PDA

View Full Version : First Look at the Orion Crew Module



Fraser
2007-Nov-06, 11:11 PM
I know it seems like we've had the space shuttle forever, and will have it forever, but the program will actually be shut down in just a few short years. ...

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/11/06/first-look-at-the-orion-crew-module/)

mike alexander
2007-Nov-07, 03:55 AM
Looking at it makes my heart go pitty-pat. I feel like I'm 16 again, looking at... Apollo... again...

01101001
2007-Nov-07, 05:34 AM
Looking at it makes my heart go pitty-pat. I feel like I'm 16 again, looking at... Apollo... again...

A crashed saucer at Roswell, a recovered acorn ship at Kecksburg, years of research at Area 51 by the world's top scientists, and all we can do is make a ballistic cone-craft to lob into space with a chemical reaction?

Perhaps I need to tweak some of my assumptions.

Robbi Luscombe Newman
2007-Nov-07, 08:45 AM
What a joke....I hope they aren't paying someone for that thing!!!!

I agree with Mike...is this the best todays minds can up with?????

Too much money going into weapons manufacture and design for a start.
Perhaps an open forum World concept design comp for the hottest young minds on the planet...with some amazing prize...
to come up with a quantum leap.

Maybe get Apple and Branson together....time to think outside the square...not a tin can sitting on top of tons of explosive....

billgraney
2007-Nov-07, 11:51 AM
It says a lot about NASA, Congress, and various administrations that after 50 years of spaceflight and more boondoggle dollars than you can fit between here and the moon that we're back to a capsule full of primate (or monkey in a can as the 1950's jet jockeys derisively called the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules). Do we get a refund from NASA quality assurance on the failed single stage to orbit program that couldn't even build fuel tanks that didn't leak? How about the multiple attempts at smaller winged vehicles that nobody had enough vertebrae to fight for? I won't even mention the real science that died aborning when the politically driven shuttle and ISS sucked up all the nutrition.
And it still costs $10K to get a pound to orbit if you're lucky.
Well, get ready for high G reentries, compression fractures of vertebrae on landing, and helicopter searches for overshot capsules. Will the astronauts have side arms like the cosmonauts do to deal with bears when they land in the woods?
I have to find my two-toned shoes, dust off the convertible, and adjust the rabbit ears.
It's back to the fifties.

antoniseb
2007-Nov-07, 12:31 PM
Do we get a refund from NASA quality assurance on the failed single stage to orbit program that couldn't even build fuel tanks that didn't leak?
Who do you suppose would give us a refund? If we did get a refund, how would it get distributed?

I think that the CEV is exactly what is needed right now. The shuttle was an interesting idea, and we learned a lot in the last twenty-five years about safer cheaper designs. In the years ahead, I expect there to be progress on other fronts that will make you guys looking for something more futuristic happy, but for now, the CEV and the Ares rockets looks like a smart way to go.

schlaugh
2007-Nov-07, 01:43 PM
Maybe get Apple and Branson together....time to think outside the square...not a tin can sitting on top of tons of explosive....

You can throw tons of money at the problem but physics, math and current technology dictate the optimal solution for returning to the moon:

1. To get to the moon from Earth you need to move at at 11.2 km/s
2. The most efficient - and practical - chemical propulsion already exists and is in use. Otherwise we'd be using something better.
3. Lunar Orbit Rendezvous has already been shown to be the optimum method for moving hardware and people to the moon with current technology.

Sure, there can be tweaks to the engines, fuel mixtures and such, but it doesn't amount to anything. Any other propulsion method is mere speculation or extremely unproven, such as the other Project Orion proposed in the 1960s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

And while Earth Orbit Rendezvous will let you assemble lots of components together (See: ISS) which you can then launch to your desired destination, it costs huge amounts of fuel to boost that much hardware into orbit. Back to square one.

I also wish Branson, Jobs, et al could come up with something - but they can't change the Earth's gravity. Or the math that dictates what we can do with what we have.

rmblizzard
2007-Nov-07, 03:42 PM
Did they not design the 777 airliner and all subsequent designs entirely on a computer so it all fit together before they built the actual prototype? I know there have been delays with the 787 and 380 etc. related to bad communication and management, but they are also a heck of a lot more complacated than a capsule and they are built with parts from all over the world.

