The sum 1 billion probably tips off the strategy they have. Start off high, wrangle in the courts a little bit, then settle for some lesser amount that IBM might be willing to pay "to be done with it".
After all, that's the strategy they pursued and accomplished against Microsoft with DRDOS.
The reason it worked with Microsoft is because MS knew they had a severe image problem that could hurt them badly in court.
IBM on the other hand is not crippled by such a problem, and might go the distance against SCO.
I think that SCO will argue that it is the contracts signed with IBM that are at issue. Which case there would be no statute of limitations for court action.
Also, alot of people forget in this discussion that SCO hired David Boies, who is very smart and would not take this case unless he felt there was some validity to it.
My guess is that they have a very easy way of replacing the display so that anyone can do it -- not unlike a lightbulb.
This is the only way I see OLEDs being acceptable in consumer electronics, unless the lifetime of the device is planned on being very short/disposable. A distinct possibility.
Right now we spend 1 billion dollars to send seven astronauts to spend a week in space, and they essentially do nothing, and you are suggesting that we send the general population???
What will they do once they get there?? Who is going to pay for all of the rockets and supplies?? Where is the money going to come from??
This idea is so fundamentally flawed that it's laughable.
There is no need for "nano-scale manufacturing" on the moon, and there will never be. It will _always_ be cheaper to find a way to "contain" the risks (if there is any - it's like saying manufacturing microchips is risky) here on earth.
So much for the idea of mining the moon, this makes no sense whatsoever. Before that, you could mine the ocean floors or Antarctica much easier, at much much (by several large magnitudes) cheaper.
If on the ridiculous outside chance you needed to mine the moon, a robot will be far far less expensive than sending a man. That would go for any "manufacturing" too (won't happen).
The need for "man in space" just isn't there. Whatever he needs he will _always_ be able to find or do it cheaper on earth.
One could also argue that those pictures of nekid women that you have in your journal not only perpetuates the sexual exploitation or woman, but is sexist and demeaning. And a "disgrace to women."
And talking about the G-spot in your post is in itself a form of trashtalking and shows a lack of modesty.
As bad as "wad" may sound to you, it is actually a word, that had other meanings long before it it obtained a sexual connotation. Like the phrase "a wad of bubblegum."
While the original meaning of the word "wad" is being subverted to mean something else sexual, like most language it's regional. The majority of areas in this country (and the world) the word "wad" means nothing else besides "bundle," and most people wouldn't have a clue about what you are talking about.
While the word "wad" is undoubtedly taking advantage of this and is a play upon the word, there is alot more to be offended about the game Doom than some vague sexual reference, like the "mindless violence" it has.
Your hypocrisy makes you look like a troll. Also realize that sexual innuendo is everywhere these days.
If you study the engineering behind the radiation sources that the spacecraft use you would see that the darkest of scenarios have been accounted for. Even if the launch vehicle were to explode high in the atmosphere, nothing would happen to the power supply.
The unmanned missions and real science are suffering for lack of funding due to the space shuttles exorbitant cost (it never met its' original goal of cheap spaceflight). All that it is accomplishing is man marking time on the space station. Time to be honest with the numbers and goals of man in space. It's time to shelve the shuttle program.
I was always wondering about this. The history is quite interesting and thorough. It's located in Idaho. It's where they developed the nuclear jet engine.
Sadly, the website has exceeded it's alloted slashdotting (it's tripod), but it's worth going back for the read.
Of course now they call it stalking. It can get pretty lonely in the bushes.
Re:Mothball the ISS and the Shuttle.
on
Columbia Coverage
·
· Score: 1
The shuttle doesn't really do anything useful. It's not worth the cost. We would get much more science if NASA used the money that they spent on the shuttle on unmanned probes.
The fact is that self-deluded NASA has managed to pull the wool over everyones eyes including yours.
Yeah, they seem sufficiently rad hardened on earth because they are being shielded from most of the cosmic and sun's radiation by the earth's atmosphere and magnetic field. In space, though, it's another matter. The Pentium 4 I'm typing this on would be unreliable at best, and wouldn't work at all at worst
Your ignoring the obvious. If this is such a big problem, then NASA could use some of the billions that they use on the shuttle to overcome it. The fact is that it is no longer a problem
Quoting the article;
"NASA administrator Daniel Goldin said the Pentium will help NASA "plumb the depths of the oceans of [Jupiter moon] Europa, take samples from Mars and explore the outer limits of our own solar system."
Sounds to me that pratical unmanned missions are possible right now. NASA spends all of its money on the shuttle and ISS though.
As for it costing trillions of dollars? I don't think so. But, maybe this time we should just ask NASA, "Ok, how much realistically (i.e. taking into account unforseen problems, test failures, redesigns, etc.) will it cost?" instead of, "Ok, you've got this much to spend. Can you do it?" And then decide if it's too expensive
In the middle of the seventies, NASA was asked how much it would cost to go to mars. There response? $500 billion dollars Knowing that NASA has a history of underestimating everything by a factor of least three (look at the price of all the International Space Station overruns)-- that's 1.5 trillion, and that's 1973 dollars. Today it would cost much more. so yes, it would be trillions of dollars
That wasn't the point of that statement. What I meant was seeing what the earth looks like from space or the moon IN PERSON. I would imagine that no picture in existence could do it justice.
It's only significant for the single astronaut standing there. So we should spend billions of dollars for the view?? So the astronaut can stand there and be awed?? The experience?? The Hubble space telescope takes great pictures of far away places, and an astronaut is not required for this. Unmanned probes have and can accomplish the same thing with the planets.
But the only way we are going to learn how to make space travel safer for humans is by doing it.
That's just it. We aren't learning anything from patching up old shuttle technology and flying it. Nothing is being gained from it. To spend billions on another "safer" vehicle to do exactly what the shuttle is doing makes no sense either
I really did not give this any thought until this last weekend. I always thought that NASA's odds of another disaster were a bit optimistic, but I thought that NASA had a handle on it.
Then after the disaster I heard NASA administrator O'Keefe say "We will find out what is wrong, fix it, and continue flying."
I found this particularly saccarhin (esp. as it was the same thing they said after Challenger - like a script), and I started asking myself, what is it we are trying to accomplish here?? Certainly, it's not good science.
It's like the the little thread on the sweater, once you pull it the whole thing comes unravelled.
The whole NASA organization seems to be so self-deluded that it feels that it needs to continue manned space exploration (specifically shuttle flights), even though they are not accomplishing anything important (certainly not science), other than a public relalions campaign. At $3 billion a year on shuttle flights, not including the ISS, it's an expensive PR campaign. I too think the idea of a teacher in space is ridiculous (and they are even now promising to press on with it). Richard Feyman said at the end of his report on the Challenger disaster;
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
I came to the same exact conclusion you did, and am grateful that there is another slashdot poster of like mind, admist the irrational chorus of "manned spaceflight must go on."
BTW, I too think that the Viking missions was a hight point.
"For fiscal year 2000, the Shuttle budget is $2.98 billion."
So using NASA's own numbers you could nearly replace the Hubble Space Telescope twice over every year for what it costs to fly the space shuttles yearly. So if you need different equipment in a space telescope, you could just send up a new telescope for what it costs to fly the shuttle a couple of flights.
That's why commercial satellites are replaced outright rather than retrieved and repaired. It's just not worth it.
In fact, NASA's next generation space telescope doesn't use a space shuttle to get it into orbit nor will it use a space shuttle to service it.
There will probably be other missions like HST, missions that for whatever reason will require human intervention if they are to succeed. Maybe they will be faulty in some regard, and in need of repair; maybe they'll just need maintenance or upgrading or whatever. But they'll need something, every great once in a while
The space shuttle is only accomplishing a small fraction of it's original designed mission. The space shuttle truly fits the cliche' of "being able to do all things, but is good at none of them." The space station seems created as an afterthought to give the shuttle something to do. If a manned spaceflight "is needed every great once in a while" then have manned spaceflight as needed "every great once in a while". But using the shuttle as a commuter to space is not wise From that report "...this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary airliner."
I am sure that the need for manned spaceflight may appear. But in light of this recent disaster, one has to ask at what cost that the need will be met at.
There are other, less tangible benefits to human spaceflight; but they are appeals to the soul, not the mind, and it is for each of us to decide how much weight they can hold. That is a topic for another post; this one is long enough.
I stayed up all night and watched in wonder and awe as the Coulmbia first launched into space. I really believed in NASA and the space shuttle. Even after the first Challenger disaster I was able to believe that it was a "one-off" and that the problems were really fixed.
Up to this last weekend, I towed the NASA line and thought the space program was on track. I always thought the chances of a disaster, while high, would not be seen in the shuttle's lifetime.
But after this disaster, something was bothering me. It was like a quiet voice down deep that I wasn't listening to. Hearing the statements by everybody sounded just the same as after the Challenger disaster. The more I thought about, the more I asked "what is it we are trying to do here???"
It's like the little string on the sweater, once you pull it the whole thing becomes unravelled
The more I looked, the more I realized that the space shuttle is a deluded effort, and delusions were what driving most of the decisions made at NASA. The more I researched it, the more it became apparent that it was "the less tangible benefits" that was driving the space program, not the search for quality science. NASA is not being honest by saying otherwise. Otherwise they would give up the PR stunt of getting a teacher into space.
As Richard Feynman put it "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
I think that perhaps that is my rub. NASA is not being honest with the public as to the real costs of continuuing to fly the shuttle. Not just the risks to human life, but what missed opportunites that are lost because the funds are spent on trying to keep the shuttle flying.
It's the "less tangible benefits" that is preventing real science from moving forward. And I do not think they are worth having to pick up pieces of shuttle and astronauts over three states either.
The need for manned spaceflight at the costs (both human risk and fiscally) just is not apparent to me at this time. And pursuing the "less tangible benefits" while noble can not be justified with current shuttle technology.
Isn't there something wondrous about a person floating unsupported? About seeing a sunrise every 90 minutes? About knowing that star you see has a crew?
Yes it is wonderous, and it's also called infatuation.
As long the infatuation with the space shuttle continues, people will have to pick up pieces of astronauts over a three state area.
We do or don't do a lot of things for completely unscientific reasons: art, adventure, beauty.
Yes, but art doesn't fall from the sky in flames unless it is a firework.
Aside from the no-immediate-use stuff like "How do ants behave in space?" (answer: they dig like crazy), sooner or later we are going to have to send humans off-planet on a permanent/extended trip. Maybe we decide to start mining asteroids, or whatever, but it will most certainly require a human to be present.
Until we decide specifically why we need a human in space, we shouldn't be throwing humans up to space in outdated dangerous technology just for the sake of "sending men to space". That seems to be the overiding purpose of NASA right now.
A far more reliable and economical vehicle than the space shuttle needs to be developed. $500 million (low end estimate) per launch is not reasonable.
There is only so much that a probe can do. A human geologist on-site could learn more about Mars' geology in a short while than a probe could over the course of its entire mission.
And how many trillions of dollars should we spend on this?? Giving the history of NASA to vastly underestimate the cost of a project, to trust any budget numbers from them would be foolish to the extreme. I think that until we have technology that we can trust to safely and cost effectively carry humans to earth orbit (let alone the moon or mars) we should stop the shuttle program and use the billions to send probes to mars and bring back rocks and pictures for the Geologists to analyze on earth. I bet we could bring back alot of rocks for the cost of a single years worth of shuttle flights alot sooner. Sending a geologist to mars is not just decades away, but more likely a century distant. Or are you suggesting that we retrofit the shuttle to go to mars???
You're forgetting that if you landed a probe on Mars, it would be extremely difficult to maneuver it, because of things like a 20 minute communications lag, the fact that you can only communicate with the probe for part of the day, and the limited computing power of the probe's computer
Most of these problems have been overcome with the pathfinder missions. Incidentally, the cost of the pathfinder mission is one-half the cost of a single shuttle launch.
The onboard computer is limited because it has to not only be extremly reliable, but it also has to be rad-hardened (maybe not once on Mars, but to survive the trip), which means using slower technology (it's slower because, in order to decrease the odds of cosmic radiation flipping bits, the gates and transistors have to be larger).
So are you saying that by having a human in a space vehicle that the computers will then have to be less complicated??? Humans aren't rad-hardened either. Your statement makes no sense.
Computer technology is evolving so extremely fast, they will be able to think in a few years. Computers are sufficently powerful enough and rad-hardened enough to accomplish sophisticated tasks now. Look at the computers they use in present day communications satellites and the Galileo probe.
How far has space-shuttle technology evolved in the past few years?? It hasn't evolved a drop. It's the same 70's apollo-era technology. There is nothing about the space shuttle that is going to get people to mars other than it's a rocket.
I will put my money on computers evolving to the point that a probe can bring back mars rocks (the technology is ready now actually). And if anything does happen to an unmanned probe, a human doesn't die.
Besides all that, there is the "being there" aspect of it. Seeing what the earth looks like from the moon, school children communicating with astronauts (and even thinking up experiments to try in space, like the ants thing I mentioned above), and things like that, which may not have a direct and immediate scientific value, are no less important.
We already know what the earth looks like from the moon. People already stopped caring what it looks like before the apollo program ended. Having children talk with the astronauts and the kid's experiments are really neat. But it really is hard explaining to the children what happened to the astronauts after their vehicle exploded on launch or re-entry. Flying the dangerous/outdated shuttle to accomplish great PR is short-sighted beyond belief.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Or we could listen to you and just sit here, think small, look up at the stars and planets, but never visit them, because you think it's too expensive and dangerous.
Please take the time to read my post. I did not call for the end of space exploration. I do call for the end of shuttle flights immediately, because they are expensive and dangerous. We could accomplish alot more unmanned exploration for what we spend on shuttle flights. Who is really thinking small here???
When NASA can present an honest solution to safe and economical manned space travel (not the one in thirty odds of catastrophic failure we apparently have now) perhaps a return to manned spaceflight could be undertaken if there is a specific rational goal to accomplish. But NASA in its current incarnation will have to be dismantled to accomplish this. To throw many billions on another orbiter to accomplish the same marginal (at best) science is a useless goal also.
When people say we need a man in space "for the romance of it all" and saying that we need space shuttles to do it, people might as well say "it is romantic to die in a billion dollar explosion". People's infatuation with the space shuttle needs to end, otherwise they will again have to pick up pieces of astronauts over three states.
Your post reminded me of something someone once said: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." -John F. Kennedy
Your only logical reflection. It would be hard to reorganize NASA.
Slashdot Mirror
The sum 1 billion probably tips off the strategy they have. Start off high, wrangle in the courts a little bit, then settle for some lesser amount that IBM might be willing to pay "to be done with it".
After all, that's the strategy they pursued and accomplished against Microsoft with DRDOS.
The reason it worked with Microsoft is because MS knew they had a severe image problem that could hurt them badly in court.
IBM on the other hand is not crippled by such a problem, and might go the distance against SCO.
I think that SCO will argue that it is the contracts signed with IBM that are at issue. Which case there would be no statute of limitations for court action.
Also, alot of people forget in this discussion that SCO hired David Boies, who is very smart and would not take this case unless he felt there was some validity to it.
Heh -- you use a program??? I'm so used to averting my eyes that I haven't seen an ad in years.
if they could find a way to keep the fly alive and attach a wireless webcam to it. It would give a hole new meaning to "bug."
in the fly that is. BSD in a dead fly.
Nevermind.
The first thing that came to my mind is that "PETA is going to be all over this" or they should.
When you think about it, it does seem abusive to the poor creature.
But I forgot, maybe the fly wasn't killed for the purposes of implanting the webserver and was found already dead someplace. Yeah, that's better.
Somehow though this is not on the same level as "killing a cow" and implanting a webserver.
Heh, I think I just invented the leather encased computer.
I think there would be alot more objection if it was a butterfly though.
My guess is that they have a very easy way of replacing the display so that anyone can do it -- not unlike a lightbulb.
This is the only way I see OLEDs being acceptable in consumer electronics, unless the lifetime of the device is planned on being very short/disposable. A distinct possibility.
Right now we spend 1 billion dollars to send seven astronauts to spend a week in space, and they essentially do nothing, and you are suggesting that we send the general population???
What will they do once they get there?? Who is going to pay for all of the rockets and supplies?? Where is the money going to come from??
This idea is so fundamentally flawed that it's laughable.
There is no need for "nano-scale manufacturing" on the moon, and there will never be. It will _always_ be cheaper to find a way to "contain" the risks (if there is any - it's like saying manufacturing microchips is risky) here on earth.
So much for the idea of mining the moon, this makes no sense whatsoever. Before that, you could mine the ocean floors or Antarctica much easier, at much much (by several large magnitudes) cheaper.
If on the ridiculous outside chance you needed to mine the moon, a robot will be far far less expensive than sending a man. That would go for any "manufacturing" too (won't happen).
The need for "man in space" just isn't there. Whatever he needs he will _always_ be able to find or do it cheaper on earth.
That's just the facts.
I wish that they were useful for something.
One could also argue that those pictures of nekid women that you have in your journal not only perpetuates the sexual exploitation or woman, but is sexist and demeaning. And a "disgrace to women."
And talking about the G-spot in your post is in itself a form of trashtalking and shows a lack of modesty.
As bad as "wad" may sound to you, it is actually a word, that had other meanings long before it it obtained a sexual connotation. Like the phrase "a wad of bubblegum."
While the original meaning of the word "wad" is being subverted to mean something else sexual, like most language it's regional. The majority of areas in this country (and the world) the word "wad" means nothing else besides "bundle," and most people wouldn't have a clue about what you are talking about.
While the word "wad" is undoubtedly taking advantage of this and is a play upon the word, there is alot more to be offended about the game Doom than some vague sexual reference, like the "mindless violence" it has.
Your hypocrisy makes you look like a troll. Also realize that sexual innuendo is everywhere these days.
to practice geology. Only a head full of rocks.
If you study the engineering behind the radiation sources that the spacecraft use you would see that the darkest of scenarios have been accounted for. Even if the launch vehicle were to explode high in the atmosphere, nothing would happen to the power supply.
Going places where we have not been before. It makes more sense (and is more cost effective) than man marking time in the space station.
The have to do this mission soon while Pluto is in the "warm" part of of its' orbit.
that you compile under the influence of any type of alcahol
but it's ok to post on slashdot???
Given the current rate of failure of shuttles, 1 in 8 astronauts will die. Also, 20 airplanes would crash daily at La Guardia.
Acceptable risk?? I think not for questionable science
The unmanned missions and real science are suffering for lack of funding due to the space shuttles exorbitant cost (it never met its' original goal of cheap spaceflight). All that it is accomplishing is man marking time on the space station. Time to be honest with the numbers and goals of man in space. It's time to shelve the shuttle program.
I was always wondering about this. The history is quite interesting and thorough. It's located in Idaho. It's where they developed the nuclear jet engine.
Sadly, the website has exceeded it's alloted slashdotting (it's tripod), but it's worth going back for the read.
The trolls on slashdot are missing the FOXP2 gene. Maybe they will be able to get treatment now.
Of course now they call it stalking. It can get pretty lonely in the bushes.
The shuttle doesn't really do anything useful. It's not worth the cost. We would get much more science if NASA used the money that they spent on the shuttle on unmanned probes.
The fact is that self-deluded NASA has managed to pull the wool over everyones eyes including yours.
Yeah, they seem sufficiently rad hardened on earth because they are being shielded from most of the cosmic and sun's radiation by the earth's atmosphere and magnetic field. In space, though, it's another matter. The Pentium 4 I'm typing this on would be unreliable at best, and wouldn't work at all at worst
Your ignoring the obvious. If this is such a big problem, then NASA could use some of the billions that they use on the shuttle to overcome it. The fact is that it is no longer a problem
Quoting the article;
"NASA administrator Daniel Goldin said the Pentium will help NASA "plumb the depths of the oceans of [Jupiter moon] Europa, take samples from Mars and explore the outer limits of our own solar system."
Sounds to me that pratical unmanned missions are possible right now. NASA spends all of its money on the shuttle and ISS though.
As for it costing trillions of dollars? I don't think so. But, maybe this time we should just ask NASA, "Ok, how much realistically (i.e. taking into account unforseen problems, test failures, redesigns, etc.) will it cost?" instead of, "Ok, you've got this much to spend. Can you do it?" And then decide if it's too expensive
In the middle of the seventies, NASA was asked how much it would cost to go to mars. There response? $500 billion dollars Knowing that NASA has a history of underestimating everything by a factor of least three (look at the price of all the International Space Station overruns)-- that's 1.5 trillion, and that's 1973 dollars. Today it would cost much more. so yes, it would be trillions of dollars
That wasn't the point of that statement. What I meant was seeing what the earth looks like from space or the moon IN PERSON. I would imagine that no picture in existence could do it justice.
It's only significant for the single astronaut standing there. So we should spend billions of dollars for the view?? So the astronaut can stand there and be awed?? The experience?? The Hubble space telescope takes great pictures of far away places, and an astronaut is not required for this. Unmanned probes have and can accomplish the same thing with the planets.
But the only way we are going to learn how to make space travel safer for humans is by doing it.
That's just it. We aren't learning anything from patching up old shuttle technology and flying it. Nothing is being gained from it. To spend billions on another "safer" vehicle to do exactly what the shuttle is doing makes no sense either
Having a man in space is "neat", but that's all that it is. the cost is not justified
I understand what you are trying to say -- because its the same thing NASA has been trying to say.
In fact though, it's more like a religion, not science.
I really did not give this any thought until this last weekend. I always thought that NASA's odds of another disaster were a bit optimistic, but I thought that NASA had a handle on it.
Then after the disaster I heard NASA administrator O'Keefe say "We will find out what is wrong, fix it, and continue flying."
I found this particularly saccarhin (esp. as it was the same thing they said after Challenger - like a script), and I started asking myself, what is it we are trying to accomplish here?? Certainly, it's not good science.
It's like the the little thread on the sweater, once you pull it the whole thing comes unravelled.
The whole NASA organization seems to be so self-deluded that it feels that it needs to continue manned space exploration (specifically shuttle flights), even though they are not accomplishing anything important (certainly not science), other than a public relalions campaign. At $3 billion a year on shuttle flights, not including the ISS, it's an expensive PR campaign. I too think the idea of a teacher in space is ridiculous (and they are even now promising to press on with it). Richard Feyman said at the end of his report on the Challenger disaster;
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
I came to the same exact conclusion you did, and am grateful that there is another slashdot poster of like mind, admist the irrational chorus of "manned spaceflight must go on."
BTW, I too think that the Viking missions was a hight point.
There you go -- answer the three magic questions right and you get into a DCC que.
There's always a way around something.
You know, the Hubble Telescope has to be the brightest gem of the Space Shuttle. And the science that it produces is wonderful and worthwhile.
But how much did this cost? From this FAQ;
"Initially Hubble cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit."
Then from this budget FAQ;
"For fiscal year 2000, the Shuttle budget is $2.98 billion."
