Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Andrew Nowicki <andrew@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 03:32:28 +0200
I agree with Henry Vanderbilt's opinion about NASA ills,
but I would add three ideas to the remedy:
1. The first and the second stage of all rocket launchers and all the
spacecraft should be made of small, STANDARD, reusable modules.
2. All the spacecraft modules should be assembled and serviced by
telerobots. (Dextre telerobot has good sense of touch and can
handle bolts. Its Hubble mission was killed for political reasons.
If its maker had been located in Texas rather than in Canada, the
Hubble mission would have been approved.)
3. All the rocket launcher modules should be made by industrial robots
rather than by the rocket plumbers. (The engine cluster is an example
of a small, robust rocket engine that can be made by the robots. It is
robust enough to survive reentry, splashdown, and handling on a bobbing
ship: http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SPBI101.HTM#engine_cluster)
4. The most important word in my remedy is the word STANDARD. Amateur
rocket makers cannot agree on anything, so the STANDARDS must be
designed by someone else. Someone who is smarter than NASA engineers,
and yet has the authority of the U.S. government.
.
- References:
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Paul F. Dietz
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Pat Flannery
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Prev by Date: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Next by Date: Re: Why go back to the moon?
- Previous by thread: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Next by thread: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|