Slashdot Mirror

After, they loudly condemned NASA for ever wanting to send humans up into space in the first place.

Those people never changed their tune- the media and the rest of you just only listen right after an accident.

The prominent anti-shuttle articles were written long before the program had any disasters. But nobody likes to hear the downside unless the sad facts are staring them right in the face.

That sounds like a relatively small improvement in the odds.

I'm also dubious about anything nearby the Challenger explosion surviving. However, there are some helpful factors.

If two pounds of foam can make such a big hole, imagine what a chunk of metal shrapnel from an exploding rocket would do.

But the damage from the foam only became dangerous in the high-stress environment of atmospheric re-entry. After a booster explosion, you'd only have to glide down from 3000m or so. You could do this with parachutes (either a large one for the whole craft, or even individual ejection-seats).

Other design improvements could've helped survivablity in that accident:
If the vehicle had been designed as a traditional nosecone capsule rather than a spaceplane, it's default tumbling behavior might've been to

If the boosters had used a stabler fuel than hydrogen, then the explosion would've been weaker, or might not even have happened at all. (The rockets could've been smaller if the military hadn't thought they'd need the shuttle to lift spy satellites. (They wouldn't have thought that if the Nixon administration hadn't passed down a mandate that all US satellites would be launched by shuttle (He wouldn't have done that if he didn't need a circle argument to justify Pentagon support for a shuttle (Nixon wouldn't have needed a shuttle at all if he hadn't been trying to be a greater President than JFK))))

Disregarding the two catastrophes which were attributed to mismanagement, the system is 105 for 105.

That's misattribution... or at least not hitting the root cause.

It's acceptable (for some purposes) to disregard the fatalities during the 1960s ELV (expendable launch vehicle) space research- they were due to design errors that were corrected. But you can't similarly discount the shuttle accidents from its safety record.

The reason "mismanagement" killed two shuttles is because the shuttle is a too complex design, especially since one stated goal of the shuttle program was "reduced launch cost". You can't repeat something complicated and do it correctly each time, while under constant pressure to reduce cost. But that pressure is unavoidable- partly because most shuttle missions are meaningless to begin with.

So if you want to call it mismanagement, it can only be due to the administrative decision to fly Space Shuttles at all.

For more info, read Hickam's full editorial, which the NYTimes abridged in their printing. Easterbrook's article is also excellent (written as it was before Challenger even lifted off). As were the slashdot threads from the 72 hours following the Columbia destruction.

Actually, the Shuttle main orbiter engines are waaaaaay more advanced than the Saturn V (kerosene, for Pete's sake!) engines ever were, and have proven to be reliable as well. The Saturn V tech isn't unavailable - it's obsolete.

When the shuttle was in development, the fiddly thermal tiles got all the media attention, but it was really the engines that were the stunning technical achievement.

Interesting story from when the shuttle was young gives some specifics about ambitious nature of the shuttle engines, although it's largely critical of the shuttle program in general.

Fantastic comment, I suggest reading (if you have not already, as this comment seems to hit on his points) . And his followup 22 years later.

I dunno... seems to me if you wanted to make sure the US was the leader in space technology, the first thing you'd do is tell NASA and their funding to promptly go to hell, or maybe make them into a regulatory agency. I mean c'mon... they've been pushing this whole "space shuttle" thing way too far. Smarter people than me will tell you it was an abortion of an idea to start with, and its STILL being used despite its exorbitant cost and inefficiency for most tasks. Some would say that if NASA had more funding they could build something better, but thats what they were supposed to be doing when they designed the shuttle in the first place. Seems to me there's no pressure on NASA to be practical or cost efficient, which is whats really needed.

"References please. The two US citizens at Guantanamo Bay were released, and the Taliban have been granted POW status there. "

Ok you started out your post by lying so I probably shouldn't even respond but what the hell.

Fist of all nobody in Guantanamo bay is granted POW status. Rumsfeld argued vehemently not to let that happen because it would grant the prisoners rights under the geneva convention. See Human rights watch for a reference. While you are there also read up on how some have been transfered to other countries so that they could be tortured. There have also been reporting of beating and medical experimentation done on prisoners under the control of the US govt.

Also Jose Padilla who is an American citizen has been held without charges since June 9, 2002. No charges, no lawyers. John Ashcroft told Diane Sawyer on an interview broadcast on TV that he did not know the whereabouts of Jose Padilla and that he was in the hands of the military. Imagine that. Nobody knows where this guy is or what happened to him, not even the attorney general of the united states.

"The other "detainees" are a different story, they are not citizens and have in large measure been deported."

Lying again. There are currently over 600 prisoners in guantanamo bay alone. Who knows how many there are overseas and in the mainland us.

"Are you an immigrant violating your conditions for stay? Yes then you can be worried about detention. Otherwise relax."

As I said I am a citizen. The time to round up people like me is not here yet. You know the old saying. First, they came for the political opposition, but I was not political, and I did not object. Then, they came for the gypsies and homosexuals, but I was neither of these, and I did not object. Then, they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, and I did not object. One day, they came for me, and there was no one left to object..

"did Ann say "all swarthy people should be locked up?" Where?"

Here is the actual quote

"Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave....We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males." Notice that zeroes in on skin color exclusively.

"Even simple things like accusing me of saying I don't know who David Horowitz is."

You said you didn't know who he was not me. I simply believed you when you told me that.

"You need a real break and re-evaluation before you turn into one of those monsters (if it hasn't happened already)."

