Orion landings to be splashdowns

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

frodo1008

Guest
What bothers me is that NASA should have known all along what thrust was going to be developed by the stick design. Knowing the thrust they should have known how much weight they could launch to LEO by the system. IF that is the case then they should also have known what the maximum weight they could then make the payload and worked from there. This is relatively simple mathematics.<br /><br />It just seems to me (and I think others also) that NASA just keeps stumbling along here on something that should have been solved a long time ago!<br /><br />Now, changing the design to work within this weight envelope is something that the current design development is evidently what NASA is currently doing, but it seems as if they are continually bumping up against the upper bounds of the envelop, and that IS NOT a good thing here at this time!<br /><br />This then brings up a basic question that I am amazed that NASA has not evidently answered yet. Is the stick design sufficiently powerful enough a launch system to take us back to the moon, or isn't it!<br /><br />If it is then NASA needs to stop fooling around and finalize the design and start cutting metal!!<br /><br />If it isn't then NASA had better start to look for an alternative launch system such as an uprated EELV.<br /><br />If someone such as myself that has always been a heavy NASA supporter feels this way, then think of how those that have not always supported NASA must feel!<br /><br />I would highly recommend that NASA do this before there is a possible regime change in Washington on January 2009!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
In case you are wondering why I keep pressing the question of where NASAspaceflight.com got its sources, this is why. It is a perfect example of why journalists should check facts and shouldn't rely on "anonymous sources".<br /><br />BTW, just because something is "professionally acceptable", like not revealing sources, doesn't mean that it is ethically or legally acceptable. This is why journalists have gone to jail for this. If someone is making accusations or writing lies about a person or organization then that person or organization has the legal right to know who that person is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
R

ragnorak

Guest
<br />Your 'this is why' link doesn't work.<br /><br />BTW on your comments about journalists, I guess Richard Nixon would have agreed with you...<br />
 
L

lampblack

Guest
While it's true that journalists sometimes cite anonymous sources, among reputable people that's sort of the nuclear option -- used only when the truth simply cannot be obtained any other way.<br /><br />Is life or death at stake? Is there a quality of life issue hanging in the balance? Is there simply no other avenue available to determine the truth in a matter that has the potential for changing lives? <br /><br />Nothing that's reported here or in the other place rises to that level of importance, such that it requires anonymous sources. And anyone who relies on anonymous sources is usually just being lazy.<br /><br />Almost always (with rare exceptions), good reporters can find out what they want to know if they really want to know it -- and they do it while citing their sources. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
R

ragnorak

Guest
<br />Well the article describes it as Orion 607 so it seems NASA does not differentiate between the CM and the boost cover as you call it, the SM, the CM, the LAS is all Orion, unlike some know-it-alls on this website.
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
I have to agree with Lampblack here. Having worked for newspapers and magazines I can tell you that no editor ever wants to go to press with "anonymous sources" and will do everything in his or her power to get some outside verivication. Many, many stories have to be killed beause the only sources are anonymous. Editors know that many if not most anonymous sources are bitter, spiteful peopled who have been wronged--or belive they have been wronged--in some way. It doesn't mean they are lying, but it means they have one very narrow point of view that may be terribly skewed. Even when anonymous sources are used they are often only used to start out an investigation, not as the sole source of a printed story. Magazines and papers are so expensive and time consuming to produce that editors don't want to take many chances with their reputations being permanently sullied. The internet--wich is fast and cheap by comparison--has changed all of that. Its as easy for me to open up a website--with world wide distrubution in full color with vedio and sound-- trashing everything NASA says as it is for someone else to start one saying everything is humming along perfectly. I think we would all agree that the truth lies somewhere in the middle and changes from day to day.<br /><br />I agree that the design of the Orion is not a dire story that can go to press (to use an outdated term) with nothing but umconfirmmed sources. The reporter (assuming he wants to be a reporter and not just a "blogger") should have used that information as a starting point. If NASASpaceWatch.com wants to be seen as more than a rumor mill they need to act like professionals. Right now they cater to wild-eyed, NASA bashers who believe pretty much everything they put out. If they show some more integrity they could gain a wider audience instead of "preaching to the choir" like most ranting blogs do.<br /><br />By the way, journalists don't go to jail for using anonymous sources. They are only threatened with ja
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts