|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
 Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
That does suck.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
it way sucks, it's like 5 years worth of work down the s*****r.
The way they explained it, even with the parachute, the samples might shatter, hence the need for the helicopter stunt pilot pickups.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | it way sucks, it's like 5 years worth of work down the s*****r.
The way they explained it, even with the parachute, the samples might shatter, hence the need for the helicopter stunt pilot pickups.
-Jesus- |
Yeah, I read the article. Bet it was a lot longer than 2 additional years in planning and building that thing. I'd say there's a lot of Nasa engineers that are going to be drowning their sorrows tonight.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
I wonder if the stunt pilots still get paid.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I would hope so. Jennifer Lopez still got paid for Gigli, and that crashed and burned faster than this did.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | I would hope so. Jennifer Lopez still got paid for Gigli, and that crashed and burned faster than this did. |
Yes the difference was there was never a hope of recovering that mess.
Genesis had a chance.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
we should disband nasa and remake a new space program.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Spitulski
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4344
Location: Washington
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tolanin wrote: | | we should disband nasa and remake a new space program. |
TOFKAN!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Spitulski wrote: | | Tolanin wrote: | | we should disband nasa and remake a new space program. |
TOFKAN! |
?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:21 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tolanin wrote: | | we should disband nasa and remake a new space program. |
The idea has been tossed around a bit. There are two sides to it. As NASA, the government can pretty much set the standards the rest of the world follows. However, NASA's mandate is not to lead. They merely carry out the wishes of the government. They have no autonomy.
A public space administration would be problematic. And a private space administration, well, do we really want the space program being run by a company like Microsoft or Coca Cola?
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | [And a private space administration, well, do we really want the space program being run by a company like Microsoft or Coca Cola?
-Jesus- |
that's a scary thought. I don't even want Microsoft being run by a company like Microsoft.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 14:50 Post subject:
|
|
|
Somebody sent me a PM saying "They need to rename Genesis to Icarus"
That works on so many levels it's eerie.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 15:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
| sinrakin wrote: | | Nahualli wrote: | [And a private space administration, well, do we really want the space program being run by a company like Microsoft or Coca Cola?
-Jesus- |
that's a scary thought. I don't even want Microsoft being run by a company like Microsoft. |
fact is our space program is lame, and they dont set the standards for jack shit anymore hardly, its pretty f*****g bad when the russians are better at putting things in the air than we are. A private company would never take on the space program, one the govt would still have to pay for it in some way, two if a private company wanted to do it they already can (and some do, the russians space program for instances is very very near private).. NASA is an old decript program, they no longer have the abilities and talent they once had for whatever reason... thinking they are on top of the worlds space research is ignorant.
I mean think about it, what has NASA done in the last 20 years thats really worth note? Putting up rovers and stuff is things they have already done, its not accomplishment on their part that since computers and technology has advanced so much the rovers they make are better.. the reason the pictures are crisper isnt because nasa is so great but because private industry has such awesome technological advancements without increasing weight or power consumption... Fact is we cant put a man into space right now, we cant put a man on the moon never mind mars, we have an aging shuttle fleet and no technology developed to meaningfully improve it in the next design. I say to disband NASA because it would be easier to reconstruct a good space program with a clear mision from the ground up than go through the thousand layers of redtape in the current organization...
I mean you really have to wonder about an organization whose greatest achievement of late has been to put 2 cheesy rovers on a planet while in the mean time neglecting developement of shit that is like actually important... water and life on mars is all well and good but when it comes down to it who really gives a f**k.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 15:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tolanin wrote: | | I mean you really have to wonder about an organization whose greatest achievement of late has been to put 2 cheesy rovers on a planet while in the mean time neglecting developement of shit that is like actually important... water and life on mars is all well and good but when it comes down to it who really gives a f**k. |
Like I said NASA's mandate is to carry out the wishes of the administration. Up until recently, the administration was not interested in putting men anywhere in the universe. You can't really blame NASA for anything, they're TOLD to do stuff, they don't decide for themselves.
This is why private space programs are in the works and why other countries seem to be advancing faster. The problem is the administration, not NASA.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 15:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | | Tolanin wrote: | | I mean you really have to wonder about an organization whose greatest achievement of late has been to put 2 cheesy rovers on a planet while in the mean time neglecting developement of shit that is like actually important... water and life on mars is all well and good but when it comes down to it who really gives a f**k. |
Like I said NASA's mandate is to carry out the wishes of the administration. Up until recently, the administration was not interested in putting men anywhere in the universe. You can't really blame NASA for anything, they're TOLD to do stuff, they don't decide for themselves.
This is why private space programs are in the works and why other countries seem to be advancing faster. The problem is the administration, not NASA.
-Jesus- |
NASA has a good amount of directive in terms of what they are doing, their huge public projects are determined by the administration but alot of NASAs problem is their own internal administration, they dont have a leader who is a good spokesperson anymore so the politicians just steamroll them.. when NASA had good leaders they could convince the public of something and then the politicians are forced into it but its not the case anymore... besides that just the developement of needed technologies has been seriously lacking.. i dont think it took a rocket scientist (pun intended) to realize that we needed better rockets and better vehicles for putting things into space and vice versa for landing them though thats not a huge problem unless your doing landings on things with gravity signatures the size of planets... thinking that they are handed a plan every year by someone outside the NASA administration that tells them exactly what they have to do is dumb, those people dont know what they are doing, NASA decides for itself with some limited direction from the outside similar to the military.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 15:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tolanin wrote: | | NASA decides for itself with some limited direction from the outside similar to the military. |
Totally backwards. NASA is at the mercy of Congress. If there's no budget for what NASA wants, guess what? NASA gets NADA. You are right tho it's exactly like the military. The military can't raise money for itself and it can't operate independently. Sure no Congressional official is going to tell them how to fight a war just like no Senator is going to tell NASA how to pilot a moon lander, but the idea is the same. They can ONLY operate on the mandate of Congress and the President. It doesn't matter if they had Howard Stern for Director, it wouldn't change squat. NASA has about as much general autonomy as the IRS, or any other government organization has.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 09/08/04 - 15:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | | Tolanin wrote: | | NASA decides for itself with some limited direction from the outside similar to the military. |
Totally backwards. NASA is at the mercy of Congress. If there's no budget for what NASA wants, guess what? NASA gets NADA. You are right tho it's exactly like the military. The military can't raise money for itself and it can't operate independently. Sure no Congressional official is going to tell them how to fight a war just like no Senator is going to tell NASA how to pilot a moon lander, but the idea is the same. They can ONLY operate on the mandate of Congress and the President. It doesn't matter if they had Howard Stern for Director, it wouldn't change squat. NASA has about as much general autonomy as the IRS, or any other government organization has.
-Jesus- |
except they like the military have public sway, they can convince people that they need more money with a charismatic spokesperson just like the military can, thats something the IRS cant do, my point is congress doesnt even read the budget, they give NASA x ammount of money to maybe do x thing if they feel like it (because NASA could never just cut funding it would be a public relations nightmare for them).. NASA sets its own initiatives after that pretty much. they decide what goes into the developement and such.. you say its not NASAs fault but then that the military is under the thumb of congress in the same way, then why the f**k hasnt our military technology stagnated like our space program has? Point is NASA gets money, they get more money if they convince congress but regardless they get money.. and then they do absolute shit with it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
