What's the buzz, Buzz?
Pat Flannery
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/in-search-of-a-real-space_b_371205.html
"Our space partners and competitors are also designing capsules for
their astronauts-because, for them, capsules are a step up. No other
nation has ever had the logistics capability resident in a winged or
lifting body vehicle-except us. And seems to be ready, in a penny-wise
and pound foolish way-to abandon our own leadership in space
transportation. By landing on a runway, gliding back from space, these
unique re entry machines have many opportunities on each orbit of the
Earth to find a landing site -- an airport or military airfield, say.
Those capsules, since they don't glide anywhere, must line up more or
less at their intended landing site. Bad weather? Oh, gotta stay up
another day. Experiments? Gotta wait!"
When is the last time you heard of a Soyuz landing having a weather
delay? Now, how about the Shuttle? :-D
"But I've got a better idea. Why not stretch out the remaining Shuttle
flights for five years-flying once a year or so."
Jeez Buzz, that's a thought... exactly how much is that going to cost
for people's wages and infrastructure for the 355 days of the year when
it's _not_ flying?
Sounds to me like Buzz has his guidance system up his retrorocket nozzle
if you know what I mean.
Pat
David Spain
> Our country is nearly broke! Generations of deficit spending,
> unnecessary wars that enriched the already rich.
>
> The next question will be .............
>
> What does NASA do after man is taken out of man in space......
>
Go back to what it was doing before as NACA. Supplying lab and technical
expertise to those companies that will have a reason and ability to sustain
putting men (and women) in space.
Then if the political winds again blow that way, let NACA subcontract a
program for flags and footprints.
AFAICT, post Iraq-war, banking bail-out, there is no political support out
there for paying for a NASA star fleet for the select few with a PhD.
Regrettably, lofty ideals about space exploration aside, I believe that
is the current public perception.
> have any good reuse ideas for KSC etc etc.
>
> personally i would love to see 39A & 39B maintained under glass
> bubbles.
>
> one with the shuttle configuration perhaps stack enterprise, the
> remainingn pad in the apollo configuration with a mock up of the days
> we went to the moon.
>
If that's your best idea, why not inscribe those scenes on your
cemetery monunment and spare us taxpayers the expense?
Unless you have a buyer first to do that with the goal as stated
below:
> then build a amusementy park type setting.............
However, its already too close to and yet too far from Disney World.
Unless they run an express monorail out there.
Besides no one else could afford it unless the Hollywood studios
start charging us $100 a ticket for a movie.
Hmm, well maybe that isn't so far fetched after all...
Dave
hal...@aol.com
actually a mag lev train from disney to KSC and nearby cruise ship
dock for disney cruises could be a nice tourist trap addition.
at least it could provde jobs, although not the high paid nasa type.
send some robot crawlers to explore the moon. tourists could pay be
bucks for a chance to control the real moon explorer for say 10
minutes.
imagine being able to tour the VAB and pads.
Pat Flannery
> AFAICT, post Iraq-war, banking bail-out, there is no political support out
> there for paying for a NASA star fleet for the select few with a PhD.
And speaking of a NASA Starfleet:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/creating-starfl.html
Given Cowing's fondness for the place, may I suggest the summit of Mt.
Everest?
By making prospective cadets climb up to it, we shall sort the wheat
from the chaff among prospective recruits.
And if that doesn't get rid of the undedicated ones, getting dragged out
of their tents at 3AM and 25,000 feet up by the guy in the Yeti suit
will certainly make sure only the cream of the crop will become our
Space Rangers Of To-Morrow.
We shall need such strong and bold spacecrew to face the flying lamprey
spiders of Sirius 6, and the fire-farting chipmunks of Spica 7.
"When in doubt...lase it." must be their motto, except when facing the
fulminate of mercury monkeys of Algol 8. ;-)
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:sOqdnb2HceMoRI3W...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>
> Jeez Buzz, that's a thought... exactly how much is that going to cost for
> people's wages and infrastructure for the 355 days of the year when it's
> _not_ flying?
> Sounds to me like Buzz has his guidance system up his retrorocket nozzle
> if you know what I mean.
>
> Pat
That would be an interesting questions. What are landing opportunities like
for the Shuttle vs. Soyuz? Shuttle has a wider cross-range, but I have to
imagine the Soyuz has less stringent weather restrictions.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
David Spain
> David Spain wrote:
>> AFAICT, post Iraq-war, banking bail-out, there is no political support out
>> there for paying for a NASA star fleet for the select few with a PhD.
>
> And speaking of a NASA Starfleet:
> http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/creating-starfl.html
> Given Cowing's fondness for the place, may I suggest the summit of
> Mt. Everest?
I'd recommend being able to recite, by rote memory, every episode
of 'Survivor' ever aired....
Dave
hal...@aol.com
<mooregr_delet3t...@greenms.com> wrote:
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
besides cant soyuz land n water or land?
I know soyuz normally lands on land but cant they do water in a
emergency?
certinally hope so since a accidental ballistic re entry could put
them down in a lake...
Pat Flannery
>
> That would be an interesting questions. What are landing opportunities like
> for the Shuttle vs. Soyuz? Shuttle has a wider cross-range, but I have to
> imagine the Soyuz has less stringent weather restrictions.
There's a photo in "Cosmonautics: A Colorful History" of a Soyuz that
has been dragged by its parachute around a couple of hundred feet
through a snow-covered field before the chute was jettisoned. That would
take a fairly good wind to accomplish.
Pat
David Spain
> The Buzzter will _not_ be silenced:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/in-search-of-a-real-space_b_371205.html
Geez I dunno Pat,
I found myself more in agreement with what I read here than disagreement.
I probably don't agree with Buzz when it comes to using a winged vehicle
for putting cargo in orbit that is not coming back down, but just about
every other item I pretty much agree with.
See here's the thing, I don't argue that capsules and EELVs (on paper)
would not be cheaper to launch than the shuttle. (It is, however, unclear
that water recovery will be cheaper.) But even assuming there is significant
savings, the problem is what will be enabled by the savings? The way I see it,
the savings will only enable the further reduction of NASA's budget and
the money spent elsewhere. We won't see those savings being used to realize
a bolder, more robust space program, just diverted to other domestic spending.
OTOH, why do I have the sneaky suspicion that when it's all said and done,
we'll find that we're spending the same on Orion/Aries ops that we spend on
shuttle ops today?
Dave
hal...@aol.com
>
> OTOH, why do I have the sneaky suspicion that when it's all said and done,
> we'll find that we're spending the same on Orion/Aries ops that we spend on
> shuttle ops today?
>
> Dave
probably the same, given its nasa. their main interest is spending
money not accomplishing anything.
hopefully a new vehicle that isnt the ares will at minumum be safer.
ts bad to kill crews.
but by the time a new vehicle is ready the station will be at de orbit
time to burn up over pacific.........
nasa doesnt need a new dedicated launcher. just go with private
industry on existing expendables
X flights over X time at this price
Pat Flannery
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> writes:
>
>> The Buzzter will _not_ be silenced:
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/in-search-of-a-real-space_b_371205.html
>
> Geez I dunno Pat,
>
> I found myself more in agreement with what I read here than disagreement.
Then you will want to be the first on your block to support him* by
buying the entire "Buzz Aldrin Rocket Hero" collection of model kits!
http://www.revell.com/model-kits/licensed/buzz-aldrin-rocket-hero.html
...and remember, these StarBuzz licensed kits each contain a replica of
the gold olive branch left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts!
http://www.revell.com/catalog/images/free_pin-lg.jpg
And that's just the beginning of your journey into Buzzdom!
Don't forget to purchase several copies of Buzz's book: "Magnificent
Desolation", which make great Christmas gifts!
And in fact, any StarBuzz licensed item makes a great gift!:
http://buzzaldrin.com/?q=hero
It may have been one small step for Neal, but it was one giant marketing
opportunity for Buzz.
Pat
* And I mean that financially.
Pat Flannery
>
> for the Shuttle vs. Soyuz? Shuttle has a wider cross-range, but I have to
> imagine the Soyuz has less stringent weather restrictions.
Another thing to consider is that Soyuz can land just about anywhere if
it has to, including on water.
In fact, by international agreement and due to its flatness, North
Dakota is a emergency Soyuz landing area:
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Ugol/Ugol.html
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:6uk4xaj...@ws125.sysdef.com...
> OTOH, why do I have the sneaky suspicion that when it's all said and done,
> we'll find that we're spending the same on Orion/Aries ops that we spend
> on
> shuttle ops today?
>
I think we'll be lucky if it's only that much. :-/
Honestly, I don't think we'll see any savings. KSC is expensive. If there
was a higher flight rate, the fixed costs would be spread out more. But
with Orion, I suspect we'll have as few flights as we do now.
> Dave
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>
>> That would be an interesting questions. What are landing opportunities
>> like for the Shuttle vs. Soyuz? Shuttle has a wider cross-range, but I
>> have to imagine the Soyuz has less stringent weather restrictions.
>
> Another thing to consider is that Soyuz can land just about anywhere if it
> has to, including on water.
True. On the other hand, with what, a 800 mile cross range the shuttle has
a pretty wide range of landing opportunities.
When was the last unscheduled landing of a spacecraft, Gemini 8? I exclude
Apollo 13 since they had a long time to prepare for that.
> In fact, by international agreement and due to its flatness, North Dakota
> is a emergency Soyuz landing area:
> http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/histind/Ugol/Ugol.html
>
> Pat
>
--
Peter Cushing's Ghost
> Then you will want to be the first on your block to support him* by buying
> the entire "Buzz Aldrin Rocket Hero" collection of model kits!
> http://www.revell.com/model-kits/licensed/buzz-aldrin-rocket-hero.html
> ...and remember, these StarBuzz licensed kits each contain a replica of
> the gold olive branch left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts!
> http://www.revell.com/catalog/images/free_pin-lg.jpg
> And that's just the beginning of your journey into Buzzdom!
> Don't forget to purchase several copies of Buzz's book: "Magnificent
> Desolation", which make great Christmas gifts!
> And in fact, any StarBuzz licensed item makes a great gift!:
> http://buzzaldrin.com/?q=hero
> It may have been one small step for Neal, but it was one giant marketing
> opportunity for Buzz.
>
> Pat
>
> * And I mean that financially.
I take it you have a problem with any and all celebrities using their name
to market, endorse and sell products?
jacob navia
>> OTOH, why do I have the sneaky suspicion that when it's all said and done,
>> we'll find that we're spending the same on Orion/Aries ops that we spend on
>> shuttle ops today?
>>
>> Dave
>
> probably the same, given its nasa. their main interest is spending
> money not accomplishing anything.
>
NASA has explored
Mercury, Venus, the moon,
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn Neptune Uranus and Pluto.
Today, NASA has machines in orbit around Mars and Saturn
Machines are traveling towards Mercury and Pluto.
NASA has sent machines beyond the solar system, into interplanetary
space (Voyager 1 and 2, and the Pioneer probes)
Nasa sent humans to the Moon, and has participated to the building
of the international space station.
This organization will be remembered forever in all school books of the
future. To say that Nasa "accomplished nothing" proves only the stupidity
of the anonymous coward that wrote those words.
> nasa doesnt need a new dedicated launcher. just go with private
> industry on existing expendables
>
"Private industry" has accomplished nothing till now, but a few shots
of experimental hardware.
hal...@aol.com
> hall...@aol.com a �crit :
yeah the original nasa did accomplish a lot.
but the new manned launcher is all political pork piggie payoffs.
existing atlas and delta expendables would cost less, hep the industry
with a increased launch rate, and could of been ready to fly by now.
we cant afford to pay off shuttle contractors.........
make private space launchers income tax free for 20 years and watch
that industry explode.
even john young says the new launchger is too big, too expensive and
no one wants it........
nasa specked the vehicle to lock out all existing vehicles
Pat Flannery
>
> I think we'll be lucky if it's only that much. :-/
>
> Honestly, I don't think we'll see any savings.
I don't think we are going to see any Ares/Orion for that matter.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> True. On the other hand, with what, a 800 mile cross range the shuttle has
> a pretty wide range of landing opportunities.
Needs a landing airfield with the proper navaids to allow it to land,
and a long enough runway.
