| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The ISS; Is it a multi million dollar failure? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 17 2005, 04:05 PM (462 Views) | |
| CV6 Enterprise | May 17 2005, 04:05 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Captain
|
It seems like everytime I hear about it, it's because something is wrong with it. Here's the latest: ISS Oxygen Generator Fails for Good, Station Managers Say Then, on Mike Reagan's show last night, it was mentioned that there hadn't been any major scientific studies done on board, which was the whole reason for the station. So, is the money that is being spent on it going out the window, or airlock in this case? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Deleted User | May 17 2005, 04:08 PM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
It dosen't suprise me. Hopefully things will work out and someone will pull their thumb out and sort it. Otherwise, it is never going to be finished by 2010. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dwayne | May 17 2005, 09:53 PM Post #3 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
In a previous thread I laid out what I think ought to happen with what I hope will forever be known as ISS Alpha. The new NASA administrator, Michael Griffen, shares Pres. Bush's aspirations of a long ranged plan for a permanent human presense in Earth's solar system, and is not at all opposed to using ISS to help meet that goal. As I've suggested in previous threads, ISS needs to be finished and once completed I think it ought to be the cornerstone of an international orbital "town hall" where governments, businesses and people can build up other enterprises in Earth orbit and beyond. I also think there needs to be an ISS Beta for the R&D and construction of more advanced intrastellar (not interstellar) cruise ships, cargo transports and military vessels. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 18 2005, 08:29 AM Post #4 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I remember when this was Ronald Reagan's "Space Station Freedom" and it was an American endeavor. One reason this boondoggle has failed is that we depend too much on the Russians to build components that are either months overdue, or faulty. WORSE, we pay them to do it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | May 18 2005, 09:52 AM Post #5 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
There needs to be a profit motive to really get space exporation and development underway. Governments need to to the initial research to cut down start up costs for private companies, this may go one for another couple of decades. But once space tourism becomes viable and /or costs of mining other planets becomes cheaper than mining our own, you will see a real boom in Space exploration and infrastructure |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 19 2005, 10:04 PM Post #6 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
And there I was , thinking that the USA had let the team down by not having an alternative means of delivering equipment to the ISS when that old shuttle fleet was grounded. How are any new extensions and modules supposed to be delivered to the ISS if the shuttle fleet is sitting on the ground collecting dust ? Yes I know , something is wrong , so blame those dammed Russians instead of addressing the REAL reasons. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| CV6 Enterprise | May 19 2005, 10:51 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Captain
|
Oh, yeah, lets blame those damn Americans. God forbid we make sure everything is safe and working properly. What would you have us do? launch another shuttle that has potential problems and lose another seven astronauts and another shuttle? Besides, there were problems with the ISS long before the shuttle fleet was grounded. Get over your anti-Americanism and stop blaming us for everything. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | May 19 2005, 11:02 PM Post #8 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Well, let's go ahead and send the shuttles up. But they should have all Australian crews. I volunteer somerled to go up first. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 20 2005, 04:55 AM Post #9 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Do I need to remind you that everything NASA sends into space has been tendered out and awarded to the very cheapest possible manufacturer , often at the risk of an substantially increased safety risk ? Remember those shuttles , the one that blew up on launch , and the one that disintegrated on reentry , "accidents" that were the result of poor safety management systems (I would say a cowboy mentality) with NASA. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 20 2005, 10:10 AM Post #10 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
What a pantload. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 20 2005, 11:29 AM Post #11 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
OK - if I am wrong , why do you think there have been these incidents ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 20 2005, 12:02 PM Post #12 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
AGE for one! Geez, Columbia first flew in 1981. Challenger was operating (unknowingly) outside of design specifications. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 20 2005, 01:08 PM Post #13 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
See - you have just reworded what I said . Are you familiar with safety management and risk management principles as applied to high hazard processes ? Why do you think these failed to be applied at NASA for those two shuttle disasters ? (note I wont call them accidents). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | May 20 2005, 02:59 PM Post #14 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
You know my background... that's a stupid question. I ALSO KNOW that shuttles were NOT built by lowest bidder construction methods. You labor from urban legend assumption. No one knew of the problem with the Thiokol o-ring design in Challenger. NO ONE, until Richard Feinman demonstrated in court with a glass of ice water. After all, how many successful shuttle missions had there been with the same design before (I'll give you a hint, it is a number between 23 and 25) Challenger? The design had passed every test that had been put forth. As for Columbia, it is a question of age. Things do go wrong after 23 years, no matter what you do. No matter how many spares you carry, things can go terribly wrong. The real problem with the shuttle design? It was created "by committee." You may not be familiar with the term, but it means a group of people with different objectives developed the specifications for the shuttle, and then it became a jobs program for 20,000 NASA employees. Now, do you want to get back on TOPIC (the International Space Station) or not? Back on topic, we have several unmanned vehicles (Delta IV) that can bring supplies to the space station. The Russians are simply along for the ride (and the technology piracy). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | May 20 2005, 11:01 PM Post #15 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
But no heavy lift capability to enable completion / expansion of the ISS. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2





1:55 PM Jul 11