Warning: The following could be considered pontificating (something that I very much favor on this forum, whether I agree with what is being pontificated or not.) I just watched another interview with William Parsons (no, not the 3rd Earl of Rose, rather the guy in charge of the shuttle program). It's a good thing I'm beyond the "throwing things" phase or I might have thrown my tea mug at the TV. Seldom have I heard such inanity coming from questioners. (I'd say "media" but I don't want Joe to think I lump him in with what I've been seeing today.) My biggest regret just now is that I can't be within earshot when the good Mr. Parsons is with family and friends and says what he really thinks of some of those questions and comments. It would have felt so good to hear him come back to one of those "Don't you think you were stupid to put all those live at risk?" questions with something refreshing like, "Look, no one ever said spaceflight is safe. Right or wrong the only way for the US to get people into space just now is with the shuttle. It's an old machine based on even older technology. But it's all we've got. We are humans so we sometimes make mistakes. But we do what we can (and have done some pretty wonderful things) with the meager resources alloted by a bunch of politicians that don't know their butt from a black hole and who can't see past the next election. So back off and let us try again to find and fix the problem."
Quoting Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net>:
It would have felt so good to hear him come back to one of those "Don't you think you were stupid to put all those live at risk?" questions with something refreshing like, "Look, no one ever said spaceflight is safe. Right or wrong the only way for the US to get people into space just now is with the shuttle. It's an old machine based on even older technology. But it's all we've got. We are humans so we sometimes make mistakes. But we do what we can (and have done some pretty wonderful things) with the meager resources alloted by a bunch of politicians that don't know their butt from a black hole and who can't see past the next election. So back off and let us try again to find and fix the problem."
NASA's MMT segment yesterday had a reporter ask a dumb a**ed question, and the fellow on the panel with the thick glasses, responded "Space flight is not for the faint of heart. If this stuff bothers you, you should probably look for another line of work", and then moved on to another questioner. I thought that was pretty good considering everyone on the panel are highly restrained professionals.
The big question now is, Does this spell the end of the shuttle? The shuttle is supposed to be phased out by 2010, five years away. NASA took 2 1/2 years and $1 billion redesigning the system after foam blew off the external tank and doomed Columbia. Now foam has blown off the external fuel tank, but luckily missed Discovery. What can they do to ensure the same thing doesn't happen again? And is it worthwhile for NASA to go through that wrenching process, spend all that money, take who knows how long, for a system that is to be scrapped in five years? By this point an alternative must be looking more attractive to NASA: scrap the shuttle now and get on with the next generation. As outlined by Thiokol in a story I did recently, http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600148228,00.html that could entail using the solid rocket booster as a first stage with a liquid-fuel second stage, perhaps the same rocket used with Apollo as the second stage, the JS2-S. A capsule for the astronauts, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle, would be on top. Other configurations would be required with cargo carriers to supply the space station. The point is, no reusable spacecraft. And, I hope, no external fuel tank hanging off with its insulation ready to rip away. Anybody care to comment? I'm thinking about doing a story. Thanks, Joe
Why not just cover the external tank with a cheap cargo net, something along the lines like 'fish net' stockings, that would keep all the loose pieces from hitting the Shuttle? Maybe something in Black? ;) Otherwise, I'm with you Joe... Quoting Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com>:
The big question now is, Does this spell the end of the shuttle? The shuttle is supposed to be phased out by 2010, five years away. NASA took 2 1/2 years and $1 billion redesigning the system after foam blew off the external tank and doomed Columbia. Now foam has blown off the external fuel tank, but luckily missed Discovery. What can they do to ensure the same thing doesn't happen again? And is it worthwhile for NASA to go through that wrenching process, spend all that money, take who knows how long, for a system that is to be scrapped in five years?
By this point an alternative must be looking more attractive to NASA: scrap the shuttle now and get on with the next generation. As outlined by Thiokol in a story I did recently,
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600148228,00.html
that could entail using the solid rocket booster as a first stage with a liquid-fuel second stage, perhaps the same rocket used with Apollo as the second stage, the JS2-S. A capsule for the astronauts, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle, would be on top. Other configurations would be required with cargo carriers to supply the space station. The point is, no reusable spacecraft. And, I hope, no external fuel tank hanging off with its insulation ready to rip away.
