A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 12th 08, 06:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,466
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews



wrote:
Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort
and money, man can eventually explore our solar system.


We've already done that via robotic spacecraft, and at a fairly
reasonable overall cost for return in data.

Pat
Ads
  #22  
Old March 12th 08, 07:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 349
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 11, 8:59*pm, wrote:
On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, "
wrote:

All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by
implication, that NASA should "note" military uses.


And your point is? * The rest of the document explains how USAF
requirements influenced the shuttle design in the 70's


"The rest of the document?" LOL

Any influence then from the USAF was of the variety that doomed MOL.
If the USAF had both forcefully and **competently** influenced shuttle
design for military purposes, some sort of shuttle would have flown
out of Vandenberg.

The shuttle flew military missions out of KSC only, and solely during
the Reagan/Bush years -- in violation of NASA's charter. NASA needed
civilian AOA capability too, and civilian capability for large
payloads. There was nothing uniquely military about the shuttle design
that evolved during the 1970s. NASA was operated openly then, for the
peaceful use of space.

If the USAF had **competently** designed a shuttle in the 1970s for
military purposes, it would be flying military missions today. Instead
we got a typical DOD pork barrel for our bucks. Reagan/Bush/Bush
turned defense into aggression. They have made the term DOD a mockery.

JTM
  #23  
Old March 12th 08, 08:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 12:01*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:
The Shuttle got funded,
but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that
dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles
it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were
dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage,
increased operating costs.


Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant,


The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle


Mook seems to be going more and more over the deep end in recent
years. *Be careful. *If you disagree with him, he'll call you evil.


Clearly no different than when you call others "moron" and the like.
  #24  
Old March 12th 08, 08:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Eric Chomko[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,853
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 4:56*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:36:03 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





On Mar 12, 12:01*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:
The Shuttle got funded,
but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that
dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles
it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were
dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage,
increased operating costs.


Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant,


The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle


Mook seems to be going more and more over the deep end in recent
years. *Be careful. *If you disagree with him, he'll call you evil.


Clearly no different than when you call others "moron" and the like.


That's only clear to morons.


Yes, I knew you'd bite, and you ARE evil. LOL!
  #25  
Old March 12th 08, 09:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:36:03 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Mar 12, 12:01*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:
The Shuttle got funded,
but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that
dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles
it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were
dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage,
increased operating costs.


Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant,


The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle


Mook seems to be going more and more over the deep end in recent
years. *Be careful. *If you disagree with him, he'll call you evil.


Clearly no different than when you call others "moron" and the like.


That's only clear to morons.
  #26  
Old March 12th 08, 10:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 3:57*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 12, 4:56*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:





On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:36:03 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


On Mar 12, 12:01*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:
The Shuttle got funded,
but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that
dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles
it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were
dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage,
increased operating costs.


Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant,


The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle


Mook seems to be going more and more over the deep end in recent
years. *Be careful. *If you disagree with him, he'll call you evil.


Clearly no different than when you call others "moron" and the like.


That's only clear to morons.


Yes, I knew you'd bite, and you ARE evil. LOL!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


He should get a phd and he could call himself Dr. Evil and his son,
brad evil.

  #27  
Old March 12th 08, 10:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 1:53*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort
and money, man can eventually explore our solar system.


We've already done that via robotic spacecraft, and at a fairly
reasonable overall cost for return in data.

Pat


I'm sorry, I meant to say exploit our solar system.
  #28  
Old March 12th 08, 10:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 1:41*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
What would this path have given us? * For the same money spent on
Shuttle, by 1980s we would have had a human presence on the Moon equal
to that of Little American in Antarctica, and in the 1980s,


Unlike Antarctica, the Moon is difficult to get to,


The moon in 2010 is not any more difficult to get to than the pole in
1910. Besides, we don't go to the moon because its easy, we go to
the moon, and do the other things in space we're capable of doing,
because its hard. These goals serve to measure the best in us and in
our nation.

A famous man said that once, and I thought it was true then, and its
true now.

and even with Saturn
V's with nuclear upper stages, very expensive to supply a base on.


It takes about 1 ton of supplies to keep a person well provisioned for
a year. This may be reduced substantially if a local source of water
is developed. The payload - one way - for the type of system you
describe is about 20 tons. The cost? About $200 million per flight -
using expendables, with partial reuse, and other upgrades, this would
easily be reduced to $100 million per flight. But $10 million per man-
year on the moon. So, $1 billion per year would keep 100 people
supplied on the moon, at the higher price, and 200 people supplied on
the moon at the lower price. A $5 billion per year effort - would
easily support 100 to 200 people doing useful stuff on the moon.

There's nothing there worth the effort


I disagree.

of going there from a economic
point of view,


How long did it take before the wasteland of North America began
paying off for the British? You know they said the very same thing in
Parlaiment about the Americas. Just because they could send ships
there (it took months not days) didn't mean they should. They did it
anyway because they had a sense of adventure and possibility that we
lack today - and it will do us in I fear.

and even from a scientific point of view its pretty
uninteresting.


Again, I disagree.

You may find water ice in the sunless valleys at the
poles, but you aren't going to find life of any sort.


I agree about the water, and you're likely right about life. Who said
life was the reason we're going anyway? Its human life I'm concerned
about.

Astronauts at a lunar base would soon find themselves bored out of their
minds


Depends on the details. Definitely more exciting than crewing a super-
tanker or nuclear sub for 90 days at a time.

from walking around in a barren, lifeless environment *for two
weeks followed by hunkering down for a two week night, over and over again..


You don't know what it would be like. So, you're talking out of your
ass. All the lunar astronauts I spoke with said it was the most
exciting and thrilling time of their lives. About half of them had
serious shamanic insights that they're still trying to process. I
think things would be very interesting - for the crews on the moon and
mars, as well as for us on Earth.


They could drive around in rovers, but even then they'd have to not
journey too far as they would still need to have the ability to walk


That was a limit placed on the Apollo rover. With multiple rovers and
dozens of helpers, that limit would change.

back to some sort of shelter with life support if the rover broke down.


Depends on the details. We make pup-tents on Earth, I can imagine
making all sorts of equipment, and with 100 to 200 people around,
there's always help nearby.

Compared to the other moons of the solar system, our Moon is a very
boring place indeed.


I disagree.

It lacks volcanoes like Io, a atmosphere like Titan, a subsurface liquid
water ocean like Europa, Callisto, and Ganymede, nitrogen ice geysers
like Triton, or water ice geysers like Enceladus.


So, its a far safer place to learn the skills needed to live away from
Earth. A good place to start.

It's just a big dead ball of rock.


you are talking out of your ass again.

Like the summit of Mount Everest - once you get there, there's really
not much to do, so you plant a flag and head home again.


Yet thousands of people a year climb it.

Pat


  #29  
Old March 13th 08, 12:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 9:41 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
What would this path have given us? For the same money spent on
Shuttle, by 1980s we would have had a human presence on the Moon equal
to that of Little American in Antarctica, and in the 1980s,


Unlike Antarctica, the Moon is difficult to get to, and even with Saturn
V's with nuclear upper stages, very expensive to supply a base on.
There's nothing there worth the effort of going there from a economic
point of view, and even from a scientific point of view its pretty
uninteresting. You may find water ice in the sunless valleys at the
poles, but you aren't going to find life of any sort.
Astronauts at a lunar base would soon find themselves bored out of their
minds from walking around in a barren, lifeless environment for two
weeks followed by hunkering down for a two week night, over and over again.
They could drive around in rovers, but even then they'd have to not
journey too far as they would still need to have the ability to walk
back to some sort of shelter with life support if the rover broke down.
Compared to the other moons of the solar system, our Moon is a very
boring place indeed.
It lacks volcanoes like Io, a atmosphere like Titan, a subsurface liquid
water ocean like Europa, Callisto, and Ganymede, nitrogen ice geysers
like Triton, or water ice geysers like Enceladus.
It's just a big dead ball of rock.
Like the summit of Mount Everest - once you get there, there's really
not much to do, so you plant a flag and head home again.

Pat


Pat, you are a certified liar of the worse possible kind. The moon's
L1 is by far the least complex and least energy demanding requirement
per tonne of anything deployed outside of LEO. From the Moon's L1,
getting yourself down onto the moon is nearly a free ride, that is
unless you're worried about the saturation of Gamma and Hard-X-rays,
or that of the soft-impact form of a one-way landing because you still
haven't a viable fly-by-rocket lander.

Again, we must say that Pat Flannery is a systematic born-again liar,
if not a whole lot worse.
..- Brad Guth
  #30  
Old March 13th 08, 03:03 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 558
Default Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 2:01 pm, "
wrote:
On Mar 11, 8:59 pm, wrote:

On Mar 11, 3:18 pm, "
wrote:


All of that from Nixon, with the only mention of "military" being by
implication, that NASA should "note" military uses.


And your point is? The rest of the document explains how USAF
requirements influenced the shuttle design in the 70's


"The rest of the document?" LOL

Any influence then from the USAF was of the variety that doomed MOL.
If the USAF had both forcefully and **competently** influenced shuttle
design for military purposes, some sort of shuttle would have flown
out of Vandenberg.


wrong. NASA wanted a payload bay that was 40 x 12, it was USAF
requirements that made it 60 x15.


The shuttle flew military missions out of KSC only, and solely during
the Reagan/Bush years -- in violation of NASA's charter. NASA needed
civilian AOA capability too, and civilian capability for large
payloads.


1. It is not violation of NASA's charter. There is nothing against
NASA doing secret missions.
2. It was not the Reagan's doing. The payloads were in planning
during the Carter Admin
3. You are clueless. The USAF AOA requirement back to drove a cross
range requirement of 1000 miles.
4. NASA didn't need them that big

There was nothing uniquely military about the shuttle design
that evolved during the 1970s. NASA was operated openly then, for the
peaceful use of space.


The 60 x 15 payload bay and the 65,000 lbs to orbit are specifically
USAF requirements


If the USAF had **competently** designed a shuttle in the 1970s for
military purposes, it would be flying military missions today.Instead
we got a typical DOD pork barrel for our bucks.


The USAF wasn't designing a shuttle, the USAF was giving requirements
to NASA

Reagan/Bush/Bush
turned defense into aggression. They have made the term DOD a mockery.



It had nothing to do with Reagan

 




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
Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews [email protected] Space Shuttle 81 March 26th 08 05:15 PM
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years Jim Oberg Policy 7 December 7th 06 04:15 AM
NEED: Civilian/military space spending split over the years Jim Oberg History 7 December 7th 06 04:15 AM
First Civilian Astronaut Jo UK Astronomy 1 June 21st 04 07:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.