Save the Hubble

[Tom Del Rosso]

Sure, if NASA had the guts to risk a shuttle mission. They could
replace the gyros, refull the propellants and cryogens, and pop in
some cool new sensors and signal processing.

Couldn't they put those sensors on a brand new platform and launch it in an
unmanned rocket for the same money?

 

[Jim Yanik]

Sure, if NASA had the guts to risk a shuttle mission. They could
replace the gyros, refull the propellants and cryogens, and pop in
some cool new sensors and signal processing.

John

They already have the materials ready to go.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Couldn't they put those sensors on a brand new platform and launch it
in an unmanned rocket for the same money?

But then they gain no experience in space servicing operations.

 

[Rich Grise]

They already have the materials ready to go.

What if they put a crew on the disposable service module, and gave them a
reentry capsule a la Apollo? If they're worried about shuttles falling
apart, that is.

Or look into some of the civilian ideas these days. Wouldn't it be ironic
if NASA found themselves buying passage on a Virgin Galactic orbital
flight? ;-)

Maybe that's not that far off-base (albeit maybe far off in the future) -
when I was in the USAF, and got transferred to another base, they'd buy me
a ticket on an airline. I very seldom got a ride on an Air Force
plane. )-; (the C-141 is just awesomely cool to ride in! About three
minutes before touchdown, it feels like suddenly everything's floating,
including your butt. ;-) And you can hear the engines make a very cool
sound as they kind of wind down to landing RPM (or whatever they do.)).

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Libertarian]

Manned spaceflight has nothing to do with science; it's useless
spam-in-a-can. The crews of the ISS do nothing but struggle to
maintain life support for the crews of the ISS. What place in the
universe could be less interesting than low Earth orbit? For the price
of one manned mission, you could launch dozens of robotic probes to
planets and asteroids and the sun itself, learn a lot about remote
sensing, and do some real science.


Nonsense. The US still leads the world in science and technology. Not
to mention weapons.

Yes. Weapons. Hmm. I wonder if they'll ever have enough?

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[[email protected]]

If that were true, why would the Abrams M1A1/2 battle tank

http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/abrams.htm

attack with a gun developed by Rheinmetall GmbH in Germany and for
protection rely on Chobam composite armour developed by the UK Ministry
of Defence?

The only place where the U.S. does seem to have a secure lead is in
parochial conceit, and even there the Chinese are likely to resume
their traditional role, as soon as they can find something to be
conceited about.

 

[John Larkin]

If that were true, why would the Abrams M1A1/2 battle tank

http://www.defencejournal.com/jul99/abrams.htm

attack with a gun developed by Rheinmetall GmbH in Germany and for
protection rely on Chobam composite armour developed by the UK Ministry
of Defence?

It would seem to me that using the best available components in one's
weapons is precisely what leadership is about. The Germans have always
been superb at building things that kill, and the British have always
specialized in trying to defend against them; the offense usually
maintains the lead here.

The thing that's astonishing about the M1 is its ability to sense,
track, target, and kill a distant enemy almost instantly while still
maneuvering at high speed. Parts is parts; systems get things done.

The only place where the U.S. does seem to have a secure lead is in
parochial conceit,

So, who has a better tanks, or planes, or submarines? Facts are not
conceit.

John

 

[keith]

It would seem to me that using the best available components in one's
weapons is precisely what leadership is about. The Germans have always
been superb at building things that kill, and the British have always
specialized in trying to defend against them; the offense usually
maintains the lead here.

The thing that's astonishing about the M1 is its ability to sense,
track, target, and kill a distant enemy almost instantly while still
maneuvering at high speed. Parts is parts; systems get things done.



So, who has a better tanks, or planes, or submarines? Facts are not
conceit.

The French are so better at aircraft carriers. Theirs is so pretty they
leave it in port.

 

[martin griffith]

What if they put a crew on the disposable service module, and gave them a
reentry capsule a la Apollo? If they're worried about shuttles falling
apart, that is.

Or look into some of the civilian ideas these days. Wouldn't it be ironic
if NASA found themselves buying passage on a Virgin Galactic orbital
flight? ;-)

Maybe that's not that far off-base (albeit maybe far off in the future) -
when I was in the USAF, and got transferred to another base, they'd buy me
a ticket on an airline. I very seldom got a ride on an Air Force
plane. )-; (the C-141 is just awesomely cool to ride in! About three
minutes before touchdown, it feels like suddenly everything's floating,
including your butt. ;-) And you can hear the engines make a very cool
sound as they kind of wind down to landing RPM (or whatever they do.)).

Cheers!
Rich

try here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/bbc7/aod.shtml?bbc7/1800_sat


martin


"Facts are stupid things.." -- Reagan, '88

 

[[email protected]]

On 13 Feb 2005 03:18:35 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

It would seem to me that using the best available components in one's
weapons is precisely what leadership is about.

If the US lead the world in science and technology, then they'd
scarcely need to go to Germany for the best gun, or England for the
best armour.

The Germans have always
been superb at building things that kill, and the British have always
specialized in trying to defend against them; the offense usually
maintains the lead here.

The thing that's astonishing about the M1 is its ability to sense,
track, target, and kill a distant enemy almost instantly while still
maneuvering at high speed. Parts is parts; systems get things done.

And your systems have been tested on antique Russian tanks in Irak,
where the Abrams' thirsty habits didn't happen to give you serious
problems.

So, who has a better tanks, or planes, or submarines? Facts are not
conceit.

I very much hope that we never find out who has the best tanks, planes
or submarines - they are all quite good enough to kill an inordinate
number of people, and undo twenty or thirty years worth of investment
in infra-structure.

I note that you do not seem to want to boast about the US public health
indices, where direct comparisons are possible - they don't exactly put
the US in a leading position.

 

[John Larkin]

If the US lead the world in science and technology, then they'd
scarcely need to go to Germany for the best gun, or England for the
best armour.

Leadership doesn't mean one does *everything* better than everyone
else. You are trashing the US precisely because there are some things
that others do well; Germany is where to go for expertise in killing.

You're not being reasonable. But I guess reason pales before hatred.

And your systems have been tested on antique Russian tanks in Irak,
where the Abrams' thirsty habits didn't happen to give you serious
problems.

What other good targets are available?

I very much hope that we never find out who has the best tanks, planes
or submarines - they are all quite good enough to kill an inordinate
number of people, and undo twenty or thirty years worth of investment
in infra-structure.

One of the functions of weaponry is deterrance. As, for example, kept
the Russians out of Europe. But if you add up the responsibility for
infrastructure destruction in the last 100 years, I doubt the US would
be topping the list. Who was it that invented "total war" anyhow? Who
perfected civilian terror bombing in Spain? Who leveled Dresden?
Remember The Gulag, The Great Leap Forward, The Killing Fields, Korea,
the Rape of Manchuria, Rwanda, Uganda? I guess not. Of if you do, I'm
sure it was all the US's fault.

I note that you do not seem to want to boast about the US public health
indices,

Shockingly enough, that's not my mission in life.

where direct comparisons are possible - they don't exactly put
the US in a leading position.

That wasn't the subject. When you lose one argument for bashing the
US, I guess you just switch to another. Since you are still unwilling
to think and discuss without blaming, I guess I'll go back to ignoring
you.

John

 

[Boris Mohar]

The French are so better at aircraft carriers. Theirs is so pretty they
leave it in port.

Canada is excels at military surplus acquisition and restoration.
Now I'll have to apologize to someone.

 

[keith]

Canada is excels at military surplus acquisition and restoration.
Now I'll have to apologize to someone.

I went to a fine museum just west of Toronto a few years ago. They had a
flying F104, that I just missed in the air. <drat>. ...and I was left to
wander aroung the engine restoration areas. I wasn't *supposed* to be
there, but they left the ropes off and I wandered. I got the hint when
one of the fine restoration specialists gave me a *very* strange look (my
hands are always in my pockets when I'm looking at such artifacts) and
then shruged and turned back to rebuilding his engine. I then looked
around and was surrounded by yellow chains. Oops.

Some parts of Canuckistan are nice places to visit. Th firther west the
better though.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Yes. Weapons. Hmm. I wonder if they'll ever have enough?

Good Luck!
Rich

It's prudent to have the most modern weapons,and weapons systems do wear
out.

Of course,when enough nations have governments responsible to their
citizens,(armed)warfare will decline.
Free and democratic nations are not any threat to other nations.

 

[keith]

Leadership doesn't mean one does *everything* better than everyone
else. You are trashing the US precisely because there are some things
that others do well; Germany is where to go for expertise in killing.

You're not being reasonable. But I guess reason pales before hatred.

Yikes! You have Sloman nailed! The hatred pours out of his every pore.

What other good targets are available?

Sloman? Ok, he's a "soft" target, hardy worth starting an M1 for. A
dirty sock is enough.

One of the functions of weaponry is deterrance. As, for example, kept
the Russians out of Europe. But if you add up the responsibility for
infrastructure destruction in the last 100 years, I doubt the US would
be topping the list. Who was it that invented "total war" anyhow? Who
perfected civilian terror bombing in Spain? Who leveled Dresden?
Remember The Gulag, The Great Leap Forward, The Killing Fields, Korea,
the Rape of Manchuria, Rwanda, Uganda? I guess not. Of if you do, I'm
sure it was all the US's fault.

No, it was the pussies in Europe's fault. They *Could* have stopped it
before it got out of hand, but *no*, "it's only Poland".

Shockingly enough, that's not my mission in life.

Without the crack-whores, it's not too bad, in fact. Though you're right,
who cares?

That wasn't the subject. When you lose one argument for bashing the US,
I guess you just switch to another. Since you are still unwilling to
think and discuss without blaming, I guess I'll go back to ignoring you.

Like all Leftists, he simply hates. I'll do everything I can to make him
happy. <shrug>

So waht about Dean baibng the head of the Democratic party? As I told my
wife (and anyone who would listen) that I couldn't think of a better job
for him. I'm an optomistic kind of guy, but today was one of the great
ones! The leftist Democrats can have him! There may be even fewer blue
states in four years. ...and fewer blue congress-critters in two!
*GO*DEAN!*

 

[John Larkin]

The French are so better at aircraft carriers. Theirs is so pretty they
leave it in port.

They're also better at soft cheeses, which must be a sure indicator of
the imminemt decline of the USA.

John

 

[keith]

They're also better at soft cheeses, which must be a sure indicator of
the imminemt decline of the USA.

France is making Cheese Wiz? Kerry will be happy to hear this! He can
then do a "Philly" with Frog cheese!

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

I went to a fine museum just west of Toronto a few years ago. They had a
flying F104, that I just missed in the air. <drat>. ...and I was left to
wander aroung the engine restoration areas. I wasn't *supposed* to be
there, but they left the ropes off and I wandered. I got the hint when
one of the fine restoration specialists gave me a *very* strange look (my
hands are always in my pockets when I'm looking at such artifacts) and
then shruged and turned back to rebuilding his engine. I then looked
around and was surrounded by yellow chains. Oops.

This one? http://www.warplane.com/pages/aircraft_cf104.html

I knew a guy who flew them a couple of decades ago. He vigorously
defended them against their "widowmaker" label.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[[email protected]]

Leadership doesn't mean one does *everything* better than everyone
else. You are trashing the US precisely because there are some things
that others do well; Germany is where to go for expertise in killing.

Who's trashing the US? I was pointing out that your claim that "the US
leads the world in science and technology" was ill-founded.

The US has many areas where its specialists are the best in the world,
but they aren't all that much better than their European equivalents,
and there are plenty of other areas where the US experts are second
best - military intelligence does come to mind.

You're not being reasonable. But I guess reason pales before hatred.

I don't think you can make that case either.

What other good targets are available?

IIRR Iran has a bunch of British-made Chieftan tanks with Chobham
armour, sold to the Shah when he was still in power. They must be
getting a bit old now, but if Dubbya were contemplating another
ill-advised military adventure, Iran would seem to be a suitable
candidate.

One of the functions of weaponry is deterrence. As, for example, kept
the Russians out of Europe. But if you add up the responsibility for
infrastructure destruction in the last 100 years, I doubt the US would
be topping the list. Who was it that invented "total war" anyhow? Who
perfected civilian terror bombing in Spain? Who leveled Dresden?
Remember The Gulag, The Great Leap Forward, The Killing Fields, Korea,
the Rape of Manchuria, Rwanda, Uganda? I guess not. Of if you do, I'm
sure it was all the US's fault.

I was merely pointing out that any war is destructive - anybody
fighting a war is obliged to make life as difficult as possible for
their opponents. Nothing in my paragraph implies that the US has any
special responsibility in this. You did start an unnecessary war in
Irak, but the fault lies in spending too little time on finding a less
destructive solution, not in fighting the war effectively once you had
started it.

Shockingly enough, that's not my mission in life.


That wasn't the subject.

So the US doesn't lead the world in *medical* science and technology?
It certainly doesn't lead the world in delivering the benefits of
advanced medical science and technology to the entire population, but
that is more social science and technology, and we know that Dubbya is
dedicated to making the US even more backwards in this area.

When you lose one argument for bashing the US, I guess you just switch
to another. Since you are still unwilling to think and discuss without
blaming, I guess I'll go back to ignoring you.

Who was bashing the US? I was bashing *your* parochial conceit.

I think you've just invented the reverse ad hominem argument - blowing
up the criticism of an individual to a criticism of an entire country.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that [email protected] wrote (in

I think you've just invented the reverse ad hominem argument - blowing
up the criticism of an individual to a criticism of an entire country.

'Ad nationem', then. Certainly ad nauseam.