NASA declines to protect the Planet Earth

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:09:26 -0400) it happened Andy Resnick
wrote in :

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Andy Resnick wrote:
snip

How is NASA any different than the FDA, or OSHA or NIH or DHS or EPA
or... They all have a vested interest in (de-)funding projects that
the administration believes should be (de-)funded.


Hmmm ... let me think, I know ...

they're ROCKET SCIENTISTS!

Now, what other brilliant observations do you have for us asshole.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Don't confuse the engineers with the people that write the checks.

yea, NASA fired most engineers (the real guys, apollo etc) after the
moonlandings.
Or they retired.
US disgraced Von Braun, he was THE one who already had a mars plan (cheaper
then shuttle actually ;-) )
The new kids hardly know how to land with an airbag, and get an orgasm if they
can drive a toy car on mars.
Russia is doing the heavy work for NASA.


Those toy cars still work and at 30-100+ million miles, that is a
pretty slick trick.

Eric

WHAT ENGINEERS?



Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

jonathan wrote:
"Andy Resnick" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

snip
Nasa specializes in pure science.
snip

That statement is so incorrect, I don't know where to even start to
correct it.


First you say Nasa isn't into pure research.

NASA should get out of the "pure
science" business as soon as possible.

Then say they should get out of the business of pure science.
Which is it?

Here is a nice list of various Nasa missions. I'm trying to
find the ones in the list that is NOT pure research.
Perhaps you could find one or two, or suggest which
ones Nasa shouldn't have pursued?

Have you even heard of any of these missions?
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/timelin..._missions.html

Seems sort of odd to call Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, "current"
missions.
Just looked again and saw, Skylab, Viking and Voyager. Pioneer? Yep.
Clearly this is current and past missions.

Eric



NASA should do what NASA does
best- engineering. NASA makes the telescopes for others to use. NASA
makes the rocket systems that launch the satellites others build. NASA
specializes in knowing how long materials last in the environment above
our atmosphere, the requirements to make sure fluid cooling systems work
in zero-g, and the like.


All necessary to do what? To work, live and do research
in space. Or spend much of it's resources building a space station
for what? Oh yes, for that much heralded pure medical
research that was supposed to transform medical science
with all kinds of breakthroughs.



Ask any NASA or NASA contractor employee their favorite scene from
"Apollo 13" and they will tell you the exact same thing- when the team
has to construct an adapter for an oxygen generator, and a pile of parts
gets dumped on the table. That's what NASA does best, better than any
organization I have ever worked with.


That's not the issue, it's to what end is all that great engineering
supposed to accomplish. Are you saying all the billions and
talent involved should be used for nothing more than building
longer lasting tires?

Come on! Have you even read Nasa's charter?


Jonathan

s




snip




--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Andy Resnick wrote:
jonathan wrote:
snip

Have you even heard of any of these missions?
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/timelin..._missions.html


snip

A glance at this list shows that NASA does not design, build or even
launch the majority of these satellites. Furthermore, NASA did not
decide which of these satellites, out of the thousands proposed, got
funded. And Apollo isn't really a "current mission".

What does NASA contribute? NASA writes checks (as directed). NASA owns
infrastructure- the launchpad, the assembly buildings, etc. NASA has
budgetary and technical "oversight" of the projects- and does those
functions poorly.

All of them, in every aspect and in every center? I beg to differ.
Sure, there are problems and those are the ones the media tell you
about. But of that list, which ones were done poorly? Aqua? No picture
perfect in virtually every aspect!

Eric

Perhaps you are more upset that NASA is (not) funding projects you feel
should'nt (should) be funded. That is not NASA's problem. That is the
problem of the Congress that earmarks funds, the civilian agencies
(National Academies, ad-hoc committees, etc.) that make recommendations,
and the proposal review committees that rank proposals for funding priority.

NASA's internal R&D programs have been systematically de-funded due to
Circular A-76.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

On a sunny day (31 Jul 2006 11:25:54 -0700) it happened "enchomko"
wrote in
.com:

Those toy cars still work and at 30-100+ million miles, that is a
pretty slick trick.

That is distance, not miles run.
Now think $ per mile... ;-)

But will it help us go to the stars? very little.
They had a lander with a rocket engine, it crashed because
some sensor thought it landed, while it was till up high in the air.
Now _such_ a lander is what you will need to carry _humans_,
so they should just have fixed it, AND provide telemetry when it landed.
They could not have telemetry as the plasma during landing would interfere...
Strange, even Huygens probe had telemetry...
So anyways playing RC cars on mars is nothing compared to a guy driving
a mars rover right there.
You stay here within reach of Israeli attacks, while you could have been
safe with Von Braun's project on mars.
.....

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:

Nasa specializes in pure science.

Since when? And even if so, why should it be that way?

Nasa's mission to help save the planet?

It's been deleted from the charter by some 'clerk'
casually and without notice, like we delete spam.

No, I'm quite sure this came down from on high (i.e., the Bush
administration). But in this particular case, I don't disagree with it
-- understanding climate change should be NOAA's job, not NASA's.

Why not earth scientists and specifically climatologists the world over
in academia and research centers, etc.?

NOAA is part of the Dept. of Commerce. Why leave it to just them or
just NASA for thyat matter?

Eric


Best,
- Joe

enchomko wrote:
snip

All of them, in every aspect and in every center? I beg to differ.
Sure, there are problems and those are the ones the media tell you
about. But of that list, which ones were done poorly? Aqua? No picture
perfect in virtually every aspect!

No, not all of them. Of course not. But, let's look at Aqua since you
selected it. Aqua has 6 instruments on board:

* AMSR-E - Furnished by the National Space Development Agency of Japan.
* MODIS - Furnished by Santa Barbara Remote Sensing
* AMSU-A -Furnished by Boeing.
* AIRS - Furnished by JPL.
* HSB - Furnished by Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais of
Brazil.
* CERES - Furnished by TRW.

The satellite itself was built by TRW. The satellite was launched on
the Delta 7000 (manufactured by Lockheed).

Again, NASA does not build things. NASA directs things to be built.
Parenthetically, finding the above information took a lot longer than it
should have- as a former NASA contractor, I chafe when I see the efforts
of contractors omitted from NASA press briefings. It's shameful.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Andy Resnick wrote:
enchomko wrote:
snip

All of them, in every aspect and in every center? I beg to differ.
Sure, there are problems and those are the ones the media tell you
about. But of that list, which ones were done poorly? Aqua? No picture
perfect in virtually every aspect!

No, not all of them. Of course not. But, let's look at Aqua since you
selected it. Aqua has 6 instruments on board:

* AMSR-E - Furnished by the National Space Development Agency of Japan.
* MODIS - Furnished by Santa Barbara Remote Sensing
* AMSU-A -Furnished by Boeing.
* AIRS - Furnished by JPL.
* HSB - Furnished by Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais of
Brazil.
* CERES - Furnished by TRW.

The satellite itself was built by TRW. The satellite was launched on
the Delta 7000 (manufactured by Lockheed).

Er ... minor nit ... isn't Delta a Boeing rocket?

I know various companies make various components, and things change
quickly in the industry. I haven't looked at Delta II specs for a while.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

In article ,
Andy Resnick wrote:

My point is that trying to justify the Space program in terms of
"science" is a poor argument, one that is quickly and easily demolished.
If one cares about the Space program, and NASA in particular, one
should at least make good arguments to support it.

I agree -- though I do think some valuable geology came out of the
Apollo missions, but that is not a suitable justification for them.

NASA's job should be one of engineering, not science. Its adoption of
science as its raison d'etre after Apollo was probably the biggest
mistake in the history of the space program, setting up fruitless annual
budget battles and causing a serious loss of focus.

Science is important too, but it should be *using* space infrastructure
along with everybody else -- it's not the reason for space
infrastructure. By analogy, scientists use personal computers
extensively, but science is not the reason for developing better
personal computers.

Best,
- Joe

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Andy Resnick wrote:

enchomko wrote:
snip


All of them, in every aspect and in every center? I beg to differ.
Sure, there are problems and those are the ones the media tell you
about. But of that list, which ones were done poorly? Aqua? No picture
perfect in virtually every aspect!


No, not all of them. Of course not. But, let's look at Aqua since
you selected it. Aqua has 6 instruments on board:

* AMSR-E - Furnished by the National Space Development Agency of
Japan.
* MODIS - Furnished by Santa Barbara Remote Sensing
* AMSU-A -Furnished by Boeing.
* AIRS - Furnished by JPL.
* HSB - Furnished by Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais of
Brazil.
* CERES - Furnished by TRW.

The satellite itself was built by TRW. The satellite was launched on
the Delta 7000 (manufactured by Lockheed).


Er ... minor nit ... isn't Delta a Boeing rocket?

I got some info from:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/dela7000.htm

Not clear what the page date is.


snip

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University

Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
Andy Resnick wrote:


My point is that trying to justify the Space program in terms of
"science" is a poor argument, one that is quickly and easily demolished.
If one cares about the Space program, and NASA in particular, one
should at least make good arguments to support it.


I agree -- though I do think some valuable geology came out of the
Apollo missions, but that is not a suitable justification for them.

NASA's job should be one of engineering, not science. Its adoption of
science as its raison d'etre after Apollo was probably the biggest
mistake in the history of the space program, setting up fruitless annual
budget battles and causing a serious loss of focus.

Science is important too, but it should be *using* space infrastructure
along with everybody else -- it's not the reason for space
infrastructure. By analogy, scientists use personal computers
extensively, but science is not the reason for developing better
personal computers.

Best,
- Joe


Exactly!



--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
Case Western Reserve University