NASA budget editorial - NY Times

bob haller wrote:
NASA budget editorial - NY Times


Yep shut them down as a waste of resources....
.
.
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....


I agree that the shuttle program needs to be replaced by a much safer
and cost effective method, but getting rid of the ISS would be a very
poor choice.

I agree that the shuttle program needs to be replaced by a much safer
and cost effective method, but getting rid of the ISS would be a very
poor choice.

ISS should only continue if it has SCIENCE returns, and is affordable.
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....

"

I agree that the shuttle program needs to be replaced
by a much safer and cost effective method, but getting
rid of the ISS would be a very poor choice.

because.....the ISS feels yummy in my tummy.

Granted, having bob haller agree with a NY Times editorial should keep
the op ed writers awake at night.

The cost-benefit ration of the ISS was low and is declining fast. The
costs are huge. It was conceived as a work project for a machine that is
not operational.

On a different topic, I came across a digitally remastered copy of 2001 A
Space Odyssey on VHS. Outstanding work. Includes trailer, overture,
great color, intermission w/its audio, and excellent color and no cuts.
Basically the roadshow copy.

The film, well it gets goofy with the the luxury of living space on that
station. The have a big upholstered elevator, the security checkpoint is
large enough for a small village, then on to the concourse with the huge
lounge and walk-in phone booth. It works in the film as a poetic way of
saying that mankind has reached the point of limitless wealth and command
of the environment.

So anyway it freaks me out that the Progress vehicles get launched,
unloaded, and then splashed. I would like to see the Progress made with
silicon or uranium or crude protein so that the thing could be consumed
on the ISS as a source of raw materials since the thing cost a few
thousand dollars a pound to get up to orbit and should not be wasted.

Similarly the whole bit with the Soyuz having a six month shelf life is
nuts. All the crew needs for emergency egress is a pod with a heat
shield that does a ballistic entry like the crew return did accidentally
a couple of flights ago.

K.

Revision wrote:
The cost-benefit ration of the ISS was low and is declining fast. The
costs are huge. It was conceived as a work project for a machine that is
not operational.

Au contraire. The ISS is fully functional, especially with 2 man crew. Don't
think of it as some lab that studies crystals all day long. The real research
and the real value is to learn to live in space. And to experiment on
improving living conditions in space, learning how to work in 0g.

There are a LOT of things that they aren't doing but should be doing. Learning
how to operate/surgery in 0g for instance. Eventually, studying the effects of
0g on pregnancy/birth and the list goes on. Think long term duration flights
to Mars and beyond. Before we can do those, we must develop the systems and
the expertise and the ISS is the perfect place to do this. Unless we meet up
with Vulcans who give us technology for gravity plating, we will need to learn
much more about living in 0g and being able to re-integrate in gravity environments.

In fact, the ISS doesn't need a new "lab". It needs a gym where they can test
out various exercise equipment. It needs a better equipped kitchen where they
can test various cooking techniques for food.

The problems with Elektron are far more valuable to humankind's future than
looking at crystals grow all day long. Finding out what causes them and how to
change the design so they don't occur anymore is critical to designing
equipment that will be reliable for a long term mission to Mars and beyond.

So anyway it freaks me out that the Progress vehicles get launched,
unloaded, and then splashed.

But Progress acts as an expensive trash can. If you don't have it, then you
need a way to process all your waste material, from dirty towels to human
waste to broken down equipment that is being thrown away.

Similarly the whole bit with the Soyuz having a six month shelf life is
nuts. All the crew needs for emergency egress is a pod with a heat
shield that does a ballistic entry like the crew return did accidentally
a couple of flights ago.

You forgot the de-orbit engine. If all they have is a capsule, the capsule
will remain in orbit for a very long time....