PDA

View Full Version : NASA manager admits lies about cost-effectiveness of Shuttle



ToSeek
2003-May-06, 05:35 PM
Explaining Thirty Years of Fudge (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03p1.html)

The original shuttle program manager admits that the figures given to Congress regarding budget, payload cost, and flights per year were known to be incorrect at the time.

A lot of people had surmised this, but so far as I know this is the first time anyone official has confessed that the justifications for the space shuttle were specious.

aporetic_r
2003-May-06, 05:44 PM
Alas, that's the kind of stuff that feeds HBs and conspiracy theorists of all kinds.

Aporetic
www.polisci.wisc.edu/~rdparrish

Glom
2003-May-06, 06:06 PM
ToSeek, I suggest you make an alert in the LC forum to allow the debunkers time to prepare to deal with the impending offensive by the Orc armies.

It comes as no surprise that Nixon was involved. And I'm not talking about just the deceit, but his determination to get his space legacy underway.

Duane534
2003-May-11, 04:49 AM
You know, I find it insulting that a country like the U.S., which claims to be independant of religious control, allows religious organizations to be tax-free but has to explain every dime it puts into the pursuit of science and space exploration.

Pinemarten
2003-May-11, 05:06 AM
You know, I find it insulting that a country like the U.S., which claims to be independant of religious control, allows religious organizations to be tax-free but has to explain every dime it puts into the pursuit of science and space exploration.


Religious organizations are not 'tax free' , they are considered 'non-profit organizations'.
If all their funds are returned to the people, their is no profit, and therefore no taxes.

Celestial Mechanic
2003-May-11, 05:10 AM
You know, I find it insulting that a country like the U.S., which claims to be independent of religious control, allows religious organizations to be tax-free but has to explain every dime it puts into the pursuit of science and space exploration.

And heaven help you if you spend a few of those dimes for houseplants to decorate the office, as the managers of the now defunct Superrconducting Super Collider (SSC) found out. At least we still have CERN! And how about those $900 toilet seats and $6,000 coffee makers that our Pentagon constantly buys?

Wingnut Ninja
2003-May-11, 05:15 AM
It comes as no surprise that Nixon was involved. And I'm not talking about just the deceit, but his determination to get his space legacy underway.

Everyone who, upon hearing the phrase "Nixon's legacy," thinks of the shuttle program, raise your hand.

*tumbleweed blows through*

Right.

And as for the $3000 coffe maker, I just read a fascinating* paper about that anecdote and the accounting process that goes on in a large bureaucracy like the government. The "coffee maker" was actually a machine designed to make coffee for about 120 soldiers on a C-130 transport plane, for which $3000 is a reasonable sum.



*incredibly, mind-numbingly boring

Glom
2003-May-11, 09:13 AM
Whether or not it worked is irrelevant. Nixon wanted the Space Shuttle because he didn't want the space program to be seen as a democratic thing. He wanted something that would be his legacy.

Tuckerfan
2003-May-11, 01:44 PM
You know, I find it insulting that a country like the U.S., which claims to be independent of religious control, allows religious organizations to be tax-free but has to explain every dime it puts into the pursuit of science and space exploration.

And heaven help you if you spend a few of those dimes for houseplants to decorate the office, as the managers of the now defunct Superrconducting Super Collider (SSC) found out. At least we still have CERN! And how about those $900 toilet seats and $6,000 coffee makers that our Pentagon constantly buys?[Independence Day]What? You don't really think they spent $500 for a hammer do you?[/ID]

RickNZ
2003-May-12, 12:08 AM
Religion profit free?
AHAHAHAHAAHA what a joke! There in it for the money. In NZ businessman build a flash church, bring in crowds via music and entertainment. 'hire' genuine believers/priests for the surmons ushering catering, band etc. (ie: free labour)

While making an absolute fortune playing off fears of the after life etc. They wear suits and drive flash cars, pay no taxes/rates and undeclare there earnings.

Oh yeah.

Look at how the vatican was bult. Off the blood of nameless victims whos pursecutors went unpunished since they paid/bribed the church to disolve there sins.

russ_watters
2003-May-12, 03:49 AM
And as for the $3000 coffe maker, I just read a fascinating* paper about that anecdote and the accounting process that goes on in a large bureaucracy like the government. The "coffee maker" was actually a machine designed to make coffee for about 120 soldiers on a C-130 transport plane, for which $3000 is a reasonable sum. I read about another coffee maker - it was designed to work equally well upright and inverted. I think I read about it in "Skunk Works" (a book about the Lockheed Skunk Works).

Celestial Mechanic
2003-May-12, 04:11 AM
The $6,000 coffee maker I'm referring to is one that was designed for a B-52 and had to be capable of surviving a crash. Now, I don't know about you folks out there, but if I had just survived the crash of a B-52 over enemy territory, the source of my next cup of coffee would the LEAST of my concerns! :)

Tuckerfan
2003-May-13, 03:54 AM
The $6,000 coffee maker I'm referring to is one that was designed for a B-52 and had to be capable of surviving a crash. Now, I don't know about you folks out there, but if I had just survived the crash of a B-52 over enemy territory, the source of my next cup of coffee would the LEAST of my concerns! :)Actually, civilian coffee makers on commercial aircraft cost the same amount of money and have the same capability. Of course, you're asking yourself, "What on Earth for?" The answer: Turbulance. The last thing you want flying around the inside of an airplane when the pilot is desperately trying to pull a sphincter clinching manuover that will save everyone is globs of scalding hot liquid. So they design the coffee makers to be well-nigh invulnerable to avoid that problem.

Celestial Mechanic
2003-May-13, 04:07 AM
Actually, civilian coffee makers on commercial aircraft cost the same amount of money and have the same capability. Of course, you're asking yourself, "What on Earth for?" The answer: Turbulance. The last thing you want flying around the inside of an airplane when the pilot is desperately trying to pull a sphincter clinching manuover that will save everyone is globs of scalding hot liquid. So they design the coffee makers to be well-nigh invulnerable to avoid that problem.
Surviving a crash requires a good deal more engineering than not spilling at inconvenient times. Again, if I survive the crash of a commercial airliner, scalding coffee is still very low on my list of concerns.

Tuckerfan
2003-May-13, 04:10 AM
Actually, civilian coffee makers on commercial aircraft cost the same amount of money and have the same capability. Of course, you're asking yourself, "What on Earth for?" The answer: Turbulance. The last thing you want flying around the inside of an airplane when the pilot is desperately trying to pull a sphincter clinching manuover that will save everyone is globs of scalding hot liquid. So they design the coffee makers to be well-nigh invulnerable to avoid that problem.
Surviving a crash requires a good deal more engineering than not spilling at inconvenient times. Again, if I survive the crash of a commercial airliner, scalding coffee is still very low on my list of concerns.Well, which would you rather have onboard your aircraft: An over-engineered coffee pot or an under-engineered one?

Celestial Mechanic
2003-May-14, 04:36 AM
Well, which would you rather have onboard your aircraft: An over-engineered coffee pot or an under-engineered one?
A right-engineered coffee pot. Any engineering beyond preventing spillage is wasted. Engineering should be applied to real problems, such as keeping the fuel from spilling and igniting in a crash, or keeping the seats and carpeting from igniting.

Tuckerfan
2003-May-14, 05:03 AM
A right-engineered coffee pot. Any engineering beyond preventing spillage is wasted. Engineering should be applied to real problems, such as keeping the fuel from spilling and igniting in a crash, or keeping the seats and carpeting from igniting.And you think that the engineer's don't work on these problems? Preventing fuel from spilling is difficult to do in a crash situation. There's been numerous attempts, but nobody's come up with a near-perfect situation as of yet.

Also, there's a pretty simple reason why the coffee pot's engineered beyond spill-proof. It's easier that way. Think about it, if you have to design a coffee pot that's going to be spill proof on an aircraft, you have to pick a point, design around that, test it, hope that it passes, then if it does pass, put it into service, only to discover that a plane has gone through something worse than you designed the pot for, survived, and had flight crew seriously burned (Who cares about the passengers at a time like this? They're not going to be the one's making the decisions that keep everyone alive.), so you've got to pick a new point, redesign, test, if the unit passes, retro-fit it to all the existing aircraft out there, and hope that you don't have to do it again. If you know the exact conditions necessary for the plane to break up (which you do, since that's part of the aircraft's design process) and design a coffee pot which can survive that, then you'll probably not have to worry about redesigning the damn thing and retrofitting it. A good engineer is a lazy engineer.