did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as
failures

nobodys old friend wrote:

did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as
failures

Funny...no one else is saying that.

Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space
Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday
morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do
so for many years to come.

Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it.

I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has
outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle, esentially 1970's technology,
should be updated...Just like the automakers bring out new model years.

No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned
space program. It's just time to go on to bigger and better.

Heck, Mark...The Shuttle's "younger" than YOU are, yet done far
more in it's lifetime than you've done in yours.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
nobodys old friend wrote:

did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures

Funny...no one else is saying that.

I'd like to see a quote of what was actually said.

Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two
spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts
without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would
describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did
not reach every goal set for them.

Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space
Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday
morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come.

Not too many, though...

Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it.

You really think so?

I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has
outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle,
esentially 1970's technology,
should be updated...

Agreed!

Just like the automakers bring out new model years.

More like the automakers rethink the basic design.

Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine,
rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are
unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s,
and radial tires.

No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned
space program.

Yes, they did. The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that
would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule
systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of
the shuttle system and other design features (like having the
heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its
success and performance.

It's just time to go on to bigger and better.

I'd say "smaller and smarter".

Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants
to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion.
Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort
will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part
of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new
systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model"

Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few
folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities
effectively here on earth.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
nobodys old friend wrote:

did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures

Funny...no one else is saying that.

I'd like to see a quote of what was actually said.

Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two
spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts
without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would
describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did
not reach every goal set for them.

I am sure that some aspect of "A" mission failed, ergo Mark thinks
he can write it off as an "I Win"...If that's what float's his boat,
let him be happy.

Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space
Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday
morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come.

Not too many, though...

ISS is sceheduled to stay manned through 2020-somenthing...

Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it.

You really think so?

No...I just said that to be nice.

I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has
outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle,
esentially 1970's technology,
should be updated...

Agreed!

MY biggest disappointment is that we are as close to Mars as we've
been in centuries, but we don't have a manned mission there yet.

Just like the automakers bring out new model years.

More like the automakers rethink the basic design.

Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine,
rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are
unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s,
and radial tires.

And 20 years from now they'll look back at THOSE cars and laugh...

Forward...always forward...

No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned
space program.

Yes, they did.

Oh?

They were going to fly the Shuttle and then call it quits after
that?

The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that
would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule
systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of
the shuttle system and other design features (like having the
heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its
success and performance.

That doesn't support an "opposition" to what I said...

It's just time to go on to bigger and better.

I'd say "smaller and smarter".

Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants
to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion.
Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort
will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part
of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new
systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model"

Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few
folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities
effectively here on earth.

Several issues there, Jim.

First of all, much of the radio and TV media had been talking
about the storm swinging wide and not causing "that much" damage. That
was misleading and I am sure "reassured" the local populace that this
was rideable.

Secondly, the topography is such that moving mass numbers of folks
OUT of NO in a hurry is a gridlock nightmare in and of itself.

Third, the residents themselves have to swallow some culpability
for CHOOSING to live on a below-sea level chunk of real estate in a
region known for hurricaines and high sea states.

If we become so presumptuous as to assume the government can bail
us out of each and every conceiveable disaster, there will be precious
little money left for anything else.

Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession alone that
have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we
pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down"
effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and
deep felt.

73

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

Of course those programs have had failures.
Heck, Apollo had two
spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts
without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would
describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did
not reach every goal set for them.

I am sure that some aspect of "A" mission failed, ergo
Mark thinks
he can write it off as an "I Win"...If that's what float's his boat, let him be happy.

Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space
Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT
Wednesday
morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come.

Not too many, though...

ISS is sceheduled to stay manned through 2020-somenthing...

But not the shuttle. In fact it's grounded - again.

I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that
the "mission" has
outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle,
esentially 1970's technology,
should be updated...

Agreed!

MY biggest disappointment is that we are as close to Mars
as we've
been in centuries, but we don't have a manned mission there yet.

???

Not sure what you mean, Steve.

Going to Mars is at least 100 times more difficult than going to the
moon. Mars never gets closer than 30 million miles - more than 100
times farther away than the moon. A Mars mission would be years long
rather than a week or two. Martian gravity and atmosphere make the
problems even worse.

If it costs $100-200 billion or more to go to the moon, what would Mars
cost?

Just like the automakers bring out new model years.

More like the automakers rethink the basic design.

Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine,
rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are
unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s,
and radial tires.

And 20 years from now they'll look back at THOSE cars and laugh...

"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...

Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.

Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy problems? The
White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half
a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of what needs
to be done for the future, but where's the leadership?

Forward...always forward...

The question is: which way is "forward"? Should we all drive SUVs?


No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned
space program.

Yes, they did.

Oh?

Yes.

They were going to fly the Shuttle and then call it quits after
that?

No. They said that the future of space flight was in reusable craft
rather than one-use rockets. Turns out the reusables have not solved
the problems.

The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that
would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can"
one-shot capsule
systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact
the complexity of
the shuttle system and other design features (like having the
heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its
success and performance.

