NASA Crashes into a Comet

[Alaska Darin]

Screw the starving Africans...

375127[/snapback]

I wouldn't - but you can. Maybe McCartney and Bono can teach them the proper use of rubbers, after giving up all but one mansion to assist in the plight they care so very much about.

 

It's super neat that with BF gone you show up with your special brand of worldly ignorance.

[Ramius]

Horse crap.  NASA's impact on the 2.4 TRILLION dollar US budget was about $15 BILLION last year.  That's barely over one half of one percent.  Interest on the National Debt was approximately $300 BILLION.

 

NASA's technology innovations and civilian partnerships have led to advancements that touch your everyday lives.

 

1. Satellite Television. In 1962, NASA launched the first broadcast satellite - TELSTAR I. Live television was broadcast from the US to France THAT DAY.

In 1976 they launched CTS, which was the most powerful satellite ever. It allowed the creation of lower cost earth stations - which paved the way for direct broadcast television.

 

2. Cordless power tools and vacuum cleaners are direct results of a NASA technology partnership with Black & Decker. NASA engineers used their computer modeling expertise to design a motor small and powerful enough to run on a battery - ON THE MOON.

 

3. The first smoke detectors were designed in a partnership with Honeywell for Skylab.

 

4. The first water filters were designed in support of the Apollo missions.

 

5. Home insulation improvements are the direct result of NASA research on heat shields for the Apollo missions.

 

6. In 1992, the FDA approved the use of NASA's "cool" laser technology for use in heart surgery. It has replaced angioplasty.

 

7. The development of the CCD (charged coupled device) pretty much eliminated the need for scalpels in mammograms. Doctors can now use a needle to do biopsies, eliminating scars and saving patients and insurance providers over 300% on these procedures.

 

8. Digital Image Processing - including CATScans and MRIs are derived from NASA technology developed in the 1960s for LANDSAT.

 

9. Marshall Flight Center technology for making strong lightweight material that withstands propulsion tolerances is used to make prosthetic devices for amputees.

 

10. Those thermometers they stick in your ear? NASA Technology developed to measure the temperature of stars.

 

11. LEDs were developed for plant research on the Space Shuttle. They are now being used to treat SKIN CANCER.

 

12. X-33 composite materials were used to develop forceps to deliver babies.

 

13. NASA Ames developed pill sized transmitters that can be left inside the human body (to monitor astronauts). It is now being used in fetal care.

 

14. Technology designed to study photos sent back from space probes is now being used to detect chromosome abnormalities.

 

15. Those little internet cameras that are so prevelant today were designed by NASA JPL in Pasadena.

 

16. Scratch resistant glass was developed by NASA. Do you wear sunglasses?

 

17. Lightening protection technology was pioneered by NASA. Thank them everytime you fly through a storm.

 

18. Doppler Microwave Radar was developed in conjunction with NASA to combat windshear.

 

19. The material used to make moonsuits is now used for stadium and large building roofs. Ever been to the Georgia Dome or Denver Airport?

 

20. NASA Technology is used for padding in football helmets, chest protectors, and shin guards.

 

21. Golf balls fly farther because of external tank airload and slosh control technology.

 

These are just a few examples. I didn't bother with airframes, forest fire fighting, etc.

 

NASA is a VERY small part of our tax money - for a VERY large return.

375122[/snapback]

 

AD, how dare you let facts and logic and common sense get in the way of illogical rants on how the space programs is worthless and we should be sending gobs of money to africa to support the wealthy figures in charge of the countries over there...

 

Hot pockets dont allow enough time for logic...DING!!!

[Alaska Darin]

Why don't you dig into it and find out where and how the government REALLY wastes money, instead of blithely throwing out "I don't like NASA, cut their budget!"

375128[/snapback]

Uh, because that would require actual knowledge and shutting off the television for more than 30 seconds?

[SilverNRed]

But don't worry, those starving people in Africa have Bono from U2 and Paul McCartney working for them...

 

375118[/snapback]

Somehow I think that if we gave all of NASA's money to the governments in Africa, the problem wouldn't get solved.

 

And in a roundabout way, I think NASA crashing into a comet will probably end up doing more for Africa than the people who sat on the couch this weekend watching Live8 (or the ones complaining about Africa on TSW).

[Alaska Darin]

Somehow I think that if we gave all of NASA's money to the governments in Africa, the problem wouldn't get solved.

375135[/snapback]

Na, the governments there will spend it all on developing renewable food sources and clean drinking water instead of guns and palaces, because now that Pink Floyd has reunited for 4 songs the UN is a relevant and respected entity.

[SilverNRed]

I wouldn't - but you can.  Maybe McCartney and Bono can teach them the proper use of rubbers, after giving up all but one mansion to assist in the plight they care so very much about.

 

It's super neat that with BF gone you show up with your special brand of worldly ignorance.

375130[/snapback]

Forget Bono, the best part of Live 8 was Madonna singing about world poverty with a personalized diamond-coated 'M' around her neck.

[/dev/null]

Hot pockets dont allow enough time for logic...DING!!!

375131[/snapback]

 

that microwave cover seems pretty futuristic, i bet we can thank NASA for HotPockets® too

[Alaska Darin]

Forget Bono, the best part of Live 8 was Madonna singing about world poverty with a personalized diamond-coated 'M' around her neck.

375139[/snapback]

Well, according to Sally Struthers the $100K Madonna has spent on her boobs over the past 10 years would feed Namibia for almost a year. Love the limosine liberals.

 

Build another mansion, Ms. Ciccone.

[Ghost of BiB]

Nahhhh... I'll send that money to NASA so maybe some of my money can get crashed into Mars.

 

Screw the starving Africans...

 

375127[/snapback]

 

Here we go, banished to PPP. If it's past "I like this movie, because I love it", it becomes political and controversial.

 

What do you know about Africa? And have you any idea of the resources being devoted, in a large part through us, to alleviate some of the pressures on Africa? Their current problem is billions in loans they can't pay back. There are countries that have debt paybacks 400% of their GNP. Most of the lending came from Europe, and to a lesser extent China. Folks always want to point out what dictator we are supporting, but the rest of the world does worse. Well, catch up time.

 

Africa is a mess. An entire continent. Millions upon millions of people. Much as the problems with the Middle East, there are things maybe not popular in the works to at least try to stabilize things. Ever been to Africa? I have. You don't know poverty. Check out Nairobi. It's pretty advanced for a lot of African cities. Probably 1.5 million living in squalor as well.

 

That said, You may be one of those against an Administration Policy to affect the world. Whatever else kind of policy would ever make any sense?

 

Everyone wants to focus on Iraq, that's what is put in front of their noses. A failed foreign policy. Quagmire.

 

Anyone here willing to connect the dots?

 

No, it isn't. It's part of a much larger thing that very few want to take the time to understand.

[/dev/null]

Well, according to Sally Struthers the $100K Madonna has spent on her boobs over the past 10 years would feed Namibia for almost a year.  Love the limosine liberals. 

 

Build another mansion, Ms. Ciccone.

375141[/snapback]

 

her mansions and boob jobs are irrelevant, world poverty, aids, famine, etc is all Ws fault

[sfladave]

her mansions and boob jobs are irrelevant, world poverty, aids, famine, etc is all Ws fault

375150[/snapback]

 

 

Everyone knows that there wouldn't be any problems in Africa if TD wasn't the GM of the Bills. Isn't it enough that he eats babies and keeps Lindell, but does he have to destroy all hope for Africa too?

[TheMadCap]

Uhhh...okay, Sally Struthers.

 

Stopping the space program isn't going to stop people from dying in Africa any more than keeping it going is.  The idea that any problem can be solved if you throw enough money at it is uniquely American...and fallacious, even in America.  I'd say Africa's proven repeatedly that such an idea is not just fallacious in Africa, but outright stupid.  Ask people in Zaire how much financial aid has helped feed them, why don't you?

 

And as for cutting the space program...you can easily trim 10% of their budget if you take an axe to NASA bureaucrats and put the agency in the hands of engineers again (consider this: when Kennedy committed the US to the moon landings in 1961, we were eight years away from being able to do it.  Nowadays, we're 16 years away from landing on the moon.  That is NOT an effective ROI).  But there's easily 20 other places in the federal budget where billions more are wasted even worse than NASA's lawyers do...of the top of my head I can easily think of three major programs in the defense budget alone.  Why don't you dig into it and find out where and how the government REALLY wastes money, instead of blithely throwing out "I don't like NASA, cut their budget!"

375128[/snapback]

 

 

I'd like to see NASA cut the worthless flying death trap program (aka the shuttle) and the even more worthless ISS and use the difference to fund more unmanned probes, which they have a better sucess rate at anyways. The shuttle is necessary for the ISS and vice versa. They are useless...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The shuttle is necessary for the ISS and vice versa. They are useless...

375155[/snapback]

 

I agree...in part. They're useless because the way both programs are designed each only exists to justify the other. The shuttle should certainly be canned at this point...not because manned space flight is dangerous or not worthwhile but because the shuttle itself is a badly flawed design, and has been since the Air Force told them "We want to recover and refuel LEO recon satellites."

 

That just exemplifies the inherent illogic in NASA's manned spaceflight programs and direction: everything exists to justify everything else, and the moment you ditch the a priori assumption of worthiness for any one of those programs, the whole facade collapses like a house of cards. But really, justifying the manned space program in general and the space station in particular is not that difficult (the shuttle, however, is a lost cause. Instead of trying to sell the whole "Space Transportation System" idea, NASA should have called the shuttle what it really was: an experimental orbital vehicle). The justification, however, is left is an exercise to the reader...

 

(Hint: think "reusable trans-stage".)

[TheMadCap]

I agree...in part.  They're useless because the way both programs are designed each only exists to justify the other.  The shuttle should certainly be canned at this point...not because manned space flight is dangerous or not worthwhile but because the shuttle itself is a badly flawed design, and has been since the Air Force told them "We want to recover and refuel LEO recon satellites."

 

That just exemplifies the inherent illogic in NASA's manned spaceflight programs and direction: everything exists to justify everything else, and the moment you ditch the a priori assumption of worthiness for any one of those programs, the whole facade collapses like a house of cards.  But really, justifying the manned space program in general and the space station in particular is not that difficult (the shuttle, however, is a lost cause.  Instead of trying to sell the whole "Space Transportation System" idea, NASA should have called the shuttle what it really was: an experimental orbital vehicle).  The justification, however, is left is an exercise to the reader...  

 

(Hint: think "reusable trans-stage".)

375165[/snapback]

 

 

 

Tom, I set em up, you knock em down. Couldn't have said it better myself. You are exactly right about this. The sad part is that NASA used those two programs to justify themselves and thier big time budget. No shuttle, no ISS, no big $$$$...

 

 

What irks me most about NASA's view about the future of man spaced flight is that they want to go to the moon before Mars. Why? Can anyone give me a good reason why we should waste our time on the moon. We've been there and already seen there is NOTHING there that would make it economically worthwhile. And all the projections I have seen for a manned Mars mission include a huge Battlestar Galactica class vessel, taking all fuel for the return trip with them. I would like to see them offer to use the Mars Semi-direct approach myself, but that would mean less budget money for them...

[stevestojan]

Uh, because that would require actual knowledge and shutting off the television for more than 30 seconds?

375133[/snapback]

 

 

 

This from a guy who can be found on an internet message board, ready to reply to any topic 24/7/365.

 

Yeah, I should be more like you.

 

[Alaska Darin]

This from a guy who can be found on an internet message board, ready to reply to any topic 24/7/365.

 

Yeah, I should be more like you.

 

375211[/snapback]

It's amazing how you used to get so pissed when people would say the same thing about you, but now that your new company locks down your usage (or actually makes you do something during the day) the shoe is suddenly on the other foot. When you can't win a battle because you lack the intellectual ammunition to do anything but parrot soundbytes, be a hypocrite.

 

Welcome to the 4 hour time difference, Scooter.

[stevestojan]

It's amazing how you used to get so pissed when people would say the same thing about you, but now that your new company locks down your usage, the shoe is suddenly on the other foot.  When you can't win a battle, be a hypocrite.

 

Welcome to the 4 hour time difference, Scooter.

375212[/snapback]

 

 

My company doesn't lock down my usage (I'll post tomorrow from work if you'd really like me to). It's that I am far more busy now.

 

I apologize for that...

 

My point is you constantly use the "hot pocket" and "tv" comments (and sling them around as if you are too good to do such things) and yet you are more addicted to this board than anyone. period.

 

 

Sorry, I am really glad NASA made a golf ball fly farther and made your sunglasses resist scratches. Bravo to them. Care to comment on the attempts at successfully landing a ship on mars?

[Ghost of BiB]

My company doesn't lock down my usage (I'll post tomorrow from work if you'd really like me to). It's that I am far more busy now.

 

I apologize for that...

 

My point is you constantly use the "hot pocket" and "tv" comments (and sling them around as if you are too good to do such things) and yet you are more addicted to this board than anyone. period.

Sorry, I am really glad NASA made a golf ball fly farther and made your sunglasses resist scratches. Bravo to them.  Care to comment on the attempts at successfully landing a ship on mars?

375214[/snapback]

 

Then talk to me. I'm still waiting for your thought out insight on Africa.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Tom, I set em up, you knock em down.   Couldn't have said it better myself. You are exactly right about this. The sad part is that NASA used those two programs to justify themselves and thier big time budget. No shuttle, no ISS, no big $$$$...

 

Pretty much. Sad thing is, with a sensible heavy-lift booster, a sensible reusable manned vehicle, and a sensible space station, you can greatly reduce the cost-to-orbit for geosynchronous payloads...but they'll never do it, because that means sh---canning one white elephant and thus losing the justification for the other.

 

Never mind that they've ALREADY proven that house of cards is, in fact, a house of cards...in the past two years, with the space shuttle grounded, the ISS hasn't had a mission. And I haven't seen a justification for rushing the shuttle back outside the ISS and servicing the Hubble (which itself is a VERY good reason...the HST is quite possibly the most successful space research vehicle ever launched...and yes, that includes the Mariners, Vikings, Voyagers, and Galileo)...and they want to shut down the HST to concentrate on the ISS????? Idiots.

 

What irks me most about NASA's view about the future of man spaced flight is that they want to go to the moon before Mars. Why? Can anyone give me a good reason why we should waste our time on the moon. We've been there and already seen there is NOTHING there that would make it economically worthwhile. And all the projections I have seen for a manned Mars mission include a huge Battlestar Galactica class vessel, taking all fuel for the return trip with them. I would like to see them offer to use the Mars Semi-direct approach myself, but that would mean less budget money for them...

375204[/snapback]

 

The moon makes sense for a lot of things, if you're maintaining a manned presence there. It's not hard to think of economical uses for it (mining, for one. Deep space missions, for another, IF you can solve the problem of getting the infrastructure there. If you solve that, you're launching out of a much shallower gravity well. Hell, you get those two industries set up, you can conceivably start mining asteroids economically and safely.) Might even make a Mars mission safer and easier...though given that NASA hamstrings their engineers these days to the point where they can't even make the shuttle reliable and safe after 25 years, I don't see anyone going to Mars ever coming back anyway.

 

If NASA wants to continue manned space flight, they need to be developing new and sensible (i.e. designed to carry people; not people, cargo, and the kitchen sink) vehicles for it NOW. And send their lawyers and bureaucrats on the test flights.

[EC-Bills]

I am going to say this only once. Stop knocking Madonna's boobs!