NASA: "The Shuttle Was a Mistake"

[AES]

[I keep posting these clips from Bob Park's newsletter to this group
from time to time because (a) there's always been a large component of
"piloting" to the Shuttle, and (b) he's a sharp, well-informed, well-
connected, outspoken guy -- and (c) obviously because I agree with him
on the issue. If people on this group think this seriously OT and/or
are seriously annoyed by this, cast enough online votes and I'll quit.]


WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 30 Sep 05 Washington, DC

1. NASA: SO THE DAMNED SHUTTLE WAS A MISTAKE, WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

This week, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told USA Today that
both the space shuttle and the International Space Station were
mistakes. His candor is admirable, but after all, these were not
Bush initiatives, and Griffin's opinion of them was known before
he was tapped for the top job. What is disturbing is that
Griffin pledged to complete the ISS before the shuttle is retired
in 2010. There are no plans to send a shuttle to service the
world's greatest telescope, but the schedule calls for 18 shuttle
flights to finish the ISS, plus 10 ISS supply missions that's
an average of 5.6 shuttle flights per year. Anyone who would bet
on getting 28 flights out of these rickety-old jalopies has been
living on some other planet. Even with a crew of just five,
that's 140 rolls of the dice. That's a big gamble to support a
space station that is now acknowledged to be of little value.

[Darkwing \(Badass\)]

"AES" > wrote in message
...
> [I keep posting these clips from Bob Park's newsletter to this group
> from time to time because (a) there's always been a large component of
> "piloting" to the Shuttle, and (b) he's a sharp, well-informed, well-
> connected, outspoken guy -- and (c) obviously because I agree with him
> on the issue. If people on this group think this seriously OT and/or
> are seriously annoyed by this, cast enough online votes and I'll quit.]
>
>
> WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 30 Sep 05 Washington, DC
>
> 1. NASA: SO THE DAMNED SHUTTLE WAS A MISTAKE, WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
>
> This week, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told USA Today that
> both the space shuttle and the International Space Station were
> mistakes. His candor is admirable, but after all, these were not
> Bush initiatives, and Griffin's opinion of them was known before
> he was tapped for the top job. What is disturbing is that
> Griffin pledged to complete the ISS before the shuttle is retired
> in 2010. There are no plans to send a shuttle to service the
> world's greatest telescope, but the schedule calls for 18 shuttle
> flights to finish the ISS, plus 10 ISS supply missions that's
> an average of 5.6 shuttle flights per year. Anyone who would bet
> on getting 28 flights out of these rickety-old jalopies has been
> living on some other planet. Even with a crew of just five,
> that's 140 rolls of the dice. That's a big gamble to support a
> space station that is now acknowledged to be of little value.


But it's the world's greatest space station. If they were abandoning the ISS
and were only sending up shuttles to fix the Hubble the same people would
still be bitching about not saving the ISS. People just like to bitch.

---------------------------------------------
DW

[Jay Masino]

Darkwing \(Badass\) <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>> in 2010. There are no plans to send a shuttle to service the
>> world's greatest telescope, but the schedule calls for 18 shuttle
>> flights to finish the ISS, plus 10 ISS supply missions that's
>> an average of 5.6 shuttle flights per year. Anyone who would bet
>> on getting 28 flights out of these rickety-old jalopies has been
>> living on some other planet. Even with a crew of just five,
>> that's 140 rolls of the dice. That's a big gamble to support a
>> space station that is now acknowledged to be of little value.
>
> But it's the world's greatest space station. If they were abandoning the ISS
> and were only sending up shuttles to fix the Hubble the same people would
> still be bitching about not saving the ISS. People just like to bitch.

The "world's greatest telescope" is presently in development (the James
Web Space Telescope). The Hubble is a great bird, but there may be
limited value in keeping it going until the James Webb can be launched.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Jay Honeck]

> But it's the world's greatest space station. If they were abandoning the ISS
> and were only sending up shuttles to fix the Hubble the same people would
> still be bitching about not saving the ISS. People just like to bitch.

I'm a very strong proponent of our space program, but the Space Station
was so compromised by the bureaucrats that it's become little more than
a political tool.

The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
travel. Sadly, the current ISS is in an orbit that does not allow it
to be used for this purpose.

As for the shuttle? It was a great idea that, again, was so
*******ized by the bureaucrats and politicians that it lost its
purpose. It should have been replaced a decade ago.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
> as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
> travel. Sadly, the current ISS is in an orbit that does not allow it
> to be used for this purpose.

There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
(I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Jay Masino]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
> (I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
> For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
> travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
> materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
> space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
> a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research platform.
> And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

Exactly. In addition, there's lots of other research, related to the
earth's environment, that can be done in an orbiting space station.
Personally, I think Bush's quest for the moon/mars is a huge waste of
money. In my opinion, it's literally devistating NASA from the inside by
robbing money from worthwhile research projects, in order to fund the
moon/mars development.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Larry Dighera]

On 2 Oct 2005 05:04:08 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>::

>The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
>as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
>travel.

Please provide the name of one other single human endeavor that has
brought so many nations together for a CONSTRUCTIVE purpose.

The International Spaced Station is a start on the "long term" goal of
peaceful coexistence among the nations of our would, if not a
meaningful scientific achievement.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article om>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> > The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
> > as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
> > travel. Sadly, the current ISS is in an orbit that does not allow it
> > to be used for this purpose.
>
> There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
> (I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
> For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
> travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
> materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
> space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
> a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research platform.
> And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
station.

rg

[Kyle Boatright]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Oct 2005 05:04:08 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in om>::
>
>>The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
>>as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
>>travel.
>
> Please provide the name of one other single human endeavor that has
> brought so many nations together for a CONSTRUCTIVE purpose.
>
> The International Spaced Station is a start on the "long term" goal of
> peaceful coexistence among the nations of our would, if not a
> meaningful scientific achievement.

You could argue that this is the UN's function. Also, the countries which
are participating in the ISS generally are not the bomb throwing loonies who
are the real concern in today's world.

In hindsight (always 20/20, right?), I'd say that the shuttle and the ISS
were both boondoggles. The shuttle was built in order to transport stuff to
a space station that didn't exist until 20 years after the shuttle's launch.
The US joined the ISS effort because NASA needed a space station to validate
the shuttle. Circular logic and justifications like these have cost US
taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

I am a fan of a space program, but it needs to be about exploration and/or
scientific discovery. Instead, we're stuck with a Shuttle and ISS which are
essentially the world's most expensive exercise in logistics.

KB

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:15:39 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2 Oct 2005 05:04:08 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> in om>::
>>
>>>The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
>>>as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
>>>travel.
>>
>> Please provide the name of one other single human endeavor that has
>> brought so many nations together for a CONSTRUCTIVE purpose.
>>
>> The International Spaced Station is a start on the "long term" goal of
>> peaceful coexistence among the nations of our would, if not a
>> meaningful scientific achievement.
>
>You could argue that this is the UN's function.

Yes. One could. But you'd have to overlook the leadership role
incumbent on a nation in the world position of the USA. (Where is UN
headquarters located?)

>Also, the countries which are participating in the ISS generally are
>not the bomb throwing loonies who are the real concern in today's world.

Exactly. They are the technologically and politically advanced
countries with a well educated populace. They stand as examples of
successful (non theocratic) government to the rest of the world.

>In hindsight (always 20/20, right?), I'd say that the shuttle and the ISS
>were both boondoggles. The shuttle was built in order to transport stuff to
>a space station that didn't exist until 20 years after the shuttle's launch.

Do you think the US has learned anything of use for planning future
missions as a result of the Shuttle program?

>The US joined the ISS effort because NASA needed a space station to validate
>the shuttle. Circular logic and justifications like these have cost US
>taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Bureaucracy, by it's political nature, works in convoluted ways.

I would much prefer to see this nation's wealth used for cooperative,
constructive prepossess, than weapons and war. But that's just me.
You may feel differently about that.

>I am a fan of a space program, but it needs to be about exploration and/or
>scientific discovery.

How would you achieve the goals of exploration and scientific
discovery? What would you explore and how would you propose to
overcome the obstacles to achieve it?

>Instead, we're stuck with a Shuttle and ISS which are
>essentially the world's most expensive exercise in logistics.
>

It's a beginning, after all.

Because space exploration is not a real priority issue like arms and
military, progress has been slow. It is only now, after significant
satellite exploration of our solar system, that we have any idea of
the requirements of realistic exploratory missions. Engineers like to
see the mission accomplished successfully, unlike early airmen who
just wanted to try things out without benefit of knowledge of the
entire flight envelope of aircraft of that time. At least, that's how
I see it.

[Andrew Gideon]

Bob Noel wrote:

> There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
> (I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).

We've a huge investment in satellites. Real on-site repair could be a time
and money saver if done well.

I'm not sure that there's much advantage to on-site fabrication until/unless
one gets *very* fancy (ie. importing materials from some place like the
moon, with the correspondingly lower transport costs).

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> In hindsight (always 20/20, right?), I'd say that the shuttle and the ISS
> were both boondoggles. The shuttle was built in order to transport stuff
> to a space station that didn't exist until 20 years after the shuttle's
> launch.

You're neglecting the cold war mentality that existed at the time of the
Shuttle's introduction. Grabbing the high ground certainly appeared to be
(and likely was, even if it turned out to have been unnecessary) a
reasonable strategy.

- Andrew

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> > There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
> > (I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
> > For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
> > travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
> > materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
> > space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
> > a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research
> > platform.
> > And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?
>
> All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
> station.

how?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > > There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
> > > (I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
> > > For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
> > > travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
> > > materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
> > > space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
> > > a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research
> > > platform.
> > > And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?
> >
> > All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
> > station.
>
> how?

The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
spacecraft.

The value of additional physiological work is questionable. We pretty
much know the effects of zero G on the human body, and it's not pretty.
We were designed for one G. Even if turned out that there were medical
conditions that were treatable by low-G environments the benefit to
society is far from clear given how expensive it currently is to send
humans into space. But even if one grants that this work has value, it
could be done with a much less expensive station provisioned by unmanned
vehicles.

rg

[George Patterson]

Bob Noel wrote:

> There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point

Manufacturing in hard vacuum is another. I've read that there are also medicines
that can be made in that environment much more easily than here.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Flyingmonk]

Jay:
>I'm a very strong proponent of our space program,

I was too, until NASA gave Moller five million dollars for more R&D on
his flying car.

[AES]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> We've a huge investment in satellites. Real on-site repair could be a time
> and money saver if done well.

In most, probably all, "repair in space" situations, you can build and
launch a replacement satellite (and throw in some improvements
on the side) for less than -- probably much less than -- the costs of
launching and recovering the manned space vehicle that does the
repairs.

[cjcampbell]

It is pretty easy to say the Shuttle or the ISS or Hubble or anything
else was a huge mistake; that the money would have been better spent
elsewhere. Of course, then you would have people saying that where the
money went instead was a huge mistake.

If Mr. Park or Mr. Griffin think those were mistakes, it behooves them
to say what would have been better.

Heck, you could have spent all the money "fighting poverty" (or
ignorance, or injustice, or whatever), and it probably would have been
even less effective in accomplishing those goals.

[Steve Allison]

cjcampbell wrote:
> It is pretty easy to say the Shuttle or the ISS or Hubble or anything
> else was a huge mistake.......
>
> If Mr. Park or Mr. Griffin think those were mistakes, it behooves them
> to say what would have been better.

Bob Parks has said what he thinks would have been better, several times
over the years:
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/index.html
Search the archives for Space Shuttle and ISS.

Here's the USA Today article on what NASA Administrator Michael Griffin
said:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-griffin-interview_x.htm
This most certainly is not the complete text of the interview, but
provides a little more context.

[Darkwing \(Badass\)]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> Darkwing \(Badass\) <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> in 2010. There are no plans to send a shuttle to service the
>>> world's greatest telescope, but the schedule calls for 18 shuttle
>>> flights to finish the ISS, plus 10 ISS supply missions that's
>>> an average of 5.6 shuttle flights per year. Anyone who would bet
>>> on getting 28 flights out of these rickety-old jalopies has been
>>> living on some other planet. Even with a crew of just five,
>>> that's 140 rolls of the dice. That's a big gamble to support a
>>> space station that is now acknowledged to be of little value.
>>
>> But it's the world's greatest space station. If they were abandoning the
>> ISS
>> and were only sending up shuttles to fix the Hubble the same people would
>> still be bitching about not saving the ISS. People just like to bitch.
>
> The "world's greatest telescope" is presently in development (the James
> Web Space Telescope). The Hubble is a great bird, but there may be
> limited value in keeping it going until the James Webb can be launched.
>
> --- Jay


But it doesn't take pretty visual pictures.

------------------------------------------------------
DW

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> As for the shuttle? It was a great idea that, again, was so
> *******ized by the bureaucrats and politicians that it lost its
> purpose. It should have been replaced a decade ago.

And the AF bailed on it a long time ago in favor of regular
boosters. Back when I was working for Martin, they were
gearing up for the second (Vandenburg) launch base and some
classified missions, but that all got shelved.

[Ron Natalie]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
>
>>There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
>>(I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
>
>
> We've a huge investment in satellites. Real on-site repair could be a time
> and money saver if done well.
>
Do you have a clue where those satellites are in orbit compared to where
the space station is or where the shuttle can get to? It's not like
you can go up and grab a geosynch satellite and take it to the ISS for
repair and then plop it back in the right orbit easier.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> As for the shuttle? It was a great idea that, again, was so
>> *******ized by the bureaucrats and politicians that it lost its
>> purpose. It should have been replaced a decade ago.
>
> And the AF bailed on it a long time ago in favor of regular
> boosters. Back when I was working for Martin, they were
> gearing up for the second (Vandenburg) launch base and some
> classified missions, but that all got shelved.

Sure they did. Everyone knows there is a secret military shuttle. Don't you
watch West Wing? ;)

[Montblack]

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
> Sure they did. Everyone knows there is a secret military shuttle. Don't
> you watch West Wing? ;)


I liked it much better when the coke/meth? addict was getting his half
finished scripts in late every month. <g>

So, who tipped the press?

CJ ....too easy.
Margaret .....naw.
The Prez ....maybe.
Toby .........too easy ...but fire him anyway :-)
National Security chick? ...not so much.
The evil Situation Room guy ...this is my guess.

The Republican candidate? ...We'll see.


Montblack
Same Bat Time. Same Bat Channel.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
>> Sure they did. Everyone knows there is a secret military shuttle. Don't
>> you watch West Wing? ;)
>
>
> I liked it much better when the coke/meth? addict was getting his half
> finished scripts in late every month. <g>


So did I.


>
> So, who tipped the press?
>
> CJ ....too easy.

That's who I thought at first. But not now.


> Margaret .....naw.

Maybe, but not on purpose

> The Prez ....maybe.

No... The Vice Prez, maybe. He is an idiot.


> Toby .........too easy ...but fire him anyway :-)

No then he'll go to the Santos campaign. Which would be funny with Josh as
his boss.

> National Security chick? ...not so much.

No... Too military.

> The evil Situation Room guy ...this is my guess.

The DOD guy. No.

>
> The Republican candidate? ...We'll see.
>
>

No, I don't think they'd queer the race like that.

[Don Poitras]

cjcampbell > wrote:
> It is pretty easy to say the Shuttle or the ISS or Hubble or anything
> else was a huge mistake; that the money would have been better spent
> elsewhere. Of course, then you would have people saying that where the
> money went instead was a huge mistake.

