Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:51 pm
there is a lot of job satisfaction working on a vehicle that can go from 0 to 17,500 mph in 8 1/2 minutes.
Shep[/quote]
Are you a contrator or Nasa itself.... Anyway , hat's off to you for moving us forward as a species..
Shep[/quote]
Are you a contrator or Nasa itself.... Anyway , hat's off to you for moving us forward as a species..
Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:53 pm
Broken wrench,
NASA Civil Servant.
Shep
NASA Civil Servant.
Shep
Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:57 pm
sheppjr wrote:Nope not related. His last name is spelled with 1 p and mine is spelled with 2. I have been asked that question at least 50 times over the last 20 years. Shep is just an old college nickname.
Shep
Oh, okay. Sorry to ask such an annoying question. I hadn't seen you post before. Belated welcome to Wix though!
Re: .6%
Sat Dec 20, 2008 10:59 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:Shep Jr, NASA's budget is only .6% of the US total so it's ok if much of it is boondoggle and not a benefit to most people.
Perhaps your definition of a boondoggle. People who use GPS or a thousand other space derived or space enabled technologies on a daily basis might disagree.
Now O J only killed 2 of about 300,000 people, which is .000006 %, so why even pay any attention to that or even have a trial?
I'm not even sure how to respond to that one.
And JDK, "humanity needs to strive to reach further than before" and "because it's there". If that is not a pile of amorphous BS then I haven't seen one. If the govt takes our taxes to build a road or a hospital or a school or a retirement fund or an airport, we get something back for our money. Maybe not all for everyone, but there is a direct benefit. Not so with space.
We get technology and knowledge back from the space program. Those are two of the key things which elevate the human race over asparagus.
By the way, JDK on another topic, I had a lot more respect for your postings and your opinions on WIX before you became a junior censor. Perhaps you missed your calling, Gonzales beat you to it.
C'mon Bill, play nice. Everyone else seems to be trying to.
Last edited by Kyleb on Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:04 pm
Warbird1,
No offense taken. It is always fun to answer the question.
Shep
No offense taken. It is always fun to answer the question.
Shep
Re: .6%
Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:08 pm
Bill, play the ball, not the man.
Your understanding of science, rather than financial investment or government is faulty. That's just not how science works.
Charming. I have no idea and care less who 'Gonzales' might be, I can assume it's an insult. I'm real glad I stuck up for you when you got (IMHO unfairly) canned before I was a mod. Respect is given, not taken.
Bill Greenwood wrote:And JDK, "humanity needs to strive to reach further than before" and "because it's there". If that is not a pile of amorphous BS then I haven't seen one. If the govt takes our taxes to build a road or a hospital or a school or a retirement fund or an airport, we get something back for our money. Maybe not all for everyone, but there is a direct benefit. Not so with space.
Your understanding of science, rather than financial investment or government is faulty. That's just not how science works.
By the way, JDK on another topic, I had a lot more respect for your postings and your opinions on WIX before you became a junior censor. Perhaps you missed your calling, Gonzales beat you to it.
Charming. I have no idea and care less who 'Gonzales' might be, I can assume it's an insult. I'm real glad I stuck up for you when you got (IMHO unfairly) canned before I was a mod. Respect is given, not taken.
Nasa land
Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:09 pm
Shep, just a little side point of interest. Much of the NASA land was bought from some folks in Houston that were friends of my parents. They owned is as rice farms I think, may have also hunted there, anyway it was not high dollar value until the govt. came along with a big checkbook.
Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:20 pm
Nasa may even provide the technology to feed the masses in the future. It kind of looks like space food 
Set in the year 2022, Soylent Green depicts a dystopian future in which the population has grown to forty million in New York City alone. Most housing is dilapidated and overcrowded, and the impoverished homeless fill the streets and line the fire escapes and stairways of buildings. Food as we know it today–including fruit, vegetables, and meat–is a rare and expensive commodity. Half of the world's population survives on processed rations produced by the massive Soylent Corporation (from soy(bean) + lent(il)), including Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow, which are advertised as "high-energy vegetable concentrates". The newest product is Soylent Green - a small green wafer which is advertised as being produced from "high-energy plankton". It is much more nutritious and palatable than the red and yellow varieties, but it is -- like most other food -- in short supply, which often leads to riots.
Set in the year 2022, Soylent Green depicts a dystopian future in which the population has grown to forty million in New York City alone. Most housing is dilapidated and overcrowded, and the impoverished homeless fill the streets and line the fire escapes and stairways of buildings. Food as we know it today–including fruit, vegetables, and meat–is a rare and expensive commodity. Half of the world's population survives on processed rations produced by the massive Soylent Corporation (from soy(bean) + lent(il)), including Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow, which are advertised as "high-energy vegetable concentrates". The newest product is Soylent Green - a small green wafer which is advertised as being produced from "high-energy plankton". It is much more nutritious and palatable than the red and yellow varieties, but it is -- like most other food -- in short supply, which often leads to riots.
Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:14 am
Soylent Green, is...People !!
I was under the impression that a lot of the land where JSC was built belonged to Rice University. If the Govt closed JSC the whole campus would revert to the University ? Is that faulty info ?
Your other comment intrigues me, the land was worthless ? I don't believe that Bill. The old Silver Dollar Jim West Mansion still stands on property that was adjacent to the perimeter of the JSC property. There was also another large mansion just across a shallow tidal lake across from the West property that was turned into an orphanage. It is a county park now. Those properties as well as many others date back to the 30s. They were big time in their day, long before NASA. It all fronts Clear Lake, a long time rec area for Houstonians, as you know.
I was under the impression that a lot of the land where JSC was built belonged to Rice University. If the Govt closed JSC the whole campus would revert to the University ? Is that faulty info ?
Your other comment intrigues me, the land was worthless ? I don't believe that Bill. The old Silver Dollar Jim West Mansion still stands on property that was adjacent to the perimeter of the JSC property. There was also another large mansion just across a shallow tidal lake across from the West property that was turned into an orphanage. It is a county park now. Those properties as well as many others date back to the 30s. They were big time in their day, long before NASA. It all fronts Clear Lake, a long time rec area for Houstonians, as you know.
land
Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:31 am
Rick, I did not write that the land was "worthless". I wrote that the part our friends owned was "not high dollar value".
Now this has been a long time, over 30 years. And the story was just related to me,I think by my Brother, it was not something I dwelled on thinking I would be debating it on WIX one day. So I could be wrong, of course. But the NASA site contains a lot of land, there is much more there than just on the Clear Lake side where the lovely old mansion is. As I recall it, much of what our friends sold was rice farm type.
I do sort of wonder what the first astronauts thought when they gazed on the waters of so called "Clear Lake".
Now this has been a long time, over 30 years. And the story was just related to me,I think by my Brother, it was not something I dwelled on thinking I would be debating it on WIX one day. So I could be wrong, of course. But the NASA site contains a lot of land, there is much more there than just on the Clear Lake side where the lovely old mansion is. As I recall it, much of what our friends sold was rice farm type.
I do sort of wonder what the first astronauts thought when they gazed on the waters of so called "Clear Lake".
Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:40 am
What I don't understand What was the point of bringing it up?
Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:48 am
I just had the pleasure of interviewing Frank Borman on Wednesday the 17th, and he said flat out that the early efforts of the space race were not about science at all - it was a battle of the Cold War to outdo the Soviets. Science benefitted, but it was not the primary objective of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs in his opinion. He also has a pretty low opinion of the Shuttle program if you read his autobiography
Countdown. Not my opinion necessarily, I'm just stating what I've been told by someone who was involved...
Zack
Countdown. Not my opinion necessarily, I'm just stating what I've been told by someone who was involved...
Zack
Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:58 am
To me, the space program is like any R&D program. Pure and simple, you are spending risk money. You can spend $100 and get $10,000 in return, or you can get nothing. Only history can tell you after the fact if the money was well spent.
I can't imagine what the state of the art would be if risks were never taken. I'm not even talking NASA, I'm talking any technology industry.
I can't imagine what the state of the art would be if risks were never taken. I'm not even talking NASA, I'm talking any technology industry.
Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:02 am
Two good posts by Zachary and bdk.
Was there ever an expectation of any financial return from space research?
bdk wrote:...You can spend $100 and get $10,000 in return, or you can get nothing...
Was there ever an expectation of any financial return from space research?
Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:19 am
well, it certainly was one of the points they brought up when they put their hand out. I have family that worked at Stennis, and more recently at Restone, so I'm not anti the program. But we need to quit screwing around with it if we aren't going to actually DO anything with it. If it's a 17 Billion a year tinker toy, and it now exists simply as an expensive ego boost or to excite kids to explore science...we need to ditch it and use the money for things that actually DO something. I'm all for a space program, as long as it is research that is intended to further knowledge and to harvest what is out there instead of digging more holes we can't fill down here...
I mean, can you name ONE sci fi novel where a space program exists simply for our own ego boosts? ANY of the old dozen Sci Fi masters made the point again and again: human beings NEED. If space isn't being used as a resource, we will never really bother with it. If we can excite all those hungry masses and greedy capiltalists, we will move out to the edges of the solar system, if only to mine resources. If not, the program is going to implode of it's own genetic retardation. We cannot, as a nation, justify spending money on something that isn't going to move us forward, imo. If we actually decide to point it somewhere, at a resource, it will be the salvation of humanity, I think. If not, well, Earth is only so big, ya know?
I mean, can you name ONE sci fi novel where a space program exists simply for our own ego boosts? ANY of the old dozen Sci Fi masters made the point again and again: human beings NEED. If space isn't being used as a resource, we will never really bother with it. If we can excite all those hungry masses and greedy capiltalists, we will move out to the edges of the solar system, if only to mine resources. If not, the program is going to implode of it's own genetic retardation. We cannot, as a nation, justify spending money on something that isn't going to move us forward, imo. If we actually decide to point it somewhere, at a resource, it will be the salvation of humanity, I think. If not, well, Earth is only so big, ya know?