You keep bringing up hitler as if that absolves the right wing of anything. It's a straw man and I am not going to fall for it. As I said before I will not simply lay down and die. I don't believe in turning the other cheek (after all I am not a christian). I believe that it's a dog eat dog and right now the republicans are eating the democrats. You are either a predator, a prey, or a pet; those are the only three options. I will not become prey or a pet. Sorry.

"Like I said I won't join in your crusade becuase I don't have faith in you, or your reasons."

I never asked you to. I never expected you to.

"It seems inconsevable to you that another rational, well versed intelligent person does not see the forming police state around you."

Why do you think I am the only person who thinks the US is turning into a police state? I assure you that there are millions of people who share my belief just

In 1934 Irenee du Pont and William Knudsen, the president of General Motors along with friends of the Morgan Bank and others set into motion a plot to overthrow FDR. They provided three million in funding for an army of terrorists that was modeled after the French fascist group, Croix de Feu.4 The objective of the plot was to either force Roosevelt to take orders from this group of industrialists as part of a fascist style government or to execute him if he chose not to cooperate.

The plotters selected General Smedley Butler, a WWI hero to head the plot. Butler was overtly opposed to fascism and had spoken out denouncing Mussolini as a murderer and thug in 1931. The Italian government demanded an apology and President Hoover complied along with placing Butler under arrest for court-martial proceedings. Roosevelt then governor of New York spoke out against the charges against Butler. Roosevelt had been responsible for awarding Butler's Second Medal of Honor for his service in Haiti. President Hoover then backed down and Butler received a mild reprimand for refusing to retract his words.

The Republican Party was infiltrated by Nazi's during the 30's, on October 22, 1936, the New York Post reported:

To win votes for Landon and Bleakley, the Republican State Committee is employing on its payroll a staff of propagandists identified with local Nazi organizations, the Post learned today.

This was backed up by a report on the 30th in the New York World-Telegram stating:

The Republican Party had been sponsoring radio broadcasts by American Nazis to win German votes, it was disclosed today. One of the recent speakers was Dr. Ignatz T. Griebl a national Nazi leader and pronounced anti-Semitic

The pre-WWII fascist designs of the Republican Party have transformed into a message that claims anyone who doesn't conform to their model of what American life is supposed to be is an enemy of America. Rather than the old heirarchy of race and nationality, it's a new one of wealth and productivity above all else. The Nazi's didn't sell an unpalatable message to the German people, the Republicans aren't about to try and sell their unappetizing designs to Americans.

Dig through history, look at the patterns and relationships, the small tweaks don't hide the same old plan. The idea is to create a new heirarchy to lawfully subjugate those who don't belong. To insure that the morality and beliefs of the ruling class of this new heirarchy live forever. It's based on faith and the support of Right Wing Christian organizations like the Southern Bapti

The problem is that the various frequencies that are used by NPR around the country are not bought and sold like the rest of the FM spectrum

On the surface that would seem correct. But the reality is much different. Why is this spectrum different? It exists to serve the public, not corporate, interest.

There are two areas of concern (in reality excuses). The main "primary" transmitter and all the thousands of "secondary" translators in use.

To say that a 10-100 watt LPFM station would "interfere" with a 100,000 watt primary station is laughably ridiculous at best. That would leave the "translators".

The purpose of translator stations was to fill in gaps in coverage for the existing transmitting signal, not to EXTEND coverage of a single station across large regions They originate no programming. That is why they exist under a "secondary" purpose, not as a "primary" station.

The problem is that the various frequencies that are used by NPR around the country are not bought and sold like the rest of the FM spectrum.

This has nothing to do with it. What gives NPR the right to transmit over the whole nation?? You are absolutely right when you said "This is the frequency range between 88 and 92MHz and are reserved for non-commercial use." What makes NPR so "special" that they need to have every frequency in the "non-commercial use" spectrum?? What makes them so "special" that they need to have coverage over large geographical areas that commercial stations don't have??" What makes them so special that they have to have a "monopoly" on public radio???

This also begs the question if NPR is really "non-commercial." Have you listened to NPR recently?? They are filled with station breaks giving acknowledgements to corporations that "sponsor" programs that predominantly contain promotional announcements. I really can't tell the difference between what they broadcast and a regular advertisement on a "commercial" radio station. At least alot of the religous stations don't have that nonsense.

Maybe NPR needs to be kicked out of the "non-commercial" section of the spectrum and let them compete honestly with regular broadcasting corporations. Oh wait, NPR's "corporation for public broadcasting" isn't really a corporation. I see.

Does NPR really serve the public interest?? According to this link, not really. Not only by not representing a variety of viewpoints, but also by hoarding translator frequencies that they really don't need. They seem to be representing increasingly commercial interests. There are others who are noticing this also. NPR has even tried putting a bandaid on it. As can be seen, NPR takes out the "community" in "community radio".

After NPR goes dark from drives like the unpledge, those that love it can pick it up on satellite radio. NPR is not an irreplaceable resource. There are thousands of people ready to put up LPFM transmitters in its place that are really non-commercial.

I know that there are alot of of people who listen on NPR on slashdot, but it is time to realize that NPR no longer represents community interests. Sure their programming is fun and interesting to listen to at times. But the same could be said of any

Are you high? That would be the memorial of stupidity, that says that we do not learn from our mistakes. If you want NASA to do real exploration you would want them to immediately retire the shuttle, and replace it with launch vehicles that are suited for the work they do.

Read Greg Easterbrook's essays about the shuttle, first the one he wrote 25 years ago before the , and then the one he wrote after the latest http://www.icmm.csic.es/jeiglesias/newsletter/Greg gEasterbrook/GreggEasterbrookShuttle.html (and not the last if the shuttle keeps flying) catastrophe. the second article is a mirror, as the same article at time.com requires payment.

The shuttle was a wrong design from the start and can't be fixed. Read this:

• Beam Me Out Of This Death Trap, Scotty
• Feynman on the Shuttle
• Pournelle on "Why have NASA"

Shuttle was designed to employ about 20,000 people. It met that goal admirably; you can't fly Shuttle with fewer people. It just can't be done.

This sounds like a Field of Dreams mentality, the same mentality that plagued countless dot-com startups -- if you build it, they will come. Yeah. I used to live not far from Wilkes-Barre, and commute through it on my way to my dot-com job down in Philly. The place is, by no means, a gem on the map that is Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the place may have scorching fast bandwidth by the time the project is done, but it doesn't have the social or economic infrastructure to support the companies they're trying to attract to the area -- ie.: no mall, no Starbucks, no CompUSA or Fry's or whatever, no IKEA, etc.

Ooh, you're close to being insightful until you get to that last couple of sentences. :-) First of all, you can check and find out that Wilkes-Barre does indeed have malls and Starbucks, Best Buy and probably most of the trappings you think are important. But, to quote Richard Feynman, they are missing something essential because the [hi-tech] planes don't land. For whatever reason, nobody thinks to locate (or re-locate) facilities there. Worse than that, it apparently just does not happen that two people having lunch over a novel idea ever decide to make it happen in Wilkes-Barre and succeed. And, to be brutally honest, this hypotheical lunch would have to occur spontaneously in Wilkes-Barre for anything to happen, because it isn't going to happen anywhere else. Having a mall or a Starbucks or a couple of minor league teams frankly doesn't mean anything for relocation, because, well, everybody has those. What many places *don't* have are a strong university or two and a city that is sufficiently cool so that people in their 20s hang around long enough to make things happen.

So, if you think about it long enough, the prototypical "missing" high tech center in the US is in fact Pittsburgh, PA. Two world-class universities, cleaned up from its steel days, interesting and attractive housing, some high cultural advantages...and people can't seem to leave the place fast enough, let alone make tech start-ups work. I don't completely accept his analysis, but Richard Florida does seem to be onto something in his analsysis of how the creative class affords economic development.

So among non-major metros, Austin and Madison and Burlington, Vermont end up being hot, Portland Maine and Gainesville have a future, and Wilkes-Barre...is like 150 places down the list and without a plausible story of how it rises up to challenge even Fort Wayne, Indiana (which isn't exactly on people's short lists, either). If Florida is right, the root cause of Wilkes-Barre's funk is neither a lack of optical fiber nor upscale shopping per se, but rather the fact that the young and the hip and the gay and the smart don't live there and won't move there.

Which brings me to my current home town: Columbia, Missouri. Yes, the major state research university campus is here, and the population is growing about as fast as they can put up houses, but at the end of the day, you're still in central MIssouri surrounded by soybeans. Is there any hope for the future? I am now cautiously optimistic. So one of the big issues of the day is whether or not we should cover the downtown with a wireless cloud. Superficially, it's the same kind of question being faced by Wilkes-Barre now, except that there it's about business infrastructure, while here it's about helping people hang out.

This Tuesday, there is a ballot question that seeks to put all small-time marijuana possession offenses into the municipal court (i.e., just pay the fine); you can argue about whether or not this is a good idea, but the question is actually being asked. Similarly, a few years ago, some movie buffs were annoyed at the fact that many indie films were making it to Columbia very late if at all, so they said "hey; we could project them ourselves" and

Please. A link to the Washington Monthly? Best described as a farm club for would be liberal journalists. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Even liberals don't pretend the journal is unbiased. Some people really believe everything the neo-liberals spew...

Three days after Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld charged night-vision goggles had been supplied by Syria to Iraq, a top US commander said Monday he was unaware of any Iraqi battlefield use of such devices. "What I know is that we have not to my knowledge seen any at this point," Brigadier General Vincent Brooks told a briefing at the Central Command's forward headquarters in Qatar in reply to a question. "I'm just not aware of any that have been encountered."

Second, just because the government doesn't tell everyone its intentions behind mandates doesn't mean there is a huge conspiracy behind it. What if Washington were honest in its intent to pusue justice and freedom for the Iraqi people? Whoah!

You know, I've never quite sorted the politics of this whole situation out... I came across a really neat article in the Washington Monthly that points out a very interesting "conspiracy theory"... It's all about a supposed plan to topple virtually every government in the Middle East. A good read...

"It's about US national security. "

>Which nobody belives. (Well you perhaps ;)

None of the international community believes it. I think 60-some percent o the American population believes it. The only important thing to me is that the people who actually have facts about the threat believe it. I elect and pay for my government officials to be in office because I expect them to protect me. If they say that's what they are doing, do I have proof otherwise? No. Neither do you.

And that is the problem for most of the world. Without any kind of proof they invade another country, it what some feel is just the prelude to at worst world war 3, at semi worst new (occupied) american states in the middle east - because Bush and his friend are so scared that they feel the only way to be sure is essentially if the whole world is ruled by americans. The irony is if they want to be safe at home they should stay at home. Bin Laden grinds his axe because america stationed troops in the middle east, that's what Ql queda hates, if they troops haden't been all ove their regions, there would have been no reason to strike. And don't forget, America is strong - they could flatten any country - so no one can fight them in a straight war (very few anyway) the believe the only way they can fight is with hit and run attacks and bombs - what they call freedom fighters, what the west calls terrorists.

If the regime in Iraq is completely overthrown, and a new government is installed (which I hope is chosen by the Iraqi people, and has nothing to do with the US, honestly), oil prices aren't going to magically go down for Americans. I'm not an economics major, but this seems pretty simple. We're not occupying this country and shipping oil home. We are in no way interfering with OPECs ability to control oil

Except the war costs a damn fortune - they could double the taxes at home or they could say "Now that we are managing Iraq for the Iraqies, and since we did liberate them, its seems only fair we get some of the oil as payment" - don't think it will happen? I don't think its that unlikely, and they you will have created new terrorists.

Something I've said MANY TIMES that if this turns out to be for any reason OTHER than US national security, I am COMPLETELY against it.

Ok.

Yup, the shuttle is a waste of effort, a flawed craft of dubious need.

Too bad we only knew this for about 2 decades:

"Beam Me Out Of This Deathtrap, Scotty", a Washington Monthly article from April 1980

• Easterbrook's recent TIME article
  
• Easterbrook's 1980 article...
  
• A rebuttal of the Easterbrook article
  

The shuttle was to be nothing more than that--a space truck to lug things back and forth to orbit. The craft itself would have no scientific function.

...

NASA believed this system would be economical to operate, but would cost $10 billion to build. The Office of Management and Budget balked. Ten billion, it gasped--out of the question! What could you do, OMB asked, for $5 billion? Design of the horse was referred to committee, where a compromise was found. A partially reusable shuttle was conceived.

...

Estimating a cost of $5 billion to $6 billion, NASA got its launch-commit for this design in 1972. The agency explained that having a crew of pilots aboard would add "flexibility" and "new dimensions" to space flight, but otherwise NASA wasn't terribly specific about what the astronauts would do. It was assumed that with the horse under construction some carriage maker would build something for it to pull--a space mission only a shuttle could handle.

...

The 65,000-pound payload is being quietly dropped, too. "We'll be lucky if we hit 30,000 due-east," says Kaplan. Columbia and Challenger, the second shuttle, are turning out to weigh much more than planned.

...

Discovery and Atlantis, the third and fourth shuttles, are slated to have stronger tiles and lighter components. They may be able to lift 65,000 pounds. Meanwhile, remember the Titan III, lifting 29,000 pounds for about $50 million? "Getting only a 30,000 payload from the shuttle is a giant step backward, compared to the Titan," says Albert Cameron. "But it's a moot point now to argue about the practical virtues of the rocket. NASA has eliminated it. You have no choice but to launch on the shuttle, do you?"

There is something noteworthy a rocket can do that the shuttle cannot. A rocket can be permitted to fail. What if a billion dollar spaceship wipes out on a "routine" mission "commuting" to space with some puny little satellite? Cooper fears it might drive a stake through the heart of the manned space program. Would the public stand to lose a quarter of the fleet in a single day? Would it fork over another billion dollars to build a replacement? Would it stand for spending millions to train astronauts to be truck drivers, only to lose truck and drivers both? The prospect makes the old rockets seem kind of nice. One of the old throw-away jobs could go haywire, and spiral down into the ocean off the Bahamas, and everybody would feel miserable and millions would be wasted and everybody would go back to work. Lost it, dammit--but then nobody ever expected it back.

(Those too young to remember what a painful birth the Space Shuttle had may find this 23-year-old article interesting. It spells out what was promised, and how far short the delivered product fell.)

One comment: I don't know how old you are, but I'm 43, and to me it looks like people my age are the ones who should be sent first on any one-way space trips. Forty-somethings frequently have raised their children to a state of (semi-)independence, and don't plan to have any more (and would be willing to accept sterilization to ensure it, if necessary). On the other hand, we are young enough to still be reasonably fit, and many of us are looking for a new challenge, having dumped a couple of decades into a first career. We have a bit of experience under our belts, and we're old enough to understand what "the rest of your life on Mars" really means.

BTW, are you a member of any group that advocates the views you espouse, or is this just your own (well-thought-out) opinion?

Yeah, you really can't change tiles in space. First of all, you need the custom tiles, and affixing them is NOT easy. Check out this article from 1980, about the building of the Columbia:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/800 4.easterbrook.html

Also, there are no foot/handholds anywhere on that part of the Shuttle, and Newton's laws apply up there. That's the problem they had on the first Spacewalks of the Gemini program, no one realized that without footholds or handholds, you can't even turn a screwdriver, because the screwdriver is also turning you. (No Soviet Russia jokes!)

In short, if the falling insulation is what caused Columbia to break up, they were doomed the day they launched. There wasn't nearly enough delta-V to get them into a higher orbit to rendezvous with ISS, and no way that Atlantis could be rushed in time to reach them before they ran out of Oxygen. I don't know how long the shuttle's batteries/fuel cells can keep it heated, but I'm guessing that really the only way anyone could have survived would be if they drew straws and 5 of the 7 went out the airlock. That's assuming there's enough power to keep it at least 40 degrees F in there until Atlantis could be scrambled.

Otherwise, maybe the Soyuz escape pod at ISS could be routed to them, or the Russian Progress capsule with O2 and supplies sent to ISS the next day could have been routed to them, but I highly doubt both of those were possible.

Columbia was most likely lost at launch, and there's nothing NASA could have done, even if they knew within 30 minutes that the damage would prove fatal.

From the 1980 Washington Monthly article referenced above...Outlines the myriad of technical challenges inherent in the Shuttle concept

Some suspect the tile mounting is the least of Columbia's difficulties. "I don't think anybody appreciates the depths of the problems," Kapryan says. The tiles are the most important system NASA has ever designed as "safe life." That means there is no back-up for them. If they fail, the shuttle burns on reentry. If enough fall off, the shuttle may become unstable during landing, and thus un-pilotable. The worry runs deep enough that NASA investigated installing a crane assembly in Columbia so the crew could inspect and repair damaged tiles in space. (Verdict: Can't be done. You can hardly do it on the ground.)

According to the computers, as long as you can bring the shuttle back into the atmosphere, you can fly it to the airfield even if the tiles are damaged. Former Apollo astronaut Richard Cooper doubts the computers know what they're meeping about. Many of the projections are based on the magnificent accuracy of the Apollo landings. Apollo went to the moon, came back, and dropped all its little manned modules into a target area about the size of Los Angeles International Airport. But Apollo modules were ballistic projectiles. They were slightly asymmetrical and thus had a little lift for control, but basically they fell like well-aimed stones. The science of ballistics is much more precise and predictable than the art of flying. To assume that experience with one is the same as experience with the other is to confuse a slingshot with a seagull. The only way to find out about something as big and balky as Columbia, Cooper says, is to launch the thing and see what happens. Computers have never flown with the unpredictable combination of damaged tiles that a shuttle may experience. They've never been whacked by a sudden, nonprogrammed gust of jetstream wind. They've never flounced like a twig on the crazy rapids of "bias"--the bland physics term for unexplained variations in the earth's gravitational and magnetic fields. These are the wild, uncharted rivers of space. Unknown; unknowable; beyond programming. To find out if your ship can cope with them, you have to take it up there.

A google search for spaceplane turns up lots of articles. Another slashdot reader already recommended Gregg Easterbrook's 1980 article on Columbia's first launch. I guess one lesson from looking back on it is to take the claims of the designers with considerable skepticism. Fity or more launches per year? Cost a third or less per ton of the cost of single shot rockets? Ha.

Yet, I would guess that the general public was seeing the American shuttle as being a big success. I expect people will see it as a success again.

I like the idea of putting aerospace workers from the former Soviet Union to work. I like the idea of putting them to useful, peaceful, dignified work. I don't like the idea of them being owed six months of paltry back-pay. Not when some of them have skills developing WoMD.

I like Dennis Tito's answer to one of the questions he was asked when he returned from being the world's first space tourist. He was asked whether it was frivilous to spend $20,000,000 on a vacation, when the world faced terrible problems, like grinding poverty. He said something like:

You are correct. That money should have been spent helping the poor. And it was. Do you know the average wage of a Russian aerospace worker? About $100 per month.

But then it turned out that the Buran cafe project was a project of the former Buran workers. They were all involved.

I couldn't help really feeling for these men and women. I imagined they had traded back-pay they were never likely to see for the Buran mockup they were turning in to a cafe. (Cafe patrons were going to get to order real cosmonaut space rations.) But they hadn't given up. They hadn't given up on aerospace. They hadn't given up their dignity. They hadn't given up on peace. They hadn't given up on their country.

The Soviet Union had a space program any former citizen could be proud of. I'd like to see their talents put to use. This isn't charity. They were talented.

Plus, there is the peace factor. Everyone is worried that "rogue states" are going to acquire weapons of mass destruction by subverting penniless former defense workers from the former Scviet Union. Well, why don't we address this issue by making sure they weren't left penniless?

Yes, I know organized crime is (was?) a terrible problem throughout the former Soviet Union.

Still, would the dollars, yen, euros of the international community be better spent in the former Soviet Union, where paying an aerospace worker $1000 a month would be a ten-fold pay increase, then in, let's say, the USA.

The USA, or more precisely, the US aerospace industry, is the land of the $1000 spanner. Let's be honest. That too, is a kind of corruption.

The US's milltary-industrial complex built many weaspons systems over the years. Do you know which one provided the greatest invulnerability?

That would have to be the one with a sub-contractor in every congressional district.

Interesting that you mention this article: Gregg Easterbrook also wrote an article for The Washington Monthly back in 1980, before the Columbia first flew, about various problems, delays, and money issues that NASA was encountering. He also seemed to have a rather negative tone, even back then.

Well, it seems to me that they knew about the orings before challenger, and they knew about the foam before columbia.

After challenger, it was supposed to be made easier to stop things and review what was happening when something wasn't right. It doesn't appear to be working.

I don't think the same agency should design, build and operate/manage projects like this. Don't tell me about USA--that's still the fox guarding the henhouse.

NASA should be more like DARPA, creating the new stuff and farming out the mundane. Idustry should implement it, and some external agency, possibly the USAF, should do operations. Where should they go next? Read this first :

scathing rebuke of NASA

Now it's clear that goals are needed. It seems fine to me that NASA be funded to create a shuttle replacement. The shuttle just does not do the job properly. Heavier payloads to higher orbits is needed, and the system that does it needs to be more easily turned around between launches.

Finally, the whole "public relations" mandate of Columbia (and Challenger, for that matter) needs to be reevaluated. Look at the list of projects they were carrying...ant farms, bean sprouts, silk worms...all for various schools around the world. I'm all for public service, but this seems kind of ridiculous.

NASA should be tasked to design the next generation shuttle. They should NOT be allowed to test or operate it. They were warned about orings on challenger, they were warned about the external tank foam. They tried to fix the foam, but it's been getting worse over the last few flights and they did nothing. They forgot about the lessons of Challenger.

Okay, but let's be informed about what the costs and (potential) benefits are, and let's not be naive about "letting NASA decide": their careers depend on NASA funding. They're going to start with the assumption that "what we're doing is great, but needs..." and at the end of the report is going to be a huge dollar sign.

Manned space exploration has been a huge maw of inefficiency since it started. In this Washington Monthly article, from 1980, some of the Space Shuttle Program's problems are dissected; basically, even if it *had* been on budget, it would have been more expensive than other useful space technologies of the time (mostly satellite launchers), and would have had little to no added value.

Basically, the only reason we send people into space is because "it's neat." I mean, I suppose I'm abstractly interested in how ants tunnel in zero G, and I'm sure it does get kids interested in science, but for tens of billions of dollars...?

So, great. Sure, the whole effort shouldn't be cancelled because two shuttles were lost, but the thing is, that wouldn't even be a problem if we put it to a public vote, because people are convinced it's "too important." I'd like to know what that's founded on, maybe inform the debate a little bit, then decide.

Unfortunately, the decisions of what it's going to do in the future are not made by its experts, it is made by the politicians, which (at least indirectly) are influenced by our democracy.

Why? It all comes down to funding, which comes from the government.

For example, why do you think the shuttle is the way it is (part reusable, part disposable)? Politics. The fully reusable one was too expensive. This article outlines the compromises that were made, and is an overall interesting read.

A quote from the article, "But you're in luck--the launch goes fine. Once you get into space, you check to see if any tiles are damaged. If enough are, you have a choice between Plan A and Plan B. Plan A is hope they can get a rescue shuttle up in time. Plan B is burn up coming back. "

Note that this article was written in 1980.

They need to cancel the shuttle program and replace it.

Here is an article from 1980

And here is an article from this same author this last weekend.

We all love the space program and grew up with it. But no significant science is being gained from continuing to send man into space. Having to send man into space is a cold-war relic of the space-race. And so for the cries "we need to send man back to the moon" or "we need to send man to mars" is looking for something for man to do in space, not accomplish science. Because that science can be accomplished with unmanned probes just as well.

I am not saying kill the space program. I am saying that a major reorganizing is appropriate. And I am not saying stop space science. I am saying that spending billions on continued shuttle flights and space station to achieve it is not justified and fiscally irresponsible. NASA would get far better science by increasing probes to the planets.

It's so irrelevant that the general public never notices the shuttle program unless there is a disaster. That was same in 1986 and its true this past weekend.

The statement by NASA administrator O'Keefe that "We will find out what is wrong, fix the problem, and continue flying" particularly saccharin. Is everybody's eyes so glassed over with the idea of a man in space that they are willing to go forward until this tragedy repeats itself for a third time, and another seven astronauts die?? What then? Is spider's spinning their webs and ants digging tunnels in weightlessness worth seven men dying? Doesn't the technology exist that this could be done on an ummanned rocket?

From a scientific perspective that NASA seems to sorely lack, the Space Shuttle is something that needs to be retired now.

President-Vice Richard B. Cheney's ditto is none other than the Bungler-In-Chief

Cheers,
W00t

President-Vice Richard B. Cheney's ditto is none other than the Bungler-In-Chief

I quote:

Although the U.S. pharmaceutical industry claims to fund roughly 43 percent of the country's research, that figure is misleading. The Office of Technology Assessment found in 1993 that two-thirds of research goes to "copycat" drugs---drugs designed to replicate the effect of a drug patented by another company. And according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Aging, "many of the dollars drug manufacturers claim are spent on research are actually spent on marketing research."

a brand of health care system stressed because of its communal nature?

You've been hoodwinked by the media. The Canadian health care system is, in fact, in better shape than the US system. It costs less to deliver health care in Canada, and it covers more people at the same time.

Read Canada's Burning! Media myths about universal health coverage from the Washington Monthly.

Canadian Health Care is Better and Cheaper than US of America.

See this article please -- the line I like the most is this:

American and Canadian performance in a comparative context...that Canada insured 100 percent of its citizens for $2,250 per person in l998 while the United States expended $4,270 per person insuring only 84 percent of our citizens

For this reason, under capitalism, all transactions make everyone involved richer -- for sufficiently small values of everyone.

Quoting Bruce Reed's review of Kevin Phillips' Wealth and Democracy:

CEOs make 419 times as much as the average worker, and CEO pay is rising five times faster than profits. Payroll taxes mean working people don't take home much more than 20 years ago. Bill Gates's fortune is 1.4 million times larger than the median family income.

Some are getting violently richer than others, it seems. So remember: Time is time. Money is money. Try not to conflate the two.

This whole concept is still a push for the same thing, which will not work in moral or practical terms. It is, however, a part of the push for a never ending series of expenditure on weapons systems, that usually have no justification. Look at B1 bomber, the new jet fighter program, (now who is that going to be used against?) Look at Fort Hood. Endless miles of hardware, most of which is useless. Try this for size.

Dude, if I had mod points and hadn't posted to this thread, I'd mod you up. That's an excellent article, and covers both sides.

Those who are going to argue about health care systems would do themselves justice reading Canada's Burning, an expose on the media lies that are being fed to us all.

You may well find that what you thought you knew to be true, isn't.

Somebody PLEASE moderdate that post DOWN to -1, Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the Canadian health care system works, and works well. Like the American health care system, it has problems, and like the American health care system its critics jump out of the woodword to push their own privatization/socialization agenda whenever the subject comes up.

Please see:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0 00 7.marmorsul.html

It speaks to health care costs && approaches. I am Canadian, and we too have a national health system, and I am extremely gratefull for it. The alternative is unthinkable.