That doesn't support an "opposition" to what I said...

Yes, it does. The "old" one-shot rockets are almost certainly the key
to the "way forward"...

It's just time to go on to bigger and better.

I'd say "smaller and smarter".

Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants
to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion.
Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort
will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part
of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new
systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model"

Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few
folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities
effectively here on earth.

Several issues there, Jim.

First of all, much of the radio and TV media had been talking
about the storm swinging wide and not causing "that much"
damage.

Not the TV and radio I saw!

That
was misleading and I am sure "reassured" the local populace
that this was rideable.

Yet the NWS said the opposite.

Secondly, the topography is such that moving mass numbers of folks
OUT of NO in a hurry is a gridlock nightmare in and of itself.

All the more reason to get out early.

And what about Houston? Why was that evacuation such a fiasco? You
can't blame it on the Dems...

Third, the residents themselves have to swallow some culpability
for CHOOSING to live on a below-sea level chunk of real estate in a region known for hurricaines and high sea states.

Agreed - and so can the various levels of govt. for allowing and
encouraging them to live there and build more. The govt. builds the
levees and issues the building permits.

If we become so presumptuous as to assume the government can
bail
us out of each and every conceiveable disaster, there will be
precious
little money left for anything else.

I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that
are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away.

Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be
done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into
rebuilding than it would take to relocate?

Back to NASA...The technologies in my chosen profession alone that
have benefitted from the Space Program are phenominal. I think if we
pulled the rug out from under it any time soon, the "trickle down"
effect in lost of impetus in technology development would be rapid and
deep felt.

Can you guarantee that those advances would not have happened if the
money had been spent on research in the fields directly affected? IOW,
why not simply go after a problem directly?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...

Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.

My mileage standards are doing fine. I'm on my third Dodge Neon. The 2
liter engine delivers about 33 mpg on the highway. I'm tall but I have
4 or 5 inches of space between the top of my head and the roof of the car.

Yes, the U.S.A. imports more oil than it produces. It looks as if we
*do* have an energy policy and part of it seems to be, "Let's use theirs
before we use ours".

Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy problems? The
White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half
a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of what needs
to be done for the future, but where's the leadership?

Well, we aren't going to be driving electrics because of limited range.
The hybrids are quite expensive. The hydrogen-powered car won't be
viable until we can produce hydrogen cheaply. What kind of leadership
would you like to see?


I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that
are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away.

Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be
done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into
rebuilding than it would take to relocate?

Do you really think that the POTUS has the clout to declare that NOLA
won't be rebuilt?

Dave K8MN

K4YZ wrote:
nobodys old friend wrote:

did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as
failures

Funny...no one else is saying that.

BUZZ wrong again wildy reported on Foxnews that the head of NASA said
that shuttle and ISS are failure
cut
Steve, K4YZ

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...

Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.

My mileage standards are doing fine. I'm on my third Dodge
Neon.

In how many years?

The 2
liter engine delivers about 33 mpg on the highway. I'm tall
but I have
4 or 5 inches of space between the top of my head and the roof of the car.

For 17 years I drove a VW Rabbit Diesel. Over 40 mpg in the worst kind
of city driving, well over 50 mpg on the highway. Met all the pollution
requirements too. With technology from the late 1970s.

Yes, the U.S.A. imports more oil than it produces. It looks as if we
*do* have an energy policy and part of it seems to be, "Let's
use theirs before we use ours".

Yup - also "we'll pay whatever it costs" and "we'll support all kinds
of not-so-nice regimes, even fight wars, as long as they keep the oil
flowing"

Most of all: "We don't have any sort of plan to become
energy-independent or even less dependent in the long term"

Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy
problems? The
White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half
a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of
what needs
to be done for the future, but where's the leadership?

Well, we aren't going to be driving electrics because of
limited range.

Lots of people could use an inexpensive electric car for local use. But
there's no serious program to develop one. GM had some electric Saturns
for a while, and their owners loved 'em, but they ended the program
early.

The hybrids are quite expensive.

New technology usually is - at first.

The hydrogen-powered car won't be
viable until we can produce hydrogen cheaply.

Don't hold yer breath...

What kind of leadership
would you like to see?

How about:

1) Tax credits for energy efficient investments, such as high MPG cars,
high efficiency heating and cooling units, high efficiency appliances,
etc. We used to have them...

2) A long term program to *seriously* develop energy efficient systems
like electric cars, wind and solar energy, new energy sources like
thermal depolymerization (TDP), etc.

3) Community planning that makes us less dependent on cars. Transit
systems that work. Design for sustainable technology rather than for
show.

4) An emphasis on conservation and efficiency rather than conspicuous
consumption.

I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that
are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away.

Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be
done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into
rebuilding than it would take to relocate?

Do you really think that the POTUS has the clout to declare
that NOLA won't be rebuilt?

He seems to have the clout to say it will be. Why not the opposite?

*WHY* should we all pay to rebuild a city below sea level in a
hurricane zone?

