| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Tuttles Almanac" |
| Date: |
25 Jul 2005 08:54:49 PM |
| Object: |
NASA's Magic Wand |
NASA May Bend Rules to Launch Discovery
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPACE_SHUTTLE?SITE=MNMAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-07-25-21-26-10
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- With the countdown entering its final hours and a
fuel gauge problem still unexplained, NASA said it is prepared to bend its
long-standing safety rules to launch the shuttle Tuesday on the first flight
since Columbia's doomed mission 2 1/2 years ago.
Griffin said only two other shuttle missions in the history of the program were
as significant: the first one in 1981 and the 1988 return to flight after the
loss of Challenger.
"If we were to lose another shuttle, I think obviously the shuttle program would
be out of business and the United States would be years away from putting another
crew of people in space," he said. "The initiation of President Bush's call to
return the U.S. to the moon and go to Mars would be delayed. And of course -
of course, of course, of course - seven people would be killed.
So there's a lot riding on this launch."
__________________________________________________________________________________
The space shuttle flys based on the time-honored
principles of spit, magic, luck, and prayer.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob Eldred" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA's Magic Wand |
25 Jul 2005 09:26:11 PM |
|
|
"Tuttle's Almanac" <Harry.Tuttle@brazil.plumbing.gov> wrote in message
news:11eb5v9a1l07l1d@corp.supernews.com...
NASA May Bend Rules to Launch Discovery
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPACE_SHUTTLE?SITE=MNMAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-07-25-21-26-10
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- With the countdown entering its final hours
and a
fuel gauge problem still unexplained, NASA said it is prepared to bend its
long-standing safety rules to launch the shuttle Tuesday on the first
flight
since Columbia's doomed mission 2 1/2 years ago.
Griffin said only two other shuttle missions in the history of the program
were
as significant: the first one in 1981 and the 1988 return to flight after
the
loss of Challenger.
"If we were to lose another shuttle, I think obviously the shuttle program
would
be out of business and the United States would be years away from putting
another
crew of people in space," he said. "The initiation of President Bush's
call to
return the U.S. to the moon and go to Mars would be delayed. And of
course -
of course, of course, of course - seven people would be killed.
So there's a lot riding on this launch."
____________________________________________________________________________
______
The space shuttle flys based on the time-honored
principles of spit, magic, luck, and prayer.
The space shuttle doesn't do anything useful so who cares what it's demise
is. It would be sad to loose more astronauts but they don't do anything that
can't be done with unmanned craft much cheaper and safer. The Shuttle is
limited to low orbit and has been used to launch and service a few
satellites and service the space station all risking human life for no
reason. The space station is a boondoggle that eats precious money but
returns little. They grow turnip seeds as "cutting edge" science there! All
real space science is done robotically like the recent rovers on Mars or the
impact on Comet Tempel 1. Exploration of the solar system is being done
without astronauts because there is no way they can go to these far out
places like Titan, etc. So, why do we waste money on manned flight? It
returns little and does nothing, is limited to 100 miles up, yet costs a
great deal. How many more astronauts are we going to loose in the aging
piece of junk called the shuttle just to heft a satellite up?
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chance Hopkins" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA's Magic Wand |
25 Jul 2005 10:07:59 PM |
|
|
"Bob Eldred" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7bhFe.500$kk6.478@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
The space shuttle doesn't do anything useful so who cares what it's demise
is. <snip ignorant crap>
READ THIS:
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Miles Long" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA's Magic Wand |
25 Jul 2005 10:08:58 PM |
|
|
Bob Eldred wrote:
"Tuttle's Almanac" <Harry.Tuttle@brazil.plumbing.gov> wrote in message
news:11eb5v9a1l07l1d@corp.supernews.com...
NASA May Bend Rules to Launch Discovery
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPACE_SHUTTLE?SITE=MNMAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-07-25-21-26-10
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- With the countdown entering its final hours
and a
fuel gauge problem still unexplained, NASA said it is prepared to bend its
long-standing safety rules to launch the shuttle Tuesday on the first
flight
since Columbia's doomed mission 2 1/2 years ago.
Griffin said only two other shuttle missions in the history of the program
were
as significant: the first one in 1981 and the 1988 return to flight after
the
loss of Challenger.
"If we were to lose another shuttle, I think obviously the shuttle program
would
be out of business and the United States would be years away from putting
another
crew of people in space," he said. "The initiation of President Bush's
call to
return the U.S. to the moon and go to Mars would be delayed. And of
course -
of course, of course, of course - seven people would be killed.
