The wrong approach

I'm a big supporter of space exploration, but I really think Bush is
taking the wrong approach here. The most likely result of his plan
will be a huge ISS-like expenditure on a moonbase of limited
scientific value while funding for less expensive unmanned space
science gets cut. Funding will probably get cut before we get to Mars.
Like the Shuttle and ISS, it will do nothing to improve our long-term
space capability, or at least not enough to justify the cost (even
Apollo, a much better program than those two, was kind of a dead end).

I think we should concentrate on unmanned science-oriented missions,
which have a great "bang-for-buck", and in terms of manned space we
should concentrate on building the basic technological capability that
in the future will make a more extensive presence in space more
feasible, both for the public and private sectors. I dont care how
many Apollos you do, until we have technology and infrastructure that
enable cheap space flight, humanity is not going to conquer the solar
system.

"Bill Johnston" wrote in message om...

I'm a big supporter of space exploration, but I really think Bush is
taking the wrong approach here. The most likely result of his plan
will be a huge ISS-like expenditure on a moonbase of limited
scientific value while funding for less expensive unmanned space
science gets cut. Funding will probably get cut before we get to Mars.
Like the Shuttle and ISS, it will do nothing to improve our long-term
space capability, or at least not enough to justify the cost (even
Apollo, a much better program than those two, was kind of a dead end).

I think we should concentrate on unmanned science-oriented missions,
which have a great "bang-for-buck", and in terms of manned space we
should concentrate on building the basic technological capability that
in the future will make a more extensive presence in space more
feasible, both for the public and private sectors. I dont care how
many Apollos you do, until we have technology and infrastructure that
enable cheap space flight, humanity is not going to conquer the solar
system.


True! If God had wanted us to fly into space He would have given us
boosters.



--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiii :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

"Bill Johnston" wrote in message
om...

I think we should concentrate on unmanned science-oriented missions,

What about unmanned production-oriented missions?

which have a great "bang-for-buck", and in terms of manned space we
should concentrate on building the basic technological capability that
in the future will make a more extensive presence in space more
feasible, both for the public and private sectors. I dont care how
many Apollos you do, until we have technology and infrastructure that
enable cheap space flight, humanity is not going to conquer the solar
system.

Are you talking about Earth or space based infrastructure? In general,
unmanned, scientific probes don't build infrastructure in space. How do we
get to cheap space flight?

"Bill Johnston" wrote in message
om...
I'm a big supporter of space exploration, but I really think Bush is
taking the wrong approach here. The most likely result of his plan
will be a huge ISS-like expenditure on a moonbase of limited
scientific value while funding for less expensive unmanned space
science gets cut. Funding will probably get cut before we get to Mars.

Funding will probably be cut before we even get to the moon.

"Bill Johnston" ha scritto nel messaggio
om...
I dont care how
many Apollos you do, until we have technology and infrastructure that
enable cheap space flight, humanity is not going to conquer the solar
system.

But i still think that experience and practice are linked to innovation and
to costs. We can't moan about waiting for the costs to become low, we have
to work for reach this (economical) objective: we have to work to get a good
experience level that can start a sustainable race in innovation. And you
won't reach this only with probes.

Funding will probably be cut before we even get to the moon.

Why, because it might be interesting and the public will only support boring
shuttle missions? I fail to see you reasoning here. You think the Public will
only support boring space missions of little interest like the past 20 years of
the Shuttle. Soon as someone talks about going to the Moon, it raises hackles
like yours. Oh no, people might become interested in space travel once again
instead of contemplating their naval.

Tom

Bill Johnston wrote:

I'm a big supporter of space exploration, but I really think Bush is
taking the wrong approach here. The most likely result of his plan
will be a huge ISS-like expenditure on a moonbase of limited
scientific value while funding for less expensive unmanned space
science gets cut.

I agree that Your scenario is quite likely. I think a moonbase *could*
be of tremonous scientific value, but not, if it staffed by only two or
three astronauts. They would spend most of their time repairing
equipment, instead of doing science. If the number of astronauts is
increased, the amount of science would increase a lot more than the
amount spend, since more science-specialist might be up. Also a lot
of the money would go into developing the infrastructure, boosters etc.
which does not increase if the double amount of items are bought.