So using NASA's own numbers you could nearly replace the Hubble Space Telescope twice over every year for what it costs to fly the space shuttles yearly. So if you need different equipment in a space telescope, you could just send up a new telescope for what it costs to fly the shuttle a couple of flights.
That's why commercial satellites are replaced outright rather than retrieved and repaired. It's just not worth it.
In fact, NASA's next generation space telescope doesn't use a space shuttle to get it into orbit nor will it use a space shuttle to service it.
There will probably be other missions like HST, missions that for whatever reason will require human intervention if they are to succeed. Maybe they will be faulty in some regard, and in need of repair; maybe they'll just need maintenance or upgrading or whatever. But they'll need something, every great once in a while
The space shuttle is only accomplishing a small fraction of it's original designed mission. The space shuttle truly fits the cliche' of "being able to do all things, but is good at none of them." The space station seems created as an afterthought to give the shuttle something to do. If a manned spaceflight "is needed every great once in a while" then have manned spaceflight as needed "every great once in a while". But using the shuttle as a commuter to space is not wise From that report "...this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary airliner."
I am sure that the need for manned spaceflight may appear. But in light of this recent disaster, one has to ask at what cost that the need will be met at.
There are other, less tangible benefits to human spaceflight; but they are appeals to the soul, not the mind, and it is for each of us to decide how much weight they can hold. That is a topic for another post; this one is long enough.
I stayed up all night and watched in wonder and awe as the Coulmbia first launched into space. I really believed in NASA and the space shuttle. Even after the first Challenger disaster I was able to believe that it was a "one-off" and that the problems were really fixed.
Up to this last weekend, I towed the NASA line and thought the space program was on track. I always thought the chances of a disaster, while high, would not be seen in the shuttle's lifetime.
But after this disaster, something was bothering me. It was like a quiet voice down deep that I wasn't listening to. Hearing the statements by everybody sounded just the same as after the Challenger disaster. The more I thought about, the more I asked "what is it we are trying to do here???"
It's like the little string on the sweater, once you pull it the whole thing becomes unravelled
The more I looked, the more I realized that the space shuttle is a deluded effort, and delusions were what driving most of the decisions made at NASA. The more I researched it, the more it became apparent that it was "the less tangible benefits" that was driving the space program, not the search for quality science. NASA is not being honest by saying otherwise. Otherwise they would give up the PR stunt of getting a teacher into space.
As Richard Feynman put it "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
I think that perhaps that is my rub. NASA is not being honest with the public as to the real costs of continuuing to fly the shuttle. Not just the risks to human life, but what missed opportunites that are lost because the funds are spent on trying to keep the shuttle flying.
It's the "less tangible benefits" that is preventing real science from moving forward. And I do not think they are worth having to pick up pieces of shuttle and astronauts over three states either.
The need for manned spaceflight at the costs (both human risk and fiscally) just is not apparent to me at this time. And pursuing the "less tangible benefits" while noble can not be justified with current shuttle technology.
Isn't there something wondrous about a person floating unsupported? About seeing a sunrise every 90 minutes? About knowing that star you see has a crew?
Yes it is wonderous, and it's also called infatuation.
As long the infatuation with the space shuttle continues, people will have to pick up pieces of astronauts over a three state area.
We do or don't do a lot of things for completely unscientific reasons: art, adventure, beauty.
Yes, but art doesn't fall from the sky in flames unless it is a firework.
Aside from the no-immediate-use stuff like "How do ants behave in space?" (answer: they dig like crazy), sooner or later we are going to have to send humans off-planet on a permanent/extended trip. Maybe we decide to start mining asteroids, or whatever, but it will most certainly require a human to be present.
Until we decide specifically why we need a human in space, we shouldn't be throwing humans up to space in outdated dangerous technology just for the sake of "sending men to space". That seems to be the overiding purpose of NASA right now.
A far more reliable and economical vehicle than the space shuttle needs to be developed. $500 million (low end estimate) per launch is not reasonable.
There is only so much that a probe can do. A human geologist on-site could learn more about Mars' geology in a short while than a probe could over the course of its entire mission.
And how many trillions of dollars should we spend on this?? Giving the history of NASA to vastly underestimate the cost of a project, to trust any budget numbers from them would be foolish to the extreme. I think that until we have technology that we can trust to safely and cost effectively carry humans to earth orbit (let alone the moon or mars) we should stop the shuttle program and use the billions to send probes to mars and bring back rocks and pictures for the Geologists to analyze on earth. I bet we could bring back alot of rocks for the cost of a single years worth of shuttle flights alot sooner. Sending a geologist to mars is not just decades away, but more likely a century distant. Or are you suggesting that we retrofit the shuttle to go to mars???
You're forgetting that if you landed a probe on Mars, it would be extremely difficult to maneuver it, because of things like a 20 minute communications lag, the fact that you can only communicate with the probe for part of the day, and the limited computing power of the probe's computer
Most of these problems have been overcome with the pathfinder missions. Incidentally, the cost of the pathfinder mission is one-half the cost of a single shuttle launch.
The onboard computer is limited because it has to not only be extremly reliable, but it also has to be rad-hardened (maybe not once on Mars, but to survive the trip), which means using slower technology (it's slower because, in order to decrease the odds of cosmic radiation flipping bits, the gates and transistors have to be larger).
So are you saying that by having a human in a space vehicle that the computers will then have to be less complicated??? Humans aren't rad-hardened either. Your statement makes no sense.
Computer technology is evolving so extremely fast, they will be able to think in a few years. Computers are sufficently powerful enough and rad-hardened enough to accomplish sophisticated tasks now. Look at the computers they use in present day communications satellites and the Galileo probe.
How far has space-shuttle technology evolved in the past few years?? It hasn't evolved a drop. It's the same 70's apollo-era technology. There is nothing about the space shuttle that is going to get people to mars other than it's a rocket.
I will put my money on computers evolving to the point that a probe can bring back mars rocks (the technology is ready now actually). And if anything does happen to an unmanned probe, a human doesn't die.
Besides all that, there is the "being there" aspect of it. Seeing what the earth looks like from the moon, school children communicating with astronauts (and even thinking up experiments to try in space, like the ants thing I mentioned above), and things like that, which may not have a direct and immediate scientific value, are no less important.
We already know what the earth looks like from the moon. People already stopped caring what it looks like before the apollo program ended. Having children talk with the astronauts and the kid's experiments are really neat. But it really is hard explaining to the children what happened to the astronauts after their vehicle exploded on launch or re-entry. Flying the dangerous/outdated shuttle to accomplish great PR is short-sighted beyond belief.
I think Richard Feynman put it best at the end of his report after the challenger disaster;
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Or we could listen to you and just sit here, think small, look up at the stars and planets, but never visit them, because you think it's too expensive and dangerous.
Please take the time to read my post. I did not call for the end of space exploration. I do call for the end of shuttle flights immediately, because they are expensive and dangerous. We could accomplish alot more unmanned exploration for what we spend on shuttle flights. Who is really thinking small here???
When NASA can present an honest solution to safe and economical manned space travel (not the one in thirty odds of catastrophic failure we apparently have now) perhaps a return to manned spaceflight could be undertaken if there is a specific rational goal to accomplish. But NASA in its current incarnation will have to be dismantled to accomplish this. To throw many billions on another orbiter to accomplish the same marginal (at best) science is a useless goal also.
When people say we need a man in space "for the romance of it all" and saying that we need space shuttles to do it, people might as well say "it is romantic to die in a billion dollar explosion". People's infatuation with the space shuttle needs to end, otherwise they will again have to pick up pieces of astronauts over three states.
Your post reminded me of something someone once said: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
-John F. Kennedy
Your only logical reflection. It would be hard to reorganize NASA.