Quote from: tekla on April 05, 2012, 01:40:59 AM
I don't think that space exploration is over, it's just that the manned missions were way too hard and costly for little gain.  Real rocket scientists never wanted human exploration in the first place, unmanned missions were far more cost effect and required far less oversight.

Unmanned missions are fine too. Idc whether astronauts are involved or not, as long as we're working on the problem. There's no way it's healthy to just chill in our little corner when we know there's more out there to try to understand, especially while pissing in our own bed here on this planet.

Anyway I'm not a rocket scientist, those guys are engineers and I'm not that analytical. I'm a rocket surgeon. I care for people.

I am in a quandary.   The Labor Party has comprehensively stuffed up Federally and at State level,  >:(but the Liberals are led by people who are patently Homophobic and Transphobic.    The 3 independents have been rendered pretty well ineffectual in Canberra, and the Greens seem to be intent on wrecking the Tasmanian economy.   
I think I will vote for the Sex Party again.  Maybe I can have sex with the local candidate like I did when I was living in Victoria.  At least it's something! 

Karen.

Three words:
Mars Climate Orbiter

One word: Voyager...

But in reality Hubble (after the correction) and Chandra and Spitzer have each done more for interstellar understanding then all the maned missions combined.  People have not even begun to wrap their minds around what those photos, and the new reality they showed us, really mean.  I have a friend in NASA who says that having Hubble not work properly at first was a gift, by the time it was giving us valid data the ADD types had long forgotten it, and can't get upset about the new realities.

Quote from: Jamie D on April 05, 2012, 02:35:49 AM
Three words:

Mars Climate Orbiter

That was part of the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" fleet of spacecraft that met their doom.  As with the Mars Climate Orbiter, it was the simple conversion from English measurements to metric that was not done that spelled its doom.  Also the Mars Polar Lander, the aeroshell didn't separate during entry into the Martian atmosphere.  Genesis spacecraft made it back to earth after collecting solar wind particles, but crash landed in a briny puddle in the salt flats caused by the explosive bolts for parachute deployment being inserted backwards!  Data was retrieved from some of the broken silicon wafers though.  Possibly the same problem with the Mars Polar Lander mishap.  Similar explosive bolts were used on that aeroshell as well. 
  The director of the Lockheed Martin Denver plant came to our club meeting with hat in hand and apologized for these mishaps shortly after they happened and frankly explained these mishaps.  That fellow has got my respect.  Those L-M plant workers affectionately called that place "Fort Fumble" long before these mishaps. 

  It was the miscorrection of the mirror of the HST that really saved the space shuttle.  Four servicing missions corrected the problem and improvements were made with each mission.  This observatory was designed to be serviced by the shuttle.  The last service mission was to be scrubbed, but the popular outcry got funding plus a safety waiver to service it.  The next service mission will be done robotically to either service it or drag it down for a safe reentry over the Pacific. 

  Voyagers 1&2 are still operating at the edge of the Solar System sending solar and stellar wind data as it goes through the heliopause, the boundary where the solar wind flux meets the stellar wind of our galaxy.  The solar wind flux varies causing the changes at that boundary. 
  Joelene

or drag it down for a safe reentry over the Pacific

Is that 'safe reentry' determined by the same crack crew fine folks who put the bolts in backwards and didn't convert English to Metric?




The director of the Lockheed Martin Denver plant came to our club meeting with hat in hand and apologized for these mishaps shortly after they happened and frankly explained these mishaps.  That fellow has got my respect.
I'd have more respect if they returned the money they were paid to do it right.  Hell, I could have got lots of cheaper bids to screw it up.

  NASA has stated since to the manufacturers that all measurements be in metric.  The U.S. military had adopted metric measures long before that happened. 

  Having them refund the money would cause the $1M toilet to even cost more in the future!  The director was quite frank at that meeting and the future goals he stated to prevent these mishaps had come to pass.  This was a better explanation than NASA had after the investigations of the Challenger and Columbia disasters. 
  Joelene

This was a better explanation than NASA had after the investigations of the Challenger and Columbia disasters. 

You know I used to believe you until you wrote that.  Turns out that Richard Feynman's testimony for the Challenger disaster is beyond brilliance, it's the closest NASA ever got to truth.



To ignore that simple truth is to ignore science, lots of people are techs, few really do rocket science, and you are not one of them.

Million Dollar Toilet?

I read an account by a Russian space scientist and his conversation with a NASA scientist some time ago.  The NASA scientist was describing how they developed a pen that would write in Zero G,  at a cost of several million Dollars,  and several years work. 

The Russian expressed admiration for the details of the research, and then caused shock when he said they had done it years earlier at a cost of a few Roubles.    Pressed for the amazing details, his answer was' "we used a pencil."   

Americans always go for a technological approach.  Sometimes it is best to think a bit first, about what is actually required.

Karen.

Quote from: justmeinoz on April 06, 2012, 05:11:42 AM
Pressed for the amazing details, his answer was' "we used a pencil."   

Oh, ZING!

 "we used a pencil."

Yeah, well we don't make mistakes, so we don't need to use anything you can erase.  Actually there were lots of reasons NOT to use pencils.  One, they create dust, two they break tip and you don't want little lead tips floating around and getting into things.

Of course you could just ask them to point out where there is a Russian/Soviet Union flag on the moon.

  Using a pen was a military thing.  Nothing in the US military was done in pencil, especially logs and forms.  Those were done in blue, blue-black or black ink.  I was on watch and I had to log in hourly.  One night I had a pen with green ink in it as with the others who logged in earlier that night.  A Navy brat who was in my shore unit at the time saw this and really read me the riot act.  I told her that this is what I had to write with.  She saw the other entries and went back into her shop and got me a black pen. 
  As for loose pencil points, graphite dust and the other things.  The US spacecraft controls are more sensitive to floating debris.  The Russian capsules were made with more simpler and robust items inside.  The same with their military aircraft.  Their jet aircraft can land in a field as the western types cannot without incurring damage.  This is due to the pavement on their airstrips is not as good and there is a heaving of the soil during winters there. 
  Also on the shuttle there was debris floating around.  I saw a video of the first docking to the old MIR station and dander was seen floating in the shaft of sunlight.  The US Mercury capsules had some loose screws floating around.  The capsule that Gus Grissom rode in that was recovered from the bottom of the Atlantic was found to have a roll of Mercury dimes plus some cigarette butts left by the assemblers.  I saw this capsule when it toured in town. 
  Joelene

  P. S. Thumbs up for the Robamney poster! 

Quote from: Joelene9 on April 05, 2012, 02:44:53 PM
  That was part of the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" fleet of spacecraft that met their doom.  As with the Mars Climate Orbiter, it was the simple conversion from English measurements to metric that was not done that spelled its doom.  Also the Mars Polar Lander, the aeroshell didn't separate during entry into the Martian atmosphere.  Genesis spacecraft made it back to earth after collecting solar wind particles, but crash landed in a briny puddle in the salt flats caused by the explosive bolts for parachute deployment being inserted backwards!  Data was retrieved from some of the broken silicon wafers though.  Possibly the same problem with the Mars Polar Lander mishap.  Similar explosive bolts were used on that aeroshell as well. 
  The director of the Lockheed Martin Denver plant came to our club meeting with hat in hand and apologized for these mishaps shortly after they happened and frankly explained these mishaps.  That fellow has got my respect.  Those L-M plant workers affectionately called that place "Fort Fumble" long before these mishaps. 

  It was the miscorrection of the mirror of the HST that really saved the space shuttle.  Four servicing missions corrected the problem and improvements were made with each mission.  This observatory was designed to be serviced by the shuttle.  The last service mission was to be scrubbed, but the popular outcry got funding plus a safety waiver to service it.  The next service mission will be done robotically to either service it or drag it down for a safe reentry over the Pacific. 

  Voyagers 1&2 are still operating at the edge of the Solar System sending solar and stellar wind data as it goes through the heliopause, the boundary where the solar wind flux meets the stellar wind of our galaxy.  The solar wind flux varies causing the changes at that boundary. 
  Joelene

Good recap.

The contention, however, was, unmanned missions were far more cost effective and required far less oversight.

The Mars [Climate Orbiter] Project cost $193.1 million for spacecraft development, $125 million for the orbiter, $202.6 for the lander, $91.7 million for the launch, and $42.8 million for mission operations.

That's over $600 million down the drain because of lack of effective oversight.

Quote from: tekla on April 06, 2012, 12:31:28 AM
This was a better explanation than NASA had after the investigations of the Challenger and Columbia disasters. 

You know I used to believe you until you wrote that.  Turns out that Richard Feynman's testimony for the Challenger disaster is beyond brilliance, it's the closest NASA ever got to truth.



To ignore that simple truth is to ignore science, lots of people are techs, few really do rocket science, and you are not one of them.

Prof. Feynman was a genius who cut to the chase.  NASA management has never been particularly astute.

But you are being unnecessarily harsh.

Quote from: dalebert on April 05, 2012, 06:44:55 PM

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow