|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |