Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: IceFire on February 01, 2003, 08:41:59 am
-
Its 9:40am EST and it sure looks like the Shuttle Columbia has broken up on re-entry.
http://www.cnn.com/
http://cbc.ca/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
That should cover the netviewing. Its the breaking news...not the kind you want to hear.
-
Jesus... I feel sick...
Never thought I'd see the day, but I'm praying for those guys right now. Actual prayer. God help them.
-
Yeah, just saw the news from BBC World. Poor guys...
-
Jesus...What the hell happened?
-
first shuttle in twenty years to blow up had an Israili on board, gee, I wonder :mad:
-
Just saw it. 7 Astronauts dead, one Israeli, two women.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
first shuttle in twenty years to blow up had an Israili on board, gee, I wonder :mad:
You must be very very young. You know, Challenger? And it was on re-entry, at 60 Km high when it exploded.
-
no that was lift off, and it was nearly twenty years ago
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no that was lift off, and it was nearly twenty years ago
Ok, my mistake, the reentry part was about Collumbia. I meant it would be difficult to sabotage it at that time.
-
Originally posted by Snakeseyes
You must be very very young. You know, Challenger? And it was on re-entry, at 60 Km high when it exploded.
It was on launch and it was I think around a minute into its launch when it exploded. This is a completely different set of circumstances.
Reports are saying that they have found some debris on the launch pad and they are now wondering if some of the heat resistant panels were knocked off.
They have people on CNN from Texas saying that there is debris scattered all over the place. Someones on a scanner and they have all the country reports coming in about burning peices here there and everywhere. I'd say that pretty much confirms that the shuttle has been destroyed.
-
IceFire is right, the Challenger exploded 73 seconds after launch.
Taken from About.com in reference to the Challenger:
The commission's report cited the cause of the disaster as a the failure of an “O-ring” seal in the solid-fuel rocket on the space shuttle's right side. The faulty design of the seal coupled with the unusually cold weather, let hot gases to leak through the joint. Booster rocket flames were able to pass through the failed seal enlarging the small hole. These flames then burned through the shuttle's external fuel tank and through one of the supports that attached the booster to the side of the tank. That booster broke loose and collided with the tank, piercing the tank's side. Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuels from the tank and booster mixed and ignited, causing the shuttle to tear apart.
-
This is the worst news, i couldn`t believe it to be true, at first.
Please could everyone give a moment of silence and prayer.
-
Good god.
These shuttles should have been retired years ago, what ever happened to the new shuttles that were supposed to replace them?!
-
........Why?
-
Have we got any members living in the area? Any first hand sightings, or anything?
-
I heard about it about a hour ago. Terible, just terible.
-
Originally posted by Sobek
Good god.
These shuttles should have been retired years ago, what ever happened to the new shuttles that were supposed to replace them?!
Even with new shuttles with the latest tech this kinda thing can happen.
-
still folowing reports but its just repeating the facts over and over
-
Stealth's in Texas isn't he?
This is fully trucked up :(.anything that sets space research bvack is bad, but losing 7 aqstronauts is juyst... no idea what to say really :(.
-
Maybe that's why Stealth's not posted yet
-
Originally posted by Darkage
Even with new shuttles with the latest tech this kinda thing can happen.
That may well be true unless it was a mechanical problem. But when doing something as serious as manned space flight, i believe that great care should be taken because of the lives aboard and if that means newer more expensive tech, then so be it.
unfortunately, no matter how it happened, the result may be the same and set back manned space flight in this country several years.
-
Originally posted by Sobek
That may well be true unless it was a mechanical problem. But when doing something as serious as manned space flight, i believe that great care should be taken because of the lives aboard and if that means newer more expensive tech, then so be it.
unfortunately, no matter how it happened, the result may be the same and set back manned space flight in this country several years.
Ofcourse the latest tech should be used to make it more safer for the crew and other personel that work on the shuttle. But that still doesn't mean that it is flawless, it can still explode, crash or anything horible.
-
I think this is the moment when we realise just how perilous the journey to new frontiers can be.
"Remember them not for how they died, but for those ideals by which they lived."
Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
-
well....while its tragic im slightly more worried about the impact on an already underfunded and flailing space programme.
They did say something about a peice of insulation foam breaking off one of the fuel tanks and striking the wing....although from what happened it looked more to me like the heat shield cracked.
Back to the drawing board :rolleyes:
-
Can anyone say "China"?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
first shuttle in twenty years to blow up had an Israili on board, gee, I wonder :mad:
yeah, he's right, i'm sure either one of three things happened:
1) The Israeli purposefully sabotaged the shuttle, so as to kill himself and everyone else on board.
2) The other crew, hating the Israeli, purposefully sabotaged the shuttle, so as to kill the evil Israeli, and everyone else on board.
3) Someone shot it down, because they don't like Israelis.
Wake up dude, i'm sure this wasn't some conspiracy ;) :D
-
everything is a conspiracy.
sad story, this.
-
When the challenger was destroyed, wasn't there a teacher on board?
Lesson: Don't send anybody but astronaughts into space:D
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Stealth's in Texas isn't he?
yeah, but I didn't see anything, because it went mostly over central Texas (Fort Worth, Dallas, etc.) and I'm in Houston, so i'm a little out of its way. Still, if i'd looked for it i probably would have seen it.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/01/shuttle.columbia/index.html
Just for information, heh, remember that the shuttle doesn't land in Houston, it lands in the KSC, Florida.
All the landings and take-offs are always in Florida, the only thing they do in Houston is Mission Control, NASA, which is about 30-40 miles away from where I live.
-
heh, on CNN, they HAD to add this:
Ramon's father was at a television station watching the unfolding coverage. Ramon, 48, took part in the 1981 bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq.
... Iraq HAD to be mentioned lol :D
of course Bush's going to accuse Iraq of sabotaging the space shuttle, and go to war with them.
-
This is very sad news. The space program was in a bad enough state (especially after the loss of Ariane a few months ago). Now it looks like neither america or europe will be doing anything for a while.
Reports say they heard an explosion but there wouldn`t have been much fuel on board by that point (just enough for manouvering and for the fuel cells). Possibly something went wrong with the heat shield (although the shuttle was already through the blackout period and the worst of the re-entry)
I feel sorry for everyone at NASA and the families of the astronauts
-
Originally posted by an0n
Can anyone say "China"?
Thats offensive.
I didn't find out about this until just now, and no, no debris has fallen on my house; although I am rather north in relation to the rest of Texas in Dallas. God bless their souls.
EDIT: Scratch that, one piece apparently made its way into a condo complex nearby and set the place on fire :blah:
-
one of my friends from Nacadoches said a burning thing landed in his neighbor's yard. obviously from the shuttle. wow
EDIT: i'm on the phone with him
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
Thats offensive.
i think he meant that this will give their space program the chance to catch up and even possibly excel beyond the U.S.
They are taking notes.
-
BTW whatever happened to the russian space shuttle?
-
since when do rushians have a "shuttle" ?
-
Originally posted by Fetty
since when do rushians have a "shuttle" ?
since the twilight of the cold war, i believe shortly after the soviet union collapse, so did their shuttle program.
-
yes. they discontinued it, because cheap carrying rockets turned out cheaper for them than shuttles were.
the mother of a former friend of mine worked on that shuttle project... or so he claimed.
-
Well, I didn't see this coming..
-
Originally posted by Sobek
i think he meant that this will give their space program the chance to catch up and even possibly excel beyond the U.S.
They are taking notes.
I'm sure they'd like to, but in the past decade or so they've changed they've changed their strategy from "challenging the West in space and sending men to the moon, etc, etc," to "being ****ing broke".
-
Originally posted by Alikchi
Well, I didn't see this coming..
I didn't see the shuttle coming either.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
BTW whatever happened to the russian space shuttle?
You mean Buran?
-
I guess this is the end of the space shuttle era then.
Back to simpler solutions.
-
wow.
this will really **** up the space program :sigh:
we'll probably see more footage of little palestinian and Iraqi kids dancing in the streets too
-
Originally posted by Sobek
i think he meant that this will give their space program the chance to catch up and even possibly excel beyond the U.S.
They are taking notes.
No. I meant they blew up the shuttle so they could at least get to the Moon before America got to Mars.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
BTW whatever happened to the russian space shuttle?
Mate of mine who studies space pyhisics says they flew it once, and once only. You can buy them from the Russian government, if you have the cash...
Question is - what will happen to the ISS guys? Presumably the shuttle fleet will be grounded until further notice, and the Russians can use their Progress space craft to resupply the thing... but you just wonder whether they'll be ordered down (personally I wouldn't trust my life to that Soyuz capsule of theirs)
[EDIT] :blah: @ an0n. Hardly the time.
-
Originally posted by an0n
No. I meant they blew up the shuttle so they could at least get to the Moon before America got to Mars.
i stand corrected then.
Does anyone else find it tragicly ironic that the shuttle, with the first isreali astronaut, crashed in Palastine Texas?
-
Originally posted by Sobek
i stand corrected then.
Does anyone else find it tragicly ironic that the shuttle, with the first isreali astronaut, crashed in Palastine Texas?
Maybe more if it was israel texas and the astronaut was palestinian :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Sobek
Does anyone else find it tragicly ironic that the shuttle, with the first isreali astronaut, crashed in Palastine Texas?
I'll probably be slated for this later, but: No, I find it ironically amusing.
I mean, Christ, seven people died. It's not that big of a deal. More people die from choking on Smarties, every day.
And it's not like they thought there was no element of risk involved in strapping yourself to the back of one of the largest rockets in the world and shooting yourself into a radioactive vacuum several dozen miles up.
People see an explosion and all of a sudden it's a tradgey.
-
I read up on something, the shuttle was the oldest shuttle NASA has...20 years old...28 missions...now...isnt that a bit old? I would have decomissioned it.
-
They are saying that a leading wing edge was damaged during launch. On reentry this damage put stress on both wings, and they came off.
I have a friend who works in the Houston Center, i'll see about getting an email to her.
The irony of this is that i was supposed to go fight in a tournament in Tyler Texas today. If i had been there i would have been in the debris field, and before someone asks, no i would not grab a piece for myself.
Anyway, let's just all wish the best in whatever way we do for families of the people who were killed. Let's try to keep this one on topic, those people deserve that much.
-
Originally posted by TheVirtu
I read up on something, the shuttle was the oldest shuttle NASA has...20 years old...28 missions...now...isnt that a bit old? I would have decomissioned it.
You see obselete equipment, I see reliable and trusted.
-
Originally posted by castor
I guess this is the end of the space shuttle era then.
Back to simpler solutions.
they said the same thing after challenger. hmm... maybe they shouldn't have scraped the venture star program so quickly. ooh maybe they'll reinstate it.
-
meh. :sigh: I caught this on the news this morning. awful.
but I've been searching around, and so far the government has said that they do NOT suspect any terrorist activities involved. Also said was the fact that this piece of debris that hit the wing on launch was FOAM, aka very light and not capable of doing much damage. and the loud bangs heard were the pieces going through the sound barrier, not an explosion.
and Stealth, tell your friend not to touch the debris. the official NASA statement found at www.nasa.gov says that debris should not be touched because they could be toxic from the rocket fuel used.
but as of right now, they're really just repeating what they know and showing the video clip of the one large ball with one plume separating into a few separate plumes with little pieces at the front.
my thoughts were the same, about Challenger. How everytime we put somebody onboard who isn't a part of the U.S. space program, something goes wrong. Although there are rumors about Lance Bass of 'N Sync going up with NASA...:blah:
as for what will happen to the shuttle program, I don't know. My guess is that it will continue after a thorough investigation of what went wrong. Although if NASA was at all up to speed, this new X-plane space thingy that they've been working on for like 15 years now would be in service already. but its not because government funding has put the project behind schedule by about five years or so. So it probably won't happen until like 2010 at the earliest. and this is an enormous blow to NASA, which is falling apart already. The U.S. space program needs a serious jump start right now, because it is currently going nowhere, except maybe down the crapper. Mars? Ha! We can't even get things right on this planet right now...:(
and China is most definitely observing the current situation with utmost interest.
-
meh. :sigh: I caught this on the news this morning. awful.
but I've been searching around, and so far the government has said that they do NOT suspect any terrorist activities involved. Also said was the fact that this piece of debris that hit the wing on launch was FOAM, aka very light and not capable of doing much damage. and the loud bangs heard were the pieces going through the sound barrier, not an explosion.
and Stealth, tell your friend not to touch the debris. the official NASA statement found at www.nasa.gov says that debris should not be touched because the
EDIT: crap double posted
-
Originally posted by Corsair
my thoughts were the same, about Challenger. How everytime we put somebody onboard who isn't a part of the U.S. space program, something goes wrong. Although there are rumors about Lance Bass of 'N Sync going up with NASA...:blah:
Oh god.. If only he was on it, this would be the newest national holiday :sigh:
IIRC he's going up with the russians though, like that one billionaire. Don't ask, I watch MTV occasionally. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by TheVirtu
I read up on something, the shuttle was the oldest shuttle NASA has...20 years old...28 missions...now...isnt that a bit old? I would have decomissioned it.
It went through a major refit recently and had only flown one mission since then so it would have been a bit of a waste of money to decomission it (especially as it was doubtful they would get the money to build another one)
I think the problem is that everyone expects the Shuttle to fly every mission perfectly. Apparently even NASA themselves expected to have a disaster every 100 missions or so.
-
they just played a radio transmision by the comander on jan. 27 comemorating the apolo 1 and chalenger disasters. that's ruff listening to a guy talk about that knowing he burnt up in a similar fashion a few hours ago.
-
When I first heard about the Challenger disaster, I was in the computer lab in high school (Apple IIs, baby!). And now I hear about the Columbia disaster... sitting in the computer lab at my weekend college class. Freaky.
-
This thing is all over the news and NASA is apparently holding some conference over the event right now.
well....while its tragic im slightly more worried about the impact on an already underfunded and flailing space programme.
These were my thoughts as well; it is probably going to be a while until another mission takes place. They still have three other shuttles, but those will not be flying anytime soon with the current turn of events. Then again, all of the really promising space telescopes are either already in orbit or will not be ready for a couple more years, so it doesn't matter as much as it could have.
Does anyone else find it tragicly ironic that the shuttle, with the first isreali astronaut, crashed in Palastine Texas?
heh, I noticed that too. Some kind of symbolic meaning intended there, maybe?
Actually, regardless of what the investigation comittees conclude, if the US government is smart then they would blame it on terrorist actions anyway. :D (two possible scenarios there are that an undetected pilot nearby launched an air-to-air missile or that a bomb was placed unboard before the launch) Now I will be particularly interested in seeing what the global responses to this are... (get ready for some dancing in the streets :D)
I mean, Christ, seven people died. It's not that big of a deal. More people die from choking on Smarties, every day.
And it's not like they thought there was no element of risk involved in strapping yourself to the back of one of the largest rockets in the world and shooting yourself into a radioactive vacuum several dozen miles up.
People see an explosion and all of a sudden it's a tradgey.
You summed up my thoughts on this very well. :yes: Space missions are risky business and one cannot expect success every time. As that Vasudan pilot says, "no sorrow but vengeance." :D It is more important to learn what exactly went wrong and conduct future missions accordingly.
I think the problem is that everyone expects the Shuttle to fly every mission perfectly. Apparently even NASA themselves expected to have a disaster every 100 missions or so.
In that case they are doing a pretty good job of sticking to that requirement, since there have been some 117 successful missions since the Challenger incident.
-
Just been listening to CNN playing the last momenst of radio chatter... the shuttle's messages just cut off... nasty, nasty experience
-
Here from Juarez, Chihuahua, i live in the frontier with El Paso, TX and i live 2 or 3 hours of some of the counties in Texas, near Lubbock, here at this moment we don't have any information of someone here saw the Shuttle at the moment of the explosion, if i have some information about someone see the shuttle i inform here. (because the Columbia explodes above 203 000 feet probably someone here or in El Paso see something).
-
On the bright side, despite what occurs in the US space program, the Chinese one is still on track. In a few years, it may be a wake up call.
-
I see the shock of this inccident is beginning to wear off, it is regreatable that this could happen, but it was bound to happen sooner or later... The more missions flown the greater the risk, alot like russian roulette, eventually the chamber with the bullet will come around and bang.......
Life is full of unexpected twist and turns, and this one is no exception...
-
Also someone knows anything about the Lockheed Martin X33?
-
Originally posted by TheVirtu
I read up on something, the shuttle was the oldest shuttle NASA has...20 years old...28 missions...now...isnt that a bit old? I would have decomissioned it.
I'm 20 years old...you want to decomission me?
Stuff lasts longer than 5 years. Sometimes we forget because we live in the wonderful world of computers where months equals obselencence instead of years. The US used WWII battleships that were designed in the 1930's in the 1991 Gulf War. B-52 bombers were designed in the 1960's and are expected to be used until 2040. Most of the originals are decom sure, but there aren't any new airframes around so they are old too. More than 20 years old for sure.
From the indications right now, this is not the end of the shuttle program. I bet there will be a significant delay until they find out what happened. If its like anything else, it will be a serious of events or errors or mistakes or circumstances that lead to this tragedy. It may lead to design changes in the new shuttles that are being developed or it may not...too early to tell.
-
I just woke up, and...
OH MY GOD! :eek:
This is so sad.... :sigh:
-
Well ****. Why is it that someone will come banging on my door telling me about a couple stupid buildings being knocked over and they don't do anything when something important happens?
I remember Challenger, I was sitting in class when aonther teacher came in announcing it. The rest of the day was spent watching TV, even during lunch. That was funny because someone yelled at the entire caffeteria for being noisy "We're showing this to you, can't you be respectful" or something like that. How many caffeterias have you been that have been quiet for any reason?
Colombia and Challenger. Well that does it folks, no more shuttle names starting with the letter C. I have declared it.
-
Originally posted by MiG
Also someone knows anything about the Lockheed Martin X33?
Yes: IMHO It should be in service but isn't.
-
Originally posted by Eishtmo
Why is it that someone will come banging on my door telling me about a couple stupid buildings being knocked over and they don't do anything when something important happens?
Nice flamebait. :doubt:
-
Actually, I also do think that this is more important than the 9/11 due to the implications it will have on the space program. :p
-
Originally posted by Eishtmo
Well ****. Why is it that someone will come banging on my door telling me about a couple stupid buildings being knocked over and they don't do anything when something important happens?
Ugh. I've had about enough of this board. The combination of rampant anti-Americanism, and ridiculous insensitivity is outrageous.
I am gone.
-
Planes crash. Space planes are going to crash too. Its all very well saying how tragic it its, and i dont deny its not, but people die all the time, and the astronauts knew the risks.
Hopefully something positive will come from this, ie more investment in reusable launch vehicles, and preferably not just from NASA. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by daveb
Ugh. I've had about enough of this board. The combination of rampant anti-Americanism, and ridiculous insensitivity is outrageous.
I am gone.
It is sad though that a half-rational arguement could be created about how the death of seven people is more important than the death of thousands. :sigh:
However, as has been stated here many times before, the astronauts knew the risk, and sadly it occured.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
I'm 20 years old...you want to decomission me?
Well, if you really want me to :p
The only day we'll have safe space travel is when you get orbital towers built, in my opinion.
Using reentry modules is a pretty fallible technique, but considering how fragmented we are as a species its currently impossible to marshall the resources needed to do consider any alternatives.
Oh well.....a few big rocks from space and it wont matter - thats where dumb nationalism got us :p
-
Originally posted by TheVirtu
I read up on something, the shuttle was the oldest shuttle NASA has...20 years old...28 missions...now...isnt that a bit old? I would have decomissioned it.
No, the shuttles are aged based on missions, not actual years, evidently. And the minimum operational life of each shuttle was intended to be 100 missions... ( I've been listening to the radio news covering this locally for the last four hours, so I've picked up a few things here and there. )
-
Eish, you can not care or think that all the expressions of horror at death this remote sound stilted, but going out of your way to be nasty about it- I mean, what, you resent these guys or something? The **** they do to you?
Personally, I don't think it's possible to really comprehend completely an event so remote as one televised, to genuinely feel for these people who are only a couple levels of reality up from the ones you enjoy watching get blown up in movies to you, but I think it's pretty low to trivialize it like they really are of no more significance than those.
-
Originally posted by daveb
Ugh. I've had about enough of this board. The combination of rampant anti-Americanism, and ridiculous insensitivity is outrageous.
I am gone.
I hope he's coming back...
-
The insensitivity on this board is making me angry, people die and all people on this board can go on about, is how they dont like the US. :sigh: Im relatively desensitised emotionally, but its still upsetting to hear about something like this, while others evidently on this board couldnt care less.
-
Well spoekn Zeronet.
I do agree that everybody's making too big a fuss about seven people dying, what about the other thousands that died today?
But whenever something bad happens, for some reason everybody just says they hate the US. Maybe we should just site back, stop giving military support, watch communism take over, stop giving food to poor countries, watch everybody starve, and stop exploring space for the good of mankind.
A wiseman (Can't remember who) once said that Earth is Humankind's cradle, but we cannot live in a cradle forever.
-
Originally posted by daveb
Ugh. I've had about enough of this board. The combination of rampant anti-Americanism, and ridiculous insensitivity is outrageous.
I am gone.
At least we don't hate you. (http://www.volitionwatch.com/vwbb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=36)
And be aware that this is an international board. We've got folks here from the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Denmark, Israel, Australia... and not too many people (internationally and domestically) are happy with America's politics at the moment. :nervous: I don't agree with Eishtmo, and it's already obvious that most of us don't. But I hope that the wackos here won't drive you away from your fanbase.
Heck, if I had paid attention to the wackos im my life I would have been institutionalized by the time I was 14.
-
Originally posted by Corsair
and Stealth, tell your friend not to touch the debris. the official NASA statement found at www.nasa.gov says that debris should not be touched because they could be toxic from the rocket fuel used.
my friend won't touch it, it's in the neighbor's yard... the neighbor will touch it :D :D :D :D
j/k ;)
-
just one more NASA oopsie-daisy to tack on to their record. with all the recent problems they've been having, like that metric-english mix up, and the crashed satallite, we'll never get to Mars or Europa's Ocean (http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/3dlil/cry.gif) (http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/3dlil/cry.gif) (http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/3dlil/cry.gif) (http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/3dlil/cry.gif)
*goes to sulk*
-
Originally posted by daveb
Ugh. I've had about enough of this board. The combination of rampant anti-Americanism, and ridiculous insensitivity is outrageous.
I am gone.
Hrmmm...HLPBB is a virtual utopia compaired to the likes of the Command & Conquer General's forums. Go there for five minutes and you will be back singing the praises of HLP.
That being said, do show some sensitivity people. Seven people died in a noble cause of space exploration and science. This is not the time nor place to discuss ideological differences.
And I'll remain in service if you don't mind wEvil. If thats ok with everyone? :)
-
Wait a minute, where exactly did anyone say that they hate the US? I must have missed that completely.
I do agree that everybody's making too big a fuss about seven people dying, what about the other thousands that died today?
Exactly; there are millions dying every day just from causes not related to "natural" aging, but that does not mean that people should spend their entire life crying, and these are fairly small numbers when you consider the total populations and rates of increase anyway. Instead of sitting and mourning on a tragedy, let us learn from it and look to the future.
But whenever something bad happens, for some reason everybody just says they hate the US. Maybe we should just site back, stop giving military support, watch communism take over, stop giving food to poor countries, watch everybody starve, and stop exploring space for the good of mankind.
Actually, the easiest way to just get rid of everything is to nuke the world for the "good of mankind." :D
-
btw havent they allmost completly overhauled the columbia in 2001 ?
-
Originally posted by IceFire
And I'll remain in service if you don't mind wEvil. If thats ok with everyone? :)
:)
:nod:
-
Columbia was NASA's first shuttle, the first one into orbit; even if not for the loss of 7 astronauts, the loss of the shuttle itself is a tragedy. There's also a difference between the loss of 7 astronauts and 7 dozen idiots who manage to choke to death on their own food.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
Columbia was NASA's first shuttle, the first one into orbit; even if not for the loss of 7 astronauts, the loss of the shuttle itself is a tragedy. There's also a difference between the loss of 7 astronauts and 7 dozen idiots who manage to choke to death on their own food.
not reallyl. the astronauts knew the risk. you don't even considdering that your next dinner might be the dinner that kills you.
I didn't know these people. And frankly, I couldn't care less about them. No, not because I haet USA, but because there is still wars, famine, diesease etcetera around the world, and we should be more concerned about the millions of people that are suffering and dying daily, than 7 persons that propably died pretty instantly.
But I guess I'm an anti-american ****tard for expressing my opinions on this matter.
-
Well not everyone here is in-sensitive..
There are a few, but you have to take in account that some of the members are sensitive to this post and can feel the full weight and pain of what happened...
-
well... I do care. in proportion to every other bad thing that happens daily.
-
I think that this is more important than the million deaths, but not so much because of the loss of the people as much as that of the shuttle and, more importantly, the future impact it will have on the space program as a whole. People are easier to reproduce than shuttles.
-
well, duh! a shuttles worth can be listed in money, the life of a man/woman can not. would you really say that the life of your mother is less important than that of a cold war relic such as the space program? then you are a machine, and not a human being.
-
I'm sorry if i am wrong......but it seems to me that a few bad things have happened.
the shuttle blew up......setting back our space program
people died as a result.....
a couple thousand others died elsewhere at the same moment probably.
so let me ask ya......when did this thread become everyone's favorite pissing hole? take your petty arguements elsewhere. If not out of respect for people who have died, then for those who are alive and well and on the thread. You don't have to give a rat's ass about the people who died in this or 9-11. You don't have to give a **** about the shuttle. But do the rest of us a favor and can the stupid arguements. I read this thread this morning and it was about a shuttle blowing up, i come back 4 hours later and it's about seeing who can piss farthest. Whether you care about what happened today or not......Give it a rest.
-
read:
TIME.com: What are the immediate implications for the space program of Saturday's disaster?
JK: Following the precedent of the Challenger disaster in 1986, it's unlikely that NASA will undertake any further shuttle missions or any other manned space flights for the next two years. One immediate problem, though, is the International Space Station, which currently has a crew of three on board. They might consider one further flight to bring that crew home — the other option would be for them to return aboard a Russian Soyuz craft, which isn't the most comfortable or the safest ride. Beyond that, however, the space station is likely to be left unoccupied for a long time. NASA won't want to use the shuttle again until it can establish the cause of today's accident, and fix it. Now that we've lost two shuttles out of a fleet of five, it's even conceivable that the shuttle won't fly again. The shuttle was built as a space truck, and then the International Space Station was built to give it something to do. Both programs are likely to suffer as a result of this disaster.
---------------------
me thinks this gonna cause problems for the space programs abroad civilian and government. but this isnt going to stop them from continuing... but it sucks that those people went out that way, if anyone watches the video, a front portion of the vapor flume coming off the hull of the shuttle, "pop'd", and then the break up occured... i can only imagine what they saw or felt when it happened... but being as how the shuttle was the oldest out of a fleet of 5, it shouldnt have been put into circulation even though they had a minimum mission life span of 100 missions. thats unrealistic, i mean the technology of this shuttle was just recently retrofitted. the newer shuttles have the same technology persay if not better, but the fact that this buisness is so risky, they should reconsider changing the system of life span for there ships until they are improved drasticly...
------------
btw daveb, i agree with ur comment, but realize that this is what the forum is for, that lil ol' amendment that says they cans peak there minds, weather or not they from the US or not.
-
I don't think it was directly a result of the retrofitting though, since the shuttle had already gone through a couple of successful missions since then.
well, duh! a shuttles worth can be listed in money, the life of a man/woman can not. would you really say that the life of your mother is less important than that of a cold war relic such as the space program? then you are a machine, and not a human being.
From a social point of view, of course; it should be independent of any one man's "opinion." (even if I care that my mother died, it would not really make a big difference in the whole system objectively speaking) And anything can be listed in money according to its demand in the economy. :p
-
albeit columbia was the first shuttle in orbit, the first shuttle was it's prototype "enterprise" challenger was caused by faulty O-rings on the top of one of the booster rockets.
incidently, as far as i'm concerned race,country, beliefs don't come into this. the fact is that seven people died today that the world acknoledges and has seen on television throughout the whole world (as in 9/11) i know that many more probably died today through no fault of their own. at least this was over quickly.. the challenger crew didn't have that luxury..
what gets me the most is that there may be a little anti-american/british/australian sentiment goin' round at the moment you can't judge a people just because of their political leaders and their ideals.
-
I have to agree with daveb. And I'm not talking about anti-americanism... I'm talking about sensitivity.
BTW for all you guys who are *****ing about war and poverty, get off your fat ass's, stop making mods to a dead game, and go do something with your lives that WILL help the problems that you cite everyday.
In other words: PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
I'm sorry if i am wrong......but it seems to me that a few bad things have happened.
the shuttle blew up......setting back our space program
people died as a result.....
a couple thousand others died elsewhere at the same moment probably.
so let me ask ya......when did this thread become everyone's favorite pissing hole? take your petty arguements elsewhere. If not out of respect for people who have died, then for those who are alive and well and on the thread. You don't have to give a rat's ass about the people who died in this or 9-11. You don't have to give a **** about the shuttle. But do the rest of us a favor and can the stupid arguements. I read this thread this morning and it was about a shuttle blowing up, i come back 4 hours later and it's about seeing who can piss farthest. Whether you care about what happened today or not......Give it a rest.
well well.... freedom of speech, baby. sometimes I wonder if you really have it. I know you brag about it. But do you really want it? the way I see it, it means that all peoples opinions are of equal value, and everyone has the right to express them. But when people disagreeing with your bunch, you try to take this freedom away from me. but guess what, you can't. It's been in the constitution of my country for about as long time as your country has existed. And as I have stated, I do give a rat's ass about this shuttle crasch, but I happen to give more of a rat's ass about other things that also doesn't affect me. And I can not not give a rat's ass about 11/9, because I see and read everyday about US war mongering to "stop global terrorism" and put your flag on top of every flag pole in every middle eastern/south asian country. what your government is doing is raping the rest of the world, under gunpoint. Why should I have to take not being allowed by you to express my opinions on this? Oh, wait... it offends you. Too bad you can't allow only your opinions and suppress others without it not being freedom of speech any longer, huh?
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I don't think it was directly a result of the retrofitting though, since the shuttle had already gone through a couple of successful missions since then.
From a social point of view, of course; it should be independent of any one man's "opinion." (even if I care that my mother died, it would not really make a big difference in the whole system objectively speaking) And anything can be listed in money according to its demand in the economy. :p
so, tell me exactly why spending billions of dollars on launching a few people into space is better than having the economy up to speed again to create jobs for people, and thus giving millions of homeless people a chance to get out of the streets and making a decent living, and having somewhere to live? I believe that the money thrown into space would be better spent here on earth. oh, wait... that is communistic. damn.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
what gets me the most is that there may be a little anti-american/british/australian sentiment goin' round at the moment you can't judge a people just because of their political leaders and their ideals.
can I judge a people because of how they react when I criticise their political leaders and their ideals? please say yes, please please please!
-
what mainly concerns me is the space program
ok the 7 people too but thousands(or millions:confused: ) of people die every day arround the world i cant possibly feel sorry for every single of them including their families, friends and people they knew.
what disturbs me is that everybody trys to make something political out of it .....
