|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure
(like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception to accomplish military goals. 2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts. 3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma. How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital capabilities? JTM |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 12:25 pm, "
wrote: 1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure (like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception to accomplish military goals. Not an implication but a fact. It wasn't just "military goals", it was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery 2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts. 3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma. How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital capabilities? It had nothing to with manned capabilities. The shuttle was The National launch vehicle and hence the DOD was flying payloads on it JTM |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 1:05*pm, wrote:
On Mar 11, 12:25 pm, " wrote: 1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure (like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception to accomplish military goals. Not an implication but a fact. *It wasn't just "military goals", it was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery 2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts. 3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma. How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital capabilities? It had nothing to with manned capabilities. *The shuttle was The National *launch vehicle and hence the DOD was flying payloads on it JTM- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - From http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch9.htm: Nixon stated that NASA should stress civilian applications but should not hesitate to note the military uses as well. He showed interest in the possibility of routine operations and quick reaction times, for he saw that these could allow the Shuttle to help in disasters such as earthquakes or floods. He also liked the idea of using the Shuttle to dispose of nuclear waste by launching it into space. Fletcher mentioned that it might become possible to collect solar power in orbit and beam it to earth in the form of electricity. Nixon replied that such developments tend to happen much more quickly than people expect, and that they should not hesitate to talk about them. He liked the fact that ordinary people would be able to fly in the Shuttle, who would not be highly-trained astronauts. He asked if the Shuttle was a good investment, and agreed that it was indeed, for it promised a tenfold reduction in the cost of space flight. He added that even if it was not a good investment, the nation would have to do it anyway, because space flight was here to stay. Fletcher came away from the meeting saying, "The President thinks about space just like McCurdy does," referring to a colleague within NASA's upper management. Although his formal statement largely reflected NASA's views, Nixon edited the draft in his own hand. The final version showed a firmness and sense of direction that had been utterly lacking in his March 1970 statement on space policy. It also featured a grace note that might have suited John Kennedy: I have decided today that the United States should proceed at once with the development of an entirely new type of space transportation system designed to help transform the space frontier of the 1970s into familiar territory, easily accessible for human endeavor in the 1980s and '90s. This system will center on a space vehicle that can shuttle repeatedly from earth to orbit and back. It will revolutionize transportation into near space, by routinizing it. It will take the astronomical costs out of astronautics. In short, it will go a long way toward delivering the rich benefits of practical [413] space utilization and the valuable spinoffs from space efforts into the daily lives of Americans and all people.... ---------------------------- All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by implication, that NASA should "note" military uses. You say, "It had nothing to with manned capabilities." If the shuttle had nothing to do with manned capabilities, what in the world was Nixon talking about? JTM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, "
wrote: On Mar 11, 1:05 pm, wrote: On Mar 11, 12:25 pm, " wrote: 1) Some people imply that the space shuttle and its support structure (like the Manned Orbital Laboratory) was designed from its inception to accomplish military goals. Not an implication but a fact. It wasn't just "military goals", it was military missions, as simple as spacecraft delivery 2) Since the Challenger disaster with an IUS aboard, the space shuttle has been deemed too dangerous for non-astronauts. 3) Yet military advocates don't blame the Air Force for what they consider our civilian space shuttle / space station dilemma. 4)How is it logical for advocates of failed military orbital capabilities (manned) to denigrate our current civilian orbital capabilities? It had nothing to with manned capabilities. The shuttle was The National launch vehicle and hence the DOD was flying payloads on it You say, "It had nothing to with manned capabilities." If the shuttle had nothing to do with manned capabilities, what in the world was Nixon talking about? I was referring to your 4th point idiot JTM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, "
wrote: All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by implication, that NASA should "note" military uses. And your point is? The rest of the document explains how USAF requirements influenced the shuttle design in the 70's |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
wrote in message
... On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, " wrote: All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by implication, that NASA should "note" military uses. And your point is? The rest of the document explains how USAF requirements influenced the shuttle design in the 70's Why do you keep responding to Maxson? He's a card-carrying nut case and won't listen to reason or even pay lip service to reality. Just kf him like the rest of us (you'll note you're the only one who responds to him). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
The purpose of the space shuttle was to transition our man in space
activity away from ambitious interplanetary development schemes to general disillusionment with space travel and spread the gospel of the ultimate futility of interplanetary development, with its basic tenets marginalized by science fiction and ufo cultism. Where would aviation be without heavier than air aircraft following the Hindenberg disaster? and the Shenandoah crash? What if there were a genre of literature dedicated to fantastical tales of a future air age, complete with gremlins, trolls and angels beyond the clouds and air admirals riding shotgun over Earth? We'd still be using steamships to cross the Atlantic and anyone proposing air travel as a practical possibility would be viewed as the very definition of crank or worse. So, without large reusable heavy lift launchers, without nuclear thermal rockets, we are stuck with the modern day equivalent of dirigibles which after decades of use dispel any notion of practical commercial space development and are only waiting for a disaster big enough to end public enthusiasm once and for all. Which was its job from the outset. We had the means to travel to mars in the 1960s, we merely elected not to puruse it. Why? Because it would inspire the American public to irrationally support the enlargement of a costly and endless space development effort that paid no dividends (in the view of the decision makers) to the American public, exposed our best rocket and nuclear technologies to public scrutiny, flew in the face of missile and nuclear prolifaration goals, distracted us from our Cold War efforts and military obligations, gave rise to crazy 'one world' and 'planetary' notions that were anti-national and pro-communist (in the view of the decision makers) and ultimately had the potential of creating a military capability off-world that would one day turn against the United States and be beyond the United States to do anything about (just like the US turned against Britain eventually and kicked their butts in world war two) For all these reasons, JFK had to be stopped, and the program he saddled this nation with would be brought down and forgotten over time. A week after the assasination LBJ and McNamara reviewed the moon program budget for 1964 and radically reduced the size and scope of Apollo, and ended any plans to flight test more visionary programs like Rover. By 1967 when it was clear we would beat the Russians to the moon, the budget was cranked down dramatically. It stayed in free fall until after the moon landings. After Nixon organized a Space Task Group that chaired by Spiro Agnew to look at the future of Space travel after the moon landing. NASA came up with a laundry list. Nixon said pick one item on that list. They picked the Shuttle as the first step promsing radical cost reductions. The Shuttle got funded, but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage, increased operating costs. While the shuttle was funded, needed infrastructure and support equipment was ignored - so flight costs were very high, reducing flight rates, which further increased costs above projections. This 'missed target' was used to lambast NASA and every loss, accident, and mishap has been used to call for the ending of man in space as a useless waste - from Apollo one onward. One day, without a clear compelling vision, with only marginalizing chatter, and with no clear technical or scientific basis supporting them - the dream of space travel will end - leaving the high frontier of low Earth orbit to NSA and NRO. Which is how certain types wanted it from the very beginning. Had we stuck with the Saturn V and invested money in launch infrastructure and streamlining the handling of vehicles and propellants, we could have lowered costs. Had we a phased approach to making the Saturn V reusable, starting with the first stage - making that a flyback booster - testing the concept with a flyback titan - space access would be dramatically reduced in cost. The money saved would be spent on payloads. Had we stuck with the Rover program, we would have had a nuclear thermal upper stage flying by the time we landed on the moon. That stage, combined with increased spending on payloads, would have put a Skylab type module on the surface of the moon and powered it, and we wuold have had a moon -base at Tranquility by 1972. Apollo 12 landed within 100 yards of Surveyor 3 on Oceanus Procellarum in 1969, two years after the robot spacecraft touched down on the moon, which demonstrated the feasability of supplying a lunar base. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...adSurveyor.jpg What would this path have given us? For the same money spent on Shuttle, by 1980s we would have had a human presence on the Moon equal to that of Little American in Antarctica, and in the 1980s, Americans would likely have been as enthusiastic about that, as they were about Polar Exploration in the 1920s. Funding would not have been a problem for NASA in this situation. We would have been well situated with experience of long term habitation on the moon, and nuclear thermal rockets, to travel to Mars any time between 1972 and 1980. Who knows where that would have eventually led us? Setting up a base on Mars is very similar ot setting up a base on the moon, once the transfer times are taken into account. We likely would have had a 'little America' on Mars, and be thinking bigger thoughts.. The amount of time the coed crews spent in transit on these longer journeys would have likely ended up in some powerful reflection and experiences that would have given us new insights in the 1990s that cannot be predicted -except to say they'd be transformative of our entire global culture. Such transforming universal visions of human experience, would likely have communicated and motivated folks who are now motivated by lesser visions - and likely have avoided our present war on terror. The 24 astronauts who visited the moon in the 20th century, had their share of modern day shamans - which is at once amazing and frightening. Alan Bean trained himself to be a professional artist to capture the emotion of his journey and to create a permanent record of his achievements. He had this idea one day when he was visiting the Louvre, and wondering about how the future would regard his mission. He realized that the paintings he was looking at were hundreds of years old. He felt it important to create an artistic record of the journey. That's what he did. Edgar Mitchell, taking star sightings with an Astrolabe on his return from the moon on Apollo 14 had an epihanny while staring into the milky-way with a low power telescope flying above the moon. When he returned to Earth, he founded the Noetic Institute in an effort to develop and understand his insight. Other astronauts joined religious orders. Still others were treated for what were termed mission related psychological difficulties. This from a population of 24 hard-boiled fighter jock scientists. What would be the artistic, religious and philisophical insights of a generation of astronauts with hundreds working and living on the moon? We can only imagine the impact by noting that a single picture of the planet Earth snapped above the moon by Frank Borman Christmas 1968 electrified and transformed the world, giving rise to the popularity of the environmental movement, the gaia hypothesis and idea of the Earth as one place with common problems and common solutions that all of us have to work together to figure out. The power of that image motivated people like Carl Sagan to take a picture of Earth from Voyager's perspective beyond Jupiter. This was opposed for decades, until, finally, Carl, dying from Lukemia, and pulling out all stops, got permission to take a picture fo Earth from the Oort Cloud. At that distance, the Earth wasn't even a pixel size - it slightly brightened a single pixel. He tells the story in his last book, Pale Blue Dot. As the specialist said in their once classified briefing documents - anti-national ideas that did not benefit the United States and would benefit the communists - our sworn enemy at that time - must be supressed. Get a clue people. Eisenhower was advised that the National Academy of Sciences should operate as a board directing NASAs strategic direction and growth - a Space Council that recieves a set amount of funding each year for five or ten year terms. Eisenhower ignored this. Why? Because such a well reasoned strategic development of space capabilities would lead to growth, achievement, excitement, more public money, greater public enthusiasm without end. Who knew where it would take us? Eisenhower felt it would take us into bankruptcy. Kennedy felt it would take us to where we needed to be in the 21st century. Eisenhower, Nixon and LBJ all felt that JFK was an impractical playboy who never had to balance a budget, and he would lead this nation to economic, political and military ruin. Does anyone know where the phrase - to boldly go where no man has gone before - came from? It did not come from Gene Roddenberry. I will give the pointer to the source to anyone who asks. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:
The Shuttle got funded, but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage, increased operating costs. Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant, The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews
On Mar 12, 7:28*am, wrote:
Get a clue people. *Eisenhower was advised that the National Academy of Sciences should operate as a board directing NASAs strategic direction and growth - a Space Council that recieves a set amount of funding each year for five or ten year terms. *Eisenhower ignored this. To the best of your knowledge, or alternatively, in your opinion, what was Reagan's attitude toward or relationship with the National Academy of Sciences? Does anyone know where the phrase - to boldly go where no man has gone before - came from? It did not come from Gene Roddenberry. I will give the pointer to the source to anyone who asks. Okay, thanks in advance. JTM |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 81 | March 26th 08 04:15 PM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | Policy | 7 | December 7th 06 03:15 AM |
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years | Jim Oberg | History | 7 | December 7th 06 03:15 AM |
First Civilian Astronaut | Jo | UK Astronomy | 1 | June 21st 04 07:11 PM |