 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / August 2005WELL DONE U YANKS
May this be a start of many more good flights Julian 'Penny for the guy' Hales wrote: > May this be a start of many more good flights Thanks: It would be nice to think so, but the hard fact is the Shuttle is 40 year old technology that was flawed by political interference in the beginning, and it is simply too complex to have a realistic reliability. A serious reliability study would lead to horrifying numbers. I wouldn't ride the thing for any amount of $$$. If America is serious about a space program, it is time to go back to the drawing board with a clean sheet of paper, and this time keep Congress' sticky fingers as far away from the program as possible. Read: "The selling of NASA", I forget the author's name at the moment (Hell, I'm 67! I've a right to forget a few details). Bill Shuey > I wouldn't > ride the thing for any amount of $$$. Then you must not have anything more than a casual interest in going to space, in which case your hesitancy is not really that significant. KL >I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. I'd go tomorrow if they'd let me! NASA wouldn't have to pay me a dime either. > If America is serious about a space program, it is time to go back to >the drawing board with a clean sheet of paper... Agreed. Back to the Moon and on to Mars! It's *way* past time... >>I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Agreed. Back to the Moon and on to Mars! It's *way* past > time... I think we're all in that mentality. We don't run 20-year-old city busses so there's no reason to base a critical space program on the equivalent of pre-Castro Chevvies in Cuba. Tiles flaking off and spummed-on insulation? Sounds like a Cub Scout project from the 80s...or the shower stall in my old house. I'm glad these guys made it back. I had my doubts. -Bill >I'm glad these guys made it back. I had my doubts. Me too. If it weren't for the ISS I'd be all for permanently grounding the entire fleet. For that matter, I'm not all that enthused about the ISS... >>> I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > busses so there's no reason to base a critical space program on the > equivalent of pre-Castro Chevvies in Cuba. On the other hand we *do* fly combat aircraft that are 20 years old or even older - at least us Brits do. Little wonder that the RAF is known as "Fred Flintstone's Air Force"  SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >>equivalent of pre-Castro Chevvies in Cuba. > > On the other hand we *do* fly combat aircraft that are 20 years old or even > older - at least us Brits do. Little wonder that the RAF is known as "Fred > Flintstone's Air Force" I'm a great fan of old technology but the 70s-80s weren't particularly impressive years of primo vintage when viewed from a 2005 perspective. I'd like to think they could do better now...and if they can't then thats a whole 'nuther can of worms. I'm sure they are thinking about it. If this whole brain trust were obliged to drive to work daily in old Pintos and Monte Carlos they'd probably quickly arrive at a concensus that mandates something beyond retreading the tyres and regluing tiles on the old bytch. -Bill >I'd like to think they could do better now...and if they can't then >thats a whole 'nuther can of worms. >I'm sure they are thinking about it. <http://www.newstarget.com/005860.html> old weird harold >>I'd like to think they could do better now...and if they can't then >>thats a whole 'nuther can of worms. >>I'm sure they are thinking about it. > ><http://www.newstarget.com/005860.html> start-stop-strat-stop.....could have had an eco friendly, cheap lifter in the 80's. coulda been on mars by 85, real space station before, ion drive outer tour could be there and we could be building a real starship. it's like the gov lost the moral fibre in the 70's and went gutless. >>>> I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >older - at least us Brits do. Little wonder that the RAF is known as "Fred >Flintstone's Air Force" should be kids force. how old is the 42, the 130 the tanker fleet and 90% of out front line fighters? way older than 20 years. and the 52 will fly until 2020! 80 yesrs.....damn. "e" <noone@some.domain> wrote in message news:NboKe.47101$% > should be kids force. how old is the 42, the 130 the tanker > fleet and 90% of out front line fighters? way older than 20 > years. and the 52 will fly until 2020! > 80 yesrs.....damn. I'm betting BUFFs are still flying when the BONEs are done - probably after I'm done too. According to avg life expectancy, everything after 2036 is extra innings for me. ;-) And then there's the DC-3... I wonder how the Goonies will look in their Starfleet colors. WmB >"e" <noone@some.domain> wrote in message news:NboKe.47101$% >> should be kids force. how old is the 42, the 130 the tanker [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >WmB hmmm, them warp nacelles should bolt right in.... >>>>I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > older - at least us Brits do. Little wonder that the RAF is known as "Fred > Flintstone's Air Force" Not just you, though you may fly more of them. Prowlers are no spring chickens...and we just now got rid of those Tomcats. And F-15Cs are aging...and let's not forget C-130s and B-52s. Funny...we had a guy from a NASA Safety review board compare Shuttle and C-130 tech to us a bit ago... Signature- Rufus > >>>>I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Funny...we had a guy from a NASA Safety review board compare Shuttle and > C-130 tech to us a bit ago... My last Prowler flight was two years ago and was 158029. I was four years old when it rolled of the Bethpage LI line. Its' still a spring chicken compared to the BUFFS and 135's out there but no one ever dropped them on a carrier deck. Pugs >>Not just you, though you may fly more of them. Prowlers are no spring >>chickens...and we just now got rid of those Tomcats. And F-15Cs are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > dropped them on a carrier deck. > Pugs Prowlers still have a few years left...not long, though. Yeah, I've been aboard at least one B-25 older than I am. They'll probably all get to that point eventually. Signature- Rufus > I think we're all in that mentality. We don't run > 20-year-old city busses so there's no reason to base [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Little wonder that the RAF is known as "Fred Flintstone's > Air Force" Dude! Do you know the average age of the B-52's still in service??? :-) Bill Shuey "William H. Shuey" <whshuey@starpower.net> wrote in message > Dude! Do you know the average age of the B-52's still in > service??? :-) > > Bill Shuey European or African? WmB >> I think we're all in that mentality. We don't run >> 20-year-old city busses so there's no reason to base [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Dude! Do you know the average age of the B-52's still in > service??? :-) Yeh... but a B-52 flies around in a sedate manner. Your combat aircraft are replaced on a fairly regular basis. The USAF was busily replacing F-16As with F-16Cs while us poor chumps in the RAF were still drooling with envy over the A version. Our Jaguar fleet is approaching 30 years old and will be replaced with a jet that is already obsolete and was intended to be in service in 1995. Our Canberra reconnaisance fleet is comprised entirely of aircraft that are approaching 50 years old, but there is no replacement in sight for those. Your version, the RB-57, was replaced *decades* ago. Our Tornado fleet is running out of airframe life. If you drive past RAF Marham in Norfolk, you can see at least four life expired Tornados sat forlornly on the airfield. The Future Offensive Air System is planned to replace these aircraft from 2017 - twelve years from now. No design has yet been settled for FOAS and bearing in mind that the Eurofighter Typhoon was originally intended to be in service by 1995, I think we can safely say that FOAS will not be available until at least 2030. I reckon that by 2012 the RAF will seriously have to consider leasing aircraft from the USAF or USN. What are you doing with all those F-18s that are being replaced? We also have C-130Ks that are 40 years old (the new C-130Js were bought on the cheap and cannot be used to transport delicate or explosive cargo because of ultrasonic vibration in the cabin. If passengers sit in the wrong place they can receive liver damage from the vibration!). The Nimrod maritime patrol fleet is 35 years old. The tanker fleet is comprised of aircraft that are over 40 years old (VC-10) or are converted civil airliners (Tristar) - some of the VC-10s are both! That's no way to run an air force! :-( SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > That's no way to run an air force! :-( Ahhh, The wonders of socialist management! Wait till Hillary Clinton gets to be president and see how fast we can be run down to the same condition. Bill Shuey >> That's no way to run an air force! :-( > > Ahhh, The wonders of socialist management! Wait till Hillary Clinton > gets to be president and see how fast we can be run down to the same > condition. Oh dear... and there was me toying with the idea of emigrating in your direction! ;-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >...there was me toying with the idea of emigrating in your >direction! ;-) Please do! If you want to come you're already an American at heart and we welcome legal immigrants that share our values! :) >> That's no way to run an air force! :-( > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bill Shuey If you guys can stomach a little political humor, this reminds me of a pic I came across the other day that gave me a chuckle. Well actually it was the caption that pulled the whole thing together. It'll be in the binaries group attached to a copy of this msg. WmB >>> That's no way to run an air force! :-( >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > actually it was the caption that pulled the whole thing together. > It'll be in the binaries group attached to a copy of this msg. LOL It's actually a little bit bigger than Brit carriers... ;-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. Well, you're long overdue to replace all those flying machines with missiles, ya know. :) Bill Banaszak, MFE >That's no way to run an air force! Want to buy some F-16s or F/A-18s? We've got plenty of good used ones at Davis-Monthan, or you could probably get a good deal on brand new