NASA: "The Shuttle Was a Mistake"

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
travel. Sadly, the current ISS is in an orbit that does not allow it
to be used for this purpose.

There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
(I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel wrote:
There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
(I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

Exactly. In addition, there's lots of other research, related to the
earth's environment, that can be done in an orbiting space station.
Personally, I think Bush's quest for the moon/mars is a huge waste of
money. In my opinion, it's literally devistating NASA from the inside by
robbing money from worthwhile research projects, in order to fund the
moon/mars development.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
travel. Sadly, the current ISS is in an orbit that does not allow it
to be used for this purpose.

There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
(I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
station.

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
(I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research
platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
station.

how?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
(I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research
platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
station.

how?

The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
spacecraft.

The value of additional physiological work is questionable. We pretty
much know the effects of zero G on the human body, and it's not pretty.
We were designed for one G. Even if turned out that there were medical
conditions that were treatable by low-G environments the benefit to
society is far from clear given how expensive it currently is to send
humans into space. But even if one grants that this work has value, it
could be done with a much less expensive station provisioned by unmanned
vehicles.

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
station.

how?

The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
spacecraft.

Of course it could. But for a lot less money?


The value of additional physiological work is questionable. [snip]

I guess that depends on your vision. Do you really think we should stay
on this earth? Do you really lack the vision to see humans in space?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
station.

how?

The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
spacecraft.

Of course it could. But for a lot less money?

The way to think of this is that very few scientific experiments or
engineering tests are done anymore using human manipulations, human
observations, or directly human-operated equipment -- EVEN ON EARTH.

Essentially all experimental equipment these days in most any field you
want to name is computer operated or controlled (the experimenters are
at keyboards); the samples are loaded or otherwise manipulated by
mechanical elements (i.e., robotic manipulators); measurements are
taken by sensors or cameras (which are immensely more capable, accurate,
and reliable than any human observer); and the data is captured,
recorded. and transmitted electronically (which means it can be
immensely detailed, permanent, and subject to repeated and ever more
detailed examination by multiple experimenters simultaneously) -- EVEN
IN TERRESTRIAL LABORATORIES.

Given this, in essentially any field you can name there's no need, and
it makes no sense, to incur the immense extra difficulties of putting
live human experimenters into space with the experimental apparatus used
there. It's just a dumb and wasteful thing to do.

In article ,
AES wrote:

The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
spacecraft.

Of course it could. But for a lot less money?

The way to think of this is that very few scientific experiments or
engineering tests are done anymore using human manipulations, human
observations, or directly human-operated equipment -- EVEN ON EARTH.

That is certainly a way to look at it. It's wrong, but hey....

The reality is that experiments and tests are setup manually. Many are
performed or conducted with computers or machines. But they still
have to setup, debugged, etc etc.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

The way to think of this is that very few scientific experiments or
engineering tests are done anymore using human manipulations, human
observations, or directly human-operated equipment -- EVEN ON EARTH.

I don't think this is true, end to end (which is what is required for
unmanned missions). But even if it were, it misses the point.
Interactive experimentation (as opposed to autonomous experimentation)
is limited by the speed of light. This is insignificant terrestrially,
of slight significance on the moon, but makes a lot of difference as we
go to the planets. Humans are needed close (in lightpseed distance) to
the experiment, and the only way to learn how to do this (for
experiments on Saturn's moons) is to take humans to nearby places (like
the moon and Mars).

Yes, there are some unmanned probes that do quite well out in the outer
planets, but those experiments are not all that interactive.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
station.

how?

The materials and imaging work could all be done with unmanned
spacecraft.

Of course it could. But for a lot less money?

Yes. Unmanned missions cost a tiny fraction (single-digit percentages)
of an equivalent manned mission.

The value of additional physiological work is questionable. [snip]

I guess that depends on your vision. Do you really think we should stay
on this earth? Do you really lack the vision to see humans in space?

Absolutely not. Whatever gave you that idea?

rg