X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm20.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([98.139.212.179] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with SMTP id 5061345 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:46:14 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.212.179; envelope-from=bryanwinberry@bellsouth.net Received: from [98.139.212.152] by nm20.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Jul 2011 19:45:40 -0000 Received: from [98.139.221.53] by tm9.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Jul 2011 19:45:40 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp106.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Jul 2011 19:45:40 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bellsouth.net; s=s1024; t=1311450340; bh=O3KURz8PSmFUCkAOsvJQB6i7uvBnQjMxvOeN9nPM/5c=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:From:To:References:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:In-Reply-To:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index; b=i2xuMU78BdoRrvwl73rNQ8+Cb+YPQVtKg6F4EFTJBmbUbLHDPbvoFkLpXZe9SbM1dxZLhTnpP92QFO57TjUTYIJH9Ulm3sLXkABRPR1zGlb4EEQ5lySMrAVW7xXFID9oqrjEJwerWpzXXwA+XL62jAehyjF3OQ/LweDcmE2q2N4= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 578085.56694.bm@smtp106.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: yKosnZkVM1nt.DwzwoeGajbytterpXoz3FwBGD1uJqNkagf 6VjhM0qAIv_urL3Tj0ejXnRcBJYu3yYZquIs7Yt3qqTGO.q.1PPmB9JxOP3M HzyJ2R_ihy0OCthcHnnfimSQIwGLzkAqz6t.23pk31cTqY5v5uJp8J2xv.Zt IMxqJzH6IYHCyKxM2hTtnNGjnYeVxKEA3tYv1c3LnpVhSk5jXNnQn1knn6js RsIwcL1PWKUEJedClt9qrOx7vsvIzeGCu7F3BVwyxWMAh3HZTbGyQjJ0HH7w E63a5P4on61dMfQ_76Q58q0kQJ9xf6e93HzdKARvxsP6ScEr8zUmxoehFcXw x6i7YdmJCXX9Ie.vgM0lnUpx1gonyCNtdRnhDes0xn7tZIdx2fNOGLYO90cL f X-Yahoo-SMTP: OSuEAS2swBAaBd4uKxevNivslbMG7JXpWjAWZVmoYyRm6qcW_W2VUA-- Received: from acer7fbfa7e2f7 (bryanwinberry@98.88.93.31 with login) by smtp106.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2011 12:45:39 -0700 PDT From: "Bryan Winberry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Off Subject Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 15:45:36 -0400 Message-ID: <3724BF5AF98B42A6927EBEFEB070D5A2@acer7fbfa7e2f7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0087_01CC494F.90DDA2B0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 Thread-Index: AcxJYu7dXlsPvl5YTg6NbQ84wArSrwADdTIQ This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01CC494F.90DDA2B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit William, Nice read, but one question: Why can't a government sponsored program work? As you yourself said, it seemed to with Apollo. Bryan _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of William Wilson Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 2:04 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Off Subject For the last two decades or so, the shuttle has existed mostly as a way to deliver things to the ISS, and the ISS has existed mostly as a place for the shuttle to fly to. While the Hubble repairs were a great accomplishment, it probably would have been cheaper to just build an entirely new telescope and send it up on some sort of unmanned rocket whenever the original one wore out. This is not to say that I think manned spaceflight is a bad idea - but the reality is that there is really nothing to do in Earth orbit, and that is the only place the manned space program has been able to go for decades. Manned spaceflight needs to be focused on setting up a permanent settlement on Mars, the only worthwhile goal for manned spaceflight in the foreseeable future. And for the cost and casualties of the shuttle program over its lifetime, with the knowledge and technology base that existed right after Apollo, that probably could have been accomplished. (Much of the Apollo know-how has been lost due to simple retirement and/or death of so many people that worked on it, and in the much more risk-averse environment of today compared to the 60's, this knowledge probably cannot be recovered, at least not by a government-sponsored program). I think a lot of the disappointment over the retirement of the shuttle has to do with a sense of the US losing its place of leadership, or even going backwards in capability. To some degree that is a concern, but to an even greater degree, the shuttle has become a case of throwing good money after bad. We can't go forward and bring the shuttle with us. On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Tracy wrote: I grew up dreaming of space travel but I'm even more driven by reality. If you understand the goal of the space shuttle, you are forced to acknowledge that it was a monumental failure. It was touted to be a low cost space transportation system but on a cost per pound delivered to orbit, it was by far the most expensive system ever built. The throwaway Saturn 5 rocket was far cheaper and more reliable to boot. The Lowest cost for a shuttle mission was about 500 million not including mission payload costs. The Russians charge us 125 million per space station resupply missions including all payload costs. And don't get me started on the "international space station " itself. It has no commercial sponsors as originally intended because it has no commercial use and darn little scientific use. And the US pays very near 100% of the costs. The only worthwhile accomplishment of the shuttle was the launch and repair of the Hubble telescope. It replacement (the much larger and powerful James Webb telescope) will be launched by the French Ariane 5 rocket. THAT sorry state of affairs is the fault of the shuttle program which ate up all development funds that could have gone to something worthwhile. OK, end of rant : ) Tracy Sent from my iPad On Jul 23, 2011, at 12:13 PM, "Bobby J. Hughes" wrote: Makes me feel a little sick. Sent from my iPad On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:53 AM, "Kelly Troyer" < keltro@att.net> wrote: Sorry State of affairs!! Russia Says End Of Shuttle Program Ushers In The 'Era Of Soyuz' Points To 'Reliability' Of Its Spacecraft In A Post-Shuttle World Russia says the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program marks the beginning of the "Era Of Soyuz" for transportation to the International Space Station. "From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in manned space flight, the era of reliability," the Russian space agency Roscosmos said in a statement. The French news service AFP reports that the Soyuz design has changed little since Yuri Gagarin first climbed aboard one to become the first man in orbit. But the Russian space agency says they have continuously improved the spacecraft, and the fact that it is still flying as the shuttle program ends is a testament to the "reliability and not to mention cost efficiency" of the older design. In a nod to the U.S. Space program, the statement said "Mankind acknowledges the role of American space ships in exploring the cosmos." But Russia is clearly basking in the fact that it now has the only vehicle capable of transporting humans to the ISS and back likely until 2016 at the earliest. FMI: www.roscosmos.ru/main.php Kelly Troyer "DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually) "13B ROTARY"_ Engine "RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2 "MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold "TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo ------=_NextPart_000_0087_01CC494F.90DDA2B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

William,

Nice read, but one = question:

 

Why can’t a government = sponsored program work?  

As you yourself said, it seemed to = with Apollo.

Bryan

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of William Wilson
Sent: Saturday, July 23, = 2011 2:04 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Off Subject

 

For the last = two decades or so, the shuttle has existed mostly as a way to deliver things to the = ISS, and the ISS has existed mostly as a place for the shuttle to fly = to.  While the Hubble repairs were a great accomplishment, it probably would = have been cheaper to just build an entirely new telescope and send it up on = some sort of unmanned rocket whenever the original one wore out.

This is not to say that I think manned spaceflight is a bad idea - but = the reality is that there is really nothing to do in Earth orbit, and that = is the only place the manned space program has been able to go for = decades.  Manned spaceflight needs to be focused on setting up a permanent = settlement on Mars, the only worthwhile goal for manned spaceflight in the foreseeable future.  And for the cost and casualties of the shuttle program = over its lifetime, with the knowledge and technology base that existed right = after Apollo, that probably could have been accomplished.  (Much of the = Apollo know-how has been lost due to simple retirement and/or death of so many = people that worked on it, and in the much more risk-averse environment of today compared to the 60's, this knowledge probably cannot be recovered, at = least not by a government-sponsored program).

I think a lot of the disappointment over the retirement of the shuttle = has to do with a sense of the US losing its place of leadership, or even going backwards in = capability.  To some degree that is a concern, but to an even greater degree, the = shuttle has become a case of throwing good money after bad.  We can't go = forward and bring the shuttle with us.

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Tracy <rwstracy@gmail.com> = wrote:

I grew up dreaming of space travel but I'm even more driven by = reality.   

 

If you understand the goal of the space shuttle, you are forced = to acknowledge that it was a monumental failure.  It was touted to be = a low cost space transportation system but on a cost per pound delivered to = orbit, it was by far the most expensive system ever built.   The throwaway = Saturn 5 rocket was far cheaper and more reliable to boot.  The Lowest cost = for a shuttle mission was about 500 million not including mission payload = costs.  The Russians charge us 125 million per space station resupply = missions including all payload costs.  


And don't get me started on the "international space station " itself.  It has no commercial sponsors as originally intended = because it has no commercial use and darn little scientific use.   And the = US = pays very near 100% of the costs.  

 

The only worthwhile accomplishment of the shuttle was the launch = and repair of the Hubble telescope.  It replacement (the much larger = and powerful James Webb telescope) will be launched by the French Ariane 5 = rocket.   THAT sorry state of affairs is the fault of the shuttle program = which ate up all development funds that could have gone to something = worthwhile.

 

OK, end of rant : )

 

Tracy
Sent from my = iPad


On Jul 23, 2011, at 12:13 PM, "Bobby J. Hughes" <bhughes@qnsi.net> = wrote:

Makes me feel a little sick. 

Sent from my iPad


On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:53 AM, "Kelly Troyer" <keltro@att.net> = wrote:

Sorry State of affairs!!

 


Russia Says End Of Shuttle Program Ushers In The 'Era Of Soyuz' Points = To 'Reliability' Of Its Spacecraft In A Post-Shuttle
World

Russia says the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program marks the
beginning of the "Era Of Soyuz" for transportation to the
International Space Station.

"From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in manned space
flight, the era of reliability," the Russian space agency Roscosmos =
said in a statement.

The French news service AFP reports that the Soyuz design has
changed little since Yuri Gagarin first climbed aboard one to
become the first man in orbit. But the Russian space agency says
they have continuously improved the spacecraft, and the fact that
it is still flying as the shuttle program ends is a testament to
the "reliability and not to mention cost efficiency" of the = older
design.

In a nod to the U.S. Space program, the statement said "Mankind =
acknowledges the role of American space ships in exploring the
cosmos."

But Russia is clearly basking in the fact that it now has the
only vehicle capable of transporting humans to the ISS and back
likely until 2016 at the earliest.
FMI: www.roscosmos.ru/main.php<= /p>

 

Kelly Troyer
"DYKE DELTA JD2" = (Eventually)

"13B ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold

"TURBONETIC= S"_TO4E50 Turbo

 

------=_NextPart_000_0087_01CC494F.90DDA2B0--