Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Another Shuttle Delay  
User currently offlineTPAnx From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

NASA is announcing that it's not going to be able to launch the shuttle in May.
It's decided to replace the fuel sensors in the shuttle's big fuel tank, a job that will take three weeks. That takes it out of the May launch window, and makes the next earliest launch date July first.
TPAnx


I read the news today..oh boy
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

Let's kill it and plow the money into something useful. This is agonizing. This is essentially something that could have been achieved in the mid-1960s with Dyna-Soar, and here we're still beholden to it.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3587 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Are there any serious safety statistics which compare the safety rate of the Space Shuttle with that of Soyus?

I ask because the Shuttle certainly holds the record for technical delays. I think the safety first rule is absolutely untouchable, but still it seems to me that the Russians have a system which is much less prone to delays without a visible security problem.

Of course, Shuttle can do many things no other spacecraft on earth can do, but still I think that the future US space projects should try to get less technical delays without compromising safety.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1913 times:

Quoting TPAnx (Thread starter):
It's decided to replace the fuel sensors in the shuttle's big fuel tank, a job that will take three weeks. That takes it out of the May launch window, and makes the next earliest launch date July first.

It was exceedingly unlikely to meet the May window anyway. Getting off the pad by May 25 would have required nothing to go wrong and mess up the schedule, but at the current slow launch campaign pace, that just wasn't going to happen (witness the two dents Shuttle's suffered last week.)

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1):
Let's kill it and plow the money into something useful.

NASA is always caught in this unenviable situation. If they play down safety concerns to meet a schedule, they're accused of "Go Fever" and putting life and treasure at risk needlessly. If they delay to make sure the vehicle is safe, they get criticized for being too "risk averse" amidst the usual proclamations that The Shuttle Should Be Scuttled.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
Are there any serious safety statistics which compare the safety rate of the Space Shuttle with that of Soyus?

Sure...

Soyuz and Space Shuttle are virtually identical.

Soyuz:
92 launches (No.93 - Soyuz TMA-7 - hasn't returned yet)
2 failures (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11)
97.83% success rate.

220 cosmonauts flown
4 killed
1.8% fatality rate

Space Shuttle:
114 launches
2 failures (STS-51L and STS-107)
98.25% success rate.

679 astronauts flown
14 killed
2% fatality rate

Both Shuttle and Soyuz have suffered non-fatal mission failures (Soyuz 18 and STS-83, for example.)

Yes, both of Soyuz's fatal flights happened early in that program. But until Columbia was lost, the same could be said of the Space Shuttle. And the Shuttle flew more missions between the Challenger and Columbia accidents than Soyuz has flown since the Soyuz 11 accident.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
I ask because the Shuttle certainly holds the record for technical delays.

No, that dishonor belongs to Titan IV, the turkey that the US Air Force acquired to get away from the "undependable" Shuttle. One Titan IV spent over a year on the launch pad waiting to fly. It finally had to be de-stacked because the two solid boosters had passed their use-by date.


User currently offlineTiger119 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

Quoting TPAnx (Thread starter):
NASA is announcing that it's not going to be able to launch the shuttle in May.
It's decided to replace the fuel sensors in the shuttle's big fuel tank, a job that will take three weeks. That takes it out of the May launch window, and makes the next earliest launch date July first.

- What shuttle was scheduled to fly in May?



Flying is the second greatest thrill known to mankind, landing is the first!
User currently offlineTPAnx From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1909 times:

Discovery was next to go.

Here's the latest from the agency:
NASA ANNOUNCES NEW WINDOW FOR NEXT SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION

NASA announced today July 1 to 19, 2006, is the new launch planning window for Space Shuttle Discovery's mission (STS-121). The window gives the agency time to do additional engineering work and analysis to ensure a safe flight for Discovery and its crew.

Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale made the announcement during a news conference from NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. The decision to target July followed a two-day meeting on the external fuel tank's engine cutoff (ECO) sensors. The sensors indicate whether the tank still has fuel during liftoff. During testing, one of the four ECO sensors had a slightly different reading than is expected.
Shuttle officials have decided they will remove and replace all four liquid hydrogen sensors.

"We've been saying for months that our engineering work would determine when we fly our next mission. Targeting July is the right choice in order to make smart decisions," said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for Space Operations.

Other issues factored into the decision to adjust the STS-121 planning
window:



Testing and analysis are required on the shuttle's modified external
tank. The testing will help verify the tank is safe to fly without
the protuberance air load (PAL) foam ramp. The PAL ramp was removed
after a large piece of foam fell from that area during Discovery's
July 2005 launch. More analysis is needed to decide whether changes
are needed on the tank's ice frost foam ramps.
Repair work on the shuttle's robotic arm must be completed.
Technicians on a work platform accidentally bumped the arm last week,
causing a tiny crack. The arm will be removed for repair.


