February 16, 2003
Space: Let's leave it to the machines
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
Until the Columbia disaster that killed seven astronauts, relatively
few people questioned the worth of space "exploration." President
George Bush set the tone by vowing: "The cause for which they died
will continue ... Our journey into space will go on." And so it
will ... except that man has ceased going into space. We have not
ventured beyond the International Space Station (ISS) since the last
Apollo mission in 1972 when Eugene Cernan was the last human to walk
on the moon.
roughly the distance from Earth that Baltimore is from New York, as
pointed out by Robert Park, professor of physics and the University
of Maryland and director of information at the American Physical
Society.
That's hardly space "exploration," though it is undeniably
space "travel" - not quite the same thing.
In fact, until Columbia disintegrated over Texas, this was to have
been the last scientific mission for a shuttle. The remaining craft,
Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour were to be a trucking or bus
service ferrying supplies and people to and from the ISS.
Prof. Park is one of a growing number who question the scientific
value of what man has been doing in space over the past 30 years. Did
the research conducted by Columbia's crew justify the risks? Are
humans needed to carry out the various experiments? The answer
is "No." This isn't to imply that space is too risky. But the goal
has to be more than just going into space because it is there - a
justification given for climbing mountains. Yet that's precisely the
justification cited by Florida Sen. Bill Nelson who went on Columbia
in 1986.
Sen. Nelson is right that the space program is essential for defence,
for communications, for weather research, etc. Benefits have been
enormous - cordless tools, various home insulations, water filters,
microchips, computers, spy satellites, the Hubble telescope, et al.
None of which needed humans in space.
Though Americans lust to explore the unknown - virtually a human
need - this isn't what the space program is about these days. As
Prof. Park points out, "The list of experiments conducted by Columbia
is shocking, It reads like a junior-high science fair." Experiments
included whether roses blooming in space have a different odour than
roses grown on Earth and whether spiders can weave their webs without
gravity.
>From the start, every experiment in the shuttle lab could have been
done robotically at much lower cost, except discerning the effects of
weightlessness on the human body and psyche.
Those who want to keep the space program largely as it now is, use
the word "exploration" a lot. The trouble is, there is nowhere to go
in space, except the moon and Mars. Man can't go to other planets,
which are too hot, or where the gravitational pull is too crushing
for human existence.
Mars is 150 million miles away. Rather than putting a man on Mars,
the tiny robot Sojourner that the Pathfinder spacecraft took to Mars
in 1997, has contributed more information of greater value - and far
more cheaply - than the shuttle missions.
The Sojourner was a telerobot, whose brain was a human brain on
Earth, guiding and controlling it to poke around Mars with gadgetry
that analyzed what rocks were made of, tested the temperature and
photographed the environment.
As Park says, it rambled around "never complaining of the cold nights
or breaking for lunch." When its mission was done it didn't have to
be brought home to Earth.
It other words, the guy giving the robot orders was the
true "explorer," not astronauts in the shuttle or the ISS.
Significantly, the Pathfinder mission to Mars cost a quarter of what
one shuttle flight costs.
Probably, the Hubble Space Telescope is the most useful at unlocking
secrets of the universe. It too is operated from Earth, though
repaired and adjusted by astronauts. But the ISS is incapable of
launching craft deeper into space - even if there was somewhere to
go.
It used to be thought that once man landed on the moon, the next step
would be to colonize it, or use it to get to Mars.
In 1969, when the world watched Neil Armstrong make his "one small
step for man, one giant leap for mankind," we felt this was just the
beginning of space exploration. Instead, it turned out to be the end
of it. The era of exploring the solar system by humans lasted three
years, to be replaced by the shuttle tour bus.
Space program talking heads that fill TV screens these days - shuttle
program director Ron Dittemore and NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe -
are deeply committed to a space program that needs to change, adapt,
be upgraded. It's not just more money that's required, but direction
and purpose. But there's still no place to go - except Mars and the
moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
Peter Worthington is the founding editor of the Toronto Sun.
Basically, this guy is right. Justifying humans in space with science
is nonsense, and people are catching on. The real reason people go
into space is the same reason they have colonized every continent, that
plants grow through concrete, and why life crawled out of the ocean
onto land: to live long and prosper, as a species or ecosystem, not
necessarily as individuals.
wrote:
> February 16, 2003
> Space: Let's leave it to the machines
> By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
> Until the Columbia disaster that killed seven astronauts, relatively
> few people questioned the worth of space "exploration." President
> George Bush set the tone by vowing: "The cause for which they died
> will continue ... Our journey into space will go on." And so it
> will ... except that man has ceased going into space. We have not
> ventured beyond the International Space Station (ISS) since the last
> Apollo mission in 1972 when Eugene Cernan was the last human to walk
> on the moon.
