"Pardon my ignorance, but why hasn't there ever been a true alternative to rockets? It just seems so primitive to put all your goodies on top of a bomb, and shoot it up with brute force, when more elegant solutions may be possible. "
Using a "Hydrogen gas balloon" doesn't cut the safety issue.
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Bruce Moomaw wrote:
From: David M Harland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
INDUSTRIAL SPACE FACILITY
[snip] In reality, however, this revolutionary start-up deal
had its origins in the Reagan administration's July 1984 call for
commercialisation of space operations, and this was
- Original Message -
From: Gary McMurtry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
I would just like to add to the long thought train that Robert has
been delivering that we never know where the next
In a message dated 10/8/2001 8:43:46 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, David M Harland wrote:
There is no viable alternative to the Shuttle for human spaceflight.
It is now running about as efficiently as it ever will. It is simply
a costly business.
Yes, in the current world context it is completely accurate to say this.
But from a moral perspective, one is required to ask *if* and *when*
this will change?
Never, never, never. At least since the time of Aristotle, people have been asking such questions, as 'when will the philosopher kings
Please remove me off this list, it is out of control
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
From the Oct. 1 Aviation Week:
NASA believes it has whittled its $4.8 billion shortfall on the Space
Station to about $500 million, but that only buys a three-man crew -- barely
enough to keep the station operating, and woefully inadequate for
'world-class science'. Estimates of how much more
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Bruce Moomaw wrote:
NASA believes it has whittled its $4.8 billion shortfall on the Space
Station to about $500 million, but that only buys a three-man crew -- barely
enough to keep the station operating, and woefully inadequate for
'world-class science'.
To my way of
Well, at the risk of being considered a bottom line man, here's my
read on the space station fiasco. In the early 1970s, Nixon wanted
the space shuttle because they thought it would be a great way to
launch err, spy satellites. So, we got it. Now, we have the space
station to give the
It's an expensive albatross, if there ever was one.
I disagree, the problem is its functionality has been pared back to
much, it needs to be expanded!
:)
dmh
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Gary McMurtry wrote:
So, we got it. Now, we have the space
station to give the shuttles someplace to go when they're not
launching satellites, fixing telescopes, bore-bore-bore, etc.
I've read someplace, perhaps The Case for Mars, that the space
station was designed
- Original Message -
From: Gary McMurtry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
Well, at the risk of being considered a bottom line man, here's my
read on the space station fiasco. In the early
- Original Message -
From: David M Harland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
It's an expensive albatross, if there ever was one.
I disagree, the problem is its functionality has been pared
- Original Message -
From: Robert J. Bradbury [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Gary McMurtry wrote:
So, we got it. Now, we have the space
station to give the shuttles
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Bruce Moomaw wrote:
It's what it has been from the start: some kind of thermionic nuclear
generator converting the heat from Pu-238 into electrical energy. However,
NASA would like to develop a new system more efficient at this conversion
than the current RTGs, thereby
- Original Message -
From: David M Harland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
It's an expensive albatross, if there ever was one.
I disagree, the problem is its functionality has been pared
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, David M Harland wrote:
I disagree, the problem is its functionality has been pared back to
much, it needs to be expanded!
Hogwash. Its real cost was always ridiculously disproportionate to the size
of the scientific benefits it would supposedly produce -- that,
Robert,
I hear you on the human costs versus our perhaps esoteric need to
know. Carl Sagan wrestled with this topic also. One of my favorite
exchanges (whether real or contrived) was attributed to Ben Franklin.
When someone questioned his basic scientific research with the
question What
Bruce
You complain that a crew of three will only barely be able to keep
the ISS operating... so finish the habitation module and have a crew
of six, or two modules and have a crew of nine. Italy has offered to
build the module in return for NASA launching an Italian life
sciences
Bruce said:
If I told you what I REALLY think of the Station, this site would probably
get yanked off the Web.
Actually, though, it's quite possible to conceive of a Station that would
have been far more defensible -- namely, one made of a series of similar
self-contained modules that could be
- Original Message -
From: David M Harland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
Bruce
You complain that a crew of three will only barely be able to keep
the ISS operating... so finish
- Original Message -
From: David M Harland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
For anyone who wants to know
INDUSTRIAL SPACE FACILITY
As the prospects of microgravity research grew
- Original Message -
From: Gary McMurtry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
Robert,
I hear you on the human costs versus our perhaps esoteric need to
know. Carl Sagan wrestled with this topic
- Original Message -
From: Robert J. Bradbury [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Europa Icepick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: More jolly Space Station news
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001, Bruce Moomaw wrote:
Forgive me for saying so, but you have a complete bee
Don't forget that the actual cost
of every Shuttle maintenance flight (despite NASA's attempts to cover it up
with highly creative bookkeeping) is about $1 billion. That's one hell of a
lot of additional money for a trickle of useful science.
They'd make those launches anyway, for one reason
In a message dated 10/8/2001 10:30:00 AM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, at the risk of being considered a "bottom line" man, here's my
read on the space station fiasco. In the early 1970s, Nixon wanted
the space shuttle because they thought it would be a great way to
In a message dated 10/8/2001 1:43:29 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd argue on humanitarian and moral grounds that the best evaluation
criteria should be on lives saved / $ spent (or more accurately years
of potential life saved / $ spent). In that respect the $ going to
In a message dated 10/8/2001 2:13:48 PM Alaskan Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why? I'll note that the U.S. is planning to spend between $15 -$100 BILLION
on the loss of ~5000 individuals. This is equal to an ~2-5 year NASA budget
allocation. Go compute the frequency of impact likely
28 matches
Mail list logo