Anybody care to comment? I'm thinking about doing a story.
Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
OK, go find a cheap cargo net that can withstand mach 20 and doesn't weigh much. --- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Why not just cover the external tank with a cheap cargo net, something along the lines like 'fish net' stockings, that would keep all the loose pieces from hitting the Shuttle? Maybe something in Black? ;) Otherwise, I'm with you Joe...
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
It can't be any worse that trying to find an adhesive that will do it. And so it would weigh a little more, add a few more match heads... ;) Quoting Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com>:
OK, go find a cheap cargo net that can withstand mach 20 and doesn't weigh much.
--- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
Why not just cover the external tank with a cheap cargo net, something along the lines like 'fish net' stockings, that would keep all the loose pieces from hitting the Shuttle? Maybe something in Black? ;) Otherwise, I'm with you Joe...
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Well if they are planning on scrapping the shuttle in 5 years anyhow, then I'd say that yes it makes sense financially at least, in my opinion, to be putting money into the replacement program instead of putting more money into the current program. I would hope that by putting the funds into the replacement program it would make the replacement program all the better. On the other hand, it would be unfortunate to have the astronauts grounded for a longer period of time. Hopefully the additional length of time would not keep any of them out of space permanently. However, I think the administration of NASA should take all factors into consideration - politics, money, personnel, etc. - and then do what they think is going to be best for the space program in the long run. That's my 2 cents. Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote: The big question now is, Does this spell the end of the shuttle? The shuttle is supposed to be phased out by 2010, five years away. NASA took 2 1/2 years and $1 billion redesigning the system after foam blew off the external tank and doomed Columbia. Now foam has blown off the external fuel tank, but luckily missed Discovery. What can they do to ensure the same thing doesn't happen again? And is it worthwhile for NASA to go through that wrenching process, spend all that money, take who knows how long, for a system that is to be scrapped in five years? By this point an alternative must be looking more attractive to NASA: scrap the shuttle now and get on with the next generation. As outlined by Thiokol in a story I did recently, http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600148228,00.html that could entail using the solid rocket booster as a first stage with a liquid-fuel second stage, perhaps the same rocket used with Apollo as the second stage, the JS2-S. A capsule for the astronauts, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle, would be on top. Other configurations would be required with cargo carriers to supply the space station. The point is, no reusable spacecraft. And, I hope, no external fuel tank hanging off with its insulation ready to rip away. Anybody care to comment? I'm thinking about doing a story. Thanks, Joe _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Agreed Patrick. You know, if the people involved are ready and willing to risk their lives to go into space for whatever reason, whether it be for the thrill or because they are altruistic and want to try and help advance knowledge and technology for human kind, then I feel that neither I nor anyone else has the right to question them or hold them back. Sure, NASA needs to make things as safe as they possibly can with the knowledge and technology they have at the time, but like it or not, sometimes the biggest advances in knowledge, understanding and technology come out of tragedies. People learn the most from their mistakes generally speaking. It is ridiculous for anyone to think that NASA is not doing their best to keep their astronauts safe. They invest huge amounts of time and money in these people and from everything I've ever seen, the people who work on a mission are all very close knit. That is so obvious if you ever watch the NASA channel and watch the control room, etc. The people who work there are some of the world's best and brightest, a very commendable and committed bunch of people. For anyone to imply that they are anything less than that is rather insulting. Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote: Warning: The following could be considered pontificating (something that I very much favor on this forum, whether I agree with what is being pontificated or not.) I just watched another interview with William Parsons (no, not the 3rd Earl of Rose, rather the guy in charge of the shuttle program). It's a good thing I'm beyond the "throwing things" phase or I might have thrown my tea mug at the TV. Seldom have I heard such inanity coming from questioners. (I'd say "media" but I don't want Joe to think I lump him in with what I've been seeing today.) My biggest regret just now is that I can't be within earshot when the good Mr. Parsons is with family and friends and says what he really thinks of some of those questions and comments. It would have felt so good to hear him come back to one of those "Don't you think you were stupid to put all those live at risk?" questions with something refreshing like, "Look, no one ever said spaceflight is safe. Right or wrong the only way for the US to get people into space just now is with the shuttle. It's an old machine based on even older technology. But it's all we've got. We are humans so we sometimes make mistakes. But we do what we can (and have done some pretty wonderful things) with the meager resources alloted by a bunch of politicians that don't know their butt from a black hole and who can't see past the next election. So back off and let us try again to find and fix the problem." _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
The question is, What will NASA do? It doesn't matter how brave would-be shuttle astronauts are if the agency decides to keep the fleet grounded. They could say to go ahead with the next generation space vehicle instead of fixing the shuttle. What would that mean to Thiokol, the ISS and Hubble? Thanks, jb
OK, I'm going to take a stab at this, and procrastinate what I really should be doing. First, I don't work at NASA, I am not a NASA administrator so I don't feel that I have enough information about all the factors involved and that have to be taken into consideration to be telling them what I think they should be doing specifically. But I do have an opinion about the process they should take in coming to their decision. As I said before, I think they should weigh all the factors involved carefully and then choose what they think is best for the space program in the long run. If that means scrapping the Hubble and ISS, well then so be it. This may be not the best analogy, but it's kind of like a bad relationship. You can stay in it and keep putting your time and effort toward something that is doomed and is not going to get any better and ultimately not going to help you get where you really want to go, or you can decide to just cut your losses and move on. Analyze what you experienced and try to learn something from it so you can hopefully make better choices in the future. If NASA decides that moving forward toward the future and forgetting the old stuff that is already on it's way out anyhow is their best choice, well hopefully Thiokol can be a part of that. But in my opinion that is kind of up to Thiokol in a way, whether they want to innovate along with NASA or just try to stick with what they already know. Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote: The question is, What will NASA do? It doesn't matter how brave would-be shuttle astronauts are if the agency decides to keep the fleet grounded. They could say to go ahead with the next generation space vehicle instead of fixing the shuttle. What would that mean to Thiokol, the ISS and Hubble? Thanks, jb _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Patrick wrote: | It would have felt so good to hear him come back to one of those "Don't | you think you were stupid to put all those live at risk?" questions with | something refreshing like, "Look, no one ever said spaceflight is safe. | Right or wrong the only way for the US to get people into space just | now is with the shuttle. It's an old machine based on even older | technology. But it's all we've got. We are humans so we sometimes make | mistakes. But we do what we can (and have done some pretty wonderful | things) with the meager resources allotted by a bunch of politicians that | don't know their butt from a black hole and who can't see past the next | election. And Kim says: Sure, astronauts are volunteers. But your comments, and those of others who responded to your post beg the question of other costs. The Space Shuttle, in my opinion, has always been extremely wasteful in terms of resources and dollars. Maybe NASA should be weighing the dollar costs as carefully as they do astronauts lives. I, for one would welcome it. So what if the fleet is grounded permanently? Better to do so now than waste more effort on this old and failing technology. I see this as an opportunity to finally abandon the Shuttle and the ISS and take that step-by-step course into space that was first envisioned. By the way, no one responded to my posting the other day about that. Now's your opportunity to rip me apart if any of you disagree. Or, pat me on the back if you don't. ;-) | So back off and let us try again to find and fix the problem." Sorry to point out the obvious, but NASA has had 2 1/2 years and a whole lot of money already to "try and fix the problem." If it can't be done, admit it and throw in the towel. Now.
NASA's direction is determined by the people's wishes, via the politicians they elect to office. It all begins at the ballot box. Some people may find it difficult to find a candidate who is aligned on both space exploration policy and social agenda. Choices, choices. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Good point. For most people, I think the social agenda comes out on top. Ideally, it might make a difference if more people would take the time to write their representatives and let them know what they'd like to see happen with the space program but unfortunately, most people won't do that. They either don't care enough to make the effort or they think their voice isn't going to make a difference. I do know a few people who don't care about space exploration and think it's a huge waste of money. They feel the government should put those resources toward helping the homeless and poor, both in our country and throughout the world. Once everyone is taken care of, then you can start looking toward the stars. In my opinion, that is a very idealistic view, and in a perfect world where you can control all the factors, maybe that would be possible. But working in the world the way it is, it's not ever going to happen. A lot of reasons I think that, but it's pretty off topic and I won't go into them. The point is though, that everyone looks at the world differently and has differing priorities. Space exploration is important to people like us, but to some people it's just a big waste of time and money. Kim has a good point though, if NASA has been wasteful of money and resources in the past then it would be smart for them to figure out how to use their resources in the wisest possible manner. As Scrooge McDuck says "Work smarter, not harder." Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote: NASA's direction is determined by the people's wishes, via the politicians they elect to office. It all begins at the ballot box. Some people may find it difficult to find a candidate who is aligned on both space exploration policy and social agenda. Choices, choices. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
--- South Jordan Mom <sjordanmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Space exploration is important to people like us, but to some people it's just a big waste of time and money.
While surfing the NASA site, I came across the following phamplet on common things we use today that were first developed for use in NASA programs. http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/Benefits1.pdf The phamplet makes claims for - LEDs (Light-emitting diodes) - used, well everywhere (How did we get by before the invention of the LED?) Household smoke detectors - used in most American homes Cordless power tools used in your home Energy efficient turbofan jets that fly over your head Pacemakers and the pacemaker telemetry Improved lightweight air breathing units that firefighters wear Ultrasound scanners used by doctors The infra-red themometer (that don't require hazardous waste mercury) Infra-red cameras (used to find energy leaks in your home) Portable community-wide water purification systems - Canopus56 (Kurt) P.S. - And let's not forget those cool back-saving foam beds. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Those are good points. Maybe NASA should try to get that info out to the public more, so more people know that they actually personally benefit from the space program. That's one of the reasons why I support NASA, I know that because of their research and developments we end up with other benefits - technology and products that improve our everyday lives. In order to get most people's support you have to put things into terms that they understand and also show them how it benefits them to support what you are asking them to support. In my experience I have found that many people will not research things out independently and try to make sure they have as much accurate information as possible before they make a decision about where they stand on something, so you have to make the effort to put the information in front of them instead of waiting for them to come ask you for it. Canopus56 <canopus56@yahoo.com> wrote: --- South Jordan Mom wrote:
Space exploration is important to people like us, but to some people it's just a big waste of time and money.
While surfing the NASA site, I came across the following phamplet on common things we use today that were first developed for use in NASA programs. http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/Benefits1.pdf The phamplet makes claims for - LEDs (Light-emitting diodes) - used, well everywhere (How did we get by before the invention of the LED?) Household smoke detectors - used in most American homes Cordless power tools used in your home Energy efficient turbofan jets that fly over your head Pacemakers and the pacemaker telemetry Improved lightweight air breathing units that firefighters wear Ultrasound scanners used by doctors The infra-red themometer (that don't require hazardous waste mercury) Infra-red cameras (used to find energy leaks in your home) Portable community-wide water purification systems - Canopus56 (Kurt) P.S. - And let's not forget those cool back-saving foam beds. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Kurt, I know that you are not necessarily trying to justify space exploration or any other scientific endeavor by citing the benefits, so don't misunderstand the following. In fact, I believe that scientific exploration should be pursued for its own sake, as no doubt you and many others on this list may also feel. For me, citing such benefits does not justify the costs. Similar benefits typically follow any kind of exploration. For example, the West learned of paper, gunpowder and moveable type by first exploring and then trading with the inhabitants of the Far East. I also don't believe that they should be used as justification for continuing NASA's present course of human space exploration. I believed strongly that it was time to change course before we were burdened with the Space Shuttle and the ISS boondoggles. Now we have more compelling reasons to reverse course. Benefits will follow, I have no doubt. But let's not use the benefits from past successes or the anticipation of future benefits to justify any effort. Let's explore for exploration's sake. Let's do it in a reasonable manner. Let's do it as citizens of Earth, and not as citizens of the US or Europe or China or Russia. And let's hold our politicians to a higher standard. Thiokol shouldn't get juicy space contracts just because we have a congressional delegation that can ensure them, nor should that be the case for any other contractor. That kind of thinking has accelerated the cost of space exploration more than any other. (Take a breath now Kim.) Phew! Hey Chuck, talk about pontificating! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Canopus56" <canopus56@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Inanity | --- South Jordan Mom <sjordanmom@yahoo.com> wrote: | | > Space exploration is important to people like us, | > but to some people it's just a big waste of time and | > money. | | While surfing the NASA site, I came across the | following phamplet on common things we use today that | were first developed for use in NASA programs. | | http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/Benefits1.pdf | | The phamplet makes claims for - | | LEDs (Light-emitting diodes) - used, well everywhere | (How did we get by before the invention of the LED?) | | Household smoke detectors - used in most American | homes | | Cordless power tools used in your home | | Energy efficient turbofan jets that fly over your head | | | Pacemakers and the pacemaker telemetry | | Improved lightweight air breathing units that | firefighters wear | | Ultrasound scanners used by doctors | | The infra-red themometer (that don't require hazardous | waste mercury) | | Infra-red cameras (used to find energy leaks in your | home) | | Portable community-wide water purification systems | | - Canopus56 (Kurt) | | P.S. - And let's not forget those cool back-saving | foam beds. | | | | __________________________________________________ | Do You Yahoo!? | Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around | http://mail.yahoo.com | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Kim, those are all excellent points. In a perfect or at least more idealistic world, scientific exploration would be pursued for its own sake. Unfortunately though we don't live on the Earth that exists in Star Trek. In fact, I personally highly doubt that a visit from a benevolent alien species would unite the countries of the world like it did in the Star Trek universe. Sadly, I'm not even sure a visit from a malevolent alien race would be enough to unite this planet. Look at the history of human kind, I'm pretty sure there has never been a time when all living humans were united and had a unity of purpose. It's just human nature for some group to want power over another and for one group to succumb to the temptation to exploit another group in order to obtain power and wealth. And beyond that even, everyone is different and sees things differently so it would be nothing short of a miracle to get everyone on the planet, or even just all the world leaders to agree, in my humble opinion. So even though it's not the ideal way, the way to get things done is to compromise and to get as much support for your idea as you can by showing people how it will benefit them personally. That's how we have to get things done in the world in which we live. I don't like it any more than you do, believe me. But I've learned over the years, you have to work within the existing system to get things done while at the same time working to change the existing system for the better. Your point about the costs of the space program are very valid, in my opinion. And no, Thiokol shouldn't get contracts just because of our congressional delegation, they should only get contracts if they are the best company for the job. They shouldn't be overpricing their contract fees just so that the upper management can get huge bonuses every year even if the company isn't performing. But that ties in with what I said in the first paragraph about human nature, power & greed. Thiokol, or any other company, should only be chosen if they want to work along with NASA to develop better ways of doing things and they are the best equipped for doing that. I think that's about my 10 cents or so for the day. Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote: Kurt, I know that you are not necessarily trying to justify space exploration or any other scientific endeavor by citing the benefits, so don't misunderstand the following. In fact, I believe that scientific exploration should be pursued for its own sake, as no doubt you and many others on this list may also feel. For me, citing such benefits does not justify the costs. Similar benefits typically follow any kind of exploration. For example, the West learned of paper, gunpowder and moveable type by first exploring and then trading with the inhabitants of the Far East. I also don't believe that they should be used as justification for continuing NASA's present course of human space exploration. I believed strongly that it was time to change course before we were burdened with the Space Shuttle and the ISS boondoggles. Now we have more compelling reasons to reverse course. Benefits will follow, I have no doubt. But let's not use the benefits from past successes or the anticipation of future benefits to justify any effort. Let's explore for exploration's sake. Let's do it in a reasonable manner. Let's do it as citizens of Earth, and not as citizens of the US or Europe or China or Russia. And let's hold our politicians to a higher standard. Thiokol shouldn't get juicy space contracts just because we have a congressional delegation that can ensure them, nor should that be the case for any other contractor. That kind of thinking has accelerated the cost of space exploration more than any other. (Take a breath now Kim.) Phew! Hey Chuck, talk about pontificating! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
For example, the West learned of paper, gunpowder and moveable type by first exploring and then trading with the inhabitants of the Far East. I also don't believe that they should be used as justification for continuing NASA's present course of human space exploration.
My thought process is based in Keynes and Galbraith, not an "ET" style Marco Polo or Magellan. -:) But seriously, to move forward, society has to spend a certain percentage of the gross domestic product to do basic research that a stock-market-return constrained private sector will not do. Basic research is inherently inefficient. By definition, we ask government to do those things that should be done, but that will not be done by the private market. It's really immaterial where basic research dollars are spent - NASA, NIH, NSF - although the rate of gross domestic product economic activity generated by investment in non-military research is generally higher than research investment in military projects like DARPA or Star Wars. The point is - the social research investment gets made. Odds are well-funded bright minds will create something new, more efficient and useful. Like you, I have a citizen's preference for funding NASA and space telescopes. It's a good system that is one component in a economics philosophy that has kept us going - without catestrophic business cycles like the crashes of 1870, 1893 and 1929 - for about 60 years - in a relatively stable growth curve and with increasing standards of living and technology. It's true enough that industry probably would have eventually invented and deployed the Internet on its own - over about 200 years - instead of the 10 or 20 that is took with a DARPA seed money jump start. - Canopus56(Kurt) P.S. - I sure wish that ET would show up and sell us the plans to that clean fusion flying-boat-car, but I suspect that we'll have to invent it ourselves. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Kim, You will never find an engineer who will tell you "it can't be done". One of the real challenges in engineering is knowing when to "shoot the engineers" and let the thing go. We both know that these problems have existed since the first shutle was launched. Its just that we now have more information, and that information scares(some of) us. We have launched the shuttle enough times that we have a pretty good idea of the system reliability. I think you have laid out the questions pretty well. I think it may well be time to move on. BTW, engineers, who are the ones responsible for change in technology, are usually the most resistant to change. Funny how that works. If the shuttle is scrapped, watch for the cry to come from the technical community. Brent Kim wrote:
Sorry to point out the obvious, but NASA has had 2 1/2 years and a whole lot of money already to "try and fix the problem." If it can't be done, admit it and throw in the towel. Now.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
As I tell my clients, any problem can go away with enough money. So, sure, it can probably be done eventually (i.e. fix the shuttle), but I am now wondering, as a lot of other folks, it it's worth it at this point. On the other hand, maybe they should consider having an interior designer take a look for a new perspective. Interior designers are always willing to change things, except they have no conception of the cost. (Apologies to any interior designers out there.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Watson" <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 8:34 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Inanity | Kim, | | You will never find an engineer who will tell you "it | can't be done". One of the real challenges in | engineering is knowing when to "shoot the engineers" | and let the thing go. | | We both know that these problems have existed since | the first shutle was launched. Its just that we now | have more information, and that information | scares(some of) us. We have launched the shuttle | enough times that we have a pretty good idea of the | system reliability. | | I think you have laid out the questions pretty well. | I think it may well be time to move on. BTW, | engineers, who are the ones responsible for change in | technology, are usually the most resistant to change. | Funny how that works. If the shuttle is scrapped, | watch for the cry to come from the technical | community. | | Brent | | Kim wrote: | > Sorry to point out the obvious, but NASA has had 2 | > 1/2 years and a whole lot | > of money already to "try and fix the problem." If it | > can't be done, admit it | > and throw in the towel. Now. | > | > | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Utah-Astronomy mailing list | > Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | > | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | > Visit the Photo Gallery: | > http://www.utahastronomy.com | > | | | | | ____________________________________________________ | Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page | http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs | | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
You will never find an engineer who will tell you "it can't be done". BTW, engineers, who are the ones responsible for change in technology, are usually the most resistant to change.
Brent, are you speaking as an engineer? After 25 years of engineering, I haven't met many engineers that fit your description.
