PDA

View Full Version : Why is Capitalism an dirty word to scientest and Bad Astronomy



Tuero
2006-Nov-29, 08:18 PM
Bad Astronomy got all upset. When an Russian hit a golf ball off of the space station. NASA Turns It's nose up at the Russians selling rides to the station < only to people that completed the training program>
All this Helps keep the Russian space program alive and funded. I think it's a great way to fund science and space program. Look how much Tang. Made off the space program in the first years. How much do you think <Coke, Pepsi,
Ford,etc> would pay to put their logo on the Shuttle Fuel Tank.
How many Mission that are now in the planning. But may never go past the planning. Only because there is no funding.
How many mission could be funded by selling off the right to put an logo on the shuttle fuel tank.

lti
2006-Nov-29, 10:59 PM
I also dont understand why the American press and NASA seem to look down on Russia for incorporating advertising and paying tourists into their program.

Seems bizzarely hypocritical since America was so against communism.

Ronald Brak
2006-Nov-29, 11:06 PM
As long as NASA refuses to do advertising, it helps boost Russias advertising revenue. Maybe it's a kind of space foreign aid?

lti
2006-Nov-29, 11:15 PM
So the dirty comments are just part of their gracious plan?

WaxRubiks
2006-Nov-29, 11:23 PM
yea, perhaps mcdonalds could fund the millitary too.
fatten up school kids to fund a patriot missile, makes great sense.

Ronald Brak
2006-Nov-29, 11:24 PM
So the dirty comments are just part of their gracious plan?

Exactly. They get to feel righteous and the Russians get to make money. Everyone benefits.

Chuck
2006-Nov-30, 03:31 AM
yea, perhaps mcdonalds could fund the millitary too.
fatten up school kids to fund a patriot missile, makes great sense.They could sell ad space on soldiers' uniforms. It would serve as camouflage since advertisements are everywhere else.

Gillianren
2006-Nov-30, 05:16 AM
I'm opposed to space tourism because we can't get enough qualified scientists up there, and taking one of them out so someone who just happens to have a lot of money can go instead strikes me as a bad idea.

As to advertising, maybe we can run it a la PBS--this space shuttle was brought to you by Pepsi, Barnes & Noble, and taxpayers like you?

Ronald Brak
2006-Nov-30, 05:54 AM
I'm opposed to space tourism because we can't get enough qualified scientists up there, and taking one of them out so someone who just happens to have a lot of money can go instead strikes me as a bad idea.

How about if each space tourist paid enough to send two scientists?

But I wouldn't really worry. The scientific papers written on discoveries made by humans in space are very few. Machines that send infomation to earth by themselves seem to be where they scientific payoff is. Put the number of papers resulting from human performed experiments in space in one hand and papers resulting from the use of the Hubble telescope alone in the other. I imagine the weight difference would be quite large. If each space tourist paid for a hunk of machinery to be put in space science would probably come out far ahead.

JonClarke
2006-Nov-30, 08:05 AM
But I wouldn't really worry. The scientific papers written on discoveries made by humans in space are very few.

Searching using the advanced Google scholar rotion on "Apollo" and "lunar", "Space Shuttle", "International space station", "Mir space station", spacelab", "Skylab" and " Salyut" reveal more than 7000, 11,000, 7000, 5,000, 6000, and 1,000 papers respectively.

Even allowing for news and policy items being included in this list, and overlap between some categories, it is patently obvious that there have been 10's of thousands of scientific papers due to human space flight. It is utterly untrue say otherwise.

Jon

Ronald Brak
2006-Nov-30, 09:53 AM
Searching using the advanced Google scholar rotion on "Apollo" and "lunar", "Space Shuttle", "International space station", "Mir space station", spacelab", "Skylab" and " Salyut" reveal more than 7000, 11,000, 7000, 5,000, 6000, and 1,000 papers respectively.

Even allowing for news and policy items being included in this list, and overlap between some categories, it is patently obvious that there have been 10's of thousands of scientific papers due to human space flight. It is utterly untrue say otherwise.

I have obviously been talking about something I know nothing about. My apologies.

Could I bother you to ask for a few quick examples of disoveries made by humans in space beside medical studies and Apollo? I am drawing a blank.

JonClarke
2006-Nov-30, 11:57 AM
No worries! :) Just some random examples....

Solar astronomy on Skylab was a major advance in our understanding of the sun, especially in the X-ray wayelengths, but also in UV and visible light. The station also gave the first clear pictures of coronal mass ejections.

The SRTM mission (STS-99) provided the best digital elevation model of the whole Earth currentlyavailable (3 and 1 arc second resultion). The group I work for uses SRTM data on a daily basis. It is invaluable for catchment modelling, groundwater studies, geohazard prediction, mineral exploration, netoectonics, geomorphology, soil science and conservation planning, etc. In terms of immediate practical applications, This must rate as one of the most effective space missions ever.

There has been a lot of materials research as well that has, I believe generated some interesting results. They include: critical point phase change behaviour, formation of homogenous alloys, colloidal behaviours and polymer precipitation, coatings studies for materials resistant to heat, light, high energy radiation, oxygen plasma, etc., and studies of surface crystallization. These were carried out on Spacelab, Mir, and Salyut, as well as the ISS.

Likewise on these missions there has been important studies of the behaviour of liquids and gases in zero G, including experimental verification of plume physics and model development , capillary flow, combustion, and crystal growth. The research required on the spot supervision and operation and, while hardly glamorous is very useful for the developments of improved design, construction, and operation of all spacecraft, whether manned and unmanned, and their components.

Jon

Ronald Brak
2006-Nov-30, 12:21 PM
Thanks. I remember the solar observatory on Skylab now, and pictures of ancient river beds beneath the Sahara from a shuttle mission.

Fazor
2006-Nov-30, 09:06 PM
Hmm... to address the OP; I think NASA is probably worried about more than just funding. As soon as you start taking money from one group, you have to start modifying your goals to include thier interests. They probably prefer to stay "pure". Just guessing, it's not like I secretly work for NASA... ;)

...yeah, like i said, i don't secretly work for NASA. I sell insurance. And don't flame me with reasons why the above way of thinking is stupid or wrong, i'm not saying i agree or disagree. just offering what thier point of view might be.

The Bad Astronomer
2006-Nov-30, 09:31 PM
I was upset not that the Russian Space Agency is trying to make money-- if you read what I wrote, I said they should do that -- but that they were doing a dangerous stunt to make money.

JonClarke
2006-Nov-30, 09:49 PM
Thanks. I remember the solar observatory on Skylab now, and pictures of ancient river beds beneath the Sahara from a shuttle mission.

The Sahara rivers were imaged during the first Shuttle Imaging radar mission (SIR-A) back in 1981 (STS-2). The mission also discovered the network of Mayan irrigation channels in Guatemala. Later Shuttle radar missions before the SRTM the SIR-B and two SIR-C missions, I seem torecall there was German microwave radar on one of the Spacelab missions.

Jon

jlhredshift
2006-Dec-01, 10:22 PM
Go commercial
Go private
Go government
Go all possibles ways

But just go, now, today, and where is my boarding pass?

Tuero
2006-Dec-05, 12:55 AM
So OK I see only a few reason. Why Bad Astronomy and It's likes. Are against funding Astronomy and space missions from capitalist sources.
One was the danger. Well anyone going into space private person or NASA snob. "sorry" NASA scientist. should know well the risks.
An where the risk in putting an company logo on the shuttle tank. An getting large amounts of money that can pay for mission that other wise would never get off the ground.
the other major reason i see listed above. Is that a private person <one that paying his /her way. Would take a seat that could be used by a real sweetest.
My reply to that is. There has yet to be a shuttle mission. That carried the max number of people the shuttle is able to lift.

MrClean
2006-Dec-05, 02:25 AM
I was just looking over the load range of my Ford F-150. Oh I know I know, tie it together man. It's amazing how much load capacity you can gain by loosing two people. I would imagine that the number of people put into orbit is figured out by payload, duration, orbit and personal needed. Not just there are x amount of seats so fill em or take up a passenger.

Tuero
2006-Dec-05, 05:51 AM
OH come now Mclean, lets get real. Comparing an ford pick up to the space shuttle.O:-> LOL But funny as that maybe, your telling us that the shuttle is "alway" max out on it's lift compactly. or even most of the time.
Let ME ask this would you rather have an moon base name by a company, which help pay for the moon base or no moon base out side of the scfi.
also let me ask. Would you rather let some company name the first man mars ship. Or have no man mission to mars.

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-05, 01:31 PM
...where the risk in putting an company logo on the shuttle tank.

Tuero you seem to be consciously ignoring what the BA posted...why is that??


...NASA snob. "sorry" NASA scientist.

Why the "sorry"...you obviously meant what you posted or you wouldn't have posted it...

...so what do you mean by "snob"??

Tuero
2006-Dec-05, 03:47 PM
Tuero you seem to be consciously ignoring what the BA posted...why is that??



Why the "sorry"...you obviously meant what you posted or you wouldn't have posted it...

...so what do you mean by "snob"??

First I was not Ignoring BA reply, I went back to reread it and could not find
the posting.
An Yes the "sorry" In my posting NASA Snobs Shot at NASA was not Hart felt. O:-> It was meant to take a Little
of the sting out of the comment.
But yes I fell that most if not all of NASA upper management are Snob's. I ask How many NASA Astronauts over the last Say 25 years are non PHD holders. An don't tell that you need a PHD to be able to work in space.
An I can not help but wonder in Non Astronauts Jobs How many NON Phd's Get hire Unless your willing to clean TOILETS.
Outside of NASA hiring, How Many LINKS can you find to Grass Roots space sites From NASA sites, Lets say like National space Society, or it likes.
Just my feeling, But Unless your One their Gourp of Brains. They see you as One of the Hire Help.

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-05, 04:26 PM
But yes I fell that most if not all of NASA upper management are Snob's. I ask How many NASA Astronauts over the last Say 25 years are non PHD holders.

So "upper management" are "snobs" if they hire a person with a PHD??...and there is something "wrong" with an astronaut candidate who has pursued a PHD??

Yep...that's going to go over real big on this...a science board...good luck with that.

Tuero
2006-Dec-05, 05:08 PM
:lol:
So "upper management" are "snobs" if they hire a person with a PHD??...and there is something "wrong" with an astronaut candidate who has pursued a PHD??

Yep...that's going to go over real big on this...a science board...good luck with that.

Now who is putting words into another mouth. I never said or even implied. NASA was snob's for hiring anyone with a PHD. I have Lot's of respect for anyone that has a PHD
Getting PHD take Lot's of hard work over many years.
What I was Asking Is how Many "NON" PHD are hire. an Yes any group that say you have to A PHD to be consider Good enough to work here. I put into the Snob's box.
What I am saying here is Yes hire PHD's. But don't turn your nose up at People who don't have a PHD's. Who just went another path in life and have other skills to bring to the tabler.
I can't Believe that there are not ANY NON PHD holder out there. That would not make good astronauts.
As for this being a Science board, Are you saying that PH D's are GODS and we should fear / Worship them. O:->

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-05, 05:31 PM
I never said or even implied. NASA was snob's for hiring anyone with a PHD.

You wrote...


But yes I fell that most if not all of NASA upper management are Snob's. I ask How many NASA Astronauts over the last Say 25 years are non PHD holders. An don't tell that you need a PHD to be able to work in space.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that NASA management are "snobs" because they don't hire non_PHD's...is that right??


What I am saying here is Yes hire PHD's. But don't turn your nose up at People who don't have a PHD's.

And exactly what is your evidence that NASA has done this??


...Are you saying that PH D's are GODS and we should fear / Worship them. O:->

Don't be silly.

Gillianren
2006-Dec-05, 07:26 PM
Sometimes, a degree is a very important qualification. It means you know enough, have worked hard enough, to have some idea what you're doing. After all, we make all medical doctors get certain degrees and go through certain amounts of training before they're allowed to actually be considered medical doctors, right? Are you suggesting, perhaps, that they should let people without so much as a GED build spaceships? To me, that is a simply horrifying concept.

I'm also quite sure that there a lot of people working at NASA without a PhD, though I would suspect that they all have at least a Master's--and come to that, the secretaries and such probably don't need that!

bearcub
2006-Dec-05, 07:52 PM
<snip>I ask How many NASA Astronauts over the last Say 25 years are non PHD holders. An don't tell that you need a PHD to be able to work in space.

Looks like the answers are: quite a few, and apparently not. :)

Take a look at this (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/astrobio_activemgmt.html) page from the Johnson Space Center. It has biographies of all current and past astronauts (the link is to the current ones). Of all the ones I looked at so far (10 or 12 at random), not one PHD. They all have a Masters degree though.

So I guess your question is valid, but probably not in the way you intended.

MrClean
2006-Dec-06, 12:00 AM
Are you saying that PH D's are GODS and we should fear / Worship them. O:->

No, but it keeps Gomers barely qualified for a grease monkey at your local service station from applying.

Then again, my local Mechanic uses a bunch of equipment that looks pretty similar to that at NASA.

'Salright though, I see you've got it figured out, won't waste any more time tryng to convince you more. And no, I'm not sorry.

And yes, the Space Shuttle IS just like my F-150. It's over 20 years old. It performs a wide variety of tasks. It has had many people of different nationalities working in the back of it AND with tender loving care I might be able to coax it off the pad Thursday for a trip to my local dump, errr, space station.

MrClean
2006-Dec-06, 12:04 AM
How many times can I start a sentance with the word AND in one post?

I know the number I should start it with. My apologies Gillianren.

Tinaa
2006-Dec-06, 01:49 AM
0. Starting a sentence with and is very poor grammar. And, don't end a sentence with a preposition (with).

Sorry MrClean...couldn't resist.

My memory of the rules isn't the greatest either!

Ronald Brak
2006-Dec-06, 03:36 AM
0. Starting a sentence with and is very poor grammar. And, don't end a sentence with a preposition (with).

So standard spoken English is wrong? Or does this only apply to written English? Or is a spoken sentence starting with and not actually a sentence and actually something else making it okay?

JonClarke
2006-Dec-06, 09:44 AM
So this is a situation we should not up with put?

Ronald Brak
2006-Dec-06, 01:23 PM
So this is a situation we should not up with put?

There are many people in this world who find it hard to communicate clearly at all. If they manage to convey their meaning clearly, then I think, "Hooray! Give them a lolipop!" These people need to be helped with making sense of their ideas in English and informing them of the finer points of grammer can result in their language centers ceasing up entirely. I suggest a computer program be applied to this forum that will grade people's posts and roughly determine their communication ability and provide a convenient graphical reference so people will know who should be congratualted for managing to make sense at all and who should know better than to make grammatical errors and deserves a good drubbing from grammar gurus.

MrClean
2006-Dec-06, 02:32 PM
I used to use that function of WordPerfect years ago. After the third time it said I was communicating at a 4th grade level, I turned the smartypants off.

Click Ticker
2006-Dec-06, 04:24 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say hiring Masters level or higher serves two purposes.

It gives the hiring party something tangible to validate the knowledge and/or experience claimed in a resume. It's a lot more costly and time consuming to verify claimed real world experience than it is to verify a post graduate degree. This, in turn, makes the claimed real world experience that much more believable and less important to spend a lot of time or money validating.

It gives the hiring party something tangible to defend the hire with in case that employee makes a huge costly mistake. "I know they didn't pursue formal education beyond high school - but their resume said..."

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-06, 04:38 PM
...gives the hiring party something tangible to validate the knowledge and/or experience claimed in a resume.

But of course...:)

There is nothing "snobbish" about wanting to hire qualified people to do highly technical jobs.

I really don't know why Tuero has a problem with that.

Gillianren
2006-Dec-06, 06:47 PM
So standard spoken English is wrong? Or does this only apply to written English? Or is a spoken sentence starting with and not actually a sentence and actually something else making it okay?

First off, there are several types of written English. The kind we use here is informal, which means you will see a lot of things from me that you wouldn't see in formal English--such as my predilection for dashes, parentheses, and italics.

It also applies to starting sentences with conjunctions. I wouldn't do it in, oh, college application essays, gods know, but it is a stylistic choice. Starting every sentence (see, there I go) with a conjunction is a bad thing, but a few here and there is no big deal. Heck, I do it all the time. Strunk & White says it's okay to do now and again.

Ronald Brak
2006-Dec-07, 02:56 AM
Thanks for the explanation Gillianren.

Would it be bad for your blood pressure if I asked what a conjunction is?

Maybe I'll go look it up on the internets.

Gillianren
2006-Dec-11, 02:31 AM
Didn't you see Schoolhouse Rock! in the 70s? "Conjunction Junction" and all that?

No. Well. A conjuction is a part of speech that is used to hold clauses together when each clause is a complete sentence. The mnemonic I currently use to remember all of them is "FAN BOYS"--for and nor but or yet so. That's it. That's all the conjunctions in the English language.

Of course, conjunctions also string lists of words together, or at least, some of them do, but mostly clauses. (As in right there, though "mostly clauses" isn't actually a complete sentence.) I can go more into detail, of course, but it's up to you.

Ronald Brak
2006-Dec-11, 03:08 AM
Didn't you see Schoolhouse Rock! in the 70s?

Sorry, Queensland was still in the dark ages back in the 70's.

So in the sentence, "Put the cane toad in the pot but don't cook it too long," the word "but" would be a conjunction?

SolusLupus
2006-Dec-11, 03:32 AM
Personally, I fully support space tourism; the person going up is fully aware of the consequences, money gets pumped into the industry, and we set precedents of "non-skilled passengers" being put into space, giving the far-reaching implication that everyday people -- such as you and I, viewer of my post -- can go into space in future time periods.

I personally see it as no different than having a civilian passenger on a military boat, or a civilian inside of a submarine; they know the risks, and as long as they have some sort of a benefit (such as pumping funds into the project), I think that it's a risk worth taking; or at the least, unless the risks are shown to outweigh the benefits, which I don't currently see at the moment. I think that the benefits are pretty... er... benefitty. But I'm just a layman, so what do I know?

Gillianren
2006-Dec-11, 08:22 AM
Sorry, Queensland was still in the dark ages back in the 70's.

I keep forgetting; you don't put a location in your information.


So in the sentence, "Put the cane toad in the pot but don't cook it too long," the word "but" would be a conjunction?

Yes. However, there should be a comma before "but."

Ronald Brak
2006-Dec-11, 08:44 AM
I keep forgetting; you don't put a location in your information.

I'll have to work out how to do that one of these days. (We're celebrating 30 glorious years of electricity next week.)


Yes. However, there should be a comma before "but."

Thanks - Put the cane toad in the pot, but don't cook it too long.

We tanned his hid when he died Clyde AND that's it hanging on the shed. - "And" being the conjunction.

Dig the hole with your hands, boys, SO they'll think a wombat did it.

Crikey, that's a big one, BUT mine's bigger.

That's not a knife, BUT this is a knife.

Hopefully I have the hang of it now.

FAN BOYS - For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, SO.

TriangleMan
2006-Dec-11, 11:25 AM
Didn't you see Schoolhouse Rock! in the 70s? "Conjunction Junction"
:whistle: hooking up words and phrases and clauses :dance:

MrClean
2006-Dec-11, 01:40 PM
I had more of a Classical education, we had to watch Schoolhouse Bachs.

Doodler
2006-Dec-11, 09:05 PM
My reply to that is. There has yet to be a shuttle mission. That carried the max number of people the shuttle is able to lift.


Que? If memory serves, the shuttle lofts a max crew of seven, and if memory continues to serve, we've lost 14 people in two shuttle accidents.

I'm not the math major of this here forum, but 14/2=7 last I checked....

Ilya
2006-Dec-11, 11:10 PM
Que? If memory serves, the shuttle lofts a max crew of seven...
No, the most ever flew on Shuttle is seven. IIRC, it is possible to fit eight seats in the crew compartment; it was never done. And of course, you could carry several more if some kind of habitable module were placed in the cargo compartment.

Tuero
2006-Dec-12, 04:42 AM
Since I started this Thread let me make a few points here.
Anyone going into space has to know it's a risk, anyone wanting to die of old age should not bother. Personally I would go into space with less than 5% chance of making it back. With out even having to think about it.
As for letting unskilled people into jobs they can't do. I never ever said that. What I did say was that Limiting jobs in space to members of the egg head club was Snobbish. I can not believe there are not any jobs in space for anyone not a member of the egg head club.
I also never said to look down on anyone with a list of degrees to their names. What I did say is that it is not the end all . When looking at who should go into space. An yes NASA turns their nose up at anyone not a member of the egg head club.
NASA Should also Remember that all most all it's funding comes from the US government. Which reacts to Public Opinion. AN How many people have PH D's or even a master Degree.
Also where did all these grammar cops come from.

SolusLupus
2006-Dec-12, 12:07 PM
Since I started this Thread let me make a few points here.
Anyone going into space has to know it's a risk, anyone wanting to die of old age should not bother. Personally I would go into space with less than 5% chance of making it back. With out even having to think about it.

Agreed, though I'd hold out for a 20% chance at the least...


As for letting unskilled people into jobs they can't do. I never ever said that. What I did say was that Limiting jobs in space to members of the egg head club was Snobbish. I can not believe there are not any jobs in space for anyone not a member of the egg head club.
I also never said to look down on anyone with a list of degrees to their names. What I did say is that it is not the end all . When looking at who should go into space. An yes NASA turns their nose up at anyone not a member of the egg head club.

They look for some of the best mental and physical attributes, and the astronauts have quite a bit of training in everything from aeronautical mechanics to calculus to everything else necessary to survive. There's a logical reason for sending up the best of the best...


NASA Should also Remember that all most all it's funding comes from the US government. Which reacts to Public Opinion. AN How many people have PH D's or even a master Degree.

As a member of the general public, I would consider them achieving their objectives to be much more important than bringing along a space tourist. I think that they can take along a tourist (and have, even), and still succeed in their mission, but there's a reason for concern here.


Also where did all these grammar cops come from.

Grammar 911: Bad commas! Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

Tuero
2006-Dec-12, 02:06 PM
n
Agreed, though I'd hold out for a 20% chance at the least...



They look for some of the best mental and physical attributes, and the astronauts have quite a bit of training in everything from aeronautical mechanics to calculus to everything else necessary to survive. There's a logical reason for sending up the best of the best...

I have no trouble with NASA Physical for space travel. AS for the Best Mental Attributes being only in those with PH d's and the like. I can not agree.
Also I can not agree that "EVERY" space job has to be filled with an egg head.


As a member of the general public, I would consider them achieving their objectives to be much more important than bringing along a space tourist. I think that they can take along a tourist (and have, even), and still succeed in their mission, but there's a reason for concern here.

Oh but are you part of general public. Do you look at someone with a PHD and see your self in them? How many in the real world would.
When Has NASA ever support space tourist. They let the Russians to bring them up only because they have no choice in the matter..

Grammar 911: Bad commas! Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-12, 03:10 PM
As for letting unskilled people into jobs they can't do. I never ever said that.

Then what ARE you saying?????


What I did say was that Limiting jobs in space to members of the egg head club was Snobbish. I can not believe there are not any jobs in space for anyone not a member of the egg head club.

Well, you've change the "term" (egghead club. what in the heck does that MEAN, anyway) your using, but essentually you're saying the same thing as you have in previous posts...

Frankly, it's getting a bit boring. If you cannot clearly make your point, then...what is the purpose of your posts???

Tuero
2006-Dec-12, 06:34 PM
Then what ARE you saying?????



Well, you've change the "term" (egghead club. what in the heck does that MEAN, anyway) your using, but essentually you're saying the same thing as you have in previous posts...

Frankly, it's getting a bit boring. If you cannot clearly make your point, then...what is the purpose of your posts???

OK I make it very very simple.
NASA controls most access to space. An NASA turns their snobbish nose up at anyone that dose not have a long list of degrees. <unless your willing to clean toilets>
I also don't believe everyone that works in space needs a bunch of high degrees.
yes there are many Jobs that may need that Degree. But not "ALL" of them.
I may change terms to try and get my point across. But I find it hard to believe any one does not understand the term egghead club. LOL
Also I'm not just talking about who is or is not allowed by NASA to go into space.
Their Attitude toward the avg person interested in space is snobbish. There are many grass roots space group. how many of them do you see link in NASA web pages.
How many of these group get any kind of response from NASA other than it's nose in the air.

R.A.F.
2006-Dec-12, 07:25 PM
OK I make it very very simple.

No...what you are doing is a basic re-hash of claims you've made before. You have provided ZERO evidence for the claim that NASA is "snobbish" to anyone without a degree. (or a member of the "egghead club", or whatever terms you want to use.) Fact is that other posters have shown that you are incorrect in your opinion.

You seem to have a personal vandetta against NASA (for whatever reasons)...the only thing I can suggest is that you get over yourself.

As far as this thread is concerned, until you are able to recognize the obvious "flaws" in your reasoning, then I can't see any reason to continue this.

ToSeek
2006-Dec-12, 07:52 PM
No, the most ever flew on Shuttle is seven. IIRC, it is possible to fit eight seats in the crew compartment; it was never done. And of course, you could carry several more if some kind of habitable module were placed in the cargo compartment.

The largest shuttle crew ever is eight, done for STS-71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-71) and STS-61-A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61-A).

ToSeek
2006-Dec-12, 07:54 PM
There are many grass roots space group. how many of them do you see link in NASA web pages.

I bet there are pretty strict regulations regarding a government agency's appearing to endorse a private organization - perhaps especially a private organization whose purpose it is to support that agency.

JonClarke
2006-Dec-12, 10:02 PM
Let's not forget the extraordinary efforts that NASA makes in terms of public education and outreach, including visitors centres, school visits and packages, public lectures, web pages for children, programs such as spaceward bound, support for space camps and a wide range of private space groups such as the planetary scoeity and the various Mars and Moon societies. far from being snobbish, NASA has done a fantastic job in reaching out to ordinary people, not only of the US, but the world.

Jon

Ilya
2006-Dec-13, 02:17 AM
The largest shuttle crew ever is eight, done for STS-71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-71) and STS-61-A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61-A).

Yes. My mistake.

SolusLupus
2006-Dec-13, 03:12 AM
Let's not forget the extraordinary efforts that NASA makes in terms of public education and outreach, including visitors centres, school visits and packages, public lectures, web pages for children, programs such as spaceward bound, support for space camps and a wide range of private space groups such as the planetary scoeity and the various Mars and Moon societies. far from being snobbish, NASA has done a fantastic job in reaching out to ordinary people, not only of the US, but the world.

OMFSM! I remember when I was a child, I went to a NASA camp type thing... we got to play astronauts and Mission Control! This was part of a class field trip, and MAN was it full of awesome and rock!

I was a mechanic of sorts. In short, I plugged things in and made sure they were connected. Since we had a successful launch (according to the simulation), I can only assume I didn't screw up.

That was when I decided I wanted to be an aeronautical engineer!


...Later on, I realized what it ACTUALLY means to be one, and I decided against it. I'm more a bookworm anyways.

Lord Jubjub
2006-Dec-19, 02:17 AM
BTW, I'd have to google for a reference, but Congress has mandated that anyone wishing to be launched into space in a private vehicle must waive all liabilities and be explicitly warned that they risk life and limb.

SolusLupus
2006-Dec-19, 03:18 AM
BTW, I'd have to google for a reference, but Congress has mandated that anyone wishing to be launched into space in a private vehicle must waive all liabilities and be explicitly warned that they risk life and limb.

Gee, no d'uh?

"WARNING: Being launched into space is hazardous."

"WARNING: Fire is hot."

Doodler
2006-Dec-19, 08:16 PM
Gee, no d'uh?

"WARNING: Being launched into space is hazardous."

"WARNING: Fire is hot."

You'd be amazed...there isn't a warning label in print that isn't the result of some nitwit finding new and fascinating ways of mutilating themselves and trying to blame the manufacturer for not warning them.

Now, if we could just apply that logic in practice, and accept the fact that 14 casualties in the course of manned spaceflight is actually a pretty decent average considering the number of launches and people launched over the course of the space program, we'd be in good shape.

Swift
2006-Dec-19, 08:20 PM
OH come now Mclean, lets get real. Comparing an ford pick up to the space shuttle.O:-> LOL But funny as that maybe, your telling us that the shuttle is "alway" max out on it's lift compactly. or even most of the time.

Actually Tuero, that was a pretty good analogy. Not painting the external fuel tank white saves about 270 kilograms in weight, and is the reason NASA stopped the practice (LINK (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060412_sts1_whitetank.html)).

But if the economics were ok, and the money paid compensated for the lost payload, I would be ok with "sponsorships" (I like the PBS analogy). The flip side is that maybe there are not a lot of companies interested. What does it say about XYZ Cola if your logo is on the shuttle that blows up? How would you like that picture on the front page of every newspaper on the planet?

As far as sending PhDs or MSs into space, I suspect that at least part of it is supply and demand - there are more people who would like the job than positions available. I personally know three people who made serious attempts at becoming Astronauts or Mission Specialists (two of whom have PhDs) and didn't make it. As with jobs here on Earth, when an employer has a bigger pool of applicants than positions, they can get very picky. It is not being a snob, it is supply and demand.

SolusLupus
2006-Dec-19, 08:35 PM
But if the economics were ok, and the money paid compensated for the lost payload, I would be ok with "sponsorships" (I like the PBS analogy). The flip side is that maybe there are not a lot of companies interested. What does it say about XYZ Cola if your logo is on the shuttle that blows up? How would you like that picture on the front page of every newspaper on the planet?

Ehhhhh, I'd be somewhat skeptical that companies wouldn't be interested. Let's see the good with the bad.

Good -- Shuttle goes up, with the logo on it. EVERYONE sees it, including across the world. Sales go up, big time (theoretically).

Bad -- People may see this as a little tacky. If the shuttle blows up, people see your logo on the shuttle that blows up... but would sales really plummet?

I rather doubt that people would judge the company just because their logo happened to be on a failed mission, and I certainly doubt that companies wouldn't be interested because of the chance of failure.


As far as sending PhDs or MSs into space, I suspect that at least part of it is supply and demand - there are more people who would like the job than positions available. I personally know three people who made serious attempts at becoming Astronauts or Mission Specialists (two of whom have PhDs) and didn't make it. As with jobs here on Earth, when an employer has a bigger pool of applicants than positions, they can get very picky. It is not being a snob, it is supply and demand.

Of course. Lots of people wanting to apply for a position where they can only fit in a few people. Naturally, with such a large pool to select from, you want to pick the best of the lot; not just a random individual. Hence, you end up getting the best of the best.

Swift
2006-Dec-19, 09:48 PM
Ehhhhh, I'd be somewhat skeptical that companies wouldn't be interested. Let's see the good with the bad.

Good -- Shuttle goes up, with the logo on it. EVERYONE sees it, including across the world. Sales go up, big time (theoretically).

Bad -- People may see this as a little tacky. If the shuttle blows up, people see your logo on the shuttle that blows up... but would sales really plummet?

I rather doubt that people would judge the company just because their logo happened to be on a failed mission, and I certainly doubt that companies wouldn't be interested because of the chance of failure.

You may be right, I can't say I even understand the Marketing brains in the company I work for. Does anyone buy a product because some particular NASCAR auto is covered with their logo? (I suspect the answer is yes)

SolusLupus
2006-Dec-19, 11:28 PM
You may be right, I can't say I even understand the Marketing brains in the company I work for. Does anyone buy a product because some particular NASCAR auto is covered with their logo? (I suspect the answer is yes)

Yes, of course. In fact, in the movie E.T., just having a logo on the side of a truck was enough for people to cause sales to boom for that company. When you see a logo long enough, you know about that brand... when you know about it, you stand a chance of buying from it. You buy from it, and then find that you like the product. This results in more sales from the company.

Lord Jubjub
2006-Dec-19, 11:39 PM
Does anyone buy a product because some particular NASCAR auto is covered with their logo? (I suspect the answer is yes)

From what I have heard of NASCAR fans, they buy whatever their favorite driver buys and from whomever is sponsoring said driver.

Ronald Brak
2006-Dec-20, 02:53 AM
One problem with NASA doing advertising is it blurs the line between state and private enterprise. China has many good example of problems this can cause. They tried to get some government departments here to make money with private enterprise. It didn't work very well. Something to do with mailing junk mail with pensions. I can't remember the details but apparently old people recieved advertising for funeral services. Some people thought they were required to use the funeral services to continue to receive their pensions, others just thought the government was telling them to hurry up and die.

OneHotJupiter
2007-May-16, 04:53 PM
I would love to go to space too , but. . .

I hold no PHD (yet) , as much as I would love to go , I realize that not only the multi-billion dollar spacecraft is at stake if everybody on it is not fully qualified , but also the lives of the other Astronauts (Priceless).

Everybody should understand that in any enterprise as inherently dangerous as Space travel should be done by the most highly qualified and educated individuals possible!

If space travel is something anybody seriously wants to do , you CAN have the job , just get the proper education and follow the guidelines set by those wonderfully brilliant people at NASA.

I wouldn't ask my dentist to do my landscaping , yes he could probably do it , but why , when there are plenty of professional landscapers who could do a way better job without the risk of mistake.



Also NASA only wants Astronauts with "The right stuff" , you can't have that without a whole lot of education ( In my opinion)

Van Rijn
2007-May-17, 10:24 PM
I would love to go to space too , but. . .

I hold no PHD (yet) , as much as I would love to go , I realize that not only the multi-billion dollar spacecraft is at stake if everybody on it is not fully qualified , but also the lives of the other Astronauts (Priceless).


The key problem I see with the Shuttle is that it is, as you say, a multi-billion dollar spacecraft and just costs too darn much to fly. I like paying passengers, as long as it is done right. Russia apparently can manage it at about $20 million for a passenger without compromising flight safety. For a shuttle, a practical fee would be in the hundreds of millions. The important thing about the paying passengers is that they set a precedent and get people thinking seriously about how they could make money getting people into space. Government manned space programs alone just aren't going to get us very far. Costs aren't going to come down with low flight rates using spacecraft desigined for low flight rates.

tracer
2007-May-18, 10:42 PM
The main problem I have with putting advertising logos on the Space Shuttle is that it would start to resemble Nascar.

And I really, really don't like Nascar.

Gsquare
2007-May-21, 03:24 AM
One problem with NASA doing advertising is it blurs the line between state and private enterprise.


Good point....
However, I think it was John Glenn who was sitting in the Mercury capsule starring at the controls before lift off and commented " ...and to think all these components were built by the lowest bidder". (Something courageous like that).

He, he :D

cbacba
2007-May-22, 12:08 AM
Good point....
However, I think it was John Glenn who was sitting in the Mercury capsule starring at the controls before lift off and commented " ...and to think all these components were built by the lowest bidder". (Something courgeous like that).

He, he :D

Over the years I've had the opportunity to ask more than one astronaut the following question.

What's it like to sit atop many tons of highly explosive fuel in the most sophisticated creation ever devised by man, composed of millions of intricate interworking parts, each provided by the low bidder?

The usual answer was that they had never thought about it that way.
LOL

Chip
2007-May-22, 01:33 AM
All you got to do is design a functioning reusable space vehicle that is as reliable, elegant and safe as the Goodyear blimp. Then you can plaster it with advertising. ;)

snp.gupta
2007-Jun-14, 05:17 AM
Gets more money from different sources. May be it make space travel more cheaper