|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
For the cost of I.S.S. so far....
Rod Mollise wrote:
There do seem to be a string of scientific projects going on, many relating to 'bioastronautics' which would lend itself to the planing of longer distance manned missions, and generally spending longer in space. Microgravity stuff. Hi: SOME research goes on. Much of it, though, duplicates what's already been done by Shuttle Crews or on Mir. Much as I tend to think ISS has turned into a political money sink, there will be some serious uses if we're really headed beyond LEO anything like soon. Some of the lessons/results of Mir were not satisfactorily documented, to the horror of the NASA stepchildren who headed to Moscow during the Shuttle/Mir (alias ISS phase I) program. The major problem(s)? First, the ISS was intended to be manned by a seven-person crew. Unfortunately, between the cancellation of the Habitation Module and the Columbia loss, it's become pretty clear that the ISS will never host a permanent crew of seven. The only time more than three people will be onboard is when (if) a Shuttle is docked to it. At this time and for the forseeable future it appears that much of the crew's time will be taken up by housekeeping/maintenance tasks. Also, frankly, science was never the main goal of ISS. It was to further cooperation in space between the United States and the Soviet Union. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the world has changed a lot since the ISS was conceived. "Midnight basketball for Russian missile engineers". On the other hand, the one justification that made sense could never be sold to Congress - "We believe humanity has a long-term future in space, and we mean to be part of it". This ends up sounding rather more positive than I really feel, but there are things to be learned given that ISS is there. In fact, oddly enough, it seems more useful now that there might be long-duration flights for which we need to test equipment and procedures so the logic goes beyond completely circular. (None of which should be construed as indicating that I did not write and call assorted Alabama congressfolk and senators about the HST SM-4 cancellation...) Bill Keel |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
For the cost of I.S.S. so far....
Richard wrote: You could have funded around 200 Mars landers. One might have dome that; I would have funded 20 lunar and interplanetary probes and four different re-useable launcher developments, and then groups like the National Geographic Society would be going to Mars on private subscription. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
For the cost of I.S.S. so far....
You can't have your space station and complain about how expensive it is
too, folks. I'd rather not have it, and have the money to spend on something else. Clear Skies Chuck Taylor Do you observe the moon? Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/ And the Lunar Picture of the Day http://www.lpod.org/ ************************************ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
For the cost of I.S.S. so far....
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
For the cost of I.S.S. so far....
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
For the cost of I.S.S. so far....
If the habitation module eventually came to be would you be more
confident about the ISS and it's potential contribution to science? Hi: I doubt that module will ever come. Even if it did, I think the science returns for the money will be frighteningly small. Peace, Rod Mollise Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_ Like SCTs and MCTs? Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers! Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
For the cost of I.S.S. so far....
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
For the cost of I.S.S. so far....
What is needed to make the US space program "go" are leaders with the
practical experience, engineering expertise, and dogged determination to make something happen. Unfortunately, such leaders are in short supply nowadays within NASA or US companies. What should have been done for the space station is to realize that much scientific research is and was necessary as a foundation for the project. The Russians should have been contacted at the beginning and brought into the project. Armies of translators should have been translating the vast information resource possessed by the Russians regarding human endurance, fluid mechanics, heat transfer, etc. Classes should have been held to teach the knowledge gained from the US space program of the previous decades to the new generation of engineers and scientists. Laboratories full of scientists should have been constructed to churn out useful research on various critical topics to better determine the areas where a space station could provide real benefit. Engineers should have been allowed to create real testbeds from the start to test and perfect ideas and systems. Instead, what we got for our money is hoards of unexperienced people shoved into pretty office buildings writing "requirements documents" and generating schedules. "Viewgraph engineers" is the term I like. We (as a nation) did this because we are fat and lazy and think that putting our butts in a chair, holding meetings, and typing on the computer all day accomplishes something. It doesn't do anything but waste money. Mountains of paperwork have been generated for the billions spent on the station project and in the end we got exactly what we paid for: mountains of useless paperwork. Space flight is hard work. --- Michael McCulloch |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
For the cost of I.S.S. so far....
(Tony Flanders) wrote in message m...
(gswork) wrote in message . com... I haven't really kept up with the ISS. Shame it's being so expensive, as it'll be ammunition for those against national investment in space technology. No, I wouldn't put it that way. It is ammunition against trying to sustain human life in space -- and damned good ammunition too. If the ISS costs this much, just imagine how expensive it would be to maintain a semi-permanent base on the Moon, with shipping costs multiplied by a factor of 10 or more. I always thought the moonbase idea was to involve a relatively small setup base followed by gradual expansion using materials available on the moon. It's asking for some pretty heavy industry though, and i don't see how we could get a base going without some very heavy equipment being flown up from earth and shipped out to the Moon. Then there would be the costs of shuttling people back and forth. I'd hoped, as a younger less skeptical person, that a moonbase was achievable somewhere in the decades following the appollo missions, and so apparently did many authors of popular books on astronomy at the time! I watched the first launch of the Space Shuttle on tv in awe thinking variations on this reusable spacecraft would one day be used to shuttle to and from the moon and who knows where else, whereupon Science and technology would greatly benefit us as a race. Sadly, i now tend to think such a base is not for our generation, or perhaps not for centuries if ever. I take no pleasure in the loss of that seemnigly naive optimism of youth either. Being here in the year 2004 it sometimes feels as if being in Galileo's time, snatched out and given a view of the manned moon missions and then thrust back into his own century and told "well, not in your lifetime buddy, that's just a glimpse". I know that's not realistic, but there was a lot of expectation built up following Apollo and it just ain't happening. Basically, the ISS is a successful experiment. Question: is it possible to maintain a semi-permanent human presence in space at reasonable cost? Answer: no! How much more money do we have to throw away before people will accept that fact? Permamently? Retreat from space now, and forever or be moderate now and expansive later, holding out for 'saviour' techs that keep costs low, and if so, how will we know if not by trying? Permamently won't cut it unless you're not remotely bothered by human extinction happening at some point in the far off future. The sun gently heating up will make life on Earth increasingly difficult, but this won't even be significantly threatening for a couple of hundred million years, and could be defended against I guess, so there's no rush to space I suppose!! Anyway, I digress, perhaps you have the view that humans in space is not for now and not forever. Stick to Earth and accept the ultimate fate. Speculating that far into the future is, well, speculation! It seems a bit defeatist to stop at virtually the first hurdle though, but then how can we project our concerns and values of our short lives now against humanity in general and the (hopefully) millions of years ahead. Of course, true believers will never accept it; for the purpose of this discussion let's not chacterise either view as belonging to an implied irrational group of "true believers", i think it's an open topic and worth discussing from many views. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
When will we be able to afford space settlement? | Dez Akin | Policy | 210 | May 23rd 11 03:23 AM |
Space Exploitation | Terry Goodrich | Policy | 52 | July 29th 04 11:56 AM |
CEV development cost rumbles | rschmitt23 | Space Shuttle | 125 | March 15th 04 01:13 AM |
Updated OSP development cost revealed by NASA | rschmitt23 | Space Shuttle | 24 | October 28th 03 10:58 PM |
COST REDUCTION POTENTIAL IN SPACE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT | Craig Fink | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 21st 03 11:17 PM |