>
> Since then, the farthest anyone has ventured into space is the ISS -
> roughly the distance from Earth that Baltimore is from New York, as
> pointed out by Robert Park, professor of physics and the University
> of Maryland and director of information at the American Physical
> Society.
>
> That's hardly space "exploration," though it is undeniably
> space "travel" - not quite the same thing.
>
> In fact, until Columbia disintegrated over Texas, this was to have
> been the last scientific mission for a shuttle. The remaining craft,
> Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour were to be a trucking or bus
> service ferrying supplies and people to and from the ISS.
>
> Prof. Park is one of a growing number who question the scientific
> value of what man has been doing in space over the past 30 years. Did
> the research conducted by Columbia's crew justify the risks? Are
> humans needed to carry out the various experiments? The answer
> is "No." This isn't to imply that space is too risky. But the goal
> has to be more than just going into space because it is there - a
> justification given for climbing mountains. Yet that's precisely the
> justification cited by Florida Sen. Bill Nelson who went on Columbia
> in 1986.
>
> Sen. Nelson is right that the space program is essential for defence,
> for communications, for weather research, etc. Benefits have been
> enormous - cordless tools, various home insulations, water filters,
> microchips, computers, spy satellites, the Hubble telescope, et al.
> None of which needed humans in space.
>
> Though Americans lust to explore the unknown - virtually a human
> need - this isn't what the space program is about these days. As
> Prof. Park points out, "The list of experiments conducted by Columbia
> is shocking, It reads like a junior-high science fair." Experiments
> included whether roses blooming in space have a different odour than
> roses grown on Earth and whether spiders can weave their webs without
> gravity.
>
>> From the start, every experiment in the shuttle lab could have been
> done robotically at much lower cost, except discerning the effects of
> weightlessness on the human body and psyche.
>
> Those who want to keep the space program largely as it now is, use
> the word "exploration" a lot. The trouble is, there is nowhere to go
> in space, except the moon and Mars. Man can't go to other planets,
> which are too hot, or where the gravitational pull is too crushing
> for human existence.
>
> Mars is 150 million miles away. Rather than putting a man on Mars,
> the tiny robot Sojourner that the Pathfinder spacecraft took to Mars
> in 1997, has contributed more information of greater value - and far
> more cheaply - than the shuttle missions.
>
> The Sojourner was a telerobot, whose brain was a human brain on
> Earth, guiding and controlling it to poke around Mars with gadgetry
> that analyzed what rocks were made of, tested the temperature and
> photographed the environment.
>
> As Park says, it rambled around "never complaining of the cold nights
> or breaking for lunch." When its mission was done it didn't have to
> be brought home to Earth.
>
> It other words, the guy giving the robot orders was the
> true "explorer," not astronauts in the shuttle or the ISS.
> Significantly, the Pathfinder mission to Mars cost a quarter of what
> one shuttle flight costs.
>
> Probably, the Hubble Space Telescope is the most useful at unlocking
> secrets of the universe. It too is operated from Earth, though
> repaired and adjusted by astronauts. But the ISS is incapable of
> launching craft deeper into space - even if there was somewhere to
> go.
>
> It used to be thought that once man landed on the moon, the next step
> would be to colonize it, or use it to get to Mars.
>
> In 1969, when the world watched Neil Armstrong make his "one small
> step for man, one giant leap for mankind," we felt this was just the
> beginning of space exploration. Instead, it turned out to be the end
> of it. The era of exploring the solar system by humans lasted three
> years, to be replaced by the shuttle tour bus.
>
> Space program talking heads that fill TV screens these days - shuttle
> program director Ron Dittemore and NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe -
> are deeply committed to a space program that needs to change, adapt,
> be upgraded. It's not just more money that's required, but direction
> and purpose. But there's still no place to go - except Mars and the
> moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
>
> ----------
>
> Peter Worthington is the founding editor of the Toronto Sun.
>
The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
Well I fired off a reply to the Toronto Sun as soon as I read this article,
saying that the guy is missing the forest for the trees. The reason he
can't see where we're heading for in putting people into space is because
there's nothing there yet. The real destination for humanity's expansion
into space is the orbital parking place where the first O'Neill cylinder
will be built. And yes, except for that, there isn't that much attractive
in the Solar System for humans to be striving to reach.
