
 
Upvote 0
I think that NASA wanted the shuttle to be the mainstay of the space program for the next 2 or 3 decades. But I think this may change now.

My own view is that NASA needs a new vision for the future. The time as come to develope a newer, cheaper, smaller, modernized launch vehicle--both for unmanned and man space flight. I think that all of NASA space funding should be put into this developement now, and abandon the bulk of the current science aboard the ISS. It is just too expensive to fund poth the ISS projects (supported by the shuttle) and a new launch vehicle program. And for a strong space program for the future, I believe that a new paradigm is needed for getting into space. Maybe there should be greater commercial sector involvement.

The real problem then, is what is to become of the ISS.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
48
Visit site
✟12,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Actually, no. They didn't. However, they didn't have the money to do anything else.

NASA asks for money. Congress gives it money. The amounts are never the same. Congress can (and does) often choose to say where money is allocated.

Even better, NASA is ultimately headed by political appointees. Who also can cancel programs, shift funds, or do whatever they want.

Makes it hard to get things done. You never know if you'll ever have the funds to finish, you're almost always working with less money than you need, and your budget can be fattened or slashed at the whim of the politicians.
 
Upvote 0