> If Mr. Park or Mr. Griffin think those were mistakes, it behooves them
> to say what would have been better.

I'm not either of those, but I consider myself a behoover.

The shuttle was a boondoggle. NASA couldn't afford to do squat after
the money for Apollo was pulled, so they searched and searched for
_something_ that _somebody_ would pay for. In steps the military.

"We'll pay for it if you design it so that it fits our mission
profile. We want something that can place a spy satellite (or other
stuff to be named later) exactly where we want it and then go back and
get it later."

Bingo. We'll build this huge monstrosity that can carry really big
payloads into low Earth orbit. Unfortunately, it can't really do much
else than that. Can't truly be entirely reusable since it's so darn
big that we need to bolt on this huge explosive tank of gas that's
thrown away every time.

What should they have done? Exactly what the real scientists wanted to
do. Continue the X-15 project to get to the point of developing an
actual reusable manned space plane. If you need to get people into
space, don't strap them down with enormous payloads. That just adds
to the complexities needed and makes for a dangerous vehicle. If you
need to get payload into space to rendevous with the people, you use
unmanned boosters.

Next step? Once you've got that, you're well on you way to being able
to build a truly working space station. One either in geo-synchronous
orbit or at L5. Of course, by this time we might have found that just
skipping the space station part and going straight for a permanent
presence on the Moon would have been better. There are lot's of ideas
for making a Moon base pay for itself. I think though that once we
get there, the real benefit will be something we haven't thought of
yet.

The bad part about the current Moon/Mars boondoggle is... well... Mars.
Ain't gonna happen. Mars is far away. Real far away. With tons of money
and resources we could go there. Once. Why bother? If, after spending
some time on the Moon, we find a good reason to go, then go!

> Heck, you could have spent all the money "fighting poverty" (or
> ignorance, or injustice, or whatever), and it probably would have been
> even less effective in accomplishing those goals.

This sounds like, "Just throwing money at the schools isn't the answer".
I keep wondering where all these shining schools with super paid teachers
and 10 student class sizes with state of the art computers and clean
fancy lab equipment are that are still failing to teach kids...

--
Don Poitras

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Kyle Boatright > posted:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2 Oct 2005 05:04:08 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> in om>::
>>
>>> The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for
>>> use as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually,
>>> interstellar) travel.
>>
>> Please provide the name of one other single human endeavor that has
>> brought so many nations together for a CONSTRUCTIVE purpose.
>>
>> The International Spaced Station is a start on the "long term" goal
>> of peaceful coexistence among the nations of our would, if not a
>> meaningful scientific achievement.
>
> You could argue that this is the UN's function.
>
Only tangentially. The UN is primarily a forum to address grievances in a
peaceful manner, not to work collaboratively on a complex technological
problem that could benefit the human race.

> Also, the countries
> which are participating in the ISS generally are not the bomb
> throwing loonies who are the real concern in today's world.
>
True, its participants are the bomb-dropping loonies who *should* be the
real concern in today's world, largely because we're creating the need for
the existance of "bomb trowing loonies" (and in more than one instance
arming them) in the first place. But, what does that have to do with the
value of the ISS?

> In hindsight (always 20/20, right?), I'd say that the shuttle and the
> ISS were both boondoggles. The shuttle was built in order to
> transport stuff to a space station that didn't exist until 20 years
> after the shuttle's launch. The US joined the ISS effort because NASA
> needed a space station to validate the shuttle. Circular logic and
> justifications like these have cost US taxpayers hundreds of billions
> of dollars.
>
The shuttle was, and largely still is, a platform to test the viability of
reusable space vehicles (the notion of this kind of vehicle seems to be as
deeply imbedded in our psyche as flying cars). Giving it missions such as
supplying the ISS is to provide further knowledge about working in space.
We are still quite primitive in that area, as the most recent in-flight
shuttle repairs show. There is still much to learn, and at this point,
there is no other space vehicle on the planet capable of providing the
same quality of "classroom" in which to obtain that education.

The ISS was, and largely still is, a platform to perform low-gravity
experiments and to address the effects of long-term space living on the
human body. A manned mission to Mars (much less anything further) would be
an impossibility without the information and systems resulting from these
experiments. And, the notion of long-term space travel is also deeply
embedded in our psyche, so the value of the ISS should be self-evident; do
it or give up the idea of long-term manned space travel.

Neil

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> > > All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
> > > station.
> >
> > how?
>
> The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
> spacecraft.

Of course it could. But for a lot less money?

>
> The value of additional physiological work is questionable. [snip]

I guess that depends on your vision. Do you really think we should stay
on this earth? Do you really lack the vision to see humans in space?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[AES]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > > > All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
> > > > station.
> > >
> > > how?
> >
> > The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
> > spacecraft.
>
> Of course it could. But for a lot less money?

The way to think of this is that very few scientific experiments or
engineering tests are done anymore using human manipulations, human
observations, or directly human-operated equipment -- EVEN ON EARTH.

Essentially all experimental equipment these days in most any field you
want to name is computer operated or controlled (the experimenters are
at keyboards); the samples are loaded or otherwise manipulated by
mechanical elements (i.e., robotic manipulators); measurements are
taken by sensors or cameras (which are immensely more capable, accurate,
and reliable than any human observer); and the data is captured,
recorded. and transmitted electronically (which means it can be
immensely detailed, permanent, and subject to repeated and ever more
detailed examination by multiple experimenters simultaneously) -- EVEN
IN TERRESTRIAL LABORATORIES.

Given this, in essentially any field you can name there's no need, and
it makes no sense, to incur the immense extra difficulties of putting
live human experimenters into space with the experimental apparatus used
there. It's just a dumb and wasteful thing to do.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
AES > wrote:

> > > The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
> > > spacecraft.
> >
> > Of course it could. But for a lot less money?
>
> The way to think of this is that very few scientific experiments or
> engineering tests are done anymore using human manipulations, human
> observations, or directly human-operated equipment -- EVEN ON EARTH.

That is certainly a way to look at it. It's wrong, but hey....

The reality is that experiments and tests are setup manually. Many are
performed or conducted with computers or machines. But they still
have to setup, debugged, etc etc.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > > > All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
> > > > station.
> > >
> > > how?
> >
> > The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
> > spacecraft.
>
> Of course it could. But for a lot less money?

Yes. Unmanned missions cost a tiny fraction (single-digit percentages)
of an equivalent manned mission.

> > The value of additional physiological work is questionable. [snip]
>
> I guess that depends on your vision. Do you really think we should stay
> on this earth? Do you really lack the vision to see humans in space?

Absolutely not. Whatever gave you that idea?

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> AES > wrote:
>
> > > > The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
> > > > spacecraft.
> > >
> > > Of course it could. But for a lot less money?
> >
> > The way to think of this is that very few scientific experiments or
> > engineering tests are done anymore using human manipulations, human
> > observations, or directly human-operated equipment -- EVEN ON EARTH.
>
> That is certainly a way to look at it. It's wrong, but hey....
>
> The reality is that experiments and tests are setup manually. Many are
> performed or conducted with computers or machines. But they still
> have to setup, debugged, etc etc.

Only because here on Earth human intervention is easy to come by. The
incremental cost of designing experiments that do not require manual
setup, debugging, etc. etc. is one or two orders of magnitude less than
the cost of launching humans along with the experiments.

rg

[George Patterson]

Bob Noel wrote:

> I guess that depends on your vision. Do you really think we should stay
> on this earth? Do you really lack the vision to see humans in space?

Bob, I think humans ought to spread out. But I also think that unmanned missions
might get us to the emigration point sooner. Seems to me that if we can send,
say, ten unmanned missions to Mars for the cost of one manned mission, and it
takes, say, twenty missions (manned or unmanned) to get us enough info to set up
a colony, then unmanned exploration will get us the colony sooner.

Plug in Arcturus for Mars, and I think it still works.

I also have a fear of the sort of stagnation that set in after we got to the
moon. Politically, we seem to be able to convince Congress to keep funding
unmanned missions. After we reached the moon, Congress pretty much shut down
funding for manned missions. I expect that if we sent a team to Mars (the next
logical step), we might get a second mission there, but we wouldn't see a third
one for 100 years.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> > I guess that depends on your vision. Do you really think we should stay
> > on this earth? Do you really lack the vision to see humans in space?
>
> Absolutely not. Whatever gave you that idea?

hmmm, I think I lost track of who was saying that there is absolutely
no point for a space station.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Bob Noel]

In article <bvZ1f.471$C62.222@trndny05>,
George Patterson > wrote:

> > I guess that depends on your vision. Do you really think we should stay
> > on this earth? Do you really lack the vision to see humans in space?
>
> Bob, I think humans ought to spread out. But I also think that unmanned
> missions
> might get us to the emigration point sooner.

Agreed.

Please don't think that I think that manned missions should always take
priority of unmanned. Both manned and unmanned missions can have important
contributions to exploration of space and the eventual move off this earth.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Jose]

> The way to think of this is that very few scientific experiments or
> engineering tests are done anymore using human manipulations, human
> observations, or directly human-operated equipment -- EVEN ON EARTH.

I don't think this is true, end to end (which is what is required for
unmanned missions). But even if it were, it misses the point.
Interactive experimentation (as opposed to autonomous experimentation)
is limited by the speed of light. This is insignificant terrestrially,
of slight significance on the moon, but makes a lot of difference as we
go to the planets. Humans are needed close (in lightpseed distance) to
the experiment, and the only way to learn how to do this (for
experiments on Saturn's moons) is to take humans to nearby places (like
the moon and Mars).

Yes, there are some unmanned probes that do quite well out in the outer
planets, but those experiments are not all that interactive.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Ron Garret > wrote:
>
> > > I guess that depends on your vision. Do you really think we should stay
> > > on this earth? Do you really lack the vision to see humans in space?
> >
> > Absolutely not. Whatever gave you that idea?
>
> hmmm, I think I lost track of who was saying that there is absolutely
> no point for a space station.

There is a big difference between *a* space station and *the* space
station. There may well be a point to having *a* space station, but
*the* space station is nothing more than a colossal money sink.

rg

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Ron Garret > wrote:

> > > Absolutely not. Whatever gave you that idea?
> >
> > hmmm, I think I lost track of who was saying that there is absolutely
> > no point for a space station.
>
> There is a big difference between *a* space station and *the* space
> station. There may well be a point to having *a* space station, but
> *the* space station is nothing more than a colossal money sink.

ah. Looking back in the thread, at one point "the" ISS is discussed, but
I responded to the paragraph about "a" space station.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[AES]

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> > The way to think of this is that very few scientific experiments or
> > engineering tests are done anymore using human manipulations, human
> > observations, or directly human-operated equipment -- EVEN ON EARTH.
>
> That is certainly a way to look at it. It's wrong, but hey....
>
> The reality is that experiments and tests are setup manually. Many are
> performed or conducted with computers or machines. But they still
> have to setup, debugged, etc etc.


Sure -- that's all the stuff you would do *before* launch, whether
manned or unmanned -- then send up the finished, assembled, debugged,
tested, calibrated computer-controlled apparatus.

[Or do we also install a machine shop, stockroom and parts room, drill
presses, soldering irons, selection of ICs and photodetectors, test and
calibration equipment, all that stuff up there in the ISS, and let the
astronauts do all the design and assembly of their instruments once they
get up there?]

[Jose]

> [Or do we also install a machine shop, stockroom and parts room, drill
> presses, soldering irons, selection of ICs and photodetectors, test and
> calibration equipment, all that stuff up there in the ISS, and let the
> astronauts do all the design and assembly of their instruments once they
> get up there?]

The further we are from Earth, the more we'll need to do this very thing.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.