NASA: New Space Plan Will Take Months

On Feb 3, 2:43*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Mike Jr wrote:
On Feb 3, 1:34 pm, Mike Jr wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:48 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Mike Jr wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:03 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Mike Jr wrote:
""To people who are working on these programs, this is like a
death in the family," an emotional NASA chief Charles Bolden told
reporters Tuesday, choking up at times. "Everybody needs to
understand that and we need to give them time to grieve and then
we need to give them time to recover.""

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-futur...on-100202.html

NASA is going to be getting the top recruits now, no doubt about
it.~

And once again the politicians show us that all the hue and cry
about how the US is falling behind in science is just posturing
and that they don't really give a damn.

If you want Americans to study science and engineering, the
high-glamor projects and the good jobs have to be out there, and
the sad fact is that most Americans who did study those fields
cannot find work in them.

There is certainly a lot of damage that the next administration is
going to have to fix.

It is interesting fact that gamers are driving the evolution and
advancement of graphics cards. Those very same cards are being used
to drive the desktops used to analyze photographic intelligence.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/iec.htm

I think the lesson is that manned space exploration has to make
economic sense. It currently does not. NASA shouldn't be the
primary driver of manned space flight technology but rather the
beneficiary of technology being advanced by commercial concerns,
even if that commercial concern is something as mundane as space
tourism.]

* The trouble is that that puts the entire space program on the back
burner

for most of this century or kills it outright, and the US loses
another industry that the US created.

The entire *manned* space flight program perhaps.

Consider that the manned space flight "industry" got a huge assist
from an Atlas booster that was designed and built by the USAF as an
ICBM.
The cold war drove the need for improvements in rocket technology.
What we need now is a real industry to drive manned space flight in
the 21st century.

Not gonna happen until launch costs are a lot lower, and that's not going to
happen as long as the cost of replacing/repairing launch vehicles is greater
than the cost of the fuel to fly them.

But that's not going to happen because the development costs are too high
and the ROI too low to attract private investment, and the politicians want
instant gratification, not a series of x-planes leading after a couple of
decades to the final objective. *That's why the shuttle was such a piece of
crap--it was an X-plane pretending to be an airliner.

Lots of countries know how to build cargo rockets. A cargo rocket is
relatively inexpensive and usually just good enough to get the job
done.

Man (and woman) rated rockets are something altogether different. The
costs for the added safety is enormous. NASA has a fixation with
reusable spaceships. But you have to boost dead weight into space and
the cost is still very high. You are not going to pay for it
launching satellites because, well, there are relatively inexpensive
and usually just good enough cargo rockets competing for the
privilege. Which gets me back to my original question. What is an
economic reason for sending people into space? For the adrenalin
rush? Go to Disney World's Mission to Mars; my kids loved it.

If you can't think of a single economic reason, why should we be doing
it?

If private enterprise can come up with an economic reason then let
them pursue an economical means to achieve it.

Like with medicine, things haven't got cheaper. There must be a
better way.

--Mike Jr.

Mike Jr a écrit :

[snip]

Which gets me back to my original question. What is an
economic reason for sending people into space? For the adrenalin
rush? Go to Disney World's Mission to Mars; my kids loved it.

If you can't think of a single economic reason, why should we be doing
it?


This is the way of thinking that can't see anything beyond money.
It is fairly current now, when money has become the only objective,
the only motivation for everything.

Science, Art, and Philosophy are realms where money has no value.
They are almost destroyed now, because we do not value anything that
hasn't a price. Still, there are some residues of humanity left, and
actually, when we go to the bottom of things, money is rarely a
real motivation but is a means of satisfying deeper needs.

There is NO MONEY to be earned exploring space. Astronomy is the
oldest science and humans have pursued it since they stood up and
could see the sky inviting them.

It is still inviting us, much more closer to us now that we have
stick up our senses beyond our planet.

I repeat:

There is NO MONEY to be earned in space. And we will explore it
not because we need it.

Why did we built monuments like the pyramids for instance?

There was NO MONEY to be earned, a pyramid has absolutely no economic
use. But we built it because we grasp what eternity is, and we wanted
to build something that lasts forever.

Space is no different, and we will go on going to space. What is
finished now is only the american manned space program, not manned
space exploration. It is finished because in the U.S., people can't
think beyond that:

If you can't think of a single economic reason, why should we be doing
it?

In sci.physics jacob navia wrote:
Mike Jr a écrit :

[snip]

Which gets me back to my original question. What is an
economic reason for sending people into space? For the adrenalin
rush? Go to Disney World's Mission to Mars; my kids loved it.

If you can't think of a single economic reason, why should we be doing
it?


This is the way of thinking that can't see anything beyond money.
It is fairly current now, when money has become the only objective,
the only motivation for everything.

The invention of the microprocessor and digital sensors means exploration
is possible without sending humans.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Feb 4, 4:46*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Mike Jr a écrit :

[snip]

Which gets me back to my original question. *What is an
economic reason for sending people into space? *For the adrenalin
rush? *Go to Disney World's Mission to Mars; my kids loved it.

If you can't think of a single economic reason, why should we be doing
it?

This is the way of thinking that can't see anything beyond money.
It is fairly current now, when money has become the only objective,
the only motivation for everything.

Science, Art, and Philosophy are realms where money has no value.
They are almost destroyed now, because we do not value anything that
hasn't a price. Still, there are some residues of humanity left, and
actually, when we go to the bottom of things, money is rarely a
real motivation but is a means of satisfying deeper needs.

There is NO MONEY to be earned exploring space. Astronomy is the
oldest science and humans have pursued it since they stood up and
could see the sky inviting them.

It is still inviting us, much more closer to us now that we have
stick up our senses beyond our planet.

I repeat:

There is NO MONEY to be earned in space. And we will explore it
not because we need it.

Why did we built monuments like the pyramids for instance?

There was NO MONEY to be earned, a pyramid has absolutely no economic
use. But we built it because we grasp what eternity is, and we wanted
to build something that lasts forever.

Space is no different, and we will go on going to space. What is
finished now is only the american manned space program, not manned
space exploration. It is finished because in the U.S., people can't
think beyond that:

* If you can't think of a single economic reason, why should we be doing
* it?

Scientist (and painters) have to eat and that means that they need
money.

Try looking at it this way. There are betting algorithms for horse
track racing. You spread, say, a $100 stake over the (typically)
seven horses based on their odds of winning. In most such systems,
you place 10-18% of your stake on the long shots because when they
hit, they payout big.

Basic science is clearly a long shot. Technologies have various odds
for succeeding. Technologies like 3D televisions have very high odds
of succeeding and therefore don't need help from government R&D.
Basic science, like physics, is a long shot but the payoff can be
huge. Most venture capital firms cannot afford to take the long shot
risks associated with basic research so governments shoulder the risk.

Manned space exploration requires money and lots of it. Unmanned
space exploration requires much less money. Can you say that the
benefits of manned space exploration are worth the added costs?

How about we invest in technologies to make access to space cheaper
and safer? An example might be the space elevator.

BTW, I have a similar take on medicine. Invest in technologies that
lower health care costs even though it takes money out of doctor's
hands.

--Mike Jr.

Mike Jr wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:46 pm, jacob navia wrote:
Mike Jr a écrit :

snip

How about we invest in technologies to make access to space cheaper
and safer? An example might be the space elevator.

Huh?


BTW, I have a similar take on medicine. Invest in technologies that
lower health care costs even though it takes money out of doctor's
hands.

Now you've gone off the deep end. If you really, really want to
decrease health care costs then ask for tort reform. Malpractice
insurance costs more than $100K/(health care provider)/year.


/BAH