FWD: NASA keeps quiet on DART mission mishap

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

And as the CT Nutters crawl out of the woodwork...


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM wrote in
:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

And as the CT Nutters crawl out of the woodwork...

....cue Pat...


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

This looks like the April 14th AP story, rewarmed....


"OM" wrote in message
...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

And as the CT Nutters crawl out of the woodwork...


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

OM: And as the CT Nutters crawl out of the woodwork...
In spite of whatever "ITAS rules", I've known about the DART failure as
of nearly a year ago, so it's not been a very good secret, including
the part about their primary mission failure being that of "running out
of fuel ahead of schedule". Therefore, the DART mission failure wasn't
actually a "mission mishap".

The failure of DART simply proves that even with having a 100% known
and beacon enabled target, and even with a fully ground-controlled
worth of radar navigation plus incorporating the very best of
everything in AI/robotic fly-by-rocket capability that's far more fuel
usage efficient than any humanly operated lander, including the fact of
this trial and obvious error effort had the advantage of onboard
reaction wheels and that of having been taking their damn sweet time,
in that it only proves that even this level of accomplishing such a
controlled basic task was simply too complex and otherwise having been
too fuel consuming for even that of a zero gravity and zero mascon
environment to have fly-by-rocket accomplished.

Spendy R&D is currently ongoing (in secret) at creating our very first
operational prototype CEV lander, of which without payload and by way
of removing most everything that's unessential for a terrestrial
test-flight application shouldn't have any problems in the way of their
achieving the equivalent of a 1/6 gravity capability, so that a
terrestrial drop and down-range proof-testing of every essential
fly-by-rocket method that involves powerful reaction wheels, multiple
computers and pilot expertise can be once and for all resolved.

Obviously of such future accomplishments will have to be officially and
independently photographed on quality film and digital video in order
to insure that the final science, technology and the end-user expertise
is functioning exactly as planned. Controlled fly-by-rocket landings
simply have to be proven right here on good old mother Earth, prior to
loading up their CEV with all of it's extra payloads of equipment,
tonnes of extra deorbit fuel, plus accommodating whatever tonnage their
extended EVA expeditions are going to demand in order to sustain our
TBI(total body irradiated) crew of four.

No damn fool worth his salt is going for the hot and downright nasty
(aka reactive and terribly dark and dusty) surface of our nearby moon
without their first having accomplished the real thing right here on
Earth, and I'm certainly not speaking about such prototypes even
involving any actual deorbit from space, just that of a slow aircraft
or helicopter assisted deployment at something below 10,000', and
seeing the results taking place from within, and of external views
fully documented on film/video so that we'll all realize that it's a
doable method of safely providing such a purely fly-by-rocket
controlled down-range and subsequent soft-landing of their choosing.

Along with incorporating powerful "reaction wheels" plus having fully
computer modulated reaction and primary thrusters (either of which
didn't exist for their previous NASA/Apollo fiasco), whereas this new
and improved method should resolve upon the daunting task of dealing
with mascons that shouldn't be all that insurmountable, just terribly
fuel and/or energy consuming.
-
Brad Guth