Lisa Nowak Example for Human Spaceflight End?

Think about it. Astro-Robots don't have "love triangles". They don't
get arrested. They don't end up being the subject of mug shots that
make them talk show fodder. They don't end up charged with crimes,
requiring the services of high-paid attorneys.

They don't spread gossip. They don't become jealous. They don't
cheat. They have no worries or cares or needs or feelings of any
kind.

They don't die.

They don't require years of training. They can use smaller, cheaper
rockets and spacecraft than their flawed human counterparts because
they don't breath, or eat, or drink, or think, and they don't need, or
want, to return.

They just explore.

- Ed Kyle

On 6 Feb 2007 13:43:05 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Think about it.

If Nowak had gone nuts and tried to toss, say, Wilson out the airlock
on 121, then maybe.

They just explore.

....and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

Ed Kyle a écrit :
Think about it. Astro-Robots don't have "love triangles". They don't
get arrested. They don't end up being the subject of mug shots that
make them talk show fodder. They don't end up charged with crimes,
requiring the services of high-paid attorneys.

They don't spread gossip. They don't become jealous. They don't
cheat. They have no worries or cares or needs or feelings of any
kind.

They don't die.

They don't require years of training. They can use smaller, cheaper
rockets and spacecraft than their flawed human counterparts because
they don't breath, or eat, or drink, or think, and they don't need, or
want, to return.

They just explore.

- Ed Kyle


Your argument is then, that robots are better because
they are not human?

I would have even agreed with you in another context. I
am not for human spaceflight. But using this tragedy
to remind us that robots are better is below any
measure of tasteless.

By the way, robots make better spammers, and would have done a
better job than you.

On Feb 6, 5:32 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 13:43:05 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Think about it.

If Nowak had gone nuts and tried to toss, say, Wilson out the airlock
on 121, then maybe.

They just explore.

...and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

They also dutifully perform their duties almost nonstop for years and
sometimes decades, orbiting through intense radiation belts, landing
in methane oceans, crawling for miles across airless landscapes,
patiently waiting out long ferociously cold nights, and so on.

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.

- Ed Kyle

On 6 Feb 2007 18:34:48 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

They just explore.

...and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

They also dutifully perform their duties almost nonstop for years and
sometimes decades, orbiting through intense radiation belts, landing
in methane oceans, crawling for miles across airless landscapes,
patiently waiting out long ferociously cold nights, and so on.

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.

Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 18:34:48 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

They just explore.

...and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

They also dutifully perform their duties almost nonstop for years and
sometimes decades, orbiting through intense radiation belts, landing
in methane oceans, crawling for miles across airless landscapes,
patiently waiting out long ferociously cold nights, and so on.

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.

Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?


Okay, let's not. What are the purposes of the space program? Please
don't take this question wrong. You countered with a good question,
IMO, and I am requesting you expound on it.

Other than than exploration, what are the purposes of the space
program? (I ask sincerely now).

Eric

"Eric Chomko" writes:
Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?


Okay, let's not. What are the purposes of the space program? Please
don't take this question wrong. You countered with a good question,
IMO, and I am requesting you expound on it.

Other than than exploration, what are the purposes of the space
program? (I ask sincerely now).

Escape!

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/

HEALTH WARNING: Care should be taken when lifting this product,
since its mass, and thus its weight, is dependent on its velocity
relative to the user.

Ed Kyle wrote:
Think about it. Astro-Robots don't have "love triangles". They don't
get arrested. They don't end up being the subject of mug shots that
make them talk show fodder. They don't end up charged with crimes,
requiring the services of high-paid attorneys.

They don't spread gossip. They don't become jealous. They don't
cheat. They have no worries or cares or needs or feelings of any
kind.

They don't die.

They also have no creativity, no capability for independent thought, and
no aesthetic sense.

NASA calls it "HUMAN Space Flight," not "ANGELIC Space Flight."
Everybody who supports human space flight (myself included) are well
aware that we're sending human beings, not angels or Vulcans. That
means, no matter how much we do psychological screening and testing,
we're sending humans who can feel emotions, get hurt both physically and
emotionally, and yes, freak out occasionally. But the history of our
species has shown that so far at least, the good that humanity does far
outweighs the bad.

On our planet, fallible, emotional, capricious, unpredictable humans are
in full control of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, pilot
jetliners with hundreds of passengers, perform open heart surgery and
brain surgery, and do all sorts of other life-critical things. So far,
the track record has been one of exemplary safety.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L. wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Think about it. Astro-Robots don't have "love triangles". They don't
get arrested. They don't end up being the subject of mug shots that
make them talk show fodder. They don't end up charged with crimes,
requiring the services of high-paid attorneys.

They don't spread gossip. They don't become jealous. They don't
cheat. They have no worries or cares or needs or feelings of any
kind.

They don't die.

They also have no creativity, no capability for independent thought, and
no aesthetic sense.

NASA calls it "HUMAN Space Flight," not "ANGELIC Space Flight."
Everybody who supports human space flight (myself included) are well
aware that we're sending human beings, not angels or Vulcans. That
means, no matter how much we do psychological screening and testing,
we're sending humans who can feel emotions, get hurt both physically and
emotionally, and yes, freak out occasionally. But the history of our
species has shown that so far at least, the good that humanity does far
outweighs the bad.

On our planet, fallible, emotional, capricious, unpredictable humans are
in full control of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, pilot
jetliners with hundreds of passengers, perform open heart surgery and
brain surgery, and do all sorts of other life-critical things. So far,
the track record has been one of exemplary safety.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

On Feb 6, 8:39 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On 6 Feb 2007 18:34:48 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:



They just explore.

...and accidentally get turned off, execute suicidal commands, get
stuck in sand pits for weeks, refuse to open balky antennae, fly
themselves into atmospheres their not supposed to get so close to...

Brian

They also dutifully perform their duties almost nonstop for years and
sometimes decades, orbiting through intense radiation belts, landing
in methane oceans, crawling for miles across airless landscapes,
patiently waiting out long ferociously cold nights, and so on.

Imagine how much more Lunar/Martian exploration the U.S. could
do during the Constellation program if it decided to fire all of its
astronauts. It wouldn't need an Ares V, or even an Ares I or an
Orion, or a shuttle or a space station. It wouldn't need to develop
any new launch vehicles at all, as a matter of fact, to get the job
done. It could get the job done sooner, and for massively less
money.

Why do you assume that the sole purpose of the space program is
"exploration"?

I don't, but that is NASA's announced main purpose for its *human*
exploration program. Mike Griffin wrote about "a new focus for the
manned space program: to go out beyond Earth orbit for purposes
of human exploration and scientific discovery."

I believe that national prestige is the main reason for government
human space programs, but I'm beginning to wonder, quite frankly,
if NASA's human astronauts are adding, or detracting, from our
national prestige.

- Ed Kyle