earle@oblio.DEC (Mr. SPPR) (12/04/85)
I believe that misrepresentation of statistics is being thrown around again as usual. The so-called bottom-line tactic that some people use is to me a useless way of analyzing alot of situations. The truth is the most everything that man does, builds, or buys is not really necessary. If you want to live like a cat, than all we need to do is eat, sleep, and gather food. I for one do not believe that this is all we are good for. It is always easier in hindsight to see that certain objectives will not be met. The cost/pound of putting something up in space is not what the shuttle was designed for. I think that ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE can figure out that if you want to put something somewhere (in this case a satellite) don't throw all of the huge amounts of manpower, thoughtpower, and money (READ: manpower+thoughtpower*10) at the problem as in the case of the shuttle. That is ONE use for it. Some people are really silly sometimes if they think that 30-40 years from now (or longer) all we will be doing with the thing is putting people up there like mechanics! There are alot of uses for the shuttle as a whole and in the technology (READ: THINGS LEARNED) that built than in the cost/pound of putting a satellite up. This goes for any of the other ONE only uses for the shuttle. Don't think that: - fiber optics will destroy the shuttle because there won't be a need for sat.; come on, if that's true, they will call this the wire planet in the future. What about cellular telephones? Maybe will should have a wire coming out of the top of our cars like in the bumper-cars at an amusement park!? - All manufacturing that can be done in space can be done on earth. Do those people really belive that the environment is the same on earth as it is in space? Then how can that argument be made? -We (speaking internationally now) will find uses for the 'space-plane' as I call it in the future that we haven't thought of yet. So in the future I hope some will not try to settle mans' uses for things in one swoop of the bottom-line in today's terms -- tomorrow's terms maybe called the bottom-curve. ;-) George Earle Digital Equip. Corp DECVAX!DECWRL!RHEA!OBLIO!EARLE disclaimer...disclaimer...disclaimer...
dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz) (12/04/85)
The shuttle was sold as a way to get mass into orbit cheaply. Getting mass into orbit cheaply is the single most important capability needed for exploiting space. The shuttle has failed to provide this capability. Because we don't have this capability, a lot of worthwhile space activities (powersats, lunar colonies, etc.) will be delayed. > fiber optics will destroy the shuttle because there won't be a need > for sat.; > come on, if that's true, they will call this the wire planet in the future. > What about cellular telephones? Maybe will should have a wire coming out of > the top of our cars like in the bumper-cars at an amusement park!? Cellular phones do not use satellites -- they use lots of ground based tranceivers arranged in a tesselation pattern, connected by cables or microwave links. Satellite based cellular radio might make sense in very sparse market areas, but (as far as I know) no one has built such a system. I think there's a good chance that fiber optics will take over the trans-atlantic point-to-point communications market. Fiber optic technology is getting cheaper a lot faster than satellites, and is already competitive. Satellites will probably remain as broadcast stations and for mobile communications, and for point-to-point communication in sparse markets (3rd world countries). At any rate, the market projections that NASA made to justify the shuttle are not true, in part because of the replacement of satellites by fiber optics. > - All manufacturing that can be done in space can be done on earth. Do those > people really belive that the environment is the same on earth as it is in > space? Then how can that argument be made? I didn't say that. I said I had yet to see evidence that there was anything that could be manufactured in large quantities in space more cheaply than it could be on the ground (and for which there is large market on the ground, and for which the shuttle & space station are sufficient). > -We (speaking internationally now) will find uses for the 'space-plane' as I > call it in the future that we haven't thought of yet. This is more a statement of faith than a justification for the shuttle.