Slashdot Mirror


Saturn V Fallen on Hard Times

n9fzx writes "The best remaining artifact of the Apollo Program, Huntsville's Saturn V, is 'pocked with pits and cracks, and patches of mold and mildew', having survived for forty years outdoors. Alabama's U.S. Space and Rocket Center is trying to raise a measly $5 million in order to preserve the beast, with $1.5 million in the kitty so far. Paypal, anyone?"

355 comments

  1. Sell it as geek housing by leonbrooks · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Can we fix it?" (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  2. never should have been left to rot by Barbarian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It should have been used! I assume this is a complete rocket and not a replica, and when the Saturn V's were in service probably could have been launched. It is too bad it was allowed to wither away. I assume that it was abandoned along with the other remaining Saturn V rockets when the moon program was suddenly terminated and the focus shifted to the low-orbit space shuttle.

    1. Re:never should have been left to rot by stephenhawking · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes there were three more missions planned, and enough hardware to fly them. The three rockets are at Cape Canaveral (fully restored and inside a building made to house and display it), Mission Control Houston (outside), and the one at Huntsville, which is also outside. I've heard the one in Huntsville was raised to stand upright a couple of years ago. I've made a few trips to Cape Canaveral and Mission Control Houston, but I've never seen the Saturn V at Huntsville.

    2. Re:never should have been left to rot by October_30th · · Score: 5, Informative
      The original plan called for 20 Apollo missions.

      If I remember correctly, two complete Saturn V's were available when the program was cancelled. One of them was turned into Skylab and another into this showpiece. Apollo 20 was never assembled.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:never should have been left to rot by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      wtf did my post get moderated as a troll?

    4. Re:never should have been left to rot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because you [fail] it, bizatch.

    5. Re:never should have been left to rot by kwpulliam · · Score: 4, Informative

      I live in Huntsville

      A few years ago, the Space and Rocket Center, paid way too much money for a BEAUTIFUL fiberglass replica shell to be built and stod up. It is life size and is accurate. It's a wonderufl sight to see coming in 565 or landing at the airport in the afternoon. This thing is I believe the second tallest structure in the state of Alabama, and it stands out like a giant sundial when you are at 1-2000 ft.

      Regardless, the original post was about the real hardware which was laid on it's side 40 years ago, and is viewable to this day. Ignoring the 'left to rot' aspect, the hardware was Unusable within a very short time, and it was understood when it was first laid down that it would never be considered flight worthy again. The $5 Mill. is merely to restore and preserve it so it looks nice. (and I do support the project to preserve it, even if I may sound like I don't)

    6. Re:never should have been left to rot by bsharitt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah that Saturn V replica makes the sky line look nice over here at UAH.

    7. Re:never should have been left to rot by luckylindy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The following data is based on the technology available at the time of the design of the Saturn V and technology developed in the following years. Folks we had the means to colonize the moon and mars and we threw it away. It can be redeveloped with the proper political attitude and money. But will it? Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda.

      Part one: Capability of original Saturn V.
      Part two: With improved efficiency F1 main engines.
      Part 3: Improved F1 engines burning high efficiency kerosene/nanoaluminum powder fuels.

      Saturn V basic specs:
      Empty weight: 250 tons.
      Empty weight of first stage: 100 tons.
      Fueled weight 3000 tons.
      Takeoff thrust: 3750 tons.
      Takeoff weight / thrust ratio: 80/100.
      Thrust of each main first F1 engine: 750 tons.
      Efficiency of each F1 engine: 250:1
      Fuel consumption of each F1 engine: 3 tons/second.
      Ratio of LO2/Kerosene: 2 tons/1 ton/ second.
      Total mass of fuel consumed at and of first stage cutoff: 2250 tons
      Mass of all upper stages at seperation:650 tons.
      Thrust of second stage:600 tons.
      Net weight of two stage orbit capability, based on skylab data: 90 tons.
      Net weight of 2.5 stage orbit capability, based on moon launches: 150 tons.
      Net capacity escape to moon: 45-50 tons.

      Part two: Improved F1 engines:
      The russians designed during the Moon landing era LO2/kerosene engines with efficiencies of 333, sea level, which is 33% greater than the existing F1.
      That means the redesigned F1 engines could have produced 2 million pounds of thrust ( 1000 tons) at the same 3 tons per second consumption. That means that take off thrust of 5000 tons versus 3750 tons, an increased thow upper stage total weight jumping from 650 tons to 1650 tons and a probable doubling of mass to orbit:
      2 stage mass: 180-200 tons.
      2.5 stage mass: 300 tons
      3 stage escape mass to moon: 90-100 tons.
      So a conventional but improved F1 engine could hav e allowed supporting an early small manned colony on the moon.

      Part three: Use of NanoAlumimum powder in Kerosene fuels: Link: http://www.argonide.com/gun_propellants.html

      Based on the article, efficiency could increase at least 50%. If so then the 333 ISP of the 1970's technology could have been raised to 450.

      Thus, a possible F3 engine, designed for high efficiency and high energy fuels could have an efficiency rating of 450-500. That means that the Saturn V could have evolved into a rocket that could have placed:
      2 stage orbit: 300 tons
      2.5 stage orbit: 450 tons.
      3 stage escape: 150 tons.

      All this without resorting to adding side boosters to the Saturn vehicle. If side boosters of equal or better design than that used by the current space shuttle could have been added to the Saturn V then that vehicle could have evolved to place in orbit perhaps 600 to 1000 tons and have capacity to put into escape 300 tons.

      The mass of the current space station is now 200 tons and if core completed will weight 300 tons. It is estimated that the requried mass of a mars expedition space ship will be 300 tons.

      The world could have been colonizing the moon right now and be on the verge this year of making the jump to mars.

      Hundreds of years ago the Chinese sent a huge fleet to colonize the world. It went entirely around the world leaving historical evidence everywhere and bring home innformation. The Mandarins then dismantled the entire fleet, forbid exploration and became a closed society until Admiral Perry forcibly opened them up to the world.

      Why does the high sounding Bush administration's new space vision really feel like a mandarins sleight of hand maneuver to gut the space program like they are gutting everything else.

      Folks, the technology exists NOW. The means is there. But will the politicos actually allow the opportunity?

    8. Re:never should have been left to rot by Honig+the+Apothecary · · Score: 1
      I've heard the one in Huntsville was raised to stand upright a couple of years ago.

      There is a replica that stands upright at Huntsville, along with the one that is on its side. The original one on its side is in pretty tough shape.

      There are all kinds of rockets there in Huntsville, from a V2 to the Saturn 5 to a Patriot setup to a Shuttle Mockup with External tank and SRBs

    9. Re:never should have been left to rot by the+Llama+of+Virtue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Saturn V that is standing up is a mockup, the real Saturn V is lying horizontally on its land transport carriages (essentially individual, blue, trailers) Interesting anecdote, back in the 70's someone wanted to take the Saturn V away, to the smithsonian or something. Werner von Braun, outraged, went out one night and smashed in the axles on the transport carriages to prevent their movement. They decided not to take it away. For being in such bad shape it still looks beautiful. I saw it about a month ago (I go to school in huntsville) Very impressive to be a mere 10 feet from the vehilcle. I remember in high school when I visited on a trip they let us sit in one of the rocket nozzles to get our pictures taken (which probably didnt help the damage any) but even as a kid youre awe inspired sitting in a vehicle that could take man to the moon
      -philski-

    10. Re:never should have been left to rot by Fletcher360 · · Score: 1

      Amen Brother....I remember seeing it when I was maybe 17 on a road trip. The SIZE of it...whew.

    11. Re:never should have been left to rot by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      Just a guess, but I'm thinking your gimmick sig might have sounded a "troll" alarm for some mod or other.

      I was thinking "WTF, did I get logged out? why is that post minimized?" heh.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    12. Re:never should have been left to rot by vistas · · Score: 2, Informative

      from http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/special/landmk1.html

      "The Saturn V on display at the United States Space and Rocket Center is the actual test rocket that was used in dynamic testing of the Saturn facilities at Marshall. The stages of the rocket were used to check out all the Saturn facilities at Huntsville. Although the rocket was not intended to be flown, it was a working vehicle that prepared the way for the Apollo expeditions to the moon."

      "Officials from the Department of the Interior referred to the vehicle as "a unique engineering masterpiece that formed the key link in the chain that enabled Americans to travel to the moon. The success of the Saturn V made possible the success of the American space program."

      "The Saturn V at the United States Space and Rocket Center was delivered by Marshall in 1969 after all three stages were taken from the Center's Dynamic Test Stand. "

      "The purpose of National Historic Landmark designation is to identify and recognize nationally significant sites. ''Landmarks are chosen after careful study by the National Park Service,'' according to officials from the Department of Interior. ''They are evaluated by the National Park System Advisory Board and designated by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.''"

      "Designation as a National Historic Landmark automatically places a property in the National Register of Historic Places and extends to it special safeguards and benefits provided by Federal law. "

    13. Re:never should have been left to rot by vistas · · Score: 1

      No, they built a replica to stand upright. The original Facilities Test Vehicle still lies on its side.

      The Saturn in Houston, though, WAS a flight rated vehicle (however, all the Saturns on display have parts of other vehicles substituting occasionally)

    14. Re:never should have been left to rot by grunherz · · Score: 1

      Remember, it was retired so the $$$ could go to fixing all our earthly problems.

      I mean we're sooo much better off now, right?

      --
      Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars ... plus tip.
    15. Re:never should have been left to rot by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      "I only send them UP
      It's not my business where they com down..."

      -- Herr Doktor W.. Von Braun

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    16. Re:never should have been left to rot by rpj1288 · · Score: 1

      I went to Space Camp in Huntsville last year, and although the town is kind of dead and empty, the Center is full of activity. The real Saturn V is still on its side, with its different stages spread out a little to show the different parts. There is also a Saturn V replica that is upright, right next to the road. Truly an awe-inspiring sight.

      --
      Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
    17. Re:never should have been left to rot by mikerich · · Score: 2, Informative
      Hundreds of years ago the Chinese sent a huge fleet to colonize the world. It went entirely around the world leaving historical evidence everywhere and bring home innformation. The Mandarins then dismantled the entire fleet, forbid exploration and became a closed society until Admiral Perry forcibly opened them up to the world.

      As a piece of porcelain in any antique shop will show you, China was never an entirely closed country, it continued to trade with the West through to the modern era.

      Admiral Perry opened up Japan, another country entirely.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    18. Re:never should have been left to rot by pascalpp · · Score: 0

      i used to live in birmingham and frequently made the drive through huntsville to nashville. there is a rocket (or replica of a rocket) that stands along I-65 just south of the tennessee border, about a half hour or so north of hunstville. do you know what that rocket is?

    19. Re:never should have been left to rot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we are much better off now than in the early 70s -- the economy was a fucking mess back then.

    20. Re:never should have been left to rot by MinusOne · · Score: 1

      > "I only send them UP
      > It's not my business where they com down..."
      > -- Herr Doktor W.. Von Braun

      Not a quote from the Werner Von Braun, but a quote from a song by Tom Lehrer: Von Braun, an ex-Nazi then employed by NASA. There is a story going around that Von Braun's widow sued Lehrer over this song, leading to his giving up satirical songwriting. This is probably an urban legend, but I'm not sure.

    21. Re:never should have been left to rot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh. You ruined that post by screwing up the third-to-last paragraph. It casts doubt on your other factoids.

    22. Re:never should have been left to rot by geoswan · · Score: 3, Informative
      Your description of the improved Saturn V was interesting.

      But you got the stories of the great chinese fleet and Perry expedition wrong.

      Commodore Perry's mission opened up Japan, not China. Japan != China.

      Archeological evidence that the great Chinese fleet circumnavigated the world? Here is an article with a map, showing they got as far as the Horn of Africa. A great accomplishment, but not world-girdling.

      so, the facts you gave about the improved Saturn V? They are more accurate than those you offered on the history of maritime explorations?

    23. Re:never should have been left to rot by luckylindy · · Score: 2, Informative

      So I mixed my historical contexts a bit. Both japanese and chinese had great exploratory/military sailing fleets and chose to eliminate them and become closed societies. As for the the rocket information, I have followed closely the space program since the days of the mercury flights, have attended shuttle landings at edwards afb and all of my tech data is verifiable.

    24. Re:never should have been left to rot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " and it stands out like a giant sundial "

      sundial. Yeah... ok, sundial, that's what it is.

    25. Re:never should have been left to rot by joshuac · · Score: 1

      Folks, the technology exists NOW. The means is there. But will the politicos actually allow the opportunity?

      There is a little more to making a Saturn V than someone just dusting off the blueprints, building one and tanking it up; the guys who actually understood them inside out, who worked with them through their entire development cycle are now long since retired.

      I do agree it is shame they allowed this launch system to go to waste. The re-useable shuttle _is_ impressive, but it turned out more complicated to run than expected; for many tasks a throw-away rocket actually remains better.

    26. Re:never should have been left to rot by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --Perhaps it may be seen as unfortunate that it was not used for its intended purpose. However, since they are now on display, you have the opportunity to see one up close. I highly recommend you make the trip to either Alabama or Florida if you've never seen one in person.

      --The sheer SIZE and SCALE of these rockets will absolutely knock your socks off, and hopefully inspire new wonder and newfound zeal for the space program. We 'Mericans like our Cars big, our Toys big, and by thunder, our Rockets big too!

      --Most people don't take into account that the Saturn series was NOT REUSABLE. AFAIK, the only part that re-entered the atmosphere was the capsule containing the astronauts. Go see one of these Saturns in person, and *then* tell me we should resurrect the Saturn (throw all that material away into space once more, never to be seen again) instead of developing an alternative.

      --Give me a Space Elevator, a Space Plane, and a Hilton on the Moon instead of resurrecting decades-old tech, any day.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    27. Re:never should have been left to rot by Buran · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
      That's not my department," said Wernher von Braun.


      von Braun started working on rockets in the 1930s and went on to build the A-4, later renamed the V-2, which was the first successful ballistic missile and later served to launch scientific instruments and cameras to the edge of space (it could not reach orbit.) One of the X-Prize entrants, the Canadian Arrow, uses the V-2 design with a second stage added so that it can launch three people on a suborbital trajectory. von Braun himself wanted to build something similar in the 1940s, but it never happened.

      He went on to design the Redstone rocket used to launch the first two Mercury flights, the Jupiter rocket which launched Explorer 1, and famously the Saturn family of rockets, obviously including the Saturn 5.

      He died in 1973 or 1974, I forget which. He always saw his funding during his years in Germany as a way to build rockets that would send people to the stars. Lehrer had that part right.

      "Don't say that he's hypocritical ...
      Say rather that he's apolitical."

  3. Why not just cover it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... with a giant condom!

    *ducks*

    1. Re:Why not just cover it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded the parent up is a fucking idiot. Really, are you a 6th grader? Please say yes, as it hurts my head to think that someone out of junior high could find it funny.

    2. Re:Why not just cover it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking cry baby pussy. Why not just shut the fuck up for a change asshole?

    3. Re:Why not just cover it.... by Orion442 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because Madonna and Britney Spears would kill themselves trying to "mount" it.

    4. Re:Why not just cover it.... by Oopsz · · Score: 1

      That video would sell millions...

  4. Looks like a nice fixer-upper. by Sir+Pallas · · Score: 3, Funny

    And with rent at the University getting steeper, it's probably in better condition than where I live. Not to mention, cheaper. When can I move in?

  5. This sucks... by graveyardduckx · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I hate to see a piece of our country's history falling apart. A measely $5m? Sure, I'll just write a check...

    1. Re:This sucks... by Dagrush · · Score: 0

      "a measly $5 million...Paypal, anyone?"

      Say there are 1/2 million active /. readers, that's $10 each. Maybe they'd even give us a plaque.

  6. I remember that thing by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We used to drive past that rocket whenever we would travel to visit family down in New Orleans.

    It looks big in person... looked even bigger as a kid... truly an impressive sight.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:I remember that thing by porksodas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is a picture, with some people next to it for comparison.

      It's big, indeed.

    2. Re:I remember that thing by AJ+Mexico · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I grew up near Cape Canaveral, and saw most (all?) of the Saturn V launches in person. The Saturn V on display at KSC is in a very nice facility, and is part of a profit-making museum venture. It's definitely worth seeing if you are in FL. There's a lot of real hardware there to look at. I am especially proud of the reaction of foreign visitors when they enter the room with the Saturn V. People are almost in reverence of the thing. This rocket also used to sit outside near the VAB for a long time. Back in 1976, it was being moved to that outside location. I worked at KSC then, and they had left the Saturn V first stage parked alongside the road on base. (Who's going to steal it? ) A group of us decided to take a picture or two with the rocket. Somewhere there's a snapshot of me and nine other people standing inside one of the 5 rocket nozzles of the 1st stage.

      --
      Computers obey me.
    3. Re:I remember that thing by the+Llama+of+Virtue · · Score: 2, Informative

      doh, that isnt the huntsville one, thats the one from Johnson Space Flight Center. Here in Huntsville, its the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the rocket itself is on the arsenal (at space camp)

    4. Re:I remember that thing by the+Llama+of+Virtue · · Score: 1

      Thats not the Saturn V either, im pretty sure what you are referring to is the Saturn IIB which is on display at a rest area on I-65 when you enter Alabama. If you were traveling from **Anywhere** to louisiana you wouldnt drive past huntsville (its about 17 miles off the interstate)
      -philski-

    5. Re:I remember that thing by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the one he was thinking of. It's a pretty cool display too though. I used to live in Huntsville (Madison to be exact) about 3 miles from the rocket park. Even at the rocket park, the Saturn 5 lies on its side and isn't visible from the road. There is one rocket on display there that you can see for miles, but it's not the Saturn 5.

