|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
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. Unmanned Mars missions current or planned that have any significant bearing on, or provide any support for, or a precursor to manned Mars missions. Zero. 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. Given that there utterly no relationship at all between the programs now, there is no way the situation can get worse. If you have evidence or beliefs otherwise, feel free to air them here. 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. Interesting. You consistently challenge my view, ask for my evidence, and utterly refuse to produce the same your view. Then you want to call the whole thing off without actually adressing any of the points I raise. Jorge I expected better than this kind of handwaving from you. 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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Thorn wrote:
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. To the simpleminded, yes. Those that understand that the same probes required to target manned missions are those required to support unmanned missions, it is quite obvious that the linkage is tenuous at best. 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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
rk wrote:
Just to throw a ruble in, I'm not that I would say "not at all," at least literally. I see no reason why such a payload could not be a hitchhiker on a probe launched for another purpose... In fact, just like it actually was. One experiment does not justification make. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
need to find: drive corrector for 1975 vintage celestron 8 | robert somerville | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | November 14th 04 11:46 PM |
Did the spacewalk examine for outside damage? Suit troubles ended it earlyu | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 3 | February 27th 04 09:15 PM |
What if HSF ended in 1975? | Space Cadet | Space Shuttle | 24 | February 21st 04 05:42 AM |
What if HSF ended in 1975? | Space Cadet | Policy | 21 | February 21st 04 05:40 AM |
Beagle 2 Search Ended | Ricardo | UK Astronomy | 4 | February 13th 04 03:18 PM |