arg@warwick.UUCP (A Ruaraidh Gillies) (03/10/89)
In article <1989Mar4.225139.20609@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1399@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes: >>The fact is that there's a helluva difference between airlines sending up >>non-airline people and space agencies sending up non-space people... > >Please explain: what *is* the difference? The difference is that the airlines are set up as passenger movement companies. NASA is an organisation with the job of implementing the American Space Program. Space flight is risky stuff, and whilst flying from Heathrow to JFK is no walk in the park, it's an awful lot easier and common. NASA does not have the job of giving American schoolchildren lessons from a few hundred miles up. >The Soviets have been flying Soyuz missions for a [long time]. >And the "A" booster they use to launch it has flown over 1000 times, >starting with Sputnik 1 (and that doesn't count its still-earlier history >as an ICBM). Yes but they haven't been trading as a flashy airline (who wants to take off from Baikonur and land in Soviet Central Asia for the sheer hell of it? :-]) >>... at the moment pure passenger space flights are unfeasible. >>... NASA, ESA and whoever control Soviet, Chinese, etc >>space flights are not yet *ready* to start into human commerce... > >ESA and the Chinese, true. NASA, yes with reservations. The Soviets? >Nonsense. *They* have truly operational space systems. "A" boosters >have been rising from the pad at least once a week for two decades now. >They *are* ready to start human commerce -- they're quoting prices and >flight dates today. OK, I'll cede to you here - you obviously know your stuff (what do *you* do in a zoology department? :-]) >>Challenger tragedy put back the US space program by 32 months... >>... It took *loads* more than 25 flights before >>airliners were conceived, and now they are so common that although >>disasters happen, people will still step on a plane the next day. > >The latest major Soviet space problem -- the Soyuz reentry foulup -- put >their program back maybe two or three weeks. Have to admit defeat here - never heard of it. However, it *sounds* as if no-one was killed, and so they thanked God [:-)] and got on with tracking down the problem. When an entire orbital vehicle explodes, killing all aboard, many people are too shocked to think about getting back to business. I remember Sally Ride said that no astronaut was going to get in a Shuttle until they were sure it was safe. It's always a possibility (I agree unlikely) that the Soviet authorities *told* some astronauts "Get in there now!" if they didn't like the idea, so soon after a near disaster. >They know how to manage >problems, as opposed to running in circles and screaming for a year first. >(Apollo 1 put the US space program back only 18 months ^^^^^^^^ Was this the launch pad fire that killed Grissom et al? I still stick by my original thinking that nothing good will come of sending civilians into space for nothing more than propaganda and adventure +============================================================================+ Contact me on: | Ruaraidh Gillies | "Many men have tried." arg@uk.ac.warwick | 2nd year Comp Sci | "They tried and failed?" or | Warwick University | "They tried and died." arg@warwick.UUCP | Coventry CV4 7AL | (Rev Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam & | Great Britain | Paul Atreides -- Dune) +============================================================================+
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/22/89)
In article <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes: >>>The fact is that there's a helluva difference between airlines sending up >>>non-airline people and space agencies sending up non-space people... >> >>Please explain: what *is* the difference? > >The difference is that the airlines are set up as passenger movement >companies... They are set up as passenger and freight movement companies, actually. The Soviet space-launch operation appears to be set up the same way. The US shuttle tries to work that way, despite various protestations to the contrary motivated by recent politics. >NASA is an organisation with the job of implementing the >American Space Program. Space flight is risky stuff, and whilst flying from >Heathrow to JFK is no walk in the park, it's an awful lot easier and common. Didn't used to be. Airlines got started back when airflight was also risky and uncommon. >>The Soviets have been flying Soyuz missions for a [long time]. >Yes but they haven't been trading as a flashy airline (who wants to take >off from Baikonur and land in Soviet Central Asia for the sheer hell of it? >:-]) They've been trading as a boring, drab, state-run airline, actually. What else? As for the location, what matters is not the destination but the ride! Perhaps you wouldn't take that ride if offered; I would!! I couldn't care less how boring the starting and ending points are. (Come to that, central Florida isn't too thrilling a place, either. I've been there. I wasn't bored; I had launch 41C to keep me interested. I wouldn't expect to be bored at Baikonur, either.) >... When an entire orbital vehicle explodes, killing all aboard, many >people are too shocked to think about getting back to business. Curiously so, since the same effect doesn't operate for oh-so-much-more- reliable airliners. > I remember >Sally Ride said that no astronaut was going to get in a Shuttle until they >were sure it was safe. Sally Ride did not speak for all the astronauts. If post-Challenger flights had continued, urgent payloads only, volunteer crews only, there would have been no shortage of astronauts volunteering. Some of them said so at the time (quietly, because the official NASA position was as Sally Ride described). Remember, many of these people are/were test pilots, accustomed to flying vehicles which are known to be risky. Others were scientists who simply wanted to fly again, and if that meant some risks, fine. Taken at literal face value, Ride's statement is nonsense -- the shuttle is not, and will never be, safe in any absolute sense. Just like aircraft. >>(Apollo 1 put the US space program back only 18 months > ^^^^^^^^ > Was this the launch pad fire that killed Grissom et al? Yes. >I still stick by my original thinking that nothing good will come of >sending civilians into space for nothing more than propaganda and adventure I still stick by *my* response, that nothing good comes of sending civilians up in aircraft for nothing more than visiting relatives, and this obviously should be forbidden as a silly waste of resources, even if said civilians can pay the fare and the airline is making a profit on it. [From Rick Wojcik's posting, same theme:] >>Why [are space flights] "priceless"? The Soviets have had no hesitation in >>putting a price on it... > >Soviet politicians, like ours, wish to exploit the space program to achieve >short term political goals. Right now, it tickles their fancy to have the >appearance of routine space flights when our program is in disarray... What on Earth (or in space :-)) are you talking about? They don't need to have the "appearance" of routine space flights -- they have routine space flights, and have had them for years. >They >aren't just selling flights. They are broadcasting a propaganda message. How >much profit do you think they make by 'selling' their flights to to >Westerners? This is not a commercial exercise. It is a propaganda exercise. I don't deny that they are exploiting it for all the political gain they can get. However, it is a mistake to assume that they're subsidizing it. I've previously posted a back-of-the-envelope calculation showing that, at their current prices, it is almost impossible for them to be losing money on it. I, for one, think they're making a real, cash profit. >Each space flight is priceless because we can only afford to support a limited >number... What do you mean "we", comrade? :-) Speak for your own country, which flies fewer payloads in a year than the Soviets fly in a month. Saying something is "priceless" is a debating tactic, not a statement of fact. There is always a price. >We know so little about space and its effects on humans that we need >every opportunity to expand our knowledge... Don't you think this knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts? >... There is >always the danger that space flight will be ended permanently because we can >no longer afford the resources to sustain it. Nonsense. Spaceflight consumes an utterly negligible fraction of the world's resources, especially when it is done economically and efficiently (not a US specialty). What is dangerously low is not resources, but will. In the US, that is. >Even Jake Garn did some 'useful' things. But there is enough work up there so >that it is more cost-effective to let scientists perform the experiments. >They, at least, know what they are doing. Tell that to NASA, which prefers professional astronauts (who are *not*, repeat *not*, scientists -- ask a scientist). >>Speak for your own country, comrade. :-) Truly spacefaring nations (there >>is currently one on Earth) can afford to use space for many purposes. > >You insist that the space program turns a profit? Do you have an estimate on >how much money it brings into the national treasury? How much do you think >the Soviets are making? This is indeed good news. It certainly doesn't bring any money into the US treasury; note that my comments addressed only spacefaring nations, which the US is not, despite clumsy attempts in that direction. As for the Soviets, they're working on it. Remember that their treasury and their economy are one and the same, so they can count up indirect benefits as well as direct ones. >>... The USSR is selling >>commercial flights into space, today. This is a verifiable fact; call them >>up and ask them. > >Call up who? Pravda? The Soviet Embassy in Washington? ... The embassy could probably refer you to the right place: Space Commerce Corp. in Houston, the US representatives for most Soviet space services. >... The point >of putting a civilian teacher up there was to demonstrate the safety and >competence of our space program. I've heard this theory a number of times since Challenger, but as near as I can tell it was never advanced earlier. The real motive behind the Citizens In Space program (of which Teacher In Space was the first phase) was to give US citizens some feeling of involvement in a program that they had no hope of ever participating in personally. Certainly the participants had no illusions about it being safe -- note that practically none of the applicants withdrew after Challenger. >The public really had their attention focused on that flight. Really? I detected no signs of such great excitement at the time. "Another shuttle flight? Yawn. Oh, the teacher is going up on this one? Must be thrilling for her students. Yawn." >Do you really think that this is the time to send up >a bunch of entertainers? Why not, if they make it clear that they understand the risks? >Another disaster with them, and you can kiss our >space program goodbye. If it happened in the US, perhaps. But the problem will be the same if that disaster happens with only professional astronauts aboard. >The idea of getting people to "take over" our space >program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it >was impractical. It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free market >was the answer to everything... Yes, ridiculous uncommercial people like Boeing. And it went out the window because NASA wasn't interested in relinquishing control, despite a few encouraging noises early on. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) (03/28/89)
In article <1989Mar22.054649.15822@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes: > >NASA is an organisation with the job of implementing the > >American Space Program. Space flight is risky stuff, and whilst flying from > >Heathrow to JFK is no walk in the park, it's an awful lot easier and common. > > Didn't used to be. Airlines got started back when airflight was also > risky and uncommon. True, but aircraft could be bought in quantity by single companies with the express intent of making a profit. Space flight has taken considerably larger investment to get going, with a large percentage of it coming from public funds. Perhaps we haven't let private companies jump into space, but the government hasn't been overwhelmed with requests from companies desiring to build AND FINANCE entire launch systems (including launch pads and recovery facilities) on their own. > Tell that to NASA, which prefers professional astronauts (who are *not*, > repeat *not*, scientists -- ask a scientist). Tell *that* to Taylor Wang at JPL. If he's not a professional scientist, who is? There are career astronauts who are not primarily research scientists, but we send up people who are as mission specialists, as we did with Taylor and others. Surely this fact hasn't escaped your attention? > It certainly doesn't bring any money into the US treasury; note that my > comments addressed only spacefaring nations, which the US is not, despite > clumsy attempts in that direction. As for the Soviets, they're working > on it. ... Come on, Henry! Give it a rest!! You clearly don't care much for NASA and the US space program, but you're letting your dogma get the best of you. "Seafaring" as a noun is defined "a mariner's calling". "Spacefaring" could thus be defined as an astronaut's calling. The US has career astronauts, we have been sending them into space for some two and a half decades, and we continue to do so. Perhaps we don't do it at the rate that the Soviets do, but does that mean it isn't happening? And that we're not working on it? There are sure a lot of people working hard on space projects that would be surprised to find that their jobs and work aren't real. You also should have noticed that the US government is not in the business of making money, so it's no surprise that monies don't flow rapidly into the national treasury as a result of the space program. Many launches are "reimbursable" though, meaning that the government is paid back for the services that are provided. We've got quite a few commercial space vehicles in operation. They are mainly communication systems, but they are there and producing revenue. [re: the last flight of Challenger and the Teacher In Space program] > Really? I detected no signs of such great excitement at the time. > "Another shuttle flight? Yawn. Oh, the teacher is going up on this > one? Must be thrilling for her students. Yawn." If you had read the papers at the time, or watched TV news, you might have noticed that her students were cheering wildly at launch, to the point that many of them initially did not notice the explosion. It WAS a big deal to them, even though it might not have been a big deal to you. There were many people excited by the idea of "just plain folks" going into space. Henry, it is clear that you are well versed in space activities, and also that you're clearly not happy with the way the US is doing things. Still, it doesn't mean that the US is always in the wrong and can't do anything right, which is what you regularly appear to be saying. Lighten up a little, and try to see things in a more balanced light. The USSR may have a much higher launch rate, and may be committing more resources to space exploration and operations than is the US, but that is no reason to denigrate everything that is done here. Most of us applaud Soviet accomplishments, and hope that they will move our leaders to increase our rate of space activity. The US has a political system in which decisions are made by consensus. Various needs are argued and weighed in public debate, albeit imperfectly at times. As a result, we often don't do things in the best way we could, and policies sometimes result that no one is perfectly happy with. The Soviets don't have that problem (yet), and their leadership can set priorities and direct efforts to accomplish them with far less in the way of dissent. If they have an edge because of the differences in political systems, we just have to chalk that up to part of the price of democracy. Citizens in this country can, and do, work to get more support for space activities, but we work within the constraints of our system. You seem to be upset with us for not doing enough. So what are YOU doing to promote space exploration? Just for the record: No, I am NOT employed by NASA. -- Steve (the certified flying fanatic) steve@aurora.arc.nasa.gov