      I don't know that the rocket is worth $5 million dollars to save, but it sure was cool to see. When you take into account the PR value of having such a beast, then maybe it is worth it. Well, on to the pictures.

      Pictures of the Rocket Park:
      http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/addr ess/t-z/usspace.html
      http://www.themindspill.com/air_space/space/ASRC/a src4.html

      Picture of the Saturn5:
      http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/boos ter/sv-asrc.html

    6. Re:I remember that thing by Jahf · · Score: 1

      to clarify: Space camp is at the US Space and Rocket Center (not the other way around) ... which has a space that was either leased or gifted from Marshall. Marshall itself is resting on Redstone arsenal. You're not wrong, but it should be clear that the Arsenal is the superset, Marshall the subset and the Rocket Center the individual organization.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    7. Re:I remember that thing by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the memories *sniffle* Dunno about you, but I still remember one summer morning when Walter Cronkite made an announcement and showed a guy walking on the moon...

      --
      C|N>K
  7. For $5 million bucks... by Op7imus_Prim3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hell, I could build my own themepark on the moon! With hookers, and blackjack! Forget the blackjack.

    1. Re:For $5 million bucks... by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      I may be 20, but Disneyland sounds a whole lot more appealing....
      Its just a matter of dollars and cents.

      -Grump

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    2. Re:For $5 million bucks... by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      Whalers: We're whalers on the moon,
      We carry a harpoon.
      But there ain't no whales
      So we tell tall tales
      And sing our whaling tune.

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    3. Re:For $5 million bucks... by Mod+Me+God · · Score: 1

      Dr Evil: For $5 million... Hell, I could build my own themepark on the moon! With hookers, and blackjack! Forget the blackjack.

      #2: "Ahem...Well, don't you think we should maybe ask for *more* than five million dollars? Five million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. The US budget defecit in 2003 alone was a little under $400 billion dollars."

      Dr Evil: Five Hundred BILLION Dollars

      --
      --

      FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
    4. Re:For $5 million bucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your brain appears to be malfunctioning. You do realise you've managed to mangle and entwine quotes from both The Simpsons and Austin Powers, don't you?

    5. Re:For $5 million bucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd go, but only if it had virtual virtual skeeball!

    6. Re:For $5 million bucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, after you hit puberty, you may change your mind.

  8. The Moons Mentor by secondvertigo · · Score: 1, Insightful
    I agree in the fight to save it, it is THE icon of early manned space travel, especially with it's honour of propelling the first men to the moon, save it now, save it before it becomes the worlds most expensive birds nest

    http://www.astronomers.net/space_rockets/saturn5_r ocket.htm

    Sorry about not hyperlinking, new to Slashdot

  9. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Agreed.

    All work on restoring the statue of liberty should cease as well.

  10. Something better to do with the money by phr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to this post, only about $40 million would need to be raised to service the Hubble Space Telescope, one of the best and most productive scientific instruments ever made. The Saturn 5 out at Huntsville is just a big hunk of metal laying on the ground, completely nonfunctional, and sure, maybe it gets even more pockmarked as the years go by, but it's not like it's going to suddenly vanish or anything. And anyway, unless something has happened, there's another one on display at Kennedy Space Center (I saw that one in the early 80's). I'd say put the $5 million toward servicing the Hubble and actually accomplish some useful exploration, rather than just polishing up a relic of glory days gone by.

    1. Re:Something better to do with the money by October_30th · · Score: 5, Insightful
      With all due respect to the Hubble which has indeed been one of the best and most productive scientific instruments ever made, I don't think servicing it would be rational.

      Hubble's successor is launched in 2010 and any money is definitely better spent on the successor rather than the old Hubble.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:Something better to do with the money by eclectro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      According to this story, the shuttle mission was cancelled because of NASA's new focus of going to mars, given to us by the vision of George W Bush.

      While it would only take $40 million to service hubble, $3.5 million is alot easier to raise than the additional $38.5 million for hubble.

      So the choice is not really between fix up Saturn V or service hubble but rather between man on mars or servicing hubble.

      What would you rather have, a man on mars collecting samples (that may be done by a robot for a fraction of the cost) or all the scientific discoveries of the universe that are continuosly made by hubble?

      It's a safe bet that because of George W. Bush "man on mars" initiative any Saturn V repairs are going to be completely off the radar as well, unless maybe you get a bunch of schoolchildren to toss in their dollars (as they did for the statue of liberty).

      If I were an astromoner, I'd be pretty mad too.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:Something better to do with the money by October_30th · · Score: 3, Informative
      man on mars collecting samples (that may be done by a robot for a fraction of the cost)

      I beg to differ. The most important geological findings on the moon were done precisely because of human intuition and the capability to make observations and on-the-spot changes in the original mission plan.

      For further reference, read Andrew Chaikin's "A Man on the Moon".

      It's a sad state of affairs when people actually start to believe that robots could ever replace human explorers.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    4. Re:Something better to do with the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > While it would only take $40 million to service hubble, $3.5 million is alot easier to raise than the additional $38.5 million for hubble.

      For the last time: "Alot" is not a word, YOU ILLITERATE FUCKSTICK! Oh man, oh man, I am practically aching in my desire to kick the ever-loving shit out of your worthless pie hole.

    5. Re:Something better to do with the money by mlyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Each shuttle flight costs about $450 million. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board has also set special requirements for flights that don't allow an ISS "lifeboat" option-- so a special one-time-use tile repair kit would have to be built and certified to comply with the CAIB. And of course, there's the other $40 million in instrumentation development/certification for the servicing mission.

      With the focus on retiring the shuttle to permit construction of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, this really doesn't make sense. The James Webb telescope will be up soon enough, and it is ilkely that the life of Hubble can be extended with special 2-gyro + reference star stabilization software (albeit, with slightly degraded image quality / pointing ability).

    6. Re:Something better to do with the money by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 1
      If a robot can be designed to fly to Mars, crawl around and do science, wouldn't it be a good idea to design things like Hubble so that a robot mission could service them? Obviously I don't know the details, but there must be modules or something similar that the astronauts replace, the work can't be that fine if you can do it in space suit gloves - and its not that far to Hubble, so you don't even have problems with light-speed communications lags for when the robot runs into something unexpected.

      Maybe the replaced parts could be returned to Earth for servicing, akin to a proposed sample-return mission to Mars. Surely all this would be cheaper than shuttle missions for servicing!

      By the way, I'm not one of those people who believe that space missions should all be done by robot, I think that there's definitely a place for people and machines out there.

      --
      Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
    7. Re:Something better to do with the money by mlyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a sad state of affairs when people actually start to believe that robots could ever replace human explorers.

      I agree. We need to go to Mars and learn about other worlds.

      The sad thing is, all that we've been spending on "space science" all this time in LEO... IMO, a large amount of it could be done better and cheaper by robots. All of these "what patterns of ash does fire make on this glass" and "how does this kind of crystal grow" could be cheaply put into space by Delta IV or Ariane and observed for long periods. To space science in LEO, I say "good riddance". It's too bad Hubble will be a casualty but tradeoffs need to be made for the job to get done. IMO, what we need to do in LEO is focus on one thing-- human longevity and health in micro/low gravity.

      But when it comes to exploring other worlds, humans are definitely best. Even though the instrumentation/actuation for telepresence has improved to perhaps be on the level with humans, the speed of light and limited communications bandwidth mean that human intelligence can't act on many observations in a mission.

    8. Re:Something better to do with the money by e.colli · · Score: 0

      Sorry about my "engrish".

      It's always sad to see some historical thing being shattered.

      But this discussion about the better use for the mondy is void. The "money" don't exists at all. They are looking for someone, a philanthropical institution, a person or business, who had some money who they don't want give in form of taxes to government's waste.

      There are tons of this type of money circulate around, and charity, ONG's dispute then. The smarter gets it. (I'm not smart enough)

      This is the way they survive... maybe they collect 10% of the total and make some repair

    9. Re:Something better to do with the money by eclectro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Twenty years ago that may have been the case. But it is extremely easy to imagine a robot with stereoscopic high definition cameras beaming data back to earth to virtual reality helmets.

      Alot of space travel fanboys are going to say "it's not the same as being there."

      Maybe not, but these people need to get a sense of reality. Former astronaut (and senator) John Glen estimates it will cost one trillion dollars

      Does Bush have a sense of reality? "He wants to build like a space station on the moon, and then from the moon, he wants to launch people to Mars," David Letterman observed. "You know what this means, ladies and gentlemen? He's been drinking again."

      Really though, it's like his other programs. He announces it, but only throws a token bone to fund it. He expects others down the line (as yet unknown how) to fund it, but he wants to take the credit early on. Smart politicing in a campaign year. The 1 billion a year extra for Bush's mars initiative is great if you are going to build the rocket out of paper mache' and not much else.

      Incidentally, his father announced the exact same thing when he was president, so this is nothing new either. Look where that went.

      Also, any number NASA gives you to accomplish something, multiply it by three to come up with the actual cost, as they never are able to keep a program on budget.

      The only reason to go to mars would be because it's "neat" to go. But the reality many people decline to admit is that it would bankrupt this nation if we were to throw all the money at NASA that they would need to do it.

      I say that we need to "make do" with "neat" robots.

      And as congressman Barney Franks smartly noted "If they want romance, let them buy Danielle Steel books. It's much cheaper than going to Mars."

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    10. Re:Something better to do with the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would take only $40 million to complete the instruments to be put onto Hubble during SM4. That's just the instruments ... not the launch. Add an extra few hundred million (150 I think I read somewhere?) to actually launch SM4.

    11. Re:Something better to do with the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get over your hatred for Bush. Stop foaming at the mouth. Get over 2000. Now, you do realize there is a 2-hour radio delay between here and mars, correct? Just think of the agony of finding and picking up rocks, then bringing them home with a 2 hour delay. Also, it's John Glenn. You realize our annual government spenditure is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.3 trillion dollars, right? Over the course of 11 years, 1 trillion comes out to be about 90 billion a year. We hand out more than that to the airlines, instead of making them change their business practices to make a profit.

    12. Re:Something better to do with the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      ok, is it allot or a lot?

    13. Re:Something better to do with the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not correct. There is a serious problem with Hubble - time. Astronomers queue for years to use Hubble. There are plenty who would settle for Hubble rather than its successor. Hubble can be used alongside its successor to carry out groundbreaking observation. Just because you're buying a Ferrari doesn't mean your girlfriend wouldn't appreciate getting your Civic.

    14. Re:Something better to do with the money by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Get over your hatred for Bush.

      Heh, I guess that makes me "unpatriotic."

      Now, you do realize there is a 2-hour radio delay between here and mars, correct? Just think of the agony of finding and picking up rocks, then bringing them home with a 2 hour delay.

      Boy, if something were to go wrong, we couldn't help the astronaut. Even travelling at the speed of light.

      ...comes out to be about 90 billion a year

      To think the nation can foot a "90 billion a year" bill for a man on mars not only shows dedication to a dream, but that it's a sadly misplaced dream.

      We hand out more than that to the airlines, instead of making them change their business practices to make a profit.

      The irony is delicious. Do you think Bush is going to do anything to change corporate welfare?

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    15. Re:Something better to do with the money by tmortn · · Score: 1

      The time delay makes telepresence a problem even on the Moon, Mars is pretty difficult.

      "Boy, if something were to go wrong, we couldn't help the astronaut. Even travelling at the speed of light."

      I have never understood that reasoning, peronally to me the idea of never sending people away from earth because something bad might happen to them is the moral equivalent of someone afraid to walk out their front door because something bad might happen to them.

      And finally, yes we most certainly can foot a 90 billion dollar a year bill if we choose to do so. 90 billion does not represent even 1% of the national budget therefore we most deffinatly can afford it. The question is not can we afford it but should we buy it. But hell, by comparison if you have 10,000 dollars of spending money a year, your talking about the moral equivalent of a purcase of less than 100 dollars made 11 years in a row.

      Having said that I really don't think that is what it would cost by a long shot. I subscribe to Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct idea which with horrible budget over runs likely wouldn't reach 100 billion all told.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    16. Re:Something better to do with the money by bwy · · Score: 1

      The one at Kennedy Space Center was fixed up quite nicely and moved inside a new Saturn V center several years back. It appears to be in excellent shape now and is protected from the elements and is also surrounded by other great exhibits.

      So, you're right- put that 5 mil towards something else. Add it as a charitable contribution to the X-Prize, if nothing else.

    17. Re:Something better to do with the money by the+Llama+of+Virtue · · Score: 1

      Due to the space shuttle incident nearly a year ago and some BS government meddling, one of the new flight rules is thatt the shuttle can **only** go to ISS orbits, so that they can dock if more tiles break. This means there is no possible way to service Hubble, which is on a different inclination and orbital height. Hubble is doomed to die, and no it wont be brough back to earth and put in a museum.
      -philski-

    18. Re:Something better to do with the money by NETHED · · Score: 1

      Man, you must have some nice girlfriend, cause mine would just take the Ferrari and the Civic

      --
      --sig fault--
    19. Re:Something better to do with the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 hour radio delay? Did you get your figures from George by any chance?

      Try 20 minutes. Round trip.

    20. Re:Something better to do with the money by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Sorry, a dedicated shuttle mission probably costs $500M. At least I am certain it costs at least $300M

    21. Re:Something better to do with the money by eclectro · · Score: 0, Redundant

      After the moon program closed down in the early 70's, the republican administration at the time (Nixon) did some research into what the next logical step would be: going to mars.

      The number NASA came up with then was 300 to 400 billion dollars. And that was 1972 dollars too. Adjusting for inflation, a trillion dollars looks real cheap.

      I'm sure you can get NASA to give you any fantasy you want. Instead of mars, we got the fantastic space shuttle that was going to replace all of the unmanned rockets to deliver satellites for companies and the military once a week.

      Let me ask you this, is the shuttle deliverying satellites?

      Not Really

      More delicious irony -- one of the biggest selling points NASA fanboys have been chattering off the top of their head is we need the shuttle to fix the hubble

      Well, as you can see in the first link in the parent, that is no more. So much as the next space telescope is concerned, they are putting it in an orbit that is completely unreachable by the shuttle anyway.

      I won't get into all the other fantastical promises made by NASA on the shuttle.

      Was the shuttle program ever on budget? Not by a long shot.

      How about the space station? I know they are going around and around and around in zero G.

      What are they proving? That we can kleep a man a long time in space? The russians already did that with Mir.

      The truth is the space station was "invented" to give the shuttle a purpose (which really never delivered on a fraction of the promises).

      For the same reasons the shuttle was not useful, the space station really isn't either. At least the suttle could land.

      Was the space station on budget?
      No way (and these are old numbers).

      NASA has long said they could develope a cheap space plane to replace the shuttle. After billions of dollars, they have yet to do so

      If this was a rap sheet for NASA, they would be in jail.

      The fact is there is not a reason for a man to be in space There is no sane argument that can be made for it. Sure "it's neat", but we already went to the moon, and we already know we could go to mars -- it's a question of money which boils down to being financially responsible.

      Saying that it could be done for only 100 billion dollars is a bald faced lie, worthy of any other lie that a religious cult would propagate.

      Saying that we could afford 90 billion dollars a year is to be blind to all the problems surrounding us now, like seniors having to choose between food and medicine. And don't mention that big lie of a medicare bill that just past too. Hell, to spend a trillion dollars because telepresence is a problem is freakin' insane when my senior citizen mother is about to cancel her health insurance because she can't afford it.

      fsck the man on mars

      Space travel fanboys need deprogramming, along with proper pharmaceuticals prescribed by a reputable shrink.

      I am convinced of this.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    22. Re:Something better to do with the money by fingusernames · · Score: 1

      *Cough* Bullshit *Cough*

      As nice as that sounds to people who Hate(tm) George Bush with a passion, the reason given by NASA was safety: due to our desire to avoid losing another shuttle and crew, there needs to be a way to examine and possibly fix damage prior to re-entry. The orbit of Hubble and the orbit of the space station preclude going to both in the same mission. Meaning, going to Hubble means having no possible safe harbor at the ISS if damage is sustained on lift-off. Meaning, if there is damage during a Hubble mission, the shuttle crew is condemned to death unless we spend tons of money to provide a means to do extra-vehicular damage assessment and repair for that sole mission.

      The next generation space telescope is going up next decade. Now that NASA has realized that the Space Shuttle isn't the Ryder rental truck to space and has re-discovered an intense focus on safety, they decided that the cost of maintaining Hubble for an extra five years before it burns up just isn't the risk.

      But nah, let's not be rational. Let's Just Blame George!!

      Larry

    23. Re:Something better to do with the money by phr1 · · Score: 2, Informative
      What do you think the chances are of the Webb telescope actually getting launched in 2010?

      For that matter, what do you think its chances are of ever getting launched at all?

      In the current economy, it's not too clever to quit your IT job unless you've got a firm, unreversable commitment for a new one to switch to with an absolutely definite start date that can't be postponed by the new employer. Similarly I don't think it's clever to abandon the Hubble til the Webb is launched and operational.

    24. Re:Something better to do with the money by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      it will cost one trillion dollars

      We spend $300 billion a year on interest payments.

      We have spent more than $5 trillion since 1970 on societal programs.

      We spend over $400 billion a year on Social Security and over $200 billion a year on Medicare.

      Yet, whenever the space program is mentioned, suddenly everyone starts carping about the cost.

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    25. Re:Something better to do with the money by Electrum · · Score: 1

      you do realize there is a 2-hour radio delay between here and mars, correct?

