Abandon the space station?

By 2016, we may not be talking about "current launch technology".

Brian


We REALLY NEED a low costm launch ability.

All the present ones are based on ICBM needs.

low cost isnt one of them....

get us low cost and all sorts of opportunities present themselves...
Hey this is my opinion

Brian Thorn wrote:

By 2016, we may not be talking about "current launch technology".

We'll be talking about something not very different from current
launch technology, eternal naive hopes notwithstanding.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
Chris Bennetts wrote:

Just how much science return do you expect to get from ISS? Down here on
Earth, most small science labs don't generate large returns. Given that the
ISS is a pretty small science lab, it's unreasonable to expect large,
publicity-generating science returns to come from it. It's the nature of
scientific research.

I expect a lab down on Earth that had a budget of $100 B would produce
an enormous amount of science.

I expect you are fooling yourself, as one can easily spend $100B on an
instrument that's all but single purpose (SSSC anyone?), and produces
wonderful and important science, but not all that much of it and all
of that little on a very narrow topic. $100B spent on a 10k acre
botanical facility would produce a rather different harvest of science
in terms of span and scale. The same amount would buy you a largish
number of research reactors (TRIGA style), but a limited amount of
science in terms of span.

The science that can be expected to come from ISS is, at best, pitiful.

Yep. You are fooling youself.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
(bob haller) wrote:

But it shoqws the present experiments have little value or scientific return..

No. It shows the present experiments are not in line with the area or
knowledge most being researched.

Here I should have added "just like every scientific facility
everywhere'.

This is a wonderful example of terminally wishful self-delusion.

In other words, you cannot actually muster a defense, and prefer to
attack. Actually being realistic about the situation would produce a
situation where you might not be able to sling baseless insults.

Past non-performance (the existing experiments being of low value) is not
a problem -- the future experiments will be wonderful!

The experiments were of low value to who? (And please note that the
claim that 'future experiments will be wonderful' is a strawman of
your own creation.)

True believers can excuse anything. NASA loves fools like you, Derek.

Another strawman of your own creation.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

I expect a lab down on Earth that had a budget of $100 B would produce
an enormous amount of science.


I expect you are fooling yourself, as one can easily spend $100B on an
instrument that's all but single purpose (SSSC anyone?), and produces
wonderful and important science, but not all that much of it and all
of that little on a very narrow topic.


I expect a $100 B lab that passed peer review would produce
incredibly good science (or else it would not have been funded.)

The problem with ISS is that the science it does doesn't have to
compete with non-ISS science. Which is good for NASA, since ISS
science would never have survived if it had.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:

By 2016, we may not be talking about "current launch technology".

We'll be talking about something not very different from current
launch technology, eternal naive hopes notwithstanding.

It ought to be considerably less expensive, though?

Richard Schumacher wrote:

We'll be talking about something not very different from current
launch technology, eternal naive hopes notwithstanding.

It ought to be considerably less expensive, though?

In twelve years? I doubt it. There just isn't that much
market between now and then to have driven major cost reductions.

Paul

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 11:41:55 -0600, "Paul F. Dietz"
wrote:


By 2016, we may not be talking about "current launch technology".

We'll be talking about something not very different from current
launch technology, eternal naive hopes notwithstanding.

Or maybe not. Look at SpaceX's Falcon V. Look at Rutan's SpaceShipOne.
The times they are a'changin'.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

We'll be talking about something not very different from current
launch technology, eternal naive hopes notwithstanding.


Or maybe not. Look at SpaceX's Falcon V. Look at Rutan's SpaceShipOne.
The times they are a'changin'.

Falcon V is not very different from current launch technology,
and won't (IMO) be cheap enough to spark any substantial commercial
interest in microgravity.

SS1 is only a small step toward a launcher capable of reaching orbit.

Paul