Re:That's what you get with potheads...
by
__aaclcg7560
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The Russian rocket failed 83 seconds into the flight. So the potheads are Russians. At least they were willing to give the idea a shot for the right price. Unlike another space agency that is really good at sitting on their thumbs.
Don't Give Up Hope
by
ndansmith
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There is still plenty of reason for hope. All that happened was that the booster failed. We still don't know how the actually sail technology will perform, since the systems are unrelated.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up
by
jellomizer
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Well this is an unmanned satilight. No one was hurt (physiclally). In the issue of the shuttle deaths need to be minimized. Because every death in space makes people fear space travel.
-- If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up
by
ScentCone
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
These days NASA is full of over-educated monkeys who cringe at their own shadow.
No, NASA is funded by congressional representatives that are too timid to explain the value of the program to their constituencies. And those people are voted into office by people too unaware of the role that science plays in their lives. And those people are raised by parents who think the schools should be the parents, so the schools are so busy teaching Johnny how to Share His Feelings that they never get around to teaching him where his Cartoon Network signal comes from. Don't blame NASA, blame parents.
There, I fixed it.
-- Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So much for cold war escalation.
by
holt_rpi
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I guess all those sleepless nights about being nuked by a Russian sub were all for naught.
I mean, if they can't even make a simple booster rocket on a modified SLBM fire correctly, how are they supposed to get MIRVs up to a height to fall (albeit haphazardly) on US soil?
Re:Wasting Money
by
mako1138
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is just my opinion, but I think all this crap the space programs are shooting off into space is a total waste of money that could be much better spent on any number of things (research, healthcare, internet security).
You do realize that: research = all this crap the space programs are shooting off into space
Re:Wasting Money
by
Durinthal
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
No progress without trying, and that has to include the possibility of failure.
Re:Good news, everyone!
by
stlhawkeye
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You guys act like no other news sources have a political bias in their reporting.
When a poll showed Senator Kerry ahead of President Bush in the 2004 Presidential elections, CNN reported, "Kerry pulls ahead of Bush in latest poll."
When President Bush reclaimed the lead, they reported, "Bush apparantly leads Kerry."
Now, this was an isolated incident. A qualifier like "apparantly" was not used in any other poll reporting for either candidate being ahead. But it happened, it continues to happen, and it will happen again.
We just don't care here because we're mostly liberals and what seems to a right-winger as a "liberal bias" looks to us like the objective truth. It matches our worldview, why would we question it or suspect there of being any bias?
This same phenomenon is responsible for conservative embrasure of FoxNews. Much of what they read on Fox matches their worldview, and other news outlets appear, to them, to be absurdly biased.
In other words, it's a matter of perspective, and frankly I've found Fox's reporting to be no more egregiously biased than any other. I'm sure somebody will respond to this post with 15 examples of horrible, unforgivable sins of journalism by Fox. I'll be there's hundreds that could be cited in the last 30 days alone. But comparing how Fox spins its stories to how any other large news outlets spins it's stories, I really haven't seen that Fox's trangressions are measurably less forgivable.
And "spin" usually comes in the form of reporting selected truth and omitted selected other truth. Of accurately reporting one side of an issue and often ignoring the opposit side. And the worst is when anchors and journalists recite what one large, unsourceable, unverifiable, and undefined group of people "say" or "think" and ignoring the other. For example:
"Critics of Senator Kerry claim that he (insert thing that would make me not want to vote for Kerry here)."
By not reporting what supporters of Senator Kerry say on the same topic, the anchor/journalist/reporter has spun the story against Senator Kerry.
Another technique is to appear impartial by inaccurately or incompletely reporting the other side, or cherry-picking weak arguments or obvious red herrings, while ignoring stronger arguments.
"Critics of Senator Kerry have suggested that his anti-war rhetoric during Vietnam makes him unfit for office. Supporters counter that Senator Kerry looks good in a suit."
This crap happens all the time, and it's all biased journalism. It just doesn't seem biased when you agree with the slant.
-- "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Fair and Balanced
by
grahamsz
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I dont know any other news source that open claims that it is unbiased.
Fox make that claim when it's obviously untrue - it's hard to respect them after that.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up
by
bskin
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
We go to the moon in this decade... The space race was won by people with drive and ambition. These days NASA is full of over-educated monkeys who cringe at their own shadow.
Over-educated? They're fucking rocket scientists. A lot of education is generally considered a prerequisite. NASA's problems would seem to have a lot more to do with bureaucracy, politics, and lack of budget than, say, knowing too much.
-- hot foreign sheep.
Re:In Soviet Russia, they don't give up
by
TigerNut
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You're missing some critical points there:
2005: Booster fails - the solar sail never gets a chance.
2001: Booster separation fails - the solar sail never gets a chance.
1999: Deployment mechanism jammed - the solar sail never gets a chance.
The solar sail part of the experiment hasn't had too many flight hours so far, due to component failures almost completely unrelated to the solar sail craft itself. They're not launching failure after failure... they're having launch failures, which is not the same thing.
