Space shuttle Columbia is missing...
Mr. Point said:
But think people. Are these problems an end of our prosperity, or a beginning to new and improved life?
Obviously you didn't live during the cold war, where we had to live with the possibility that all of humanity could be wiped out at any time.
Things aren't that bad... just start thinking for yourself. Just because the cowboy in office says Saddam is a bad man (and I don't doubt that he is) doesn't mean he's an immediate threat. The economy is cyclical and will bounce back. The space program has accidents. People still die of cancer and AIDS. People starve to death in Africa.
The world is not a perfect place, but in the context of the world you know, things just ain't that bad.
------------------
Jeff
Webmaster/GTTP - Sillynonsense.com
"The world rotates to The Ultra-Heavy Beat!" - KMFDM
All things that are made by humans will break sooner or later. I find it amazing given the numbers of guests at all of FUNs' parks that there has not been some type of catastrophe. The millions upon millions of events that happen every day at the parks pass without adverse events are just amazing upon reflection. Perhaps Monty Jasper should be in charge of the manned space flight program.
Being an enthusiast of manned space flight for 35 yrs I have read extensively about the subject. The original designs for the shuttle called for it to be made out of titanium.Instead we got a budweiser can wrapped in styrofoam sitting on what is essentially a small atomic bomb made by the lowest bidder.
When I get on a ride at CP I am completely confident that it has been overengineered and tested thouroughly;otherwise I would make the rational choice not to ride.
If Red Garter Bob worked with NASA he will recall the DYNA-SOR project of the early 60s that was cancelled. The shuttle was a mistaken outgrowth of what was a good idea. Thank god that CP has a decent QC program in place and that we all can be confident that we are riding with the best!
Cedar Point is different than NASA's space program. Unfortunately, government programs are subject to bidding. And the winner isnt always the best. I cannot speak for NASA, but being in the public sector has convinced me that the brightest minds usually leave public work and head for private firms where they are paid much better with less of the red tape.
The lack of Cedar Point having problems is not out of luck, but out of better engineering, management, and maintenance. Cedar Point's existence depends on a successful record. Not saying that NASA can fail each time and be successful, but I would imagine they have a larger buffer for failure than a consumer based amusement park.
If Monty Jasper worked within NASA, Im sure that a lot of his ideas would be supressed by union rules, red tape, political influence, budget constraints, etc...
I too ride Cedar Point's rides with the confidence that they are safe and properly maintained/operated. I don't think I would be giving a lesser quality park the chance to launch me on Vertigo or the new Top Thrill Dragster.
Too many great ideas are halted due to governmental regulation/influence etc. I am not qualified to say anything about the shuttle, but flying that fast in a man-made vehicle would leave little margin for error. Ever try driving a motorcycle at 140 MPH? That's fast enough.
All we can do is hope that we learn from these tragedies and hopefully we will end or limit loss of life.
This doesn't make it any less sad or disappointing, but we shouldn't let it hold us back from trying new things. NASA astronauts are incredibly brave for what they do, and the great discoveries that have come from the space program have helped here on earth more than most people think about. They put themselves at risk for these accomplishments, and that makes them heroes.
------------------
~Lee~
Group Sales ATL '01
Group Sales TL '02
Park Admissions Supervisor '03
----------------------
"The greatest leaders don't take credit for their actions; they don't have to."
redbrigade said:
Some sparkler; 2.3 billion dollars and seven human lives extinguished through obvious incompetence and mismanagement.
Sorry, but I don't get how people can say engineers at NASA are incompetent. They are some of the most brilliant people in the world and I'm fairly confident when I say that neither of us has any right to call them incompetent. Also, there really isn't any evidence, at least yet, that lack of funding or mismanagement led to this disaster. If it was the foam flying off during launch that caused damage to the tiles, then that's what it is. They can't repair a tile in space. The only thing they might have been able to do was rush another shuttle up there to evacuate the crew in a procedure that would have probably been more risky than trying to land Columbia in the first place. Get a clue and realize that the space program has given you many of the things you use today that rely on satallites, etc and don't say they are incompetent.
-Matt
2001 Magnum Crew
Digital Daredevil said:
Cedar Point is different than NASA's space program. Unfortunately, government programs are subject to bidding. And the winner isnt always the best. I cannot speak for NASA, but being in the public sector has convinced me that the brightest minds usually leave public work and head for private firms where they are paid much better with less of the red tape.The lack of Cedar Point having problems is not out of luck, but out of better engineering, management, and maintenance. Cedar Point's existence depends on a successful record. Not saying that NASA can fail each time and be successful, but I would imagine they have a larger buffer for failure than a consumer based amusement park.
I simply cannot believe that you just said that! Do you *really* think that the engineers charged with creating rides for Cedar Point are leaps and bounds over those employed by NASA? Conversely, do you really believe that if NASA employees were to design amusment rides they would inherently be less safe than the current CP lineup? If you believe either of these things, then you are SORELY mistaken. ONLY the brightest of minds that apply are accepted to work on such projects. Even I, being a rocket scientist know that *I'm* not smart enough to do it.
How you can compare a simple machine like a roller coaster to what may be man's most technologically advance vehicle in the Space Shuttles is beyond me. Hell, Intamin didnt even supply Millennium Force whith wheels that would last a *day* at 80mph cycles. Do you *really* want to trust them to engineer materials to withstand heats up to 3000 degrees F? I'm sure if you talked to Sandor himself, *he* would defer to the NASA engineers.
And for all this "lowest bidder" crap, you act like the shuttles were built and serviced by "Hostyl-Playa's Hot Rods" or something. Truth of the matter is the biggest subcontrator is a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, two of the biggest names in the AeroSpace industry. Companies from which technology for your precious amusement rides have been derived.
NASA is not infalible of course, but I cannot think of another group of decicated and motivated individuals that would be *MORE* capable of successfully achieving the rigorous objectives that have been long associated with space exploration. Until you have tried to tackle anything *remotely* close to the difficulties that they face DAILY, I think you should just sit there in your VELCRO strapped shoes, drinking your TANG and talking on your CELL PHONE and just awe in appreciation.
lata, jeremy
--who takes the space programs VERY personally...
*** This post was edited by 2Hostyl 2/4/2003 2:46:16 PM ***
You're totally right with your point about the wheels too. I watched the demo they had on I think MSNBC last night about the tiles. The guy had a tile from the shuttle which was about the size of say half a red brick. He held it in his hand on one side of the tile and on the other side, he held a blow torch to it for about 30 seconds. The spot where the torch was turned orange, but the side with his hand was still cool. Then when he removed the torch, the tile instantly turned white again. No char marks or anything. Then he placed it in the reporter's hands about 5 seconds later. The guy said it was no warmer than a piece of toast. That was cool! :)
Comparing even the most complex coaster to the shuttle is just ridiculous!
-Matt
2001 Magnum Crew
*** This post was edited by MDOmnis 2/4/2003 3:49:17 PM ***
------------------
TGIFridays 2002
Screamster 2002
Johnny Rockets Super Server Girl! 2003
------------------
~Lee~
Group Sales ATL '01
Group Sales TL '02
Park Admissions Supervisor '03
----------------------
"The greatest leaders don't take credit for their actions; they don't have to."
I also did not say that these engineers were stupid. They are far brighter than myself or the average person when it comes to their line of work. Even if they wanted to utilize their best ideas, equipment, etc, the red tape and politics involved would undoubtedly prevent them from putting their best effort into it.
Im sorry to offend you Space Boy. You apparently need a little education on how programs and purchasing are done within governmental agencies.
