http://www.texasjim.com/NASApix/NASA%20pix.htm
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
___
On Jul 31, 2005, at 8:40 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
While the power/weight
ratio is wonderful, the efficiency is worse than a conventional engine.
...
If things go well, they would probably have a good battery substitute
for
military use in about 4-5 years.
Which, I think, is the point -- it
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: space shuttle obsolete
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In what sense would these b
--- Jon Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just heard a report that astronauts are collecting tons of trash to
> return to earth rather than leaving it n orbit. I wonder if they plan
> to auction some of it off on ebay?~)
Now /that's/ a cool use of space flight technology ^_^
Somewhere I
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 10:49 PM
> Subject: Re: space shuttle obsolete
>
&
I've been an intermittent lurker on this list for several years and
appreciate the courteous and informative responses.
Just to clarify, I did not mean to imply that we could launch with
nuclear power sources, but to launch a couple smaller nuclear powered
orbital modules to conduct orbital and
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: space shuttle obsolete
>He thought, IIRC, that he and his grad students could, if
> they chose, build a rocke
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gautam wrote:
>
> > He thought, IIRC, that he and his grad students
> could, if
> > they chose, build a rocket that could put 10 kgs
> in
> > LEO for about $50,000. It was just mindblowing -
> I
> > wish I had a tape of the presentation so I could
>
Gautam wrote:
He thought, IIRC, that he and his grad students could, if
they chose, build a rocket that could put 10 kgs in
LEO for about $50,000. It was just mindblowing - I
wish I had a tape of the presentation so I could show
it to people.
Fascinating stuff, Gautam, but why _wouldn't they
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In what sense would these be nuclear powered?
> Nuclear propulsion is
> practical for long, slow accelerations, not lifting
> off a massive body like
> the earth. Relatively little progress has been made
> in that area because
> the physics is straight
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 1:40 AM
Subject: space shuttle obsolete
> Use tried and true disposable solid fuel boosters to launch satellites,
> robotic missions, scientific experiments, etc. And w
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jon Mann
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:10 AM
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: space shuttle obsolete
Ever since the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on takeoff I realized
NASA technology is neither
Ever since the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on takeoff I realized
NASA technology is neither safe nor cost effective, but a multi billion
dollar business. I believe that the Russian approach to orbital
launches is cheaper and far less dangerous. It appears the Chinese
will also be
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:50:45 -0500
>Actually, there are plenty of pork-barrel bills and studies that could
>probably be eliminated to free up quite a few millions.
Sure, a mil
>Actually, there are plenty of pork-barrel bills and studies that could
>probably be eliminated to free up quite a few millions.
Sure, a million year or a million there, but I believe that NASA's budget
was cited as being $15 bil. So, as they say around here, "a billion here,
a billion there, p
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 08:24:13 -0500
At 07:16 PM 2/2/2003 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>The reason I call it BS is because I'm one of those idiots who thinks
they
>ought to t
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My father-in-law is a well known rural sociologist
> at Wisconsin , and my
> wife has degrees in social work and sociology. So I
> understand sociology
> and appreciate that it has worth. But your scenario
> reminds me of the
> optimistic studies that
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 08:31:11AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> I couldn't help but snicker that in your previous message you decided
> that the most efficient use of money was more spending on QED.
Could you help but notice he mentioned other fields as well? Without
even looking back, I remem
At 12:00 AM 2/4/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>> No, no, no. Spend the money on *social science*, well some of it...a
>billion,
>> half a billion. Do you know how much basic economics and sociology you
>can
>> do with 250 million dollars?
>
>But, they are not sciences. They are areas of study, s
At 07:16 PM 2/2/2003 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>The reason I call it BS is because I'm one of those idiots who thinks they
>ought to triple NASAs budget, perhaps more.
What do you cut? Or do you raise taxes?Or do you advocatea defici
spending to accomplish this?
>This is our future we
At 10:29 PM 2/3/03 -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
No, no, no. Spend the money on *social science*, well some of it...a
billion,
half a billion. Do you know how much basic economics and sociology you can
do with 250 million dollars? Just think of how much less we would need to
spend on police and
- Original Message -
From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
>
> > Huh? No hard feelings, but that is no more accurate than stating that
>
> Huh? No hard feelings, but that is no more accurate than stating that
> "natural farming with horses is better for the ecology than modern
> farming." Very little cutting edge science is done in space. The only
> exception to this that I konw of is Hubble.
Don't forget planetary science--esp
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
>
> IIRC the crystal experiments are a medical program and are partially
funde
On 3 Feb 2003 at 1:08, Damon wrote:
>
> >Nevertheless, aerospace continues to make strides in propulsion,
> >avionics, materials, and the design process itself.
>
> I would agree with this. One of the industries that pushes the
> envelope in terms of aircraft technology is obviously the military
Erik said:
> Does money grow on trees in your parts, Rob? It doesn't in Washington
> (see link below). Where do you think all this money is going to come
> from?
Given that Bush wants to increase the US military budget to USD500
billion per year, it must be readily available somewhere...
Rich
G
- Original Message -
From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
> > Aerospace has hit a technological wall, as far as I can see. 30 year
old
>
Nevertheless, aerospace continues to make strides in propulsion, avionics,
materials, and the design process itself.
I would agree with this. One of the industries that pushes the envelope in
terms of aircraft technology is obviously the military. 50 years ago having
the fastest performing fi
At 09:02 PM 2/2/03 -0800, Deborah Harrell wrote:
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1559861
>
> Nuclear power
>
> A clever new design could lead to a kinder, gentler
> form of nuclear power
>
>
Such a reactor would certainl
> Aerospace has hit a technological wall, as far as I can see. 30 year old
> designs are still competitive in the commercial market head to head against
> modern designs. Contrast that with computers.
I do not think this is true. There are certainly some vernerable designs for
airframes--for e
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1559861
>
> Nuclear power
>
> A clever new design could lead to a kinder, gentler
> form of nuclear power
>
> IT SOUNDS impossible: a nuclear reactor that
> generates electricity
> from n
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
> Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> >Jeez Erik, you act like you think the shu
On 2 Feb 2003 at 18:03, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 04:57:19PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: > BS
> Maru
>
> I don't think so. The shuttle is a money-burning behemoth. An
> alternative, modern space plane is needed. But they cancelled the
> program, presumably because the shuttl
On 2 Feb 2003 at 19:16, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> The reason I call it BS is because I'm one of those idiots who thinks
> they ought to triple NASAs budget, perhaps more.
>
> This is our future we are investing in.
To space. Not to NASA.
Dismantle NASA..it's an entrenched burocracy.
Andy
Dawn F
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 09:11:45PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> > Jeez E
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
> Now, this isn't exactly science or technology research (although many of
> their
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 09:52:59PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
&g
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
>Steam's density can be controlled
> very finely, so it can be used to slow passi
Does money grow on trees in your parts, Rob? It doesn't in Washington
(see link below). Where do you think all this money is going to come
from? Maybe after the fairies and elves get done installing your fiber
to the home broadband connection 100Mbps for only $19.95, they will
build NASA a space v
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Jeez Erik, you act like you think the shuttle is all NASA does.
I'm sure there are places where they could be more efficient but they are
operating on a minimal budget.
But what they are showing the public is pretty poor return to the
public. Who really cares about how
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 09:11:45PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> Jeez Erik, you act like you think the shuttle is all NASA does.
Jeez, Rob, are you on drugs?
> I'm sure there are places where they could be more efficient but they are
> operating on a minimal budget.
$15 BILLION is not minimal
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 08:50:37PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> > NASA has be
Now, this isn't exactly science or technology research (although many of
their projects use or develop some new technology), but this is another
example of efficient use of money. Ashoka is my favorite charity, by the
way.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jan/ashoka.htm
excerpts:
And entrep
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 08:50:37PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> NASA has been pretty much starved to death since Nixon.
Let me starve on $15 BILLION per year
> It should come as no surprise.
It sure as hell surprises me!
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter
Here's an example of efficient use of research money. He says he can see
whether it works for only $2M!!! Even if it costs 200 times that, it is
cheaper than a single shuttle launch.
***
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1559861
Nuclear power
Hail, Caesar
Jan 30th
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 07:16:19PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> > The
Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 7:35 PM
> Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
>
> > On Sun, Feb 02,
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 08:18:49PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> > But wh
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 07:16:19PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> The reason I call it BS is because I'm one of those idiots who thinks
> they ought to triple NASAs budget, perhaps more.
That would be more than $150 per person or about $450 per household,
just for NASA. Unless NASA starts spend
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 08:18:49PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> But what comes to mind right off is that Nasa (and most gov. agencies)
> give contracts to the lowest bidder, though hindsight sometimes tells
> one that it might have been better to have spent more money at the
> offset.
Hindsig
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 07:16:19PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> > The
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 07:16:19PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> The reason I call it BS is because I'm one of those idiots who thinks
> they ought to triple NASAs budget, perhaps more.
I don't. Not until it can be demonstrated that NASA can make efficient
use of the money. There are lots of g
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 04:57:19PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> > BS Maru
&g
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 04:57:19PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> BS Maru
I don't think so. The shuttle is a money-burning behemoth. An
alternative, modern space plane is needed. But they cancelled the
program, presumably because the shuttle was taking most of NASA's
budget. I don't necessarily
crumbles, as it did in 1986 with Challenger and last week with
Columbia, we falsely think the promise of America goes with it.
Unfortunately, the core problem that lay at the heart of the Challenger
tragedy applies to the Columbia tragedy as well. That core problem is the
space shuttle itself. For
56 matches
Mail list logo