-
"i may not agree with your opinion but i will fight to the death for your right to express it" -voltaire
in other words everybodys entitled to their own opinion and anybody who disagrees with that can go to hell :p
-
well well.... freedom of speech, baby. sometimes I wonder if you really have it. I know you brag about it. But do you really want it? the way I see it, it means that all peoples opinions are of equal value, and everyone has the right to express them. But when people disagreeing with your bunch, you try to take this freedom away from me. but guess what, you can't. It's been in the constitution of my country for about as long time as your country has existed. And as I have stated, I do give a rat's ass about this shuttle crasch, but I happen to give more of a rat's ass about other things that also doesn't affect me. And I can not not give a rat's ass about 11/9, because I see and read everyday about US war mongering to "stop global terrorism" and put your flag on top of every flag pole in every middle eastern/south asian country. what your government is doing is raping the rest of the world, under gunpoint. Why should I have to take not being allowed by you to express my opinions on this? Oh, wait... it offends you. Too bad you can't allow only your opinions and suppress others without it not being freedom of speech any longer, huh?
The hypocrisy in this is just incredible. :D I wouldn't really be talking about "equal value of opinion" there; just look at your post before that one. :p
What I like about the US is that it is the great terrorist power of the world (in disguise, of course), and nobody can do a thing about it. :yes: :D
so, tell me exactly why spending billions of dollars on launching a few people into space is better than having the economy up to speed again to create jobs for people, and thus giving millions of homeless people a chance to get out of the streets and making a decent living, and having somewhere to live? I believe that the money thrown into space would be better spent here on earth. oh, wait... that is communistic. damn.
Because that would do little for the advancement for the society compared to the scientific benefits of the space programs. There are more than enough people in the world anyway, and they are quick enough to regenerate to keep the population at least at its current level despite any poverty. Besides, this is a US program, and while poverty is an issue in this country, it is not so much of a problem as to suck away all of the space money.
Oh, and I am a quasi-communist myself, so you don't need to worry about me calling you that. :D
Back on the topic (sort of), how would that nuke propellant system that was brought up here a few weeks ago compare here? Since it does not carry the explosive liquid hydrogen fuel and the nuke plates need to be properly armed before detonation, it would seem that there is less of a chance of an accidental explosion.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I wouldn't really be talking about "equal value of opinion" there; just look at your second last post. :p
actually, I was expressing my opinions. I don't really want freedom of speech. but it's so hard to not abuse it...
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I wouldn't really be talking about "equal value of opinion" there; just look at your second last post. :p
What I like about the US is that it is the great terrorist power of the world (in disguise, of course), and nobody can do a thing about it. :yes: :D
Back on the topic (sort of), how would that nuke propellant system that was brought up here a few weeks ago compare here? Since it does not carry the explosive liquid hydrogen fuel and the nuke plates need to be properly armed before detonation, it would seem that there is less of a chance of an accidental explosion.
hey, I wanted you to explain why the space program is better than helping people to a better life.
-
because its more interesting ?
-
I did now; sorry, I did not see your new posts when typing that up.
actually, I was expressing my opinions. I don't really want freedom of speech. but it's so hard to not abuse it...
The same could be said about anyone else; they are just "expressing their opinions" that you should not have freedom of speech. What is wrong with that? :D
-
Ohman. I feel sorry for those people. :(
As far as i know, I think the heat shields failed and because of friction between the craft and air at high speed, it burned out.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The same could be said about anyone else; they are just "expressing their opinions" that you should not have freedom of speech. What is wrong with that? :D
but if there wasnt freedom of speech they couldnt say that now could they :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Back on the topic (sort of), how would that nuke propellant system that was brought up here a few weeks ago compare here? Since it does not carry the explosive liquid hydrogen fuel and the nuke plates need to be properly armed before detonation, it would seem that there is less of a chance of an accidental explosion.
It wouldn't compare. It may not explode as much on re-entry, but then again you wouldn't want to launch a craft from Earth using that propulsion system. The Orion drive was always intended exclusively for interplanetary or even interstellar missions, not orbital liftintg.
And kode, increased government spending is the alternative to supply-side economics in the US, and I can't think of many bigger projects to spend money on than on a new shuttle design. I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning about the opposition of the space program to economic stimulation. And stop being belligerant unless you are actually adding to the discussion.
EDIT: As this is my first post in this topic, I would add that the deaths of seven individuals so devoted to science and to mankind's future in space is a terrible loss. The whole world should mourn their deaths, not as American or Israeli citizens, but as people who were commited to furthering our race through science and exploration.
-
i wasn't discussing freedom of speech....nor was i discussing anyone's opinion about what happened.....to be honest i don't much care who cares about it or not. Here's what i do care about.....instead of allowing our differences to stregthen us as a community here, we are allowing them to instead be used as ammunition....the shuttle blew....it's a Nasa Problem....has nothing to with politics. Those were the arguements i was talking about, all of the political bull****. if you got defensive about my earlier post......perhaps you should simply ask yourself why....
other than that....i'll be a gentleman and give you the final rebuttle. but then we close this one....k?
-
nothing. but they shouldn't brag about their freedom of speech while doing that.
I'm heading for bed just about now, so I think I'll end this off with a quote I'm quite found of:
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
- Mao Tse-Tung
-
i think NASA's been working on new shuttle designs since challenger but so far, haven't found anything that surpassed the versatility of the current design plus they can't reach escape velocity
-
no they trashed the thing they where working on because researching already costed way more than expected and they ran into troubles with the engines n stuff
-
Originally posted by StratComm
And kode, increased government spending is the alternative to supply-side economics in the US, and I can't think of many bigger projects to spend money on than on a new shuttle design. I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning about the opposition of the space program to economic stimulation. And stop being belligerant unless you are actually adding to the discussion.
then exactly what are we discussing? lemme see... oh, that's right. the shuttle thingy. or was it anti-americanism? or was it perhaps why I should shut my big, dumb, foreign, anti-american, liberal, belligerant (aggressive) mouth? right. I'll be a good euro-trash and shut my mouth now, and you'll be the ignorant american who gives a **** about 7 dead persons in an accident, but not as much about the sick, poor, and homeless.
bring it on. oh, wait... that's "let's roll", isn't it?
*wuvs generalisations*
-
in other words, forget the pen being mightier than the sword 'cause MONEY is more powerful.. that or a nuke :p
-
Originally posted by kode
the way I see it, it means that all peoples opinions are of equal value, and everyone has the right to express them. But when people disagreeing with your bunch, you try to take this freedom away from me.
God I hate this fallacy. Look, our Constitution only guarantees freedom of speech in PUBLIC forums. This is not a public forum. It's private, and the mods can oppress whoever they feel like.
As for the "who cares, it's only 7 people" crowd, you're not recognizing that this falls under the category of a Tragic Celebrity Death. When Princess Di was killed, or JFK, or Martin Luther King Jr, was anyone saying "Who cares, it's just one person?" (okay yeah probably some people did). Even though the Columbia crew wasn't famous individually, the role they occupied was. Combine their deaths with the spectacular destruction of a very expensive showpiece of the American space program, and people are bound to be talking about both the event and its ramifications.
-
It wouldn't compare. It may not explode as much on re-entry, but then again you wouldn't want to launch a craft from Earth using that propulsion system. The Orion drive was always intended exclusively for interplanetary or even interstellar missions, not orbital liftintg.
The idea could be extended to that though, right? After all, escaping the Earth's atmosphere is where almost all of the fuel is used up. I suppose there is the issue of global radiation, but there could still be a couple of launches carried out in remote places like antarctica without too much danger.
but if there wasnt freedom of speech they couldnt say that now could they
They just say that they get the freedom while others don't. :D
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
Ah, I fully agree here. :D
I'll be a good euro-trash and shut my mouth now, and you'll be the ignorant american who gives a **** about 7 dead persons in an accident, but not as much about the sick, poor, and homeless.
Exactly. Even if you limit this to the people alone, there are much larger numbers of sick/poor/homeless than trained astronauts and there is less chance that they could become something which is high in demand, so they are worth less; it is as simple as that. :D (see, compare the percentage of poor people dying compared to that of astronauts)
-
I know that, ZylonBane. In fact, I am going downtown tomorrow to get my message out to the masses.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly. Even if you limit this to the people alone, there are much larger numbers of sick/poor/homeless than trained astronauts and there is less chance that they could become something which is high in demand, so they are worth less; it is as simple as that. :D
as is your opinion to me. and no, I wouldn't lift a finger to defend that right for you.
-
Ah, and all opinions are of "equal value," eh? This is getting better and better... :D
fr3d0m 0f 5p34ch!!!11
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Ah, and all opinions are of "equal value," eh? This is getting better and better... :D
yes. all opinions are worthless to me.
-
I take it you changed your mind since your last couple of posts then? :D (unless you consider your own opinion worthless, of course)
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
i think NASA's been working on new shuttle designs since challenger but so far, haven't found anything that surpassed the versatility of the current design plus they can't reach escape velocity
:wtf: Its called money, NASA dont have enough money to make the next generation shuttlecraft, there are tons of designs etc etc, possible stuff, but they dont have the funds. 1 in 4 Discovery programs used to have pictures of the new shuttle that'll never appear due to budget constraints.
Its possible this disaster could of been human error and that there is nothing actually wrong with the shuttles. Re-entry is extremely dangerous.
-
Originally posted by kode
well well.... freedom of speech, baby.
You don`t have that here. Freedom of speech means you can set up your own board and have people go there.
It doesn`t mean you can come onto this board and talk trash. HLP isn`t a free board in that respect. You talk about what the mods want you to talk about or you get censored or booted. Don`t like it. Set up your own board.
Instead of complaining about american imperialism why don't you just show some ****ing sensitivity. I know that those peoples lives weren`t any more valuable than 7 starving kids in africa or any other 7 people but they were still people.
If someone sees fit to say they are sorrowful at their loss have some ****ing respect.
This isn`t a topic about 9/11. If you want to talk about that you can go elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I take it you changed your mind since your last couple of posts then? :D (unless you consider your own opinion worthless, of course)
no. my opinions are also worthless. but you don't think your's are. just everyone disagreeing with you.
-
Originally posted by kode
then exactly what are we discussing? lemme see... oh, that's right. the shuttle thingy. or was it anti-americanism? or was it perhaps why I should shut my big, dumb, foreign, anti-american, liberal, belligerant (aggressive) mouth? right. I'll be a good euro-trash and shut my mouth now, and you'll be the ignorant american who gives a **** about 7 dead persons in an accident, but not as much about the sick, poor, and homeless.
bring it on. oh, wait... that's "let's roll", isn't it?
*wuvs generalisations*
I rest my case. I'm not making any references to nationality or political leanings in telling you to shut up, it's just that I, like a number of people around here, am getting tired of seeing you shoot your mouth off. And until you have met me and talked with me at greater length about my beliefs and convictions, calling me "the ignorant American" doesn't bother me in the least. Rather, it only serves to further the conviction that you are arguing just for the sake of argument and getting people all riled up.
-
no. my opinions are also worthless. but you don't think your's are. just everyone disagreeing with you.
