|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question About media covarage!
Hello my name is Tyrone K. "Ty" I'm 16 years old & I live in Ky. I love astronomy... I think it's the most intesting subect in the world. I also like photography & skateboarding. My dad is in Iraq & I'm so PROUD of him. Both my parents are in the Us Army. But my dad is the one over there right now. When I was little, like 5 for my birthday as a present I was given a telescope science I keep talking about the planets & space so much to who ever would listen... well as I said I'm 16 now & I ABSLOUTLY LOVE astronomy. SO ok here come my question......
I went on NASA.gov & I found out there are some great missions coming up but I want to know do you guys know if any of them will be broadcast on television? I don't remember if any of the other missions lately have been bradcast & that worried me. I would really think it would be cool to see some of the newest mission broadcast. Last edited by astronomyguyty : April 22nd 06 at 03:45 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hey well it's just me again! I found out that I get the NASA channel on direct tv! I 'm so HAPPY. IT's channel 376 for you that care. I didn't know I got it so I was worried I wouldn't get to see the new launches but I DO! SO COOL! Thanks for looking at my post. SORRY NO one posted back! Alright going to drive my parents abusloutly nuts & watch the NASA channel in the living room. Talk to you all later. LATER DAYS!
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Question About media covarage!
astronomyguyty wrote:
Hey well it's just me again! I found out that I get the NASA channel on direct tv! I 'm so HAPPY. IT's channel 376 for you that care. I didn't know I got it so I was worried I wouldn't get to see the new launches but I DO! SO COOL! Thanks for looking at my post. SORRY NO one posted back! Alright going to drive my parents abusloutly nuts & watch the NASA channel in the living room. Talk to you all later. LATER DAYS! Oh, yes- the NASA channel...home of those great early 1960's documentaries about man's future in space with the primitive B&W animation and the ethereal music to go with them. Hit the Way-Back machine, Mr. Peabody.... "This is Saturn V...there are many questions to be answered before we can build Saturn V. Can a program that's going to peak out at around three to four percent of the entire national budget be justified by the promise that it might fetch back several hundreds of pounds of rocks from the Moon? Can a former member of the Nazi rocket building program be successfully sold to America as our new hero...despite his former involvement in a slave labor camp and the death of thousand of slave laborers in it? Can President Kennedy successfully move Eisenhower's military-industrial complex into equally profitable peaceful ends? These are the questions we must ask ourselves before we build Saturn V...." Been there, saw that. Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Question About media covarage!
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: astronomyguyty wrote: Hey well it's just me again! I found out that I get the NASA channel on direct tv! I 'm so HAPPY. IT's channel 376 for you that care. I didn't know I got it so I was worried I wouldn't get to see the new launches but I DO! SO COOL! Thanks for looking at my post. SORRY NO one posted back! Alright going to drive my parents abusloutly nuts & watch the NASA channel in the living room. Talk to you all later. LATER DAYS! Oh, yes- the NASA channel...home of those great early 1960's documentaries about man's future in space with the primitive B&W animation and the ethereal music to go with them. Hit the Way-Back machine, Mr. Peabody.... "This is Saturn V...there are many questions to be answered before we can build Saturn V. Can a program that's going to peak out at around three to four percent of the entire national budget be justified by the promise that it might fetch back several hundreds of pounds of rocks from the Moon? We should have kept using Saturn V; it is still one of the best launch vehicles made. And it is not the pile of rocks brought back from the moon, but what we have learned from them, which matters. We would have learned much more if we had not canceled the last few Apollo trips, and we would have done well to start a lunar base which could provide us with still more knowledge. Using the money instead to get people on welfare to have larger families, in an already overpopulated world, which is what we have been doing, is far worse. Can a former member of the Nazi rocket building program be successfully sold to America as our new hero...despite his former involvement in a slave labor camp and the death of thousand of slave laborers in it? How much was he responsible for? There is no evidence that he recruited or mistreated the workers. That is not the way to get things done. As for his ability, he fairly quickly got an American object in orbit after Eisenhower's stupid Vanguard attempts kept failing, using off the shelf military rockets not intended for the purpose. Can President Kennedy successfully move Eisenhower's military-industrial complex into equally profitable peaceful ends? The military-industrial complex was a figment of a stupid general's imagination. These are the questions we must ask ourselves before we build Saturn V...." Been there, saw that. The move to "peaceful" research after the end of the Cold War has almost destroyed basic research in the US. The military found that basic researchers could do applied work with the hidebound applied researchers could not do; they had to thing "outside the box" to be theorists. This continued during the Cold War because of the fear of this being successful on the other side. Meanwhile, the government support of research has destroyed the universities' basis for their support, and it is in very bad shape. Do not think, however, that I want government investment in space. I want to allow those who believe in man's development in space to be able to support it instead of supporting the ill-designed welfare programs, and to do it without government interference. The same holds in education. George Bernard Shaw wrote (from memory): The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Question About media covarage!
Herman Rubin wrote:
Can a program that's going to peak out at around three to four percent of the entire national budget be justified by the promise that it might fetch back several hundreds of pounds of rocks from the Moon? We should have kept using Saturn V; it is still one of the best launch vehicles made. And it is not the pile of rocks brought back from the moon, but what we have learned from them, which matters. We would have learned much more if we had not canceled the last few Apollo trips, What's not widely known is that NASA itself didn't have much of a problem with the later flights getting canceled; after Apollo 13 they realized that what they were doing inherently had a lot of risk associated with it, and if they kept it up for enough flights they were probably going to lose a crew sooner or later, so they thought it was better to end up on a high note, and ditch the later flights. and we would have done well to start a lunar base which could provide us with still more knowledge. Very expensive, and barring the development of some sort of super rover or something similar to the 2001 Moonbus, you'd be very limited in regards to the area you could examine- say a circle just ten or twenty miles out from the base. That's pretty minuscule in comparison to the total area of the Lunar surface. The problem with the rover or rocket bus idea is that you'd have to send two everywhere together in case one broke down, so that its crew wouldn't be stranded beyond walking distance from the base. Using the money instead to get people on welfare to have larger families, in an already overpopulated world, which is what we have been doing, is far worse. Welfare doesn't cost as much as most people think: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm In fact, in 1993, it was dwarfed by defense spending, which was itself put in second place by Social Security: "Argument One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1) Comparing the size of federal AFDC to other federal programs puts a great deal in perspective: Federal AFDC Expenditures as Compared to Federal Spending in Other Areas (1993) (2) Agency $ billions -------------------------- AFDC 12 Medicaid 76 Medicare 131 Defense 281 Social Security 305 " Can a former member of the Nazi rocket building program be successfully sold to America as our new hero...despite his former involvement in a slave labor camp and the death of thousand of slave laborers in it? How much was he responsible for? There is no evidence that he recruited or mistreated the workers. Oh, boy, do you need to do some reading! http://www.answers.com/topic/wernher-von-braun He did indeed recruit some of the Mittlewerk workers with the aid of his staff from Buchenwald, and admitted to it. He also visited the Mittlewerk itself on several occasions, and said he found the conditions there "repulsive" but never witnessed any beatings or executions- survivors of he factory tell a different story- of von Braun walking seemingly unconcerned through piles of corpses and examining a piece of a V-2, and declaring hat it had been sabotaged during construction...which led to the assembly workers who made it being taken away and hung. That is not the way to get things done. At the Mittlewerk things got done by a very simple method: You do what your told to do or at the very least you get no food, and it then goes up a sliding scale through beatings, and ends up with you hanging under the portable gallows that could be wheeled from one part of the complex to another as it was needed. As for his ability, he fairly quickly got an American object in orbit after Eisenhower's stupid Vanguard attempts kept failing, using off the shelf military rockets not intended for the purpose. Can President Kennedy successfully move Eisenhower's military-industrial complex into equally profitable peaceful ends? The military-industrial complex was a figment of a stupid general's imagination. Jeeze, I thought he handled Operation Overlord fairly competently when all was said and done. He also came up with one of the really useful contributions to the whole nation with a military-based project in the "Defense Highway System" which is where all of our excellent interstate highways got started (those overpasses on the highways were originally going to have fallout shelters under them BTW) which not only made the large scale shipment of goods via truck possible, thereby breaking the monopoly of the railways on the movement of cargo around the United States, but also made it possibly for Americans to vacation in far-off sections of their own country with comparative ease and economy These are the questions we must ask ourselves before we build Saturn V...." Been there, saw that. The move to "peaceful" research after the end of the Cold War has almost destroyed basic research in the US. The military found that basic researchers could do applied work with the hidebound applied researchers could not do; they had to thing "outside the box" to be theorists. This continued during the Cold War because of the fear of this being successful on the other side. Meanwhile, the government support of research has destroyed the