> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:29 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep > > > 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?
No, but that's an awfully low bar, isn't it. Good science has been gleamed from my own work.....and that has come at _a lot_ lower price than NASA. > I would say that learning to live in space is of enormous value. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but look at the self referential nature of your lead statement. Learning to live in space is valuable only for a manned space program. There is a bit of biology that can be done on this, but the impact of zero-G studies on our understanding of biology in general has been small. > Learning to manufacture in zeroG is valuable. How valuable? It is certainly less valuable than the lift costs. While the shuttle is more expensive than the Saturn V would be, it's in terms of percentages, not factors of 10....which is what we need to have real zero G manufacturing. If we do find a way to get lift costs down a factor of, say, 100, than we could apply what we've learned already. But, we gained virtually nothing by doing a very small amount of zero-G manufacturing decades in advance of when it would be practical on even a small scale. >Repairing Hubble has been useful. That is the one tangible action of the manned space program that's worth real money. But, several Hubbles could have been lifted into space for one year's worth of the manned space cost. > > > > > > 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 don't know about that. Remember, 99.9%+ of geology and geophysics is done remotely now. Cores are still useful and valuable for checking instrumentation, but not with just a simple chemistry kit. More work on things like permeability can be done with cores....and standoff is not an issue with core density measurements. But, wireline tools are routinely expected to give most of the information available from cores downhole. While geology schools probably still teach hands on geology with simple chemistry kits, virtually every professional geologist puts that kit away and uses remote techniques professionally. > 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. The ability to get the gestalt of social dynamics is rather different from being able to > Does it always have to be about scientific advancement in the > immediate sense? No, but what other value do you suggest? > To some degree it has to be about flexing the muscles of engineering > (not because it is easy, but because it is hard).<G> But, the manned space program _must_ use well established engineering techniques. Not only that, but there is ~5 years of bureaucracy involved in adapting a technique that is new to the manned spaceflight program. The environmental requirements for manned space flight are very simple compared to the requirements my equipment had to meet (with a few exceptions like the inside of rocket engines). I talked to a NASA engineer who was frustrated that he couldn't use well established techniques that greatly improve reliability, and thus safety, because it was not acceptable. > 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!!!!!!!!!!! Sure, that just shows that there is an inherent wall in aerospace development. As is typically the case in mature technologies, a breakthrough will come not by trying the same thing again, but by the application of something else. So, the solution is to work on a lot of something elses, not manned space flight. Manned space flight, due to the high cost of failure, cannot be at the forefront of technology. > > 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. Manufacturing costs are high. For the last 25+ years, with only one exception I think, the cost of the shuttles themselves has just been maintenance. >The R&D would be spent on newer vehicles launched on SatV. Manned spaceflight hasn't had real R&D since the mid-70s. > Would you feel differently if the manned program was doing something > that was actually useful? Without significant opportunity costs? yes. > 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? It would be.....but that would require factors of 100 or so drops in lift costs. Being generous, we might have gotten a factor of 2 drop if we chose your idea....but that's being generous. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
