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) +============================================================================+