Why is space so unpopular!!!

espins1 wrote:

In order to quote a post from Manstein's Revenge, all you have to do is remove the apostrophe before posting... the issue is that the forum software interprets the apostrophe as a single quote mark, which causes the error.

No, there's no apostrophe. This is a on again/off again error that's cropped up in the past couple of weeks. I hit quote, type my reply (retort?) and hit submit and either get a "non-matching quote blocks" error. When I delete the user name I'm quoting it posts fine, as I did above with Manstein's post. Then I quoted my own post and it worked fine.

It's wierd!

edit See, works fine now!  Go figure! /edit 

espins1 wrote:

The apostrophe is only a problem where the users names is inside the brackets from the quote.... trust me on this one.  Quote something from Manstein, delete the apostrophe and voila, it works just fine.

Oh, you mean that apostrophe! I just did a quick test in preview mode and it works fine. I'll have to see if all of the posts where I've had this problem has also had an apostrophe in it. It still a bug in the software IMHO. A user's name shouldn't affect the coding like that, or at the very least the software should recognize the limitation and prevent users from having an apostrophe in their alias.

Thanks for the work around!

Bill

"Space is also limited to a few selected folks who are given the chance to use the equipment."

 Fortunately, I have been able to spend time with the equipment and the people who flew it.  When you look at the way the space execs and some astronauts withdrew after Apollo, it is very disheartening.  Joe Gavin who headed up Grumman at one point and was a senior player in the development of the lunar module, recently sent a letter to AWST criticing the manned flight plans to moon and mars.  Neil Armstrong became a recluse when it came to speaking publicly.  He evens refuses to sign for Fed Ex packages worrying that someone is trying to get his autograph.  Where have they been in moving the space dream forward?  The point I am trying to get to is that there were no space evangalists out there.  Look at Werner Von Braun or John Glenn, when they spoke, you felt it!  They had the vision and the spirit in them.  When they spoke, they spoke for free, not for for high speaker fees.  They had a vision they wanted to share and evangalize...THAT is what has been missing.  People are still interested but they don't see a vision.  We wasted 30 years in low earth orbit in a craft that was essentially an X vehicle.  Where we are now is restarting the Apollo program.  It is a travesty that we destroyed the tools and plans for the most successful and powerful booster ever made.  The current plan for the moon is flawed in that the technologies for an airless, dry environment are much different than that for a world with water, wind, and other types of weather.  The myth that we can launch from the moon to mars is flawed as well.  Never happen...take way more energy to get off the moon to mars than from the earth to mars.

Bottomline?  We need the people who live and breathe the vision.  They are the ones who will go out and preach on thier own time...kind of like Rob Zubrin :)  They will inspire!

To start with, the lead line for this thread cannot be answered. Space cannot be unpopular. Modeling space exploration is unpopular. But that should not concern any or all of you.

I was in grade school in 1960 and space was my passion. Not so much technology because it was all pretty much a military secret, i.e. imaginary to me, but I loved Science Fiction books and in particular illustrations. I was a futurist.

At the same time, it is important to stress that we lived in an age of fear much worse than we do now. It was an even proposition that we would all die in a nuclear war, in our minds. We practiced duck-and-cover at school; there was a bomb shelter in our neighborhood.

Space exploration in my mind recalled the last heroes. My initial modelling was square rigged ships, Age of Exploration, American Revolution.

I mailed in a dime and belonged to a subscription that sent me a space model every month.

My thought is that we are not futurists anymore. Our attention spans have been shortened. I suspect however that the Cosmos will outlive us, sooner than we realize.

It really pained me to see NASA's current mission described as a "joke". Imagine if it did not exist. I would take a place on the Shuttle in an instant.

I have found a very strong interest in space exploration and science fantasy among...Catholic Priests. Maybe a little bit ironic if we go back 500 years, but to me it speaks to a view towards a better world.

Bill

Manstein's revenge wrote the following,      

...space is so unpopular because all our space program now consists of is launching 30 year old technology into near-earth orbit and then trying to figure out how to get it back down without it burning up...

...the Space Shuttle's mission is now "to survive"...it is a joke, an expensive joke...I am so SICK of hearing about those tiles, please...

Not sure what you mean by "our space program"? Send in you resume' sir. I hear they're looking for a new leader. You may have the right stuff?(no disrespect intended)            

gulfstreamV wrote:

Manstein's revenge wrote the following,       ...space is so unpopular because all our space program now consists of is launching 30 year old technology into near-earth orbit and then trying to figure out how to get it back down without it burning up... ...the Space Shuttle's mission is now "to survive"...it is a joke, an expensive joke...I am so SICK of hearing about those tiles, please... Not sure what you mean by "our space program"? Send in you resume' sir. I hear they're looking for a new leader. You may have the right stuff?(no disrespect intended)

...what I meant by "our" space program is the taxpayers of the USA...as far as my resume', maybe I do, but I'm for sure that NASA has turned into a govt. bureaucracy...maybe that was good in the begining, but it certainly seems to hurt the agency these days...I suppose you feel our space program is just peachy? 

bondoman wrote:

To start with, the lead line for this thread cannot be answered. Space cannot be unpopular. Modeling space exploration is unpopular. But that should not concern any or all of you. I was in grade school in 1960 and space was my passion. Not so much technology because it was all pretty much a military secret, i.e. imaginary to me, but I loved Science Fiction books and in particular illustrations. I was a futurist. At the same time, it is important to stress that we lived in an age of fear much worse than we do now. It was an even proposition that we would all die in a nuclear war, in our minds. We practiced duck-and-cover at school; there was a bomb shelter in our neighborhood. Space exploration in my mind recalled the last heroes. My initial modelling was square rigged ships, Age of Exploration, American Revolution. I mailed in a dime and belonged to a subscription that sent me a space model every month. My thought is that we are not futurists anymore. Our attention spans have been shortened. I suspect however that the Cosmos will outlive us, sooner than we realize. It really pained me to see NASA's current mission described as a "joke". Imagine if it did not exist. I would take a place on the Shuttle in an instant. I have found a very strong interest in space exploration and science fantasy among...Catholic Priests. Maybe a little bit ironic if we go back 500 years, but to me it speaks to a view towards a better world. Bill

I describe it as a joke because if you watch any coverage of it right now all you hear about are tiles..."attempt to repair tiles"..."running trials to see if the loss of tiles will affect reentry"..."size of area the tiles are missing from is"..."space walk to repair tiles"..."NASA has three options in the repair of the tiles"...etc, etc, etc...

...just getting the Shuttle down safely seems to have become the mission itself---EVERY TIME THE THING FLIES...you may be okay with that, but I'm not...  

grandadjohn wrote:

They have become TOO concerned with safety

Typical Mission sequence:

1) Space Shuttle launched today. Tune in for tile damage report on 6:00 news...

2) Space Shuttle is in orbit with what Nasa calls "minimal tile damage" from today's launch...

3) Nasa considers space walk after close up pictures taken from the special robotic arm, that was designed to take pictures of damaged tiles, revealed damaged tiles today after shuttle performed "space flip," a manuever designed to show damaged tiles on the belly of the shuttle...

4) yadda yadda yadda...

Astronaut Buck wrote:

The myth that we can launch from the moon to mars is flawed as well.  Never happen...take way more energy to get off the moon to mars than from the earth to mars.

Buck,

It would be interesting to have you explain this as the escape velocity from the moon is 2.4km/s compared to 11.2km/s from Earth.  If you have the same specific impulse engine and the same mass to move, you get a lot further from the moon than the Earth.  Depending, too, on when  you launch, there are smaller delta-v's from the Moon.....

-Ro

"Escaping the gravity well of Earth is the part that costs."

I dunno ... if we use situational science, a la the Bush administration regarding environmental issues,  it shouldn't be a problem at all.

LOL!

In this case, "costs" also includes energy and time. Factors ignored by the neo-cons! 

Typical Mission sequence: 1) Space Shuttle launched today. Tune in for tile damage report on 6:00 news... 2) Space Shuttle is in orbit with what Nasa calls "minimal tile damage" from today's launch... 3) Nasa considers space walk after close up pictures taken from the special robotic arm, that was designed to take pictures of damaged tiles, revealed damaged tiles today after shuttle performed "space flip," a manuever designed to show damaged tiles on the belly of the shuttle... 4) yadda yadda yadda...

Just because the media only focuses on "What's gone wrong this time" in the same way they focus on murders, bombings, floods, hurricanes etc... does not mean that Space is boring, too conservative or not worth pursuing. 

Come on folks...see past the sensationalistic media and look to what we are doing. 

We ARE putting human beings in an environment that is completely hostile to life.  We do this with a modicum of regularity and success.  Yes we've had failures...terrible, tragic ones that have caused us to stop, analyze, improve and then try it again.  Unfortunately, the media (and the lemming public and politicians) only focus on the negative. What about the positive?

We are exploring the greatest unknown left to the human race.  We've walked on one celestial body and scratched the surface of another.  We put human beings in a place that is lethal to our exisitence.  We do this to explore the unknown, to try and answer the questions of:  Are we alone?  Can we move away from this little blue marble and survive?  Can we learn to live in harmony with the universe instead of just using it up?  Will there be a continuation of the human race...?  We do this because I believe it's in our nature to explore the unknown.

I enjoy SCUBA and when I'm underwater 100' below the thin little slice of my entire existence, I stop sometimes and wonder what it would be like to be floating above the earth, looking down at it.  I recognize that I too - in that momemt - am in an envirnonment lethal to my existence and that it would take only a very small malfunction to end my life.  But I do it because I want to experience in person what I've only seen on that little square box called a TV.  I want to explore in my own little way a piece of the universe unkown to me.

We MUST move out of near-earth orbit.  We must expand our knowledge beyond the moon, beyond our solar system...beyond our galaxy.  Why?  Because it's there and we're here! 

We're just little chicken trying to get to the other side !

grandadjohn wrote:

To much attention is given to the negatives and NOT enough to the positives. Man's future may while depend on us leaving earth

Not according to the people in this thread with "the world is flat" mentality.....  

p.s. I'm not one of "them", I know the importance of continued exploration in space.

espins1 wrote:

grandadjohn wrote: To much attention is given to the negatives and NOT enough to the positives. Man's future may while depend on us leaving earth Not according to the people in this thread with "the world is flat" mentality.....   p.s. I'm not one of "them", I know the importance of continued exploration in space.

I know, if it was up to them, we would still be living in caves

Bgrigg wrote:

I await Buck's response as well, but he may be taking into consideration that first you have to GET to the moon. Escaping the gravity well of Earth is the part that costs.

Keep in mind that you can manufacture all the fuel you need to get to Mars on the moon.  There is no need to lift it out of the Earth's gravity well.  So, yeah, *getting* to the moon is one thing, but you don't need to take along a whole lot of mass (ie - fuel) to get to Mars.  Make it in situ on the moon.

Also, for the record, the cost get getting off Earth is somewhere around $20,000 per kg.  Heh.

-Ro

Oh I realize that once on the moon we can do all sorts of things.

But we haven't been to the moon in over 30 years. First we have to either rent the Russian's equipment, or re-engineer the Saturn V to launch umpteen loads to the moon, land, build a facility that can support life, manufacture a ship and fuel it.

Once all that's done, easy-peasy! I wonder how many kilos all that lot is? More than 10 I bet!

I think this will be Buck's point. It would be cheaper and quicker to build a single use ship, blast to Mars, land, plant the flag (thereby owning Mars for all time, according to the Russian's Arctic claim!) and return. It will take a LOT of energy to just build that base on the moon. Of course, doing that single use ship would be a mistake in the long run.

This is the reason I've never been happy with the shuttle. All that money we "wasted" building what is in essence a very high altitude glider, to build a space station that will immediately start decaying in orbit, both actual decay of the equipment, as well as the constant boost to stay in orbit. We could already have established a base on the moon, and be building the interplanetary space craft. 

Bgrigg wrote:

Oh I realize that once on the moon we can do all sorts of things. But we haven't been to the moon in over 30 years. First we have to either rent the Russian's equipment, or re-engineer the Saturn V to launch umpteen loads to the moon, land, build a facility that can support life, manufacture a ship and fuel it. Once all that's done, easy-peasy! I wonder how many kilos all that lot is? More than 10 I bet! I think this will be Buck's point. It would be cheaper and quicker to build a single use ship, blast to Mars, land, plant the flag (thereby owning Mars for all time, according to the Russian's Arctic claim!) and return. It will take a LOT of energy to just build that base on the moon. Of course, doing that single use ship would be a mistake in the long run. This is the reason I've never been happy with the shuttle. All that money we "wasted" building what is in essence a very high altitude glider, to build a space station that will immediately start decaying in orbit, both actual decay of the equipment, as well as the constant boost to stay in orbit. We could already have established a base on the moon, and be building the interplanetary space craft.

Bgrigg wrote:

Oh I realize that once on the moon we can do all sorts of things. But we haven't been to the moon in over 30 years. First we have to either rent the Russian's equipment, or re-engineer the Saturn V to launch umpteen loads to the moon, land, build a facility that can support life, manufacture a ship and fuel it. Once all that's done, easy-peasy! I wonder how many kilos all that lot is? More than 10 I bet! I think this will be Buck's point. It would be cheaper and quicker to build a single use ship, blast to Mars, land, plant the flag (thereby owning Mars for all time, according to the Russian's Arctic claim!) and return. It will take a LOT of energy to just build that base on the moon. Of course, doing that single use ship would be a mistake in the long run. This is the reason I've never been happy with the shuttle. All that money we "wasted" building what is in essence a very high altitude glider, to build a space station that will immediately start decaying in orbit, both actual decay of the equipment, as well as the constant boost to stay in orbit. We could already have established a base on the moon, and be building the interplanetary space craft.

NASA knows all of these things...so why did we all think they keep us in near-earth orbit, just to somehow placate those of us who want to be "Space Frontier Trekees"? To create the illusion we are somehow exploring the vastness of space? Where the shuttle goes is hardly worthy of being called "space"...even a moon shot is barely scratching the outside of space...I feel it is simple propaganda...

Mansteins revenge wrote:

Bgrigg wrote: Oh I realize that once on the moon we can do all sorts of things. But we haven't been to the moon in over 30 years. First we have to either rent the Russian's equipment, or re-engineer the Saturn V to launch umpteen loads to the moon, land, build a facility that can support life, manufacture a ship and fuel it. Once all that's done, easy-peasy! I wonder how many kilos all that lot is? More than 10 I bet! I think this will be Buck's point. It would be cheaper and quicker to build a single use ship, blast to Mars, land, plant the flag (thereby owning Mars for all time, according to the Russian's Arctic claim!) and return. It will take a LOT of energy to just build that base on the moon. Of course, doing that single use ship would be a mistake in the long run. This is the reason I've never been happy with the shuttle. All that money we "wasted" building what is in essence a very high altitude glider, to build a space station that will immediately start decaying in orbit, both actual decay of the equipment, as well as the constant boost to stay in orbit. We could already have established a base on the moon, and be building the interplanetary space craft.  NASA knows all of these things...so why did we all think they keep us in near-earth orbit, just to somehow placate those of us who want to be "Space Frontier Trekees"? To create the illusion we are somehow exploring the vastness of space? Where the shuttle goes is hardly worthy of being called "space"...even a moon shot is barely scratching the outside of space...I feel it is simple propaganda...

gulfstreamV wrote:

I know Canada had a major part in the boom/articulating arm on the shuttle, but why are you considering that a waste of money? NASA is what it is, and I'd like to think of it as a program that does what it can with the resources it has. Public opinion seems to be always smarter and more efficent. Maybe NASA should just shut it's doors and let Canada or some other nation take over? Have at it, Space is a big place.

NASA has turned into a huge bureaucracy who spends more money each year on administration than space programs. We’ve ended up with drunk astronauts who sleep around. I consider the space shuttle a "waste" because had we taken the last Saturn V and used it, instead of turning it into a roadside attraction, we (meaning the world) would have a base on the moon. NASA took our dream and put it in a geosynchronous orbit.

I blame the late Senator William Proxmire, who used to hand out “the Golden Fleece” which he claimed was examples of tax dollars being wasted. He took the big money away from the Space Program and handed it to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin. Take a look at how much the US spends on farm subsidies and compare that to the entire budget of NASA and think hard on it.  

Bgrigg wrote:

gulfstreamV wrote: I know Canada had a major part in the boom/articulating arm on the shuttle, but why are you considering that a waste of money? NASA is what it is, and I'd like to think of it as a program that does what it can with the resources it has. Public opinion seems to be always smarter and more efficent. Maybe NASA should just shut it's doors and let Canada or some other nation take over? Have at it, Space is a big place. NASA has turned into a huge bureaucracy who spends more money each year on administration than space programs. We’ve ended up with drunk astronauts who sleep around. I consider the space shuttle a "waste" because had we taken the last Saturn V and used it, instead of turning it into a roadside attraction, we (meaning the world) would have a base on the moon. NASA took our dream and put it in a geosynchronous orbit. I blame the late Senator William Proxmire, who used to hand out “the Golden Fleece” which he claimed was examples of tax dollars being wasted. He took the big money away from the Space Program and handed it to the dairy farmers in Wisconsin. Take a look at how much the US spends on farm subsidies and compare that to the entire budget of NASA and think hard on it.