Nova's Astrospies

On Feb 13, 5:23 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
I watched Nova's Astrospies last night and it was pretty good. Lots of
interviews with MOL astronauts, many of who transferred to NASA when MOL was
cancelled. There was some good video footage of MOL training, some flying
parabolas and some working underwater. The neutral buoyancy training was
interesting because it wasn't done inside a huge building in a huge swimming
pool (like at JSC). It was done in the ocean on/off of the coast of some
tropical island (who's name and location I didn't remember).

The Almaz footage was interesting as well. Even though the Soviets had
problems with their Almaz stations, they did fly them. The show tried to
tell the story of the manned photo reconnaissance space race between the two
superpowers. Obviously, both lost out to unmanned photo reconnaissance
satellites.

The optical camera and gunsighting gear on the Almaz was interesting to see.
The Almaz/MOL concept was pretty much the last gasp of the von Braun
concept of using manned space stations for military reconnaissance. It
just didn't make sense from a weight and complexity point of view.
They mentioned the death of one of the MOL astronauts in the F-104 crash
while practicing "shuttle " landings...I assumed they were referring to
the X-20 Dyna-Soar. This is odd for three reasons: The Dyna-Soar was
canceled in 1963, and 1967 seems too early for doing STS tests...besides
which, MOL was supposed to use Gemini B for carrying the astronauts. So
either he was referring to some sort of a lifting body project for
shuttling astronauts into orbit and back, or this may have something to
do with the Winged Gemini concept:http://www.astronautix.com/craft/winemini.htm

Pat

Makes one wonder as to why our 100mm resolution images of our
physically dark moon are still not available to the public.
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 16, 8:56 pm, robert casey wrote:
The Almaz footage was interesting as well. Even though the Soviets had
problems with their Almaz stations, they did fly them. The show tried to
tell the story of the manned photo reconnaissance space race between the two
superpowers. Obviously, both lost out to unmanned photo reconnaissance
satellites.

Although manned space flight is fun to do, it seems hard to come up with
a mission that works better manned than one unmanned.

That's true, especially if easily terrestrial commanded or far better
yet from the Earth-Moon L1.
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 17, 6:37 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:56:30 -0500, in a place far, far away, robert
casey made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



The Almaz footage was interesting as well. Even though the Soviets had
problems with their Almaz stations, they did fly them. The show tried to
tell the story of the manned photo reconnaissance space race between the two
superpowers. Obviously, both lost out to unmanned photo reconnaissance
satellites.

Although manned space flight is fun to do, it seems hard to come up with
a mission that works better manned than one unmanned.

No, it's trivially simple to do so. For instance, a satellite rescue
and repair has never been done unmanned.

Why bother to repair when a new and improved replacement is so much
better in most every way.

BTW, if having been designed for remote robotic repairs in the first
place, as then future servicing via robots that are under full
terrestrial interface should do quite nicely, as the command loop time
delay is rather minimal.
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 17, 1:25�pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 17, 6:37 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:





On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:56:30 -0500, in a place far, far away, robert
casey made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The Almaz footage was interesting as well. �Even though the Soviets had
problems with their Almaz stations, they did fly them. �The show tried to
tell the story of the manned photo reconnaissance space race between the two
superpowers. �Obviously, both lost out to unmanned photo reconnaissance
satellites.

Although manned space flight is fun to do, it seems hard to come up with
a mission that works better manned than one unmanned.

No, it's trivially simple to do so. �For instance, a satellite rescue
and repair has never been done unmanned.

Why bother to repair when a new and improved replacement is so much
better in most every way.

BTW, if having been designed for remote robotic repairs in the first
place, as then future servicing via robots that are under full
terrestrial interface should do quite nicely, as the command loop time
delay is rather minimal.
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Three answers.

First: (The easiest and most basic): "We do this because we are human,
and this is what we do." It would actually go against Human Nature to
start doing all of this with inferior automatic spacecraft incapable
of making split-second decisions, or suddenly tuning into something
out of the ordinary.

Two: The "Big Picture" is that WE eventually will need to move on from
this cradle we call Earth and move out into the heavens. We can't do
that without experience.

And C: Manned spaceflight employs a helluva lot more people that
unmanned.

And the forth answer in the trilogy: "The entire world never stood in
awe when the first images were transmitted from the surface of Mars,
but they will when the first human steps foot on Mars."

Regards,

David L. Rickman

robert casey wrote:


The Almaz footage was interesting as well. Even though the Soviets had
problems with their Almaz stations, they did fly them. The show tried to
tell the story of the manned photo reconnaissance space race between the
two
superpowers. Obviously, both lost out to unmanned photo reconnaissance
satellites.


Although manned space flight is fun to do, it seems hard to come up with
a mission that works better manned than one unmanned.


Oh, please. Those rovers have been on Mars for 3 years, and they've gone
what, 5 miles? A human would obviously have done much more. The rovers
are great for initial forays, but eventually you just gotta go there.

Mike Ross

wrote:

And the forth answer in the trilogy: "The entire world never stood in
awe when the first images were transmitted from the surface of Mars,
but they will when the first human steps foot on Mars."

Regards,

David L. Rickman


Actually, my whole family watched the landing, but within a few days it
was old hat, and we got back to watching the Vietnam War Show, which was
the really interesting thing on TV back then; kind of a giant football
game with body counts instead on touchdowns.
I at least watched the photos come in live from Viking 1, and Mars was
pretty ho-hum to look at then, and still is now.
You want to get some photos people will notice, you put a lander down
near one of those volcanoes on Io. Better yet put a astronaut down there
so we can see him try to dodge lava bombs and outrun molten sulfur
flows...that will be edge of your seat excitement for the astronaut and
viewers both. ;-)

Pat

Mike Ross wrote:
Oh, please. Those rovers have been on Mars for 3 years, and they've gone
what, 5 miles? A human would obviously have done much more. The rovers
are great for initial forays, but eventually you just gotta go there.


Start figuring out how much weight of supplies two astronauts on Mars
would have consumed in that time.
Especially if they don't drink their own recycled pee.
And would you like the be the NASA official who has to tell a
prospective astronaut: "I sure hope you like the taste of ****, because
you are going to be drinking it for the next few years, fella."
You'd be lucky not to get punched out on the spot over a remark like that.
Also, you are overlooking a little problem here...the astronaut can't go
further from his source of supplies than he can be sure he can walk
back from before his air supply gives out, so he has to stay pretty
close to his lander in any case.
....and when the rovers do finally quit, we just leave them there.
That won't work for a astronaut unless he has a cute, personality-filled
monkey to keep his spirits up and can rescue a alien slave.
Probably so he can drink his pee, as he's probably getting sick and
tired of the taste of monkey ****.

Pat

On Feb 17, 4:59�pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

That won't work for a astronaut unless he has a cute, personality-filled
monkey to keep his spirits up and can rescue a alien slave.
Probably so he can drink his pee, as he's probably getting sick and
tired of the taste of monkey ****.

Pat

Classic! ;-)

wrote:
On Feb 17, 4:59�pm, Pat Flannery wrote:


That won't work for a astronaut unless he has a cute, personality-filled
monkey to keep his spirits up and can rescue a alien slave.
Probably so he can drink his pee, as he's probably getting sick and
tired of the taste of monkey ****.

Pat


Classic! ;-)


Remember...raw Martian Water-Weenies good; cooked Martian Water-Weenies bad.
One interesting aspect of that movie are the rocks he finds that release
oxygen when heated.
Considering the speculation about peroxides and superoxides in the
Martian soil that accounted for the oddball Viking biology experiment
results, who knows? Burnable rocks might actually be a possibility.

Pat

On Feb 17, 11:19 am, wrote:
On Feb 17, 1:25�pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Feb 17, 6:37 am, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:56:30 -0500, in a place far, far away, robert
casey made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

The Almaz footage was interesting as well. �Even though the Soviets had
problems with their Almaz stations, they did fly them. �The show tried to
tell the story of the manned photo reconnaissance space race between the two
superpowers. �Obviously, both lost out to unmanned photo reconnaissance
satellites.

Although manned space flight is fun to do, it seems hard to come up with
a mission that works better manned than one unmanned.

No, it's trivially simple to do so. �For instance, a satellite rescue
and repair has never been done unmanned.

Why bother to repair when a new and improved replacement is so much
better in most every way.

BTW, if having been designed for remote robotic repairs in the first
place, as then future servicing via robots that are under full
terrestrial interface should do quite nicely, as the command loop time
delay is rather minimal.
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Three answers.

First: (The easiest and most basic): "We do this because we are human,
and this is what we do." It would actually go against Human Nature to
start doing all of this with inferior automatic spacecraft incapable
of making split-second decisions, or suddenly tuning into something
out of the ordinary.

Two: The "Big Picture" is that WE eventually will need to move on from
this cradle we call Earth and move out into the heavens. We can't do
that without experience.

And C: Manned spaceflight employs a helluva lot more people that
unmanned.

And the forth answer in the trilogy: "The entire world never stood in
awe when the first images were transmitted from the surface of Mars,
but they will when the first human steps foot on Mars."

Regards,

David L. Rickman

That's true enough, especially to be looking at a dead man walking and
a few utilized body-bags on Mars would certainly get my attention, but
I'd like to think not via my hard earned loot.

I wonder how much of manned space exploration would take place if it
were strictly of private enterprise, and as such fully taxable to
boot?

If I wanted the best eye candy or other science per dollar/euro, I'd
want to do a whole lot better than anything NASA or ESA has delivered
thus far.
. - Brad Guth