|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "Jeff Findley" wrote: These kids were really inspired by the space program. Not! Why should the be? They've been badly misled as to what constitutes science and exploration. Real science would bore all them to tears, in orbit or here on earth. Kinda like a friend of mines kid; he was 'inspired' by the dino-mania of the 90's to go into paleontology. Then he discovered the joy of field work in 100 degree temps, and the joy of comparing 500 photomicrographs of fossil cross sections. He's now finishing his MBA. All of this begs the question, why should NASA worry about "inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers" at all? Considering the precious few number of people who have even been into orbit, let alone the even smaller number who set foot on the moon, it's all a giant "bait and switch" ploy to lure people into desk jobs where they can sit in front of a computer screen for 8 hours a day. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
All of this begs the question, why should NASA worry about "inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers" at all? It's part of their charter - education. Considering the precious few number of people who have even been into orbit, let alone the even smaller number who set foot on the moon, it's all a giant "bait and switch" ploy to lure people into desk jobs where they can sit in front of a computer screen for 8 hours a day. The point of my anecdote is precisely that which you make above. *All* the activities I have seen to date that are done in the name of "inspiration" are gigantic bait-and-switch ploys. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 07:31:27 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:
Considering the precious few number of people who have even been into orbit, let alone the even smaller number who set foot on the moon, it's all a giant "bait and switch" ploy to lure people into desk jobs where they can sit in front of a computer screen for 8 hours a day. The point of my anecdote is precisely that which you make above. *All* the activities I have seen to date that are done in the name of "inspiration" are gigantic bait-and-switch ploys. lol, join the Navy and see the world, it's just that most of the world is water and there are no windows on a submarine. Or, buy a sailboat and really see the world, even the water parts which can be really interesting at times. Private Enterprise, that's the ticket to an Orbital vacation and a cheap Mars missions. "Cheap" as in "Inexpensive", that is. NASA needs to get out of the low earth orbit business, or the Mars missions are going to look like the Apollo Lunar missions. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:25:22 GMT, Craig Fink
wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 07:31:27 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote: Private Enterprise, that's the ticket to an Orbital vacation and a cheap Mars missions. "Cheap" as in "Inexpensive", that is. NASA needs to get out of the low earth orbit business, or the Mars missions are going to look like the Apollo Lunar missions. That argument/statement always drives me nuts. Private enterprise CANNOT do it cheaper than NASA. If they could - they would. Burt Rutan didn't prove anything. He three an object straight up in the air and it came back down. The complexities of prolonged orbit and re-entry make it a very expensive thing to do. When he does that, he can get back on his high horse. I get very frustrated when people say that NASA wastes money. The testing and paperwork that make it cost so much are required by the people that pay the bills. Blame Congress, don't blame NASA. P.S. What would be so terrible about the Mars missions looking like the Apollo Lunar missions? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"R Frost" wrote in message ... That argument/statement always drives me nuts. Private enterprise CANNOT do it cheaper than NASA. If they could - they would. So far, no one has built a truly resuable orbital launch vehicle. The one example of a reusable vehicle is the shuttle, and it's not cheaper than ELV's in terms of $ per lb of payload to LEO. Becauwse of this, it's a matter of opinion whether or not a sanely designed RLV would lower launch costs enough to be considered "cheaper" than what NASA is doing today with the shuttle. Burt Rutan didn't prove anything. He three an object straight up in the air and it came back down. The complexities of prolonged orbit and re-entry make it a very expensive thing to do. When he does that, he can get back on his high horse. The fact is that you have to start *somewhere* and SS1 was the first commercially funded, manned spacecraft to go into space and back. Certainly it wasn't orbital, but it was never meant to be. I get very frustrated when people say that NASA wastes money. The testing and paperwork that make it cost so much are required by the people that pay the bills. Blame Congress, don't blame NASA. NASA actually has consistently bad accounting, so it's even difficult for NASA to know where all of the money got spent. So it's hard to claim they don't waste money when they can't even show how all the money was spent. P.S. What would be so terrible about the Mars missions looking like the Apollo Lunar missions? The Apollo program wasn't sustainable. All of the missions were very short (days) and there were very few missions that landed (I believe only six). Because of this, some people here refer to Apollo as being a "flags and footprints" program. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
R Frost wrote:
That argument/statement always drives me nuts. Private enterprise CANNOT do it cheaper than NASA. If they could - they would. Burt Rutan didn't prove anything. He three an object straight up in the air and it came back down. The complexities of prolonged orbit and re-entry make it a very expensive thing to do. When he does that, he can get back on his high horse. Based on your assertion trivializing Rutan's accomplishments, then can NASA's first two (suborbital) manned spaceflights be similarly trivialised as "not proving anything"? After all, Yuri Gagarin flew in orbit before Alan Shepard flew suborbital. Personally, I say 'no': Alan Shepard's flight (as well as Glenn's later flight) was a significant accomplishment despite being second. And the same applies to Scaled Composites. Maybe now we know how the USSR felt about the USA bragging about accomplishing less than what the USSR had already accomplished? P.S. What would be so terrible about the Mars missions looking like the Apollo Lunar missions? Cramming three men into a tiny capsule for a 1-2 week mission is more reasonable than for a year mission. Glen Overby |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|