So there's a lot riding on this launch."
____________________________________________________________________________
______
The space shuttle flys based on the time-honored
principles of spit, magic, luck, and prayer.
The space shuttle doesn't do anything useful so who cares what it's demise
is. It would be sad to loose more astronauts but they don't do anything that
can't be done with unmanned craft much cheaper and safer.
Oops! Bob, you almost had us, but you lost us. You just punked
YOURSELF with Miles' First Law:
Faulty Premise = Invalid Conclusion
There is no more versatile tool than man. The Hubble couldn't be
repaired by robot, not with current technology. Nor could we have
returned rocks from the moon by remote control. And, if you have read
anything at all, you should have seen the gymnastics Mission Control had
to go through just freeing one wheel on the Mars Rover. Stick to the
"soft" sciences, you flunked this one...
Miles "Opposable Thumbs" Long
The Shuttle is
limited to low orbit and has been used to launch and service a few
satellites and service the space station all risking human life for no
reason. The space station is a boondoggle that eats precious money but
returns little. They grow turnip seeds as "cutting edge" science there! All
real space science is done robotically like the recent rovers on Mars or the
impact on Comet Tempel 1. Exploration of the solar system is being done
without astronauts because there is no way they can go to these far out
places like Titan, etc. So, why do we waste money on manned flight? It
returns little and does nothing, is limited to 100 miles up, yet costs a
great deal. How many more astronauts are we going to loose in the aging
piece of junk called the shuttle just to heft a satellite up?
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Eldred" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA's Magic Wand |
25 Jul 2005 11:23:49 PM |
|
|
"Miles Long" <Miles@home.net> wrote in message
news:2d681$42e5a7d4$4069ee8e$26043@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
Bob Eldred wrote:
Oops! Bob, you almost had us, but you lost us. You just punked
YOURSELF with Miles' First Law:
Faulty Premise = Invalid Conclusion
There is no more versatile tool than man. The Hubble couldn't be
repaired by robot, not with current technology. Nor could we have
returned rocks from the moon by remote control. And, if you have read
anything at all, you should have seen the gymnastics Mission Control had
to go through just freeing one wheel on the Mars Rover. Stick to the
"soft" sciences, you flunked this one...
Miles "Opposable Thumbs" Long
Hubble was repaired by the shuttle, However what was not told was the the
Mission to hubble cost more than replacing the hubble with another one
directly. Like all shuttle missions, it was a very expensive and risky stunt
that could have been done robotically. Of course, the operation of Hubble is
all robotic, right, no humans required. In fact the orbit of the Hubble is
too low for long term stability and it will now be abandoned. That low orbit
was a requirement and result of using the shuttle in its placement, a
compromise that was detrimental to the Hubble. The astromomers will tell you
it should have been placed much higher giving it a longer life time and
greater isolation. The fact remains that man and the shuttle can't reach
higher than about 100 miles or so. Therefore virtually everything else must
be done robotically. The shuttle can't even get to geosynchronous orbit
where the com satellites are. That's the one place where man might be
marginally useful. So get over your romantic Buck Rogers, Capitan Kirk view
of man in space. Man can do virtually nothing in space especially when
encumberd by life support systems and space suits. Everything man has done
to date has been a stunt. And tomorrow, we have another stunt with no
purpose. Or, tell us, what is the purpose? Maybe to water the pumpkin seeds
in the space station, huh?
I make this prediction and will bet anybody who wants a little wager that
man will NOT, repeat NOT go to Mars within the next 50 years, if ever. I
know your great leader, Bush thinks he wants to go there but he is nuts in
more ways than one. He thought there were WMD in Iraq too, so what does he
know? The reason is that it is simply beyond our present technology for long
term space life support and energy requirements and the costs are far too
great so it won't happen.
Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Miles Long" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA's Magic Wand |
26 Jul 2005 07:20:10 PM |
|
|
Bob Eldred wrote:
"Miles Long" <Miles@home.net> wrote in message
news:2d681$42e5a7d4$4069ee8e$26043@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
Bob Eldred wrote:
Oops! Bob, you almost had us, but you lost us. You just punked
YOURSELF with Miles' First Law:
Faulty Premise = Invalid Conclusion
There is no more versatile tool than man. The Hubble couldn't be
repaired by robot, not with current technology. Nor could we have
returned rocks from the moon by remote control. And, if you have read
anything at all, you should have seen the gymnastics Mission Control had
to go through just freeing one wheel on the Mars Rover. Stick to the
"soft" sciences, you flunked this one...
Miles "Opposable Thumbs" Long
Hubble was repaired by the shuttle, However what was not told was the the
Mission to hubble cost more than replacing the hubble with another one
directly. Like all shuttle missions, it was a very expensive and risky stunt
that could have been done robotically. Of course, the operation of Hubble is
all robotic, right, no humans required. In fact the orbit of the Hubble is
too low for long term stability and it will now be abandoned. That low orbit
was a requirement and result of using the shuttle in its placement, a
compromise that was detrimental to the Hubble. The astromomers will tell you
it should have been placed much higher giving it a longer life time and
greater isolation. The fact remains that man and the shuttle can't reach
higher than about 100 miles or so. Therefore virtually everything else must
be done robotically. The shuttle can't even get to geosynchronous orbit
where the com satellites are. That's the one place where man might be
marginally useful. So get over your romantic Buck Rogers, Capitan Kirk view
of man in space. Man can do virtually nothing in space especially when
encumberd by life support systems and space suits. Everything man has done
to date has been a stunt. And tomorrow, we have another stunt with no
purpose. Or, tell us, what is the purpose? Maybe to water the pumpkin seeds
in the space station, huh?
I make this prediction and will bet anybody who wants a little wager that
man will NOT, repeat NOT go to Mars within the next 50 years, if ever. I
know your great leader, Bush thinks he wants to go there but he is nuts in
more ways than one. He thought there were WMD in Iraq too, so what does he
know? The reason is that it is simply beyond our present technology for long
term space life support and energy requirements and the costs are far too
great so it won't happen.
Bob
Actually, the way things are going there's not going to be any funding
for anything except protecting the rich from everybody else...that kind
of shoots space, research, etc down the shitter...
Miles "Reality Bites" Long
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA's Magic Wand |
26 Jul 2005 02:42:48 PM |
|
|
Bob Eldred wrote:
"Miles Long" <Miles@home.net> wrote in message
news:2d681$42e5a7d4$4069ee8e$26043@msgid.meganewsservers.com...
Bob Eldred wrote:
Oops! Bob, you almost had us, but you lost us. You just punked
YOURSELF with Miles' First Law:
Faulty Premise = Invalid Conclusion
There is no more versatile tool than man. The Hubble couldn't be
repaired by robot, not with current technology. Nor could we have
returned rocks from the moon by remote control. And, if you have read
anything at all, you should have seen the gymnastics Mission Control had
to go through just freeing one wheel on the Mars Rover. Stick to the
"soft" sciences, you flunked this one...
Miles "Opposable Thumbs" Long
Hubble was repaired by the shuttle, However what was not told was the the
Mission to hubble cost more than replacing the hubble with another one
directly. Like all shuttle missions, it was a very expensive and risky stunt
that could have been done robotically. Of course, the operation of Hubble is
all robotic, right, no humans required. In fact the orbit of the Hubble is
too low for long term stability and it will now be abandoned. That low orbit
was a requirement and result of using the shuttle in its placement, a
compromise that was detrimental to the Hubble. The astromomers will tell you
it should have been placed much higher giving it a longer life time and
greater isolation. The fact remains that man and the shuttle can't reach
higher than about 100 miles or so. Therefore virtually everything else must
be done robotically. The shuttle can't even get to geosynchronous orbit
where the com satellites are. That's the one place where man might be
marginally useful. So get over your romantic Buck Rogers, Capitan Kirk view
of man in space. Man can do virtually nothing in space especially when
encumberd by life support systems and space suits. Everything man has done
to date has been a stunt. And tomorrow, we have another stunt with no
purpose. Or, tell us, what is the purpose? Maybe to water the pumpkin seeds
in the space station, huh?
I make this prediction and will bet anybody who wants a little wager that
man will NOT, repeat NOT go to Mars within the next 50 years, if ever. I
know your great leader, Bush thinks he wants to go there but he is nuts in
more ways than one. He thought there were WMD in Iraq too, so what does he
know? The reason is that it is simply beyond our present technology for long
term space life support and energy requirements and the costs are far too
great so it won't happen.
