y 03, 2003 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: space shuttle columbia accident
> At 09:05 AM 2/3/03, Bill wrote:
> >And i also read on msnbc somewhere a quote from the Nasa Administrator
that
> >this will probably mean the end of the shuttle program and the
International
> >Space Station.
ot;
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.esca.com/
>
>425.739.3629 Voice
>425.466.7016 Cell
>425.739.3690 FAX
>- Original Message -
>From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, February 03,
"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we
hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The
conquest of space is worth the risk of life."
- Gus Grissom
(died in the Apollo One accident, January 27, 1967)
~
At 09:54 AM 2/3/03, Gel wrote:
>Then the only casualties would be the US Taxpayers should 150 Million
>dollar satellite explode etc.
All of the satellites are insured, so the only real casualties are the
stock-holders in the insurance companies.
All this crap about millions of dollars being sho
> > > >Including Magellan, IIRC...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >will
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >William H. Bowen
> > > >Webmaster
> > > >
> > > >ALSTOM's T&D Energy Automation &am
EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 3:07 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
> >
> > > But, in case anyone wonders, I would go into space in a
> > > heartbeat. With a rocket strapped to my butt if I cou
At 09:05 AM 2/3/03, Bill wrote:
>And i also read on msnbc somewhere a quote from the Nasa Administrator that
>this will probably mean the end of the shuttle program and the International
>Space Station.
Won't happen. No one in this administration wants the public relations
nightmare that would en
There is nothing natural about strapping a rocket anywhere, but, I'd do
it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 3:07 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
> >
ur friendly neighborhood Webmaster!"
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.esca.com/
>
>425.739.3629 Voice
>425.466.7016 Cell
>425.739.3690 FAX
>- Original Message -
>From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECT
Hey, can you say circumnavigate on this list? :)
Marlon
William H. Bowen wrote:
>Rather his "Personal Assistant" Molluccas was first to circumnavigate, yes?
>
>
>
>
>
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/ind
essage -
From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: space shuttle columbia accident
> One of the members of the crew was Magellan's slave who was from the
> Molluccas
> But, in case anyone wonders, I would go into space in a
> heartbeat. With a rocket strapped to my butt if I could enjoy it
> for at least 5 minutes.
>
> I am just glad they got to complete the mission.
>
> Jerry Johnson
Holy crap man! You've just solved the NASA budget problems!
=)
Oh wait, th
; Subject: Re: space shuttle columbia accident
>
> > We never asked anyone to put their life on the line.
>
> Isn't that what we ask them to do everytime we strap them to a rocket
and
> point them at the sky?
>
> Not saying it's a bad thing, we ask the same of police
EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.esca.com/
>
>425.739.3629 Voice
>425.466.7016 Cell
>425.739.3690 FAX
>- Original Message -
>From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:33
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.esca.com/
425.739.3629 Voice
425.466.7016 Cell
425.739.3690 FAX
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 7:33 AM
Subject: RE: space s
7016 Cell
425.739.3690 FAX
- Original Message -
From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: space shuttle columbia accident
> The Columbia did not have the space arm for this tri
---Original Message-
> From: Craig Dudley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:17 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> From the evidence we've heard so far, it does seem
> pretty obvious that
>
that since nothing liek this was attempted no one really thought it
was anything serious.
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Craig Dudley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:17 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>From the evidence we
problem but you know you never
think the worst
- Original Message -
From: "Craig Dudley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
> From the eviden
ssible has been done to prevent this happening again. Only
a fool does not learn from his mistakes.
Craig.
-Original Message-
From: Harkins,Patrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 February 2003 17:00
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
I think Gel just fee
At 12:06 PM 2/3/03 -0500, you wrote:
>Yea i know this is no way now but there "SHOULD" be a way they train
>astronauts to do that.
>We already train them to be construction workers in space and such whenever
>they ahve to do something.
>Or do the permanant heat shield instead. Just have to think of
At 12:50 PM 2/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
>Correct. They knew the risks. Just like Test Pilots, fighter
>pilots...firemen..cops etc. etc.
>
>But that doesn't mean they volunteered for suicide missions.
>
>Now I'm not saying the space program has reached that stage for manned
>flights...but the thing mus
Yea i know this is no way now but there "SHOULD" be a way they train
astronauts to do that.
We already train them to be construction workers in space and such whenever
they ahve to do something.
Or do the permanant heat shield instead. Just have to think of a way to keep
this from happening again.
space shuttle columbia accident
So how many people must be killed before you think it would be worth
looking at grounding the fleet until the budget and safety could be
beefed up?
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Dan Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
For as many missions as the shuttl
Knowing the kind of redundancy that is built into almost every other aspect of the
shuttle, I would wish that the heat shield also had some.
If you saw the news story with an actual tile replaced after the 1981 launch, the
glass surface is so thin a guy was actually chipping pieces off with his
Precisely!
So do you go on with MORE failures because of budget cuts?
Or do you either try to get the budget or stop flying?
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Ben Braver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
And a lot of the research launches have been failing because of funding
cuts, in my opin
I think Gel just feels a sense of outrage and sadness at the deaths, which
I'm sure we all privately share to one degree or another.
And the other thing is the success of these missions rides on a 100% buy-in
to a quasi-fanatical labor-of-love mentality If this is in any way in
question then m
Correct. They knew the risks. Just like Test Pilots, fighter
pilots...firemen..cops etc. etc.
But that doesn't mean they volunteered for suicide missions.
Now I'm not saying the space program has reached that stage for manned
flights...but the thing must be analysed.
No one wants to stop manned
calling the cops had to get back in the car and leave
- Original Message -
From: "Marlon Moyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: space shuttle columbia accident
> Don't for
L PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:15 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> Hey Gel, no one forced them to be astronauts. They willingly
> took the chance, knowing full well there was always a risk to
> them not coming back.
&g
Hey Gel, no one forced them to be astronauts. They willingly took the
chance, knowing full well there was always a risk to them not coming
back.
Don't you know they always think about it?
>>| -Original Message-
>>| From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>|
>>| Hmm...so therefor
I assumed that would be understood.
Its self evident that there are great risks involved.
Hence getting there 'safely' as opposed to getting there 'regardless of
the risk'.
So I reiterate that if the risks are now deemed too great because of
budget cuts or the age of the fleet..then they should
February 03, 2003 9:16 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> So how many people must be killed before you think it would be worth
> looking at grounding the fleet until the budget and safety could be
> beefed up?
>
> -Gel
>
&g
e-
> From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:58 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> Hmm...so therefore there can never be a risk that is too high
> for sending men and women into spa
e moon.
-Kevin
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Townend [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 8:53 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> Just imagine that... Software sponsored by Microsoft, "You cannot
> dock wi
In that case why get out of bed. Um pardon, that entails risk as well.
Smoking bhang etc is even riskier.
Gel, you need a reality check. Risk is everywhere, and in everything.
Given your logic you'll have to stop eating solid or liquid food. There is
more risk involved there. Thousands of peopl
ge -
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:47 AM
>Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
>
>
>>Safely? Ok so you can no longer fly a plane, drive a car, eat at a
>
Hmm...so therefore there can never be a risk that is too high for
sending men and women into space.
Interesting point of view.
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Since when has exploration been without risk?? Hell, nothing in life is
100% safe. You
ty
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> Safely? Ok so you can no longer fly a plane, drive a car, eat at a
> resturant or have children. All of these things are more
> likely to kill you
> than flying in the shuttle.
>
> Tim
>
> -Origin
Dude dont forget walking down the street. Alot of people get hit walking
down the road
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
45 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> No..
>
> My attitude is if you can't go there safely then don't go
> UNTIL SUCH TIME as you CAN go there safely.
