Isn't this a lot like retrofitting a rusted, worn-out '89 Ford Escort with front and side airbags, chrome wheels, and Corinthian leather seat covers? Pimp My Ride is fine for MTV but should not be practiced as US space policy.
The Shuttle has had its day. Stop sinking so many dollars into this antiquated, fragile, expensive money pit and design and build a space transportation system that belongs to this century, not the last.
Can I put a sticker on my car's bumper to make it use less fuel?
Actually, there is. Put the following bumper sticker on a pink Volvo then try to drive from Little Rock AR to Crawford Texas:
I'm Gay and I'm Here To Raise Your Taxes
I love the Dixie Chicks
Boycott Beef
Ban Tobacco and Execute Smokers
My Other Car Is a Welfare Cadillac
I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry
Teddy Kennedy Is a Hottie
All Christians are Mouthbreathing Morons
Hillary in 2008 ... and I'm here to confiscate your guns.
Your gas mileage will drop to zero within the first 3 miles, guaranteed.
The cold weather was a definite contributor to the failure of the O ring that caused the disaster.
I am not disputing that. I have never disputed that. Why are you disputing and evading the FACT that the investigating board found that unprecedented wind shear was also a contributing factor as I said?
Nor sure I understand why you are trying to dismiss it other than you are trying to salvage your position, since you've realized you can't prove the White House...
Because the burden is not on me to prove or disprove a conspiracy theory that you proffer. The burden is on you. I cannot prove that something didn't happen - it is logically impossible to do so.
Just to clarify another statement you are making that is at least misleading. It wasn't ice that fatally damaged Columbia, it was a piece of the foam insulation designed to prevent the ice...
So a piece of insulating foam is more dangerous than a piece of ice. Jehosaphat, the things you learn on Slashdot.
Again having known defective O rings that were more likely to fail in cold weather was a known danger NASA chose to overlook much to their demise.
You apparently seem to believe that this fact is a "smoking gun" that indicts the Reagan Administration. As I said a few posts back and as you also chose to ignore, spaceflight is an inherently dangerous business. To take the leap of faith as you apparently are from systemic managerial failures within NASA to arrive at some sort of cockamamie indictment of Ronald Reagan is silly and unsubstantiated.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Naah, I won't say it. Just suffice to say to that I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
Later dude, with that satement you've established you aren't worth the time.
... back in 1998 used induction to charge the internal battery. It had to have a sealed battery pack and be waterproof because I originally designed it to be submersible to attract fish underwater.
Why incur the expense of building a huge infrastructure (launch facilities, berthing and messing facilities for contractors, company stores, housing, roads, etc.) when you can just contract launches out to Arianespace or pay NASA to do it on the US taxpayer's dime? Most private companies can't waste resources on purpose and expect to survive - only centralized governments with that comfy taxpayer safety net can afford to do that.
Were France (and Corsica by extension), Russia, and Germany physically move out of Europe while I slept last night or something? That's what I get for missing staff meetings. I've got to start drinking more coffee or vente cappuccino - this "sleep" thing I'm addicted to is obviously cutting into my learning time.
Wow, because mega-corporations make much better decisions than countries about treating employees/citizens!
Golly, the things you learn on Slashdot. I've been wrong about this all along I guess - strong governments such as Nazi Germany and the Communist former Soviet Union obviously treat their citizens much more humanely than some private company ever could.
I wonder which mega-corporation sponsored the old Roman Empire's gladiatorial games and mass crucifixion of battlefield opponents? Was it Halliburton?
Its not the same thing as using some discretion and postponing a launch until the launch pad isn't covered in ice and everything thaws out.
The final investigation found that a combination of the faulty SRB design and wind shear conditions more violent than any ever experienced were direct causes of the SRB failure. It wasn't just the ice/cold temperature that caused the loss of Challenger.
Yes, it was cold in Florida that day. But ice routinely forms on the external fuel tank even on the warmest days. Its a natural function of having that much liquid oxygen contained in an enclosed space. And some of the ice invariably breaks off during launch, in some cases even smacking into the Shuttle's brittle control surfaces (as we are finding out in the Columbia investigation).
