The original comment said that the Shuttle has a very good safety record for what it does. It carries people into orbit. Your Zenit doesn't do that. So your comparison doesn't exactly work.
The original comment did *not* address getting people into space. My comment had to do with delivering payloads into low Earth orbit.
I don't know what you are comparing.
It is not essential for humans to be in the spacecraft to deliver payloads.
But, currently, they're the best tool for the job.
Which job? Launching payloads into space?
I don't see how you support that statement with facts.
If it were more feasible to put men on Mars, then I guarantee you that they would produce more good science than the rovers.
A little proof would be helpful.
Tell me which of the various Mars programs past an present would have been better with a human involved. The only thing that *I* could come up with is petrographic sampling.
While robots are great for certain things, they are no substitue for human instinct, intuition, and intellect.
When did those become essential for delivering payloads into LEO?
Simply put, robots aren't always the right tool for every job.
Neither is the shuttle, yet that is precisely how it is being used.
The fact that it doesn't require a human passenger just means that no one is going to die unless the rocket explodes on the pad or crashes into someone's house.
Then there isn't *any* launch vehicle that is safe under that criteria.
Maybe the soyuz should habe been 'shitcanned' back in the 70's since it has a 1 in 75 failure?
If Soyuz's mission could have been accomplished with less risky means, then yes. I don't think long-term human habitation experiments could have been accomplished without Soyuz.
Can you truthfully say that the shuttle is the only vehicle capable of launching LEO payloads?
Yes, it is tragic that two crews have died so far, but lets face it - when traveling in those atmospheric conditions at those speeds and temperature extremes there will always be a risk...
The Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects carried out all of their accomplishments without losing a single crew member during flight operations. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were killed during testing on the ground. Apollo 13 nearly lost a crew, but the efforts of the mission control staff pulled their bacon out of the fire.
Space flight is risky, but nothing equals the loss of two crews in the shuttles.
It is time to shitcan the shuttle. We don't NEED a space truck (despite what Deep Purple would like us to believe).
Tank debris, orbiter hardening and tile repair have been the "only things" that have stalled a return to flight since the disintegration of Columbia. The Discovery Channel (or The Learning Channel, I can't remember which) spent the entire hour of its program on the return to flight discussing exactly these problems. So what has changed?
NASA needs to recognize that, despite its technical sophistication, the shuttle is too dangerous to operate. It would be better to ship smaller components into space and assemble the equipment in low earth orbit with robots rather than continue to force this orbiter to operate in a manner that risks humans.
The idea that if NASA abandons the shuttle that human spaceflight will stop is crap, despite what the television special claims. I'm sure that the NASA shuttle managers would like everyone to believe this propaganda, but the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and others are unlikely to give up on space flight just because NASA dumps the shuttle.
So what if the calculators make it easier to convert from decimal to fraction? Train *all* of the students to use the feature and its value as an advantage.
As for the issue of using a pencil and paper, then that is how you verify that they *know* how to make the conversion and didn't rely on the two-key method.
If you are midway through a project and still doing R&D, then somebody has fucked up somewhere.
You're preaching to the choir.
We now have the $7B vitrification on hold until the seismic risk assessment has been performed. They are halfway into the construction of the main treatment facility and then they have to stop to address questions that should have been answered before they broke ground!
It is economically unsound to invest into a project that does not have a well defined budget,
While normally I would agree wholeheartedly, how do you define all of the costs associated with something that has never been done before and has extremely difficult engineering problems that have to be solved at various interim steps in your process. Add to that the lack of basic science supporting your engineering decisions.
it will end up costing more than it has to,
See the above statement.
since no one will keep track of how well the money is spent.
Actually, the government has very good financial controls on some of its projects. They can tell you how much is being spent and what they have left to meet their current obligations. What often happens is that unanticipated costs hit one project, which has a higher priority than other projects, so must take resources from less important tasks. Now the less important tasks are either cancelled or put on hold.
As I said, they do know where the money is and how much is being spent, but sometimes things come up and screw with the machinery.
This is one of the major reasons why the private sector ends up doing things cheaper.
All of the work performed at the DOE site I work at are private firms. They do the work with only marginal oversight from the DOE (cost tracking).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because the Mars rovers launch payloads into space. Can you atleast try to keep up with your troll?
The *original* post had nothing to do with Mars rovers.
I guess you can't follow a tread.
Everyone who has ever died in a pad accident would beg to differ with you, Einstein.
You forgot to count all of the employees of the various missions who died on the way to work in car accidents, Feynman.
I guess you lost the focus of my original point.
Oh, come on! your position is indefensible...give in!
Give in to what? Having my comments and positions misstated? No thanks.
I said that the shuttle was a crappy tool for delivering payloads into low Earth orbit.
Read my original post. It said *nothing* about crews.
>>"It is not essential for humans to be in the spacecraft to deliver payloads."
True....
Looks like my position is MUCH better defended than your initial claim.
The original comment said that the Shuttle has a very good safety record for what it does. It carries people into orbit. Your Zenit doesn't do that. So your comparison doesn't exactly work.
The original comment did *not* address getting people into space. My comment had to do with delivering payloads into low Earth orbit.
I don't know what you are comparing.
It is not essential for humans to be in the spacecraft to deliver payloads.
But, currently, they're the best tool for the job.
Which job? Launching payloads into space?
I don't see how you support that statement with facts.
If it were more feasible to put men on Mars, then I guarantee you that they would produce more good science than the rovers.
A little proof would be helpful.
Tell me which of the various Mars programs past an present would have been better with a human involved. The only thing that *I* could come up with is petrographic sampling.
While robots are great for certain things, they are no substitue for human instinct, intuition, and intellect.
When did those become essential for delivering payloads into LEO?
Simply put, robots aren't always the right tool for every job.
Neither is the shuttle, yet that is precisely how it is being used.
How so?
It can't kill anyone if it doesn't carry anyone.
The fact that it doesn't require a human passenger just means that no one is going to die unless the rocket explodes on the pad or crashes into someone's house.
Then there isn't *any* launch vehicle that is safe under that criteria.
Yeah the Zenit-3SL sea launch currently uses is pretty cool, but umm its only been flying since 1999, the shuttle has been flying since the 80s.
The Saturn V flew in the 1960s and didn't lose a single passenger during flight.
You asked whether there were safer delivery vehicles and I gave you one.
You don't like the one I gave you, then tell me why it isn't acceptable (other than the fact that it hasn't flown as long).
The fact that it doesn't require a human passenger makes it inherently safe.
This obsession with using robots to replace people in space is absurd.
Yeah, those stupid Mars rovers.
Do you know how to count?
Go ahead, do it.
Go get a goddamned clue.
I take it you aren't interested in anything other than your own opinion, so why ask me for mine?
DirecTV disagrees with you.
Maybe the soyuz should habe been 'shitcanned' back in the 70's since it has a 1 in 75 failure?
If Soyuz's mission could have been accomplished with less risky means, then yes. I don't think long-term human habitation experiments could have been accomplished without Soyuz.
Can you truthfully say that the shuttle is the only vehicle capable of launching LEO payloads?
...I'd say its an extremely safe machine for what it does.
Which is what? Put payloads into low Earth orbit?
Can you tell me that the shuttle is safer than other payload delivery systems?
Yes, it is tragic that two crews have died so far, but lets face it - when traveling in those atmospheric conditions at those speeds and temperature extremes there will always be a risk...
The Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo projects carried out all of their accomplishments without losing a single crew member during flight operations. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were killed during testing on the ground. Apollo 13 nearly lost a crew, but the efforts of the mission control staff pulled their bacon out of the fire.
Space flight is risky, but nothing equals the loss of two crews in the shuttles.
It is time to shitcan the shuttle. We don't NEED a space truck (despite what Deep Purple would like us to believe).
Tank debris, orbiter hardening and tile repair have been the "only things" that have stalled a return to flight since the disintegration of Columbia. The Discovery Channel (or The Learning Channel, I can't remember which) spent the entire hour of its program on the return to flight discussing exactly these problems. So what has changed?
NASA needs to recognize that, despite its technical sophistication, the shuttle is too dangerous to operate. It would be better to ship smaller components into space and assemble the equipment in low earth orbit with robots rather than continue to force this orbiter to operate in a manner that risks humans.
The idea that if NASA abandons the shuttle that human spaceflight will stop is crap, despite what the television special claims. I'm sure that the NASA shuttle managers would like everyone to believe this propaganda, but the Europeans, Japanese, Chinese, and others are unlikely to give up on space flight just because NASA dumps the shuttle.
Seriously, isn't this a bit of an overreation?
So what if the calculators make it easier to convert from decimal to fraction? Train *all* of the students to use the feature and its value as an advantage.
As for the issue of using a pencil and paper, then that is how you verify that they *know* how to make the conversion and didn't rely on the two-key method.
Bureaucracy masked as education.
They could buy VA Linux (or OSTG or whatever they call themselves this week) and fire CmdrTaco. (Do no Evil).
Heh... Let's hope they do it.
How long until Google buys Time Warner?
Coming from a die-hard atheist, I guess you'd call that deadpan irony.
Addressing it to an affirmed atheist is doubly ironic.
Best to you too.
If you are midway through a project and still doing R&D, then somebody has fucked up somewhere.
You're preaching to the choir.
We now have the $7B vitrification on hold until the seismic risk assessment has been performed. They are halfway into the construction of the main treatment facility and then they have to stop to address questions that should have been answered before they broke ground!
The federal government has no obligation to obey state laws..
Federal consent decree.
God bless you, for you are truly naive.
You must have been the only one who missed the sarcasm.
Cool. Thanks for the information.
Because other people fuck up in gigantic ways, we should turn a blind eye when people fuck up in merely massive ways?
No.
IF IT DOESN'T WORK, DON'T PAY FOR IT.Where's the incentive to succeed?
Performance-based incentives.
Finish the contract ahead of schedule and under budget? Extra cash.
Screw the contract up and run over schedule? You lose your award fee and you are penalized by removing cash from your cost recovery account.
Most DOE sites now employ this type of approach.
A lot of people are beginning to choose the latter.
I think you've nailed it. The commenter also said that theaters will continue to operate, but only serve a niche market.
It is economically unsound to invest into a project that does not have a well defined budget,
While normally I would agree wholeheartedly, how do you define all of the costs associated with something that has never been done before and has extremely difficult engineering problems that have to be solved at various interim steps in your process. Add to that the lack of basic science supporting your engineering decisions.
it will end up costing more than it has to,
See the above statement.
since no one will keep track of how well the money is spent.
Actually, the government has very good financial controls on some of its projects. They can tell you how much is being spent and what they have left to meet their current obligations. What often happens is that unanticipated costs hit one project, which has a higher priority than other projects, so must take resources from less important tasks. Now the less important tasks are either cancelled or put on hold.
As I said, they do know where the money is and how much is being spent, but sometimes things come up and screw with the machinery.
This is one of the major reasons why the private sector ends up doing things cheaper.
All of the work performed at the DOE site I work at are private firms. They do the work with only marginal oversight from the DOE (cost tracking).