Shut up and bring me another beer, bitch. When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you.

HB shakes his head. "It's so hard to find good help these days. We've got friggin' bartenders babbling about hardware design... sheesh. Next thing you know, we'll have MCSEs trying to explain network administration!"

Personally, I think NASA should be intensifying and expanding its efforts in the area of manned space flight, with an eye toward eventually merging NASA with the Federal Bureau of Prisons...

Hubris, that's beginning to sound like a "Falkenberg's Legion" novel!

We need a replacement for the shuttle, and something along the lines of Soyuz/Apollo. Russia can launch many Soyuz missions to one shuttle launch.

I must respectfully disagree with this notion. There is more public information about the space program, and more easily available, than ever before. NASA maintains email lists about a myriad of topics, virtually every non-secret aspect of both manned and unmanned space exploration is available on the Web, and to top it off, you can watch the (almost) daily feed of briefings, interviews, multimedia, etc. on cable TV (if your distributor carries it...mine does).

As someone who has followed the space program pretty faithfully for almost 40 years, I can say unequivocally that NASA has *never* done a better job than they are doing now of getting info out to the public. Hell, I've even sent emails to project directors and gotten personal replies. These people are very, very accessible.

I think you hit the issue square on the nose, Steve. While Apollo (and to a lesser extent, the shuttles and the ISS) have served a useful public relations functions while expanding our quest for more knowledge about our surroundings, they have been woefully short in the bang-for-buck analysis.

Unmanned vehicles are an order of magnitude cheaper and are developed much faster. The risks we run are also a lot smaller. "Yep, another probe crashed into Mars. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Fire that guy at Lockheed who couldn't convert feet to meters correctly, and we'll try it again."

People love the thrill of manned space flight, of kids saying "I want to grow up to be an astronaut!" -- but let's face it, there is a lot more good science that can be done a lot more cheaply without the presence of a human being in the payload.

Here I am, arguing against manned space flight. When I was five, all I ever wanted to do was be the first person to reach Mars... :(


- Pie

PS: and oh, yeah -- Macs rock! :)

NASA got adictted to big buck projects. Its next objective was a flight to Mars. That could not be funded in whole. So NASAs objective was to put those pieces in place. Space Shuttle, then space station Freedom. Once they got that, then construction of space vehicles in orbit, followed by a Mars launch.

Note the concentration on unmanned spacecraft to Mars. All part of the program.

But NASA of years previous was a scientific research organization mostly in the fields of areonautics and space vehicles and the science associated with that field. Before the space shot, NASA was about many various, low visibility science projects. That is what NASA must return to.

Freedom was suppose to be a science platform. Problem was that few science experiments needed the resulting ISS that require too many people to remain operational. First three occupants must do nothing but station maintenance. Only with a fourth and more crewmembers does science get done.

What are our long term objectives? Do we need to explore Mars yet? Columbus discovered America in 1400's. But the new world remained mostly ignored until the late 1600s. We've been to the moon and now know what is there. Next step is to think up a good reason to return - or to go to Mars to find out if there is any reason to return.

NASA needs a new strategic objective. But currently, that means doing what NASA did best - little perspective and so productive science and research. Money and will is not there for anything more ambitious. Currently we would spend more money on a rediculous and non-functional anti-ballistic missile system since George Jr promised such a program to major campaign donors.

If HB spent the rest of his life in the persuit of computer knowledge he would still pale in comparison to what I know. I've forgotten more about computer networking than HB will ever know. The fact that I'm a great bartender doesn't lessen my ability as a fantastic computer network engineer and administrator.

If you really knew what the hell you were talking about, you would at least back up what you said.

As you have offered no proof and no reason behind your statement, no one believes you.

All hail the god of MSCE, Radar. Make regular sacrifices (LCII or above) or your winning streak in Minsweeper and Solitaire will be crushed.

Nice recycled insult. It was funny the first time I heard it - ten years ago.

Also, try running spellcheck.

dammit juju. hes not here to provide facts. hes here to win fucking arguments! remember? :)

~james

Steve Dallas: Good Post
 

Please tell me, in the nutshell: what were the political reasons for
discontinuing moon flights? I could search Google but it is
more fun asking you. Thank You, Mathu

I'm going to type this very slowly so maybe you will get the historical implications of this idea. Our previous experience with this concept begat Australia. If Jag is a fair representative of the outcome of such a system, the obvious question is, do you want say 2 million Jags looking down at the great blue marble, using their Mac computers to plot trajectories?

Well actually I might be persuaded by a mission to land some people on Ganymede. Oh, OK, or Mars either. If funded properly... I think there is something to be said for the exploratory spirit of the human race and it would be truly breathtaking and awe-inspiring.

But having a contest to see how many times we can orbit the earth? forget it. I guess that's what I meant when I said "do it right, or don't do it."

Re: Steve Dallas: Good Post
 

I'll give you my opinion... for what it's worth, off the top of my head! :cool:

Some people will say that there is no justification for paying for space flight because there are so many important unsolved problems down here on earth. (war, poverty, etc.) This was no less true in the 60s than it is now. However, the funding for Apollo was obtained. Pardon me for not looking up the exact number, but it cost a lot. The reason all this cash was shaken loose was because we felt that we had to beat the Russians.. we had to make Sputnik irrelevant. This was partly for cold-war-ish PR reasons and partly because there was genuine concern (concern that may look silly in hindsight) about military advantages of having a foothold in space.

After we actually went a few times and it became clear that not only were the Russians not going to get there before us, they weren't going to go at all, there was no reason to continue.

Re: Re: Steve Dallas: Good Post
 

Well, it's actually not all that silly. One reason that low Earth orbit isn't brisling with weapon satellites is because a treaty was signed to prevent it. If the USSR had been able to take control of space, that treaty would probably have been similar to all of our nuclear weapons treaties - the first ones there get to keep making them, but the johnny-come-latelys get none.