2Hostyl said:
Digital Daredevil said:
Cedar Point is different than NASA's space program. Unfortunately, government programs are subject to bidding. And the winner isnt always the best. I cannot speak for NASA, but being in the public sector has convinced me that the brightest minds usually leave public work and head for private firms where they are paid much better with less of the red tape.The lack of Cedar Point having problems is not out of luck, but out of better engineering, management, and maintenance. Cedar Point's existence depends on a successful record. Not saying that NASA can fail each time and be successful, but I would imagine they have a larger buffer for failure than a consumer based amusement park.
I simply cannot believe that you just said that! Do you *really* think that the engineers charged with creating rides for Cedar Point are leaps and bounds over those employed by NASA? Conversely, do you really believe that if NASA employees were to design amusment rides they would inherently be less safe than the current CP lineup? If you believe either of these things, then you are SORELY mistaken. ONLY the brightest of minds that apply are accepted to work on such projects. Even I, being a rocket scientist know that *I'm* not smart enough to do it.
How you can compare a simple machine like a roller coaster to what may be man's most technologically advance vehicle in the Space Shuttles is beyond me. Hell, Intamin didnt even supply Millennium Force whith wheels that would last a *day* at 80mph cycles. Do you *really* want to trust them to engineer materials to withstand heats up to 3000 degrees F? I'm sure if you talked to Sandor himself, *he* would defer to the NASA engineers.
And for all this "lowest bidder" crap, you act like the shuttles were built and serviced by "Hostyl-Playa's Hot Rods" or something. Truth of the matter is the biggest subcontrator is a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, two of the biggest names in the AeroSpace industry. Companies from which technology for your precious amusement rides have been derived.
NASA is not infalible of course, but I cannot think of another group of decicated and motivated individuals that would be *MORE* capable of successfully achieving the rigorous objectives that have been long associated with space exploration. Until you have tried to tackle anything *remotely* close to the difficulties that they face DAILY, I think you should just sit there in your VELCRO strapped shoes, drinking your TANG and talking on your CELL PHONE and just awe in appreciation.
lata, jeremy
--who takes the space programs VERY personally...
*** This post was edited by 2Hostyl 2/4/2003 2:46:16 PM ***
The shuttle that was slapped together by LMT-BA was the lowest bid! Do abit of homework about the research into "lifting bodies" and all of the other test aircraft. I will say it again: the shuttle was an outgrowth of the X-15 and all of the other test flights conducted at EDs' airbase in the late 50s-early 60s. And the sad fact of the matter was that those poor astronauts were murdered by poor management and institutional incompetence. Its a 50-1 shot that a manned flight attempt will end in a Class-1 accident. That is really sad!
It is relevant to bring this sad fact to light because saftey is saftey regardless of the event/endevour! I am very happy that CP does not skimp on saftey and is the finest park on the planet!
And "penny pinching" is "just" as common in private companies as it is in governement. I will grant you that there tends to be a tad more buracracy on the governement's side, but the "salesmen" in the private sector with often make promises on price that there is no way in hades the engineers can meet. Private sector ideas get scaled back too. As you said, you DONT know about NASA. And in this case, you are simply mistaken.
One more thing, if you wish to insult/patronize me, do better than "Space Boy". I would *think* that wouldnt be too difficult for a man over thirty!
redbrigade: I *do* know my homework. But let me tell you a few things. The "X" designation has been used on various types of aircraft since the X-1, the first supersonic plane. The "X" is basically the designation for (duh) experimental or concept aircraft. All of them have tried to demonstrate some advance in the aerospace field. True, the research there at Dryden was pushing the envelope and of course the things learned there were part of the knowledge base of those engineers. But how you see a direct corellation between the X-15 and the space shuttle is beyond me. The X-24 I could see, but even that is only natural as the X-24 was the radical cutting edge "state of the art" technology during the time of the Shuttle's development (the X-24 was tested b/w '69-'75).
Those pilots died because they were treading on new ground. This is nothing new, tragic, but not new. Anytime humans have venture into new fields, people have died. If you want to say that the engineers didnt know what they were doing....then you would be right! You know why BECAUSE NO ONE HAD DONE IT BEFORE. Cedar Point's amusement rides are so far within the realm of existing technology that I question my own sanity even confronting this. NOTHING, not even TTD comes *close* to pressing the boundaries that the "X" planes did. You, my friend, are simply misguided trying to compare the two.
BTW: The "United Space" bid was the lowest because they already had the core compenticies needed to meet the task, not because they were "skimping" as you seem to suggest.
lata, jeremy
--Argue with me about something NOT aerospace related. You'll have a higher success rate.
According to CNN, the leading theory right now at NASA is that a meteorite/trash hit the shuttle. That's not an engineering problem. If a deer jumps out in front of your car and you get into a wreck is it the car company's fault?
NASA doesn't skimp with the space shuttle. If you were talking about unmanned missions (such as the mars robots) then you'd be right. They did skimp, and they saw the consequences of that. But the shuttle has always been well funded. The Columbia was completely refurbished and inspected and repaired only three years ago, in addition to the routine maintenence, rigorous tests, and inspections that must be done before every launch.
Will the shuttle fleet last forever? No. They use old technology. Until a few years ago the shuttle computers ran on intel 8086 chips. Those are comparable to the processors in a graphing calculator. That's why NASA must continue to develop the next-generation reusable launch vehicles. But if well maintained (like the shuttles), old does not equal dangerous. **** happens. Just like it did last Saturday.
I grew up on the Space Coast in Florida (Melbourne for those familiar with the area), my dad even worked for a contractor designing the ISS, so the space program has always been a big part of my life. It's just inconceviable that someone would think that something as simple as a roller coaster could be comparable to something as complex as spaceflight.
(sorry for the long post, just wanted to get that off of my chest)
--James
We are in need of a newer, more modern space vehicle. The shuttle has been very successful but it certainly won't last forever.
Disasters are going to happen. There are way too many variables for them not to happen. The pioneering aspect of space travel leads to unknown experiences, some catastrophic.
2Hostyl, I only called you "Space Boy" because you assumed that I wore Velcro Shoes. Which I never have, and never will...hopefully.
Do you currently work in the field? Or are you still training? And no, I am not being a smarty pants.
jdoty said:
The space shuttle has millions of parts. It's the most complex machine ever made. NASA themselves estimated that there would be one catastrophic disaster out of every 75 launches. The astronauts knew that going into it. Spaceflight is not an inherently safe activity, unlike roller coasters which are relatively simple to engineer and have far fewer things that can go wrong.According to CNN, the leading theory right now at NASA is that a meteorite/trash hit the shuttle. That's not an engineering problem. If a deer jumps out in front of your car and you get into a wreck is it the car company's fault?
NASA doesn't skimp with the space shuttle. If you were talking about unmanned missions (such as the mars robots) then you'd be right. They did skimp, and they saw the consequences of that. But the shuttle has always been well funded. The Columbia was completely refurbished and inspected and repaired only three years ago, in addition to the routine maintenence, rigorous tests, and inspections that must be done before every launch.
Will the shuttle fleet last forever? No. They use old technology. Until a few years ago the shuttle computers ran on intel 8086 chips. Those are comparable to the processors in a graphing calculator. That's why NASA must continue to develop the next-generation reusable launch vehicles. But if well maintained (like the shuttles), old does not equal dangerous. **** happens. Just like it did last Saturday.
I grew up on the Space Coast in Florida (Melbourne for those familiar with the area), my dad even worked for a contractor designing the ISS, so the space program has always been a big part of my life. It's just inconceviable that someone would think that something as simple as a roller coaster could be comparable to something as complex as spaceflight.
(sorry for the long post, just wanted to get that off of my chest)
--James
The computer in my 2002 Mustang has more memory and capability than that "flying brick" does. Although the astronauts were very brave I will say again that they were the victim of institutional incompetence. The NASA of today is in no way comparable to the NASA that took Buzz Aldrin to the moon!
Closed topic.