Also, not good at holding in the pattern for other aircraft to land. ;-)
> When was the last unscheduled landing of a spacecraft, Gemini 8?
There was the Soyuz 18A mission abort that almost put them down in China
in 1975, and the Soyuz 23 mission that came down on the semi-frozen lake
during the blizzard because of a faulty retro burn in 1976.
Soyuz 23 used batteries for power rather than solar arrays, but after
that the solar arrays were returned to the design to give the crew more
time to plan a landing if docking failed.
Soyuz TM-6 landed a day late due to computer problems aborting the
retrofire in 1988, but details of that flight are still somewhat sketchy.
Pat
Pat Flannery
>> It may have been one small step for Neal, but it was one giant
>> marketing opportunity for Buzz.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> * And I mean that financially.
>
> I take it you have a problem with any and all celebrities using their
> name to market, endorse and sell products?
Yes.
Especially Rocket Heroes.
The problem is that he considers himself a "celebrity" rather than
someone who did something historic at great expense to the taxpayer.
His antics cheapen him, Project Apollo, and NASA in general.
Luckily, I have a solution...NASA must establish a "Sandman" division
that terminates astronauts with extreme prejudice if age, greed, ego, or
craziness makes their behavior become erratic and embarrassing to the
agency.
These terminations must be handled carefully, so that there is plausible
deniability, but a clear warning is sent to other members of the
astronaut corps that they had better shape up and fly right or they too
will soon be "retired".
For instance, Aldrin may be found dead in his bathroom after apparently
trying to shave with a machete and slipping on a bar of soap into a
bathtub that he was using to raise piranhas.
I know this suggestion may not be popular, but it is for the
astronaut's, NASA's, and our nation's own good. ;-)
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
True.
Peter Cushing's Ghost
>> I take it you have a problem with any and all celebrities using their
>> name to market, endorse and sell products?
>
> Yes.
> Especially Rocket Heroes.
> The problem is that he considers himself a "celebrity" rather than someone
> who did something historic at great expense to the taxpayer.
> His antics cheapen him, Project Apollo, and NASA in general.
Please. What "cheapens" NASA is preventable incidents like the two Space
Shuttle losses and the Apollo 1 fire and their ongoing waste of taxpayer's
money on the Ares program just for starters. Not to mention recent tabloid
antics like the "Diapernaut" love triangle and kidnapping attempt.
Guys like Aldrin who did their time with honor and distinction in the space
program, are for all intents and purposes retired and wholly entitled to
write books, endorse products and basically do whatever they want even if
that trades on their status as former astronauts. It's not like they have
spectacular retirement pensions from the space program. It's absolutely
absurd to deny these people the right to make an income as retired NASA
employees. That's good ol' USA style capitalism.
If the worst thing you can rag on Aldrin about is using his likeness to
promote Apollo model kits, the guy's a saint compared to those in charge of
OK'ing the Challenger launch on that cold January morning in '88.
Jonathan
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:oOidnQa1kLnAz4jW...@earthlink.com...
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:PYOdndYGbf3joYjW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think we'll be lucky if it's only that much. :-/
>>>
>>> Honestly, I don't think we'll see any savings.
>>
>>
>> I don't think we are going to see any Ares/Orion for that matter.
And the two of you are depressed by that possibility?
I see the current period as a tremendous opportunity to come
up with a new goal for NASA that will inspire more support
and funding. Dramatically more if a new goal is constructed
properly.
The absolutely wrong way to come up with a new goal is to
try to come up with a better spacecraft, or a better destination
or a better activity in space. The better way is to ask what
are the very largest /problems/ on Earth that can be solved
by a /space program/?
The larger the problem, the more will benefit.
The largest problems of all benefit .....everyone.
Just try to imagine how many people would benefit, and
by how much, to a long term solution to the global energy
problem? The benefits could flow to tens of billions of people
over time. A solution to climate change would directly flow
from that accomplishment. So would greater national
and global prosperity. So would ending wars over oil.
The potential spin off benefits cascade throughout all of
society and the world. Left, right and the military and other
nations all can find something to like in such a goal. Not to
mention it could become a cash paying payload to help
jump start commercial space industry.
A commitment to solve the future energy problem via a space
program doesn't mean Space Solar Power necessarily, it may
be some other form or combination of solutions. Whatever
a vigorous research program should decide. But whenever
one tries to find common ground between a new energy source
and a new space program, Space Solar Power in some form
just fits like a glove. It doesn't matter if the current notions of
SSP are practical or not. Let the exact solutions follow later
as they will, the idea is to put a goal together that rings....
...from sea to shining sea!
Face it, there are very few uses for commercial manned space flight.
Let the military have the manned program. NASA needs to
generate a thriving commercial space industry through a goal
as lofty as the sky itself.
Space Solar Power fits like a glove from every angle.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:FpednRytWcKbX4jW...@giganews.com...
>
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in
> message
> news:oOidnQa1kLnAz4jW...@earthlink.com...
>> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
>> news:PYOdndYGbf3joYjW...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>>> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think we'll be lucky if it's only that much. :-/
>>>>
>>>> Honestly, I don't think we'll see any savings.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think we are going to see any Ares/Orion for that matter.
>
>
> And the two of you are depressed by that possibility?
Depressed, no. Not sure where you got that idea.
> I see the current period as a tremendous opportunity to come
> up with a new goal for NASA that will inspire more support
> and funding. Dramatically more if a new goal is constructed
> properly.
>
John
>
> When is the last time you heard of a Soyuz landing having a weather
> delay? Now, how about the Shuttle? :-D
Pat,
Perhaps they never had a weather related delay for landing, but I seem
to recall at least one occassion that Soyuz came down in a forest in
the middle of a blizzard. A weather delay may have been a good
idea :-)
Take care . . .
John
John
Pat . . . you found my blizzard example for me. And given the
information here, a bad retro is a bad retro, without regards to when
it happened (unless it was hurried into).
Pat Flannery
> Pat,
>
> Perhaps they never had a weather related delay for landing, but I seem
> to recall at least one occassion that Soyuz came down in a forest in
> the middle of a blizzard. A weather delay may have been a good
> idea :-)
You are confusing two different incidents; Voskhod 2 was the one that
came down in the forest after they had to abort a earlier attempt at
retrofire when the spacecraft didn't align correctly.
The Soyuz was the Soyuz 23 flight, and it came down in a lake during a
blizzard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_23
Unlike the earlier Soyuz types, the solar arrays had been deleted on
this version as the flight to dock with the Almaz variant of Salyut was
expected to be fairly short; unfortunately, that meant if you couldn't
dock - like happened in this flight - you had to return to Earth in
fairly short order before the onboard batteries ran out of power.
The solar arrays were returned to the design in the successor versions
of Soyuz so that the cosmonauts could have more time to pick a suitable
landing opportunity if there were docking problems.
Pat
Pat Flannery
> Pat . . . you found my blizzard example for me.
Soyuz 17 also came down in a blizzard; that might be the where the photo
of the Soyuz dragged through the snow by its parachute in "Cosmonautics
- A Colorful History" came from.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
>> True. On the other hand, with what, a 800 mile cross range the shuttle
>> has a pretty wide range of landing opportunities.
>
> Needs a landing airfield with the proper navaids to allow it to land, and
> a long enough runway.
> Also, not good at holding in the pattern for other aircraft to land. ;-)
True, but that 800 mile cross range opens up a lot.
Now sure, Soyuz can land "anywhere" but honestly, do you want? South
Pacific? Might be awhile.
>
>> When was the last unscheduled landing of a spacecraft, Gemini 8?
>
> There was the Soyuz 18A mission abort that almost put them down in China
> in 1975, and the Soyuz 23 mission that came down on the semi-frozen lake
> during the blizzard because of a faulty retro burn in 1976.
I was excluding 18A because that was an abort, something a bit different.
23 is a more interesting case.
> Soyuz 23 used batteries for power rather than solar arrays, but after that
> the solar arrays were returned to the design to give the crew more time to
> plan a landing if docking failed.
> Soyuz TM-6 landed a day late due to computer problems aborting the
> retrofire in 1988, but details of that flight are still somewhat sketchy.
Thanks for the others.