NASA: "The Shuttle Was a Mistake"

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

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

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.

Only because here on Earth human intervention is easy to come by. The
incremental cost of designing experiments that do not require manual
setup, debugging, etc. etc. is one or two orders of magnitude less than
the cost of launching humans along with the experiments.

rg

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.

In article ,
Ron Garret 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?

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.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

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

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:

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?

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.

rg

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

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

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.


Sure -- that's all the stuff you would do *before* launch, whether
manned or unmanned -- then send up the finished, assembled, debugged,
tested, calibrated computer-controlled apparatus.

[Or do we also install a machine shop, stockroom and parts room, drill
presses, soldering irons, selection of ICs and photodetectors, test and
calibration equipment, all that stuff up there in the ISS, and let the
astronauts do all the design and assembly of their instruments once they
get up there?]

[Or do we also install a machine shop, stockroom and parts room, drill
presses, soldering irons, selection of ICs and photodetectors, test and
calibration equipment, all that stuff up there in the ISS, and let the
astronauts do all the design and assembly of their instruments once they
get up there?]

The further we are from Earth, the more we'll need to do this very thing.

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