Now, how to pay for it? Well the answer is: A moon station does *not*
have to be as expensive as it is going to be. Unmanned space is now
cheaper (per science data) than in the eighties, because Goldin did
introduce the FCB-mission. Nobody tried to do this for manned space,
even though the savings here could be a lot more.

Funding will probably get cut before we get to Mars.

Forget Mars for the forseeable future.

Like the Shuttle and ISS, it will do nothing to improve our long-term
space capability, or at least not enough to justify the cost (even
Apollo, a much better program than those two, was kind of a dead end).

Shuttle was basically some prototypes with the quirks of prototypes,
which were expected to perform in operational capacity, IMNSHO.
And ISS became the through of the usual suspects, almost from the start.
As I said, manned space could be a lot cheaper, if so desired.

Robert Kitzmueller

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:37:05 +0100, Robert Kitzmüller
wrote:

Now, how to pay for it? Well the answer is: A moon station does *not*
have to be as expensive as it is going to be. Unmanned space is now
cheaper (per science data) than in the eighties, because Goldin did
introduce the FCB-mission. Nobody tried to do this for manned space,
even though the savings here could be a lot more.

The reason why FCB failed is that it was too cheap and costly projects
failed due to silly mistakes.

I like Sean O'Keefe's comments about the $200 million overspending on
these Mars rovers, when he said that if he knew that it would cost
this much to begin with, then he would never have allowed it.

Yet you have to question if spending this extra $200 million was worth
it in order to fix their airbag problem and to improve the safety of
the landing? As here they are with one rover landed and working
perfectly, where the second one should hopefully work just as well.

As had they not spent that extra money, then Spirit may have gone
splat. So as these missions come around so rarely, then I believe that
it is worth overspending in order to ensure safety.

You run FCB on human spaceflight and you will end up getting people
killed.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman wrote in message . ..

Now, how to pay for it? Well the answer is: A moon station does
*not*
have to be as expensive as it is going to be. Unmanned space is now
cheaper (per science data) than in the eighties, because Goldin did
introduce the FCB-mission. Nobody tried to do this for manned
space,
even though the savings here could be a lot more.

The reason why FCB failed is that it was too cheap and costly projects
failed due to silly mistakes.

Clementine and Lunar Prospector were the only two missions that can
honestly be described as "faster, better, cheaper" -- and they didn't
have any "silly mistakes." Those "silly" mistakes occured on missions
that were much more expensive than Clementine or Lunar Prospector.
There is no demonstrable correlation between planetary mission
failures and cost.

I like Sean O'Keefe's comments about the $200 million overspending on
these Mars rovers, when he said that if he knew that it would cost
this much to begin with, then he would never have allowed it.

Meaning what? Surely, he knew it was a cost-plus contract that allowed
for overruns, and he allowed it to go forward.

Yet you have to question if spending this extra $200 million was worth
it in order to fix their airbag problem and to improve the safety of
the landing? As here they are with one rover landed and working
perfectly, where the second one should hopefully work just as well.

What you're doing is called "reasoning from a single data point." It's
a logical fallacy. The fact that you spend an extra $200 million on a
mission and it works properly does not prove that every mission which
costs that much will work properly or that cheaper missions will not
work properly.

As had they not spent that extra money, then Spirit may have gone
splat. So as these missions come around so rarely, then I believe that
it is worth overspending in order to ensure safety.

Overspending does not ensure safety. "Battlestar Galactica" class
missions have been lost due to "silly mistakes" also.

You run FCB on human spaceflight and you will end up getting people
killed.

Of course. So? People get killed in cars, boats, and airplanes -- does
that mean we should make cars, boats, and airplanes prohibitively
expensive, so that no one gets killed? NASA spends billions of dollars
per year on the Shuttle, yet astronauts get killed. While the number
of astronauts who get killed is quite small, the probability of
getting killed on any single flight is quite high. It's comparable to
the risk faced by aviators during the first few hundred airplane
flights, despite the fact that Shuttle flights are orders of magnitude
more expensive. Aircraft became safer when aviators and gained more
experience building and operating them. That was only possible because
they could afford to fly them often. Until spaceflight becomes
affordable and routine, every flight will be an experiment and it will
never be safe.

