Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/14/2001 1:10:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 2:48:47 PM EDT
I hope he keeps us on track. I liked Daniel Goldin. He showed great motivation and spoke pretty convincingly. He did have to defend a few cluster F's that really shouldn't have happened. But all in all Goldin was pretty cool. New dude needs to get a person on Mars soon... [50]
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 2:58:16 PM EDT
I have been a fan of NASA since Mercury. I hope this new guy can bring the excitement back. Hope he doesn't bend to any political pressure for launches. I think that played a roll in the Challenger disaster. Ya know, NASA knowing Reagan wanted it to launch, so they bent the rules a little. God, I hope we never have another director that plays that game.
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 3:03:15 PM EDT
NASA? Space program? Do we even still have one? Somehow, nowadays, despite my erstwhile enthusiasm for space exploration, sending billions of taxpayer $$$ into orbit to research arcane topics just doesn't seem like all that great an idea anymore. Unless it's got a military purpose to it, of course...:^)
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 3:05:12 PM EDT
I would have preferred Richard Hoaxla...I mean Richard Hoagland.
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 3:06:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HiramRanger: Studied under this man at Maxwell - brilliant and the closest thing you will find to a tough-as-nails corporate CEO in the public sector. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28123-2001Nov14.html
View Quote
I hope he emphasizes mars rather than more pointless missions orbiting earth. I am a little worried since I heard that the last guy was criticized by most people for emphasizing mars TOO MUCH, and I thought he didn't do nearly enough. Apparently most people have no interest in mars....
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 3:57:00 PM EDT
Somebody needs to resurrect Gerard O'Neals space colony idea first. And we would save a fortune in launch costs if they would build a EM catapult. Instead of wasting a fortune on stuff that is designed to burn up.
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 4:39:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Somebody needs to resurrect Gerard O'Neals space colony idea first. And we would save a fortune in launch costs if they would build a EM catapult. Instead of wasting a fortune on stuff that is designed to burn up.
View Quote
I would prefer a laser launch system. Could double as a defense system. [:D]
Link Posted: 11/14/2001 4:56:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Somebody needs to resurrect Gerard O'Neals space colony idea first. And we would save a fortune in launch costs if they would build a EM catapult. Instead of wasting a fortune on stuff that is designed to burn up.
View Quote
I would prefer a laser launch system. Could double as a defense system. [:D]
View Quote
Well it would but a laser of that power is a little beyond us. However it is within our technology to build a laser system that would work off the MOON- where there is no drag and the gravity is 1/6 earth. That would be useful for lifting the building materials to build colonies ect. Another thing about NASA, they over build everything. I am sorry but there is no way the habitat modules of the ISS are exposed to more stress than the hulls of our Nuclear Submarines. We do not build our subs in cleanrooms. We do not build our subs out of exotic alloys, we use steel, high grade steel but still steel. Why cant space station parts be made the same way? Also, why do all spacecraft be multimission? Travel to space SHOULD be done in stages. First up to orbit at the ISS. Then from the ISS in a special spacecraft that is little more than a pressure chamber with thrusters to a nother pressure chamber that is geosinc. Then another simple spacecraft to another unmanned pressure chamber/garage at the L1 point between earth and moon. There you get on the lunar lander and down to the station on the moon. Every part is reusible and every part is a single purpose unit.
Top Top