 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / January 2006NASA and the Vision thing
An article from The Washington Post: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10185181/ Now this is interesting; the Congress may well be willing to okay a budget hike to allow NASA to do both the Shuttle and the CEV, but the White House doesn't seem keen on funding its own new program. Pat Without a breakthrough in technology it useless to plan space habitation vehicles etc. There is only one way forward in space and that is use of the resources of space, the Moon asteroids etc. Anything else is a dead end which simply leads to greater and greater expense and diminishing returns. There is a thread http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/1d7c010855caf1dd/07 4a60610c4da1bb?lnk=raot#074a60610c4da1bb where Von Neumann machines are discussed. To get a digitally controlled macine tool to self replicate, given a supply of raw materials is quite easy. Bath University is on the point of doing just that. What NASA needs to do is investigate the chemical processing of asteroids + continue the unmanned program with such things as LISA. The other thing it should do is investigate the chemical processing of asteroids/Moon. Everything else, SAhuttle, ISS should be cancelled. They are dead end albatrosses. The Shuttle should be immediately replaced with Ariane which is a lot cheaper per kg. > Without a breakthrough in technology it useless to plan space > habitation vehicles etc. Right, no need for air, water and food at all. > There is only one way forward in space and > that is use of the resources of space, the Moon asteroids etc. Right, just have trillion dollar robots mine the moon, mars and the asteroids. > Anything > else is a dead end which simply leads to greater and greater expense > and diminishing returns. Sure, we can mine the moon, mars and the asteroids without going to space at all ... <plonk> >Right, just have trillion dollar robots mine the moon, mars and the asteroids. Robots do not cost a trillion dollars. No way. In fact Bath University is proposing to sell a digitally controlled machine tool for something more like 100. If it can self replicate, and a DCMT potenially can the price will be round about that level. To mine the moon your prime requirement is a source of energy. Silicon photovoltaic is top of the list, although you could melt rock using a mirror. You then need a way of converting Moon/asteroid into useful materials. The research would be done here on Earth with relatively small scale projects. I myself would estimate the complete cost at a billion dollars tops. You would in practice be spending less as you would get back quite a lot in the intermediate stages. If B&Q or Walmart were to sell a machine tool cheap they would make quite a lot of money. >Go on, we'll watch. I assure you, logic and technical superiority are >completely irrelevant, so I'd like to see your method of persuasion, which, >in your post, was substantially lacking Elle marche! That is surely all the persuasion needed.. >>Go on, we'll watch. I assure you, logic and technical superiority are >>completely irrelevant, so I'd like to see your method of persuasion, >>which, >>in your post, was substantially lacking > > Elle marche! That is surely all the persuasion needed.. And the reaction of the great, unwashed taxpayers who will foot the bill is "Who is Elle Marche?" What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving "someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument is unpersuasive. > "Who is Elle Marche?" It means it works in contrast to the Shuttle which has problems working. >What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving >"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument >is unpersuasive. Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec. To get to the Moon you need a total return impulse of approx 16km/sec. Roughly 11km to escape the earth and 2.74*2 km/sec to land and then escape from the Moon. Now this represents a mass ratio of e^4. Apollo had the mother ship in a parking orbit. A parking orbit reduces the total impulse somewhat but not significantly. To go to Mars and return you will not get away with an impulse much under 20km/s. It does not matter whether you refuel in orbit or not the total cost of providing that impulse will be the same. Also to go to Mars you will have massive amounts of consumables. $80e9 is a fair estimate I would say. This is what I mean when I talk about a dead end technolgy. If you have e^2 more rockets you can incease the impulse by 8km/s but it is really a dead end as I claim. As far as your claim is concerned, I say we need new technology. Priority should be given to finding that new technology. If you don't have it don't go. I cannot see $80e9 being at all justified. It would be a little less (but not much less) to go again. The whole concept of a manned space station is fatally flawed. Out knowledge of the Solar System and the Universe outside has been provided by unmanned probes. We should be maintaining Hubble NOT woth the shuttle but with Ariane and a VR robot that does not come back. Robotics and AI is a technology with a future. What is the nature of this new technology. Well I am open to alternative suggestions but as the robotic AI route seems the most promising for space exploration in the immediate future it would seem logical to think in terms of a Von Neumann machine. A VN machine would be a leap of imagination beyond simply servicing Hubble, James Webb etc. Hubble simply requires VR, James Webb being a distance from Earth will require a little AI. There are alternatives. There if the N word. Fission giving specific impuses or round about 12km/s might be used for trips from LEO. If you could fuse He3 and Deuteriium (Tritium and Neutrons are no good in space) you could achieve 40-50km/s no problem. > There are alternatives. There if the N word. Fission giving specific > impuses or round about 12km/s might be used for trips from LEO. You're seriously confusing exhaust velocity, delta-V and specific impulse. Go take an astrodynamics class or at least read a book and do the math.  Signature"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous "I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can." ~Todd Stuart Phillips <www.angryherb.net> >You're seriously confusing exhaust velocity, delta-V and specific >impulse. Go take an astrodynamics class or at least read a book and do the math. Hydrogen going through Uranium Oxide close to the melting point. The Nerva engine was reckoned to be 3 times better than a chemical propellant. With fusion you directly mix the stream of gases. 50km/s since you are not dependent on solid materials. > Hydrogen going through Uranium Oxide close to the melting point. The > Nerva engine was reckoned to be 3 times better than a chemical > propellant. Actually twice as good, IIRC. Nerva had an Isp of 960s, vs 460 to 480 for current crogenic chemical engines. ( of course, ionic propulsion is much better from that PoV ) >of course, ionic propulsion is much better from that PoV ) Indeed it is. I should have mentioned that. One still needs breakthroughs I claim. For manned spasceflight you have 2 possibilities. 1) The development of a thin photovoltaic material which could power up the engine. 2) Nerva type technology operating on a closed cycle. "1" would have considerable spin off as you could put such a sheet on the roof of your house, or spread it out on the floor of a desert. However ESA has reached the Moon using an ion drive. NASA is spending the vast majority of its money on old dead end technology. There is one point which a lot of contributors has touched on, the fact that NASA will use inferior technology just because its American. I an in fact a European, but if I was an American I would not be prepared to spend a cent on macho technology. Anyway is it macho to advertise to the world that despite your throwing of money at the Shuttle it is STILL inferior to competing systems? On 27 Nov 2005 08:23:32 -0800, in a place far, far away, ianparker2@gmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >However ESA has reached the Moon using an ion drive. So has America (in fact, a private company, Hughes, did it). >NASA is spending >the vast majority of its money on old dead end technology. > >There is one point which a lot of contributors has touched on, the fact >that NASA will use inferior technology just because its American. What is that's inferior about American rocket technology, relative to European? >Anyway is it macho to advertise to the world that despite your throwing >of money at the Shuttle it is STILL inferior to competing systems? Almost everyone recognizes that, not that it seems to have anything to do with the rest of your post. > What is that's inferior about American rocket technology, relative to > European? Relative to european as in EU, I don't think there is any. There may be some points on which the current rockets from one or the other are better, but I think the technology is equivalent in that anything one does, the other could, if it wanted to make the investment. Russian rocket technoly, not still has some edge ( which they're busy loosing ) >>However ESA has reached the Moon using an ion drive. > >So has America (in fact, a private company, Hughes, did it). No, the US hasn't flown any ion drives to the Moon. Hughes did swing a stranded comsat around the Moon a couple of times, but I don't recall ion propulsion playing any particular part in that. There's no question that the US is capable of doing it, mind you. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >No, the US hasn't flown any ion drives to the Moon. Hughes did swing a >stranded comsat around the Moon a couple of times, but I don't recall ion >propulsion playing any particular part in that. > >There's no question that the US is capable of doing it, mind you. > I notice we aren't discussing that Buran launch during the blizzard. :-) Pat On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 20:33:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>>However ESA has reached the Moon using an ion drive. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >stranded comsat around the Moon a couple of times, but I don't recall ion >propulsion playing any particular part in that. I had (perhaps mis)recalled that it used the XIPS thrusters. >However ESA has reached the Moon using an ion drive. NASA is spending >the vast majority of its money on old dead end technology. Evidently, you've forgotten the US "Deep Space 1" mission launched 7 years ago. http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/ And you might also want to read up on the Dawn mission which uses follow-on technology: http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/spacecraft.html >There is one point which a lot of contributors has touched on, the fact >that NASA will use inferior technology just because its American. I an >in fact a European, but if I was an American I would not be prepared to >spend a cent on macho technology. Let's see... Ariane 5: one crygoenic core and two big solid boosters. Delta IV: one cryogenic core and zero to three medium sized solid boosters, or three cryogenic cores Atlas 5: one kerosene core and zero to five large solid boosters, or three kerosene cores Yeah, big difference in technology there! In fact, since both of the US competitors can be launched without using solid boosters, a strong argument can be made that they are both superior to Ariane 5. By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? Brian > >There is one point which a lot of contributors has touched on, the fact > >that NASA will use inferior technology just because its American. I an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > US competitors can be launched without using solid boosters, a strong > argument can be made that they are both superior to Ariane 5. If they were superior, wouldn't they be flying at least as often as Ariane 5? So far this year, Ariane 5 has flown four missions, with a fifth planned, carrying more tonnage to GTO than any other launcher (including Proton or Zenit). Atlas 5 has flown only twice. Delta 4 has flown not at all, and won't fly this year or for the forseeable future until the Boeing machinists strike is settled. While Arianespace performed four launches, Boeing pampered a Delta 4 that stood on its Cape Canaveral launch pad for nearly a year, and still stands. The busiest U.S. launcher this year, Delta 2, only flew *three* times. Six other non-U.S. launch vehicles flew more often. All U.S. launchers combined have only flown 12 times this year - fewer launches than Russia's two busiest launchers handled together. No more U.S. launches are planned for the remainer of 2005, except for a possible SpaceX Falcon attempt. With declining launch totals, with NASA unable to resolve shuttle's problems, with government satellite programs running billions over budget and years behind schedule (threatening even basic hurricane coverage), and with Congress likely unable to find money to fund a timely shuttle replacement, U.S. space fortunes seem to be on the decline, and the space launch numbers reflected that. Europe, on the other hand, has seen Ariane 5 through its troubles so that, with the retirement of Titan 4, Ariane 5 ECA is currently the world's heaviest lifter in routine operation. - Ed Kyle >> Yeah, big difference in technology there! In fact, since both of the >> US competitors can be launched without using solid boosters, a strong >> argument can be made that they are both superior to Ariane 5. > >If they were superior, wouldn't they be flying at least as >often as Ariane 5? No, you're confusing marketing with technology. Europe has a much more effective customer relations / marketing operation for Ariane 5. This is in part because Arianespace is tasked with trying to earn back the money invested in it (which it almost certainly never will), whereas Boeing isn't even trying anymore and ILS only bothers to sell Atlases when there are no Protons available in the appropriate timeframe. Brian > >> Yeah, big difference in technology there! In fact, since both of the > >> US competitors can be launched without using solid boosters, a strong [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Boeing isn't even trying anymore and ILS only bothers to sell Atlases > when there are no Protons available in the appropriate timeframe. If they cannot compete, than how are Delta 4 and Atlas 5 superior to Ariane 5? Could it be that European technology has allowed Ariane to be competitive? Technology-wise, Ariane 5's Vulcain 2 main engine has higher specific impulse than either RD-180 or RS-68. The upgraded Vinci upper stage engine that Europe has developed is more efficient than any engine ever produced in the U.S.. Ariane 5 ECA can haul more payload than any Atlas 5 version and can almost match the payload of the much more expensive Delta 4 Heavy. Ariane 5 ECB would beat Delta 4 Heavy. Ariane 5's solid rocket boosters are, since the shutdown of Titan 4B production, now have the highest specific impulse of any large solid rocket motor. Ariane 5's payload fairing is so good that Lockheed Martin uses it, for all intents and purposes, for Atlas 5. With these technologies, Europe has developed a launcher that hauls more for less, which is why it sells so many launches. Marketing and customer relations are nice, but the only things that really matter in the worldwide comsat market are price and reliability - and Proton, Zenit, Ariane, Atlas, Delta, etc, all have roughly the same reliability. - Ed Kyle >Technology-wise, Ariane 5's Vulcain 2 main engine has >higher specific impulse than either RD-180 or RS-68. Comparing Vulcain 2 to the RD-180 is a bit silly, since they use different fuels -- if ESA had come up with a *kerosene* engine with higher Isp than the RD-180, *that* would be impressive, but doing it with hydrogen is hardly a major accomplishment. Similarly, beating the Isp of the RS-68 is no big trick, since the RS-68 is blatantly optimized as a first-stage engine, with a low expansion ratio for efficient operation at sea level. The Vulcain family, like the SSME, has to operate at sea level but isn't required to be efficient there, since solid boosters handle most of the first-stage chores. The best US comparison for the Vulcain family is the J-2, which has roughly the same size and the same role. And the Vulcains are better than the J-2 -- not enormously, but significantly. Which isn't a huge surprise given a more mature technology. Comparing the Vulcains' Isps against those of the SSME or the RL10 shows them in a less favorable light. But then, they had different priorities. >The upgraded Vinci upper stage engine that Europe has developed >is more efficient than any engine ever produced in the U.S. Unless I've missed something, Vinci is far from developed, with low-key work proceeding on an ill-defined schedule. Ariane 5 ECA's upper-stage engine is the HM7B, developed in the 1970s for Ariane 1. (ESA actually would have liked to buy RL10s for the Ariane 1/2/3/4 top stage, but the US refused to sell, so ESA had to develop its own.) >...Ariane 5's solid rocket boosters are, >since the shutdown of Titan 4B production, now have the >highest specific impulse of any large solid rocket motor. The ones on the H-IIA are slightly better, actually, although not as big as the Ariane 5 or Shuttle SRBs. >Ariane 5's payload fairing is so good that Lockheed Martin >uses it, for all intents and purposes, for Atlas 5. This wasn't a question of it being better than what LM themselves could do, as of it being a perfectly good fairing and already in production, so buying a variant of it from Contraves was the easiest way to give Atlas V a 5-meter fairing option. (LM builds its own 4m fairings.) >With these technologies, Europe has developed a launcher >that hauls more for less, which is why it sells so many >launches. Marketing and customer relations are nice, but >the only things that really matter in the worldwide comsat >market are price and reliability... No, there are several other things that matter, like GTO inclination (where Ariane has an advantage because of its near-equatorial launch site, and Proton in particular is at a disadvantage) and financing (Arianespace has a large and active financial subsidiary). >Proton, Zenit, Ariane, >Atlas, Delta, etc, all have roughly the same reliability. Basically true, although Ariane 5 got off to a somewhat rocky start. (Its initial price was also a problem, because it turned out to be a bit undersized, and couldn't accommodate two full-sized comsats as originally intended. That has been more-or-less fixed with the recent upgrades.) Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net > Unless I've missed something, Vinci is far from developed, with low-key > work proceeding on an ill-defined schedule. Ariane 5 ECA's upper-stage > engine is the HM7B, developed in the 1970s for Ariane 1. (ESA actually > would have liked to buy RL10s for the Ariane 1/2/3/4 top stage, but the US > refused to sell, so ESA had to develop its own.) You haven't missed a thing. Vinci is still being developed on a fairly low key, but there is currently no plan to put it on Ariane V. The ECB version is currently on hold. Mostly, it's a question of economics ( and not having budget while developping Vega ). Beside, IIRC, even ECB would have had a slightly lower GTO payload than Delta IV H, though for a much lower ( projected ) price. Maybe it will be revived in a couple weeks, but I doubt it. If you want a trully powerfull european launcher, you should see some of the old Snecma proposals. One of those had 5 Vulcains as first stage engines and one as second stage engine. The mockup is still in their museum ( it's also their corporate wetdream, as it would let them sell 6 engines per launch instead of just one ). As for the US refusing to sell for Ariane I, given Symphonie, that doesn't surprise me at all. It certainly was the US policy at the time to oppose independent european space capability. > Beside, IIRC, even ECB would have had a > slightly lower GTO payload than Delta IV H, though for a much lower ( > projected ) price. It depends on how you compare capabilities. ECB would haul 12 tonnes to GTO from Kourou, which gives a transfer orbit about 1500 m/s short of GSO. Delta 4 Heavy can boost more than 12 tonnes to GTO from Canaveral, but this is to a transfer orbit with a higher inclination than Kourou that leaves the payload about 1800 m/s short of GSO. Delta 4 Heavy can only boost 10.75 tonnes to an Ariane 5 equivalent transfer orbit. - Ed Kyle In sci.space.policy Henry Spencer <henry@spsystems.net> wrote: > >The upgraded Vinci upper stage engine that Europe has developed > >is more efficient than any engine ever produced in the U.S. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would have liked to buy RL10s for the Ariane 1/2/3/4 top stage, but the US > refused to sell, so ESA had to develop its own.) I'm not sure what HM-7B was developed for but it never flew on Ariane 1. Ariane 1 to Ariane 2: Viking 2/4 to Viking 2B/4B, HM7A to HM7B, Mage 1 to Mage 2 Ariane 2 to Ariane 3: Added solid boosters Ariane 3 to Ariane 4: drops 4th stage, majorly increases propellants, optionaly takes various combinations of boosters. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ >I'm not sure what HM-7B was developed for but it never flew on Ariane 1. >Ariane 1 to Ariane 2: Viking 2/4 to Viking 2B/4B, HM7A to HM7B... Alas, this too is wrong. :-) The Ariane 1 third-stage engine was the HM-7 (or HM7, or HM 7, and one source calls it an LM-7), with no A, and the change to HM-7B was for Ariane 4, not Ariane 2. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net > >With these technologies, Europe has developed a launcher > >that hauls more for less, which is why it sells so many [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and Proton in particular is at a disadvantage) and financing (Arianespace > has a large and active financial subsidiary). As I see it, the near-equatorial launch site and the financing are part of the price equation. - Ed Kyle On 27 Nov 2005 18:08:23 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> >> Yeah, big difference in technology there! In fact, since both of the >> >> US competitors can be launched without using solid boosters, a strong [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >superior to Ariane 5? Could it be that European technology >has allowed Ariane to be competitive? It seems unlikely. There are too many other factors--political, economic, choice of launch site, etc.-- to consider technology. On 27 Nov 2005 14:11:40 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> Yeah, big difference in technology there! In fact, since both of the >> US competitors can be launched without using solid boosters, a strong >> argument can be made that they are both superior to Ariane 5. > >If they were superior, wouldn't they be flying at least as >often as Ariane 5? I think that you (like our European friend) confuse "technology" with design and operations. Our technology is just fine. > On 27 Nov 2005 14:11:40 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" > <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I think that you (like our European friend) confuse "technology" with > design and operations. Our technology is just fine. If our space technology is not providing us with ready access to space, or with affordable defense or weather satellites, than it is not working. It is not fine. - Ed Kyle > If our space technology is not providing us with ready > access to space, or with affordable defense or > weather satellites, than it is not working. The *technology* is fine. The problem is financial and political. On 27 Nov 2005 14:26:54 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> On 27 Nov 2005 14:11:40 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" >> <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >weather satellites, than it is not working. It is not >fine. As I said, there's some confusion here about the meaning of the word "technology." Our designs (and probably our development processes as well) are terrible, but that's not a technology problem (in the sense that NASA defines it, anyway). > On 27 Nov 2005 14:26:54 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" > <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > well) are terrible, but that's not a technology problem (in the sense > that NASA defines it, anyway). By some definitions, technology includes "methods, materials, tools, and processes for solving a problem." By this definition, U.S. space "technology" is coming up short at the present time in a number of programs. - Ed Kyle >By some definitions, technology includes "methods, materials, >tools, and processes for solving a problem." By this definition, >U.S. space "technology" is coming up short at the present time >in a number of programs. Compared to what? Ariane 5 had a complete failure in Dec 02. Delta IV had a survivable (underperformance) failure in Dec 04. Zenit 3SL had a comparable failure in Jun 04. Japan's ADEOS-2 environmental satellite failed catastrophically in orbit in Nov 03. The US's comparable Terra (Dec 00), Aqua (May 02), and Aura (Jul 04) are all successfully operating in orbit. NPOESS is overbudget and behind schedule, but the ADEOS experience suggests this class of spacecraft is harder than it looks. And who else is building one to compare it to? Near as I can tell, no other country is even attempting to build an SBIRS-High equivalent. Brian > >By some definitions, technology includes "methods, materials, > >tools, and processes for solving a problem." By this definition, > >U.S. space "technology" is coming up short at the present time > >in a number of programs. > > Compared to what? Compared, for one thing, to its own past performance. In 1998, for example, U.S. launchers performed 36 flights, including 13 commercial satellite launches and five crewed shuttle missions. In 2005, U.S. launchers have only lifted off 12 times, with only one shuttle flight and one commercial comsat launch. Despite this dismal performance, U.S. space budgets have increased rather than decreased. The U.S. doesn't seem capable of doing what it was able to do just a few years ago. The engineers who support space shuttle no longer seem to know how to make it go - the three-year foam saga being evidence. There are fewer U.S. engineers today than there were then because there are fewer U.S. engineering jobs today - and because most U.S. companies have begun to treat engineers like cheap commodities rather than like people. Five of the U.S. launch systems in use in 1998 no longer exist. Their production lines have been dismantled, their workers furloughed, their launch sites mothballed. Three high-thrust booster liquid rocket engine systems and one up to date high- thrust solid rocket motor have been abandoned. And the satellite program disasters. And the looming shutdown of the only remaining U.S. human spaceflight capability with billions of unbudgeted dollars needed to build a replacement. And the loss of satellite market share. Etc. - Ed Kyle >> >By some definitions, technology includes "methods, materials, >> >tools, and processes for solving a problem." By this definition, >> >U.S. space "technology" is coming up short at the present time >> >in a number of programs. >> Compared to what? >Compared, for one thing, to its own past performance. In 1998, >for example, U.S. launchers performed 36 flights, including 13 >commercial satellite launches and five crewed shuttle missions. This, of course, is largely the result of market forces, not US technological know-how. There are more launch service providers. Worse, there are fewer satellites in need of launch (largely because the satellites - many US built - launched in the mid-1990s are still a long way from reaching the operational end-of-life.) Forecasts call for increased launch rates again toward the end of this decade. Ariane isn't exactly setting the world on fire this year, either, with only 4 launches, compared to the "inferior" US' 12 launches. There are more launch providers now than in 1998. The market has gained Proton and SeaLaunch, for example. Also, the small satellite market (which contributed 7 of 1998's US commercial launches and 28 of its satellites) utterly failed. This isn't a case of failed US technology, its a case of a superior technology (cell phones) defeating it. >In 2005, U.S. launchers have only lifted off 12 times, with only >one shuttle flight and one commercial comsat launch. Despite >this dismal performance, U.S. space budgets have increased >rather than decreased. In 2005, Ariane has launched only 8 major payloads on 4 flights, compared to 16 in 1998. Despite this dismal performance, Europe's space budget has increased. >Five of the U.S. launch systems in use in 1998 no longer exist. Isn't that kinda the point? Replacing several different vehicles with one (subsequently amended to two) launch vehicle family? Also, the US is on the verge of introducing its third new launch vehicle in just over three years (Atlas 5, Delta IV, and Falcon 1.) >Their production lines have been dismantled, their workers >furloughed, their launch sites mothballed. Three high-thrust >booster liquid rocket engine systems and one up to date high- >thrust solid rocket motor have been abandoned. Replaced by two new US liquid rocket engines (RS-68 and Merlin). The high-thrust solid (Athena) failed in the commercial marketplace, defeated by Pegasus/Taurus and, incredibly, Russia's rotten Rokot. >And the satellite program disasters. And the looming shutdown >of the only remaining U.S. human spaceflight capability with >billions of unbudgeted dollars needed to build a replacement. >And the loss of satellite market share. Etc. The loss of satellite market share is largely due to foolish US technology transfer policies. Brian > Ariane isn't exactly setting the world on fire this year, either, with > only 4 launches, compared to the "inferior" US' 12 launches. There are Now, have a look at what share of the Commercial market ( US institutionnal market doesn't count, it's a captive one ) Arianespace is launching to GEO, vs any purely US rocket. > more launch providers now than in 1998. The market has gained Proton > and SeaLaunch, for example. Neither of which is US, if you want to go that way. > In 2005, Ariane has launched only 8 major payloads on 4 flights, > compared to 16 in 1998. Despite this dismal performance, Europe's > space budget has increased. Europe space budget, maybe. Mainly due to Gallileo and GMES. WHat has that to do with Ariane? > The loss of satellite market share is largely due to foolish US > technology transfer policies. Are you speaking about ITER, here? >> Ariane isn't exactly setting the world on fire this year, either, with >> only 4 launches, compared to the "inferior" US' 12 launches. There are > >Now, have a look at what share of the Commercial market ( US institutionnal >market doesn't count, it's a captive one ) Arianespace is launching to GEO, >vs any purely US rocket. Ariane's percentage has been higher than the US percentage since 1986 with the exception of 1996-98, when the Little LEO business was in full launch mode and Ariane had none of that market. And like the US percentage, Ariane's is declining. This should be, and probably is, worrisome to Europe. >> more launch providers now than in 1998. The market has gained Proton >> and SeaLaunch, for example. > >Neither of which is US, if you want to go that way. Only so far as the claim that US technology is inferior. Ariane 5 is a fine rocket, don't get me wrong, but I'm not at all convinced it is technologically superior to Delta IV (which is working out early bugs that pale in comparison to Ariane 5's early problems.) Europe is the market leader, but is is being severely pressured by SeaLaunch and ILS in particular, with the very real threat of Falcon 5-9 in the not too distant future. Falcon 1, if successful, could very well kill Europe's Vega before it even gets going and might even put an end to the dubious practice of launching satellites on Russia's forlorn Rokot. The US can support one of the EELVs with government contracts alone, and is even feeling pressure to give Falcon a fair share of government contracts. Europe cannot support Ariane 5 without gobs of commercial contracts, and it is finding it harder and harder to keep those contracts. The US has already accepted that it is losing money on space launch and has decided that is acceptable to assure independent space access. Europe is only different in that it is propping up one large launcher, instead of two. >> In 2005, Ariane has launched only 8 major payloads on 4 flights, >> compared to 16 in 1998. Despite this dismal performance, Europe's >> space budget has increased. > >Europe space budget, maybe. Mainly due to Gallileo and GMES. WHat has that >to do with Ariane? Nothing, I was using the same argument Ed used relating to US space budgets. Besides, Ariane's budget has gone up to cope with the V117 failure in getting ECA operational and the ECB development to stave off threats from ILS and SeaLaunch. >> The loss of satellite market share is largely due to foolish US >> technology transfer policies. >Are you speaking about ITER, here? ITAR, yes. It very nearly killed Hughes, which eventually was sold to Boeing. Our Congresscritters can be idiots, that much is certain. Brian >> Compared to what? > >Compared, for one thing, to its own past performance. In 1998, >for example, Oh, and I'm not sure comparing anything to 1998 is wise. Titan IV and Delta III both went kaboom at the Cape that year. Makes 2005 look pretty damned good, doesn't it? Certainly makes the D-IV-H underperformance pale in comparison. Brian NPOESS is > overbudget and behind schedule, but the ADEOS experience suggests this > class of spacecraft is harder than it looks. And who else is building > one to compare it to? EU, but only for the civilian side. > Near as I can tell, no other country is even attempting to build an > SBIRS-High equivalent. France, but only as a technology demonstrator, for now. ( i.e. way less capabilities ) On 28 Nov 2005 14:08:50 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> >If our space technology is not providing us with ready >> >access to space, or with affordable defense or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >U.S. space "technology" is coming up short at the present time >in a number of programs. Yes, by that definition, but as I said, it's not the one that NASA usually uses, and it's not a particularly useful one for this discussion, which is less about technology, than about broken institutions and markets. : > On 27 Nov 2005 14:26:54 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" : > <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] : > well) are terrible, but that's not a technology problem (in the sense : > that NASA defines it, anyway). : By some definitions, technology includes "methods, materials, : tools, and processes for solving a problem." By this definition, : U.S. space "technology" is coming up short at the present time : in a number of programs. Can you name a single unmanned space program that is coming up short? Don't confuse "manned spaceflight" with "all of NASA". Eric : - Ed Kyle > : > On 27 Nov 2005 14:26:54 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" > : > <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Can you name a single unmanned space program that is coming up short? > Don't confuse "manned spaceflight" with "all of NASA". Where do I begin? National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), Northrop, $1.5 billion over budget and behind schedule. Delays endanger U.S. weather coverage. Space Based Infrared System (SBRIS) High, Lockheed, Originally $4 billion, now $10.6 billion, program described as "dysfunctional". Delays endanger missile launch warning during a time of war. Wideband Gapfiller, Boeing, 22 months behind schedule, overrun. Delays endanger military communications. Future Imagery Architecture (FIA), Boeing, now Lockheed, a real gem - $10 billion already spent with little to show and project in crises 18-30 months behind schedule. Pentagon ripped bulk of effort from Boeing and reassigned to Lockheed in September 2005. Total project costs expected to exceed $25 billion dollars just for "Phase 1". Delays endanger monitoring of bases and resources of enemies and potential enemies of all types - during wartime. - Ed Kyle >National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite >System (NPOESS), Northrop, $1.5 billion over budget and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >monitoring of bases and resources of enemies and potential >enemies of all types - during wartime. These are all completely valid examples of technological challenges and major program mismanagement. But the accusation is that US technology is inferior. What non-US systems, existent or at a similar level of development, are superior to the above? Brian > >National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite > >System (NPOESS), Northrop, $1.5 billion over budget and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > systems, existent or at a similar level of development, are superior > to the above? It is not my assertion that US technology is inferior, nor do I believe it is superior, but I do think that the US technological edge that once existed in many fields has declined or vanished. I originally disagreed with a statement that said that the US EELVs were "clearly superior" to Ariane 5. They are not. They cost more and, with one variant's exception, haul less. - Ed Kyle : > : > On 27 Nov 2005 14:26:54 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle" : > : > <edkyle99@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] : > Can you name a single unmanned space program that is coming up short? : > Don't confuse "manned spaceflight" with "all of NASA". : Where do I begin? : National Polar Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite : System (NPOESS), Northrop, $1.5 billion over budget and : behind schedule. Delays endanger U.S. weather coverage. NOAA lead has resigned. Three agency project (DOD, NASA, NOAA), can you say "agency-clash"? How did they ever expect to make it work when each agency is unclear of their respective roles. THAT program WILL get back on track and be a savings in the long run, from seperate NASA, NOAA and DOD ventures. Consider yourself corrected! : Space Based Infrared System (SBRIS) High, Lockheed, : Originally $4 billion, now $10.6 billion, program described : as "dysfunctional". Delays endanger missile launch : warning during a time of war. : Wideband Gapfiller, Boeing, 22 months behind schedule, : overrun. Delays endanger military communications. Are we speaking about NASA or DOD here? : Future Imagery Architecture (FIA), Boeing, now Lockheed, : a real gem - $10 billion already spent with little to show and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : monitoring of bases and resources of enemies and potential : enemies of all types - during wartime. Ed, you point out DOD problems when the topic was NASA. Think JPL, GSFC, LaRC, Glenn, etc. Eric : - Ed Kyle > Ed, you point out DOD problems when the topic was NASA. Think JPL, GSFC, > LaRC, Glenn, etc. The topic was US space technology in general - at least it was when I entered the discussion a few days ago. NASA has a minority total of US space funding. NASA has its own problems, but the biggest failures are currently on the DoD side. - Ed Kyle : > Ed, you point out DOD problems when the topic was NASA. Think JPL, GSFC, : > LaRC, Glenn, etc. : The topic was US space technology in general - at : least it was when I entered the discussion a few days : ago. NASA has a minority total of US space funding. : NASA has its own problems, but the biggest failures : are currently on the DoD side. Which was my point! NASA gets 1/26th of what the DOD gets annually, yet folks like Paul Dietz wants to hold NASA's feet to the fire for every dime while they look the other way when the DOD wastes millions of dollars. Eric : : - Ed Kyle On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:37:05 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >: > Ed, you point out DOD problems when the topic was NASA. Think JPL, GSFC, >: > LaRC, Glenn, etc. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Which was my point! NASA gets 1/26th of what the DOD gets annually, Not for space. : On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:37:05 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: : >: > Ed, you point out DOD problems when the topic was NASA. Think JPL, GSFC, : >: > LaRC, Glenn, etc. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : > : >Which was my point! NASA gets 1/26th of what the DOD gets annually, : Not for space. How much of the 450+ billion $ of the DOD's budget is for space? I found it really interesting that NASA (as shown in a recent AWST) is building a CEV mockup out of plywood, etc. I would have thought that they could finally design something along the lines of the 777 or A380 and do it completely virtual. John > I found it really interesting that NASA (as shown in a recent AWST) is > building a CEV mockup out of plywood, etc. I would have thought that > they could finally design something along the lines of the 777 or A380 > and do it completely virtual. A mockup is still useful for human factors engineering, especially since there really aren't any similar designs to base it on. (OK, theres the Apollo CM to tell you how not to do it from a HF perspective.) >>>>> "Ami" == Ami Silberman <silber@mitre.org> writes: Ami> "John Stoffel" <john@stoffel.org> wrote in message Ami> news:87r78vme1w.fsf@smtp.charter.net... >> I found it really interesting that NASA (as shown in a recent AWST) is >> building a CEV mockup out of plywood, etc. I would have thought that >> they could finally design something along the lines of the 777 or A380 >> and do it completely virtual. Ami> A mockup is still useful for human factors engineering, Ami> especially since there really aren't any similar designs to base Ami> it on. (OK, theres the Apollo CM to tell you how not to do it Ami> from a HF perspective.) Umm... the 777 was mostly (I forget if completely) designed with CAD, and they used standard models of people, articulated in the proper ways, to check if access to components was ok. Why can't they do the same thing with the CEV? It's a much less complicated piece of machinery, no matter what NASA says. It's not going to have nearly as many propulsion issues, nor as many area (overhead crew rest areas, etc) to worry about. No it may be that payoff of doing an entire design in CAD isn't there yet, but since they're going to put it all into a CAD system eventually, building a mockup just means they have to accurately measure and then enter those changes into the CAD system anyway. John > Umm... the 777 was mostly (I forget if completely) designed with CAD, > and they used standard models of people, articulated in the proper > ways, to check if access to components was ok. I recall seeing stuff when I worked at Goodrich that pointed out how risky the 777 was, because it was supposed to be the first plane built entirely from electronic blueprints. Seeing the wire frame of the chubby mechanic crawling through some of the virtual spaces was neat. Almost every maintenance procedure was tested virtually by a realistically shaped mechanic before metal was cut. What helped was that there was one common set of blueprints, so that any change by anyone appeared in everyone's copy simultaneously. >I found it really interesting that NASA (as shown in a recent AWST) is >building a CEV mockup out of plywood, etc. I would have thought that >they could finally design something along the lines of the 777 or A380 >and do it completely virtual. That works halfway well only if you're building something very much like the last thing you built. When it comes to something new -- and there is *nobody* at NASA today who has ever built and flown a manned spacecraft of any kind -- building a physical model is still very valuable. A few years ago, when Pioneer Rocketplane tried building a model of a major subsystem of their then-current spaceplane design, they learned things they'd never noticed from all the CAD drawings. Their comment: "A model is worth a thousand pictures." Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >"A model is worth a thousand pictures." > Yup. Another example: many people are convinced that the Dyna Soar had far too small internal volume to carry four passengers. Yet, Boeing built mockups that showed exactly that was possible, including putting actual astronauts in actual Dyna Soar spacesuits and havign them sit in the mockup. It was tight, but it fit. And then there was OSC, who trusted CFD more than wind tunnel testing... There's another advantage: build a computer model, and people will look at it for a little bit during presentations. Build a scale model, and peopel will examine it at length. Build a full scale mockup, and you'll have Generals and Congresscritters crawling all around in it. Mockups sell better than CGI (when possible, of course). Signature"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller > There's another advantage: build a computer model, and people will > look at it for a little bit during presentations. Build a scale model, > and peopel will examine it at length. Build a full scale mockup, and > you'll have Generals and Congresscritters crawling all around in > it. Mockups sell better than CGI (when possible, of course). This might be true for 2d CGI, but if you give them a 3d virtual reality setup where they can virtually walk around the model it might look very different again. Didn't Dassault who recent built a new business jet with only CGI and no models or prototypes use such techniques? Perhaps this generation of Generals and congresscritters (and usenet posters) who grew up before the computer age might refuse to use such things, but that could change a lot in the next generation. -Andi > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >it might look very different again. > A physical mockup is cheaper, faster to build (often, not always) and doesn't require people to wear VR gear. Plus, it's tactile. Signature"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller > A physical mockup is cheaper, faster to build (often, not always) I'll bet this one took more than a week to construct: http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/pages/sst_side.php ...then they had to do it all over again: http://www.historylink.org/db_images/sst.jpg pat : > A physical mockup is cheaper, faster to build (often, not always) : I'll bet this one took more than a week to construct: : http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/pages/sst_side.php : ...then they had to do it all over again: : http://www.historylink.org/db_images/sst.jpg Whole new meaning to the term "space needle". Eric : pat : > : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : >it might look very different again. : > : A physical mockup is cheaper, faster to build (often, not always) and : doesn't require people to wear VR gear. Plus, it's tactile. Besides, you can always donate it to a museum after you've done your various presentations of it. Eric In sci.space.policy Andi Kleen <freitag@alancoxonachip.com> wrote: > > There's another advantage: build a computer model, and people will > > look at it for a little bit during presentations. Build a scale model, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Didn't Dassault who recent built a new business jet with only CGI and no > models or prototypes use such techniques? Not just those though, or really, not those as you essentially need to integrate your own and your suppliers CAD&CAE processes into the VR and keep the two consistent throughout the process (which Dussault appears to have accomplished). > Perhaps this generation of Generals and congresscritters (and usenet > posters) who grew up before the computer age might refuse to use such > things, but that could change a lot in the next generation. > > -Andi SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ Yes this is absolutly right. Something I must confess I hadn't thought of when I made my earlier postings. I said it was a wate of time traveling <=15,000km since the time of return is instantaneous (psychologically speaking). Yes if you have a robot maintaing Hubble you have all the CAD/CAM drawings at your immediate disposal. An astronaut will only see the outside of an assembly. If we do VR on the ground the maintainer will see the immediate outside (via the robot in space) but will also see everything on the inside via CAD. There will be a view of the outside juxtaposed with the inside so the relationship between the two can be seen. Another nail in the coffin for astronauts! >...Yes if you have a robot maintaing Hubble >you have all the CAD/CAM drawings at your immediate disposal. An >astronaut will only see the outside of an assembly. And yet, the astronaut will be seeing the hardware as it actually is, not as it is theoretically supposed to be... and there can be a significant difference between the two. (Such a difference almost ruined the Solar Max repair mission, for example.) And no, you can't yet duplicate the quality of the naked-eye view with cameras, even if you disregard transmission and time-delay issues. (No, a 0.1s delay is not necessarily negligible, and there are more delays than just the speed-of-light lags.) And that's the easy part. Duplicating the capabilities of the human hand is the hard part. People who preach about how easily robots can replace astronauts typically have not done any real robotics. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >People who preach about how easily robots can replace astronauts typically >have not done any real robotics. ...And Henry once again provides fodder for yet another .sig! OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > >People who preach about how easily robots can replace astronauts typically > >have not done any real robotics. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ > ]=====================================[ Mr. Space, i need to know some info on meteroids asap please. i have to turn in this project on monday. i would prefer if you would touch on subjects such as meteorites, meteroids and meteors something like that. peace >Mr. Space, i need to know some info on meteroids asap please. i have to > >turn in this project on monday. i would prefer if you would touch on >subjects such as meteorites, meteroids and meteors something like that. ...We're not here to do your school papers for you. Do your own research. Go to a library. Read a book. Google. Otherwise, you'll *never* learn. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ Mr. Space, i need to know some info on meteroids asap please. i have to turn in this project on monday. i would prefer if you would touch on subjects such as meteorites, meteroids and meteors something like that. peace Say goodnight, Dick... : Mr. Space, i need to know some info on meteroids asap please. i have to : turn in this project on monday. i would prefer if you would touch on : subjects such as meteorites, meteroids and meteors something like that. : peace > : On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:37:05 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, > : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How much of the 450+ billion $ of the DOD's budget is for space? I recall reading a news item the other day that said NASA's budget was about $16 billion annually while DoDs space budget was more like $19 billion per year (and that without a DoD human spaceflight program!). I suspect that DoD space has trumped NASA space during most of the space age. Even if you go back to the earliest years, the first really big U.S. space program wasn't Vanguard or Explorer or Pioneer or Mercury, it was Discover/Corona. - Ed Kyle >I suspect that DoD space has trumped NASA space during >most of the space age. Even if you go back to the earliest >years, the first really big U.S. space program wasn't Vanguard >or Explorer or Pioneer or Mercury, it was Discover/Corona. > And with the Soviets, their Zenit/Vostok reconnaissance satellite program. Pat "Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote: >I suspect that DoD space has trumped NASA space during >most of the space age. Even if you go back to the earliest >years, the first really big U.S. space program wasn't Vanguard >or Explorer or Pioneer or Mercury, it was Discover/Corona. "In the summer of 1957... the president asked the National Security Council (NSC) to review the military space programs of the United States to ensure that the level of investment and progress being made was adequate... Eisenhower learned that through fiscal year 1957 the nation had spent $11.8 billion in then year dollars on military space activities. 'The cost of continuing these programs from FY 1957 through FY 1963,' the NCS reported, 'would amount to approximately $36.1 billion, for a grand total of $47 billion.' " (S. Everett Gleason, Discussion at the 329th Meeting of the National Security Council, Wednesday, July 3, 1957, July 5, 1957, p. 2, NSC Records, DDE Presidential Papers, Eisenhower Library, Abilene, KS). IOW, at least twice Apollo's spending went into Redstone, Jupiter, Thor, Atlas, Titan, re-entry, avionics, tracking, etc. It was a huge _de facto_ subsidy for every space technology other than life support. >: On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:37:05 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, >: echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How much of the 450+ billion $ of the DOD's budget is for space? $22.5 billion in FY06, according to the Congressional Research Service. <http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRS/abstract.cfm?NLEid=23596> SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:31:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >: By some definitions, technology includes "methods, materials, >: tools, and processes for solving a problem." By this definition, >: U.S. space "technology" is coming up short at the present time >: in a number of programs. > >Can you name a single unmanned space program that is coming up short? NPOESS : On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:31:12 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: : >: By some definitions, technology includes "methods, materials, : >: tools, and processes for solving a problem." By this definition, : >: U.S. space "technology" is coming up short at the present time : >: in a number of programs. : > : >Can you name a single unmanned space program that is coming up short? : NPOESS I already responded to this to Ed. The irony here is that NASA is the one with NPP success that is going to bail NPOESS out. Mark my words! Rand, is EOS (NPOESS's predecessor) a success? EOS was NASA-only. Now the DOD and NOAA want to sort of piggyback onto NASA's EOS success, but weren't willing to allow NASA to lead the way. That is until now, when we see this budget overrun. At this point on the EOS program (i.e. 2-3 years before Terra launch), EOS experienced a similar budget overrun. But given the timely success of Aqua, ICESat and Aura, it negated the initial Terra delay. Heck, if EOS weren't a success, then why have NPOESS, as the follow-on, at all? NPOESS will succeed, with NPP paving the way. Also, do you know the difference between a 1553 bus and a 1394 bus. The latter is the first time it is being used. Apple's "firewire" technology. 1553 is older than you, professionaly, and no doubt just as slow. 1394 is basically a prototype. I think given the potential for a 400 times increse in throughput, makes using 1394 something we should do, but not hastily given that it is the first time. Lets make sure it works in a rad-harden environment. NPP is the first satellite to use 1394 technology. That is the facts! Eric > If they were superior, wouldn't they be flying at least as > often as Ariane 5? Depends on what you mean by "superior", of course. Technology has surprisingly little to do with it. > By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? I assume you're asking about ExoMars. Unfortunately we won't even know if it's aprouved for a couple weeks. If that was a dig about Beagle 2, I won't answer it, other than saying that PR stunts on a shoestring budget by University professors do not qualify as technology proof. If they had done testing OR if they had kept TM, we could at least hope to understand what went wrong. Instead, we can't even learn what caused this. That's the problem with being too 'success-oriented' ( now THAT's a catch-phrase I learned to hate ). >> By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? >If that was a dig about Beagle 2, I won't answer it, other than saying that >PR stunts on a shoestring budget Excuses, excuses. That seems to be all we heard in the aftermath of Beagle 2. Brian >On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:48:42 +0100, "frogéric haessig" ><fhaessig@free.fr> ribbited: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Excuses, excuses. That seems to be all we heard in the aftermath of >Beagle 2. ...And blame, and even there they can't get it straight. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >>> By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Excuses, excuses. That seems to be all we heard in the aftermath of > Beagle 2. Nope, Not excuse, Reasons. Excuses would be telling Beagle wasn't an European effort ( it wasn't, but THAT would be an excuse ). : >> By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? : >If that was a dig about Beagle 2, I won't answer it, other than saying that : >PR stunts on a shoestring budget : Excuses, excuses. That seems to be all we heard in the aftermath of : Beagle 2. What ever happened to Beagle 1? Perhaps Beagle 3 will be an actual dog? Or should I say "dawg"? Eric : Brian >: >> By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >What ever happened to Beagle 1? Perhaps Beagle 3 will be an actual dog? Or >should I say "dawg"? Wasn't it named for the Beagle Darwin sailed on? >If that was a dig about Beagle 2, I won't answer it, other than saying that >PR stunts on a shoestring budget by University professors do not qualify as >technology proof. > Didn't the Hundred Years War get started something like this? :-) Pat "Pat Flannery" <flanner@daktel.com> a écrit dans le message de news: > > Didn't the Hundred Years War get started something like this? :-) Not unless you take all of Sheaskpear's plays as factual data ;-) >By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? > Now that's just cruel...funny, but cruel. :-) Pat >>By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? >Now that's just cruel...funny, but cruel. :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist. All this "European technology is so superior!" nonsense just cried out for it. Brian >Sorry, I couldn't resist. All this "European technology is so >superior!" nonsense just cried out for it. ...If it were superior, they'd have their own moonbases up there, instead of letting Gerry Anderson fake it for them. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >superior!" nonsense just cried out for it. > Remember: No matter where you go, there they are. ;-) Pat >Remember: No matter where you go, there they are. ;-) ...More like there they *aren't*. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ : >>By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? : >Now that's just cruel...funny, but cruel. :-) : Sorry, I couldn't resist. All this "European technology is so : superior!" nonsense just cried out for it. And to think I used to have a beagle, too. That's the problem with naming spacecraft. Hubble, the great astronomer, had a telescope that needed a correction to a serious optical problem. HST has been working well since, even though it needs new gyros. Likewise, Galileo, named after the great Italian physicist, had the high-gain antenna problem; was only marginally successful as compared to what it could have been. I hate to think that spacecraft named after great people in a manner of honor would turn into actual disasters. Eric : Brian >That's the problem with naming spacecraft. Hubble, the great astronomer, >had a telescope that needed a correction to a serious optical problem. It also had oscillating solar arrays courtesy of ESA. Pat Il Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:19:39 -0600, Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> scrivesti: >>That's the problem with naming spacecraft. Hubble, the great astronomer, >>had a telescope that needed a correction to a serious optical problem. > >It also had oscillating solar arrays courtesy of ESA. ... as in the Mars Express the MARSIS booms, that caused so many troubles in an otherwise highly succesfull mission, is built by an US firm :) No one is perfect (nor it is, indeed, Astro Aerospace... California). I suppose the point is just how many money you got to spend. Money matters, nationality doesn't. Bye, >>That's the problem with naming spacecraft. Hubble, the great astronomer, >>had a telescope that needed a correction to a serious optical problem. > >It also had oscillating solar arrays courtesy of ESA. Weren't they constructed to NASA specification? :-) And is there any truth in the story that the problem was already known because of experience with the KH-11 satellite? ESA supplied the Faint Object Camera, which also worked to specification. Not naming something tells you much more - as with the International Space Station. > Weren't they constructed to NASA specification? :-) > And is there any truth in the story that the problem was already known > because of experience with the KH-11 satellite? There's a fun story about that that's recounted in the book "The Hubble Wars". The Hubble team wasn't allowed to get direct information from the NRO on how their reconsats were built, but the NRO team in the other half of the building could give the Hubble team some advice on how _not_ to do things without getting specific. NASA assumed the the reconsats used silica solar arrays, so they designed Hubble with them. The NRO reconsats used a more efficient type of array material so that the array could be of smaller size, and didn't tell NASA about it because it was classified. When the oscillating array problem arose, then the NRO team spilled the beans, and NASA was angry that they hadn't been filled in on this earlier as it would have saved them a lot of problems. I assume the smaller replacement arrays use the NRO design. Pat >> Weren't they constructed to NASA specification? :-) >> And is there any truth in the story that the problem was already >>known because of experience with the KH-11 satellite? > >There's a fun story about that that's recounted in the book "The Hubble Wars". Yet another book I should read ;-) Thanks, Pat. >There's a fun story about that that's recounted in the book "The Hubble >Wars"... Careful here. The comment on that book, from folks who worked on Hubble at the time, was: "We've been trying to figure out what kind of drugs Eric was taking when he wrote 'Hubble Wars'. The book is so full of errors that nothing he writes is credible." Learning about Hubble from it is like learning about Apollo from "Moon Shot" or "Angle of Attack". Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >>Wars"... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >like learning about Apollo from "Moon Shot" or "Angle of Attack". > Well, the book was anything but flattering regarding the program and a lot of the people and agencies who worked on it, so it's not surprising that it would create some controversy among the members of the program. I don't have a copy of it, but it would be interesting to see a list of the errors in it. One thing that the book did state was that the whole concept of the HST may have been fundamentally flawed, and that a few far lower priced space telescopes each optimized for a particular use could have done everything Hubble can do and more at a lower overall cost. The concept of the big space telescope, like the big space station, goes way back to the fifties and maybe should have been rethought rather than built ASAP. When the Space shuttle was in its design phase, you'd always see paintings of it putting the giant space telescope into orbit, and the two seemed inseparable parts of the same project. IIRC, the original plan was to have the Shuttle capable of bringing Hubble back down to Earth for repair and improvements every few years. What ever happened to that idea? They could have replaced the misground mirror and the shedding insulation covering. Pat >>Careful here. The comment on that book, from folks who worked on Hubble >>at the time, was: "We've been trying to figure out what kind of drugs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >lot of the people and agencies who worked on it, so it's not surprising >that it would create some controversy among the members of the program. That's not the way I read their comments -- they're saying he's got facts wrong, not just interpretations. E.g., his claim that the GHRS instrument was useless after the first repair mission is verifiably nonsense. >One thing that the book did state was that the whole concept of the HST >may have been fundamentally flawed, and that a few far lower priced >space telescopes each optimized for a particular use could have done >everything Hubble can do and more at a lower overall cost. I suspect that depends a whole lot on how you interpret "everything". You just can't do things like the various Hubble Deep Field efforts, or more recently its observations of Pluto's second and third moons, without a big mirror. But when a scientist says "everything", all too often that really means "everything that interests me". Freeman Dyson commented some years ago that big space astronomy projects tend to suffer severely from their prolonged gestation periods, to the point that the problems they address are often fading in importance by the time they fly. But that's less true for a general-purpose observatory like Hubble than for more specialized missions... as witness the stink when O'Keefe tried to kill the next servicing flight. The astronomers collectively (as opposed to individually) generally have their heads screwed on right about this: their periodic priority-setting exercises consistently come out in favor of a mixture of big and small efforts, because while the small ones tend to be more cost-effective, there are important questions that small efforts just cannot answer. >IIRC, the original plan was to have the Shuttle capable of bringing >Hubble back down to Earth for repair and improvements every few years. >What ever happened to that idea? They could have replaced the misground >mirror and the shedding insulation covering. It would have been a nice idea, but Hubble was never really built for it. There were concerns about the robustness of some of the structure, big concerns about contamination of the mirrors, and grave concerns that NASA would fail to find the money for a full refurbishment and relaunch. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >It would have been a nice idea, but Hubble was never really built for it. >There were concerns about the robustness of some of the structure, big >concerns about contamination of the mirrors, and grave concerns that NASA >would fail to find the money for a full refurbishment and relaunch. The original descriptions of it always mentioned that aspect of the design: http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/hubble/ "When originally planned in 1979, the Large Space Telescope program called for return to Earth, refurbishment, and relaunch every 5 years, with on-orbit servicing every 2.5 years. Hardware lifetime and reliability requirements were based on that 2.5-year interval between servicing missions. In 1985, contamination and structural loading concerns associated with return to Earth aboard the shuttle eliminated the concept of ground return from the program. NASA decided that on-orbit servicing might be adequate to maintain HST for its 15-year design life. A three year cycle of on-orbit servicing was adopted." IIRC, one problem with the return to Earth concept was that the Shuttle would be awfully heavy during landing, and that made it possibly unsafe. The other problem is of course that any repairs would now take two dedicated Shuttle flights to accomplish, unless the recovery mission does something else before it picks up the Hubble for return. Pat >IIRC, one problem with the return to Earth concept was that the Shuttle >would be awfully heavy during landing, and that made it possibly unsafe. No, Hubble weighs about the same as Spacelab. All of the Spacelab/EDO missions came home significantly heavier than a Hubble return would. Brian > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >missions came home significantly heavier than a Hubble return would. > How much did the gear to stow it in the cargo bay weigh? This says weight is a problem for landing: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050316_hubble_fate.html <>"Why not have a shuttle crew pluck the observatory from orbit and fly it back to terra firma? Due to the repeated Hubble makeovers, major disassembly work in space would be required to tuck the telescope safely inside a shuttle's cargo bay. Moreover, landing a shuttle with all that Hubble weight onboard is deemed too risky." Pat : > : > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : >missions came home significantly heavier than a Hubble return would. : > : How much did the gear to stow it in the cargo bay weigh? : This says weight is a problem for landing: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : bay. Moreover, landing a shuttle with all that Hubble weight onboard is : deemed too risky." Perhaps it's more an issue with weight distribution in the shuttle cargo bay? Spacelab, being modular and on pallets, was built to stay in the shuttle at all times. What went up came down in pretty much the same configuration. It wouldn't make sense to make HST more shuttle-bay oriented vs. better at being an orbital LEO satellite. Perhaps there are tradeoffs that favor one over the other, and weight distribution is one of them? Eric : Pat >>No, Hubble weighs about the same as Spacelab. All of the Spacelab/EDO >>missions came home significantly heavier than a Hubble return would. >How much did the gear to stow it in the cargo bay weigh? There wasn't any. Hubble hung from the payload bay sills. Here's the STS-31 payload weights... PAYLOAD AND VEHICLE WEIGHTS Vehicle/Payload Weight (lbs) Orbiter Discovery Empty 151,314 Remote Manipulator System (payload bay) 858 Hubble Space Telescope (payload bay) 23,981 Ascent Particle Monitor (payload bay) 47 IMAX system (payload bay) 374 DSO 77 DTO 289 HST middeck equipment 127 IMAX (middeck) 271 Investigation into Polymer Membrane Processing (IPMP) 17 Ion Arc (Student Experiment) 54 Protein Crystal Growth (PCG) 85 Radiation Monitoring Experiment (RME) 7 Orbiter and Cargo at main engine cutoff 259,229 Total Vehicle at SRB Ignition 4,516,325 Orbiter Landing Weight 189,477 So with Hubble in the payload bay, Discovery then would have weighed 213,458 lbs. at landing. Here is a list of the heaviest Shuttle landings Columbia on STS-90... 231,343 lbs. Columbia on STS-94... 230,515 lbs. Columbia on STS-73... 230,469 lbs. Columbia on STS-83... 230,276 lbs. Columbia on STS-87... 230,110 lbs Columbia on STS-58... 229,368 lbs. Columbia on STS-65... 229,307 lbs. Columbia on STS-75... 229,031 lbs. (TSS, USMP) Columbia on STS-78... 228,545 lbs Columbia on STS-32... 228,335 lbs. (LDEF) Columbia on STS-62... 228,250 lbs. (USMP) Discovery on STS-95... 227,783 lbs. (Spacehab) Columbia on STS-80... 227, 383 lbs Columbia on STS-55... 227,209 lbs.. Discovery on STS-91... 226,017 lbs. (Spacehab) Endeavour on STS-99... 225,669 lbs. (SRTM) Bringing home Hubble won't even make the Top 10 heaviest landings. >This says weight is a problem for landing: >http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050316_hubble_fate.html >Due to the repeated Hubble makeovers, major disassembly work in space >would be required to tuck the telescope safely inside a shuttle's cargo >bay. That much is true. The new solar arrays will have to come off. >Moreover, landing a shuttle with all that Hubble weight onboard is >deemed too risky." Good ol' Space.com. Never let facts get in the way of a juicy story! Brian >[...] >Bringing home Hubble won't even make the Top 10 heaviest landings. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That much is true. The new solar arrays will have to come off. But what about HST's *SIZE* (especially length), even with removal of solar panels, and mounting necessities caused by HST's center of gravity? Wasn't there an issue, that only the two 1st.generation shuttles Columbia and Challenger would have been able to do this, because of these Shuttle's airlock, that was located in the middeck, while being in the payload bay on the three remaining newer shuttles? Enlighten me :-) cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) Signature"Abusus non tollit usum" - Latin: Abuse is no argument against proper use. mailto: heinrich@zili.de http://zili.de That's not the way to do it. The way to do it is to maintain Hubble IN SPACE. I am proposing the immediate deployment of a set of fairly antropomorphic (they will have grips with USB sockets for hands and feet, into which tools and sensors of various types can be placed. Launch them, with full toolset, from Ariane and leave then up. Don't attempt to return them to Earth. Initially use VR. Then develop limited AI (a fairly simple dynaminal package) for more distant maintainance. >they will have grips with USB sockets for hands and >feet, into which tools and sensors of various types can be placed. ...Apparently, you haven't worked with USB ports & sockets long enough to know just how f.cking fragile they are, have you? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ : That's not the way to do it. The way to do it is to maintain Hubble IN : SPACE. I am proposing the immediate deployment of a set of fairly : antropomorphic (they will have grips with USB sockets for hands and : feet, into which tools and sensors of various types can be placed. : Launch them, with full toolset, from Ariane and leave then up. Don't : attempt to return them to Earth. Initially use VR. : Then develop limited AI (a fairly simple dynaminal package) for more : distant maintainance. Who will repair the robots when the robots fail? Actually, I was thinking that if the Galileo probe to Jupiter had some sort of on-board "spider" that could have crawled out to the high-gain antenna and gave it a good whack, it might have been able to deploy it for use rather than be stuck the whole mission and for us to have to rely on low rate data. Anyway, telerobots are better than nothing I suppose. Eric >...Actually, I was thinking >that if the Galileo probe to Jupiter had some sort of on-board "spider" >that could have crawled out to the high-gain antenna and gave it a good >whack, it might have been able to deploy it for use rather than be stuck >the whole mission and for us to have to rely on low rate data. This sort of deployment problem has happened just often enough -- with commercial comsats as well as Galileo -- that there has been some interest in such ideas. To date, the technology is not really good enough to make the concept appealing: you could probably build something light enough and mobile enough if all it had to do was *look*, but if you want it to be able to intervene, that makes the problem rather harder. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net : >...Actually, I was thinking : >that if the Galileo probe to Jupiter had some sort of on-board "spider" : >that could have crawled out to the high-gain antenna and gave it a good : >whack, it might have been able to deploy it for use rather than be stuck : >the whole mission and for us to have to rely on low rate data. : This sort of deployment problem has happened just often enough -- with : commercial comsats as well as Galileo -- that there has been some interest : in such ideas. To date, the technology is not really good enough to make : the concept appealing: you could probably build something light enough : and mobile enough if all it had to do was *look*, but if you want it to be : able to intervene, that makes the problem rather harder. Wasn't there talk about using telerobotics on HST? Practice first on ISS to verify, and then actually do it? Whatever became of this? It was a topic after O'Keefe stated no more HST shuttle missions. And so far I have heard nothing more about it, from ISS or anywhere. Eric >Wasn't there talk about using telerobotics on HST? Practice first on ISS >to verify, and then actually do it? Whatever became of this? It was a >topic after O'Keefe stated no more HST shuttle missions... I don't remember ISS being included in the plan, but that aside, yes, MDA (makers of the shuttle and station arms) got some serious funding to investigate the idea, and came up with a proposal to do it. However, it was looking very expensive (up in the billion-dollar range), the schedule was distinctly tight, and an outside assessment said that the probability of success on the first try seemed poor. If memory serves, it was Griffin who killed it, deciding essentially that a shuttle repair visit remained a reasonable idea but a robot repair was too expensive and too iffy. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net You need a pair. After a certain point you chuck. I talked about the instantaneous distance of 15,000km. This assumes a notional clock speed of 10Hz in the brain. I know, I know it does not work like a computer. I still think of 15,000km as being a clock pulse though. If you are on your way to Jupiter you need some form of intelligence. Jupiter return is up to an hour. This means that the system must be capable of doing roughly an hours work without any intervention. Quite possible but a distinctive jump on simple VR. Anyway this is the direction in which we should be moving. >That's not the way to do it. The way to do it is to maintain Hubble IN >SPACE. I am proposing the immediate deployment of a set of fairly >antropomorphic (they will have grips with USB sockets for hands and >feet, into which tools and sensors of various types can be placed. >Launch them, with full toolset, from Ariane and leave then up... Note that the Goddard/MDA proposal for a robotic Hubble repair was (correctly) assessed as being extremely expensive and having a rather low probability of success. And that was for a well-defined set of tasks, known in advance, with hardware and software built by the folks with more space-robotics experience than anyone else in the world. The "fairly anthropomorphic" manipulators that you seem to think are ready for "immediate deployment" are in fact an advanced research problem which is not particularly close to being solved. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net : >That's not the way to do it. The way to do it is to maintain Hubble IN : >SPACE. I am proposing the immediate deployment of a set of fairly : >antropomorphic (they will have grips with USB sockets for hands and : >feet, into which tools and sensors of various types can be placed. : >Launch them, with full toolset, from Ariane and leave then up... : Note that the Goddard/MDA proposal for a robotic Hubble repair was : (correctly) assessed as being extremely expensive and having a rather low : probability of success. And that was for a well-defined set of tasks, : known in advance, with hardware and software built by the folks with more : space-robotics experience than anyone else in the world. But does that mean give up on it? Everyone talks about what an albatross or White Elephant the ISS is. What about using it a practice site for telerobotics? Replacement for Spacelab? : The "fairly anthropomorphic" manipulators that you seem to think are ready : for "immediate deployment" are in fact an advanced research problem which : is not particularly close to being solved. But is the research even ongoing? Eric >: The "fairly anthropomorphic" manipulators that you seem to think are ready >: for "immediate deployment" are in fact an advanced research problem which >: is not particularly close to being solved. > >But is the research even ongoing? A little bit, yes. Not in the space-robotics community, but in the robotics world in general, there is some work on such things. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net : >: The "fairly anthropomorphic" manipulators that you seem to think are ready : >: for "immediate deployment" are in fact an advanced research problem which : >: is not particularly close to being solved. : > : >But is the research even ongoing? : A little bit, yes. Not in the space-robotics community, but in the : robotics world in general, there is some work on such things. I guess we'll have to just wait and see what emerges from robotics to see any applications in space. Eric > That's not the way to do it. The way to do it is to maintain Hubble IN > SPACE. I am proposing the immediate deployment of a set of fairly > antropomorphic > Then develop limited AI (a fairly simple dynaminal package) for more > distant maintainance. Call us when you have it *ready to go*. Note that you *will not* get any money to develop it, but I suppose NASA might buy it when it's been demonstrated. On the other hand, there's no reason not to go ahead and use the existing anthropomorphic manipulators NASA has been using for years. >On the other hand, there's no reason not to go ahead and use the existing >anthropomorphic manipulators NASA has been using for years. They are rather expensive and need bringing back. A robot only needs electricity to work. Astronauts need elaborate life support systems. > >On the other hand, there's no reason not to go ahead and use the existing >>anthropomorphic manipulators NASA has been using for years. > > They are rather expensive and need bringing back. A robot only needs > electricity to work. Astronauts need elaborate life support systems. A robot also needs maintainance, adjustment, and a clement environment. Building robots for vacumn environments is non-trivial. >A robot also needs maintainance, adjustment, and a clement environment. >Building robots for vacumn environments is non-trivial. Still a lot cheaper than a shuttle flight. If you sent one up as a part load on Ariane you could simply chuch it when it had done its job. It would still work out at a tiny fraction of the cost. How come Cassini has gone past Venus twice, gone to Jupiter and then on to Saturn and is STILL doing great scientific work? > >A robot also needs maintainance, adjustment, and a clement environment. >>Building robots for vacumn environments is non-trivial. > > Still a lot cheaper than a shuttle flight. If you sent one up as a part > load on Ariane you could simply chuch it when it had done its job. It > would still work out at a tiny fraction of the cost. Is it? When you factor in development costs? On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:30:35 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> >A robot also needs maintainance, adjustment, and a clement environment. >>>Building robots for vacumn environments is non-trivial. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Is it? When you factor in development costs? Not when it came to Hubble. But don't confuse him with reality. > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:30:35 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami > Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not when it came to Hubble. But don't confuse him with reality. Exactly. And if you make a general purpose design (capable of performing a wide of tasks), the overall development cost will be higher. The question, though, is whether the overall cost per role will be higher. On 7 Dec 2005 08:54:53 -0800, in a place far, far away, ianparker2@gmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>A robot also needs maintainance, adjustment, and a clement environment. >>Building robots for vacumn environments is non-trivial. > >Still a lot cheaper than a shuttle flight. There are many potential ways of getting humans into space than on a Shuttle flight. On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:12:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>>A robot also needs maintainance, adjustment, and a clement environment. >>>Building robots for vacumn environments is non-trivial. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >There are many potential ways of getting humans into space than on a >Shuttle flight. That should read "...into space at much less cost than on a Shuttle flight." The point is that it's foolish to use Shuttle as a standard for the intrinsic cost of human spaceflight. Yet many persist in doing so. I guess it's easier than thinking. > On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:12:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, > simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > intrinsic cost of human spaceflight. Yet many persist in doing so. I > guess it's easier than thinking. And when those other ways, (or also ways which do not involve government paid for capsules on top of rockets), demonstrate they are cheaper and more reliable then I am sure you'll get people to think differently. The sum total of orbited humans by alternative methods at this point in time is extremely low and the confirmed timelines for orbited humans under alternative methods are extremely vague. You can complain this isn't fair and that people are stupid, and you'd be right. Doesn't change anything though. Not even on Usenews. Dave : On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:12:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, : simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: : >>>A robot also needs maintainance, adjustment, and a clement environment. : >>>Building robots for vacumn environments is non-trivial. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : >There are many potential ways of getting humans into space than on a : >Shuttle flight. : That should read "...into space at much less cost than on a Shuttle : flight." : The point is that it's foolish to use Shuttle as a standard for the : intrinsic cost of human spaceflight. Yet many persist in doing so. I : guess it's easier than thinking. The problem is that no one is consistently going into space anymore, so your assessment lacks any evidence. I'd like to believe you, but what exists "right now" to back up your claim? Eric > How come Cassini has gone past Venus twice, gone to Jupiter and then on > to Saturn and is STILL doing great scientific work? Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators. My postings seem to have raised a stir. There have been a number of points made and it is difficult to decide who to tag onto! 1) Robotic capabilities are limited. At 15,000km and below you don't have robotics, you have VR. Communication is instantaneous in the human sense. If you were driving a F1 car 15,000km away a skilled racing driver would notice the delay (Assuming you could simulate accelerations), but for masintainance of Hubble etc. this will not matter. <=15,000km capabilities will be NO different. In fact a robot will have greater capability as there is no danger of running out of air. Controllers could work in shifts. 2) Development costs would make astronauts just as cheap. There are development costs it is true. We ought also to be thinking about where the technology is leading. Eventually we need Von Neumann machines. How do we get them? By following the robotic route where a replicator would represent an incremental development. 3) Cassini. Dis Cassini have a manipulator. No, but the telescope is a moving part and the electronics package had to survive the Jovian radiation belts. 4) Colonization. We need to do it. Yes I think we do - but not now. The only feasible way is the use of VN technology. If we want to tackle global warming we need a VN macine to get the tonnages there. The irony is, if you can tackle global warming, global roasting is only a few replications more. I am beginning to think we should colonize Venus before Mars. Without this technology it is a waste of time thinking about anywhere. > 4) Colonization. We need to do it. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > think we should colonize Venus before Mars. Without this technology it > is a waste of time thinking about anywhere. What nonsense. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' > My postings seem to have raised a stir. More like a good laugh. Nothing we haven't seen before. Now try answering the question I asked: Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators. >> My postings seem to have raised a stir. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is > performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators. It's been more than a week. Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or should I say, Stuffie? >> Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is >> performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators. >It's been more than a week. Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or >should I say, Stuffie? It was not specifically designed. However that is not the point I was making which was that automatic equipment can work well in a hostile environment. I mentioned that Cassini had moving pats. In a vacuum there is a question mark over bearings, moving surfaces and lubrication. Cassini answers questions. >> Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and >> reflown? Verifiable cites, please. >Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or should I say, Stuffie? The same number as the number of missions. The bottom line is of course $/Kg, the value for the Shuttle being twice that of Ariane. Proton and Long March are of course even cheaper but P/LM are only cheaper because of labor costs. Ariane is based comperable rates per hr and therefore we can make claims for it being a "better" system.. >>> Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is >>> performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >there is a question mark over bearings, moving surfaces and >lubrication. Cassini answers questions. But which moving parts are you referring to? For instance, the scan platform was removed - as a cost-saving feature, but it adds to reliability. The high gain antenna is a solid structure, so it wasn't even deployed in any way, >>> Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and >>> *is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It was not specifically designed. Then mentioning it was a red herring, intended to deceive. However that is not the point I was > making which was that automatic equipment can work well in a hostile > environment. Then you should have said that. *You* brought up anthropomorphic manipulators. Like Stuffie, you are trying to retroactively change the subject, rather than admit you were wrong. >>> Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and >>> reflown? Verifiable cites, please. > >>Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or should I say, Stuffie? > > The same number as the number of missions. So, then, are you saying that the *exact same* lower stage of Ariane has been used in every flight? Let's see a verifiable reference to the number of Ariane lower stages that have flown more than once. Otherwise, *once again*, Stuffie, you're trying to retroactively change your posts. The subject of the thread was reusability- if Ariane has not reused stages, then mentioning it was clearly deceptive. > Proton and Long March are of course even cheaper Have they reused stages as well? Not to my knowledge. Ariane as I said represents a level playing field. On the subject of Proton/Long March there is the question of competition based on low labor costs. These costs are certain to rise. > Not to my knowledge. Ariane as I said represents a level playing field. Once again, you are evading the question. You made a point that the Ariane lower stage could be reused. I asked you: >>> Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and >>> reflown? Verifiable cites, please. And you replied: > The same number as the number of missions. Are you saying that there is only one lower stage and it's being reused every time? Please provide a verifiable cite that shows that *any* Ariane lower stage has been reused. > On the subject of Proton/Long March I'll be happy to discuss them *after* you have provided a verifiable reference to the reuse of Ariane lower stages. >Proton and Long March are of course even cheaper but P/LM are only >cheaper because of labor costs. If you meant to say "low wages" -- the costs for *all* current space launch systems are totally dominated by labor costs -- that's not the whole story for Proton in particular. It would be cheaper even at Western wages, because fewer people are needed to build it and launch it. The Soviets invested heavily in setting up truly *operational* launch systems, with hardware optimized for easy manufacturing, factories set up for volume production with a minimum of hand labor(*), and mechanized launch facilities that can be run by small crews. (* A Proton goes from metal plate to finished rocket in 11 months, in a factory that works one shift five days a week. Western launchers tend to take 2-3 years with two or even three shifts at work. ) Proton *costs* would certainly go up if the crews were paid Western wages. It's not clear that Proton *prices* would go up, because they are quite blatantly set in reference to Western prices, rather than being based on actual Proton costs, and the profit margin appears to be large. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net In sci.space.policy ianparker2@gmail.com wrote: > My postings seem to have raised a stir. There have been a number of > points made and it is difficult to decide who to tag onto! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > different. In fact a robot will have greater capability as there is no > danger of running out of air. Controllers could work in shifts. This is unfortunately essentially untrue as far as modern technology goes. Its not that it is entirely impossible it just that claiming what you did is more or less the same as saying manned Mars misisons are off-the shelf. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ >1) Robotic capabilities are limited. >At 15,000km and below you don't have robotics, you have VR. You're nitpicking an issue of terminology -- "robotics" is also used to describe the whole range of possibilities, including teleoperation. >Communication is instantaneous in the human sense. If you were driving >a F1 car 15,000km away a skilled racing driver would notice the delay >(Assuming you could simulate accelerations), but for masintainance of >Hubble etc. this will not matter. <=15,000km capabilities will be NO >different. I think you'd be surprised at what even small delays can do to precision tasks. For today's very slow space robotics it truly doesn't matter much (when a talk I attended included a video clip of MDA's Hubble-repair testing, the speaker noted that it had been sped up to make it less boring!), but *you're* talking about a huge leap forward in capabilities, with human-like dexterity operating at human-like speeds. Bear in mind, also, that the actual distance covered by the signals can be quite a bit longer because of line-of-sight constraints and the need for relays. Also, as I've noted before, there are delays other than those imposed by speed of light. >3) Cassini. Dis Cassini have a manipulator. No, but the telescope is a >moving part... No it's not. Cassini's instruments are fixed to its frame; it has no scan platform to point them independently. Cassini doesn't quite have no moving parts, but it comes close. In any case, the complexity of operating things like manipulators comes not so much from the fact that they move, but from their interactions with a complex outside environment. That just doesn't happen on an orbiter mission like Cassini. >and the electronics package had to survive the Jovian radiation belts. Less than you might think -- Cassini deliberately made a fairly distant Jupiter encounter (closest approach about 10 million kilometers), to minimize radiation dose. In any case, this is a completely separate issue. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net > I think you'd be surprised at what even small delays can do to precision > tasks. Years ago, I was working on a software product that could run on multiple computers connected by a network. My experience from that product was that a mouse was usable if delays were kept to no more than 1/100 second, but unusable at 1/25 second. Later, I learned that the X- Windows people had determined that the total delays in mouse tracking had to be kept to no more than 50 milliseconds. Assuming that the only significant delay is the speed-of-light delays of radio, the maximum distance for teleoperation of a mouse is less than 10,000 miles, I.e., even in low Earth orbit, you can only track a mouse during part of its orbit. You can't track a mouse in geosynchronous orbit. Personally, I think tracking a mouse is only a semi-precision task... SignatureKevin Willoughby kevinwilloughby@acm.org.invalid In this country, we produce more students with university degrees in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen >I think you'd be surprised at what even small delays can do to precision >tasks. For today's very slow space robotics it truly doesn't matter much >(when a talk I attended included a video clip of MDA's Hubble-repair >testing, the speaker noted that it had been sped up to make it less >boring!), but *you're* talking about a huge leap forward in capabilities, >with human-like dexterity operating at human-like speeds. If you are driving along a highway you cannot react to a "new" situation in < 0.1sec. The case of the mouse is a case of how the human brain tracks. Tracking information is in fact a lot better than 0.1 sec. In fact you could probably operate a mouse with a known delay simply by displaying the mouse ahead of where it actually was. A modified transfer function in fact. >In any case, the complexity of operating things like manipulators comes >not so much from the fact that they move, but from their interactions with >a complex outside environment. That just doesn't happen on an orbiter >mission like Cassini. This is where the theory of transfer functions comes in. It is well known theory. A VR manipulator must give the user the correct transfer function feel. If you go one step up, and you command it to unscrew a nut/screw it back on with x Newton/m you are getting into true robotic research. I do not claim that everything is trivial, what I am claiming is that such research will lead to robots capable of operating some light hours away. It will lead to immediate tangible benefits here on earth. Nuclear rockets - NASA to its credit is doing research on fusion (He3-D) and also on antimatter (Athena). Fission provides for Nerva with a specific impulse of 9600 (about twice that of a cryogenic motor). Fission has pretty well been rejected for space propulsion. Helium 3 is a mirror image of Tritium and emits a proton rather than a neutron therby heating the plasma. Helium 3 requires twice the temperature of Tritium but once started will heat the plasma energetically with protons. ITER (Earthbound system) will give a self sustaining T-D reaction. Once done I suspect that lighter systems will be developed for space use. I don't know what would happen if you put He3, D and a small amount of antihydrogen into ITER. I reckon that once cooking D-He3 in ITER would be self sustaining. Fusion could be used and give high specific impulses right from the Earth's surface, unlike Nerva that needs a launch to LEO. Anyway I feel that robotics and nuclear propulsion are complimentary and not competitive. Manned space flight with chemical propulsion is competitive to both as NASA is draining its resources, and its VISION, to pay for it. Nothing resembling an answer to my question. Now try answering the question I asked: Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators. >Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is >performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators. ...Anyone else having ~Deja CT here? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >>Please provide verifiable evidence that Cassini was *designed for* and *is >>performing* work requiring anthropomorphic manipulators. > > ...Anyone else having ~Deja CT here? Bbo Hallre promised over two years ago to provide proof that, had NASA management had the meetings that he insisted the rules required, what happened to Columbia *would have* (as opposed to *might have*) been different. Note how he completely ignores his promises, as if that makes them go away. "ianparker2" has the reasoning skills of Bbo and the spelling of Stuffie. Perhaps they've bred, with Guth as midwife. >How come Cassini has gone past Venus twice, gone to Jupiter and then on >to Saturn and is STILL doing great scientific work? Because all it's doing is snapping pictures from afar. *That* is one thing that remote-controlled equipment does do pretty well. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >>On the other hand, there's no reason not to go ahead and use the existing >>anthropomorphic manipulators NASA has been using for years. > >They are rather expensive and need bringing back. A robot only needs >electricity to work. Astronauts need elaborate life support systems. A robot needs, at a minimum, electric power, temperature control (which may involve active heating or cooling or both), mechanical support (rails, a mounting point, etc.), and high-bandwidth communications. Moreover, even with all those things, it's not uncommon for it to fail -- note that Opportunity's instrument arm currently has a frozen shoulder joint, for unknown reasons -- unless it's maintained, which typically requires human hands. Lubrication is a particular problem area: the long-term behavior of lubricants in free fall is poorly understood, and the uncertainty gets much worse if the lubricant is exposed to vacuum. Finally, nobody has yet built a robot (even on Earth) that can do everything an astronaut can. Not even close. If you are willing to settle for rather limited capabilities and a limited and somewhat uncertain working life, it's true that robots don't need as much support as astronauts. You get what you pay for. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net > If you are willing to settle for rather limited capabilities and a limited > and somewhat uncertain working life, it's true that robots don't need as > much support as astronauts. You get what you pay for. Plus, astonaut trainees can be mass produced by a large and enthusiastic, unskilled labor force, that enjoys their work. That is probably the greatest argument for space colonization. http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://cosmic.lifeform.net >> If you are willing to settle for rather limited capabilities and a >> limited [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Plus, astonaut trainees can be mass produced by a large > and enthusiastic, unskilled labor force, that enjoys their work. No, infants can be mass produced. Astronaut trainees require, at the very minimum, twelve years of high school, four years of college, and several years of post-college education. Once they are astronauts, they've also cost somewhere on the order of a million dollars of training (and training support etc.) On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 16:28:40 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>> If you are willing to settle for rather limited capabilities and a >>> limited [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >minimum, twelve years of high school, four years of college, and several >years of post-college education. That doesn't have to be the case. NASA just has historically chosen to establish those as the criteria. On-orbit satellite repair could actually be a blue-collar job. It doesn't require a PhD. : On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 16:28:40 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami : Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in : such a way as to indicate that: : >>> If you are willing to settle for rather limited capabilities and a : >>> limited [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : >minimum, twelve years of high school, four years of college, and several : >years of post-college education. : That doesn't have to be the case. NASA just has historically chosen : to establish those as the criteria. On-orbit satellite repair could : actually be a blue-collar job. It doesn't require a PhD. Yep, fat guys with overalls named Bubba can do space repair. You don't have to look like John Glenn to go into space, you can look like Larry the Cable Guy. Eric > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 16:28:40 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami > Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to establish those as the criteria. On-orbit satellite repair could > actually be a blue-collar job. It doesn't require a PhD. But it would be a Blue-collar job which requires a hundred or more hours of training per each hour of actual on-orbit work. How much money (in training), does it take to become a master plumber or electrician? Or an airline pilot? On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:11:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>>No, infants can be mass produced. Astronaut trainees require, at the very >>>minimum, twelve years of high school, four years of college, and several [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >training), does it take to become a master plumber or electrician? Or an >airline pilot? It's still not that big a deal, compared to training an astronaut, at least the way that NASA does it now. > On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:11:07 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Ami > Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It's still not that big a deal, compared to training an astronaut, at > least the way that NASA does it now. True, but you can't ignore it entirely. > >> If you are willing to settle for rather limited capabilities and a > >> limited [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > somewhere on the order of a million dollars of training (and training > support etc.) Oh great, another f.cking credentialist. Yes, we need to spend another 100 billion so that four more steroid befuddled guys can satisfy their personal wet dream of walking on the moon. To hell with the self educated masses. More Americana from mediocre american idiots. http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://cosmic.lifeform.net > Yes, we need to spend another > 100 billion so that four more steroid befuddled guys can satisfy their > personal wet dream of walking on the moon. Who said I wanted to send NFL players or members of the AL/NL to the moon? Besides, their wet dreams seem to run more to driving away from the courthouse in their Ferrari with a "not guilty verdict". /dps > > Yes, we need to spend another > > 100 billion so that four more steroid befuddled guys can satisfy their > > personal wet dream of walking on the moon. > > Who said I wanted to send NFL players or members of the AL/NL to the > moon? Not me, I was responding to a completely idiotic remark by Ami S. > Besides, their wet dreams seem to run more to driving away from the > courthouse in their Ferrari with a "not guilty verdict". But their behavior doesn't cost the taxpayers billions, just hundreds of millions for tax leveraged stadiums, nor does it denigrate the freedom of thought and knowledge with useless and unnecessary honors and degrees, i.e. - NASA. All you have to do to see that is read the crap on spacetoday.net. NASA does not own space or science, it belongs to everybody. http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://cosmic.lifeform.net >> > Yes, we need to spend another >> > 100 billion so that four more steroid befuddled guys can satisfy their [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > http://cosmic.lifeform.org > http://cosmic.lifeform.net What was idiotic about my remark? I objected to the comment that astronaut trainees were "free" because they were just people. (It was couched in the old saw about why people are always cheaper than machines, they only require nine-months of unskilled labor etc.) That was the idiotic remark. I've seen it applied to soldiers (vs. their equipment), and it doesn't work there either. It costs money to raise someone to adult hood, and more money to train them. I've been enjoying watching the anime "Planetes", it is a Clarkian look at debris collection in space, and the SF is quite good. One problem I see with it, though, is that it seems like, in that future, being an EVA worker is treated as unskilled labor, which you learn on the job. The main character (or one of them, at least), seems to have had almost no training before going on the job. I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense. It may be a blue collar job in that world, but even blue collar workers are trained, and, in many cases, licensed. At the very least, space construction is akin to running heavy machinery in an adverse environment, not picking up trash by the side of the road. That takes training, and that takes money. > >> > Yes, we need to spend another > >> > 100 billion so that four more steroid befuddled guys can satisfy their [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > NASA does not own space or science, it belongs to everybody. > What was idiotic about my remark? It's a credentialist mantra. We live in a cosmon and a universe, that doesn't give a f.ck about your degrees and honors. > I objected to the comment that astronaut > trainees were "free" because they were just people. Who live on a planet, in space, thus qualifying them as astronauts. > (It was couched in the > old saw about why people are always cheaper than machines, they only require > nine-months of unskilled labor etc.) That was the idiotic remark. I've seen > it applied to soldiers (vs. their equipment), and it doesn't work there > either. It costs money to raise someone to adult hood, and more money to > train them. To be the astronauts that they already are. No wonder you can't seem to think for yourself. [more complete nonsense snipped] http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://cosmic.lifeform.net >> I objected to the comment that astronaut >> trainees were "free" because they were just people. > > Who live on a planet, in space, thus qualifying them as astronauts. .... > To be the astronauts that they already are. > > No wonder you can't seem to think for yourself. Well, the sort of astronaut that I am, where I am, can walk from my house to my car without having to do more than put on a coat. I can take my gloves off to perform fine manipualations, and if the plumbing or heating in my house breaks down, I can get a repairman over by the next day, and not even die. We're all constructors too, you know, since just about all of us have put something or other together, but that doesn't mean that we are qualified (without further training, and, in my case, a lot better physical shape) to do high construction (putting together the frames of tall buildings.) > >> I objected to the comment that astronaut > >> trainees were "free" because they were just people. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (without further training, and, in my case, a lot better physical shape) to > do high construction (putting together the frames of tall buildings.) Now try it yourself on a desert island in the Atlantic Ocean. Then think about trying it in the hot/cold vacuum of space. Believe me, it takes a hell of a lot more than just training. Especially if you want to come up with the right solution. http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://cosmic.lifeform.net >> Well, the sort of astronaut that I am, where I am, can walk from my house >> to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Especially if you want to come up with the right solution. I aggree with you. That was my point. And, to a large extent in the case of the Atlantic Ocean, and to a much larger extent in the case of space, I would need more than just the hardware to do it, I would also need the training. >I've been enjoying watching the anime "Planetes", it is a Clarkian look at >debris collection in space, and the SF is quite good. One problem I see with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >running heavy machinery in an adverse environment, not picking up trash by >the side of the road. That takes training, and that takes money. There's a story over 40 years old which says there will be a role for someone who is "just" a highly trained technician on a space station, rather than an astronaut or a scientist. It's "Tee Vee Man" by HA Hargreaves. I think it will be a very long time before we need unskilled or even semi-skilled labour in space, but will an O'Neill colony need cleaners, for instance? Like the characters in the Babylon 5 episode "A View from the Gallery". >>I've been enjoying watching the anime "Planetes", it is a Clarkian look at >>debris collection in space, and the SF is quite good. One problem I see [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > for instance? Like the characters in the Babylon 5 episode "A View from > the Gallery". Sure, they will probably need cleaners, but those cleaners will need to be able to conduct EVAs, including emergency procedures. No different, really, from the divers who clean underwater windows. (Except that usually those divers are pretty near the surface.) >Sure, they will probably need cleaners, but those cleaners will need to be >able to conduct EVAs, including emergency procedures. No different, really, >from the divers who clean underwater windows. (Except that usually those >divers are pretty near the surface.) Could I remind everyone that it was a British Scorpio (UNMANNED) that rescued the Russian submariners. Not divers on oxygen/helium. > >Sure, they will probably need cleaners, but those cleaners will need to > >be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Could I remind everyone that it was a British Scorpio (UNMANNED) that > rescued the Russian submariners. Not divers on oxygen/helium. Good point. I suspect that most extra-terrestrial window cleaning will be robotic until such a time as EVA becomes "routine". Once EVA is routine, and frequent, then it may be easier, simpler, and cheaper to have a human clean the windows, perhaps along with other minor maintainance. (My understanding is that, at some aquariums, the windows are cleaned by volunteers from local diving clubs who like the idea of being able to swim with sharks etc. without having to leave, say, Dallas. >> >> If you are willing to settle for rather limited capabilities and a >> >> limited [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > personal wet dream of walking on the moon. To hell with the self > educated masses. You're the one who claimed that astronaut trainees needed only to be born. Whether it is worth it to go back to the moon or not, or to assemble a space station or not, you can't neglect that there is a considerable cost to put humans there. And what do you propose, take a member of the self-educated masses (who, BTW, must have been raised by wolves and educated by reading discarded newspapers in order for his cost basis to be considered zero), stick him in a spacecraft, and send him to the moon? Even if you ran space exploration like a reality show, and got your ex-stripper, your ex-green beret, your soccer mom, and your gay accountant, each of them starts off with having cost someone a fair bit of change to raise, educate (however well or poorly) etc. Then, you will have the steep cost of training them. We're not, unfortunately, talking about the level of "learn to drive a big-rig in eighteen weeks", we're talking years of training and practice, including months of practice for specific missions. And do you really want to risk a 10-billion dollar program on the sorts of people who try out for reality shows? And finding capable people among the "self-educated masses" is probably harder than finding them among college graduates. They need to be able to be cool in crisises, to be trained observers (unless you want the "golly, what a purty rock" school of geology), in good physical health, and have a sufficient technological background to understand their crafts systems. This will be all the more important on a longer mission. (I'm not saying that every member of the crew needs all the competencies, except perhaps the "not panicking" one, but they should all be covered. From an economic point of view, as well, it makes a lot of sense to have strict requirements for being an astronaut (and fairly strict ones for being a mission specialist). It is a "buyers market", only a few percentage of the applicants make it past the initial screening. > >> >> If you are willing to settle for rather limited capabilities and a > >> >> limited [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > You're the one who claimed that astronaut trainees needed only to be born. That's the point. Hey, Earth is in SPACE! We're all astronauts. > Whether it is worth it to go back to the moon or not, or to assemble a space > station or not, you can't neglect that there is a considerable cost to put > humans there. Which is why there is no reason to go there right now. > And what do you propose, take a member of the self-educated > masses (who, BTW, must have been raised by wolves and educated by reading > discarded newspapers in order for his cost basis to be considered zero), > stick him in a spacecraft, and send him to the moon? No, I propose to send them to space. As far as I know, neither the moon nor Mars is a collision threat to Earth. > Even if you ran space > exploration like a reality show, and got your ex-stripper, your ex-green > beret, your soccer mom, and your gay accountant, each of them starts off > with having cost someone a fair bit of change to raise, educate (however > well or poorly) etc. Then, you will have the steep cost of training them. First step, train the dumb motherf..kers how to live on Earth. > We're not, unfortunately, talking about the level of "learn to drive a > big-rig in eighteen weeks", we're talking years of training and practice, > including months of practice for specific missions. And do you really want > to risk a 10-billion dollar program on the sorts of people who try out for > reality shows? No I want to kill the 100 billion dollar VSE/ESAS program, and replace it with a more responsible program, such as one that develops SSTO/RLVs and CELSSs and send average men and women to LEO, GEO, etc. > And finding capable people among the "self-educated masses" is probably > harder than finding them among college graduates. You would be surprised, but being an ignorant motherf..ker yourself, university trained with little life experience, you probably havn't looked. > They need to be able to be > cool in crisises, to be trained observers (unless you want the "golly, what > a purty rock" school of geology), in good physical health, and have a > sufficient technological background to understand their crafts systems. Or, they need better craft. > This > will be all the more important on a longer mission. I'm not talking about 'mission's, they are a complete waste of money. Robots can do most of the observing missions, I'm talking about LIVING IN SPACE. [snip nonsense] > From an economic point of view, as well, it makes a lot of sense to have > strict requirements for being an astronaut (and fairly strict ones for being > a mission specialist). It is a "buyers market", only a few percentage of the > applicants make it past the initial screening. It doesn't take a genius to be able to figure out that your 'missions' to the Moon and Mars are a crock of sh.t, and that we need to focus on reforming our existing assets, ELV, SSME, ET for a sustainable SSTO and CELSS, in order to live in space and manage the planet we have, with is rather filled to the brim with real life astronauts. http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://cosmic.lifeform.net : > If you are willing to settle for rather limited capabilities and a limited : > and somewhat uncertain working life, it's true that robots don't need as : > much support as astronauts. You get what you pay for. : Plus, astonaut trainees can be mass produced by a large : and enthusiastic, unskilled labor force, that enjoys their work. : That is probably the greatest argument for space colonization. And I thought tribal battles like those in the Middle East was? : http://cosmic.lifeform.org : http://cosmic.lifeform.net :>>On the other hand, there's no reason not to go ahead and use the existing :>>anthropomorphic manipulators NASA has been using for years. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :may involve active heating or cooling or both), mechanical support (rails, :a mounting point, etc.), and high-bandwidth communications. It also needs either some very high bandwidth sensors or some massive amount of processing power for AI (and the development of that software) or both (to account for what it does during communications lag). Signature"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw >It also needs either some very high bandwidth sensors or some massive >amount of processing power for AI (and the development of that >software) or both (to account for what it does during communications lag). At LEO the obvious solution is high bandwidth with transfer function processing only to compensate for time delays. The launching of a set of MEO communications satellites would cost a lot lot less than the ISS. If we are separated from where we are working with a time delay of x we have a Nyquist frequecy of 1/2x, up to 1/2x we can compenstate using transfer functions. As has been said the repair to Hubble is so slow that if you had a telepresence as far as the Moon, it would not make that much difference. > At LEO the obvious solution is high bandwidth with transfer function > processing only to compensate for time delays. What sort of "transfer function" eliminates the delay caused by the speed of light? The launching of a set > of MEO communications satellites would cost a lot lot less than the > ISS. Such as? Let's have some verifiable numbers. If we are separated from where we are working with a time delay of > x we have a Nyquist frequecy of 1/2x, up to 1/2x we can compenstate > using transfer functions. How does adding in the *additional* delay caused by the processing of these "transfer functions" cause the signal to arrive faster? > As has been said the repair to Hubble is so slow that if you had a > telepresence as far as the Moon, it would not make that much difference. How do you know this? Why is the Hubble repair "slow"? >What sort of "transfer function" eliminates the delay caused by the speed of light? You have a Nyquist frequenct of c/2d. That is your limit. What you do is increase the high order components up to this freqency. >how does adding in the *additional* delay caused by the processing of these >"transfer functions" cause the signal to arrive faster? It dosn't, it can't but the fact is that the transfer function is in fact giving you the impression of faster arrival. >>how does adding in the *additional* delay caused by the processing of >>these >>"transfer functions" cause the signal to arrive faster? > > It dosn't, it can't but the fact is that the transfer function is in > fact giving you the impression of faster arrival. I'm certain that, as our rover is tumbling down the slope, it will have a *real good* impression of those "transfer functions". As I have explained it can't get rid of the time delay but what it can do is make this delay less aparent psychologically. Let us assume we are doing a fairly simply task. I have a spanner and I am unscewing a bolt on Hubble. I put a torque on and as soon as the bolt moves I reduce that torque. If I deliver x Nm through my glove sensor when it moves I will still be appling a torque of x until it moves. I will still feel the pressure on my hand even when it is moving. There is a feedback. I am not (even in the case of zero delay) stopping the torque for at least 0.2sec. If the bolt is remote sending a sharp pulse back will give me the feel of proximity. This is the way our sense of touch operates. If we were being even more intelligent we would limit the amount the spanner (on Hubble) could move until signals had been sent by me. If I were to turn the spanner really fast however, the robot would follow me, but not before it knoew I was turning fast. This contains the mechanism for compensating for delay by means of transfer functions. Clearly this method is only valid where the delays are small (LEO and MEO). : As I have explained it can't get rid of the time delay but what it can : do is make this delay less aparent psychologically. Let us assume we [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : will give me the feel of proximity. This is the way our sense of touch : operates. : If we were being even more intelligent we would limit the amount the : spanner (on Hubble) could move until signals had been sent by me. If I : were to turn the spanner really fast however, the robot would follow : me, but not before it knoew I was turning fast. : This contains the mechanism for compensating for delay by means of : transfer functions. Clearly this method is only valid where the delays : are small (LEO and MEO). The problem is Hubble's gyros are due to fail in 2007 or after. To do the type of telerobotics that you suggest takes time to develop and time to test, the latter presumably on the space station, which seems the logical choice. To implement all this in the timely matter needed we'd be better off sending an astornaut repair crew, which has already done several similar missions. Eric >The problem is Hubble's gyros are due to fail in 2007 or after. To do the >type of telerobotics that you suggest takes time to develop and time to >test, the latter presumably on the space station, which seems the logical >choice. To implement all this in the timely matter needed we'd be better >off sending an astornaut repair crew, which has already done several >similar missions. Heck.. Doesn't that prove everything I have ever said. If NASA had NOT had this infatuation with the shuttle and manned space flight. If the Shuttle, that white elephant had never been built and the money spent on robotics and VR this would not be the case. All that the "establishment" seems to be able to suggest is the compounding of this folly. >> The problem is Hubble's gyros are due to fail in 2007 or after. To do >> the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > All that the "establishment" seems to be able to suggest is the > compounding of this folly. The shuttle was a far more challenging buld than these robotic toys. As such much more has been learnt. I agree some of the lessons are not plesant but then they are the first of their kind. From what I see from Griffin's report they have taken lesson from this. The main point is Hubble CAN be repaired by the shuttle. Creating a robotics system to do it in time is eutopic. SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ : >The problem is Hubble's gyros are due to fail in 2007 or after. To do the : >type of telerobotics that you suggest takes time to develop and time to : >test, the latter presumably on the space station, which seems the logical : >choice. To implement all this in the timely matter needed we'd be better : >off sending an astornaut repair crew, which has already done several : >similar missions. : Heck.. Doesn't that prove everything I have ever said. If NASA had NOT : had this infatuation with the shuttle and manned space flight. If the : Shuttle, that white elephant had never been built and the money spent : on robotics and VR this would not be the case. I don't think we lost "this" (telerobotics) because we did "that" (manned spaceflight). Telerobotics research has been ongoing. It simply isn't where you are claiming it could be given more dollars. Lack of dollars isn't what is holding back. : All that the "establishment" seems to be able to suggest is the : compounding of this folly. Where is manned spaceflight in the US? Red states or blue states? I hope you're not a red-stater, because you're making a good case to move or at least vote the other way! Eric >I don't think we lost "this" (telerobotics) because we did "that" (manned >spaceflight). Telerobotics research has been ongoing. It simply isn't >where you are claiming it could be given more dollars. Lack of dollars >isn't what is holding back. Wasn't part of the justification for the Moon and manned space flight in general, the "spin off"? You are right if you say that simply throwing money at a problem will automatically achieve a solution. Indeed as another contributor has suggested NASA should concentrate on space hardening and long time delay robotics. However NASA represents a very considerable center of gravity. If NASA were let us say do (or if Hubbles gyros have a 2007 date, should have) supported fundamenal research into robotics. By this I mean research into problems that are common to all robotic systems. NASA could do a coordinating role. The space environment is indeed unique to NASA but feedback, control and control of dynamical systems is for both NASDA and everyone else. >Where is manned spaceflight in the US? Red states or blue states? I hope >you're not a red-stater, because you're making a good case to move or at >least vote the other way! I am in fact a European. >I am in fact a European. ...This explains much. Like Andre, you're clueless due to having been born in a clueless region of the world. <PLONK> ...CT or not, he's outta here. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > I am in fact a European. THat explains your weaseling when it comes to producing facts to support your claims. : >I don't think we lost "this" (telerobotics) because we did "that" (manned : >spaceflight). Telerobotics research has been ongoing. It simply isn't : >where you are claiming it could be given more dollars. Lack of dollars : >isn't what is holding back. : Wasn't part of the justification for the Moon and manned space flight : in general, the "spin off"? You are right if you say that simply [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : research into robotics. By this I mean research into problems that are : common to all robotic systems. NASA could do a coordinating role. NASA does support robotics research. But the plan for Hubble repair was always astronauts using the shuttle. : The space environment is indeed unique to NASA but feedback, control : and control of dynamical systems is for both NASDA and everyone else. Agreed. But we must do in the field testing in space and that hasn't been done just yet to the extent to service Hubble. : >Where is manned spaceflight in the US? Red states or blue states? I hope : >you're not a red-stater, because you're making a good case to move or at : >least vote the other way! : I am in fact a European. Oh, well ESA hsan't really developed manned spaceflight as of yet. Perhaps that explains your political leanings on the subject? Eric >Oh, well ESA hsan't really developed manned spaceflight as of yet. Perhaps >that explains your political leanings on the subject? I think you are proving all my points. Science is an effort of international collaboration. It is not true to say that Eupope has not got manned spaceflight the ISS is after all I. If science is to be done as a matter of national prestige and macho posturing, and it seems to me you have admitted as much, its value and integrity diminishes. Let us take another point. Kourou where Ariane flies from is right on the Equator. Wouln't it be far better if all interplanetary and GEO flight left from Kourou. Lets not think about what country controls which site, let us think about what the best site is. An interplanetary flight of any sort should start at the equator. Any place other than the equator is in the macho, wet dreams category. JRS: In article <1135422811.658599.29630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, dated Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:13:31 local, seen in news:sci.space.policy, ianparker2@gmail.com posted : >Let us take another point. Kourou where Ariane flies from is right on >the Equator. Wouln't it be far better if all interplanetary and GEO >flight left from Kourou. Lets not think about what country controls >which site, let us think about what the best site is. An interplanetary >flight of any sort should start at the equator. Kourou is not on the Equator; it - or at least the town - is more than five degrees north. That's over five hundred and fifty kilometres. If the planes of the Earth's rotation and of its orbit were coincident, it would clearly be true that one does best to start from the Equator. But they are at an angle of about 23.5 degrees. The Equator in fact crosses some smallish islands at the mouths of the Amazon, in Brazil. With a little common sense, a joint Brazilian/American launch site could be set up on one of them. Separate operational areas [*], but common residential and other infrastructure. AFAIK, the area is less prone to fully developed hurricanes - so safer. Not much in the way of towns anywhere near; but could no doubt be supplied by sea and air. [*] for US National, Brazilian National, private enterprise, etc. Signature© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. © Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. >>An interplanetary flight of any sort should start at the equator. > >...If the planes of the Earth's rotation and of its orbit were coincident, >it would clearly be true that one does best to start from the Equator. This is a common misconception. It would be true if the Earth's orbital velocity were not much greater (about 30km/s) than the velocities rockets can readily deliver. But it is, so for a practical Earth departure, much of the spacecraft's final velocity (relative to the Sun) comes from Earth's orbital velocity. The rocket supplies only the *difference* between Earth's velocity and the desired final velocity. That difference determines not only how fast the spacecraft has to leave Earth, but in what direction. Because the solar system is not *exactly* all in one plane, practical interplanetary trajectories are usually slightly out of the ecliptic... and because of Earth's orbital velocity, the rocket has to supply only a small part of the in-plane component of the final velocity, but *all* of the out-of-plane component. So the latter often looms quite large, and so the Earth-relative departure direction is typically *nowhere near* the plane of the ecliptic. For departure from a parking orbit (direct departure follows the same rules but is harder to visualize), to get full use out of the parking orbit's orbital velocity, you want the Earth-relative departure direction to be in the plane of the parking orbit. But since the departure direction is usually nowhere near the ecliptic, a parking orbit in the plane of the ecliptic is not what you want. The preferred parking orbit is different for each mission, and is often highly inclined. Obviously it's a little awkward to build a new launch site for each mission. :-) But what you can do is a multi-burn departure; this is what Contour was trying to do. Start your mission in *any* convenient parking orbit. Do an initial burn, almost but not quite to escape, that leaves you in a highly elliptical orbit. Up at the apogee of that orbit, where orbital velocities are very low, quite a small burn can radically alter the orbit; in particular, quite large plane changes are cheap up there. Do such a burn, changing the orbit plane so that your desired departure direction is in the orbit plane. Then wait until you're back down at perigee, where adding energy is most efficient, and do your final departure burn then. This three-burn departure takes some time, and passes through the Van Allen belts several times, but is just about as efficient as a direct departure. Given a three-burn departure, any convenient parking orbit will do... and an equatorial orbit, reached from an equatorial launch site, gives you the greatest payload. (And also, if you're doing orbital assembly, gives you many more launch windows to the parking orbit, and reduces the radiation dose incurred during assembly.) >The Equator in fact crosses some smallish islands at the mouths of the >Amazon, in Brazil. >With a little common sense, a joint Brazilian/American launch site could >be set up on one of them... You don't need to be *right* on the equator; a small plane change as part of final orbit insertion is not too costly. Kourou may be a bit marginal. But Brazil's existing launch base, at Alcantara, is only about 2.3_deg off the equator, and they're reasonably amenable to other users. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net > Kourou where Ariane flies from is right on > the Equator. Are the parts of Ariane you claim are recycled fixed there, or taken back to the factory? They are as recyclable as the Shuttle and also as damaging to the Ozone layer. I presume it is factory fixed, it is difficult to field load a large solid fuel booster. I stated that Ariane was asreusable as the Shuttle. This is bradly true. The Vulcain engines are lost, they are recovered on the Shuttle. However the fuel tank is discarded. True reusability means field inserting fuel alone. The Shuttle is NOT reusable. >They are as recyclable as the Shuttle and also as damaging to the Ozone >layer. I presume it is factory fixed, it is difficult to field load a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >True reusability means field inserting fuel alone. The Shuttle is NOT >reusable. I hope I don't get kill filed for responding to an obvious troll (and complete idiot) but that large thing with wings _is_ reusable. >I hope I don't get kill filed for responding to an obvious troll (and >complete idiot) but that large thing with wings _is_ reusable. ...We'll let you off *this* time. Just be sure to killfile CT's new identity before you post again. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > They are as recyclable as the Shuttle Great! Then please answer my question. How many Ariane parts have *actually* been reused? Don't forget to document your sources. Remember to concentrate on Ariane first stages. > True reusability means field inserting fuel alone. What engineering study do you base this on? >What engineering study do you base this on? ...The same one he used while he was using his ~CT alias: The sheets of used toilet paper he keeps bound and shelved on his desk. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > ...The same one he used while he was using his ~CT alias: The sheets > of used toilet paper he keeps bound and shelved on his desk. Speaking of which, my wife just got me another one of those jelly-bean crapping reindeers. I have *got* to shoot a video of that thing in action... >Speaking of which, my wife just got me another one of those jelly-bean >crapping reindeers. I have *got* to shoot a video of that thing in action... ...I've also heard that there's one of a Texas Longhorn, but I've yet to find one. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >> True reusability means field inserting fuel alone. > > What engineering study do you base this on? Looks like "ianparker2" has crawled back up Stuffie's a.s. I am simply saying that if you throw away the cryrogenic fuel tanks you are throwing a major part of the total cost away. Similarly the solid fuel boosters. I mentioned the Ozone layer. If you have a small number of flights the damage is acceptable. If you are going to have the flights that the NASA dreamers were proposing it is not. > I am simply saying that if you throw away the cryrogenic fuel tanks you > are throwing a major part of the total cost away. The actual flight articles are but a very small part of "total cost" of any launch system. > Similarly the solid fuel boosters. I mentioned the Ozone layer. If you > have a small number of flights the damage is acceptable. If you are > going to have the flights that the NASA dreamers were proposing it is > not. You're clueless. And how did you escape my killfile, hmmm? <PLONK - again> SignatureHerb There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. ~ RAH > I am simply saying that if you throw away the cryrogenic fuel tanks you > are throwing a major part of the total cost away. Right. ESAS. This is the analogy : After every A380 flight, they throw four Trent 970s off the pylons, throw the passengers out the doors with parachutes, and dump the remaining fuel,. and then crash the aircraft into the sea. So thoughtful. Congratulations George Bush, Michael Griffin, NASA and MSFC! You have solved the airline profitability problem! > Similarly the solid fuel boosters. I mentioned the Ozone layer. If you > have a small number of flights the damage is acceptable. If you are > going to have the flights that the NASA dreamers were proposing it is > not. Yes SRBs are so modern ... so ... chinese. Anybody got any Euros? http://cosmic.lifeform.org >I am simply saying that if you throw away the cryrogenic fuel tanks you >are throwing a major part of the total cost away. ...And we're throwing *you* away again. Take the hint and blow. <PLONK> ...Goddamn troll. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >I am simply saying that if you throw away the cryrogenic fuel tanks you > are throwing a major part of the total cost away. Now, how about supporting something you said before: How many Ariane parts have *actually* been reused? Don't forget to document your sources. Remember to concentrate on Ariane first stages. On the other hand, you could simply admit that your claim that Ariane was as reusable as the shuttle was a lie. The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle. Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return you need something like Soyuz. When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable. A glider comes back to Earth but that is really it. Admittedly the engines are on that glider but they are not really a significant part of total cost. > The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle. > Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Earth but that is really it. Admittedly the engines are on that glider > but they are not really a significant part of total cost. The Shuttle SRB's are reused, Ariane 5's rocket boosters are not. And where are your numbers that show that SSME's aren't a significant part of the total cost? Do you even know how much it costs to build a new SSME versus inspecting one that has flown? You're doing a terrible job of backing up your assertions with factual data. Jeff SignatureRemove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. >> The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle. >> Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You're doing a terrible job of backing up your assertions with factual data. The SSMEs are a national treasure. They are priceless. http://www.speakeasy.net/~donaldfr/ssme.htm Compare, for instance, the RD-0120 : http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0120.htm Costs per SSME have been quoted as 40 to 60 million each : http://www.spacefellowship.com/News/?p=1453 I don't believe the something is better than nothing crap. http://www.house.gov/science/wood_102199.htm It would be interesting to get a quote from P&W. http://cosmic.lifeform.org >It would be interesting to get a quote from P&W. You obviously missed the point they are the same company these days. >> It would be interesting to get a quote from P&W. > > You obviously missed the point they are the same company these days. I don't understand your statement. Are you claiming that if we need more SSMEs, or that if I want to buy more SSMEs for my rocket, that I should not contact P&W for a quote? If Michael Griffin intends to start throwing away our national treasure on a very large scale, which on the face of it is the most absurd thing I have ever encountered coming out of NASA, then we are really going to need some more SSMEs, thus a quote from P&W for stock SSME production seems reasonable. My point is that we have an STS and ISS and EVA capabilities to return SSME from and SSTO test article NOW, and that the expendable SSME option should never have even been on the table, and that the people that put the expendable SSME and J2 option on the table should be summarily fired. If NASA wants to use SRBs to increase the payload capability of an SSME powered SSTO, then I can accept that for special purpose missions (this is the BIG ARIANE design), but to throw away the ET and SSMEs after they clearly will make it all the way to orbit, is just plain obscene. The goal is Single Stage to Orbit first, complete reusability second, and retrofitting the cryogenic tankage and storing the residual fuel thirdly, and finally, creating closed ecological life support systems in space. Going back to the moon and then to Mars for the sake of footprints is not in the best interests of the US, or the world. We have far greater problems here that need to be addressed. The SCHTICK, on the other hand, is just a joke. I will no longer remain silent on these matters, it's only going to get worse. I am going to continue to increase the pressure here on everybody, incrementally, until the ESAS architecture is killed, or George Bush is either voted out of office, or removed from office by impeachment. This is that important to everybody. It was the same thing with MER. We knew in 2001 that Mars was covered with ice. If NASA's claim was to 'follow the water', then why wasn't water detecting instruments put on rovers, and why weren't the rovers put near the water? Spirit landed in a basalt flood plain. NASA has no vision, and the rudder is seriously jammed. http://cosmic.lifeform.org >Costs per SSME have been quoted as 40 to 60 million each : The Vulcain is considerably cheaper and does just as good a job. > >Costs per SSME have been quoted as 40 to 60 million each : > > The Vulcain is considerably cheaper and does just as good a job. How many shuttles have used Vulcain engines? That is the Ariane engine. Probably the cost of a Vulcain is roughly comperable to a SSME service. > That is the Ariane engine. Yes it is. Probably the cost of a Vulcain is roughly > comperable to a SSME service. Why don't you find out and report back here with verifiable references? It shouldn't be too hard to find out. > <ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message.... > > You're doing a terrible job of backing up your assertions with factual data. Of course not! He's a troll! Killfile him, please! SignatureDave Michelson davem@ece.ubc.ca The costs are still twice Ariane's per Kg. > The Ariane 5 has a solid fuel configuration similar to the shuttle. > Ariane is designed to put a load into space and not breturn. To return > you need something like Soyuz. > > When I say that A is as reusable as the Shuttle what I am in effect > saying is that the Shuttle is not reusable. Now, how about supporting something you said before: How many Ariane parts have *actually* been reused? Don't forget to document your sources. Remember to concentrate on Ariane first stages. : >Oh, well ESA hsan't really developed manned spaceflight as of yet. Perhaps : >that explains your political leanings on the subject? : I think you are proving all my points. Science is an effort of : international collaboration. It is not true to say that Eupope has not : got manned spaceflight the ISS is after all I. If science is to be done : as a matter of national prestige and macho posturing, and it seems to : me you have admitted as much, its value and integrity diminishes. Personally I do believe in both international cooperation and national prestige. You seem to think like many of the right wingers on the subject that it must be one way or the other. Sure, you're leaning is opposite their's but in only one direction when both would work. : Let us take another point. Kourou where Ariane flies from is right on : the Equator. Wouln't it be far better if all interplanetary and GEO : flight left from Kourou. Lets not think about what country controls : which site, let us think about what the best site is. An interplanetary : flight of any sort should start at the equator. Any place other than : the equator is in the macho, wet dreams category. Explain how interplanetary and GEO flights are better from the equator. Also, the US has never been shy about using other countries for tracking stations, such as Spain and Australia, for use in the Deep-Space Network. Eric >Explain how interplanetary and GEO flights are better from the equator. > GEO is a lot easier to reach from the equator as you basically have to just ascend straight up and arc over into the proper orbital trajectory. It's more difficult to reach from U.S. launch sites as you have to bend your trajectory so that it ends up over the equator despite being quite a ways north of it. It's extremely difficult to reach from the Russian launch sites due to their far northern locations, which is why they used the highly elliptical Molniya type orbits instead of the GEO one in the early days of their program. Pat > If NASA had NOT > had this infatuation with the shuttle and manned space flight. How about providing that reference on Ariane reusability? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5 Ariane 5 is very similar to the Shuttle in the way it uses solid fuel. It thows away the main engines. This is the only disserece. Any ice, insulation etc. on A simply falls harmlessly. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_5 > > Ariane 5 is very similar to the Shuttle in the way it uses solid fuel. So, once again, you've failed to state the number of Ariane parts that have been reflown. The first words of the article say: "Ariane 5 is an expendable launch system". There's nothing in the article about Ariane being reusable, *as you claimed*. Even the possibility isn't mentioned in the article- quite the contrary, according to the first sentence. > As I have explained it can't get rid of the time delay but what it can > do is make this delay less aparent psychologically. Why psychology do you suppose will work on an AI or an "anthropomorphic manipulator" *not* attached to a human? Let us assume we > are doing a fairly simply task. Here's a simple task for you: You made a point that the Ariane lower stage could be reused. I asked you: >>> Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and >>> reflown? Verifiable cites, please. And you replied: > The same number as the number of missions. Are you saying that there is only one lower stage and it's being reused every time? Please provide a verifiable cite that shows that *any* Ariane lower stage has been reused. Scott, Please stop feeding the troll. Now. SignatureDave Michelson davem@ece.ubc.ca > >On the other hand, there's no reason not to go ahead and use the existing >>anthropomorphic manipulators NASA has been using for years. > > They are rather expensive and need bringing back. Yes, but they can also operate entirely autonomously if needed. A robot only needs > electricity to work. Astronauts need elaborate life support systems. But they can do what robots cannot. Even more important, they don't need magic handwaving in order to operate today. > >[...] > >Bringing home Hubble won't even make the Top 10 heaviest landings. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > mailto: heinrich@zili.de http://zili.de Mr. Space, i need to know some info on meteroids asap please. i have to turn in this project on monday. i would prefer if you would touch on subjects such as meteorites, meteroids and meteors something like that. peace >>>This says weight is a problem for landing: >>>http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/050316_hubble_fate.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >solar panels, and mounting necessities caused by HST's center of >gravity? No, the majority of Hubble's mass is in the instrument section at its aft (bottom) end. The foward section is mostly empty tube, more or less the same as the Spacelab tunnel. Hubble is well within any Shuttle's ability to return. >Wasn't there an issue, that only the two 1st.generation >shuttles Columbia and Challenger would have been able to do this, >because of these Shuttle's airlock, that was located in the middeck, >while being in the payload bay on the three remaining newer shuttles? >Enlighten me :-) Moving the airlock from inside to outside (at the forward end of the payload bay) actually helps matters for Hubble center of mass issues (which are already minor compared to the Spacelab and EDO pallet Shuttles landed with many times) by moving center of mass farther aft. It's center-of-mass *forward* with which Shuttles have trouble. Brian Am Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:06:44 -0600 schrieb "Brian Thorn": >>Wasn't there an issue, that only the two 1st.generation >>shuttles Columbia and Challenger would have been able to do this, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Shuttles landed with many times) by moving center of mass farther aft. >It's center-of-mass *forward* with which Shuttles have trouble. I believe to remember having read (:-), that just BECAUSE most of HST's mass is concentrated at its aft end, it has to be mounted at the very forward end of payload bay to stay within landable CG limits - but the effectively shorter bay of newer shuttle generation does prevent this. So the HST is a very special case not really comparable to other (heavier) payloads that were already successfully brought down. Maybe it would be possible to manage that issue with the newer shuttles if using ballast mounted aft at launch, and moved forward before HST capture and return - there are some payload mass reserves. cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) Signature"Abusus non tollit usum" - Latin: Abuse is no argument against proper use. mailto: heinrich@zili.de http://zili.de >>Moving the airlock from inside to outside (at the forward end of the >>payload bay) actually helps matters for Hubble center of mass issues [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >HST's mass is concentrated at its aft end, it has to be mounted at the >very forward end of payload bay to stay within landable CG limits - No, that's false. Hubble weighs 24,000 lbs. mostly in the rear 50% of its length. Spacelab weighed 24,000 lbs. mostly in the pressurized module, which for all intents and purposes is about the same size as Hubble's Instrument Module. Both had long, hollow sections extending forward, (Hubble has its aperture door mechanism up there, Spacelab had the tunnel support hardware.) Spacelab occupied the very rear of the payload bay when it flew alone. STS-71... http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951217.html So would Hubble were it to be brought back. Later, Spacelab flew with the heavy EDO pallet (most of the previously-cited heavyweight Shuttle landings were Spacelab/EDO combos) behind it in the payload bay, meaning the Hubble-weight Spacelab module was somewhat farther forward in the bay than Hubble would have to be. Brian > The astronomers collectively (as opposed to individually) generally have > their heads screwed on right about this: their periodic priority-setting > exercises consistently come out in favor of a mixture of big and small > efforts, because while the small ones tend to be more cost-effective, > there are important questions that small efforts just cannot answer. If you are going to move freight, it's a lot more effective to hire a freighter than to use a bunch of rowboats. This analogy breaks down because enough rowboats could eventually move the same amount of freight as a freighter, but there are some things that small telescopes simply *cannot* do that big ones can. >By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? About the same as Mars Polar Lander and the two Deep Space Two penetrators, only at much lower cost. :-) Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >>By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? > >About the same as Mars Polar Lander and the two Deep Space Two penetrators, >only at much lower cost. :-) ...Leave it to Henry to score points for the *other* side :-( OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >>About the same as Mars Polar Lander and the two Deep Space Two penetrators, >>only at much lower cost. :-) >> > >...Leave it to Henry to score points for the *other* side Canadian...that's some sort of Frenchman, isn't it? Henry as a child?: http://www.deeplake.com/southpark/ike.gif Pat >Canadian...that's some sort of Frenchman, isn't it? A new low for Pat: insulting two nations simultaneously. :-) Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:16:57 GMT, in a place far, far away, henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>Canadian...that's some sort of Frenchman, isn't it? > >A new low for Pat: insulting two nations simultaneously. :-) The question is: which is (or should be) insulted more? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >A new low for Pat: insulting two nations simultaneously. :-) > You just wait till I go after San Marino and Andorra simultaneously. And let's not forget the Uzbeks- "the weak link in the chain of socialism" as SCTV referred to it. Pat >>>By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? >>About the same as Mars Polar Lander and the two Deep Space Two penetrators, >>only at much lower cost. :-) > >...Leave it to Henry to score points for the *other* side :-( What's this "other side" stuff? You all look like foreigners from here. :-) Now, if there were *Canadian* Mars landers, that would be different...! Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >Now, if there were *Canadian* Mars landers, that would be different...! "No way, hose-head! I'm not gonna go in that thing if you're gonna be landing it, eh?" "Take off, eh?" "Like, not being able to after *you* land it is what I'm worried about, hoser!" - Bob & Doug McKenzie, "The Great Red North" OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >"No way, hose-head! I'm not gonna go in that thing if you're gonna be >landing it, eh?" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >about, hoser!" > Two men and a cute, personality-filled wolverine on Mars... "Look, like it's liquid water eh?" "Kinda bubbly, isn't it?" "Maybe it's that hydrogen peroxide stuff, like Montreal Control warned us about." "Maybe we should drink some and find out, eh?" "They said that stuff would kill us." "Yeah, like those hosers know anything." "Okay.....IT'S BEER! IT'S MOLSON'S!!!" "This is Canuck One, we have discovered Molson's on Mars!" "That's one small drink for Canada, eh?" "And one big drink for us, eh?" "Like, there's something growing in it, eh?" "BACK BACON!" Then, sadly, Doug woke up. :-) Pat >>>By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? >> >>About the same as Mars Polar Lander and the two Deep Space Two penetrators, >>only at much lower cost. :-) > > ...Leave it to Henry to score points for the *other* side :-( Other side? Do note that Canada is a "co-operating member of ESA". See http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/pdf/er-0405-0202.pdf "As a co-operating member, Canada participates directly in ESA programs, activities and decision-making. No other country outside Europe has such a relationship with ESA." SignatureDave Michelson davem@ece.ubc.ca : >By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? : About the same as Mars Polar Lander and the two Deep Space Two penetrators, : only at much lower cost. :-) Wouldn't the MER successes erase those two previous disasters? >: >By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? >: About the same as Mars Polar Lander and the two Deep Space Two penetrators, >: only at much lower cost. :-) > >Wouldn't the MER successes erase those two previous disasters? Only if you also give ESA a few more years to recover from its disaster. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >Only if you also give ESA a few more years to recover from its disaster. ...Well, they need to get rid of the Frogs first. Otherwise, the wound will never heal :-) OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ : >: >By the way... how is Europe's Mars lander doing these days? : >: About the same as Mars Polar Lander and the two Deep Space Two penetrators, : >: only at much lower cost. :-) : > : >Wouldn't the MER successes erase those two previous disasters? : Only if you also give ESA a few more years to recover from its disaster. Sure, no problem. Time will tell... Eric > One still needs > breakthroughs I claim. You make a lot of claims. With every post, you sound more and more like every other kook that blows in here for a while, makes a lot of noise, and eventually crawls back under a rock. I am not claiming that breakthroughs will be easy to make. My claim is basically that without a significant breakthrough manned spaceflight is futile as you are up against exponentially increasing costs for every new venture. Unmanned exploration has beeen extremly successful but is being jeopodised by a manned budget which is raiding evberything else to keep itself going. We may be able to do manned spaceflight in the future with breakthroughs, but it is a non starter now. Let us concerntate on :- 1) Unmanned spaceflight. 2) Research on new concepts. 3) Use robots for everything we are using astronauts for now. Everything else if futile. >My claim is > basically that without a significant breakthrough manned spaceflight is > futile No, you made a great many specific claims, including dumping the shuttle and using Ariane. I am still waiting to see your convincing argument on that one. Tech talk isn't convincing, and is mostly irrelevant for funding. >> You're seriously confusing exhaust velocity, delta-V and specific >> impulse. Go take an astrodynamics class or at least read a book and do the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > propellant. With fusion you directly mix the stream of gases. 50km/s > since you are not dependent on solid materials. You're still obviously confusing ISP, delta-V and exhaust velocity. Until you can demonstrate that you understand the differences, enjoy your stay in my killfile. Signature"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous "I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can." ~Todd Stuart Phillips <www.angryherb.net> >There are alternatives. There if the N word. ...Bombardmentfarce? Is that you? OM Signature]=======================================[ OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* an obnoxious opinion in your day! ]=======================================[ In sci.space.policy ianparker2@gmail.com wrote: > Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have > cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec. > To get to the Moon you need a total return impulse of approx 16km/sec. > Roughly 11km to escape the earth and 2.74*2 km/sec to land and then Yes, so for example in case of Ariane, you want to launch twice to have comfortable margings - preferably with the drop taks on the first launch. > escape from the Moon. Now this represents a mass ratio of e^4. Apollo > had the mother ship in a parking orbit. A parking orbit reduces the The mother ship??? > There are alternatives. There if the N word. Fission giving specific > impuses or round about 12km/s might be used for trips from LEO. If you > could fuse He3 and Deuteriium (Tritium and Neutrons are no good in > space) you could achieve 40-50km/s no problem. Sorry, but you have your terminology and numbers seriously mixed up. SignatureSander +++ Out of cheese error +++ >Sorry, but you have your terminology and numbers seriously mixed up. ...Yeah. Sorta like bombardmentfarce, huh? OM Signature]=======================================[ OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* an obnoxious opinion in your day! ]=======================================[ >> "Who is Elle Marche?" > > It means it works in contrast to the Shuttle which has problems > working. I understand that. However, almost nobody else does. >>What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors >>involving [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have > cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec. And right there you've just put your involuntary venture capitalists to sleep. Telling the American taxpayer to stop using homegrown technology and to buy foreign rockets, particularly French made products, will not only get you laughed at, but might even get you Sibreled. If you argue tech, you will not get funded. Logic is not relevant to the process. If it was, we'd be making active progress to Mars using some of Zubrin's ideas. > Telling the American taxpayer to stop using homegrown technology and to > buy foreign rockets, particularly French made products, will not only get > you laughed at, As an aside, Ariane is not french, it's european ( and I'm saying this, even though I'm french ). But I agree that doesn't change the NIH factor. > As an aside, Ariane is not french, it's european To Joe Lunchbox Taxpayer, it's the same thing. It's not fair or right, but that's the way it is. If the rocket were called the Brittania, there'd be a greater likelihood of making a deal. Frankly, I see no good reason *not* to use it occasionally. However, the funding process for US government projects is as stupid as the funding process for ESA. The big difference is that the ESA could have avoided it, *particularly* since the inherent failure of the distribution process used was well known. > It's not fair or right, but that's the way it is. If the rocket were > called the Brittania, there'd be a greater likelihood of making a deal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > *particularly* since the inherent failure of the distribution process used > was well known. Well, for the US it's a law. For ESA, an internal rule. However, ESA rule is more flexible than US laws, as it allows to pay for non-european launcher. The problem is getting the budget approved by elected official. In the US it's called pork-barrelling. In ESA it's called geographical return. In this case, the US system is more flexible and outwardly more efficient. The ESA system has the advantage of being aboveboard. >And the reaction of the great, unwashed taxpayers who will foot the bill is >"Who is Elle Marche?" Ariane which works unlike some things. The Shuttle is a complete fraud. It is more expensive and works less well than the things it replaced. >What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving >"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument >is unpersuasive. Perhaps but manned space flight withut new technology is a dead end. The exhaust velocity with cryogenic fuel, the best available is 4km/s. To achieve any given impulse you need e^I/4km/s of your mass to be fuel. That is before deadweight and other considerations are brought in. To get 8km/s more you need to ferry uup the loads of e^2 rockets. The Moon (return) represents some 16km/sec (can be reduced slighly as in Apollo by having a mother ship). Basically the Saturn took astronauts to the Moon. Saturn was the pinnacle of rocket design, it represented a mature technology. Anything else, including the shuttle has worked less well. I just don't understand why it was ever built. It represents a clear step backwards. The ISS and any ideas of space stations are simply dead end technology. They are simply soaking up money and doing precious little. Mars requires about 20km/s + very large consumable loads. $80e9 seems a fair price. If we are stupid enough to go there nothing will have been achieved, the price for subsequent visits will be just as great. In fact a visit to the Moon with the Shuttle/Space Station would cost a dickins of a lot more than an Apollo flight. NASA has indeed gone into reverse. New technology is required. What shape? Unmanned exploration has always been successful. We should be sending up a repair robot (non returnable) on Ariane (qui marche!) to serviuce Hubble. To servicew H we only need Virtual Reality, to service something deeper into space we need AI. AI and robotics are technologies with a future. A Von Neumann machine is a logical extension of robotic exploration and would be my prime candidate for "new technology". There are other possibilities. A fission based rocets could deliver specific impulses of 12km/s from LEO. And He3/Deuterium would achieve 50 quite easily ans might operate from ground level. He/Tritium with its neutrons is unsuitable for space propulsion. November 25, 2005 > Ariane which works unlike some things. The Shuttle is a complete fraud. Those 112 successful manned flights never happened, eh? > It is more expensive and works less well than the things it replaced. And what manned launcher would that be? Saturn? >>What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving >>"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument >>is unpersuasive. > > Perhaps but manned space flight withut new technology is a dead end. > The exhaust velocity with cryogenic fuel, the best available is 4km/s. Actually, it's closer to 4.5 km/s. > To achieve any given impulse you need e^I/4km/s of your mass to be > fuel. That is before deadweight and other considerations are brought [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > astronauts to the Moon. Saturn was the pinnacle of rocket design, it > represented a mature technology. They're gone. It's over. Get over it. > Anything else, including the shuttle has worked less well. Right, we can launch microsatellites with Saturn Vs. > I just don't understand why it was ever built. It was built. We are flying it. Get over it. > It represents a clear step backwards. The ISS and any ideas of space > stations are simply dead end technology. They are simply soaking up > money and doing precious little. That doesn't seem to gybe with their existance, and our need to do something about them. > Mars requires about 20km/s + very large consumable loads. $80e9 seems a > fair price. If we are stupid enough to go there nothing will have been > achieved, the price for subsequent visits will be just as great. In > fact a visit to the Moon with the Shuttle/Space Station would cost a > dickins of a lot more than an Apollo flight. NASA has indeed gone into > reverse. True, there is this great need to recoupe or STS and ISS investments, by using them to leverage a new, better, less expensive SSTO / RLV. It definitely won't be a Saturn V, though. Get used to that result. > New technology is required. What shape? Of the cryogenic SSTO and RLV shape. > Unmanned exploration has always > been successful. We should be sending up a repair robot (non > returnable) on Ariane (qui marche!) to serviuce Hubble. And what repair robot would that be pray tell. > To servicew H > we only need Virtual Reality, to service something deeper into space we > need AI. AI and robotics are technologies with a future. Right, and just continue to launch them with expensive expendable. > A Von Neumann machine is a logical extension of robotic exploration and > would be my prime candidate for "new technology". There are other > possibilities. A fission based rocets could deliver specific impulses > of 12km/s from LEO. And He3/Deuterium would achieve 50 quite easily ans > might operate from ground level. He/Tritium with its neutrons is > unsuitable for space propulsion. Right. Nuke the Earth. Let the nanobots have it. Got it. Thomas Lee Elifritz http://cosmic.lifeform.org http://www.lifeform.net/talkshop >They're gone. It's over. Get over it. ...Oh great. The Nazi Troll changed his e-mail address again. What happened, Tommy? Did your ISP punt you again for posting anti-semitic trollings? <PLONK> OM Signature]=======================================[ OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* an obnoxious opinion in your day! ]=======================================[ > >They're gone. It's over. Get over it. > > ...Oh great. The Nazi Troll changed his e-mail address again. What > happened, Tommy? Did your ISP punt you again for posting anti-semitic > trollings? Uh .. no, they didn't. I evolved, you creationist christian shithead. http://cosmic.lifeform.org >Right, and just continue to launch them with expensive expendable. This is just NASA propaganda. Expendibles cost LESS than the Shuttle (per kg) > >Right, and just continue to launch them with expensive expendable. > > This is just NASA propaganda. Expendibles cost LESS than the Shuttle > (per kg) Earth to Ian ... NASA doesn't launch expendables. NASA launches the shuttle. All are expensive. http://www.lifeform.org http://cosmic.lifeform.org >>And the reaction of the great, unwashed taxpayers who will foot the bill is >>"Who is Elle Marche?" > >Ariane which works unlike some things. Ariane 5: 22 launches, 3 failures = 87% success rate. (Last failure: Dec 02) Space Shuttle: 114 launches, 2 failures = 98% success rate. (Last failure: Feb 03) >The Shuttle is a complete fraud. Then what does that make Ariane 5? Brian JRS: In article <pr7ko1p9ijoek84ao7p8p7obtqtaemtpcl@4ax.com>, dated Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:10:23, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@cox.net> posted : >>Ariane which works unlike some things. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Then what does that make Ariane 5? Shuttle : 5 built, 2 failed, remainder 3, flight on hold, cannot build more. 40% lost; number cannot decrease. One flight since last failure. Ariane 5 : 22 built, 3 failed, flying, more are being built. 14% lost; number can change either way. #? flights since last failure Signature© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. © Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. > Shuttle : 5 built, 2 failed, remainder 3, flight on hold, cannot build > more. 40% lost; number cannot decrease. One flight since last failure. > > Ariane 5 : 22 built, 3 failed, flying, more are being built. 14% lost; > number can change either way. #? flights since last failure > Comparing a reusable flight vehicle to a fully-expendable launcher is truly an apples-to-oranges comparison, and an utterly absurd one at that. Jorge and Brian have both posted much more meaningful vehicle failure rate statistics. Signature"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous "I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can." ~Todd Stuart Phillips <www.angryherb.net> Am Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:22:37 +0000 schrieb "Dr John Stockton": >Shuttle : 5 built, 2 failed, remainder 3, flight on hold, cannot build >more. 40% lost; number cannot decrease. One flight since last failure. >Ariane 5 : 22 built, 3 failed, flying, more are being built. 14% lost; >number can change either way. #? flights since last failure Shuttle: the argument "cannot build more" doesn't count, because it is not really impossible (technically seen - politics is another thing). So in principle the number COULD well decrease - but never will. Ariane-5: despite only 3 failures, there are surely 100% lost. And THAT number CANNOT decrease by priciple. You have to build a new one for every flight (independent of failure or not). Comparing the percentage of launch successes might well be the better comparison, because the vehicle's use spreads between its launches - and every expendable can only be used by one launch. There CANNOT be a real comparison between two totally different concepts - so why discuss at all? cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) Signature"Abusus non tollit usum" - Latin: Abuse is no argument against proper use. mailto: heinrich@zili.de http://zili.de > Am Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:22:37 +0000 schrieb "Dr John Stockton": > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > There CANNOT be a real comparison between two totally different > concepts - so why discuss at all? The only plausible comparison would be to go back to the 1980s and look at the success rate of shuttle deployed payloads reaching GTO. A number of those suffered kick motor failures after deployment from shuttle, stranding them in low earth orbit or in useless transfer orbits. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but I am almost certain that Ariane 5 is doing better at payload deployment into GTO than shuttle did during its first 25 flights. - Ed Kyle > The only plausible comparison would be to go back to the > 1980s and look at the success rate of shuttle deployed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > deployment into GTO than shuttle did during its first 25 > flights. But again, how many of those are shuttle caused failures? And of course you have the ones repaired by the shuttle and as a result salvaged. How many Ariane 5 failures have been "fixed" > - Ed Kyle > And of course you have the ones repaired by the shuttle and as a result Except for Hubble ( which was not a shuttle failure at all ) which ones have been? Some were abandonned by shuttle even if they could have been recovered ( The tether experiment come to mind ) > salvaged. How many Ariane 5 failures have been "fixed" At least one. >> And of course you have the ones repaired by the shuttle and as a result > >Except for Hubble ( which was not a shuttle failure at all ) which ones have >been? Solar Max Palapa B-2 Westar 6 Leasat 3 Intelsat IV-F3 Brian >>> And of course you have the ones repaired by the shuttle and as a result >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Leasat 3 >Intelsat IV-F3 "...And that wraps up the bottom of the ninth, with the US taking the pennant with a score of 5-0 over the Frogs!" OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ Am Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:04:31 GMT schrieb "Greg D. Moore (Strider)": >> The only plausible comparison would be to go back to the >> 1980s and look at the success rate of shuttle deployed [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >But again, how many of those are shuttle caused failures? Because the IUS and PAM were MADE TO BE USED WITH the shuttle - to give it a capability for GTO launch at all - and so are part of STS (without any doubt), all deployment failures caused by them surely have to be counted as 'shuttle system failures' too. >And of course you have the ones repaired by the shuttle and as a result >salvaged. How many Ariane 5 failures have been "fixed" And because the shuttle system inherited the possibility of fixing some of these failures, they can be used to 'correct' the statistics. OTOH: The originally failed Ariane mission launching 'Artemis' was (partially) salvaged by the capabilities of the satellite and its operators and has to be counted as correction of Ariane-5 statistics too, if one insists on the shuttle statistics corrections as well... cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker) Signature"Abusus non tollit usum" - Latin: Abuse is no argument against proper use. mailto: heinrich@zili.de http://zili.de >>But again, how many of those are shuttle caused failures? > >Because the IUS and PAM were MADE TO BE USED WITH the shuttle - to >give it a capability for GTO launch at all - and so are part of STS >(without any doubt), all deployment failures caused by them surely >have to be counted as 'shuttle system failures' too. Agreed, although Leasat 3 (neither PAM nor IUS) is in a gray area. >OTOH: The originally failed Ariane mission launching 'Artemis' was >(partially) salvaged by the capabilities of the satellite and its >operators and has to be counted as correction of Ariane-5 statistics >too, if one insists on the shuttle statistics corrections as well... Sounds like how NASA recovered TDRS-A and nudged it the rest of the way to LEO with its 5 lbs. thrusters. It ended up working for over a decade. I wouldn't credit Shuttle with that, or Ariane for Artemis. Now, Leasat 3, Palapa and Westar do count. Launched by Shuttle recovered/repaired by Shuttle. Brian >The only plausible comparison would be to go back to the >1980s and look at the success rate of shuttle deployed >payloads reaching GTO. Why? Ariane 5 has delivered payloads to LEO too (Envisat, Helios.) >A number of those suffered >kick motor failures after deployment from shuttle, stranding [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >deployment into GTO than shuttle did during its first 25 >flights. Nope, actually. Shuttle (STS-1 to STS-51l): 5 (TDRS-A, Palapa B2, Westar 6, Leasat 3, and TDRS-B) out of 28 or 17%. Note that all but the last Shuttle GTO deployment failure did eventually reach its destination and enter service. Ariane 5 (501 to 524): 11 (4 on 501, 3 on 502, 2 on 510, 2 on 517) out of 42 major payloads, I think. I'm not 100% on which Ariane payloads were bound for GTO or higher.. 26% Brian > >The only plausible comparison would be to go back to the > >1980s and look at the success rate of shuttle deployed [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Brian I stand corrected, but I would mitigate the comparison somewhat by considering that the first two Ariane 5s were loaded up with multiple dummysats. Still, even if you assume two payloads per launch, Ariane 5 trails the STS result. Space shuttle actually hauled a bunch of payloads for a couple of years there. :-) - Ed Kyle >I stand corrected, but I would mitigate the comparison >somewhat by considering that the first two Ariane >5s were loaded up with multiple dummysats... I believe you're thinking of the second and third. The first was carrying the four science satellites of the original Cluster mission. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >> Ariane 5 (501 to 524): >> 11 (4 on 501, 3 on 502, 2 on 510, 2 on 517) out of 42 major payloads, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >somewhat by considering that the first two Ariane >5s were loaded up with multiple dummysats. The first Ariane 5 was most certainly not carrying dummies - it cost European taxpayers a fair bit when the Cluster satellites were lost. And wasn't the second (Ariane 502) at least a qualified success? >>I stand corrected, but I would mitigate the comparison >>somewhat by considering that the first two Ariane [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >European taxpayers a fair bit when the Cluster satellites were lost. >And wasn't the second (Ariane 502) at least a qualified success? More or less the same as the Delta IV-Heavy Demo. Vehicle underperformance. Brian >I stand corrected, but I would mitigate the comparison >somewhat by considering that the first two Ariane >5s were loaded up with multiple dummysats. Well, Ariane 501 carried the four Cluster satellites, much to ESA's chagrin. Ariane 502 carried two mass simulators and one real, but small, satellite. The 502 results were surprisingly similar to the Delta IV-Heavy Demo's results... stage 2 shut down earlier than planned. Boeing did more or less the same PA song and dance about their malfunction 7 years later. If you consider D-IVH Demo a failure, you pretty much have to count 502, too. >Still, >even if you assume two payloads per launch, Ariane 5 >trails the STS result. Space shuttle actually hauled a >bunch of payloads for a couple of years there. :-) And would have been busier if IUS and PAM-D hadn't gone all to hell in 1983-84! Shuttle was finally working, so of course PAM and IUS chose that particular time to go belly up. :-( Also, you can probably blame the IUS and PAM-D faults on the "Shuttle System", but I'm not at all sure the Leasat 3 failure (the satellite that was hotwired by astronauts a few missions later) can be blamed on Shuttle. That satellite was botched by the manufacturer, pure and simple. Brian > JRS: In article <pr7ko1p9ijoek84ao7p8p7obtqtaemtpcl@4ax.com>, dated > Sun, 27 Nov 2005 15:10:23, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Brian Thorn [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Ariane 5 : 22 built, 3 failed, flying, more are being built. 14% lost; > number can change either way. #? flights since last failure Umm.. a) that's got to be the MOST idiotic comparision I've seen yet. You're not even comparing apples to oranges but more like apples to orange juice. And in theory there's nothing short of money changing that 40% to say 20%. Build 10 more shuttles and you're all set. But while we're looking at: Shuttle: 5 built, all reused multiple times. Ariane 5: 22 built: None re-used. BFD. The Shuttle is no more reusable than Ariane 5. That is a lie. The lower stage or Ariane is in fact recoverable. There are significant parts of the Shuttle which are nor recoverable. 1) The tanks are thrown away. 2) Although the solid fuel boosters are technically recoverable, the charge has to be manufactured. Manufacturing it is a non trivial process and costs as much if not more than the rocket shell. Moreover the shuttle exhaust (the solid fuel boosters) is considerably more polluting than Ariane, Proton or Long March. I have used Ariane as a standard because labor costs there are comperable. The Proton/Long March is cheaper still buut based only on low labor costs. > The Shuttle is no more reusable than Ariane 5. That is a lie. The lower > stage or Ariane is in fact recoverable. There are significant parts of > the Shuttle which are nor recoverable. Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and reflown? Verifiable cites, please. >> The Shuttle is no more reusable than Ariane 5. That is a lie. The lower >> stage or Ariane is in fact recoverable. There are significant parts of >> the Shuttle which are nor recoverable. > > Exactly how many Ariane lower stages have in fact been recovered and > reflown? Verifiable cites, please. Still waiting for your answer, "ianparker2", or should I say, Stuffie? JRS: In article <1NNif.6896$wf.148@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, dated Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:02:53 local, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Greg D. Moore (Strider) <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> posted : >And in theory there's nothing short of money changing that 40% to say 20%. >Build 10 more shuttles and you're all set. No more shuttles can be built; many components are not available. By some re-design, Shuttle Mk1.1 could be built; but the US cannot do that since it lacks the national will to do so. The suggestion of building 5 more (which is all that's needed to reach 20%) is ridiculous; 10 is ludicrous. >But while we're looking at: > >Shuttle: 5 built, all reused multiple times. Two definitively re-used less often than intended when last launched. Three more will in fact be used less often than originally intended, unless future plans are *greatly* extended. Post-flight refurbishment costs - large. Flying now : no. >Ariane 5: 22 built: None re-used. In perfect agreement with the intention and design. Post-flight refurbishment costs - nil. Flying now : yes. Signature© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. © Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. >>And in theory there's nothing short of money changing that 40% to say 20%. >>Build 10 more shuttles and you're all set. > >No more shuttles can be built; many components are not available. The same situation occured to Delta and Atlas in the 1980s. After Challenger, production of those boosters was restarted. Significant redesign was necessary, which is why the new boosters were called Delta II and Atlas II. But they were still essentially Delta and Atlas. >By >some re-design, Shuttle Mk1.1 could be built; but the US cannot do that >since it lacks the national will to do so. The suggestion of building 5 >more (which is all that's needed to reach 20%) is ridiculous; 10 is >ludicrous. To what extent do you consider "redesign" to mean "different vehicle"? Note that Ariane 5 was uprated in 2004 but still fits within the original moldline. Is that the same vehicle? A argument can be made that, by your criteria, Endeavour is not the same vehicle as the earlier Orbiters. NASA used some structural spares, but far from entirely. It was reported in 2003 that Boeing offered to build three new Shuttle Orbiters for NASA. These would probably have been dubbed OV-201, 202, and 203 and would have incorporated all of the upgrades Shuttle has received since Endeavour (OV-105) was built. This would still have essentially been the Space Shuttle, and the price quoted in Space News wasn't all that ridiculous. NASA chose not to take them up on the offer. But if they had, there is no reason except budgetary that Boeing could not have built 7 more, to make the "ludicrous" 10. >>But while we're looking at: >> >>Shuttle: 5 built, all reused multiple times. > >Two definitively re-used less often than intended when last launched. Well, Challenger certainly. Columbia was being considered for retirement anyway (she appeared on the Shuttle manifest only once more when she was lost.) She'd flown 28 times, compared to Discovery's 30 and Atlantis' 27. Brian > Shuttle : 5 built, 2 failed, remainder 3, flight on hold, cannot build > more. 40% lost; number cannot decrease. One flight since last failure. > > Ariane 5 : 22 built, 3 failed, flying, more are being built. 14% lost; > number can change either way. #? flights since last failure Shuttle- 5 built, 3 *still* capable of flight. Average over 20 flights each. Ariane 5- 22 built, how many of those are *still* capable of flight? Average number of flights per Ariane 5 : 1. Tonnage of cargo returned to Earth by Ariane 5: none. > The Shuttle should be immediately replaced with Ariane > which is a lot cheaper per kg. Now all *you* have to do is convince Congress and the American people that they should stop using an American made product and start using a French made one. Go on, we'll watch. I assure you, logic and technical superiority are completely irrelevant, so I'd like to see your method of persuasion, which, in your post, was substantially lacking. >The Shuttle should be immediately replaced with Ariane >which is a lot cheaper per kg. ...Ariane is a Frog concoction. It's automatically disqualified because the Frogs made it. OM Signature]=======================================[ OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* an obnoxious opinion in your day! ]=======================================[ >> The Shuttle should be immediately replaced with Ariane >> which is a lot cheaper per kg. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > OM No, the booster itself is a "contraption." Its fuel and oxidizer are some sort of "concoction." Please keep this technical terminology straight. ;-) Signature"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous "I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can." ~Todd Stuart Phillips <www.angryherb.net> >>The Shuttle should be immediately replaced with Ariane >>which is a lot cheaper per kg. > > ...Ariane is a Frog concoction. It's automatically disqualified > because the Frogs made it. Yes, the resident group nekulturny. I had forgotten your habits. <plonk> >I had forgotten your habits. > ><plonk> ...And I'm supposed to be impressed/insulted/chastized by this? Plonking from someone whose language is nothing but flatulence going out the wrong end? Bah. He's not even worth the <PLONK>... OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >>I had forgotten your habits. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bah. He's not even worth the <PLONK>... The previous comment of OM, while rude, was not trolling. Changing his handle to get past a filter and using abusive language definitely is. In fact, it may be beyond this. >The previous comment of OM, while rude, was not trolling. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >In fact, it may be beyond this. > You stay there; I'm going to get Hans Blix. This requires a very strongly worded communiqué from the U.N. :-) Pat >You stay there; I'm going to get Hans Blix. This requires a very >strongly worded communiqué from the U.N. :-) ...Hey, how did you know I just ran out of toilet paper? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:39:50 +0100, "frogéric haessig" <fhaessig@free.froglegs.for.lunch> ribbited: >The previous comment of OM, while rude, was not trolling. ...It was an accurate assessment of your excuse for a nation. Deal with it. >Changing his handle to get past a filter and using abusive language >definitely is. ...Trolling? No, it's called taking your attitude and ramming it back down your croakhole, Froggie. Had I *totally* obscured my ID - read: removed the .sig - then you -might- have a case for trolling. In a Frog's eye, perhaps. >In fact, it may be beyond this. "Plunk your magic twanger, Froggy! Let's see if we can run OM off of .history by taunting him and calling him names!" ...More devious scum have tried, Frogeric. Do your worst. I *dare* you. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >...Trolling? No, it's called taking your attitude and ramming it back >down your croakhole, Froggie. > > Yes kids, he's back and fully recovered! Pat >>...Ariane is a Frog concoction. It's automatically disqualified >>because the Frogs made it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I had forgotten your habits. > Now go away silly Texas person OM, or he shall taunt you again. Your father was an Armadillo, and your mother smelt of Amarillo. :-) Pat >Now go away silly Texas person OM, or he shall taunt you again. >Your father was an Armadillo, and your mother smelt of Amarillo. :-) ...At least I don't croak like a Frog's stuck in my throat, and my entire people don't smell of cowardice. ...On a side note, I had to correct someone the other day when they claimed there was *one* Frog who wasn't a coward. They were unaware at the time that Napoleon was a *Corsican* and not a Frog. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >...On a side note, I had to correct someone the other day when they >claimed there was *one* Frog who wasn't a coward. They were unaware at >the time that Napoleon was a *Corsican* and not a Frog. > > How about Charlemagne? Pat >How about Charlemagne? ...Holy Roman or Kid? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >...Holy Roman or Kid? > Whoops, I meant Charles Martel; Charlemagne was mainly German in background. And then there's Marshall Petain... Okay, I'll find one sooner or later. ;-) Pat >>...On a side note, I had to correct someone the other day when they >>claimed there was *one* Frog who wasn't a coward. They were unaware at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat German. >>How about Charlemagne? >> >>Pat >> >> >German. Yeah, I confused him with Charles Martel. How about Joan Of Arc? She fought as good as Leeloo in The Fifth Element. :-) Pat On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:20:00 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>>How about Charlemagne? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >How about Joan Of Arc? She fought as good as Leeloo in The Fifth >Element. :-) It says something about the French that their greatest warrior was a woman. It ways something about Rand Simborg that his greatest warrior is his penis. >>>How about Charlemagne? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Pat Actually, Charlemagne was Charles Martel's grandson. They were both Franks, Martel was the Mayor of the Palace, but effectively the ruler of the Merovingian Franks (based mostly in Northern Italy and Southern France.) As a side note, the Merovingian noble males had long hair, and an effective way to get someone out of the way, for a while, was to force him into holy orders. Even if he escaped, it would take him years before his hair was long enough for him to be taken seriously.) Anyway, back during the reign of Charlemagne/Karl der Grosse, in Aix-la-Chappelle/Aachen, the Frankish Kingdom consisted of most of France, northern Italy, and most of Germany. It wasn't until his grandsons partitioned the kingdom until France and Germany (the Holy Roman Empire) emerged as separate entities. (A third grandson had the Alsace-Loraine area and northern Italy.) Oddly enough, although the Franks were genuinely Germanic, the term Frankish began to be applied to the French descendents. > An article from The Washington Post: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10185181/ > Now this is interesting; the Congress may well be willing to okay a > budget hike to allow NASA to do both the Shuttle and the CEV, but the > White House doesn't seem keen on funding its own new program. > > Pat In this case there's not much difference between a vision and a nightmare. ;-) Rusty >In this case there's not much difference between a vision and a >nightmare. > > Congress is looking around for places to cut money without offending too much of the populace with the 2006 elections coming up. It could be that since Bush came up with this they see it as his, not their, responsibility to kill it. Griffin obviously seriously screwed up his math when he said this could all be done with only minimal added funds. Pat > >In this case there's not much difference between a vision and a > >nightmare. > > Congress is looking around for places to cut money without offending too > much of the populace with the 2006 elections coming up. With the deficits we all have to tighten the belt. I hear the military is having to make do with only a billion a day now. > It could be that > since Bush came up with this they see it as his, not their, > responsibility to kill it. They'll stall till after the midterms as you say. But with the repubs steadily imploding, they seem to have a growing obsession with places far-far-away. > Griffin obviously seriously screwed up his math when he said this could > all be done with only minimal added funds. He forget to factor in the pork index. The repubs are padding the ground for the crash landing to come. s > Pat > White House doesn't seem keen on funding its own new program. >> I'm glad you noticed! Nasa is the most successful government department ever! Its job is to keep civilians out of space and it has done so very well. Look at the results and you will see the reality of that statement. Boeing and the Airfarce Space Command belong in space but citizens do NOT, according to the powers that run the US. And Bush follows directions. So, although he says the guv's trying to get into space and wants your kids to go to space camp to learn to be an astronaut, the chances of that happening are a billion to one. Just grow up. Space is the high ground. Space access is strategic military power. The Structure does not want us there, space cadet. > ..... the >White House doesn't seem keen on funding its own new program. Dwayne Day did an excellent piece in SPACEFLIGHT a month or two ago about how Bush has supported his vision. The paragrpah in the MSNBC article about Tom DeLay's "arm twisting" a couple of years ago neglects the fact that when Bush didn't mention his vision in speeches after the announcement, Congress thought it would be ok to cut NASA's budget. Bush then said that he would veto any bill that cut NASA; THAT's when DeLay started twisting arms. Since then, no cuts. Dwayne also outinlined how Bush will talk about his vision and express confidence in NASA *when asked,* but otherwise won't say anything. Based on that, it's hard to see how the Bush White House could have reversed gears and decided not to support its own program. Possible, but I doubt it. More likely they still do support it, but just don't talk about it publicly, as before. Of course, one could always ignore that possibility and fall back and believing the worst of President Bush. But that might not be lined up with reality. > An article from The Washington Post: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10185181/ > Now this is interesting; the Congress may well be willing to okay a > budget hike to allow NASA to do both the Shuttle and the CEV, but the > White House doesn't seem keen on funding its own new program. > > Pat Mr. Space, i need to know some info on meteroids asap please. i have to turn in this project on monday. i would prefer if you would touch on subjects such as meteorites, meteroids and meteors something like that. peace |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.