universities' basis for their support, and it is in very bad shape. The problem being that if the military funds the universities research, they are going to want something at the end of it with military potential, like the SLAM nuclear ramjet powered cruise missile; a great (and very expensive piece) of military-funded research, but without any practical purpose in the civilian world due to the fact that the whole missile would become radioactive shortly after you revved the engine up, so that nuclear ramjet powered airliners were going to be a non-starter. Which is all for the good, as I'd hate to see an Al-Queda terrorist run one of those into a building at Mach 3. Do not think, however, that I want government investment in space. I want to allow those who believe in man's development in space to be able to support it instead of supporting the ill-designed welfare programs, and to do it without government interference. Well, such high hopes are going to require several billion dollars to bring to fruition, so unless Bill Gates has some pocket change burning a hole in his pants.... The same holds in education. George Bernard Shaw wrote (from memory): The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. I don't know if I'd call thermonuclear weapons, anthrax spore fast breeder tanks, and binary nerve gas bombs "progress". More like annihilation waiting for a chance to occur. All in all, I liked the highway system better. :-D Pat |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Question About media covarage!
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: Herman Rubin wrote: Can a program that's going to peak out at around three to four percent of the entire national budget be justified by the promise that it might fetch back several hundreds of pounds of rocks from the Moon? We should have kept using Saturn V; it is still one of the best launch vehicles made. And it is not the pile of rocks brought back from the moon, but what we have learned from them, which matters. We would have learned much more if we had not canceled the last few Apollo trips, What's not widely known is that NASA itself didn't have much of a problem with the later flights getting canceled; after Apollo 13 they realized that what they were doing inherently had a lot of risk associated with it, and if they kept it up for enough flights they were probably going to lose a crew sooner or later, so they thought it was better to end up on a high note, and ditch the later flights. This is why it should be done without government support or interference. Many men were lost in exploration projects of all types, with few problems, even if they were government run. Any frontier has risks. Behold the turtle. If he sticketh not out the neck, he maketh no progress. It has been this way for mankind farther back than we have records. and we would have done well to start a lunar base which could provide us with still more knowledge. Very expensive, and barring the development of some sort of super rover or something similar to the 2001 Moonbus, you'd be very limited in regards to the area you could examine- say a circle just ten or twenty miles out from the base. It is not necessary to have such limited ideas. And if you had such a limited base, which mirrors for solar power, more could be built on the spot. That's pretty minuscule in comparison to the total area of the Lunar surface. The problem with the rover or rocket bus idea is that you'd have to send two everywhere together in case one broke down, so that its crew wouldn't be stranded beyond walking distance from the base. See the above. Using the money instead to get people on welfare to have larger families, in an already overpopulated world, which is what we have been doing, is far worse. Welfare doesn't cost as much as most people think: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm In fact, in 1993, it was dwarfed by defense spending, which was itself put in second place by Social Security: "Argument One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1) Comparing the size of federal AFDC to other federal programs puts a great deal in perspective: Federal AFDC Expenditures as Compared to Federal Spending in Other Areas (1993) (2) Agency $ billions -------------------------- AFDC 12 Medicaid 76 Medicare 131 Defense 281 Social Security 305 " Medicare and Medicaid are pure welfare. At least 1/3 of Social Insecurity is welfare. Subsidized housing is welfare. The school lunch program is welfare. There are many other government projects which are welfare. Any time there is a means test for a benefit, the benefit is welfare. Any time money is taxed and used to give benefits to others, that is welfare. The reason not all of Social Insecurity is welfare is that those who paid in more get more, up to a certain point. The Roman Republic was brought down by bread and circuses, and the founding fathers knew this. They also thought the Athenian Republic was so destroyed. All welfare eligibility rules are high-rate income taxes. -- This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University. Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Question About media covarage!
astronomyguyty wrote:
Hello my name is Tyrone K. "Ty" I'm 16 years old & I live in Ky. I love astronomy... I think it's the most intesting subect in the world. I also like photography & skateboarding. My dad is in Iraq & I'm so PROUD of him. Both my parents are in the Us Army. But my dad is the one over there right now. Please give him my best wishes for a speedy and safe return. When I was little, like 5 for my birthday as a present I was given a telescope. When I was in my early teens, and my older brother was at a firebase outside of Hue, Vietnam*, he sent us a catalog of things that you could purchase at knockdown cost if you had a family member serving in the U.S. military; I got hold of a magnificent 4" diameter refractor telescope for $100.00 this way, and had an absolute ball looking at the sky with it (I should have kept it- this would cost you around $600 to $700 dollars now). science I keep talking about the planets & space so much to who ever would listen... well as I said I'm 16 now & I ABSLOUTLY LOVE astronomy. SO ok here come my question...... I went on NASA.gov & I found out there are some great missions coming up but I want to know do you guys know if any of them will be broadcast on television? I don't remember if any of the other missions lately have been bradcast & that worried me. I would really think it would be cool to see some of the newest mission broadcast. Okay: Let's work out a strategy for making that occur, as your dad would probably say. 1.) Check to see if your local cable channel carries NASA TV; ours did despite the small size of our town (15,000), but that may be due to the fact that Rick Hieb, the Shuttle astronaut, is a native of Jamestown, North Dakota. 2.) If that's not the case, then it's time to a tactical shift to a defensible fall-back position... go over to NASA's main website listing: http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/live/nasatv.htm ....if you've got the computer bandwidth to handle it, or alternatively to the main NASA website listing for all of their various resources: http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html?skipIntro=1 to find info and downloads on all of the various missions and projects they've got going. Most of the unmanned missions have their own homepages, such as the Mars Rovers: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html ....and the Cassini Saturn mission: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.cfm Two websites I most heartily recommend are the amazing NASA J-Track 3D: http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/jtr.../JTrack3d.html Which offers a zoomable and rotatable real-time view of the major satellites and rocket boosters and where they are in relation to your hometown so you can watch them cross the sky after sunset or before sunrise... expand this to full size on your computer screen, and you'll have something pretty close to the main display screen at Space Command, with the ability to pivot to any point on the Earth's surface, and the ability to zoom from out beyond the communications satellites at over 22,000 miles up over the equator to those just skimming the atmosphere, and Mark Wade's magnificent "Encyclopedia Astronautic" website- which can take weeks to go through, and has pretty much everything about everything regarding the history of space exploration: http://www.astronautix.com/index.html Hope this helps. Pat *101st Airborne Division, and came home safe and uninjured. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NOMINATION: digest, volume 2453397 | Ross | Astronomy Misc | 233 | October 23rd 05 04:24 AM |
VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, March 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 108 | May 16th 05 02:55 AM |
Deadline approach for NASA return to flight media accreditation | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 8th 05 10:01 PM |
NASA credentialing media fo possible Shuttle landing at Dryden | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | March 29th 05 04:26 PM |
NASA anounces return to flight media accreditation deadline | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | March 28th 05 07:21 PM |