Space review: The vision thing

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message
...
"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...

But selling a better future for people or their children,

NASA's been flying the Spinoffs flag for decades. People stopped believing
them years ago.
I didnt mean spinoffs. I meant as direct benefit from what is being done in
space.

either through
potential for clean energy sources from space ( SPS) ,

Bull****. utter bilge. SPS as a ground-based power supply is a massive
boondoggle.
Even if it will turn out to be "utter bilge" ( which i dont think it will),
its worth a try. ( I never said a word about launching all the stuff from
earth, for SPS )

You completely, entirely, with absolute certainty missed the entire point of
my post. I wasnt pitching another pet project, i wasnt pitching an solution
or destination. I dont care about endless circular arguments whether space
solar power, space tourism, space resources, or mars colonization could
technically be made to work. Any of those things might work, and it might
not. At least it doesnt mean we definitely should not try.

I was merely trying to find a .. fundamental drive for a space effort, that
lots of people could get behind. An overarching goal.

Like some said, for shuttle it was "cheaper space flight". Well, for Joe
Average it doesnt mean squat. So what if Delta V will cost ten times less
than its precedessor, Joe still cannot even imagine going to space himself.
Even some space advocates do not give a rats ass about cheaper space flight,
as long as their pet destination gets attention.
There was a grand meeting by space advocacy groups a couple of months ago,
Space Settlement Summit i think. They found the common driver to be "space
settlement". Well, for long-term vision this would work, but for near-term,
talking about space settlement to general public will be like talking about
benefits of living in Paris to native americans five hundred years ago. Joe
doesnt _want_ to live in space. Neither does he believe its possible for at
least a couple of centuries yet.
Now economic, and to somewhat lesser extent, ecologic benefits are something
that Joe could understand. So if you sell him the idea of thriving space
thrill ride industry after a decade is out, he actually might get
interested. If you sell the idea of clean power from space for his children,
he might get interested.

In short, should it be,
"ten thousand people will visit space before the decade is over", ( really ?
you mean like ... regular people ? )
"one percent of power production will come from space before the decade is
over" ( really ? how is it possible ? i thought we had to burn coal forever,
or cover the fields with windmills to cope )
"we are going to colonize space" ( umm .. ? WHAT? like star trek ? )

as opposed to traditional:
"we will have _cheaper_ space flight before the decade is over" ( no,
honestly, who cares ? )
"we will visit moon before the decade is over" ( Really ? Again ? Why ? )
"we will visit mars before the decade is over" ( some sci and space nuts
will get psyched, others will pull their hair. General public will read the
headlines and forget )
"we will build a new shiny spaceship before the decade is over" ( yeah,
w00t )
"we are going to .... enhance science in space before the decade is over"
( ok )

Now i know, like 99% of people will say that space will never turn any
economic or ecologic benefit ( of course forgetting current remote sensing
and communications satellites ), or we cant have that before we have those
other things ( cheap access, moonbases, whatever ). Well i just think
selling a simple destination as a reason itself for having a space effort,
will not work anymore.
You need to have a clear, believable reason for going there. And it has to
have a direct, traceable benefit for Joe or his children. Otherwise, you
wont get much support.

You have that reason, you devise best path, the means, intermediate goals of
getting there ( which actually might include one of those pet goals ) There
are countless roadmaps already developed for implementing either space
settlement, space solar power, and even space tourism ( X-Prize Cup, ISS as
a tourist destination etc. )

To make a long story short, im hoping that GWB will not be talking about
humanitys future, importance of science, our natural need to explore and
somesuch if and when he makes he's announcement at Kitty Hawk. I also hope
that he doesnt say that we need to go back to the moon for importance of
science, need to explore, or humanitys future, or general "benefit of
humankind". Neither to mars.
Im hoping he says something along the lines "from now on, NASA will work to
make space accessible for regular people. Ten thousand people will visit
space, before the decade is over", or, "our energy future belongs to space.
We will make a start, and produce 1% of power in space by the end of this
decade. Its a small, but important first step to take", or something that i
havent thought of, but would make _some sense_. I think i have about 0.01%
chance of being right.

-kert

"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...

I was merely trying to find a .. fundamental drive for a space effort,
that
lots of people could get behind. An overarching goal.
To reply to my own post ... i think Chinese already have it and it goes down
very well. To show how great nation they are to entire world.
I dont think this would fly far in US at this day and age.

-kert

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:16:29 +0200, "Kaido Kert"
wrote:

Like some said, for shuttle it was "cheaper space flight". Well, for Joe
Average it doesnt mean squat. So what if Delta V will cost ten times less
than its precedessor, Joe still cannot even imagine going to space himself.

You assume Joe WANTS to go to space.

Newsflash: Most people, 99%, would never want to. Very few would ever
care if they could or not. They'd be damn happy to have some other guy
do it.

Hence, astronauts: The 1% who DO want to do more than sit on their ass
and who want to get into space; the 1% of THOSE who could actually
SURVIVE and WORK in space with any degree of competence. Somehow, I
doubt many average people (assuming "average" physical fitness) could
sustain the G-forces of launch without either getting themselves
killed, or hurting themselves.

Even if they could, I'm not sure many people DESERVE to go to space;
Joe Q. American generally has too short of an attention span to
appreciate such a thing.

John

In article , John Penta wrote:

Newsflash: Most people, 99%, would never want to. Very few would ever
care if they could or not. They'd be damn happy to have some other guy
do it.

Hence, astronauts: The 1% who DO want to do more than sit on their ass
and who want to get into space; the 1% of THOSE who could actually
SURVIVE and WORK in space with any degree of competence.

Okay. There are ~280m. Americans. One percent of one percent is around
28,000 people... and maybe 300 have ever flown in space. Yes, I know
what you meant, but over a sufficiently large population even tiny
fractions add up.

Even if only one percent of one percent of the US population wants to
fly to space, that's still two orders of magnitude higher than are
likely to under the current circumstances (ie, as "astronauts").

Somehow, I
doubt many average people (assuming "average" physical fitness) could
sustain the G-forces of launch without either getting themselves
killed, or hurting themselves.

Hmm. What are the G-forces pulled on launch? I suspect from vague memory
they're nothing that a reasonably average (ie, not clinically obese,
asthmatic, or suffering any other notable problems) adult couldn't
handle with a modicum of training and possibly some assistance - padded
couch, or the like. (Aborts may be more interesting, though)

--
-Andrew Gray

On 12 Nov 2003 22:56:20 GMT, Andrew Gray wrote:

In article , John Penta wrote:

Somehow, I
doubt many average people (assuming "average" physical fitness) could
sustain the G-forces of launch without either getting themselves
killed, or hurting themselves.

Hmm. What are the G-forces pulled on launch? I suspect from vague memory
they're nothing that a reasonably average (ie, not clinically obese,
asthmatic, or suffering any other notable problems) adult couldn't
handle with a modicum of training and possibly some assistance - padded
couch, or the like. (Aborts may be more interesting, though)

On a normal ascent, the shuttle gets up to 3 Gs, within a couple minutes before
MECO. The main engines are throttled down as the 3-G limit is reached, so as to
not go above the limit.

--
Michael R. Grabois # http://chili.cjb.net # http://wizardimps.blogspot.com
"People say losing builds character. That's the stupidest thing I ever
heard. All losing does is suck. " -- Charles Barkley, 9/29/96

In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:
Somehow, I
doubt many average people (assuming "average" physical fitness) could
sustain the G-forces of launch without either getting themselves
killed, or hurting themselves.

Hmm. What are the G-forces pulled on launch? I suspect from vague memory
they're nothing that a reasonably average (ie, not clinically obese,
asthmatic, or suffering any other notable problems) adult couldn't
handle with a modicum of training...

The long-standing rule of thumb is that an untrained healthy adult should
be able to take 3G without difficulty. Not coincidentally, that is the
highest acceleration the shuttle experiences, barring catastrophic
accidents -- even the aborts stay within that, except perhaps for
transient upward accelerations in a very hard landing.

You could probably go somewhat higher if you were willing to be a little
fussier about "healthy" and a bit more generous about "untrained" and
"without difficulty".

Even Apollo went no higher than about 4G in a normal launch, although the
escape system was a much less pleasant story. (But then, activation of
the escape system was understood to be strictly reserved for terrible
emergencies, in which there is significant risk by definition...)
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

On 12 Nov 2003 22:56:20 GMT, Andrew Gray
wrote:

In article , John Penta wrote:

Somehow, I
doubt many average people (assuming "average" physical fitness) could
sustain the G-forces of launch without either getting themselves
killed, or hurting themselves.

Hmm. What are the G-forces pulled on launch? I suspect from vague memory
they're nothing that a reasonably average (ie, not clinically obese,
asthmatic, or suffering any other notable problems) adult couldn't
handle with a modicum of training and possibly some assistance - padded
couch, or the like. (Aborts may be more interesting, though)

People are a lot tougher than you think. Flight in the Shuttle, in
aborts, is nowhere near the physiological limits of the average,
out-of-shape, overweight couch potato. In fact. the human limits are
much higher than the vehicle limits.

I'm pretty sure the Shuttle never pulls more than 3 g and it's in the
best direction, into the chest. The g load that's harder to sustain
is the head-to-toe load, because that's the one that pulls all the
blood away from the brain, down to the legs. This is why the 9-g F-16
has a semi-reclined seat. However, even I, an asthmatic, obese,
out-of-shape older adult, can tolerate 4 g head-to-toe without a g
suit and over 5 g with one.

I might point out that at these low g levels, the risk is of losing
consciousness, not sustaining physical injury. The human body can
tolerate well over 9 g for significant lengths of time without
physical damage. The counterindications aren't asthma or obesity,
they're osteoporosis or an unstable spinal cord or some other
musculoskeletal problem. Maybe rupturing an aortic aneurism at the
high end.

Now when you get into the double digits, the high teens up, you can
start getting real damage, but those are crash loads, not flight
loads. However, even in ejections the actual g load is only a risk to
the spine and neck and that's because it's head-to-toe. Most ejection
injuries result from entering the air stream (flail) or from impact.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote:

:
: This is why the 9-g F-16 has a semi-reclined seat.

I have heard - mainly from pilots, that this rationale for the
inclined seat is pure spin....

the real reason for the inclined seats, I am told, was that with the
small space available for a cockpit, due to the location of the air
scoop, a more vertical seat would have made the cockpit area
intolerably high and generated tons of drag.



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

In article ,
Gregg Germain wrote:
: This is why the 9-g F-16 has a semi-reclined seat.

I have heard - mainly from pilots, that this rationale for the
inclined seat is pure spin....
the real reason for the inclined seats, I am told, was that with the
small space available for a cockpit...

While it could be so, bear in mind that the pilots are not necessarily
authoritative sources on *why* things were done the way they were. It's
not something that's usually discussed in the operating manuals. Pilots
need to know how to make things work, and what behavior to expect, but
what the alternatives were and why this one was chosen is not usually
their problem.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

In article ,
Gregg Germain wrote:
: This is why the 9-g F-16 has a semi-reclined seat.

I have heard - mainly from pilots, that this rationale for the
inclined seat is pure spin....
the real reason for the inclined seats, I am told, was that with the
small space available for a cockpit...

While it could be so, bear in mind that the pilots are not necessarily
authoritative sources on *why* things were done the way they were. It's
not something that's usually discussed in the operating manuals.

No, but such things frequently *are* explained in the familiarization
manuals, or the general information & reference manuals. All but the
simplest military equipment usually has more than one manual, with
each manual optimized for a specific usage, as well as more general
manuals.

For instance my old equipment had a (quite) thick installation and
removal manual, but it was only carried at the shipyard and training
installation tech libraries. OTOH, every installation that had
anything to do with the 88/2 had the 4399, the general reference
manual. We used the WP's in 46189 for normal operations, but were
issued 46188 for DASO or OT/FOT operations. (Then there are the
SMP's, the one-shots, the bubble charts, the SSPINSTs, the
SUBLANT/SUBPAC instructions, the SWOPs, the NWPs...)

Pilots need to know how to make things work, and what behavior to expect,
but what the alternatives were and why this one was chosen is not usually
their problem.

Agreed, but that does not mean that the information wasn't available
to them.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.