|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Zeppelin" wrote in message
... Lou Adornato wrote: If we haven't lost any capabilities, why is NASA talking about letting Hubble die? Here's something to think about to shine some light on why we don't keep saving spacecraft over and over, theoretically, by replacing parts, a car can run forever. How come no one ever does that but rather just buys a new car? Oh, but many people do try to run their cars forever. Car collectors are trying to do precisely that. The sole reason they haven't succeeded is that they haven't yet had a forever available to them in which to run their cars. Most importantly, no one, but no one - is talking about keeping Hubble running forever and ever. Period. They are talking about Hubble's final upgrade and servicing mission. Over $200 million has already long been spent to build Hubble's final set of detectors and cameras - which are sitting already bagged up waiting to go. These are not merely replacement parts but will actually improve Hubble's scientific output by tenfold. It would keep Hubble at the forefront of astronomical research for the remainder of its working life. Note, also, it would cost more to replace Hubble's full capabilities than to maintain them. In money and in time. Keep in mind that there is no actual replacement for Hubble in the works. There is no "new car" to buy. It simply doesn't exist and no one has yet demonstrated the will or courage to build one. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
chosp wrote:
They are talking about Hubble's final upgrade and servicing mission. Over $200 million has already long been spent to build Hubble's final set of detectors and cameras - which are sitting already bagged up waiting to go. These are not merely replacement parts but will actually improve Hubble's scientific output by tenfold. It would keep Hubble at the forefront of astronomical research for the remainder of its working life. Note, also, it would cost more to replace Hubble's full capabilities than to maintain them. In money and in time. A Hubble mission would require abort landing strips in Africa that are no longer available for security and political reasons. It would also require an orbit that would leave a shuttle unable to meet up with the ISS if it had a problem, compromising a safety goal of the shuttle program. Keep in mind that there is no actual replacement for Hubble in the works. There is no "new car" to buy. It simply doesn't exist and no one has yet demonstrated the will or courage to build one. The James E Webb telescope is Hubble's orbital successor. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The James E Webb telescope is Hubble's orbital successor.
Not in the ultraviolet. Personally, I'd rather see the "successor" be not one telescope, but a small family, none of which are budget-breakingly large, but it doesn't seem like things are going that way.... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On the loss of technology:
I totally disagree with that idea, because I see tons of gadgets and gizmos every day that can do things people only dreamed about 30 years ago. At the Space and Rocket Center here in Huntsville, there is a ring from a Saturn 5 that was used for guidance. It's computing capabilities are less than a small sientific calculator that can be bought for a couple of bucks today. So you can't compare us with the decline of the Roman Empire. Really, our focus has shifted. Instead of shooting first and asking later, NASA has to answer all the questions before they can do anything. They have to answer questions about long term stays in space, effects of radiation, etc. before sending astronauts places. The reason why we are no longer going to the Moon is because the general public lost interest, and funding was cut. The Saturn 5 was REALLY expensive, and that is why they came up with the Shuttle. Now, the Shuttle is old, and thought of as really expensive. That is why they are looking for something else. The only problem is that nobody knows what to replace the Shuttle with. I also think we have the capability. If we really wanted to go to the Moon, we could be there within a few years (ie, the 2015-2020 stuff they have been talking about). The problem again is money. Right now the Moon is one of those, "Been there, done that" kind of things. That is why there is so much focus on going to Mars. We haven't been there yet, so we can do some exploring there. In my opinion, we won't go back to the moon until it is profitable again. That most likely means tourism. I am starting to lose my train of thought, so I'll stop here. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Kingdon wrote:
Personally, I'd rather see the "successor" be not one telescope, but a small family, none of which are budget-breakingly large, but it doesn't seem like things are going that way.... That's what a lot of scientists preferred over Hubble when it was first proposed, but the giant space telescope concept had a life of its own. The debate gets described in the book "The Hubble Wars"- along with a lot of other things that came up during the design and construction phase, including some nasty stuff about a particular scientist whom the book doesn't name- but who I am pretty sure is Carl Sagan. Pat |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
There are other issues as well.
One is Budget. At the time the first space missions were started, NASA had a larger comparative budget. Alot of things are planned and based on cost. Going hand in hand with that is the commercialisation of space. Plans with a commercial value have become higher priority. Lastly, develoment of new technologies often require reinvention of present technology. Space suits in the sixties for example were developed with the then current state of tecnhology in mind. Reusing older suits now is ridiculous, due to advancements in various fields. Redesign is in order to fully utilise newer discoveries. Once again, within the boundaries set by budget, cost and commercial viability. my .5 cents dc |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
We, first loosers for 100 years.
