History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:36 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 6:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3559
Location: CIVLANT
jemhouston wrote:
Part of NASA's mission to develop knowledge and transfer it to where it can be put to practical use.


Right you are "jemhouston" me laddo. That is when their efforts are not being prostituted and my tax dollars flushed down the toilet by a DNC Regime.

Exhibit "A".


In July of 2010, NASA chief Charles Bolden said in an interview with Al-Jazeera,

"When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."


I have no problem with re-inspire US children to get into science and math, although it is not part of NASA's charter. The other two Bull sh!t missions are just that bull sh!t and the latter is based on a lie. It has become quite clear that Muslim scientific knowledge was based on Greek, Jewish and Hindu works unavailable in the Christian West at that time and by "Christians" Jews and hindus forcibly "converted" to islam.

This will help you understand what I am talking about
.
The Myth of Islamic Science
By Waseem Altaf,

Editor’s introduction

It is widely believed and taught, including in India, that there was a Golden Age of Islamic learning that made a major contribution to science and the arts. In India we are told that this ‘synthesis’ between Hindu and Muslim thought gave rise to a great ‘syncretic’ civilization that was suppressed and eventually destroyed by the British. However, this flies in the face of the fact that not a single name of a major scientist from the five-plus centuries of Islamic rule of India has come down to us. We have to go to pre-Islamic India to invoke names from the past— names like Aryabhata, Varahamihira and the like.

It is a similar story when we look at universities or centers of learning. Pre-Islamic India was renowned for its universities: Takshashila, Vikramashila, Nalanda, Ujjain and other places attracted students and scholars alike from far and wide, much like the United States of today.

After the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, not a single center of learning (other than Islamic seminaries) was established for over seven centuries. The first modern universities came to be established only during the British rule.

Also worth noting is the fact that the so-called ‘synthesis’ of learning took place before Islamic invasions engulfed both India and Persia in a Dark Age. The Sassanid emperor Kosrau I deserves much of the credit for work that is wrongly credited to Islamic rulers and scholars.

Khosrau I (reigned 531–79) known as Anushirvan or ‘the immortal soul’ was a great patron of philosophy and knowledge. He gave refuge to scholars from the Eastern Roman Empire when the bigoted Christian Emperor Justinian closed down the neo-Platonist schools in Athens in 529 AD. Earlier, in 415 AD, Christian goons led by ‘Saint’ Cyril burnt down the great library in Alexandria and murdered the neo-Platonic scholar Hypatia who taught there, because another ‘saint’ Paul had decreed that women must keep their silence.

Khosrau was greatly interested in Indian philosophy, science, mathematics, and medicine. He sent multiple embassies and gifts to the Indian court and requested them to send back philosophers to teach in his court in return. Khosrau made many translations of texts from Greek, Sanskrit, and Syriac into Middle Persian. He was lauded as “Plato’s Philosopher King” by the Greek refugees that he allowed into his empire because of his great interest in Platonic philosophy.

A synthesis of Greek, Persian, Indian, and Armenian learning traditions took place within the Sassanian Empire. One outcome of this synthesis created what is known as bimari-stan (‘home for the ailing’), the first hospital that introduced a concept of segregating wards according to pathology. Greek pharmacology fused with Iranian and Indian traditions resulted in significant advances in medicine.

Regrettably this pre-Islamic era of learning came to an abrupt end following the Arab (Muslim) invasions and the defeat of Sassanid Persia The reality is that most of this ‘synthesis’ took place in the pre-Islamic period until Islamic invasions sank both Persia and India into a Dark Age lasting centuries.

IndiaFacts is grateful to the author Waseem Altaf and the publication Viewpointsonline.net for the article. No photograph of the author is published out of concern for the author’s safety. Here is his essay.

Science in the Islamic world

Rational thought in the Muslim world developed during the reign of liberal Muslim rulers of the Abbasid dynasty. However it was after the rise of scholars like Al-Ghazali that all scientific reasoning came to an end in the 13th century. As we remain enamored by our past achievements in the sciences, we forget that there is very little “original” we as Muslims can celebrate and be proud of.

It was during the reign of the early Abbasid caliphs, particularly Mamun-ur-Rashid (around 813 CE) that in his Dar-ul-Hikmah (the house of wisdom) in Baghdad, Muslim scholars would begin translating the classic Greek works, primarily toeing the Aristotelian tradition. In addition, they were heavily relying on Persian and Indian sources. They also penned huge commentaries on works by Greek philosophers. However, the Muslim translators were small in number and were primarily driven by curiosity. More than ninety nine percent Arabic translations of works of Greek philosophers were done by either Christian or Jewish scholars. It is interesting to note that Islamic astronomy, based on Ptolemy’s system was geocentric. Algebra was originally a Greek discipline and ‘Arabic’ numbers were actually Indian.

[N.S Rajaram: Indians invented algebra, calling it bija-ganita. Greeks considered some special cases in number theory like Diophantine Equations, also known to the Indians. The cumbersome letter-based notation (like the later Roman numerals) did not lend itself to problems in algebra. The major Greek contributions were the concept of proof (known also to Indians) and above all the axiomatic method at which they excelled. The Arabs themselves never denied their indebtedness to the Hindus in astronomy, medicine and mathematics. They called their numbers ‘Hindu numerals’. As noted in the Editor’s Introduction, much of this took place in pre-Islamic Iran, especially under Khusro I.]

Most of these works were not available to the West until the first renaissance was taking place. Although Western scholars did travel to Spain to study Arabic versions of classical Greek thought, they soon found out that better versions of original texts in Greek were also available in the libraries of the ancient Greek city of Byzantium.

Notable Muslim scholars

However, it would be unfair not to mention some of those great Muslim scholars, though very few in number, who genuinely contributed in the development of philosophy and science.

Al-Razi (865 – 925 CE) from Persia, the greatest of all Muslim physicians, philosophers and alchemists wrote 184 articles and books, dismissed revelation and considered religion a dangerous thing. Al-Razi was condemned for blasphemy and almost all his books were destroyed later.

Ibn-e-Sina or Avicinna (980-1037CE), another great physician, philosopher and scientist was an Uzbek. Avicenna held philosophy superior to theology. His views were in sharp contrast to central Islamic doctrines and he rejected the resurrection of the dead in flesh and blood. As a consequence of his views, he became main target of Al-Ghazali and was labeled an apostate.

Ibn-e-Rushd (1126-1198 CE) or Averroes from Spain was a philosopher and scientist who expounded the Quran in Aristotelian terms. He was found guilty of heresy, his books burnt, he was interrogated and banished from Lucena.

Al-Khawarazmi (780-850 CE) was another Persian mathematician, astronomer and geographer. The historian Al-Tabari considered him a Zoroastrian while others thought that he was a Muslim. However nowhere in his works has he acknowledged Islam or linked any of his findings to the holy text.

Al-Farabi (872-950 CE), another great Muslim philosopher, highly inspired by Aristotle, considered reason superior to revelation and advocated for the relegation of prophecy to philosophy.


Ibn-ul-haitham or Hazen (965-1040 CE) was an outstanding physicist, mathematician, astronomer and an expert on optics. He was ordered by Fatimid King Al-Hakim to regulate the floods of the Nile, which he knew was not scientifically possible. He feigned madness and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.
Contribution of unorthodox thinkers

As we go through the life histories of these great men we find that they were influenced by Greek, Babylonian or Indian contributions to philosophy and science, had a critical and reasoning mind and were ‘not good’ Muslims or even atheists. A significant number of them were reluctant to even reveal the status of their beliefs for fear of reprisal from the fanatics. They never ascribed their achievements to Islam or divinity. And they were scholars and scientists because of a critical mind which would think and derive inspiration from observation and not scriptures which set restrictions on free thinking and unhindered pursuit of knowledge.

Hence bringing in Islam to highlight achievements of Muslim scientists is nothing but sheer rhetoric as these men did not derive their achievements out of Islam or flourished due to Islam. And we find that whatever little contribution to science was made can be owed to ‘imperfect Muslims’.

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 9:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:53 pm
Posts: 1617
Location: The People's Republic of Kalifornia
OSCSSW wrote:
jemhouston wrote:
Part of NASA's mission to develop knowledge and transfer it to where it can be put to practical use.


Right you are "jemhouston" me laddo. That is when their efforts are not being prostituted and my tax dollars flushed down the toilet by a DNC Regime.

Exhibit "A".


In July of 2010, NASA chief Charles Bolden said in an interview with Al-Jazeera,

"When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."


I have no problem with re-inspire US children to get into science and math, although it is not part of NASA's charter. The other two Bull sh!t missions are just that bull sh!t and the latter is based on a lie. It has become quite clear that Muslim scientific knowledge was based on Greek, Jewish and Hindu works unavailable in the Christian West at that time and by "Christians" Jews and hindus forcibly "converted" to islam.


The part about Muslim outreach by Administrator Bolden in 2010 during an interview, he misspoke.

"NEW YORK — Reaching out to the Muslim world is not part of NASA Administrator Charles Bolden’s job, the White House said July 12.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Bolden probably misspoke in recent remarks in which the NASA chief and former astronaut said one of his foremost tasks in leading NASA is to engage with Muslim nations about science.

“That was not his task, and that’s not the task of NASA,” Gibbs said during the daily White House press briefing.

NASA confirmed that Bolden misspoke.

“NASA’s core mission remains one of space exploration, science and aeronautics,” NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said. “Administrator Bolden regrets that a statement he made during a recent interview mischaracterized that core mission. The success of NASA’s efforts is increasingly enhanced by mutual cooperation with dozens of other countries around the world that are also committed to these efforts.”

- See more at: http://spacenews.com/white-house-bolden ... lq1ig.dpuf"

The flushing of Tax Dollars by NASA is party neutral. Various programs are more about creating jobs than actually doing anything with the hardware.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue May 02, 2017 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7161
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
OSCSSW wrote:
IMO, This is a triumph of Private sector AKA Capitalism over Public sector bureaucratic waste,
criminal incompetence and tax payer abuse.

That's really it. SpaceX has gotten where it is by ignoring most of the lessons about design standards learned in the aerospace industry over the past 60 or so years. Some of those lessons are very important. Some are things that shouldn't have been learned in the first place. They're currently finding out which is which. The fact that Boeing isn't allowed to do this on their next airliner is why it's safe to get on.
(Just to be clear, this isn't a criticism of SpaceX. The need to learn lessons from everything and achieve perfect reliability is a disease of the aerospace industry, and they're doing good work to remind everyone else of that. But it has nothing to do with public vs private sector.)