From the Article:

place American and Canadian performance in a comparative context. She failed to tell her audience (or did not know) that Canada insured 100 percent of its citizens for $2,250 per person in l998 while the United States expended $4,270 per person insuring only 84 percent of our citizens.

Basically - dont let Blair or his Neo-Liberal twits sell you out to the Yankee Health Businesses - Canadians are watching the WTO, FTAA and the rest licking their lips at the thought of putting us all under their clutches... I wont let them, and YOU SHOULDNT LET THEM!

do I have a problem with this. Nope, none whatsoever. Because, if the big pharmaceutical companies can't protect their product then they won't manufacture it. And if they don't, who will? Who else can afford the R&D? It may be that by giving up my rights to this research I will help to provide a cure or prevention for diabetes. I'm happy with that.

Big Pharm spends *by far* more on advertising than Research. See here. Also, to as a side-note, please see here to understand that free-market capitalism in the health care industry doesnt make sense; to note "Canada insured 100 percent of its citizens for $2,250 per person in l998 while the United States expended $4,270 per person insuring only 84 percent of our citizens.", not only that, its cruel and disgusting to hold people's health ransom for money...

De-Regulating the health care industry is more about stable profit for big-pharm than anything else.. Canada and Britain's citizens would do well to understand what 'American Style' health care really means. Fewer healthy people, higher cost, profiteering at the expense of your health (literally).

What does this have to do with R&D & Patents? Patents are weapons used by the Health Care Industry to kill people for money. The 'R & D' they do is to make money. Neither thing has 'beans' to do with Healthy People. The R&D should be done by doctors with alot less attachment to profit motives, which by nature, make for an *UNHEALTHY* "Health Industry"..

"So how do you motivate people to make others healthy when your only incentive is profit" would be a better question.

"you" might like the "fact you can get whatever medial service *you* want" but not everyone can afford that financially. Your community is made of a variety of people. All of them equally valuable. The idea that they should be arranged parallel to their financial worth is a distinctly American ideal. One that is born of the Natioanl-Jingoism that tells you about the supremacy of self and the individual (really devices to lull you into becoming a mindless, want-based consumer of As Much As Possible - this is the false American Dream).

Please read this article. Then see this.

How will this kind of scheme avoid the same kind of pitfalls that plague nationalized health schemes?

I just read (thanks to a terrrific article linked above):

"Amos forgot to place American and Canadian performance in a comparative context. She failed to tell her audience (or did not know) that Canada insured 100 percent of its citizens for $2,250 per person in l998 while the United States expended $4,270 per person insuring only 84 percent of our citizens. This oversight was convenient. One would look rather foolish asserting that Canada's medical care costs half what ours does and insures everyone, but is, nonetheless, "inefficient
BR>What exactly are you talking about? Im DAMN happy we have Nationalized Health Care. The free-market does not a healthy (vibrant/educated/aware) community make. Stop with the anti-gummint mccarthyism and move beyond the capitalism-religion...

Furthermore, I pay CDN$40 for 500K ADSL, have had it for 2 years, it was installed and functional on the day it was made available (as in "service is available 06.01 - I scheduled myself on 06.01 - it was running 06.01), the support techs/line techs are terrific, and its not been down once. I would love if we (the Canadian People) decided to put fiber to every home. It would run well, be reasonably priced and be adminstered competently.

Here, cheese-breath, chew on this *American* bit of media coverage of our healthcare system: [Canada's Burning! Media myths about universal health coverage].

You've been lied to by corporate interests in your country. And you *believed* what they told you. To shame!



--

Here, chew on this *American* bit of media coverage of our healthcare system: [Canada's Burning!
Media myths about universal health coverage].

You've been lied to by corporate interests in your country. And you *believed* what they told you. To shame!



--

The mandatory car insurance thing is somewhat true, but I drive a little easier knowing everyone around me is INSURED, at least.

As for health care, there is an article from the July/August Washington Monthly titled "Canada's Burning", that very nicely clears up the (mostly American) mythology about Canada's nationalized health care system. Unfortunately the article is no longer freely available online, but here is a choice quote:

Like Pearlstein and Brooke, Amos forgot to place American and Canadian performance in a comparative context. She failed to tell her audience (or did not know) that Canada insured 100 percent of its citizens for $2,250 per person in 1998 while the United States expended $4,270 per person insuring only 84 percent of our citizens. This oversight was convenient. One would look rather foolish asserting that Canada's medical care costs half what ours does and insures everyone, but is, nonetheless, "inefficient."

It looks like you've fallen victim to the media propaganda, friend.

Truth of the matter is, universal healthcare can be *less* expensive than private healthcare. For instance, Canada's healthcare system costs the country about 40% less of its national income than the US healthcare system.

The problem with private healthcare is that its interest *must* be in maximizing profits, *not* maximizing health. If everyone in the USA were to suddenly become healthy, the private healthcare industry would collapse.

It's the same problem with private healthcare insurance. Its interest must, once again, be in maximizing profit. Ergo, it *must* rid itself of coverage of expensive illnesses.

The biggest problem with the American system is, inevitably, its absolute insistence on private corporate profits over public good. The second biggest problem is the brainwashing that those corporations are doing, to ensure that the mass public doesn't think things through.

This is going to sound harsh, but *give your head a shake!* Dare to challenge your own assumptions, habits and beliefs. You just might discover that you've been shammed.

For what it's worth, the [Washington Monthly] has an eye-opening article that begins to chip away at the media/corporate bullshit.

--

ROTFLMAO! You'd expect more from someone on /. You might as well claim Linux is a communist plot too, bud!

For a succinct and well written debunking of the usual American anti-health-care propoganda, please refer to this excellent article in the Washington Monthly. A quick quote to get you interested:

Like Pearlstein and Brooke, Amos forgot to place American and Canadian performance in a comparative context. She failed to tell her audience (or did not know) that Canada insured 100 percent of its citizens for $2,250 per person in l998 while the United States expended $4,270 per person insuring only 84 percent of our citizens. This oversight was convenient. One would look rather foolish asserting that Canada's medical care costs half what ours does and insures everyone, but is, nonetheless, "inefficient."

Alberta does have a sales tax, it's just hidden.

Idiots that want to grouse about health care -- and that'd be Canadian idiots thinking it's awful and expensive, or American idiots thinking the same -- need to check out Canada's Burning, which exposes the lies the media tells. Canada's healthcare is currently kicking righteous ass, despite its problems.


--

I got into a discussion (read: name calling session) on /. the other day regarding misstatements/falsehoods told by Gore, and misstatements/falsehoods told by the media in reporting them. The entire thread starts here, but if you're interested specifically in the "invented the Internet" story, check here .

In summary: Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn credit Gore with having more effect on the the development of the Internet than anyone else in public life. Declan McCullagh, the guy who broke the story in the first place, talks about how the story was mishandled by the press. Finally, The Washington Monthly reports on "how the press has exaggerated Al Gore's exaggerations."

And finally, because I wind up having to make this disclaimer every time I get involved in this topic, I do not consider myself to be a Gore supporter, let alone apologist, even though I'll probably wind up voting for him.

FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear accident.
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was aware of it.

Al Gore said in a speech to a group of high school students in New Hampshire that he "called for a congressional investigation and a hearing" regarding toxic waste problems in Toone, TN. During the course of the hearings, he said he started looking for other towns that had similar difficulties, which is how he came across Love Canal. I refer you to He's No Pinnochio, an article featured in The Washington Monthly, describing the actual quote, the circumstances surrounding its misinterpretation, and the utter refusal of most media outlets to apologize for the mistake.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and Tipper's.
FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim. (Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't die?)

It's true that the female lead in the story wasn't based on Tipper. However, The New York Times reported (December 14, 1997) that Erich Segal based male lead of the story was based on two people: Al Gore, and Gore's roommate (actor Tommy Lee Jones). So, you're right: although Al and Tipper weren't the basis for the male and female leads, Al and Tommy were the inspiration for the male lead, which kinda makes the whole scandal seem a little silly. Check the same article for citations.

I'm not saying that I find Gore to be particularly trustworthy or even credible on all of the issues. (I'm still considering a vote for Nader, the author of the previous post's favorite.) But if there's one thing I can't stand, it's when people accuse others of lying without being in full posession of the facts. Austad: do yourself a favor and provide better (ie: any) citations next time, or just keep your mouth shut.

By the way: Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. Chris Lehane: "[Gore] was the leader in Congress on the connections between data transmission and computing power, what we call information technology. And those efforts helped to create the Internet that we know today." And the "widespread use by government and educational institutions since the early 1970's." line is bullshit. According to Jon Postel, Vint Cerf, and a host of other members of the ISOC, ARPANET didn't reach broad usage until the early 80s, and wasn't even using TCP/IP until the mid-eighties. I refer you to their document, A Brief History of the Internet.

FICTION: Al Gore said he was the first to discover the Love Canal nuclear accident.
FACT: The incident was already discovered, being investigated, and covered widely in the press for many months before Gore was aware of it.

Al Gore said in a speech to a group of high school students in New Hampshire that he "called for a congressional investigation and a hearing" regarding toxic waste problems in Toone, TN. During the course of the hearings, he said he started looking for other towns that had similar difficulties, which is how he came across Love Canal. I refer you to He's No Pinnochio, an article featured in The Washington Monthly, describing the actual quote, the circumstances surrounding its misinterpretation, and the utter refusal of most media outlets to apologize for the mistake.

FICTION: Al Gore claimed the book "Love Story" was based on his life and Tipper's.
FACT: Author Erich Segal called a press conference to deny his claim. (Couldn't he at least lie about a love story where his sweetheart doesn't die?)

It's true that the female lead in the story wasn't based on Tipper. However, The New York Times reported (December 14, 1997) that Erich Segal based male lead of the story was based on two people: Al Gore, and Gore's roommate (actor Tommy Lee Jones). So, you're right: although Al and Tipper weren't the basis for the male and female leads, Al and Tommy were the inspiration for the male lead, which kinda makes the whole scandal seem a little silly. Check the same article for citations.

I'm not saying that I find Gore to be particularly trustworthy or even credible on all of the issues. (I'm still considering a vote for Nader, the author of the previous post's favorite.) But if there's one thing I can't stand, it's when people accuse others of lying without being in full posession of the facts. Austad: do yourself a favor and provide better (ie: any) citations next time, or just keep your mouth shut.

By the way: Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet. Chris Lehane: "[Gore] was the leader in Congress on the connections between data transmission and computing power, what we call information technology. And those efforts helped to create the Internet that we know today." And the "widespread use by government and educational institutions since the early 1970's." line is bullshit. According to Jon Postel, Vint Cerf, and a host of other members of the ISOC, ARPANET didn't reach broad usage until the early 80s, and wasn't even using TCP/IP until the mid-eighties. I refer you to their document, A Brief History of the Internet.