Jeffrey Bell Questions

[mattblack]

I was, of course, being facetious with the "party time" crack. But my point was nonetheless very serious and true. The cost of manned space is of course more expensive than robots, I could never deny that. And I'd be the first to tell you Manned spaceflight and robots are important in their own terms. I loved Voyager, Galileo and I still follow the MERs. Manned and unmanned space should be partners, not competitors. That competition has been artificially generated at least in part by those who don't want ANY kind of space expenditure. The "enemies of space" have been trying to divide and conquer pro-space people for decades. If any of you don't understand or believe that; don't be fooled. It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but it has it's roots in the antics of anti-space politicians like Walter Mondale, William Proxmire and J. William Fulbright. Do some research on their positions on space, if you don't believe me. And lately, you've had the anti-technology, leftist newshounds who were spreading garbage about how the Vision For Space was going to cost "trillions" and bankrupt America. <br /><br />And manned space has been like Oliver Twist, holding out it's hand saying "Please, Sir, can I have more?"<br /><br />Give it some more for heaven's sake, or wait 50 years for private space to reach the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

>>Such endevour's are as worthy as a party, with hangover as a consequence. And of course the question: what was it for? Nothing besides fun of course.<<<br /><br />Well if you believe that then, please forgive me, you don't understand the history of scientific exploration or it's implications and I'd suspect you of having a deficient magnificence and adventure gene! Where's your sense of wonder?<br /><br />"What was it for?" Is that question rhetorical, or are you actually asking it?<br /><br />Robots good, manned space BETTER. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

...Which they will IF they're allowed to go to the Moon and Mars. <br /><br />Even Apollo, bare-bones lunar expeditions, did plenty with men on them, and so did Skylab. There was plenty of purpose there, so your point would be puzzingly empty on these above examples at least. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[toymaker]

" Where's your sense of wonder? "<br />It's right there besides the list of 100 candidates for detection of extra-solar planets for TPF.<br />Certainly not near tin cans costing billions of dollars who have no real purpose.<br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's right there besides the list of 100 candidates for detection of extra-solar planets for TPF.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />its been asked a hundred times before but .. what good does the knowledge of having a terrestrial, potentially even completely earth-like paradise planet some light years away do you ? <br />especially if you are completely unable to set foot on your neighboring planets or, chrissakes even our own natural satellite ?

 

[mattblack]

Yeah, what no_way said!! Toymaker, all things being equal, I'd want funding for all of it!! For instance, I'd support the TPF over the James Webb telescope anyday; the Webb in many ways would do what Hubble is already doing, though better in the Infra-red, I guess. TPF might actually show us PLANETS, which all our Star Trek/Wars dreams have had us want for years anyway.<br /><br />But me; I'd want a Europa or Titan lander over either of them. That's because Titan and Europa are worlds that mankind could reach, within the lifetimes of many of those reading this. And THAT is the point. Especially if Europa was as good or better a prospect for life than Mars. I'd be FAR more interested (and so should you) in the organisms swimming in the European oceans than the chlorophyll readings on a 100-light-year distant world, which you couldn't reach anyway if you killed manned spaceflight programs NOW. <br /><br />To call manned spaceflight "just a bunch of tin cans" is from one limited point of view PERFECTLY true. However, it is also ignorant and makes me dissapointed and squeamish that so many out there are missing the point. It's that mindset that would describe the magnificent work going on right now in Antarctica as "just a bunch of scientist yahoos in tin huts." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[toymaker]

"especially if you are completely unable to set foot on your neighboring planets or, chrissakes even our own natural satellite ?"<br />Shuttle and CEV are going to help me get on the Moon ?

 

[mattblack]

>>Shuttle and CEV are going to help me get on the Moon ?<<<br /><br />Huh??!! Well, no, and me neither!! (???) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[toymaker]

Then I see no point in wasting money sending people there doing science work-because NASA isn't planning any colonisation in case you forgot, but to do science-that probes can do dozens of times cheaper.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Shuttle and CEV are going to help me get on the Moon ?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />obviously not. STS has degraded into just a jobs program a long time ago, and CEV will place a select few government employees on moon, if that ( judging by history of such projects, i'd give it 10% chance of ever getting off the ground )<br />The items that are relevant to humanitys near-term future in space in NASA budget are the COTS program, centennial challenges, and some basic space technology development programs ( the stuff that NACA used to do for aviation )<br />But for all intents and purposes, the TPF at the moment is as useless as shuttle, if not less, when talking about actually becoming spacefaring species in any real future scenario.

 

[toymaker]

" less, when talking about actually becoming spacefaring species in any real future scenario."<br />Where can I find any mention about NASA's role to create a spacefaring species in their documents ? <br />

 

[no_way]

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/spaceact-legishistory.pdf<br />section 102<br /><br />can be pretty much summed up as "becoming spacefaring"

 

[tomnackid]

Where can I find any mention about NASA's role to create a spacefaring species in their documents ? <br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />How much more do you want NASA to do? NASA's charter isn't to colonize space, its to develop the tools and explore the territory. Space isn't going to be colonized by government agencies.

 

[gsuschrist]

Space isn't going to be colonized by anyone. A couple of bases here and there over the next millenium.

 

[haywood]

OH, I see, gsuschrist...you post here because...<br /><br />

 

[erioladastra]

"The ISS is more Russian than American. And as for 'talk' it is the Russians that keep the ISS from de-orbiting today and not NASA. NASA has only flown two shuttle flights in the last three years. In the same time Russia has sent a dozen flights to the ISS. "<br /><br />Not sure how you conclude it is more Russian but it doesn't really matter - without either side ISS would fail quickly. Yes, I never stated the Russians weren't doing an amazing job at keeping it going. However, we could nto just hand over the US side to them and they can't just close the hatch and live with the Russian segment. it is just the reality of the connectedness of the programs.

 

[erioladastra]

"Bull, they are already doing everything half the time anyways. They've proven they are the low price bidder on modules (several "US" modules were built by the Russians), so turning ISS development over to Russia might not be a bad idea. We'd see a lot more tourism there, the Russians are getting more free market oriented than NASA is. I hear the Russians complain how overly bureaucratic NASA is, that is like the British describing another culture as 'very polite': you know they know what they are talking about. "<br /><br />Several? Where are you getting that. They built the FGB - which NASA paid for. That is ONE "US" module. I didn't say it was a bad idea, I just said it was an impossible one. Big difference. Yes, we are over beauracratic - but they are too far the other way. They ship up hazardous payloads, have fires in space, don't disclose medical problems etc. Again, balance is acheived by both sides working together.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"without either side ISS would fail quickly."<br /><br />That is an already provably false statement since the ISS has been 'without the U.S. side' for all practical purposes for two years after Columbia crashed.<br /><br />Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion about how indispensible the U.S. is for the ISS? I haven't seen any so far.<br /><br />"Not sure how you conclude it [ISS] is more Russian "<br /><br />Orbital inclination idealized for Russian launches. Russian life support system. Russian propulsion system. First modules, heaviest modules and first manned modules Russian. How's that?

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They built the FGB - which NASA paid for. That is ONE "US" module.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Plus, I believe Zarya is technically part of the Russian segment. Khrunichev built it, but Russia was having a hard time paying for it. It's not that the Russians are the lowest bidder; it's that NASA had to give them some funding assistance.<br /><br />Destiny was built in the US. The Truss segments (including solar arrays and radiators) are US built. The Unity Node was built in the US. I believe the PMAs are American manufacture. Quest is American-built. Actually, the only American modules built entirely abroad are the MPLMs. And they're not Russian-built. They're Italian-built. (The Italians are really getting established as industry leaders in space. I would not be surprised if they start to displace some long-established American *and* Russian manufacturers before long.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">That is an already provably false statement since the ISS has been 'without the U.S. side' for all practical purposes for two years after Columbia crashed.</font>/i><br /><br />There are a variety of issues regarding the ISS's design (e.g., Gyros that can only be delivered by the shuttle, instrument rack support, etc.) that would be relatively expensive and time consuming to fix.<br /><br />Also one issue that has not been addressed (at least to my satisfaction) is how much ISS's operational and maintenance costs will be after 2010 and who will pay for it. As has been much-discussed lately, NASA's previous estimates for the Shuttle costs through 2010 were essentially out of touch with reality. What confidence should we have that NASA (or anyone else) has budgeted enough money for ISS from 2010-2017?<br /><br />Finally, one nagging issue (which, I admit, may be a non-issue) is ISS's altitude. It seems that the current altitude is near a 5 1/2 year low, and while there are periodic boosts, the long-term trend is definitely lower. Why is this the case? It it planned? If not, when will it become an issue?<br /><br />http://images.spaceref.com/news/issalt.gif<br /></i>

 

[erioladastra]

You seem to think that since only Progress/Soyuz hav e been launching that only the Russians are doing anything. Much US equipment has gone up on these vehicles; CMGs keep ISS from using prop; Moscow relieas HEAVILY on US comm assets; the RS relies on US power; the environmental system on the RS is one part of a system and if you have been reading the news at all has had some serious failures requiring the US system. Just to name a few. Where you get the idea that ISS has been without the US side is incorrect.<br /><br />Again, the life support system is part. Inclination doesn't really play into this. First and heaviest is totally meaningless, not sure of your point is there. <br /><br />My point is that we can't just give the USOS over to them. I don't say this because I don't want to or feel possive, but that is not practical. Even if you get around export control and issues of handing over a US asset to the Russians, the infrasturcture is something you can't just hand over to them and they can't afford to pay us to run it. You can't just close the hatches and run it by themselves because they rely on the above mentioned stuff.