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 6:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3559
Location: CIVLANT
ByronC wrote:
OSCSSW wrote:
IMO, This is a triumph of Private sector AKA Capitalism over Public sector bureaucratic waste,
criminal incompetence and tax payer abuse.

That's really it. SpaceX has gotten where it is by ignoring most of the lessons about design standards learned in the aerospace industry over the past 60 or so years. Some of those lessons are very important. Some are things that shouldn't have been learned in the first place. They're currently finding out which is which. The fact that Boeing isn't allowed to do this on their next airliner is why it's safe to get on.
(Just to be clear, this isn't a criticism of SpaceX. The need to learn lessons from everything and achieve perfect reliability is a disease of the aerospace industry, and they're doing good work to remind everyone else of that. But it has nothing to do with public vs private sector.)
Hey buddy you just contradicted yourself. Might want to reread your post in future, it's helped (not 100% though) me from making a complete A$$ out of myself a lot more than once. ;)

Until recently NASA, a Fed Gov Agency, was the only significant show in town as far as Space exploration/travel
for the USA. SpaceX is definitely Private Industry and yes they are bidding for Government as well as private industry contracts. That's called Capitalism/ Free enterprise.

BK BK

While I'm at it (this is not aimed at you ByronC) SpaceX and especially Musk have come in for a lot of abuse here by people who are good at flapping their gums and twitching their key board but could not carry his sweaty jock strap when it comes to actually accomplishing something. IMO, FWIW, he is not a perfect human being. How many of you abusing him have been beatified? :lol: He has one hell of an ego. He is quite a show man but he is also the driving force behind SpaceX. I say stop the b!tching and acting like junior high, not very bright girls and give the devil his due.

Enough said?

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2038
Location: Georgia
OSCSSW wrote:
ByronC wrote:
OSCSSW wrote:
IMO, This is a triumph of Private sector AKA Capitalism over Public sector bureaucratic waste,
criminal incompetence and tax payer abuse.

That's really it. SpaceX has gotten where it is by ignoring most of the lessons about design standards learned in the aerospace industry over the past 60 or so years. Some of those lessons are very important. Some are things that shouldn't have been learned in the first place. They're currently finding out which is which. The fact that Boeing isn't allowed to do this on their next airliner is why it's safe to get on.
(Just to be clear, this isn't a criticism of SpaceX. The need to learn lessons from everything and achieve perfect reliability is a disease of the aerospace industry, and they're doing good work to remind everyone else of that. But it has nothing to do with public vs private sector.)
Hey buddy you just contradicted yourself. Might want to reread your post in future, it's helped (not 100% though) me from making a complete A$$ out of myself a lot more than once. ;)

Until recently NASA, a Fed Gov Agency, was the only significant show in town as far as Space exploration/travel
for the USA. SpaceX is definitely Private Industry and yes they are bidding for Government as well as private industry contracts. That's called Capitalism/ Free enterprise.


Senior, I'm in roughly the same industry as Byron, and I can see what he's getting at. And for the most part, it's not really a government vs. private thing, but more an issue of ingrained industry-wide habits and practices. Let me try to expound a bit.

The aerospace industry is extremely conservative, in the non-political sense. I mean, we're talking about a group that resisted enclosed cockpits for a long time. There's a lot of institutional inertia, and a lot of "this is How It's Done" that gets passed down as near-sacrosanct commandments and/or codified into the airworthiness regulations. I've heard FAA people only half-jokingly refer to certain arbitrary rules as having been "carved into the third tablet that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain".

Some of these rules and practices are obvious, basic sense or things learned the hard way from accident findings (see references to regs that were "written in blood"). But there are also a lot of things that became hallowed commandments, standard practices, or just "the Way It's Done" not out of inherent validity or superiority to other means. Some of them were indeed the best possible way (or the only possible way) to do something at the time; others were simply the first thing that someone came up with that worked reasonably well. Over time, the technology has improved, or the underlying assumptions have changed, or better/different ways have been developed... but the "industry standard" remains in place. Some of that's due to the cost of changing (e.g. ATC), or incompatibility with the existing infrastructure. Some of it is a government-induced issue, like the much higher bar a new concept would have to meet as compared to the old standard. And some of it is simply "Everyone Knows" stuff. But a lot of it just holds on because it's The Way It's Done, because That's How We've Always Done It. I can guarantee you that, if we were trying to do a lot of it for the first time today, with the technology and knowledge we have today and without the past baggage, we'd do it much differently.

SpaceX (and to a degree, Tesla) has come in and tried to challenge as many of those rules (written and unwritten) as they can. Everyone knew that you have to do as much risk-reduction and design work as you can, and be absolutely sure your concept will work, before you test fly it. Everyone knew that you wanted to minimize the number of engines on a booster. Everyone knew that you couldn't recover a booster, much less reuse it, and just forget about it being cheaper. Everyone knew that electric cars were short-ranged, poor-handling, funny-looking, and impractical.

For sure, they've learned that a few of those rules are there for a reason. But they've slaughtered a few sacred cows along the way, too.


What I'd like to see, from a pure self-interest standpoint, is what would happen if you asked Musk's people--or even the rest of the auto industry--to design a mass-produced light aircraft, freed of all but a couple of basic requirements. I have a feeling it would take a generation or three of prototypes to get to something usable, but just imagine what could be done in terms of reliability, cost, and produceability...

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 10:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7161
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
OSCSSW wrote:
ByronC wrote:
OSCSSW wrote:
IMO, This is a triumph of Private sector AKA Capitalism over Public sector bureaucratic waste,
criminal incompetence and tax payer abuse.

That's really it. SpaceX has gotten where it is by ignoring most of the lessons about design standards learned in the aerospace industry over the past 60 or so years. Some of those lessons are very important. Some are things that shouldn't have been learned in the first place. They're currently finding out which is which. The fact that Boeing isn't allowed to do this on their next airliner is why it's safe to get on.
(Just to be clear, this isn't a criticism of SpaceX. The need to learn lessons from everything and achieve perfect reliability is a disease of the aerospace industry, and they're doing good work to remind everyone else of that. But it has nothing to do with public vs private sector.)
Hey buddy you just contradicted yourself. Might want to reread your post in future, it's helped (not 100% though) me from making a complete A$$ out of myself a lot more than once. ;)

There was a typo in my first sentence, which was supposed to read "That's not really it". But no, I didn't contradict myself. ULA is doing Vulcan using pretty much the same model that SpaceX used for Falcon, and yet they're not going to be able to mach SpaceX, for the same reasons that it's easier to put something in a human than it is to put it on an airliner, even though the airliner is being developed essentially privately. (Yes, we have to get FAA approval to do things. Crashing airliners tend to distress the public, so taking that out isn't really an option.)

Quote:
Until recently NASA, a Fed Gov Agency, was the only significant show in town as far as Space exploration/travel
for the USA. SpaceX is definitely Private Industry and yes they are bidding for Government as well as private industry contracts. That's called Capitalism/ Free enterprise.

That hasn't been true since...well, ever, actually. The DoD usually flies more missions than NASA, and private space launch has been on the same level since the 80s. And after Challenger, it's been flying expendable boosters. I don't know how the contracts for private launches on the EELV are set up (what few there are), but the answer has generally been to go overseas. There's competition there, even if the programs are government-run.

Quote:
While I'm at it (this is not aimed at you ByronC) SpaceX and especially Musk have come in for a lot of abuse here by people who are good at flapping their gums and twitching their key board but could not carry his sweaty jock strap when it comes to actually accomplishing something. IMO, FWIW, he is not a perfect human being. How many of you abusing him have been beatified? :lol: He has one hell of an ego. He is quite a show man but he is also the driving force behind SpaceX. I say stop the b!tching and acting like junior high, not very bright girls and give the devil his due.

There's nobody here who is particularly anti-SpaceX, so I'm not sure who this is aimed at.

On the high level:
Senior, I'm an aerospace engineer who is really interested in spaceflight. You're not. I'm not going to tell you how to turn boys into men on a warship. Please don't lecture me about my field.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:53 pm
Posts: 1617
Location: The People's Republic of Kalifornia
Along the same line of SpaceX not being afraid to try new things, there was this video clip of Neil Tyson talking about SpaceX. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9yKfVWHnlw

He had some very good points to make.

If you are trying to do something that no one has done before, things go wrong.
If nothing ever goes wrong in what you are doing, then you are not on the frontier.
SpaceX is on a frontier to make access to space maximally affordable, this means that SpaceX has to design their rockets differently than before and mistakes will happen.
SpaceX Rocket Explosion on the pad is rich with learning opportunity

Somebody posted this on another board and I thought it was very well stated about SpaceX.

"There is a "naysayer roadmap" on the Internet for SpaceX

Falcon 1 is not proven
Contract with NASA is not proven
Falcon 9 is not proven
Dragon is not proven
ISS resupply is not proven
1st stage return is not proven
Barge landing is not proven
Reuse is not proven
=== You are here ===
Falcon Heavy is not proven
Economy of reuse is not proven
Dragon 2 is not proven
Crewed flights are not proven
Lunar flyby is not proven
Capsule propulsive landing is not proven
Red Dragon is not proven"

Attachment:
spacexdoingitwrong.jpg
spacexdoingitwrong.jpg [ 131.56 KiB | Viewed 448 times ]


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7381
Location: BM-9, BB-30
brovane wrote:
Somebody posted this on another board and I thought it was very well stated about SpaceX.

"There is a "naysayer roadmap" on the Internet for SpaceX


I have noticed that even Aviation Week's articles seem to be a bit...well they twitch my antenna when they seem to go "SpaceX has these issues/challenges..." with 'article tone' not being the same way when discussing, say, Boeing's efforts.

But the bottom line, as I've said before, is that at this point SpaceX is in much the same boat as the people making the Marvel movies: they've hit enough home runs and proven the "you can't!" people wrong often enough that they have a hefty line of intellectual credit for their future efforts, no matter how outlandish their "we're gonna do this next" sounds like.

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 5:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3559
Location: CIVLANT
brovane wrote:
OSCSSW wrote:
jemhouston wrote:
Part of NASA's mission to develop knowledge and transfer it to where it can be put to practical use.


