|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:49:54 -0800, bob haller wrote:
initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a danger even if it did get out of control..... Define "small" and "wouldn't be a danger". Even if the rock in question was small enough that it would only endanger a single building if it hit Earth (which means that you are talking about something about baseball sized), the resulting lawsuits and bad publicity would probably kill any further development of the concept. -- John F. Eldredge -- "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
On Jan 8, 5:41*am, "John F. Eldredge" wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:49:54 -0800, bob haller wrote: initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a danger even if it did get out of control..... Define "small" and "wouldn't be a danger". *Even if the rock in question was small enough that it would only endanger a single building if it hit Earth (which means that you are talking about something about baseball sized), the resulting lawsuits and bad publicity would probably kill any further development of the concept. -- John F. Eldredge -- "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria and what if a asteroid comes along and hits our planet. proof of concept, moving asteroids is very important. and to the hazards of deep space radiation, the news it can cause dimentia is news to me. up to now it was more about long term cancer risks... obviously the shorter the exposure time the less risks overall |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
On Jan 8, 10:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: On Jan 8, 5:41*am, "John F. Eldredge" wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:49:54 -0800, bob haller wrote: initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a danger even if it did get out of control..... Define "small" and "wouldn't be a danger". *Even if the rock in question was small enough that it would only endanger a single building if it hit Earth (which means that you are talking about something about baseball sized), the resulting lawsuits and bad publicity would probably kill any further development of the concept. and what if a asteroid comes along and hits our planet. proof of concept, moving asteroids is very important. Which part of "every asteroid is of different mass and composition, so 'proof of concept' with things that aren't what the concept is are useless" is it that keeps escaping your notice? and to the hazards of deep space radiation, the news it can cause dimentia is news to me. up to now it was more about long term cancer risks... obviously the shorter the exposure time the less risks overall Almost everything is news to you, Bobbert, and it's news over and over and over again, given your mayfly-like memory. *Perhaps you should go read up on just how little shielding is required to solve this 'problem'. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the *truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson Well with ZERO experience moving a asteroid all you have are theories: ( and the dimentia risk appeared to be news to nasa, they may have known but never made it public knowledge earlier |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
: bob haller
: and to the hazards of deep space radiation, the news it can cause : dimentia is news to me. up to now it was more about long term cancer : risks... Right. There are long-term dementia (I think dim-entia may be what Bob has) as well as long-term cancer risks. This doesn't effect the already known fact that long term exposure to cosmic rays is Not Good. So it doesn't really change the risks being signed up for in any significant way. The *risk* is the radiation. The *symptoms* may vary. : and what if a asteroid comes along and hits our planet. proof of : concept, moving asteroids is very important. Gee, I was told that was proof that having moon and mars colonies and lots of space habitats at various lagrange points are very important. I guess it's important for whatever the space-project-du-jour-that-can-even-vaguely-be-tied-to-asteroids may be in the daily rant. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
On Jan 8, 12:01*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote: On Jan 8, 10:56 am, Fred J. McCall wrote: bob haller wrote: On Jan 8, 5:41 am, "John F. Eldredge" wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:49:54 -0800, bob haller wrote: initial efforts will be moving a small asteroid, that wouldnt be a danger even if it did get out of control..... Define "small" and "wouldn't be a danger". Even if the rock in question was small enough that it would only endanger a single building if it hit Earth (which means that you are talking about something about baseball sized), the resulting lawsuits and bad publicity would probably kill any further development of the concept. and what if a asteroid comes along and hits our planet. proof of concept, moving asteroids is very important. Which part of "every asteroid is of different mass and composition, so 'proof of concept' with things that aren't what the concept is are useless" is it that keeps escaping your notice? That's a good point. So deflection by collisions is gambling. So, putting orientable mirrors to deflect asteroids is the better, hopefully, solution to build first. and to the hazards of deep space radiation, the news it can cause dimentia is news to me. up to now it was more about long term cancer risks... obviously the shorter the exposure time the less risks overall Almost everything is news to you, Bobbert, and it's news over and over and over again, given your mayfly-like memory. Perhaps you should go read up on just how little shielding is required to solve this 'problem'. Sweet "mayfly-like memory" the phrase. May I steal it? Please... Well with ZERO experience moving a asteroid all you have are theories: Orbital mechanics is fairly well understood (except by you). I hate it when anyone uses "Theory" as a fvck-you word. ( *and the dimentia risk appeared to be news to nasa, they may have known but never made it public knowledge earlier Bobbert, how things appear to YOU (not NASA) is frequently at odds with the reality everyone else gets. Unfortunately, NASA is not just engineers -- good, bad, and or the ugly. Remember Feynman with his whisky-free glass of ice and some O- ring? O o... anyway... engineers advise, management decides, and acting as president Reagan needs a backdrop for his prime time speech. Again, go reread what I said to you above and DO IT. *Then come back and you may be able to say something sensible. Weapons of mass distraction have an assignment to complete. -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is *only stupid." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine Enjo(y)... Cheers! -- Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops. http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/ "If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
