Re: Kerry criticizes Bush's space vision

From: spacelearner (spacelearner_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 06/17/04 

Date: 16 Jun 2004 22:36:47 -0700

"jacob navia" <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote in message news:<caqhv8$9i2$1@news-reader1.wanadoo.fr>...
> "Paul" <none@none.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:40D0B019.9573E47D@none.com...
> > As far as I'm concerned, Kerry is looking at low-earth orbital missions
> and
> > micro-gravity experiments and nothing more, nothing about long-duration
> > lunar and martian MANNED explorations. What kind of policy is that? We've
> > been stuck in LEO since 1973.
>
> Paul:
> 1) The U.S. has sent machines to Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Venus, Neptune,
> and I just stop there. I do not see that as being "stuck" by any
> reasonable interpretation of that word!

Only machines have been sent not humans correct, therefore, this does
nothing to excite people about space nor does it contribute anything
worthwhile to the average person on the street. The poster
specifically mentioned manned explorations.
>
> 2) HUMANS haven't gotten any further than LEO. The principal reason is that
> after 6 months without gravity the body starts decaying.

The moon is further than the earth. your comment seems to defy the
current research on the subject which states that degradation begins
from day one. It primarily affects those systems previously used on
earth which are not being used in space.

> Some people
> resist better than others, but after more than 1 year they are quite
> sick,
> and nobody knows at all what consequences has a two year trip.

I've seen no research that suggests anyone is immune, can you provide
a reference. The russian sace agency has employed people in space for
greater than one year.

> No
> human has ever stayed two years without gravity. And there is quite
> good reasons for that. Astronauts aren't suicide prone. The changes in
> the bones start getting out of hand after 8-9 months, and they could
> be irreversible, nobody knows. More LEO testing is obviously needed!

Many of these problems only become apparent if the astronaut wishes to
return to earth. Also, the scietific opinion appears to indicate that
many of these problems are correctable by the application of a gravity
effect. THe amount of gravity is unknown as no testing has been done.
With regards to bone demineralisation might I suggest you review the
russian literature on the subject as they have far more knowledge on
this subject than the US.
>
> Let's clarify the points:
>
> Human space travel needs a technology that just DOESN'T EXIST now.

Which technology, the ability to spin a spacecraft??
>
> We need to develop 100% reliable closed ecological systems able to
> provide a crew of several people with food, oxygen, water, and waste
> recycling for at least 3 years without any failure. Such a technology,
> I repeat DOESN'T EXIST. Neither in Russia nor in the U.S., and it
> will not exist until a LOT of money and effort is spent in LEO
> DEVELOPING IT!!!

Noone will attempt it as their is no such thing as 100% reliable. In
all likelyhood if astronauts were to go to space they would utilise
the russian approach to technology, ie: Fault tolerance,
maintainability etc. THe ability to repair and replace components that
fail, rather than the Nasa approach of absolute reliability.

Given the massive differences between space and leo why wouldnt the
research be better placed in space or in a space type environment such
as the moon.

>
> Just read the recent reports about the mythical space station walk,
> (today it was postponed again to June 24th)
> where we see that the workhorse of space travel: the spacesuit is
> JUST NOT READY! Several U.S. suits failed, and in the last walk
> the russian astronaut was forced to return because of a malfunctioning
> suit.

Agreed spacesuits are a nasty problem particularly in regards to
places like mars. Their appears very little research on this topic has
occurred. It should be noted that the russian astronaut survived. I
would also think that the development of a spacesuit is a distinct
difference to the development of a surface EVA suit as evidenced by
the performance of the apollo suits.

> And spacesuits are taken for granted. They are actually complex
> systems, that can kill the user at the slightest failure.
>

Space is dangerous. Note that on earth many complex systems can kill
the user at the slightest failure. The attitude appears quite
defeatist.

> This demonstrates the REAL state of current technology.

You havent stated any data on current technology so I would dispute
that statement.
>
> I am (of course) FOR human space travel, but I see that developing
> such a technology will take something like 20-30 years of LEO testing
> and developing before we can go anywhere.

Thermal, radiation, molecular evironments for a start are completely
different. Additionally, organisations like nasa are not building
equipment as you describe, in general if they want to build a widget
to operate in LEO, they build a wdiget to operate their with no regard
to other applications.

In the last 20-30 years in LEO what are have been improved, and in
fact, in some areas have gone backwards, eg: by incorporating
materials that will not survive the thermal or radiation environments
of space only of LEO, use of GPS for navigation useless outside earth,
even more dense electronics making them more prone to failure outisde
earths protective sphere.
>
> The space station is our best demonstration of how things stand.
> It needs to be supplied regularly after a few months. Many components
> that look trivial but are vital (exercise machines for instance) are failing
> at an alarming rate.

Even more so on earth where many complex logistical and supply
activities must occur daily to provide the necessities for cities. I
would also dispute that exercise bikes are vital given that they dont
really contribute alot to stopping the bodies degradation and that
according to the russian mission reports many of the cosmanuts skip
their exercise sessions and are fine.

>
> In a trip to Mars, the failure of ANY component means death for everyone.

That is quite a ridiculous statement. It would only be true if a
component was built without any redundancy.
>
> There is nothing remotely similar to the required level of reliability.

Their isnt on earth either but things still kick along.

>
> Besides, the BIG issue of human survival after more than 1 year
> in space is not even understood and there is NO REMEDY for it.

Humans have survived after a year in space. The longer term remedy is
gravity (how much unknown) or alternatively, a scenario in which the
astronaut does not need to return to the heavy environment of earth.
>
> This *is* a show stopper, and we have to solve THAT before any human
> can get into a spaceship bound to Mars.

Easily solved, we spin the craft to a yet to be defined amount. I
believe radiation is a bigger danger and a unknown than worry about a
persons physical prowess upon return to earth.

> Or, build a rotating spaceship with artificial gravity. But that
> requires quite a lot of mass.

At last!! It has nothing at all to do with mass. It has to do with how
much gravity you want and how many revolutions your willing to subject
the crew. In some scenarios (eg: tethers) it only takes two
spacecraft.

>
> > Seems like he prefers robotic exploration of
> > the solar system and the heck with manned exploration.
>
> I am not an U.S. citizen and I will not get into for/against this
> candidate. He represents a point of view that I find
> reasonable, but I know too much politicians to forget that

I dont believe it matters in the case of the US. It will more than
likely be the younger countries that achieve these goals. Or given the
current political climate a non-us private group.
>
> "The promises of a politician engage only those that believe them".
>
> :-)
>
> jacob

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Deep Impact Kicks Off Fourth of July with Deep Space Fireworks
    ... out of the earth by stonemasons. ... What I am saying here is that as a Senator or NASA administrator, ... He could in fact reason that his body, to him and his physician not ... governments, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... did not have a modern scientific background. ... I still haven't seen a good reason. ... of scientific facts well before there was science to begin with. ... the kings of the earth have committed fornication, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The correct definition.
    ... These created kinds adapted as the earth changed over the ... The Permian extinction coincides ... All the more reason that severe interuptions of the evolutionary process ... stops the progress of evolution which claims it needs lots of time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Precession of the equinoxes ?
    ... imagine the Earth keeping one face toward the sun just ... You fabricated the "implausible explanation you've seen" all by yourself, ... Bluster and I'll come down ... argumentative cunt that I cannot reason with, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why the HELL havent we gone back to the moon yet?
    ... > Earth's surface, yes, but not better than orbiting the Earth. ... > orbit you can see the entire sky once every 90 minutes. ... On the moon half ... The thermal environment in LEO is much more challenging because it changes ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)