|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:49:37 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote: I wouldn't mind seeing a suspension of the manned space program (outside of ISS and Orion-lite) for the next 5 years just so we can get our house in order. NASA currently spends far too much money on manned space programs and too little on research and true exploration. I'd go along with that if we had some sort of assurance that the budget currently going to Shuttle/Station would still stay at NASA and not go off into the bottomless pit of entitlement programs, but I have a no doubt that is what would/will happen. And while I admire Dr. Musgrave, there is absolutely zero chance we'd have gotten 300 Voyager-class missions instead of ISS. We'd have gotten four or five, tops (one every five years), and welfare would have swallowed the other $90 billion bucks. Brian |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message dakotatelephone... You have been served, space station: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/a...-flight/39212/ Story...your my hero! "....he said. "But the non-human program is more important to me than the human program." "Why? Because Hubble, Voyager, and other non-human satellites can reach further, address far more complex questions, and therefore have a far more inspiring and significant impact." Exactly! Not to mention the dramatic effect on launch and spacecraft costs, and perhaps the biggest advantage of all which is how much ....faster...they can be built, launched and returning data. And this is priceless..... "It's not a very powerful machine, but people are massively excited about it because it's a mirror for who they are." The whole thing about Hubble is, it gets after two existential questions. It doesn't answer them, and those questions will never be answered, but they a What is the meaning, and what is the hope, of life here on Earth? Hubble is symbolic for a knowledge machine that is potentially able to link cosmology, theology, philosophy and astronomy. It is able to hold a mirror to humanity -- the kind of mirror that says 'What kind of universe is it, and what is our place in it? Who are we, and who should we be?'" This gets at the basic flaw of classical scientific methods. Which is that historically it's been necessary to simplify the messy non-linear real world by gravitating to /one extreme or the other/. To a single particle on one end, to the entire cosmos on the opposite extreme of nature. We /instinctively simplify/ our search for the grand answers or fundamental laws by searching the extremes of quarks to quasars so to speak. Hence the Hubble for one extreme. The Super Collider for the other. But just like Story says, the answers are not to be found there. The Answers are to be found in middle. Not in the simplest the universe has to offer, single particles or statistical methods (classical or quantum motion). The answers are to be found by closely examining the /most complex/ the universe has to offer. Which is of course life and intelligence. We should gravitate to the most complex of those things. The most complex in the universe is of course looking us straight in the ...mirror...everyday. By understanding the processes that created us, we understand the processes responsible for the universe. Using 'quarks and quasars' as a means for fundamental law defines the Dark Age of science. Correcting this very simple frame of reference error, and realizing complexity is the true source of understanding is The Enlightenment. Scientifically the world still lives in the Dark Ages. And someday y'all will hear the same thing from someone with a title, and will believe. Then, and only then can the 'Answers' be found. And they are found by asking the correct questions, which our objective methods cannot even grasp. Just as our methods of understanding reality have been exactly backwards since day one, so has been our questions we ask of them. The questions we should be asking, which are important provide meaning and comfort, are NOT where did we come from. Or why are we here. NOT the where, why and how of the ...past. The true questions of meaning are again just the opposite. What futures do we need, want and deserve? The proper Enlightened Scientific Method begins with our imagination, which /objective/ science cannot even ...approach. Objective methods can't even ask the correct questions. : Let alone answer them. Story says.... "And we could have gone everywhere. But we opted to stay in low earth orbit and do a jobs program because we had no imagination." Correct again! Like Dear Emily said, the farther we look into the past, the less informative our searches become. "As by the dead we love to sit, Become so wondrous dear -- As for the lost we grapple Tho' all the rest are here -- In broken mathematics We estimate our prize Vast -- in its fading ratio To our penurious eyes!" Albert took that idea one step farther, which is that even current reality and mathematics have an inverse relationship. "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Albert Einstein. That leaves only the future! Only the future can be truly known. The only way to predict the future is to...imagine the future we want, need and deserve, and going out and making it happen. That is the answer to the ultimate of questions. Which Nicodemus asked but never answered. Which is... "how can an old man be reborn?" By immersing oneself in the future, what COULD BE with the same rigor and effort we've put into defining exactly what things ARE. The thought of combining those two opposite extremes into one provides all the wonder, beauty and contentment anyone could possibly behold. "Which is the best -- the Moon or the Crescent? Neither -- said the Moon -- That is best which is not -- Achieve it -- You efface the Sheen. Not of detention is Fruition -- Shudder to attain. Transport's decomposition follows -- He is Prism born." s Pat |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
On Apr 23, 4:01*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
And while I admire Dr. Musgrave, there is absolutely zero chance we'd have gotten 300 Voyager-class missions instead of ISS. We'd have gotten four or five, tops (one every five years), and welfare would have swallowed the other $90 billion bucks. I started losing respect for Dr. Musgrave after reading his monday morning quarterbacking of the Columbia accident in 2003. His plan for an inspection EVA was predicated on knowing there was a foam strike to the RCC, not the HRSI tiles as was originally thought to be the case, and hence why an EVA was ruled out as the astronauts would not have been able to go far enough to see the belly of the orbiter. I also serious doubt that Musgrave is taking into account an adjustment for inflation on the Voyager program costs. Assuming $800 million in fiscal year 1972, that would mean about 4 billion dollars in 2009-2019 dollars. ISS, assuming $100 billion in total support and construction costs, would mean "only" 25 or so Voyager class missions, assuming that the money did not go elsewhere. So I'm not seeing where he gets his cost accounting, much less anything else here. Sometimes I have to wonder if the guy just isn't getting kooky in his old age. -Mike |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
On Apr 24, 12:24�am, Mike DiCenso wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:01�pm, Brian Thorn wrote: And while I admire Dr. Musgrave, there is absolutely zero chance we'd have gotten 300 Voyager-class missions instead of ISS. We'd have gotten four or five, tops (one every five years), and welfare would have swallowed the other $90 billion bucks. I started losing respect for Dr. Musgrave after reading his monday morning quarterbacking of the Columbia accident in 2003. His plan for an inspection EVA was predicated on knowing there was a foam strike to the RCC, not the HRSI tiles as was originally thought to be the case, and hence why an EVA was ruled out as the astronauts would not have been able to go far enough to see the belly of the orbiter. I also serious doubt that Musgrave is taking into account an adjustment for inflation on the Voyager program costs. Assuming $800 million in fiscal year 1972, that would mean about 4 billion dollars in 2009-2019 dollars. ISS, assuming $100 billion in total support and construction costs, would mean "only" 25 or so Voyager class missions, assuming that the money did not go elsewhere. So I'm not seeing where he gets his cost accounting, much less anything else here. Sometimes I have to wonder if the guy just isn't getting kooky in his old age. -Mike The sad FACT of columbia Management let schedule pressure drive the program, and didnt even bother to look or consider the possiblity of a killer problem even after some previous wing burn thrus Heck management didnt even bother to actually have their own daily safety meetings. Ever heard of your only as good as your manager???? If nasa had manufactured 300 voyager or any other exploration vehicles, the cost per unit would drop so much Frankly I think nasa should be ordering more spirit and opportunitys. They are a excellent design and 50 should be crawling all over Mars and the moon as we speak today. Why design and test, then find a real winner of a model, then forget about it??? kinda like Apollo............. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
On Apr 23, 1:46*pm, "Fevric J. Glandules"
wrote: Jonathan wrote: what is the hope, of life here on Earth? Hubble is symbolic for a knowledge machine that is potentially able to link cosmology, theology, philosophy and astronomy. It is able to hold a mirror to humanity -- the kind of mirror that says 'What kind of universe is it, and what is our place in it? Who are we, and who should we be?'" Or indeed, 'Is it just me, or is that a little fuzzy? *Do I need a new pair of spectacles?'. Naw, it is your diabetes throwing off your osmotic eye pressure. Get the glucose levels under control and it will even out. Or in other words, enjoy the ride and just go ahead and send a full replacement "hubble" with the savings. I am assuming there was a double meaning in your comment as their was in mine. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
Pat Flannery wrote:
You know, I sometimes screw up on spelling...I never screwed up _that_ badly on spelling. :-) I surmise that the verb 'to dis' came along after we left school |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
Jeff Findley wrote:
For the next five years. We have far too many astronauts as it is. A five year pause in flights (except for ISS, which will provide precious few flights without the shuttle) will only weed out the surplus that won't be needed in the future. Perhaps one current astronaut will hang on and become the next Story Musgrave |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
On Apr 25, 1:56�am, Neil Gerace wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote: For the next five years. �We have far too many astronauts as it is. �A five year pause in flights (except for ISS, which will provide precious few flights without the shuttle) will only weed out the surplus that won't be needed in the future. Perhaps one current astronaut will hang on and become the next Story Musgrave thats assuming nasa will have any astronauts after ISS is deorbited. By then it could be all private industries |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TAL Story | Danny Deger | Space Shuttle | 2 | May 16th 07 08:09 PM |
The End of This Story | Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) | History | 15 | June 24th 05 08:17 AM |
Kudos to Musgrave | [email protected] | History | 38 | January 1st 05 08:24 PM |
Story Musgrave | Bryan Ashcraft | Space Shuttle | 70 | August 2nd 04 11:38 PM |