The STS-121 mission will take Shuttle Commander Steve Lindsey and six
crew members to the International Space Station. This is the second
mission in the Return to Flight sequence to evaluate new heat shield
inspection and repair techniques and to deliver supplies and
equipment to the station.

For information about the Space Shuttle Program, the STS-121 mission
and its crew, visit:



http://www.nasa.gov/shuttle



I read the news today..oh boy
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3587 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 3):

Thank you for these statistics. I would guess that as soon as Shuttle flies and (hopefully!!!) returns safely to earth, the voices demanding the shutdown of the Shuttle fleet will become quiet again.

I just hope that the ISS will be used longer than planned in the beginning.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

Quoting Tiger119 (Reply 4):
- What shuttle was scheduled to fly in May?

STS-121 Discovery
(115th flight of the Space Shuttle)

This flight was originally scheduled for launch in September 2005 aboard Atlantis. The need to modify the Space Shuttle External Tank delayed STS-121 to 2006 and allowed NASA to switch the mission to Discovery. That in turn, allowed the subsequent fight, STS-115, to be shifted to Atlantis, which is capable of launching slightly heavier payloads than Discovery. STS-115 will be launching a heavy Truss/Solar Array segment to the Space Staton.

STS-121 is the second Return To Flight mission to verify External Tank foam loss mitigation efforts. It will also carry about 15,000 lbs of cargo to the Space Station in the Italian-built Leonardo logistics module. STS-121 will also return the Space Station to a full-time 3-member crew for the first time since the Columbia accident in 2003.


User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1859 times:

Is the 2010 retirement date still firm? If it is, there's no way the Space Station will ever be finished.....


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1855 times:

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 8):
If it is, there's no way the Space Station will ever be finished.....

It depends on what you call finished. Certain modules have been axed, but the ESA Columbus lab and the Japanese Kibo labs are still planned for launch along with the power and support structures necessary for their opperation.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1803 times:

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 8):
Is the 2010 retirement date still firm?

Yes.

Note that NASA has until the end of 2010 to retire the Space Shuttle. The current launch schedule shows the last Shuttle flight (STS-133) launching 20 August 2009, so they have 13 months of cushion before the end of Fiscal Year 2010.

NASA has 17 Shuttle flights firmly scheduled before Shuttle retirement. There is a strong likelihood that an 18th (Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission No.4) will be added after Shuttle Return to Flight is complete. That schedule would require 5 flights in 2007, 2008, and 2009, plus 2 or 3 in 2006 and 1 or 2 in 2010. That is quite easily achievable, given that NASA frequently achieved 7 or 8 flights per year throughout the 1990s, usually with only three Shuttles available due to periodic downtown maintenance.

The STS-121 delay from May to July has little effect on the overall schedule.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 6):
Thank you for these statistics. I would guess that as soon as Shuttle flies and (hopefully!!!) returns safely to earth, the voices demanding the shutdown of the Shuttle fleet will become quiet again.

I just hope that the ISS will be used longer than planned in the beginning.

They will not be quiet until the shuttle actually does get canned. The only reason it keeps flying is to keep our commitments to our ISS partners and to reduce the gap in American manned space capability*. I suspect the reason the ISS was made so dependent on the shuttle was to prevent the shuttle was getting canned. Make the ISS immune from cancellation by enshrining it in international treaties. Then make the ISS totally dependent on the shuttle. The politicians get a good feel-good program. NASA's centers get a reliable stream of work without having to do much truly new.

The reason the shuttle is hated so much is simple. Us space lovers understand the safety thing. We know that you can't expect space travel to be as safe as air travel. We expect a lot of delays and expense because the margins for error are so low. Space enthusiasts and taxpayers were promised a heck of a lot from the shuttle and station that was never delivered, even though much more money was spent on them than anyone dreamed possible. If we were told in 1975 that in 2005 we would not only be still flying the shuttle but that 8 flights a year would be an impressive achievement, would the thing still have been built?

What NASA didn't seem to understand until recently is that the public is willing to put up with delays, expense, and even casualties AS LONG AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING NEW. And no, a space station with a gazillion times more electrical power than the last one doesnt cut it - especially when it keeps getting cut and reshaped because of politics. The tragedy of Columbia is not that the crew died. That kind of thing WILL happen. The true tragedy is that they didn't die on a mission to Mars or to an asteroid or even to the moon. They died on a mission to just stay in Earth orbit and do a few experiments. They may have ensured the end of the shuttle program by 2010. We owe them a great debt regardless, but if NASA truly goes somewhere after the shuttle dies they will have done us a greater service still.

AND BTW....


*Why the freak are we so concerned with a gap in US manned space capability? Its happened before and we survived. Manned space has nothing to do with national security. All of our security sats are robotic. A short gap, may be 2-4 years, might be a good thing. It makes delays more visible to the public. Like the Columbia accident, it could help give us more of a sense of purpose. It is true that the public and congress may then decide to abandon manned space altogether. But isn't that their choice to make? If the public cannot stand a short gap they are not willing to support a robust maned space program. Perhaps it is better to have no manned space program at all if we arn't going to have any serious commitment to it and are going to plague it with politics. The money can certainly be spent better elsewhere. Just think of the kind of solar system exploration we could do for what we spend on the shuttle. The past 30 years have been a long history of failed programs, broken promises, and trashed dreams. Many blame that, at least in part, on NASA's attachment to the shuttle. The evidence seems to support this, IMHO.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 11):
I suspect the reason the ISS was made so dependent on the shuttle was to prevent the shuttle was getting canned.

No, it was dependent on Shuttle because for the first decade of its design and development, Shuttle was the only available launch vehicle. It all goes back to the wacky cart/horse phenomenon that has bedevilled NASA since Apollo. After Apollo, NASA wanted a bigger Space Station launched by Saturn V. but Congress and Nixon wouldn't fund a Space Station until NASA had a cheaper way to support it than Apollo. But without Apollo, NASA couldn't justify keeping Saturn V production going for ten years until Shuttle was ready, so then the Station had to be launched by the only other thing NASA had... the Shuttle. And here we are.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 11):
Make the ISS immune from cancellation by enshrining it in international treaties.

In fact, Space Station Freedom (with European, Japanese and Canadian participation) was cancelled in 1993 by President Clinton. It was resurrected as ISS and survived by only one vote in Congress in 1994. Many international programs have been unilaterally cancelled by the U.S., most prominently the US half of the International Solar Polar Mission (now Ulysses.)

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 11):
Then make the ISS totally dependent on the shuttle.

ISS is not totally dependent on the Shuttle, as witness the one Shuttle flight since 2003.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 11):
If we were told in 1975 that in 2005 we would not only be still flying the shuttle but that 8 flights a year would be an impressive achievement, would the thing still have been built?

We were told that. Not by NASA, but by Shuttle critics at the time. Maybe the 8 per year was even lower than they predicted, but the low flight rate was obvious once NASA went with SRBs and a throwaway External Tank. Few listened, but you can find critical reviews of the Shuttle in such magazines as Aviation Week of the time.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 11):
What NASA didn't seem to understand until recently is that the public is willing to put up with delays, expense, and even casualties AS LONG AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING NEW.

The Shuttle experience says otherwise, and it isn't so much NASA as Congress that finds the delays and expense unpalatable. During the seemingly-endless delays of the late 70s, Shuttle was very frequently attacked for being overbudget and behind schedule, and Shuttle was certainly doing something new. The pressure of meeting schedules continues to this day, although it has been tempered somewhat by two fatal accidents. The night before Challenger launched, Dan Rather's CBS News made a sarcastic comment about "yet another delay for the Space Shuttle." Columbia was lost at least partially because NASA was unwilling to stand down to investigate the growing foam loss problem, as they were under intense pressure by Congress to meet a 2004 "Core Complete" date for the Space Station. Since Congress pays the bills, and Congresscritters don't like seeing their pet projects ridiculed on TV and the papers, NASA has to pay attention to schedules and budgets.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 11):

*Why the freak are we so concerned with a gap in US manned space capability? Its happened before and we survived.

We survived, but the 1975-81 standdown is widely considered to have been a bad thing. We lost a huge amount of corporate knowledge when the men and women who'd built, flown, and controlled Apollo left the space program for other industries. We had to relearn a lot of that, which is money wasted. And we can't keep paying them for doing nothing until CEV comes online, that's outrageously expensive. (The Shuttle budget didn't drop in 1987 or 2004 even though Shuttle didn't fly those years.) So the standdowns are important to avoid, if possible. We won't be able to in 2010-2012, but we need to make the standdown as short as possible.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 12):
During the seemingly-endless delays of the late 70s, Shuttle was very frequently attacked for being overbudget and behind schedule, and Shuttle was certainly doing something new.

