elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (01/30/86)
Although terribly tragic, it doesn't seem to me that the loss of life in the
Challenger accident should have any long term significance. As many have and
will point out, much greater risks and losses have been accepted for the
initial exploration of all historic frontiers and, for that matter, even
recreational activities (e.g., hang gliding). Of course, there is always the
(real and unpleasant) possibility of an irrational public opinion reaction
on this matter.
Nevertheless, it does seem to me that the accident provides a clear motivation
for at least reconsidering some of the criticisms which have been leveled
against the Shuttle program. For example, one might reasonably conclude
that
1) it is unwise to invest nearly all of our launch capability in a very
small number of extremely complex and expensive vehicles,
2) reasonably short cycle time and inexpensive reusability is fundamentally
incompatible with high reliability with current technology,
3) for many routine space missions, the cost in complexity and required
reliability of manned missions is not worth the much touted gain in
flexibility and on site intelligence, and thus
4) the Shuttle Program (like the Apollo Program before it), despite
its breath-taking level of technical prowess, will turn out to be a
dead end and not the true starting point for elaborate future space
activities (manned and unmanned).
All of these points are obviously debatable, and the relevance of the
Challenger accident will depend on what the actual cause of the accident
is determined to have been. Obviously, no. 2 is is not implied if the
problem was in the non-reusable external tank. Nevertheless, I think that
even "friends of the space program" need to consider these issues in view
of the loss of a shuttle in what should have been one of the more routine
aspects of its operation (All risk analyses I know of have assigned far
greater danger of catastrophic failure to the landing process than the
launch). One must also weigh the relatively modest mission success rate of
previous flights and the several earlier "close calls".
Ed Turner
astrovax!eltems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (02/04/86)
In article <726@astrovax.UUCP>, elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) writes: > (...) For example, one might reasonably conclude > that (...) > 2) reasonably short cycle time and inexpensive reusability is fundamentally > incompatible with high reliability with current technology, Please prove this. I see it as a non-sequiter. > > 3) for many routine space missions, the cost in complexity and required > reliability of manned missions is not worth the much touted gain in > flexibility and on site intelligence, and thus > Maybe. But perhaps there are economies of scale to be considered. Putting a few 'routine tasks' in the cargo bay when you are sending up a manned mission anyway is quite justified. I am sure there are others. (Though I do wish I could see a Saturn V go up !!) > 4) the Shuttle Program (like the Apollo Program before it), despite > its breath-taking level of technical prowess, will turn out to be a > dead end and not the true starting point for elaborate future space > activities (manned and unmanned). > I am sorry, you are 1) wrong. and 2) Too late. The shuttle has already been the 'true starting point'. It has proven the concept. Everything that follows will owe a debt to the shuttle program. Just as the 747 owes a debt to the Wright brothers. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (02/08/86)
>> 4) the Shuttle Program (like the Apollo Program before it), despite >> its breath-taking level of technical prowess, will turn out to be a >> dead end and not the true starting point for elaborate future space >> activities (manned and unmanned). >> >I am sorry, you are 1) wrong. and 2) Too late. The shuttle has >already been the 'true starting point'. It has proven the concept. >Everything that follows will owe a debt to the shuttle program. Just >as the 747 owes a debt to the Wright brothers. > >-- >E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems I would argue that the Shuttle could indeed be a dead end in either of two ways: 1) If the current space program is forced to back track and return either largely or entirely to the use of expendable launchers, it would seem fair to characterize the Shuttle as a dead end or at least a very time consuming and costly detour. This may not be a very likely eventuality, but it is certainly not impossible. 2) There is a more fundamental way in which not only the Shuttle but essentially the whole space program to date could be later judged by history to have been a dead end. Aside from the obvious possibility that people never move into space in great numbers, it is also possible that the true dawn of the dawn of the space age belongs to another people and/or technology and/or historical period. I do not find it difficult (unpleasant but not difficult) to imagine that the current space program could eventually sputter to a halt due to lack of interest (i.e., funding) or for some other reason. This obviously would not preclude it being born again in some other historical circumstance perhaps using some more advanced (relatively cheaper) technology. Historical examples abound. The European discovery, exploration, and eventual occupation of the New World began in Columbus's time and owed nothing the the much earlier, abortive Norse/Viking efforts. Or to extend Mr. Smith's analogy, while the 747 may be in the debt of the Wright brothers' pioneering flights, it owes little if anything to the earlier French hot air balloonists' activities. In summary, there is no guarantee (or even much evidence) that the space exploration of the past three decades will have lasting historical impact even if it is given that the long range future of mankind is in space. A somewhat depressing thought I realize but no less true for it. Ed Turner astrovax!elt
jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles) (02/10/86)
In article <731@astrovax.UUCP> elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) writes: ... The European discovery, exploration, >and eventual occupation of the New World began in Columbus's time and owed >nothing the the much earlier, abortive Norse/Viking efforts. ... > >Ed Turner Read your history again. Columbus made several visits to Norway, Denmark, etc., before he began to seek funding for a westward venture to Asia. It is thought by some historians that this is where Columbus came by the idea. He certainly used the Norse histories to bolster his own claims. J Giles Los Alamos
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (02/10/86)
In article <941@lanl.ARPA>, jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles) writes: > In article <731@astrovax.UUCP> elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) writes: > ... The European discovery, exploration, > >and eventual occupation of the New World began in Columbus's time and owed > >nothing the the much earlier, abortive Norse/Viking efforts. ... > > > Read your history again. Columbus made several visits to Norway, Denmark, > etc., before he began to seek funding for a westward venture to Asia. It > is thought by some historians that this is where Columbus came by the idea. > He certainly used the Norse histories to bolster his own claims. > It's interesting, but not really relevant, to know that Columbus was inspired by the Viking voyages (BTW- what is your source for this?). Ed's point is that Columbus didn`t gain any technological advantage from the previous trips, just the knowledge that he might strike land. We know where to find objects in our solar system. The relevant question is: is this a reasonable way to get to them? Like Ed I feel that it is a very real, and regrettable, possibility that the political will and technological expertise will not be found in our lifetimes. -- "These are not the opinions Ethan Vishniac of the administration of {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan the University of Texas, ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU but they are the opinions Department of Astronomy of your favorite deity, who University of Texas is in daily communication with me on this (and every other) topic.