Save the Hubble

[[email protected]]

keith wrote:

hatred.

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

pore.

Keith wouldn't be aware that John Larkin's propostion is unsustainable.
Keith fondly imagines that I hate him, whereas my attitude is somewhere
between pity and contempt.

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

There you go Keith - unrealistic as ever. I'd be a political target,
and as such the US habit is to train and finance local death squads -
much cheaper and more deniable than M1 tanks.

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".

Would you like to explain which European country could have mustered a
peace force on the German-Polish border to stop Germany's surprise
invasion in 1939?

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/poland.htm

The Europussies did declare war on Germany at the time, but were not
equipped to do anything useful - whence the Phoney War

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/phoney_war.htm

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

You will, when one of the crack-whores gives you AIDS or drug-resistant
TB.
It is a pity that you and your ilk lack the imagination to understand
that you too are members of the public, and benefit from not having to
rub shoulders with people suffering from infectious diseases. It is a
pity that "Typhoid Mary" has slipped out of your collective memory.

you.

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

Keith indulging in self-promotion again.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

We should dump the space station, too; that's truly useless.

On Mekka !!

 

[Keith Williams]

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

That's the one. Nice museum. Small but very well done.

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

They were a handful for inexperienced pilots. They didn't take
mistakes very well. I believe it was the Germans that had the big
problems with them. Not enough flight hours or some such.

 

[Iwo Mergler]

That's the one. Nice museum. Small but very well done.




They were a handful for inexperienced pilots. They didn't take
mistakes very well. I believe it was the Germans that had the big
problems with them. Not enough flight hours or some such.

At some point I was reading accident reports of the
German army/navy/airforce out of sheer boredom.

I think most of the Starfighter accidents involved
firing a rocket while in a turn. Depending on which
wing the rocket was fired from, there was a finite
chance that the engine air intake crossed the rocket
exhaust trail and the engine would stop.

I'm not sure, but it's possible that that particular
rocket system was only retrofitted to the German
Starfighters.

Kind regards,

Iwo

 

[keith]

At some point I was reading accident reports of the
German army/navy/airforce out of sheer boredom.

I think most of the Starfighter accidents involved
firing a rocket while in a turn. Depending on which
wing the rocket was fired from, there was a finite
chance that the engine air intake crossed the rocket
exhaust trail and the engine would stop.

Hadn't heard that one before. I'd heard that the accidents were low-speed
(landing/takeoff) situations, mostly weather related, where the plane lost
stability and the pilot wasn't trained well enough to recover (or not get
into the bad situation).

I'm not sure, but it's possible that that particular rocket system was
only retrofitted to the German Starfighters.

Could be a difference, but that's the fist time I heard that theory. I
know the US pilots liked 'em. Theugh the US tended to use the StarFighter
in its intended role (an interceptor) rather than as a fighter, as the
Germans, and others, did.

 

[keith]

keith wrote:


pore.

Keith wouldn't be aware that John Larkin's propostion is unsustainable.
Keith fondly imagines that I hate him, whereas my attitude is somewhere
between pity and contempt.

Nope your hatred of anythign American comes out every time you pick up
your finger. You're a sad-sack.

There you go Keith - unrealistic as ever. I'd be a political target, and
as such the US habit is to train and finance local death squads - much
cheaper and more deniable than M1 tanks.

You, a target? Hell you aren't worth anythign more than a mild laugh. If
you weren't so pitiful you would be a hoot!

Would you like to explain which European country could have mustered a
peace force on the German-Polish border to stop Germany's surprise
invasion in 1939?

No, and you'll most likely go down that road again. "It's only Poland",
seems to be the way you do things over there. "It's only the Jews"...

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/poland.htm

The Europussies did declare war on Germany at the time, but were not
equipped to do anything useful - whence the Phoney War

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/phoney_war.htm


You will, when one of the crack-whores gives you AIDS or drug-resistant
TB.
It is a pity that you and your ilk lack the imagination to understand
that you too are members of the public, and benefit from not having to
rub shoulders with people suffering from infectious diseases. It is a
pity that "Typhoid Mary" has slipped out of your collective memory.


Keith indulging in self-promotion again.

Nope. Just the facts, M'am.

 

[[email protected]]

Nope your hatred of anythign American comes out every time you pick up
your finger. You're a sad-sack.

Sorry Keith - you are the sad-sack. Your problem is - to some extent -
a side-effect of the way the US education system is exploited to
integrate immigrant kids into US society, by teaching all students to
be proud of being American (a perfectly reasonable proposition) often
on the basis that US society is the best on earth in every possible way
(which isn't).

The combination of a teacher and a pupil who both lack a sense of
proportion - which would seem to have been your situation - produces
citizens who are fanatical in their belief that the US society in which
they grew up was a pinnacle of perfection, which makes them politically
conservative to the point of being reactionary, and causes them to see
any criticism of the US - no matter how constructively intended - as a
manifestation of malignant hatred of the US.

For someone as intellectually lazy as you, this has the added advantage
that you can ignore all critical comments as malicious abuse, rather
than engaging your (hypothetical) intellectual powers to understand
what has been said in order to produce a rational response.

Your proposition is effectively that when I say that U.S. society -
like every other human creation - is less than perfect, I'm thereby
saying that I hate the US.

You probably won't even see that this absurd, or notice that every time
the US legislature enacts a new law, they are manifesting a similar
hatred of their country.

<snipped the rest of Keith's response, such as it was>

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:47:49 -0500, the renowned keith


On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:51:08 -0500, Boris Mohar wrote:

Hadn't heard that one before. I'd heard that the accidents were low-speed
(landing/takeoff) situations, mostly weather related, where the plane lost
stability and the pilot wasn't trained well enough to recover (or not get
into the bad situation).


Could be a difference, but that's the fist time I heard that theory. I
know the US pilots liked 'em. Theugh the US tended to use the StarFighter
in its intended role (an interceptor) rather than as a fighter, as the
Germans, and others, did.

http://www.starfighters.nl/

for a bit more detail.

 

[Iwo Mergler]

Hadn't heard that one before. I'd heard that the accidents were low-speed
(landing/takeoff) situations, mostly weather related, where the plane lost
stability and the pilot wasn't trained well enough to recover (or not get
into the bad situation).

Don't know. The particular folder I was killing the time with
had maybe 3-4 Starfighter accidents, AFAIR all involving
the rocket thing. Maybe specific to that year? The vast
majority of accidents involved conscripts attempting to
open ammunition with knifes and tanks uprooting trees
with the main gun. :^)

Kind regards,

Iwo

 

[Keith Williams]

Keith Williams wrote:
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:47:49 -0500, the renowned keith


On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:51:08 -0500, Boris Mohar wrote:




http://www.starfighters.nl/

for a bit more detail.

Yikes! 42/113 of the Belgian Starfighters crashed. That *does* sound
like it earned the nickname.

Neat site (bookmarked).

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Yikes! 42/113 of the Belgian Starfighters crashed. That *does* sound
like it earned the nickname.

Neat site (bookmarked).

"About 110 CF-104/CF-104Ds were lost in accidents, out of 239
delivered--a loss rate of no less than 46 percent. However, it is only
fair to point out that the Canadian CF-104s probably had the highest
flying time of any country operating the Starfighter. At the time of
retirement, average airframe times were of the order of 6000 hours as
compared to 2000 hours for the Luftwaffe."



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[keith]

"About 110 CF-104/CF-104Ds were lost in accidents, out of 239
delivered--a loss rate of no less than 46 percent. However, it is only
fair to point out that the Canadian CF-104s probably had the highest
flying time of any country operating the Starfighter. At the time of
retirement, average airframe times were of the order of 6000 hours as
compared to 2000 hours for the Luftwaffe."

6K hours isn't a lot these days. I've been trying to get an example of
the clock on a F16C, but the friend (retired for six years) could only
rememebr that it was well north of 6K and they're still flying. ...moreso
than ever.

 

[Mathieu Fregeau]

If you can give $2 billion to NASA, they will save Hubble. Money is the only
reason why they don't do it.

You can try to convice the Congress. Any other attempt (like discussing on
this group) would be useless and pointless.

NASA will go back to the moon and Mars, and this drags all the money into
this new direction (remember Bush's speech last year). Budget is a matter of
decision. Hubble is just too expensive. Bring the money, or convince the US
government.

NASA just want to save Hubble too, but their money come from the US
government, who gives the direction of NASA's research.

Hubble's lost will be a lost to every scientists, and NASA knows it and
would like to save it too.

Regards,

--
---------
Mathieu Fregeau
University of Washington
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Aerospace Research Building - Box 352250
Seattle, WA 98195-2250
Phone (office): 206-543-1070
Phone (lab): 206-616-5557
Fax: 206-543-4719
[email protected]

 

[Jim Yanik]

If you can give $2 billion to NASA, they will save Hubble. Money is
the only reason why they don't do it.

No,it's the fear of another loss of a Shuttle and crew.

 

[keith]

No,it's the fear of another loss of a Shuttle and crew.

Exactly. It's politics, not money. Any monitary considerations were
decided by politics *long* ago.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Exactly. It's politics, not money. Any monitary considerations were
decided by politics *long* ago.

AFAIUI, there's only a couple of shuttles left in flyable condition
(Atlantis and Discovery). Pretty much the end game on the shuttle.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Keith Williams]

AFAIUI, there's only a couple of shuttles left in flyable condition
(Atlantis and Discovery). Pretty much the end game on the shuttle.

What happened to Endeavour? According to NASA it's still operational.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/orbiters.html

 

[Mathieu Fregeau]

What happened to Endeavour? According to NASA it's still operational.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/orbiters.html

Yea, Endeavor, like Atlantis and Discovery, are the remaining space
shuttles. NASA has reviewed the engineering and safety issues on the
remaining space shuttles, and that's why they had delayed the space shuttle
use. Don't you follow the news?

Those space shuttle were designed to be used and maintained until 2020, but
after the Columbia accident, they decided to stop their use by 2010 and use
a new generation (which they currently are developping). I guess they will
use the new generation until 2040 or 2050 (since the actual space shuttle
program has been in use since 1981, and by 2010 will make a 30 years
service, the new generation would be assumed to run for 30 or 40 years too).
The challenge with the new generation is to make their use less expensive.
The actual shuttle cost about $100M per mission, they want to reduce it
close to $10M per mission with the new generation. That's what a called an
engineering challenge!

---------
Mathieu Fregeau
University of Washington
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Aerospace Research Building - Box 352250
Seattle, WA 98195-2250
Phone (office): 206-543-1070
Phone (lab): 206-616-5557
Fax: 206-543-4719
[email protected]

 

[Keith Williams]

Yea, Endeavor, like Atlantis and Discovery, are the remaining space
shuttles. NASA has reviewed the engineering and safety issues on the
remaining space shuttles, and that's why they had delayed the space shuttle
use. Don't you follow the news?

I was simply hinting the Spehro that there were still three in the
fleet. ;-)

Those space shuttle were designed to be used and maintained until 2020, but
after the Columbia accident, they decided to stop their use by 2010 and use
a new generation (which they currently are developping). I guess they will
use the new generation until 2040 or 2050 (since the actual space shuttle
program has been in use since 1981, and by 2010 will make a 30 years
service, the new generation would be assumed to run for 30 or 40 years too).
The challenge with the new generation is to make their use less expensive.
The actual shuttle cost about $100M per mission, they want to reduce it
close to $10M per mission with the new generation. That's what a called an
engineering challenge!

I'm not sure a 10x cost reduction is possible, but that's why we have
engineers. OTOH, if NASA doesn't restrain their PHBs better than they
did during the STS development phase we'll have another platinum-plated
rusted-out truck to show for it.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Yea, Endeavor, like Atlantis and Discovery, are the remaining space
shuttles. NASA has reviewed the engineering and safety issues on the
remaining space shuttles, and that's why they had delayed the space shuttle
use. Don't you follow the news?

Those space shuttle were designed to be used and maintained until 2020, but
after the Columbia accident, they decided to stop their use by 2010 and use
a new generation (which they currently are developping). I guess they will
use the new generation until 2040 or 2050 (since the actual space shuttle
program has been in use since 1981, and by 2010 will make a 30 years
service, the new generation would be assumed to run for 30 or 40 years too).
The challenge with the new generation is to make their use less expensive.
The actual shuttle cost about $100M per mission, they want to reduce it
close to $10M per mission with the new generation. That's what a called an
engineering challenge

This NASA web site claims almost half a billion dollars per mission.

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.html

IIRC, the cost of shuttle missions ended up being about way higher
than initial estimates (ten times?), partly blamed on there being far
fewer launches than was assumed when the estimates were made.

Here's an interesting graph of plan vs. actual budget:

http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld030.htm




Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany