| Username |
Post |
| SITARA |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 08:02 AM
"Send him to Mars, he belongs there!" snickered Gephardt. "Aye, aye!!!" I yelled louder.
THE LATEST AXIS OF EVIL IS MARS!!!!
Who would have thought Bush's burning desire would be to visit MARS, the mythological god of war. Certainly, there are resemblance in his foreign policies and invasion policies--- When in doubt, INVADE!!! Kick the ass of the war god (Mars), and the rest of the planets will fall in line, like kicking the ass of Saddam, surely did. WHAT??!!!! ... you mean the bombings have not stopped????????? Would somebody please tell the Ostrich (or was it the Thanksgiving Turkey) to get his thick skull out of the sand and look around?!
So ok, here is the logic behind the Martian invasion: If there exists Gray Hemite mineral in Mars, the was water! If there was water, there was life! If there was life, there was deads! If there was deads, there is FOSSILS! If there is fossils, there is OIL. If there is OIL, Mars is easier than invading Iraq!!!!! And ofcourse who wants to fiddle around with petty desert warfare when interplanetary warfare sounds better. Apparently, little Bush (during Halloween), dressed up as Artoo Detoo,an astromech service droid. As president of USA, he retained his English, and mechanical, one dimensional thinkings!
According to "The Economist", the NASA space program has become "an albatross" to bear. They are still working on the space station wich may require $billions more to complete before they can send out oil experts to Mars. Bush calls it Fuzzy math!!! Indeed, just like his name!
Talking about illigal entry, did Bush ever apply for visa to "visit" Iraq? Is he planning to apply for one to Mars?!
News Flash: Marvin the Martian (of the cartoons) is in custody for being an illigal immigrant and a spy!!! No amount of manipulative animation can give Bush the secrets of Mars invasion! Both Saddam and Marvin cited for withholding intelligence information.Both have been proposed a death penalty; Halliburton's signed up for an immaculate funeral as well as the reconstruction of Mars!!! The sales from Mars bars will pay for the space project.
As for me, a snow day. The county does not have sufficient funds to clean up the sidewalks and roads. The schools are less approachable than Mars, today!
|
| Rusty |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 08:34 AM
Sitara Jyu, first of all, long tyame, no see. Yet, another excellent piece, short and sweet, and very ironic:-)
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 11:09 AM
Sitz!!!!!!!!
You missed the point, baby...
The latest from the US intelligence suggests that Saddam may have hidden his alleged stockpile of WMDs in Mars, hence the urgency to send a mission there! ;)
|
| Big Trouble |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 11:25 AM
I too don''t understand what's all this fuss about mars. So what if we do find that life once existed in mars? Then what? We study why it went extinct 8 bazillion years ago? Dude, we don't even know what happened to the dinosaurs. And those huge bastards were right here on our own freakin' backyard. Now we want to find out if there was life on mars? How about first we discover if there is life on Wyoming?
|
| oys_chill |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 11:30 AM
"If Bush wins another term, I am gonna go back to nepal"I blurted out. While on the television, the psychic --even cnn believes in them--told vehemently that GOd has chosen Bush for another four years.
Few friends of mine have come forward to make sure I stand by my WORDS and are ready to buy me a ticket to Nepal in December. Things couldn't get better for me. If Bush loses, I celebrate and hopefully get a job after my graduation. IF Bush wins in November, I lament till december, graduate and get a first free flight to Nepal. Win win situation in any case :)
Sitara jyu, succinct, satiric and suave piece as always :). afno ni snow day, sirak ma gutu mutu bhayera tv herdai baschu :). kitchen ma ni aloo matrai cha...anyone know how to make alu dum?
|
| bhunte |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 11:50 AM
i'm for research in outer space in a quest for inexistant knowledge and for a welfare of humankind in future no matter what it costs now. Applaud and appreciative of NASA's effort. There are other nau lakh tara's to be ventured...go nasa go....
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 11:53 AM
Snowfall? Where are you guys living? I am in USA(Which to me is Texas/Alabama and vicinity) since long, and haven't seen snowfall.
On a serious note, let me advocate something for Mars exploration.
