15 Nov
2008
15 Nov
'08
3:25 p.m.
bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
> And what was NASA doing for the last 30 years
???.
Hubble. Galileo. Cassini. Chandra. Deep Impact.
Swift. MRO. Spirit. Opportunity. Pheonix. Viking.
Messenger. Lunar Prospector. NEAR. Spitzer. ISS.
Ulysses. Voyager. Terra.
> It seems once MAN landed on the moon, NASA has
been a complete
> flop
Obviously.
KJ
15 Nov
15 Nov
8:41 p.m.
Ken Seefried wrote:
bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
Notice all that the payloads have all been about the same mass
and same solid cmos techology ...
> And what was NASA doing for the last 30 years
???.
>
Hubble. Galileo. Cassini. Chandra. Deep Impact.
Swift. MRO. Spirit. Opportunity. Pheonix. Viking.
Messenger. Lunar Prospector. NEAR. Spitzer. ISS.
Ulysses. Voyager. Terra.
> It seems once MAN landed on the moon, NASA
has been a complete
> flop
>
Obviously.
KJ
18 Nov
18 Nov
12:43 p.m.
On 11/15/08, bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca <bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca> wrote:
Ken Seefried wrote:
Yep, that Hubble telescope and the ISS both weigh as much as Voyager
did, and were launched in exactly the same fashion.
If you want to consider NASA a flop for sending out solid scientific
missions instead of flashy manned landings (which I like too, of
course), go ahead, but at least admit your reason for criticism.
John
--
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
bfranchuk at jetnet.ab.ca wrote:
Hubble. Galileo. Cassini. Chandra. Deep Impact. Swift. MRO. Spirit.
Opportunity. Pheonix. Viking.
And what was NASA doing for the last 30 years
???.
Messenger. Lunar Prospector. NEAR. Spitzer.
ISS.
Ulysses. Voyager. Terra.
Obviously.
KJ
Notice all that the payloads have all been about the same mass
and same solid cmos techology ...
It seems once MAN landed on the moon, NASA has
been a complete
flop
9:07 p.m.
John Floren wrote:
Yep, that Hubble telescope and the ISS both weigh as
much as Voyager
did, and were launched in exactly the same fashion.
If you want to consider NASA a flop for sending out solid scientific
missions instead of flashy manned landings (which I like too, of
course), go ahead, but at least admit your reason for criticism.
John
The reasion is the 'flashy' un-manned missons. <rant>This will be
my
last post
since it is OT, but I beleave in repair of equipment, rather than the
throw-away
state we are in. As a Canadian I can't say too much to a senator about how
I see NASA could be run better, but if were not for the latest stupid war
the fact that you can't put in orbit any private manned manned craft even
it was to the ISS, that I think is over the USA in orbits.</rant>
If you look at all the designs I have seen, 90% of the cost is R&D for a
super-sized launch craft.They have to use the other 10% for fuel .... ect.
That is the trend NASA was forced into do to the DOD, US Gov, and the
Budget system for R&D and RED tape.
5725
days inactive
5729
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
ken＠seefried.com -
slawmaster＠gmail.com