Human Exploration of Mars

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Dick Morris wrote:

Maybe you weren't around at the time, but van Allen was one of the
loudest voices against putting humans into space at any time for any
reason back when we were trying to gather enough political support to
build a fully-reusable Shuttle. He is probably as responsible as any
other individual for the political compromises that ruined the Shuttle
program.

How is that sour grapes?

It's pathetic blamemongering; an excuse for not facing your own
misconceptions.

The reason the space shuttle had so many compromises was that the shuttle
didn't make sense from a policy perspective. Van Allen's pointing this
out was an effect, not a cause. As it was, NASA sacrificed its integrity
to get the shuttle, and we've seen the consequences of that for the next
three decades.

Paul

We have wasted 30 years and upwards of $100 billion because of the
incredibly stupid blunders we made with the Shuttle program, and the
continuing incompetence of the manned spaceflight bureaucracy. There is
plenty of blame to go around.

plonk

SSP: plonk

Usenet: plonk

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Dick Morris wrote:

Maybe you weren't around at the time, but van Allen was one of the
loudest voices against putting humans into space at any time for any
reason back when we were trying to gather enough political support to
build a fully-reusable Shuttle. He is probably as responsible as any
other individual for the political compromises that ruined the Shuttle
program.

How is that sour grapes?

It's pathetic blamemongering; an excuse for not facing your own
misconceptions.

The reason the space shuttle had so many compromises was that the shuttle
didn't make sense from a policy perspective. Van Allen's pointing this
out was an effect, not a cause. As it was, NASA sacrificed its integrity
to get the shuttle, and we've seen the consequences of that for the next
three decades.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Dick Morris wrote:

Maybe you weren't around at the time, but van Allen was one of the
loudest voices against putting humans into space at any time for any
reason back when we were trying to gather enough political support to
build a fully-reusable Shuttle. He is probably as responsible as any
other individual for the political compromises that ruined the Shuttle
program.

How is that sour grapes?

It's pathetic blamemongering; an excuse for not facing your own
misconceptions.

The reason the space shuttle had so many compromises was that the shuttle
didn't make sense from a policy perspective. Van Allen's pointing this
out was an effect, not a cause. As it was, NASA sacrificed its integrity
to get the shuttle, and we've seen the consequences of that for the next
three decades.

Paul

We have wasted 30 years and upwards of $100 billion because of the
incredibly stupid blunders we made right from the start of the Shuttle
program. The dogged opposition from the space science community left
little chance of developing a consensus for doing it right. There is
plenty of blame to go around.

Van Allen "pointed out" nothing. He just wanted to kill the Shuttle
program so that all that money would go to space science rather than
manned spaceflight. It was stupid to think that that would actually
happen. Building a fully-reusable launch vehicle to get costs down was
the only thing that would have made any sense at that time, and it is
the only thing that makes any sense today.




SSP: plonk

Usenet: plonk

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Dick Morris wrote:

Maybe you weren't around at the time, but van Allen was one of the
loudest voices against putting humans into space at any time for any
reason back when we were trying to gather enough political support to
build a fully-reusable Shuttle. He is probably as responsible as any
other individual for the political compromises that ruined the Shuttle
program.

How is that sour grapes?

It's pathetic blamemongering; an excuse for not facing your own
misconceptions.

The reason the space shuttle had so many compromises was that the shuttle
didn't make sense from a policy perspective. Van Allen's pointing this
out was an effect, not a cause. As it was, NASA sacrificed its integrity
to get the shuttle, and we've seen the consequences of that for the next
three decades.

Paul

We have wasted 30 years and upwards of $100 billion because of the
incredibly stupid blunders we made right from the start of the Shuttle
program. The dogged opposition from the space science community left
little chance of developing a consensus for doing it right. There is
plenty of blame to go around.

Van Allen "pointed out" nothing. He just wanted to kill the Shuttle
program so that all that money would go to space science rather than
manned spaceflight. It was stupid to think that that would actually
happen. Building a fully-reusable launch vehicle to get costs down was
the only thing that would have made any sense at that time, and it is
the only thing that makes any sense today.

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...

Maybe we should just disband NASA and transfer space science to the
National Science Foundation. Let them fight the medical researchers,
etc., etc., for their budget.

Not a bad idea.


Personally, I am beyond caring. Goodbye and good luck.

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


We have wasted 30 years and upwards of $100 billion because of the
incredibly stupid blunders we made with the Shuttle program, and the
continuing incompetence of the manned spaceflight bureaucracy. There is
plenty of blame to go around.

Wow, Dr. Van Allen is responsible for the original shuttle design AND 30
years of continued use since then? Wow, he IS pretty powerful.

Look, he may have argued against it in the 70s, but we've had plenty of
opportunities since then to improve it (ASRM, LFBB, etc), replace it, etc.
It's not all his fault.



plonk

SSP: plonk

Usenet: plonk

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : I imagine he is feeling rather vindicated by how it has all turned out.
:
: Vindicated? How so? Manned spaceflight is permanently grounded. Do you think that
: the next return to flight by NASA will be anti-celebratory for Van Allen?

: He pointed out it was idiotic. It has proved to be so. He was right,
: his critics were wrong. Wouldn't you feel vindicated?

Your premise that manned spaceflight is a failure is wrong. We have people in
space now on ISS and we will have more in the future. The US shuttle program will
return and it will continue from there. Setbacks happen. It is the nature of
things. You are wrong to claim that manned spaceflight is a failure based upon the
fact that as time goes by more people go into space, despite temporary setbacks.

: Yes, I imagine he would feel more vindicated if the shuttle went the way
: of the dirigible, but you can't have everything.

His preogative and yours. But the fact is man will continue to fly in space.
Period.

Eric

: Paul

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Tom Merkle wrote:

: James Van Allen opposes manned space flight because he mistakenly
: thinks that exploration should be about gaining science. It's an
: opinion society as a whole has very little sympathy for, because pure
: science is what motivates only a very small percentage of society for
: anything.

: We can ask why government supports science at all. Presumably the

Because left to its own devices the religious fanatics would have all be teaching
Creationism again rather than just the state of Kansas.

: answer to that question is what justifies space science. If we assume
: that space science is justified, we can then ask what justifies manned
: spaceflight. Van Allen's position is that the latter cannot be
: similarly justified. Others may conclude that neither can be justified.

Space flight, like mountain climbing, isn't purely about science. There is an
obvious element of art that is beyond your and Van Allen's comprehension.

Eric

: Paul

Brad Guth ) wrote:
[...]
: Why even bother going to a most likely inhabited planet like Venus if
: we can otherwise establish a TRACE-II class instrument at VL2, then
: using quantum laser packets in order to obtain/exchange all the
: information necessary and then some.

If Venus, not Mars, is more likely to be inhabited as you say, how do you propose
to overcome the 90 times atomospheric pressure on Venus as compared to Earth?

Eric

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: : And what about all the lower ranking pen pushers and assorted
: : bureaucrats involved with the space program?
:
: What about them? Someone has to oversee contractor work. Do you propose they go
: away?

: Many of them can be eliminated if care is taken to preserve competition at
: all levels, so that contractors have built-in incentives to do high-quality

Many have already been eliminated. NASA went through a rapid turnover about 8
years ago, with golden handshakes, early retirements and the flight to contractors
for more money. Many younger, inexperienced types were moved up. Getting rid of
more NASA employees is not the answer, IMO.

: work without kibitzers constantly looking over their shoulders. Monopoly
: projects can easily spend more on overseers than it would cost to fund a
: second supplier.

What monopoly projects are you referring to?

Eric

: --
: MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
: pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:31:14 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Yes, folks like Rand don't smile so the addition of a smiley is a must!

: I don't even know what "folks like me" are. I can't imagine how you'd
: know, since you've never met me. I'm sure that the people in the
: newsgroup who have could tell you that you're full of nonsense on this
: point too.

Folks like you...with no sense of humor. There, happy now?

I can't generalize about folks like you, but you are allowed to appeal to the
group? Do you not see your inherent unfairness of things?

And cyberspace-wise I know you well enough to post.

Eric

: --
: simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
: interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

: "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
: Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
: Here's my email address for autospammers: