theavonlady 2 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 03 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,169)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Umm..................... waht about the other tennants? <span id='postcolor'> I guess we'll just have to ignore them and establish settlements on their land. And if they complain, shoot them. Â <span id='postcolor'> It's not their but you can take this up on the ME thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not their but you can take this up on the ME thread.<span id='postcolor'> Oh, I wouldn't touch that issue with a twenty-foot pole. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 03 2003,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,16:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not their but you can take this up on the ME thread.<span id='postcolor'> Oh, I wouldn't touch that issue with a twenty-foot pole.<span id='postcolor'> Or even a bouncing Czech. Back on subject: Manslaughter charges, anyone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 3, 2003 Ok, stop spamming you two Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 3, 2003 Just an interesting page I just found. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,16:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 03 2003,16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In 1998, Clinton ordered NASA to design a new generation of vehicles (X-33 ?) that would be 10 times cheaper and 100 times safer. Â The project went over budget and got cut.<span id='postcolor'> Those were supposed to do vertical landings, right? The whole ISS might have to be junked if the shuttle program is closed. But I don't care.<span id='postcolor'> Hmm... I'm not even sure if the takeoffs were vertical. By the way, here's another good reason to take the kids for an evening drive away from the city lights. Â ...while there's still something to see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Feb. 03 2003,18:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By the way, here's another good reason to take the kids for an evening drive away from the city lights. Â ...while there's still something to see.<span id='postcolor'> Oooooooooof........... last date listed was early this morning. Nothing to see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Feb. 03 2003,14:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 02 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> <span id='postcolor'> Don't you find it kind of funny to see a sts107 patch in the pile of debris?  I mean if you think about how big an explosion would have to be for the shuttle to practically disintegrate at 200,000, a small little arm patch would not simple escape such an immense explosion. I can see debris from the shuttle because it’s made up of materials that are to withstand re-entering earth’s atmosphere etc.  But wouldn't you think that a small arm patch would incinerate, I mean after all it’s made of fibre, not metal.<span id='postcolor'> seeing that it was ripped off from piece of clothing i say it's not unusual. i'm guessing that the patch was sewn onto the shirt that astronauts wore under their spacesuit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nopulse 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 03 2003,15:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Feb. 03 2003,15:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or perhaps its a hint that we are not ready for space exloration just yet! Â I mean after all we haven't sovled the problems down here on earth yet!<span id='postcolor'> If this statement represents the average public opinion, we're heading towards extinction. Â <span id='postcolor'> Why is that? That space exploration is our only way for the human race to survive? Think about it this way. We just continue to mess up the environment on this planet to the point that is not inhabitable anymore, and then just find the next planet that is habitable only to mess it up as well? What have we learned if we do this? Absolutely nothing! We can't simply go rock jumping from planet to planet ruining the environment and eating up all its resources. What's wrong with repairing the planet we have now? I understand that space exploration is needed, but hell we can't even travel outside our own solar system yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted February 3, 2003 "What's wrong with repairing the planet we have now? I understand that space exploration is needed, but hell we can't even travel outside our own solar system yet." We would benefit from a space program even if we had no environmental issues. You see, there is a definate risk that a piece of rock eventually will slam into the earth and destroy most (maybe all) of life here as we know it. And I doubt enviromental activists can do much about that one... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Feb. 03 2003,19:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We would benefit from a space program even if we had no environmental issues. You see, there is a definate risk that a piece of rock eventually will slam into the earth and destroy most (maybe all) of life here as we know it. And I doubt enviromental activists can do much about that one...<span id='postcolor'> they can sing "kumbaya my lord~~ kumbaya~~~" back on serious note, the benefits frome pure scientific reasearch do not become practical until a few decades later. so there is always need for some pure scientific research. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Feb. 03 2003,19:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">back on serious note, the benefits frome pure scientific reasearch do not become practical until a few decades later. so there is always need for some pure scientific research.<span id='postcolor'> This is my number one beef with Bush and cutbacks to the space program over the last two years. THe Bush government killed the funding for a Crew Return Vehicle for the ISS. What this means is that they can keep a maximum crew of three on the ISS (That being the number of astro/cosmonauts that can fit into the Soyuz vehicle). What does that mean for scientific research? It means that virtually no long term research is being done on the ISS because the three crew members time is taken up with housekeeping, leaving no time for pure research. Before the Americans around here start whinging that everyone expects them to do everything, the US government made the commitment to developing a crew return vehicle. No one twisted their arm over it. And from the latest, it's looking more and more like it may well have been that chunk of foam from the fuel tank that caused the shuttle breakup. If it managed to crack a seam in the wheelwell, then there would have been a blowtorch effect that gave the heat readings, killed the sensors, and ultimately led to structural failure. I guess SSTO really is a good idea, since if this is the case, both shuttle losses have been directly related to the external fuel tank/booster configuration. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Feb. 03 2003,19:o0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nopulse @ Feb. 03 2003,14:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Feb. 02 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> <span id='postcolor'> Don't you find it kind of funny to see a sts107 patch in the pile of debris?  I mean if you think about how big an explosion would have to be for the shuttle to practically disintegrate at 200,000, a small little arm patch would not simple escape such an immense explosion. I can see debris from the shuttle because it’s made up of materials that are to withstand re-entering earth’s atmosphere etc.  But wouldn't you think that a small arm patch would incinerate, I mean after all it’s made of fibre, not metal.<span id='postcolor'> seeing that it was ripped off from piece of clothing i say it's not unusual. i'm guessing that the patch was sewn onto the shirt that astronauts wore under their spacesuit.<span id='postcolor'> My guess is that it was one in a package of souvenir mission patches that would have been distributed to friends and family of crew.  It might have been packed in a bulkhead locker, allowing it to survive and even come down fairly close to other wreckage, even though its aerodynamic properties would have been totally different. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
red oct 2 Posted February 3, 2003 i was reading todays paper, and it said they found all the remains of all the astronauts. so now at least now families can have some human remains to have a proper funeral instead of having to just make a just a stone to remember them by. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 03 2003,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">THe Bush government killed the funding for a Crew Return Vehicle for the ISS. Â What this means is that they can keep a maximum crew of three on the ISS (That being the number of astro/cosmonauts that can fit into the Soyuz vehicle). Â What does that mean for scientific research? It means that virtually no long term research is being done on the ISS because the three crew members time is taken up with housekeeping, leaving no time for pure research.<span id='postcolor'> I really can't get why they cancelled the X-38 (CRV). They had been developing it for 7 years and were in the testing phase. About one, max two more years before it would have been operational. Why throw away so much money? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Red Oct @ Feb. 03 2003,21:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i was reading todays paper, and it said they found all the remains of all the astronauts<span id='postcolor'> That was restated later. They've found some remains and more during the day, not suitable for decription here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 3, 2003 Nevermind. The X-38 is a rescue craft - not a shuttle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 04 2003,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is my number one beef with Bush and cutbacks to the space program over the last two years. <span id='postcolor'> Actually didn't Bush just increase the NASA funding? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,20:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 03 2003,21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really can't get why they cancelled the X-38 (CRV).<span id='postcolor'> Other than launching from a jet in the lower atmosphere, it looks like a shuttle and I would guess it has the same tiles as the shuttle. Is that correct? <span id='postcolor'> From what I have read, the X-33 and x-38 used a similar system to the shuttle, but were less tiles and more like a blanket. No matter how you try to get around it, any vehicle re-entering the earths atmosphere has to have some sort of thermal protection system. In spite of obvious problems (loose or missing tiles) it works pretty well. Columbia lost something like 16 tiles in it's inaugural flight back in 81, and survived. And NASA has improved the way the tiles are attached and secured in the intervening years. Unless something totally out of the ordinary happens, they seem to work pretty darn well. Perhaps this will kick start the CRV/X-38 program, as well as Venturestar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually didn't Bush just increase the NASA funding?<span id='postcolor'> by about 3% Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5thSFG.CNUTZ 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,14:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 04 2003,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is my number one beef with Bush and cutbacks to the space program over the last two years. <span id='postcolor'> Actually didn't Bush just increase the NASA funding?<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WASHINGTON — House and Senate appropriations conferees have agreed to provide $14.8 billion for NASA in 2002, $508 million over the agency’s 2001 spending level and $282 million more than U.S. President George W. Bush requested. The joint House-Senate version of the NASA spending bill, called a conference report, must still be approved by the full Congress before going to Bush for his signature. If the bill passes, the international space station program would see an overall decline of $95 million. However the bill would provide $40 million for continuing development of the X-38, a NASA prototype of the Crew Return Vehicle the space station needs to support a seven-person crew. <span id='postcolor'> From Here.  The article is dated Nov, 2001. Another article here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blaegis 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 03 2003,19:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">THe Bush government killed the funding for a Crew Return Vehicle for the ISS. Â What this means is that they can keep a maximum crew of three on the ISS (That being the number of astro/cosmonauts that can fit into the Soyuz vehicle). Â What does that mean for scientific research? It means that virtually no long term research is being done on the ISS because the three crew members time is taken up with housekeeping, leaving no time for pure research.<span id='postcolor'> So any future progress in the area was killed and things already achieved were undermined - not only the shuttle program budget alloctaions kept being reduced but also the proportion of that budget spent on safety dropped to one-third of what it was in 1988. Then people wonder when one of those shiny symbols of national pride which has been quitely bled dry falls down from the sky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 03 2003,20:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What does that mean for scientific research? It means that virtually no long term research is being done on the ISS because the three crew members time is taken up with housekeeping, leaving no time for pure research.<span id='postcolor'> Cleaning, ironing and doing dishes in a weightless environment is just the kind of research half the people on this planet may directly benefit from. You're just jealous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blaegis 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Feb. 03 2003,20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Feb. 04 2003,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is my number one beef with Bush and cutbacks to the space program over the last two years. <span id='postcolor'> Actually didn't Bush just increase the NASA funding?<span id='postcolor'> While the NASA budget will be slightly increased (nothing compared to the mind-boggling growth of the defense budget)the proportion of the budget allocated to manned space flight is, once again, reduced. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted February 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 03 2003,20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cleaning, ironing and doing dishes in a weightless environment is just the kind of research half the people on this planet may directly benefit from. You're just jealous. <span id='postcolor'> I can't wait til they send up an astronaut in her fourth trimester. Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
