For the cost of I.S.S. so far....

Probably younger people don't realize but we really are going backward in
manned space exploration. The only real progress that was made in the past
decades is due to electronics by borrowing from military , industrial and
commercial applications, but even here, space grade parts are lagging behind
their more earthly counterparts by years if not more.

If we're going backwards w.r.t manned space programs, it's only
temporary. Even if NASA's manned program department went belly up
tomorrow, the funding would come back eventually when the need for
manned exploration was strong enough. What happened after that one
heady decade is that we realized that technology needs to evolve
greatly before manned exploration becomes cheaply sustainable. Time
to take a break, let R&D catch up, then give it another go. We need
to lose the chemical rockets, for one thing.

There's no hurry, Mars and the rest of space isn't going anywhere.
IMO, we should just put off manned programs beyond Earth orbit for at
least another century, maybe two. By then it should be inexpensive,
safe, and much more accessible. We're really not there yet. In the
meantime, let's make robots smarter, lighter, and more dexterous.
Enhance their ability to think on their own. In good time, we'll join
them up there.

Ritesh

Greg Crinklaw wrote in message ...
[...]
But the bottom line appears to be that few support a space station,
period. It seems to me that the frustration at the slow pace of
progress in the last 30 years has found a target for all that anger.

This may sound fanciful, but the reason for the indifference (and in some
cases hostility) is the ISS does not meet everyone's expectations of what
a space station "should be" per all the stories, novels, movies, claims,
etc. of the past 50 years.

If we built something like that depicted in "CONQUEST OF SPACE" or "2001"
the climate would be different. There is absolutely NO technical reason
why such a station could not be or have been built by now, 30+ years after
we've been to the Moon.

I've been a staunch supporter of space exploration since circa 1950s; I was
reading Tom Swift novels before kindergarten, and I was watching Flash Gordon
and TOm Corbett, Space Cadet, serials since I was in 1st grade of school. We
need to be "out there" exploring.

And long before the "X Prize", I would have invested a LOT of money in Bob
Truax's "Project Private Enterprise" if it hadn't been for all the crappy
government regulations and other bureaucratic stumbling blocks. Bob is a
neighbor, was a rocket scientist at Lockheed Missiles and Space Co (now
Lockheed-Martin), designed/built Evel Knievel's rocket cycle for the Grand
Canyon leap, and had several successful test firings of his engines for the
Project here in the SF Bay Area circa early 1970s. An article about Project
Private Enterprise appears in an early 1970s issue of OMNI for those who want
more info; my copies are in a box "somewhere" in my garage.

Thad Floryan wrote in message
. ..

And long before the "X Prize", I would have invested a LOT of money in Bob
Truax's "Project Private Enterprise" if it hadn't been for all the crappy
government regulations and other bureaucratic stumbling blocks. Bob is a
neighbor, was a rocket scientist at Lockheed Missiles and Space Co (now
Lockheed-Martin), designed/built Evel Knievel's rocket cycle for the Grand
Canyon leap, and had several successful test firings of his engines for the
Project here in the SF Bay Area circa early 1970s. An article about
Project
Private Enterprise appears in an early 1970s issue of OMNI for those who
want
more info; my copies are in a box "somewhere" in my garage.

government supporting private companies access to space or encourage
competition for cheaper launch vehicles ? Not now and not in this movie ,
when the major established contractors are lobbying with all their might to
stop any others from this lucrative business . If it's any indication of how
much government support to expect, remember what happened to Beal Aerospace
..

best regards,
matt tudor

(Thad Floryan) wrote in message
[...]
And long before the "X Prize", I would have invested a LOT of money in Bob
Truax's "Project Private Enterprise" if it hadn't been for all the crappy
government regulations and other bureaucratic stumbling blocks. Bob is a
neighbor, was a rocket scientist at Lockheed Missiles and Space Co (now
Lockheed-Martin), designed/built Evel Knievel's rocket cycle for the Grand
Canyon leap, and had several successful test firings of his engines for the
Project here in the SF Bay Area circa early 1970s. An article about Project
Private Enterprise appears in an early 1970s issue of OMNI for those who want
more info; my copies are in a box "somewhere" in my garage.

Interesting, didn't think I'd find anything about Bob Truax and PPE via Google,
but ...

http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/tourism/sar.htm

http://www.l5news.org/L5news/L5news7804.pdf

http://afftc.edwards.af.mil/articles98/docs_html/splash/feb98/cover/jeana.html

http://www.hobbyspace.com/Links/RLV/RLVHistory.html RLV=Reusable Launch Veh.

http://artemis.lunacity.com/show-msg.cgi?msg=005184

http://www.spacenews.be/spn/truax.html

http://www.history.navy.mil/download/space-05.PDF (different, maybe his Dad)

Hmmm, this link seems to be dead; I hope Bob isn't (it's been awhile since I've
seen him around):

http://www.rctruax.com/

In message , Greg Crinklaw
writes
matt wrote:
The WWII and Cold War gave him the political opportunity to get funded
and listened to . After the Moon landings, it was all over . The half ass
job we're doing with the ISS is along the same lines with the half ass job
that was done designing and building the Space shuttle . These are programs
with no goals and no vision . People are debating details about this and
that forgetting that there is no big picture . What exactly are we trying to
accomplish ? State the goals first and then find the means and the strategy,
rather than have no goal and waste whatever resources .

The goal of the space shuttle was cheap reusable access to low earth
orbit. Clearly the shuttle failed to meet that goal, and much of the
current malaise can be traced back to that failure. We ought to be
learning from those mistakes (most of which was political and cultural)

One of the big differences between the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo
programmes and the Shuttle was that the former used the smallest amount
of bleeding edge technology needed to ensure success. Where possible
everything else was done with tried and trusted aerospace technology or
derivatives thereof. They had very clear goals and objectives and made
sure everything in the project was matched to achieving them. They were
also exceedingly well funded to win during the height of the cold war.

and seriously get on with building a safe, reusable, scramjet hybrid
just large enough to get 5 astronauts into orbit. In tandem with that
we should also be building an unmanned heavy lift vehicle, perhaps as a
variant on current shuttle technology. Instead of giving up we should
be forging ahead.

At the moment we would be better dusting off the old Saturn V plans.
Scramjet technology is still too temperamental to go making a reliable
vehicle, and until someone can design heat proof ceramic tiles that
don't suffer from fatal single point failures simpler ablative heat
shields seem much better bet for reentry. Too bad if it isn't reusable
but it is cheaper.

As for the ISS, I agree with what you say, but what's wrong with having
as your goal to complete a workable space station?

We have already done it twice before. There is nothing new. ISS might be
bigger but it is very much a camel pretending to be a thoroughbred race
horse.

I mean, what was the goal of the Apollo program? To land a man on
the moon and bring him back safely. What I don't get is why that's not
good enough anymore.

Going to the moon and coming back safely was an inspirational thing to
do. There was also some science in getting back rock samples from the
moon. Breaking free completely from Earth's gravity and making a safe
transfer to the moon and back was an amazing achievement at the time it
was done.

Why can't the goal of the space station be to simply have a
permanently manned station in low earth orbit? Surely there is much to
be learned and many opportunities for science on the way.

Been there done that. They were called Skylab and MIR. We could do the
same again. But until you know what key experiment(s) you intend to do
it makes no sense to build a new space station just for it's own sake.

Increasingly modern scientific instrumentation and large scale
experiments require no humans in attendance. Remote operation is
commonplace.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

In message , Greg Crinklaw
writes
Anthony Garcia wrote:

After reading the above, can you honestly say that even when
completed the
ISS would have met it's goals? That is probably part of the reason why it
isn't completed and probably never will be. You should know I am not
against manned spaceflight, indeed I am for it. However in today's
environment manned spaceflight should be carefully and rationally planned
and executed. It should not have nebulous goals and go overbudget. Such
lack of planning in the recent past has quite arguably led to the
diversion of funds from other successful programs either by cutting them
short or by preventing them from being launched in the first place.

I was talking about science goals. Yes, many of the reasons for
building the ISS are political. I fail to see how that automatically
makes it a waste of money and leads to the conclusion that it should be
dumped before it is even finished -- before it can be used for some
real science and as a testbed for technology development. I also
disagree that the political goals (particularly the inclusion of the
Russians) are unimportant.

The political goals may have made sense to prevent rocket and ICBM
technology transfer to rogue states from unemployed USSR rocket
scientists immediately post cold war but are largely irrelevant now.
Loose nukes are far more likely to be delivered to target by tramp
steamer or private courier. BMEWS ensures anyone launching an ICBM gets
one back.

Most of your other comments only boil down to what has already been
said: it isn't doing anything because it's not finished, and because
you have lost all faith in NASA, when it is finished you do not expect
it to accomplish anything. I vehemently disagree. And pointing to the
lack of results when it is unfinished is hardly evidence that it will
never accomplish anything when finished. I'm tiring of that particular
illogic. It matters not how many times it is repeated: it is still
illogical.

But saying "trust me it will be OK - we have no idea what it will do,
but it will be really fabulous if you just give us those unlimited
megabucks to finish it" is simply not good enough. You begin to sound
like a prospectus for the "South Sea Bubble" or some more modern
internet scam.

Where are all the would be users of this marvellous facility queuing up
to pledge their support? The thing is barely usable even as a toy hitech
space hotel for the fabulously rich.

Skylab and MIR have already done most of the obvious work in
microgravity. The shuttle isn't that bad an experimental platform
either.

ISS is an orbiting white elephant, pure and simple. And the solid
research capability of the HST is being sacrificed to provide money
for

ISS and even more fanciful money wasting schemes in an election
year.

Pure and simple...? Based on nothing but your own lowered expectations!
Think about it.
I think you ought to re-consider. But if not, perhaps you could
factually state the reasons why you think it should go on, and if the ISS
should go on what goals has it met and what goals should it meet in what
time frame. AND, since completion will necessarily take money from other
programs what 6-8 programs on the drawing board are you willing to cancel?

That's the crux of it--your last comment. This hatred of the ISS by
astronomers, which goes bak at least a decade, is all built on a
fallacy.

It isn't just astronomers. Anyone who has been involved in leading edge,
large scale or expensive science can see clearly what a total sham the
ISS funding plan is. They do not have a plan of research or clear
objectives. It cannot succeed because there are no clear goals. It might
get finished if we are unlucky - then what?

This is what I've been saying all along. Some people only see the ISS
is a drain on programs that *they* are interested in.

Just about everyone who isn't on the ISS gravy train or emotionally
attached to the idea of a few blokes permanently stuck in low Earth
orbit.

I'll say it again: the best way I know of to waste all that money on
ISS is to not finish the thing properly.

So that is your get out clause? When the thing is declared "finished"
and almost no-one steps forward to use it you will say that was because
it wasn't done "properly". Something we can at last agree on.

Expensive orbital facilities should be purpose built to match clear
research objectives, and not built blind in the hope of later finding a
problem they might solve.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

In response to Martin Brown:

Our primary difference is in what I see as circular logic: people who
have been against the ISS all along, many of whom and have fought tooth
and nail to keep it from being properly, now claim it is useless after
they have gutted all of it's potential.

I'm saying "finish it properly" and we will have something useful.
Leaving it half finished and then having the gall to claim it is
finished is the real problem. Again, any argument that claims the ISS
is useless based on it's current configuration is meaningless and the
logic is painfully circular.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

To reply have a physician remove your spleen

Martin Brown wrote:

At the moment we would be better dusting off the old Saturn V plans.
Scramjet technology is still too temperamental to go making a reliable
vehicle, and until someone can design heat proof ceramic tiles that
don't suffer from fatal single point failures simpler ablative heat
shields seem much better bet for reentry. Too bad if it isn't reusable
but it is cheaper.

The Saturn-V (first stage) wasn't as safe/reliable as it appears in
hindsight. We came close to losing at least one of them. The design had
quite a few problems that were never fully solved. If we had continued
to use it for as many missions as the Shuttle, the Saturn-V would most
likely have had a major failure.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

starman wrote in message ...
Martin Brown wrote:

At the moment we would be better dusting off the old Saturn V plans.
Scramjet technology is still too temperamental to go making a reliable
vehicle, and until someone can design heat proof ceramic tiles that
don't suffer from fatal single point failures simpler ablative heat
shields seem much better bet for reentry. Too bad if it isn't reusable
but it is cheaper.

The Saturn-V (first stage) wasn't as safe/reliable as it appears in
hindsight. We came close to losing at least one of them. The design had
quite a few problems that were never fully solved. If we had continued
to use it for as many missions as the Shuttle, the Saturn-V would most
likely have had a major failure.

As opposed to the Shuttle? Except there would only be 3-4 crew killed
instead of 5-9.
-Rich