On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 14:21:56 -0400, John Doe wrote:

"Lynndel K. Humphreys" wrote:

So the cameras on the ET are for after the fact damage survey and not for
abort judgement?

There is no way that anyone could monitor all those cameras and see debris
falling at high speed live and mke decision to tell crews to abrot. What you
see on TV is very slow motion clip that probably took hours to isolate while
watching the whole think in very slow motion. There just isn't time during the
8 minute ride to orbit to do that.

No, it was live - I saw the whole thing live - I didn't have to be at work
until 8. And it flopped off, just like in the news reports. "Whoops! What
was that????"

I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.

There are those who say that it's the fault of environmentalists -
Personally, I think it's the fault of the nazi warlovers. They're rather
spend your money murdering people than exploring the new frontiers of
humankind.

Cheers!
Rich

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:01:23 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.

There is no such design. Insulation has been coming off since STS-1.
NASA just dodged that bullet for 112 flights, then came Columbia's
last flight.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:01:23 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.

There is no such design. Insulation has been coming off since STS-1.
NASA just dodged that bullet for 112 flights, then came Columbia's
last flight.


Also let's not forget that the Russian (then Soviet) shuttle orbiter
Buran suffered debris hits from falling ice debris that came off the
Energia booster at launch, which hit and damaged tiles on that vehicle.
The Russians interestingly enough added foam insulation panels to the
Energia vehicle that was to have carried the second Buran orbiter to
space...
-Mike

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message news

No, it was live - I saw the whole thing live - I didn't have to be at work
until 8. And it flopped off, just like in the news reports. "Whoops! What
was that????"

I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.

There are those who say that it's the fault of environmentalists -
Personally, I think it's the fault of the nazi warlovers. They're rather
spend your money murdering people than exploring the new frontiers of
humankind.

Cheers!
Rich


Am I alone in thinking that Space shuttles are a little antiquated? We
haven't come up with a new design why? Might as well weld and Edsel airtight
and launch it!

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:01:23 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:




I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.



There is no such design. Insulation has been coming off since STS-1.
NASA just dodged that bullet for 112 flights, then came Columbia's
last flight.

Brian




I think it is interesting that a "chunk" of insulation came off. I would
think that once started,
a strip of insulation would come off. So, in my mind it is interesting
that only a spot dislodged
and not more. Could it be that the extreme vibration caused local
flexing which dislodged the
foam ?

Interesting problem.

Bill K7NOM

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message news

I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.


And which design was that?

The old foam tanks also shed foam and the foam that was shed on Columbia was
the old style.


There are those who say that it's the fault of environmentalists -
Personally, I think it's the fault of the nazi warlovers. They're rather
spend your money murdering people than exploring the new frontiers of
humankind.

Cheers!
Rich

In article ,
Brian Thorn wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:01:23 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:


I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.

There is no such design. Insulation has been coming off since STS-1.
NASA just dodged that bullet for 112 flights, then came Columbia's
last flight.

NASA could just design the foam to all fall off at ignition on the pad,
where it is safe, and fly the ET naked.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

"ChadMan" wrote in message
...

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message news

No, it was live - I saw the whole thing live - I didn't have to be at
work
until 8. And it flopped off, just like in the news reports. "Whoops! What
was that????"

I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.

There are those who say that it's the fault of environmentalists -
Personally, I think it's the fault of the nazi warlovers. They're rather
spend your money murdering people than exploring the new frontiers of
humankind.

Cheers!
Rich


Am I alone in thinking that Space shuttles are a little antiquated? We
haven't come up with a new design why? Might as well weld and Edsel
airtight and launch it!

NASA is working on the next generation shuttle. They spent an enormous
amount of money trying to fix the problem this time. I wonder if they would
have had better results by hiring Red Green and a truck load of duct tape.

In article . net,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message news

I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.


And which design was that?

The old foam tanks also shed foam and the foam that was shed on Columbia was
the old style.

I thought that the foam which hit Columbia was changed from the
earlier, because of Freon emissions concerns during the manufacture.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

There are those who say that it's the fault of environmentalists -
Personally, I think it's the fault of the nazi warlovers. They're rather
spend your money murdering people than exploring the new frontiers of
humankind.

The House just voted to authorized spending billions on sending people
to the moon and Mars. Maybe you're just out of touch with reality.