Bob
They will definitely go to Mars. Since we reason
we even went to the moon, is because the
commies in Europe had some many nuclear bombs,
they're was no point in staying with
ebonics evolution retards from New York.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA's Magic Wand |
25 Jul 2005 10:39:15 PM |
|
|
Miles Long wrote:
Bob Eldred wrote:
"Tuttle's Almanac" <Harry.Tuttle@brazil.plumbing.gov> wrote in message
news:11eb5v9a1l07l1d@corp.supernews.com...
NASA May Bend Rules to Launch Discovery
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPACE_SHUTTLE?SITE=MNMAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-07-25-21-26-10
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- With the countdown entering its final hours
and a
fuel gauge problem still unexplained, NASA said it is prepared to bend its
long-standing safety rules to launch the shuttle Tuesday on the first
flight
since Columbia's doomed mission 2 1/2 years ago.
Griffin said only two other shuttle missions in the history of the program
were
as significant: the first one in 1981 and the 1988 return to flight after
the
loss of Challenger.
"If we were to lose another shuttle, I think obviously the shuttle program
would
be out of business and the United States would be years away from putting
another
crew of people in space," he said. "The initiation of President Bush's
call to
return the U.S. to the moon and go to Mars would be delayed. And of
course -
of course, of course, of course - seven people would be killed.
So there's a lot riding on this launch."
____________________________________________________________________________
______
The space shuttle flys based on the time-honored
principles of spit, magic, luck, and prayer.
The space shuttle doesn't do anything useful so who cares what it's demise
is. It would be sad to loose more astronauts but they don't do anything that
can't be done with unmanned craft much cheaper and safer.
Oops! Bob, you almost had us, but you lost us. You just punked
YOURSELF with Miles' First Law:
Faulty Premise = Invalid Conclusion
There is no more versatile tool than man. The Hubble couldn't be
repaired by robot, not with current technology. Nor could we have
returned rocks from the moon by remote control. And, if you have read
anything at all, you should have seen the gymnastics Mission Control had
to go through just freeing one wheel on the Mars Rover. Stick to the
"soft" sciences, you flunked this one...
The computer is most versatile tool ever invented.
Since it's main use is to put both NASA and
the military out of buisness.
Miles "Opposable Thumbs" Long
The Shuttle is
limited to low orbit and has been used to launch and service a few
satellites and service the space station all risking human life for no
reason. The space station is a boondoggle that eats precious money but
returns little. They grow turnip seeds as "cutting edge" science there! All
real space science is done robotically like the recent rovers on Mars or the
impact on Comet Tempel 1. Exploration of the solar system is being done
without astronauts because there is no way they can go to these far out
places like Titan, etc. So, why do we waste money on manned flight? It
returns little and does nothing, is limited to 100 miles up, yet costs a
great deal. How many more astronauts are we going to loose in the aging
piece of junk called the shuttle just to heft a satellite up?
Bob
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fox" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA's Magic Wand |
26 Jul 2005 07:44:39 PM |
|
|
Miles Long wrote:
Bob Eldred wrote:
The space shuttle doesn't do anything useful so who cares what it's demise
is. It would be sad to loose more astronauts but they don't do anything that
can't be done with unmanned craft much cheaper and safer.
Oops! Bob, you almost had us, but you lost us. You just punked
YOURSELF with Miles' First Law:
Faulty Premise = Invalid Conclusion
A faulty premise combined with logic allows one to reach that invalid
conclusion with great confidence!
There is no more versatile tool than man. The Hubble couldn't be
repaired by robot, not with current technology. Nor could we have
returned rocks from the moon by remote control. And, if you have read
anything at all, you should have seen the gymnastics Mission Control had
to go through just freeing one wheel on the Mars Rover. Stick to the
"soft" sciences, you flunked this one...
Miles "Opposable Thumbs" Long
The Shuttle is
limited to low orbit and has been used to launch and service a few
satellites and service the space station all risking human life for no
reason. The space station is a boondoggle that eats precious money but
returns little. They grow turnip seeds as "cutting edge" science there! All
real space science is done robotically like the recent rovers on Mars or the
impact on Comet Tempel 1. Exploration of the solar system is being done
without astronauts because there is no way they can go to these far out
places like Titan, etc. So, why do we waste money on manned flight? It
returns little and does nothing, is limited to 100 miles up, yet costs a
great deal. How many more astronauts are we going to loose in the aging
piece of junk called the shuttle just to heft a satellite up?
Bob
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
