Re: JPL Community Mourns Loss of Three Colleagues
From: William C. Keel (keel_at_bildad.astr.ua.edu)
Date: 12/11/04
- Next message: Keith F. Lynch: "Re: Lifeboats in Space"
- Previous message: Charles Buckley: "Re: Space Shuttle, Not Robot, Should Be Used to Service Telescope"
- In reply to: jonathan: "Re: JPL Community Mourns Loss of Three Colleagues"
- Next in thread: Ian Stirling: "Re: JPL Community Mourns Loss of Three Colleagues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Dec 2004 14:08:34 -0600
jonathan <Write@Instead.com> wrote:
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
> news:7Gnud.530$sY5.147@fe37.usenetserver.com...
>>
>> "Ian Stirling" <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:41b8bee0$0$50885$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
>> > But, the number isn't 'deaths per astronaut', but 'deaths per astronaut
>> > and support staff', if you're comparing overall safety.
>> > Just as you can't ignore the number of people killed in car crashes that
>> > were not passengers in the car.
>>
>> This is my point exactly.
>>
>> Again, arguing that unmanned spaceflight is superior to manned spaceflight
>> because it "doesn't risk the lives of an astronaut" is disingenuous. There
>> have been and will continue to be fatalities on the ground which are related
>> to unmanned space travel.
> Umm, if someone told you there's a one in twenty chance
> of 'crash and burn' on the way home from work, would
> you still get in the car? Nooooo you would not. Not
> unless your flippin life depended on it. Or someone
> ponied up big-time.
> The question should be whether the goal at hand
> is worth it. The Hubble, for instance, just doesn't
> seem to qualify imo. Primary mission is worth it, not
> an extended mission.
Here is where much of the astronomical community, and (I gather)
some of the astronauts would disagree. NASA has liked to think
in terms of specific-term missions, not least to avoid open-ended
operations costs. Astronomers have had a century or so to get'
used to the advantages of thinking of facilities with very long
lifespans. A full-up SM4 for Hubble would give us almost a Hubble
2 (something with capabilities unmatched by anything else in the pipeline),
and the science flow now is no less than during the first years
after refurbishment. If anything, the larger programs possible
with a mature facility have more long-term science payoff than
the short ones that had to be scheduled in the first years to
protect against failure (and incidentally try to sociologically
share the wealth). Examples that pop tpo mind are the Ultra-Deep
Field, distant supernovae and cosmic acceleration, weak lensing and
the dark-matter distribution, complete unbiased surveys of the
content of galaxies and clusters...
Mind you, very few talking about this are free of the twin thoughts of
the value of the instrument and the possibility of blood on one's
hands.
Bill Keel
- Next message: Keith F. Lynch: "Re: Lifeboats in Space"
- Previous message: Charles Buckley: "Re: Space Shuttle, Not Robot, Should Be Used to Service Telescope"
- In reply to: jonathan: "Re: JPL Community Mourns Loss of Three Colleagues"
- Next in thread: Ian Stirling: "Re: JPL Community Mourns Loss of Three Colleagues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
