The Icelander: I don't know why the Discovery Channel can't have a special for every launch to go over what's going on and to interview the astronauts.

The same reason Apollo 13 didn't get TV coverage until the explosion, and (part of the reason) Apollos 17-20 were cancelled. Columbia only had tv coverage when something went wrong. Spaceflight is "routine" and "boring" to the average schmuck who watches TV and determines the ratings.

Sgt. Expendable: The same reason Apollo 13 didn't get TV coverage until the explosion, and (part of the reason) Apollos 17-20 were cancelled. Columbia only had tv coverage when something went wrong. Spaceflight is "routine" and "boring" to the average schmuck who watches TV and determines the ratings.

Yeah, but it'd be the Discovery Channel. They're full of stuff like that. The Science Channel might be better, although around here, at least, it's only available for digital subscribers.

How about a meeting of Steven VS Steven for each launch? I'd watch that!!!


"3-2-1 Blastoff!"

"WRONG!!"

does stephen's treadmill have wrist protection devices installed?

Sgt. Expendable: I guess you can blame today's media ... we have perfected our entertainment so much, there's little in real life that can compare to it, at least for most people.

Blowmonkey: Sgt. Expendable: Spaceflight is "routine" and "boring" to the average schmuck who watches TV and determines the ratings.

It makes me sad.

I used to think the same thing, until I was at a public lecture where Neil Degrasse Tyson pointed out that, in some respects, we've fulfilled the dreams of the early space pioneers- space travel has become an everyday event in the consciousness of the American public.

This also means that if were something to happen to the space program, there will be a lot more people up in arms than one might realize.

Sgt. Expendable: The Icelander: I don't know why the Discovery Channel can't have a special for every launch to go over what's going on and to interview the astronauts.

The same reason Apollo 13 didn't get TV coverage until the explosion, and (part of the reason) Apollos 17-20 were cancelled. Columbia only had tv coverage when something went wrong. Spaceflight is "routine" and "boring" to the average schmuck who watches TV and determines the ratings.

Not to sound picky, but Apollo 17 was the last manned moon mission. It was the remainder of the Apollo program that was cut due to funding, lack of public interest.

James Taylor will be performing, I assume.

Or, possibly, an inanimate carbon rod?


/1F13

Just a ploy to increase ratings with extraterrestrials.

Sgt. Expendable: Spaceflight is "routine" and "boring" to the average schmuck who watches TV and determines the ratings.

Be honest, though: when was the last time NASA shuttles did anything revolutionary or exciting?

(Not that it's all their fault, but it'd be nice if NASA could have a shuttle flight launch on schedule for once, too.)

The Icelander: I don't know why the Discovery Channel can't have a special for every launch to go over what's going on and to interview the astronauts. But, yeah, NASA's PR needs some work. Though their presence on TV and on the Internet is miles ahead of other federal agencies.

It would interfere with reruns of "Cash Cab" and "Dirtiest Jobs".

Sgt. Expendable: The Icelander: I don't know why the Discovery Channel can't have a special for every launch to go over what's going on and to interview the astronauts.

The same reason Apollo 13 didn't get TV coverage until the explosion, and (part of the reason) Apollos 17-20 were cancelled. Columbia only had tv coverage when something went wrong. Spaceflight is "routine" and "boring" to the average schmuck who watches TV and determines the ratings.

Discovery is great at marketing and promotions. Create a buzz about special live coverage you will pull it ratings. NASA already has a solid broadcasting step up from a technical stand point so the cost wouldn't be monumental for Discovery. They partner up on it stir up more interest in the space program NASA benefits.

Space exploration no matter how "routine" is hope for the future, something this country needs right now.

Sgt. Expendable: The Icelander: I don't know why the Discovery Channel can't have a special for every launch to go over what's going on and to interview the astronauts.

The same reason Apollo 13 didn't get TV coverage until the explosion, and (part of the reason) Apollos 17-20 were cancelled.

These gentlemen would like a word with you.

Sgt. Expendable: The Icelander: I don't know why the Discovery Channel can't have a special for every launch to go over what's going on and to interview the astronauts.

The same reason Apollo 13 didn't get TV coverage until the explosion, and (part of the reason) Apollos 17-20 were cancelled. Columbia only had tv coverage when something went wrong. Spaceflight is "routine" and "boring" to the average schmuck who watches TV and determines the ratings.



Assistant: Sir, we've run into a serious problem with the mission. These Nielsen ratings are the lowest ever. [holds a piece of paper]

Scientist: Oh my God...we've been beaten by "A Connie Chung Christmas!"

cold_war_relic: Not to sound picky, but Apollo 17 was the last manned moon mission.

So, basically, you're saying that he doesn't know Schmitt.

Wait, wasn't the new MODULE supposed to be named "Colbert"?

Once again, my vote doesn't count.

Woh! This was on Fox "news". I thought they would try to spin it a little more. I guess the only thing I did notice is that ALL of the "links" for more info, are not links, but just the URL typed out, like http://foo.bar/. Did Fox forget how to make a nice little simple HTML link for their readers all of a sudden?

Fox also said : "...from comedian Stephen Colbert...". Really? Is Colbert "just" a comedian? Between Jon and Stephen, You can get more straight news than anything on Fox, IMO.

Anyway? Why couldn't Fox make real click-able URLs for their readers? What a freaking crock. Any-who, here they are. I went to the most advanced Universities for 12 years just to learn the HTML tag for a simple link:

1. For NASA TV streaming video (new window)

2. After the initial broadcast, the video also will be available at (new window)

3. For more information about the Node 3 module naming poll, visit (new window)

4. For more information about the COLBERT treadmill, visit (new window)

Forty-Two: WeenerGord: How about a meeting of Steven VS Steven for each launch? I'd watch that!!!

Do you mean Even Stephven or Formidable Opponent?

Yes.

/Good boy!
//Here's biscuit.

DarthBrooks: Buzz Aldrin is going to come to your house and make you read AND then swallow his book.

/Don't bother locking your doors. He'll just punch a hole through the side of your house.

Then he'll rip off your head and shiat down your neck.
/First man to piss on the moon.

I'm sitting at an airport waiting for a flight to take me to see the launch on Tuesday, so I'm really getting a kick...

The Icelander: I don't know why the Discovery Channel can't have a special for every launch to go over what's going on and to interview the astronauts. But, yeah, NASA's PR needs some work. Though their presence on TV and on the Internet is miles ahead of other federal agencies.

Totally agree.

/From a NASA geek who can watch NASA TV for hours like political pundits watch CSPAN

Raddamant: I'm sitting at an airport waiting for a flight to take me to see the launch on Tuesday, so I'm really getting a kick...

Seriously?

/I did the launch, no launch, launch, no launch for STS-127

Kaka: Raddamant: I'm sitting at an airport waiting for a flight to take me to see the launch on Tuesday, so I'm really getting a kick...

Seriously?

/I did the launch, no launch, launch, no launch for STS-127

Seriously. I'm an optimist. This launch seems to be progressing smoothly, and the fueling problems have been addressed multiple times now. Weather looks decent. Plus, night launch! My flight leaves from Iowa in half an hour.

Raddamant: Kaka: Raddamant: I'm sitting at an airport waiting for a flight to take me to see the launch on Tuesday, so I'm really getting a kick...

Seriously?

/I did the launch, no launch, launch, no launch for STS-127

Seriously. I'm an optimist. This launch seems to be progressing smoothly, and the fueling problems have been addressed multiple times now. Weather looks decent. Plus, night launch! My flight leaves from Iowa in half an hour.

I would like to sty in touch on this - please email me.

I will vote for that man if he decides to run for president again.

Noticeably F.A.T.: blazemongr: Be honest, though: when was the last time NASA shuttles did anything revolutionary or exciting?

That's sorta the point. To me, it's amazing that it's not amazing. That a man made machine can go up into friggin space do stuff and then (mostly) come back is no longer revolutionary or exciting is astounding.

Hm. Maybe put a truckload of holiday lights on it in orbit, do not announce its return schedule, and have it fly real slow over the Midwest?

flamingboard: does stephen's treadmill have wrist protection devices installed?

How bout some magnetic boots to stay on the treadmill?

Have your agent call mine, they will do launch....

Noticeably F.A.T.: blazemongr: Be honest, though: when was the last time NASA shuttles did anything revolutionary or exciting?

That's sorta the point. To me, it's amazing that it's not amazing. That a man made machine can go up into friggin space do stuff and then (mostly) come back is no longer revolutionary or exciting is astounding.

DISCLAIMER - This is all my perception.

The STS program was more politics then it was reality.

NASA initially designed a "space taxi" to take people up. In its initial design the larger launch vehicle was a piloted glide back to KSC vehicle. However in order to get funding the Gov wanted it to be a positive revenue project.

This lead to a cheaper and mostly disposable main boost platform and much, much more importantly made NASA propose that the Shuttle (STS - Space Transportation System) be more like a commercial airliner in that each Shuttle was supposed to be able to recycle in days or weeks instead of months. The payload bay had to be expanded. As it turned out the combination of lack of funding, artificially high expectations and the reality of the technology at the time - the Shuttle was actually more like a . . . what? . . . I guess something more like an Apollo flight (maybe not a good analogy but the best I have)?

Apollo was magnificent - there can be no doubt of that however once we went to the Moon several times it actually became BORING to the people. The Shuttle was supposed to create excitement in that like an airline "Shuttle" it would become so regular that more and more people would have experienced direct results from the three or four launches a month NASA had to promise to get funding. Some of the direct results were proposed as;

1. Cool stuff - more science, medical research, new inventions - you know, stuff like Apollo created - the PC, etc...
Link (new window)

2. Pay for itself - other countries paying us to get their satellites into low orbit for that final high boost, DOD paying for satellite launches, CNN, NOAA, The Weather Channel etc, etc...

3. The ISS - what was going to be "Space Station Freedom" - a USA space outpost.

4. The USA still kicks all butt when it comes to space (Wiki The Buran)


I cannot type anymore but I hope that some of my words ring true with others.

It makes no sense to go to the moon to go from there to mars
Think of the cost to build a moon base then fly in all the
parts and fuel to take off.

Build the mars ship in orbit attached to the space station
Then launch it and use the earths gravity to slingshot to mars.

Much more simple and doable

Kaka: Pay for itself - other countries paying us to get their satellites into low orbit for that final high boost, DOD paying for satellite launches, CNN, NOAA, The Weather Channel etc, etc...

The only point I don't think is correct -- I don't believe the Shuttle does satellites anymore because it's actually cheaper to use unmanned rockets for this purpose. It's only useful when you need humans to go up for some purpose.

NASA needs to equal NASCAR. Let's race space shuttles.

The Icelander: I don't know why the Discovery Channel can't have a special for every launch to go over what's going on and to interview the astronauts. But, yeah, NASA's PR needs some work. Though their presence on TV and on the Internet is miles ahead of other federal agencies.


Because this is the ONLY astronaut they're interested in interviewing.

blazemongr: Kaka: Pay for itself - other countries paying us to get their satellites into low orbit for that final high boost, DOD paying for satellite launches, CNN, NOAA, The Weather Channel etc, etc...

The only point I don't think is correct -- I don't believe the Shuttle does satellites anymore because it's actually cheaper to use unmanned rockets for this purpose. It's only useful when you need humans to go up for some purpose.

You are absolutely correct - but consider this. If The Space Transportation System had been 'done' "right" (who knows what that means) Would there be an ESA Ariane or Vega?

Also the Vostok and Proton-M might have not gotten so much revenue from other countries.

Not to mention that after the final STS to ISS Mission, NASA (we taxpayers) are going to be paying an extreme premium for Russian Prospect vehicles to bring up stuff and Souyz rendezvous vehicles to bring up/return OUR (and other country's astronauts).

I guess my point is that if politics had not shackled the STS program/system the Space Race would still be over.

Don't get me started on Chinese Long March vehicle.

Please email me if you would like to continue this conversation as I enjoy your point of view.

So the same company that single handedly dumbed down America's youth over the past 25 years wants to try to get people interested in space? Fark you Viacom.

Whoreable: So the same company that single handedly dumbed down America's youth over the past 25 years wants to try to get people interested in space? Fark you Viacom.

Are you referring to MTV or the crap that didn't make my older sisters annoying to be around in the eighties?