 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2005MSNBC (Oberg) - Deadly space lessons go unheeded
MSNBC - Deadly space lessons go unheeded http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872105/ Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia tragedies have much in common COMMENTARY By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst Special to MSNBC // Updated: 5:56 p.m. ET Jan. 26, 2005 HOUSTON - At the end of January, NASA faces a triple anniversary of space catastrophes: the three times that astronauts have been killed aboard space vehicles. On January 27, 1967, during a pre-launch test, an unexpectedly ferocious fire suffocated Grissom, White, and Chaffee. On January 26, 1986, an unexpectedly brittle booster seal destroyed shuttle Challenger and killed Scobee, Smith, Resnik, Onizuka, McNair, Jarvis, and McAuliffe. And on February 1, 2003, unexpectedly severe heat shield damage destroyed the shuttle Columbia and killed Husband, McCool, Chawla, Clark, Anderson, Brown, and Ramon. As with the disasters themselves, this calendric coincidence was created by the confluence of independent trends and conditions that conspired to set the stage for disaster. But in each space case, these impersonal forces were merely backdrop to the human decisions that through their flaws were the immediate causes. It was at this stage --- the choices made or not made by human beings -- that each of these three disasters could have been averted. That the NASA space team failed to do so not once or even twice but three times is the true disaster. None of these people needed to die; their deaths taught NASA nothing that it shouldn't already have known. And that's the true tragedy of these three events. Koff, are you not rather guilty of over simplification here? OK, The news is that human beings a fallible. Well, we know that. I agree you are talking about a culture in terms of how decisions are made, but the problem is, at the time, you only have experience of that item or potential problem to draw on, and if you never use experience to judge things, nobody would ever go anywhere. I mean, everyone who drives, makes decisions like this every day, when its icy, raining or foggy. Maybe what you need is an impersonal, non human system of decision making? Of course there are mistakes, and yes, things need to get sorted, and every time something happens, a little is learned, but on the war front, so to speak, things seldom look like they do with 20/20 hindsight. Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Koff, are you not rather guilty of over > simplification > here? Brian, are you guilty of not clicking on the link and of failing to read the entire article? rl P.S. "Cough" was rendered as k o f f, and it looks like you're addressing someone by that name rather than making a visual statement. So to speak. > > Koff, are you not rather guilty of over > > simplification > > here? > > Brian, are you guilty of not clicking on the link and > of failing to read the entire article? That was my thought as well. He must have read only the fist page, not seeing the links at the bottom to take him to pages 2 and 3. ;-) When managers (within NASA and its contractors) repeatedly put the engineers in a position where they have to "prove it will fail", there is a serious lack of a safety conscious culture. The fact that the first shuttle disaster did not change this culture was crystal clear in the way that the Columbia foam impact was handled. The Columbia crew didn't have a fighting chance because they never knew there was a problem. Seriously though, the discussion of the safety culture within the US nuclear submarine fleet was very appropriate. Who in their right mind would put the crew operating a nuclear reactor on a submarine in a position to "prove it will fail" when something unexpected happens? Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. "Prove" that it will fail or won't fail? While I admit that shuttle is an over-complicated and overly-expensive, but your claims here are over the top. Just the interactions alone can bring up thousands of "possible" failures. NASA obviously knew that the foam was a possible issue and was working towards a replacement technology, but because of the expenses involved, it wasn't *fast*. If they changed *immediately* every supposed "possible failures" the Shuttle would have never flown. > NASA obviously knew that the foam was a possible > issue and was working towards a replacement technology, but because of > the expenses involved, it wasn't *fast*. There were problems with foam shedding from the ET from the very first shuttle flight. This was an issue where NASA gradually changed its view of this from a "safety issue" to more of a "maintenance issue". While NASA had done some analysis of foam impacts on the tiles (this was the origin of the Crater program mentioned in news reports), they completley ignored the RCC (assuming it was stronger than the tiles). When the film from the Columbia launch showed a possible impact on the RCC, the engineers were again stuck in a situation where the flight was going to be run as planned unless they could prove that there was a problem with the TPS. Management didn't want to waste time or effort looking into a problem that they didn't want to believe could exist. > If they changed *immediately* every supposed "possible failures" the > Shuttle would have never flown. Not the point. NASA looks at every failure mode that they can think of and determines what the risk is. A lot of this analysis results in the creation of flight rules and parameters that should not be exceeded. During the Columbia flight, a piece of foam that was far bigger than what was used to create the Crater program hit Columbia's wing. Given that the foam hit was far bigger than any previously encountered or analyzed, a safety conscious culture would have assumed that the TPS was damaged. That's not what happened. Management assumed the TPS was fine and expected the engineers to prove otherwise. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. The situation was even worse. Management cancelled a request to the Air Force by the engineers to image the orbiter from space, flew the entire mission upside down making ground-based imaging virtually impossible, refused to use the advanced adaptive optics large telescope facilities run by the Air Force on Maui and in New Mexico and refused to consult their own image enhancement division, based in Huntsville, which supplies state-of the-art image enhancement consulting to the FBI, for example. Management knew it had a serious problem shortly after launch--they simply wanted to avoid negative publicity and hope for the best. Result--one lost shuttle. What has ever happened to Dittemore and Ham? >The situation was even worse. Management cancelled a request to the Air >Force by the engineers to image the orbiter from space, flew the entire [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >simply wanted to avoid negative publicity and hope for the best. >Result--one lost shuttle. Try reading the actual report. You'll find the sequence of events quite different. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL Ron Dittemore is an executive with ATK Thiokol. From his bio: "President, ATK Thiokol and Group Vice President, ATK Thiokol, Inc. responsible for the overall management, marketing, design, development, manufacturing, and support operations of ATK's space and strategic propulsion business unit." I'm not sure what Linda Hamm is doing. >During the Columbia flight, a piece of foam that was far bigger than what >was used to create the Crater program hit Columbia's wing. Given that the >foam hit was far bigger than any previously encountered or analyzed, a >safety conscious culture would have assumed that the TPS was damaged. Given that they *did* assume the TPS was damaged, that statement fails to hold water. >That's not what happened. Management assumed the TPS was fine and expected >the engineers to prove otherwise. You are correct. That's not what happened. Management believed somewhat equivocal Crater reports, and (arguably rightly) ignored the engineers who insisted the damage just *had* to be worse... But who declined to support their assumptions. Blaming it all on managment is stupid. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > .... > When the film from the Columbia launch showed a possible impact on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the > TPS.... Since the Crater program indicated possible severe tile damage over a wide area, it's unclear how the conclusion "safe return indicated" was reached. The big, bold-letter heading in the Boeing report said "Crater Equations Show Significant Tile Damage". In at least one scenario, the Crater output clearly showed damage of 4.7 inches deep (tile was only 2.6-2.8 inches deep), over a wide area. As we now know, it was the RCC that was damaged, but at that time the exact impact point wasn't known, just the approximate region. For all they knew then, it could have been the tiles, and Crater was (in Boeing's words) the "official evaluation tool". How the "safe return indicated" conclusion was reached when the data itself in the Boeing reported indicated otherwise has never been adequately explained. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/2203main_COL_debris_boeing_030123.pdf -- Joe D. > As we now know, it was the RCC that was damaged, but at that time > the exact impact point wasn't known, just the approximate region. > For all they knew then, it could have been the tiles, and Crater > was (in Boeing's words) the "official evaluation tool". Quite true, and the boxed area of potential impact region, INCLUDED RCC in its boundaries. But just towards the edge. so Boeing and NASA mentally 'moved the boundary' to exclude anyt hought of RCC -- after imagining, conveniently, that 'RCC is even harder to damage than tile.' Shoulda hung 'em. On 27 Jan 2005 08:48:18 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Arthur Hansen" <arthur@kindred.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >"Prove" that it will fail or won't fail? While I admit that shuttle is >an over-complicated and overly-expensive, but your claims here are over [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If they changed *immediately* every supposed "possible failures" the >Shuttle would have never flown. You miss the point. They were flying outside the demonstrated safe temperature range of the O-ring material. When engineers objected to this, it was demanded of them that they prove it unsafe. This turns the entire safety philosophy on its head. If one has to prove that flying an item outside of the designed conditions is unsafe, there's no point in having design conditions. > That was my thought as well. He must have read only the fist page, not > seeing the links at the bottom to take him to pages 2 and 3. ;-) Remember, folks, Brian is blind and is doing pretty well to get much use out of the 'net at all, in my opinion. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C "Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." -- Ambrose Bierce <http://dischordia.blogspot.com> <http://www.angryherb.net> >Seriously though, the discussion of the safety culture within the US nuclear >submarine fleet was very appropriate. Who in their right mind would put the >crew operating a nuclear reactor on a submarine in a position to "prove it >will fail" when something unexpected happens? Rickover is credited with inventing the culture, but mostly he codified and formalized the existing culture and then turned the knob from '10' to '11'. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>Seriously though, the discussion of the safety culture within the US >>nuclear [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > codified and formalized the existing culture and then turned the knob > from '10' to '11'. He had a lot of help also. And the knob was more like "10" to "100" > D. :>>Seriously though, the discussion of the safety culture within the US :>>nuclear [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : :He had a lot of help also. And the knob was more like "10" to "100" With periodic twists up to 1000 when Rickover himself decided to walk on board.... Okay, let's talk about the safety culture within the US nuclear submarine fleet. If this is what Jim Oberg is holding up as an example of a successful safety culture, then he must look fairly at the results: a massively expensive infrastructure that is also extremely risk averse in all regards, not just nuclear. The reason is simple--the continued existence of the naval nuclear program relies on continued public belief that a nuclear accident will never occur. Great. What you have instead is a system that makes nuclear submarines the most expensive ships in the navy per capability, the least operationally proficient, a training ground for tactical weenies. I do not say this lightly; I've served on both surface ships and submarines, and while I am always impressed by the quality of submarine sailors, I am sadly depressed at the quality of submarine leadership--specifically the lack of tactical acuity. The nuclear pipeline selects ever more carefully for the zero-defect engineering administrator. The sad fact is that this same person usually makes a poor personnel manager and a abysmal tactical decision maker. The zero-defect nuclear culture breeds a zero-experience tactical culture that leads to other disasters like the Greeneville collision that killed Japanese students or the USS San Fran grounding that killed one and destroyed a $700 mil dollar US asset. (incidently, that's more than the cost of a shuttle launch) Fortunately, America has not needed tactically proficient submariners for almost 20 years. But if that's the model Jim Oberg thinks NASA should emulate, be prepared for a quadrupling of NASA's budget, a halving if its already low flight rate, and a reducing of non-safety expectations around the table. You cannot emphasize safety at the expense of all else--because you lose all else. Tom Cuddihy Good response, good first-hand observations. Especially with regard to breeding risk-aversion -- this is something I want to think about and nose around some more. Nonethetheless, I did find and still find Rickover's words to reflect an attitude that I believe NASA needs more of. That was all I said. Don't over-interpret, unless you detect implications that I myself hadn't intended. > Okay, let's talk about the safety culture within the US nuclear > submarine fleet. If this is what Jim Oberg is holding up as an example [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Tom Cuddihy >Good response, good first-hand observations. An ignorant response that fails to show both sides... I.E. he doesn't discuss the surface failures. >Especially with regard to breeding risk-aversion -- this is something >I want to think about and nose around some more. His conclusions about risk aversion are utterly false Jim. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL Derek , How long has it been since you've been on a submarine? It's been one year for me. You're right that lots of surface USN failures take place too, sometimes with fatal results (think Vincennes or the fire on the Enterprise). My most recent experience is with submarines, and it's true that my experience is limited to two different ships and 3 commanding officers. But I've also been a part of shore commands, and I've seen the vast financial sums that go down the nuclear hole--with very little to (openly) show for it. I'm not advocating for the ending of nuclear subs. I know they have a vital role that no other platform can perform. I'm saying from my personal experience that the zero-defect engineering culture is crippling the tactical ability and use of the submarine force, and while the surface community tends to get a lower overall quality of personnel, the culture tends to encourage far more innovation and tactical proficiency despite this. This is really getting OT, in fact this kind of discussion probably belongs on the pages of Proceedings, but the fact is that while the nuclear mindset of the submarine force has doubtless made it nuclear failsafe, there have been serious unintended consequences, and among them are watered down tactical ability and hence military utility. As Jim Oberg pointed out though, perhaps NASA can learn something from the Rickover model. I'm just cautioning about the law of unintended consequences. Tom > As Jim Oberg pointed out though, perhaps NASA can learn something from > the Rickover model. I'm just cautioning about the law of unintended > consequences. > > Tom It would be interesting to see what a 1950 Rickover would do if put in charge of 2005 NASA. However, NASA is composed of civilians. Martial law should not be imposed on people without pretty good reasons. >Derek , >How long has it been since you've been on a submarine? >It's been one year for me. It's been over a decade, but I'm still semi-involved in the community, and have been a student of submarine affairs for over 25 years. >but the fact is that while the nuclear mindset of the submarine force has >doubtless made it nuclear failsafe, there have been serious unintended >consequences, and among them are watered down tactical ability and >hence military utility. Whitey Mack, among many, many others would disagree with you. >As Jim Oberg pointed out though, perhaps NASA can learn something from >the Rickover model. I'm just cautioning about the law of unintended >consequences. Except... You haven't shown that any unintended consequences exist. You've handwaved hot air. Even the two submarine accidents you cite (Asheville and San Francisco) can arguably be attributed to the 'cowboy' attitude well known among submariners. A 'cautious' CO would not have done an emergency blow. A 'cautious' CO wouldn't be running flank anywhere except in the deep basins or a well known and mapped OPAREA. If there is such a 'cautious' attitude, it springs from the politics inherent in the reduced size of the Force and the end of the Cold War. Not from Rickover's policies. Otherwise, such an attitude would have been more than apparent during my years, when said policies had already been in force longer than anyone still serving at that time. (Except the MCPO of the Sub School...) And it patently wasn't. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > Except... You haven't shown that any unintended consequences exist. > You've handwaved hot air. > > Even the two submarine accidents you cite (Asheville and San Greeneville hit the Japanese boat. My roommate was on board at the time. Yes, the CO was a bit of a 'cowboy'. He was also a nuclear golden child. > Francisco) can arguably be attributed to the 'cowboy' attitude well > known among submariners. A 'cautious' CO would not have done an > emergency blow. A 'cautious' CO wouldn't be running flank anywhere > except in the deep basins or a well known and mapped OPAREA. That's just patently asinine. I have been OOD running deep and fast in the same area where San Fran ran agound before. Every ocean open transit happens at that speed and depth. Have you ever been deployed on Westpac? > If there is such a 'cautious' attitude, it springs from the politics > inherent in the reduced size of the Force and the end of the Cold War. > Not from Rickover's policies. Otherwise, such an attitude would have That is indeed possible. I can only go on what I saw. Tom Jim, Fair enough, I am somewhat personally passionate about the subject. Perhaps you're right. Considering the national examination that takes place every time a space accident happens, perhaps it would be fitting to elevate the safety standard to that of nuclear reliability. I think that would be unfortunate, since the nuclear standard exists primarly to prevent damage to uninvolved persons by limiting the potential for nuclear accidents AND also preventing the spread of any radiation to the environment. Space, beyond launch restrictions, has no such 'uninvolved persons' component to it, except for that element we give it through empathy for the crew. But obviously a large number of Americans feel as you do. Tom Isn't part of the problem the nature of the shuttle itself. It is an all in one crew and cargo launch vehicle, orbiter, reentry shield and glider. The concept of a space truck looked good on paper, but became something of a white elephant designed by committee by the time it got to the launch pad. It is the most incredible vehicle ever built. That's what's wrong with it. > Jim, > Fair enough, I am somewhat personally passionate about the subject. Right now I have you pegged as an intelligent person able to take part in discussions without name-calling, argument by mis-interpretation or other typical underhand tactics. We need more like you round here. As such I'm going to suggest you make a bit more effort to cope with your Google groups imposed posting disability. It is standard practice to include in your replies 1. Attribution. That bit at the top which states something like "Fred Blogs" scribbled ... 2. (Partial) quote from the message you are replying to, indicated with > mark. Paul, You're right to infer that I'm using google groups. The 'reply function' doesn't automatically quote and I've had to manually cut and paste quoted text and add in the ">" marks. Is there some easier way to do this? Tom > Paul, > You're right to infer that I'm using google groups. The 'reply > function' doesn't automatically quote and I've had to manually cut and > paste quoted text and add in the ">" marks. Is there some easier way to > do this? I've used google before, including a couple checks of "google beta", and the normal behaviour was to include the quote with the inclusion remarks. Perhaps you need to set a check box, or fill out a preferences page? /dps SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ On 31 Jan 2005 10:12:59 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Tom Cuddihy" <tom.cuddihy@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >Paul, >You're right to infer that I'm using google groups. The 'reply >function' doesn't automatically quote and I've had to manually cut and >paste quoted text and add in the ">" marks. Is there some easier way to >do this? Get a newsreader. JRS: In article <1107195179.674082.276110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> , dated Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:12:59, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Tom Cuddihy <tom.cuddihy@gmail.com> posted : >You're right to infer that I'm using google groups. The 'reply >function' doesn't automatically quote and I've had to manually cut and >paste quoted text and add in the ">" marks. Is there some easier way to >do this? Chris Croughton posted : > Keith Thompson wrote in comp.lang.c, message >ID <lnwtuhfy7d.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the > article headers. Can it be made to preserve leading spaces/tabs <- such as there? Signature© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME © Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. > Paul, > You're right to infer that I'm using google groups. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ">" > marks. Is there some easier way to do this? You might consider checking out www.news.individual.net. It's a free newsserver that will allow you to use a regular newsreader (vs. a web-based reader like google), and you'll have more control over how you post. Not to mention that it's really easier all-around once you have it set up. As for google (should you prefer to continue using google)...hang on a sec...okay, here it is: http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=14213&query=reply+wit h+quoted+material&topic=0&type=f "How can I automatically quote the previous message when I post a reply? " "To quote the previous message in your reply, click the 'show options' link then the blue 'Reply' link at the top of the post. The full text of the previous message is included in the composition box and marked with angle brackets (>) at the start of each line. You can place your comments between lines of the quote or simply add your thoughts at the bottom. " All in all, they could have set this up a little better. rl > Paul, > You're right to infer that I'm using google groups. The 'reply > function' doesn't automatically quote and I've had to manually cut and > paste quoted text and add in the ">" marks. Is there some easier way to > do this? Rather than click reply, click "Show Options" and then "Reply" You'll find the context has been kept then. Heaven alone knows why it works like this. Or, as the Simberg suggests get a news reader - although finding a reasonable news service has been a challenge recently. Dave > Or, as the Simberg suggests get a news reader - > although > finding a reasonable news service has been a > challenge > recently. www.news.individual.net It's free, but you'll have to look elsewhere for binaries. rl Signature"The world is filled with evil, and there are two ways to react. The first way is easy, and wrong. To accept it. The second way is harder, but right. You fight it, and help others who fight to endure." Sheherazade > > Or, as the Simberg suggests get a news reader - > > although [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > rl www.newsguy.com It's not free (about $10 a month or less) but more binaries than you can shake . . . . well, "something" . . . at. ;-) Very long retention, too, and excellent server propagation. SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C "Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." -- Ambrose Bierce <http://dischordia.blogspot.com> <http://www.angryherb.net> > > > Or, as the Simberg suggests get a news reader - > > > although [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > can shake . . . . well, "something" . . . at. ;-) Very long > retention, too, and excellent server propagation. Thanks for these, I'm tempted for access to the binaries, now that BitTorrent is getting harder to work with, but I've been getting on ok with Google news for a bit. I dropped my ISP service when they dropped their archieve down to 3 days. Dave >> > Or, as the Simberg suggests get a news reader - >> > although [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >can shake . . . . well, "something" . . . at. ;-) Very long >retention, too, and excellent server propagation. I've used Newsguy for almost 10 years now for both a personal dialup provider as well as a nntp server at times for multiple users here, and they are excellent. Best Support and Service I've seen in any Internet operation. HIGHLY recommended. Mention me by name if you like if/when you sign up. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 >The zero-defect nuclear culture breeds a zero-experience tactical culture >that leads to other disasters like the Greeneville collision that >killed Japanese students or the USS San Fran grounding that killed one >and destroyed a $700 mil dollar US asset. (incidently, that's more than >the cost of a shuttle launch) Right. As compared to the Belknap-Kennedy collision? The Iowa explosion? Or any of the numerous other near- and outright disasters of the surface fleet over the same period? In you are utterly clueless as to the safety record of the two forces, and the causes of the differences. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > [cough], are you not rather guilty of over simplification here? OK, The news is > that human beings a fallible. Well, we know that. I agree you are talking > about a culture in terms of how decisions are made, but the problem is, at > the time, you only have experience of that item or potential problem to draw > on, and if you never use experience to judge things, nobody would ever go > anywhere. A valid question, but I think the answer is that people AT THAT TIME, when the decisions were being made, objected to the decisions with logic that was vindicated by subsequent events. If their advice was overruled -- as it was -- than the people who did the overruling were defective and needed replacing or mind-changing. NASA is in decline because the U.S. is in decline. President Bush is not going to appoint a charismatic, independent NASA administrator because he prefers a stupid slave who does not argue with the boss. The american space cadets are too ignorant to have any impact on space policy -- they will applaud new administrator no matter who he is. All rocket launchers used today trace their design to nuclear missiles. They are not suitable for launching payloads into orbit because they are not reusable. A simple, reusable first stage is easy to design and fabricate, but NASA cronies prefer to make throwaway rockets because they make more money that way. (The reusable first stage would probably be pressure fed because tanks of a pump fed rocket are flimsy and may not survive the splashdown.) The space shuttle is salvageable rather than reusable. PS. U.S. is the only industrial country that does not use metric system, does not have universal health care, and (with few exceptions) does not tolerate naked female breasts on its beaches. It spends far more on health care than any other country, but ranks only 37th in the overall quality of health care it provides, according to the World Health Organization. Unlike the single-payer system in Canada where everybody has health insurance and no one sees a bill - here in the U.S. complex and fragmented bills devour huge amounts of time and resources. It is not uncommon to wait 9 hours for service in a hospital emergency room. Some hospitals are as dirty as hospitals in Bangladesh or Bolivia. Americans resemble Russians in a sense that having big army and macho foreign policy is more important to them than everything else. (I am a naturalized american citizen, but I feel that U.S. is becoming a foreign banana republic.) >NASA is in decline because the U.S. is in >decline. President Bush is not going to >appoint a charismatic, independent NASA >administrator because he prefers a stupid >slave who does not argue with the boss. What, like charismatic, independent Sean O'Keefe, who argued rather forcefully with his boss and his boss' other staff that NASA was important, enough so that his agency was the single non-DOD agency which got funding boosts in the last couple of years? >The american space cadets are too ignorant >to have any impact on space policy -- they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >All rocket launchers used today trace their >design to nuclear missiles. That has not been true since the early 1990s at best. Atlas: current generation uses different tanks, a new Russian engine derived from one that has only ever flown on non-missile vehicles (RD-170 was designed for Zenit and the associated Energia booster). Upper stages are RL-10 based Centaurs with no missile heritage, though the RL-10 came out of some turbopump work for the liquid hydrogen precursor concept to the SR-71, which at least is miliary. Delta: current generation uses different tanks, a new US engine which is completely new, burns LOX/LH2, and has no design heritage with missile components for 30+ years, and an upper stage using the RL-10. Pegasus: Commercially developed, using custom developed solid motors with no significant design heritage to weapons other than size. Taurus: Uses Castor 120 first stage, which is a civilianized Peacekeeper first stage, but the rest of the vehicle is Pegasus derived. SpaceX Falcon-1 and V: zero missile heritage. New tanks, on new tank concepts, from a brand new company with no prior military work. Motors are derived from an experimental clean sheet design done by NASA for lower cost liquid rocket motors. SeaLaunch: Uses a Zenit model, which is an all new tankage and a motor purpose developed for it, with no military system design heritage per se as far as I know. Zenit: see above. Soyuz: This, in deed, was once a ICBM, though without the current second stage. Dnepr: A decommissioned SS-18 missile. Arianne 5: A new clean sheet design, using LOX/LH2, with no design heritage with missiles. H-II: A new clean sheet design, using LOX/LH2, with no design heritage with missiles. ... >They are not >suitable for launching payloads into orbit >because they are not reusable. They are not optimal for launching payloads into orbit because of their high cost. Cost and reliability are the only criteria that matter. -george william herbert gherbert@retro.com Andrew Nowicki wrote: > They are not suitable for launching payloads > into orbit because they are not reusable. > They are not optimal for launching payloads > into orbit because of their high cost. > Cost and reliability are the only criteria > that matter. Can you imagine a reusable first stage? Something like the space shuttle booster except that it would burn liquid propellant. No turbopump. Sturdy tanks. Regenerative cooling. Parachutes and splashdown. You can call it big dumb booster. How much damage can it suffer during reentry and splashdown? Can it be 100% reusable? I mean as reusable as an automobile, which, by the way, has more moving parts. >Andrew Nowicki wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >automobile, which, by the way, has more >moving parts. Let's see you dunk your automobile in the ocean after every drive. Won't last long. > Let's see you dunk your automobile in the ocean after every drive. > Won't last long. I know, it's amazing how many submarines the Navy runs through in a year because of the problems with ocean water. "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >> Let's see you dunk your automobile in the ocean after every drive. >> Won't last long. > >I know, it's amazing how many submarines the Navy runs through in a year >because of the problems with ocean water. It takes considerable care in materials selection, construction, and .9 metric buttloads of maintenance per annum to prevent such from happening. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:01:25 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >> Let's see you dunk your automobile in the ocean after every drive. >> Won't last long. > >I know, it's amazing how many submarines the Navy runs through in a year >because of the problems with ocean water. Yep, gotta love those lightweight, flying submarines. How big a booster do they use to launch them, anyway? > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:01:25 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > How big a booster do they use to launch them, anyway? How big a Sea Dragon you want? Sean O'Keefe has been implicated in vote-rigging scams here in Florida. He seems to have exited NASA pretty quickly when that story broke. Left town and headed toward New Orleans, last I heard. > What, like charismatic, independent Sean O'Keefe, > who argued rather forcefully with his boss and > his boss' other staff that NASA was important, > enough so that his agency was the single non-DOD > agency which got funding boosts in the last > couple of years? On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:11:30 +0100, in a place far, far away, Andrew Nowicki <andrew@nospam.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >NASA is in decline because the U.S. is in >decline. President Bush is not going to >appoint a charismatic, independent NASA >administrator because he prefers a stupid >slave who does not argue with the boss. I'm a little confused about this new philosophy of presidential appointments. Are *all* presidents supposed to appoint people who are "independent" and will argue with the president and not implement his policies, or is this just for Republican presidents? Or Republican presidents who some people (inexplicably) think is a moron and looks like a chimp? Help me out here. > I'm a little confused about this new philosophy of presidential > appointments. Are *all* presidents supposed to appoint people who are > "independent" and will argue with the president and not implement his > policies, or is this just for Republican presidents? Or Republican > presidents who some people (inexplicably) think is a moron and looks > like a chimp? NASA is a special case because its success depends critically on innovative technology. Its administrator must be a high caliber person who knows how to reduce the cost of space transportation. A homosexual drag queen who behaves like a prima donna would be a perfect NASA administrator as long as he knows how to reduce the cost of space transportation. President Bush is inclined to launch a massive program of sending people to the Moon and Mars, but he is not familiar with space technology and does not understand that this program would be prohibitively expensive unless the cost of space transportation is reduced. Bush makes important decisions too quickly and he often blunders. Alas, there is no independent body to correct his blunders. > Bush makes > important decisions too quickly and he often > blunders. Alas, there is no independent body to > correct his blunders. erm, yes there is. It's called "Congress"... SignatureTerrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net "Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty" -Paul Simon RE: George Harrison Andrew Nowicki wrote: > Bush makes important decisions too quickly > and he often blunders. Alas, there is no > independent body to correct his blunders. > erm, yes there is. It's called "Congress"... I was thinking about a panel of independent experts who annually expose NASA errors and suggest improvements in its technology. The president, Congress, and space cadets are proud of NASA because they do not understand space technology. NASA is a holy icon for them. Those who spit on the icon (James Oberg, Gregg Easterbrook, Jeffrey Bell, and a few others) are wasting their saliva. >Andrew Nowicki wrote: >> Bush makes important decisions too quickly and he often blunders. Alas, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I was thinking about a panel of independent experts who annually expose >NASA errors and suggest improvements in its technology. It's extremely easy to expose 'errors' when one has 20/20 hindsight and zero accountability for ones claims. Such 'oversight' is utterly valueless. Not to mention the problems with NASA are in no way 'technological'. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > It's extremely easy to expose 'errors' when one has 20/20 hindsight > and zero accountability for ones claims. Such 'oversight' is utterly valueless. Don't imply that everyone who exposes errors uses ONLY hindsight. You might nose around and in-advance were saying things about the dangerous implications of NASA attitudes and practices. There were some. Find out on what basis they made these warnings. See if NASA can learn from them, or should continue to disregard their insights. "Andrew Nowicki" <andrew@nospam.com> wrote in message > The president, Congress, and space cadets > are proud of NASA because they do not understand > space technology. NASA is a holy icon for them. > Those who spit on the icon (James Oberg, Gregg > Easterbrook, Jeffrey Bell, and a few others) > are wasting their saliva. Reflection, frank observations, revealing the man-behind-the-curtain, etc. ... that's all fine, but it's got to be done right. Gregg Easterbrook has often gotten it very wrong - even basic facts (and not just in matters of space - he' s a hack). It would be better for _him_ to simply shut up. Jon > Reflection, frank observations, revealing the man-behind-the-curtain, etc. > ... that's all fine, but it's got to be done right. Gregg Easterbrook has ^^^ replace "that's all fine" with "that's very important" ... :-/ > often gotten it very wrong - even basic facts (and not just in matters of > space - he' s a hack). It would be better for _him_ to simply shut up. > > Jon > Gregg Easterbrook has > often gotten it very wrong - even basic facts (and not just in matters of > space - he' s a hack). You're obviously not a fan of "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" on NFL.com (formerly of EPSN.com Page 2), I take it . . . ;-) SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C "Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." -- Ambrose Bierce <http://dischordia.blogspot.com> <http://www.angryherb.net> "Herb Schaltegger" <herb.schaltegger@gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message > > Gregg Easterbrook has > > often gotten it very wrong - even basic facts (and not just in matters of > > space - he' s a hack). > > You're obviously not a fan of "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" on NFL.com > (formerly of EPSN.com Page 2), I take it . . . ;-) I've heard that he does that. I got one report some time ago that he was decent at that. Since that time, I've gotten more reports that: "no, he's a hack at that, too". I've never watched it, so I don't know. If Easterbrook is any indication, it makes me wonder about "Brookings Institute Scholars". Is that a mail order thing you can buy? ;-) Jon > I got one report some time ago that he was > decent at that. Since that time, I've gotten more reports that: "no, he's a > hack at that, too". I've never watched it, so I don't know. Actually it's an online column (about 7,000 - 8,000 words per week). And it's usually pretty good. I didn't care at all for his post-Columbia writings regarding space exploration (and I posted my criticisms here at the time) but his football commentary is usually spot-on. Here's his most-recent column (from yesterday) if anyone's curious: <http://www.superbowl.com/news/story/8153024> SignatureHerb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D., GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C "Pray: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." -- Ambrose Bierce <http://dischordia.blogspot.com> <http://www.angryherb.net> > President Bush is inclined to launch a massive > program of sending people to the Moon and Mars, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > blunders. Alas, there is no independent body to > correct his blunders. There are a number of intelligent, honest, sober individuals on this newsgroup who fundamentally disagree with you but are not inclined to go off-topic and argue with gratuitous bigotry -- we figure it shows more about YOUR judgment than Bush's or ours, for you to make such jabs. > President Bush is inclined to launch a massive > program of sending people to the Moon and Mars, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > blunders. Alas, there is no independent body to > correct his blunders. Every four years there is an independent body that determines if he is blundering bad enough to fire him. Obviously they didn't think so. Patrick Jacobs Signaturea disclaimer! My boss told me to put "a disclaimer" on my posts so I did. The ground is earth. > > President Bush is inclined to launch a massive > > program of sending people to the Moon and Mars, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Every four years there is an independent body that determines if he is > blundering bad enough to fire him. Obviously they didn't think so. Hehe, just proves that his liars and smearers were better than Kerry's liars and smearers... JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** > Hehe, just proves that his liars and smearers were better > than Kerry's liars and smearers... Nope. Just proves that Kerry's liars and smearers and the relentless lying-liberal-mass-media still only found a moron-minority of suckers.... > > Hehe, just proves that his liars and smearers were better > > than Kerry's liars and smearers... > > Nope. Just proves that Kerry's liars and smearers > and the relentless lying-liberal-mass-media still only > found a moron-minority of suckers.... Lies and the lying liars that tell them, hahaha... So, where are those WMDs and production facilities? And what happened to the swifties since they were caught lying red-handed? LOL! One of an ilk, and you call yourself a reporter? You're just another worthless freeper, crawl back into your hole. JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** > One of an ilk, and you call yourself a reporter? You're just > another worthless freeper, crawl back into your hole. > > JazzMan I call myself my real name. Until you do the same, take your cowardly jabs and submit to the mockery of honest people. > > President Bush is inclined to launch a massive > > program of sending people to the Moon and Mars, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Patrick Jacobs Or they didn't have sufficient data. > Or they didn't have sufficient data. They had plenty of data, and the kind that you would prefer to withhold from them... > > Or they didn't have sufficient data. > > They had plenty of data, and the kind > that you would prefer to withhold from them... That was my implication. Lincoln was right, you can fool most of the people some of the time. Ironic that he was the first and last great President of his party. :> > Or they didn't have sufficient data. :> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :people some of the time. Ironic that he was the first and last great :President of his party. And your knowledge of him is apparently abysmal. 1) Lincoln isn't the one who said that. [0] 2) What you quoted isn't precisely how it goes. [1] 3) Lincoln presided over the bloodiest war in US history. How great is that? 4) Lincoln was quite willing to ignore the Constitution at a whim. How great was that?[2] [0] It was P.T. Barnum [1] The actual statement was "... you can fool all of the people some of the time...." [2] Suspension of habeas corpus and the creation of West Virginia for just a couple. Signature"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson >World Health Organization. Unlike the >single-payer system in Canada where everybody >has health insurance and no one sees a bill Uhmm, I see a bill every March when I pay my taxes, then there is the Ontario Health Care Premium, OHIP, prescriptions, ambulance, eye exams, dentist, oh ya, and you can't have a checkup more than once a year unless you pay for it. I count my lucky stars that my wife and eye have excellent coverage through our employers I cut my finger a few months back, I could wait for the doctor to freeze my finger and put in stiches, or PAY $10 to have him glue it in 30 seconds. >- here in the U.S. complex and fragmented >bills devour huge amounts of time and >resources. You've obviously never looked under the covers at any hospital in Canada. Our local hostpital just built a brand new Emergency ward, but has no money to operate it. After "saving healthcare for a generation" and imposing the largest tax increase in Ontario history to fund improvements to our healthcare system. Ontario is now laying off 1200 nurses and giving most hospitals a budget increase less than the rate of inflation. My best friend is a Radiation Oncologist in Edmonton, and the stories he tells just makes you wonder about people. The hospital got a state of the art MRI and IRT machine a few months ago, and he's been through one road block after another just trying to get them hooked up to one another. But you see the MRI is owned by Radiology, and IRT by Nuclear Medicine, the treatment planning workstation by Oncology, data infrastructure by the IT department. All he wants to do is set it up so that someone with a brain tumor can get an MRI that is automatically fed into the treatment planning software, so he can plan a treatment, then export it into the IRT machine to deliver the radiation does. It would save days of effort for each patient, result in extremely accurate dosages (meaning more effective treatment with fewer side effects), save millions of dollars a year for the hospital, and save lives. But no.. each feifdom doesn't want to let another deparment play with its toys. Guess where he's moving next year? It's a good think that Paul Martin says there is no brain drain. > It is not uncommon to wait 9 >hours for service in a hospital emergency >room" No we just end of waiting for 12 hours (Just did this last year) Canada does have a universal health care system, a universally crappy one. Kelly McDonald Kelly McDonald > >World Health Organization. Unlike the > >single-payer system in Canada where everybody [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > freeze my finger and put in stiches, or PAY $10 to have him glue it in > 30 seconds. Hehehe, here in Texas if you didn't have insurance, and one in four working Texans doesn't have and can't afford insurance, if you went to the emergency room for a laceration requiring stitches you'd be looking at a couple of thousand dollars, maybe more, that you would instantly owe, and not only that, but if you didn't pay up they'd turn it over to a collection agency who will make your life a living, miserable hell. Even with insurance the deductibles are commonly $500-2,000, so you would still end up paying quite a bit out of pocket. I have what's considered fairly decent insurance through my employer, coverage that I could in no way afford on my own since it runs upwards of $6,000/year, and even with that my annual out of pocket costs are over $3,000. That's a $1,200 deductible, and the rest is 20% copay up to a maximum copay of $1,800 in any given year. But for every three of people like me there is a person who has no coverage at all. These people frequently either delay seeking care for urgent medical conditions such as chest pain and strange lumps, or just don't go to a doctor at all. The question really boils down to one simple premise: Is universal access to quality health care a definition for civilization? I think so, but there are many, many people out there who don't. Invariably the people who don't have a vested financial interest in preventing uninsured people from having access to health care. Barbaric, isn't it? JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** > I have what's considered fairly decent insurance through my > employer, coverage that I could in no way afford on my own > since it runs upwards of $6,000/year, You can't afford it? Or you prefer to spend the money on something else, and expect somebody else to pay your medical expenses? Like your big house, your cars, your vacations? Can't afford to pay for life-saving goods and services, for other people's wages? > The question really boils down to one simple premise: Is > universal access to quality health care a definition for > civilization? I think so, but there are many, many people > out there who don't. Invariably the people who don't have > a vested financial interest in preventing uninsured people > from having access to health care.Barbaric, isn't it? Sounds like you've been snookered by that marvelous Simpsons episode where Homer was elected on the slogan, 'Let somebody ELSE pay for everything.' Greedy bastards like you demand unlimited access to the pockets of other people, but don't seem willing to help others out when THEY need help (that's what paying $6000/year for insurance when YOU are not sick means, you selfish moron). Finding ways to lower costs, from hospital operations to drug manufacture, are important, but a make-believe shell game of shifting costs and hiding the payments (the notion that Canadians 'never see a bill' is laughably the most dishonest of these gimmicks) is a dishonest gimmick that benefits only the politicians who follow Homer Simpson's shell game for real -- and dupe the stupid into voting for them in real life. > You can't afford it? Or you prefer to spend the money on something else, > and expect somebody else to pay your medical expenses? Like your big > house, your cars, your vacations? Can't afford to pay for life-saving goods > and services, for other people's wages? This reminds me of an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer many years ago that was talking about a program that sent nurses out to "disadvantaged" people's houses for some valid medical reason. The picture that went along with the article had a run down looking shack with a digital satellite TV dish in the front yard! This was back when digital satellite TV dishes weren't common at all and the cost was far higher than today. So these people couldn't "afford" some basic health care services, but somehow found the money to be one of the first people to have digital satellite TV at home! Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. > This reminds me of an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer many years ago that > was talking about a program that sent nurses out to "disadvantaged" people's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > somehow found the money to be one of the first people to have digital > satellite TV at home! to be fair, it's not quite that simple. There are still many areas of the country where minorities *want* to pay for better living conditions...but they're not allowed to live in those neighborhoods. So they do what they can for themselves. It's the old "your money's no good here" principle. SignatureTerrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net "Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty" -Paul Simon RE: George Harrison :> This reminds me of an article in the Cincinnati Enquirer many years ago that :> was talking about a program that sent nurses out to "disadvantaged" people's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :the country where minorities *want* to pay for better living :conditions...but they're not allowed to live in those neighborhoods. Horseshit. Signature"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates > to be fair, it's not quite that simple. There are still many areas of > the country where minorities *want* to pay for better living [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's the old "your money's no good here" principle. You're kidding right? If the company was going to discriminate against them, they'd do it *after* they'd gotten paid, not before. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. >>to be fair, it's not quite that simple. There are still many areas of >>the country where minorities *want* to pay for better living [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You're kidding right? If the company was going to discriminate against > them, they'd do it *after* they'd gotten paid, not before. ?!? I think you're garbling two separate points, or something. The point I was making is that there are a lot of minorities in this country who *could* afford to live in better housing, *if* they could actually move into a better place. But they can't, because the people who own the land in those better neighborhoods systematically keep out the minorities, regardless of whether they can pay or not. Comprende now? SignatureTerrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net "Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty" -Paul Simon RE: George Harrison :The point I was making is that there are a lot of minorities in this :country who *could* afford to live in better housing, *if* they could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : :Comprende now? Yeah, I do. You're beyond merely ignorant. Signature"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson > I think you're garbling two separate points, or something. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Comprende now? I fail to see how this would prevent them from buying health insurance, which is what we were discussing. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. > > I have what's considered fairly decent insurance through my > > employer, coverage that I could in no way afford on my own [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > house, your cars, your vacations? Can't afford to pay for life-saving goods > and services, for other people's wages? Can't afford it. I don't have a big house, or even a small house. In fact, I rent a lot for my mobile home because that's what I can afford. Even still, my rent has gone up by almost one hundred percent in the last five years and it's really hurting. I don't have a fancy new car, I drive an eighteen year old GM that I can keep running without spending a fortune on modern tools and diagnostic aids. I haven't taken a real vacation in years, well, actually, never. Not in my whole twenty five year working career. Why? The places I'd like to go (Scotland, Australia) cost too much to go to and stay at. Paying for my health coverage would consume enough of my after tax income that I would have to abandon my home and go homeless. Jim, you seem like a respectable person, but you are way, way out of touch with how the people at the bottom of the economic ladder live nowadays. That's not your fault, not by any means, but you should at least make an effort to learn the facts before you go off spouting unsubstantiated nonsense about me. > > The question really boils down to one simple premise: Is > > universal access to quality health care a definition for [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > politicians who follow Homer Simpson's shell game for real -- and dupe the > stupid into voting for them in real life. I'm surprised at this tone from you Oberg, In fact, I would say that likely this so out of character as to likely be a forgery. The message of the forgery is typical right-wing fundamentalist propaganda, however, and it stands out for how blind it is to the facts of real life. JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** :> > I have what's considered fairly decent insurance through my :> > employer, coverage that I could in no way afford on my own [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :after tax income that I would have to abandon my home and go :homeless. Yet you can afford a computer and internet access. Yeah, right. Signature"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates > :Can't afford it. I don't have a big house, or even a small > :house. In fact, I rent a lot for my mobile home because that's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > :year old GM that I can keep running without spending a fortune > :on modern tools and diagnostic aids. Hey, as long as it's running it does exactly what you need from a car. I kept my '75 Valiant until it literally stopped running. Then I kept my '88 Camry throught 172k miles until the repair bills were rapidly approaching new car payment range. I may not keep my 2000 Accord that long, though, because at some point I will be unable to resist the lure of a hybrid SUV. It's calling to me... > I haven't taken a real > :vacation in years, well, actually, never. Not in my whole > :twenty five year working career. Why? The places I'd like to > :go (Scotland, Australia) cost too much to go to and stay at. little friendly advice: join AAA. For like fifty bucks a year you get towing, a monthly travel magazine, *and* you can get free TourBoooks, which are like the Fodor's guides except free for members. Whenever I go someplace in North America I always grab a AAA Tourbook a month or so ahead of time and read up. They also make for cheap entertainment, you can do "head tours" at your leisure <g> If you book your flight months in advance, leave Friday and come back Sunday, stay in a cheap hotel (looks just the same with the lights out), rent a compact car (gets you there just as well as a Beemer) or take public transportation, and carefully research your trip to hit the non-beaten-path spots in America and Canada, you can do a 4-day vacation for less than $800 per person. What my fantasy baseball league likes to do is pick some city we've never been to, go see a couple ballgames, and have plenty of time to see the sights. Pittsburgh, the Cape Cod league, all the little minor league teams in Southern California (once you get out of LA the prices on everything except real estate are really cheap), we even did a really enjoyable trip to Detroit of all places. You have to have a high energy level because you are on the go pretty much nonstop, but you cover a lot of territory and see a lot of stuff that you would likely never see otherwise. Moral of the story: there is an awful lot to see right here in the USofA, some of it in the unlikeliest of places. Two spots that I would absolutely love to spend a summer in are suburban Detroit (Milford) and the Delaware Valley region of Jersey. Oh, and the western outskirts of Pittsburgh. All of which is God's Country, very pastoral and beautiful. If you do some homework and be thrifty, you can have just as good a time for a lot less money than you can if you have a Vacation somewhere prestigious. Don't let the things you cannot do get in the way of the things you *can* do. > :Paying for my health coverage would consume enough of my > :after tax income that I would have to abandon my home and go [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yeah, right. if you do the math, the Internet is a really cheap form of entertainment. My DSL is $40/month. I probably average 60 hours per month, so it's less than a buck per hour to get a "window on the world" or whatever. Obviously you have to amortize your PC, but a decent computer can be had for well under a grand and it'll last you five years. That's about a quarter per hour of internet usage, not counting game playing and spreadsheeting and MP3 playing and the like. So it really only costs about a buck an hour to use the Internet. And it's a good way to get exposed to an awful lot of stuff you wouldn't have a chance to even know about otherwise. I'd say that JazzMan is making pretty good use of the resources available to him. Gotta admire his spirit, and he's obviously very well-spoken and intelligent. Good people. SignatureTerre |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message