      Wrong. At the farthest possible distance (where it wouldn't be possible to communicate anyway because the sun is in the way), Earth and Mars are ~21 minutes away.

    26. Re:Something better to do with the money by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I beg to differ. The most important geological findings on the moon were done precisely because of human intuition and the capability to make observations and on-the-spot changes in the original mission plan.

      For further reference, read Andrew Chaikin's "A Man on the Moon".
      Since Chaikin is a history of manned exploration, it's quite unsurprising that he gives robots short shrift and sings the praises the man-in-the-loop. It's also a circular argument to claim that the moon missions prove 'man is better', because there was no serious robotic exploration even attempted. (The Surveyor program for example was cut back, because there was no need for them with men following so soon.)

      It's also unsurprising considering the comparisons he makes are between manned missions and the crude state of robotics and teleoperation in the 1960's. But it's 2004 now, not 1974. Compare Spirit and Opportunity to the Russian rover's of the 70's. Compare the capabilities of the tiny Beagle 2 to the much larger Surveyors...
      It's a sad state of affairs when people actually start to believe that robots could ever replace human explorers.
      Fact is, in the field most closely related to planetary surface operations, exploring the deep sea, humans were replaced by robots nearly a decade ago now.
    27. Re:Something better to do with the money by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      One of these paragraphs is not like the other...
      The sad thing is, all that we've been spending on "space science" all this time in LEO... IMO, a large amount of it could be done better and cheaper by robots. All of these "what patterns of ash does fire make on this glass" and "how does this kind of crystal grow" could be cheaply put into space by Delta IV or Ariane and observed for long periods.
      But when it comes to exploring other worlds, humans are definitely best. Even though the instrumentation/actuation for telepresence has improved to perhaps be on the level with humans, the speed of light and limited communications bandwidth mean that human intelligence can't act on many observations in a mission.
      Why are humans important to act on observations in one scenario, and not the other? In the orbital experiments, just like on a lab bench, the human ability to react to the unexpected is important.

      Your argument says more about your desire for pretty pictures and flagwaving that your interest in science.
    28. Re:Something better to do with the money by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Boy, if something were to go wrong, we couldn't help the astronaut. Even travelling at the speed of light.

      Thank goodness the great explorers didn't listen to people like you.

      "Oh my god, it could be DANGEROUS!"

    29. Re:Something better to do with the money by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      A: It is not just a hunk of metal, it is a rememberance of the hard work, dedication and brilliance of the team that made that machine. If you think it is just another rocket, go read the history. If you dont come away amazed, you havent gone very far with it. 1.5 million pounds of thrust per engine in the bottom stage ( 5 engines ). Hadnt been done before, hasnt been done since. The Russians with their heavy launch vehicle went with many smaller engines, because they were ( rightly ) afraid of the engineering challenges ( not to put the Russians down, coordinating all those engines was a feat in and of itself ). Note that we cannot build them now without another research program to rediscover all the hows and the whys. A shame if you ask me.

      B: While it will not suddenly vanish, it will slowly deteriorate. Aerospace materials are not meant to sit around in the sun all day for decades without maintainance. The weather takes it's toll, suprisingly, vandals *will* remove things that they can get at, birds nest inside whereever they can get at, etc, etc.

      It is a monument to what we as humans can accomplish when we set our minds to it. Future generations deserve to see it.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    30. Re:Something better to do with the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could, perhaps, not invade countries that are no threat to us and save a few bucks there.

      Of course it's going to cost money, it'll probably cost more than a trillion but putting it off is stupid.
      We'll see how much the money helps the nations social problems when an asteroid hits and everyones dead and because we kept putting off doing anything with humans in space because budget conscious "now and only now" thinkers like yourself had no respect for the future. Try to think beyond your next paycheck/tax return. Human exploration and colonization of space is necessary for our survival in the future and it's worth money and lives. *I* am convinced of that.

    31. Re:Something better to do with the money by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      The most important geological findings on the moon were done precisely because of human intuition and the capability to make observations and on-the-spot changes in the original mission plan.
      [...]
      It's a sad state of affairs when people actually start to believe that robots could ever replace human explorers.

      Logic flaw. Nevermind that computers and sensors are significantly better today, the fact that humans made the most important discoveries (kudos to them) does not mean that a machine could not make the same discoveries. For your assertion to stick, you need examples of discoveries a probe would never have found. In all likelihood, machine probes will remain cheaper, and will replace humans in all missions we don't particularly want to personally do. One-way tickets are just that much cheaper.

      Want to talk about flexibility? The Mars Pathfinder had a priority inversion software bug fixed while it was on Mars. We're simply not dealing with Apollo-era computers anymore.

      Landing on Mars is something people do want to do. But it's better if we don't assume it's all about science and discovery.

    32. Re:Something better to do with the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you can't even find someone who has to choose between food and medicine. It's a lie, and everyone knows it.

      Now, I don't personally agree with what the President did with medicare. He passed something out of the Democratic playbook which created a situation being fixed for everyone, when only a small fraction (less than 5%) actually needed it.

    33. Re:Something better to do with the money by MechaStreisand · · Score: 3, Interesting
      How the hell did this get modded +5 insightful?

      Hubble's successor is launched in 2010
      How is that at all relevant to the fact that we need to service Hubble now? It's not like the costs of servicing it (which is supposed to be a regular thing) and the costs of launching a replacement are even comparable. NASA even admitted that they aren't refraining from servicing Hubble for cost reasons. We will lose Hubble if it isn't serviced, and then we would have nothing until 2010, assuming that the successor is even launched at all. In fact, at one point Nasa even stated that they want to bring it down in 2006.

      Why is losing Hubble now and banking on an uncertain replacement better than just keeping it up there, doing useful work?
      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    34. Re:Something better to do with the money by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      > According to this story, the shuttle mission was cancelled because of NASA's new focus of going to mars, given to us by the vision of George W Bush.

      You are wrong. The issue is a very limited number of
      shuttle flights available and the need to finish that
      hunk of junk the ISS before the shuttle fleets are deemed
      unsafe. The cost of the required major retrofit of the
      shuttle fleet is prohibitive, and frankly a waste of money.
      Its less than a cost effective vehicle, and of questionable
      safety as well.

      However, I do agree with others that if there is any way
      to slip in the service mission, its probably worth it even
      with the new scope going up. The limited amount of time
      availabe on any space telescope makes it a sin to not
      keep a more or less working one going. Lets all hope
      that finish the ISS ahead of schedule, just dont hold
      your breath.

    35. Re:Something better to do with the money by mlyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The speed of light delay to LEO is trivial, and the problems of telepresence for a particular scientific experiemnt are much better defined. In short, telepresence/robotic systems are likely to work a lot better.

      It is my belief that with the experiment load carried upon the Shuttle science missions, the people are acting pretty much like robots. Sure, I've seen cases when shuttle/space station astronauts have successfully troubleshooted experiments and have gotten them to run. But despite the often-heard premise from space science advocates on the value of spontaneous human observations, I have not seen a case of an experiment being adjusted based on an unusual observation on a first run and a significant scientific find occuring (perhaps you can inform me). And indeed, because of the expensive cost of launching payload to orbit the amount of instrumentation and raw materials for launching a spontaneous follow-up experiment is rather limited.

      On the other hand, it's pretty clear with Apollo that the bulk of the science happened with manned lunar missions-- in number of geologically signfiicant photographs, quantity and quality of sample return, etc etc etc.

      The fact is, running a particular experiment (watch the spiders in a cage-- what kind of webs do they weave?) is an infinitely more bounded problem than performing geology on another world (let's figure out what here is like earth, and what is different, and try and figure out what processes caused things to be this way).

      Look at how well telepresence has worked with the Hubble Space Telescope. There's little functional difference in getting your experiment approved to run on a large telescope on Earth and receiving the data back, and the same process on Hubble. The speed of light, path loss, and orbital mechanics ensure that no matter how good your instrumentation is on another world, you won't have real telepresence.

    36. Re:Something better to do with the money by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, it's pretty clear with Apollo that the bulk of the science happened with manned lunar missions-- in number of geologically signfiicant photographs, quantity and quality of sample return, etc etc etc.
      Which is unsurprising because there was no serious unmanned program. (The Surveyor guys tried, but they were cut short because scientific robot work on the moon detracted from the political goal of getting men there.)
      Look at how well telepresence has worked with the Hubble Space Telescope. There's little functional difference in getting your experiment approved to run on a large telescope on Earth and receiving the data back, and the same process on Hubble.
      Yet another nonsensical argument, as operating Hubble isn't telepresence. (There's a huge difference between telepresence and remote operations.)
      It is my belief that with the experiment load carried upon the Shuttle science missions, the people are acting pretty much like robots. Sure, I've seen cases when shuttle/space station astronauts have successfully troubleshooted experiments and have gotten them to run.
      And again you can't make up your mind... Are humans robots or are they valuable troubleshooters?
      . But despite the often-heard premise from space science advocates on the value of spontaneous human observations, I have not seen a case of an experiment being adjusted based on an unusual observation on a first run and a significant scientific find occuring (perhaps you can inform me).
      There hasn't been. OTOH, there hasn't been a case of a human observation in space making a major discovery either. (Thats mostly a function of the fact that analysis has occured mostly on Earth to date, not in-situ.)
      And indeed, because of the expensive cost of launching payload to orbit the amount of instrumentation and raw materials for launching a spontaneous follow-up experiment is rather limited.
      That was true. But the EXPRESS system for ISS, as well as outfitting it with general purpose lab benches rather than special purpose instruments is changing that.
      The fact is, running a particular experiment (watch the spiders in a cage-- what kind of webs do they weave?) is an infinitely more bounded problem than performing geology on another world (let's figure out what here is like earth, and what is different, and try and figure out what processes caused things to be this way).
      True, but confused. The Apollo astronauts were not really doing analysis, but rather the vastly more bounded problem of sample collection. The real geology, 'let's figure out what here is like earth, and what is different, and try and figure out what processes caused things to be this way' as you put it, was done on earth by geologists, not astronauts.
      The speed of light, path loss, and orbital mechanics ensure that no matter how good your instrumentation is on another world, you won't have real telepresence.
      It remains unproven whether human presence is better than telepresence. In forty years of space exploration, we are just now trying to make telepresence work.
    37. Re:Something better to do with the money by danila · · Score: 1

      Been there, not done anything, lost all. :( We had a space station, a great and very useful space station, which was really-really good. We liked it very much, but then our government decided it doesn't make any sense to keep it up there. It costed peanuts to maintain it there, compared with the price of the ISS, but you can't argue with bureaucrats or politicians. :( And so Mir was "grounded". Now Hubble may face the same demise. :(

      The only thing that saves me from depression is the fact that thanks to an unexpected fit of rationality, Iridium was left in space and is now functional... I wonder if the government would sell Hubble for 1$ to someone... Surely, some foreign government, a university or a private corporation would happily invest the $40 mln required, because it would be rather easy to pay it back through paid access.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    38. Re:Something better to do with the money by mlyle · · Score: 1

      And again you can't make up your mind... Are humans robots or are they valuable troubleshooters?

      I'd rather write off the 20% of experiments on which the automation fails-- to launch them again later.. than launch a lousy troubleshooting robot that weighs 100kg and consumes 40kg of materials per day. You can fit a lot of interesting experiments in that 100kg.

      That was true. But the EXPRESS system for ISS, as well as outfitting it with general purpose lab benches rather than special purpose instruments is changing that.

      I don't know how I feel about ISS. I'm pretty sure right now it's worthless with the degree of overhead. Maybe when completed it will be scientifically useful. Unfortunately, the orbit it is in is poorly suited for launching missions to escape velocity.

      True, but confused. The Apollo astronauts were not really doing analysis, but rather the vastly more bounded problem of sample collection. The real geology,...

      Sure, it took till Apollo 17 for a real geologist to fly. I just feel, based on how lousy autonomous robots are on earth at picking routes and doing things in known, mapped terrain.. That it would be impossible to build a robot to show the adaptability I've seen in the Apollo EVA transcripts. And with fundamental limitations on the number of pictures that robots can return governed by communications limitations.. (High path loss, high noise, small communications windows, long speed of light delay)... there's a very small number of things that can be studied in detail per mission. No current robotic probe is going to decide on its own "Hey, that rock I just passed, it was kinda shiny and looked like glass!" like the Apollo astronauts did.

      I'm all for the robotic technology getting better. At the same time, I want us to solve the engineering problems of building things in space and living other places like the moon for a long time. The science will come cheaply as a byproduct after that. And I have an idea by that point we'll be wiser as to what to study.

    39. Re:Something better to do with the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In typical slashdot style you're ignoring the fact that the Hubble's mission is of limited scope and expires soon anyway.

    40. Re:Something better to do with the money by ToSeek · · Score: 1

      The post is incorrect. That's just the cost of finishing the work on the instruments. The cost of launching a shuttle to get them installed is something over $500 million.

    41. Re:Something better to do with the money by joshuac · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. The most important geological findings on the moon were done precisely because of human intuition and the capability to make observations and on-the-spot changes in the original mission plan.

      When the moon landings were done, autonomous (much less decision making) reliable robots were a thing of science fiction. So sending a person allowed you to handle unexpected situations which would have been simply too difficult to make a machine handle. That is much less the case now.

      Also a nice thing about sending a robot; if it "dies" people just make jokes about stupid nasa slamming probes into planets and such, and the story will disappear out of the general news in 2 or 3 days. An astronaut dies, people have a much lower opinion of NASA.

      Not to mention you can send a dozen robots for the cost of one person.

      Still manned exploration of space should be done, just for the spirit of exploration. But it is stupid to do it nowadays for missions just for the sake of last second decision making. Let a robot deal with that stuff, send people when you finally know how to handle whatever will come up.

    42. Re:Something better to do with the money by tmortn · · Score: 1

      Seniors choosing between food and medicine is horrible but the govn't paying for the medicine is not the only answer. Regulating costs would be a nice start. This whole fiasco with state gov'ts buying re-imported drugs from canada is a good example of just how horrible the proffiteering is amoung the drug companies regarding US sales.

      But you make it sound like the government is doing nothing about health, spending nothing when in fact

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/hhs. ht ml

      Department of Health and human services

      discretionary ~65 billion
      mandatory ~471 billion

      As for a mission to moon/mars not possibly being a reality at 100billion I ask on what athourity you base that assumption. That insane price was based on a particular type of mission reliant on particular technologies which did not exist.. and in large part still do not exist. There is more than one way to do it, and more than one possible price tag. Not to mention the oft overlooked reality that budgets can be undershot as well as over shot.

      I also find it hysterical to reffer to 100 billion dollars as 'For only'. Thats alot of damn money and well directed can be used to accomplish a great deal... as you point out re-directing it to buy medicine for those who can not afford it could be effective. It always amazes me how people poo poo that money will be wasted spent one way and yet not be wasted spent another however noble or for whatever reasons. Not really reffering to your comment here... thats just an inconsistency you often encounter in budget allocation debates.

      You say there is no reason for man in space and to that I have one response which no doubt you fear not.

      http://www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/chicxulb.htm

      You know I wish those silly damn movies hadn't been made... it now permeates the discussion of impacts with the farcical images of Bruce Willis and company..... anway at a guess, assuming you do think another such event can happen, you think we should 'solve the problems of the world we are on before heading to space' and that anything like that is so far into the future that worrying about it now is silly and pointless as it will 'never affect us now'.

      To which I can only say thinking 90 billion spent one way as opposed to the other in the face of trillions just by the US government alone can solve the worlds problem is equaly as asinine as you claim manned missions in space are. Also asinine in my opinion is thinking the worlds, or even a single countrys problems will ever be solved to perfection. All in all we live in damn good times and if you doubt it then I suggest a study in quality of life through the ages to present Day USA

      As for needed a reason to fund manned missions.... hell if that picture of chicxulb does not make you understand the ultimate purpose of sending people to other planets I doubt anything will. For the 'its not a real threat' line of thought I pose a question. Again providing you belive it will happen again, when will be the the appropriate time to address the issue? How long will it take to mount a suitable answer to that particular problem ?

      The problem with random events, even long term period random events, is that you don't know. Even considering the idea that large periodic objects intersecting the earths orbit we do know about present know immeidiate danger that we know of

      http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Three-Bo dy Problem.html

      The problem of multiple body interactions in terms or precisely predicting such things is a real problem even for the objects we know about much less the ones we have yet to find or encounter.

      I'm not chicken little and I am not suggesting the sky is falling. I am simply saying there is a very real known need for us to figure out how to live more places than just here on earth. The beginings of that knowledge is the humble first steps of small expeditions. Argue that now is not the time. Do not argue its imposisble becasue we have been accomplishing the 'impossible' throughout our history, generally speaking all we had to do was try to open open new realms of possibility.

      Out of curiosity do you think all NASA spending should be cut or just manned exploration ?

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    43. Re:Something better to do with the money by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Have we forgotten the entire point of the space program is to get US to other worlds?

      Studying the rocks is great and all, and yes we can do that with robots. But the purpose of space exploration isn't to study rocks, it's not to get rovers up there. It's not to look for life on alien worlds, nasa isn't a glorified seti. The purpose is to learn enough that we can get people there, and eventually get people living there.

  11. one way trip to mars, anyone? by vnv · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "They come up with a plan to launch a manned, one-way mission to Titan using the remaining shuttle fleet and vintage Apollo spacecraft and Saturn V launchers."

    If Stephen Baxter could use the Saturn V for a one way trip to Titan, I see no reason why we can't use it for Mars instead! Baxter has even done the research :-)

    And just for the record, yes the book does drag, but it also has a great story of a dilapidated American space program doing something heroic which I found a tale worth reading.

    1. Re:one way trip to mars, anyone? by the+Llama+of+Virtue · · Score: 1

      Yup. Saturn V can be retrofitted for a Mars mission. Read Robert Zubrin's "the case for Mars"

    2. Re:one way trip to mars, anyone? by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      It's a very prophetic book. It also details, under the aegis of the right-wing hawk president Xavier Maclachlan, the dishonest, pre-planned dismantling of that space program, the complete abandonment of all science and rationality in favour of New Age relativism, and the withering and decay of the token tourist attractions that were all that was left of the space industry.

      I read this book to my kids (8.5yrs & 10 yrs old). Out of all the very scary things in the book, the thing they found the most scary and objectionable of all were American society's abandonment of their space program and that trend toward all the New Age crap. God bless their little hearts!

      The bit that sticks in my mind the most is when Marcus White meets Jake Hadamard at the tourist centre of one of these relics, and they watch these holograms of famous past astronauts retelling their experiences with a heavily PC slant, focussing entirely on the "spiritual" dimension.

      Titan was great, so was Baxter's "Voyage" (which I also read to the kids). I've read an obscene amount of science fiction as well as plenty of less genre-oriented fiction, and these two novels were among the very best I've seen.

  12. Why 5 million? by ScottGant · · Score: 1

    I mean, couple of buckets of paint, a few weekends with your drinkin buddies...you could have that thing fixered up in no time!

    --

    "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
  13. sheesh... by mraymer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Yeah, it's only one of the most important human creations of all time. No big deal or anything. I can see why raising $1.5 mil would be an issue...

    Oh wait, that doesn't make sense at all.

    Too bad I don't have an extra $1.5M lying around somewhere. Maybe I could talk to Capital One about raising my credit limit? ;)

    Anyway, it was truly a remarkable construction. Everything about the Saturn V was huge. From the buildings involved in construction to the enormous crawler built to haul the damn thing. We're talking an absolutely massive scale... In fact, according to the history channel's show Modern Marvels, the only human-produced sound louder than a Saturn V at lift-off is the detonation of an atomic bomb.

    It is a historical irony that space exploration takes second place to mass destruction in decibel output, though. Perhaps that says something about human nature?

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    1. Re:sheesh... by torpor · · Score: 1

      well, if you intend to make lists of things, you'd better put music at 3rd place, because while it may not be louder than war, or space exploration, it sure lasts longer.

      of course, thats just my subjective opinion. objectively, i'd put music at 1st place.

      or something like that.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  14. Interesting stuff about Saturn V by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Only has a Thrust To Weight of 1.5 (compared to >2 TW on a Eurofighter)

    Weighed 5 million pounds fueled

    Main engines burned for less than 2.5 minutes

    Was travelling 6,000mph at burnout

    Was slightly more fuel efficient than a Crystler SUV

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Interesting stuff about Saturn V by thogard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've seen a F15 go up at an AFB (not a air show where its much less impressive). I've seen most of the Sat V go up too from Coco beach or the three mile observation point. They where much more impressive. The F15 at 4 minutes is at 104,000 ft and out of fuel but the Saturn V would put the 2nd stage above 40 miles up in less than three minutes while being downrange 78 miles. Apollo 17 was launched at night and turned part of the sky blue. It was quite impressive.

    2. Re:Interesting stuff about Saturn V by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: Saturn V weighed 6,000,0000 pounds when fully fueled and ready for launch.

    3. Re:Interesting stuff about Saturn V by csbaker77598 · · Score: 1

      >>Only has a Thrust To Weight of 1.5 (compared to >2 TW on a Eurofighter)
      SNIP
      >>Was slightly more fuel efficient than a Crystler SUV

      Couple of questions:
      Does the Eurofighter also have to carry its own oxygen for the engine?
      Is comparing thrust-to-weight ratios for the Saturn vs the Eurofighter without this consideration "apples and oranges"?
      Does this same consideration also apply to the Chrysler SUV comparison?

      --
      "The more you sweat on EARTH, the less you bleed in SPACE."
  15. Correction by October_30th · · Score: 5, Informative
    Just to correct some ambiguities/mistakes in my own post above.

    Apollo 20 was indeed assembled and serves as a memorial to the workers at the Michoud Assembly Plant near New Orleans. The first and second stages on display in Houston were originally slated for Apollo 19. The booster used for Skylab was that of the Apollo 18.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Correction by stephenhawking · · Score: 3, Informative

      I live in New Orleans, only the first stage of a Saturn V is here at Michoud, not a complete rocket. There are complete rockets in Huntsville, Houston and at Cape Canaveral. I'm not sure of the details of where each part of each rocket comes from, but they are all obviously from hardware that was originally built for the cancelled missions.

  16. Needs a Large Roll_Down Rubber Protector by Linus+Sixpack · · Score: 3, Funny

    Protection and preservation are important. I think it needs a large roll down rubber covvering -- perhaps with an Spacemen reservoir in the tip!

    ls

  17. Whalers on the moon by October_30th · · Score: 1
    Damn you!

    Now I can't get that tune out of my head!

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:Whalers on the moon by secolactico · · Score: 1

      You just need to trump it with another one. Repeat with me: "Everybody was kung-fu fighting..."

      Oh, crap!

      --
      No sig
    2. Re:Whalers on the moon by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      Blue canary in the outlet by the light switch
      Who watches over you
      Make a little birdhouse in your soul
      Not to put too fine a point on it
      Say I'm the only bee in your bonnet
      Make a little birdhouse in your soul

      ( http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/they-might-be-giants/ 136380.html )

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  18. New proof of intelligent Martian life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ancient Martian pyramid found! Couple this with the face on Mars, and it's clear that life exists or existed on the red planet.

    1. Re:New proof of intelligent Martian life by October_30th · · Score: 1
      Ancient Martian pyramid found!

      Sigh... yet another completely natural formation that will whip the cydonia-kooks into feeding frenzy for the next ten years.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:New proof of intelligent Martian life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you would call all of the people at NASA kooks, then. Their stated Mars mission is to search for signs of life. Their entire purpose is searching for life and hospitable places for life. They've publicly stated that they have "no official opinion" either way about the face. Also, have you personally visited the sites in question? No? Then you can't say for sure that those formations are natural. I'd like to see a rover land there and put these questions to rest.

  19. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The hungry are not dieing from lack of money. They are dieing from corruption, apathy and malice, to name a few. Think Zimbabwe.

  20. Yah by ZxCv · · Score: 1

    In fact, according to the history channel's show Modern Marvels, the only human-produced sound louder than a Saturn V at lift-off is the detonation of an atomic bomb.

    It is a historical irony that space exploration takes second place to mass destruction in decibel output, though. Perhaps that says something about human nature?


    To me, it says that when we're gonna murder hundreds of thousands of people practically all at once, we couldn't give a shit less how loud the boom is.

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
    1. Re:Yah by GryMor · · Score: 1

      No, what it REALLY means is we weren't trying hard enough and that what we really need is Orion/Archangel. (So long Bellingham)

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    2. Re:Yah by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. An Orion/Archangle mission to Mars. Now THAT is something I'd chip in for...

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:Yah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting Rosy O'Donal on a rocket into the Sun is something I'd chip in for.

    4. Re:Yah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But can we design a rocket to lift that much mass?
      And what will happen to earths orbit as a result?

  21. Obligatory Bob the builder quote... by rendermaniac · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Yes we can!"

    1. Re:Obligatory Bob the builder quote... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

      Ohhhh... Wendy! (-: <g/d/r>

      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    2. Re:Obligatory Bob the builder quote... by builderbob_nz · · Score: 1

      Hey that's my line!!!

      --

      Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.
  22. Hey Hey by ZxCv · · Score: 0, Redundant

    At the cost of $2 per day, 5 million dollars wil sustain almost 7,000 refugees/famine victims in less privileged regions of the world for a whole year. I say let the rocket 'depart' since its no longer being used. We can keep the videos, the working diagrams, etc. and generations of the future can 'reconstruct' the rocket through virtual reality whenever they feel the need. That's merely my opinion, though.

    Now now, the last thing we need around here is a practical suggestion like that.

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
  23. Save the tower too by FTL · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The Launch Umbilical Tower which supported the Saturn Vs was chopped up into pieces and left to rust in a field at the Cape. There's a group who are trying to raise funds to reassemble the tower.

    I really can't get my head around how a society could undertake such a massive project as Apollo, then fail to preserve the artifacts for future generations. Heck, I am a future generation. I was only one year old when the last Saturn flew. I've seen the Saturn V in Houston, it's really astonishing. I can only imagine what it would look like standing next to the LUT.

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    1. Re:Save the tower too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that was because they were converting everything over to use for Shuttle. (not sure why saving the tower would be of anything but historical interest..Apollo equipment isn't going to be built again for the next time we go to the moon...)

      Apollo was over...look at the state of the Apollo 1 site -- just some concrete spray painted "Abandon in place".

  24. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know that feeding a troll usally means that one will get biten but here I go. Lets say we can get this money to actually help these refuges and it does not get eaten up by curruption. What happens to the children these people have during a one year period, who feeds them? And then what happens when the money runs dry? they just starve and so do their new kids. They real need to learn to take care of themselfs, not just accept hand outs.

  25. waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who gives a fuck

  26. Historical Perspective by publiusREX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember the Viking sailing ships?
    Remember Columbus' sailing ships?
    Remember the Conestoga wagons?
    Remember the first steps off this planet?
    and onto another world?

    It tells who we are, like it, or not.

    1. Re:Historical Perspective by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Remember the Viking sailing ships?
      Remember Columbus' sailing ships?
      Remember the Conestoga wagons?
      Remember the first steps off this planet?
      and onto another world?

      It tells who we are, like it, or not.
      Yah, it tells us as a society that we prefer exploitation to exploration. (All save one of your examples were about exploitation, not exploration.)
    2. Re:Historical Perspective by gotih · · Score: 1

      Remember the Viking sailing ships?
      Remember Columbus' sailing ships?
      Remember the Conestoga wagons?
      Remember the first steps off this planet? and onto another world?


      for me, it comes down to money. i already give the feds a wad of cash which they blow on things like wars to fight off empty, and missions to outerspace so the rich fucks can get away from poor folks.

      i don't want to explore space. it's all rocks and desert and BYOO2. i like the earth though i have to fight to keep a few mother fuckers from from pissin it away.

      i'm not content with reading about exploration in a book or seeing pictures on tv; i want to explore the earth. i fund my explorations myself (i'm freezing my ass off in CT right now). if you want to explore space, ok. but find a way to do it without taking money from those who don't give a fuck about distant red rocks and unbreathable atmospheres.

      btw, my grandfather was project manager for several of the surveyor missions. he got paid too much and worked too hard.

      --

      fear is the mind killer
  27. Send it back to Hollywood by tymbow · · Score: 2, Funny

    That way it can go into a movie museum with all the other movie props! (Kidding... no I don't think they were faked)

  28. Use the money elsewhere?!? by Tokerat · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Yes, while we're at it, if the Statue of Liberty begins to fall apart, no worries, we'll just let it fall over.

    Effiel Tower? Nah, France surrenders.

    Big Ben? I already have a watch!

    Taj Mahal? Whatever, we can just visit it virtually since they scanned it with 3D lasers or whatever...

    </sarcasm>

    What's with all the "who cares" posts? If you don't care, don't donate to fix the rocket. Go feed the hungry or whatever. Jeez, I've said this twice before in the last 24 hours, but geeks/engeneers really will find a way to disagree with anything just for the sake of argument. It's the god damned Saturn V! This ain't just America's history, this machine brought the first MAN to the moon. I say preserve it at all costs!

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    1. Re:Use the money elsewhere?!? by bsartist · · Score: 4, Funny

      geeks/engeneers really will find a way to disagree with anything just for the sake of argument.

      No we dont. ;-)

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    2. Re:Use the money elsewhere?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Big Ben? I already have a watch!"

      Why would you compare Big Ben to a watch? Big Ben does nothing of the sort.

      Note: Big Ben is the hour bell. I think it rings an E.

    3. Re:Use the money elsewhere?!? by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      Even though that was obvious, congrats on being the first /. poster to actually get me to LOL and fall backwards in my chair!

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    4. Re:Use the money elsewhere?!? by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      Uhhhh my watch has a lil beeper in it. I think it rings G.

      /me meant the bell tower with the clock, stupid yank

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    5. Re:Use the money elsewhere?!? by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      "Is this the right room for an argument?"

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    6. Re:Use the money elsewhere?!? by Russ+Steffen · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, this is "Abuse". Sorry.

    7. Re:Use the money elsewhere?!? by damiam · · Score: 1

      This machine didn't bring anyone anywhere. It was never used. There's nothing special about it compared to the (much better preserved) other Saturn Vs still around.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    8. Re:Use the money elsewhere?!? by cubicledrone · · Score: 1

      "No, you want room 12-A just down the hall"

      lol

      --
      Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    9. Re:Use the money elsewhere?!? by jsweval · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about the Taj Mahal! It already has been modeled by using just photographs. Who needs anything more? I'm sure it has at least 1,000 polys!

  29. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    talking about trolling !!! dude : you just gave the perfect excuse for not helping anybody !

  30. Will it get a new bad paint job? by thogard · · Score: 2, Informative

    One thing I hate about most main stream space museums is that they tend to just spraypaint over everything so it all looks freshly painted. Much of the stuff at the A&S in Washington DC has been so "restored" that the pipes have been removed and everything repainted. It looks as bad as paint job from one of thouse places that repaint cars for $200.

    The good places will carefully restore what is needed and replace pipes when needed and put them back to where they had been and they leave all the serail number plates on parts so they can be read.

    1. Re:Will it get a new bad paint job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear that. Lackland AFB used to have this beautiful SR-71 Blackbird sitting just off military highway. It had the original flat black paint and red insignia. I used to walk by and admire it every time I was on that side of the base.

      Then they painted it glossy black and prettied it up for the visitors. It just looks like a big plastic model now, I don't look at it any more.

  31. There is one in FL by Danathar · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a complete Saturn V indoors in a facility at the Kennedy Space center. Its in great shape (at least from the outside) and totally protected from the weather. Its in a museum facility that anybody can see.

  32. Left outside? by MtlDty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would say it was a hugely bad idea to leave such a complex piece of machinery outside in the elements, unprotected.

    It should be restored to all its glory and made into a prominent display. I went to the Saturn V center at Kennedy just a few months ago, and you can almost hear people's jaws drop when they step into the Saturn V display. It's possibly one of the most historically important machines man has ever built, it should not be allowed to rot and decay outside.

    1. Re:Left outside? by twistedcubic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, since you can see it while driving on the freeway, I think it's cool that it's outside. No need to buy a ticket to get in the space center. 1.5 million over 40 years isn't that bad. That's like a stock broker's income for the same time period, ignoring inflation.

    2. Re:Left outside? by Frambooz · · Score: 1
      The rocket you can see from the freeway is small compared to the Saturn V, which itself is inside a giant hall. The hall is a few miles towards the center of Kennedy Space Center (which is a huge patch of land all by itself), so it's impossible to see it from the road. If you think the rocket outside is big, buy a ticket and go see the real thing. That's worth the $29 alone. And I know, I went there yesterday :) (for the 2nd time)

      Here are some pics. (Not mine, brought a non-digital cam.)

      --
      No encryption can withstand the power of the Lucky Guess.
    3. Re:Left outside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is talking about the one in *Huntsville* that is outside.

    4. Re:Left outside? by Frambooz · · Score: 1

      foot | mouth

      --
      No encryption can withstand the power of the Lucky Guess.
  33. Feed The Hungry Sick Children by lseltzer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I agree with others who say that most of the poor would be better-served with economic development and honest government than with direct aid. Even so, there are plenty of cases miles ahead of servicing a dead rocket. I recently gave money to an orphanage in Guatemala for HIV+ children. I'd be ashamed to give money to something as pointless as a Saturn V when there are causes like that.

  34. Re:Feed The Hungry by jonnosan · · Score: 2, Funny


    Since I'm not a self rightous middle class twat with delusions of saving the poor down-trodden masses, I'd say the 7,000 refugees/famine victims aren't being used for anything useful either so they can 'depart' as well.

    We can keep the 'feed the world' t-shirts, USA for Africa videos, etc, and generations of the 'future' can reconstruct your tedious "I'm such a virtous wanker" pomposity through virtual reality whenever they feel the need.

    That's merely my opinion, though.

  35. Re:Feed The Hungry by Mod+Me+God · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well said. $2 a day given to the world's starving will not reach the starving, it would line the pockets of corrupt officials or get soaked up in the vast inefficiency the majority of charities operate with.

    Space exploration (or historic preservation) and removing world poverty are not mutually exclusive. Ending world poverty requires removing corruption and improving logictics in 3rd world countries, pumping money at them will not solve these problems, it will sustain them.

    --
    --

    FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
  36. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'd say the 7,000 refugees/famine victims aren't being used for anything useful either so they can 'depart' as well.

    Actually, I think the president's plan to legalize illegal immigrants and use them as cheap labor could be applied to the refugees/famine victims as well.

    Make them to do useful work in return for the aid/shelter they receive.

  37. The 5 million would be better spent on the X prize by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't spend money on nostalgia when the next generation of space craft are being built by private companies who are short of cash.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  38. Re:Feed The Hungry by jonnosan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    maybe those wetbacks could fix up the damn antique rocket in exchange for green cards and a bowl of rice a day?

    We all save 0.00007c of taxes, they get to give their children a chance to be IPO pump and dump scamsters, everybody wins!

