----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 7:20 PM Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger >> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:48 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep >> >> >> IMO, the shuttle era space program (and actually the era >> immediately >> preceeding it) is an example of what happens when a science program >> becomes a political football. > > I'm sure you know my take on this...from what I've written above and > what > I've written before. Well...it is certainly true that we have travelled down this road a time or three!<G> > But, let me state it explicitly: the manned space > program was never a scientific exercise. It was and it wasn't, eh? I think we will agree that as it is advertized, the science in the space program is a bunch of crap. It is mostly a load of PR misdirection used to divert attention away from the military functions of the program and the political "feel good" underpinnings. But do you say that no good science has been gleaned from manned spaceflight? I would say that learning to live in space is of enormous value. Learning to manufacture in zeroG is valuable. Repairing Hubble has been useful. > If it had to compete for dollars > with other scientific research and the criterion "what gives us the > best > chance of enhancing our knowledge of how the universe works (be it > cosmology, star physics, planetary science, ecology, biology, > chemistry, or > basic physics), then we still would not have sent a human into > space. > We still lack a robotic entity that can equal a human. Those little rovers on Mars are a pretty weak substitute for a geologist with rudimentary chemistry kit. I could look at a picture of Dan's home and know a few things about it. I could learn a bit more if I were to get a hold of some samples of things from Dan's house. But if I were to visit Dan's home for a bit, I would understand a whole lot more about the dynamics of Planet Dan than I could from pictures or samples of flatware. Even sample return missions have great limitations. > >> There *were* plans for human occupation of space and the moon >> before >> the shuttle program. Much of what was planned then and now could be >> done by brute force methods. (Like the Saturn V) > > Sure, but once we showed that our technology would always be better > than the > USSR, what was the point? It certainly wasn't scientific > advancement. Does it always have to be about scientific advancement in the immediate sense? To some degree it has to be about flexing the muscles of engineering (not because it is easy, but because it is hard).<G> To the point......Does Ford still have a better idea? Doesn't seem like it. Resting on ones laurels is a sure way to fall behind and it sure looks to me like others are catching up. Today Iran had a successful sub-orbital flight. Iran, dammit, Iran!!!!!!!!!!! <G> > >> The Shuttle was an attempt to employ a bit of finesse and bring >> down >> costs. It would have been a good idea if it had been designed *in >> addition* to the existing Saturn V program and what you would have >> gotten was a smaller shuttle with lower haulage requirements that >> would have likely been safer as it could have been launched atop a >> SatV. > > Why would that have been safer? There were not enough SatV launches > to > properly compare zero blown up with the shuttle safety record. True, but I'm thinking the EFT next to a leaky SRB that caused the Challanger explosion was a poor design compared to a smaller shuttle atop a SatV. But yes, that is an essentially unprovable assertion on my part, even though I believe it to be true ATM. > > They were also hideously expensive. Our moon program cost 0.5% of > GDP in > '66...its peak year. Once we beat the Russians to the moon, the need > to > spend this type of money on a program with a minimal remaining > return on > investment just wasn't there. > >> Political decisions deemed that "there could only be one" method of >> getting people and equipment into space, and this "one size fits >> all" >> mentality is what wasted 30 years and billions of dollars. > > Well, if there were multiple ways of doing it, then there would have > to be a > much larger budget....which wasn't going to happen. What reason would there be to continually re-engineer the SatV for the duration of it's use? At some point it is just manufacturing costs and incidental engineering costs. The R&D would be spent on newer vehicles launched on SatV. > >> If the remaining shuttles do not end up permanently in space >> serving >> minor duty I will be a bit pissed over the waste of resources. > > Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources. I'd > guess > that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% > and 10% > of that for spending on science. > Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something that was actually useful? If the program had set up permanent zeroG manufacturing lines making products that could only be made in space, would the bang for the buck equations be more favorable to you? I agree with you that the manned program is essentially wasteful. Where we may disagree is that it is necessarily so. xponent Alternate Choices Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