>
> If the risk is too great then certainly don't go.
&
: CF-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
No..
My attitude is if you can't go there safely then don't go
UNTIL SUCH TIME as you CAN go there safely.
If the risk is too great then certainly don't go.
If because of budget cuts the risks increase then
No..
My attitude is if you can't go there safely then don't go
UNTIL SUCH TIME as you CAN go there safely.
If the risk is too great then certainly don't go.
If because of budget cuts the risks increase then don't go.
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTE
No the point is to get there. Your attitude is don't go in the first place.
larry
At 11:28 AM 2/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
>*folds arms*
>
>Well whatever mr space science man..
>Moon - schmoon
>but you get the point.
>
>-Gel
>;-P
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PR
*folds arms*
Well whatever mr space science man..
Moon - schmoon
but you get the point.
-Gel
;-P
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Why go to the moon at all? You're at the bottom of a gravity well, and
there are other places that are more accessible.
That would be one heckuva USB port ;-)
-Original Message-
From: Marlon Moyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 10:00 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: space shuttle columbia accident
Or 'One or more pieces of hardware has changed on this shuttle.
P
Why go to the moon at all? You're at the bottom of a gravity well, and
there are other places that are more accessible. For instance, asteroids
are mainly metals and rock. It would be relatively easy to go to a somewhat
large one, put a mass driver on it, and start refining the metals. Use the
People are expendable .. whether a worm knows which way up he is in a jar of
soil in space is valuable.
pffft
SteG.
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 February 2003 15:16
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
So how many
I think we should ask the next group of astronauts if they think the potential dangers
outweigh the benefits (one of which is just GOING into space)
>From what I've heard, they all want to go up on the next mission, and are willing to
>do so tomorrow.
Some things are risky. That is why being an
So how many people must be killed before you think it would be worth
looking at grounding the fleet until the budget and safety could be
beefed up?
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Dan Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
For as many missions as the shuttle has over over the last 20+ years
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:50 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
Nuh no nuh no..
I didn't say going into space was a waste.
But maybe this accident might show that either budget is increased...or
the program be
Wouldn't they have to explore before they are able to exploit?
For example doing...stuff...on the moon would mean setting up a moon
base which would mean research and development in technologies to enable
sucha thing. Even if the final goal is exploitation and profit...the
world would have the te
better way to keep the tiles on
- Original Message -
From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: space shuttle columbia accident
> The Columbia did not ha
tion as your are only running version 2.1 of docking 2003,
>please contact your administrator"
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, February 3, 2003 14:48
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: space shuttle
Its really hard to say. Given the sheer expense of simply getting people
and equipment into orbit. We're still in the equivalent of the late middle
ages - around the time of Columbus and John Cabot - all the early
expeditions were government funded. Until we get beyond the equivalent of a
50 fo
"In recent months, former NASA administrators had voiced concerns about
the safety of the shuttle fleet. But The New York Times reported Monday
that after an expert panel warned of shuttle safety issues, NASA removed
five of the panel's nine members and two consultants in what some of
them said was
3, 2003 14:48
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
I think it should probably be privatized, or at least turned into some kind
of government and private sector cooperative. We need to continue space
exploration and experimentation, I just think that private industry
Nuh no nuh no..
I didn't say going into space was a waste.
But maybe this accident might show that either budget is increased...or
the program becomes too great a risk to human life and should be
abandoned.
If it isn't feasible in the state of the US Economy then it just isn't
feasible.
Better to
AIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:36 AM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: Re: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
>I heard that preacher's comment on NPR yesterday. There are some people who
>are so supremely ignorant its pathetic. That sort of thing drove me away
>
I think it should probably be privatized, or at least turned into some kind
of government and private sector cooperative. We need to continue space
exploration and experimentation, I just think that private industry would do
a better and more efficent job of it.
Tim
-Original Message-
Fr
Its takes a hell of a thing to get us to agree on something.
larry
At 09:41 AM 2/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
>//snip
>Non feasable?
>
>No that is not the case. You are not qualified to comment, you have neither
>the relevant education or the experience.
>
>So what should we do stick our head up our as
Larry,
For once you and I agree completely :)
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:36 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: space shuttle columbia accident
I heard that preacher's comment on NPR yesterday. Ther
I heard that preacher's comment on NPR yesterday. There are some people who
are so supremely ignorant its pathetic. That sort of thing drove me away
from Christianity a long time ago.
larry
At 08:31 AM 2/3/03 -0600, you wrote:
>I live in Texas and am horribly embarassed by some of the rednecks
- Original Message -
>From: "Angel Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:10 AM
>Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> > Why would they die for no reason?
> &
I live in Texas and am horribly embarassed by some of the rednecks that
they've been interviewing. They say things like 'I thawt it was a U.F.O
comin down 'ter the earth' , but my favorite so far has been a preacher
who said "This is a sign from god that we have gone too far away from
him." B
Non feasable?
No that is not the case. You are not qualified to comment, you have neither
the relevant education or the experience.
So what should we do stick our head up our asses from now on?
At 10:10 AM 2/3/03 -0400, you wrote:
>Why would they die for no reason?
>
>Maybe they died to save ot
Yeah, thank goodness Columbus realized it was too dangerous to sail all
the way across the ocean just to look for another trade route. It's
also good that the Wright brothers realized that flight was just folly
and it would be far too dangerous and risky to attempt. :)
Anyway, if that become
Angel Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 9:10 AM
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
> Why would they die for no reason?
>
> Maybe they died to save other lives, by showing the program to be n
Why would they die for no reason?
Maybe they died to save other lives, by showing the program to be non
feasible with too high a risk to the US economy and human life.
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Bill Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
You know up until i read that the Columbia was
You know up until i read that the Columbia was the only shuttle without the
ability to dock with the space station i figured it would be common sense to
at least have the people go out and check out the bottom of the ship. And ok
maybe you can't readd the tiles but at least you can dock with the sp
CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 10:39 AM
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
> I find all these accidents at NASA completely ridiculous.
>
> They blew up a satellite the other day that was supposed to investigate
> a comet.
> T
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 12:14 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> S'alright I smiled when thinking of it too - if I remember right
>
s
much.
larry
> > -Original Message-
>> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 6:26 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>>
>>
>> Agreed. It was also read at the fun
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 6:26 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> Agreed. It was also read at the funeral of my best friend's father,
Agreed. It was also read at the funeral of my best friend's father,
who was in the RCAF in the second world war. For him it was
appropriate as well.
larry
>That's the same poem Reagan quoted in his eulogy for the Challenger
>astronauts. It's as appropriate now as then.
>
>At 04:29 PM 2/1/03, yo
At 04:45 PM 2/1/03, Nick wrote:
>Things go wrong, people know the risks, they accept them, and they do
>their job. This is a team thing, every person has a role, those on board
>understand theirs, those on the ground understand theirs. To blame the
>program for such tragedies is to not understand t
That's the same poem Reagan quoted in his eulogy for the Challenger
astronauts. It's as appropriate now as then.
At 04:29 PM 2/1/03, you wrote:
>Something I found that is appropriate I think:
>
>
>High Flight
>
>Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
>And danced the skies on laughter-silver
for such tragedies is to not understand the program.
> -Original Message-
> From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 12:23 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
> *sniffles*
>
> The
Something I found that is appropriate I think:
High Flight
Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared
2:35 PM
>> To: CF-Community
>> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>>
>>
>> A modified version of the concept is a rotating skyhook - it spins in
>> space coming just within the atmosphere and meets up with the
>> vehicle, and then flings it
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 2:35 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> A modified version of the concept is a rotating skyhook - it spins in
&g
Another option is a
>tethered relay system. Some work's been done in that direction as well.