  39. Natural formations? by pieterh · · Score: 1

    No, it's unthinkable! The goal of all space missions are to seek out lifeforms that look remarkably like ourselves, which even speak English (with a strange accent, admittedly) and which may even be genetically intercompatible with our own species.

    After all, the human species is so singular, so important, with such a manifest destiny, that it's only to be expected that "life" will always look like us.

    I'm just curious. If you saw a rock on Mars that looked like an elephant, would you immediately assume that interplanetary space belonged to trunked beings?

    People... so funny sometimes.

    Get over it: humanity is nothing special, and we're not even sure that "life" as such is. If we find one little self-reproducing molecule on Mars, even something like a prion or a strand of protein, we will have answered what is already a huge question. It is somewhat sad to turn this into a quest for pyramid-building humanoids.

    However, since you asked so nicely, we'lll send a rover to look at the face. Are you volunteering for that one-way mission?

    1. Re:Natural formations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that hard-core science types are such assholes? I guess you spout the word "pseudoscience" and read Skeptical Inquirer? Believe me, I was just like you a few years back. I was reading Sagan, Paul Kurtz, and all the other "inerrant science" shit. Pretty soon I was into secular humanism and thinking like an atheist. Then I grew up and rejected the CSICOP ideas. You should try it sometime. Free your mind a bit ;)

    2. Re:Natural formations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out...

    3. Re:Natural formations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have failed to uphold Brannigan's law; however, I did make it with a hot alien babe, and in the end is that not what man has dreamt since first he looked up at the stars? - Zapp Brannigan

  40. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bigot!!!

  41. But it's not the only Saturn V by quintessent · · Score: 1

    and yes, there ought to be much better uses for the money. Let's keep the other Saturn V's around and let this one go.

  42. 5 million? by markh1967 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This seems a lot of money to preserve what is mostly a large metal tube. What are they planning on doing that will cost that much? It's a museum piece so the components don't have to be kept in working order; it just has to look intact wherever they are visible.

    --
    Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
    1. Re:5 million? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's a museum piece so the components don't have to be kept in working order; it just has to look intact wherever they are visible.

      Sure they do. The one at Kennedy is in beautiful shape. If we're going back to the moon and need a heavy launch rocket I wouldn't be suprised if they reverse engineer some stuff from the Saturn V down there (since supposedly the plans have all been lost to time). Personally I would think that if they could build a Saturn V rocket in the 1960's then today's rocket scientists could build it without reverse engineering one, but who knows. They had a lot of trial and error back then we may not be willing to suffer.

    2. Re:5 million? by Ada_Rules · · Score: 1
      If we're going back to the moon and need a heavy launch rocket I wouldn't be suprised if they reverse engineer some stuff from the Saturn V down there (since supposedly the plans have all been lost to time).

      Sorry...The plans are not lost. They never were lost. That is a myth .

      --
      --- Liberty in our Lifetime
    3. Re:5 million? by Everlasting+God · · Score: 1

      Great link! It never ceases to amaze me that people believe the 'plans were lost' crap. Does they really think that the people who have managed to hold on to the *original* constitution and such for 230+ years can't keep track of some microfilmed blueprints for 40?

    4. Re:5 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they do. The one at Kennedy is in beautiful shape. If we're going back to the moon and need a heavy launch rocket I wouldn't be suprised if they reverse engineer some stuff from the Saturn V

      Unless they plan to use the rocket again (which I really doubt they will), having a lifesize model of the Saturn V in fully working order seems to be a waste to me. Also if they plan to reverse engineer it, I also doubt they'd need the lifesize model, as I'm sure they already have all the schematics needed to understand how it works. We really need to focus on the future, and spending 40 million dollars to keep an old rocket in working order, just so it can be shown in a museum to the public seems like an incredible waste of budget. Its not like that specific rocket will be used again anyways.

    5. Re:5 million? by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

      For real, man. 5 million can buy a LOT of bondo.

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    6. Re:5 million? by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Sorry...The plans are not lost. They never were lost. That is a myth .

      Interesting. Thanks for the link. I'll pass it along to the friend-of-a-friend who told me they were lost. :-) Should've checked snopes.com I guess.

    7. Re:5 million? by SumDog · · Score: 1

      The Computer Scientist in me hopes they had lots of full and detailed documentation from the original Saturn V program, so if they do go at this again, at least they'll have all their predecessors notes to help them out.

  43. Re:Feed The Hungry by shepd · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    >At the cost of $2 per day, 5 million dollars wil sustain almost 7,000 refugees/famine victims in less privileged regions of the world for a whole year.

    Give a man a fish, he can eat for a day.

    Teach a man to fish, and he can eat forever.

    Don't waste your money on that suggestion. Instead, it makes infinitely more sense to educate the people in those regions. The only reason they're stuck there is because there's ususally some sociopathic dictator opressing them. Only education can help these people figure out how to enact true political change (and that's what they really need -- they don't need more food -- that's not the real problem).

    All of the long-term problems in these countries often reduce to education.

    That all being said, if one were to answer this to all frivolous spendature, the country's worth would decrease, causing all sorts of interesting economic problems.

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  44. where the 1.5 came from! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    speaking as someone thats been to spacecamp huntsville. I'd say it came from all the quarters and nickles thrown into the cork covering heh

  45. Re:Feed The Hungry by instarx · · Score: 1

    Remind me not to bother calling an ambulance when you are lying in the road "not doing anything useful" after being hit by a bus.

  46. Space exploring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If I could the manner of my death I'd choose between these two:

    1) Bullet the blue sky! A re-entry at mach 15, fighting for control...
    2) "I wanna die just like JFK / I wanna die on a sunny day"

  47. Re:Feed The Hungry by richie2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Damn. I have modpoints, but no "-1 Troll, Insightful but Heartless Cynical Bastard, Flamebait and Underrated" mod option. Oh, well.

    In a short-sighted, cold and logical sort of way, you are absolutely correct. However, we as a species like to think that we are both social and moral creatures and our actions today affect our lives tomorrow. Therefore, just letting the 3rd world starve is not just wrong in a moral sense, it's not smart considering what will happen a few years down the road when the remaining billions come for our throats.

    Then again, we (the peoples of the "West") really need to have this discussion. We've needed it for over a hundred years, but no one has been willing to pick it up, for various reasons. USA for Africa is just a Band-Aid (in your face, Bob Geldof!), but we will need to help them somehow, and soon - if for no other reason than our own long-term survival on this planet. The present state of affairs is not sustainable.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  48. Paypal... by Rxke · · Score: 1

    Pypal, anyone? Sue, if they make the Saturn V an open source project... ;)

  49. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    a few years down the road when the remaining billions come for our throats

    With what? Brandishing sharp sticks and throwing stones at us?

  50. Re:Feed The Hungry by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This may sound a bit callous, but I think preserving the rocket is more important than feeding 7,000 starving people for a year. The rocket is part of our history; it is a fully functional launch vehicle that may be needed in the future. "Plans and working diagrams" aren't the only things that go into building a rocket: a lot of experience goes into it too, and this can't be shown in plans. All of the original builders of the Apollo are retired, and in another 30 years, all will be dead. You can't simply build a working model off of the plans if all the designers are dead. Having a working model to dissect and recover the technology provides many more clues as to the technology if the designers are dead.

    And don't pretend like the Apollos are ancient history. It may not seem like it now, but there will be a time when we need that technology again. Shuttles are one thing, but if we want another manned mission to the Moon, we're going to need the old, powerful rocket technology found in the Apollos. We haven't built them in 30 years, so letting our final working model turn into rust would be foolish.

    As for the 7,000 starving people, they don't amount to much. If we feed 'em for a year, they'll die after that anyway. They won't contribute to mankind's future in space. This is the callous part, and many (religious) people probably wouldn't agree with me here, but a rocket is worth more than the lives of 7,000 starving 3rd-world-country-dwellers who will never amount to anything. Think of it in another way: a lot more than 7,000-lives-worth of effort went into the Apollo program, so letting all of that go to waste over only 7,000 current lives wouldn't be worth it.

  51. ... thinking like an athiest?! by pieterh · · Score: 1

    Oh, no, that's terrible. There are cures, you know!

    And don't flatter yourself, mr. Coward, you were never like me.

    1. Re:... thinking like an athiest?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, no, that's terrible. There are cures, you know!

      Some days I wish God would appear to everyone on Earth at once and set people like you in their place. Even then I think you morons atheists would be stubborn enough not to believe in God! What kind of proof do you need that he exists? There are tons of anecdotal evidence of his existence and that's good enough for me and billions of other people on the Earth (not just Christians, but Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.).

  52. Obvious solution... by pieterh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cut the damn thing into hand-sized pieces, seal in plastic bags, sell them for $25 a piece and use the proceeds to send Carly to Mars on a one-way mission to sign outsourcing contracts with the Martians.

    Damn, my living room museum needs a brick from the Berlin Wall, a chunk of the Biggest Rocket Ever Built, and a single hard-copy SCO share to go along with my original mint-condition 20-diskette pack of IBM's OS/2 (which never flew, either).

    1. Re:Obvious solution... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Forget +5 Funny, tell whomever owns it to get a saws-all and get busy, I'll buy 3!

  53. JSC Saturn V by Alioth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I used to work (until about 1.5 years ago) pretty much opposite the Johnson Space Center in Houston. They have a Saturn V outside there - I often took people who came to visit me to JSC, and we'd have a look around the rocket park.

    It's an impressive thing up close. From our parking lot at work, it didn't look that impressive. But when you got up close to it, it was another story.

    However, the Saturn V at JSC is also in pretty poor shape - it's corroded right through in places if you look closely. The white paintwork on the CM is badly cracked. Apparently, it also became a home for some owls (which is not a bad thing really).

    The best artifact inside JSC is an Apollo capsule that went to the moon and back. You can actually (or could when I was last there) touch the heat shield - it's neat touching something that's been to the Moon and back. When you look at it closely, with its primitive electronics and its small size, you wonder how they ever did it.

    1. Re:JSC Saturn V by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a resident of Houston that frequently visits JSC, I can attest to the sad state the Saturn V on display. One of the five massive main boosters is slightly sagging and there is a good deal of corrosion. The searing Houston (actually Clear Lake) summer sun and salty humid air (JSC is close to Galveston Bay) have taken their toll.

      Even in this state, it's quite an impressive thing to see - even inspiring.

      I've recently seen the Saturn V on display in Florida - it's indoors and in pristine condition. One big difference - it's elevated above you - so you can't really "touch" it. Maybe that contributes to its longevity (?)

      If Bush's moon/mars ambitions get traction - Any ideas as to what they are going to come up with? Seems like a trip to mars is going to require something even more massive.

    2. Re:JSC Saturn V by cflorio · · Score: 2, Informative
      "The best artifact inside JSC is an Apollo capsule that went to the moon and back."

      You mean it went to lunar orbit and back, but yeah that must be pretty cool to see.

    3. Re:JSC Saturn V by DaneelGiskard · · Score: 1

      Apparently, it also became a home for some owls (which is not a bad thing really).

      Just wait until they finally figure out how to launch it...

    4. Re:JSC Saturn V by len_harms · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't need anything MUCH bigger. Most of those rockets were used to just get out of the earths pull of gravity. Once you've done that you coast it. Now getting back on the other hand....

      I used to goto UNL and they had a display of one of the lunar modules in front of the museum. They took it down and hid it. People were spray painting it and stealing chunks of it. At one point some administrator had painted over the heat shield, 'it didnt look nice'. So the burn marks were painted over. Instead of moving it inside where they could control vandalism. They moved it to some outdoor storage shed then sold it to another museum? I think it was for Apollo 6. The coolest thing I ever saw in front of that was a group of Japanese students first seeing it. They were PUMPED to see it. They all had to get pictures of it. I had seen the thing my whole life and thought it was cool, but didnt think much of it. But to them it was like they had found gold.

    5. Re:JSC Saturn V by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      I used to work (until about 1.5 years ago) pretty much opposite the Johnson Space Center in Houston. They have a Saturn V outside there - I often took people who came to visit me to JSC, and we'd have a look around the rocket park.


      I work at JSC; pass Rocket Park a couple times a day on average. It is one of JSC's more noticeable landmarks. And central to Rocket Park is the Saturn V.

      The Saturn V is indeed decaying. Badly. You can see the decay even from the main road going in and out of the center.

      I had heard that a contractor was brought out to power-wash the rocket. During the job, flakes of paint began to wash loose. They stopped but some damage had already been done - and it simply highlights the current bad state of disrepair.

      Budget for restoring the rocket is difficult to come by. And I understand that there has been some talk about building a sun shade over the rocket. Apparently, it would be cheaper to build the structure and routinely paint THAT rather than the continued cycle of refurbishing the aging Saturn V's surface. Of course - just because it might be cost effective, doesn't mean the money is available.


      The best artifact inside JSC is an Apollo capsule that went to the moon and back. You can actually (or could when I was last there) touch the heat shield - it's neat touching something that's been to the Moon and back.


      JSC has a lot of neat artifacts tucked away. The hallways of JSC's buildings are kind of like small museums. You can find some interesting conceptual art, diagrams, and models. Amazing photographs of Earth's geographical features as well as various atronomical bodies. There are displays of functional objects like space food, clothing, and tools. There are historical displays of old space suits. A hall of honor to those who have gone EVA. A Mission Control console used during Apollo 13. Models of early Shuttle designs used in the sonic test chamber. Just to name a few things. Most of the public will never see these displays.
  54. Don't Let Machine-Logic Conquer! by MatrixTheorist · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Matrix is ALWAYS On-Topic; it surrounds you.

    MATRIX THEORY !

    i have submitted this as a story. WE will see how DENSE the editors are. LET THE ENERGY FLOW!

  55. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a difference between helping and giving free handouts. Giving people free handouts all their life makes them dependant.. It makes people feel 'entitled'. Helping someone out when they need help is different. That still helps teach them independance.

  56. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    People who are dying of famine in many parts of the world are dying because the land they are attempting to farm is not suitable. It is the enviroment that has driven them out. There is nothing that can be done about it, and certainly handing out cash so that these people can continue to try and live in semi-arid conditions is non-sensical.

    Think about it this way; if you lived on a clifftop and woke one morning to find that the cliff had eroded and was now only a foot from your house, would you ask for money to divert the sea, or would you just move?

  57. Re:Feed The Hungry by jonnosan · · Score: 1

    It was a taxi, not a a bus, you insensitive clod.

    And I would have called the ambo myself but my phone got broke in the impact, along with my arm,leg and dignity.

    Good thing there was a car full of christian rugby league players coming the other way. They lifted the cab off me, dialled the ambo, they even said a little prayer for me while we waited for the medics to arrive.

    Bless em.

    I reckon they still cherish the memory. I'm just glad I gave them a chance to feel good about themselves, even if I did have to spend 2 months in bed with one tube pumping pain killers in, and another one pumping the urine out.

  58. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the 7,000 refugees/famine victims in less privileged regions of the world die. They're not our problem, nor our history.

    They don't contribute anything to the mix, so we can have our rocket, our history, and use the videos and diagrams for something else interesting.

  59. Re:Feed The Hungry by elpapacito · · Score: 1

    Well what can I say, two nonsenses for the price of one ?

    The first one, somebody wants to restore what is an arguably big piece of metal with (imho) very little engineering and sentimental value.

    Wouldn't it be much better, from an historical point of view, to save the money to recover the Lander which is still on Moon ?

    And given that the lander is going to be on the moon practically forever and intact, unless some meteorite hits it, wouldn't it be better to spend the money to give Hubble a second chance ?

    The second one, suggesting that U$5M could instead feed some starving people for one year. What after this year is gone ? Wouldn't it be better to teach them how to feed themselves like somebody suggested ?

    And by the way, do you really believe that money given to any charity will reach the poor entirely ? You're going to have a bad bad surprise sooner or later. Why don't you help the poors in your neighborhood, city, region, state to begin with ? They're reachable, you can check where the money goes if you _really_ care and are not just doing some moral washing of your "soul" by giving somebody some dollar.

    Also remember that money isn't but an instrument of credit transfer and monetary profit isn't but the illusion of achievement and advancement. One can have one trillion dollar and still be hungry and poor if with that one trillion he can't buy food because "market" set one billion dollar price for a meal.

  60. THeyre mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They want not just a space vehicle, they want an airplane too.

    They should build an Enterprise. Built it in space for space. TO get to it use a launcher or whatever to get to the garage in space. Keep it docked in space.

    Forget the shuttle, forget rockets, build the fucker in space for space. Space is the launching point for space.

  61. Get over Bush? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SERVE GWB. GWB IS YOUR FRIEND! GWB wants you to be happy. If you are not happy, you may be used as reactor shielding. GWB is crazy. GWB is happy. GWB will help you to become happy. This will drive you crazy. Being a citizen of the Homeland is fun. GWB says so, and GWB is your friend. Rooting out traitors will make you happy. GWB tells you so. Can you doubt GWB? Being a Troubleshooter is fun. GWB tells you so. Of course, GWB is right. Troubleshooters get shot at, stabbed, incinerated, stapled, mangled, poisoned, blown to bits, and occasionally accidentally executed. This is so much fun that many Troubleshooters go crazy. You will be working with many Troubleshooters. Most of them carry M16A2s or M249s. Aren't you glad you have an M16A2 too? Won't this be fun? There are many traitors in the Homeland. There are many happy citizens in the Homeland. Most of the happy citizens are crazy. It is hard to say which are more dangerous - traitors or happy citizens. Watch out for both of them. The life of a Troubleshooter is full of surprises. Stay alert! Trust no one! Keep your M16A2 handy!

    1. Re:Get over Bush? by phrostie · · Score: 1

      get a life!

      where are my mod points when i need them?

  62. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like we'll see with the Iraqi people. They are bred for dependence.

  63. Re:The 5 million would be better spent on the X pr by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

    If they want my money they can sell shares, just like other companies do.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  64. Don't paypal these guys anything. by xeeno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Out of that 5 million, only about 500 thousand is really needed. The rest goes to politics and pork.
    If you want to fix it, get a group of volunteers that are willing to fix it themselves and then offer to do it.

    1. Re:Don't paypal these guys anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? use volunteers, and have the S-5 rocket paint job look like your damned house ? What do you care if they raise 10 million to paint it ? You won't be contributing to the cost anyway. Let 'em paypal.

    2. Re:Don't paypal these guys anything. by autiger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ummm... can you cite any evidence for this allegation? Are you an expert in Space Vehicle Restoration? Perhaps you missed the part where they plan to do more than slap a coat of paint on it like move it so that it can be sheltered from the elements?

      Moderators: this was Insightful? please...

  65. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will contribute in the future. This has happened before... when cousins of those killed by the encouragement of voilence the US gave in Afghanistan in the 80s flew jets into the WTC. This is happenng now when Russia and China say "you don't give the world nash, why should we listen to you" and then Europe says "you create 25% of the world pollution but have 5% of the population you selfish bastards". It is time we turned this attitude of the US around.

  66. Re:Feed The Hungry by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I agree! and we can save even more money by stopping the waste of money on the washington monument, the linncoln memorial and mount rushmore. those are just tributes to some men instead of a tribute to an achievement as a race as the saturn V rockets are.

    and what about these other wastes of money like the memorial to be built in new york where the World Trade Center towers stood?

    to hell with symbols of freedom, achievement, and rememberance as nobody cares about that crap anyways...

    do you realize how much money is spent on the Vietnam and WW-II memorials alone how about the money lost for silly holidays like vetran's day, Martin Luther King Day, and Memorial Day?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  67. Re:uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be so dense. You're an embarassment to the other kids at your junior high.

  68. Fly them? I couldn't agree more by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As was discussed recently, they have a lot to teach us.

    I'm not convinced at all that we should be spending billions of dollars of government money on new launchers when we have a system sitting around that works very nicely, thank you very much.

    Sure, a brand new system would be better, but between the brevity of our pass by-with Mars, the vitality of private space programs, and our humbled and abused government finances, perhaps the Saturn should be more then a five million dollar paperweight and conversation piece.
    And even beyond that, nothing gives perspective on a subject liking getting to look up close and personal at the gear used to do it. Especially since leading-edge gear from the seventies and earlier (like, say, the Spirit of St. Louis) always looks so DIY to anybody who pays attention.
    I found it very energizing when I was a kid to see the Kennedy Space Center Saturn and think "hmm.... that wouldn't be so hard to build at all".

    Rustin

    --
    Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
    1. Re:Fly them? I couldn't agree more by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      While that's a feasible option, the problems I see are "cost" and "not good enough". Cost is an issue because you still have to redevelop the rocket. Unless those experienced in building them are still around to build more, new engineers are going to have to reverse engineer things. (Anyone notice how much time you can spend reverse engineering "mature" code? Now imagine if you had to port that code from COBOL to Java.)

      The second cost issue is the disposability of the rockets. When we were sending men to the moon, cost was not an object. It made sense to burn up a multi-billion dollar rocket. In today's world, such waste would limit NASA to nothing but a single launch per year. Not good.

      As for the "not good enough" aspect, the Saturn V has the power to put a lot of mass in low orbit, some mass in high orbit, and very little mass to escape velocity. The laws of physics say that you can't have the same mass and expect the engine to get you to a higher orbit. This means that the time and money spent on the Saturn revival would take away from the technologies needed to make a permanent moon base and a mission to Mars.

      Now if you want it done right, accelerate the GCNR program. You get massive launch capacity at a cheap price, and an engine that performs just as well for interplanetary travel as it does as a launch solution. It's just a better bang for yourbuck.

  69. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Poor sad bastard.

  70. Re:Feed The Hungry by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1
    Ending world poverty requires removing corruption and improving logictics in 3rd world countries, pumping money at them will not solve these problems, it will sustain them.

    Gee, you're right. It's much better if we stand back and merely criticize the governments of impoverished countries instead of giving direct handouts to those starving people. While their bellies may be empty, their souls can feed on our ideals.

    And if witholding charity is better than giving, perhaps the next logical step is for us to steal from the poor! When they have nothing left, why then they will have nothing left to lose!

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  71. Auction it off by xtermin8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ebay anyone?

  72. Re:Feed The Hungry by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

    Surely it IS pointless to preserve ANOTHER Saturn V when there are already two perfectly preserved display examples? The money would be FAR better spent on science, such as NASA's FUTURE projects.

    Good grief!

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  73. Re:Feed The Hungry? Save the Rocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. Save the rocket. Besides being an important piece of history, it is the only thing around that burns more fuel than my SUV.

  74. even your brain is mangled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not the simpsons and austin powers, it's futurama and austin powers

    (paraphrasing)bender: OH yeah! well I'll make my own theme park. With hookers and blackjack. In fact, forget the blackjack!

    1. Re:even your brain is mangled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simpsorama, Futoms, it's all Matt Groening.

  75. Who cares. by The+Creator · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Humanity is much better off without monumental history.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  76. Re:better spent on just about anything by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    "Other companies" structure themselves in many different ways. "Going public" does tend to raise the most money quickly, but a stock that doesn't plan to make any profit in the very near future isn't likely to get very far (especially in this economic climate) I would dismiss "just sell shares" comment as a common troll, if it weren't for the serious problems that kind of thinking has brought us in recent times.

  77. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calling me a Middle Class Twat, no problem. How dare you call me Self Righteous, you left leaning Weasel.

  78. Maybe they can at least save some of the museum. by rayd75 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Having fond memories of the Huntsville Space and Rocket center from my youth, I recently went with my wife and a friend. We were shocked to find the entire place in utter disrepair. Most of the rockets on display outside (including the Saturn V) were visibly rusted with many completely rusted through in spots. Most of the paint was either flaking or so sun-damaged that it would come off on your fingers with the slightest touch. Not only was the rocket park essentially a scrap heap, but the museum seemed to be now devoted almost entirely to military technology. One exhibit, the "future warrior" exhibit was particularly disturbing. I hate to think that one of our country's biggest sources of pride has shifted from scientific progress and exploring frontiers to the presumption that we are a bunch of badasses who can annihilate anyone who crosses us.

  79. The Problem is the Saturn V is in Alabama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you expect? They put it up on blocks out on the front lawn,weeds grow up around it,a family of possums move in.The locals sit around it swilling moonshine daydreaming 'bout getting it running one day, towing it out to the pad and smoking those Russkie rockets through the quarter mile.
    Thats what Alabamans do with Camaros, Mustangs, Barracudas etc.

  80. Re:Feed The Hungry? Save the Rocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, too bad they got rid of the Concorde, eh?

  81. Looked pretty good to me... by dev_alac · · Score: 1

    I was there last summer and it looked in fairly decent condition, but then again, it's the little stuff that will make it fail...

  82. Re:Feed The Hungry by Honig+the+Apothecary · · Score: 1

    NASA does not own the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville. The government in general provides little of the funding that runs the place. The rockets and aircraft on display are on loan from NASA or the orginal owner in most cases. Click here for faq

  83. Re:Feed The Hungry by rspress · · Score: 1

    Many people give to more than ONE charity. I am hardly a rich person and have been disabled for the past four years and am on a fixed income. I give to charities on a regular basis.

    I often find that those who say we need to donate to help other people and make people feel guilty usually NEVER donate one penny themselves.

    As a republican we always donate to good causes, we just don't need to tell everyone we do...we prefer selfless acts.

  84. Wrong Figures (500+41) by wass · · Score: 1
    Hi, that's my post you linked to.

    The $41 million number I gave was an estimate from O'Keefe to develop SM4 to completion. But it must be missing the launch costs, because those run $500 million additionally. NASA folks aren't certain where he got this number from, and this might even indicate he didn't fully think through his decision to terminate the Hubble program.

    Anyway, though, I still believe this is a small cost to maintain and greatly improve upon the Hubble, as compared to the rest of NASA's budget. Especially since $200 million was already spent developing the thing.

    And to another poster that responded saying James Webb will replace Hubble soon, that's not entirely true. Webb will detect near-IR wavelengths, and Hubble does near-IR/optical/UV. So while Webb will have a larger and better aperature and updated electronics, it's missing many segments of the spectrum that Hubble has.

    These various telescopes are not meant to be replacements for each other, but designed to complement each other instead. Scientists were planning to point Webb and Hubble (along with perhaps FUSE and Chandra) simultaneously at certain targets, to get wide-ranging spectrum abilities. A good chunk of the spectrum will be missing if Hubble is deserviced.

    --

    make world, not war

  85. Re:Feed The Hungry? Save the Rocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yeah. Save the rocket. Besides being an important piece of history, it is the only thing around that burns more fuel than my SUV.

    Actually, the Saturn V doesn't look all that bad compared to an SUV. Assuming it burned about 1200 tons of kerosene+hydrogen (~500K gallons of gas) to go on a 500K mile round trip, it got about 1MPG overall, or 3MPG per astronaut. That's only about 5X worse than if each astronaut drove their own SUV to the moon and back.

  86. Re:better spent on just about anything by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

    Depends who you are selling to. If it's a generic company selling share to the public and speculators to raise capital for... who-knows-what, then yeh it's not a good idea.

    On the other hand, if Carmack said he was selling shares in his aerospace company because he needs 100 million to get an orbiter up and back, then you can safely sign me and a whole bunch of other geeks up. Think of it as PayPal with something in return.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  87. Re:Maybe they can at least save some of the museum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    A friend of mine worked at the Space & Rocket Center for several years. The center went through big budget cuts about 4 or 5 years ago, and was really on the ropes due to the investment it made in the construction of the free standing Saturn V replica for the 30th anniversary of the moon landing. They simply don't have the money to keep things nice and 'fresh' at the moment.

    Trivia: Did you know that about 10 years ago, NASA swiped the SRB nozzles and nose cones from the shuttle exhibit because it needed working equipment to actually use on a shuttle launch?

    You know you've reduced the NASA budget too much when they're hocking parts off of museum exhibits. Remind me to thank Bill Clinton for being so helpful to NASA during his presidency.

  88. Spoiled rotten by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    I guess I am spoiled rotten, since the space museum near where I live does restoration for a living.

    I wonder if they are going to have the Cosmosphere do the restoration work on the Saturn 5?

    Heck, I'd bet they'd do the work for the US$1.5 they have now, if the would let the Cosmosphere display it....

    1. Re:Spoiled rotten by thogard · · Score: 1

      How did they get all that stuff in Hutchinson? I know there used to be a Navy base there in the middle of Kansas but I didn't even know they had a museum. Let alone one worth visiting. Of course the Clyde Cessna has his museum (which has a pinting of an early Cessan plane) in Kingman Ks.

    2. Re:Spoiled rotten by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      Patty Carey and Max Ary did a lot of dumpster-diving (junk yard diving really) for many long years, getting stuff NASA had thrown away and restoring it.

      They got so good at it that when the Smithsonian was looking for folks to restore their stuff, they sent it to the Cosmosphere.

      They set up a very fair comparison of the US vs. the Soviets - so fair that the Soviets started giving them artifacts.

      After a while, they had a collection that was so good, when the Smithsonian started looking for museums to partner with, they started with the Cosmosphere - not just to display more of the Smithsonian's collection, but also so that the Smithsonian could gain access to and display some of the Cosmosphere's collection.

      Of course, both "Apollo 13" and "From Earth To Moon" used the Cosmosphere to make the props.

      Then there's the fact that when the ISS work started and astronauts needed to train on Russian gear, NASA had the Cosmosphere build the trainers, as they were the only ones who could do an authentic job.

      NOTE: other than being a member of the Cosmosphere (which means I get a price break) I am not associated with the Cosmosphere in any way.

      If you live near any space museum, ask them about the Cosmosphere.

      And if you ever within 100 miles of Kansas, plan on making the trip - Hutch is pretty much in the middle of the state.

  89. I'm curious by koan · · Score: 1

    Does anyone think a moldering rocket lying on it's side is going to inspire anyone? I can remember as a kid seeing "monuments" that were run down and they are not inspiring.
    So fix it? hell no why waste the money?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  90. Actually, there are two Saturn V's... by simonbp · · Score: 1, Informative

    The US Space and Rocket Center actually has two Saturn V's; one is a the flight atricle in not terrible state (not more than KSC's was before they build the enclosure) and a test article that has been fully assembled and towers a hundred and some feet high, high enough that I can see it from my dorm window...

    http://www.spacecamp.com/spacecamp/request?type= ar ticle&id=museumindex&view=ind

    Simon ;)

  91. Choo choo bear! by rs79 · · Score: 1

    Because you can.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  92. Capitalist Solution by SEWilco · · Score: 1
    I'm not a rocket scientist, but this sounds like a hardware problem.

    Maybe NASA can help raise money.
    Bring the Apollo 11 lander back from the Moon and auction it on eBay.

    (Yes, I know only the LEM descent stage is at Tranquility Base. If my memory serves me right, the rest of the LEM was crashed on the Moon so recovering that will be the hard part.)

  93. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, you're right. It's much better if we stand back and merely criticize the governments of impoverished countries instead of giving direct handouts to those starving people. While their bellies may be empty, their souls can feed on our ideals.

    Blindly funneling monies maintains the current level of corruption. Approach the source of the problem, not the result. Someone who steals to support a drug habit is not reformed when given a cash handout. Sometimes the present have to sacrifice so the future can be better.

  94. Re:Maybe.. by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ...or maybe not!

    If there is one single thing that the government SHOULD be spending money on, its the defense of this country. I say, lets take a chunk of the $400 billion that was allocated for free prescription drugs and use that waste of money instead.

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
  95. Make it fly again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like de Wright Brothers' plane!

    Then again... maybe not exactly "like" the plane, perhaps it would be better IF IT WORKED AT ALL!

    1. Re:Make it fly again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rep "de" with "the"... my bad...

  96. Re:Feed The Hungry by mxyzpltk · · Score: 1

    > letting the 3rd world starve is not just wrong in a moral sense, it's not smart considering what will happen a few years down the road when the remaining billions come for our throats.

    Just so I'm clear on this; your argument is that if we don't feed them now, the Ethiopian stickmen are liable to invade the U.S. later..?

  97. Tom Sawyer by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Just explain to George W. Bush that it'll get him the votes of all the astronauts and refresh his soul if he'll paint it for you.

  98. Re:Museum piece not in working order? by neBelcnU · · Score: 1

    With respect, you're nuts. A museum must use the BEST long-term preseravtion practices, so future generations can extract the maximum amount of information from the artifact. In some cases, that means WORKING order. The artifact must be in the same condition as it was at acquisition for future scholars.

    Now, to the Saturn V...
    The documents are lost. NASA, entropy, and time have most likely purged a significant ENOUGH percentage of the knowledge-base that attempting to rebuild one "from the plans" will be impossible. That is, given no examples, an attempt to build a perfect replica (I mean able to reach the moon in exactly the same way as Appolo 17) would be utterly impossible,

    And it would be idiotic: Why try to navigate to the moon with those computers? The big value learned by a rocket-scientist from the S 5 are the MISTAKES to be avoided. The materials-science that made it are all thoroughly embedded in the processes currently available. (Think about the aluminum alloys developed for Apollo, and now think about the aluminum-tungsten carbide COMPOSITES developed for the F-22 Raptor.) Preserve the S 5 for the purposes of history, and appreciation, but harbor no illusions that this one will fly, nor serve as the precise template for a new anything.

    "But wait, what about recovering after the fall of civilization?" Please, live in our world, play in theirs.

    Finally, I've recently been to the one in Florida. I was in tears the whole time walking it's length. For THAT experience, I will help pay the $5million. If only .01% of the viewers in the future have that reaction, it's worth the societal-cost of preservation.

  99. Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were they not already being paid to take care of this stuff?

  100. Re: fund future NASA projects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $5 million is not much money as far as NASA is concerned. Even office buildings cost more than $5 million.

    Consider this:

    Expenditures on National Defense in 2003:
    $393.8 billion

    Expenditures byNASAin 2003:
    $15.00 billion

    The current NASA budget is 3.809% of the current defense budget.

    If the National Defence budget was cut by just 10%, and that money given to NASA, the NASA budget would be increased by more than 260%.

    And $5 million is just .1% of NASA's budget.

  101. Poor Governorship - Take Back The Rockets by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One thing that stikes me every time I drive through southern states (North Carolina,South Carilina, Georgia, Alabama,etc) is the compete lack of public self-respect. Especially on the major highways. Each state has tons of sites to see and even sites woth seeing, but you wouldn't guess it from the highway.

    Instead of seeing the museum as an expense they should view it as a moneymaker ($tourism). Alabama politicians must be just plain stupid to let the U.S. Space and Rocket Center fall apart. Maybe the federal government should step in and confiscate these national treasures?

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Poor Governorship - Take Back The Rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Space & Rocket Center IS viewed as tourist money. It's Huntsville's most tourist-worthy spot, and it does remarkably well with what it has.

      Which state do you inhabit? Do you have the money to keep this stuff in perfect condition? I doubt it. Neither does your state, and (sadly) neither does the US Gov't.

  102. Why did they build it? by Decaff · · Score: 1

    The big question is why did a moon mission require a huge rocket like the Saturn V? The Thumping Big Rocket idea is a very inefficient and expensive way to get to space. A far better idea would have been to get most of the way to Earth orbit on the back of a plane. Planes use atmospheric oxygen to burn their fuel rather than carrying liquid oxygen with them like a rocket. The Saturn V was nothing more than a very big missile.

    1. Re:Why did they build it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the Mercury program was going on, work was also being done on a back-up project in case it didn't work. Scott Crossfield and his associates were planning to add extra boosters to an X-15 and fly it to low earch orbit.

    2. Re:Why did they build it? by barakn · · Score: 1

      TThere is no plane big enough to carry an Apollo style mission into the sky. For example, Pegasus can only launch 1000 pound payloads into low Earth orbit (LEO), while an Apollo mission's command module, lunar lander, 3 astronauts with many weeks of supplies, and extra rocket fuel to get all the way to the moon weighed many many tons.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    3. Re:Why did they build it? by Decaff · · Score: 1

      In the 70s shuttle prototypes weighing nearly 200,000 pounds were launched into landing test flights off the back of 747s. This is far more massive than the upper stage of a saturn 7.

    4. Re:Why did they build it? by LauraW · · Score: 1
      In the 70s shuttle prototypes weighing nearly 200,000 pounds were launched into landing test flights off the back of 747s

      Landing tests and escape velocity are orders of magnitude different, because the work required is proportional to the force (or weight) multiplied by the distance. The shuttles were only flown up a few miles before being launched (or dropped, really). The first stage of a Saturn V got upper stages to around 40 miles up before separating, if I remember right.

    5. Re:Why did they build it? by jwriney · · Score: 1

      Not really. A plane will get you, oh, 40,000 feet (7.57 miles) of altitude at the most, and maybe 700 MPH worth of speed. For a basic low earth orbit, you need 100-150 miles of "up" and more than 17000 MPH of "sideways". So that airplane boost, optimistically, got you 6 percent of the required altitude and 4 percent of required speed. That's not really "most of the way", and isn't that much of a benefit.

      --riney

  103. Huntsville space museum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is not what it once was. It has ceased to be a source of knowledge and inspiration. It is presently a noting more than a giant US Army recruiting center. The science exhibits have been replaced by shallow minded crap.

    I first visited there in the mid 1970s when I was a young teenager. I was entralled. I took my son last year and I thought I would be sick. The rocket farm was almost non-existent. The really great science exhibits, like the chair that demonstrated gyroscopic precession, were gone.

    Unless they can take the space museum back to what it once was, they will get no help from me.

  104. Re:Feed The Hungry by fingusernames · · Score: 1

    I say we go on a Holy Secular Crusade, rampaging about the world armed with Compassion, Justice, Superior Might and Firepower, toppling Cruel and Corrupt governments, freeing their downtrodden people from Tyrants, and installing True Bushian American Administrations to oversee our new Protectorates until the Sovereignty of the People can be Restored, feeding the poor masses, lifting them from poverty, and enlightening them with the One True Path to Everlasting Happiness: Constitutional Democracy expressed through Proportional Representation, Market-based Capitalism, a generous Welfare State, and blind adherence to International Legitimacy (granted solely by the consensus of the all-knowing and wise China, Russia, France, Britain and the United States).

    It's the only way to save the village and those poor starving villagers!

    Larry

  105. Re:Maybe they can at least save some of the museum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Huntsville, and I can tell you that the Space & Rocket Center is lucky to even still be open. This is not however all the Center's fault: there's very little new in the world of spaceflight that will draw a crowd.

    Maybe that will change soon.

  106. let it die.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's one preserved in the NASA center in Florida. Why must we seek to preserve everything?? That $5 million is better spent on making future historical relics. Send the money to the Planetary Society, Artemis Society, Mars Society or do a private placement in a venture like Armadillo Aerospace.

    -

  107. Its the Space Centers own Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They spent something like $15million building a replica that is upright when they should have moved and restored the original instead.The space center is pretty well known in hunstville for being rather corrupt, at least in the past.

  108. Re:Feed The Hungry by slipgun · · Score: 1

    This is unfortunately true.

    Look at this example

    The fact is, while the gap between rich and poor has widened in the past 50, 100, 200 years, the poor have got richer too. Far, far fewer people in Africa are starving now than was the case 50 years ago.

    Don't think I'm knocking charities at all - many of their people are extremely committed, and do a great job which I could never do.

    --
    SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
  109. Never should have gotten to this point. by Jahf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why, if the rocket is owned by the U.S. Government (I believe the rocket is owned by NASA and leased to the center) and the Rocket Center, which is owned by the State of Alabama on U.S. ground (Marshall SFC / Redstone Arsenal), are they going to private sources for funding of this restoration? There is a little thing called taxes which are already diverted to the center.

    Also, it is largely the Rocket Center's fault that things got so bad. I worked there for 2 years as a counselor about a decade ago and the condition of the exhibit then was the same as it is now (minus another 10 layers of paint and mildew/moss/etc). Guess what their idea of maintaining the exhibit was to go out every year and paint over the past year's mildew with a new layer of paint. Anyone who knows about paint, mold and mildew will realize what decades of overpainting will do. I'm sure that covering the exhibit with a simple structure like a tent-roof, while expensive, would have cost less than $5m when they first set up the exhibit, even counting for inflation since then, especially if they had leveraged their relationship with the army engineers on Redstone Arsenal.

    Of course, the USSRC had very short-sighted management throughout the time I worked there as well as for at least a few years before and after I left. They continuously had smaller exhibits break down and their maintenance was horrible. They had great exhibits, but didn't do a good job of keeping them up.

    Other examples? Sure:

    * The simulator used for Space Camp (elementary age ... older kids went to "Space Academy") when I was there was the oldest piece on the training center floor. I kid you not, it was so badly wired that it caught fire inside the electrical panels (the structure was hand-built and mostly wood and wires). No, not just once ... but at least 3 times just while I had kids in it (and I watched one of literally dozens of teams most weeks). The answer was always to evacuate the kids, put out the fire, replace any bad wires, and open it back up for the next time. I'm not kidding ... the place should have been shut down by the fire marshall and sued by parents. And yes, we brought this to the attention of management on a regular basis as did the maintenance staff.

    * Most of the other rockets in the park have a similar problem and undergo the same painting "refresh". The difference is they are mostly upright and so it is not as visible (and they're alot smaller). Except for their shuttle mockup, which is going to have the same issues in a few years as the SV exhibit.

    * The Shuttle tank usually has pennies and pencils stuck in it from kids tossing them into it. They usually clean them out about once a year. Not sure what the solution for this would be, but even a sign saying "hey, please don't deface this exhibit" would have been useful.

    * The "centrifuge" exhibit/ride continuously broke down. It sometimes was down for a week or more. It was very popular, but instead of getting a real overhaul one year they just shut it down and scrapped it.

    Additionally ...

    - Space Camp programs, during the years I was there, brought in a tidy profit. However, the museum was in such disrepair that it was a loss center. So, instead of Space Camp programs being able to expand and fix things properly, money was diverted to the museum to keep it afloat.

    - During the years I was there it was standard practice to lay off everyone they could during the holiday months. While this is practical it also had the add bonus (to the center) of marking all of us as Seasonal employees. This meant that we didn't have to be paid benefits.

    - Along with no benefits, even though some counselors had been there for years, there was also no overtime. Think that being scheduled for 80+ hours a week (a few of us worked 2 programs, and I know of at least 4 people including myself who -averaged- 80 hours in the summer and sometimes hit 100 hours

    --
    It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    1. Re:Never should have gotten to this point. by ke4roh · · Score: 1

      Most of my undergraduate classmates were also counselors at USSRC since I went to the University of Alabama in Huntsville which is walking distance from USSRC (but I'm probably the only one who's ever walked it). I heard similar stories from them about various problems. They scrapped the centrifuge, as you said, and replaced it with another one - smaller and more of an amusement park ride than the flight simulator they had before. What's more, the old centrifuge was built inside the connector ring for the first and second stages of the Saturn V. They built the Saturn V replica in 1999 in time for the 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. The gantry has not been built. I would appreciate seeing some fine management at the museum straighten out the mess there, but I still enjoy the opportunity to see their exhibits. What we really need is some serious space exploration to give them need to display new artifacts!

      --
      I hate call waitin`~+~~~
      NO CARRIER
    2. Re:Never should have gotten to this point. by Jahf · · Score: 1

      Greetings ... alot of the folks who were counselors at the time I was there were also from MTSU (where I ended up living next to for awhile, too, even though I never attended either college).

      Didn't know they had a new centrifuge. Does it at least still hit 3G or is it further limited? For the kids that was the best thing about the old one ... hitting the same theoretical weight you'd hit on a shuttle launch.

      If they didn't build the gantry and they still don't have the funds to restore the real SV, where did the money for it go? Probably never know. I know the tech crash hurt, but it's been awhile and I'm guessing that with Bush's new take on NASA/Moon/Mars that the place will be hopping with kids and tourists again in a year which means they may not need the additional funds anyway (the profit margin on a Space Camp kid's attendance is very good).

      BTW, if you ever call the HiWAAY crew, tell them Geoff says hi ... I've been gone almost as long as I worked there so they may have a blank stare but if not give my regards.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    3. Re:Never should have gotten to this point. by ke4roh · · Score: 1

      USSRC has not been in particularly good shape financially for the last decade or more. Space Camp does tend to support the entire operation. (Museum admission is only about $14, including an IMAX movie.) The director finagled money to build the Saturn V mock-up, saying he had all kinds of corporate pledges that didn't really exist. Thus, when it was time to talk about building the gantry, the money never materialized.

      The new centrifuge is pretty disappointing. I think it gets to 4 g's, but there is no program during the ride - you just get in the giant washing machine, spin dry, then get out. There is a waiting room in which the operator might give a briefing about the experience beforehand, and I presume the operator could make some presentation during, but neither occurred when I took a spin.

      Also to boost the amusement park factor, in about 1993 they installed "Space Shot" which bothered me because it was taller than the Saturn I-B by a meter or two. They got in trouble with the state for advertising it as a thrill ride without mentioning the educational benefits. Basically, it's a really fast outdoor elevator. People strap in on all sides of a steel frame tower facing out with legs dangling from the seats, shoot up (again, about 4 g's) courtesy of air pressure stored in tanks, and come back down with -0.1g's. Bouncing on the column of air follows, running riders up and down a few more times.

      --
      I hate call waitin`~+~~~
      NO CARRIER
  110. Re:Feed The Hungry by slipgun · · Score: 0, Troll

    Goodness me, can't people spot a troll when they see one?

    --
    SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
  111. don't save starving children by alex_ant · · Score: 0

    save decaying rockets.

    1. Re:don't save starving children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starving children should never have been born in the first place --- birth control, yo!

    2. Re:don't save starving children by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Any money spent on spacecraft, past or present is a tiny fraction of the gross national product of the United States. The money saved from a very slight cut in the defence budget could dramatically reduce poverty and starvation.

  112. Not the best remaining by JewFish · · Score: 1
    The best remaining artifact of the Apollo Program, Huntsville's Saturn V WRONG!


    The Huntsville Saturn V is a pre-production model, it was never built to be launched. Now the Houston Saturn V, thats the only one left thats made of 100% flight ready components. The first two stages of the Houston Saturn V were meant to be part of Apollo 19.


    It is clear that the Houston Saturn V is the most authentic, too bad its in detoriating shape also.

    1. Re:Not the best remaining by cybernezumi · · Score: 1

      Sigh, that was one of the saddest parts of working at JSC, driving every morning by the world's most expensive lawn ornament -- with pigeons roosting in it... 8-(

  113. use the money for something better by cpdsaorg · · Score: 1

    like a music program at public schools.

  114. don't fund birth control by alex_ant · · Score: 1

    save decaying rockets!!

  115. Re:JSC Saturn V - How many are there?? by eggoeater · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is getting out of hand...
    In this /. thread, I've read about Saturn V rockets in Houston, Orlando, Huntsville, and Kennedy Space Center.
    (I saw the one at KSC last summer... spectacular and very well kept. Bigger than I imagined.)
    I thought there were 3 Saturn V rockets, from Apollo 18, 19, and 20.
    Can anyone clarify??
    Thanks.

  116. Nah, buy your own! by StefanJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Estes still makes and sells a Saturn V kit, but a small outfit in CO sells a bigger version, with instructions in MPEG video form on CD-ROM:

    http://www.apogeerockets.com/Saturn5.asp

  117. Probably deliberate by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    Leaving the old Saturn V out in the rain and "losing" the blueprints was probably NASA's way of defending the Shuttle program from any attempt to reinstate the "big firework you use once and throw away" approach to space flight.

  118. For what it's worth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I spent one evening in the mid-90's at the Kaffeeklatch--Huntsville's premiere blues* emporium. Ended up sitting with a few folks who after a sufficient quantity of alcohol, voluntereered that they worked in the space program, and that their undertanding was that in addition to the hulks on display at the Huntsville museum and elsewhere, there was supposed to be *another*, complete Saturn/Apollo system, carefully mothballed and maintained in one of the huge underground bunkers at the Redstone Arsenal. The idea was that if something unexpected happened (like the Russians going to the moon and setting up a weapon of some sort), the US could, on about six months' notice, get someone back to the moon. Just once. Seemed at the time like just about a wild enough story to be true.

    *For those who've never been to that part of the country, you bet blues is alive and well in the heart '0 Dixie. Seems to have become color-blind as well. As an example, go check out Microwave Dave and the Nukes

  119. Put a tarp over it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...It's Alabama after all, it'll blend in with the scenery. ;)

    Anonymous Joe

  120. On I-65 south by annisette · · Score: 1

    just below the Tenn-Alabama border there is a visitor centor and what appears to be a mockup of a saturn-5, compleat. And I will be damned if I only had one picture left in my camera. The saturn-5 program takes me bact to grade-jr high school when a 19 inch b&w television was brought in (one in each classroom) and the whole school stopped and we watched the launch(s)

    --
    I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
    1. Re:On I-65 south by obirt · · Score: 1
      I passed that rocket on the way to Aviation Challenge and the USS&RC, It's actually a Saturn 1B.

      The field guide has a picture and info about it.

      --

      I use to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.
  121. Re:Feed The Hungry by instarx · · Score: 1

    Seems implausible I know, but so did the Colonies winning their war of independence seem implausible to the British, and even more so the economic strength the Arabs have today when up until the 1940's they were a powerless semi-nomadic people. The Czars couldn't even comprehend a revolution. The Ottoman Empire, one of the great civiizations of the ages fell to some barbarians on horseback.

    Those unforseen future consequences of today's actions have a nasty habit of coming to roost with a vengence.

  122. Re:Museum piece not in working order? by PD · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Saturn V could be rebuilt today, but would cost a lot due to reengineering. It's not that the plans were lost, but that technology has changed. Many things available in the 1960's are not available any more, because they've been replaced by improved technologies. For example, Saturn V had sequencers, not computers. The whole rocket could be run with the equivalent of a mini-itx board saving a lot of weight and complexity over the old sequencer circuitry, but the reengineering would cost millions.

    The engines themselves were relatively unremarkable (except for their amazing size) scale-ups of typical kerosine-LOX engines of the 1960's. Easy to make new ones if we wanted to.

  123. hmm by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    I remember looking at that sucker up close back in... '98, '99 and she was starting to look aged.

    I also remember it because I was on the space shot and got a good view of her, and the fact one of the toughest guys in class who liked bothering me and harassing me pissed his pants on that ride.. hoo boy, fun.

    anyone been to huntsville? remember the mars rover thing they had there?
    the little remote contolled toy rovers in the display on one side, the controls on the other side of the center..

    anyways, my point is, I saw the rocket (was sideways IRC) and it was in bad shape, and shit, putting it in alabama without preserving it? big mistake, you got humidity, you got rain, you got unbearable heat (thanks to the humidity) and then you have icy winters and sometimes snow....
    yet they didnt preserve it in the first place? shame on them.

  124. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    As for the 7,000 starving people, they don't amount to much. If we feed 'em for a year, they'll die after that anyway.

    Actually, feeding 7,000 uneducated people living in chaos or under the thumb of corrupt leaders will only leave you with 10,000 or more people to feed next year.... You create MORE suffering.

    Feeding the starving, without looking any deeper as to WHY they are starving is about as smart as giving your money to someone with gambling problems.

    But what the hell- I'm sure it will make some people feel better about themselves. That's what is important after all, isn't it?

  125. inevitable by barakn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ozymandius
    by Percy Bysshe Shelley

    I met a traveller from an antique land,
    Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert . . . . Near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them, the heart that fed;
    And on the pedestal, these words appear:
    My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings,
    Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away."

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  126. NASA may well need the Saturn V for heavy lifting by Brian+the+Bold · · Score: 1

    Seeing as George W. has just tried to commit the US to considerable amounts of new hardware I do wonder whether the Saturn V could be used as a basis for a heavy lift rocket to get some Mars-bound hardware into earth orbit for assembly.

    I always regretted that I was too young to see a real Saturn V launch, I've never wanted to see the shuttle launches in person, but getting the chance to stand on the rattling ground and have my ears and body cavities shaken by five F1s is something that would get me on a plane without any pushing.

    It will be interesting to see what transpires assuming that this new mission plan can be turned into reality.

    --
    -- BtB
  127. Re:Modern Kerosene-LOX engines by neBelcnU · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here are some links to current RP-1/LOX engines:

    This is a nifty table that explains why Russian engines are so desireable.

    This is a fluffier piece on the RD-180, now being built in the US under license.

    Finally, this is a crowded table of all the Energomash engines. NOTE: this table's hard to read, and you'll find some WILD variants...

