Hubble Marching orders

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :

: Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : :
:
: : With the cut to HST (GSFC),
: : how much do you want to bet it ALL goes to Tom DeLay (JSC) and
: : brother Jeb (KSC)? Wanna bet?
:
: : You'd lose. A large percentage of the new exploration program is
: : being run out of MSFC in Alabama.
:
: Surprise, surprise! I wonder if Glenn Space Center in Ohio will get
: more $$$ since that state was key to W getting reelected.

: Are you then conceding that your statement, "it ALL goes to Tom DeLay
: (JSC) and brother Jeb (KSC)" was false? (emphasis on ALL was yours,
: BTW).

No. Last time I checked Alabama was a red state.

You are backtracking. To refresh your memory, your original statement was:

"it ALL goes to Tom DeLay (JSC) and brother Jeb (KSC)"

not

"it ALL goes to red states."

You are a bald-faced liar and I will bother myself with you no more.

You will have to get your orbital mechanics education (and you need it -
badly) elsewhere.

--
JRF

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

Eric Chomko wrote:
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Ever since the Republican takeover in Congress NASA HQ seems to have less
: clout and JSC more. Just an observation.

: Yes, and observation with no basis in reality.

Other than a few contracts.

Office of Exploration Systems is not at JSC. It's at HQ.

No JSC managed manned space project has future growth planned.
Shuttle is being retired, and ISS is going to be built out
and operated, period.

OExS could get moved to a center... there's always a risk of
that happening. But it hasn't and shows no sign of happening.


-george william herbert

Eric Chomko wrote:
wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : :
:
: : But is money enough? I would agree that we could do a sample
: return
: : mission that was unmanned with today's technology, but could
be
: do an
: : manned mission, given the money, with today's technology?
: According to
: : a Science Channel program on nanotechnology, use in medicine
is
: not
: : there yet for a three year manned journey to Mars. Keeping
the
: : astronauts healthy during the three year journey there and
back
: would
: : require breakthroughs in nanotechnology in medicine that
doesn't
: exist
: : yet.
:
: : I suspect this is a case of "if the only tool you have is a
hammer,
: every
: : problem looks like a nail." Of *course* a nanotechnologist is
going
: to
: : claim that a Mars mission will require breakthroughs in
: nanotechnology -
: : it's the only way *he* knows to solve the problem. That does
not
: mean there
: : are no other solutions, and some of those solutions require no
: : breakthroughs in technology - just further development of
: technologies we
: : already have.
:
: How do you propose the astronauts overcome the problem with bone
and
: muscle degradation in zero gee for a Mars-lentgh mission?

: As others have suggested so many times before...

: Eliminate the zero gee with a two-part ship, joined by mile-long
: tethers, and spinning to produce 1 gee. Test first in LEO. No
: nanotech required.

Just a mile long? Yeah, "test" is the operative word here.

As it is for nanotech (with a vengeance). Tethers have some
advantages: they exist; tests are straight-forward (send up a
double-payload, spin slightly, unwind the tether, re-wind, unwind
again, throw in some vibration tests, move one of the masses, etc).
The possible failure modes for a tether aren't too hard to imagine and
so design a test for. Can you imagine the many ways nanotech in the
human body might fail or cause damage? Neither can I. And that's what
makes it difficult for you and I to design a test for nanotech.

Why not insist on 1 gee at 1 RPM? Not many (if any) tests of
spin-generated 'gravity' have been done but the consensus seems to be
that 1 RPM won't induce nausea in most people while 3RPM might. Also,
if we give the crew 1gee for the transit to/from Mars, they'll only be
exposed to 0.38gee for the time they're on the surface (a few months?).
We know people can take zero-gee for a year. Why waste a year or two
testing people in LEO at Mars-gee?

The cost to design, build, and test a 1 mile tether system won't be
significantly greater than the costs for a 76m system. Maybe less, if,
for a 76m system, you have to design measures in the crew quarters to
deal with high Coriolus forces.

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :

: Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : :
:
: : Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : : :
: :
: : : With the cut to HST (GSFC),
: : : how much do you want to bet it ALL goes to Tom DeLay (JSC) and
: : : brother Jeb (KSC)? Wanna bet?
: :
: : : You'd lose. A large percentage of the new exploration program is
: : : being run out of MSFC in Alabama.
: :
: : Surprise, surprise! I wonder if Glenn Space Center in Ohio will get
: : more $$$ since that state was key to W getting reelected.
:
: : Are you then conceding that your statement, "it ALL goes to Tom DeLay
: : (JSC) and brother Jeb (KSC)" was false? (emphasis on ALL was yours,
: : BTW).
:
: No. Last time I checked Alabama was a red state.

: You are backtracking. To refresh your memory, your original statement was:

: "it ALL goes to Tom DeLay (JSC) and brother Jeb (KSC)"

: not

: "it ALL goes to red states."

Correct, as you pointed out. However, learning that my error excluded
Alabama, I responded that I wasn't in the least surprized with that.
Further, I went on to explain my MOC and FAT theory with a new update.

: You are a bald-faced liar and I will bother myself with you no more.

So is George Bush, but you undoubtedly voted for him.

: You will have to get your orbital mechanics education (and you need it -
: badly) elsewhere.

I have written a planetary program that rivals the accuracy of the ones at
JPL and various astronomy magazines. I even went to the USNO to get the
date of the last time Neptune was at perhelion. That at a time when the
Internet was still pretty much a research project. Further, as a result of
the work, which was purely a hobby BTW, I had the Astronomical Almanac
update their reference to the equation of the center as being in radians
as opposed to degrees as it wasn't obvious from their reference. You can
check that in the 1983 or 1984 version of the AA.

In short, if you don't like my politics, then you can stick it in your
ear, as I don't want or need your approval on anything.

Eric

: --
: JRF

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

George William Herbert ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : Ever since the Republican takeover in Congress NASA HQ seems to have less
: : clout and JSC more. Just an observation.
:
: : Yes, and observation with no basis in reality.
:
: Other than a few contracts.

: Office of Exploration Systems is not at JSC. It's at HQ.

: No JSC managed manned space project has future growth planned.
: Shuttle is being retired, and ISS is going to be built out
: and operated, period.

: OExS could get moved to a center... there's always a risk of
: that happening. But it hasn't and shows no sign of happening.

Explain the rational of taking the old SEAS and NMOS contracts, which were
always run out of GSFC, to have them with all others like them (systems
engineering and operations and maintenance), and have them pooled and run
out of JSC? These have nothing to do with manned spaceflight!!

Again, this occurred in the aftermath of the congressional takeover in
1994.

Add that to shutting down HST, GSFC's most visible contract, and what is
one supposed to think?

If Bush is serious about his new space initiative, then some of the
traditional work that centers do should change and allow the centers other
than manned missions, planning (MSFC), launch (KSC) and operations (JSC)
in, and now.

Eric

: -george william herbert
:

wrote:

: Eric Chomko wrote:
: wrote:
:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : : :
: :
: : : But is money enough? I would agree that we could do a sample
: : return
: : : mission that was unmanned with today's technology, but could
: be
: : do an
: : : manned mission, given the money, with today's technology?
: : According to
: : : a Science Channel program on nanotechnology, use in medicine
: is
: : not
: : : there yet for a three year manned journey to Mars. Keeping
: the
: : : astronauts healthy during the three year journey there and
: back
: : would
: : : require breakthroughs in nanotechnology in medicine that
: doesn't
: : exist
: : : yet.
: :
: : : I suspect this is a case of "if the only tool you have is a
: hammer,
: : every
: : : problem looks like a nail." Of *course* a nanotechnologist is
: going
: : to
: : : claim that a Mars mission will require breakthroughs in
: : nanotechnology -
: : : it's the only way *he* knows to solve the problem. That does
: not
: : mean there
: : : are no other solutions, and some of those solutions require no
: : : breakthroughs in technology - just further development of
: : technologies we
: : : already have.
: :
: : How do you propose the astronauts overcome the problem with bone
: and
: : muscle degradation in zero gee for a Mars-lentgh mission?
:
: : As others have suggested so many times before...
:
: : Eliminate the zero gee with a two-part ship, joined by mile-long
: : tethers, and spinning to produce 1 gee. Test first in LEO. No
: : nanotech required.
:
: Just a mile long? Yeah, "test" is the operative word here.

: As it is for nanotech (with a vengeance). Tethers have some
: advantages: they exist; tests are straight-forward (send up a
: double-payload, spin slightly, unwind the tether, re-wind, unwind
: again, throw in some vibration tests, move one of the masses, etc).
: The possible failure modes for a tether aren't too hard to imagine and
: so design a test for. Can you imagine the many ways nanotech in the
: human body might fail or cause damage? Neither can I. And that's what
: makes it difficult for you and I to design a test for nanotech.

I have to agree. The "fantasctic voyage" aspect of nanotech medicine seems
quite vague. I'm sure there is all kinds of theoretical justification, but
how much have we actually done? Maybe by 2020, when we do go to Mars,
things might be different and we'll have a clearer picture? As stated,
probably both approaches should be developed and used until one is clearly
better or until one simply fails.

Eric

Rand Simberg wrote:


HAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA

Well Rand,

Evidently "endlessly" was exactly the RIGHT word and not hyperbole at all.

You haven't *ended* responding to Chomko.



On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:09:11 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: You will have to get your orbital mechanics education (and you need it -
: badly) elsewhere.

I have written a planetary program that rivals the accuracy of the ones at
JPL and various astronomy magazines.

Whether that's true or not (who knows what it means, or what a
"planetary program" is?) you have repeatedly demonstrated a profound
ignorance of orbital mechanics, and your attitude is such that few are
going to be willing to attempt to repair it, particularly since you
also exhibit an extreme inability to retain such knowledge.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:09:11 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


: You will have to get your orbital mechanics education (and you need it -
: badly) elsewhere.

I have written a planetary program that rivals the accuracy of the ones at
JPL and various astronomy magazines.

Whether that's true or not (who knows what it means, or what a
"planetary program" is?) you have repeatedly demonstrated a profound
ignorance of orbital mechanics, and your attitude is such that few are
going to be willing to attempt to repair it, particularly since you
also exhibit an extreme inability to retain such knowledge.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:38:58 -0500, in a place far, far away, gregg
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

HAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA

Well Rand,

Evidently "endlessly" was exactly the RIGHT word and not hyperbole at all.

You haven't *ended* responding to Chomko.

And *I never claimed I had*. (Though most people would interpret
"endlessly" as "never failing to respond").

Do you *still* continue to be confused by the difference between
Chomko and "casioculture"?