But that would create a contradiction, because if your opinions are worthless, then your opinion that your opinions are worthless is also worthless, so it has worth, which means it is does not have worth, and so on. :p
I try to judge them on the rationality of the opinions themselves independently of where they came from. I do think that some "freedom of speech" is necessary for today's societies to function, whatever the actual opinions are, but that might change in the future.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You don`t have that here. Freedom of speech means you can set up your own board and have people go there.
It doesn`t mean you can come onto this board and talk trash. HLP isn`t a free board in that respect. You talk about what the mods want you to talk about or you get censored or booted. Don`t like it. Set up your own board.
Instead of complaining about american imperialism why don't you just show some ****ing sensitivity. I know that those peoples lives weren`t any more valuable than 7 starving kids in africa or any other 7 people but they were still people.
If someone sees fit to say they are sorrowful at their loss have some ****ing respect.
This isn`t a topic about 9/11. If you want to talk about that you can go elsewhere.
I am aware of that. If they don't like what I'm saying, I WANT them to ban me for it. but the MEMBER that told me that I wasn't allowed to express my opinions in this topic was not a MOD or an ADMIN.
you have obviously missed to point I was expressing. I think that I in my first post here stated that I do not dislike americans, america, or anything or anyone else in the world. I even said that I cared for them, but in proportion to everyone else dying. I think that message at least got true, however it seemed to have glitched a little.
I mentioned 11/9 once. I haven't mentioned mentioned imperialism as much. Only that I think that your country is raping the rest of the world just because they can. the schoolyard bully of earth, if you will. I can not say that I am okay with that. you however, might be.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
The idea could be extended to that though, right? After all, escaping the Earth's atmosphere is where almost all of the fuel is used up. I suppose there is the issue of global radiation, but there could still be a couple of launches carried out in remote places like antarctica without too much danger.
Not for a vessel as often-used as the shuttle, and in reality, not at all. In antartica you have the issue of thermal pollution as well, plus the fact that the radiation released even while in orbit would still find it's way back to earth. You have to get out or earth's gravity far enough for the radioactive particles to at least take a while to get back to earth before nuclear propulsion could be considered safe. And I don't know how well that drive would function with the fluid motion of the air around the explosions was factored in; it sort of depends on the blast coming from directly behind the ship and wind on the ship or the bomb could easily mess up that alignment.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I rest my case. I'm not making any references to nationality or political leanings in telling you to shut up, it's just that I, like a number of people around here, am getting tired of seeing you shoot your mouth off. And until you have met me and talked with me at greater length about my beliefs and convictions, calling me "the ignorant American" doesn't bother me in the least. Rather, it only serves to further the conviction that you are arguing just for the sake of argument and getting people all riled up.
If I was, it'd be working in your case, wouldn't it?
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Not for a vessel as often-used as the shuttle, and in reality, not at all. In antartica you have the issue of thermal pollution as well, plus the fact that the radiation released even while in orbit would still find it's way back to earth. You have to get out or earth's gravity far enough for the radioactive particles to at least take a while to get back to earth before nuclear propulsion could be considered safe. And I don't know how well that drive would function with the fluid motion of the air around the explosions was factored in; it sort of depends on the blast coming from directly behind the ship and wind on the ship or the bomb could easily mess up that alignment.
Actually you`re both missing the biggest point. The shuttle blew not on launch but on re-entry.
While orion might be great for launching things (if you don`t care about pollution) how would you land it? :D
-
I mentioned 11/9 once. I haven't mentioned mentioned imperialism as much. Only that I think that your country is raping the rest of the world just because they can. the schoolyard bully of earth, if you will. I can not say that I am okay with that. you however, might be.
Refer to an earlier response of mine there. Of course we are "raping the world," since as I said, we are the big bad terrorists, but nobody can do anything about it at the moment. Sorry, that's the way the world works.
Not for a vessel as often-used as the shuttle, and in reality, not at all. In antartica you have the issue of thermal pollution as well, plus the fact that the radiation released even while in orbit would still find it's way back to earth. You have to get out or earth's gravity far enough for the radioactive particles to at least take a while to get back to earth before nuclear propulsion could be considered safe. And I don't know how well that drive would function with the fluid motion of the air around the explosions was factored in; it sort of depends on the blast coming from directly behind the ship and wind on the ship or the bomb could easily mess up that alignment.
I suppose you are right there, but that would really seem to undermine the effectiveness of the thing, since the amount of fuel used while in space is very small compared to that used up when leaving the atmosphere.
Actually you`re both missing the biggest point. The shuttle blew not on launch but on re-entry.
While orion might be great for launching things (if you don`t care about pollution) how would you land it? :D
It still had a little bit of extra fuel in it though, and even that is enough to cause a massive explosion if ignited incorrectly.
The old parachute ocean landing system, maybe? :D Although even the shuttle apparently does not use any fuel for landing, but rather utilizies the Earth's gravity to get it going.
-
Originally posted by kode
I mentioned 11/9 once. I haven't mentioned mentioned imperialism as much. Only that I think that your country is raping the rest of the world just because they can. the schoolyard bully of earth, if you will. I can not say that I am okay with that. you however, might be.
Kode. You really should pay more attention. :lol:
-
an0n's summary of his opinions
I care about the crew of the Columbia about ten times as much as I care about the people who died in the twin towers. The astronauts aboard the Columbia were clever, fit, productive members of society and a great asset to the gene pool. The people in the twin towers however were just average Joes and the effect of their deaths is little more than a loss of man-power.
I have no sympathy or feelings of remorse towards the accident, or the families of those involved, the simple fact is that some really clever people died and that is all I give a **** about. That and the fact that without space-travel mankind will undoubtedly be ****ed and this incident is a blow to future expansion and domination of the human race.
The lives of the Astronauts aboard the Columbia ARE worth more than 7 tramps, or 7 etheopians because they are smarter, stronger, faster and more of an asset to the human race.
For example, I would gladly kill several hundred people to save the life of someone like Stephen Hawking.
But really, I still don't give a ****.
-
If we had a topic about every little tragedy where somebody died then the forum would never get anywhere. I dont like it when people just post to "show respect" cause it doesnt get us anywhere. Seven people died, its a trajedy for the people who knew them, but its not for anyone else. What the tragedy is, and a minor one at that, is the set back to the american space program, and the impact on space exploration as a civilization. People are being over-sensitive and its becoming meaningless.
To those who lost family members and friends, yes its a tragedy, but for random people looking for some random deaths to hop on the "oh its so bad" bandwagon they might as well not even care. It doesnt get anyone anywhere.
A friend of mine died from an asthma attack 2 months ago on our school prom night, she was just 17, thats a tragedy to me. I didnt mention it on HLP cause then it looses meaning. If people are saying how sorry they feel for someone thats died but they didnt even know existed, then what is the meaning? Its a false display of emotion, sure they may feel bad about it but the only reason they have to feel bad is because someone died. Thats it.
Today the space shuttle broke up on re-entry, 7 astonauts were killed.
Thats what happened. The loss to the families is 7 people, but to everyone else its part of the space program, see the differences.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Kode. You really should pay more attention. :lol:
humour me.
-
I am aware of that. If they don't like what I'm saying, I WANT them to ban me for it. but the MEMBER that told me that I wasn't allowed to express my opinions in this topic was not a MOD or an ADMIN.
and you want them to ban you for what reason? So that you may appear to be a martyr? Or so that you have ammunition to show that everyone is out to get you.
As far as you stating that you do not dislike America or Americans.....
I'll be a good euro-trash and shut my mouth now, and you'll be the ignorant american
and so for this and many other annoyances, you have earned the distinction of being only the third person i have ever ignored in ANY forum. Not for being anti american, not for being agressive, not even for being an infantile egomaniac. It's just because in some things you spend time, in others you waste time, and you my friend, are a waste of time, at least in my opinion.....oh and i am allowed to express one......... freedom of speech and all.
Welcome to ignore.
-
There's an ignore function?
*abuses the ignore function*
-
an0n and beatspete: you really expressed my opinions well there. :yes: The main setback here is that it is going to be quite a blow to the space program as a whole and will definitely result in the postphoning or even cancellation of some future missions.
-
well... wasting my time with giving you an answer wouldn't do any of us any good, since I am being ignored by you.
be my guest.
-
anyway! back on track this is the space shuttle tearing itself apart in a firey catastrope thread. please divert "I hate empieralist american pig dogs!" and other pointless political comments to someplace with people who care.
after listening to the technicle debriefing it sounds like the failure was associated with the left wing. first the thermal sensor for one of the left control sufaces went out. then the left tire preasure and wheelwell then structural temperature showed an increase. then boom! also coincidentaly during lift off a piece of something i think insalation detached and struck the left wing.
from what i could see in the video. something comes off, followed by two disturbances in the vapor trail which could have been caused explosively or areodynamicly but i would wager explosively. then the orbiter apears to rotate into a verticle position shortly after this rotation, dissintigration occurs.
but I could be compleatly wrong.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Actually you`re both missing the biggest point. The shuttle blew not on launch but on re-entry.
While orion might be great for launching things (if you don`t care about pollution) how would you land it? :D
I do realize that, but I was simply saying (at first) that the use of that drive in Earth's atmosphere, period, is not a suitable use for that form of propulsion. The latter posts have been clarification on why one wouldn't use them in the atmosphere, including launch and re-entry. Read on.
Originally posted by CP5670
I suppose you are right there, but that would really seem to undermine the effectiveness of the thing, since the amount of fuel used while in space is very small compared to that used up when leaving the atmosphere.
Not really, it was designed to get from planet A to planet B in the shortest time possible, not to launch from planet A or land on planet B. The nukes were there to provide acceleration toward the destination (and probably to slow the approach as well) and so would not ever be in contact with a planet. They were supposed to be constructed in orbit, not launched from the surface. We just realized that there wasn't really a good way to do that with our current level of technology.
Sorry, can't resist...
Originally posted by kode
If I was, it'd be working in your case, wouldn't it?
Arguing for the sake of argument (that post) and being belligerant = my case. You have shown both, so I rest my case. Period.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
an0n and beatspete: you really expressed my opinions well there. :yes: The main setback here is that it is going to be quite a blow to the space program as a whole and will definitely result in the postphoning or even cancellation of some future missions.
Not so. If NASA falls, then all the skilled technicians and staff will quickly be recuited by China.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
It still had a little bit of extra fuel in it though, and even that is enough to cause a massive explosion if ignited incorrectly.
The old parachute ocean landing system, maybe? :D Although even the shuttle apparently does not use any fuel for landing, but rather utilizies the Earth's gravity to get it going.
See my point? That's not safer than the shuttles method of landing is it. We were discussing orion as a safer replacement for the shuttle and it obviously isn`t.
And that's without getting into the parallel arguement of what happens when the Orion comes down to land with "a little bit of extra fuel in it" :D
-
Originally posted by kode
humour me.
I`m NOT american. Strange how you seem to assume everyone is.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I`m NOT american. Strange how you seem to assume everyone is.
........You're pro-america. Same difference.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Arguing for the sake of argument (that post) and being belligerant = my case. You have shown both, so I rest my case. Period.
right. I said I was gonna shut up. truly sorry, jolly fella. but aren't you also arguing just for arguments sake?
don't bother to answer. I'm gonna have some dumb semi-witty reply to that too :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I`m NOT american. Strange how you seem to assume everyone is.
what an0n said.
-
There's an ignore function?
User control panel....edit ignore list.
-
Originally posted by kode
what an0n said.
[isaac-hayes]Daaaamn, straight.[/isaac-hayes]
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
User control panel....edit ignore list.
I'd better not have to start using [sarcasm] tags again.
-
kode, for some reason you are starting to remind me of vadar_1.
Vadar_1 was a complete asshole, just so you know. And you are slowly becoming a Troll, and Trolls are a major part of what shut down the VBB.
__________
My family, and some of your arguements have changed my mind about the value of the shuttle and its crew.
The space program is one of the symbols of national pride for the United States. Losing seven highly trained, worthwhile human beings is much worse than losing seven drug lords, or seven muggers, or seven rapists.
-
Oh, Christ..........
*grabs anti-flame suit*
-
Kode, it amazes me how ingorant, arrogant, and incredibly stupid you are. Realize it or not, some people care for more than their own personal benefit; those 7 astronauts that died today put their lives on the line in the first place for the advancement of humanity, the very least you can do is show them and their families some respect.
I agree with ShadowWolf, welcome to ignore.
-
Not so. If NASA falls, then all the skilled technicians and staff will quickly be recuited by China.
That would work out, but the problem then is that they would have to start over from an earlier stage (building shuttles again and so on), which would be a setback.
See my point? That's not safer than the shuttles method of landing is it. We were discussing orion as a safer replacement for the shuttle and it obviously isn`t.
eh? It can utilize the same method of landing without using any engines.
And that's without getting into the parallel arguement of what happens when the Orion comes down to land with "a little bit of extra fuel in it"
Still, they will not do anything unless properly armed and cannot just explode in flames accidently like the usual fuel can.
Not really, it was designed to get from planet A to planet B in the shortest time possible, not to launch from planet A or land on planet B. The nukes were there to provide acceleration toward the destination (and probably to slow the approach as well) and so would not ever be in contact with a planet. They were supposed to be constructed in orbit, not launched from the surface. We just realized that there wasn't really a good way to do that with our current level of technology.
As far as that goes though, the conventional oxidation approach would work fine, since the amount of fuel used for these purposes is pretty small. There would be a slight benefit in costs, but not quite as much as those articles posted before seemed to imply.
-
Respect for those aboard is one thing. Sorrow and sympathy are an entirely different matter, as is respect for their families.
-
I'd better not have to start using [sarcasm] tags again.
You might want to start........you are beginning to have trouble recognizing it. :D
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
You might want to start........you are beginning to have trouble recognizing it. :D
.................................****.
-
Originally posted by kode
what an0n said.
Wrong again. I`m pro-america for what they get right and anti-america in the large number of things they get wrong.
The grounding of the shuttle fleet is a blow to the INTERNATIONAL space station and therefore a blow to every country who had an interest in that station.
-
kode=only person on my ignore list.
-
I am not a troll. A troll posts to get attention and a flamewar going. I post because I believe I have something to say. I try to be on topic. I try to help people out if they have questions (even though I have limited knowledge in things such as freespace modding). I even try to close my eyes when I see hypocrisy and ignorance all around. I do not flame deliberately. I am not vadar_1. I am me. I am unique. I think for myself. I do not listen to all the lies people are trying to tell me. I wish everyone well. I believe that disagreements can be straightened out with words and not fists. I believe that if everyone helped each other out, we could make this planet a planet worth living on.
I hope that you do to.
How much is the life of an astronaut worth compared to seven family fathers? or seven new born babies? or seven mother theresa's? or seven gandhis? or seven other unique human beings?
are humans equal, or are they not?
seems like I typed this in vain.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Wrong again. I`m pro-america for what they get right and anti-america in the large number of things they get wrong.
The grounding of the shuttle fleet is a blow to the INTERNATIONAL space station and therefore a blow to every country who had an interest in that station.
So there's an Iraqi section to the ISS? And Indian, and Pakistani and Bosnian and Afghan?
'International' means nothing. 'International' could mean it was a space-station built and run by Nazi-Germany and Mussolini-Italy.
-
Originally posted by kode
I am not a troll. A troll posts to get attention and a flamewar going. I post because I believe I have something to say. I try to be on topic.
~-=™! *whistles conspicuously* !™=-~
How much is the life of an astronaut worth compared to seven family fathers? or seven new born babies? or seven mother theresa's? or seven gandhis? or seven other unique human beings?
are humans equal, or are they not?
~-=™! Everything is equal, with the exception of adults in relation to each other as their full potential can be assertained and compared to other adults. !™=-~
-
Originally posted by CP5670
As far as that goes though, the conventional oxidation approach would work fine, since the amount of fuel used for these purposes is pretty small. There would be a slight benefit in costs, but not quite as much as those articles posted before seemed to imply.
But the more fuel that could be directed toward accelerating the ship towards its destination, the sooner it will get there. Thus, interplanetary travel and the Orion's advantages. Plus, you aren't storing highly volitile fuel, so a breach of the fuel containment pods wouldn't result in being set adrift in deep space. The original example, the ship in Deep Impact, is a good case in point for the advantages of the Orion drive, when time is important you need that extra kick.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Wrong again. I`m pro-america for what they get right and anti-america in the large number of things they get wrong.
The grounding of the shuttle fleet is a blow to the INTERNATIONAL space station and therefore a blow to every country who had an interest in that station.
well... woot for that. so other countries might do the flight up to leave goods and stuff instead. after all, the fact that it is international must mean something along those lines?
however, I seem to be ignorant about that. so I guess I'm on your ignore list too.
-
does anyone remember the painting of the Bald eagle's head, with a launching shuttle reflected in his eye, and a tear coming out of that eye? It was painted after the challenger disaster. I'll have to get ahold of my cousin to get the name of the painting, and show you guys if you haven't seen it. It's pretty powerful.
-
"Welcome aboard the americanrussianfrenchbrittishgermancanadianetc Space Station..."
Doesnt have the same ring to it, stop picking faults an0n.
And whats up with all the ignoring, grow up, its better to hear someones (poor) opinion than not to listen to it at all, thats just arogant.
-
Originally posted by an0n
~-=™! Everything is equal, with the exception of adults in relation to each other as their full potential can be assertained and compared to other adults. !™=-~
darn. you got me. from now on, I'm a socialist darwinist. the strong survives!!!
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
does anyone remember the painting of the Bald eagle's head, with a launching shuttle reflected in his eye, and a tear coming out of that eye? It was painted after the challenger disaster. I'll have to get ahold of my cousin to get the name of the painting, and show you guys if you haven't seen it. It's pretty powerful.
..........It's a painting. It's ink, paint, water and canvas. Nothing more than a pretty decoration. If you need a painting to convey the sense of loss at a tradgedy then obviously the facts of the incident aren't sufficient and thus it deserves no further thought.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
"Welcome aboard the americanrussianfrenchbrittishgermancanadianetc Space Station..."
Doesnt have the same ring to it, stop picking faults an0n.
And whats up with all the ignoring, grow up, its better to hear someones (poor) opinion than not to listen to it at all, thats just arogant.
to paraphrase heretic (I think), "you know you're winning the argument when the other part is putting their hands against their ears and start to hum"
or I'm just to ignorant to give that rat's ass....
-
Originally posted by beatspete
If we had a topic about every little tragedy where somebody died then the forum would never get anywhere. I dont like it when people just post to "show respect" cause it doesnt get us anywhere. Seven people died, its a trajedy for the people who knew them, but its not for anyone else. What the tragedy is, and a minor one at that, is the set back to the american space program, and the impact on space exploration as a civilization. People are being over-sensitive and its becoming meaningless.
To those who lost family members and friends, yes its a tragedy, but for random people looking for some random deaths to hop on the "oh its so bad" bandwagon they might as well not even care. It doesnt get anyone anywhere.
A friend of mine died from an asthma attack 2 months ago on our school prom night, she was just 17, thats a tragedy to me. I didnt mention it on HLP cause then it looses meaning. If people are saying how sorry they feel for someone thats died but they didnt even know existed, then what is the meaning? Its a false display of emotion, sure they may feel bad about it but the only reason they have to feel bad is because someone died. Thats it.
Today the space shuttle broke up on re-entry, 7 astonauts were killed.
Thats what happened. The loss to the families is 7 people, but to everyone else its part of the space program, see the differences.
****ing damn right.
Absolutely spot on in every respect.
-
see that's where you make a mistake......
when someone says the word sky, you don't see the letters s-k-y, your mind sees the sky. It's all a symbology. That's what art is in any form. It speaks to us on a deeper level than logic, because of the symbology it uses to convey it's message.
Some people understand what is happening, some don't.
-
so what you're saying is, that you somewhat share my opinions here?
and, uh, a personal request of mine:
if you add me to your ignore list, please write it in your sig that you have, so I don't waste my time answering you.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
eh? It can utilize the same method of landing without using any engines. .
You`re landing in exactly the same way as the shuttle does (with the back end of your craft now radioactive) and taking off in a more dangerous method (at least to the surrounding area and probably to yourself). So you`re back to square one. :) The shuttle is still safer.
Originally posted by CP5670
Still, they will not do anything unless properly armed and cannot just explode in flames accidently like the usual fuel can.
So not content with potentially raining debris over Texas in the event of an accident the inhabitants also have to worry about plutonium raining down on them too? :p Nukes also do contain an explosive charge (although great care is taken to make sure THAT doesn`t go off by mistake) but still if you're building lots of them to launch Orions the chance of building a dud does go up.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
"Welcome aboard the americanrussianfrenchbrittishgermancanadianetc Space Station..."
Doesnt have the same ring to it, stop picking faults an0n.
Thank you, I was about to say the same thing.
And whats up with all the ignoring, grow up, its better to hear someones (poor) opinion than not to listen to it at all, thats just arogant. [/B]
If it is an opinion, then that's all well and good and I couldn't agree more. It wasn't kode's opinions that got so many people to ignore him, it's his general attitude toward them. He's not trying to convey his opinions, he's trying to pick a fight. He won't stay on most of those lists, but I can't think of a better way to force him to cool down before he gets the thread locked than letting him rant and rave without the temptation to reply.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
see that's where you make a mistake......
when someone says the word sky, you don't see the letters s-k-y, your mind sees the sky. It's all a symbology. That's what art is in any form. It speaks to us on a deeper level than logic, because of the symbology it uses to convey it's message.
Some people understand what is happening, some don't.
..........No. A picture is a picture. Sometimes a picture will display object which you associate to certain emotions and memories, but it's till just a picture. You won't think "Wow, that Eagle is so sad.", you'll think "I remember how I felt when I heard about those brave souls aboard the Challenger.".
-
In my oppinion the art and music can convey emotions better than words.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So not content with potentially raining debris over Texas in the event of an accident the inhabitants also have to worry about plutonium raining down on them too? :p Nukes also do contain an explosive charge (although great care is taken to make sure THAT doesn`t go off by mistake) but still if you're building lots of them to launch Orions the chance of building a dud does go up.
well... isn't half of nevada radioactive from those nuclear tests in the 50's? making some land radio active is a risk willing to be taken...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So not content with potentially raining debris over Texas in the event of an accident the inhabitants also have to worry about plutonium raining down on them too?
That's actually happened before. As I recall, some russian satellite went streaming across the upper-atmosphere raining plutonium across the globe.
-
Originally posted by Hades
In my oppinion the art and music can convey emotions better than words.
No, music presents you with sounds which you associate with certain moods and levels of activity. This, in turn makes you feel a certain way and as such when you are presented with the lyrics, you feel a certain way. It's basically a weak form of brain-washing.
But still, all it is doing is making you remember past instances and memories.
-
see? you do understand. sorta........
:D
-
The bald eagle is no more an emotion envoking image than a picture of a shoe.
But it makes you remember how you felt when you saw the Challenger and those memories are what create feelings and emotions.
It is no more effective than saying; "Do you remember the Challenger disaster?"
-
Originally posted by StratComm
but I can't think of a better way to force him to cool down before he gets the thread locked than letting him rant and rave without the temptation to reply.
Hmmm. T'is true.
-
Originally posted by an0n
..........No. A picture is a picture. Sometimes a picture will display object which you associate to certain emotions and memories, but it's till just a picture. You won't think "Wow, that Eagle is so sad.", you'll think "I remember how I felt when I heard about those brave souls aboard the Challenger.".
A picture of the challenger exploding though wouldn't have the same effect. You are really very right here an0n, but if a picture calls up memories strong enough to bring back the emotions that that memory formed under, then it is moving. And since both relate to a similar event, I think that picture is very touching right now. It's meant to appeal to Americans, so perhaps an image different from the bald eagle would be appropriate, but the point still stands.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
Hmmm. T'is true.
bah, seriously. ask them to put it in their sigs.
-
I'm not going to put him on the ignore list, as I can still get a laugh out of the posts if nothing else. :D
How much is the life of an astronaut worth compared to seven family fathers? or seven new born babies? or seven mother theresa's? or seven gandhis? or seven other unique human beings?
Most likely more, depending on what the seven others turn out to be, but from a statistical perspective the chances are not too high that at least one of the others will become astronauts as well. As for the Gandhis, they are more of a threat to humanity than an asset. :D
But the more fuel that could be directed toward accelerating the ship towards its destination, the sooner it will get there. Thus, interplanetary travel and the Orion's advantages. Plus, you aren't storing highly volitile fuel, so a breach of the fuel containment pods wouldn't result in being set adrift in deep space. The original example, the ship in Deep Impact, is a good case in point for the advantages of the Orion drive, when time is important you need that extra kick.
Which is why it would provide some advantage, but not nearly as much as it could have had it worked in atmospheric conditions. Still, it's something, right? :D
So not content with potentially raining debris over Texas in the event of an accident the inhabitants also have to worry about plutonium raining down on them too? Nukes also do contain an explosive charge (although great care is taken to make sure THAT doesn`t go off by mistake) but still if you're building lots of them to launch Orions the chance of building a dud does go up.
Actually if they launch it over Antarctica, for example, there would not be any inhabitants to worry about. :D
No, music presents you with sounds which you associate with certain moods and levels of activity. This, in turn makes you feela certain way and as such when you are presented with the lyrics, you feel a certain way. It's basically a weak form of brain-washing.
Yes, anything can convey any meaning if you are used to seeing it that way. I personally am going to stick to my equations. :D
-
Originally posted by beatspete
And whats up with all the ignoring, grow up, its better to hear someones (poor) opinion than not to listen to it at all, thats just arogant.
Call me arrogant Texan but the opinions of an idiot are not worth to me the time it takes to read them.
-
Anyway I'm going to leave for a bit; keep that arguing going! :yes:
*wonders how long it will be until an admin comes here and closes the thread*
-
As long as we are now on this road.....ever hear of the term sensory overlap? When i listen to music......i can almost see it as light or dark.....i mean i actually get a visual sensation of light or dark in my mind.......a friend of mine on the other hand will say something like: I like that song, it has a good flavor. Whereas music gives me a visual representation to express how i feel abotu it, for Lan it crosses into taste. Now if i could just hear Pizza...........
-
Originally posted by CP5670
*wonders how long it will be until an admin comes here and closes the thread*
:nervous: I've got my money on less than two hours :nervous:
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
Call me arrogant Texan but the opinions of an idiot are not worth to me the time it takes to read them.
nah, this one's too cheap...
seriously, tho. I kind of respected you at one point.
-
The picture IS NOT MOVING.
Show it to a five year old and he'll say "Hehe, that eagle has a white head.". The image itself has no meaning. It is simply the symbology within which pokes at your memory and thought patterns. For example, if you looked at a picture of the Columbia streaming towards the ground without knowing what it was, you'd think "Cool firework.", it is only because you associate the bald-eagle with america, a single tear with extreme sadness and the shuttle with the Challenger disaster that there is any emotion as a result of the memories stoked up by the picture. And the image of the eagle creates a sense that all of America was sad, this interacts with your own feelings of the incident and magnifies it to an epic scale, this creates emotion, not the picture of an eagle.
If you showed a picture of the Twin Towers exploding to a member of Al Qaeda, he'd probably laugh his ass off, therefore I summise that no image carries any inherant emotion and any/all reactions which result from viewing of any picture are merely due to the interaction and associations of the images contained within said picture within the mind of the observer.
And this, kids, is why I should've taken Psychology and Philosophy at college. BOO-YA!
-
Originally posted by an0n
And this, kids, is why I should've taken Psychology and Philosophy at college. BOO-YA!
That and the free therapy! :p :lol:
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
Call me arrogant Texan but the opinions of an idiot are not worth to me the time it takes to read them.
...and if your 'ignoree' thinks the same about you?
Originally posted by CP5670
Yes, anything can convey any meaning if you are used to seeing it that way. I personally am going to stick to my equations. :D
cos45=1/(2^1/2) :(
:D
Originally posted by CP5670
*wonders how long it will be until an admin comes here and closes the thread*
Yip, it'll happen. :blah:
An0n is right (mostly). A picture is nothing unless you associate something with what is contained within it. Someone looking at the challenger photos might think "cool explosion", unless somebody pointed out what it actually was. Thats when it gains meaning.
-
Actually, I'll have a free block next year, so i could take the first year of one of them and make up the second year at University.
-
"nothing is anything in itself"
-siddharta gauma (buddha for you uneducated masses ;))
-
Originally posted by beatspete
cos45=1/(2^1/2) :(
The annoying thing is, that's right.
-
Originally posted by kode
"nothing is anything in itself"
-siddharta gauma (buddha for you uneducated masses ;))
Or as Einstein put it: It's all relative.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Or as Einstein put it: It's all relative.
he also said "there are only two things that are infinite; the universe and human stupidity. I'm not to sure on the second one"...
-
*wonders if this falls under nitpicking*
Originally posted by an0n
The picture IS NOT MOVING.
Show it to a five year old and he'll say "Hehe, that eagle has a white head.". The image itself has no meaning. It is simply the symbology within which pokes at your memory and thought patterns. For example, if you looked at a picture of the Columbia streaming towards the ground without knowing what it was, you'd think "Cool firework.", it is only because you associate the bald-eagle with america, a single tear with extreme sadness and the shuttle with the Challenger disaster that there is any emotion as a result of the memories stoked up by the picture. And the image of the eagle creates a sense that all of America was sad, this interacts with your own feelings of the incident and magnifies it to an epic scale, this creates emotion, not the picture of an eagle.
If you showed a picture of the Twin Towers exploding to a member of Al Qaeda, he'd probably laugh his ass off, therefore I summise that no image carries any inherant emotion and any/all reactions which result from viewing of any picture are merely due to the interaction and associations of the images contained within said picture within the mind of the observer.
And this, kids, is why I should've taken Psychology and Philosophy at college. BOO-YA!
It's not universal, no. But in societal contexts pictures can be very moving. I saw so many 9-11 images that weren't moving (to an American I would add, though a good number were) simply because they were aesthetically bad, so just calling up the memory isn't enough. A picture (or music, etc) has to be thought-provoking enough to force your mind to recreate the memory in whole, including the emotional context. It is in this way that a picture can be moving, and symbolism has a lot to do with it. The reason that images (or sounds) are more powerful than words is that language is, 99% of the time, a not particularly effective means of communicating either an image or an emotion.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
see that's where you make a mistake......
when someone says the word sky, you don't see the letters s-k-y, your mind sees the sky. It's all a symbology. That's what art is in any form. It speaks to us on a deeper level than logic, because of the symbology it uses to convey it's message.
Some people understand what is happening, some don't.
you seem to think that objects have inherent (objective) meaning and somehow we can access that.... <--- total bull****
-
Each time you saw images of the towers, your mind associated them with whatever you were doing at the time, and after a while the association with the shock of the attack faded into the background.
And kode: It's the other way round.
-
Originally posted by beatspete
...and if your 'ignoree' thinks the same about you?
Does it matter? In fact, if he does, then its a perfect arrangement; I don't have to waste my time reading his views and he doesn't have to waste his time reading mine :D.
And an0n, you're right about the picture in the sense that the picture itself has no meaning by itself other than looking good; but show it to anyone who remembers the Challenger incident and it's more powerful than words if for no reason other than the fact that it eliminates the need for words in order to convey message behind the painting.
EDIT: But I suppose that just means its relative, heh.
-
Kam: I DEMAND you change your sig back!
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
And an0n, you're right about the picture in the sense that the picture itself has no meaning by itself other than looking good; but show it to anyone who remembers the Challenger incident and it's more powerful than words if for no reason other than the fact that it eliminates the need for words in order to convey message behind the painting.
EDIT: But I suppose that just means its relative, heh.
Yup. Upon viewing, the mind of the observer creates a message, but there is no message or feeling within the picture itself.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
you seem to think that objects have inherent (objective) meaning and somehow we can access that.... <--- total bull****
Actually he is stressing the importance of symbolism, and I didn't catch it at first. I may be reading too much into it, but by using "symbology" rather than "symbolism" ShadowWolf points out that that picture, and other "moving" works intentionally make use of symbols and the way in which people will react to them. English can be so specific if it's used correctly, something that so few native-speakers can do.
And nowhere does he say that it is universal (see my above post).
-
Originally posted by an0n
And kode: It's the other way round.
no.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/q100015.html
-
you seem to think that objects have inherent (objective) meaning and somehow we can access that.... <--- total bull****
not at all. The only meaning any object can have is a meaning that we assign to it. Even money.......the only thing that even makes money worth anything is the fact that we as a society give it that power. It is a common acceptance. No object has power. No object has meaning. Images on the other hand do. Images can be symbols, and more often than not, are symbols. At least within the context of this discussion.
-
Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
not at all. The only meaning any object can have is a meaning that we assign to it. Even money.......the only thing that even makes money worth anything is the fact that we as a society give it that power. It is a common acceptance. No object has power. No object has meaning. Images on the other hand do. Images can be symbols, and more often than not, are symbols. At least within the context of this discussion.
attached meaning is only in our little subjective existence. doesn't make sense to say "The only meaning..."
-
All art is subjective. The images and feelings which are created within the mind of the observer as a result of viewing are as a result of their interpretation of the thoughts and feelings which were in the artist at the time of its conception.
If the artist was sexually abused at a lake-side cabin as a child, then their painting of a lake-side cabin is one of terror and fear, but to someone else it is merely a picturesque landscape painting.
Images carry no inherant meaning, message or feeling. They merely use common associations within the general population to create a certain sense within the observers mind.
-
Originally posted by kode
no.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/q100015.html
Wow, that was confusing. Yes, that is the quote [kode] that you have linked to, and yes, [an0n] kode originally wrote it backwards. The former means the temporally first one, so it comes out to this:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about [the universe]." I think you both have it right in your minds though.
-
Originally posted by kode
no.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/q100015.html
Evidently Kode doesn`t know the difference between former and latter. Even his own link contradicts him :lol:
-
Originally posted by kode
no.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/q100015.html
........I'm gonna presume you're not trying to be a smart-ass and confuse me with the point of the quote, okay?
Former = First = the Universe
Latter = Last = Human Stupidity
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Wow, that was confusing. Yes, that is the quote [kode] that you have linked to, and yes, [an0n] kode originally wrote it backwards. The former means the temporally first one, so it comes out to this:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about [the universe]." I think you both have it right in your minds though.
I think you are saying that to my english teacher instead of me. You see, I am not a native english speaker, and therefore my knowledge of words is somewhat incorrect at times. where native english speakers has spoken the language since they were infants, I only started learning it six or seven years ago. I am sorry for your inconvenience. I'm going back to being ignorant now.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Evidently Kode doesn`t know the difference between former and latter. Even his own link contradicts him :lol:
wee... that's right. who told you that?
-
Oh, yeah.
*forgot kode was Swedish*
Fair enough.
-
I live in central Texas, I was asleep, but my parents heard the boom.
The Russians are running out of money for the ISS, and now this...
-
I was actually going to clarify.....but we have already covered the fact that symbols are not universal.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Vega
I live in central Texas, I was asleep, but my parents heard the boom.
The Russians are running out of money for the ISS, and now this...
So that's why I saw a burned head flying over my house...
-
Originally posted by kode
I think you are saying that to my english teacher instead of me. You see, I am not a native english speaker, and therefore my knowledge of words is somewhat incorrect at times. where native english speakers has spoken the language since they were infants, I only started learning it six or seven years ago. I am sorry for your inconvenience. I'm going back to being ignorant now.
You really misread me here kode, I'm not cracking on you in any way. I was just trying to clarify, and there should be nothing there to take offense to. I humbly apologise that you took it that way. Limited knowledge of English is something that I picked up on when I first read your post, but I wasn't going to come right out and say that.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
You really misread me here kode, I'm not cracking on you in any way. I was just trying to clarify, and there should be nothing there to take offense to. I humbly apologise that you took it that way. Limited knowledge of English is something that I picked up on when I first read your post, but I wasn't going to come right out and say that.
bah. all the same to me. I don't feel bad about being ignorant :D
or ignored for that matter.
-
<----*is a troll*
<----*is having a hard time telling when people are being genuine and when people are being retards*
Perhaps some form of tagging or smiley?
-
Originally posted by an0n
<----*is a troll*
<----*is having a hard time telling when people are being genuine and when people are being retards*
Perhaps some form of tagging or smiley?
when we're retards or when we are retards?
-
Originally posted by kode
when we're retards or when we are retards?
What?
-
Life was so much easier when I knew everybody hated me and I could simply respond with violent flaming.
*sighs*
-
Originally posted by an0n
What?
well... if we are genuine retards, the tagging wouldn't help much, right?
-
i think its a joke... needs tag;)
-
Originally posted by an0n
Life was so much easier when I knew everybody hated me and I could simply respond with violent flaming.
*sighs*
well... they hate me now. feel bad about it.
-
I'll reiterate my opinion:
You guys say all this **** about people dying everyday and ***** that we aren't doing anything about it? Tell me when was the last time YOU did something. Practice what you preach. I mean you guys are sitting here arguing about it while you grow fat. Pathetic.
And don't tell me there's nothing you can do... if you're so concerned about people dying go to Africa and do something, OR why don't you help around your town? What an idea. You guys are so hypocritical it's rediculous.
Once again: Put up or shut up.
-
Originally posted by kode
I'm going back to being ignorant now.
Your ignorance is not in not understanding english. I know lots of people who don`t speak english and it's not due to ignorance.
Your ignorance lies in insisting you were correct when you didn`t in fact understand what you were linking to.
The comedy value lies in you going to the trouble of finding the address of webpage of einstein quotes which actually proves you wrong. :lol:
-
..............................*is confused again*
*panics*
*screams "**** you, kode" and runs off into the darkness crying*
-
Originally posted by an0n
If the artist was sexually abused at a lake-side cabin as a child, then their painting of a lake-side cabin is one of terror and fear, but to someone else it is merely a picturesque landscape painting.
If this artist possesses any talent at all, the cabin will look terrifying. Your arguments ignore that there are certain universals in human perception. For example, bright colors and soft edges give a different emotional tone to a painting than bleak colors and hard edges. Certain colors are known to have predictable affects on people of all cultures. We may all be different, but millions of years of evolution have given us brains that are mostly the same, with lots of ingrained perceptual responses that artists can tap into.
-
*find another interesting Einstein quote*
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."
-
AHAHAHAHAHAAH:
If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
I'll reiterate my opinion:
You guys say all this **** about people dying everyday and ***** that we aren't doing anything about it? Tell me when was the last time YOU did something. Practice what you preach. I mean you guys are sitting here arguing about it while you grow fat. Pathetic.
And don't tell me there's nothing you can do... if you're so concerned about people dying go to Africa and do something, OR why don't you help around your town? What an idea. You guys are so hypocritical it's rediculous.
Once again: Put up or shut up.
*hmmm, practice what you preach...finds what Falcon X is preaching about* What have you done in Africa lately?:D
-
Originally posted by an0n
*find another interesting Einstein quote*
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."
Einstein = Professor = He is good at what he knows and that's it.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Your ignorance is not in not understanding english. I know lots of people who don`t speak english and it's not due to ignorance.
Your ignorance lies in insisting you were correct when you didn`t in fact understand what you were linking to.
The comedy value lies in you going to the trouble of finding the address of webpage of einstein quotes which actually proves you wrong. :lol:
actually, you're contradicting yourself. I wouldn't have been ignorant if I had connected the word correctly in my mind. and don't tell me I'm ignorant. only I might do that.
the comedy value of your post is none. I had that quote page bookmarked. good source of mao quotes...
-
Originally posted by Hades
*hmmm, practice what you preach...finds what Falcon X is preaching about* What have you done in Africa lately?:D
Nothing. But am I *****ing about how hundreds of people are dying? No.
And BTW I actually do help out quite abit in my community.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
If this artist possesses any talent at all, the cabin will look terrifying. Your arguments ignore that there are certain universals in human perception. For example, bright colors and soft edges give a different emotional tone to a painting than bleak colors and hard edges. We may all be different, but our brains are mostly the same, and there's a lot of common perceptual traits that artists can tap into.
But still, will they know why the cabin looks scary?
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Nothing. But am I *****ing about how hundreds of people are dying? No.
And BTW I actually do help out quite abit in my community.
I can't do much around my community, but I do help out at school a lot.
That wasn't meant as an inmature arguement or anything.
-
Originally posted by Hades
That wasn't meant as an inmature arguement or anything.
funny how it came out that way, isn't it?
yes. I'm aware that he's ignoring me.
-
Originally posted by an0n
But still, will they know why the cabin looks scary?
It doesn't matter. He may paint it scary because that's how it looks in his mind's eye, or because he's been to art school and knows what "look scary". The end result is the same.
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
It doesn't matter. He may paint it scary because that's how it looks in his mind's eye, or because he's been to art school and knows what "look scary". The end result is the same.
.......Yeah. It looks scary. So?
-
Going to bed. Be back tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by an0n
.......Yeah. It looks scary. So?
So this statement--Originally posted by an0n
Images carry no inherant ... feeling.
Is wrong. Thank you and goodnight.
-
and this planet is so fragile unless we get off it soon we really are in for species-wide extinction.
Of course, thats' if we dont do it ourselves first...
-
Originally posted by kode
actually, you're contradicting yourself. I wouldn't have been ignorant if I had connected the word correctly in my mind. and don't tell me I'm ignorant. only I might do that.
the comedy value of your post is none. I had that quote page bookmarked. good source of mao quotes...
If I really have to spell it out for you.
Anon told you that you had got the quote wrong. That should have put you on your guard. Maybe Anon is a bigger fan of Einstein quotes than you are. Only an arrogant person doesn`t consider the possibility he might have gotten something wrong.
Secondly you know that english isn`t your native language. That should have also put you on your guard. Since it isn`t your native language you should have considered the possibility that you might have mistranslated it in your head when you first read it. Again only an arrogant person considers himself an expert in a field he is only barely competent in.
But instead you tell Anon that he is incorrect and then later hide behind the defence that english is not your native language. If your english is that poor you should have recognised that possibility and used some humility in your answer.
As for the comedy value, I don`t have a link of convieniently bookmarked quotes. The fact I didn`t need to look for one to prove you wrong is what's funny. :lol:
-
Originally posted by wEvil
and this planet is so fragile unless we get off it soon we really are in for species-wide extinction.
Despite the obvious sarcasm, thats more true than most people like to admit. We're overusing natural resources to the point that the planet can't keep up and replace all that we use; add to that the fact that the population is only going up and its not hard to see how we'll eventually run out of resources, perhaps sooner than some think.