|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|