Right you are "jemhouston" me laddo. That is when their efforts are not being prostituted and my tax dollars flushed down the toilet by a DNC Regime.

Exhibit "A".


In July of 2010, NASA chief Charles Bolden said in an interview with Al-Jazeera,

"When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."


I have no problem with re-inspire US children to get into science and math, although it is not part of NASA's charter. The other two Bull sh!t missions are just that bull sh!t and the latter is based on a lie. It has become quite clear that Muslim scientific knowledge was based on Greek, Jewish and Hindu works unavailable in the Christian West at that time and by "Christians" Jews and hindus forcibly "converted" to islam.


The part about Muslim outreach by Administrator Bolden in 2010 during an interview, he misspoke.

"NEW YORK — Reaching out to the Muslim world is not part of NASA Administrator Charles Bolden’s job, the White House said July 12.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Bolden probably misspoke in recent remarks in which the NASA chief and former astronaut said one of his foremost tasks in leading NASA is to engage with Muslim nations about science.

“That was not his task, and that’s not the task of NASA,” Gibbs said during the daily White House press briefing.

NASA confirmed that Bolden misspoke.

BULL SH!T, ISA BULL SH!T, that's damage control by the criminals machine after they got a hell of a lot more outrage from the American people than they expected. You really that naive Brovane? If so, I have some really nioce ocean front property in Nevada I'd love to sell you! :lol: :lol: :lol:


“NASA’s core mission remains one of space exploration, science and aeronautics,” NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said. “Administrator Bolden regrets that a statement he made during a recent interview mischaracterized that core mission. The success of NASA’s efforts is increasingly enhanced by mutual cooperation with dozens of other countries around the world that are also committed to these efforts.”

- See more at: http://spacenews.com/white-house-bolden ... lq1ig.dpuf"

The flushing of Tax Dollars by NASA is party neutral. Various programs are more about creating jobs than actually doing anything with the hardware.

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:49 pm
Posts: 3559
Location: CIVLANT
ByronC wrote:
OSCSSW wrote:
ByronC wrote:
That's really it. SpaceX has gotten where it is by ignoring most of the lessons about design standards learned in the aerospace industry over the past 60 or so years. Some of those lessons are very important. Some are things that shouldn't have been learned in the first place. They're currently finding out which is which. The fact that Boeing isn't allowed to do this on their next airliner is why it's safe to get on.
(Just to be clear, this isn't a criticism of SpaceX. The need to learn lessons from everything and achieve perfect reliability is a disease of the aerospace industry, and they're doing good work to remind everyone else of that. But it has nothing to do with public vs private sector.)
Hey buddy you just contradicted yourself. Might want to reread your post in future, it's helped (not 100% though) me from making a complete A$$ out of myself a lot more than once. ;)

There was a typo in my first sentence, which was supposed to read "That's not really it". But no, I didn't contradict myself. ULA is doing Vulcan using pretty much the same model that SpaceX used for Falcon, and yet they're not going to be able to mach SpaceX, for the same reasons that it's easier to put something in a human than it is to put it on an airliner, even though the airliner is being developed essentially privately. (Yes, we have to get FAA approval to do things. Crashing airliners tend to distress the public, so taking that out isn't really an option.)

ByronC I hate to dispell your opinion that I am a mind reader but I can't (well I could with most of my sailors for obvious reaons ;) so all I could do is base my reply on WHAT YOU ACTUALLY wrote.

I am willing to accept that you left out a sentence which confirms the value of my advice to reread your posts.

There's nobody here who is particularly anti-SpaceX, so I'm not sure who this is aimed at.

Try rereading this thread and then get back to me. I might have inferred a bias against Musk that the posters, including you ByrnC my friend, did not intend but I doubt it.

On the high level:
Senior, I'm an aerospace engineer who is really interested in spaceflight. You're not. I'm not going to tell you how to turn boys into men on a warship. Please don't lecture me about my field.


I am quite proud, (well bordering on vain), about my ability to turn boys into men in the old Nav and appreciate you reminding me of it.

As to lecturing you about your field. I would not argue with you about the technical aspects of Aerospace engineering but I don't have to be an Aerospace engineer to KNOW of the criminal negligence, frawd and waste of all government agencies as compared to private enterprise. It is the nature of the beast PERIOD!

This was not a personal attack on you ByronC my friend. I went to pains to actually say that in my post.

On the upside it's good you are pushing back at me. I'm proud of you.

Don't let that go to your head. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
"If you think they’re going to give you THEIR country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken. ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7161
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
OSCSSW wrote:
ByronC I hate to dispell your opinion that I am a mind reader but I can't (well I could with most of my sailors for obvious reaons ;) so all I could do is base my reply on WHAT YOU ACTUALLY wrote.

I am willing to accept that you left out a sentence which confirms the value of my advice to reread your posts.

My mistake.

Quote:
There's nobody here who is particularly anti-SpaceX, so I'm not sure who this is aimed at.

Try rereading this thread and then get back to me. I might have inferred a bias against Musk that the posters, including you ByrnC my friend, did not intend but I doubt it.

Musk has a bad tendency to run off at the mouth. SpaceX is doing a lot of very impressive things, although it would be more impressive still if Musk would stop giving us Mars years instead of Earth years in his schedules.

Quote:
As to lecturing you about your field. I would not argue with you about the technical aspects of Aerospace engineering but I don't have to be an Aerospace engineer to KNOW of the criminal negligence, frawd and waste of all government agencies as compared to private enterprise. It is the nature of the beast PERIOD!

I can give two counterexamples to this. The first is my day job. I'm responsible for preparing documentation that gets sent out to customers on how to fix the plane. It has to go to the FAA for approval, and then gets written into law. But yet I have more trouble by far with our internal engineers than with the FAA. They want things mandated that the FAA couldn't care less about. I'm not going to go into more detail, but the attitude that everything must be perfect is very deeply internalized in the industry, and not just due to the government. That isn't to say we couldn't cut some regulation. We could, and probably should. But at the same time, I've heard enough stories of things that airlines have tried to get away with that I don't think we can have an air transport industry without the government setting a floor for safety. People really don't like airliners falling on their heads, or appearing in a ball of fire on the evening news.
But, you say, that's ultimately due to the pernicious effects of government, and everything will be great if we get rid of it. That brings us to Virgin Galactic. Despite having won the X-prize while I was in middle school (no, I'm not exaggerating) they have yet to fly a single paying passenger, and I'm two years out of college. And it can't be the fault of the FAA, which has decided that if you're doing spaceflight, so long as everyone signs the waivers, you can do pretty much whatever you want. I'm not blind to the costs the government imposes, but I think that in this case, doctrinaire libertarianism is probably not a good thing.
Or to put it another way, would you consider flying commercial in a country that had no air traffic control?

Quote:
This was not a personal attack on you ByronC my friend. I went to pains to actually say that in my post.

I'm well aware of that, which is why I cut a considerably harsher response from my draft post. I do generally read my posts pretty carefully before I send them.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2038
Location: Georgia
ByronC wrote:
I'm responsible for preparing documentation that gets sent out to customers on how to fix the plane. It has to go to the FAA for approval, and then gets written into law. But yet I have more trouble by far with our internal engineers than with the FAA. They want things mandated that the FAA couldn't care less about. I'm not going to go into more detail, but the attitude that everything must be perfect is very deeply internalized in the industry, and not just due to the government.

Interesting... because I do run into a fair bit of FAA (or more precisely, FAA representative) trouble working a similar job. In such cases it tends to be protracted quibbling over inane details on the approval forms that are completely unrelated to the technical content of the thing being approved. Internally, I think our biggest (or at least most headache-inducing) issue is trying to get the people on the design and production side to understand that (a) the good enough part available now is better than the perfect part six months from now, and (b) there's more to saving money than just production costs (i.e. it does no good to save $X in production if it's going to incur 10x $X in maintenance costs down the road).

ByronC wrote:
That isn't to say we couldn't cut some regulation. We could, and probably should. But at the same time, I've heard enough stories of things that airlines have tried to get away with that I don't think we can have an air transport industry without the government setting a floor for safety. People really don't like airliners falling on their heads, or appearing in a ball of fire on the evening news.

In my experience most of the FAA safety and design rules are good as is, and generally codify what should already be practiced as basic engineering sense. A few are too prescriptive ("thou shalt do it this way" vs. "you must meet this standard"), several do not account for technology developments (e.g. there's no way to certify an electric aircraft right now), and there are cases where the rules are preventing the use of things that would provide a net safety benefit even though they don't meet the rules (i.e. they solve more problems than they cause), but the design and operation rules are typically well done. And in general, at least, these requirements usually scale with the size and application of the aircraft in question.

However, many of the other rules are applied "one size fits all" and I don't think that's really appropriate (see below).

I do think a lot of the FAA control over production and maintenance of light personal aircraft needs a thorough overhaul. Existing industry standard processes and standards can easily meet or exceed the end needs of light aircraft production, but the FAA insists on individual approval of production methods, factory layouts, QC processes, and many other business functions. This drives up cost, both to the purchaser and the taxpayer. And on the maintenance side, almost any maintenance outside of a few specific items requires a government-licensed mechanic with years of experience and authority/training to work on the full variety of aircraft. That's a little overkill for a 30+ year old Cessna 172. A private owner should be able to maintain their own aircraft, perhaps after attending a maintenance class specific to their needs. Canada does this already with no detriment to safety; it's time for the FAA to do the same.

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7161
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
gtg947h wrote:
ByronC wrote:
I'm responsible for preparing documentation that gets sent out to customers on how to fix the plane. It has to go to the FAA for approval, and then gets written into law. But yet I have more trouble by far with our internal engineers than with the FAA. They want things mandated that the FAA couldn't care less about. I'm not going to go into more detail, but the attitude that everything must be perfect is very deeply internalized in the industry, and not just due to the government.

Interesting... because I do run into a fair bit of FAA (or more precisely, FAA representative) trouble working a similar job. In such cases it tends to be protracted quibbling over inane details on the approval forms that are completely unrelated to the technical content of the thing being approved. Internally, I think our biggest (or at least most headache-inducing) issue is trying to get the people on the design and production side to understand that (a) the good enough part available now is better than the perfect part six months from now, and (b) there's more to saving money than just production costs (i.e. it does no good to save $X in production if it's going to incur 10x $X in maintenance costs down the road).

Interesting. It could be a corporate culture issue, or the fact that I'm working on airliners that are already broken, and need to be either inspected or fixed. You seem to be on the lighter side, and in new-build. But I have on a couple of occasions reminded engineering that if all we cared about was not having planes crash, we'd just ground them all and be done. And the scary thing is that they really don't seem to get that at times.
There is a different set of headaches with the FAA, and I might have understated them because my job is primarily to translate from engineering to FAA. Since I know what the FAA wants, bizarre and inane though it may be, I can deal with it. I can never predict what new idea engineering will have.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2038
Location: Georgia
ByronC wrote:
Interesting. It could be a corporate culture issue, or the fact that I'm working on airliners that are already broken, and need to be either inspected or fixed. You seem to be on the lighter side, and in new-build. But I have on a couple of occasions reminded engineering that if all we cared about was not having planes crash, we'd just ground them all and be done. And the scary thing is that they really don't seem to get that at times.
There is a different set of headaches with the FAA, and I might have understated them because my job is primarily to translate from engineering to FAA. Since I know what the FAA wants, bizarre and inane though it may be, I can deal with it. I can never predict what new idea engineering will have.

No, I'm on the in-service side too. We deal with airplanes that are 40 years old, and ones that came off the line last week, but they're still Part 25 jets.

It's probably a culture thing. I think too many people on the "other side" come out of school and go into design without any practical hands-on or in-service experience at all. They pop out drawings, the airplane rolls off the line, and that's the end of it (for them, anyway). Nobody wants our input and experience because we're going to tell them things they don't want to hear (i.e. that their fecal matter smells, too)--at least until something goes wrong, when it's "why haven't you fixed it already?" or "why is that so hard to fix?" :facepalm:

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7161
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
gtg947h wrote:
ByronC wrote:
Interesting. It could be a corporate culture issue, or the fact that I'm working on airliners that are already broken, and need to be either inspected or fixed. You seem to be on the lighter side, and in new-build. But I have on a couple of occasions reminded engineering that if all we cared about was not having planes crash, we'd just ground them all and be done. And the scary thing is that they really don't seem to get that at times.
There is a different set of headaches with the FAA, and I might have understated them because my job is primarily to translate from engineering to FAA. Since I know what the FAA wants, bizarre and inane though it may be, I can deal with it. I can never predict what new idea engineering will have.

No, I'm on the in-service side too. We deal with airplanes that are 40 years old, and ones that came off the line last week, but they're still Part 25 jets.

It's probably a culture thing. I think too many people on the "other side" come out of school and go into design without any practical hands-on or in-service experience at all. They pop out drawings, the airplane rolls off the line, and that's the end of it (for them, anyway). Nobody wants our input and experience because we're going to tell them things they don't want to hear (i.e. that their fecal matter smells, too)--at least until something goes wrong, when it's "why haven't you fixed it already?" or "why is that so hard to fix?" :facepalm:

My mistake. I forgot that not every manufacturer is large enough to isolate the support people as thoroughly from production as my employer. Seriously, I haven't ever had to talk directly with production, so I have no idea what they're like.
Also, your support only goes back 40 years? I've had to deal with airplanes which are almost twice that old. :D
Although in fairness, they weren't jets. We do have jets which are older than that, but not very many.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:51 am
Posts: 2038
Location: Georgia
ByronC wrote:
gtg947h wrote:
ByronC wrote:
Interesting. It could be a corporate culture issue, or the fact that I'm working on airliners that are already broken, and need to be either inspected or fixed. You seem to be on the lighter side, and in new-build. But I have on a couple of occasions reminded engineering that if all we cared about was not having planes crash, we'd just ground them all and be done. And the scary thing is that they really don't seem to get that at times.
There is a different set of headaches with the FAA, and I might have understated them because my job is primarily to translate from engineering to FAA. Since I know what the FAA wants, bizarre and inane though it may be, I can deal with it. I can never predict what new idea engineering will have.

No, I'm on the in-service side too. We deal with airplanes that are 40 years old, and ones that came off the line last week, but they're still Part 25 jets.

It's probably a culture thing. I think too many people on the "other side" come out of school and go into design without any practical hands-on or in-service experience at all. They pop out drawings, the airplane rolls off the line, and that's the end of it (for them, anyway). Nobody wants our input and experience because we're going to tell them things they don't want to hear (i.e. that their fecal matter smells, too)--at least until something goes wrong, when it's "why haven't you fixed it already?" or "why is that so hard to fix?" :facepalm:

My mistake. I forgot that not every manufacturer is large enough to isolate the support people as thoroughly from production as my employer. Seriously, I haven't ever had to talk directly with production, so I have no idea what they're like.

We're mostly isolated, but there are a lot of things they insist on retaining control over but don't actually want to deal with. Plus, when you run into issues that affect aircraft still in production the information needs to get back to them somehow.
Quote:
Also, your support only goes back 40 years? I've had to deal with airplanes which are almost twice that old. :D
Although in fairness, they weren't jets. We do have jets which are older than that, but not very many.

Well, we have a few aircraft still out there older than that. But the vast majority of them older than about 30-ish years are no longer in service, for various reasons (at least that we know of). We'll support them if they call and pay for it, and we keep the manuals up to date, but it's rare we actually have to do something with them. It's a big deal whenever one shows up here--we all go out to look.

_________________
To do much in this life, you must learn much.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:53 pm
Posts: 1617
Location: The People's Republic of Kalifornia
ByronC wrote:
Musk has a bad tendency to run off at the mouth. SpaceX is doing a lot of very impressive things, although it would be more impressive still if Musk would stop giving us Mars years instead of Earth years in his schedules.


Byron,

It isn't like SpaceX is the only aerospace company that suffers delays. Big Aerospace projects are notorious for delays, Boeing despite their decades of experience in spacecraft design has had to push back the first flight schedule for the Starliner. Musk puts out very difficult deadlines, but that is part of the difference between the Public and Private sector. He shoots for a very challenging deadline but even when SpaceX misses the deadline they still do some surprising things. Who thought it was possible in 2015 for SpaceX to do the following in 6-months after the CRS-7 failure, a Return to Flight, introduce a new block version of the F9, use densified propellant and land the 1st stage of F9 on land. Part of the reason that SpaceX can accomplish this is because of Musk setting such difficult schedules.

Also, let's not forget that events will change schedules. For example events outside of the FH development have had a large impact on the timing of the first launch.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:48 am
Posts: 7161
Location: BB-61 (the ship, not the state)
brovane wrote:
ByronC wrote:
Musk has a bad tendency to run off at the mouth. SpaceX is doing a lot of very impressive things, although it would be more impressive still if Musk would stop giving us Mars years instead of Earth years in his schedules.


Byron,

It isn't like SpaceX is the only aerospace company that suffers delays. Big Aerospace projects are notorious for delays, Boeing despite their decades of experience in spacecraft design has had to push back the first flight schedule for the Starliner. Musk puts out very difficult deadlines, but that is part of the difference between the Public and Private sector. He shoots for a very challenging deadline but even when SpaceX misses the deadline they still do some surprising things. Who thought it was possible in 2015 for SpaceX to do the following in 6-months after the CRS-7 failure, a Return to Flight, introduce a new block version of the F9, use densified propellant and land the 1st stage of F9 on land. Part of the reason that SpaceX can accomplish this is because of Musk setting such difficult schedules.

Also, let's not forget that events will change schedules. For example events outside of the FH development have had a large impact on the timing of the first launch.

Yes, but other aerospace companies have been known to deliver products on time, too. To grab the first example to come to hand, when Boeing announced the 737 MAX in 2011, they said that deliveries would begin in 2017. The first delivery is currently scheduled for later this month. So over a span of 6 years, we have a schedule slip of basically zero. (The press release didn't give a month, or even a quarter.)
I did a fairly exhaustive investigation a couple of years back, and discovered that in all cases, doubling announced schedules gave a pretty good estimate of when SpaceX actually did things. So overall, I think I'll stand by my comment that SpaceX is worse than normal aerospace at meeting schedules.

_________________
Intelligence can be identified by its rejection of self-deception; by its willingness to admit that it might be wrong; by its insistence upon evidence rather than mere impression; by reasoning that cannot easily be assailed. - Orson Scott Card


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:53 pm
Posts: 1617
Location: The People's Republic of Kalifornia
ByronC wrote:
brovane wrote:
ByronC wrote:
Musk has a bad tendency to run off at the mouth. SpaceX is doing a lot of very impressive things, although it would be more impressive still if Musk would stop giving us Mars years instead of Earth years in his schedules.


Byron,

It isn't like SpaceX is the only aerospace company that suffers delays. Big Aerospace projects are notorious for delays, Boeing despite their decades of experience in spacecraft design has had to push back the first flight schedule for the Starliner. Musk puts out very difficult deadlines, but that is part of the difference between the Public and Private sector. He shoots for a very challenging deadline but even when SpaceX misses the deadline they still do some surprising things. Who thought it was possible in 2015 for SpaceX to do the following in 6-months after the CRS-7 failure, a Return to Flight, introduce a new block version of the F9, use densified propellant and land the 1st stage of F9 on land. Part of the reason that SpaceX can accomplish this is because of Musk setting such difficult schedules.

Also, let's not forget that events will change schedules. For example events outside of the FH development have had a large impact on the timing of the first launch.

Yes, but other aerospace companies have been known to deliver products on time, too. To grab the first example to come to hand, when Boeing announced the 737 MAX in 2011, they said that deliveries would begin in 2017. The first delivery is currently scheduled for later this month. So over a span of 6 years, we have a schedule slip of basically zero. (The press release didn't give a month, or even a quarter.)
I did a fairly exhaustive investigation a couple of years back, and discovered that in all cases, doubling announced schedules gave a pretty good estimate of when SpaceX actually did things. So overall, I think I'll stand by my comment that SpaceX is worse than normal aerospace at meeting schedules.


Development of Space Hardware is notorious for scheduled slippage. Is there an instance of an Orbital Class LV that has ever done its first launch on the date that was announced at the beginning of the development program? Has Boeing ever developed a new piece of space hardware and delivered it on time?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 228
I wonder if the production schedules are deliberately massively over optimistic? After all at least part of Musks success is getting Wall Street to invest in his schemes. I expect marketing is at least half the reason behind his dates.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 217 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group