On 20 Jan 2004 12:29:14 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

Cardman wrote in message . ..

The reason why FCB failed is that it was too cheap and costly projects
failed due to silly mistakes.

Clementine and Lunar Prospector were the only two missions that can
honestly be described as "faster, better, cheaper" -- and they didn't
have any "silly mistakes." Those "silly" mistakes occured on missions
that were much more expensive than Clementine or Lunar Prospector.
There is no demonstrable correlation between planetary mission
failures and cost.

That mostly depends on where the money is being spent, where don't
overlook success through pure luck.

I like Sean O'Keefe's comments about the $200 million overspending on
these Mars rovers, when he said that if he knew that it would cost
this much to begin with, then he would never have allowed it.

Meaning what? Surely, he knew it was a cost-plus contract that allowed
for overruns, and he allowed it to go forward.

The MERs suffered not unlike other NASA projects, which was to overrun
their original budget, where more money had to be added, when the
other option of cancellation sounds wasteful.

The original claim that the MERs could simply reuse the Pathfinder
airbags seems rather foolish at best now when it is very clear that
they could not.

What you're doing is called "reasoning from a single data point." It's
a logical fallacy. The fact that you spend an extra $200 million on a
mission and it works properly does not prove that every mission which
costs that much will work properly or that cheaper missions will not
work properly.

Except that is not what I am saying. When what I am really saying is
that it is worth the extra funding in order to maximise, as much as is
reasonable, the safety of the mission.

This reasoning can be applied to all missions no matter their original
budget.

The loss of the Mars Polar Lander and the Mars Climate Orbiter did do
one good thing, which was that NASA was willing to spend the required
funds to ensure a much safer mission.

Having their missions flunk out a second time would have been a major
disaster for their public imagine, where maybe they will learn
something from this in the long term.

As had they not spent that extra money, then Spirit may have gone
splat. So as these missions come around so rarely, then I believe that
it is worth overspending in order to ensure safety.

Overspending does not ensure safety.

It does if it is spent on increasing "safety", but of course nothing
is absolute.

"Battlestar Galactica" class
missions have been lost due to "silly mistakes" also.

Silly mistakes is a point that I would question, when there is always
bad luck and lack of knowledge.

You run FCB on human spaceflight and you will end up getting people
killed.

Of course. So? People get killed in cars, boats, and airplanes -- does
that mean we should make cars, boats, and airplanes prohibitively
expensive, so that no one gets killed?

My point would be more along the line that a tremendous amount of work
has been done on all these transport systems in order to increase
passenger safety.

NASA spends billions of dollars
per year on the Shuttle, yet astronauts get killed.

NASA's problems here have all come from the original designs combined
with a touch of arrogance. Not like they ever spent much money
beforehand to stop leaks in the SRBs or things from impacting the
Shuttle.

You think about these issues enough and the safety word will start
flashing in neon lighting.

While the number
of astronauts who get killed is quite small, the probability of
getting killed on any single flight is quite high.

I personally think that the Shuttle is quite a safe system, when they
are just ironing out the odd glitch in the original design.

NASA mostly have to save themselves from their own management in order
to avoid another "bad day".

It's comparable to
the risk faced by aviators during the first few hundred airplane
flights, despite the fact that Shuttle flights are orders of magnitude
more expensive. Aircraft became safer when aviators and gained more
experience building and operating them. That was only possible because
they could afford to fly them often.

I would not even begin that comparison until these companies after the
X-Prize get well established in their orbital hop market.

As aviation does one thing that NASA does not, which is to usually
keep their planes flying following a fatal crash. The matter is of
course investigated and the problem fixed, but they are here to fly,
where that is what they do.

Learning from experience, the hard way.

So NASA is welcome to launch their Shuttle as much as they want in
order to see how many more accidents that they can have, when
following each accident they will discover a bit more.

Still, NASA has already been well educated, which is why they plan to
move to a safer design.

Until spaceflight becomes affordable and routine, every flight will be
an experiment and it will never be safe.

I would more say that spaceflight will never be safe all the time that
they are riding on an oversized firework.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk