No room for Star Trek Mentality that destroys lives (by creating drama)

Star Trek was(is??) a wonderful show based on DRAMA, which details a
solo mission of a space craft. In the real world however, we don't
condone scuba divers diving alone, but in a minimum of pairs.

In the real world of life support realities, space exploration will
have to be accomplished in a minimum of pairs, if not fleets of
spacecraft. The costs of playing to the "drama" mentality are clear
if we do not observe such nuances.

If we can't afford to do that, then we need to figure out what the
problem(s) are, perhaps we are not ready for space exploration in very
ambitious terms.

I expect NASA officials to live in the real world, not Hollywood
(which has to create drama to keep folks entertained).

stargazer wrote:

Star Trek was(is??) a wonderful show based on DRAMA, which details a
solo mission of a space craft. In the real world however, we don't
condone scuba divers diving alone, but in a minimum of pairs.

In the real world of life support realities, space exploration will
have to be accomplished in a minimum of pairs, if not fleets of
spacecraft. The costs of playing to the "drama" mentality are clear
if we do not observe such nuances.

If we can't afford to do that, then we need to figure out what the
problem(s) are, perhaps we are not ready for space exploration in very
ambitious terms.

I expect NASA officials to live in the real world, not Hollywood
(which has to create drama to keep folks entertained).

First, the better analogy is probably not to a scuba diver, but to a
research vessel.
Second, the universe is a lot more dangerous in Star Trek -- so far we
haven't met anything that actually is shooting at our spacecraft.
Third, the operational cost of a dual mission is more, probably much
more, than twice that of a single mission, since many key facilities
will have to be duplicated.
Fourth, among all the fatalities in space missions, there has been
exactly one flight (Columbia) where having a second spacecraft flying
the same mission profile might have avoided the casualties. Given those
odds, flying two spacecraft for each mission is actually more risky.
(And it is not economically feasible to have a complete backup, say,
spreading 7 shuttle astros among two shuttles for a single mission.)

In message , Ami A. Silberman
writes
stargazer wrote:

Star Trek was(is??) a wonderful show based on DRAMA, which details a
solo mission of a space craft. In the real world however, we don't
condone scuba divers diving alone, but in a minimum of pairs.

In the real world of life support realities, space exploration will
have to be accomplished in a minimum of pairs, if not fleets of
spacecraft. The costs of playing to the "drama" mentality are clear
if we do not observe such nuances.

If we can't afford to do that, then we need to figure out what the
problem(s) are, perhaps we are not ready for space exploration in very
ambitious terms.

I expect NASA officials to live in the real world, not Hollywood
(which has to create drama to keep folks entertained).

First, the better analogy is probably not to a scuba diver, but to a
research vessel.
Second, the universe is a lot more dangerous in Star Trek -- so far we
haven't met anything that actually is shooting at our spacecraft.
Third, the operational cost of a dual mission is more, probably much
more, than twice that of a single mission, since many key facilities
will have to be duplicated.

Arguable, I think. For one thing, they already _have_ duplicates for a
lot of the facilities (multiple bays in the VAB, for instance) dating
back to when budgets were more generous and it was expected that many
more flights would happen.

Fourth, among all the fatalities in space missions, there has been
exactly one flight (Columbia) where having a second spacecraft flying
the same mission profile might have avoided the casualties. Given those
odds, flying two spacecraft for each mission is actually more risky.
(And it is not economically feasible to have a complete backup, say,
spreading 7 shuttle astros among two shuttles for a single mission.)

Until the early 70's it was routine to launch unmanned missions in
pairs. It allowed more flexibility in planning, and gave the chance of a
completed mission if one of the pair didn't work.
There have never been dual manned flights except when the mission was to
attempt rendezvous, but dual missions to the Moon were certainly
planned.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Arguable, I think. For one thing, they already _have_ duplicates for a
lot of the facilities (multiple bays in the VAB, for instance) dating
back to when budgets were more generous and it was expected that many
more flights would happen.

