Whoa! This is going to ruffle a few feathers.
1 posted on
09/28/2005 9:02:45 AM PDT by
anymouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
To: KevinDavis

Space pork ping.
2 posted on
09/28/2005 9:04:52 AM PDT by
anymouse
To: anymouse
There was one good thing from the Shuttle - USSR died trying to follow the same path.
3 posted on
09/28/2005 9:05:09 AM PDT by
alex
To: anymouse
Yeah, God forbid we take any risks or be ambitious with our space program.
Jeez, what's with this guy
4 posted on
09/28/2005 9:06:09 AM PDT by
Lauretij2
To: anymouse
Some of us have been saying that on FR for years, and all we do is get trashed for it. Let's see what the NASA worshippers will say about this (that is, if they get time away from the Dungeons and Dragons game they are playing over their HAM radios).
5 posted on
09/28/2005 9:06:09 AM PDT by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: anymouse
It's nice to know I wasted a few years of my life on a mistake. What a bonehead statement!
This is possibly true for the Space Station, especially after it morphed from the original Freedom design to "Ralpha" (Russia + Alpha) and moved from 28 deg to 51.5 deg to suit Russia, but not shuttle. We learned everything we know about reusable space propulsion hardware from shuttle. That information will be priceless if we ever get to critical mass in repeated flights to orbit.
6 posted on
09/28/2005 9:06:29 AM PDT by
Rockitz
(Geena YES, Hill NO!)
To: anymouse
Damn! This man is making a lot of sense! What's he doing in govt.? No doubt he will soon be fired.
7 posted on
09/28/2005 9:07:29 AM PDT by
saganite
(The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
To: anymouse
Yep. I agree with the guy.
We put someone on the moon and then decided that the next step was merely orbiting the earth so we could do lab work in a reentry vehicle.
Amazingly near sighted.
8 posted on
09/28/2005 9:08:18 AM PDT by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
To: anymouse
..."Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."...The agreement on the orbit inclination was an appeasment to the Russians.
That orbit has cost us millions (and perhaps 7 astronauts) in upgrades to the shuttle components.
In order to reach that orbit the SSME's have to run at 105% (IIRC), the ET had to be redesigned to be lighter (which may have contributed to the Columbia disaster)and the SRB's had to have modifications done.
10 posted on
09/28/2005 9:11:24 AM PDT by
FReepaholic
(I don't look good naked anymore.)
To: anymouse

"Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."--------------------------------------------- Not so harsh! We got Tang!
11 posted on
09/28/2005 9:12:22 AM PDT by
Tulsa Ramjet
(If not now, when?)
To: onedoug
To: anymouse
Almost 40 years ago our astronauts WALKED on the moon. If 'space exploration' would have continued with that same energy and inspiring vision one can only guess where NASA would be today.
It is almost sad looking back to those days...... for it seems we have wasted these 40 years when they [NASA] changed directions and left the FINAL FRONTIER.
13 posted on
09/28/2005 9:13:06 AM PDT by
PISANO
(We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
To: All
It's amazing what some people will do when tasked with spending a huge pile of other people's money.
14 posted on
09/28/2005 9:13:13 AM PDT by
newgeezer
(Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
To: anymouse
Abandoning the moon program was a tragic decision. Blatantly stupid at the time, it seems even more so today.
16 posted on
09/28/2005 9:15:51 AM PDT by
zarf
(It's swollen, yes.)
To: anymouse
Can we turn the Shuttles into bombers for Iraq? That payload could hold quite a few MOABs.
To: anymouse
Where Mr. Griffin would have built his space station?
In the Antarctic, on the moon or on Mars?
For nearly all low gravity experiments you need a station in space and not on moon. To gather experience for long term missions in space a space station is much cheaper and saver.
The goal why America went to moon in 1969 was always clear. It was not a scientific mission it was just a way to show your muscles to the Russians.
But today I am not quite sure about the aim going back to moon. As training for a mission to mars? Just to be there? Well, there is still something on Mars
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html
19 posted on
09/28/2005 9:17:45 AM PDT by
MHalblaub
(Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
To: anymouse
Griifing is good, but he still answers to a political boss. Thus we'll be trading two mistakes for one big mistake.
24 posted on
09/28/2005 9:21:45 AM PDT by
Moonman62
(Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
To: anymouse
Shuttle and Space Station were Mistakes, Space Agency Chief Tells US DailyNah. Jimmy Carter was a mistake. The Shuttle and Space Station were due to design by committee that produced compromises and muddled functionality.
26 posted on
09/28/2005 9:24:29 AM PDT by
dirtboy
(Drool overflowed my buffer...)
To: anymouse
I have visited NASA and it is very exciting and interesting.
However, aside from communications and military benefits I have never understood the economics and have always thought it is a financial boondoggle.
I think exploring the earths oceans has more interest and more promises of results.
To: RadioAstronomer
To: anymouse; longshadow
Big Duh from me on this. I once got in trouble at NASA for sending an official E-mail calling the ISS Mir-II.
46 posted on
09/28/2005 9:42:05 AM PDT by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson