A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA: "The Shuttle Was a Mistake"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 2nd 05, 01:17 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 2nd 05, 01:56 PM
Jay Masino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 2nd 05, 05:26 PM
Ron Garret
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 3rd 05, 12:35 AM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 3rd 05, 02:22 AM
Ron Garret
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 8th 05, 09:58 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 8th 05, 11:23 PM
AES
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 8th 05, 11:47 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 05, 05:39 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 05, 12:40 AM
Ron Garret
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.