A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 24th 04, 10:10 PM
JimO
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury


"William Elliot" wrote
At least you did admit to the loss of two Mars missions because (oh
blush) you overlooked contractor and NASA were using different units of
measurement.


It's amazing to me to see the inverse relation between sincerity/certitude
and actual factual reality. Thanks for giving another fine example
about how reality-challenged people view the Hubble decision.

One -- not two -- Mars missions were lost because NASA management
cut too many corners and 'assumed it was good unless proved otherwise',
then cut out the personnel whose job it would have been to do that.

The probe wasn't lost because of a human error in units. It was lost
because the Goldin-style faster-better-cheaper mantra required
a process in which humans were perfect, and didn't need
checking. THAT was the cause of the disaster, not the fact
that the project was implemented by normal human beings.



  #22  
Old March 24th 04, 10:15 PM
JimO
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury


"William Elliot" wrote
Safety is just an excuse to do what they want. For example it's against
the law to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, not because (as they
proclaim) USA made drugs in Canada are unsafe, but because the
prescription drug cartel demands US to pay their excessive price fixed
costs.


Somebody has to pay for the research that makes these new drugs possible
in the first place, but a recent opinion poll shows that in the US at least,
two thirds of the public wrongly think the US government is paying the drug
research
(90% is by the companies themselves, actually). Who gave them that erroneous
impression, do you think?

Now, let me get this straight. Evil Wall Street fatcats are destroying
American jobs
by 'outsourcing' overseas to use cheaper foreign labor and production costs,
and that's
very very bad. So to solve the health crisis, good-intentioned federal
bureaucrats will
save money by 'outsourcing' medical purchases overseas to use cheaper
foreign labor
and production costs, and that's very very good.

Wasn't there an Orwellian word for that -- "doublethink"?


  #23  
Old March 24th 04, 10:48 PM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

Lex Spoon wrote:
First, NASA should be able to say no because of risk reasons.


Ok, lets ask the question:

Does a mission to Hubble increase risk of *failures* ?

What are the differences ? Lighter load, and re-entry from higher altitude
which (with a lighter orbiter) either gives higher G forces, or hotter
re-entry. Right ? Anything else that is different ?

Yes, in terms of odds of survival in cause of failure, mission to ISS is
better. But for actual risk of failure, is that really so different ?

Also, for a Hubble mission, couldn't they perform inspections while in the
initial low orbit and only raise it to Hubble altitude if the Shuttle checks
out ? Wouldn't that greatly reduce load during re-entry ?

Where there is a will, there is a way. Seems to me that NASA decided to find
reason not to fly Hubble instead of flying ways to safely do it.

A statement from NASA I would have found very reassuring/reasonable would have been:

Hubble missions delayed indefinitely until Shuttle has tested its
inspections/repair techniques, after which they may be re-instated if those
techniques succeed.
  #25  
Old March 25th 04, 01:12 AM
Scott M. Kozel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

"Jon Berndt" wrote:

"William Elliot" wrote:

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.


Not likely. Your distaste for Bush is superceded only by your ignorance. Do
you realize who is on the growing list of supporters of the program? Neil
Armstrong is the most recent one I can think of who has publicly supported
the Vision. In any case, Bush may have presented the plan, but as you
apparently do not know there was a long process with many experts
participaring that resulted in the new plan. Try reading a little bit.

BTW, you might get farther here if you leave your acidic political bias "at
home". Bush won the 2000 election legally (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2000)

Get over it.


The libs probably -won't- get over it.

It was -Algore- who tried to steal the election.
  #26  
Old March 25th 04, 03:13 AM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury


ah. So we never abandon a satellite that is both popular and
producing good science, regardless of the risks?

D.


I along with many others arent convinced a hubble flight is any riskier than a
ISS one.

A flight to ISS might be unable to reach station OR deorbit.
Hey this is my opinion
  #28  
Old March 25th 04, 05:02 AM
JazzMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

Scott M. Kozel wrote:


It was -Algore- who tried to steal the election.


The same Al Gore that "invented" the internet?

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
************************************************** ********
  #29  
Old March 25th 04, 11:17 AM
Blockhead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury


"John Doe"

A statement from NASA I would have found very reassuring/reasonable would

have been:

Hubble missions delayed indefinitely until Shuttle has tested


Yeah but that assumes that NASA wants to keep Hubble going. I think they
were done fooling with the thing and decided now was a good time to turn it
shut it down. (Keep hitting the rocks together, JD.)


  #30  
Old March 25th 04, 11:34 AM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury


Or to translate from hallerspeak "I am unwilling to actually address
the question asked, so I will attempt to divert the discussion of
issues into yet another groundless criticism of NASA".

D.
--


ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Any ISS flight may have some foam shedding that damages TPS and a early engine
shutdown for any number of reasons.

In which case they cant deorbit or get to station

Now please tell me how this is riskier than a hubble service flight????
Hey this is my opinion
 




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 01:29 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.