I am probably a bit cynical as I see little reason for us to go to Mars and the Moon in person given the way the beuracratic structure is set up today. I just finished looking at NASA's budget for the next couple of years and science is definitely sucking the hind teet as far as funding is concerned.

Just compare the contrast between the updates on discoveries from Cassini ,MRO or any of the other robotic craft we have designed, built and launched ( Voyager !) and the shuttle or the ISS news feeds.

Sky and Telescope for December has an excellent article about Cassini and the cover has one of the most beutiful images of Saturn I have ever seen. I must have looked at it for several minute before I even opened the darn magazine. The things we have learned about the Saturnian system should 'automatically' initiate the design for next set of robotic probes we are going to send to answer the new questions generated.

I can't see them putting an image of a torn solar panel (Tangled by wires??? Pleeease.) on any magazine except maybe an issue of 'Coporate Welfare Monthly'

I have an image that I remember of the team members involved in the Pathfinder mission back in 97. They were all young and very energetic. This seems like a stark contrast to the gray hairs who are running the manned space program and follow the political agenda to protect their buts rather than go out on a ledge. I guess with robots it pays to be young and a little reckless with ideas.

Sorry for the long post. Slow day at work.

Jamie

Dubb
2007-Nov-07, 04:05 PM
-

John Mendenhall
2007-Nov-07, 05:10 PM
There are 14,600 stars within 100 light years.
50% with planets = 7,300 stars.
33% with planets able to sustain life = 2409 stars.
10% life does evolve on a life sustaining planet =
240 planets within 100 light years with life of some kind.
or 2.4 planets within a light year.

Unfortunately, there no main sequence stars within 3.8 light years from us. And out to 4.5, there is only one triple, and chances are that A and B tossed out their planets. It doesn't look good, and it isn't 2.4 locally.

mike alexander
2007-Nov-07, 05:33 PM
The thing just looked so pathetic, sitting there like some Science Fair project, like a big can of Chicken of the Sea. And in coming years we can look excitedly forward to tests of escape towers...

Couple of months ago Scientific American had an article about ***Constellation***, which appeared to be lifted from the manufacturer's web site. Reading it made me want to pull out my old Time magazine articles from the mid-sixties, which had the same breathless prose about exactly the same things. Except now we have excellent computer-generated graphics instead of some good Robert McCall paintings.

antoniseb
2007-Nov-07, 06:51 PM
240 planets within 100 light years with life of some kind.
or 2.4 planets within a light year.

Not sure if I agree with the calculations leading to this, but this one would only work if all the stars were on one straight line. The volume of a sphere with radius 100 is about 4 million. So even if all your other numbers are right, that means about 60 life bearing planets in a million cubic light years.

John Mendenhall
2007-Nov-08, 03:07 PM
Not sure if I agree with the calculations leading to this, but this one would only work if all the stars were on one straight line. The volume of a sphere with radius 100 is about 4 million. So even if all your other numbers are right, that means about 60 life bearing planets in a million cubic light years.

The calculations belong to:




There are 14,600 stars within 100 light years.
50% with planets = 7,300 stars.
33% with planets able to sustain life = 2409 stars.
10% life does evolve on a life sustaining planet =
240 planets within 100 light years with life of some kind.
or 2.4 planets within a light year.

Dubb
2007-Nov-08, 03:32 PM
-

Trakar
2007-Nov-08, 03:41 PM
<repeat comment removed>

Doh! got to learn to read ahead!

John Mendenhall
2007-Nov-08, 04:10 PM
Couple of months ago Scientific American had an article about ***Constellation***, which appeared to be lifted from the manufacturer's web site. Reading it made me want to pull out my old Time magazine articles from the mid-sixties, which had the same breathless prose about exactly the same things. Except now we have excellent computer-generated graphics instead of some good Robert McCall paintings.

Yes, we really need another way to get off the planet. The big rockets are intrinsically very dangerous and very expensive. The space shuttle is the same. Air breathers, maybe, we haven't tried them yet, and it only gets things started. Personally, I would be looking at large launchers; we should be able to get structures ten miles up with present day technology. John Bull's work should not be ignored, despite its military applications. Once a way is available to launch enough material into space, then we can think about a tether system.

John Mendenhall
2007-Nov-08, 04:15 PM
This (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980123d.html)

I think you just need the right chemicals, temperature and pressure. There is bound to be solar system remnants left over from dead stars flying around out there. Solar systems don't just disappear when a sun dies. Heat can be generated by tidal heating like on Europa. And on any planet or moon with an active core, there will be a "goldilocks zone" somewhere under the surface, sun or not.



My sentiments exactly. I bet we'll find life everywhere, and advanced life almost nowhere. But we need a better way to get there than rockets.

Trakar
2007-Nov-08, 08:49 PM
My sentiments exactly. I bet we'll find life everywhere, and advanced life almost nowhere. But we need a better way to get there than rockets.

I would take that bet, and find nothing particularly troublesome with rockets. Chemical rockets are somewhat inefficient, but that is but one form of rocket propulsion. What form of propulsion are you preferring?

RUF
2007-Nov-09, 03:25 AM
I saw a PBS or Discovery show about Orion, and they showed all the time and effort that went into-- wait for it-- where and what shape the windows would be. Made me think of "The Right Stuff" when there wasn't a window on the spacecraft. The astronauts objected, so an engineer went up to craft and said, "we could put a window right about...here" (knocking on the side of the craft.)

Imagine how much went into trying to decide what colour the buttons or head rests should be.:doh:

KaiYeves
2007-Nov-10, 07:15 PM
I know it seems like we've had the space shuttle forever,
All my life, but I think that's close enough.

Looking at it makes my heart go pitty-pat. I feel like I'm 16 again, looking at... Apollo... again...
Looking at it makes me feel so brave and hopeful and happy.
Let's hear it for this New Century!

mike alexander
2007-Nov-12, 08:16 PM
There used to be a joke that Cosmopolitan magazine only had thirteen issues they kept publishing over and over (thirteen so the smarter readers would not notice the same article in the same month).

Since many of the adults who watched the original development of space flight are now dead or close to geezing, the cheapest thing to do might be to start from the beginning for the next generation. Build a few Mercury-Redstones, resurrect Gemini-Titan, just do it all over. It was very exciting to watch once, why not again?

AtomicDog
2007-Nov-12, 08:29 PM
It's not doing it all over. It's picking up where we left off.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-12, 09:05 PM
I hate to be a pessimist, but right now all we have are words on paper and a metal shed. I've learned the hard way not to get too excited until the bird actually flies.

AtomicDog
2007-Nov-12, 10:02 PM
I'm an optimist. That's more than we've had for 35 years.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-12, 11:34 PM
I'm an optimist. That's more than we've had for 35 years.

There's been a bird flying for most of that time. More of a turkey than an eagle, but at least it reached orbit. Seeing "replacements" for the Shuttle hyped and canceled, hyped and canceled, always after spending millions to contractors who already have pretty padded wallets, has left me with a bad feeling that when the old turkeagle stops flying, we'll have a long gap of nothing ready.

I hope I'm wrong and you're right, but I'm not banking on it.

KaiYeves
2007-Nov-13, 01:14 AM
"Fire up the rockets, Threetoe-
Onward to the stars!"
-Captain Raptor, Captain Raptor and the Moon Mystery.

mike alexander
2007-Nov-13, 01:37 AM
What can I say? The blurb was "First Look at the Orion Crew Module". The view was of what looks like a sheet aluminum frustrum on casters.

I assume the casters are to drive it back to the VAB after it lands.

AtomicDog
2007-Nov-13, 03:30 AM
Can you show me the mockup of ANY space vehicle that looked remotely like the finished product?

NiteWatcher
2007-Nov-13, 04:14 AM
I know it seems like we've had the space shuttle forever, and will have it forever, but the program will actually be shut down in just a few short years. ...

I hope all manned space programs, for the next 100 years or so, are shut down period. They offer little science itself, but it's more for show for monies and companies to gain something out of it.

Our probes are doing excellent, and actually offer more science data, than wasting precious research dollars so a "Smiling Al" type astronaut can plant some nation's flag on Martian or the Moon's soil, again.

Space wasn't designed for humans, nor does it knows about our politics or daydreams. We won't get to new worlds to form colonies anyway, until research at home can produce the energy we need for the next technological age to make it possible (which we're short of by about 8% -- needing 10x the current reserve we have today), so we can terra-form. Without terra-forming, might as well forget it, as space would be just a hobby -- too expensive and can't sustain itself without living in confined spaces (wrong for our development, and will take too long to adapt mankind to get "used" to living in a biosphere environment, making upkeep tedious).

Dreams are nice, but reality is what we have to live in 99.9% of the time.

AtomicDog
2007-Nov-13, 04:25 AM
"When it's railroading time, you railroad." - Robert Heinlein

I think it's railroading time.

Maksutov
2007-Nov-13, 05:54 AM
Looking at it makes my heart go pitty-pat. I feel like I'm 16 again, looking at... Apollo... again...Wait! There's quite a bit of difference between this

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/9323/oriondc9.th.jpg (http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=oriondc9.jpg)

and this

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1166/apollocommandcapsulesd2.th.jpg (http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apollocommandcapsulesd2.jpg)

Heck, the new capsule displays at least 90 degrees of difference.
The thing just looked so pathetic, sitting there like some Science Fair project, like a big can of Chicken of the Sea. And in coming years we can look excitedly forward to tests of escape towers......Maybe we can expect some more tests similar to the Little Joe II tests of the early 60s, such as this

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2883/liljoe2aqn0.th.jpg (http://img20.imageshack.us/my.php?image=liljoe2aqn0.jpg)

although for some reason I prefer this model (http://www.spacetoys.com/proddetail.php?prod=SHRLJ30) (the rocket, not the babe).

Well, both, actually.

Imagine living in Show Low, Arizona...

naelphin
2007-Nov-13, 06:12 AM
I hope all manned space programs, for the next 100 years or so, are shut down period. They offer little science itself, but it's more for show for monies and companies to gain something out of it.

Our probes are doing excellent, and actually offer more science data, than wasting precious research dollars so a "Smiling Al" type astronaut can plant some nation's flag on Martian or the Moon's soil, again.

Space wasn't designed for humans, nor does it knows about our politics or daydreams. We won't get to new worlds to form colonies anyway, until research at home can produce the energy we need for the next technological age to make it possible (which we're short of by about 8% -- needing 10x the current reserve we have today), so we can terra-form. Without terra-forming, might as well forget it, as space would be just a hobby -- too expensive and can't sustain itself without living in confined spaces (wrong for our development, and will take too long to adapt mankind to get "used" to living in a biosphere environment, making upkeep tedious).

Dreams are nice, but reality is what we have to live in 99.9% of the time.

How do you intend to employ the army of workers behind the shuttle? There is no way that congress would permit all of them go unemployed and lose their votes, especially in Florida, and unmanned exploration simply doesn't need that many people, even if ramped up. There is a reason they intended to reuse the shuttle's components: to keep all those workers employed. Everything else is secondary.

NiteWatcher
2007-Nov-13, 09:39 AM
How do you intend to employ the army of workers behind the shuttle? There is no way that congress would permit all of them go unemployed and lose their votes, especially in Florida, and unmanned exploration simply doesn't need that many people, even if ramped up. There is a reason they intended to reuse the shuttle's components: to keep all those workers employed. Everything else is secondary.

Like with anyone else: get another job.

We won't be needing that many foreign engineers and scientists then, either.

But the manned program costs too much to justify it's existence, compared to probes and robots at a fraction of the cost. If all that money going into the manned programmed was channeled into deep probes and landers, there will be so much data to cypher, unemployment won't be issue, space will be to store it!

The success of the Mars probes means interest won't wane. And you know the taxpayers, they want a cheaper solution. Probes can be easier to get funding for, especially since there's also no need to carry a home with them to maintain life.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-13, 09:58 AM
But the manned program costs too much to justify it's existence, compared to probes and robots at a fraction of the cost. If all that money going into the manned programmed was channeled into deep probes and landers, there will be so much data to cypher, unemployment won't be issue, space will be to store it!


Assuming that money actually went to robots, sure. However, I expect most or all of the money simply would go out of NASA to something else. I wouldn't be surprised to see the unmanned budget drop.

And, personally, while I love to see what the probes and telescopes bring back, if we were to completely turn our back on having people in space, it would be too painful for me to continue watching the robots having fun.

NiteWatcher
2007-Nov-13, 10:06 AM
And, personally, while I love to see what the probes and telescopes bring back, if we were to completely turn our back on having people in space, it would be too painful for me to continue watching the robots having fun.

Not completely, but when we're ready.

Too many technical challenges that can't be answered within 20 years, let along 50. And e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g going out and returning has to carry their home with them, causing it to be so expensive NASA could find a cure for cancer on that budget!

It's about being practical. Get the data FIRST; work the challenges of flight (especially the need to carry essentials for life, like an overpacked mule); get the treaties finished (some Antarctica research solution); and find a way to not pollute another planet as bad as this planet is facing -- exporting those troubles to a new world is just plain bad form (as NASA showed on the Moon, by leaving space junk behind).

Mankind has a responsibility to be caretakers, not destroyers of everything he touches.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-13, 10:35 AM
Not completely, but when we're ready.

Too many technical challenges that can't be answered within 20 years, let along 50. And e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g going out and returning has to carry their home with them, causing it to be so expensive NASA could find a cure for cancer on that budget!


We already backed off for decades, retreating to LEO. We already spend a great deal on cancer research, and again, you seem to be assuming that the money from NASA would go to something you like.



It's about being practical. Get the data FIRST; work the challenges of flight (especially the need to carry essentials for life, like an overpacked mule); get the treaties finished (some Antarctica research solution); and find a way to not pollute another planet as bad as this planet is facing -- exporting those troubles to a new world is just plain bad form (as NASA showed on the Moon, by leaving space junk behind).

Mankind has a responsibility to be caretakers, not destroyers of everything he touches.

Sorry, I can't take an argument that we polluted the moon seriously. And, we already have the space treaty.

NiteWatcher
2007-Nov-13, 10:54 AM
We already backed off for decades, retreating to LEO. We already spend a great deal on cancer research, and again, you seem to be assuming that the money from NASA would go to something you like.

No, congress will make sure the money will go where THEY like. ;)


Sorry, I can't take an argument that we polluted the moon seriously. And, we already have the space treaty.

There's plenty of space junk on the Moon man carted there. And like the permafrost in the Arctic, once it's left, it'll take hundreds of years to disintergrate.

The treaty isn't worldwide, just with space seeking countries. Space exploration exposes the whole world to possible extermination (especially bringing back a armegeddon microbe we have zero natural immunity too), so it's imperative every country on Earth is "on board", not just what country throws a rocket outside Earth.

That's called responsibility. That conscience that separates mankind from being beasts.

AtomicDog
2007-Nov-13, 11:48 AM
Assuming that money actually went to robots, sure. However, I expect most or all of the money simply would go out of NASA to something else. I wouldn't be surprised to see the unmanned budget drop.

And, personally, while I love to see what the probes and telescopes bring back, if we were to completely turn our back on having people in space, it would be too painful for me to continue watching the robots having fun.


Hear, Hear!

mike alexander
2007-Nov-13, 04:41 PM
And afterwards, it will make an excellent pool toy

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1048/pooltoyki2.th.jpg (http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pooltoyki2.jpg)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Nov-13, 04:45 PM
There's plenty of space junk on the Moon man carted there. And like the permafrost in the Arctic, once it's left, it'll take hundreds of years to disintergrate.


Now who left that permafrost in the Arctic? Who's job was it to pick that stuff up?

Noclevername
2007-Nov-13, 05:42 PM
I assume the casters are to drive it back to the VAB after it lands.

It's so it can be converted to a dessert cart, so at least it'll be useful during the party to celebrate the "next" shuttle-replacement's announcement.

mike alexander
2007-Nov-13, 10:12 PM
Oooh, nasty but nice.

I think I'll get out my old Firesign Theatre album:

"Forward, into the past!"

AtomicDog
2007-Nov-13, 10:16 PM
"Back, to the Future!"

NiteWatcher
2007-Nov-13, 10:27 PM
Now who left that permafrost in the Arctic? Who's job was it to pick that stuff up?

1. Your guess is good as mine.
2. The folks who are the caretakers of this Earth. Being on top of the food chain has responsibilities, ya know?

mike alexander
2007-Nov-13, 10:35 PM
For everyone getting down on my lack of enthusiasm, I just want to say that fifty years after I started paying serious attention to these matters I expected something better that an aluminum Yoplait container perched on a phallic pogo stick.

AtomicDog
2007-Nov-13, 10:40 PM
I'm just enjoying the fact that we're finally getting serious about manned space exploration again.

Maksutov
2007-Nov-13, 10:53 PM
[edit]There's plenty of space junk on the Moon man carted there. And like the permafrost in the Arctic, once it's left, it'll take hundreds of years to disintergrate....So humankind is (ir)responsible for leaving some junk called permafrost behind in the Arctic? Seems to have served a useful purpose over the years.


ETA: I see Tucson_Tim already caught this one, but someone didn't get it. Therefore, once more, with feeling...

Maksutov
2007-Nov-13, 10:55 PM
Oooh, nasty but nice.

I think I'll get out my old Firesign Theatre album:

"Forward, into the past!"Ah, Firesign!

Well, at least we now now what that window is for! What a relief!

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-13, 11:07 PM
For everyone getting down on my lack of enthusiasm, I just want to say that fifty years after I started paying serious attention to these matters I expected something better that an aluminum Yoplait container perched on a phallic pogo stick.

I agree with that. The real issue to me isn't what we are doing in space, but what we aren't doing.

Maksutov
2007-Nov-13, 11:08 PM
naelphin][/B]
How do you intend to employ the army of workers behind the shuttle? There is no way that congress would permit all of them go unemployed and lose their votes, especially in Florida, and unmanned exploration simply doesn't need that many people, even if ramped up. There is a reason they intended to reuse the shuttle's components: to keep all those workers employed. Everything else is secondary.We won't be needing that many foreign engineers and scientists then, either....This statement, in addition to its xenophobic overtones, seems to indicate there are a disproportional number of foreign engineers and scientists working in the manned space program, as opposed to a significantly lesser number working in the unmanned programs. I wasn't aware of this. Please provide references that support this claim.

If the statement was meant to apply to the entire space program, then how many foreign engineers and scientists are currently in the space program as a whole? And what would be the RIF of this group?

mike alexander
2007-Nov-13, 11:46 PM
Hm. Who's going to launch the Jack Webb Space Telescope? Last I saw it was going up on an Arianne 5.

"Wednesday, June 24, 2013. It was cold at Lagrange 2..."

NiteWatcher
2007-Nov-14, 12:10 AM
This statement, in addition to its xenophobic overtones, seems to indicate there are a disproportional number of foreign engineers and scientists working in the manned space program, as opposed to a significantly lesser number working in the unmanned programs. I wasn't aware of this. Please provide references that support this claim.

Looked at our engineering and physics programs, Mak? How many are being filled with Americans? They're importing foreign students to fill the seats, for years.

Personally, US space program, needs to be filled by US citizens.

And yep, I'm a nationalist, and I don't care whatever someone thinks about it. Native, you got first dibs on the job (no different than what Germany practices -- as my brother living there knows so well, from experience).

So whine about EU hiring practices, too.


If the statement was meant to apply to the entire space program, then how many foreign engineers and scientists are currently in the space program as a whole? And what would be the RIF of this group?

I'd careless.

Want more engineers and hard scientists? Give great incentives (like a paid education path, in return to work as a researcher or whatever requirement), and it shouldn't be a problem what NASA program there is.

It's American tax dollars, and Americans should benefit from them.

mike alexander
2007-Nov-14, 01:10 AM
"I claim this Multiverse in the name of the United States of America!"

Maksutov
2007-Nov-14, 01:12 AM
This statement, in addition to its xenophobic overtones, seems to indicate there are a disproportional number of foreign engineers and scientists working in the manned space program, as opposed to a significantly lesser number working in the unmanned programs. I wasn't aware of this. Please provide references that support this claim.
Looked at our engineering and physics programs, Mak? How many are being filled with Americans? They're importing foreign students to fill the seats, for years.How about answering my question about the manned space program, instead of going off on a tangent?
Personally, US space program, needs to be filled by US citizens.
And what is it that put America in the forefront of the nuclear nations? And what is it that will make it possible to spend twenty billion dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? Well, it was good old American know how, that's what, as provided by good old Americans like Dr. Wernher von Braun!
-Tom Lehrer
And yep, I'm a nationalist, and I don't care whatever someone thinks about it. Native, you got first dibs on the job (no different than what Germany practices -- as my brother living there knows so well, from experience).
Drum sag' ich euch:
ehrt eure deutschen Meister!
-Richard Wagner
So whine about EU hiring practices, too.The content you've posted indicates you're the only one here, to use the gerund of your own word, "whining" about hiring practices. Nice, but rather clumsy use of the tu quoque red herring.
If the statement was meant to apply to the entire space program, then how many foreign engineers and scientists are currently in the space program as a whole? And what would be the RIF of this group?

I'd careless.Maybe if you'd more careful. http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif
Want more engineers and hard scientists? Give great incentives (like a paid education path, in return to work as a researcher or whatever requirement), and it shouldn't be a problem what NASA program there is.This contradicts what you wrote earlier (http://www.bautforum.com/universe-today-story-comments/66761-first-look-orion-crew-module.html#post1111550) about your opposition to the current manned space flight program, which you said should be shut down for about 100 years.

It's American tax dollars, and Americans should benefit from them.Agreed.

But sometimes, to produce the benefit, the dollars don't go directly to Americans. Foreign aid, for instance. The idea in many cases is having a stable government and economy in a part of the world whose status could have a direct impact on America's well-being, is something Americans can benefit from, even though indirectly.

The shortest path and the most effective path are not always the same.

Meanwhile, how about answering my questions?

mike alexander
2007-Nov-14, 01:41 AM
If you want more hard scientists it would be a lot cheaper to just freeze a few soft ones.

NiteWatcher
2007-Nov-14, 02:31 AM
How about answering my question about the manned space program, instead of going off on a tangent?

Actually, I didn't go off on a tangent you mentioned it!


This statement, in addition to its xenophobic overtones, seems to indicate there are a disproportional number of foreign engineers and scientists working in the manned space program

Thus, my reply.


Meanwhile, how about answering my questions?

When you acknowledge my above statement as factual evidence.

Maksutov
2007-Nov-14, 03:11 AM
Obi-Wan: That isn't an answer, that's an evasion!

Luke: I'm starting to get a bad feeling about my questions getting answered.

Han: They're trying to get us in a circular logic tractor beam!

Chewbacca: [provides some advice in Shyriiwook]

Han: Thanks, Chewie, we're outta here!

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/5526/swhyperspacepy0.th.jpg (http://img408.imageshack.us/my.php?image=swhyperspacepy0.jpg)

Halcyon Dayz
2007-Nov-14, 07:49 AM
Nationalism is sooo 19th century. :hand:

The simple reason for the US importing brains is because it can't produce the required numbers all by it self.


If you want more hard scientists it would be a lot cheaper to just freeze a few soft ones.

:lol:

Noclevername
2007-Nov-14, 07:58 AM
NiteTroller, I mean NiteWatcher, has been banned. It's only for two days, which I doubt will make much of a dent, but there it is.