May 14, 2010
— Ace Is this happening live?
I'm putting it up quick without checking so you don't miss it.
Update: It was live, and was a clean launch. This is the last flight of the Atlantis. There are two more shuttle missions schedule as the two remaining shuttles will each get a curtain call.
Posted by: Ace at
10:16 AM
| Comments (135)
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
Obama just called me and said the only reason he's launching the shuttle is so they can take good pics of the oil slick in the gulf.
Posted by: Touché Turtle at May 14, 2010 10:23 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Craig at May 14, 2010 10:23 AM (iuNyN)
Posted by: Chris at May 14, 2010 10:24 AM (tTc5u)
Posted by: President Obama at May 14, 2010 10:25 AM (9IHmo)
Posted by: President Obama at May 14, 2010 10:26 AM (9IHmo)
Posted by: Barbarian at May 14, 2010 10:27 AM (EL+OC)
Is this the last shuttle mission or the last mission for the Atlantis orbiter? I think it's the latter.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 14, 2010 10:29 AM (9B5OK)
The shuttle system kind of sucked...low earth orbit? Really, that's it? Still, better than nothing.
I still get a little catch in my throat every time they get to "go with throttle up". If you remember the Challenger, you know what I mean.
Posted by: DrewM. at May 14, 2010 10:31 AM (9B5OK)
When he said "restore science to its rightful place" someone should have asked him what he thought its rightful place was. Sigh.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 14, 2010 10:32 AM (mR7mk)
Am I the only unimpressed watching 40-year old technology?
holy shit, MOONRAKER was made 32 years ago. This is like still being impressed with Uncle Joe's big beautiful brand new 1976 Oldsmobile 98.
Posted by: Daniel Pearle's head at May 14, 2010 10:34 AM (uFokq)
Posted by: Lord God Zero at May 14, 2010 10:34 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 10:37 AM (r1h5M)
Nah, I'm totally over it. Get in the car, Astro.
Posted by: George Jetson at May 14, 2010 10:39 AM (OFSgm)
How can you not be?
I hate to think of partisanship when my country is acting awesome, but I thought of our space program when Michelle Obama said she had never been proud of her country before Barack was nominated. Those 'progressives' have to deny all real progress in order for their change to be necessary and relevant. They have to deny that without their 'change', the USA accomplished much, not limited to our amazing scientific advances such as this moon landing or the SR-71 or harnessing the atom, but also making this the best place on the planet to be a religious or racial minority. A melting pot that isn't perfect (or Michelle Obama wouldn't have been so warped), but amazing.
And we see our space program being taken apart. Because our corrupt leaders must spend grotesque sums of money, they have to make loud cuts that don't really make a dent but provide the facade of cutting spending.
China will probably have a base on the moon and basically own the place. We will finish building the ISS and gain very little over it. Bush made the mistake of calling for Mars exploration and a moon base, so the democrats must never permit America to accomplish that. Nothing Bush called for can be accomplished, because politics today is about getting int he way of your opponent's ideas.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 10:39 AM (dUOK+)
Speaking of the Russians...
But on top of all that, Russian Foreign Minister Serge Lavrov made an incredible statement that should send shock waves through U.S. policymaking circles. In calling on the United States not to take "any unilateral step against Iran," Lavrov is trying to restrict American pressures to what Moscow is willing to accept. In other words, he is acting as Iran's lawyer to tie America's hands.
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 14, 2010 10:42 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 10:42 AM (r1h5M)
I love watching it, but the shuttle sucked. It sucked hard. It sucked donkey balls. It did nothing it was originally supposed to do: access to space wasn't cheaper, safer, more reliable, or more frequent. Shuttle deserved to be cancelled. And Constellation was going to be even more of a waste than Shuttle.
NASA should not be building launchers. NASA should be buying launches on commercial rockets. NASA should be developing technology to help open up space to more than a few government employees a year. And that's what they'll now be doing.
Anyone worried about China's space program must be missing the sub-glacial pace it's moving at. China doesn't care about the moon.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 14, 2010 10:44 AM (c7UMz)
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 10:45 AM (r1h5M)
It's very impressive for what it is: a semi truck that goes 17,500 mph. The problem was that the shuttle became our entire manned program instead of infrastructure for dealing with cargo. I guess one problem with this is that the cargo aspect didn't need to be manned at all.
We should have had something in addition to this impressive vehicle, but the baby boomers have been dedicated to anything that benefits them, today. Space programs benefit the next generation, which is the opposite of sticking them with the bill for your entitlements. It's easy to understand why a short sighted person would not want a thorough and constantly aggressive space program. Imagine what we'd have accomplished with 40 years of the right attitude! In ten, we got to the moon. We could have prosperous bases on the moon and Mars, perhaps more than that, and technological innovations I can only dream of.
I suppose a core problem is property rights. Why would a private man attempt to get to Mars? If we had some kind of homestead property right in space, I bet our civilization would reap rewards.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 10:45 AM (dUOK+)
Two more launches-- Discovery in Sept and Endeavour in November, assuming all goes well with this mission.
Atlantis will be cannibalized for replacement parts for the other two.
Am I the only unimpressed watching 40-year old technology?
Well, here's the thing. You're seeing the OUTSIDE of the vehicle. Inside, it's been constantly updated, and the ISS has some spectacular cutting-edge features to it. And really, there's only one way to get to space: Achieve orbital velocity. If anyone can demonstrate a way to do it on twenty bucks and a flux capacitor, I'd love to see it.
And I think the age of these girls MAKES them impressive. A reusable vehicle which can do what the orbiter does, designed on enormous mainframe computers with CRTs and a constantly scaled-back budget, and they're still kickin'? It's not perfect, but we're not seeing this shit out of Canada. That is some awesome-ass engineering, and you'll only see it in America.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 10:47 AM (dSJW9)
*mwah!*i live very close to Johnson Space Center, south of Houston. I can't count how many people i know who work for NASA or one of its subcontractors. if you don't live in a NASA community, it may be hard to understand just how many people whose jobs are on the line and many lives & families will be affected by the budget cuts.
Friends & neighbors emailed me about a counter-rally planned for this evening to protest an event which is a thinly-disguised photo-op propaganda mission to cheer for the Man Child In Chief.
From the opposition's flyer: "Democrats are blaming President Bush for the NASA budget cuts instead of the true culprit, the budget shoved at us by Obama. These Democrats are pretending to support NASA by holding a very showy rally, using pom-poms and platitudes to clean up the blood-letting as Obama rips the heart out of NASA.
I hadn't decided to attend until i learned that media-hog, idiot, and poseur Sheila Jackson Lee would be present. Now i'm going for sure. This woman is the poster child for all that is wrong with liberals, Democrats, progressives, D.C., etc. On top of all those superior qualifications, she is an out-of-control narcissistic ego-maniac, just like the prez she so adores.
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 10:49 AM (4L69q)
I'm concerned about the missed opportunities. We've not really done enough in space exploration. I think NASA could have built an Orion style vehicle and gotten to Mars 20 years ago. And I think it would have been a great thing, in comparison to what we spent most of our money on.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 10:49 AM (dUOK+)
Ahem.
I mean....thank you for giving our shit a ride. Heh.
Posted by: Canada at May 14, 2010 10:49 AM (mR7mk)
Hey stooopid Americans!!! We are offering a special on moon orbit rides from now unitl the end of the Obama administration!! Sign up now for a free movie during your flight!! Only 10,000,000.00 per person including a carry-on!
Don't delay! Call: 1-877-SI-SU-PUEDE
HAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev at May 14, 2010 10:50 AM (pr+up)
Bottom line: whether you're pro- or anti- the space program, i see this as yet another example of the One's petty, mean-spirited nature and more proof of his complete and utter lack of any discernible leadership or management skills.
Or am i just paranoid? Bwahahaha! Just wanted to let you good folks know about another real community-sized battle being fought.
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 10:50 AM (4L69q)
Ahem.
I mean....thank you for giving our shit a ride. Heh.
Posted by: Canada at May 14, 2010 02:49 PM (mR7mk)
I've always been embarrased about how proud Canada was of the "Canadarm". It's just a robot arm, you can buy hobby kits to build your own.
