Carrier Hornet, pt 5 - NASA trailer1.JPG (1/1)

[Mitchell Holman[_3_]]

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
. 130...

Hard to believe that this is the 40th anniversary year....

[Mitchell Holman[_3_]]

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in news:poOul.28582$cu.8841
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> . 130...
>
> Hard to believe that this is the 40th anniversary year....
>
>
>


I was a NASA buff back then, following the careers
of all the astronauts and knew every flight. Nowadays
no one can name which shuttle is in orbit, much less
who the crew is............

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
. 130...
> I was a NASA buff back then, following the careers
> of all the astronauts and knew every flight. Nowadays
> no one can name which shuttle is in orbit, much less
> who the crew is............

Mainly because there are now seven crew on every flight and, rather than two
flights per year, there are up to seven flights a year.

Until next year at least; when the last shuttle flight is due - somewhere
around May 2010. That will be a sad day, but the future is more than bright
for spaceflight - with Orion just around the corner (not the biggest fan of
Project Constellation by any means, but....) and the privateers like SpaceX
with their Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy launch vehicles (due for first flight
this year) and their spacecraft which can carry cargo and people.

It'll be even better than before.

[Mitchell Holman[_3_]]

"Alan Erskine" > wrote in
:

> "Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
> . 130...
>> I was a NASA buff back then, following the careers
>> of all the astronauts and knew every flight. Nowadays
>> no one can name which shuttle is in orbit, much less
>> who the crew is............
>
> Mainly because there are now seven crew on every flight and, rather
> than two flights per year, there are up to seven flights a year.
>
> Until next year at least; when the last shuttle flight is due -
> somewhere around May 2010. That will be a sad day, but the future is
> more than bright for spaceflight - with Orion just around the corner
> (not the biggest fan of Project Constellation by any means, but....)
> and the privateers like SpaceX with their Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy
> launch vehicles (due for first flight this year) and their spacecraft
> which can carry cargo and people.
>
> It'll be even better than before.
>
>
>


Since the newest shuttle was built in 1983 I can understand
the reluctance of NASA to keep using them.

20th technology being dragged into the 21st century and all
that............

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
. 130...

> Since the newest shuttle was built in 1983 I can understand
> the reluctance of NASA to keep using them.
>
> 20th technology being dragged into the 21st century and all
> that............

Nothing wrong with the shuttle's technology; it's just _too_ advanced and
complex for what it does. That's why they're going back to a capsule
(Orion) for personnel and small cargo, and using ELV's (Expendable Launch
Vehicles) for large payloads like future station modules.

The structures of the shuttles is still top-notch and the subsystems are
updated quite regularly (they were modified to a 'glass' cockpit some years
ago, for instance, to replace the dials-and-guages style instrumentation).
They could run them for another 20 years or so, but they are just too
expensive. I mean, the only real competition is from Soyuz, which is over
40 years old and costs about $20million per person, per flight; the shuttle
is 10 times more expensive.

Remember, the shuttle was designed to carry cargo into space (payload of
over 21 tonnes); but after Challenger, it was deemed too dangerous to do
that. That's why the ELV's were brought back (the shuttle was supposed to
replace them all).

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Mitchell Holman" > wrote in message
. 130...

Which reminds me; shuttle launch (STS-119) due at 7:43pm tomorrow night -
U.S. EDT - 10:43am tomorrow morning Melbourne (Australia) time.