Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tman_ndsu08 · Jul 27, 2005, 07:24 pm

And had there been a practical demand by the market for such laser cameras, they would've been invented and implemented just as well.

The space program gets zero credit for any invention that they demanded in my book. Just more government pork spending.

gr8fuldaniel · Jul 28, 2005, 01:16 am

Quote:

NASA Halts Shuttle Flights Over Foam Issue
By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer
LINK
Wednesday, July 27, 2005

NASA grounded future shuttle flights Wednesday because a big chunk of insulating foam flew off Discovery's fuel tank during liftoff — as it did in Columbia's doomed mission — but this time apparently missed the spacecraft.

"Until we're ready, we won't go fly again. I don't know when that might be," shuttle program manager Bill Parsons told reporters in a briefing Wednesday evening.

He and other managers do not believe the flying debris that snapped off the external fuel tank harmed Discovery, threatening a safe return of its seven astronauts.

Thats what they said last time.
Sorry about my negativity, I really do hope for their safe return.

**Chris** · Jul 28, 2005, 10:15 am

Quote:

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel

Just think of all the millions of people we can kill more efficiently with the new laser technology and star wars.

Star Wars program is long since dead man.

**Chris** · Jul 28, 2005, 10:18 am

Quote:

Quote by: RickSp

Chris, I know this is a waste of time, but assuming that GPS or Sat Phones or better weather predicion would not have been invented if not as part of NASA's boondoggle is crazy. Your examples are also inaccurate.

(GPS was developed and is still maintained by the Department of Defence. The current GPS was an outgrowth of Transit, a Navy satellite system originated in the 1950s. The spaceprogram may have utilized the same technology but did not develop it.)

As tman_ndsu08 so accurately points out, all the space program has done is to divert money out of the economy. If those resources remained in the marketplace, who knows what technology might have been developed if the space program had not existed. The secondary benefits of the space program have to be less than would have occurred independently if left to the marketplace.

Wrong. tman and yourself both say "We have no business in space" But it doesn't take a phd to figure out that in order for GPS and Weather Sats, live broadcasts from Baghdad and national news programs cable news, YOU NEED TO GO INTO SPACE. So if we have no business going there, in yours and tmans opinion, then you have no business watching cable TV and no business looking at the weather forecasts. And no business using your On Star system in your cars.

RickSp · Jul 28, 2005, 10:24 am

Quote:

Quote by: |Chris|

Wrong. tman and yourself both say "We have no business in space" But it doesn't take a phd to figure out that in order for GPS and Weather Sats, live broadcasts from Baghdad and national news programs cable news, YOU NEED TO GO INTO SPACE. So if we have no business going there, in yours and tmans opinion, then you have no business watching cable TV and no business looking at the weather forecasts. And no business using your On Star system in your cars.

Buy a clue Chris. What I said was, though you obviously aren't paying attention, is that the manned space program is a dangerous and costly boondoggle. If you want to debate it might be good to stay on topic. Arguing against points never made is a waste of both time and bandwidth.

**Chris** · Jul 28, 2005, 11:42 am

OK I made a mistake. It was tman I was talking about.

Quote:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08

There is no profit in space, right now.

gr8fuldaniel · Jul 28, 2005, 12:11 pm

Quote:

Quote by: |Chris|

Star Wars program is long since dead man

So you are saying there are no spy sattellites and no killer sattellites with space to earth weapons launch capacity. If the USA is launching top secret payload into space, you can bet its not flowers and candy for the martians.

ICBM doesnt stand for "I Can Be Mellow", where neo-cons are concerned.

**Chris** · Jul 28, 2005, 02:00 pm

I thought when you referred to Star Wars you were talking about the 1980s Reagan effort to combat ICBMs from reaching and attaining targets in the US.

gr8fuldaniel · Jul 28, 2005, 03:02 pm

Quote:

Quote by: |Chris|

I thought when you referred to Star Wars you were talking about the 1980s Reagan effort

I could have been clearer, I guess. I was talking about using space tech as a weapon of mass destruction in general.
I guess if we admitted we were doing that, we would have to join the "Axis of Evil".

Eh?

**Chris** · Jul 28, 2005, 03:15 pm

possibly. I read about it once in Popular Mechanics. Don't know how far off we are to implementing it though.

tman_ndsu08 · Jul 28, 2005, 06:31 pm

Chris, when I said that I was unclearly referring to the manned space program. That's my fault.

Obviously things like satellite communications will need space satellites. But also, obviously, there won't be a need for manned missions to put them in space.

**Chris** · Jul 28, 2005, 10:29 pm

So you would be better off with land based telescopes instead of the wondrous images we have seen through hubble?

tman_ndsu08 · Jul 29, 2005, 10:14 am

And how much does hubble cost?

If some private science advocate group wants to get private donations to get a space telescope, THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS!

DON'T MAKE IT MINE! DON'T STEAL MY TAXES TO USE ON THESE STUPID SCIENCE PROJECTS!

ibm · Jul 29, 2005, 11:39 am

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/science/space_shuttle

now i'm a little worried.

**Chris** · Jul 29, 2005, 12:09 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tman_ndsu08

And how much does hubble cost?

If some private science advocate group wants to get private donations to get a space telescope, THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS!

DON'T MAKE IT MINE! DON'T STEAL MY TAXES TO USE ON THESE STUPID SCIENCE PROJECTS!

ok I see whats the root of your argument is then. you are entitled to your position. but please dont yell at me.

RickSp · Jul 29, 2005, 12:13 pm

The shuttle program is grounded again. An editorial from todays NY Times .

Quote:

The agency took the only reasonable step by announcing that it would ground the shuttle fleet indefinitely while it tried to identify and fix the foam-shedding problem. It should use that time to re-examine whether the shuttle program and the international space station that it serves are worth the risk and enormous cost to keep them at the core of the space program. The shuttle is looking increasingly like a jalopy that has gotten too expensive to keep repairing and may be ready for a trade-in.

As NASA struggles to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it, Congress and the Bush administration need to reassess whether the costly shuttle program is worth the effort.

**Chris** · Aug 9, 2005, 10:30 am

Discovery returns safely to Earth

BBC

Quote:

The shuttle Discovery has touched down successfully in California after the first mission since 2003's Columbia disaster.

Discovery landed at Edwards Air Force Base at around 1312 BST (0512 PST; 1212 GMT) after bad weather forced a change to the intended Florida landing site.

Columbia broke up on re-entry because of damage it sustained when foam debris fell off the fuel tank during lift-off.

tman_ndsu08 · Aug 9, 2005, 03:09 pm

And hopefully there will never be another shuttle mission in the history of the United States.

**Chris** · Aug 9, 2005, 03:36 pm

only in your dreams

tman_ndsu08 · Aug 9, 2005, 09:13 pm

Quote:

Quote by: |Chris|

only in your dreams

Why do you want to force everyone in the country to pay for your little science projects?

Jul 28, 2005, 02:00 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
Chris Gamma-ray burst Location: Nashville Posts: 6,376	I thought when you referred to Star Wars you were talking about the 1980s Reagan effort to combat ICBMs from reaching and attaining targets in the US. I voted against the theocratic psychopaths Shared

Jul 28, 2005, 03:15 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Chris Gamma-ray burst Location: Nashville Posts: 6,376	possibly. I read about it once in Popular Mechanics. Don't know how far off we are to implementing it though. I voted against the theocratic psychopaths Shared

Jul 28, 2005, 10:29 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Chris Gamma-ray burst Location: Nashville Posts: 6,376	So you would be better off with land based telescopes instead of the wondrous images we have seen through hubble? I voted against the theocratic psychopaths Shared

Jul 29, 2005, 11:39 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
ibm Igneous Magma Posts: 672	http://news.yahoo.com/fc/science/space_shuttle now i'm a little worried. economic left/right: -3.38 social libertarian/authoritarian: -3.59

Aug 9, 2005, 03:36 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
Chris Gamma-ray burst Location: Nashville Posts: 6,376	only in your dreams I voted against the theocratic psychopaths Shared

Jul 27, 2005, 07:24 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	And had there been a practical demand by the market for such laser cameras, they would've been invented and implemented just as well. The space program gets zero credit for any invention that they demanded in my book. Just more government pork spending.

Jul 28, 2005, 06:31 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Chris, when I said that I was unclearly referring to the manned space program. That's my fault. Obviously things like satellite communications will need space satellites. But also, obviously, there won't be a need for manned missions to put them in space.

Jul 29, 2005, 10:14 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	And how much does hubble cost? If some private science advocate group wants to get private donations to get a space telescope, THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS! DON'T MAKE IT MINE! DON'T STEAL MY TAXES TO USE ON THESE STUPID SCIENCE PROJECTS!

Aug 9, 2005, 03:09 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	And hopefully there will never be another shuttle mission in the history of the United States.