I'm not sure, however, that there aren't bottlenecks. You would also
need to increase the ground support staff to support two near
simultaneous launches. In addition, you will have to build more
spacecraft. If there is a mission that really only requires one
spacecraft, and you launch two, that either means you need twice as many
craft or you only conduct half as many missions.
Fourth, among all the fatalities in space missions, there has been
exactly one flight (Columbia) where having a second spacecraft flying
the same mission profile might have avoided the casualties. Given those
odds, flying two spacecraft for each mission is actually more risky.
(And it is not economically feasible to have a complete backup, say,
spreading 7 shuttle astros among two shuttles for a single mission.)

Until the early 70's it was routine to launch unmanned missions in
pairs. It allowed more flexibility in planning, and gave the chance of a
completed mission if one of the pair didn't work.
Not routine. There were occasions, but often the mission profiles
differed, and the spacecraft were not launched in close succession. The
major reason for launching in pairs was due to celestial mechanics. (If
you have an appropriate launch window only once a year or so...)
There have never been dual manned flights except when the mission was to
attempt rendezvous, but dual missions to the Moon were certainly
planned.

An would have required additional MSC control facilities, stressed the
DSN etc.

I expect NASA officials to live in the real world, not Hollywood
(which has to create drama to keep folks entertained).

Well nasa certinally needs the support that drama in a positive way could
bring. Excitement ands adventure. not endless circling in leo.


Fourth, among all the fatalities in space missions, there has been
exactly one flight (Columbia) where having a second spacecraft flying
the same mission profile might have avoided the casualties. Given

Well giving ISS a in orbit shuttle of its own could be very useful as a shuttle
support rescue vehicle, construction assistant, with enough propellants go
visit a near earth asteroid.

This capability can save lives and increase excitement!

NASA NEEDS DRAMA AND EXCITEMENT!

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...
NASA NEEDS DRAMA AND EXCITEMENT!

Weren't Challenger and Columbia enough for you? You sure ****ed and moaned
about them.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

Weren't Challenger and Columbia enough for you? You sure ****ed and moaned
about them.

Ahh good drama. If managers had done a good job and saved the crew and possibly
the vehicle too that would of boosted nasa dramatrically.

Hallerb wrote:
Fourth, among all the fatalities in space missions, there has been
exactly one flight (Columbia) where having a second spacecraft flying
the same mission profile might have avoided the casualties. Given

Well giving ISS a in orbit shuttle of its own could be very useful as a shuttle
support rescue vehicle, construction assistant, with enough propellants go
visit a near earth asteroid.

OK, so you're suggesting a craft with three dramatically different and
incompatible purposes. You want long on-station time (which the current
shuttle doesn't have) as a rescue vehicle. (And you would need two of
them, if you want one to go gallivanting off to an asteroid). You want a
small, nimble craft for a construction assistant. (I would envision
something which is not re-entry capable, has a small life support
section, and which downloads consumables from the station.) You want
something which is capable of a multi-month mission with considerable
delta-vee and radiation shielding on the order of Apollo. I suppose we
could fly up a shuttle and park it up on blocks in the back yard of the
ISS, but it wouldn't be capable of any of the missions you propose for
it.
This capability can save lives and increase excitement!
And to develop the capability would require a NASA budget about five
times what it is now...

"Hallerb" wrote in message
...

Weren't Challenger and Columbia enough for you? You sure ****ed and
moaned
about them.

Ahh good drama. If managers had done a good job and saved the crew and
possibly
the vehicle too that would of boosted nasa dramatrically.

Well, answering my question my boost you dramatically. Why don't you keep
your promise?

--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

Well, answering my question my boost you dramatically. Why don't you keep
your promise?

I did you just didnt like my answer. Its obvious reading the report and
publically admitted by nasa they SCREWED UP, both by ignoring flight rules,
safety issues, and sticking their head in the sand after the foam strike.

What more can I say. If If they hadnt been a bunch of %$@^%$ the crew might
have survived. OK MIGHT ARE YOU HAPPY?

But clearly nasa is a agency on its was to self destruction if something klike
this occurs again anytime soon.