Re: Shuttle proves being superb manned spacecraft

behlingjo@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Nov 17, 2:03 pm, fairwa...@xxxxxxxxx (Derek Lyons) wrote:
behlin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Nov 13, 1:42 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
<behlin...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Why would you want to launch an expensive comsat on a launch vehicle that
you know is less reliable?

Note that fast package delivery is generally done using cargo versions of
the same commercial airliners used to fly people.

Jeff

Never said that.

On the contrary - that is _exactly_ what you said. You just don't
realize it because you are used to dealing with buzzwords rather than
thinking about what the words mean.

All spaceflight is inherently risky. Since a crew
is not needed to deliver a spacecraft, why send them along?

What I've quoted here is a prime example, you toss around buzzwords
(risky) - but don't think about the real meaning.

That was not "exactly" what I said and anyways current vehicles are
more reliable than the shuttle.

If that is what you truly believe - then you're word isn't to be
trusted when it comes to matters related to spaceflight. Because you
haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Hint: All currently flying vehicles either have a) a reliability rate
statistically equivalent to the Shuttles, or b) insufficient flights
to make anything resembling even a gross statistical statement.

II am not tossing "buzzwords" I am using the same words as I do at
work, which is launch vehicle/spacecraft integration

Yes, you are tossing around buzzwords - because you appear to have no
understanding of their meaning. Both Jeff and I have given you
examples, and you decline to discuss them.

And your work experience as it relates to this topic is?

About the same as yours - enthusiastic amateur.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.