The wrong stuff.

[carp]

For Mister Mike Mullane,John Young was an old fart.The others veteran astronauts from Apollo and Skylab,old farts too (Mike Mullane,"Riding Rockets" pag.47 "Why don't these old farts just leave or die or something")? /* deleted */<br /><br />EDIT: FYI, Mr Mullane is a registered member of Uplink now, so the rules against calling other users nasty names applies.

 

[frodo1008]

I will, of course NOT even consider this malcontents book under any circumstances. As I was one of the 400,000 or so workers that helped place these fantastic men on the moon, then I would be MORE than happy to be listed in my own amall way among the "Old Farts"!!

 

[bpcooper]

Why must you post the same thing everywhere? <br /><br />As I said righthere:<br /><br />http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/000356.html<br /><br />"Mullane isn't commenting on what he really thinks of Young or anyone. It's a light hearted comment that the new guys always want the older veterans to leave so they can have their flight assingments more quickly.<br />Mullane makes clear his real experiences dealing with Young in later chapters, but the 'old fart' line has nothing to do with that. I'm sure all the ascans would say the same thing and smile."<br /><br />Regardless of later comments, that one particular comment is a joke. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[steve82]

I remember my third job in aerospace back when I was a young pup. The first two places didn't reqalize what a genius I was. I sat in the lobby next to the receptionist waiting for the orientation and it was a Monday morning and people were coming to work. First thing I noticed was, "Geez, these guys are OLD!!!!" Looked kind of burned out, too. Expressionless faces, not saying much to each other, and headed right up the stairs or down the hall to their offices. Took me a long time to train them too, but eventually they got smarter. Sort of like I noticed how my Dad got so much smarter after I was 25. Funny how that works out.<br />Now I'm one of those old guys. Watching my 401k every week. hoping to hold on long enough to retire. Except now, the youngsters sure seem a lot smarter than they used to.

 

[spacefire]

yeah, most of the work the old engineers used to toil for hours on can now be done by a not particularly bright youngster using a computer.<br />somehow a lot of money should be saved, yet NASA still can't get anyone to build rockets that are safe AND cost-effective.<br />Makes you wonder WTF is going on, maybe nobody WANTS to build space hardware cheaply because the government pays for it. And everyone knows it's not morally wrong to steal from the government. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

All you 'oldies' need to retire so that when I finish college I can get a job <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

From the movie "Contact" which pretty well defines Government spending:<br /><br />"Why buy one when you can buy two for twice the price". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[steve82]

There's a corollary to that from the missile defense program:<br /><br />"We can't afford to do it right, but we can afford to do it twice."

 

[vogon13]

That's close to the motto of the Gates Rubber Company:<br /><br />We don't have time to do it right, but we always have time to do it over.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"yeah, most of the work the old engineers used to toil for hours on can now be done by a not particularly bright youngster using a computer. "<br /><br />The computer is only a tool to do calucations A not particularly bright youngester using a computer will probduce a not particular inspired solution. Give me an old engineer any day over someone who thinks they are omniscient anfd omnipotent because they have a few snazzy tools.<br /><br />"somehow a lot of money should be saved, yet NASA still can't get anyone to build rockets that are safe AND cost-effective. "<br /><br />Maybe they are already as safe and cost effective as is possible given current knowledge and technology. have you thought of that?<br /><br />"Makes you wonder WTF is going on, maybe nobody WANTS to build space hardware cheaply because the government pays for it"<br /><br />The commerical interests have been major users of satellite and launcher services for decades now. Why haven't they significantly reduced costs? Maybe building space hardware is intrinsically difficult and cannot be done significantly cheaper that it is now. <br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

Jon:<br /><br />A great percentage of engineering work is pretty brainless.<br /><br />If this is as good as it gets, why were projects like the X33 or the X38 even attempted?<br /><br />Most rockets in use today are derivatives of ICBMs (see the Atlas series) and most Russian launchers. They come from government requests. There is no competition to encourage manufacture of cheaper boosters. That is, until SpaceX proves they can launch at half price. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>If this is as good as it gets, why were projects like the X33 or the X38 even attempted? <br /><br />Most rockets in use today are derivatives of ICBMs (see the Atlas series) and most Russian launchers. They come from government requests. There is no competition to encourage manufacture of cheaper boosters. That is, until SpaceX proves they can launch at half price. </i><br /><br />As a still young-ish engineer, I'd like to have some inspiring vision to motivate me. I am completely uninspired, however, by the CEV design. I was excited by projects like X-33, and it's a shame that this nation can no longer follow through on anything groundbreaking and revolutionary. VSE is an admission of defeat by NASA. They are basically saying, hey, we've failed to follow through on anything ambitious lately, so let's give up and just go back to our proven Apollo model.<br /><br />In any case, I've come to realize the hard way that engineering is the new blue collar profession in this country. Except there's no union to prevent abuses of your time. You won't starve but you won't get anywhere either. I'm about to start applying to business schools to pursue an MBA, although I'm sort of considering law school as well. The one thing I'm sure of is that there's not much of a future on my present path.

 

[edkyle98]

"Most rockets in use today are derivatives of ICBMs (see the Atlas series) and most Russian launchers. They come from government requests. "<br /><br />In the U.S., there are only three launch vehicles left that were derived in part from ballistic missiles - Delta II (Thor), Minotaur (Minuteman), and Taurus (Peacekeeper, which hasn't flown since 2004). The Atlas V and Delta IV EELVs have no ICBM lineage, but it is true that they would not exist if the U.S. Government did not want them to exist.<br /><br />Europe's Ariane 5 is not based on a missile, nor is Ukraine's (Sea Launch) Zenit, Japan's H-2A, or Russia's Proton (although original planning for what became Proton was for a massive missile that was never developed.) Russia's Soyuz, Rokot, and Dnepr are missile-based, as are all of China's "Long-March" series.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Going "revolutionary" got us the Shuttle. </i><br /><br />Going "revolutionary" got us every piece of technology we take for granted today. If all we ever did was stick with proven technology, we'd all be living in caves. VSE will do nothing to open up the space frontier, as it will not significantly lower the cost or risk associated with human spaceflight, nor will it increase flight rates beyond what we were capable of back in the 1960's.

 

[strandedonearth]

Unfortunately, the STS has been proven to have a flaw which makes it somewhat unsafe. Expensive attempts to develop an ambitious successor vehicle have been cancelled after cost overruns due to unexpected difficulties. With a replacement now urgently required, NASA has to do what it knows can be done. Once that is flying and paid for, they can work on something ambitious again.

 

[starfhury]

I think vt_hokie is on the right track here. VSE is not Apollo, but it's close enough to be uninspiring. The only new technology involved appears to be important but minor. It uses better materials and save weight by using better more powerful computers. These are good steps, but the area that desparately need work and improvements is advancing propulsion to the next level. No one seems to be investing in good engine technology. With out this,we just can not achieve much. We should be seeking ways to consolidate the power of three SSMEs into the power of one. Advances like that would go much further in helping us creating a moon base than dusting off old technology to rehash missions already completed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I just can't fathom how going back to the moon with more people, to more areas, and for longer stays than Apollo, while using a spacecraft that will also serve as an excellent station ferry and crew return vehicle for Mars missions can be found uninspiring in any shape or form. Not only that the spacecraft will be safer than the shuttle and there will be a HLV to boot that will serve both lunar and Mars missions. What to people want - Imperial Shuttles?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I should be sorry I guess, that I took this as a serious thread. But I am not at all! I just went out to your link, and it isn’t even on SDC! People here are now supposed to go out to other sites? I don’t think so!<br /><br />(A) Why accuse me of posting that particular reply everywhere? I have not made that particular post anywhere else that I know of!<br /><br />(B) If you are going to post sarcasm or humor, then it should be labeled as such. Even over on free space they generally do this (usually at the end of the post, so as not to spoil the joke). But this forum is generally supposed to be relatively serious for those who are serious about the space program.<br /><br />If posters are going to be frivolous and silly, they should either go over to SETI or free space!<br /><br />Then I see the usual gang of NASA bashers have lined up here! <br /><br />When spacex can prove by actual successful launches that it has a rocket anywhere near as reliable as the Delta II for half the actual launch price, THEN perhaps Elon Musk and Company can start to crow about it! <br /><br />Actually it is not spacex or Elon Musk that I have a problem with, I do wish him and his company all the luck in the world! It is the overly enthusiastic and somewhat sarcastic bunch of (anti NASA types) of supporters he has generated right here. This kind of thing should be relegated to free space, they are experts over there on such sarcasm!<br /><br />If you want to go after large scale governmental waste of taxpayer dollars, there are plenty of far larger fish in the federal budget, that you can go after than NASA!<br /><br />And yes, in at least one respect I do repeat myself on this forum. And I will continue to repeat myself as long as the NASA bashers continue to repeat themselves!<br /><br />That is, in the long run NASA is NOT an EXPENSE of the federal government it IS an INVESTMENT in the future of not only the United States, but of all mankind! <br /><br />

 

[qso1]

frodo1008:<br />When spacex can prove by actual successful launches that it has a rocket anywhere near as reliable as the Delta II for half the actual launch price, THEN perhaps Elon Musk and Company can start to crow about it!<br /><br />Me:<br />Although I did make the crack about two for twice the price, that kind of spending practice has been known to occur at NASA. But overall however, I totally agree with what you stated above.<br /><br />In short, commercial spaceflight as a whole is still unproven. NASA is the only entity in the U.S. who can claim 98 % or higher success rates on medium or large LVs launched in significant numbers.<br /><br />frodo1008:<br />Then I see the usual gang of NASA bashers have lined up here!<br /><br />Me:<br />Same response as above.<br /><br />frodo1008:<br />If you want to go after large scale governmental waste of taxpayer dollars, there are plenty of far larger fish in the federal budget, that you can go after than NASA!<br /><br />Me:<br />Such as the S&L scandal taxpaqyers are still paying for, the $400 billion dollar deficit to name two fish. One of which is current and of course, a big target. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>What do people want - Imperial Shuttles?</i><br /><br />This is the kind of thing I want to see! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/030606p1.xml

 

[spacefire]

yup.<br />the technology EXISTS! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

You wish.....<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

OK, maybe you are not bashing NASA per se. What you do however, by bashing at the federal government is to bash one of the only entities that can afford a manned space program in a meaningful way! The others being Russia and China (and note that they too are government funded programs). Pure private interests are not at this time prepared to take this vital task on, they just don't have the necessary funding. <br /><br />I guess the federal government could just turn billions over the relatively unproved start up companies. Do you think that the American taxpayer through his representatives in congress is prepared to do this?<br /> <br />You are intelligent enough to know the answer to that as well as I am. It is precisely because of this large amount of oversight of the funding of NASA that (as you and others do point out so very well) generates such governmental inefficiency that you think that NASA has! But you know that that isn’t going to change one bit!<br /><br />l am sorry, I know this will go against the grain here, but as I am an advocate for the manned American space program, I really don't care. NASA s one of the few federal government agencies with a relatively specific task assigned to it. NASA HAS done this particular task amazingly well. That is fact, not speculation. One of the things that actually worries me about just turning over manned space to the pure private interests is that the human exploration of space IS expensive and quite dangerous, and is going to remain so for quite sometime into the future! What happens to the future of mankind in space the first time that a pure private rocket fails? Will such interests have the fortitude and goals to pick themselves up, count their losses, and go forward? <br /><br />Then there is the verdict of history to consider. What some of the pure private interest supporters don't seem to realize is that it has been the efforts of the federal government (admittedly, not even always for the best of

 

[barrykirk]

Thank you Frodo... Great post.....<br /><br />I do think that most of people's frustration with NASA stems from impatience..... but that is another story.

 

[spacefire]

I'm sure frodo said some interesting things. Can I get the condensed version? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>