Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Did you expect anything else? (Score 1) 194

by thrich81 (#47678659) Attached to: The Billion-Dollar Website

Well, I've got karma to burn and this AC got modded up to +2 insightful, so look, the argument that the current President and VP have never run/managed "anything" and so are unsuitable for the positions would be valid EXCEPT that the previous President and VP had vast private sector and government managerial experience (or at least they were sold to us that way) and they screwed up running the country at least as badly as the current administration. So, from observation of the actual, real world experiences we've gone through in the last 15 years it would seem to be clear that previous managerial experience has no correlation with good administration of the Executive branch of the US government.

Comment: Re:11 out of 11 (Score 2) 393

by thrich81 (#47658985) Attached to: 3 Congressmen Trying To Tie Up SpaceX

Great list, thanks for doing the research, but I don't think you can pin Apollo 1 on the Saturn 1B at all -- that fire was 100% due to faults in the payload, the Apollo Command Module. In your list I would say the most impressive run is the Saturn 1 -- ten out of ten successes back in the old days, first launch in 1961, and they were using a very early model liquid hydrogen upper stage in the last six flights. If you count the Saturn 1B as just an upgraded Saturn 1, then it was 19 straight successes -- 19 out of 19 attempts.

Comment: Re:And yet (Score 1) 268

"the reason a government exists is to serve the people, not to earn a profit
- wrong. The reason that governments exist is our inertia, laziness and jealousy. Originally governments were all nobility with the power in hand to kill you."
No, you both are wrong on this count. The reason governments exist is because nation-states with organized governments can out-compete any other form of human organization both economically and militarily. It is conceivable that this is a local minimum in human organizational effectiveness but it has been true for some thousands of years now (often with a closely integrated religion included). This statement of reality says nothing about the desirability or morality of government but it is a statement of fact for now. Will some super-national organizations (multinational corporations) superseded governments some day -- I hope not in my lifetime. As far as the libertarian dream of loosely organized self-reliant bands of free living peoples becoming dominant? -- it's been tried, isn't going to happen.

Comment: Re:White Werhner von Braun may be many things... (Score 1) 165

by thrich81 (#47581027) Attached to: Was America's Top Rocketeer a Communist Spy? The FBI Thought So

Issues with this:
1) Just because von Braun may have had a hand in picking some workers does not imply he was fully aware of the conditions in Mittelwerk (location of the underground factories). Do you think he approved of his "hand-picked" technical workers being worked to death?
2) It's not like those slave laborers would have had blissful, easy existences in WWII Germany had they not been building V-2s. They were doomed in any case. There is nothing von Braun could have done about that. And Mittelwerk was used for other industry also, notably V-1 production, too, with which von Braun had no connection.
It was a horrific situation all around, but von Braun didn't set it up and he didn't have the ability to change it once it was in place. Could he have pressed for better conditions -- maybe, but probably to no avail. And von Braun had an uneasy relationship with the authorities; he got arrested once during that time and barely got out of that himself so he wasn't exactly a man with a lot of leverage to challenge the Nazi system by then.

Comment: von Braun didn't take his place (Score 5, Interesting) 165

by thrich81 (#47579047) Attached to: Was America's Top Rocketeer a Communist Spy? The FBI Thought So

von Braun didn't take anyone's place -- he created his own place in Huntsville. The work on rockets on the West Coast and other places in the US continued with little affect by von Braun. For example the Navy's Vanguard project which was supposed to launch the USA's first satellite was a parallel effort to the Army's efforts at Hunstville. And the Air Force developed the Atlas and Titan missiles in other parallel efforts. It just happened that when NASA needed big rockets for Apollo, the Saturn series developed by von Braun's team were the most suitable. Notably, precursors to Apollo, the manned orbital Mercury and Gemini missions, were launched on those Air Force derived boosters. The sentence in the summary is BS. And by all accounts, von Braun was agnostic towards the Nazis, neither a supporter nor a resister, disinterested in politics, but navigating the system he found himself by the time it was too late to get out -- yeah, I know it is more complicated than that, but I don't have a thesis to write here.

Comment: Re:Weakest US President ever (Score 1) 582

by thrich81 (#47545461) Attached to: Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine

Holy crap, this AC got modded up +2 already? I notice on this story that the stupidest comments so far are all ACs. There should be a rule that whenever someone says how some leader here or there is screwing up, then the commenter is required to say how they would do it better. As everyone who has made it there seems to have found out once elected President of the USA (or Prime Minister of somewhere else), the problems are a lot more complicated when you actually have to deal with them and then the fallout (maybe literally in this case) from your actions. This parent AC is a troll and should be modded as such.

Comment: Re:Someone has an agenda to push (Score 4, Insightful) 342

Care to explain why carbon taxes are bad? Every economist I've read who acknowledges that there are negative externalities with burning carbon based fuels says that the most efficient and non-market distorting way to get the users to pay the cost of the externalities is to impose a carbon tax. Anything else distorts the market for carbon based fuels or you just let the general population bear the cost of the negative externalities irregardless of how the gains from use of the fuels are distributed.

Comment: Re:I wonder how long it would've taken NASA? (Score 1) 49

by thrich81 (#47518213) Attached to: SpaceX Releases Video of Falcon Rocket's Splashdown

Hey Mods, but not the idiots who already got to the OP, mod the OP back up, it's not Flamebait. As a total fanboy of SpaceX, I don't totally agree, but there are legitimate points for discussion. I'd say that SpaceX innovations so far are manufacturing and management not extension of spacecraft capabilities, yet. They've got lots of good things in the works but most are not yet demonstrated.

Comment: Re:What, NASA doesn't sell there building naming r (Score 4, Insightful) 52

by thrich81 (#47505171) Attached to: NASA Names Building For Neil Armstrong

What part of "not only an astronaut, but also as an AEROSPACE ENGINEER, TEST PILOT, and UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR" did you not read in the summary? Nobody worked harder than the early astronauts to get man into space and they were all engineers or scientists. A test pilot is in reality a flying engineer.

Comment: Re:Generating confusion (Score 1) 211

by thrich81 (#47498357) Attached to: Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45

Hold on there with your Boomer bashing -- someone who is 70 years old NOW is not even a Boomer (missed it by 2 years) and the average age of the Congress people is old, so 10-15 years ago it wasn't Boomers in power but the vestiges of the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation after them. Boomers have only slowly replaced them since. Add that to the outsized influence the older voters in the electorate have and you find that most of the problems blamed on the Boomers (Social Security bankruptcy for one) are actually problems started by their parents.

Comment: Re:And today (Score 1) 211

by thrich81 (#47497317) Attached to: Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45

Damn, are memories this short! Constellation, Bush's project for post Shuttle manned space, was underfunded from the very beginning. Read the findings of the Augustine Commission ( which was commissioned by the Office of Science and Technology Policy to review the state of human spaceflight in the US in early 2009. The Commission concluded, "The Committee judged the 9-year old Constellation program to be so behind schedule, underfunded and over budget that meeting any of its goals would not be possible." (quote from the Wikipedia article). I recall seeing the committee head (Norm Augustine) on TV briefing Congress, he basically said that Constellation had spent all its money with little to show for it. The Summary Report from the Commission is available on a NASA website ( and begins with the statements, "The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources." This was in early 2009 before Obama's first budget.
The committee members were not in any way toadies for the Obama administration but aerospace professionals who knew the business:
Norman Augustine (chairman), former CEO of Lockheed Martin, former chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Future of the United States Space Program[17]
Wanda Austin, CEO of The Aerospace Corporation
Bohdan Bejmuk, former Boeing manager
Leroy Chiao, former NASA astronaut
Christopher Chyba, Princeton University professor
Edward F. Crawley, MIT professor
Jeffrey Greason, co-founder of XCOR Aerospace
Charles Kennel, former director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Lester Lyles, former Air Force general
Sally Ride, former NASA astronaut, 1st American female in space

Comment: Re:Great example (Score 1) 211

by thrich81 (#47497179) Attached to: Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45

You also have to remember that the entire American manned space program from Mercury through the Apollo moon landings was in reality just another contest in the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Union. Manned space would never have gotten the funding and national priority it got in the 60's without that aspect of it. For many Americans, who were paying the bills, "beating the Russians" was the only reason for it. So to "real leadership and environment that bolsters creative problem solving" I would add, "military level budgets and priorities and wartime sense of urgency". Other than the secrecy of the former, I see little difference between the Manhattan Project and Project Apollo. If you want results on the scale of those projects then it will require similar national level commitment and resources. I've only seen that on endeavors tied to "national security".

Comment: Re:What if we hadn't? (Score 1) 211

by thrich81 (#47496237) Attached to: Apollo 11 Moon Landing Turns 45

A little history: By the time of the last Apollo mission to the moon (Dec 1972) US involvement in Vietnam was for all practical purposes over; US direct involvement officially ended in Jan 1973 with the signing of the "Paris Peace Accords". Perhaps an argument could be made that Vietnam took resources which could have gone to Apollo in earlier years, but considering that Apollo had military type budgets and priority through the 60's I doubt it. The period of maximum involvement by the US in both Vietnam and the Apollo program was the same (mid to late 60's). As both were proxy battles against the Soviets in the Cold War, this was not a coincidence. By the early 70's the American people, who were paying the bills for both, were no longer interested in either. However, in what must really be a coincidence, the last mission with Apollo hardware (Apollo-Soyuz) occurred in 1975, the same year that South Vietnam finally fell to the North Vietnam forces, putting a definitive end to that conflict.

Comment: Obligatory Quote by Gauss (Score 2) 241

by thrich81 (#47486697) Attached to: Math, Programming, and Language Learning

TFA tries to make the case (poorly) that Math involves ambiguities and Programming does not.
The greatest of all mathematicians, Carl Friedrich Gauss, stated, "I mean the word proof not in the sense of the lawyers, who set two half proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a mathematician, where half proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible."
Not much room for ambiguity in that.

Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.