space: leave it to the machines

--- 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?
>

Don't get me wrong, Al, there are many smart people doing good
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.
> >
----