What if HSF ended in 1975?

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with
the HSF function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency
as the human missions that follow, it's easier to keep the goals in
sync.

They aren't in sync *now*.

They will be even less in sync if performed by separate agencies.

How can they be any less in sync that 'not at all', which is the
current situation.

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.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with
the HSF function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency
as the human missions that follow, it's easier to keep the goals in
sync.

They aren't in sync *now*.

They will be even less in sync if performed by separate agencies.

How can they be any less in sync that 'not at all', which is the
current situation.

Things can *always* get worse.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:45:26 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

NSF wouldn't be doing the human exploration missions that come with
the HSF function. By keeping the robotic precursors in the same agency
as the human missions that follow, it's easier to keep the goals in
sync.

They aren't in sync *now*.

They will be even less in sync if performed by separate agencies.

How can they be any less in sync that 'not at all', which is the
current situation.

That's not the current situation. They aren't in sync to a large
degree, but some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:45:26 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

That's not the current situation. They aren't in sync to a large
degree, but some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

Guess what? Save only a couple of the orbiter, you could lose those
probes and a manned mission would be virtually unaffected. Jorge's
assertion is without merit.

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.

In article ,
Brian Thorn wrote:
...some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

As statisticians take pains to point out: correlation is not causation.
The declining birth rate in some European countries tracks their declining
stork populations fairly well...

The emphasis on sending unmanned probes to Mars has the same cause as the
interest in sending manned expeditions: it's much the most attractive of
the other planets. It's absolutely no surprise that both sides of NASA's
house give it a high priority. There's no requirement to infer sinister
influences of one side over the other.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:45:26 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

That's not the current situation. They aren't in sync to a large
degree, but some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

Guess what? Save only a couple of the orbiter, you could lose those
probes and a manned mission would be virtually unaffected. Jorge's
assertion is without merit.

It has more merit than you are willing to admit. The fact remains that
NASA's Space Science enterprise is devoting more resources to Mars than any
other target, resources out of proportion to Mars' pure scientific value.
That is not to say that these spacecraft aren't doing good science - they
are doing great science. But the allocation of resources is very much being
influenced by HST priorities. An external agency, absent any HSF
motivation, would likely decide that the scientific value of other targets
much less amenable to human visitation would take priority.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:45:26 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

That's not the current situation. They aren't in sync to a large
degree, but some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

Guess what? Save only a couple of the orbiter, you could lose those
probes and a manned mission would be virtually unaffected. Jorge's
assertion is without merit.

It has more merit than you are willing to admit.

I've asked several times that you demonstrate the merit Jorge, and you
have yet to do so.

The fact remains that NASA's Space Science enterprise is devoting more
resources to Mars than any other target, resources out of proportion to Mars'
pure scientific value.

Unsurprising since human interest in Mars is exceeded among
extraterrestrial bodies only by Luna, and this predates NASA by quite
a margin.

That is not to say that these spacecraft aren't doing good science - they
are doing great science. But the allocation of resources is very much being
influenced by HST priorities.

An assertion which I'd like to see some support of.

An external agency, absent any HSF motivation, would likely decide that the
scientific value of other targets much less amenable to human visitation would
take priority.

And why shouldn't they? It's been all to often argued in these groups
that "humans uber alles". Now you claim that they aren't.

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.

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Brian Thorn wrote:
...some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's unmanned
missions.

As statisticians take pains to point out: correlation is not causation.
The declining birth rate in some European countries tracks their declining
stork populations fairly well...

The emphasis on sending unmanned probes to Mars has the same cause as the
interest in sending manned expeditions: it's much the most attractive of
the other planets. It's absolutely no surprise that both sides of NASA's
house give it a high priority. There's no requirement to infer sinister
influences of one side over the other.

As evidenced by the fact that NASA has kept the goal of
returning humans to the Moon just about as high as
humans visiting Mars, yet these days robotic Lunar
missions are rare.

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:45:26 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

That's not the current situation. They aren't in sync to a large
degree, but some things are linked. It has been no secret for many
years that NASA dreams of a manned expedition to Mars. Guess what?
Mars has been by far the most frequent destination of NASA's
unmanned missions.

Guess what? Save only a couple of the orbiter, you could lose those
probes and a manned mission would be virtually unaffected. Jorge's
assertion is without merit.

It has more merit than you are willing to admit.

I've asked several times that you demonstrate the merit Jorge, and you
have yet to do so.

Likewise, you have utterly failed to convince me of your position that the
two programs are "not at all" in sync, and that the current situation could
not possibly get any worse, has any merit whatsoever.

An external agency, absent any HSF motivation, would likely decide
that the scientific value of other targets much less amenable to human
visitation would take priority.

And why shouldn't they?

Thus proving my point that there is considerable room for the situation to
get worse, vis-a-vis the robotic and human spaceflight programs being in
sync.

It's been all to often argued in these groups
that "humans uber alles". Now you claim that they aren't.

No, I'm claiming that a pure-science organization like NSF likely wouldn't
see it that way. Not that they're right.

Look, there's plenty of gray area between the two extreme positions, and
insufficient evidence to support either view. I suggest we agree to
disagree at this point.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:11:38 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

Guess what? Save only a couple of the orbiter, you could lose those
probes and a manned mission would be virtually unaffected.

You just agreed that there is *some* linkage ("a couple of the
orbiters"), which is all it takes to invalidate your argument.

Brian