quote:

---

Originally posted by Styrofoaman:
IF NASA RAN STARFLEET:

---

quote:

---

5) The 24th century fleet would consist of refit NX-class ships even though better tech existed.

---

quote:

---

4) The Space-Shuttle is still in operation.

---

quote:

---

3) Crippled ships are left to fend for themselves because NASA managers fear loss of their retirement savings.

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
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.

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
 
This thread sucks.

Styrofoaman --- you are completely off base, insensitive, and funny. I'm truely offended.


Everyone knows its the governments fault for not properly funding NASA.
 

---

Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
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.)
 

---

Posted by Warbadden Hawkins (Member # 905) on :
 
I agree with styrafaom little.

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?
 

---

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by newark:
Many scientists and engineers have disrespect for NASA.
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.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
NASA is not less competent today, it just does not have the congressional, presidential or public support of the 60's NASA.

---

The issue here that no one is talking about is NASA internal politics.

They fired nine people off the safety review board when they refused to bullshit the safety program.

Then they were "concerned that the people with information about the possible damage to Columbia never came forward."

Uh, yeah. Been here done this it's called the "Pactiv Way."

I was fired off a safety review panel at a company because I refused to sign off on safety-budget reductions. Then I made a judgment call to shut down a line. Managment then overrode me and I had to watch two of my coworkers die.

Yeah, prehaps it's a bit off color, but when you start playing political games (FIRST [fill in blank] IN SPACE!!) and putting a price on human life (Too expensive, might limit payload) maybe it is time to scrap the space program.

At least untill we outgrow the "Greed Is Good Give Me Penison/Bonus/Stock Options" 1990's mindset.
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Fact: The STS launch systems were designed for around 100 distinct flights.

Fact: The Columbia was completing its 28th flight when it was destroyed.

Fact: There is literally no way that NASA could have arranged a rescue mission for the Columbia, even had it known right away the danger, because it is chemically impossible to replace those heat tiles in outer space.

Fact: The reason it takes a whole month or two (OR MORE!) to prepare a shuttle launch is because of all the safety precautions they take, to ensure that the shuttle is in as good a condition as they can make it. Rushing a launch would have done nothing but jeopardize the people who would have been sent to "rescue" the Columbia.

Now, for all those people who are belittling NASA, I'd like to provide two quotes from what I assume is one of your major interests, considering that this is a Star Trek message board...

"Risk is our business. That's what this starship is about. That's why we're aboard her." -- Captain James T. Kirk (1968)

"[The urge to explore] can't justify the loss of lives... whether it's millions... Or just one.? -- Captain Kathryn Janeway (2001)

Now tell me, which statement do you support?
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
"Risk is our business. That's what this starship is about. That's why we're aboard her." -- Captain James T. Kirk (1968)

Why? Because risk is our buisiness. Not everyone's perhaps but the urge to take risks in order to "better ourselves and the rest of humanity" is there. Relatively speaking the journey's of exploration accross the Atlantic in the 1400s right up to the first half of the 19th century were just as damgerous. Should we stop doing something just because it is hard? Have we, in this age of instant gratification and modern comfort, forgotten what it took to achieve this standard of living? The "me first" mindset that seems to infest so many of those with power in this world must end. I know it's probably just youthful idealism on my part but how hard would it really be for those in power to be selfless from time to time and try and get something great done, rather than just advancing their own agenda?
 

---

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Asking him to decide between Kirk and Janeway? Now THAT's a low blow.
 

---

Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
 
"Risk is our Business"

The people who chose to go out there know what the risks are and are willing to take them.
 

---

Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
 
I have taken a major risk.

How many people here have sunk thier entire life into starting a plastics company and managed to achive $2million in profit in less than a year?

Hmmm... I see... No hands raised!

Yet y'all preach to me about risk.

There are three kinds of risk: Risk, Unacceptable Risk, and Foolish Risk.

Taking an already risky technology and cutting back on the SAFETY BUDGET is Foolish Risk. Punishing the people who blew the whistle is unacceptable, too!

Close to 40% of my income is derived from our biax line. If one of the operators came to me and told me there was a problem, I would shut down and correct it before someone gets hurt. Not wait until it kills Suzie on mid-shift or wait untill it explodes. "Oh damn, guess we should have fixed it! We know what the problem was, so we can correct it for NEXT TIME!"

THAT'S why I've lost respect for NASA.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
BALEETED!

I give up. I really do.

Sighs all round.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Gimmie a break Styrofoamman! No one is saying you're Union Carbide.
If your gripe was that NASA fired saftey workers then you should have started your thread on that premise and not attacked the organization in general....gutless Congress will be doing that in a few weeks after the media coverage dies down anyway.
They'll likely screw NASA into an even smaller budget and they'll be no government money for a new shuttle design.
That's something to get mad over.
Where did you read that NASA fired anyone over saftey concerns just prior to the Columbia launch?
That happened in Challenger and the jerks responsible are no longer employed by NASA.
Until we hear NASA's reason for firing someone I would'nt jump to any conclusions...it could be a disgruntled employee looking to cause trouble.
I know that one personally: I had to give a deposition on monday about someone I co-fired from my job three and a half years ago!
BTW the crew of Columbia all voulenteered knowing the risks.
Anyone would have as good a chance dying in a car crash on the way to the grocery store as on re-entry.
Space is dangerous.
I'd go in a minute if asked.....almost anyone would accept that risk.
 

---

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
 
Exactly...don't go quoting facts about people getting "fired" for a particular reason unless you know them. Those members were at the end of their term of service and were simply not re-upped for board service. NASA felt that fresh faces on the board were approriate...and I seriously doubt that all 9 members replaced felt the exact same way about NASA and Safety. Find the statement that says otherwise and then we can talk.

The 359: I was implying that he stop using the PC used to make his posts with...that would have a much more significant impact on this thread than him not using velcro
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
What does a plastics company have to do with your feelings towards NASA?

Anyways. What would you rather have? NASA? or nothing? Cause if we ditch NASA, and in doing that the entire manned space program, we basically do a great injustice to all those who've given thier lives in the pursuit of knowledge, and scientific exploration.

Not only that, but when the world eventually runs out of resources and space, where will we be? Fighting over the last drops of oil, choking on foul air, or gagging on toxic water. The world can't sustain us forever,

We may go into a cycle of growth and decline, such as a closed ecosystem on an island for example. It may take many years to happen.

A certain (hypothetical) species will thrive (not having any natural predators helps. And the human reace doesn't have any natural predators), until the islands resources are depleted, then the whole population will crash, and rebuild itself or migrate to survive.

That's assuming that the population crash will allow the islands resources to replenish themselves to sustain the species' regrowth if not, then extinction.

Someday we may have to leave Earth to deal with the population expansion. Or at the very least begin exploring for resources on other planets to sustain us here on earth.

I think that this is an important idea. And if the space program ever is abolished, then I hope those who did it are willing to accept the future that may be.

So don't knock the only game in town!
 

---

Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
Ugh...

The age of exploration is not the same as the age of space discovery.

In the age of exploration, there was active competition amongst nations for land, food such as spice, human labor, and mineral rights. Their ships were funded by private and public entities with a divested interest in being number 1. In all the documentaries and histories I have read, not once have I heard of a nation cutting the cost of maintaining their fleet of ships. They may have scaled back their operations; however, their ships were deemed very valuable property with the potential of expanding the power of their host nation.

In the age of space, there was a race which ended in thirteen years, not after hundreds of years, when Americans landed on the Moon. Since then, NASA has scaled back on technology and its ambitions. Our ships are antiquated and are difficult to maintain. Unlike our ancestors, we are happy to have ships which are antiquated. Our sail-faring ancestors were constantly making improvements in their wooden ships as a result of experiences on the open sea and in their crews diet as a result of increased knowledge of human anatomy and needs. Between 1492 and 1776, we will see a major change in ship design and functions.
Our current program is committed to the space shuttle for their is neither the budget nor the willpower to build a newer, more advanced shuttle. There is talk of extending the shuttle to 2020. This is craziness.

I have seen people here refer to old airplanes. I know older airplanes are in existence. There is a very good reason for this. Many of these older planes, such as the DC-3 Dakota, fly in environments which are more benign than anything the shuttle will encounter. The shuttle is under more stress than other piece of hardware on our planet. She is required to be blasted into space at tremendous velocities and land at tremendous velocities while contending with the forces of gravity and heat.

I am sick of hearing this bullshit line-If you disrespect NASA, then you shouldn't be using the spinoffs. This is so black and white that I want to puke my guts out.
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
The age of exploration isn't all that different than the age of space exploration. It's still exploration. It's still gaining knowledge about unfamiliar territory (land or space). One still has to explore to find something. It's just been takin a step further.
 

---

Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
 
United States, following the Revolutionary War, dismantled the entire Continental Navy, and by dismantling I mean the ships were broken down and used for scrap. We had no Navy for a few years until the United States Navy was created.

And any plane in the air is under stress of some kind. I mean, they're flying. Off the ground. Would you trust flying in a 70 year old plane or a brand new one?
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"I have seen people here refer to old airplanes. I know older airplanes are in existence. There is a very good reason for this. Many of these older planes, such as the DC-3 Dakota, fly in environments which are more benign than anything the shuttle will encounter. The shuttle is under more stress than other piece of hardware on our planet. She is required to be blasted into space at tremendous velocities and land at tremendous velocities while contending with the forces of gravity and heat."

Yeah, and airplanes are under a lot more stress than cars. All three vehicles are built to withstand the forces being placed on them, so it isn't a very useful analogy for your purposes.
 

---

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
 
Newark my comment above regarding spinoffs was an attempt to get you to do alittle research before you go shooting off at the mouth...obviously that failed. Now who has their blinders on?

And NASA has procedures in place to account for the fact that the program uses a reusable launch system that must repeatedly be exposed to launch, orbit, and landing environments. No airliner is meticulously disassembled, inspected, and reassembled like the shuttles are.
 

---

Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
I'm not uneducated as to the spinoffs produced by the space program. These include advances in computers, velcro, and so on.

Age of Exploration: Primary purpose, the exploitation of people and lands for the purpose of expanding nations and building nation's treasuries. After doing this, use the land as staging platforms for engaging enemies in battle.

Age of Exploration: Secondary purpose, exploration

The Space Age: Primary and secondary purpose, exploration of space

America in the late 18th century was not a major player on the world stage. This honor was given to the Continental European nations, Britain, and Russia. US was a product of the Age of Exploration.
 

---

Posted by Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
 
I think it is a little early to be doing this debate, isn't it, fellas? I mean it was only four days ago that the Columbia disintegrated upon reentry, and yet already you have all forgotten the sympathy you felt for the families of Husband, McCool, Clark, Anderson, Brown, Ramon, and Chawla?

I think we've forgotten the true purpose of the space program, guys.
 

---

Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
Um...the true purpose of the space program is to waste tax payer dollars?

Joking aside, NASA has for decades attempted to define the true purpose of the space program. The space program is for many an idealistic pursuit of establishing peace and furthering man's ambitions for exploration and exploitation.
 

---

Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
 
Plain and simple, NASA cleaned house with the safety panel becaue the current members didn't like the safety cuts being made.


Guess what? Turns out NASA thinks the foam had nothing to do with the breakup.... So that leaves several disturbing choices: 1) Someone screwed up during an overhaul and missed somthing. 2) Pilot error 3) Sabotage.

Yeah. Ok. If they admit that the foam/ice damaged the wing and they ignored it, someone would loose thier job. (Shuttle Program Director!)

One more thing: Y'all vastly over-estimate the impact NASA has had on devloping products for daily life.

Keep up the river of flame, folks. MY heat-shield is still intact.
 

---

Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
 
So is your barrier of idiocy.
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
"river of flame.." how poetic..
 

---

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Styrofoaman:
"Plain and simple, NASA cleaned house with the safety panel becaue the current members didn't like the safety cuts being made."

When did plain and simple become synonomous with baseless and no facts to back it up?


"Guess what? Turns out NASA thinks the foam had nothing to do with the breakup.... So that leaves several disturbing choices: 1) Someone screwed up during an overhaul and missed somthing. 2) Pilot error 3) Sabotage."

NASA hasn't said one way or the other on the subject....its called an investigation for a reason, and it won't be over with in a week or two, the press are the ones talking up possible causes. 1) Could've happened 2) More likely a flight control computer error than pilot error, since the shuttle is under computer control during descent (pilot only has emergency capability to override and no indication from the downlink that he attempted to do so). 3) If you were going to sabotage a shuttle, where would u do it? During descent when cameras aren't "generally" pointed at it, or sitting on or just above the launch pad where ALL cameras are pointing and usually sending out live feeds?

"Yeah. Ok. If they admit that the foam/ice damaged the wing and they ignored it, someone would loose thier job. (Shuttle Program Director!)"

They didn't ignore it, a TECHNICAL decision was made that it was not a flight safety issue, despite this fact I would imagine the director would step down because of his own personal feelings of responsibilities, we forget that these folks are human beings too.

"One more thing: Y'all vastly over-estimate the impact NASA has had on devloping products for daily life."

Again I say do alittle research and find out the facts.

"Keep up the river of flame, folks. MY heat-shield is still intact."

Again, another example of poor taste on your part, considering recent events.