First of all, on one sunny day, after watching panorama beamed back by Spirit, I drove about half an hour and knocked the door of head of Houston's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center.I told them that I was ready to accept one way ticket to Mars once human exploration begun. I am waiting for the final confirmation from NASA. Meanwhile, to make the probability of going there one, I took Swasthaani Brata, which concluded yesterday.
What exactly, as a first explorer, I will be doing in Mars is still sketchy. But Grey Hematite exploration is not one of my priorities. Nor are oils. It is all balooney. I hate ferric oxides(hematites), and my whole class of '50, or at least those who were at the Chemistry lab with me, at Amrit Campus knows this.Going to Mars is necessary because "it is there"(you know this was exactly what Millory said about Everest). Mars is there, we have technology to go there, so why let it be an alien land?Let's go,watch that red planet of sand and outcropping stones, and rejoice in knowledge, rather than fear that planet in ignorance!
Bush made thousands of mistakes, but not this one. By not giving money to NASA appropriately, he made another mistake. They are killing my dear Hubble telescope. This kind of funding is not funding, it is cannibalizing.This guy from Crawford, Texas is nut, he should know math better. It cost 87 billion to go to Iraq, how could 400 million suffice to go to Mars which is about a hundred million miles away?All he needs now is just print those "worthless"(acc to Paul Samuelson) paper money more. And those who think their curbs are not properly cleaned of snow now, do they think those curbs will be better if we don't go to Mars? NOT. Not if Mexicans are chased back to Mexico by Border Patrol and some anti-immigrant groups in the rate they do now.
|
| forget-me-not |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 12:09 PM
oys,
alu dum is very easy to make...I would rather go for alu ko achar...better if you have onion and leman .....
sitara jiu,
its a good piece...
|
| sajhakoraja |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 12:34 PM
Justin...a thorough probe of Marvin the Gaye Martian has resulted in what officials have called a wardrobe malfunction that they believe will reveal "what's going on" in the ongoing hunt for the Red Planet's Waters of Mysterious Disappearance. Analysts are guardedly optimistic that this may nip in the bud the ring of conspiracy theories circling the heavenly body and will prove conclusively that WMD instead lie buried in caverns deep within Uranus.
|
| oys_chill |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 12:54 PM
forget me not...
aloo ko achar ta freeze ma cha.....asti donation payeko! ;). tara nepz peep think i know how to cook food these days, donation ali kaum bhako cha :(. yeso egg curry po banaunu paryo..maami lai samjhera ;) . I just got some directions from a sajhaite :).
While Space has been the most fascinating frontier for humankind, we have to set the priorities. Yta pani haat halyo, uta pani haat halyo, ani sab latha linga....badar ko haat ma nariwaal :(
|
| bhunte |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 01:34 PM
America stands for its lead in advanced scientific researches regardless of some of our immediate needs n priorities.....
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 02:25 PM
oys,
Actually, it is not true that investment in space technology is in vain, and has no return. Thanks due to the investment and innovations in space technology, we have achieved the improvement in the speed of car and other vehicle, image processing in medical science and computer and in a lot other fields. So, it is important to realise that space exploration deserves something, and it is not entirely wasteful.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 03:12 PM
Prepared by CRS, using cost data from NASA.
Table 1: NASA's Cost Estimates For The U.S. Portion of the Space Station: 1984-2001
Year
Estimate*
1984
$8 billion (FY1984 dollars, R&D only, no shuttle launches).
April 1987
$16 billion, following restructuring in which program was split into two "phases": $12.2 billion for Phase I; $3.8 billion for Phase II (FY1984 dollars, R&D only, no shuttle launches).
April 1989
$30 billion for Phase I (real year dollars (RYD),* through assembly complete, including shuttle launches during assembly and other costs—such as the Flight Telerobotic Servicer and ground facilities). Phase II "indefinitely postponed," so not included in this or subsequent cost estimates.
Early 1990
$37 billion (RYD, through assembly complete, including shuttle launches during assembly and other costs).
December 1990
$38.3 billion (RYD, through assembly complete, including shuttle launches during assembly and other costs).
March 1991
$30 billion (RYD, through permanent human capability, including shuttle launches during assembly and other costs).
Nov. 1993
$17.4 billion, following termination of Freedom and initiation of International Space Station (RYD, development costs through assembly complete, no shuttle launches, includes costs for science experiments).
March 1998
$21.3 billion (RYD, development costs through assembly complete, no shuttle launches, includes costs for science experiments).
April 1998
Not a NASA estimate, but independent "Cost Assessment and Validation Team" headed by Jay Chabrow concludes cost could be $24.7 billion through assembly complete.
June 1998
$22.7 billion (RYD, development costs through assembly complete, no shuttle launches, includes costs for science experiments). NASA did not accept the Chabrow figure, but agreed the program would cost $1.4 billion more.
February 1999
$23.4-26 billion (RYD, development costs through assembly complete, no shuttle launches, includes costs for science experiments).
February 2000
$24.1-$26.4 billion (RYD, development costs through assembly complete, no shuttle launches, includes costs for science experiments).
March 2001 (Under Discussion)
$22-23 billion, assuming termination of construction after completion of "U.S. Core" and attachment of European and Japanese lab modules (RYD, development costs through completion of the "U.S. Core"; no shuttle launches; includes costs for science experiments, reduced 40% from previous estimates).
******************************************************************
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 03:14 PM
..........
1990-1991
U.S. modules reduced in size (from 44 feet to 27 feet); "pre-integrated truss" chosen in effort to reduce EVA requirements; total length reduced (from 493 feet to 353 feet); Flight Telerobotic Servicer canceled; crew size formally reduced to 4; electrical power reduced (from 75 kw to 56 kw); "lifeboat" added to the station's design but not included in the cost estimate; "assembly complete" designation abandoned with concept that station would continually evolve in an undefined and unbudgeted "follow-on phase."
Beginning in 1990, concerns developed over rising program costs, weight, insufficient electrical power, and too many EVAs for maintenance. In Dec. 1990, NASA estimated program costs through assembly complete at $38.3 billion real year dollars. Congress directed NASA to restructure the station. New plan released in March 1991. NASA stated it would cost $30 billion real year dollars through 1999, though this was no longer the time when assembly would be completed (see column to the left). GAO estimated total program costs through 30 years of operation at $118 billion.
1993
Space Station Freedom program terminated. New design developed (initially called Alpha), which NASA said would use 75% of Freedom's hardware and systems. Russia added as another international partner in a second phase of the 1993 activity. Program renamed International Space Station Alpha, and, later, simply International Space Station (ISS). Two U.S., 1 European, 1 Japanese, and 5 Russian modules (3 for science) accommodate crew of 6; Canada to build Mobile Servicing System; station located in 51.6o orbit (to allow access from Russia); operating period shortened from 30 to 10 years and annual operating costs reduced; "assembly complete" designation reinstated (but no "follow-on phase" or "evolution" or capabilities envisioned by the 1987 Phase 2 plan); space station management changed to "host center" (later "lead center") at Johnson Space Center, TX; Reston, VA office closed.
Cost growth and foreign policy considerations. There were two phases of space station program changes in 1993. The first (February-September) was prompted by $1.08 billion cost overrun (which NASA termed "cost growth") and resulted in a new design, tentatively called Alpha, involving the original space station partners (U.S., Canada, Europe and Japan). This design was released on Sept. 7, but 5 days earlier, the White House announced plans to merge the space station program with Russia's primarily for foreign policy reasons. In November, a new "Russian Alpha" design was announced including Russia as a partner. NASA said with Russian involvement, "Russian Alpha" would be ready 1 year sooner, cost $2 billion less (a figure GAO disputes), and have more scientific utility than the Sept. 7 Alpha version. NASA's current estimate of program costs for FY1994-2002 (assembly complete) is $17.4 billion real year dollars, not including launches or civil service salaries (adding those costs would raise it to $47.9 billion, using average shuttle costs). Monies spent prior to FY1993 ($11.4 billion) and operational costs for 10 years ($13 billion) are not included. [All funding figures from NASA.]
2001 (Under Discussion)
International Space Station (ISS) construction to be terminated after completion of "U.S. Core" and attachment of European and Japanese modules. NASA will not build Habitation Module, Crew Return Vehicle, or Propulsion Module until and unless additional funds are made available. Then they would be "enhancements." Details still under discussion, but could mean that crew size would be limited to 3 instead of 6 or 7 because only one Russian Soyuz would be available as a lifeboat instead of the larger CRV. Smaller crew size would limit amount of science that can be conducted. Science program currently being restructured.