  128. In this case let it go by serutan · · Score: 1

    Having grown up in the 50s and 60s, I have great love for the early days of the American space program. I still have a large collection of newspaper clippings from the Gemini and Apollo days, and a 3-inch reel-to-reel tape of the first moon landing, recorded off the tv speaker as I watched it live, holding my breath along with the mission controllers.
    However, a Saturn V rocket was built to go out in a blaze of glory, not to endure decades of weather. It's an impressive artifact, as anyone who has stood beside it will agree, but I don't think restoring a badly deteriorated example is worth millions of dollars. The only way to preserve it effectively would be to house it in a special building to prevent further weathering. And it's so damn big! I would rather see the original construction specs and a set of detailed photos preserved, in case some future generations want to make a life-size replica using more advanced materials.

  129. Give it to Scaled Composites! Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...wait a minute. Burt doesn't really need it, does he? Looks like he's gonna do it anyway. :)

    It's just sad that NASA will piddle away whatever money they're given on administrative junk. Remember the space station debacle?

    But what's even more sad is that a model airplane builder with $10 mil. is going to burst their bubble.

  130. Jerry Pournelle put it best by majid · · Score: 2, Informative
    I seldom agree with the far-out right-wing politics of Pournelle, but this essay strikes home:
    Saturn was the most powerful machine ever made by man; and NASA took two working Saturns and laid them out as lawn ornaments so that they would not compete with Space Station and Shuttle. This was deliberate destruction of the people's property, but those who did it were promoted, not sent to prison where they ought to be. Perhaps that is too strong: but they ought to be dismissed with prejudice, barred from ever working on any government or government financed or government approved project whatever. It was done for pure politics to ensure the need for Shuttle. And it was criminal.
  131. Try Space Camp Florida... by ccage · · Score: 1

    Your comments are interesting, but I guarantee you that your experience is nothing compared to that of working for the Florida operation.

    Imagine the same thing but with 1/10 the facilities, no advanced programs, and little concern for the outcome of the project!

  132. We saw it years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it was still in good condition, my wife and I saw this on one of our trips back to my home state. I have a picture of her standing next to one of the five nozzles. That nozzle is about 3 times as wide as she is tall, IIRC.

    Sad to hear it's in a state of decay. I guess the humidity is too much for it.

  133. Re: fund future NASA projects by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it would still keep a few engineers/scientists in employment for a year.

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  134. Re: Good point! by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    I thoughtful reply on Slashdot. I never though I'd see the day. I'll have to respond in a simlarly uncharacteristically /. manner. You're right! Good Point.

  135. Re:565? by kwpulliam · · Score: 1

    Nope - I-65 runs north/south between Birmingham and Nashville and passes about 20 miles West of Huntsville. I-565 is the interstate spur (hence the Odd first digit) that runs from I-65 to Huntsville and actually passes the Saturn V Replica, and the Rocket Center where the real one is laid down. If you are thinkning of a rocket a rest area near huntsville, I believe that's a Saturn B varient, but it's been years since I stopped at that rest area. Cheers

  136. Obligatory Family Guy Quote by Jorkapp · · Score: 1

    Peter: Ah crap, how am I gonna get $50000 by tomorrow?
    Quagmire: Well, you could whore yourself out to 1000 fat chicks for $50 each... or 50 REALLY fat chicks for $1000! ...Awkward pause, as everyone looks at Quagmire...
    Quagmire: Hey. Don't look at me like that. Fat chicks need love too, they just gotta pay for it.
    Cleveland: We could have a bake sale...

    --
    Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
  137. Re:Feed The Hungry by Cybrr · · Score: 1

    So you are afraid of different people becoming self sufficient? Are you by any chance using violence against them for personal gain?

    --
    Why did GEAR crush RDP?
  138. Inspiration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing more depressing than a moldering Saturn V in a tourist trap, is a shiny man-rated Saturn V in a tourist trap.

  139. Taking a Saturn V to mars is silly. by obirt · · Score: 1
    There's no need to sink money into manned mars missions when we haven't been back to the moon. Money would be better spent using the Buran and Energia to set up a lunar habitat. The official site has more of the nitty gritty buran.ru

    Its a shame that the Buran and the Space Shuttle were developed in competition rather than cooperating on a space system that would be better than each individual system. If NASA used a lift system like Energia or the Energia itself, we would probably still have Challenger and Columbia which could be fitted to say, land on the moon or mars and then launch like a plane using internal fuel tanks and the SSMEs to return to earth.

    With the cancelling of Venture Star and pipe dreams like the Space Plane, there aren't that many options left, and money isn't in great supply.

    So back to the topic at hand, I read the restoration plan for the Saturn V at USS&RC. Nowhere does it mention any type of protection, just restoration. So in another five years it's going to cost another 5 mil to restore? Screw that, come up with a plan that doesn't require continued large spending.

    some more interesting reading on Saturn V

    --

    I use to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.
  140. Re:Feed The Hungry by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1
    Sometimes the present have to sacrifice so the future can be better.

    Easy to say if you aren't the one being sacrificed.

    I am not arguing that corruption is not a problem - indeed I agree that it is the main problem. But to turn your back on the unfortunate people who are starving today due to the incompetence or the malfeasance of their governments is needlessly cruel. Charitable giving is not "blindly funneling money". There are many charities that do recognize and attempt to address the root causes of starvation in addition to simply feeding people.

    Approach the source of the problem, not the result.

    Why not do both?

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  141. Part of the tower was restored... by mahler3 · · Score: 1
    ...and erected in the Apollo/Saturn V Center at KSC, next to the aesthetically refurbished Saturn V rocket stages. It's about as much of it as you'd expect to assemble for an indoor display; at least that much is protected from rusting into oblivion.

    FWIW, I don't know who paid to have the Saturn V stack at KSC refurbished, but I think it's owned by the Smithsonian and on indefinite loan to KSC. I'd bet that the costs of restoring the Huntsville rocket could be covered by tourists coming to see it in a similar facility.

  142. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The only reason they're stuck there is because there's ususally some sociopathic dictator opressing them. Only education can help these people figure out how to enact true political change...
    It's not their book learning that's defective, it's their culture. They have nasty dictators because they willingly submit to them. If one of those dictators tried his tricks on a bunch of poor, uneducated American farmers from the early nineteenth century, he'd get his ass handed to him. IMHO people get the government they deserve.
  143. Re:NASA may well need the Saturn V for heavy lifti by Witsu · · Score: 1

    I don't think NASA could or would revive the Saturn V. From what I have read all the blueprints are either gone or unreadable, and any existing Saturn V would be in far to rough shape to fly. The tools required would no longer exist even if they wanted to try.

    NASA could probably just as well buy a Russian Energia rocket. Apparently that was even more powerful than the Saturn V and was built to launch the Russian Space Shuttle Buran.

    Another option would be to assemble the spacecraft in low earth orbit or on the Moon, and launching up the parts using existing rockets such as the Titan IV

  144. Re:JSC Saturn V - How many are there?? by MemoryAid · · Score: 1
    Did Disney do a knockoff of the Saturn V in Orlando?

    I used to live there, and did see a shuttle launch from work. It was pretty impressive to see somthing that far away.

    --
    Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
  145. Re:Feed The Hungry by Daetrin · · Score: 1
    "a few years down the road when the remaining billions come for our throats"

    With what? Brandishing sharp sticks and throwing stones at us?

    If there were actually a billion people dedicated to destroying the US, we'd be pretty fucked, even if they all started out with just spears and arrows. (Of course after the first time a large group of them caught a small group of us by suprise, they wouldn't be armed with just "sharp sticks" anymore)

    It certainly wouldn't be the first time a group with less advanced weapons defeated a better armed group by using superior numbers and a dedication to their cause. Perhaps you've heard of Vietnam?

    Of course they most likely wouldn't be using just sharp sticks. A lot of those billions have access to firearms of some sort, and the chemicals needed to make explosives. Look how much trouble a few hundred or thousand people are causing in Iraq. Look how much trouble a dozen people with boxcutters caused in the US.

    The more you have, the less you want to lose. The less you have the more likely you are to be willing to give your life to a cause. The more prosperous the US has become the less willing we have been to deal with casualties in war situations, again, look at Iraq.

    We may have the best weapons, but we're not very pshchologically prepared for the losses that would come with millions or billions of people dedicated to destroying us.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  146. No reason to waste money on the Saturn 5... by UrGeek · · Score: 1

    ...but I like the idea of doing this with all of the ole ICBM's that one where ready to blow up the world. Drain (or scrape) them free of fuel and set them out to rust in peace.

  147. Not just no, but Hell No! by Bob_Robertson · · Score: 1

    God damned blood sucking bureaucrats. If they don't want it, sell it.

    Imagine the gall of begging from the people robbed at gunpoint to build it in the first place!

    Thrice damned tax leaches. To hell with them.

    Bob-

    --
    The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
  148. Put it at an airport by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Most major airports have big buildings that might be large enough to house a Saturn V. If it's put in a passenger terminal, it's an attraction that will bring people to the shops in the terminal. If it's put in an unused or little-used hangar, it can be a paid-admission exhibit. Plastering over the holes and repainting it can be done for a lot less than a million dollars.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  149. Wait until the flag comes back by Animats · · Score: 1

    The true embarassing moment will come when the Chinese go to the moon, land at Tranquility Base, fold up the US flag, and put up theirs. They'll probably bring home the US flag and put it on display in Beijing.

    1. Re:Wait until the flag comes back by Grimster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Frankly I hope they DO, I would really like to see this country get back into real space exploration and something like that would REALLY kick us into overdrive. I've been saying for a while now what we need is a good competitor for space exploration, once Russia went kaboom we quit going ourselves, nothing like a good pissing match to get us back in space.

      --
      --- www.f-theocean.com
  150. safety not money is why hubble is being scrapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are not going to service Hubble for safety reasons. The shuttle is going use the ISS as a refuge in case of emergencies.

    Hubble is in an entirely different orbit which would leave the shuttle without enough fuel to go to the ISS in case of emergency

  151. Re:Feed The Hungry by instarx · · Score: 1

    Am I what? Are you sure you replied to the correct post? I am pointing out that people who have little power today should be treated with respect even if for no other reason than they may not be powerless in the future. The thread was leaning toward there being no negative repurcussions if powerless people (i.e. Ethiopian's) were treated badly because there was nothing they could do about it anyway. I pointed out that this was an attitude shared by many powerful past cultures that learned a hard lesson that the change from powerless to powerful is often unexpected, dramatic, and from the dominant culture's viewpoint - devestating.

  152. Mars Direct by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

    Try the book "Mars Direct," IIRC from the book it could cost as little as 40 billion dollars using small, light pods (and the author's credentials in this are somewhat better than John Glen's). NASA's own estimates, using the "massive spacecraft of doom" approach, place it at ten times that, but still nowhere close to the figure you quoted.

    Not to say that these are small change, but they are far far from the $1 trillion figure you mentioned.

    Also, that's in government dollars: it could also be done at a fraction of the cost by private industry.

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
  153. Waste of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why waste $5 million fixing up an ancient rocket that will never fly when NASA is pinching pennies everywhere else? The money, if available, should be spent on progress, for which NASA has always stood, rather than nostalgia.

  154. Only in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    will it cost 5 billion dollars - sorry, 5 million dollars - to paint a pipe.

    Ridiculous.

    I suppose the moon is made of blue cheese after all.

  155. and by alex_ant · · Score: 0

    the money saved from a cut in the space program could reduce it even more.

  156. Not forty years outdoors, btw by $QIO · · Score: 0

    Forty years outdoors ? The Saturn V was built in 1963 ? Huntsville has the Apollo 17 or 18 flight hardware, so I don't see that this is the case.

  157. Light 'er up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Light 'er up and thar mold will fall off!

  158. Taj Mahal by DaedalusLogic · · Score: 1

    Man I love his music!!!

    http://music.mysic.com/Taj_Mahal.html

  159. Please learn how to use links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to use links.
    <a href="http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/page s/address/t-z/usspace.html">Picture of the Rocket Park</a>
    <a href="http://www.themindspill.com/air_space/space/ ASRC/asrc4.html">More pictures of the Rocket Park</a>
    <a href="http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/page s/booster/sv-asrc.html">Picture of the Saturn5</a>
    yields:
    Pictures of the Rocket Park
    More pictures of the Rocket Park
    Picture of the Saturn5
  160. Re:Feed The Hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is time we turned this attitude of the US around.

    Move to Russia, China or Europe then.

    Dumbass

  161. Re:Feed The Hungry by richie2000 · · Score: 1
    Just so I'm clear on this; your argument is that if we don't feed them now, the Ethiopian stickmen are liable to invade the U.S. later..?

    Yes, but that comes much later. First off, the Albanians will flood Italy and sundry Africans will flood into Spain and France. The Indians are already flooding the US job market it seems, as are the Baltics starting to put dents in the Scandinavian economies. The North Vietnamese aren't too happy with starvation as an option to threatening with nukes. And then there's the Chinese...

    Besides, I never mentioned an invasion. All it takes are a few dedicated stickmen with nothing to lose and a few airplanes... The trick is not to keep them from the airplanes, the trick is to take away their "nothing-to-lose-so-I-might-as-well-be-a-martyr" motive.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  162. Re:Feed The Hungry by richie2000 · · Score: 1
    So you are saying that moving is free? That eating and staying alive while uprooting, possibly leaving behind a job, is free? You're making the Anonymous Strawman argument, but he's not living on Endor, is he?

    The land they are attempting to farm has been suitable in the past. For various reasons like over-grazing, drought or war, this has changed. No, I'm not saying that money always is the answer. Resources to help them move, change their habits, stop pollution and war are answers though and most of them cost money.

    It's also possible that a kid, seeing the restored Saturn V, gets the inspiration he or she needs to become a scientist and solve the world's problems. This is the future we're talking about here, and inherent in it's nature lies the fact that we can't predict it. We make the best guesses, priorities and best-informed decisions we can and live with them.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  163. Re:Feed The Hungry by Cybrr · · Score: 1

    I was making clear that it's not implausible that they may take revenge. Not aimed at you personally.

    I just think it's stupid to hate the rich just because they are rich.

    --
    Why did GEAR crush RDP?
  164. One Problem: No Blueprints Anymore For Saturn V by Wotdabny · · Score: 1

    . . . we no longer possess a rocket powerful enough to send humans even as far as the Moon. . . . Nor could we quickly build a new Saturn V because, amazingly, the plans for Saturn launchers were destroyed as part of a NASA housecleaning exercise.

    Source: A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, p. 205

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0767908171/ref=sib _vae_pg_205/002-9859089-1211215?%5Fencoding=UTF8&k eywords=saturn%20v&p=S068&twc=4&checkSum=y305LsM1f sDb9ICtDFTWocZin%2BkpbNmn9NVEycXMNR4%3D#reader-lin k

    1. Re:One Problem: No Blueprints Anymore For Saturn V by joshuac · · Score: 1

      Isn't that exactly what I said? :)

      We no longer have the know-how to just dust off a Saturn V and launch it.

  165. Re:Feed The Hungry by Ravenrage · · Score: 0

    I am reminded of the late,great Sam Kinison when he spoke of third world countries he said we keep sending all this aid to these people, what we should really do is take that money go over there rent some uhauls and a couple of buses and get them the hell out of there!!!! also i think the us needs to quit helping people outside of it's borders until the US is done helping the people within. i know that is not going to go over good but it has to be said save the saturn v!!! (there not off topic now) proud member of afaka (americans for americans kicking ass)

  166. I would rather have a man on Mars by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Even if the first mission is very dangerous and has no scientific significance. I doubt Columbus got much practical benefits from his trip either. I think it's pretty clear what the humanity wants to do in space for long term, and it's more than snapping pretty pictures.

  167. Paypal, anyone? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1
    Paypal, anyone?

    Wow! If you could get 5000 geeks to give just 10 bucks a piece, then that $1,500,000 towards an $8,000,000 million goal would grow to $1,550,000! If you could get 10,000 to donate $25 each you would grow the $1,500,000 to $1,750,000 (not that such numbers are very likely). And, of course, that doesn't even take into account Paypal's charges for doing this! And you think people are going to do this to preserve a discarded tin can? Don't we have better causes to focus our funds on?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  168. Re:Feed The Hungry by TPFH · · Score: 1

    We can keep the 'feed the world' t-shirts, USA for Africa videos, etc, and generations of the 'future' can reconstruct your tedious "I'm such a virtous wanker" pomposity through virtual reality whenever they feel the need.

    Pictures of Starving Children Sell Records.

    --
    This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
  169. One Problem: You're Wrong by Thag · · Score: 1

    This is an urban legend.

    see here for details.

    Jon Acheson

    --
    All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
    1. Re:One Problem: You're Wrong by Thag · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, somehow my link didn't come through.
      http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five _000313.html

      Jon Acheson

      --
      All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
  170. Lehrer on why he quit by macsuibhne · · Score: 1

    Interview in The Onion AV club. No mention of Von Braun, Herr or Frau.

    Tony.

    --
    -- "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" -- Juvenal
  171. Re:Maybe.. by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 1

    Flaimbait?!?!? HAHAHAHAHA... thats the moderation of a disgruntled communist that dislikes the truth. Good stuff, comrad!

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
  172. PARANOIA!!!!!!!!! by perfessor+multigeek · · Score: 1

    Oh

    My

    God!

    Boy, it's been a long time since I've seen those words. Fer yew ignorant young folks, the parent to this post is a paraphrasing of the classic game Paranoia!

    Yes, dice, pen, and paper gaming, the one true faith.

    Rustin

    --
    Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.