---

quote:

---

Age of Exploration: Primary purpose, the exploitation of people and lands for the purpose of expanding nations and building nation's treasuries. After doing this, use the land as staging platforms for engaging enemies in battle.

---

quote:

---

America in the late 18th century was not a major player on the world stage. This honor was given to the Continental European nations, Britain, and Russia. US was a product of the Age of Exploration.

---

Not entirely sure how this is relevent; if it's a reference to the above fact about the Continental navy, then I should point out that the RN also underwent significant reductions in the number of ships available, frequently, although usually after wars (obviously). Oh, and by the way, wooden hulled Napoleonic ships of the line were still being used as training accomodation and classrooms as late as WWII, and were still floating and seaworthy, as was proved by the fact that most were towed out to sea and scuttled after the war ( )
 

---

Posted by Styrofoaman (Member # 706) on :
 
Smoking Gun. Break Out The Whoopass and Let The Firings Begin.
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
theyre going to fire people because the wing broke? or we're going to fire you for being annoying?
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Oh good grief... Styrofoaman, do you have all the facts here? Are you a member of the investigating commission? Have you warped into the future and already know the outcome?

If it's none of the above, then please refrain from making assumptions presented as facts.

I don't think the theory that the wing broke off was ever in doubt -- because breaking up was the nature of the accident! What caused the damage on the wing of sufficient severity to lead to a break-up is the main concern here.

It's certainly possible that this much-touted foam theory was the cause of the accident... but that's still all it is -- an ACCIDENT. At this stage, the presented accounts indicate that an operational decision was made during the shuttle flight... if that was a bad decision, that's one thing. That doesn't mean that we need to disband NASA and never consider launching into space again, or whatever it is you're calling for.
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
hmm.. foam? foam!? you're the one who did it!

how the hell does any brand of logic leap from 'we have a picture of the wing flying off' straight to 'this is the fault of NASA directors and they should be fired' i for one think it was an accident, and short of being omniscient (and maybe omnipotent) no one on the ground or on the shuttle couldve foreseen or avoided this.

posting that article with that link only shows how misguided you are, demonstrates nothing else to me.

you know who we really have to blame for this? the ACLU, the homosexuals, feminists, anyone who tried to secularize .. oh never mind..
 

---

Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
Or how about this latest headline from CNN: NASA not convinced photos reveal Columbia's problem.

Translation: Nobody has a fucking clue yet. So please shut up about firing everyone at NASA already! I'm very sorry if some incident at your workplace was traumatic -- but that doesn't automatically mean that everything must fit that exact same scenario.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Has NASA ruled out orbital debris as a cause of the wing's damage?
I was shocked to learn (from a documentary on PBS) that during EVA the shuttle has to change it's pitch to shield astronauts from possible N.E.O. impacts.
It shields them with the bottom of the ship: the side with the heat shield.
I'm not saying that happened here (no EVA was performed) but is is a scary thought with all the floating crap zooming along at the same speeds as the shuttle....it could become a even more serious danger in future space missions.
Imagine the outcry if some astronaut was killed by a scrap of foil flying at 14000 mph.
Scary.

[ February 07, 2003, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
 

---

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
hm, they can't figure the damage from that 34 pixel wide image? for shame...

BTW space debris is getting thicker every day.. and most of it does travel at speed faster than.. well, a speeding bullet.

some scientists have estimated that if the growth of spaceborne junk (shaken off of craft, satellites and other man made article loss or breakup) continues at its current rate, orbital space might become impassable for EVA work..
 

---

Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
The media is fixated on the foam theory. I don't buy this theory. The foam was destroyed by the orbiter, not the other way around.

I am in favor of the shuttle impacted by space debris or a mechanical failure in the space frame. I think the former is more likely.
 

---

Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
 
I was looking through the printed material on the space shuttle program. Each mission costs approximately 1.5 billion dollars. There are five missions a year at most. 1.5 times 5 is 7.5, or 7.5 billion dollars a year. NASA received for the past budget approximately 15 billion dollars. Translation-50% of the budget is devoted to the launching of these shuttles.
 

---

Posted by Shipbuilder (Member # 69) on :
 
Not entirely true newark...payload fees are charged to the individual industry or academia groups that sponsor the onboard experiements. If station components are the intended payload then it is more like what you are saying...which was the case for the last few flights. And the flightrate had dropped from 5 to 4 for the forseeable future, even before the Columbia incident.
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultra Magnus:
So is your barrier of idiocy.

---

ZING!

That Picture on the CNN website looks like an ink splotch to me.
 

---