Posted by: fozzy at May 14, 2010 10:55 AM (ccEuN)
But that's what it was designed to do. The shuttle is not meant to leave Earth orbit. It was conceived of in the heady days of Apollo when the sky was quite literally a limit. It was supposed to be just part of a grand Moon-colonizing, Mars-reaching plan. When entitlements began piling up, the economy tanked, and America starting to have to apologize for itself, that original plan got scaled back and scaled back until it was just the shuttle, and then it was scaled back some more. This design truly could have been more cost-efficient if proper R&D were done at the front end of it. But no, NASA took the "cheap up front, go for low return" on the other end. But for what it was, I stand in awe. The only reason it wasn't better is that red tape and hand-wringing liberals got in the way.
The human capital and development from this program was worth many times the investment.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 10:55 AM (dSJW9)
http://tinyurl.com/2be6qg5
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 10:55 AM (4L69q)
Oh goody--Waterhouse is here again to tell us all about the fantastic great (completely hypothetical) things going on in private space flight.
Don't worry, we'll be able to put people into orbit again in half a century or so.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at May 14, 2010 10:55 AM (B+qrE)
That's a big assumption - that there will be enough tech in 50 years to even attempt space travel. In the end there will be only chaos and all that...
Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 14, 2010 10:57 AM (9hSKh)
yeah, i live near JSC & "Challenger 7 Memorial Park". 2 of my kids watched the whole thing on TV in their classrooms
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 10:58 AM (4L69q)
"A plan that was invisible to so many was likely contrived by a very small group in secret who persuaded the president that this was a unique opportunity to put his stamp on a new and innovative program. I believe the President was poorly advised."
Video...
http://tinyurl.com/255ao6s
Posted by: Freedomplow at May 14, 2010 10:58 AM (jk/wP)
No doubt, getting is on much federal tit as possible was a big aspect to LBJ's presidency, and I'm proud of our impact on space exploration, but Obama can't stop us from being a great place.
Nothing he does will make any spot in Texas as awful as Chicago.
But he's willing to involve the federal government in choosing which Chevy dealers get shut down (in obviously partisan ways). No surprise he'll play like a Chicago street lawyer for the mob in just about any decision he makes.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 10:58 AM (dUOK+)
ahhh, sorta like how old DC-9's have Lorans in them instead of VOR's?
I think we should have more to show than that for the last 40 years.
Posted by: Tennesse Tuxedo at May 14, 2010 10:59 AM (uFokq)
Do I ever hate the aguments against the value of the American space program for the the U.S. and to the world. Everyone everywhere has benefitted from the technological advancements that were directly triggered by technological advancements that were required by the requirements of the space program.
Could it have been done better? Of course, it was run by the government for crying out loud. But no price can be placed on the technologies or benefits realized which were spun off from America striving against the state of the art.
Now someone else gets to lead.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 11:00 AM (r1h5M)
For him to not only pipe up on this, but to speak in these terms, is just a nuke.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 11:00 AM (dSJW9)
Posted by: damian at May 14, 2010 11:01 AM (4WbTI)
Barry, “Some many industries to destroy, so little time.”
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 11:03 AM (r1h5M)
Let's remind ourselves that this is the same Sheila Jackson Lee who asked when they were going to drive one of the Mars rovers over to where Neil Armstrong had landed.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Want to know why America's space program has languished so horribly? Because the American people started electing the likes of Sheila Jackson Lee to oversee that program.
Posted by: torquewrench at May 14, 2010 11:06 AM (aWrFJ)
Try less than five years. Exactly as if Constellation had still been going. And without blowing billions on a completely redundant pointless underperforming NASA launcher either.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 14, 2010 11:07 AM (c7UMz)
still hard to watch all the uncertainty about many family's futures running rampant in this community.
and yes, the Lone Star State will survive & thrive
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 11:09 AM (4L69q)
As my 10 year old said, Obama is crushing kids dreams to become astronauts by killing the space program. Never mind the murder of countless jobs in Central FL dependent on the space industry. It won't just kill the actual jobs at KSC and aerospace companies. Restaurants, retail and other places that depend on those workers to spend money at their establishments will also suffer.
Posted by: Cindermutha at May 14, 2010 11:10 AM (lQO5A)
You don't like your mP3 player, infrared cameras, artificial hearts, fire protection materials, and mine-sweeping equipment?
I honestly don't blame people for reaching this conclusion, however. NASA has done a shitty-ass job of selling itself, coasting entirely too much of big things that make loud noises.
Re: the shuttle itself.... There's no reason to fix what ain't broke. Challenger and Columbia were lost were because stupid-ass managers ignored the warnings of techs and made dumb, avoidable errors, not because of a top-to-bottom bad design. Is it perfect? Hell no. But we went to space with the craft we had and I think it's performed damned impressively.
However, I agree with you in principle. What should have happened was a natural progression from the Moon to Mars while the brains and the hardware were already in place. But that would have made sense, so...
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 11:11 AM (dSJW9)
So, of course, having an awesome Skylab is a bad idea. Having a man on Mars is 'wasteful'. They can't outright condemn the programs, but they can strangle them very easily.
I love the idea of private spacefaring. I don't see what the hell that has to do with NASA. How did the Space Shuttle interfere with someone having a commercial space program? Oh wait: it helped a lot in millions of ways, and did not interfere. The Space Shuttle's problem is that it assumed roles it wasn't ideal for. For dealing with a satellite in space, bringing one down (such as a Soviet system), it was excellent.
I hope the next President and congress go forward with Bush's vision. Space tourism flights are fucking pointless in comparison. I have no problem with that, but it's just plain not a replacement for Bush's vision. Of course, the democrats realize this is good for red states and blue states alike, and makes America look exceptional compared to China or Mexico or wherever, and will cry that it's wasteful spending.
Let's be honest: that's a lie.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 11:15 AM (dUOK+)
Posted by: t-bird at May 14, 2010 11:16 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 11:16 AM (h0rZ/)
she is truly beyond parody
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 11:16 AM (4L69q)
I'm focused like a laser on killing jobs!
Posted by: Barry O at May 14, 2010 11:18 AM (mR7mk)
No, but I think the aspect of the space program that led to that probably came about in the first half or less of the 40 years you're discussing. At least for the most part.
Saying we could do more is not saying there's a lack of faith or understanding that we did do a lot and get a lot out of the Space Shuttle or other NASA programs. But there's been a cutting back of plans and ambitions for so long. And the money we 'saved' went to garbage. We've been spending ourselves into oblivion, which makes this a complicated argument, but the spending on a manned Mars mission or a moon base would have a higher relative payoff. Potentially, an economic boom could occur, too.
I hope people recognize both the benefits of the space program and the wasted potential.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 11:19 AM (dUOK+)
right, entire communities, just like my hometown
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 11:19 AM (4L69q)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 11:20 AM (tTdaQ)
MSM struggling to prop up and give Barry a narrative to cling to as his ship continues to sink below the waves.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 11:22 AM (r1h5M)
Shep Smith just told me that "Coach Gunn" was the name of his first.
"Coach Gunn would make me bend over and grab my knees..."
I did not need to know that.
Posted by: Deety (thinking about changing nic to potatobug) at May 14, 2010 11:22 AM (aVzyR)
I think the rover is enough. Landing men would be foolhardy. We might even capsize the whole damn place.
Posted by: IreneFingIrene at May 14, 2010 11:23 AM (JKe0g)
otherwise, private spacefaring is more of a sweet ride or a communication sat (both are good things, but whatever). There's so little worth investing in right now. I would chip in a thousand to a company intending to colonize the moon or mars. I think it would be a worthy investment, albeit with risks financially.
Right now, there's little incentive to assemble capital and progress.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 11:23 AM (dUOK+)
BWAAHAHAAAHA LMAO hehehe..
Hey stoooopid Americans!! Remember this flick?
Man I love that Mel Brooks! He was soooo funneh!
Posted by: Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev at May 14, 2010 11:24 AM (pr+up)
Actually, miniaturization is a constant, as NASA is constantly looking for ways to save weight. Telemetry boards designed for Constellation are already on their way to the private sector. Insulating foam re-designed after the loss of Columbia and aerogels designed as little as 3 years ago are viable for commercial applications as well.
