Progress fails to dock with ISS

On Jul 5, 4:57*pm, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:

Those bulbs have allowed me to light my entire apartment on around
1/4 of the total former electrical use for around five years now,
and made up their purchase cost inside of around two month's time.

You must not have many dimmer switches in your apartment.

Still, we must realize that when incandescent bulbs are outlawed,
only outlaws will have incandescent bulbs. ;-)

Indeed, and I may be one of the outlaws. *I am quite pleased with the
CFLs I have, and I have them in many places in my home, but dimmers
and electronic timers are still not things with which CFLs will play
nicely. *

Say WHAT?????!!!!!

Thanks for the compliment... (I think)

- CFLeon

In sci.space.history Fred J. McCall wrote:
Rick Jones wrote:

In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:
Still, we must realize that when incandescent bulbs are outlawed,
only outlaws will have incandescent bulbs. ;-)

Indeed, and I may be one of the outlaws. I am quite pleased with
the CFLs I have, and I have them in many places in my home, but
dimmers and electronic timers are still not things with which CFLs
will play nicely. Frankly, given that incandescents were on their
way out all on their own, banning them was pointless - just "energy
efficiency theater" if you will. Let rising electricity costs
finish them off, no need for legislation...

We might also decide to charge all CFL users as eco-criminals
because of the mercury contamination they cause.

Positively Heller-esque

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Jul 2, 12:37*pm, Rick Jones wrote:

What is the antonym for progress?-)

Regress, regression, or reaction, depending on the contextual meaning.

John Savard

On 3/07/2010 4:37 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Pat wrote:
The Progress 38 cargo spacecraft suffered a communications failure and
flew past the ISS earlier today rather than docking with it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38060650...science-space/

Space.com's article claims it "veered out of control"

They are also mentioning how Progress 37 had to be docked manually.

What is the antonym for progress?-)

NASA ;-/

On 7/4/2010 2:41 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:

What is the antonym for progress?-)

NASA ;-/

Unfortunately, that's about the truth.
The unmanned part of NASA space exploration makes slow progress; the
manned part goes into reverse, trying to replace the Shuttle with
something that was very much like Apollo by the time all was said and
done...except Apollo could get to the Moon in one launch, and
Orion/Altair would have taken two separate launches, and hearkened back
to the Apollo EOR plan that was replaced by the LOR plan in 1961.
What was really strange about Constellation was the plan to build a
permanent lunar base.
I sure hoped they would pick an interesting place to land at, as they
would only be getting a few miles from it in their rovers, leaving
around 99.99% of the lunar surface unexplored.
The Moon may look small in the sky, but its total surface area is around
that of the Earth's once all the areas covered by water are removed from
the equation.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
On 7/4/2010 2:41 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:

What is the antonym for progress?-)

NASA ;-/

Unfortunately, that's about the truth.
The unmanned part of NASA space exploration makes slow progress; the
manned part goes into reverse, trying to replace the Shuttle with
something that was very much like Apollo by the time all was said and
done...except Apollo could get to the Moon in one launch, and Orion/Altair
would have taken two separate launches, and hearkened back to the Apollo
EOR plan that was replaced by the LOR plan in 1961.
What was really strange about Constellation was the plan to build a
permanent lunar base.
I sure hoped they would pick an interesting place to land at, as they
would only be getting a few miles from it in their rovers, leaving around
99.99% of the lunar surface unexplored.
The Moon may look small in the sky, but its total surface area is around
that of the Earth's once all the areas covered by water are removed from
the equation.


Somewhat less than that - it's a bit more than the area of Africa.

--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

you have to remember constellation was all about paying off existing
shuttle contractors and nothing about lowering cost, safer, more
capable etc.......

nasa cared nothing but pork piggie payoff, in this case they got what
they deserved, the pig bit them and killed US man in space.......

they would of been far better off to recreate the saturn family for
heavy lifting and delta heavy for LEO.......

On 7/5/2010 12:33 AM, GordonD wrote:

Somewhat less than that - it's a bit more than the area of Africa.

You got me on that one...was I thinking of Mars?
Earth has around 57,000,000 square miles of land area; the Moon
14,645,750 square miles total surface.
Still, though, the last version of Constellation where you would send
send spacecraft to several lunar areas for multi-week stays would make
more sense from an exploration point of view than a single permanent
lunar base.
You could use some sort of rocket-powered moon taxis or long-range
rovers to expand the exploration area from a permanent base, but you
will probably have to send them out two at a time in case one breaks
down so you can be sure the explorers have a way back to base before
their life support runs out.
The big question i have is what they would expect to find on the Moon
that would justify the expense of doing either of these things.
If you found abundant ice at the poles, you could have a good start at
building a permanent base... but what exactly would the permanent base
be for? We have abundant ice at the South Pole here on Earth, and there
aren't any big cities going up down there yet.

Pat

On Jul 2, 11:37*am, Rick Jones wrote:
What is the antonym for progress?-)


Serious answer: regress (if you're going backwards or in reverse) or
retrogress (if you've turned around in a 180).

Pat Flannery wrote:
The Progress 38 cargo spacecraft suffered a communications failure and
flew past the ISS earlier today rather than docking with it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38060650...science-space/
I suspect Trotskyite Wreckers are responsible, but Glenn Beck thinks
it is the work of Marxist Progressives.
Come to think of it, Trotskyite Wreckers and Marxist Progressives
might be the same thing.
Courage, comrades!


The real question is where is Jim Oberg.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.