NASA and the Vision thing

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:11:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami
Silberman" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

No, infants can be mass produced. Astronaut trainees require, at the very
minimum, twelve years of high school, four years of college, and several
years of post-college education.

That doesn't have to be the case. NASA just has historically chosen
to establish those as the criteria. On-orbit satellite repair could
actually be a blue-collar job. It doesn't require a PhD.

But it would be a Blue-collar job which requires a hundred or more hours of
training per each hour of actual on-orbit work. How much money (in
training), does it take to become a master plumber or electrician? Or an
airline pilot?

It's still not that big a deal, compared to training an astronaut, at
least the way that NASA does it now.

Sure, they will probably need cleaners, but those cleaners will need to be
able to conduct EVAs, including emergency procedures. No different, really,
from the divers who clean underwater windows. (Except that usually those
divers are pretty near the surface.)

Could I remind everyone that it was a British Scorpio (UNMANNED) that
rescued the Russian submariners. Not divers on oxygen/helium.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Sure, they will probably need cleaners, but those cleaners will need to
be
able to conduct EVAs, including emergency procedures. No different,
really,
from the divers who clean underwater windows. (Except that usually those
divers are pretty near the surface.)

Could I remind everyone that it was a British Scorpio (UNMANNED) that
rescued the Russian submariners. Not divers on oxygen/helium.

Good point. I suspect that most extra-terrestrial window cleaning will be
robotic until such a time as EVA becomes "routine". Once EVA is routine, and
frequent, then it may be easier, simpler, and cheaper to have a human clean
the windows, perhaps along with other minor maintainance. (My understanding
is that, at some aquariums, the windows are cleaned by volunteers from local
diving clubs who like the idea of being able to swim with sharks etc.
without having to leave, say, Dallas.

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:17:19 -0500, "Ami Silberman"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
Sure, they will probably need cleaners, but those cleaners will need to
be
able to conduct EVAs, including emergency procedures. No different,
really,
from the divers who clean underwater windows. (Except that usually those
divers are pretty near the surface.)

Could I remind everyone that it was a British Scorpio (UNMANNED) that
rescued the Russian submariners. Not divers on oxygen/helium.

Good point. I suspect that most extra-terrestrial window cleaning will be
robotic until such a time as EVA becomes "routine". Once EVA is routine, and
frequent, then it may be easier, simpler, and cheaper to have a human clean
the windows, perhaps along with other minor maintainance. (My understanding
is that, at some aquariums, the windows are cleaned by volunteers from local
diving clubs who like the idea of being able to swim with sharks etc.
without having to leave, say, Dallas.


These may be of intrest to you:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...rs/q0178.shtml

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenew...9707006jsc.pdf





--

Christopher

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
news

wrote in message
oups.com...
The Shuttle is no more reusable than Ariane 5. That is a lie. The lower
stage or Ariane is in fact recoverable. There are significant parts of
the Shuttle which are nor recoverable.

Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and
reflown? Verifiable cites, please.


Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or should I say, Stuffie?

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
.. .

wrote in message
oups.com...
My postings seem to have raised a stir.

More like a good laugh. Nothing we haven't seen before. Now try answering
the question I asked:

Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is
performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators.

It's been more than a week. Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or
should I say, Stuffie?

Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is
performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators.

It's been more than a week. Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or
should I say, Stuffie?

It was not specifically designed. However that is not the point I was
making which was that automatic equipment can work well in a hostile
environment. I mentioned that Cassini had moving pats. In a vacuum
there is a question mark over bearings, moving surfaces and
lubrication. Cassini answers questions.

Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and
reflown? Verifiable cites, please.

Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or should I say, Stuffie?

The same number as the number of missions. The bottom line is of course
$/Kg, the value for the Shuttle being twice that of Ariane.

Proton and Long March are of course even cheaper but P/LM are only
cheaper because of labor costs. Ariane is based comperable rates per hr
and therefore we can make claims for it being a "better" system..

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article .com,
: wrote:
:On the other hand, there's no reason not to go ahead and use the existing
:anthropomorphic manipulators NASA has been using for years.
:
:They are rather expensive and need bringing back. A robot only needs
:electricity to work. Astronauts need elaborate life support systems.
:
:A robot needs, at a minimum, electric power, temperature control (which
:may involve active heating or cooling or both), mechanical support (rails,
:a mounting point, etc.), and high-bandwidth communications.

It also needs either some very high bandwidth sensors or some massive
amount of processing power for AI (and the development of that
software) or both (to account for what it does during communications
lag).

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

In message om,
writes
Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is
performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators.

It's been more than a week. Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or
should I say, Stuffie?

It was not specifically designed. However that is not the point I was
making which was that automatic equipment can work well in a hostile
environment. I mentioned that Cassini had moving pats. In a vacuum
there is a question mark over bearings, moving surfaces and
lubrication. Cassini answers questions.

But which moving parts are you referring to? For instance, the scan
platform was removed - as a cost-saving feature, but it adds to
reliability. The high gain antenna is a solid structure, so it wasn't
even deployed in any way,

wrote in message
ps.com...
Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and
*is
performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators.

It's been more than a week. Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2",
or
should I say, Stuffie?

It was not specifically designed.

Then mentioning it was a red herring, intended to deceive.

However that is not the point I was
making which was that automatic equipment can work well in a hostile
environment.

Then you should have said that. *You* brought up anthropomorphic
manipulators. Like Stuffie, you are trying to retroactively change the
subject, rather than admit you were wrong.

Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and
reflown? Verifiable cites, please.

Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or should I say, Stuffie?

The same number as the number of missions.

So, then, are you saying that the *exact same* lower stage of Ariane has
been used in every flight? Let's see a verifiable reference to the number of
Ariane lower stages that have flown more than once. Otherwise, *once again*,
Stuffie, you're trying to retroactively change your posts. The subject of
the thread was reusability- if Ariane has not reused stages, then mentioning
it was clearly deceptive.

Proton and Long March are of course even cheaper

Have they reused stages as well?