On the rest we agree, Lex. We should have moved forward with the Moon and Mars bases, but short-sighted politicians just went for the cheapest part of an overall plan. Without a broader vision, we... well, we got what we got.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 11:27 AM (dSJW9)
Remember the days when we thought our country could afford to continue space missions?
Watching this is like having that one last cigarette before quitting. Feels so good....
Posted by: Buzz Lightyear at May 14, 2010 11:28 AM (gbCNS)
"As the crew continues its post-insertion activities..."
Come on, that was worth the half-billion we just spent on that launch.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 11:30 AM (dSJW9)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 11:31 AM (vb5IK)
The Armstrong/Cernan/Lovell triumvirate used "slide to mediocrity" and "third-rate stature" in a joint letter they wrote calling the proposed changes to NASA "devastating".
That "slide to mediocrity" has a certain ring to it . . .
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 11:33 AM (4L69q)
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 11:35 AM (4L69q)
Posted by: BravoRomeoDelta at May 14, 2010 11:35 AM (4uj+h)
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 11:36 AM (dSJW9)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 11:36 AM (PjevJ)
is this tied to the Shep Smith story?
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 11:37 AM (4L69q)
Assuming this garble means you think it won't happen, fine. I think it will. Elon thinks it'll happen in 2 or 3 years; I'm a little more pessimistic.
Do they even have a mechanism for safety rating a commercial space vehicle for LEO, yet?
Yes. None of NASA's launchers ever met their man-rating criteria, though, and Ares I specifically had to have certain portions waived, but they do have criteria.
Not that it helped the crews of Columbia and Challenger, mind you.
At best Dragon is a domestic Soyuz capsule - it isn't a path forwards.
Personally, I think cheaper access to space IS an improvement.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 14, 2010 11:41 AM (c7UMz)
Posted by: garrett at May 14, 2010 11:43 AM (bj6XF)
78 NASA TV:
"As the crew continues its post-insertion activities..."
Come on, that was worth the half-billion we just spent on that launch.
Can they smoke in space? Isn't that dangerous?
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 11:45 AM (r1h5M)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 11:45 AM (h0rZ/)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 11:46 AM (h0rZ/)
Even today, the Space Shuttle and various other NASA initiatives greatly improve society. Someone can only deny that by inventing their own reality. Which many zealots happily do.
I hadn't heard about the F-18 procurement. That is pretty strange.
Waterhouse, so what? We already have commercial space capability. Is that ever going to go past tourism and sats? I don't think it will without a major change in property rights for other planets and the moon. And until then, if then is even feasible, NASA is incredibly relevant.
You can deny China has a space program all day, but the truth is they just don't talk too much about it. They do shocking things that come with no warning all the time, such as proving their ASAT capability.
Once they have a base on the moon, your commercial spacefaring potential takes a huge nosedive in my book. We need to do more than put things in orbit cheaply. That's a great things too, but so what? It doesn't replace Bush's vision.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 11:47 AM (dUOK+)
Another problem of socialism - making shit that you shouldn't just to show how well socialism works.
I wonder whether we'll figure this out?
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 11:48 AM (r1h5M)
Posted by: 48%er at May 14, 2010 11:49 AM (gxpfq)
Both of those losses were entirely avoidable. Managers were warned that 1) Challenger's SRB O-rings would not flex in below-freezing temperatures and 2) big freakin' holes were being left by debris from the ET. In both cases, engineers and techs knew the limits and sounded the alarm, but managers blew them off. Thiokol BEGGED NASA not to launch that day. Groupthink and red tape caused those tragedies. Neither of those crafts launched without at least some people knowing that they were pushing beyond what those in the technological know had deemed as safe.
Successful as Apollo was, it was only successful because of the horrible design fail that was the command module on Apollo 1. The errors that were made on that spacecraft were far, far more egregious than anything done on the shuttle.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 11:52 AM (dSJW9)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 11:53 AM (vb5IK)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 11:55 AM (JaO+v)
19
Am I the only unimpressed watching 40-year old technology?
holy shit, MOONRAKER was made 32 years ago. This is like still being impressed with Uncle Joe's big beautiful brand new 1976 Oldsmobile 98.
