A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FGB-2 ready for launch?!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 30th 04, 10:41 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:

When in the hell are we ever going to send someone beyond LEO again?
It's been well over 30 years since we've done this.


The more accurate question is "Why in hell should we send someone
beyond LEO?".


Maybe we should just wait until private industry is ready to send the first
private mission to the moon?


That's a viable idea, not the best I think, but viable.

Then NASA can just charter flights to the moon instead of building their own
infrastructure because they insist they have "NASA specific" needs.


It's stupid to insist that NASA never again build it's own
infrastructure. We don't insist the military use nothing but
commercial equipment hacked to meet their needs, and the same is true
of many other government endeavors.. Why should we insist that NASA
do so?

The trick is to get NASA out of what private industry can provide, and
limit it to what is truly NASA unique.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
  #22  
Old October 1st 04, 12:01 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Perhaps the even better question...

Why send anyone to space at all?


Please note, I really believe in space, but we must have GOALS! that the common
man will understand, and do things safely too.

The Apollo program did have a goal, beat russia.
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....
  #23  
Old October 1st 04, 03:15 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
The trick is to get NASA out of what private industry can provide, and
limit it to what is truly NASA unique.


Agreed. But it's going to be hard to convince NASA to move in that
direction. There is much institutional inertia involved.

I can imagine statements like, "We have to have our own launch vehicles for
astronauts because launching people is fundamentally different than
launching multi-billion dollar satellites". Such statements are based on
emotion rather than sound engineering and economics. Any launch vehicle
that the USAF trusts to launch multi-billion dollar payloads ought to be
fine for launching a few astronauts.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.



  #24  
Old October 2nd 04, 12:13 PM
bob haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Agreed. But it's going to be hard to convince NASA to move in that
direction. There is much institutional inertia involved.

I can imagine statements like, "We have to have our own launch vehicles for
astronauts because launching people is fundamentally different than
launching multi-billion dollar satellites". Such statements are based on
emotion rather than sound engineering and economics. Any launch vehicle
that the USAF trusts to launch multi-billion dollar payloads ought to be
fine for launching a few astronauts.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.


NASA will be unhappy because of the job losses involved in privatising.

Long term nasa should be just a exploration agency.

mundane everday tasks should be left for others.
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....
  #25  
Old October 4th 04, 08:33 PM
dave schneider
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Findley" wrote:
"dave schneider" wrote:

[...]
Howsabout we get school kids to donate pennies, until we have enough
to buy a spare Soyuz? Or at least a Progress? [...]


I doubt kids would donate pennies for such a cause. Human spaceflight is,
after all, paid for by the government, it's not a charity. At least, that's
the prevailing attitude in the US.


Of course it is, but there are precedents: war bond drives during
WWII and tinc cna recycling at the same time included significant
youth involvement. It is true that the same sense of sacrafice for
the good of the country isn't part of buying a Soyuz, but still...

And you could also appeal to the kids with additional gimmicks --
collect 9000 pennies for the Soyuz, and get a flight-flown Star Wars
figure with reproduction George Lucas signature!

/dps
  #26  
Old October 12th 04, 06:25 PM
EAC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ...
I don't believe the Russians anymore than NASA.


Well... Both shared the same boss, that's for sure.


The only difference is that anyone with cash can get the Russian manned
space program to do just about anything because they are so strapped for
cash.


Incorrect. Remember Mir? If the Russian was so strapped for cash, why
they heck they bother to disintegrate Mir rather than to sell it to
the highest bidder?

Why? Well... Mir symbolize of what the Soviet accomplished. As long
Mir is still up there, who knows, maybe the people of the C.I.S.
decided to regroup and build a new Soviet union.

So... To prevent that from happening (humans grouping together to
accomplish something), 'they' issued the command for the Russian space
agency to destroy Mir.

Hmmm... Maybe Mir was already sold in the first place, and the buyer
wanted it to be destroyed.

It should be noted that the destruction of Mir is much like the
emptying of the Soviet space museum, to deprive the people of their
national pride.


Jeff

  #27  
Old October 12th 04, 06:38 PM
EAC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ...
I don't believe the Russians anymore than NASA.


Well... Both shared the same boss, that's for sure.


The only difference is that anyone with cash can get the Russian manned
space program to do just about anything because they are so strapped for
cash.


Incorrect. Remember Mir? If the Russian was so strapped for cash, why
they heck they bother to disintegrate Mir rather than to sell it to
the highest bidder?

Why? Well... Mir symbolize of what the Soviet accomplished. As long
Mir is still up there, who knows, maybe the people of the C.I.S.
decided to regroup and build a new Soviet union.

So... To prevent that from happening (humans grouping together to
accomplish something), 'they' issued the command for the Russian space
agency to destroy Mir.

Hmmm... Maybe Mir was already sold in the first place, and the buyer
wanted it to be destroyed.

It should be noted that the destruction of Mir is much like the
emptying of the Soviet space museum, to deprive the people of their
national pride.


Jeff

  #28  
Old October 12th 04, 06:47 PM
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"EAC" wrote in message
m...
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message

...
I don't believe the Russians anymore than NASA.


Well... Both shared the same boss, that's for sure.


What are you talking about?

The only difference is that anyone with cash can get the Russian manned
space program to do just about anything because they are so strapped for
cash.


Incorrect. Remember Mir? If the Russian was so strapped for cash, why
they heck they bother to disintegrate Mir rather than to sell it to
the highest bidder?


Because Mir, the core in particular, was well past its design lifetime and
was developing very serious problems that would have been difficult to
impossible to adequately address. Things like coolant leaks in lines never
designed to be replced in orbit (e.g. located behind equipment that would be
difficult or impossible to remove in orbit).

Because of the serious age related problems with Mir, and the lack of enough
serious interest (i.e. cash) from private investors, it really didn't make
economic sense to keep Mir going while trying to ramp up on ISS at the same
time.

Also, international pressure was placed on the Russians to abandon Mir and
focus on their commitments to ISS. The international partners of ISS were
seeing concrete signs that Russia really couldn't afford to keep Mir going
and keep its commitments to ISS. The most visible sign was the clear lack
of Progress and Soyuz production (which was limited by funding more than any
physical limitations) needed to keep two space stations going at the same
time. Then there were the ground control issues, communications
limitations, ...

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gravity Probe B gyroscopes ready for full-speed spin-up (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 August 1st 04 05:37 PM
Spirit Ready to Drive Onto Mars Surface Ron Astronomy Misc 0 January 15th 04 05:09 PM
Rosetta Ready To Land On A Larger Comet Ron Baalke Misc 2 November 4th 03 09:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.