"Again, you've provided no proof that there was political pressure of any kind involved in the decision to launch."
And you CAN'T prove there wasn't.
Silly wabbit - you brought it up first. Which means that it is incumbent on you to back it up. And trying to prove a negative earns you nowt but a visit from the Logic Police. Now let me see your license, registration, and proof of insurance please...
Pretty insightful comment. I'd mod it up if I could.
There are still a number of needlessly complicated rules and regulations that "private" companies are subject to when it comes to spaceflight, though. And none of those are enforced by contractors.
NASA was probably under substantial political pressure from the Reagan administration to launch on schedule.
Conspiracy theories are so much easier to believe than actual facts, aren't they?
If you weren't under some kind of pressure why would you press ahead with a launch on "a bitterly cold day"
There is a phenomena called "go fever" in the industry. Both Apollo 1 (using unsafe pure oxygen during a ground test) and Apollo 12 (launching in a thunderstorm with lightning) fell victim to it in NASA's history. And Ronald Reagan was not in office during either of those launches.
If they weren't under pressure why wouldn't you way until a warmer day.
Because they had a schedule to keep? Again, you've provided no proof that there was political pressure of any kind involved in the decision to launch.
Speaking to "the haves and the have-mores." George W. smirks: "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base"
Ah, a Michael Moore fan I see. That explains your obvious affinity for wild conspiracy theories, I guess.
And your proof of that statement would be... ? The Shuttles launch from Florida (not exactly Maine climate-wise), and the launch dates are set months in advance.
If I knew anybody in the business, I would. And they would agree with me. Air travel is unequivocally safer now than it was before deregulation. Accident rates during the twelve-year period from 1979 to 1990 (after deregulation) were 20 to 45 percent below their average levels in the six or twelve years before deregulation.
As for Chapter 13 filings, bad and/or inefficient companies go out of business while efficient companies continue and expand. Its called "capitalism", and its a good thing. Surely you're not advocating a return to direct government subsidy of airlines?
There aren't any laws or treaties preventing private companies from sending things into space.
Actually, there are (at least as far as doing it from US soil). There are a myriad of US alphabet soup agencies that have regulatory authority over private industry when it comes to space exploration. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (HR 5382) signed into law in late 2004 by President Bush reduced some of those onerous requirements, but it is not a complete panacea for those ills, and it brings its own level of bureaucracy to the process.
The only reason they don't do it is that companies have never been the type to research or do any long term investment without a guaranteed gargantuan payout (the magnitude of which much rise exponentially, and by about 15% a year).
In the United States, NASA is the taxpayer-subsidized 800-pound gorilla when it comes to space flight. US private industry finds it difficult if not impossible to compete against a NASA wielding a virtually unlimited taxpayer-funded checkbook which subsidizes as much as 600 million dollars of the true cost of every Shuttle launch. These companies that want to launch commercial payloads are pretty much locked into using NASA hardware or outsourcing to Arianespace.
They launch misions when they are ready, not in time for some politico's birthday or scheduled speech. Linking the two was one of the reasons the Russians never made it to the Moon and one of the reasons the Americans lost Challenger.
Huh? Challenger was lost because they launched on a bitterly cold day which aggravated a design flaw in one of the SRB's O-rings. Besides being inaccurate, your observation is just so much 20-20 hindsight.
As for linking space exploration to national goals, America did pretty well meeting JFK's goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth before the decade of the 1960s was over.
I know you are just Bush-bashing, but I sincerely hope that he does. Private industry is inherently more efficient than a big centralized government bureaucracy like NASA.
There is no reason any more to have a NASA sucking on the US taxpayer's teat in the first place. Let private industry explore space (and assume the risk and reap the rewards).
Let's hope that Zemeckis has better luck with this one than he did with that atrocious CGI-fest called The Polar Express. Considering the rich source material Zemeckis had to work with, Ed Wood could have done a better job.
... is any mention in the linked article of the political affiliation of state Sen. Murray, the author of the bill. Yes, he is a Democrat. Which just goes to show you that socialists can whore for RIAA and the recording industry just as expertly as their politically opposite numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
To quote Sancho Panza, "... whether the pitcher hits the stove, or the stove the pitcher, it's a bad business for the pitcher".
The Shuttle has had its day. Stop sinking so many dollars into this antiquated, fragile, expensive money pit and design and build a space transportation system that belongs to this century, not the last.
That's Bill Gates' wallet!
Actually, there is. Put the following bumper sticker on a pink Volvo then try to drive from Little Rock AR to Crawford Texas:
I'm Gay and I'm Here To Raise Your Taxes
... and I'm here to confiscate your guns.
I love the Dixie Chicks
Boycott Beef
Ban Tobacco and Execute Smokers
My Other Car Is a Welfare Cadillac
I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry
Teddy Kennedy Is a Hottie
All Christians are Mouthbreathing Morons
Hillary in 2008
Your gas mileage will drop to zero within the first 3 miles, guaranteed.
I thought they were just complaning (sic) about all the spelling nazis on Slashdot.
(Or threaten to make him Michael Moore's pizza boy).
I am not disputing that. I have never disputed that. Why are you disputing and evading the FACT that the investigating board found that unprecedented wind shear was also a contributing factor as I said?
Nor sure I understand why you are trying to dismiss it other than you are trying to salvage your position, since you've realized you can't prove the White House ...
Because the burden is not on me to prove or disprove a conspiracy theory that you proffer. The burden is on you. I cannot prove that something didn't happen - it is logically impossible to do so.
Just to clarify another statement you are making that is at least misleading. It wasn't ice that fatally damaged Columbia, it was a piece of the foam insulation designed to prevent the ice ...
So a piece of insulating foam is more dangerous than a piece of ice. Jehosaphat, the things you learn on Slashdot.
Again having known defective O rings that were more likely to fail in cold weather was a known danger NASA chose to overlook much to their demise.
You apparently seem to believe that this fact is a "smoking gun" that indicts the Reagan Administration. As I said a few posts back and as you also chose to ignore, spaceflight is an inherently dangerous business. To take the leap of faith as you apparently are from systemic managerial failures within NASA to arrive at some sort of cockamamie indictment of Ronald Reagan is silly and unsubstantiated.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Naah, I won't say it. Just suffice to say to that I hope you have a better day tomorrow.
Later dude, with that satement you've established you aren't worth the time.
Works for me. Ta.
This is not new.
Why incur the expense of building a huge infrastructure (launch facilities, berthing and messing facilities for contractors, company stores, housing, roads, etc.) when you can just contract launches out to Arianespace or pay NASA to do it on the US taxpayer's dime? Most private companies can't waste resources on purpose and expect to survive - only centralized governments with that comfy taxpayer safety net can afford to do that.
Were France (and Corsica by extension), Russia, and Germany physically move out of Europe while I slept last night or something? That's what I get for missing staff meetings. I've got to start drinking more coffee or vente cappuccino - this "sleep" thing I'm addicted to is obviously cutting into my learning time.
Golly, the things you learn on Slashdot. I've been wrong about this all along I guess - strong governments such as Nazi Germany and the Communist former Soviet Union obviously treat their citizens much more humanely than some private company ever could.
I wonder which mega-corporation sponsored the old Roman Empire's gladiatorial games and mass crucifixion of battlefield opponents? Was it Halliburton?
(sarcasm OFF)
The final investigation found that a combination of the faulty SRB design and wind shear conditions more violent than any ever experienced were direct causes of the SRB failure. It wasn't just the ice/cold temperature that caused the loss of Challenger.
Yes, it was cold in Florida that day. But ice routinely forms on the external fuel tank even on the warmest days. Its a natural function of having that much liquid oxygen contained in an enclosed space. And some of the ice invariably breaks off during launch, in some cases even smacking into the Shuttle's brittle control surfaces (as we are finding out in the Columbia investigation).
"Again, you've provided no proof that there was political pressure of any kind involved in the decision to launch."
And you CAN'T prove there wasn't.
Silly wabbit - you brought it up first. Which means that it is incumbent on you to back it up. And trying to prove a negative earns you nowt but a visit from the Logic Police. Now let me see your license, registration, and proof of insurance please ...
One AC calling another AC "spineless". Somebody owes me a new irony meter.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! (cough, Stalin) HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (cough, Hitler) HAHAHAHAHA!!! (cough, Napoleon) HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! (cough, Robespierre, various Russian Czars, Lenin, et al.)
BRILLIANT!
(Guinness beer commercial OFF)
Strong, centralized government control really worked well for the Soviet Union, didn't it?
There are still a number of needlessly complicated rules and regulations that "private" companies are subject to when it comes to spaceflight, though. And none of those are enforced by contractors.
Conspiracy theories are so much easier to believe than actual facts, aren't they?
If you weren't under some kind of pressure why would you press ahead with a launch on "a bitterly cold day"
There is a phenomena called "go fever" in the industry. Both Apollo 1 (using unsafe pure oxygen during a ground test) and Apollo 12 (launching in a thunderstorm with lightning) fell victim to it in NASA's history. And Ronald Reagan was not in office during either of those launches.
If they weren't under pressure why wouldn't you way until a warmer day.
Because they had a schedule to keep? Again, you've provided no proof that there was political pressure of any kind involved in the decision to launch.
Speaking to "the haves and the have-mores." George W. smirks: "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base"
Ah, a Michael Moore fan I see. That explains your obvious affinity for wild conspiracy theories, I guess.
And your proof of that statement would be ... ? The Shuttles launch from Florida (not exactly Maine climate-wise), and the launch dates are set months in advance.
If I knew anybody in the business, I would. And they would agree with me. Air travel is unequivocally safer now than it was before deregulation. Accident rates during the twelve-year period from 1979 to 1990 (after deregulation) were 20 to 45 percent below their average levels in the six or twelve years before deregulation.
As for Chapter 13 filings, bad and/or inefficient companies go out of business while efficient companies continue and expand. Its called "capitalism", and its a good thing. Surely you're not advocating a return to direct government subsidy of airlines?
Actually, there are (at least as far as doing it from US soil). There are a myriad of US alphabet soup agencies that have regulatory authority over private industry when it comes to space exploration. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (HR 5382) signed into law in late 2004 by President Bush reduced some of those onerous requirements, but it is not a complete panacea for those ills, and it brings its own level of bureaucracy to the process.
The only reason they don't do it is that companies have never been the type to research or do any long term investment without a guaranteed gargantuan payout (the magnitude of which much rise exponentially, and by about 15% a year).
In the United States, NASA is the taxpayer-subsidized 800-pound gorilla when it comes to space flight. US private industry finds it difficult if not impossible to compete against a NASA wielding a virtually unlimited taxpayer-funded checkbook which subsidizes as much as 600 million dollars of the true cost of every Shuttle launch. These companies that want to launch commercial payloads are pretty much locked into using NASA hardware or outsourcing to Arianespace.
Huh? Challenger was lost because they launched on a bitterly cold day which aggravated a design flaw in one of the SRB's O-rings. Besides being inaccurate, your observation is just so much 20-20 hindsight.
As for linking space exploration to national goals, America did pretty well meeting JFK's goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth before the decade of the 1960s was over.
There is no reason any more to have a NASA sucking on the US taxpayer's teat in the first place. Let private industry explore space (and assume the risk and reap the rewards).
Let's hope that Zemeckis has better luck with this one than he did with that atrocious CGI-fest called The Polar Express. Considering the rich source material Zemeckis had to work with, Ed Wood could have done a better job.
... is any mention in the linked article of the political affiliation of state Sen. Murray, the author of the bill. Yes, he is a Democrat. Which just goes to show you that socialists can whore for RIAA and the recording industry just as expertly as their politically opposite numbers.