A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA budget editorial - NY Times



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 10th 04, 05:43 PM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Revision wrote:
The cost-benefit ration of the ISS was low and is declining fast. The
costs are huge. It was conceived as a work project for a machine that is
not operational.


Au contraire. The ISS is fully functional, especially with 2 man crew. Don't
think of it as some lab that studies crystals all day long. The real research
and the real value is to learn to live in space. And to experiment on
improving living conditions in space, learning how to work in 0g.

There are a LOT of things that they aren't doing but should be doing. Learning
how to operate/surgery in 0g for instance. Eventually, studying the effects of
0g on pregnancy/birth and the list goes on. Think long term duration flights
to Mars and beyond. Before we can do those, we must develop the systems and
the expertise and the ISS is the perfect place to do this. Unless we meet up
with Vulcans who give us technology for gravity plating, we will need to learn
much more about living in 0g and being able to re-integrate in gravity environments.

In fact, the ISS doesn't need a new "lab". It needs a gym where they can test
out various exercise equipment. It needs a better equipped kitchen where they
can test various cooking techniques for food.

The problems with Elektron are far more valuable to humankind's future than
looking at crystals grow all day long. Finding out what causes them and how to
change the design so they don't occur anymore is critical to designing
equipment that will be reliable for a long term mission to Mars and beyond.

So anyway it freaks me out that the Progress vehicles get launched,
unloaded, and then splashed.


But Progress acts as an expensive trash can. If you don't have it, then you
need a way to process all your waste material, from dirty towels to human
waste to broken down equipment that is being thrown away.

Similarly the whole bit with the Soyuz having a six month shelf life is
nuts. All the crew needs for emergency egress is a pod with a heat
shield that does a ballistic entry like the crew return did accidentally
a couple of flights ago.


You forgot the de-orbit engine. If all they have is a capsule, the capsule
will remain in orbit for a very long time....
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Minimum Number of Rocket Designs Charles Talleyrand Space Science Misc 47 July 14th 04 10:40 PM
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (Long Text) Kazmer Ujvarosy UK Astronomy 3 December 25th 03 10:41 PM
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies Ron Baalke Science 0 November 4th 03 10:14 PM
NASA Budget 1958 - 2003 in constant (1996) dollars Rusty B History 1 July 19th 03 02:54 AM
NASA, Carnegie Mellon Inspire Future Robotics Engineers Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 July 16th 03 10:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.