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.)
I don't know any legitamite scientist or engineer that "disrespects" NASA. They may disagree with NASA, but how could any person associated with any field of science and engineering not respect the accomplishments that NASA has made.
Since you obviously have made yourself clear about having no respect for NASA, I'd encourage you to pick up a copy of the "Spinoffs" publication or go to nasa.gov and search for information on the topic. I'd hope that by then you'd have alittle more respect for them and their accomplishments. If not, then I encourage you to give up using anything that was developed as a result of the space program.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Like A Bat Out Of Hell...
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- “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
"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?
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Like A Bat Out Of Hell...
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
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!
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
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.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
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.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
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?
-------------------- "Lotta people go through life doing things badly. Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting."
-Steve McQueen as Michael Delaney, LeMans
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
