If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:18:20 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > > wrote: > > >>RichA wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:46:44 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>David Schierholz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:06:24 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>David Schierholz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:28:09 -0400, pawn > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Ok- Probably not the group that cares about such things, but- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You are citing as an example of intelligence and work ethic an >>>>>>>organization that put a man on the moon in 1969 and hasn't put one >>>>>>>farther than low earth orbit since? >>>>>> >>>>>>This isn't due to lack of intelligence or work ethic. Its due to lack >>>>>>of funding. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Hmmm... Hummer/ Mustang >>>>>Hummer/ Mustang >>>>>$100,000/$2,000 (OK, conceed inflation) >>>>>Ugly/ classic >>>> >>>>Depends on your needs. Try taking a Mustang down a rut infested, muddy >>>>road or across a creek where the water is over the hood. In those >>>>circumstances the extra $80,000 for the Hummer might be a bargain, even >>>>at twice the price. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Shuttle/ Spaceship One, >>>>>Billions/ 10 Million >>>> >>>>Not much of a comparison. Space Ship One just barely gets into space >>>>for a few seconds and doesn't even circle the planet once. Tell them to >>>>take a 60,000lb payload into orbit and their cost will also go into orbit. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Now I have nothing against 1960's technology, but I don't plan to >>>>>commute in it in 2005. NASA does. >>>> >>>>There are probably better technologies available but planning a reusable >>>>ship that achieves low and high earth orbit takes time and you have to >>>>use the best available technology when you start designing. Trying >>>>integrate new technology after the fact, many times, is just not >>>>practical or nothing would ever be accomplished. For an example, look >>>>at the space probes that are sent out. They have much lower technology >>>>when they reach their destination than the present day but when they >>>>were designed and built it was much more current. >>>> >>>>The shuttle was built on technology that has been tried and tested. The >>>>trouble is that NASA hasn't had the funds to continue operating the >>>>shuttles and at the same time develop newer and improved technologies >>>>for the next generation space ships. We are expecting an awful lot from >>>>them for the money they are budgeted. >>> >>> >>>If NASA in it's infinite political stupidity had gone with the Orion >>>project instead of Apollo, we'd have had manned visits to all the >>>planets by now and we'd be on our way to the nearest STARS. Instead, >>>we have a Shuttle that is impressive but vastly expensive to fly and >>>limited to Earth orbit, and a disgusting >>>waste of money called the ISS, which was designed to give Russian >>>nuclear scientists jobs (after the fall of the Soviet Union) so they >>>wouldn't run off an build atom bombs for Arabs. That dog-s--- $180b >>>ISS is the WORST boondoggle NASA ever came up with. >> >>Well, hind sight is always 20-20 but I seriously doubt we would be >>visiting the planets under any scenario by now. We don't have the >>technology to sustain human life in space for years on end with much >>reliability. I believe we will make interplanetary trips but not until >>30-50 more years have passed. Any manned deep space mission will need >>to be launched from earth orbit so freight ships like the shuttle is the >>first line of technology we will need in order to accomplish the second. >> > > > None of this, the ISS would be needed if they'd built Orion. > The ship would have been hugely heavy and thus would shield > occupants from radiation, it could have lofted 2000 TONS of > supplies in one shot. It could have stayed outside of Earth's > influence literally for years without re-supply, just like > some nuclear subs can go for months undersea. And the idea of Nuclear propulsion is DOA. The public would never have supported it. They have seen too many rockets explode either on the launch pad or on its way to orbit. Now tell them that the rocket being launched has a fission reaction going on inside it and see what they say or that there is one in orbit waiting to be fired up. Besides, just having propulsion does not solve the biggest problems for interplanetary travel. It's the part about keeping the humans alive for years in space that is the hard part. > "hindsite" being needed in the case of ISS is silly. They plan > missions 10 years prior to launches, they know exactly what their > purpose is, why is the ISS such a "surprise?" What's a surprise about it? It is there and being used. You don't think they used knowledge learned from the Russian and the US space programs to build it? NASA (as does most everyone else) builds off of past experiences to take the next step forward. Do you really expect them to go from a space station to a manned trip to Mars in a decade? It is not going to happen. |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in > : > > >>Joe wrote: >> >>><snipped a whole bunch of boring BS - except to Joe and I> > > > LOL! > > >>>I see what you mean. Talk about going off the deep end... But >>>it's always a pleasure. >>> >>>So what do you think about this CIA leak stuff? This morning I >>>read that it now involves Cheney's aide or something. >> >>I haven't followed it too closely. It looks to me like a big game >>of gotcha by both sides. Also, I think the press is stretching it >>out because there's nothing better to report. I don't think Rove >>broke the law and I've read where her cover was blown way before he >>talked to anyone in the press. It apparently was common knowledge >>that shew worked for the CIA. Plus her husband campaigned for Kerry >>and thought he might get a Cabinet or high level government position >>if he won so, IMO, his motives are suspect. >> >>Rove has driven a stake into the Democrat's heart in the 2000, 2002 >>and 2004 elections and they want nothing more than to see head head >>on a platter or at least drag him through the mud a little. I think >>the whole affair will not amount to much and as soon as Bush >>nominates a replacement for Sandra it will probably be forgotten. > > > I heard he's supposed to be on TV tonight to make some kind of > announcement. > > From what I've heard and read about Rove, he's nothing short of > brilliant. Apparently, he's been setting up Bush's presidency since > he was governor back in Texas. He actually met W. in the early 1970's. He was instrumental in Bush winning the Texas governorship. He has also done huge work in organizing the Repubs in ways that no one has done before. Much of the grass roots efforts has been orchestrated by him. The last election was a show of local political strength by both sides. I really think the Dems thought they had it won based on their local organization. The trouble is they totally underestimated the success of the Repubs at the same level. Organizations like Moveon.org were hiring people to get the vote out an were paying for voter registration. The Republicans used volunteers to do the same and they were motivated for the right reasons and not by money. Consequently they did a better job of turning out the vote. I think most people in the country thought that if the Dems got more than 55 million votes they would win. Who would have thought Bush would get way over 60 million, I certainly didn't think it was possible. IMO, the Repubs real test will be the 2006 elections. If they make more gains in the House and Senate it will be a remarkable achievement. No administration has increased seats for their party in Congress for four straight elections. Actually, I don't think it has been done for three consecutive elections. If they do I think it is a clear sign to the Dems that they had better do some real deep soul searching and start jettisoning people like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Boxer etc. Hillary Clinton is trying so hard to look conservative it makes me laugh. It is the only chance she has to win. If any liberal can pull off looking like Zell Miller it would be her. >>Repubs and Dems are always looking for a way to sling mud at each >>other and I think this is just the latest installment. It seems >>that most all the talking heads think this won't amount to much and >>don't think Rove broke any laws. Then again I'm sure many thought >>the same after the Watergate break-in. > > > That's pretty much what I'm thinking as well. More of the SOS... I think the Dems are looking for any way possible to slow Bush down on his agenda. Same goes for stopping any conservative Supreme Court nominees. They are trying the same tactics that Newt used only they aren't nearly as good at it. Then again, I never underestimate the Repubs ability to shoot themselves in the foot. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Forza Car List | Rob Berryhill | Simulators | 19 | May 7th 05 11:37 PM |
toyota celsior modified Nissan infinity sale Japan UK car exporter aero | japancar | Driving | 0 | March 11th 05 06:06 AM |
Question about engine oil sludge | Bill D | Chrysler | 42 | January 7th 05 03:07 AM |
Toyota Engine Oil Sludge | Charlene Blake | General | 0 | October 19th 04 04:59 AM |
ALERT TO TOYOTA OWNERS | Charlene Blake | General | 0 | January 15th 04 02:50 PM |