Science and Technology news... :: View topic - The Technological Stagnation of Human Culture

Pat Flannery · Guest

Fred J. McCall wrote:
[quote]Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:> Are there any sane people left in this newsgroup or am I just wasting
:> my time?
:
:
:What is time? I have developed a startling new theory about the relation
:of time to Dark Energy, which I can explain in only a few thousand
:words... :-D
:

There>s a difference between being funny and being, well, 'funny'. :-)

[/quote]
You think I>m funny?
You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it>s me, I>m a
little fucked up maybe, but I>m funny how, I mean funny like I>m a
clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I>m here to fuckin' amuse you?
What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? ;-)

Pat DeVito

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:

:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:
:> :
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :>
:> :> Are there any sane people left in this newsgroup or am I just wasting
:> :> my time?
:> :>
:> :
:> :What is time? I have developed a startling new theory about the relation
:> :of time to Dark Energy, which I can explain in only a few thousand
:> :words... :-D
:> :
:>
:> There>s a difference between being funny and being, well, 'funny'. :-)
:>
:
:You think I>m funny?
:You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it>s me, I>m a
:little fucked up maybe, but I>m funny how, I mean funny like I>m a
:clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I>m here to fuckin' amuse you?
:What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? ;-)
:

The proper way to ask the question is, "Are you saying that I>m 'funny
strange' or 'funny haha'"?

Pat Flannery · Guest

Fred J. McCall wrote:
[quote]:
:You think I>m funny?
:You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it>s me, I>m a
:little fucked up maybe, but I>m funny how, I mean funny like I>m a
:clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I>m here to fuckin' amuse you?
:What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? ;-)
:

The proper way to ask the question is, "Are you saying that I>m 'funny
strange' or 'funny haha'"?

[/quote]
That was a qoute out of "Goodfellas" BTW, in case you didn>t get it. :-)

Pat

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :
:> :You think I>m funny?
:> :You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it>s me, I>m a
:> :little fucked up maybe, but I>m funny how, I mean funny like I>m a
:> :clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I>m here to fuckin' amuse you?
:> :What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? ;-)
:> :
:>
:> The proper way to ask the question is, "Are you saying that I>m 'funny
:> strange' or 'funny haha'"?
:>
:
:That was a qoute out of "Goodfellas" BTW, in case you didn>t get it. :-)
:

I fear I must admit to never having seen it...

[Does that make me Mafia-deprived?]

OM · Guest

On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:52:29 -0600, Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com>
wrote:

[quote]You think I>m funny?
[/quote]
....It>s not a big deal if *we* think you>re funny. We get worried when
the French think you>re funny.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let>s face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Martha Adams · Guest

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09t1i49he7cpsenmefnek3mup991hia3qg@4ax.com...
[quote]Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :
:> :You think I>m funny?
:> :You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it>s me, I>m
a
:> :little fucked up maybe, but I>m funny how, I mean funny like I>m a
:> :clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I>m here to fuckin' amuse
you?
:> :What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? ;-)
:> :
:
:> The proper way to ask the question is, "Are you saying that I>m
'funny
:> strange' or 'funny haha'"?
:
:
:That was a qoute out of "Goodfellas" BTW, in case you didn>t get it.
:-)
:

I fear I must admit to never having seen it...

[Does that make me Mafia-deprived?]
[/quote]
The technological stagnation of human culture is all too
visible *right here*. I do wonder if 'corruption' might
be a better term. "sci.space.policy"? ??

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Nov 18]

Guest

On Nov 16, 1:42 am, kent.be...@gmail.com wrote:

[quote]The Shuttle is very dangerous. Also it hauls people when delivering
freight, and carries a lot of freight when all you need is to move
people.
[/quote]
I>ve always wondered about why people are fixated on this fallacy.
Everyday, your mail, food and other goods are being transported via
freight trains, planes and automobiles that also happen to be manned
by crews. What is so fundamentally different about spaceflight that we
should change this fairly successful combination? Right now and
important for ISS is that with the shuttle gone, we won>t have any
real heavy downlift capability in any current or projected spacecraft.

[quote]What we need is a 3 man $50 million launcher, such as we now plan to
purchase from a foreign contractor, a prime example of "technological
stagnation" since it has been in use since '57.
[/quote]
Why not instead put more effort into COTS and get a launcher that
costs less $ per launch, and gets us a new capsule which also costs
less and can carry crew or cargo (read: SpaceX>s Falcon-9 and Dragon).
-Mike

bob haller safety advocat · Guest

[quote]I>ve always wondered about why people are fixated on this fallacy.
Everyday, your mail, food and other goods are being transported via
freight trains, planes and automobiles that also happen to be manned
by crews. What is so fundamentally different about spaceflight that we
should change this fairly successful combination?

Yes, this is one of the many dumb "lessons" that we are supposed to
have learned from Shuttle.
[/quote]
if delivery people died at the same rate as shuttles lost vehicle and
crew things would be different

Guest

On Nov 18, 1:25 pm, bob haller safety advocate <hall...@aol.com>
wrote:
[quote]I>ve always wondered about why people are fixated on this fallacy.
Everyday, your mail, food and other goods are being transported via
freight trains, planes and automobiles that also happen to be manned
by crews. What is so fundamentally different about spaceflight that we
should change this fairly successful combination?

Yes, this is one of the many dumb "lessons" that we are supposed to
have learned from Shuttle.

if delivery people died at the same rate as shuttles lost vehicle and
crew things would be different
[/quote]
Thank whatever deity is out there that you weren>t around to run
things in the early days of steam locomotive transportation, or the
old horse/ox and wagon days or humanity might never have gotten
anywhere.

Now back into the killfile with you!
-Mike

Guest

On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, Jan Vorbrüggen <Jan.Vorbrueg...@not-thomson.net>
wrote:
[quote]I>ve always wondered about why people are fixated on this fallacy.
Everyday, your mail, food and other goods are being transported via
freight trains, planes and automobiles that also happen to be manned
by crews.

Crew, yes - because we choose to use people to control them. But the
"crew" of the shuttle are mostly (if not all) passengers, not controllers..

On the streets and tracks here, I see lorries (trucks to you) and
freight trains on the one hand, and passenger cars, buses, and passenger
trains on the other. The combination passenger/freight is quite rare.
[/quote]
Not really. Many jet "passenger" planes still carry a fair amount of
cargo above and beyond luggage. The only difference is that the
aircraft is carrying more passengers than cargo at that time. Also
note that it is relatively easy to switch between the two using the
same aircraft. Even still, in dedicated freight transport, there still
have to be crews on board to look after things and on the shuttle the
same is true of the crew, even though the automation of the orbiter is
of a technically greater level than say, a jet plane or a lorrie. On
the current mission, only two individuals are considered passengers,
while the rest oversee piloting chores and moving equipment.
-Mike

Guest

On Nov 18, 2:53 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:52:53 +0100, in a place far, far away, Jan
Vorbrüggen <Jan.Vorbrueg...@not-thomson.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I>ve always wondered about why people are fixated on this fallacy.
Everyday, your mail, food and other goods are being transported via
freight trains, planes and automobiles that also happen to be manned
by crews.

Crew, yes - because we choose to use people to control them. But the
"crew" of the shuttle are mostly (if not all) passengers, not controllers.

On the streets and tracks here, I see lorries (trucks to you) and
freight trains on the one hand, and passenger cars, buses, and passenger
trains on the other. The combination passenger/freight is quite rare.

How many of those freights have no one in the engine>s crew cab?
[/quote]
A large moving truck still has a 'crew' in the form of the driver and
the workmen who>s job it is to move furniture and appliances. Lord
knows we need to automate those trucks so that none of them get
killed! They should go to the work site in a little company car that
is nice and safe and has ejectable seats ala Kitt from Knight Rider!
-Mike

Rand Simberg · Guest

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:33:11 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
mdicenso@seds.lpl.arizona.edu made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

[quote]On Nov 16, 1:42 am, kent.be...@gmail.com wrote:

The Shuttle is very dangerous. Also it hauls people when delivering
freight, and carries a lot of freight when all you need is to move
people.

I>ve always wondered about why people are fixated on this fallacy.
Everyday, your mail, food and other goods are being transported via
freight trains, planes and automobiles that also happen to be manned
by crews. What is so fundamentally different about spaceflight that we
should change this fairly successful combination?
[/quote]
Yes, this is one of the many dumb "lessons" that we are supposed to
have learned from Shuttle.

Jan Vorbrüggen · Guest

[quote]I>ve always wondered about why people are fixated on this fallacy.
Everyday, your mail, food and other goods are being transported via
freight trains, planes and automobiles that also happen to be manned
by crews.
[/quote]
Crew, yes - because we choose to use people to control them. But the
"crew" of the shuttle are mostly (if not all) passengers, not controllers.

On the streets and tracks here, I see lorries (trucks to you) and
freight trains on the one hand, and passenger cars, buses, and passenger
trains on the other. The combination passenger/freight is quite rare.

Jan

Rand Simberg · Guest

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:52:53 +0100, in a place far, far away, Jan
Vorbrüggen <Jan.Vorbrueggen@not-thomson.net> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

[quote]I>ve always wondered about why people are fixated on this fallacy.
Everyday, your mail, food and other goods are being transported via
freight trains, planes and automobiles that also happen to be manned
by crews.

Crew, yes - because we choose to use people to control them. But the
"crew" of the shuttle are mostly (if not all) passengers, not controllers.

On the streets and tracks here, I see lorries (trucks to you) and
freight trains on the one hand, and passenger cars, buses, and passenger
trains on the other. The combination passenger/freight is quite rare.
[/quote]
How many of those freights have no one in the engine>s crew cab?

Greg D. Moore (Strider) · Guest

"bob haller safety advocate" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c8ea058-19e6-4c6b-860e-911c0d488d2f@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
[quote]I>ve always wondered about why people are fixated on this fallacy.
Everyday, your mail, food and other goods are being transported via
freight trains, planes and automobiles that also happen to be manned
by crews. What is so fundamentally different about spaceflight that we
should change this fairly successful combination?

Yes, this is one of the many dumb "lessons" that we are supposed to
have learned from Shuttle.

if delivery people died at the same rate as shuttles lost vehicle and
crew things would be different

[/quote]
Yeah, we wouldn>t deliver much.

Your analogy is flawed at best and backwards at worst.

Except for extreme exceptions, we don>t separate freight and crew.

And in any case, we lose cargo on rockets at about the same rate as crew.
So separating them doesn>t really gain much either way.

Pretty much any shuttle flight has needed the crew to go with the cargo.

Or explain to me how Columbia>s flight would have worked any better on an
all cargo flight? Or how it would be any safer if you separated the crew
onto a different vehicle.

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Space - Shuttle Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3