Barack Obama wants Nasa to acknowledge Muslim achievements and contributions to science maths and engineering
Posted on 01/24/2015 5:50:40 PM PST by Olog-hai
He’s one of a handful of men to have orbited the moon. Today, Alfred M. Worden says NASA’s on the wrong track. He also tells DW why he likes the moon’s dark side and what he wanted most—but didn't get—upon returning. […]
“We took a step backwards back in the late 70s when they decided to build the space shuttle. That was, in my opinion, a mistake. The shuttle was a very complicated machine. It did some pretty unusual, clearly spectacular things, like launch vertically and land horizontally. But from a technical standpoint, we launched a 280,000 pound machine to carry 25,000 pounds up to space. To go to the International Space Station.
“If we had maintained the Saturn V as a launch vehicle, we would have put eight times as much into Earth’s orbit. What’s interesting to me is: We are going back to the Saturn V system for the future programs. The Orion spaceship is almost a carbon copy of the Apollo spacecraft.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at dw.de ...
Our real step backward was when we went back to the 7th century and decided to focus on Muslim outreach.
President Johnsons’ decision to destroy the Black Family took precedent over any NASA mission.
Should have kept going to the moon and built a station there.
From the article:
DW: “Should we go back to the moon?”
Worden:”I see no value in going back to the moon. What will we go back for? To explore it some more? Do we need to explore it some more? I don’t think so. The moon is a very, very baby step on the way out.”
China considers Manned Moon Landing following breakthrough Chang’e-3 mission success
http://www.universetoday.com/107716/china-considers-manned-moon-landing-following-breakthrough-change-3-mission-success/
The People’s Daily reports that “Chinese aerospace researchers are working on setting up a lunar base,” based on a recent speech by Zhang Yuhua, deputy general director and deputy general designer of the Chang’e-3 probe system.
Interesting that the Apollo mission patch featured the constellation Orion. What on earth did that star group have to do with the moon landings?
Gave us the EPA, OSHA, and the Space Shuttle. He also killed the last 3 Apollo missions.
You forgot affirmative action for ‘Hispanics’, floating the dollar, and wage/price controls in esponse to the 73 oil crisis.
Mr. Nixon was not Ronald Reagan....
The space program to that point was filled with names out of Greco-Roman mythology. The myths of Apollo and Orion do significantly intertwine.
Only Richard Hoagland could answer that!
Two of his Supreme Court picks turned out to be liberals. They were part of the majority that made abortion on demand the law of the land.
“We took a step backwards back in the late 70s when they decided to build the space shuttle. That was, in my opinion, a mistake. The shuttle was a very complicated machine. It did some pretty unusual, clearly spectacular things, like launch vertically and land horizontally. But from a technical standpoint, we launched a 280,000 pound machine to carry 25,000 pounds up to space. To go to the International Space Station.”
The only mistake was not developing the Shuttle far enough. Unlike the Apollo and Apollo-based programs, the Shuttle could land more conventionally.
“If we had maintained the Saturn V as a launch vehicle, we would have put eight times as much into Earth’s orbit. What’s interesting to me is: We are going back to the Saturn V system for the future programs. The Orion spaceship is almost a carbon copy of the Apollo spacecraft.”
Throwing out the Shuttle completely and revisiting Apollo was the step backwards.
Really? I guess you don't know much about aerodynamics then. An airplane is stupid for re-entry; all the wrong places get heated, as we saw well in 2003 when the shuttle broke up over TX, and in the X-15 program when Mike Adams got killed.
The best re-entry shape is a cone, a blunt lifting body. Thousands of missile research programs bore that out. But no, we had to have Buck Rogers in the mythical airplane-shaped spacecraft. It was stupid from the get-go, and that is an aerodynamic fact.
There’s no need to be rude, though, with your comments.
“There’s no need to be rude, though, with your comments.”
Where was the “rude”?
Probably when he called the other guy's idea "stupid".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.