X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from pacmmta53.windstream.net ([162.39.147.112] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5061443 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:15:46 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=162.39.147.112; envelope-from=jskmberki@windstream.net Return-Path: X-WS-COS: WSOB804 X-Cloudmark-Category: Undefined:Undefined X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=n/Nva8et/6IqMv5SHDD1XrQmz4ukiSvK7Vw2zWm0Wss= c=1 sm=0 a=UT_QgiwtmQIA:10 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=UKPAHat8AAAA:8 a=HZJGGiqLAAAA:8 a=fXQdemGyAAAA:8 a=IJ6dlQJ9-2mDkHivjTcA:9 a=bbzeJtOKR31Ufdy0LD4A:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=7god_763jbgA:10 a=HeoGohOdMD0A:10 a=dZszDOGpkwE1EDFD:21 a=0Xwzcv6bwxcyDqoc:21 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=ZGR_aXSl6LNtDsE03LUA:9 a=7vEnD08j2SMH_yvjVyMA:7 a=tXsnliwV7b4A:10 a=F3ZWzY_tUykA:10 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=aTnxH5rqqb0A:10 a=1CHrrV7L9z5ZB3eScpEoTw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Authentication-Results: pacmmta53 smtp.user=jskmberki; auth=pass (LOGIN) Received: from [174.130.64.186] ([174.130.64.186:2882] helo=joehomepc) by pacmmta53 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.45 r()) with ESMTPA id E7/8B-11492-D046B2E4; Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:15:11 -0400 Message-ID: <008201cc4997$477e4a50$01fea8c0@joehomepc> From: "josrph berki" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Off Subject Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:18:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007F_01CC4975.BFB9FC20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.2001 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.2001 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01CC4975.BFB9FC20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have worked on both shuttle and ISS experiments for 22 years and it = seemed that every time we had a regime change the politcians got = involved and screwed everything up. Tracy is correct and I believe SRMs = are driven by politics. Look at Space X's success. Soyez is also all = liquid powered as was Saturn. I finally got fed up working on programs = that got canceled so I started building an airplane. Joe Berki Limo EZ ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Bryan Winberry=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 3:45 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Off Subject William, Nice read, but one question: =20 Why can't a government sponsored program work? =20 As you yourself said, it seemed to with Apollo. Bryan =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- 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 =20 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. =20 =20 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. =20 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. =20 =20 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. =20 OK, end of rant : ) =20 Tracy Sent from my iPad On Jul 23, 2011, at 12:13 PM, "Bobby J. Hughes" = wrote: Makes me feel a little sick.=20 Sent from my iPad On Jul 23, 2011, at 10:53 AM, "Kelly Troyer" wrote: Sorry State of affairs!! =20 Russia Says End Of Shuttle Program Ushers In The 'Era Of Soyuz' = Points To 'Reliability' Of Its Spacecraft In A Post-Shuttle=20 World=20 Russia says the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program marks the=20 beginning of the "Era Of Soyuz" for transportation to the=20 International Space Station.=20 "From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in manned space=20 flight, the era of reliability," the Russian space agency = Roscosmos=20 said in a statement.=20 The French news service AFP reports that the Soyuz design has=20 changed little since Yuri Gagarin first climbed aboard one to=20 become the first man in orbit. But the Russian space agency says=20 they have continuously improved the spacecraft, and the fact that=20 it is still flying as the shuttle program ends is a testament to=20 the "reliability and not to mention cost efficiency" of the older=20 design.=20 In a nod to the U.S. Space program, the statement said "Mankind=20 acknowledges the role of American space ships in exploring the=20 cosmos."=20 But Russia is clearly basking in the fact that it now has the=20 only vehicle capable of transporting humans to the ISS and back=20 likely until 2016 at the earliest.=20 FMI: www.roscosmos.ru/main.php =20 Kelly Troyer "DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually) "13B ROTARY"_ Engine "RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2 "MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold "TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo =20 ------=_NextPart_000_007F_01CC4975.BFB9FC20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have worked on both shuttle and ISS = experiments=20 for 22 years and it seemed that every time we had a regime change the = politcians=20 got involved and screwed everything up.  Tracy is correct and I = believe=20 SRMs are driven by politics.  Look at Space X's success.  = Soyez is=20 also all liquid powered as was Saturn.  I finally got fed up = working on=20 programs that got canceled so I started building an = airplane.
 
Joe Berki
Limo EZ
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Bryan Winberry
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 = 3:45=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Off=20 Subject

William,

Nice read, = but one=20 question:

 

Why can=92t = a=20 government sponsored program work?  

As you = yourself said,=20 it seemed to with Apollo.

Bryan

 

From: Rotary=20 motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of William = Wilson
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 = 2:04=20 PM
To: Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft
Subject: = [FlyRotary]=20 Re: Off Subject

 

For the last two decades or = so, the=20 shuttle has existed mostly as a way to deliver things to the ISS, and = the ISS=20 has existed mostly as a place for the shuttle to fly to.  While = the=20 Hubble repairs were a great accomplishment, it probably would have = been=20 cheaper to just build an entirely new telescope and send it up on some = sort of=20 unmanned rocket whenever the original one wore out.

This is not = to say=20 that I think manned spaceflight is a bad idea - but the reality is = that there=20 is really nothing to do in Earth orbit, and that is the only place the = manned=20 space program has been able to go for decades.  Manned = spaceflight needs=20 to be focused on setting up a permanent settlement on Mars, the only=20 worthwhile goal for manned spaceflight in the foreseeable = future.  And=20 for the cost and casualties of the shuttle program over its lifetime, = with the=20 knowledge and technology base that existed right after Apollo, that = probably=20 could have been accomplished.  (Much of the Apollo know-how has = been lost=20 due to simple retirement and/or death of so many people that worked on = it, and=20 in the much more risk-averse environment of today compared to the = 60's, this=20 knowledge probably cannot be recovered, at least not by a = government-sponsored=20 program).

I think a lot of the disappointment over the = retirement of=20 the shuttle has to do with a sense of the US = losing its=20 place of leadership, or even going backwards in capability.  To = some=20 degree that is a concern, but to an even greater degree, the shuttle = has=20 become a case of throwing good money after bad.  We can't go = forward and=20 bring the shuttle with us.

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Tracy <rwstracy@gmail.com>=20 wrote:

I grew up dreaming of space travel but I'm = even more=20 driven by reality.   

 

If you understand the goal of the space = shuttle, you=20 are forced to acknowledge that it was a monumental failure.  It = was=20 touted to be a low cost space transportation system but on a cost per = pound=20 delivered to orbit, it was by far the most expensive system ever = built.  =20 The throwaway Saturn 5 rocket was far cheaper and more reliable to = boot.=20  The Lowest cost for a shuttle mission was about 500 million not=20 including mission payload costs.  The Russians charge us 125 = million per=20 space station resupply missions including all payload costs.=20  


And don't get me started on the = "international=20 space station " itself.  It has no commercial sponsors as = originally=20 intended because it has no commercial use and darn little scientific = use.=20   And the US pays very near 100% of = the=20 costs.  

 

The only worthwhile accomplishment of the = shuttle was=20 the launch and repair of the Hubble telescope.  It replacement = (the much=20 larger and powerful James Webb telescope) will be launched by the = French=20 Ariane 5 rocket.   THAT sorry state of affairs is the fault of = the=20 shuttle program which ate up all development funds that could have = gone to=20 something worthwhile.

 

OK, end of rant : = )

 

Tracy
Sent from my=20 iPad


On Jul 23, 2011, at 12:13 = PM, "Bobby=20 J. Hughes" <bhughes@qnsi.net>=20 wrote:

Makes me feel a little = sick. 

Sent from=20 my iPad


On Jul 23, 2011, at = 10:53 AM,=20 "Kelly Troyer" <keltro@att.net>=20 wrote:

Sorry=20 State of affairs!!

 


Russia Says=20 End Of Shuttle Program Ushers In The 'Era Of Soyuz' Points To=20 'Reliability' Of Its Spacecraft In A Post-Shuttle
World =

Russia=20 says the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program marks the =
beginning of=20 the "Era Of Soyuz" for transportation to the
International = Space=20 Station.

"From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in = manned=20 space
flight, the era of reliability," the Russian space = agency=20 Roscosmos
said in a statement.

The French news service = AFP=20 reports that the Soyuz design has
changed little since Yuri = Gagarin=20 first climbed aboard one to
become the first man in orbit. But = the=20 Russian space agency says
they have continuously improved the=20 spacecraft, and the fact that
it is still flying as the = shuttle=20 program ends is a testament to
the "reliability and not to = mention=20 cost efficiency" of the older
design.

In a nod to the = U.S.=20 Space program, the statement said "Mankind
acknowledges the = role of=20 American space ships in exploring the
cosmos."

But=20 Russia is clearly = basking in=20 the fact that it now has the
only vehicle capable of = transporting=20 humans to the ISS and back
likely until 2016 at the earliest. =
FMI:=20 www.roscosmos.ru/main.php

 

Kelly=20 Troyer
"DYKE=20 DELTA JD2"=20 (Eventually)

"13B = ROTARY"_=20 Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil=20 Manifold

"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50=20 = Turbo

 

------=_NextPart_000_007F_01CC4975.BFB9FC20--