ones. ;) >>I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. > > I'd go tomorrow if they'd let me! NASA wouldn't have to pay me a >dime either. I'd give my right arm to go... but, then, wouldn't I be disqualified? >> If America is serious about a space program, it is time to go back to >>the drawing board with a clean sheet of paper... The next step after the X-Prize. NASA agrees to pay for deliveries (personnel, food, water, DUCT TAPE) from anyone who gets it up there. Signature-Jack >>>I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >deliveries (personnel, food, water, DUCT TAPE) from anyone who >gets it up there. as always, heinlein had a good take. read the man who sold the moon. written in the 50's. >>>I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'd give my right arm to go... but, then, wouldn't I be >disqualified? Not if you were going just as a tourist. And on the plus side, you'd weigh less than the average astronaut. ;-p >>> If America is serious about a space program, it is time to go back to >>>the drawing board with a clean sheet of paper... > >The next step after the X-Prize. NASA agrees to pay for >deliveries (personnel, food, water, DUCT TAPE) from anyone who >gets it up there. I'd definitely like to see more commercial efforts. The competition might even do NASA some good as well... >>>> If America is serious about a space program, it is time to go back to >>>>the drawing board with a clean sheet of paper... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'd definitely like to see more commercial efforts. The >competition might even do NASA some good as well... I have a rant about this: Consider the advances in the state of aviation between 1903 with the first powered, manned, controlled, heavier-than-air... I'll just say the Wright brothers' flight for short... and 1953. Now consider the state of astronautics between the first orbit (it's a convenient marker) in 1957 and what's projected for 2 years from now. A bit of that could be because of how hard it is (they do call it "rocket science"), but I believe a lot of it is due to the fact that for a long time there has only been two manufacturers involved, the USA and the USSR. The US has contracted out to various companies, but it has always narrowed the scope to a single design, for every one of which there are dozens others whose characteristics are only known on paper (and look at the surprises that have shown up this late in the Shuttle design). I think an interest in what-if spacecraft comes from an unarticulated recognition that we need greater experience with a greater variety of ideas. Signature-Jack jackbohn@bright.net (Jack Bohn) wrote in <a99mf1p21ulq1qp2jdd9u9a48btuvf836n@4ax.com>: >Consider the advances in the state of aviation between 1903 with >the first powered, manned, controlled, heavier-than-air... I'll [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >from now. A bit of that could be because of how hard it is (they >do call it "rocket science"), but I believe... Consider the differences in the 'cost of entry'. The Wright brothers built their airplane in a bike shed. Designing and building a rocket is a multimillion-dollar business, with a much lower return on investment than aviation. SignatureHarro de Jong remove the extra Xs from xmsnet to mail me To bring a great big metal glider back home is a great Day......WTG Yanks Really Al: I spent a year on the Space Shuttle design in 1974. At Downey, California, in the old Vultee hanger. My job, determining maneuvering wing loads during re-entry. Seeing as how you think I am a moron, perhaps you should reconsider a free shuttle ride. ...../V PS Rockwell was one of the cruddiest companies to work for as an engineer. They trusted nobody; had spy cameras trained on the work area (before the age of video CAM), probably because they so feared unionization activities. They made me punch a figgen timeclock. Like, when you have a job like that, you are thinking about stuff all the time. But they never paid me for the mental effort while in the shower, which just shows you how idiotic treating engineers like GM assembly workers really is. You will get no sympathy from me concerning Rockwell International (once North American; home of the P-51 Mustang). They screwed up the B-1 project also. Well I got a new 1970 corvette convertible out of that effort, plus a USC MBA. Eight hours on the job, three in class, every day/night. I might have been too tired and messed up a decimal place or two, Al. Guy I reported to was from Puerto Rico. Nice enough guy, but a lousy engineer. He had the formulas all bass ackward. Lucky for him (and the shuttle), I was on it like a hound dog. Got to sit in the Apollo and Gemini capsules. Shuttle mock-up was kind of cool also. PS Rachael Welsh's father worked two desks down from me. Alas, she never visited. Typical Rockwell grinches, never a Father-Daughter day when you need it. >>I wouldn't ride the (shuttle) for any amount of $$$. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Agreed. Back to the Moon and on to Mars! It's *way* past > time... See my individual comments below. SignatureCheers: Bill Woodier "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm -- > Really Al: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Seeing as how you think I am a moron, perhaps you should reconsider a free > shuttle ride. I don't know about others on RMS, Vessticles, but I never thought you were a moron. What I thought, and still think is that you are a bonified, certified, walkin' talkin' rectum. There's considerable difference between the two. A moron doesn't know any better. An a.shole knows better but acts like a jerk anyway. > ...../V > > PS Rockwell was one of the cruddiest companies to work for as an engineer. > They trusted nobody; had spy cameras trained on the work area (before the > age of video CAM), probably because they so feared unionization > activities. Perhaps they knew you better than you thought they did. > They made me punch a figgen timeclock. Like, when you have a job like > that, you are thinking about stuff all the time. But they never paid me > for the mental effort while in the shower, which just shows you how > idiotic treating engineers like GM assembly workers really is. See comment above. > You will get no sympathy from me concerning Rockwell International (once > North American; home of the P-51 Mustang). They screwed up the B-1 project [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > MBA. Eight hours on the job, three in class, every day/night. I might have > been too tired and messed up a decimal place or two, Al. Well, at least you did something right. I've had a 1970 LT-1 convertible for a couple decades and just sold it two weeks ago. Yessss , it's just Great. I just got thru watching the landing. The Shuttle is so very very KewL , but I guess it can be a lot more dangerous than any of us could deal with on a daily basis. It all has to be sooooo very perfect or , well we all know what happens when it's not don't we. But when it all comes together it's a true thing of beauty to behold. Yes from Launch to Landing a Shuttle Flight is Just Beautiful. A Mars Landing is possible by 2015 if they really wanted to do that is. More people have to supoprt the Program. They must waist a lot more for all the Metric Tons of Reports that they Published for the U.S. Congress than they end up Spending for the Space Exploration. ..... !! And to keep it on Topic: I am in need of a 1/72 scale Space Shuttle with the Center Tank and the Sold Rocket Boosters would anyone out here have one they could let go of for me , but i'm on a budget now for my most of my Modeling needs. So this would have to be pretty reasonable if it's okay to ask that here. ... Carl .......... . Rama-Lama-BIG-BORG ; BORG TEMPLE N.Y. Central-Park-West ; Master Builder of blessed temple KITS ; Keeper of Secret Temple Decoder Rings & Bracelets ; Fluent-in-1st--Degree--TALK-to-the-HAND --TEMPLE-ETTE--Guards--SIX--&--SEVEN-- The----WORLD--WIDE--WEB----is totally jam packed with thousands of people who are Destined to be nothing more then a faded weatherbeaten ---CHALK--OUTLINE--- along the---INFORMATION--SUPER--HIGHWAY--- This is My Main Modeling Page and Web-Site http://community.webtv.net/CYBER-BORG-4/ThemodelsIlikethe And Introducing "SPOT -the- CAT" http://community.webtv.net/CYBER-BORG-4/MODELERSHELPERall A brief look into what is really me http://community.webtv.net/CYBER-BORG-4/HeresSomeReallyBig Yessss , I'm the -real- "Bad Santa" http://community.webtv.net/CYBER-BORG-4/COMEgetYourPresent CYBER-BORG-4@webtv.net (cyberborg 4000) wrote in news:5973- 42F8CAB1-1010@storefull-3157.bay.webtv.net: > Yessss , it's just Great. I just got thru watching the landing. The > Shuttle is so very very KewL , but I guess it can be a lot more [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Yessss , I'm the -real- "Bad Santa" > http://community.webtv.net/CYBER-BORG-4/COMEgetYourPresent Carl, I recently decided I had to have all available versions of the Shuttle from 1/72 to 1/288. No I'm not on medication. Honestly the thing to do is luck on eBay and just wait. There are a lot of shuttles up there all the time (at least when I was prowling). I got all of the 1/144 birds cheap, most with tanks. The 1/72s took more patience but you'll find burst of bidding and then when those buyers are satisfied the next few will have no bidders at all. I got the Revell with tanks for I think under $25 with shipping. Pretty good as the last one I saw in a store was 40 or 45. Put on your stalker cap and get to work. Also check out esnipe.com. I almost never bid directly anymore. I snipe everything and I find I'm spending a lot less. Frank Most technology advances happen in wartime. The 60 years of relative world peace has driven technology to backburner and that is why airforces have to use 50 year old planes (eg USAF) and the poor astronauts have to use shuttles designed in the sixties. Then again I am happy that technology is lagging. Tim Brimelow > CYBER-BORG-4@webtv.net (cyberborg 4000) wrote in news:5973- > 42F8CAB1-1010@storefull-3157.bay.webtv.net: [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > Frank Guess you haven't been reading AvWeek lately... Signature- Rufus > Most technology advances happen in wartime. The 60 years of relative world > peace has driven technology to backburner and that is why airforces have to [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] >> >>Frank |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.