>Basically, this guy is right. Justifying humans in space with science
>is nonsense, and people are catching on. The real reason people go
>into space is the same reason they have colonized every continent, that
>plants grow through concrete, and why life crawled out of the ocean
>onto land: to live long and prosper, as a species or ecosystem, not
>necessarily as individuals.
>
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
> Well I fired off a reply to the Toronto Sun as soon as I read this
article,
> saying that the guy is missing the forest for the trees. The
reason he
> can't see where we're heading for in putting people into space is
because
> there's nothing there yet. The real destination for humanity's
expansion
> into space is the orbital parking place where the first O'Neill
cylinder
> will be built. And yes, except for that, there isn't that much
attractive
> in the Solar System for humans to be striving to reach.
>
> Brad W.
>
> >Al Globus wrote:
> >Basically, this guy is right. Justifying humans in space with
science
> >is nonsense, and people are catching on. The real reason people go
> >into space is the same reason they have colonized every continent,
that
> >plants grow through concrete, and why life crawled out of the ocean
> >onto land: to live long and prosper, as a species or ecosystem, not
> >necessarily as individuals.
> >
The STS design is preposterous. The "reusable" idea is laughable
considering the waste of the External Tank on every launch.
Furthermore, the loss of one multibillion-dollar shuttle per fifty or
sixty launches or so makes the idea of "reusability" moot. The rigid
adherence to old technology (ie 8 inch floppy disks!) has contributed
to exorbitant maintenance costs.
The International Space Station is scientifically questionable as
well. Unless the Chinese want to get involved (and I cannot see why
they would want to) it will never be able to hold a full complement
of 7 crewmembers. It cannot be used as the "shipyards" for building
say a manned mars mission in orbit. It cannot be used as a large-
scale industrial facility. It cannot act as a garage to fix a
crippled shuttle.
The question is not whether there should be a manned presence in
space: there should. The question is whether we are putting men into
space for the right reasons.
When we send a machine into space, we have a clear reason for why
that machine is sent. Putting human beings into space is another
matter. Proof that it can be done is no longer a valid reason. Long-
duration effects of weightlessness on the human body have already
been studied on Skylab and Mir.
Al mentioned as a footer to some previous posts how much better
Tito's visit to the ISS was than a trip to Mir would have been.
Well, if tourism and industry and commerce in general are to occur in
space, then they need (a) a place to go and (b) a way to get there.
If NASA's manned program is to continue to exist, then it has to get
its priorities in order. If it wants to build a space station, then
get _serious_ about it and build a proper space station: a wheel at
least 200 meters in diameter, which can spin to provide some
artificial gravity. If it wants to build a people-mover, then build
something that can take 50 people to orbit (and back) at a time.
Neither of these ideas is beyond NASA's current capabilities. For
example, the engineers at Michoud designed an Aft Cargo Carrier for
the space shuttle external tank thirty years ago. Strap one "dry" ET
onto a fuelled one, attach four SRBs instead of two. Outfit the dry
ET with the aft cargo carrier (which includes the boosters) and let
the rest of the dry ET carry cargo for turning the pair of ETs into a
space station. That is, send both ETs to high earth orbit, and leave
them there. One such launch would create far more living and working
space than the finalized ISS. Eight such launches would be needed to
make a Space Island-type station.
http://www.spaceislandgroup.com
As for the people movers: if you can move seven astronauts to space
in something as ungainly as a shuttle, surely one can design
something to carry a capsule to space (on an expendable base vehicle)
that could take fifty people at a time to the space island, and
return them to earth. It doesn't have to glide like the shuttle,
there are other ways to re-enter the atmosphere.
:) ed
On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 10:08 AM, Ed Minchau
wrote:
> example, the engineers at Michoud designed an Aft Cargo Carrier for
> the space shuttle external tank thirty years ago.
Unfortunately, one of my CFD (computational fluid dynamics) friends who
worked on this told me that the aft cargo carrier changed the airflow
around the system to the point that it's doubtful that it would ever
make orbit. This may explain why the project was dropped.
The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 10:08 AM, Ed Minchau
> wrote:
>
> > Neither of these ideas is beyond NASA's current capabilities. For
> > example, the engineers at Michoud designed an Aft Cargo Carrier
for
> > the space shuttle external tank thirty years ago.
>
> Unfortunately, one of my CFD (computational fluid dynamics) friends
who
> worked on this told me that the aft cargo carrier changed the
airflow
> around the system to the point that it's doubtful that it would
ever
> make orbit. This may explain why the project was dropped.
>
(shuttle) was attached to the ET. Without the orbiter creating havoc
with the airflow, the results would be much different.
