A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 16th 08, 11:22 PM posted to sci.space.history
[email protected][_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

On May 16, 12:34 am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Which brings up a interesting question... when the ISS is decommissioned, what exactly happens to it?
Does it do a Mir-style dive into the South Pacific?
That would be some fireworks show.


The South Pacific is pretty much standard for such events. I guess you
could do it in the southern Indian Ocean, but the South Pacific is
bigger.

Should be pretty gaudy.

When the time comes, I suppose the competent authorities of the day
could consider taking ISS apart module by module, launch a deorbit
package for each. But dumping the whole thing at one time seems
easier.
  #12  
Old May 16th 08, 11:31 PM posted to sci.space.history
Cosmic Ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

On May 15, 8:40*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:08:02 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.


Lemme guess...

- Someone at a NASA center didn't update a web page this week?
- Keith didn't get an invite to another Constellation teleconference?
- The DIRECT guys dared to suggest their approach was superior to Ares
and Keith's beloved EELVs?
- A political appointee got a job Keith thinks he/she doesn't deserve?

NASA Watch has bitched and whined itself into irrelevance. Nothing to
see here, move along...

Brian


You got that right. A phenomenal waste of time.
  #13  
Old May 17th 08, 01:02 AM posted to sci.space.history
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

On May 15, 7:40 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 06:08:02 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

"NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.


Lemme guess...

- Someone at a NASA center didn't update a web page this week?
- Keith didn't get an invite to another Constellation teleconference?
- The DIRECT guys dared to suggest their approach was superior to Ares
and Keith's beloved EELVs?
- A political appointee got a job Keith thinks he/she doesn't deserve?

NASA Watch has bitched and whined itself into irrelevance. Nothing to
see here, move along...


So tell us o' html guru, how many hits per day does your website get?
  #15  
Old May 17th 08, 01:22 AM posted to sci.space.history
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

On May 16, 7:18 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
wrote:
On May 16, 12:34 am, Pat Flannery wrote:


Which brings up a interesting question... when the ISS is decommissioned, what exactly happens to it?
Does it do a Mir-style dive into the South Pacific?
That would be some fireworks show.


The South Pacific is pretty much standard for such events. I guess you
could do it in the southern Indian Ocean, but the South Pacific is
bigger.


Should be pretty gaudy.


When the time comes, I suppose the competent authorities of the day
could consider taking ISS apart module by module, launch a deorbit
package for each. But dumping the whole thing at one time seems
easier.


And cheaper, and more likely to work. If the authorities of the day
choose the former, then by definition they aren't competent.


If the authorities of the day choose to deorbit it at all, by
definition they aren't competent.
  #16  
Old May 17th 08, 06:01 AM posted to sci.space.history
Dale Carlson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 211
Default "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:22:53 -0700 (PDT), kT
wrote:

On May 16, 7:18 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
wrote:
On May 16, 12:34 am, Pat Flannery wrote:


Which brings up a interesting question... when the ISS is decommissioned, what exactly happens to it?
Does it do a Mir-style dive into the South Pacific?
That would be some fireworks show.


When the time comes, I suppose the competent authorities of the day
could consider taking ISS apart module by module, launch a deorbit
package for each. But dumping the whole thing at one time seems
easier.


And cheaper, and more likely to work. If the authorities of the day
choose the former, then by definition they aren't competent.


If the authorities of the day choose to deorbit it at all, by
definition they aren't competent.


What would you suggest- boosting it up to orbit forever, while being
inaccessible in any practical sense?

My understanding is that the plan is to scrap it in India, at a
dockyard with few environmental or workplace safety standards

Dale
  #17  
Old May 17th 08, 06:52 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station,sci.environment
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

On May 17, 12:01 am, Dale Carlson wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:22:53 -0700 (PDT), kT
wrote:



On May 16, 7:18 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
wrote:
On May 16, 12:34 am, Pat Flannery wrote:


Which brings up a interesting question... when the ISS is decommissioned, what exactly happens to it?
Does it do a Mir-style dive into the South Pacific?
That would be some fireworks show.
When the time comes, I suppose the competent authorities of the day
could consider taking ISS apart module by module, launch a deorbit
package for each. But dumping the whole thing at one time seems
easier.


And cheaper, and more likely to work. If the authorities of the day
choose the former, then by definition they aren't competent.


If the authorities of the day choose to deorbit it at all, by
definition they aren't competent.


What would you suggest- boosting it up to orbit forever, while being
inaccessible in any practical sense?


It's already in orbit. It has to be boosted only so that it remains in
orbit, a mere fraction of it's orbital velocity, depending on its
drag. It took hundreds of billions of dollars to design, build, launch
and construct, including shuttle and Soyuz development and operational
costs. Keeping it in orbit only requires only a small fraction of
those costs.

But this is the new America, where retiring the SSMEs is thought to be
a good thing, and we're new replacing our space shuttles with an idiot
rocket design (Ares I - the Stick), while we have two other
functioning rockets sitting on the launch pads, ready to go, bought
and paid for. We're not talking about the brightest bulbs on the
planet anymore.

My understanding is that the plan is to scrap it in India, at a
dockyard with few environmental or workplace safety standards


Your understanding is very weak, let's call it non-existent for
brevity.

  #18  
Old May 17th 08, 08:01 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station,sci.environment
V-for-Vendicar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 268
Default "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

What is the ISS useful for?

Nothing.

Incomptent AmeriKKKan design, Incompetent AmeriKKKan implementation,
Incompetent AmeriKKKan management.

Another Failure of AmeriKKKa in space.


  #19  
Old May 17th 08, 09:20 AM posted to sci.space.history
Dale Carlson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 211
Default "NASA Watch" gets really ****ed off.

On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:52:16 -0700 (PDT), kT
wrote:


What would you suggest- boosting it up to orbit forever, while being
inaccessible in any practical sense?


It's already in orbit. It has to be boosted only so that it remains in
orbit, a mere fraction of it's orbital velocity, depending on its
drag. It took hundreds of billions of dollars to design, build, launch
and construct, including shuttle and Soyuz development and operational
costs. Keeping it in orbit only requires only a small fraction of
those costs.


But how would it then be reached with our current manned craft? I
don't see how Shuttle and especially Soyuz development costs enter
into it. But raising ISS's orbit to eliminate drag isn't a trivial
thing. And as I asked before, how then do we access it? Is it
just an orbital monument?

My understanding is that the plan is to scrap it in India, at a
dockyard with few environmental or workplace safety standards


Your understanding is very weak, let's call it non-existent for
brevity.


It was a joke. Your inability to grasp that says a lot. I almost
apologized to the group for even responding to you. I'll do
that now.

Sorry, but you are an idiot. But have a nice life anyway.
Dale
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Breaking News: Scott "Doc" Horowitz, the Constellation head, the INVENTOR of the "stick" (a.k.a. Ares-I) and one of the father of the ESAS/VSE plan, is leaving NASA !!! gaetanomarano Policy 2 July 13th 07 06:03 AM
"VideO Madness" "JackO' Pissed!!!..." Colonel Jake TM Misc 0 August 11th 06 09:38 PM
NASA Watch: "Bob Zubrin Steps In It Again" [email protected] Policy 51 June 17th 06 01:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 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.