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

"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

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

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.............

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.

| wrote:

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.

I don't *think* I'm diabetic.

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.

Just playing around with the concepts "Hubble", "mirror",
and "corrective optics".

Hubble has been a fantastic instrument. However it's my
understanding that the march of technology means that
adaptive optics now makes it cheaper to build a telescope
of that angular resolution on Earth. Which is why the new
space telescopes are dedicated to observing the wavelengths
that don't make it down to the planet's surface.

On 4/24/2010 2:22 PM, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
| wrote:

On Apr 23, 1:46 pm, "Fevric J.
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.

I don't *think* I'm diabetic.

I'm diabetic and I couldn't make heads-or-tails of it either.
I think you are supposed to eat Psilocybin containing mushrooms before
you read the posting.
Then, it will all become clear...as will your skin and the surface of
the Earth for that matter.

Pat

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

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

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