Cost growth of $4 billion over estimate made in its FY2001 budget submission. ISS had been estimated to cost $17.4 billion (real year dollars) when it began in 1993 (FY1994). NASA's estimate rose to $21.3 billion and then $22.7 billion in 1998, to $23.4-26 billion in 1999, and to $24.1-26.4 billion in 2000. NASA's March 2001 plan to discontinue construction after the "U.S. Core" is completed and attachment of the European and Japanese module results in a cost estimate of $22-23 billion and a "completion" date of November 2003-October 2004. Hardware being built for NASA by Europe and Japan (Node 3 and Centrifuge Accommodation Module, respectively) as part of barter agreements could be launched if NASA has sufficient funding for integration costs.
Prepared by CRS, based on information from NASA, historical CRS publications, congressional hearings, and articles in the trade press.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 03:14 PM
Table 2: Major Program Changes to the U.S. Portion of the International Space Station*
CALENDAR YEAR
NATURE OF CHANGE
REASON
Fall 1985-May 1986
The original space station concept envisaged three elements: an occupied base for 8 crew members in a 28.5o orbit, an automated co-orbiting platform nearby, and an automated "polar platform" in orbit around Earth's poles. The original reference design for the occupied base was called the "Power Tower," but a "dual-keel" approach was chosen instead as the baseline design in the fall of 1985; the details were approved by NASA in May 1986. Changes included: arrangement of truss structure and modules modified to place modules at center of gravity; solar dynamic power added to photovoltaic arrays; number of U.S. laboratory and habitation modules reduced from 4 to 2, with plans for 2 more provided by Europe and Japan (the new U.S. modules would be larger than the original design, however, so total habitable volume relatively unchanged); U.S. Flight Telerobotic Servicer added at congressional urging to supplement Canada's planned Mobile Servicing System.
Cost and user requirements. NASA stated that the dual-keel design would provide a better microgravity environment for scientists, more usable area for attached payloads, and better pointing accuracy. Cost estimate maintained at $8 billion ($FY1984).
Late 1986
Dual-keel design reaffirmed, but emphasis on building single-keel first in recognition of reduced availability of shuttle flights and reduced amount of cargo that would be allowed aboard the shuttle in the wake of the Challenger tragedy. Emphasis on early accommodation of experiments; fewer spacewalks; extended "safe haven" concept with the possibility for "lifeboats" for emergency return to Earth (not made a requirement at this time reportedly for cost reasons); increased use of automation and robotics; "lead center" management approach replaced with dedicated space station program office in Reston, VA.
January 1986 space shuttle Challenger tragedy and concern by astronauts at Johnson Space Center about the number of hours of spacewalks, or "EVAs"; quality and quantity of living space; standard of safety for "safe havens" (to which astronauts would retreat in emergencies such as depressurization or dangerous sunspot activity); lack of "lifeboats" for emergency return to Earth when the space shuttle was not docked with the station. Cost estimate unchanged.
1987
Program split into "phase 1" and "phase 2," with single keel of occupied base built in phase 1 and second keel delayed until phase 2; polar platform part of phase 1; co-orbiting platform and solar dynamic power pushed into phase 2.
Rising program costs and expected budget constraints. Cost estimate had risen to $14.5 billion ($FY1984) for research and development. New design estimated to cost $12.2 billion ($FY1984) for Phase 1 and $3.8 billion ($FY1984) for Phase 2, saving money in the near term, but costing more in the long term.
1989
Phase 2 indefinitely postponed; polar platform transferred from space station program to NASA's Office of Space Science and Applications (was for earth observation studies). Only remaining element is single-keel occupied base, divided into an initial phase with reduced capabilities (e.g. crew reduced to 4 from 8; electrical power reduced to 37.5 kw from 75 kw; use of open-loop instead of closed-loop life support system) and an assembly complete phase when "full capabilities" would be restored. NASA asserted that the capabilities envisioned in the 1987 Phase 2 program (dual-keel etc.) could still "evolve" sometime in the future to support expeditions to the Moon and Mars.
Cost growth and expected budget constraints. NASA termed this a "rephasing." Cost for Phase I estimated at $19 billion real year dollars,* or $13 billion FY1984 dollars, for R&D; NASA estimated total program costs through assembly complete at $30 billion real year dollars.
...continued
|
| oys_chill |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 03:19 PM
Biswo dai,
Of course, i am not against the space programs. I am just wondering about the haste of the president to do so many things at once. Thats what i meant by the nariwal :). He hasn't given us the assurance of how he's gonna overcome the deficit. He's trying to meet a deadline or sth..in this case the elections. Imagine the lathalinga we have to deal with. I wouldn't give a damn...but when graduate schools start advertising about the budget cuts for international students, it has me worried.
After all, be it the space program, science development or further studies..in the long run, we're trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together to solve how we came into being and even a bigger dilemma: WHY. At the same time, we shouldn't forget where we're heading at present :)
|
| DWI |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 03:48 PM
Always the best. A blog worth spending your time.
"When in doubt, invade." It sure seems, everyday Mr. President goes to a corner for 5 minutes to 'Think' and comes with absurd ideas. To confirm his 'intelligence', perhaps.
I ain't a Bush Hater, but liked what I read.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 06-Feb-04 08:17 PM
Oys bhai:[With that dai stuff thrown again at me...]
Yes, budget is not balanced. But cutting NASA's budget is not the right way to make the budget balanced. I am not an American, and wouldn't comment on their internal politics more than that, but from my outsider's eyes, and from my conversation with some of the researchers at Baker Institutes, I have come to a conclusion that there are simply too many tax cuts for wealthy people, there are simply too many subsidies for different kind of people[from peanut farmer to milk producers] that is affecting the budget of the USA.
So, a right way to balance American budget is not by cutting its investment in technology sector, medical research or other scientific things.It should start by cutting spendthrift programs that are propped up special interests, and the constituency-minded politicians.
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 07-Feb-04 09:11 AM
Friends, thank you for reading my gunasos.
Like Oys said, surely, this is not the time to invest in space or war. The above data on space spending does not even include the Mars project. Bush's was only a sensational media stunt to prop up his fading popularity; like was the "No Child Left Behind" Act.
Biswo ji, I am no student of Chemistry but I gathered that though Hematite and Mag-hemite have similar compositions, Hemite is scarce on earth. Correct me if I am wrong.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 07-Feb-04 10:51 AM
Dear Sitara,
I don't know either. I knew hematite only by reading the news reports on recent flurry of Mars related thing.I think they are iron ores that we are taught in I.Sc. chemistry class(in metallurgy). Didn't/don't know about hemites and their composition.
The reason why your spending "didn't include" Mars expenses is because there ain't any substantial thing for Mars yet. Bush reportedly asked for 400 million extra for Mars, but asked NASA to cannibalize its other projects to provide for Mars. Hence NASA is cutting back its other projects, including Hubble telescope.
NASA funds are used to do a lot of researches on the earth. It is not merely the cost of gas packed in the rocket, and which will burn away as the rocket is propelled upward. It is used to fund researches of a lot of graduate students, some among them are Nepali or Indians. Some of my friends worked in exactly Mars project for wireless communcation funded by NASA, so I know to some extent how much NASA projects are worth. Those researches have a lot of civilian uses. I request all of those skeptics to take a trip to Florida or Houston , and read the impassioned plea of the scientists to know more about the side benefit of these projects.
There are some people who are capable of doing things that we can't even think of. Historically, those people have been prosecuted for trying out new things. The vulnerability of scientists is that they are not working with certainty. So, if you have asked Copernicus whether his nightly gazing of sky would provide the definite answer for solar system, he couldn't have answered that before he came up with his findings. Rontgen couldn't have told you that X-ray was going to be discovered. So, as the fellow human with considerably less capacity to think, we need to facilitate the work of those scientists. NASA scientists are not taking huge pay either.They work with universities throughout the world, and paid just as much as their university counterparts. We need to understand that the world should and can fund these people. We don't need to be overly obsessed with the idea of equality and fairness of distributing resources worldwide, because it is not always good for the advancement of mankind.Science should lead the mankind. Not the other way.
|
