Space Program...What happened to it anyway??

I was thinking about this the other day. When I was younger, the space program was going great, sending people in space on a consistent basis. And here we are some 45 plus years later, and we can't even get a shuttle to stay up? How could we walk on the moon in 1969, and yet all these years later, the program has regressed! It just seems odd that we have not advanced further in the space program?? What are your thoughts people in their 40's plus??

Space Program...What happened to it anyway??layouts for music myspace

Budget has a lot to do with it.. naturally you can't do this major things without the money... but I don't think that's the full answer.

Firstly, the space program was really a part of the cold war. Because the USSR got satellites and men into space before the US, there was a great drive of national feeling to beat them at getting a man on the moon. You'll notice after that was achieved, things started to go down hill rapidly.

Secondly, I think there's a much greater mood of selfishness in today's society, which has displaced the desire to do great things together (ie. as a society). There has been many decades of relative peace and prosperity (in the western world) and, in my opinion, this has made people "dumb, fat and lazy". Society now is content to focus on self-enjoyment things - largely driven by the corporate push to buy more "stuff".

Finally, I think that there's a level of risk aversion which goes along with being prosperious. After the second world war, with all it's death and huge risky endevours, the risks involved in sending men into space were just accepted as normal. Nowadays we baulk at risky endevours and don't seem to be prepared to take chances, either with our lives or with our wealth.

Space Program...What happened to it anyway??view myspace myspace.com

We are now in national debt, Wherner vonBrauhn is dead (sorry for sp), and Bush feels like it would make 'The people of these great states to hate me. And we cant have that!'

Although, I am nowhere near 40.... =)
The space program has stagnated because of a stingy Congress, and an apathetic American public.
2 words

Budget -----cuts
We have become risk adverse. Everything we do, whether at work or play, and everything our society does is designed to minimize the risk of litigation. Our judicial system is eating the national organism like a ramphant cancer, and everything and everyone is either hiding or fleeing. Put another way, our dreams and our can do attitude are but a distant memory. If there is ever a return to the space program it will come from another place; from somewhere beyond the reach of our predatory legal system.
I am 40plus. I agree that when we were young we imagined lunar bases and manned Mars missions by the year 2000. It has been a huge disappointment.

There was controversy over budget spending even during the Apollo missions. But America understood the goals of reaching the Moon before 1970 and it was accomplished.

Following that, NASA couldn't come up with any clear mission objectives and the American public lost interest. The budget cuts soon followed due to recession in the 1970's. As I understand it, the Reagan administration favored unmanned probes to the more expensive manned missions and it set the tone for the next 20 years.

The shuttle design was flawed from the start. It was not the best design in the 1980's. It was the cheapest. I can remember reading science magazines in the late 70's which stated that the new shuttles would be taking off at a rate of one per month. Setbacks and failures moved that to 3 or 4 per year.

Wars and the defense budget have sucked the American taxpayer dry. The few dollars that are left can be budgeted towards other programs including the space program.

Considering the money that NASA has had to work with, probes have given us much valuable information about our Solar System.

It is thanks to the aging space shuttles that we can refocus on manned missions. The shuttles will soon be replaced with more technologically advanced and more efficient models. A new space race to landing a man on Mars has renewed interest from the public. This all hopefully will reflect in more dollars to the program.

Thankfully, Bush Jr has taken a leadership role in a goal of constructing permanent moonbases. Unfortunately, he is also a warmonger.

It would probably help if more people were informed of the multitude of benefits we have received as a result of the space program. Also, it might help if NASA presented more goals to the American public to stir more interest and support. It is congress and the White House which determine funding amounts. This can only increase if the public demands it.

Until then, it is good to stay in touch with what the unmanned probes are accomplishing. Much of the information they gather is truly amazing.
Yup, I miss the glory days too. I would suggest that two reasons contribute to the decline. One is the decline in enthusiasm of the taxpayers for what was, after all, an expensive endeavor after the success of the Moon landing.

The other reason would be the Space Shuttle itself. You'll recall that the whole point was to come up with a re-usable "space truck" that was to make it very cheap to get materials and people into orbit. It turned out to be much more expensive to maintain and operate than they had ever dreamed. And when the Challenger blew up on take-off it became clear that it never would live up to the hope of economic space travel. I suspect that the International Space Station is largely there to simply give the space shuttle something to do. I suppose, at that point in time, they didn't want to just give up on it.
If you measure progress by how far we have sent a human being from earth, then we have gone backwards. But sending men to the moon and having them return safely was as much a political exercise as a scientific one. It was to show up the Soviets and build up pride in the American public. Not that it didn't advance science, but that was probably a fringe benefit to politicians. Once we got there, public interest waned, and funding dried up.

Since then, the Soviet space stations have done much to explore the biological effects of long stays in 0g on the human body. The shuttle, while it may not be the perfect launch vehicle, has looked at how we do perform a wide range of tasks in space, such as repair and performing scientific experiments in 0g. All of this is paving the way for the space stations of the future, which is IMHO is a more worthwhile endeavor than racing to the moon.

But perhaps the most exciting advance (for me at least) is that privately-funded craft have reached space, and it probably won't be long before ordinary folk (well okay, rich ordinary folk ) will be able to escape the atmosphere and look down at Earth. So I'd say we have come a long way.
When vehicles leave the Earth's magnetic field they are subject to radiation micrometeorites and extremes of temperature. The first astronauts to venture away from the van allen belt failed to report the flashes in their eyes until they returned to Earth. When particles travelling at high speed encounter the Earth's magnetic field, light is produced, it is one of the reasons why life has flourished here.
well back in the days of the apollo missions man was exploring the moon, Then after we went there so many times there was no reason to go back because for one thing its very costly and the american people and congress did not want to spend any more money on it, Then enter all the different whitehouse administrations and peoples in congress and the bickering about going back to space it had put everything on hold and in disarray, i was around in the apollo era and I too thought we would be on Mars by now, But finally america has came to their senses and realized that hey, it may be in our best interest to locate a place that we can retreat to once earth has been used up, So now president Bush has gave the greenlight to nasa to go to mars and eventually beyond, if one thinks about it , it only makes sense to do so, Its about time the american government along with the ESA has opened their eyes
yes one could call it a shame... but..

why do we have a space-program ?

to get to know science output from it.

This can be achieved by sending unmanned probes what is done multiple times a year.

sooo why do we need a shuttle ? why do we need people anywhere else than onboard the ISS ?

the science outcome is more and more worse, cause we already know lots of things. So along with that where you get money from in times the average citizen in the US wanted to see Sadam Hussein bleed in iraq.

and why ?

General opinion today .. better to have fuel for the car than people on the moon.

But the situation may change if Helium3 is needed for nuclear fusion, which can be found on the moon in larger ammounts. wait another 20 years and see us flying again.

Space shuttle thrusting in space?

Since there is no atmosphere in space, how does a space shuttle direct itself after it has left the moon ssurface?? THe thrusters wont have anytihng to push against, how do they work?

Space shuttle thrusting in space?myspace ip

One of the basic principles of physics (Newton's Third Law) is that for every action (force) there is an opposite and equal reaction (force). The principle of a rocket motor may be understood by considering the example of a closed container filled with a compressed gas. Within this container the gas exerts equal pressure on every point of its walls. If a hole is punched in the bottom of the container, however, the gas at the bottom escapes and the pressure against the top of the container is no longer equalized. The internal gas pressure then pushes the container upwards in reaction to the jet of air escaping downwards. The amount of thrust developed by a rocket motor depends mainly on two factors, the velocity with which the burning gases leave the combustion chamber, and the mass of the burning gases.

This website for answer confirmation and more info --%26gt; http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_7...

God is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G

PBrax@netscape.com

Space shuttle thrusting in space?myspace co myspace.com

Actually there is atmosphere just very little.
the shuttle doesnt go to the moon. it orbits the earth . has something to do with the earth's gravitational pull or something.
There is a differential in pressure within the motors themselves. Just like a balloon you blow up there is high pressure inside the balloon pushing outwards in every direction on the surfaces of the balloon. The opening of the balloon (a rocket motor nozzle) has no pressure, therefore the forward pressure is not canceled and moves the balloon (rocket) in that direction.
yes
The expanding gases exiting the thruster push on the inside of the thruster with the same force as they exit with, the gases take the path of least resistance, that being the nozzle. Thrusters don't push against an "atmosphere," they simply expel their waste gases from the combustion process.
Study Physics and the Name Newton shines like a star because he found "Laws" of physics and Newtons Third Law would tell you that "Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction" which would let you know why the thrusters work in space. Refer to another more comprehensive answer alread posted by someone for a better answer than this one which forces the reader to think for himself.

Ha HA

Regards and all the best
The space shuttle never goes to the moon.

Nothing like the space shuttle has ever been to the moon.

Would be kinda neet to compare the two vihicles.

Kinda neet to imagin what a moon ready space shuttle would look like it would have to be allot different if it was gona go to the moon AND come back.

Well supposedly the next time we goto the moon is 2018.

Lockheed Martin has a proposal for a moon vehicle its like a limazine compared to 1969.

http://space.com/news/050914_nasa_cev_up...

I doubt it will look like what is ilistrated but still neet idea.
An interesting aspect about rockets designed for use in space: they tend to be more efficient than they could ever be in the atmosphere. An important function of a rocket nozzle is to expand the exhaust gases and obtain additional thrust from this expansion. A measure of this ability is its expansion ratio, the ratio of the areas at the exit plane (the end of the nozzle bell) and at the throat (point of minimum area). In space, the optimum expansion ratio is "as much as you can get", so the expansion ratio actually used is a tradeoff involving the desire for the maximum vs. the weight and size penalty. In the atmosphere the optimum expansion ratio is smaller; once the exit-plane pressure falls below atmospheric pressure, the exhaust is overexpanded and there is a negative thrust penalty due to the resulting suction.

Help with removing the background white space in my drawing so I can attach it to my web page as a I

I want the image I draw to look as though it hovers without the framed white space. I used Windows Paint program to edit it into a GIF format. When I uploaded it using TinyPic - Share to obtain a HTML code (to use on MySpace.com) it still had the framed white space I don't want. I'm missing a step or two on how to remove the white space. I have tried cropping but, it's not a photo. I tried using CoffeeCup HTML Editor and still got background white space.

How do I remove the "white space"?

What Editor program will do the job of removing the white space and leave me with just the image.

Please give the Web address or product!

I just want my drawing to appear on my web page looking like a banner or icon with-out any background framed white space attached with it.

I will also need to be able to take the finished image and up load it into TinyPic.com to create an HTML code to place it in my MySpace web page. Recently I went and bought Adobe "Photoshops Elements 6" have not fond it yet .

Help with removing the background white space in my drawing so I can attach it to my web page as a Icon.?deleted myspace

u need to save the gif for web and have white as a transparent bg....can be done w/ PNG as well.

I use Photoshop, not elements, so i don't know if there is a SAVE FOR WEB feature, but if so...it would be Control+ALT+SHIFT+S (hold control, alt and shift down, then press S) OR go to file%26gt;save for web

then save as GIF and put it at 256 colors...then there is a drop down...drop to transparency....and click on the WHITE swatch...your white bg will now be transparent.

Space fabric true or false?

einstein hypothesised that earth follows the contor of the space fabric round the sun. yet all planets have diff orbits ranging fro circular to highly elliptical so there is something funny going on. besides the artificial satellites will have to follow an orbit dtermined by these countours in the space fabric, and this is certainly not true. so the space seems according to einstein a heck of a crazy mixed up place

Space fabric true or false?myspace pages

What you're talking about is a 3-D representation of what mass does to space time in 4-D. It makes it easier for most people to understand what's going on with the distortions in space-time that we percieve as gravity. It doesn't actually exist as a fabric.

Go find one of those old-fashioned coin-collectors in the mall. Usually they are made of yellow plastic, and have a chute for sending a coin rolling around the inside of a giant funnel. By donating a few coins to the charity that put the collector there, you can see that different coins can indeed go through the same 'gravity well' along different paths. In the same way, different planets and satellites can have different kinds of paths through the same gravity well. It all depends on their initial position and velocity.

Yes, Einstein's gravity is indeed very confusing. There's probably no more than a handful of people in the world who really understand all of it.

Space fabric true or false?live com myspace.com

true, a tear happens when a star implodes creating a black hole sucking in everything (like Paris Hilton) ha ha ha.
Space has more wrinkles than your underwear.
True just watch Star Trek ;)
if you find this answer you would probly be the smartes man on this planet
i suggest you read "the elegant universe" by brian greene. it attempts to mary relativity and quantum mechanics... in something called the string theory. hope that helps.
No, its not really:

In the solar system planets, asteroids, comets and space debris have elliptical orbits around the Sun.

Moons have an elliptic orbit around their planet.

Many artificial satellites have various elliptic orbits around the Earth.

Maybe you didnt realise this because in astrodynamics or celestial mechanics even a so called "circular orbit" is actaully an elliptic orbit with the eccentricity equal to 0.
Of course it's true. Unfortunately I don't have the background in astrophysics necessary to properly explain eliptical orbits and the like to you, but there are many good books and websites around that do.
true
Alot of answers, most of them containing a common theme of how no-one actually knows. It seems that something IS actually going on. I recently read about a multitude of ideas that describe the cause of the phenomenon, all of which seemed reasonable, and the fact of the matter is, the likelyhood that Einstein wrapped his head around many accurate explanations is very poor. We must face the reality that it may still be beyond our comprehension.
The earth does not follow a 'contour of space-time' around the sun.

You need to read up on general relativity a little more carefully and or closely. Assuming you aren't some 'science is the work of the devil' ideologue. In which case I invite you to make a fool of yourself by further expounding on scientific theories you clearly do not understand.

Gravitational fields warp space-time. Well, to be accurate, mass warps space-time, producing gravitational fields, which are just warped space-time.

Gravity waves have been postulated, but not, to my knowledge, detected. Outside of the influence of massive objects there aren't any fixed warpages in space-time.

Retail Space Lease Negotiations?

I am looking to lease a 1600 square foot retail space in a relatively new shopping center for a cellular phone store.

I am wondering how much of the initial lease offer I can expect to negotiate down - i.e. 10%, etc. Also, any general advice will be appreciated.

I know that there are various factors involved, so here are some specifics.

The monthly cost per square foot is $21. Add $3.07 per SF for "common area" services. The owner is willing to provide $10 per square foot for interior finishings. I will only need carpet, some paint and a single wall (8 x 20) built, so I won't use the $16,000 offered.

This space is to the left of an Office Max, which is in the middle of the building. The anchor is a Target, which is to the right of Office Max (100 yards). The four spaces to the right of Office Max (and closer to Target) are leased. The four spaces to the left are open for lease. Two of the four open spaces were previously leased, but the stores have vacated.

Thanks.

Retail Space Lease Negotiations?official myspace

it's going to come down to one thing, how much does the owner want you in the complex. plain and simple, in your favor is the four open stores, if they have been vacant for awhile the owner maybe in a more open mined to give you a reduction in the sq foot for the first year

not in your favor that he has anchor stores both target and office max, meaning has nice income coming in, plus another four stores filled,

just ask either they will say no or yes or offer another deal

How much space does The Sims 2 take up on your computer...?

How much space does The Sims 2 take up on your computer?

I have 2048 MB of system memory and 320 GB of hard drive space.

Plus 243 GB of HP space.

Is that enough space for The Sims 2?

***PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION IN GB FOR THE SPACE***

Thanks!

How much space does The Sims 2 take up on your computer...?backgrounds for myspace

My game program folders with all the expansion packs take about ten gig total and my downloads folder that is separate on My Documents take another ten gigs (includes fashions, custom cars, a few hacks and various houses I downloaded that are pretty cool). If you you also have all the stuff packs in addition to the game packs (expansion packs), having 20 to 30 gigs free will give a home to your game, all it's EPs and stuff packs and allow 15 gigs or so of optional custom downloads. That's just a tiny slice of your space. :)

The bigger question is if your machine has the ability to run all the expansion packs well. You can test individual packs here. The most recent EP is Free Time, and that one is most demanding on a machine.

http://www.systemrequirementslab.com/ref...

How much space does The Sims 2 take up on your computer...?myspace games myspace.com

lol a lot! my sister has it on my comp and it slows it way down

Space/time and how body's "move" in it?

First a repsonse to my question about light and redshifting.

As for galaxies moving away from each other without space expanding, you just can't do that. Remember that everything is embedded IN space. An object, like a galaxy, can't move independantly of the space that contains it.

next the question that made me think of....

Why cant something move “through” the universe (space/time)? I was told nothing can move Independently throughoutt space/time, therefore space/time iteselfe must be expanding. But If that was true. Then I couldn’t throw a baseball to my dad without space/time expanding that distance every time it was tossed back and forth right?

Space/time and how body's "move" in it?unblock myspace

First I will address your difficulty with the answer someone gave to your earlier question.

Space is expanding between distant parts of the universe, and presumably very slowly on local scales too (~100 km/s per MPC, works out to about 100 nm/s over a distance of a meter. Hmmm, I wonder if one could devise an experiment to measure that. . . )

Locally, things like gravity (in the case of a galaxy) or electromagnetic forces (in the case of a less than planet sized solid) overcome that expansion. If everything in space was expanding uniformly, we would never notice that phenomenon, because the "rulers" we use to measure distance and size would be expanding too!

So, you can throw your baseball, and maybe space will expand between the two of you as it travels, however the friction between the two of you and the ground, and the chemical bonds and electrostatic forces in the strip of ground between you and your dad do not permit the two of you to be dragged apart by the expansion of space during the ball's travel time, just as those same forces prevent your body from expanding with the expansion of space.

The answerer was incorrect in their generalization. I will take a look at this earlier question you asked; in context the part of the answer might be OK, but it appears to be too general a statement the way you presented it.

Keep questioning answers; you have the makings of a good scientist, philosopher, lawyer or other combination creative and analytical endeavour.

Your more general question was about movement in "space-time." If you define movement by a change in space-time interval, then the difficulty is in staying still! In fact, you have to move through 3-D space at the speed of light to experience zero change in the space-time interval between two events; only light itself is frozen in space-time in those terms.

Wiki has a good section on space-time intervals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-time_...

Space/time and how body's "move" in it?backgrounds for myspace myspace.com

First consider that movement is a relative term. It relates the difference in separation of one thing to another. Objects with or without mass as well as time( the relation of the separation of 1 moment to another). Next when you think in terms of infinitency you can realize that time/space never began nor will it ever end. Also realize that the majority of space IS NOTHING. With these ideas in mind i find that "objects" can not move independently they need another "object" to be in relation to, also if space itself is nothing then a moving object can not move in relation to space.