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) +============================================================================+
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (03/11/89)
In article <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> arg@opal.UUCP (Ruaraidh Gillies) writes: >In article <1989Mar4.225139.20609@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >>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. This is the one where the Soyuz returning from Mir couldn't fire its retrorockets. They were temporarily stranded; low on oxygen, and could neither get back to Mir or reenter. The good 'ol sensation-mongering USA TV networks were full of lots of hand-wringing about how the cosmonauts were going to run out of air shortly. Except for one interview with James Oberg, where he said the cosmonauts were in no danger, and would reenter on the next orbit. He was right. I think it was some kind of computer problem; they just overrode it and fired the retros manually. I think the most interesting Soviet failure was the one with the Indian 'guest cosmonaut', in which the booster blew up on the pad. The escape tower worked perfectly, and cosmonauts survived, though slightly mashed due to the high g-forces of escape tower rockets. (Good heavens, that newsgroups line!! I'm paring that down to reason. rec.music.misc!??!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!) -- "It was more dangerous to drive Mike Van Pelt away from Three Mile Island than Video 7 to stay there." -- Dr. Bruce Ames. ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp
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
bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) (03/29/89)
In article <3015@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) writes: >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 >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. The first dissent is already showing. In the recent soviet elections, Boris Yeltzin was elected to represent Moscow with 90% of the vote. He was standing against the official Communist party candidate. One of his election promises is to cut the Soviet spending on space exploration and spend the money on housing or other public projects to improve the quality of life for the ordinary citizen. Sounds quite familiar. Bob.
rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) (03/30/89)
Henry Spencer has been arguing that (1) it is currently possible to send manned missions into space at a profit, (2) the Soviets are already doing so, and (3) there is nothing wrong with sending up nontechnical passengers, as long as they can pay for their passage. In particular, he believes that we ought to consider broadcasting entertainment spectacles such as rock concerts from the space shuttle. We both probably agree that space should be developed commercially, but we disagree on how to go about that now. I prefer to limit manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions. I consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of precious technology. Henry Spencer responds to a previous posting of mine: > What on Earth (or in space :-)) are you talking about? [The Soviets] don't > need to have the "appearance" of routine space flights -- they have routine > space flights, and have had them for years. I suppose that we could quibble over how to interpret the word 'routine'. There is little question that the Soviets have been exploiting their consistency for propaganda value, as you yourself admit. They have timed some events to embarrass us. I wish that Congress would get more embarrassed, but they seem to have pretty thick skins. As I understand it, the main mission of Soviet manned flights is to explore the effects of long stays in space on the human body. The Soviet government has given the impression that it is willing to sell space on missions--to our embarrassment, since we 'capitalists' don't have any missions to sell. That's neat propaganda, which you seem to have taken at face value. > 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. "Back-of-the-Envelope?" I'm not familiar with that accounting software. :-) Did you count development costs on the back of your envelope? Did you place a value on displaced scientific research? Well, perhaps it is the 'back-of-the- envelope' method that has turned the Soviet economy into such a roaring success. ;-) > Don't you think...knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider > cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts? How, pray tell? Why would we learn more by sending up poorly-trained people who are less cost-effective at carrying out the missions? If you are concerned about the physical fitness of astronauts, I'm sure that we could find a few flabby scientists to send up. :-) >>... 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. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. I meant budgetary resources. Space research and development is tremendously expensive. It is a strain on both us and the Soviets. There is constant pressure to cut back on it. Given that our priorities are constantly shifting, scientific research in space--which has no immediate, tangible return--is a tempting target for budget cutters. The environment is already noticeably out of whack. I think that we are going to be diverting major resources into our own survival in a couple of decades. We may need the space technology to solve some of those problems, but it will be harder to scrape up the money resources in the future. >...Remember that [the Soviet] treasury and their economy are one and the > same, so they can count up indirect benefits as well as direct ones. Sorry, but I don't know what it means to say that their treasury and economy are one and the same. They are subject to the same economic laws that we are. What benefits do they count up that we don't? [on calling up the Soviets to verify Spencer's 'facts'] > The [Soviet] embassy could probably refer you to the right place: Space > Commerce Corp. in Houston, the US representatives for most Soviet space > services. Gosh. Space Commerce Corp. You wouldn't be confusing manned missions with satellite missions, would you? I don't deny the profitability of putting up unmanned satellites. That is much less expensive and difficult than manned missions. The fact that the Soviets advertise the availability of manned space flight doesn't mean that they intend to sell it to all comers or that they are making a profit on it. I imagine that they take a very close look at who gets to go up in the limited number of flights that they can afford each year. Unlike you, I believe that propaganda value is the sole criterion for selling flights to nontechnical people. >>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. I would be interested in clarification here. Do you mean that Boeing, or some other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight program? I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any such desire. What for? They are working with the government, which is the only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now. Who was that stubborn, hidebound NASA supposed to relinquish control to? There ain't nobody there. That's why I called the idea impractical. Only governments can afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now. -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik
rlc4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Richard Connell) (04/01/89)
This is getting lengthy... In article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: >...I prefer to limit >manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel >who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions. I >consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of >precious technology. Well, if you want to get the average person interested, and thereby get monies from our government, I think you had better be ready to cater to such a 'frivilous waste of precious technology'. I mean, really, is the average person going to want to support something that they see as a waste of their money, just because it is an advance in technology. What ever happened to the end-user? Who isbenefitting from this technology, and why aren't they seeing the results. I have noticed that there is a question of NASA needing money to perform experiments, and the fact that the media no longer focuses on the launches as much, because there is nothing new, it is some experiment that does not seem to have a real affect down here, where everyone else is. For this reason, just about any use of space that will catch people's attention is, I feel, not a waste of resources, or money. If you want to keep it technical, how about such projects as trying to stay on the moon? Or other places in space? [arguement about soviets and economy deleted] >> Don't you think...knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider >> cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts? > >How, pray tell? Why would we learn more by sending up poorly-trained people >who are less cost-effective at carrying out the missions? If you are >concerned about the physical fitness of astronauts, I'm sure that we could >find a few flabby scientists to send up. :-) > By exposing more people to space, you get a wider variety of opinions about ways that it could be used. If you send up untrained personnel, then you will get uneducated, and unbiased reactions to the situation. If you send up a load of artists and musicians, then there will be a whole new look at the idea of going into space. Also this would focus more attention on the program itself, and what it could accomplish... And if things went bad, what would a few less artists and singers do to the world, just space em...:-) It is my opinion that the more people we get into space, the more interest there will be in it for the average person. I have no rargument that it should start with techies, people who know all about it, but there comes a time when even these people are not going to have any idea of what in the world is going on. And in this case, your average carpenter might be better equipped to handle the situation, who can really say. Plus, once (or if) there is ever a space station, are we going to want to pay big bucks to a person trained in aerospace technologies to take out the garbage? I don't think so. That person can be put to a much better use working in the science feild. And this will be the same with all the technical fields, so who takes out the trash? Who provides for a little relaxing entertainment every once in a while, etc? Highly trained people in the fields of science are not going to be the people to do this, or at least not on the basis that normal people would need. >>>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. > >I would be interested in clarification here. Do you mean that Boeing, or some >other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight >program? I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any >such desire. What for? They are working with the government, which is the >only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now. Who was that >stubborn, hidebound NASA supposed to relinquish control to? There ain't >nobody there. That's why I called the idea impractical. Only governments can >afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now. Missed the beginning of this discussion, so please excuse me if I am going off on something that I know nothing about, but why do all the flights into space have to be of a scientific nature. If they all are scientific now, when will the commercial interest get involved? In any serious way that is, for they are already interested. Look at all the communication sattelites that are up there. So when do the normal people get a chance to see space? I thought that the teacher in space program was a good start, and am very saddened by the way that it ended. These are the sorts of programs that are going to get you the money, and the resources that you need to continue the program in a useful way. Have fun, and please do send flames, I will welcome them, it's cold here in Rochester. | Ricky Connell| rlc4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu |--------------| NOTES_RCON@uordbv.BITNET ------- |Disclaimer : ----------------------------------- / ___ \ Happy | A disclaimer??? Why a disclaimer??? Who really / (O) \ Mutants | cares whose opinion this is I'm borrowing! ( ) For |-------------------------------------------------- \ )---( / Nuclear | "No matter where you go, there you are." -B.Bonzai \ / Energy | "Let's show this prehistoric b***h how we do ------- | things downtown!" -- Ghostbusters
bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) (04/03/89)
In article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: >human body. The Soviet government has given the impression that it is willing >to sell space on missions--to our embarrassment, since we 'capitalists' don't >have any missions to sell. That's neat propaganda, which you seem to have >taken at face value. The Japanese seen to have taken it at face value too. They just signed a deal to send a journalist on a week long trip to Mir in 1992. Standard price tag and contract conditions. Bob.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/04/89)
In article <3015@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) writes: >> ... 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... Aircraft capable of carrying useful passenger loads were more expensive than you think, especially compared to the purchasing power of the fledgling airlines. The fact is, airlines which tried to make money carrying passengers and ordinary freight consistently went broke in the early years. The US airline industry, and its aircraft suppliers, were kept alive by lucrative government air-mail contracts. No equivalent for spaceflight has yet appeared. >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. There has been ample interest, but a distinct lack of cooperation from the government. Remember the proposals for privately-financed shuttle orbiters? NASA basically "considered" them until they died. Amroc *wanted* to set up their own launch facility, as I recall, but ran into so many government obstacles that they gave up and are building a launch pad at Vandenberg instead, under the government's thumb (precisely where the government wants them, of course). >> ... 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? ... I'm not familiar with Wang's status -- is he a mission specialist, or just a payload specialist? (The latter will fly damn seldom under NASA's post- Challenger policies: only when NASA can't find any excuse to avoid it.) If he's a career astronaut (mission specialist or pilot), he will probably find it impossible to maintain an active scientific career -- that's been the experience of others. >... "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? ... One did not call a nation "seafaring" because it occasionally sent out a small ship on a brief voyage. That term was applied only when the nation was persistently active on a considerable scale, so that the nation and its people had routine access to the seas for any purpose that appeared worthwhile. The US does not have routine access to space (the shuttle program specifically promised it, and failed to deliver). It has occasional, brief, extremely expensive access to space for a few people. Take a look at the backlog of payloads if you doubt this -- and those were the payloads that had already fought their way through the enormous bureaucracy that surrounds the shuttle. Then talk to the US microgravity experimenters who are booking payload space on Soyuz flights to Mir because they can't get it on the shuttle. > [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... I'd probably be cheering at the launch too, if my sister were going up. So what? I was talking about general public interest, not that of a handful of people with indirect personal involvement. > 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? For one thing, I keep trying to prod people into looking at the situation in the US and realizing just how bad it really is. Never mind the really optimistic predictions; merely looking at the predictions made early in the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry. The dream may be alive, but not at NASA headquarters. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jerry@qvax2.UUCP (Jerry Gardner @ex2561) (04/05/89)
In article <1989Apr3.174529.1476@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >For one thing, I keep trying to prod people into looking at the situation >in the US and realizing just how bad it really is. Never mind the really >optimistic predictions; merely looking at the predictions made early in >the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry. The dream may be >alive, but not at NASA headquarters. >-- >Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology >passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days? Jerry Gardner, NJ6A Qantel Business Systems {hplabs,pacbell,ihnp4}!qantel!qvax2!jerry Disclaimer? We don't need no stinking disclaimers!
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/06/89)
In article <530@qvax2.UUCP> jerry@qvax2.UUCP (Jerry Gardner) writes: >>...The dream may be alive, but not at NASA headquarters. > >I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days? Lousy. Our glorious government, in its (minimal) wisdom, has tied it much too closely to the US program. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (04/07/89)
In article <530@qvax2.UUCP> jerry@qvax2.UUCP (Jerry Gardner) writes: }In article <1989Apr3.174529.1476@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: }>the current shuttle program is enough to make you cry. The dream may be }>alive, but not at NASA headquarters. }I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days? At least we don't delude ourselves into thinking we have one. Who's the bigger fool: Canada for realizing that it can't afford one, or the US for totally mis-managing their's. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) (04/07/89)
From article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP>, by rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik): > Only governments can > afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now. Our news feed has been out for about 2 weeks. So I'm coming in to this discussion without a lot of context. What research are you talking about? I'm not aware of any research that needs to be done on ways to put people in orbit. In general I think the US space program suffers from an illness of wealth and bureaucracy. We do thing the most expensive way possible because we can afford to and it serves the bueacracy to do so. Bob P. -- - Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. - UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet - - Reality is stranger than most can imagine.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/08/89)
In article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: >... In particular, he believes that we >ought to consider broadcasting entertainment spectacles such as rock concerts >from the space shuttle... Not precisely right; what I believe is that we should consider not *forbidding* others from doing so, provided they can pay a fair price for it. This is supposed to be the "free world", remember? Where most commercial activity is undertaken by individuals, not by the government, and usually without having to beg permission first? >... I prefer to limit >manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel >who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions... Who defines "most efficient"? Given that these missions *are* very costly, especially on US launchers, should not some weight be given to the ability of the would-be launchee to pay for it? Don't you think that public support for the shuttle would be higher if there was some chance that a mere mortal could get to fly on it? (The old idea of a "shuttle lottery" had merit.) Should "most efficient" be defined the democratic way -- popular vote -- or by Mama Knows Best? (If the latter, who gets to be Mama?) >I consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of >precious technology. Yeah, isn't it dreadful how much money goes into silly media events, money that could go into some truly *worthy* cause? "Worthy" as defined by us, of course. Who defines what's a "frivolous waste" and what isn't? >...The Soviet government has given the impression that it is willing >to sell space on missions--to our embarrassment, since we 'capitalists' don't >have any missions to sell. That's neat propaganda, which you seem to have >taken at face value. Yeah, isn't it dreadful how that propaganda is being taken at face value by gullible people like France, Britain, Austria, Japan, Indonesia, ... all of whom are negotiating to take the Soviets up on the offer. And by India, which is paying for commercial launches on Soviet boosters. And by Payload Systems, which is paying for launch of a microgravity payload to Mir in a few months. Amazing how convincing that propaganda is; it seems to have convinced the Soviets too. >> 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... > >Did you count development costs on the back of your envelope? Did you place a >value on displaced scientific research? What development costs? The hardware is 20 years old and long since paid for. What displaced scientific research? Soyuz can hold either two or three crew; almost certainly paying passengers will simply go up as a third crewman on a flight that would normally have carried two. (I greatly doubt that the Soviets are so hungry for cash that they'll displace missions they would have flown anyway.) >Well, perhaps it is the 'back-of-the- >envelope' method that has turned the Soviet economy into such a roaring >success. ;-) Perhaps it is the 'back-of-the-envelope' method that has turned the Soviet space program into such a roaring success. It certainly seems to work better than the US's 'paperwork-by-the-kiloton' method. >>... What is dangerously low is not resources, but will. >>In the US, that is. > >Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. I meant budgetary resources. Space >research and development is tremendously expensive... Again I say: nonsense. Space activity is a minute fraction of the US government budget, far less expensive than many other activities. Again I say, more explicitly: what is lacking is not resources, but will. The US could triple its spaceflight funding without measurable impact on the budget, if the will was there. It's not. >> The [Soviet] embassy could probably refer you to the right place: Space >> Commerce Corp. in Houston, the US representatives for most Soviet space >> services. > >Gosh. Space Commerce Corp. You wouldn't be confusing manned missions with >satellite missions, would you? Nope. SCC is the US marketing rep for unmanned launches, Soyuz launches, space on Mir, tours of Baikonur, you name it. Almost everything except Soyuzkarta earth-resources images. >>>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... > >I would be interested in clarification here. Do you mean that Boeing, or some >other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight >program? ... In a word, yes. Look up the history of Astrotech, for starters. It wasn't the only one, either. As I recall, there were two bids that got as far as formal proposals (which NASA sat on until they died) and several informal expressions of interest (including at least one from Boeing, which has wanted to get into the spaceflight business for a long time). >...I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any >such desire. What for? They are working with the government, which is the >only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now... So what? You can make lots of money selling services to the government, even services nobody else would buy. Ask any defence contractor. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mae@vygr.Sun.COM (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO}) (04/08/89)
>In article <3015@eos.UUCP> steve@eos.UUCP (Steve Philipson) asks Henry: >> 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? Henry is AW&ST_compress(1). Isn't that enough {:_>)? #mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-40 #"There's nothing human that's alien to us." - A. Einstein
mdf@ziebmef.uucp (Matthew Francey) (04/13/89)
In article <1989Apr6.153750.25859@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <530@qvax2.UUCP> jerry@qvax2.UUCP (Jerry Gardner) writes: > >>...The dream may be alive, but not at NASA headquarters. > >I'm curious, how's the Canadian space program doing these days? > Lousy. Our glorious government, in its (minimal) wisdom, has tied it much > too closely to the US program. ... and a last check, the Great Problem to be solved was where the headquarters should go (I recall it is to be in Montreal, but that just raised the further Problem of where *exactly* in Montreal it should go.. sigh). -- Name: Matthew Francey Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m mdf@ziebmef.UUCP uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf