jrrt@mtuxo.UUCP (r.mitchell) (01/29/86)
In the wake of this devastating tragedy, it behooves us to be aware
of how other people see it. I was talking to my officemate, an
intelligent and highly-educated EE. In her opinion, the shuttle
disaster is evidence that people shouldn't be going out to space
("Why can't they send robots?"), and perhaps the whole space program
should be shut down, except for "routine" launchings of
communications satellites.
I tried to convince her otherwise, but to no avail. As tragic as
that launch was, I am saddened even more by the lessons being "learned"
from it.
Rob Mitchell
{allegra,ihnp4}!mtuxo!jrrtrhi@druxu.UUCP (IrvingR) (01/30/86)
The whole debate over manned versus unmanned space flights has raged periodically both on the net and in public for some time; while great strides have been made in robot technology, the data gathering and relay functions of humans (sorry to sound like Spock) currently far surpass any fully-automated devices. In the final analysis, however, the whole debate revolves around one's long-term attitude to space exploration. If you believe that space exploration is for the purposes of knowledge enhancement and perhaps mineral recovery from distant planets, then a robot-only future is OK. However, if you envisage the desire of, or need for, members of the human race ultimately to venture permanently beyond our current abode, then it is essential for man to venture into space, exploring just how easy long-term survival is out there. I personally regard the Space Shuttle program as "opening the way to the stars" as John Young (Capt of 1st Columbia mission) put it, as it gives us the opportunity to construct large structures in Earth orbit which could never possibly be launched from Earth. Tuesday's tragedy will long be remembered; I'm sure few of us have forgotten Grissom, Chaffee and White or for that matter the 4 known Russian cosmonauts killed in their program. But we must honor our dead heroes by continuing the manned exploration of space. As an aside, I wonder how many of the manned program's detractors realize that 5 of our fellow citizens die in auto accidents every HOUR while 2 more are murdered. LONG LIVE THE SHUTTLE AND THE MANNED EXPLORATION OF SPACE!!! Rich Irving druxu!rhi mhuxm!rhib "All views expressed are those of my telephone answering machine"
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (01/31/86)
In article <1264@mtuxo.UUCP> jrrt@mtuxo.UUCP (r.mitchell) writes: >of how other people see it. I was talking to my officemate, an >intelligent and highly-educated EE. In her opinion, the shuttle >disaster is evidence that people shouldn't be going out to space >("Why can't they send robots?"), and perhaps the whole space program >should be shut down, except for "routine" launchings of >communications satellites. > Tell her that when she designs robots that can fix a satellite as beautifully as the astronauts fixed the ailing one last year that maybe I'll listen to her... -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (01/31/86)
> ...In her opinion, the shuttle disaster is evidence that people shouldn't > be going out to space ("Why can't they send robots?"), > The question of sending robots rather than humans is not an "unfortunate lesson" (I happen not to agree with the conclusion, but I think it valid). There are a number of good reasons for not using humans (robots are much cheaper, you don't care if they blow up, etc.) and a number of good reasons for using humans (much more flexible, PR value, they are the whole reason for space travel in the first place, etc.); the shuttle disaster is not "evidence" one way or the other (consider that one technician died during the early phase of the shuttle program when a test engine exploded -- such things can happen for unmanned rockets, too), but it is a valid time to discuss the point. > and perhaps the whole space program should be shut down, except for > "routine" launchings of communications satellites. > Not just a sad conclusion, but terrifying. Consider what we would be like had our ancestors long ago watched the first humanoid out of the trees get eaten by a tiger, and concluded "Let's stay up here for all time." -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA This space dedicated to Challenger and her crew, Francis R. Scobee, Michael J. Smith, Ellison S. Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Ronand E. McNair, Gregory B. Jarvis, and Crista McAuliffe. "...and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God."
bill@sigma.UUCP (Bill Swan) (01/31/86)
In article <1264@mtuxo.UUCP> jrrt@mtuxo.UUCP (r.mitchell) writes: >[...] In her opinion, the shuttle disaster is evidence that people >shouldn't be going out to space ("Why can't they send robots?"), and >perhaps the whole space program should be shut down, except for "routine" >launchings of communications satellites. [...] >As tragic as that launch was, I am saddened even more by the lessons being >"learned" from it. I suspect that these people are not "learning" from it, merely repeating their already formed opinions. I was incensed to hear Politician Dellums from California saying something to the effect that we should quit wasting our money killing astronauts and spend it on earth instead (perhaps in your district, Mr. Dellums?). As for those who want to send robots, I highly recommend that they try driving a car sometime with a 10 second delay in response from the controls. There's a limit to what you can do with robots. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!bill
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (02/04/86)
> ...I was talking to my officemate, [and] In her opinion, the shuttle > disaster is evidence that people shouldn't be going out to space > ("Why can't they send robots?"), and perhaps the whole space program > should be shut down, except for "routine" launchings of > communications satellites.... I am saddened ...by the lessons being > "learned" from [the disaster]. > Rob Mitchell Which warns us who *believe* in the Manned Space Program that we dare not succumb to complacency. Already the first throes of our shock and grief are passing -- the opposition rises. We MUST let our government officials know the depth of our support for the Manned Space Program. Now, they and the networks seem to be in support -- but two months from now? Let them know we WANT the program to continue -- that every step forward has a price, but we *learn* from it and still go on! To quote Dick Scobey -- "You have to risk something to gain something, and I'm willing to take that risk." I am also willing to take the risks -- even if it means my own or my husband's life at some point in the future. And I do not say this glibly. At this point, however, I cannot necessarily give my life -- but I can commit my words. As can all of you. Barb
callen@ada-uts.UUCP (02/10/86)
oliven!barb writes: >Which warns us who *believe* in the Manned Space Program that we dare >not succumb to complacency. Already the first throes of our shock and >grief are passing -- the opposition rises. We MUST let our government >officials know the depth of our support for the Manned Space Program. >Now, they and the networks seem to be in support -- but two months from >now? Let them know we WANT the program to continue -- that every step >forward has a price, but we *learn* from it and still go on! ======= I support the Peopled Space Program too, but not necessarily the shuttle. (Don flameproof suit.) I'm not at ALL convinced that the shuttle is the right way for us to be exploring space. It has seemed to me for a long that we could do a better, safer job by isolating the seperate functions of the shuttle into two independent but interrelated systems - a PAYLOAD launch system and a PEOPLE launch system. Let's face it - we HAD several cheap, fairly reliable boosters for mid to large size payloads (Delta, which was FAIRLY reliable, and Titan IIIc, which was VERY reliable and could put a locomotive-sized payload into low earth orbit). Why not build a much SMALLER (and probably less complex) orbiter WITHOUT the huge cargo bay that we could boost with something like the IIIc, a proven booster that uses relatively easily handled (corrosive, but not very cold) hypergolic fuels? Launch the payload and the personnel in seperate launches and rendezvous in orbit - we sure have enough practice at THAT little maneuver. Does anyone else think this makes any sense? I mean, heck, I'm just a programmer... - Jerry Callen ...ihnp4!inmet!ada-uts!callen Intermetrics, Inc. wil probably deny that I even WORK there, let alone agree with my opinions...
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/13/86)
In article <9400003@ada-uts.UUCP> callen@ada-uts.UUCP writes: > >I support the Peopled Space Program too, but not necessarily the shuttle. >(Don flameproof suit.) I'm not at ALL convinced that the shuttle is the >right way for us to be exploring space. It has seemed to me for a long >that we could do a better, safer job by isolating the seperate functions >of the shuttle into two independent but interrelated systems - a PAYLOAD >launch system and a PEOPLE launch system. Let's face it - we HAD several >cheap, fairly reliable boosters for mid to large size payloads (Delta, >which was FAIRLY reliable, and Titan IIIc, which was VERY reliable and >could put a locomotive-sized payload into low earth orbit). Why not build >a much SMALLER (and probably less complex) orbiter WITHOUT the huge cargo >bay that we could boost with something like the IIIc, a proven booster >that uses relatively easily handled (corrosive, but not very cold) >hypergolic fuels? Launch the payload and the personnel in seperate launches >and rendezvous in orbit - we sure have enough practice at THAT little >maneuver. > >- Jerry Callen ...ihnp4!inmet!ada-uts!callen Yes, we have had practice, but I'm not sure it has become easy to us yet. Seems to me that docking provides all sorts of inherent problems that aren't there if everything is done at once. (launch windows, weather, docking, maneuvering, collisions in space, orbital rendezvous calculations, etc.) Also, consider the extra overhead to launch two vehicles - more fuel, twice as many possibilitites for explosion, etc. On the other hand, maybe it would be a good idea to have a reusable vehicle just to ferry humans back and forth to the space station. (could they put a Greyhound in the cargo bay?)
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (02/19/86)
In article <9400003@ada-uts.UUCP>, callen@ada-uts.UUCP writes: > ... It has seemed to me for a long > that we could do a better, safer job by isolating the seperate functions > of the shuttle into two independent but interrelated systems - a PAYLOAD > launch system and a PEOPLE launch system. Let's face it - we HAD several > cheap, fairly reliable boosters for mid to large size payloads (Delta, > which was FAIRLY reliable, and Titan IIIc, which was VERY reliable and > could put a locomotive-sized payload into low earth orbit). Why not build > a much SMALLER (and probably less complex) orbiter WITHOUT the huge cargo > bay that we could boost with something like the IIIc, a proven booster > that uses relatively easily handled (corrosive, but not very cold) > hypergolic fuels? Launch the payload and the personnel in seperate launches > and rendezvous in orbit - we sure have enough practice at THAT little > maneuver. > How you gonna bring back that locomotive sized payload when you want to fix it, retire it, analyse it, sell it, etc. if you don't have a nice big cargo bay to put it in? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.
wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) (02/20/86)
>In article <9400003@ada-uts.UUCP>, callen@ada-uts.UUCP writes: >> ... It has seemed to me for a long >> that we could do a better, safer job by isolating the seperate functions >> of the shuttle into two independent but interrelated systems - a PAYLOAD >> launch system and a PEOPLE launch system. >> In article <2803@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) writes: >How you gonna bring back that locomotive sized payload when you >want to fix it, retire it, analyse it, sell it, etc. if you don't have >a nice big cargo bay to put it in? It seems that we eventually need a small payload launch system and a large payload launch system (and even further down the road a spectrum of launch system sizes). Reusability is (to some extent) a separate issue: it would be nice if the the small payload lauch system were reuseable. The small launch system could either be unmanned or have a single pilot. One doesn't always need an 18 wheel truck to carry something that would fit in the trunk of your small car. -- Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics {allegra,akgua,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,philabs,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls
wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (Tex) (02/21/86)
In article <740@astrovax.UUCP> wls@astrovax.UUCP (William L. Sebok) writes: >In article <2803@amdahl.UUCP> ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) writes: >>How you gonna bring back that locomotive sized payload when you >>want to fix it, retire it, analyse it, sell it, etc. if you don't have >>a nice big cargo bay to put it in? > >It seems that we eventually need a small payload launch system and a large >payload launch system (and even further down the road a spectrum of launch >system sizes). Reusability is (to some extent) a separate issue: it would be >nice if the the small payload lauch system were reuseable. The small launch >system could either be unmanned or have a single pilot. One doesn't always >need an 18 wheel truck to carry something that would fit in the trunk of your >small car. You didn't answer the question - what do you do when it is time to bring back something large? There are few items of interest in LEO that would fit in the trunk of a small car. Reuseabiltiy is a critical issue because it is tied so closely to cost. I also disagree that a small payload launch system is the way to go - once you start putting the mass of a launcher into orbit, the incremental cost of additional payload is small- Putting a several thousand pound launcher into orbit to deliver a one hundred pound payload does not make any sense.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/23/86)
> ... Why not build > a much SMALLER (and probably less complex) orbiter WITHOUT the huge cargo > bay that we could boost with something like the IIIc, a proven booster > that uses relatively easily handled (corrosive, but not very cold) > hypergolic fuels? ... Because political support from the Air Force was vital to the Shuttle's survival, and the Air Force insisted on the big payload bay. NASA wanted a rather smaller shuttle. Also, boosting the shuttle with something like the IIIc would have eliminated any hope of making shuttle flights cheap, another major factor in the shuttle's survival. Nothing in the IIIc is reusable. (This is one of the prices paid, to some degree, for the easily-handled fuels: their performance is lower and you need more stages to get to orbit. Making intermediate stages reusable is hard.) Actually, what you have described is a near-exact match for the USAF's X-25 Dyna-Soar of the early 60s. Probably workable, but cancelled due to lack of mission. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry