Text 7654, 78 rader
Skriven 2006-09-05 20:52:00 av Robert E Starr JR (8151.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Orion CEV...Apollo St
=================================
* * * This message was from Craig M. Bobchin to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <MPG.1f674f52c4f67c539896c4@news.la.sbcglobal.net>
@REPLY:
<1157089134.365132.150710@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com><MPG.1f6227b2d41cf5759896c2@news.la.sbcglobal.net><1157139114.853

I have no problems with going to the moon and coming back, I do have an 
issue with our primary manned space program being short jaunts to LEO 
and a white elephant of a space station. 

Again if we (as a nation or even as a multi-nation project) had the guts 
and will to go to space wew would have manned bases on the moon by now 
if not Mars. 

The Orion project I mentioned in a previous post was a large scale 
nuclear powered space craft that would be assembled in orbit and could 
take us to the outer solar system in a matter of months not years.

In article <1157179748.150143.209020@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, 
jdelarroz@gmail.com says...
> My bad, I just assumed that was the alternative to launches and
> returns. Quick missions like that.  The other statement about NASA was
> from a previous post.  I just figured I'd make one post instead of two,
> which i guess confused things.
> 
> So what do you propose?
> 
> 
> 
> Craig M. Bobchin wrote:
> > Where are you getting that I'm promoting a long space voyage?
> > Yes we need to learn how to protect against radiation and
> > weightlessness. But protection against radiation is one thing the
> > shuttle and ISS don't really teach us, being inside the Earth's magetic
> > field which is what helps the spactation astronauts stay safe.
> >
> > Also where did I state that NASA is taking a step backwards, or that
> > Bush is to blame?
> >
> > The fact remains that Apollo was started as a political statement during
> > the cold war. While it was cool and all and a lot was learned, we
> > stumbled after that instead of moving forward.
> >
> > In article <1157139114.853459.59600@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > jdelarroz@gmail.com says...
> > > Well it seems you're promoting a prolonged space journey, which would
> > > be great if we could find a means to keep people's bodies from breaking
> > > down and keep them safe from radiation. I don't know much about
> > > aerodynamics or shuttles, but I'm sure they're updating things as best
> > > they can.  I'd find it hard to believe that NASA engineers would take a
> > > step backwards.
> > >
> > > And I hate how everything has to be "i hate bush blahblahblahblah."
> > > Next you know they'll be saying the weather is his fault.  Oh wait..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Craig M. Bobchin wrote:
> > > > One thing you have to remember is that the shuttle is not now and never
> > > > was intended nor capable of going to the moon. The Shuttle design is
> > > > almost 40 years old and never really met it's ideal turnaround time for
> > > > missions.
> > > >
> > > > Personally I believe that the whole manned space program
> > > > has been ill conceived from the beginning and needs to be rethought.
> > > >
> > > > Now before anyone flames me for this, I'm a huge fan of the space
pogram
> > > > and firmly beleive that we need to be in space. Just not the way we
have
> > > > been for the past 25 years making LEO trips and returning. Don't even
> > > > get me started on that white elephant of a space station either.
                                                                               
    
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)