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

nobodys old friend wrote:


did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures

Funny...no one else is saying that.


I'd like to see a quote of what was actually said.

Me too. I did a web search, and didn't find anything. Mark, can you
give us a source?

Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two
spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts
without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would
describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did
not reach every goal set for them.

The shuttle is our attempt to do a job with 1970's (and some earlier)
technology. As such, it was a huge task that we were barely able to
produce to do some of the goals that were set.

The good news is that we were able to get it off the ground and into
space. The bad news (and I don't really consider it that) is that it is
an expensive and finicky bitch. Would we produce it that way today? Not
even. Time moved on, technology advanced, and I have no doubt that that
a machine produced with 2000's technology would be much safer, less
expensive to produce and maintain, and much more capable.

But to call it a failure is absolutely wrong, and misses the whole point.

We DID make several machines that DID ride to orbit, DID perform their
missions, DID return to earth, and DID outfit for many return trips to
space. It is interesting that the failures in the system that led to the
loss of two of the orbiters were due to peripheral systems that failed
largely to human error.

Some failure.

Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space
Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday
morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come.


Not too many, though...

Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it.


You really think so?

I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has
outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle,
esentially 1970's technology,
should be updated...


Agreed!


Just like the automakers bring out new model years.


More like the automakers rethink the basic design.

Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine,
rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are
unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s,
and radial tires.


No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned
space program.


Yes, they did. The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that
would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule
systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of
the shuttle system and other design features (like having the
heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its
success and performance.

I thing there is some confusion here, Jim. I doubt that the shuttle was
designed to be the last "space truck" we ever designed!


It's just time to go on to bigger and better.


I'd say "smaller and smarter".

I dunno. I think that we might be at the point of vehicle specialization
now. I can envision a heavy lift vehicle that is just that- a minimalist
vehicle that provides basic life support and maneuvering, then returns
to earth after delivering its cargo. It could be a reusable vehicle.
Wouldn't be quite like the shuttle in that it wouldn't have that
expensive main engine on it.

Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants
to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion.
Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort
will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part
of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new
systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model"

If people are *not* going to be in space, I support a NASA budget of
$0.00 dollars. I support great sums of money going to them if people are
going to go to space. And there are plenty of people that feel the same
as I do. All the scientists who make the claims about how space science
is so much cheaper and safer just don't get it. Their work is cool and
all, but they are the tail of the dog....

Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few
folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities
effectively here on earth.

I wouldn't, because the two things aren't related. Reminds me of the
old "We can put a man on the moon, so why can't we cure the common cold"
questions that used to make the rounds.

The failures of the latest hurricane disaster responses are the logical
end game of placing people in charge more because of their political
connections, and less because of their competency.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

K4YZ wrote:

wrote:

K4YZ wrote:


"THOSE" cars have been pretty much standard for 20 years now...

Yet they still burn gasoline and other petroleum based fuels. The fleet
mileage standards are not improving. The USA imports much more energy
(almost all of it in the form of oil and natural gas) than in the
1970s.


My mileage standards are doing fine. I'm on my third Dodge Neon. The 2
liter engine delivers about 33 mpg on the highway. I'm tall but I have
4 or 5 inches of space between the top of my head and the roof of the car.

Yes, the U.S.A. imports more oil than it produces. It looks as if we
*do* have an energy policy and part of it seems to be, "Let's use theirs
before we use ours".

Well, if that is our game plan, we better have enough reserves to fight
most of the world off. Otherwise it is dangerous brinkmanship.


Why isn't there a massive program to solve our energy problems? The
White House has been in the hands of a former oilman for more than half
a decade now. You'd think there's be some understanding of what needs
to be done for the future, but where's the leadership?


Well, we aren't going to be driving electrics because of limited range.
The hybrids are quite expensive. The hydrogen-powered car won't be
viable until we can produce hydrogen cheaply.

I really doubt that H is going to ever be a valid fuel.

What kind of leadership
would you like to see?

I would like to see some leadership realizing that driving single digit
fuel millage SUV's is an unpatriotic act, that building under insulated
McMansions that take immense amounts of energy to heat is an unpatriotic
act. The way we are with oil and gas in recent times reminds me of the
legendary lighting of cigars with 100 dollar bills. In yo' face
consumption...

I think that one critical lesson that should be gleaned from these two
hurricanes this summer is that we are incredibly vulnerable in a few
important areas. under the right circumstances, losing that much oil and
gas production could be a near fatal blow.


I say the best thing to do now is to *not* rebuild the parts of NO that
are below sea level. Salvage what can be saved, and move away.


Will Our President exhibit leadership and say that's what should be
done? Or will he make exorbitant promises, pouring much more money into
rebuilding than it would take to relocate?


Do you really think that the POTUS has the clout to declare that NOLA
won't be rebuilt?

Nope. New Orleans will be rebuilt, and will be rebuilt again, and
perhaps a third or forth time, until it slips beneath the waves for good.

- Mike KB3EIA -