I think NASA should get out of the manned launch business

[frodo1008]

Please read my response to askold himself. I know that you have been over where they question EVERYTHING, including your ancestry. That is NOT my intension here, as I have stated frequently.<br /><br />However, neither am I going to be so nice as to allow someone who has already stated that he is against the entire program to accuse NASA's people of "Bad engineering". <br /><br />Questions and "constructive criticism" fine, accusations, not so fine, understand the difference?<br />

 

[askold]

"That's interesting - it's not clear why the 4/4 criteria remains now that the single-point failure has been removed" <br /><br />I have the same question ! <br /><br /><br />Now, the LCC may be changed "on the fly":<br /><br />"Regardless of how the grounding/interference issue is resolved, engineers plan to swap the electrical cables leading from the point sensor box to sensors 2 and 4. The system will be tested Tuesday before the crew climbs aboard. <br /><br />If another problem shows up with sensor No. 2, engineers will be back to square one and the launch will be scrubbed. But if sensor No. 4 acts erratically, they will have solid evidence the fault is in the electrical circuit and not a generic issue that could affect the other three sensors. <br /><br />In that case, NASA's mission management team likely would sign an "exception" to the current launch commit criterion requiring four operational sensors for launch and allow Discovery to take off three of four."<br /><br />

 

[halman]

askold,<br /><br />I am curious what value you think the robotic missions have if you are against manned exploration. I enjoy learning, and there are many things that I have learned that will never be of any use to me. But, with the exception of certain required college classes, I have never paid to learn something which will never be of any use to me. (That I know of.) The money that has been spent on sending probes to other planets seems well spent to me because I believe that someday people will follow the probes. If I knew that we would never be going to these places, I would be much less inclined to support such spending, because the money could be put to much better use here on Earth.<br /><br />Our technology for getting off of this rock is in its infancy, and it is prey to politicians who do not give a whit for the future. Both shuttle accidents were the result of politically motivated decisions by NASA management, not inherent faults of the vehicle. Space exploration will always be dangerous, but probably never as dangerous as going for a drive on an American highway.<br /><br /> To make a future that we can look forward to possible, we have to invest today. The American government has thus far refused to consider space exploration to be investing in the future, instead viewing it as scientific research. Were the government to change that view, and invest the money needed to build the infrastructure required to easily, cheaply, and relatively safely get off of this rock, the money for science missions would increase dramatically. On the other hand, if manned space exploration were curtailed, the government might decide that robotic missions costing millions of dollars could not be justified merely because of some people's desire to know what is out there.<br /><br />Be careful what you wish for!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[askold]

I think the robotic missions have 3 purposes, in order of importance:<br /><br />1) Developing technologies that eventually make it back to everyday life on Earth: Environmental mapping from space, developing communication technologies, developing materials technologies, etc.<br /><br />2) Advancement of pure knowledge and satisfying our curriosity - what is the meaning of life, the universe and everything.<br /><br />3) Paving the way for future manned missions - when and if the time is right.<br /><br />You seem to be saying that robotic missions are pointless if they are not solely and exclusively precursors to manned missions and that the US government agrees - especially those holding the purse strings.<br /><br />I just don't beleive that's the case. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true - tremendous benefits accrued from the unmanned program, while I can think of only 2 benefits from going to the moon: proving that we can do it and Tang.

 

[ehs40]

robitic missions are great but nasa will never get out of the manned launch business

 

[spacefire]

at least they should actively encourage private firms to develop a commercially viable replacement for the shuttle, while NASA focuses on exploring the ever expanding frontiers. The CEV should never have included an Earth To LEO transport. <br />That should be the realm of private industry after nearly 50 years of man's presence in space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

What about moon rocks?<br />how many moon rocks did apollo bring back? several hundred pounds.<br />how many moon rocks did the Soviet unmanned luna 16 bring back? a few pounds. Were the samples that this brought back as valuable as the ones that the Apollo astronauts searched for, picking him up the most interesting and most varied rocks they could find?

 

[halman]

askold,<br /><br />In reference to your first priority, mapping from space and communications are both applications used in near-Earth space, not probes to other planets, comets, etcetera. Materials processing technologies are not very likely to be developed using only robotic spacecraft, as a human being on the spot can alter the process and observe results immediately, changing parameters without having to launch new hardware.<br /><br />I think that you may be unaware of the incredible benefits that manned spaceflight have brought us, such as the microprocessor, which makes personal computers possible, and which there was absolutely no need for except for the Apollo missions. Also, remote medical telemetry, which is finally begining to filter down into the general public, as well as advances in ceramics, which have had medical, industrial, and domestic applications.<br /><br />My reasoning concerning the aquisition of knowledge is based on the belief that if we don't get off of this rock and spread out, knowledge will be of no use to us, becase we will be no more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[crowing]

Absolutely,definitely not!!<br />Without any shuttle launches in the last 18months,has proved beyond any doubt just how important manned missions actually are.<br /><br />To keep any sort of general public support for space exploration there has to be a human element out there.<br />All the scientific goodies like probes,robots,scanners,cameras,and myriads of machines to make things possible,but we have to be there too.<br />Otherwise what's the point.<br />Eventually we will have to move on anyway,but we all know that we'll want to regardless,and the only way to find out how to do it all is ACTUALLY doing it.<br /><br />Like I said,we'll have lots of "toys" to help us,but we've got to be amongst it as well.<br />Really not that much money is spent on nasa,compared to the whole US budget,and as an aussie I'm sure glad that america spends what it does,on lets face it,calling it the last great frontier is absolutely the biggest UNDERSTATEMENT that has ever been spoken!

 

[john_316]

Personally NASA needs to stay in the business and then later on it can buy its launch vehicles like the Air Force and Navy does. They can buy from a team of bidders who will present 2 or more real launch vehicles and they all work and NASA can choose what it needs for its missions...<br /><br />LOL<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />