A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 30th 07, 06:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!

While I agree that the current Ares - Constellation config is
overweight and incapable, it hardly qualifies a Thiokol conspiracy.
After all, if Horowitz was just looking out for his old buds at TKS,
wouldn't he have jumped all over the proposals featuring two 4-5
segment SRB's over the single, 5-segment TKS SRB on tap for Ares I?

The fact that Horowitz declined to endorse the proposal most likely to
make money for TKS tells me that while Ares I may be a bad booster,
its selection ain't no conspiracy.

Cheers.




On May 28, 4:51 pm, kT wrote:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...d=8071&start=1

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...?tid=7647&post...

Better get some more depends, Marsha.


  #12  
Old May 30th 07, 07:03 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!

Frank wrote:
While I agree that the current Ares - Constellation config is
overweight and incapable, it hardly qualifies a Thiokol conspiracy.
After all, if Horowitz was just looking out for his old buds at TKS,
wouldn't he have jumped all over the proposals featuring two 4-5
segment SRB's over the single, 5-segment TKS SRB on tap for Ares I?

The fact that Horowitz declined to endorse the proposal most likely to
make money for TKS tells me that while Ares I may be a bad booster,
its selection ain't no conspiracy.

Cheers.


We aren't questioning any of that crap. We are questioning why they did
not consider *ANY* all liquid proposals. Thus the conspiracy is clear.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...d=8071&start=1

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/for...?tid=7647&post...

Better get some more depends, Marsha.


http://images.spaceref.com/news/2007...etter.edit.pdf

We're talking about extra heavy duty diapers pants here.

What did Marsha Ivins know, and when did she know it.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
  #13  
Old May 30th 07, 08:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!

In article rg87i.238759$aG1.46556@pd7urf3no,
Dave Michelson wrote:
... NASA scores poorly on almost every measure of political importance,
nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect much of his attention.


Moreover, it always has, if Murray & Cox are to be believed.


Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had
*some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the
federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the
President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money
nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of
LBJ's presidency.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #14  
Old May 31st 07, 03:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 705
Default Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
It's just what we do with the new hardware, George W
shouldn't be allowed to decide. He's just not qualified.


Almost certainly he is blessing -- perhaps reluctantly, given how feeble
his support has been at budget time -- decisions reached by others.


By who though? I spent some time trying to figure that out.
The Vision was started by some junior White House staffers.
And Nasa wasn't even consulted at first, they were brought
in later and told what the plan would be. And when you
combine that with the fact it mirrors so closely his fathers
initiative, it's hard not to place the responsibility on the
President. I think he provided the overall goal, and the details
are left to others.


I bet our President hasn't spent more than half a day /in total/
discussing/reading/meeting about the future of NASA.


You are being unrealistic if you expect very much more. Even an alert,
attentive President is a really, really, really, really busy guy, with a
thousand issues vying for his time. NASA scores poorly on almost every
measure of political importance, nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect
much of his attention.



NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our
political leadership! Why is that? And how can this sad situation
be changed? It's because NASA doesn't get many votes.
To the moon and mars has had its shot to inspire the public and
failed.

We can change that by using some common sense to design
a goal. And ask ourselves the following questions.

What are the greatest concerns of the voters?
Out of that list, what concerns could NASA provide
a realistic answer for? And like any max/min
equation you try to solve the maximum amount
of problems with the fewest or one program.


CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll.
"How important is it to you that the President and Congress
deal with each of the following issues in the next year?
Is it extremely important, . . ."
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

The situation in Iraq 59%
Terrorism 54
Health care policy44
The economy 38
The federal budget deficit 37
Energy policies 34
Illegal immigration 32
Taxes 31
Global warming 29
Stem cell research 18

How many of those national priorities would
the moon and mars connect to? Answer zero.

But space solar power?

Future energy costs, global warming, wars over oil.
Our meddling in the Middle East is a big source
of terrorism, in fact 911 was a direct result of our
military presense in Saudi Arabia. A brighter energy
future effects our future budgets and ability to afford
other societal needs such as health care, pure
research and so on.

Why I'll be damned. Space solar power can be a potential
solution to ALL of our national priorities to one extent
or another. And a primary solution to some of our
greatest ones. And that's not even mentioning the effect
on jump starting commercial space flight or all the other
space projects and colonies SSP could enable.

Why isn't this obvious?

SSP could do more than just get votes, it could
do more than just make NASA relevant again.
It could make NASA the focus of our national
aspirations.

Just as it was not all that long ago.

You can't recapture the glory days with a simple do-over.
As the times have changed. A simple repitition won't
have the same effect. You have to figure out the qualities
that made it work before in the ...abstract. So you can
redesign a new goal that will work as well for todays
problems.

I dare anyone to find a different goal that could rival SSP
in potential votes/support...importance to society
and our future.


--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |



  #15  
Old May 31st 07, 03:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 705
Default Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article rg87i.238759$aG1.46556@pd7urf3no,
Dave Michelson wrote:
... NASA scores poorly on almost every measure of political importance,
nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect much of his attention.


Moreover, it always has, if Murray & Cox are to be believed.


Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had
*some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the
federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the
President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money
nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of
LBJ's presidency.



Of course it quickly declined, the goal was to land in the moon.

SSP would take quite a bit longer, and as it developed
the benefits would too. SSP would generate more support
over time.




--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |



  #16  
Old May 31st 07, 06:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!

In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had
*some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the
federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the
President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money
nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of
LBJ's presidency.


Of course it quickly declined, the goal was to land in the moon.


Which hadn't happened yet at the time of the decline. The *goal* was to
re-establish clear technological superiority over the Soviets. Once the
US began to clearly pull ahead in space -- which happened with Gemini, not
Apollo -- the bizarre combination of political forces that supported
large-scale spaceflight came apart. Actually, it was unsustainable and
was already beginning to unravel, but the collapse of the Soviet image of
space superiority killed it. Apollo was running on fumes and momentum by
the time it actually reached the Moon.

SSP would take quite a bit longer...


Which means that a large-scale program directed at achieving it is a
political impossibility. A commitment on that scale won't happen until
the uncertainties are greatly reduced, and the time scale shortened to
yield first tangible results within 5-6 years.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #17  
Old May 31st 07, 06:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
robert casey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!



Of course it quickly declined, the goal was to land in the moon.

SSP would take quite a bit longer, and as it developed
the benefits would too. SSP would generate more support
over time.


But there'd be people who would worry that the microwave beam would cook
flying birds that happen to use a poor choice of flight plan...
Actually you'd pick a frequency that wouldn't heat the water in the the
atmosphere or other objects...
  #18  
Old May 31st 07, 07:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Dave Michelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 512
Default Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article rg87i.238759$aG1.46556@pd7urf3no,
Dave Michelson wrote:
... NASA scores poorly on almost every measure of political importance,
nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect much of his attention.

Moreover, it always has, if Murray & Cox are to be believed.


Not quite. For most of JFK's reign, and the early part of LBJ's, it had
*some* importance -- as witness, not least, the significant slice of the
federal budget it briefly got. It still didn't get a *big* share of the
President's time, but it did get a modest amount. But neither the money
nor the importance lasted; both were in sharp decline toward the end of
LBJ's presidency.


I'm not sure how that contradicts the text that you snipped, i.e., that

Eisenhower and, initially, Kennedy, were quite disinterested in NASA.
JFK was even ready to dissolve the National Space Council had

Johnson not stepped in and taken it over.

However, the surge associated with Apollo was more due to the Johnson's
strong interest (and his congessional colleagues') than anything else.
People wanted to believe that Kennedy was enthusiastic about space if
only because it seemed to fit his image as a young president leading
America into the New Frontier. It's unfortunate that the significance of
Johnson's role as vice-president took longer to be fully appreciated.
And once he became president, his attention was diverted by other
matters, especially Vietnam.

--
Dave Michelson

  #19  
Old June 2nd 07, 07:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,170
Default Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)

In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
Almost certainly he is blessing -- perhaps reluctantly, given how feeble
his support has been at budget time -- decisions reached by others.


...it's hard not to place the responsibility on the
President. I think he provided the overall goal, and the details
are left to others.


Sorry, I just can't buy that. Not when he's so visibly unenthusiastic
about it: he hardly ever mentions it in speeches, and he's repeatedly
failed to request even the modest funding levels he originally promised.
No, this is not his pet project -- it's something he was reluctantly
talked into, and so he gives it a bare minimum of support when his arm is
twisted hard enough, and ignores it otherwise.

I haven't followed VSE's politics in detail, but *that* much is just
falling-down obvious.

...NASA scores poorly on almost every
measure of political importance, nowadays; it cannot reasonably expect
much of his attention.


NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our
political leadership! Why is that?


Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce,
that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal,
domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's
future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago.

And how can this sad situation be changed?


Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and
never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in
the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets :-),
not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term
future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress."

But space solar power?


Too uncertain and too long-term. If you're going to sink a lot of money
into an energy initiative, there are Earthbound approaches that look more
attractive. Personally, I agree that powersats are better in the long
run, but we're talking about what sells politically, not what's better.
Politicians and voters both have short planning horizons.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #20  
Old June 2nd 07, 09:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Bush and VSE (was Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!)

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 18:45:08 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

NASA doesn't deserve more than a passing interest by our
political leadership! Why is that?


Because it's a minor agency, with a minor budget and a minor workforce,
that does nothing very strongly connected with any major policy goal,
domestic or foreign. Once NASA was the leading edge of the country's
future, with a budget to match... but that was forty years ago.

And how can this sad situation be changed?


Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and
never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in
the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets :-),
not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term
future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress."


Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for
byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves
that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed.

We will get into space in a big way when people are spending their own
money to do so, and not the taxpayers'.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins Shitting Her Diapers! kT Space Shuttle 152 June 26th 07 09:10 AM
The NASA ATK Conspiracy - Astronaut Marsha Ivins Exposed! kT History 6 May 28th 07 06:53 AM
The NASA ATK Conspiracy - Astronaut Marsha Ivins Exposed! kT Space Shuttle 4 May 27th 07 09:00 PM
The NASA ATK Conspiracy - Astronaut Marsha Ivins Exposed! kT Space Station 4 May 27th 07 09:00 PM
The NASA ATK Conspiracy - Astronaut Marsha Ivins Exposed! kT Policy 4 May 27th 07 09:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.