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 9th 05, 11:39 AM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

Absolutely not. Whatever gave you that idea?


hmmm, I think I lost track of who was saying that there is absolutely
no point for a space station.


There is a big difference between *a* space station and *the* space
station. There may well be a point to having *a* space station, but
*the* space station is nothing more than a colossal money sink.


ah. Looking back in the thread, at one point "the" ISS is discussed, but
I responded to the paragraph about "a" space station.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

  #2  
Old October 9th 05, 01:28 AM
George Patterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Noel wrote:

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, I think humans ought to spread out. But I also think that unmanned missions
might get us to the emigration point sooner. Seems to me that if we can send,
say, ten unmanned missions to Mars for the cost of one manned mission, and it
takes, say, twenty missions (manned or unmanned) to get us enough info to set up
a colony, then unmanned exploration will get us the colony sooner.

Plug in Arcturus for Mars, and I think it still works.

I also have a fear of the sort of stagnation that set in after we got to the
moon. Politically, we seem to be able to convince Congress to keep funding
unmanned missions. After we reached the moon, Congress pretty much shut down
funding for manned missions. I expect that if we sent a team to Mars (the next
logical step), we might get a second mission there, but we wouldn't see a third
one for 100 years.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.
  #3  
Old October 9th 05, 02:31 AM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article bvZ1f.471$C62.222@trndny05,
George Patterson wrote:

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, I think humans ought to spread out. But I also think that unmanned
missions
might get us to the emigration point sooner.


Agreed.

Please don't think that I think that manned missions should always take
priority of unmanned. Both manned and unmanned missions can have important
contributions to exploration of space and the eventual move off this earth.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

 




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 02:06 AM.


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