Re: Deja Vu
- From: Cardman <do-not@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:48:20 GMT
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 18:59:50 GMT, "curlyQlink"
<paulfxfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>"Cardman" <do-not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:1h9oe1lh9k1p12m97r284kdkcltbjoj12f@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>> Only people buying into this media crap of "foam shrapnel".
>
>The "foam shrapnel" that caused the death of the entire shuttle crew last
>time around was hardly a media invention.
First of all referring to foam using a word correctly used to describe
a 19th-century artillery shell containing metal balls, designed to
explode in the air above enemy troops, is not at all helpful.
And certainly the foam problem has been a serious safety concern for a
very long time. It seems to me that they have certainly resolved this
problem.
NASA simply wants to get a very minor risk down to zero.
The media's coverage of this event has been vastly inaccurate. Seems
that they overlook that previous Shuttle missions are known to average
40 holes in their tile array each. NASA now getting this down to about
3 seems like a great improvement.
>The foam really isn't the issue. You're failing to see my point. These
>manned missions are doing the same thing over and over, the same thing we've
>been doing since the 60s.
Yes, manned exploration to date has been bad.
>It's time to step back and evaluate where we're going, the manned program's
>real track record. If the goal is the exploration of space, if the goal is
>to do science, unmanned vehicles are the way to go.
Not at all. Just because such probes are more successful than the
manned programme currently does not mean that it will always be like
this. Quite simply no one has ever before done real manned space
exploration.
NASA's space probes are hideously expensive. And you can rest assured
that these are no more technically advanced than your iPod. Indeed
these days NASA is wanting to build probes cheaply by using hardware
store components.
Had space probes been commercially made, where the entire population
was into probe science, then this would soon highlight how terrible
NASA is currently doing.
It may well be the case that NASA is going to make a complete mess and
expensive waste of their space exploration. However, other
organizations will certainly follow in NASA's steps, where just maybe
one of them will do a half decent job.
And that is what NASA should be about. To prove that space work is
possible. To show how it can be done. And to lay down the initial
structure.
Now imagine what it would be like if NASA had an entire commercial
construction crew on the Moon. It has been quoted in science fiction
often enough, but this crew could really build an entire city within
only a few years.
NASA's ISS example is simply not the way to do things. People already
know how to construct buildings. And so all NASA has to do is to
provide air, water, food, tools, energy and the raw materials that
they need.
And for only a regular wage they could go on to build and build and
build, until you have more storage space than you could possibly ever
need.
NASA when it comes to doing a good job could well be incompetent, when
sure enough their Moon base will become another pet project. Just
maybe they can do somewhat better.
>Sure, there's a certain romance in sending real live people into space. It
>continues a long tradition of sending men out in vessels to explore. And
>that is precisely the problem: it is looking backwards, not forward.
You just cannot write off the important things that human society has
learned doing over time without very good proof. When people wish to
explore, then a direct trip to the destination is the way to go.
Evolution has provided us humans with very good senses. Not to mention
our skill at using such tools.
>Just as the future of communications is not finding a faser way to deliver
>envelopes,
A lot of commercial companies make a good business out of just that.
>the future of space exploration is not building a better space
>capsule.
People will always desire better vehicles.
>> Let me put it this way. I would much prefer a human geologist on Mars
>> than with ten remotely controlled rovers.
>
>The American Physical Society disagrees with you.
>
>The manned space program is not and never has been about doing science in
>the spirit of pure research.
I don't know about that. NASA sure likes science research. They just
forgot that the ISS is located in a big empty void.
For one example, then on the Moon they could wonder about looking for
meteors in great unweathered condition. Seems like a good place to
find them.
>It was about beating the Russians. We beat
>'em. Hooray, and time to close up shop and move on.
Correctly it used to be about beating the Russians. In case you have
not noticed, then they are really sleeping with them these days.
>> Hubble would have really "fell to Earth" long ago had not astronauts
>> serviced and maintained it.
>
>And could have been replaced a dozen times for a fraction of the cost of the
>Shuttle program. It's a satellite; you don't need a manned space program to
>launch and maintain fleets of satellites.
True and I have no issue over satellites.
>> That is just NASA's lack of efficiency. You just wait until private
>> business can launch to LEO.
>
>I agree completely. Let's cut NASA's manned program and leave it up to the
>entrepreneurs. No government subsidies, either; let's see if they can make
>trips to the Moon and Mars turn a profit purely as a good old private
>enterprise.
The problem here is that someone always has to do it first. Commercial
business simply won't take unknown risks. However, once you have the
numbers to prove that it is feasible, then so will the commercial big
boys get very interested.
Someone has to take those first steps. NASA is a good a place as any,
where despite the high costs and wastage they do indeed get the job
done.
>> More planes flew just a few years following Kitty Hawk than all the
>> human spaceflight launches to date.
>
>My point exactly. That's because heavier than air aircraft proved to be
>practical, and fulfilled a need. Manned spacecraft have failed on both
>counts. Like dirigibles, it's technological dead end.
Commercial space travel is only just starting. Patience seems like a
good idea to see just what profit they can make. And once they reach
orbit, then so will the show really start.
Also if this space elevator ever becomes reality, then you sure as
hell will need space taxis and coaches to take people to where they
desire to go.
So it is far too early to write off space transport. I am sure that
the commercial people will benefit from what NASA has learned. I
certainly noticed those technology and testing agreements.
>> The problem is that when it comes to space then we have not actually
>> learned to "fly" quite yet. We seem more at the stage of jumping off a
>> cliff in a feeble bird costume. :-]
>
>And it's time to ask, why is this so? Promising technologies don't stagger
>along for forty years, showing hardly any progress, in spite of massive
>capital outlays. That's the hallmark of a technological cul-de-sac.
This gravity well is a very hard one to climb out of. Launching people
on oversized fireworks just does not seem like how things should be
done.
And so far only government have had the resources required to maintain
a space programme. So NASA is crap at science, exploration,
construction and everything else, but they do indeed push out that
human frontier.
All the time that humans remain grounded they will never reach the
heavens. There needs to be an operational program to encourage further
development.
For example. Just because NASA is making serious waves about going
back to the Moon is it the case that now many other countries are
quite serious in doing just that. NASA can through serious funding
provide the leadership that others will follow.
Maybe it is true say that NASA is working ahead of the available
technology, but they also do help to advance that technology.
>> The day is coming when they actually learn to master launching into
>> space for and by the general population.
>
>The day *may* be coming when we send men to the Moon. Again.
It will happen. Congress has now official agreed to pay for it, even
if future funding is required to pay for things like a Moon Base.
>In the meantime, we're still trying to figure out how to send people into
>low earth orbit and bring them back without killing them.
They already know how to do that. The problem is that NASA wanted to
stick fragile tiles on to a bloated white elephant and to launch that
as well.
The Shuttle is really a case of someone's insane dream, expanded to
giant size, where then their talented engineers created the hardware
to make this obscene system just about work out.
I can promise you now that NASA's next craft will be a lot more
rational. We will have to see if NASA can have the same turn around
time as the commercial people can. :-]
>Promises of great things in the future no longer cut the mustard. It's
>been over forty years of promises.
Things are changing. It has just taken this long for technology to
advance enough to support such advanced dreams.
>> There is bound to be huge technological advance as launches go from 10
>> to 100 to 1000 to 1,000,000 launches each and every day.
>
>This is what the Shuttle program was supposed to do. It failed.
No. NASA just lied in order to get the government to pay for their
flying white elephant. :-]
>After devoting $150 billion to the project, launches remain expensive and
>dangerous, pretty much as they were in the days of Mercury and Gemini.
>Let's learn from our experience
Well NASA launching their CEV on one of these commercial rockets looks
like a huge saving over their former $1.5 billion Shuttle launch. I
forget the exact cost, but they should be able to get 5 to 10 CEV
launches out of this same cost.
A space programme of 40 launches a year sounds a lot nicer. That
number should also help to lower costs and to increase the number of
launches as well.
NASA's problem though is to sort out a heavy launch rocket. They will
indeed need to get some serious mass up there.
>In fact I'm the kind of person who recognizes the necessity of learning from
>experience. Who thinks scientific research should be carried out as
>efficiently as possible. Who knows that not every once-promising
>technological development pans out. It's nice to dream but when it's a
>question of hundreds of billions of dollars we damn well better be
>practical. Look at what the unmanned space program has delivered. Look at
>its cost. And compare that with the performance of the manned program.
>It's no contest.
Just because NASA has not gone anywhere yet. Their six trips to the
Moon did seem quite efficient. That is certainly nothing compared to
what people living on the Moon can do. And once people reach Mars,
then you will really see how efficiently humans can do a rover's job.
I doubt that anyone here would disagree that the past 30 odd years
have been a complete disaster for NASA's manned space programme.
Exploration zero.
Construction minor. (of NASA's second flying white elephant)
I am well aware of how well things should go at maximum efficiency,
with exploiting the Moon. I also know that NASA won't come even close
to building apartment complexes, power stations, refineries, etc.
Those would indeed be needed for maximum exploitation of the Lunar
resources. Get down a serious base, then you can do anything that you
want.
However, NASA's people living on the Moon will encourage other people
to do so as well, where one of them is bound to put NASA to shame.
Cardman.
.
- References:
- Deja Vu
- From: curlyQlink
- Re: Deja Vu
- From: Cardman
- Re: Deja Vu
- From: curlyQlink
- Deja Vu
- Prev by Date: Re: Simpler in-line SDLV
- Next by Date: Re: Space Shuttle Grounded Indefinitely AGAIN Due To Major Flaw
- Previous by thread: Re: Deja Vu
- Next by thread: Re: Deja Vu
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