--
Less is more.
Re:Apples and Oranges
by
Moofie
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Manned space flight and exploration space flight are not economically viable."
How is this statement different from saying in 1490 that "Manned crossing of the Atlantic and exploration of the globe are not economically viable."
I think your contention is very, very short sighted.
Slashdot Mirror
The Russian rocket failed 83 seconds into the flight. So the potheads are Russians. At least they were willing to give the idea a shot for the right price. Unlike another space agency that is really good at sitting on their thumbs.
There is still plenty of reason for hope. All that happened was that the booster failed. We still don't know how the actually sail technology will perform, since the systems are unrelated.
Well this is an unmanned satilight. No one was hurt (physiclally). In the issue of the shuttle deaths need to be minimized. Because every death in space makes people fear space travel.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
These days NASA is full of over-educated monkeys who cringe at their own shadow.
No, NASA is funded by congressional representatives that are too timid to explain the value of the program to their constituencies. And those people are voted into office by people too unaware of the role that science plays in their lives. And those people are raised by parents who think the schools should be the parents, so the schools are so busy teaching Johnny how to Share His Feelings that they never get around to teaching him where his Cartoon Network signal comes from. Don't blame NASA, blame parents.
There, I fixed it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I guess all those sleepless nights about being nuked by a Russian sub were all for naught.
I mean, if they can't even make a simple booster rocket on a modified SLBM fire correctly, how are they supposed to get MIRVs up to a height to fall (albeit haphazardly) on US soil?
This is just my opinion, but I think all this crap the space programs are shooting off into space is a total waste of money that could be much better spent on any number of things (research, healthcare, internet security).
You do realize that: research = all this crap the space programs are shooting off into space
No progress without trying, and that has to include the possibility of failure.
When a poll showed Senator Kerry ahead of President Bush in the 2004 Presidential elections, CNN reported, "Kerry pulls ahead of Bush in latest poll."
When President Bush reclaimed the lead, they reported, "Bush apparantly leads Kerry."
Now, this was an isolated incident. A qualifier like "apparantly" was not used in any other poll reporting for either candidate being ahead. But it happened, it continues to happen, and it will happen again.
We just don't care here because we're mostly liberals and what seems to a right-winger as a "liberal bias" looks to us like the objective truth. It matches our worldview, why would we question it or suspect there of being any bias?
This same phenomenon is responsible for conservative embrasure of FoxNews. Much of what they read on Fox matches their worldview, and other news outlets appear, to them, to be absurdly biased.
In other words, it's a matter of perspective, and frankly I've found Fox's reporting to be no more egregiously biased than any other. I'm sure somebody will respond to this post with 15 examples of horrible, unforgivable sins of journalism by Fox. I'll be there's hundreds that could be cited in the last 30 days alone. But comparing how Fox spins its stories to how any other large news outlets spins it's stories, I really haven't seen that Fox's trangressions are measurably less forgivable.
And "spin" usually comes in the form of reporting selected truth and omitted selected other truth. Of accurately reporting one side of an issue and often ignoring the opposit side. And the worst is when anchors and journalists recite what one large, unsourceable, unverifiable, and undefined group of people "say" or "think" and ignoring the other. For example:
"Critics of Senator Kerry claim that he (insert thing that would make me not want to vote for Kerry here)."
By not reporting what supporters of Senator Kerry say on the same topic, the anchor/journalist/reporter has spun the story against Senator Kerry.
Another technique is to appear impartial by inaccurately or incompletely reporting the other side, or cherry-picking weak arguments or obvious red herrings, while ignoring stronger arguments.
"Critics of Senator Kerry have suggested that his anti-war rhetoric during Vietnam makes him unfit for office. Supporters counter that Senator Kerry looks good in a suit."
This crap happens all the time, and it's all biased journalism. It just doesn't seem biased when you agree with the slant.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
I dont know any other news source that open claims that it is unbiased.
Fox make that claim when it's obviously untrue - it's hard to respect them after that.
We go to the moon in this decade... The space race was won by people with drive and ambition. These days NASA is full of over-educated monkeys who cringe at their own shadow.
Over-educated? They're fucking rocket scientists. A lot of education is generally considered a prerequisite. NASA's problems would seem to have a lot more to do with bureaucracy, politics, and lack of budget than, say, knowing too much.
hot foreign sheep.
2005: Booster fails - the solar sail never gets a chance.
2001: Booster separation fails - the solar sail never gets a chance.
1999: Deployment mechanism jammed - the solar sail never gets a chance.
The solar sail part of the experiment hasn't had too many flight hours so far, due to component failures almost completely unrelated to the solar sail craft itself. They're not launching failure after failure... they're having launch failures, which is not the same thing.
Less is more.
"Manned space flight and exploration space flight are not economically viable."
How is this statement different from saying in 1490 that "Manned crossing of the Atlantic and exploration of the globe are not economically viable."
I think your contention is very, very short sighted.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!