-McDaniel

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:53:22 -0500, DoN. Nichols wrote
(in article ):

In article . net,
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote:

"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in
message news

I just get rankled that with all of that investigation stuff, they didn't
just go back to the design that worked, without falling apart.


And which design was that?

The old foam tanks also shed foam and the foam that was shed on Columbia was
the old style.

I thought that the foam which hit Columbia was changed from the
earlier, because of Freon emissions concerns during the manufacture.

No, it wasn't. Go read the CAIB Report, Volume I. The ET on STS-107
did not use the new foam.

Enjoy,
DoN.





--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:07:47 -0700, mcdaniel_san2 wrote:


Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

There are those who say that it's the fault of environmentalists -
Personally, I think it's the fault of the nazi warlovers. They're rather
spend your money murdering people than exploring the new frontiers of
humankind.

The House just voted to authorized spending billions on sending people
to the moon and Mars. Maybe you're just out of touch with reality.

Yeah, I guess so. Dunno what hair got up my ass that day, sorry. But it
is kind of mind-boggling to think of the amount of money spent on the
military. I hope they get Iraq and Afghanistan resolved soon.

Remember the insanely successful Mars rovers? The ones with the
air bags and tetrahedral lander? That cost, like $300 million?
Like, you can send a robot to Mars cheaper than you can make a
movie about sending a robot to Mars. :-)

Anyway, there was a call-in show on CNN or CNBC or something, and they
were talking about the costs of the mission and stuff, and "Shouldn't
we be spending this money on Earth" had come up, and so I dialed the
phone. I got through! I was gonna get to ask a question live on cable
TV! I very carefully phrased my question - all of the moisture had
drained out of my mouth and was coming out my armpits - I asked, "Is
it not true that if the US refrained from buying even _one_ aircraft
carrier or nuclear-missile submarine, that the savings would cover
the entire cost of NASA since its inception?" And the _real_
scientists agreed to a man. The pols hemmed and hawed as usual.

Anyway, it was kewl at the time, and I just felt like sharing. %-}

Thanks!
Rich

Good points. Myself, being a Canadian (don't laugh) consider the same
economic points and until yesterday pondered heavily the pros and cons
of space exploration, with the cons usually winning. I have been aware
of the contribution of space exploration on society as a whole and
that the spin-off of technology has benefited almost every one of us
at one point in our lives, but I never really believed in the economic
reality of the direct benefits until I read an editorial in our local
newspaper. It was titled "The Return of Discovery - Bang for your
buck" by Marc Garneau, President of the Canadian Space Agency (yes we
have one). He had, apparently got ticked off, "blew my cool" when,
only hours after the launch of discovery, someone asked the perpetual
question, "Why is it that with all the poverty and social problems in
the world, we are spending money on space exploration?" That question,
asked of the usually polite, well traveled, Mr. Garneau prompted him
to do a very un-Canadian thing. He wrote a half page column explaining
why. I would dearly love to post a link to the article, but alas, this
is Canada and we tend not to post such boastings on the internet. The
newspaper chose to e-publish an article on T.E. Lawrence instead,
"Making war 'upon rebellion is messy and slow, like eating soup with a
knife.' (see the tie-in?).
To make a long story short (too late) the upshot is this. The Canadian
space industry employs 8,000 people, generated 2.4 billion dollars in
revenue last year, and the Canadian government only put 300 million
into it (not enough to make the movie). Best part, more than half the
revenue came from exports. Being that Canada is one of the most
heavily taxed nations, it wouldn't surprise anyone to know that a good
chunk of that 2.4B$ ends up back in the government coffers to be use
to alleviate the 'social problems of the world.'
With the economics of scale applied, I imagine that your situation in
the states is the same. You probably get just as much bang for your
space buck as we do.

--
The Road Warrior Hobbit

no -- it's NOT ok to contact this account with services or other
commercial interests


"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news | On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:07:47 -0700, mcdaniel_san2 wrote:
|
|
| Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
|
| There are those who say that it's the fault of
environmentalists -
| Personally, I think it's the fault of the nazi warlovers. They're
rather
| spend your money murdering people than exploring the new
frontiers of
| humankind.
|
| The House just voted to authorized spending billions on sending
people
| to the moon and Mars. Maybe you're just out of touch with
reality.
|
| Yeah, I guess so. Dunno what hair got up my ass that day, sorry. But
it
| is kind of mind-boggling to think of the amount of money spent on
the
| military. I hope they get Iraq and Afghanistan resolved soon.
|
| Remember the insanely successful Mars rovers? The ones with the
| air bags and tetrahedral lander? That cost, like $300 million?
| Like, you can send a robot to Mars cheaper than you can make a
| movie about sending a robot to Mars. :-)
|
| Anyway, there was a call-in show on CNN or CNBC or something, and
they
| were talking about the costs of the mission and stuff, and
"Shouldn't
| we be spending this money on Earth" had come up, and so I dialed the
| phone. I got through! I was gonna get to ask a question live on
cable
| TV! I very carefully phrased my question - all of the moisture had
| drained out of my mouth and was coming out my armpits - I asked, "Is
| it not true that if the US refrained from buying even _one_ aircraft
| carrier or nuclear-missile submarine, that the savings would cover
| the entire cost of NASA since its inception?" And the _real_
| scientists agreed to a man. The pols hemmed and hawed as usual.
|
| Anyway, it was kewl at the time, and I just felt like sharing. %-}
|
| Thanks!
| Rich
|
|

Anyway, there was a call-in show on CNN or CNBC or something, and they
were talking about the costs of the mission and stuff, and "Shouldn't
we be spending this money on Earth"

Back when I was building hardware for the space program every penny
was spent with contractors and subs on earth. There was nary a
contract with them off planet types. They never bid on anything.

"geezer" geezer(at)emailias.com wrote in message
...
|
| Anyway, there was a call-in show on CNN or CNBC or something, and
they
| were talking about the costs of the mission and stuff, and
"Shouldn't
| we be spending this money on Earth"
|
| Back when I was building hardware for the space program every
penny
| was spent with contractors and subs on earth. There was nary a
| contract with them off planet types. They never bid on anything.

Of course not. That would have violated one or more of the
non-proliferation of technology directives of the Federation.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:26:55 -0400, Mungo Bulge wrote:

Good points. Myself, being a Canadian (don't laugh) consider the same
economic points and until yesterday pondered heavily the pros and cons
of space exploration, with the cons usually winning. I have been aware
of the contribution of space exploration on society as a whole and
that the spin-off of technology has benefited almost every one of us
at one point in our lives, but I never really believed in the economic
reality of the direct benefits until I read an editorial in our local
newspaper.

OK, I'm breaking in here, before I've even read the rest of your post,
but that's OK, I've singned with my "I'm stoned" sig. The thing is,
howcome of all of the crap americans waste money on, Space Exploration
is the _ONLY ONE_ of which they _demand_, _in advance_ that there's
a _guaranteed_ monetary payoff?

What's the economic return on AIDS research?

What's the economic return on keeping Yellowstone Park pristine?

Let's just pull our pants up and go there because we CAN!

Thanks!
Rich
[and yes, even upon third proofreading, I've opted to refrain
from capitalizing "american", because it's used here merely
as an adjective. - Thanks! Rich]

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:26:55 -0400, Mungo Bulge top-posted:

to do a very un-Canadian thing. He wrote a half page column explaining
why. I would dearly love to post a link to the article, but alas, this
is Canada and we tend not to post such boastings on the internet. The
newspaper chose to e-publish an article on T.E. Lawrence instead,
"Making war 'upon rebellion is messy and slow, like eating soup with a
knife.' (see the tie-in?).

OK, you've pulled my chain. ;-)

Anybody here smart enough to parse, "Making war upon rebellion..."

What's the rebellion against in the first place? The emporer, or the
invaders?

Sheesh!

OBTW, how _are_ the invasions going these days? Lately, I've been
surfing the various news channels just to check out the hottest
weather babe. leer, snort ;-Q

Cheers!
Rich



To make a long story short (too late) the upshot is this. The Canadian
space industry employs 8,000 people, generated 2.4 billion dollars in
revenue last year, and the Canadian government only put 300 million into
it (not enough to make the movie). Best part, more than half the revenue
came from exports. Being that Canada is one of the most heavily taxed
nations, it wouldn't surprise anyone to know that a good chunk of that
2.4B$ ends up back in the government coffers to be use to alleviate the
'social problems of the world.' With the economics of scale applied, I
imagine that your situation in the states is the same. You probably get
just as much bang for your space buck as we do.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:26:55 -0400, Mungo Bulge wrote:
....but alas, this
is Canada and we tend not to post such boastings on the internet.

Oh, C'mon! Man Up!
--
Flap!
The Pig Bladder from Uranus, still waiting for that
hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is. ;-j

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:18:35 GMT, Pig Bladder
wrote:


The Pig Bladder from Uranus, still waiting for that
hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is. ;-j


Hot Babes can sense you've got a tiny Venus...

and Latina Babes probably think you're a Pluto....

awwww jeezzz, I'll shut up now.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:06:53 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

snip

Anyway, there was a call-in show on CNN or CNBC or something, and they
were talking about the costs of the mission and stuff, and "Shouldn't
we be spending this money on Earth"

Note that not one dollar has been spent in space. The governmnet hasn't
figured out how to put toll booths up there, yet.

had come up, and so I dialed the
phone. I got through! I was gonna get to ask a question live on cable
TV! I very carefully phrased my question - all of the moisture had
drained out of my mouth and was coming out my armpits - I asked, "Is it
not true that if the US refrained from buying even _one_ aircraft
carrier or nuclear-missile submarine, that the savings would cover the
entire cost of NASA since its inception?" And the _real_ scientists
agreed to a man. The pols hemmed and hawed as usual.

Well, it's a nice story, but like all partisan pinko propaganda, it's not
true. NASA's buget is in the $15B/yr range, even these days. After 45
years of this sort of spending (you do the math) even a super-carrier is
dog food (not that I'm argueing against either).

Anyway, it was kewl at the time, and I just felt like sharing. %-}

Kewl truth. Propaganda is sometiems kewl. Truth is too boring for the
6:00 news. Any engineer worth salt should have been able to see through
this one.

--
Keith

Rich Grise wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 14:26:55 -0400, Mungo Bulge wrote:


Good points. Myself, being a Canadian (don't laugh) consider the same
economic points and until yesterday pondered heavily the pros and cons
of space exploration, with the cons usually winning. I have been aware
of the contribution of space exploration on society as a whole and
that the spin-off of technology has benefited almost every one of us
at one point in our lives, but I never really believed in the economic
reality of the direct benefits until I read an editorial in our local
newspaper.


OK, I'm breaking in here, before I've even read the rest of your post,
but that's OK, I've singned with my "I'm stoned" sig. The thing is,
howcome of all of the crap americans waste money on, Space Exploration
is the _ONLY ONE_ of which they _demand_, _in advance_ that there's
a _guaranteed_ monetary payoff?

What's the economic return on AIDS research?

What's the economic return on keeping Yellowstone Park pristine?

Let's just pull our pants up and go there because we CAN!

Thanks!
Rich
[and yes, even upon third proofreading, I've opted to refrain
from capitalizing "american", because it's used here merely
as an adjective. - Thanks! Rich]

America spends Billions on trash projects - Billions on countries that continue or just
hate us and hate their slaves.... Spend billions on the UN...
Tons down the rat hole just because it is right.

Where is Europe on AIDS research ? - Eu ??? or are they in it for money only...
Yellowstone Park is not pristine - it was 2/3's burnt down a few years
ago because WE didn't thin the forest as WE defined best - but listened
to the small voices instead... Millions of animals died in the fires. Tons
of pollution to the air also - but the tree hugger wanted to let the forest
fend for itself - and forgot what nature does.

The payoff on some of this is in futures. In the research itself.
After all - you use stuff that was invented for use in the American space shots.

We all do. And that is part of the whole thing. Bring up the whole with work
of a few.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:28:53 -0700, Burnham Treezdown wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:18:35 GMT, Pig Bladder
wrote:

The Pig Bladder from Uranus, still waiting for that
hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is. ;-j

Hot Babes can sense you've got a tiny Venus...

and Latina Babes probably think you're a Pluto....

awwww jeezzz, I'll shut up now.

Ah, ya hadda go and defuse the thingie before I even
unleashed my rapier wit.

It's interesting to observe/sense the responses of
hot babes in bars when I tell them, "I'm a lesbian
trapped in a male body."
--
Cheers!
Rich
sig script------
"Thou shalt not omit adultery."
/sig script