>
>Jim Davis
>
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:10 PM
>> To: CF
ebruary 01, 2003 1:40 PM
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
> >
> > Actually, NASA has budgeted a nice chunk of cash for
> > applied research into this. Apparently the required material
> > science exists.
>
> Last I remember one of the best candidate
t; To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> 0_0
>
> Oh well now that's just ridiculous.
> Superman I could understand but geez...skyhook..
> Guffaw!
>
>
~|
Arc
Actually, NASA has budgeted a nice chunk of cash for applied
research into this. Apparently the required material science
exists.
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 1:10 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle
There have been some very good engineering studies on the topic. the
materials needed are within sight of what we can produce today. It is
feasable, just very expensive.
larry
>0_0
>
>Oh well now thatís just ridiculous.
>Superman I could understand but geez...skyhook..
>Guffaw!
>
>-Gel
>*giggle
>I've always wondered what would happen if NASA was handed over to the
>Pentegon. I'm sure we would have colonies on Jupiter by now if that were the
>case.
>
>~Dan
I am sure that NASA could use more $12,000 hammers.
larry
--
Larry C. Lyons
=
es them heroes.
(T_T)
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 11:25 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
There are still 3 astronauts in space though...
I guess they'll be shi***ing bricks now.
0_0
Oh well now thats just ridiculous.
Superman I could understand but geez...skyhook..
Guffaw!
-Gel
*giggle*
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
BTW skyhooks are essentially elevators that go from a geostationary
orbit down to the surface of the earth
Gel,
have you started smoking a bit early this day? ;)
What would generate the electromagnetic fields. The fields you are
talking about would take something like a nuclear bomb to generate
fields intense enough. Moreover fields that intense could possibly
fry the any occupants of an aircraft u
-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
I know but with only 3 orbiters left, something has to be done, or
we'll lose another. All the money that is going to be spent on the
missile defense systems, that most likely will not work, would be
much better spent on a new system.
t: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
*thinks*
Okieshow about this..
An airplane..
A big super airplane with highspeed propulsion to take it into
space...and then back down. And have about 5 that they keep switching
each flight so each is in almost tip top state when they take out.
And...a
I know but with only 3 orbiters left, something has to be done, or
we'll lose another. All the money that is going to be spent on the
missile defense systems, that most likely will not work, would be
much better spent on a new system.
larry
>Larry-
>
>The X-33 (half-size prototype) and Dynasta
*thinks*
Okieshow about this..
An airplane..
A big super airplane with highspeed propulsion to take it into
space...and then back down. And have about 5 that they keep switching
each flight so each is in almost tip top state when they take out.
And...an EMF generator...that generates supe
Larry-
The X-33 (half-size prototype) and Dynastar projects intended to be "next
generation" shuttles had a lot of technical problems. The administration
decided to cancel them.
And there is no longer an assembly line for the existing shuttle design.
Would be very expensive to re-create one.
In t
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Phillips [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 12:28 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
> At 22,000 feet, all the foam in the world would not do you much good.
Ac
the foam in the world would not do you much good.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 12:23 PM
>To: CF-Community
>Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
>
>
>*sniffles*
>
>They shoul
Its super foam.
Big difference.
0_0
Anyways. They say it could be the thermal shield system..or airframe
failure.
You have to wonder whether the damage from the foam insulation falling
off and hitting the wing had something to do with it or was more serious
than they thought?
-gel
-Origina
Probably not. There is a Soyuu capsule still attached to the station
that they can use for reentry, and there's a resupply flight
scheduled for later this month.
So many failures. Gel you need to look at the record of the European
Space Agency's record for the Arianne rocket - so far of the 25
At 22,000 feet, all the foam in the world would not do you much good.
-Original Message-
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 12:23 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: space shuttle columbia accident
*sniffles*
They should have failsafe crew
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