On Jan 8, 1:16*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 1629bbcc-0ad8-447f-8431-cbf1eef341c9 @d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says... On Jan 8, 12:01 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: Bobbert, how things appear to YOU (not NASA) is frequently at odds with the reality everyone else gets. Unfortunately, NASA is not just engineers -- good, bad, and or the ugly. Remember Feynman with his whisky-free glass of ice and some O- ring? O o... anyway... engineers advise, management decides, and acting as president Reagan needs a backdrop for his prime time speech. True, but Richard Feynman was an extremely smart guy. *It's a bit shades of Dr. Sheldon Cooper (a main character in The Big Bang Theory, a current US TV Show), but as a Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist, Feynman understood *a lot* about how the world works. *Mere "rocket science" was not beyond his understanding. *;-) Feynman did not conceive, I suspect, the existing known to engineers problem of brittle rubber O-rings by himself. The engineers had to have to advised him. Though Feynman made a great demonstration of it to the whisky soaked Congress/Senate. Hiccups. Somewhere a "he he" need apply? Must watch my back since I write myself into a frenzy on Tuesdays. My point about NASA was more about how the advice -- good, bad, or ugly -- gets changed, mis-directed, manipulated as needed, when it progresses up the politically dominated pyramid scheme chain of The Boss's commands. I do regularly watch the TBBT, since a friend talked me into it. Fun show, but not as funny as it advertises itself to be. Marketing hype, and all that. The fake laugh tracks does not help nor impress even my kids. Still, QM QED Feynman way smarter than any Nobel Prize _demanding_ cartoon of a character Dr. Sheldon Cooper -- my Actor indifferent statement. The comparison of the two should not even be possible, or allowed, iykwim. Entertainment is not Physics. Or, vice versa. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer Enjo(y)... Cheers! -- Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops. http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/ "If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
In sci.space.history Jeff Findley wrote:
When working in a "shoot the messenger" environment, I've seen how messages are sanitized as they move up the management chain. By the time such a message gets to a person who can actually make a decision, they often don't have all the facts to make a properly informed decision. Then there is the problem with "dumbing down" a message as it moves up the management chain on the assumption that upper management either won't understand (or doesn't care about) the gory details. It's always refreshing working in an environment where managers actually understand the details. The last entry at http://www.badpets.net/Humor/LongLists/****list.html would seem applicable. rick jones -- oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates 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... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.
On Jan 8, 3:09*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article a4c9a329-cd8a-47a7-b563- , says... My point about NASA was more about how the advice -- good, bad, or ugly -- gets changed, mis-directed, manipulated as needed, when it progresses up the politically dominated pyramid scheme chain of The Boss's commands. True. When working in a "shoot the messenger" environment, I've seen how messages are sanitized as they move up the management chain. *By the time such a message gets to a person who can actually make a decision, they often don't have all the facts to make a properly informed decision. There's an acknowledged "shoot the messenger" environment? Then there is the problem with "dumbing down" a message as it moves up the management chain on the assumption that upper management either won't understand (or doesn't care about) the gory details. *It's always refreshing working in an environment where managers actually understand the details. Via competent, or not, managers, a message manipulated is an evil in disguise. I'm very simple that way... a fault I have to learn to hide. I've also dealt with politics in the form of "the boss' pet project". :-P I do regularly watch the TBBT, since a friend talked me into it. Fun show, but not as funny as it advertises itself to be. Marketing hype, and all that. The fake laugh tracks does not help nor impress even my kids. Still, QM QED Feynman way smarter than any Nobel Prize _demanding_ cartoon of a character Dr. Sheldon Cooper -- my Actor indifferent statement. The comparison of the two should not even be possible, or allowed, iykwim. Entertainment is not Physics. Or, vice versa. I stuck a smiley face on the end of my original response, so it's all good. * *;-) I saw the smiley. I've resolved to neither use them nor read them. The message should speak for itself. I'll deal with the ramifications. Jeff -- "the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer The "s h i t" link Rick Jones provided was is really entertaining. Enjo(y)... Cheers! -- Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops. http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/ "If the line between science fiction and science fact doesn't drive you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary. | bob haller | Policy | 7 | January 4th 13 02:46 PM |
A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary. | bob haller | Policy | 9 | December 4th 12 02:35 PM |