|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
JazzMan wrote:
Scott M. Kozel wrote: It was -Algore- who tried to steal the election. The same Al Gore that "invented" the internet? The one and same! :-] |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
John Doe wrote in :
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote: Now, with a HST flight you have: Success - Get to station no problem. Foam Strike - No repair capability. Result LOV Hasn't CAIB recommented stand-alone repair capability ? Yes, R6.4-1. The second paragraph recommends such capability be ready prior to the first non-ISS flight. That implies that NASA doesn't need the capability if they cancel all non-ISS flights, which is evidently O'Keefe's interpretation. My understanding was that they would temporarily "waive" this requirement for flights to ISS since ISS would be able to help with inspections and repairs. But eventually, the shuttle should have its own repair ability. Is that correct ? Essentially, yes. The fourth paragraph of R6.4-1 states that the ultimate objective of standalone repair capability is for all flights, including ISS flights that, for whatever reason, cannot reach ISS (either pre-docking or post-undocking). It's pretty clear to me that the CAIB would not have added that fourth paragraph if they really intended for NASA to be able to evade the second by cancelling all non-ISS flights. If the Shuttle is to travel only to ISS, why is Nasa bothering with a special boom addition to the shuttle's arm ? The boom is required for RCC inspections. The resolution and depth measurement requirements for RCC inspection are so tight that the cameras/sensors must be placed very close to the RCC. Neither the SRMS nor the SSRMS alone can get close enough to reach all the RCC panels on both wings. The only alternative is EVA inspection, which NASA is pretty desperate to avoid due to severe timeline impacts. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
Bush's space plan as proposed to the public was so sorely lacking in understanding of space science that even an amateur like me could dispute his sci-fi fantasies. and i'm sure many can dispute your insane leftist idiocy. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
You must have been pretty ****ed off to type so well ;-P Back to lurking... Accidents do happen Hey this is my opinion |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
"starman" wrote in message
... You certainly have a knack for hyperbole. Like it or not, public opinion is part of the equation which determines NASA's funding. The public has seen the results of Hubble and they (finally) like what they've seen. That's more than can be said for the ISS so far. Most people don't know it exists. It would be foolish to squander public support for a proven space research tool, just to save the cost of one service mission. Hubble has many years of good science left in it. It could be a long time before we build another optical (visible light) research scope in space. I completely agree with you. The public dismay/outcry over the decision to scrap Hubble should be seen as an opportunity for scientists, mission planners, administrators and politicians. When was the last time we saw such interest in any component of the space program? Yes, as some have said, people like the pretty pictures. But what people really crave is inspiration. The pretty pictures of our incredible universe provide that. The space shuttle, in itself, does not. ISS does not. Like the Hubble, journeys to other planets (with cameras to send back those pretty pictures) do. If I were the decision maker, I'd get my people started tomorrow designing and building an advanced, optical space telescope and a mission (shuttle or expendable launch vehicle) to get it into orbit as quickly as possible. And I'd phase out as quickly as possible the ISS and shuttles. I'd have teams at work designing a new, powerful, expendable launch vehicle to handle requirements for future missions for the next decade or so -- or buy the capacity from the Russians (or partner with them). I'd expand our solar system exploratory robotic probes and get a serious program on the drawing board for humans to return to the moon to establish a base for an astronomical observatory and related research. Maybe for the public: "It's the pretty pictures, stupid." But coincidentally, there's some pretty science that piggybacks thereon. LewBob |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
Scott M. Kozel wrote:
JazzMan wrote: Scott M. Kozel wrote: It was -Algore- who tried to steal the election. The same Al Gore that "invented" the internet? The one and same! :-] http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm You should stop spouting the mindless drivel of the extremists and do your own research sometime. You made yourself look like an idiot. It's not that hard to use your own mind instead of loaning it out to other idiots. JazzMan -- ************************************************** ******** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ************************************************** ******** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ************************************************** ******** |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
LewBob wrote:
Yes, as some have said, people like the pretty pictures. But what people really crave is inspiration. The pretty pictures of our incredible universe provide that. The space shuttle, in itself, does not. ISS does not. NASA really really really blew it when it decided to "ignore" Tito's visit to ISS. That was the perfect PR opportunity to provide inspiration and show that there was indeed big progress being made since, a "tourist" with little training could make it up. Although NASA didn't shun Shuttleworth, it also failed to capitalise on his visit. I can see a lot of conflicts where the astronaut office wants to maintain the illusion that space is very dangerous and requires 10 years worth of training. (no differentiation between tourist, mission specialist and pilot from a public perception point of view). The shuttle is also underestimated. Look at the data generated by the SRTM mission. While the fear-mungering regime has made much of the data unavailable after 9-11, it is progressively being made available again. Hopefully, the public will come to realise the value of this before the Shuttle is dead. What would be needed is some clause whereby any media outlet that uses SRTM derived data for 3d animations etc would be required to mention on air that this data came from the space shuttle. When you ask people what the space programme gave us, they are likely to respond "microwave ovens". (Or Tang simulated orange juice). The fact is that there are real benefits that the shuttle has provided, but NASA hasn't taken the steps to ensure that these are attributed to the shuttle. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
B A L O N E Y ! The local election boards in Florida in 2000 were dominated by Democrat local control, and the state supreme court was dominated by Democrats. And they still couldn't get enough to win. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
John Doe wrote:
When you ask people what the space programme gave us, they are likely to respond "microwave ovens". (Or Tang simulated orange juice). I thought it was 'Velcro'. :-) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|