Author Topic: crash (Read 866 times)

Nilsen · « **Reply #15 on:** September 08, 2004, 01:56:36 PM »

My thread, i _order_ you to behave or else......

Muckmaw1 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:04:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
because if we didnt we'd put it towards either some form of social"ist" program, or to ban your precious guns

ill bet you shot it...

What guns?

You've got the wrong guy here Vort.

Eagler · « **Reply #17 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:06:24 PM »

isn't that how this started??

Muckmaw1 · « **Reply #18 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:12:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Understanding the origins of the planets in this solar system will go a long way to narrow the search for potential other planets that might hold or support life.

I consider that a worthwhile endeavor as there will come a time we will need to bail from this planet.

The real problem was trying to save money on the project as NASA has little to spend on things these days. It was a good idea and would have worked, but...stuff happens.

Skuzzy, you and I will be long gone before we have ANY mastery of space flight, much less interplanetary space flight.

I used to be a big believer in the space program but with a series of remarkable failures, and what seems like useless conclusions, it really seems like a waste of money.

What do I care if there was life on Mars 1 million years ago?

I know there is life in the USA today and I'd rather use the money to wipe out poverty in this country, or give veterans better benefits, or pay our police and fireman and soldier better.

This is an old argument that I find myself on a new side of, but it seems we have so many problems with this world, we need to focus our resources on it first.

An exception would be research to benefit medical sciences, in my opinion.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #19 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:12:50 PM »

A PhD from MIT in Astrophysics and a failing grade from the University of Common Sense.

$260,000,000 spent to collect space dust and they skim on a $75 backup chute.

Honestly, who comes up with these ideas?

Who comes up with the idea that the most efficient way to snag a spacecraft is to slow it down with a chute and hire stuntmen with hooks on their helicopters to grab it in mid air?

Thats efficient.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #20 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:16:42 PM »

It was not skimping on the chute. It was skimping on the structural design that required the air snag.

Muck,..yes,.you and I will see no benefit from it. Does not mean we should not be doing it. If we held that basic premise you brought up, then why study cures for cancer? They have been at it for how long? Or the common cold?

Just because there is no immediate benefit, does not mean we should not try. Survival of the species is a nice long term benefit.

hawker238 · « **Reply #21 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:19:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dinger
Those who would blame W for the crash fail to recognize that the bulk of the project's conception and development took place under Clinton's watch.

You are priceless.

Muckmaw1 · « **Reply #22 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:20:42 PM »

But it is conceivable that they may cure cancer within our lifetimes.

They've made terrific progress, and look what science has done for those infected with HIV in 20 years.

You can't compare space exploration with no real stated goals, to medical exploration designed to find treatments for real diseases.

Even if they got an E-mail from the NEAREST star system, we would never reach it in our or our childrens, or our childrens childrens life times.

And thats even IF we could make a ship that traveled at the speed of light!

How far away is Alpha Centauri?

RTStuka · « **Reply #23 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:21:33 PM »

I was wondering since I have not read a whole lot on this thing, why did they need to snag it out of the air if it was gonna float down on a chute?

LePaul · « **Reply #24 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:21:47 PM »

Had it been a successful chute deployment and landed safely, it would have been hailed as a success indesign, budget savings and the sort. They arent sure if the drogue chute sheared off in the upper atmosphere or not...that's one of the things they are checking now. Last I saw on TV, they were wary of the craft's mortar-charge being active or not...if it didnt discharge to eject the chute, its still "hot".

Damn shame. Hopefully the Starduster re-entry probe in 2005-2006 fares better

vorticon · « **Reply #25 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:24:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Muckmaw1

And thats even IF we could make a ship that traveled at the speed of light!

How far away is Alpha Centauri?

4 years our time at light speed...

Skuzzy · « **Reply #26 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:24:42 PM »

4.2 light years.

You are thinking in a very linear fashion Muck. There are other ways to deliver electronically encoded messages than the use of what we have now, which can traverse those distances in seconds.
They are theory now, but sound theory.

I consider the survival of the species the most critical research we can do. And cancer studies have been going on for over 40 years, which is almost as old as NASA is.

They do have a stated goal for this mission Muck. The government pretty much forces NASA to present the goal before funding approval.

LePaul · « **Reply #27 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:24:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RTStuka
I was wondering since I have not read a whole lot on this thing, why did they need to snag it out of the air if it was gonna float down on a chute?

The contents are that fragile...much like the Corona spy capsule drops in the early spy satellite days.

Genesis hit at about 100mph...unlikely the contents remained uncontaminated

Muckmaw1 · « **Reply #28 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:38:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
4.2 light years.

You are thinking in a very linear fashion Muck. There are other ways to deliver electronically encoded messages than the use of what we have now, which can traverse those distances in seconds.
They are theory now, but sound theory.

I consider the survival of the species the most critical research we can do. And cancer studies have been going on for over 40 years, which is almost as old as NASA is.

They do have a stated goal for this mission Muck. The government pretty much forces NASA to present the goal before funding approval.

So in your opinion we are funding research to find and contact sentient life on other planets in the hopes that once said contact is made, they can offer solutions to our problems and/or offer us a place to escape our own mistakes?

Although it sounds great, I just think there are better ways we could have used the $265,000,000 for this project alone.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #29 on:** September 08, 2004, 02:41:13 PM »

I think if sentient life is found, it would be a potential side benefit. I am talking about finding a suitable planet where life could be directly transplanted from here.

Understanding how our planet was formed allows better *guesses* to be made when browsing the universe in our current primitive manner.