After 30 years as an engineer, I find that this description fits most of those I have worked with. Of course, you will find those that don't see it this way, but as a general rule, my experience shows this to be the case. --- Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
You will never find an engineer who will tell you
"it
can't be done". BTW, engineers, who are the ones responsible for change in technology, are usually the most resistant to change. Brent, are you speaking as an engineer? After 25 years of engineering, I haven't met many engineers that fit your description.
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Michael, Perhaps I should elaborate a bit on my statements. I have never met an engineer who did not want to complete a job, and in the best way he could. In fact, engineers can be some of the most focused folks on the face of the earth. Rarely do they want to admit defeat, because that is an attack on their abilities to innovate/create, and also because they want to completely solve the problem they are working on. Only on rare occasions have I seen an engineer who stated that he could not complete a project, or for that matter tackle a new challenge. There always seems to be a way to accomplish a technical task, and engineers love the technical challenge. As an engineer works on a project, he is always able to see multiple ways of completing his task, and he makes the best technical tradeoffs he can to do the best job possible in the time allotted. The methods to accomplish the technical challenge are manifold, and the engineer will always say that there CAN be a solution. Its just that many times the solution is not permitted because of a shortage of time or money or both. Now, as the engineer is working a task, go up to him and tell him that you want to change something. Or tell him you want to change the approach he is taking, or the ground rules under which he is working. I am sure you have heard the complaints about "feature creap". It may be that what is being done is no longer needed in the form he is working, but he will still have a desire to continue. This is only natural - he has invested a great deal in his work, and doesn't want to see it go to waste, or have his ideas shunned. It is always easier for a non-involved (technically) person to change things than it is for the engineer. So, in a very broad sense, engineers are resistant to changes, particularly in projects they are working on and have a bunch of brain cells invested in. However, when a new challenge comes along, there is never any dearth of ideas to solve new problems. "Yes, it can be done, and here are several ideas on how to do it." but change in the middle? This is always a very difficult proposition. The shuttle is a very complex machine, and MANY engineers have a bunch invested in it. Can the foam problem be fixed? Yes it can, and there are many ways to approach the problem. (Including a hair net of sorts.) I don't know if this helps clarify or not. You'll have to say. Brent --- Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com> wrote:
After 30 years as an engineer, I find that this description fits most of those I have worked with. Of course, you will find those that don't see it this way, but as a general rule, my experience shows this to be the case.
--- Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
You will never find an engineer who will tell
you "it
can't be done". BTW, engineers, who are the ones responsible for change in technology, are usually the most resistant to change. Brent, are you speaking as an engineer? After 25 years of engineering, I haven't met many engineers that fit your description.
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Quoting Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com>:
Can the foam problem be fixed? Yes it can, and there are many ways to approach the problem. (Including a hair net of sorts.)
See Chuck, a hair net, a cargo net, a pair of sleek, black fish net stockings, that's what I was talking about... ;)
Got to have the seam! ;) Quoting Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net>:
See Chuck, ..., a pair of sleek, black fish net stockings.. that's what I was talking about... ;)
With or without the seam, Guy?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
LOL, you guys are funny. You can always count on a laugh here at least a few times a week. diveboss@xmission.com wrote:Got to have the seam! ;) Quoting Michael Carnes :
See Chuck, ..., a pair of sleek, black fish net stockings.. that's what I was talking about... ;)
With or without the seam, Guy?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Oh ya, well my uncle was an engineer 40 years ago and it took an awful lot to get him to do anything. Of course, he operated a switch engine at Kennecott... ;) Quoting Brent Watson <brentjwatson@yahoo.com>:
After 30 years as an engineer, I find that this description fits most of those I have worked with. Of course, you will find those that don't see it this way, but as a general rule, my experience shows this to be the case.
--- Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
You will never find an engineer who will tell you
"it
can't be done". BTW, engineers, who are the ones responsible for change in technology, are usually the most resistant to change. Brent, are you speaking as an engineer? After 25 years of engineering, I haven't met many engineers that fit your description.
Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (9)
-
Brent Watson -
Canopus56 -
Chuck Hards -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Joe Bauman -
Kim Hyatt -
Michael Carnes -
Patrick Wiggins -
South Jordan Mom