From an engineering standpoint, the shuttle was indeed "something new". The shuttle is a unique and fascinating vehicles for aviation and engineering junkies. It is a combination of aircraft and spaceship. It has many capabilities built into one craft. It requires actual pilots to land it. The space shuttle's engines were arguable decades ahead of their time. That is why aerospace professionals often don't understand why the "space aware" public seems to hate it so much.

However, the vast majority of the public does not see things from an engineering standpoint. They care more about visible, easy to understand results than they care about fancy tech. They care first about where you go. Next, they care about what you can bring back to them from there. Going to the same old place in a big, winged, reusable spaceship doesn't win any points with the public. Neither do the the shuttle's "downmass" capabilities or its ability to assemble stuff in orbit - if all you get for that is the LDEF(a relatively minor project) and the ISS.

However, that does not mean the public is hard to please. In fact, we will be very impressed with tiny robotic rovers - provided they are on Mars and not in low-earth orbit. We were very impressed with the space telescope. Even though it stayed in low earth orbit, gave us truly new and visible insights into places millions of light years away. The eye candy didn't hurt either. We were impressed with Cassini, and with Deep Impact. These things are far more impressive to the public than the experiments performed on the ISS or on Spacelab. There were problems on such missions. Many missions that ultimately impressed the public went overbudget or were late. The space telescope even required a special shuttle mission to fix it. But all was forgiven ONCE THE RESULTS CAME IN. The public even understands an occasional loss such as Mars Polar Lander or Climate Orbiter because overall, NASA's solar system exploration progams do NEW things and get RESULTS.

If the Shuttle had really given us cheap access to space would have been "something new", even to the public at large. That would have resulted in all sorts of new, neat, visible stuff. We could have had a much more active solar system exploration program, and all sorts of spinoff technologies would have resulted. Cheap access to space was promised by the shuttle, but not delivered. In the public eye, that is as much of a failure as if Apollo had never left low earth orbit. If all you are doing to going to low earth orbit and experimenting a few things, they say, the least you can do is come in on schedule and budget. If you choose(or are made to) to do it the hard way with the shuttle, than that is your problem. It is hard to argue with them there.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 12):
ISS is not totally dependent on the Shuttle, as witness the one Shuttle flight since 2003.

It is dependent upon the shuttle to be built. Large portions are only launchable with the shuttle. The ISS is largely useless now since most of the remaining shuttle flights are going to have to be used for construction rather than supply. By the time it is fully constructed, a great deal of its design life will have passed. The ISS is not dependent on the shuttle to stay alive. It is, clearly, dependent on the shuttle to be a viable program (If it ever was a viable program to begin with). If it were not for the ISS, the shuttle program would have ended with the Colombia disaster.

Again, the public is interested in results, not mere technical success.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 12):
In fact, Space Station Freedom (with European, Japanese and Canadian participation) was cancelled in 1993 by President Clinton. It was resurrected as ISS and survived by only one vote in Congress in 1994. Many international programs have been unilaterally cancelled by the U.S., most prominently the US half of the International Solar Polar Mission (now Ulysses.)

It was cancel able only because we knew it would be resurrected. The ISS was never really canceled, it was just redesigned for the umpteenth time. The threat of cancellation may have been a way to get the already involved parties to agree to the changes - Clinton was masterful at this kind of political move. Also, canceling something the size of our part of Ulysses is not nearly as much of a blow as canceling the ISS would be. Canceling the ISS would screw way to many people. If we did that, nobody would ever do any significant cooperation with us in space again for a very long time. IMHO this is the main reason the ISS has survived. The longer it lasted, the harder it was to cancel because of all the investment other countries had in it. Notice that the Superconducting Supercolider was canceled when its costs grew out of hand. The SSC did not have the international commitment and entrenched interests on its side that the ISS has, so it was a far easier target.

Quoting Thorny (Reply 12):
o the standdowns are important to avoid, if possible. We won't be able to in 2010-2012, but we need to make the standdown as short as possible.

I'll have to concede your point there, I was not considering the need to retain facilities and personnel. In fact, some of the shuttle's early problems can probably be attributed to the standown. But still, I wonder if the CEV will require as many people to service as the Shuttle did. To my untrained eye it would seem to require far fewer. The true gap, then, would be between the end of the shuttle and the start of the new lunar program. But I could be off base there.

I do think that NASA is overestimating the public's willingness to support a manned space program for its own sake. The sooner we decide as a society if we want a manned space program that would be worth the risk and money, the better. If we're just going to keep doing what we have been doing there are better places to spend it. The CEV program seems to be a move in the right direction - if it actually happens.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 13):
Again, the public is interested in results, not mere technical success.

Then how do you explain continued world scientific operations in Antartica? Boring to the vast majority of the general public, but it is still widely supported. This is almost exactly the situation ISS or a Moonbase will face. Strangely enough, astronauts can almost certainly get home (or to a hospital) from ISS or the Moon faster than a scientist can get home from McMurdo Base in the middle of winter.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 13):
The ISS is largely useless now since most of the remaining shuttle flights are going to have to be used for construction rather than supply.

But there are at least three alternatives for ISS resupply, so of course it makes sense to use the Shuttle for only those missions that absolutely require the Shuttle. Russia's Progress come and go, one after another, with astonishing reliability. They'll be supplemented next year by Europe's ATV, which will rival Shuttle in resupply capability (but lacks the ability to transfer large system racks or bring anything home for study or repair.) And around 2008, Japan will introduce HTV, which falls between Progress and ATV in size, but has the ability to berth on the US side of ISS and transfer system racks through the large US hatches. NASA has set aside $500 million over the next five years to foster commercial resupply of ISS. This will probably be split between Boeing and Lockmart offering US-funded ATV and HTV flights (perhaps launched by EELVs) and one or two of the startup companies like SpaceX or T/Space, both of whom claim they can do the job for a lot less money that the US space conglomerates would charge.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 13):
It was cancel able only because we knew it would be resurrected.

False. The revived program, ISS (then called Alpha-with-Russia, or Ralpha) only survived by one vote in the House. This seems like a near-death experience to me, hardly "we knew it would be resurrected."

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 13):
The SSC did not have the international commitment

Yes it did, the Japanese were involved to a rather large extent. The Europeans were going their own SSC route, and the Japanese had their fingers in both the US and European pies.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 13):
I do think that NASA is overestimating the public's willingness to support a manned space program for its own sake. The sooner we decide as a society if we want a manned space program that would be worth the risk and money, the better.

I don't think that's true. If the support were that weak, manned spaceflight would have died decades ago, probably after the disillusionment of the Challenger disaster, certainly after Columbia. The problem is always that polls ask "should the US have a manned space program" and the answer is always "yes" to a high percentage. But when asked where manned spaceflight funding should be, it always ranks near the bottom. Another statistic shows that very few people in America know how much money is spent on manned spaceflight. When asked to guess, Americans believe spending is much (an order of magnitude, sometimes) higher than it actually is.


User currently offline3MilesToWRO From Poland, joined Mar 2006, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1460 times:

Quoting Bmacleod (Reply 8):
Is the 2010 retirement date still firm? If it is, there's no way the Space Station will ever be finished...

You mean China will be too busy with their station to help? ;->

More seriously, somewhere deep in Baikonur hangars there is Energia or two, I think. Even more seriously, I mean of course there is a potential to have a fleet of orbit freighters made by Energia's design with upgrades possible - the design is at least 20 years old and a lot would be to gain with only new materials, IMHO.


User currently offlineJimpop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1409 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 3):
NASA is always caught in this unenviable situation. If they play down safety concerns to meet a schedule, they're accused of "Go Fever" and putting life and treasure at risk needlessly. If they delay to make sure the vehicle is safe, they get criticized for being too "risk averse" amidst the usual proclamations that The Shuttle Should Be Scuttled.

It seems to me that there has to be some risk to make the job appealing, right? Who really wanted to be a dull, boring, safe, risk-free astranaut when they were a kid? I say: put some risk and danger back in it... push the envelope.  Wink


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Another Shuttle Delay
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Just Launch The Friggin' Shuttle!.... posted Fri Dec 8 2006 03:14:20 by AirKas1
Is This AN AA 747 Carrying A Space Shuttle? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 02:25:45 by Fll2993
Another P-3 Orion Pic posted Sat Oct 14 2006 22:50:41 by Sleekjet
Status Of Space Shuttle Endeavour posted Sat Sep 23 2006 06:44:00 by RJ777
Shuttle Support Vehicles What Are They posted Thu Sep 21 2006 17:35:07 by Airfoilsguy
Soyuz Vs Shuttle? posted Wed Sep 20 2006 20:30:45 by Mt99
Object Shadows Shuttle; Landing Waved Off - Report posted Tue Sep 19 2006 17:47:36 by AerospaceFan
OFFICIAL: Shuttle Launch Scrubbed...Again posted Fri Sep 8 2006 17:30:37 by S12PPL
Shuttle Launch Imminent: Live Streaming Link Here posted Fri Sep 8 2006 15:33:05 by KFLLCFII
Space Shuttle Launch Delays posted Wed Aug 30 2006 03:01:02 by Thorny

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format