Keeping the dream alive ...
GunsssR4ever
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keeping the dream alive ...
Maybe American .. written by M&G and I thought maybe a good topic for us on the African forum. What do you oke's think ?
Andrew Brown (M&G)
The most heroic figures of last week were the astronauts crawling around the edge of the space shuttle to repair the craft in which they must return to the Earth 400km below. It’s an extraordinary testament to the defeated and sunless mood that we seem to be in that this was treated everywhere as a defeat. Nasa grounded its shuttle fleet until further notice, and there was a clear suggestion that the crew might be the last American astronauts.
One reason is that the shuttle is 25 years old, so it seems to many people astonishing that it should still work at all. One Nasa administrator said last week: “I wonder whether I could find a single electronics box in my house that’s 25 years old and still works. I don’t think I can. It’s the same thing with the orbiter.”
I find this attitude shocking in itself. My idea of the best engineering in the world is that it should last more or less forever, especially when Nasa’s budget is available to build and maintain it.
Instead of that, the shuttle turns to be the rocket-borne equivalent of an old tramp steamer, held together through hundreds of minor repairs and patches. Many of these have a bearing on the safety of the astronauts it carries, and more and more people are questioning why we need manned flight at all. The Americans, certainly, can send successful unmanned missions to Mars, even if Britain can’t, and there’s very little that the astronauts seem to add to the knowledge that can be acquired by smart robots. An unmanned space programme might cost a 10th as much as Discovery does.
Increasingly, one hears the argument that the future of space travel will be — should be — robotic. But this raises the question of why we are in space at all. There’s no one answer, and one important cause is not much discussed publicly: that both Russia and the United States hoped to gain military advantage by it, and feared that the other might. I suspect that without that motivation there would have been a great deal less prestige at stake in the space war and they might have agreed that planting a man on the moon was a pointless thing to do.
This motivation still persists. The idea that the Earth could be showered with missiles from space, common enough in 1950s science fiction, seems to have receded. Rockets launched from submarines would extinguish all life on Earth more cheaply.
Without satellites, however, a modern army could not fight at all. The satellites tell soldiers and their commanders where they are. The GPS equipment used to guide missiles of every sort can also supply photographs of astonishing detail of everywhere on Earth. We can see echoes of this in civilian technology: the satellite pictures provided by Google Earth are, in some places, so detailed that individual pedestrians can be distinguished as well as individual cars.
This kind of information is so valuable that there has been hyper-nationalist American talk of shooting down any rival network of GPS satellites.
But these military advantages aren’t the only reason we are in space. A much nobler explanation is human dreams. Space captured the imagination long before anyone got anybody up there. Rockets were built by men who had dreamed of them as boys. If there are many future generations, they may regard science fiction as the most important artistic idea of the 20th century.
As a predictor of actual technology, most science fiction is lousy. A million spaceships were launched in pulp stories by engineers equipped with slide rules. But there is one thing that was almost infallibly right: the purpose of technology in science fiction is to supply us with problems. The failure of technology has been an indispensable plot device ever since Gulliver’s shipwrecks.
The triumph over malfunctioning technology calls on all the virtues of an engineer. The coolness, the courage and the analytical skill of the shuttle astronauts, crawling around the skin of their tiny vessel, is a peculiarly modern sight. It is also the justification of the whole manned space programme. This may sound a breathtakingly cynical thing to write as the shuttle casts off from the space station and sets off on its long, blindingly fast spiral back to Earth. Suppose they all die? That will be truly terrible. But it won’t diminish the worth of their courage and example. The shuttle astronauts remind us that the best reason to be in space is that it gives us the chance to be heroes.
One reason is that the shuttle is 25 years old, so it seems to many people astonishing that it should still work at all. One Nasa administrator said last week: “I wonder whether I could find a single electronics box in my house that’s 25 years old and still works. I don’t think I can. It’s the same thing with the orbiter.”
I find this attitude shocking in itself. My idea of the best engineering in the world is that it should last more or less forever, especially when Nasa’s budget is available to build and maintain it.
Instead of that, the shuttle turns to be the rocket-borne equivalent of an old tramp steamer, held together through hundreds of minor repairs and patches. Many of these have a bearing on the safety of the astronauts it carries, and more and more people are questioning why we need manned flight at all. The Americans, certainly, can send successful unmanned missions to Mars, even if Britain can’t, and there’s very little that the astronauts seem to add to the knowledge that can be acquired by smart robots. An unmanned space programme might cost a 10th as much as Discovery does.
Increasingly, one hears the argument that the future of space travel will be — should be — robotic. But this raises the question of why we are in space at all. There’s no one answer, and one important cause is not much discussed publicly: that both Russia and the United States hoped to gain military advantage by it, and feared that the other might. I suspect that without that motivation there would have been a great deal less prestige at stake in the space war and they might have agreed that planting a man on the moon was a pointless thing to do.
This motivation still persists. The idea that the Earth could be showered with missiles from space, common enough in 1950s science fiction, seems to have receded. Rockets launched from submarines would extinguish all life on Earth more cheaply.
Without satellites, however, a modern army could not fight at all. The satellites tell soldiers and their commanders where they are. The GPS equipment used to guide missiles of every sort can also supply photographs of astonishing detail of everywhere on Earth. We can see echoes of this in civilian technology: the satellite pictures provided by Google Earth are, in some places, so detailed that individual pedestrians can be distinguished as well as individual cars.
This kind of information is so valuable that there has been hyper-nationalist American talk of shooting down any rival network of GPS satellites.
But these military advantages aren’t the only reason we are in space. A much nobler explanation is human dreams. Space captured the imagination long before anyone got anybody up there. Rockets were built by men who had dreamed of them as boys. If there are many future generations, they may regard science fiction as the most important artistic idea of the 20th century.
As a predictor of actual technology, most science fiction is lousy. A million spaceships were launched in pulp stories by engineers equipped with slide rules. But there is one thing that was almost infallibly right: the purpose of technology in science fiction is to supply us with problems. The failure of technology has been an indispensable plot device ever since Gulliver’s shipwrecks.
The triumph over malfunctioning technology calls on all the virtues of an engineer. The coolness, the courage and the analytical skill of the shuttle astronauts, crawling around the skin of their tiny vessel, is a peculiarly modern sight. It is also the justification of the whole manned space programme. This may sound a breathtakingly cynical thing to write as the shuttle casts off from the space station and sets off on its long, blindingly fast spiral back to Earth. Suppose they all die? That will be truly terrible. But it won’t diminish the worth of their courage and example. The shuttle astronauts remind us that the best reason to be in space is that it gives us the chance to be heroes.
Andrew Brown (M&G)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the earth runs out of resources where are we going to go? It'll have to be space and if they stop sending manned missions how are they going to study the effects of long space trips on humans and how to keep people in space as long as possible.
Also if manned missions are stopped how am i going to get to go into space?
Also if manned missions are stopped how am i going to get to go into space?
GunsssR4ever
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also if manned missions are stopped how am i going to get to go into space?
Will send you some photo's from outer space 
GunsssR4ever
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EM sadly I do not see it as missions to "look into the future" and search for another planet.
I still see it as a "Whooo Haaahhh " - we have done this and that first mission - never mind planting the latest spy equipment.
Just my cents worth
PS: Will leave a few castle's and biltong in the under - cart
I still see it as a "Whooo Haaahhh " - we have done this and that first mission - never mind planting the latest spy equipment.
Just my cents worth
PS: Will leave a few castle's and biltong in the under - cart
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comment on initial post...
... and then they expect us to believe that they actually landed on the moon.... a mission (several as a matter of fact) a million times more complexe than repairing some seals on a shuttle and that was done abord spaceships containg less computing power that the PC I'm currently typing on...
Wake up y'all....!
Frenchy
Wake up y'all....!
Frenchy
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember when I first heard of this "conspiracy theory" I think the basis for this is a fluttering flag and few shadows.
How do you explain Apollo13....if the whole thing was done in a film studio
I think you'll find it's more a matter of physics than computing power. Sir Isaac Newton was around several centuries before Bill Gates. No one doubts the veracity of Sputnik, Soyuz and Gemini programs all done with sweet FA of PC power so whats the big deal with the Apollo program.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody noticed that the Russian space ship ( As old as the shuttle) still goes up monthly without snags and does not give a **** about weather either. And most of it is re used on every flight!!
And the cargo is : American astronaughts and parts for the space station mostly built by the Russians.
Remember the multi million dollar pen to write in space. The Russians just took a pencil!
KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!
Almost forgot they already took a whole lot of tourists with for a small fee. And I think if you win the Ebucks contest FNB will rather pay $20 mil for Soyuz than billions for the shuttle.
And the satellite rockets are now powered by Ruskie engines because they work better.
And the cargo is : American astronaughts and parts for the space station mostly built by the Russians.
Remember the multi million dollar pen to write in space. The Russians just took a pencil!
KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!
Almost forgot they already took a whole lot of tourists with for a small fee. And I think if you win the Ebucks contest FNB will rather pay $20 mil for Soyuz than billions for the shuttle.
And the satellite rockets are now powered by Ruskie engines because they work better.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey George Tower, beleive what you want matey.
All I'm saying is that going up into orbit around the earth is one thing but travelling through space, orbiting around a piece of rock 300'000 km away, dropping a landing craft on the surface, having it land safely and then take off again (by means of explosives may I remind you) to go back and dock perfectly (under no power) with the orbiting station, then slingshotting back to earth (another 300'000 km away) and finally executing a perfect re-entry to allow for a sea (as opposed to land) ditching. And all that with not serious computing power??
But hey, go on thinking what you want.
I suppose you still believe that on 9-11 the pentagon was hit by a 757, right? Ummm, thought so...
Anyway, this is not the forum for this sort of thing. Sorry for the deviation.
Cheers,
Frenchy
All I'm saying is that going up into orbit around the earth is one thing but travelling through space, orbiting around a piece of rock 300'000 km away, dropping a landing craft on the surface, having it land safely and then take off again (by means of explosives may I remind you) to go back and dock perfectly (under no power) with the orbiting station, then slingshotting back to earth (another 300'000 km away) and finally executing a perfect re-entry to allow for a sea (as opposed to land) ditching. And all that with not serious computing power??
But hey, go on thinking what you want.
I suppose you still believe that on 9-11 the pentagon was hit by a 757, right? Ummm, thought so...
Anyway, this is not the forum for this sort of thing. Sorry for the deviation.
Cheers,
Frenchy
Facts please people....
Russian rockets - sorry but the same laws of physics apply there too. The craft servicing the ISS are about 95% (by weight) disposable; the only part that is recovered is the "capsule" (nice 50s word huh?), just like the US Mercury, Gemini & Apollo craft.
The post above which infers the moon landings could not have occurred because of a lack of computing power is a new angle on those determined revisionists who refuse to respect a great engineering and scientific endeavour.
By this logic, the 3 atomic bombs completed in 1945 must also have been hoaxes. Tell that one to a survivor...
Oh yes, and jet turbines designed in the 1940 are also illiusions..
And the B52 - well that is a cardboard mimic...
And so on.
The post above which infers the moon landings could not have occurred because of a lack of computing power is a new angle on those determined revisionists who refuse to respect a great engineering and scientific endeavour.
By this logic, the 3 atomic bombs completed in 1945 must also have been hoaxes. Tell that one to a survivor...
Oh yes, and jet turbines designed in the 1940 are also illiusions..
And the B52 - well that is a cardboard mimic...
And so on.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cape Town SA and Manchester UK
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose you still believe that on 9-11 the pentagon was hit by a 757, right? Ummm, thought so...
Did the Oil indutsry arrange for a cruise missile to hit the Pentagon or did the US military fire it to "intimidate congress".
Sorry but you're having a laugh ain't ya.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: West-Africa
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Frency
What have you been smoking mate?It would probably require more effort and money to fake the moon landing than to actually do it. Anyway, this argument probably belongs under another forum.
There seems to be no good reason to continue manned (oops, not very PC) space missions except that whe humans are naturaly curious and want to explore and experience thing. Its the same reason we still have manned( oops, there I go again) tanks, fighter aircraft, etc. even though technology today makes it unnecesary.
To stop space exploration in any form, despite the cost, would be to tell us all to stop dreaming and exploring. Hope we all grow old enough to experience space for ourselves one day.
What have you been smoking mate?It would probably require more effort and money to fake the moon landing than to actually do it. Anyway, this argument probably belongs under another forum.
There seems to be no good reason to continue manned (oops, not very PC) space missions except that whe humans are naturaly curious and want to explore and experience thing. Its the same reason we still have manned( oops, there I go again) tanks, fighter aircraft, etc. even though technology today makes it unnecesary.
To stop space exploration in any form, despite the cost, would be to tell us all to stop dreaming and exploring. Hope we all grow old enough to experience space for ourselves one day.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Somewhere in Seff Efrika
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey NDV i' with ya!!!!!!
....don't forget this was an unheralded 2005 space walk, breaking every record in the book to dangerously repair the underside of the shuttle in a low earth orbit....and you are meant to believe that 40 years ago guys were bouncing around the moon hitting golf balls....playing in a beach buggy etc
.............Puh!!!!!
C'mon...........
....don't forget this was an unheralded 2005 space walk, breaking every record in the book to dangerously repair the underside of the shuttle in a low earth orbit....and you are meant to believe that 40 years ago guys were bouncing around the moon hitting golf balls....playing in a beach buggy etc
.............Puh!!!!!
C'mon...........
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Daar onder by die dam!
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to Gunns being the winner of the e-bucks competion...........
tjom,if I will, I'll definatley be the first "Seff Effriken" to play
"Frikkebreebors en sy orkes.......grootste treffers.....vol 19" in outer space, but then hell, where that kinda music is played, there is nothing but "outer space"
tjom,if I will, I'll definatley be the first "Seff Effriken" to play
"Frikkebreebors en sy orkes.......grootste treffers.....vol 19" in outer space, but then hell, where that kinda music is played, there is nothing but "outer space"
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pheremone and NDV.......thanks for clearing that one up!!
Back in the early 70's I was introduced to a thing called an 'INS'. Damned people tried to tell me that it was developed for the Apollo missions......to think that back then I swallowed all that K
K!!!
Also, those so-called 'astronoughts' were all old ballies, I mean some were almost 50 when they were supposedly buggering around on the moon!
Gives the space race a whole new meaning for me.
Back in the early 70's I was introduced to a thing called an 'INS'. Damned people tried to tell me that it was developed for the Apollo missions......to think that back then I swallowed all that K
K!!!Also, those so-called 'astronoughts' were all old ballies, I mean some were almost 50 when they were supposedly buggering around on the moon!
Gives the space race a whole new meaning for me.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, at least it shows that some of us are awake and other just 'following the leader'...
We'll never know what exactly happened. I for one don't believe a thing I can't have solid proof of. Especially when they are that 'amaizing' or 'incredible'.
Remember, the bigger the bluff (or lie) the harder it is for people not to believe it.
Cheers,
Frenchy
Oh and Geroge Tower, if you have 5 mins to spare, read through this:
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/06-...on.cgi.51.html
We'll never know what exactly happened. I for one don't believe a thing I can't have solid proof of. Especially when they are that 'amaizing' or 'incredible'.
Remember, the bigger the bluff (or lie) the harder it is for people not to believe it.
Cheers,
Frenchy
Oh and Geroge Tower, if you have 5 mins to spare, read through this:
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/06-...on.cgi.51.html
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I watched the Apollo 11 landing in the lounge of a hotel in Sesimbra, Portugal.
Some years later I met Neil Armstrong after attending a lecture that he gave in SA.
Sheesshh, I must have been pi##ed!
Seems like it must have been a dream.
Some years later I met Neil Armstrong after attending a lecture that he gave in SA.
Sheesshh, I must have been pi##ed!
Seems like it must have been a dream.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And just for fun (last time Mr. Moderator, promise):
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomseven/pentagonlies.swf
Frenchy
http://members.shaw.ca/freedomseven/pentagonlies.swf
Frenchy
Solid Proof
It is good to see that we have some great independent Thinkers of the Age out there - quite right - NEVER believe something unless you have tangible proof.
I once foolishly believed Elvis Presley was dead until an off-duty brain surgeon told me it was a Pentagon cover up and in fact he was alive and well and working as a pump attendant at a petrol station in Milnerton.
Of course, I now know that too was a con job as Elvis Presly did not actually exist - he was just a figment of the CIA. That guy you saw at Vegas was really an impersonator - how else do you explain all these present day impersonators?
And how do I know this? I got it off the internet. Remember, never believe anything without solid proof.
Oh yes, as every pilot knows: There is a point in your flying training when you are ushered into a secret room and retaught your navigation to account for the fact that the earth is flat...
I love this stuff
I once foolishly believed Elvis Presley was dead until an off-duty brain surgeon told me it was a Pentagon cover up and in fact he was alive and well and working as a pump attendant at a petrol station in Milnerton.
Of course, I now know that too was a con job as Elvis Presly did not actually exist - he was just a figment of the CIA. That guy you saw at Vegas was really an impersonator - how else do you explain all these present day impersonators?
And how do I know this? I got it off the internet. Remember, never believe anything without solid proof.
Oh yes, as every pilot knows: There is a point in your flying training when you are ushered into a secret room and retaught your navigation to account for the fact that the earth is flat...
I love this stuff