On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, David M Harland wrote:
> There is no viable alternative to the Shuttle for human spaceflight.
> It is now running about as efficiently as it ever will. It is simply
> a costly business.
Huh? Does anyone know what the costs are for the Russian missions?
If they will take $20 M for 1/3 of a mission, then it seems that one
can argue that their launch costs are less than $60 M/flight.
Taking the high/low range for the shuttle ($1B vs. $400M) vs. $60 M
and its clear that there *are* both viable and cheaper alternatives
to the shuttle. I've often seen arguments that the cost of getting
a human into orbit need not be more than the cost of a cross-country
airplane flight (in terms of energy expenditure). So we return
to the issue of whether or not it is a volume business (with
occasional losses) or an exclusive monopoly for a select few.
The "Mars Colony" approach begs issues such as whether real
molecular nanotechnology, planetary dismantlement and the
evolution of the human mind from its current hardware base onto
a more robust platform are feasible. I've thought long and hard
about the preservation of individuals and the species and it
doesn't happen unless one embraces the ability to evolve and
adapt. Building a Mars Colony in the Zubrin/Mars Society
image is quite feasible but most likely pointless -- it
might save humanity from an asteroid impacting Earth but it
doesn't save us from meandering brown dwarfs disrupting the
solar system or nearby supernovas that we will at some point
probably encounter.
Robert
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
