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

Half of remaining ISS gyros exhibiting stress



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 18th 05, 09:28 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 26th 05, 08:31 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old April 26th 05, 12:25 PM
Craig Fink
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 26th 05, 10:40 PM
R Frost
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old April 26th 05, 11:00 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old April 27th 05, 06:04 PM
Glen Overby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 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.