5) The 24th century fleet would consist of refit NX-class ships even though better tech existed.
4) The Space-Shuttle is still in operation.
3) Crippled ships are left to fend for themselves because NASA managers fear loss of their retirement savings.
2) The Borg Collective ignores Starfleet ships on their way to assimilate Radio Shack.
1) USS VOYAGER lost in collision with Mars during experiment to determine weather or not Miles and Kilometers are the same.
----
I'm sorry, but the NASA of circa 1970 managed to get a crippled moonshot home. The NASA of today is more like a tanking DotCom... Everyone is in a panic over the potential loss of retirement funds to take any real risks.
-------------------- Like A Bat Out Of Hell...
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Loss of Respect for Styrofoamman.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Indeed, Captain Mike.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
coming back, i mean seriously? did you call for a stop to air travel after the last crash or an end to car travel? satellite launch and space research is very necessary, and has been continuing for over a decade since the last disaster, we've succeeded in building a space station and accomplishing dozens of missions and hundreds of experiments and accomplishemnts.
their only mistake was not publicizing it to schmoes who see nothing but one disaster and want to scrub the whole thing, because they saw one bad thing on the news.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
5) No, because NASA wouldn't be on any budget restricting its endeavours further every year.
4) Like 727s and DC9s are still in operation with many airlines today, yet no less safe? "Just because something's old, doesn't mean you throw it away", et all.
3) When you scratch your car's paint, do you buy a new one?
2) You have *NO* idea why the Shuttles are equipped with relatively aging avionics, do you?
1) Good riddance.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
(I forego rational criticism, because it's been done well beforehand. Also, I mean, you don't fight a grease fire with a tsunami. I overrate myself.)
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I may as well join in on the trashing of this totally inappropriate and ill-informed post...
quote:Originally posted by Styrofoaman: IF NASA RAN STARFLEET:
...Then it would be a hell of a lot different because there's no financial restrictions in the Federation. These days, we're still stuck with that "archaic" system called Capitalism.
quote:5) The 24th century fleet would consist of refit NX-class ships even though better tech existed.
Two questions: (a) Are those old NX-class ships reliable for the job they're assigned to do in that day and age? and (b) Are there sufficient resources to cover the cost of developing and building a new starship class with this "better" tech, and will the benefits of this tech justify such a cost?
quote:4) The Space-Shuttle is still in operation.
I do believe that the B-52 bombers are scheduled to be in service for another 35 years or so. And the Enterprise CVN-65 will probably be around until at least 2015. Not to mention that in Starfleet, we still saw a hell of a lot of Mirandas and Excelsiors flying around during DS9.
quote:3) Crippled ships are left to fend for themselves because NASA managers fear loss of their retirement savings.
Ah, yes. Rush to promote shuttle safety by rushing the launch of another shuttle in a dubious mission that may not be physically able to conduct the necessary repairs anyway. That's perfectly logical.
quote:2) The Borg Collective ignores Starfleet ships on their way to assimilate Radio Shack.
That's because aerodynamics is hardly rocket science for the Borg. (Ha ha! I made a funny! )
quote:1) USS VOYAGER lost in collision with Mars during experiment to determine weather or not Miles and Kilometers are the same.
Um... what the hell is this supposed to mean? I know that the Mars Observer (or some probe of similar name) was lost because someone forgot to convert some measurements. But that's an accident. Not a pointless mission.
Perhaps you don't realize that the government is not interested in pouring the resources of the entire economy of the United States into the space program these days. The only reason that NASA was so much more successful in the 60's and 70's is because the government was involved in the space race as a point of national pride, in beating the Soviets to the Moon.
By the way, have you ever heard of Apollo 1? Ever wonder who the USS Grissom (from TSFS) was named after?
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Um, you know, there's a difference between NASA as an organization and the Space Shuttle as a program, and pointing out the flaws in one does not necessarily imply an attack on the other.
Not that a terminally goofy Star Trek analogy accomplishes this in any way, but I'm just saying.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Thank god that the 24th century doesn't still use designs that are over 100 years old as it's main workhorse then, eh?
Wait, what was the point again?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Although the rationales given above are good, one should note that
-Starfleet militarily fights constantly advancing enemies, i.e. other fleets -Airlines economically fight constantly advancing enemies, i.e. other airlines -But the space shuttle only fights the physics of surface-to-orbit travel - and those haven't changed much for the past three billion years or so. And aren't likely to change again within the lifetime of the human species.
So the STS system would technologically be just as viable ten million years from now as it is today. Discounting hardware fatigue issues. Which probably played no role in the Columbia loss, either.
posted
As to the Apollo missions and the space race: Both the Russians and us Americans lost complete crews on the launchpad! NASA is not less competent today, it just does not have the congressional, presidential or public support of the 60's NASA. If NASA had the literally unlimited recources of Starfleet, the shuttles would still be flying: there would just be many more shuttles. Remember: the space shuttles are the most advanced machines ever built. Literally millions of tiny things could go wrong on any given mission and the fact that we have such a high success rate on shuttle missions demonstrates the skill and professionalism of both NASA and the astronauts that fly the missions. Think about all the little things that could go wrong on a airplane and the hundreds of people that work on a plane each year the next time you take a flight and then remark how lax NASA is. Don't belittle the lives of those lost by insinuating any less.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
As to the Apollo missions and the space race: Both the Russians and us Americans lost complete crews on the launchpad! NASA is not less competent today, it just does not have the congressional, presidential or public support of the 60's NASA. If NASA had the literally unlimited recources of Starfleet, the shuttles would still be flying: there would just be many more shuttles. Remember: the space shuttles are the most advanced machines ever built. Literally millions of tiny things could go wrong on any given mission and the fact that we have such a high success rate on shuttle missions demonstrates the skill and professionalism of both NASA and the astronauts that fly the missions. Think about all the little things that could go wrong on a airplane and the hundreds of people that work on a plane each year the next time you take a flight and then remark how lax NASA is. Don't belittle the lives of those lost by insinuating NASA is not the most professional space or aviation organization in the world.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Styrofoman is right to show his disrespect for NASA. Many scientists and engineers have disrespect for NASA. They don't have the people they had in 1970 for the very reason that jobs in the private sector pay more and have greater benefits.
I don't see why people support the space program so blindly. Then again, I don't see how people support President Bush.
(As you know, I don't have respect for NASA.)
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
1. The shuttles were designed in the 60's, built in the 70's and outdated by the 80's.
2. We should have a space vehicle capable of entering space without expensive booster rockets and dangerous explosives.
3. NASA has one big problem it has to keep good PR and have things look good, but that affects the way science works(IE CHALLENGER)
But i disagree that NASA is doing anything wrong I mean there the best at what they do, and can you expect any better from a government agency?
Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
