If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in > : > > >>Joe wrote: >> >>>"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in : >>> >>> >>> >>>>Joe wrote: >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>Michael, thanks for an intelligent, well though out post. >>>> >>>>Same to you. I enjoy discussing things with someone that doesn't >>>>get bent out of shape because we have different points of view. I >>>>need to get some sleep now. >>> >>> >>>Yes, what the hell were you doing up in the middle of the night >>>posting here?!? I thought you actually worked for a living! >> >>I work out of the basement of the house. When I get into a project >>I find my sleep schedule gets all screwed up. I work late then have >>to unwind before I can sleep and then sleep late in the morning. >>After a week or two of this I'm all screwed up. The good thing is >>it doesn't matter when I work just that I work 8-12 hours a day. > > > Yes, I knew you had a 10-second commute and a bizarre work schedule. > So do you actually get dressed for work, or do you end up taking a > shower at like 4pm for lunch? I usually try to get up by 8:30am (if I work late then I sleep later) and head downstairs and grab a jumbo cup of coffee. My wife leaves by 6:30am so the coffee is already in the pot. I grab a muffin and head to the couch where the laptop sets on the coffee table. I check email, the Washington Post, Drudge Report, maybe a few newsgroups and then head to the basement with a refill of the jumbo coffee. Then I return any phone calls, make sure I have no meetings scheduled and then start working. I take a few breaks during the day. Time flies down stairs though. I think it's the lack of windows. I watch a combination of Fox News, History Channel, Science Channel, National Geographic Channel and A&E while I work. I usually try and get a shower in before I have to take the dog out at 4:00pm to crap. > I work home Mondays and Fridays. Gave my boss the sob story of my 3- > hour commute per day down to Miami and back, not to mention 14mpg in > the torquemonster. She asked me if I could deal with two days from > home and I instantly said no problem. Telecommuting is nice. My wife did it 1-2 days a week before she was promoted and lost the perk. It was strange having both of us working from the house on her "home" days. It saves money to work from home but getting an extra 3 hours a day would be the real benefit for me. >>>Anyway, we can beat this to a pulp and lose a lot of sleep doing >>>it. We both have some good points, and it's a decent debate. >>>Let's hijack another thread another time and continue at that point >>>if you don't mind. It's been a long day and I'm just here for pure >>>entertainment tonight... >> >>I'm with you. I doubt anyone has read our last few posts anyway. >>Could it have been THAT boring?!?! > > > Well, I know Kate read a few of my comments from the other day... > Hell, of course we're boring - we're both over 40. I believe you but I have to say that I don't FEEL that I'm boring. |
Ads |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
: <snip> > I usually try to get up by 8:30am (if I work late then I sleep > later) and head downstairs and grab a jumbo cup of coffee. My wife > leaves by 6:30am so the coffee is already in the pot. I grab a > muffin and head to the couch where the laptop sets on the coffee > table. I take it you don't have kids or pets roaming around. If I left a laptop on the coffee table, it'd have food, spilled gatorade, paw prints all over it, and it'd be upside down on the floor in about a dozen pieces. > I check email, the Washington Post, Drudge Report, maybe a > few newsgroups and then head to the basement with a refill of the > jumbo coffee. I do iced coffee out of my thermos I keep in the fridge. Two's usually enough; any more and I'm too wired. > Then I return any phone calls, make sure I have no > meetings scheduled and then start working. Unless I'm in the office, I don't do phone. E-mail has to suffice. We're also hooked into one of those chat things for the company. > I take a few breaks > during the day. Time flies down stairs though. I think it's the > lack of windows. I watch a combination of Fox News, History > Channel, Science Channel, National Geographic Channel and A&E while > I work. I could never work with the TV or radio on. However, my desk is right next to the sliding glass doors in the living room. I have a panoramic view of our porch with the fish/turtle pond, and the back yard with the "canal" behind it. The canal rarely has water, but it's been pretty full for almost a month now because of the rain and storms. > I usually try and get a shower in before I have to take the > dog out at 4:00pm to crap. Hell, I'm not afraid to wander outside even right out of bed. Even dogs scatter when they see me. >> I work home Mondays and Fridays. Gave my boss the sob story of my >> 3- hour commute per day down to Miami and back, not to mention >> 14mpg in the torquemonster. She asked me if I could deal with two >> days from home and I instantly said no problem. > > Telecommuting is nice. My wife did it 1-2 days a week before she > was promoted and lost the perk. It was strange having both of us > working from the house on her "home" days. It saves money to work > from home but getting an extra 3 hours a day would be the real > benefit for me. When I'm home, I usually start anywhere between 6:30 and 8:30 depending on when I get up. During the summer, my wife's home (teacher) so we get up later. But during school, we're usually up at 5:45am so I'm working by 6:30. Having my VPN into work, I can always hook up and do whatever I have to at any time. So I usually end up putting a few hours in here and there over the weekend regardless. >>>>Anyway, we can beat this to a pulp and lose a lot of sleep doing >>>>it. We both have some good points, and it's a decent debate. >>>>Let's hijack another thread another time and continue at that >>>>point if you don't mind. It's been a long day and I'm just here >>>>for pure entertainment tonight... >>> >>>I'm with you. I doubt anyone has read our last few posts anyway. >>>Could it have been THAT boring?!?! >> >> >> Well, I know Kate read a few of my comments from the other day... >> > >> Hell, of course we're boring - we're both over 40. > > I believe you but I have to say that I don't FEEL that I'm boring. Right! We're the most interesting people on the planet... |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in > : > <snip> > >>I usually try to get up by 8:30am (if I work late then I sleep >>later) and head downstairs and grab a jumbo cup of coffee. My wife >>leaves by 6:30am so the coffee is already in the pot. I grab a >>muffin and head to the couch where the laptop sets on the coffee >>table. > > > I take it you don't have kids or pets roaming around. If I left a > laptop on the coffee table, it'd have food, spilled gatorade, paw > prints all over it, and it'd be upside down on the floor in about a > dozen pieces. We have a few cats and a dog but they never bother anything. The dog can't even jump on the coffee table so most things are safe around here. >>I check email, the Washington Post, Drudge Report, maybe a >>few newsgroups and then head to the basement with a refill of the >>jumbo coffee. > > > I do iced coffee out of my thermos I keep in the fridge. Two's > usually enough; any more and I'm too wired. Isn't that the whole point? >>Then I return any phone calls, make sure I have no >>meetings scheduled and then start working. > > > Unless I'm in the office, I don't do phone. E-mail has to suffice. > We're also hooked into one of those chat things for the company. I can't function without a phone. Sometimes I don;t answer it in order to get things done. >>I take a few breaks >>during the day. Time flies down stairs though. I think it's the >>lack of windows. I watch a combination of Fox News, History >>Channel, Science Channel, National Geographic Channel and A&E while >>I work. > > > I could never work with the TV or radio on. However, my desk is right > next to the sliding glass doors in the living room. I have a > panoramic view of our porch with the fish/turtle pond, and the back > yard with the "canal" behind it. The canal rarely has water, but it's > been pretty full for almost a month now because of the rain and > storms. I guess it goes back to my college days when I studied under all kinds of circumstances. If I could study while drinking beer and doing some light partying then a little TV is nothing. >>I usually try and get a shower in before I have to take the >>dog out at 4:00pm to crap. > > > Hell, I'm not afraid to wander outside even right out of bed. Even > dogs scatter when they see me. If I didn't impose that little bit of discipline then I may never shower. >>>I work home Mondays and Fridays. Gave my boss the sob story of my >>>3- hour commute per day down to Miami and back, not to mention >>>14mpg in the torquemonster. She asked me if I could deal with two >>>days from home and I instantly said no problem. >> >>Telecommuting is nice. My wife did it 1-2 days a week before she >>was promoted and lost the perk. It was strange having both of us >>working from the house on her "home" days. It saves money to work >>from home but getting an extra 3 hours a day would be the real >>benefit for me. > > > When I'm home, I usually start anywhere between 6:30 and 8:30 > depending on when I get up. During the summer, my wife's home > (teacher) so we get up later. But during school, we're usually up at > 5:45am so I'm working by 6:30. Having my VPN into work, I can always > hook up and do whatever I have to at any time. So I usually end up > putting a few hours in here and there over the weekend regardless. Try doing that for years on end. It really messes with your sense of time when you're dislocated from the day to day routines of punching a time clock. Whether I work all day or all night, it doesn't matter much. The time shifting just creeps up on you after awhile. >>>>>Anyway, we can beat this to a pulp and lose a lot of sleep doing >>>>>it. We both have some good points, and it's a decent debate. >>>>>Let's hijack another thread another time and continue at that >>>>>point if you don't mind. It's been a long day and I'm just here >>>>>for pure entertainment tonight... >>>> >>>>I'm with you. I doubt anyone has read our last few posts anyway. >>>>Could it have been THAT boring?!?! >>> >>> >>>Well, I know Kate read a few of my comments from the other day... >>> >> >>>Hell, of course we're boring - we're both over 40. >> >>I believe you but I have to say that I don't FEEL that I'm boring. > > > Right! We're the most interesting people on the planet... Well that takes the pressure off of us. Neither one of us is too demanding when it comes to being entertained. For proof just look at this thread. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
David Schierholz wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:06:24 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > > wrote: > > >>David Schierholz wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:28:09 -0400, pawn > wrote: > > >>>Ok- Probably not the group that cares about such things, but- >>> >>>You are citing as an example of intelligence and work ethic an >>>organization that put a man on the moon in 1969 and hasn't put one >>>farther than low earth orbit since? >> >>This isn't due to lack of intelligence or work ethic. Its due to lack >>of funding. > > > Hmmm... Hummer/ Mustang > Hummer/ Mustang > $100,000/$2,000 (OK, conceed inflation) > Ugly/ classic Depends on your needs. Try taking a Mustang down a rut infested, muddy road or across a creek where the water is over the hood. In those circumstances the extra $80,000 for the Hummer might be a bargain, even at twice the price. > Shuttle/ Spaceship One, > Billions/ 10 Million Not much of a comparison. Space Ship One just barely gets into space for a few seconds and doesn't even circle the planet once. Tell them to take a 60,000lb payload into orbit and their cost will also go into orbit. > Now I have nothing against 1960's technology, but I don't plan to > commute in it in 2005. NASA does. There are probably better technologies available but planning a reusable ship that achieves low and high earth orbit takes time and you have to use the best available technology when you start designing. Trying integrate new technology after the fact, many times, is just not practical or nothing would ever be accomplished. For an example, look at the space probes that are sent out. They have much lower technology when they reach their destination than the present day but when they were designed and built it was much more current. The shuttle was built on technology that has been tried and tested. The trouble is that NASA hasn't had the funds to continue operating the shuttles and at the same time develop newer and improved technologies for the next generation space ships. We are expecting an awful lot from them for the money they are budgeted. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
: > Joe wrote: > > "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in > > : > > <snip> > > > >>I usually try to get up by 8:30am (if I work late then I sleep > >>later) and head downstairs and grab a jumbo cup of coffee. My > >>wife leaves by 6:30am so the coffee is already in the pot. I grab > >>a muffin and head to the couch where the laptop sets on the coffee > >>table. > > > > > > I take it you don't have kids or pets roaming around. If I left a > > laptop on the coffee table, it'd have food, spilled gatorade, paw > > prints all over it, and it'd be upside down on the floor in about > > a dozen pieces. > > We have a few cats and a dog but they never bother anything. The > dog can't even jump on the coffee table so most things are safe > around here. I wish! This place is a zoo gone wild. > >>I check email, the Washington Post, Drudge Report, maybe a > >>few newsgroups and then head to the basement with a refill of the > >>jumbo coffee. > > > > > > I do iced coffee out of my thermos I keep in the fridge. Two's > > usually enough; any more and I'm too wired. > > Isn't that the whole point? Yeah, but when it looks like I have Parkinson's, then it's time to cut back a bit... > >>Then I return any phone calls, make sure I have no > >>meetings scheduled and then start working. > > > > > > Unless I'm in the office, I don't do phone. E-mail has to > > suffice. We're also hooked into one of those chat things for the > > company. > > I can't function without a phone. Sometimes I don;t answer it in > order to get things done. I hate phones. If I never used one again it wouldn't be too soon. Hell, I even hate computers even though they're my bread and butter... > >>I take a few breaks > >>during the day. Time flies down stairs though. I think it's the > >>lack of windows. I watch a combination of Fox News, History > >>Channel, Science Channel, National Geographic Channel and A&E > >>while I work. > > > > > > I could never work with the TV or radio on. However, my desk is > > right next to the sliding glass doors in the living room. I have > > a panoramic view of our porch with the fish/turtle pond, and the > > back yard with the "canal" behind it. The canal rarely has water, > > but it's been pretty full for almost a month now because of the > > rain and storms. > > I guess it goes back to my college days when I studied under all > kinds of circumstances. If I could study while drinking beer and > doing some light partying then a little TV is nothing. When I first got into programming, the boss would take us out for lunch and we'd blow doobs on the way back to the office. We wrote the _best_ software on the planet in the afternoons... > >>I usually try and get a shower in before I have to take the > >>dog out at 4:00pm to crap. > > > > > > Hell, I'm not afraid to wander outside even right out of bed. > > Even dogs scatter when they see me. > > If I didn't impose that little bit of discipline then I may never > shower. Yeah, I have to go in when I get too itchy and greasy even for me to stand. That usually happens by around 3pm or so. > >>>I work home Mondays and Fridays. Gave my boss the sob story of > >>>my 3- hour commute per day down to Miami and back, not to mention > >>>14mpg in the torquemonster. She asked me if I could deal with > >>>two days from home and I instantly said no problem. > >> > >>Telecommuting is nice. My wife did it 1-2 days a week before she > >>was promoted and lost the perk. It was strange having both of us > >>working from the house on her "home" days. It saves money to work > >>from home but getting an extra 3 hours a day would be the real > >>benefit for me. > > > > > > When I'm home, I usually start anywhere between 6:30 and 8:30 > > depending on when I get up. During the summer, my wife's home > > (teacher) so we get up later. But during school, we're usually up > > at 5:45am so I'm working by 6:30. Having my VPN into work, I can > > always hook up and do whatever I have to at any time. So I > > usually end up putting a few hours in here and there over the > > weekend regardless. > > Try doing that for years on end. It really messes with your sense > of time when you're dislocated from the day to day routines of > punching a time clock. Whether I work all day or all night, it > doesn't matter much. The time shifting just creeps up on you after > awhile. Ah, that's something I'm looking forward to. > >>>>>Anyway, we can beat this to a pulp and lose a lot of sleep > >>>>>doing it. We both have some good points, and it's a decent > >>>>>debate. Let's hijack another thread another time and continue > >>>>>at that point if you don't mind. It's been a long day and I'm > >>>>>just here for pure entertainment tonight... > >>>> > >>>>I'm with you. I doubt anyone has read our last few posts > >>>>anyway. Could it have been THAT boring?!?! > >>> > >>> > >>>Well, I know Kate read a few of my comments from the other day... > >>> > >> > >>>Hell, of course we're boring - we're both over 40. > >> > >>I believe you but I have to say that I don't FEEL that I'm boring. > > > > > > Right! We're the most interesting people on the planet... > > Well that takes the pressure off of us. Neither one of us is too > demanding when it comes to being entertained. For proof just look > at this thread. I see what you mean. Talk about going off the deep end... But it's always a pleasure. So what do you think about this CIA leak stuff? This morning I read that it now involves Cheney's aide or something. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Joe wrote:
><snipped a whole bunch of boring BS - except to Joe and I> > > > I see what you mean. Talk about going off the deep end... But it's > always a pleasure. > > So what do you think about this CIA leak stuff? This morning I read > that it now involves Cheney's aide or something. I haven't followed it too closely. It looks to me like a big game of gotcha by both sides. Also, I think the press is stretching it out because there's nothing better to report. I don't think Rove broke the law and I've read where her cover was blown way before he talked to anyone in the press. It apparently was common knowledge that shew worked for the CIA. Plus her husband campaigned for Kerry and thought he might get a Cabinet or high level government position if he won so, IMO, his motives are suspect. Rove has driven a stake into the Democrat's heart in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections and they want nothing more than to see head head on a platter or at least drag him through the mud a little. I think the whole affair will not amount to much and as soon as Bush nominates a replacement for Sandra it will probably be forgotten. Repubs and Dems are always looking for a way to sling mud at each other and I think this is just the latest installment. It seems that most all the talking heads think this won't amount to much and don't think Rove broke any laws. Then again I'm sure many thought the same after the Watergate break-in. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:46:44 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote: >David Schierholz wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:06:24 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" >> > wrote: >> >> >>>David Schierholz wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:28:09 -0400, pawn > wrote: >> >> >>>>Ok- Probably not the group that cares about such things, but- >>>> >>>>You are citing as an example of intelligence and work ethic an >>>>organization that put a man on the moon in 1969 and hasn't put one >>>>farther than low earth orbit since? >>> >>>This isn't due to lack of intelligence or work ethic. Its due to lack >>>of funding. >> >> >> Hmmm... Hummer/ Mustang >> Hummer/ Mustang >> $100,000/$2,000 (OK, conceed inflation) >> Ugly/ classic > >Depends on your needs. Try taking a Mustang down a rut infested, muddy >road or across a creek where the water is over the hood. In those >circumstances the extra $80,000 for the Hummer might be a bargain, even > at twice the price. > >> Shuttle/ Spaceship One, >> Billions/ 10 Million > >Not much of a comparison. Space Ship One just barely gets into space >for a few seconds and doesn't even circle the planet once. Tell them to >take a 60,000lb payload into orbit and their cost will also go into orbit. > >> Now I have nothing against 1960's technology, but I don't plan to >> commute in it in 2005. NASA does. > >There are probably better technologies available but planning a reusable > ship that achieves low and high earth orbit takes time and you have to >use the best available technology when you start designing. Trying >integrate new technology after the fact, many times, is just not >practical or nothing would ever be accomplished. For an example, look >at the space probes that are sent out. They have much lower technology >when they reach their destination than the present day but when they >were designed and built it was much more current. > >The shuttle was built on technology that has been tried and tested. The >trouble is that NASA hasn't had the funds to continue operating the >shuttles and at the same time develop newer and improved technologies >for the next generation space ships. We are expecting an awful lot from >them for the money they are budgeted. If NASA in it's infinite political stupidity had gone with the Orion project instead of Apollo, we'd have had manned visits to all the planets by now and we'd be on our way to the nearest STARS. Instead, we have a Shuttle that is impressive but vastly expensive to fly and limited to Earth orbit, and a disgusting waste of money called the ISS, which was designed to give Russian nuclear scientists jobs (after the fall of the Soviet Union) so they wouldn't run off an build atom bombs for Arabs. That dog-s--- $180b ISS is the WORST boondoggle NASA ever came up with. -Rich |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:46:44 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > > wrote: > > >>David Schierholz wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:06:24 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>David Schierholz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:28:09 -0400, pawn > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>Ok- Probably not the group that cares about such things, but- >>>>> >>>>>You are citing as an example of intelligence and work ethic an >>>>>organization that put a man on the moon in 1969 and hasn't put one >>>>>farther than low earth orbit since? >>>> >>>>This isn't due to lack of intelligence or work ethic. Its due to lack >>>>of funding. >>> >>> >>>Hmmm... Hummer/ Mustang >>>Hummer/ Mustang >>>$100,000/$2,000 (OK, conceed inflation) >>>Ugly/ classic >> >>Depends on your needs. Try taking a Mustang down a rut infested, muddy >>road or across a creek where the water is over the hood. In those >>circumstances the extra $80,000 for the Hummer might be a bargain, even >> at twice the price. >> >> >>>Shuttle/ Spaceship One, >>>Billions/ 10 Million >> >>Not much of a comparison. Space Ship One just barely gets into space >>for a few seconds and doesn't even circle the planet once. Tell them to >>take a 60,000lb payload into orbit and their cost will also go into orbit. >> >> >>>Now I have nothing against 1960's technology, but I don't plan to >>>commute in it in 2005. NASA does. >> >>There are probably better technologies available but planning a reusable >> ship that achieves low and high earth orbit takes time and you have to >>use the best available technology when you start designing. Trying >>integrate new technology after the fact, many times, is just not >>practical or nothing would ever be accomplished. For an example, look >>at the space probes that are sent out. They have much lower technology >>when they reach their destination than the present day but when they >>were designed and built it was much more current. >> >>The shuttle was built on technology that has been tried and tested. The >>trouble is that NASA hasn't had the funds to continue operating the >>shuttles and at the same time develop newer and improved technologies >>for the next generation space ships. We are expecting an awful lot from >>them for the money they are budgeted. > > > If NASA in it's infinite political stupidity had gone with the Orion > project instead of Apollo, we'd have had manned visits to all the > planets by now and we'd be on our way to the nearest STARS. Instead, > we have a Shuttle that is impressive but vastly expensive to fly and > limited to Earth orbit, and a disgusting > waste of money called the ISS, which was designed to give Russian > nuclear scientists jobs (after the fall of the Soviet Union) so they > wouldn't run off an build atom bombs for Arabs. That dog-s--- $180b > ISS is the WORST boondoggle NASA ever came up with. Well, hind sight is always 20-20 but I seriously doubt we would be visiting the planets under any scenario by now. We don't have the technology to sustain human life in space for years on end with much reliability. I believe we will make interplanetary trips but not until 30-50 more years have passed. Any manned deep space mission will need to be launched from earth orbit so freight ships like the shuttle is the first line of technology we will need in order to accomplish the second. As for the ISS being a waste I really don't think so. Having humans in space increases our understanding of the challenges involved in such endeavors and allows us to design and test solutions to problems. If we assume you are right about keeping the Russians busy, then I think $180 billion is cheap compared to the cost of a terrorist getting a nuke from a Russian scientist and detonating it in the middle of Manhattan or Washington, DC. I agree that NASA has made mistakes but they also have had many, many more successes than failures. There are very, very few of us could who could have done any better than they have and my guess is that if you, or I, were in charge of things they would be a hell of a lot worse. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:18:20 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote: >RichA wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:46:44 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" >> > wrote: >> >> >>>David Schierholz wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:06:24 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>David Schierholz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:28:09 -0400, pawn > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Ok- Probably not the group that cares about such things, but- >>>>>> >>>>>>You are citing as an example of intelligence and work ethic an >>>>>>organization that put a man on the moon in 1969 and hasn't put one >>>>>>farther than low earth orbit since? >>>>> >>>>>This isn't due to lack of intelligence or work ethic. Its due to lack >>>>>of funding. >>>> >>>> >>>>Hmmm... Hummer/ Mustang >>>>Hummer/ Mustang >>>>$100,000/$2,000 (OK, conceed inflation) >>>>Ugly/ classic >>> >>>Depends on your needs. Try taking a Mustang down a rut infested, muddy >>>road or across a creek where the water is over the hood. In those >>>circumstances the extra $80,000 for the Hummer might be a bargain, even >>> at twice the price. >>> >>> >>>>Shuttle/ Spaceship One, >>>>Billions/ 10 Million >>> >>>Not much of a comparison. Space Ship One just barely gets into space >>>for a few seconds and doesn't even circle the planet once. Tell them to >>>take a 60,000lb payload into orbit and their cost will also go into orbit. >>> >>> >>>>Now I have nothing against 1960's technology, but I don't plan to >>>>commute in it in 2005. NASA does. >>> >>>There are probably better technologies available but planning a reusable >>> ship that achieves low and high earth orbit takes time and you have to >>>use the best available technology when you start designing. Trying >>>integrate new technology after the fact, many times, is just not >>>practical or nothing would ever be accomplished. For an example, look >>>at the space probes that are sent out. They have much lower technology >>>when they reach their destination than the present day but when they >>>were designed and built it was much more current. >>> >>>The shuttle was built on technology that has been tried and tested. The >>>trouble is that NASA hasn't had the funds to continue operating the >>>shuttles and at the same time develop newer and improved technologies >>>for the next generation space ships. We are expecting an awful lot from >>>them for the money they are budgeted. >> >> >> If NASA in it's infinite political stupidity had gone with the Orion >> project instead of Apollo, we'd have had manned visits to all the >> planets by now and we'd be on our way to the nearest STARS. Instead, >> we have a Shuttle that is impressive but vastly expensive to fly and >> limited to Earth orbit, and a disgusting >> waste of money called the ISS, which was designed to give Russian >> nuclear scientists jobs (after the fall of the Soviet Union) so they >> wouldn't run off an build atom bombs for Arabs. That dog-s--- $180b >> ISS is the WORST boondoggle NASA ever came up with. > >Well, hind sight is always 20-20 but I seriously doubt we would be >visiting the planets under any scenario by now. We don't have the >technology to sustain human life in space for years on end with much >reliability. I believe we will make interplanetary trips but not until >30-50 more years have passed. Any manned deep space mission will need >to be launched from earth orbit so freight ships like the shuttle is the >first line of technology we will need in order to accomplish the second. > None of this, the ISS would be needed if they'd built Orion. The ship would have been hugely heavy and thus would shield occupants from radiation, it could have lofted 2000 TONS of supplies in one shot. It could have stayed outside of Earth's influence literally for years without re-supply, just like some nuclear subs can go for months undersea. And the idea of "hindsite" being needed in the case of ISS is silly. They plan missions 10 years prior to launches, they know exactly what their purpose is, why is the ISS such a "surprise?" |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
: > Joe wrote: >><snipped a whole bunch of boring BS - except to Joe and I> LOL! >> I see what you mean. Talk about going off the deep end... But >> it's always a pleasure. >> >> So what do you think about this CIA leak stuff? This morning I >> read that it now involves Cheney's aide or something. > > I haven't followed it too closely. It looks to me like a big game > of gotcha by both sides. Also, I think the press is stretching it > out because there's nothing better to report. I don't think Rove > broke the law and I've read where her cover was blown way before he > talked to anyone in the press. It apparently was common knowledge > that shew worked for the CIA. Plus her husband campaigned for Kerry > and thought he might get a Cabinet or high level government position > if he won so, IMO, his motives are suspect. > > Rove has driven a stake into the Democrat's heart in the 2000, 2002 > and 2004 elections and they want nothing more than to see head head > on a platter or at least drag him through the mud a little. I think > the whole affair will not amount to much and as soon as Bush > nominates a replacement for Sandra it will probably be forgotten. I heard he's supposed to be on TV tonight to make some kind of announcement. From what I've heard and read about Rove, he's nothing short of brilliant. Apparently, he's been setting up Bush's presidency since he was governor back in Texas. > Repubs and Dems are always looking for a way to sling mud at each > other and I think this is just the latest installment. It seems > that most all the talking heads think this won't amount to much and > don't think Rove broke any laws. Then again I'm sure many thought > the same after the Watergate break-in. That's pretty much what I'm thinking as well. More of the SOS... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Forza Car List | Rob Berryhill | Simulators | 19 | May 7th 05 11:37 PM |
toyota celsior modified Nissan infinity sale Japan UK car exporter aero | japancar | Driving | 0 | March 11th 05 05:06 AM |
Question about engine oil sludge | Bill D | Chrysler | 42 | January 7th 05 02:07 AM |
Toyota Engine Oil Sludge | Charlene Blake | General | 0 | October 19th 04 04:59 AM |
ALERT TO TOYOTA OWNERS | Charlene Blake | General | 0 | January 15th 04 01:50 PM |