Back to Space....

Post by **Bubba** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:21

snowsprite wrote:I guess they've done it in the shuttle...but what about outside? Like on the moon or floating around? Have they engineered a deep-space condom yet?

yes, I really do think about these things...

Sprite

Thinking about these things sure beats working!

Deep-space condom? Double entendre?

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:26

Honestly, I can't really think of a female astronaut that I would be all that interested in.... regardless of the bragging rights and zero-G. Possibly Mae Jemison in her younger years.... but then there'd be controversy about Jungle Fever in Space and all that.

Atomic1 · Post by **Atomic1** » Jul 13th, '05, 16:14

IMO the prettiest women in space was the one who died when the first one blew-up.NO no C. McCaullif from N.H. but the other women who was aboard.
She was gorgeous But I can't recall her Last name.
Began with a R I think..

I remember thinking to myself when they showed the pics. before they left "I wonder If sex experiments is what she is going for"

GOT IT>>>>Specialist>>> JUDY Resnick

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Jul 13th, '05, 22:19

She's not an astronaut, but I always thought Patty Wagstaff was pretty damn hot. Oh yeah, she's also a great aerobatic pilot.......

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 14th, '05, 07:30

I knew an EA-7 pilot who was balls hot, but NASA rejected her too (not only that but the Navy was *royally* pissed at her for applying - politics? You don't knowe the half of it!)

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Jul 14th, '05, 19:31

yeti wrote:I knew an EA-7 pilot who was balls hot, but NASA rejected her too (not only that but the Navy was *royally* pissed at her for applying - politics? You don't knowe the half of it!)

An EW version of the Corsair? Didn't know such a pup existed. Thought the
EA-6 was the Navy's primary EW bird.

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 15th, '05, 08:02

There was such a beast... very rare indeed - I believe there were <10 in the entire fleet.

Basically they were aggressor aircraft used to simulate enemy offensive EW capability, and to simulate incoming enemy missile and such. VAQ-34 flew them.... and as it turns out she was selected after all! (That is her front and center).

http://www.vaq34.com/vaq34/

tyrolean_skier · Post by **tyrolean_skier** » Jul 15th, '05, 08:42

yeti wrote:There was such a beast... very rare indeed - I believe there were <10 in the entire fleet.

Basically they were aggressor aircraft used to simulate enemy offensive EW capability, and to simulate incoming enemy missile and such. VAQ-34 flew them.... and as it turns out she was selected after all! (That is her front and center).

http://www.vaq34.com/vaq34/

Does this mean she is part of the current flight crew or will she be part of a future group? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I am not keeping up with the news regarding the shuttle missions.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Jul 15th, '05, 09:00

yeti wrote:There was such a beast... very rare indeed - I believe there were <10 in the entire fleet.

Basically they were aggressor aircraft used to simulate enemy offensive EW capability, and to simulate incoming enemy missile and such. VAQ-34 flew them.... and as it turns out she was selected after all! (That is her front and center).

http://www.vaq34.com/vaq34/

Thanks. And you're right she is hot.

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 15th, '05, 09:05

Well, it looks like the entire mission (STS-121) is under review - so it is hard to say what the status is.

I know people who have waited years to go up, then the mission was scrubbed (or modified or had the entire crew rotated to a different mission), and then they had wait for a few more years. Or not go at all.

Damndamndamn! NOW I am bitter!

tyrolean_skier · Post by **tyrolean_skier** » Jul 15th, '05, 09:06

BigKahuna13 wrote:
yeti wrote:There was such a beast... very rare indeed - I believe there were <10 in the entire fleet.

Basically they were aggressor aircraft used to simulate enemy offensive EW capability, and to simulate incoming enemy missile and such. VAQ-34 flew them.... and as it turns out she was selected after all! (That is her front and center).

http://www.vaq34.com/vaq34/
Thanks. And you're right she is hot.

She also has brains and in this case that is more important than her physical appearance. She will not be on a mission for window dressing.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Jul 15th, '05, 09:08

tyrolean_skier wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
yeti wrote:There was such a beast... very rare indeed - I believe there were <10 in the entire fleet.

Basically they were aggressor aircraft used to simulate enemy offensive EW capability, and to simulate incoming enemy missile and such. VAQ-34 flew them.... and as it turns out she was selected after all! (That is her front and center).

http://www.vaq34.com/vaq34/
Thanks. And you're right she is hot.
She also has brains and in this case that is more important than her physical appearance. She will not be on a mission for window dressing.

Brains and beauty is a deadly combination :)

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 15th, '05, 09:23

I have seen her in situations that would cause most men to lose complete control of their bowels, bladder, and tear ducts. Then turn around and write up engineering reports that would bewilder many grad students.

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 15th, '05, 15:32

yeti wrote:
As one senator put it: "we just spent $20,000,000 to fly six people from Florida to New Mexico when United will do it for $5K.... and throw in some peanuts."

that might be the dumbest thing i've ever heard. no wonder a politician said it.

(Feel free to move this thread at anytime to politics)

Is it? There really isn't anything that the shuttle has done that could not have been done cheaper - not to mention SAFER - using more traditional vehicles (or better yet unmanned ones). And I am talking 70's era Saturn boosters. (A system BTW, that we no longer have the ability to replicate even if tomorrow W jumped up and ordered us to build one. How lame is that?)

Looking at it from the politico's view point: hand him a spread sheet showing a return on investment. Or even a return at a loss. You said yourself they travel in relative comfort - and they don't stay up very long so no real life sciences are accomplished. Experiments and observations can be automated and sent up much cheaper. Fix the Hubble? So the guys have to wear psuits, piss in a tube, and don't get to hang out in shirtsleeves... it could have been done for a fraction of the cost.

Hey don't get me wrong I am all for manned exploration: I devoted well over half of my life in an attempt to go myself while 99% of the population who cares is content to merely dream about it. But looking at things through a clear lens of objectivity I can firmly say that the goal is worthy but the means lacking. It was a good trick in the 80's, but by now we should have airliners, or at the very least military vehicles - that can out perform the shuttle at a fraction of the cost.

But we don't have those things, in part because the cumbersome and expensive shuttle was always in place and good enough. Damn a computer geek (albeit a very weathly one) hired a guy to design and build him his own rocket plane (along with the jet that launched it).... and the goddamn thing worked! They did this for under half of what it costs in fuel alone to launch the shuttle once.

I wish the crew well - I really do - and I wish they had a ship worthy of their talents and expertise!

[/i]

HelmetCam · Post by **HelmetCam** » Jul 15th, '05, 17:50

yeti wrote:Damn a computer geek (albeit a very weathly one) hired a guy to design and build him his own rocket plane (along with the jet that launched it).... and the goddamn thing worked! They did this for under half of what it costs in fuel alone to launch the shuttle once.

you can't compare Rutan's effort with a manned space program. what they did is more like Alan Shepard's first ride. inserting something into orbit is a whole 'nuther matter in just about every engineering way possible. I'm guessing you already knew that. you can't look at that and say "geez NASA blows" (as many people did watching the X-Prize flights)

i agree- the shuttle has stood in the way of other developments. let's put more money into new manned spaceflight programs and get up there!