![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASRS/ASAP reporting systems - how confidential? | Tim Epstein | Piloting | 7 | August 4th 05 05:20 PM |
NASA chokes again | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 20 | May 2nd 05 01:43 AM |
Boeing: Space shuttles to last into next decade | JohnMcGrew | Piloting | 17 | October 24th 03 09:31 PM |
NASA B-57 pair to film shuttle launches | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 10 | October 10th 03 08:05 PM |
Cause of Columbia Shuttle Disaster. | Mike Spera | Owning | 2 | August 31st 03 03:11 PM |