Greetings, While I agree that the shuttle and station are not the best solutions in the world, do we just give up manned flight for the next 10 years or 15 years or 20 years while we come up with a better ship?
Please tell me that people have some hope in private enterprise taking the reins and running with a manned space effort. Yes I know they would have to start from scratch (mostly) but they could take over the task. Or does anyone really see ANY need for manned flight? Would we be better off turning our attention to the social ills of the planet and leave space alone? The question then: "Is this the beginning of the end of manned spaceflight? Or is it mearly the end of the beginning?" Comments can be taken offline and sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] BTW, Bruce I would love to read your complete article. Any format works. Joe Latrell On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 17:08, Bruce Moomaw wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: G B Leatherwood > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:16 PM > Subject: What's Next > > > This is really addressed to Bruce Moomaw, but this is the only email address > I have for him. No, it's not about Europa, so don't get on my case. I know > that, but this is the only way I know to get my thoughts out. > Bruce, you have repeatedly bashed the space shuttle and the ISS as colossal > boondoggles, and I have often taken issue with that position for a variety > of reasons which I thought at the time were valid. However, and this is a > big HOWEVER, I'm beginning to agree with you and the others who question the > sense of continuing something that is not only not producing anything > worthwhile, but is diverting badly needed resources from finding better ways > to explore space--or "explore" it at all. Please see my question at the end > and see if you can come up with anything. > > A number of the things I've been reading on the internet following the > Columbia disaster have to do with arguments for and against keeping the > shuttle/station program alive. > One comment seems to be a lament that the public just doesn't seem to care > all that much about the program, whatever it is. Joe Latrell went to his > kids' schoolroom to talk with the kids about the disaster and was met with > indefference--"Thanks for dropping by," I think the response was. > Why? Because as far as the shuttle/station is concerned, there is NO > exploration taking place! We've been circling the earth at 240 miles up for > years, and aside from the Hubble repair mission and the Columbia research > mission, we haven't gone anywhere or done anything new. So what's to get > excited about? Damn little. > That raises the question of whether we have learned all we can from the > station, and very little, if anything, new will come from spending billions > more. Same is true of the shuttle. True, it's the only thing we have, but > maybe the time HAS come to bring the folks home, lock the door, and go up > only as often as necessary to boost the station back up to the proper orbit. > I would favor keeping it there as a relay point for trips further out, but > maintaining a crew seems to be a waste of time and human power. One thing it > could be used for is a "space classroom" for future mission personnel so > they could get the feel of microgravity, space suits, and tool use. Pretty > expensive, but maybe worth it. > In an article on Slashdot.org, (www.slashdot.org) Gregory Benford said that > we have not > conquered two things we must have before we even think seriously about going > to Mars: (1) a true self-supporting biosphere, and (2) an artificial gravity > that could be produced by centrifugal force with the habitat module on one > end of a tether and a spent container of appropriate weight on the other. He > commented that Russians who have set the endurance records in microgravity > never have regained full mobility, and even those who have been up for six > months or more are still having problems. Check out the whole article. > So what's to do? Maybe the answer IS to stop spending more billions on a > program which has essentially run its course and put the money into > development of better propulsion systems, such as nuclear or ion drives, > better comm and computer controls, and so on. Prepare to go to the Moon and > set up permanent housekeeping so we can develop the true biosphere we need > and get used to living, working, and playing in reduced gravity. > Any ideas on how we get this brilliant and insightful thinking to the > decision makers? > > > Well, first, my E-mail adress is [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Second, I've got > another piece coming out in SpaceDaily soon elaborating on my reasoning in > that bitter editorial I published the night of the accident. Simon says > he'll shorten it from the original (about 6500 words) down to 3000, but I'll > be happy to send you the original if you want. I tried to cover ALL aspects > of the argument. > > Basically, our feelings are a lot closer together than you might think. My > major objection to the Shuttle and the Station is that they're sucking money > out of ALL useful aspects of the space program, including a redesigned > manned ship for those infrequent occasions over the next two decades in > which manned orbital spaceflight might be justified -- which could be both > cheaper and far safer than the Shuttle -- and also out of the technical > work genuinely useful for any preparations for manned flights into the Solar > System in the more distant future, as well (of course) as out of the > unmanned missions which will be much more scientifically productive (and, I > think, equally inspirational to the general public) over the next few > decades. I've attached a reading list to the article in which people with > far more engineering and scientifid background than I have reached the same > conclusions -- and proposed new and more productive paths to follow. > > Back to Europa: I'm still having hell's own time scraping up any information > on this proposed "JIMO" nuclear-electric powered orbiter of Europa, Ganymede > AND Callisto, apparently largely because it's still in the earliest > preliminary design stages. I'm starting, however, to form a pretty firm > belief that it's technically misconceived -- it will be hard enough to > design a plain Europa Orbiter to resist Jupiter's radiation at that distance > from the planet, and radiation-proofing a big nuclear prpulsion system > against that radiation (which takes the form of protons and electrons; a > completely different problem from radiation-proofing the drive against its > own neutrons and gamma rays) will be a very big additional problem. Every > planetary scientist I've read so far (including last summer's crucial > Decadal Survey) concludes that the best first mission for a NEP-powered > spacecraft would instead be a Neptune orbiter, on both scientific and > engineering grounds -- and even that would be more appropriately launched > around 2015 than around 2011, allowing us to develop the drive in a more > leisurely way. I'm afraid that Sean O'Keefe -- despite what seems to me to > be good intentions -- is, due to his lack of engineering background, being > led around by the nose by second-level NASA officials. Before I say this > with absolute certainty, though, I'd like to know more about JIMO. > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