Another explanation for why the ACC idea was dropped: an aft cargo
carrier would do away with the need for the already-purchased
multibillion dollar orbiters, multibillion dollar international space
station, etc. Such considerations as engineering and science fall by
the wayside when they interfere with the path to the public trough.
ed
On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 08:53 AM, Ed Minchau
wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 10:08 AM, Ed Minchau
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Neither of these ideas is beyond NASA's current capabilities. For
>>> example, the engineers at Michoud designed an Aft Cargo Carrier
> for
>>> the space shuttle external tank thirty years ago.
>>
>> Unfortunately, one of my CFD (computational fluid dynamics) friends
> who
>> worked on this told me that the aft cargo carrier changed the
> airflow
>> around the system to the point that it's doubtful that it would
> ever
>> make orbit. This may explain why the project was dropped.
>>
>
> Most likely those calculations were done assuming that an orbiter
> (shuttle) was attached to the ET. Without the orbiter creating havoc
> with the airflow, the results would be much different.
The results would, of course, be different. Whether it would get into
orbit is another matter requiring analysis (i.e., hard work). Getting
rid of the orbiter is a bit problematic because the orbiter has the
main engines, so you'll also need something to hold those.
Structurally, the orbiter is needed for the integrity of the stack, so
some sort of strong-back is also necessary. Whatever it is can be
cheaper than the orbiter if you don't bring it down, but it does
require a major development effort. If the strong-back's outlines are
different than the orbiter then the dynamics of the shuttle stack need
to reanalyzed and retested, a huge expense.
Don't get me wrong, I like the aft cargo carrier (if it works).
>
> Another explanation for why the ACC idea was dropped: an aft cargo
> carrier would do away with the need for the already-purchased
> multibillion dollar orbiters, multibillion dollar international space
> station, etc. Such considerations as engineering and science fall by
> the wayside when they interfere with the path to the public trough.
>
People can be counted on to follow their self interest, of course. The
aft cargo carrier, however, was abandoned long before the space station
was built. As mentioned before, you still need the orbiter or
something that looks pretty similar (although potentially cheaper).
> ed
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>
> On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 08:53 AM, Ed Minchau
> wrote:
>
>>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 10:08 AM, Ed Minchau
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Neither of these ideas is beyond NASA's current capabilities. For
>>>> example, the engineers at Michoud designed an Aft Cargo Carrier
>> for
>>>> the space shuttle external tank thirty years ago.
>>>
>>
>> Another explanation for why the ACC idea was dropped: an aft cargo
>> carrier would do away with the need for the already-purchased
>> multibillion dollar orbiters, multibillion dollar international space
>> station, etc. Such considerations as engineering and science fall by
>> the wayside when they interfere with the path to the public trough.
>>
>
Once upon a time someone did a study that showed that idea-dropped is
much better than idea-implemented in these 4 criteria. The study does
not address the other 1000 criteria necessary for success.
Idea-dropped was canned by agency-you-don't-like in favor of
idea-implemented. Since idea-dropped is better than idea-implemented
in 4 out of 1004 criteria, idea-dropped was ignored by
agency-you-don't-like because they are incompetent scum-bags; even
though more-or-less the same people have done dozens of amazing things
no one else has ever accomplished, and some have died in the process.
Not very convincing, is it?
> -
> ---------------------
> The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
> jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
> Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
> pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
> Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
> probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
> roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
> great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?
>
> Al Globus
> CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
> http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
>
> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
> position of any organization I'm familiar with.
>
Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 08:53 AM, Ed Minchau
> wrote:
>
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 10:08 AM, Ed Minchau
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Neither of these ideas is beyond NASA's current capabilities.
For
> >>> example, the engineers at Michoud designed an Aft Cargo Carrier
> > for
> >>> the space shuttle external tank thirty years ago.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, one of my CFD (computational fluid dynamics)
friends
> > who
> >> worked on this told me that the aft cargo carrier changed the
> > airflow
> >> around the system to the point that it's doubtful that it would
> > ever
> >> make orbit. This may explain why the project was dropped.
> >>
> >
> > Most likely those calculations were done assuming that an orbiter
> > (shuttle) was attached to the ET. Without the orbiter creating
havoc
> > with the airflow, the results would be much different.
>
> The results would, of course, be different. Whether it would get
into
> orbit is another matter requiring analysis (i.e., hard work).
Getting
> rid of the orbiter is a bit problematic because the orbiter has
the
> main engines, so you'll also need something to hold those.
> Structurally, the orbiter is needed for the integrity of the stack,
so
> some sort of strong-back is also necessary.
The SRBs are attached to the ET. The external tank is the
strongback, not the orbiter.
> Whatever it is can be
> cheaper than the orbiter if you don't bring it down, but it does
> require a major development effort. If the strong-back's outlines
are
> different than the orbiter then the dynamics of the shuttle stack
need
> to reanalyzed and retested, a huge expense.
The simulations for two ETs side by side (one taller than the other
due to the ACC) are simpler than the same simulations for the current
launch profile.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I like the aft cargo carrier (if it works).
>
> > Another explanation for why the ACC idea was dropped: an aft cargo
> > carrier would do away with the need for the already-purchased
> > multibillion dollar orbiters, multibillion dollar international
space
> > station, etc. Such considerations as engineering and science
fall by
> > the wayside when they interfere with the path to the public
trough.
> >
> People can be counted on to follow their self interest, of course.
The
> aft cargo carrier, however, was abandoned long before the space
station
> was built. As mentioned before, you still need the orbiter or
> something that looks pretty similar (although potentially cheaper).
>
If NASA didn't have a space station in mind in the early 1970s, then
they are guilty of short-sightedness. And the orbiter doesn't need
to look similar to the current design, it just needs to perform the
same function: maintain a habitible environment during launch, orbit,
and return of the vehicle.
:) ed
> > ed
> >
----
> ---------------------
> The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
> jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist,
Dennis
> Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station.
Under
> pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in
Mr.
> Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded
and
> probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much
more
> roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of
how
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 08:53 AM, Ed Minchau
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 10:08 AM, Ed Minchau
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Neither of these ideas is beyond NASA's current capabilities.
For
> >>>> example, the engineers at Michoud designed an Aft Cargo Carrier
> >> for
> >>>> the space shuttle external tank thirty years ago.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Another explanation for why the ACC idea was dropped: an aft
cargo
> >> carrier would do away with the need for the already-purchased
> >> multibillion dollar orbiters, multibillion dollar international
space
> >> station, etc. Such considerations as engineering and science
fall by
> >> the wayside when they interfere with the path to the public
trough.
> >>
> >
> Let me summarize this class of argument:
>
> Once upon a time someone did a study that showed that idea-dropped
is
> much better than idea-implemented in these 4 criteria. The study
does
> not address the other 1000 criteria necessary for success.
> Idea-dropped was canned by agency-you-don't-like in favor of
> idea-implemented. Since idea-dropped is better than idea-
implemented
> in 4 out of 1004 criteria, idea-dropped was ignored by
> agency-you-don't-like because they are incompetent scum-bags; even
> though more-or-less the same people have done dozens of amazing
things
> no one else has ever accomplished, and some have died in the
process.
>
> Not very convincing, is it?
>
science at NASA, particularly the robotics and unmanned-satellite
folks. NEAR Shoemaker was a wild success by any measure.
However, among those 1004 criteria you mention are the _political_
considerations of NASA. There are all the various congressional
districts that have to have their slice of the NASA pie.
And the political considerations extend even to the design of the
space shuttle. Why have wings and a tail on a spacecraft? Why
combine a people-mover with a freight hauler? Why freeze the
technology onboard the shuttle at 1981 levels?
Answer to all of the above: it ain't engineering, that's for sure.
Hell, it isn't even rocket science.
ed
-----
> > -
> > ---------------------
> > The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
> > jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist,
Dennis
> > Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station.
Under
> > pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in
Mr.
> > Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly,
crowded and
> > probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much
more
> > roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of
how
> > great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?
> >
> > Al Globus
> > CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
> > http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
> >
> > Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
> > position of any organization I'm familiar with.
> >
----
On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 11:26 AM, Ed Minchau
wrote:
> space shuttle.
Of course, political considerations are part of nearly everything --
particularly things that are funded by politicians.
> Why have wings and a tail on a spacecraft?
So it can land on a runway. This is what makes the shuttle the only
spacecraft ever to fly more than once. This did not produce the
anticipated dollar savings because refurbishment is so difficult.+
> Why
> combine a people-mover with a freight hauler?
The idea at the time was to make one system for all of our launch
needs. Not necessarily a bad idea, but it didn't work.
> Why freeze the
> technology onboard the shuttle at 1981 levels?
Any operational space project has to freeze the technology at some
level to get the job done, including verification and validation (V&V).
For launchers, V&V is tremendously difficult and expensive and every
time you change anything you need to understand the effect on the whole
system. That said, the shuttle does contain a lot of post-1981
technology, particularly the new flight deck and computers. They also
use laptops for a lot of non-critical onboard stuff. Since the laptops
don't talk to the shuttle computers, the V&V is much easier (just
outgassing and stowing issues need to be dealt with).
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.