Me: son of an Apollo-era engineer, lifetime space "nut", hired into my
"dream job" at NASA in 1990, quit in disgust 366 days later. I remember walking out of the Mission Operations Center after a night shift on the avionics console in the spring of 1991, feeling like a true steely-eyed missile man because I'd written a patch for a BFS problem in "real-time" (that is, during the mission in which the problem occurred. It was never flown, but I had it available as hip-pocket backup while Downey worked on the official fix). As I was driving out of the center past the old Rocket Park, the Saturn V/Apollo 18 "lawn ornament" was pointed almost directly at the rising moon. It was a rare, hazeless day for Houston, and for a moment I could swear that the face of the moon was laughing at me. What should have been the height of my career suddenly tasted like ash, because compared to my father's contributions, it was meaningless. Two months later I turned in my resignation. Don't tell me we haven't lost anything. "Camaronat" wrote in message ... On the loss of technology: I totally disagree with that idea, because I see tons of gadgets and gizmos every day that can do things people only dreamed about 30 years ago. Of course, one of the big differences between today and back then was that people dreamed really BIG dreams back then. At the Space and Rocket Center here in Huntsville, there is a ring from a Saturn 5 that was used for guidance. It's computing capabilities are less than a small sientific calculator that can be bought for a couple of bucks today. So you can't compare us with the decline of the Roman Empire. Actually, your average cell phone probably has more processing power than everything on the mobile launch pad in July, 1969. Difference is, your cell phone ain't goin' to the moon. At the old visitor's center at JSC there used to be the last surviving Lunar Lander Trainer. Also known as "the flying bedstead", it was basically a jet engine mounted vertiucally on a frame with four shock-absorbing legs and a semi-enclosed cabin with an ejection seat mounted on top. After 20 years, they still had to keep a catch basin under it because it was still leaking oil. To be honest, it took a true engineer and space afficionado (like me) to see this thing as beautiful. What always put a lump in my throat was the series of Apollo mission stickers someone had placed on the cabin sill. Somehow, those decals spoke volumes to me of the pride that some long-ago team of engineers had taken in the role his ungainly but beautiful vehicle. The point is, that vehicle was simple, primitive even, but it was also bold, audacious, and daring. Some team of engineers, using tools that we would laugh at today, took complete responisbility for it and did the best job possible, and some team of manager took them at thier word and assigned it to mission after mission. It represented a risk-taking, get-the-job-done attitude that managed to accomplish the mission, time and time again. In short, it represented everything the agency was in my father's day that it wasn't in mine. In that very important aspect, NASA (and America) very much resemble the decline of the Roman empire. Of course, one big difference between us and the Romans is that the Romans never had to import engineers from third-world countries because not enough of thier own kids were interested in math and science. They never reached a point at which 80% of thier grad students in science and engineering were foreign nationals. Really, our focus has shifted. Instead of shooting first and asking later, NASA has to answer all the questions before they can do anything. They have to answer questions about long term stays in space, effects of radiation, etc. before sending astronauts places. You can't go to the moon by staying home. NASA has had 35 years to answer those questions. We have years of data from Skylab, from Mir, from Shuttle, from LDEF, and we do NOTHING with it. It's not a lack of data. It's a lack of leadership, it's a lack of nerve, it's a lack of vision, but it's NOT a lack of data. I *will* agree that the NASA of today doesn't "shoot first and ask questions later". Problem is, it doesn't shoot at all. It doesn't even have the balls to shoot blanks anymore. Hell, it's not even doing that good a job of asking questions. The reason why we are no longer going to the Moon is because the general public lost interest, and funding was cut. That's a polite way of saying that the American public has lost the political will to do anything difficult, to dream big dreams, or to do anything more daring than curbside recycling. The Saturn 5 was REALLY expensive, and that is why they came up with the Shuttle. Had we continued building the Saturn V, and bought in larger quantities, they would have gotten cheaper. Now, the Shuttle is old, and thought of as really expensive. That is why they are looking for something else. It has nothing to do with age - the average surviving shuttle has less than 20 missions on it. The problem is that the shuttle is, was, and ever will be a money pit. It was a hangar queen from day one. They've been operating the silly thing for nearly 30 years, and they STILL don't have a prayer of ever acheiving it's design goals. It's such an overly complex design that they've never been able to get a handle on the turnaround process, which gets longer and longer instead of coming down. In any other segment of the aerospace industry, the shuttle would have been identified as a failure decades ago. And don't think that it's a matter of not enough funding. If anything, it's just the opposite - NASA's in a position of being guaranteed continuing funding for operating the shuttle, flawed as it is, while if they ADMIT that it's a POS they run the risk of the whole program being cut. Any private company that refused to admit that it's primary vehicle was a technological disaster and move on to something else, would have mercifully gone bankrupt and opened up opportunities for other organizations more amenable to change. Unfortunately for us, NASA is sitting on what is essentially a bottomless (albeit small) well of money. The only problem is that nobody knows what to replace the Shuttle with. I'll go along with the idea that "nobody knows HOW to replace the shuttle", because it can't be done without taking a risk, and NASA, the big contractors, and America in general is no longer in the the risk business. There's any number of people who know WHAT to replace it with, it's just that none of them work for NASA. Look at all the X-price entrants. Look at the SDIO program. There used to be a lot more, but most of them are well into retirement. We've reached a point where there's NO ONE of working age in America who's actually designed (or helped to design) a manned spacecraft. THAT's the true loss. If NASA in the early 70's had adopted a policy of buying launch services instead of protecting it's feifdom by designing and operating its own shuttle fleet, central Florida would have become the Silicon Valley of it's day, with dozens of start-ups staffed with people who'd gained invaluable design and operations experience from Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, and they'd have developed any number of competing designs, all funded by venture capitalists instead of fickle voters. It's still the best thing they could do for the space community, and it's long overdue. I also think we have the capability. If we really wanted to go to the Moon, we could be there within a few years (ie, the 2015-2020 stuff they have been talking about). The problem again is money. The problem is again NOT money. I was there and saw some of the most capable engineers I've ever met trying to get the agency through the fiasco of "Space Station Freedom" design. The agency brass eventually reached a point where they were maneuvering so that Congress would kill the funding, releiving NASA of the necessity of admiting that they couldn't pull it off. The fact is that NASA of today would be starting far behind square one if they decided to go back to the moon - my father's generation may not have had desktop computers and the internet, but they also didn't have a hostile congress and "effective" government management. The top brass may be flying the meatball again, but in thier hearts they'll always be worms (I'll leave it to other NASA hands to explain that). |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
We, first loosers for 100 years.
Of course, one big difference between us and the Romans is that the
Romans never had to import engineers from third-world countries because not enough of thier own kids were interested in math and science. They never reached a point at which 80% of thier grad students in science and engineering were foreign nationals. I don't know if the historical (or archaeological) record breaks down engineers versus other job classifications in the Roman Empire, but they certainly did import lots of labor from the third-world countries of their day. The history of the Roman Empire is the history of barbarians turning into provincials, starting from the fairly early days of the Roman Republic (where the barbarians in question were outside Rome but within what is now Italy). Source: http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/co...60.asp?id=3460 Of course, as usual with history one could draw multiple conclusions: that immigration keeps the US vital, or that this is another factor which will hasten the fall of the US Empire. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
We, first loosers for 100 years.
In article ,
Jim Kingdon wrote: Of course, as usual with history one could draw multiple conclusions: that immigration keeps the US vital, or that this is another factor which will hasten the fall of the US Empire. If the US lasts as long as the Western Empire did, it should see the year 3000. If it lasts as long as the Eastern Empire, it should see AD 3,900. -- http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
We, first loosers for 100 years.
"Lou Adornato" writes:
Of course, one big difference between us and the Romans is that the Romans never had to import engineers from third-world countries because not enough of thier own kids were interested in math and science. They never reached a point at which 80% of thier grad students in science and engineering were foreign nationals. This statement doesn't agree with either experience or the data. Foreign nationals are still a minority in science and engineering, and not always a growing one (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf05317/) You can't go to the moon by staying home. NASA has had 35 years to answer those questions. We have years of data from Skylab, from Mir, from Shuttle, from LDEF, and we do NOTHING with it. It's not a lack of data. It's a lack of leadership, it's a lack of nerve, it's a lack of vision, but it's NOT a lack of data. This, however, I'll agree with (I've done a lot of contract work for NASA, and most of it has left a bitter taste of bad bureaucracy in my mouth). -- Richard W Kaszeta http://www.kaszeta.org/rich |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Let me say THIS about THAT | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 13th 04 01:54 AM |
knowledge is power | mostafa dia | Satellites | 3 | August 11th 04 07:17 AM |
knowledge is power | mostafa dia | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | August 8th 04 12:22 AM |
knowledge is power | mostafa dia | FITS | 0 | August 7th 04 02:37 AM |
Incontrovertible Evidence | Cash | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 24th 03 07:22 PM |