Posted by: Daniel Pearle's head at May 14, 2010 02:34 PM (uFokq)
You must have never driven a muscle car.You must have never seen a Saturn V launch (makes the shuttle look like July 4th fireworks).
You prolly don't even know about the X-15.
America has lost its balls. The ones we had 40 years ago.
Posted by: Ed Anger at May 14, 2010 11:57 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 14, 2010 11:58 AM (zOkCw)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 03:53 PM (vb5IK)
What amazes me is that politicians, and most people for that matter, cannot see that by cancelling the high risk/reward programs like the space program will actually make the problem worse. They are killing the only programs that have any potential at all for alleviating the problems you bring up. "Hey isn't that goose laying golden eggs?" "Yep. That's what we're having for lunch!"
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 11:59 AM (r1h5M)
Posted by: BravoRomeoDelta at May 14, 2010 12:01 PM (4uj+h)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at May 14, 2010 12:02 PM (mR7mk)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 12:04 PM (3WbbL)
O/T More kick-ass goodness from the F/U state:
34 reputed mobsters indicted in New Jersey Published: 5/14/10, 3:25 PM EDT
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - Thirty-four alleged members and associates of the New York-based Lucchese crime family - including two high-ranking leaders - have been indicted in New Jersey.
The indictment announced Friday by New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow includes first-degree charges of racketeering, conspiracy and money laundering
Authorities say the indictments stem from an investigation into an illegal gambling operation that handled billions of dollars in wagers, primarily on sporting events, and relied on extortion and violence to collect debts.
Among those named in the indictment are Joseph DiNapoli of Scarsdale, N.Y., and Matthew Madonna of Seldon, N.Y. - both 74 and alleged members of the Lucchese crime family's three-man ruling panel.
Posted by: dananjcon at May 14, 2010 12:05 PM (pr+up)
Posted by: BravoRomeoDelta at May 14, 2010 12:05 PM (4uj+h)
I hadn't decided to attend until i learned that media-hog, idiot, and poseur Sheila Jackson Lee would be present. Now i'm going for sure. This woman is the poster child for all that is wrong with liberals, Democrats, progressives, D.C., etc. On top of all those superior qualifications, she is an out-of-control narcissistic ego-maniac, just like the prez she so adores.
Sorry I wasn't paying attention to what you were saying, I was texting some very importent messages on my blackberry. Now have you met my friend, Dr. Roxanna Meyer? She's a family practice doc....
Posted by: moronette with panties in hand at May 14, 2010 12:09 PM (CfmlF)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 04:04 PM (3WbbL)
Absolutely right. But it's counterintuitive. Even many people on the right argue against spending money on space when "there are so many needs down here". It's like lowering taxes to increase revenue. Even though it's clear that it works, people can't bring themselves to embrace it.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at May 14, 2010 12:09 PM (r1h5M)
Posted by: Lex Luthor
Huh? What do you mean 'so what'? Isn't overcoming the gravity well the single biggest cost to spaceflight?
Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at May 14, 2010 12:11 PM (zgd5N)
Among those named in the indictment are Joseph DiNapoli of Scarsdale, N.Y., and Matthew Madonna of Seldon, N.Y. - both 74 and alleged members of the Lucchese crime family's three-man ruling panel.
Wait just a minute! Don't they make cowboy boots?
Posted by: Orange Neck Moronette at May 14, 2010 12:11 PM (CfmlF)
It's important, but when that's stated as an alternative to grander plans I ask 'so what?'
Mainly because I don't think the grander plans interfered with this natural progression of cheap ways to get stuff into orbit.
You couldn't tell that's what I meant? I think I was pretty clear, so I'm not sure what the 'huh' is about. It's nice, and I granted that, but when it's cited to justify gutting NASA, I think it's a load of bullshit.
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 12:14 PM (dUOK+)
Oh, his memories and expertise would be invaluable. Thank you.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 12:15 PM (dSJW9)
No, I'm with DPH on this one -- I haven't watched or cared about shuttle launches since Challenger went down. I simply find no reason to get excited about watching the umpteenth flight of an outmoded slab of rickety technology that Goes Nowhere and Does Nothing. I watched the Atlantis lift off an hour ago, and every once in a while catch a bit of a launch on the news, but my reaction is always "Oh? Another shuttle mission? That's nice."
I'm more distressed about what the final shuttle missions represent, which is the end of America's manned-space program. As worthless as it's been for the last few decades, at least it was something, a presence in space that we are desperately going to need again for the future defense of this country. But indeed America has lost its balls, when we have no desire to go back to the moon and establish a permanent presence there; or send men to Mars; or to do anything else in space other than mark time in a glorified orbital glider useful for nothing other than to cruise up to a sad joke of a "space station" and to remind Americans that the frontline force of the once-mighty NASA is a throwback to the era of "Video Killed the Radio Star".
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 14, 2010 12:16 PM (pGNEx)
Posted by: BravoRomeoDelta at May 14, 2010 12:16 PM (4uj+h)
I suspect a manned mission to the moon on a grander scale than just getting there, and also a mission to mars, would lead to many measures that are applied in commercial tourism and sat launches, not to mention your car and your kitchen and all kinds of things.
like I said, so you're going to try a lot of private stuff we already can do, and make it more efficient as best you can. Great. So what?
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 12:16 PM (dUOK+)
Both of those losses were entirely avoidable. Managers were warned that 1) Challenger's SRB O-rings would not flex in below-freezing temperatures and 2) big freakin' holes were being left by debris from the ET. In both cases, engineers and techs knew the limits and sounded the alarm, but managers blew them off. Thiokol BEGGED NASA not to launch that day. Groupthink and red tape caused those tragedies. Neither of those crafts launched without at least some people knowing that they were pushing beyond what those in the technological know had deemed as safe.
I totally remember where I was when the Challenger blew up. I was at my in-patient Acute Psych rotation for nursing school. I was in the lunchroom with a bunch of patients (a lot of them were unsuccessful suicide attemptees). We were watching the live broadcast. The silence and horror was deafening. I always wondered how it affected those people
I heard somewhere (I think it was Michael Savage many moons ago, before he was as strident and nutty as he is now) a scientist saying that the Challenger accident could have been prevented if freon was used in conjunction with the O-rings (either manufacturing or during the flight, can't remember), but because the gubamint had outlawed freon, it wasn't utilized as it normally had been in previous successful flights. I don't know if that's true or not.
Posted by: runningrn at May 14, 2010 12:17 PM (CfmlF)
THIS. It's an intangible, unmeasurable thing, but I really think that the greatest "spinoff" of the space program is the human capital. I'd bet my left boob that innumerable doctors, engineers, pilots, and chemists have entered the field because they were inspired by the space program. They may not have become astronauts, but it's what set their feet on the scientific road.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 12:18 PM (dSJW9)
Yes, and what a group of firecrackers they've got up on that dias. Holy crap, can't we implant an engineer's brain into Michael Buble's body?
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 12:20 PM (dSJW9)
Posted by: Crusty at May 14, 2010 12:21 PM (qzgbP)
shudder ROFL shudder ROFL
i thank God that i do not live in Sheila Jackson Lee's district; otherwise, i would probably be cooling my heels in prison IYKWIM
beyond beyond parody & just plain disgraceful to boot -- actually, words fail. Did anyone every explore the possibility that SJL & Cynthia McKinney may have been separated at birth?
one her biggest capers (SJL, that is, not the good "doctor") was how she made herself "indispensable" to the Michael Jackson family at the funeral for the twisted freak
and did taxpayers foot the bill for that & innumerable other asinine "junkets"?
of course they did
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 12:23 PM (4L69q)
Posted by: BravoRomeoDelta at May 14, 2010 12:24 PM (4uj+h)
Got that on this mission. Piers Morgan.
The shuttle went a ways to democratizing space flight, but I think we lost something without those hot fighter jocks in the silver suits.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 12:26 PM (dSJW9)
Posted by: Typical Liberal MSM Anchor (hopefully headed to the bottom of the ocean) at May 14, 2010 12:28 PM (SebJz)
Posted by: BravoRomeoDelta at May 14, 2010 12:30 PM (4uj+h)
here, here!
Posted by: texasmamma at May 14, 2010 12:37 PM (4L69q)
I do believe you have summed up the main reason why the Left fears Palin. They haven't rained down their wrath nearly as much on the more conservative, more hard-edged and (within terms of governing, anyway, at the moment) more powerful Christie. Because he's big and fat and... he's... you know... all FAT, and stuff!
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 12:37 PM (dSJW9)
here, here!
Those Mercury Seven were yummy, right?
Oooohhhhhhhh, first glimpse of the open cargo pay doors and Earth beyond on NASA TV. Right pretty.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 12:39 PM (dSJW9)
I'm more distressed about what the final shuttle missions represent, which is the end of America's manned-space program. As worthless as it's been for the last few decades, at least it was something, a presence in space that we are desperately going to need again for the future defense of this country. But indeed America has lost its balls, when we have no desire to go back to the moon and establish a permanent presence there; or send men to Mars; or to do anything else in space other than mark time in a glorified orbital glider useful for nothing other than to cruise up to a sad joke of a "space station" and to remind Americans that the frontline force of the once-mighty NASA is a throwback to the era of "Video Killed the Radio Star".
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 14, 2010 04:16 PM (pGNEx)
I think we agree with each other. The Saturn V was the schnitz. We couldn't build one today.The original "space shuttle" design was for a dinky piece of crap with two pilots and little payload capability. Carter wanted to cancel it but the USAF decided it would pay for it if it could be be turned into a school bus to place satellites into LEO. And that's we've been flying for decades.
We've now not only given up on exploration but also heavy launch. And big balls.
Posted by: Ed Anger at May 14, 2010 12:39 PM (7+pP9)
There were several different suggested designs. You can see the models of the evolving concept at NASM. That was just one sideline suggestion. NASA was actually ready to go with totally reusable boosters and fuel tanks, and Nixon was behind it, but the Carterfied budget forced a shrink-down to what it is now.
The Air Force, still pissed about the cancellation of the Dyna-Soar, actually paid in close to diddly squat. The DOD lent political weight to NASA but little else. The plan was to use the Shuttle as the one and only conduit to release satellites, since the engineers designed it to go 100 missions, both at KSC and Vandenburg. After Challenger, Shuttle was basically prohibited by law to launch commercial satellites. That's what started Atlas and Delta rolling again.
Space Shuttle by Dennis R. Jenkins has some fascinating stuff on this.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 12:51 PM (dSJW9)
Several competing designs. We have the "compromise" we have today because the more desirable SSTO was considered too expensive at the time.
Still, a shame to see my birds getting retired. Even now they're the most amazing flying machines ever built.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 14, 2010 01:02 PM (/si8V)
Posted by: damian at May 14, 2010 01:02 PM (4WbTI)
Hey fuck you NASA.
Posted by: Barbarian at May 14, 2010 01:39 PM (EL+OC)
Why not have this prok directed at something totally awesome?
I never understood why these pork makers didn't just go for wonderful things instead of useless things like Murtha's counter terror shop that was empty.
Oh yeah, Ameican exceptionalism stands in the way of "change."
Posted by: Lex Luthor, Ruler of Australia at May 14, 2010 01:40 PM (dUOK+)
I actually dig this argument. If we're gonna waste, let it be wasted on the big and the loud: Spacecraft, and importing Jeremy Clarkson for citizenship.
Posted by: Filly at May 14, 2010 02:24 PM (XL24d)
Posted by: Jean at May 14, 2010 02:49 PM (CPefM)
So, does this mean we don't have to watch any more propaganda and general drivel about "astronauts" and rocket ships like, for the foreseeable future? And that we might be able to keep a few more of our hard-earned dollars instead of firing them into outer space?
If so, outstanding.
Posted by: J. Moses Browning at May 14, 2010 10:42 PM (bdnuo)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2737 seconds, 263 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 14, 2010 10:17 AM (c7UMz)