BoatBanter.com - OT health care

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - OT health care (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/115094-ot-health-care.html)

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 20/04/2010 11:48 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Flying into space on Russian craft while we take down the US flag at
*relief* efforts in Haiti? Are you freakin kidding me? Obama and
company have lost their minds.

Yes, but I though you were pro-Obama? Converted?

Reply: And, yet, it's complete bs that NASA's work is ending or even
being
scaled back. They're getting an increase in funding, plus additional
jobs.

I don't trust Obama, 6 months ago he was ready to slash their budget to
paper rockets.

NASA is one of the best science investments the US ever made. Inspired
many into science and technology including myself. Spun off technology in
all sorts of sciences, including the rock we live on.

Sure beats spending it on war. In fact if you took the middle east moneys
since 911, NASA could be funded to etternity on the interest. And you do
alot better than dead soldiers.

I still remember John Glenns lift off on a B&W TV.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the
government?

You're a liar. Nothing new there.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 8:44 am, Canuck57 wrote:
On 20/04/2010 11:48 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:

Flying into space on Russian craft while we take down the US flag at
*relief* efforts in Haiti? Are you freakin kidding me? Obama and
company have lost their minds.

Yes, but I though you were pro-Obama? Converted?

That was my text. She still hasn't figured out how to use a news
reader.

Reply: And, yet, it's complete bs that NASA's work is ending or even
being
scaled back. They're getting an increase in funding, plus additional
jobs.

I don't trust Obama, 6 months ago he was ready to slash their budget to
paper rockets.

Now he's saying that they'll get some money and it will create some
jobs, but all sources are saying that it will be a net job loss of
over 5000. Hey, it's expensive to buy your way aboard Russian
rockets. Outsourcing this is a bad idea.

But Obama is good at bad ideas.

I still remember John Glenns lift off on a B&W TV.

I remember touring the Space Center when I was a kid, and going into
the VAB back when they'd still let you do that. Wow. Now you just
ride by it on the road as they point it out. Better see it while you
can... soon it will be nothing but rubble. I guess we can lease it to
the Russians.

Reply: You haven't learned how to socialize. Perhaps that's why you sit at
home and play with yourself.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:42:05 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

My brother in law just retired from Verizon and he has no complaints
about how former AT&T employees were treated.

I worked for NCR. ATT bought them. After I left. One of the two small
pensions I get. I still have breakfast once a month with a group of NCR
coworkers. They were there through the ATT years. Said ATT was a crap
manager, but they were treated well in the layoffs and retirements. And you
could have bought a lot of ATT stock at a discount and made a handsome
profit on it as an employee.

i bought it at $55/share. it's now worth less than $1/share

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Apr 20, 1:48 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Apr 17, 9:04 pm, "mmc" wrote:

Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private
industry
can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better
and
cheaper. Just seems odd.

All NASA does these days is administer contracts. The current shuttle
design
has been in service for damn near 30 years with a planned lifespan
something
like 20 years and a goal of a low cost delivery system to near earth
orbit.
It has proven to be the most expensive delivery system available and is
more
sensitive than a teenage girl. And more dangerous. NASA has had 30 years
to
come up with a replacement and has fallen on it's collective ass.
A good friend and former Air Force Commander once told me that "the
current
NASA generation couldn't put a man on the moon to save thier lives and
we're
spending $4 billion a year (mid 90s, 8 launches @ $500 million per) to
light
fires in an oxygen rich environment and watch rats f*ck".
Check out a crew list. Aside from the pilots, you'll see a gaggle of
people
who have no friggin clue as to what they're supposed to be doing up
there,
that's why they go thru so much training. If you really wanted to get
the
job done, NASA would send Navy mud divers instead of engineers and
school
teachers. Divers already know how to work in a weightless environment,
they
know life support systems and how to work with tools
NASA, like FEMA have become stagnent social programs that cannot perform
thier missions. Flush them and start over.

You're wrong on so many levels. Case in point: I get a Tech Brief
industry rag that outlines the many science advances and breakthroughs
that come from the NASA Jet Propulsion Labs and other NASA research
facilities every couple of months. These are the same people that
brought us semiconductors, IC's, and so many other technology advances
that it's not easily comprehended by most. Shut them down?

Of course your Air Force friend will run down NASA... he'll do the
same to other branches of the military besides the AF and anyone else
he's been brainwashed into thinking isn't as good as the AF. It's in
the training... if it's not AF, it's crap. He isn't really holding up
the AF as the model of effiency, is he? And what the hell would Navy
divers do up there? I guess they can take the space walks and perform
maintenance, while the rest do the *research* that the divers sure
can't handle.

But now you want to shoot that whole NASA industry in the head and let
Rutan and others do it? They'll only do what make commercial sense
for them, and the research part will stagnate. Not good for America.

Flying into space on Russian craft while we take down the US flag at
*relief* efforts in Haiti? Are you freakin kidding me? Obama and
company have lost their minds.

Naw, the friend I spoke of has nothing to do with CCAFS or space and never
was in any sort of competition with the civilian space program.
The divers would be for doing manual labor in a weightless environment.
Anyone who hasn't done this sort of work would have no idea of what it is
like. Training tourists to fumble through it is stupid unless it's all for
politics and propoganda.
Where the hell is the replacement for the STS? If a prototype had been under
construction, there would be much better chances of the STS extended (again)
until it's online. But the new version isn't close to being a reality.
Because it doesn't exist.
It's like living in a hotel until the house is built but never working on
the house.
I'm not slamming the entire, historical friggin space program, I'm saying
that the current NASA is as screwed up, lazy and irresponsible as the rest
of the government agencies. They all should be put under microscopes and
evaluated for how they are performing thier missions. The managers who
aren't performing as they should put on probation for a period to give them
a chance to get thier house in order, and fired if they don't. There are a
lot of private industry practices that would do the government good if they
were adopted.
One of the old time private industry practices that could be instituted
would be to account for how and on what the income (taxes) are being spent.
I'm a taxpayer and want to know where my GD money is going.
And we're already hitchin rides on Russian spacecraft.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:17:21 -0400, "mmc" wrote:

Where the hell is the replacement for the STS?

"Replacing" the shuttle would just be a tumor transplant. One shot
rockets are a lot more flexible and end up being cheaper. They
basically have to rebuild the shuttle on every trip at a huge cost

I guess that's why the USAF is planning reusuable boosters..

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:53:07 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:34:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:17:21 -0400, "mmc" wrote:

Where the hell is the replacement for the STS?

"Replacing" the shuttle would just be a tumor transplant. One shot
rockets are a lot more flexible and end up being cheaper. They
basically have to rebuild the shuttle on every trip at a huge cost

I guess that's why the USAF is planning reusuable boosters..

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/
There is a difference between a reusable rocket tube and the bloated
Shuttle program.
When 80-90% of your total budget is tied to one platform it severely
limits what else you can do.
You can put a vast number of things on top of a big booster. The Atlas
5 went to the moon but it also launched Skylab.
The Shuttle went to low earth orbit and that was all it could really
do efficiently. Missions were not based on what we might want to do
but what the Shuttle could do.

The only good thing that came out of that was it forced us to create
very capable robot probes for Mars, the outer solar system and deep
space instead of wasting money on manned probes. We got a lot more
science out of them, if not the "gee whiz" factor of seeing a guy
standing there hitting a golf ball.

So many folks here are down on golf.

If he'd hit a tennis ball, many would be happier.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:34:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 09:17:21 -0400, "mmc" wrote:

Where the hell is the replacement for the STS?

"Replacing" the shuttle would just be a tumor transplant. One shot
rockets are a lot more flexible and end up being cheaper. They
basically have to rebuild the shuttle on every trip at a huge cost

I guess that's why the USAF is planning reusuable boosters..

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/
There is a difference between a reusable rocket tube and the bloated
Shuttle program.
When 80-90% of your total budget is tied to one platform it severely
limits what else you can do.
You can put a vast number of things on top of a big booster. The Atlas
5 went to the moon but it also launched Skylab.
The Shuttle went to low earth orbit and that was all it could really
do efficiently. Missions were not based on what we might want to do
but what the Shuttle could do.

The only good thing that came out of that was it forced us to create
very capable robot probes for Mars, the outer solar system and deep
space instead of wasting money on manned probes. We got a lot more
science out of them, if not the "gee whiz" factor of seeing a guy
standing there hitting a golf ball.

By far there were many good things that came from the shuttle program...

--
Nom=de=Plume