Human physiology -- while Mir cosmonauts hold the record for duration on Mir, they did very little for furthering human physiology studies. Not so on ISS.
Assembly of large components -- yes, the early missions were critical for fundamental knowledge, but Mir and ISS have presented us practical issues, like mechanisms, reliability, logistics, etc.
Life support systems -- I haven't read Sy's book but it seems odd to be dissing the current crop of NASA engineers. Most of them had nothing to do with Apollo or the some of the decisions made in the 70s. Moreover, anyone that thinks that Apollo life support systems show us how to design modern, long term, reliable, supportable systems is simply not getting it. Sure, there are valuable lessons, but we can't rely on LiOH canisters and oxygen candles (although we have had to) forever.
Systems engineering -- while challenging, the programs you mention pale in comparison to setting up a permanent presence on the moon, at LX, or on Mars. It's just not the same problem -- it is vastly more complex.
Robotics -- yes, JPLs work on Mars is especially inspiring. But even the MER team will tell you we've got a long ways to go. Building autonomous systems for manned mission support is a nascent field.
Orbital power systems -- see my previous post.
MMOD environment -- LDEF was critically dependent on the Shuttle -- but even that point is moot. LDEF simply characterized the environment. The ISS is showing us what works with pragmatic examples of bumper structures etc.
You should expect more for your tax dollars -- a lot more. But there have been great advances -- just look beyond the popular anti-hype.
Finally, remember that if you are in LEO, you are 80-90% of the way to just about anywhere else in the Solar System. It also represents 80-90% of the effort, technology, power, and, most importantly, the risk. Why not support the team that's on the field?
orbital power systems - proven out countless times by hundreds of government and commercial satellites. I'd argue that we'd taken a big step backward in this area since we no longer regularly fly RTGs.
I picked this one from your list as an example of some misinformation. The power systems on satellites don't come close to generating or managing the amount of power on ISS or that will be needed on planetary missions. Moreover, RTGs are tiny -- both in terms of power output, size, and efficiency. The ISS is by far the largest producer of power ever placed in LEO. We are both learning and setting the standard. These arrays,by the way, are American.
The Saturn V was a marvel. I was generally referring to currently available vehicles. Most people in the industry believe that the reliability of the Saturn V to LEO was probably less than that of the Shuttle. By this I don't mean launch record (13-0 to 111-2 I think), but rather a theoretical value. Admittedly, this is debatable and I'd be willing to concede the point.
As far as what we have learned, I'd have to start with something having nothing to do with either the Shuttle or the ISS -- operations. Keeping a vehicle going and maintaining a reasonable launch rate. Some would say the Russians accomplished this as well -- and I would agree -- but not with a HLLV or with a Space Station of ISS-class.
Other areas include, despite the FUD, 1) long-term human physiology, 2) assembly of large components in orbit, 3) life support system design, 4) systems engineering, 5) robotics and autonomous systems, 6) orbital power systems, 7) micrometeorite environment, 8) and I think I could name more.
Remember -- sometimes the best lessons come from learning what not to do. If you are not willing to risk some degree of failure, you'll never get off the ground. 747s don't look anything like the Wright flyer, but that flight at Kitty Hawk had to happen first.
Your post is in reference to the higher education system in America -- one that is universally known as the best in the world. If you were referring to the primary or secondary systems, I might give you some credit, but the University system in the US is sought out worldwide.
if you are unskilled, uneducated, or a suicide bomber, and are willing to swim the Rio Grande its NO problem
When was the last time we had a suicide bomber in the US? I guess you might consider the 9/11 hijackers suicide bombers, but even that weak analogy was almost 4 years ago.
Not necessarily true. Even NASA admits that the Buran was a great achievement.
I think this is stretching it. For example, the reason Buran could only do one orbit was because the Russians didn't develop an APU -- a critical piece of any large manned spacecraft -- which the Buran was not.
True. SS1 burned a modified rubber compound rather than a liquid fuel. I'm not sure that it will get you to orbit...
I can assure you it won't get you to orbit. Yes -- it's innovative and a great idea for a suborbital vehicle. But it emphasizes my point -- you can't use it for higher energy missions. Using cryos requires a big leap in technology -- one that SS1 hasn't made or demonstrated.
But my original question still holds, which is "for what purpose?"
If you want to go anywhere in cislunar space or beyond, you have to establish a LEO capability. LEO is 80-90% of the way to the moon in terms of energy required. The Shuttle and ISS are our current and best ways of doing this.
...probably thanks to Karl Rove or his friends in the White House for leaking that fact to him.
Karl didn't "leak" this -- he was told it by Novak himself. At worst, Karl made the mistake of accidently confirming it by saying "yeah, I heard that too." Finally, Plame wasn't even an agent at the time of the discussion.
Just another attempt to "get even" for Bush's election and his policy mandate.
I do find it amazing that there exists someone in the world (the parent poster) that without fail has the exact opposite opinion I have on pretty much every issue though! I wonder if demachina is gay? Not that there is anything wrong with that though!:)
Once you are on the IPS, it's pretty easy to get where you want...
Unfortunately, most of humanity is not immortal -- and to get between most useful places using this interesting, but impractical IPS requires long durations -- often in excess of centuries.
Bottom line, you still need lots of energy on trajectories that are closer to that of Hohman Transfers.
Wow -- another rant. Try thinking about your point first -- brevity is a virtue.
Here's my point: comparing SS1 to the Shuttle is pointless. SS1 doesn't have the problems the Shuttle has because it doesn't have to have the energy to reach orbit, nor does it have to bleed off the energy to deorbit. And the X-15 did what SS1 did a half a century ago!
Regarding the sensor problem, you really don't have a clue. Any vehicle using cryogenics will have a similar system. Do you have a better design? Burt and his team don't, and nobody else has a HLLV like the Shuttle to compare to.
That's right -- the Shuttle provides unique capability. Crap on it all you like, but it's still the best anyone has built. Someone will eventually build something better, and I look forward to that day. From where I'm sitting, that will likely be the good old USA.
But wait - these are simply technical points (good ones too) that you make. Remember, I'm a Firefox user -- in fact a Firefox user on a Debian box.
All I know is that I'm making a good return on my MSFT investment too. I'm pretty happy 90% of the net users out there are using IE! I'm having my cake and eating it too!
You get only 8% market share and your main competitors haven't even tried in how many years?
As soon as MS decides to show up to this party, Firefox will follow the likes of Mosaic. It just isn't profitable for MS to play yet -- they are waiting to be "fashionably late."
I'm sorry -- we just don't agree here. The US is one of the strongest forces for "good" in the world today. "Good" is an abstract concept, and in the eye of the beholder, but I think "by every reasonable analysis" this is more than obvious.
The risk of terrorism has not increased in the US -- it has decreased. What has increased is the FUD about terrorism abroad. The US didn't "invite" 9/11 -- it was cold blooded mass murder. Terrorism isn't about casualties -- it's very ineffective at that. It's about FUD -- and you have bought in hook, line, and sinker.
I care about Iraq because it was/is a security threat to the US and its allies. It no longer is -- mission accomplished. Eliminating a dictator and freeing the country were nice side-effects.
It sounds like you are from India. Here's the deal -- I don't care about most of this. Bottom line is that Bush has kept the homeland free of terrorism for the past 4 years or so. What happens in Smellistan is just noise.
And the amazing thing is, with the exception of the External Tank, they did. People bash the Shuttle with their 20/20 hindsight, but it is a triumph of engineering. Perfect? No. Best on the planet? Yes.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't resist saying more.
Human physiology -- while Mir cosmonauts hold the record for duration on Mir, they did very little for furthering human physiology studies. Not so on ISS.
Assembly of large components -- yes, the early missions were critical for fundamental knowledge, but Mir and ISS have presented us practical issues, like mechanisms, reliability, logistics, etc.
Life support systems -- I haven't read Sy's book but it seems odd to be dissing the current crop of NASA engineers. Most of them had nothing to do with Apollo or the some of the decisions made in the 70s. Moreover, anyone that thinks that Apollo life support systems show us how to design modern, long term, reliable, supportable systems is simply not getting it. Sure, there are valuable lessons, but we can't rely on LiOH canisters and oxygen candles (although we have had to) forever.
Systems engineering -- while challenging, the programs you mention pale in comparison to setting up a permanent presence on the moon, at LX, or on Mars. It's just not the same problem -- it is vastly more complex.
Robotics -- yes, JPLs work on Mars is especially inspiring. But even the MER team will tell you we've got a long ways to go. Building autonomous systems for manned mission support is a nascent field.
Orbital power systems -- see my previous post.
MMOD environment -- LDEF was critically dependent on the Shuttle -- but even that point is moot. LDEF simply characterized the environment. The ISS is showing us what works with pragmatic examples of bumper structures etc.
You should expect more for your tax dollars -- a lot more. But there have been great advances -- just look beyond the popular anti-hype.
Finally, remember that if you are in LEO, you are 80-90% of the way to just about anywhere else in the Solar System. It also represents 80-90% of the effort, technology, power, and, most importantly, the risk. Why not support the team that's on the field?
I picked this one from your list as an example of some misinformation. The power systems on satellites don't come close to generating or managing the amount of power on ISS or that will be needed on planetary missions. Moreover, RTGs are tiny -- both in terms of power output, size, and efficiency. The ISS is by far the largest producer of power ever placed in LEO. We are both learning and setting the standard. These arrays ,by the way, are American.
The Saturn V was a marvel. I was generally referring to currently available vehicles. Most people in the industry believe that the reliability of the Saturn V to LEO was probably less than that of the Shuttle. By this I don't mean launch record (13-0 to 111-2 I think), but rather a theoretical value. Admittedly, this is debatable and I'd be willing to concede the point.
As far as what we have learned, I'd have to start with something having nothing to do with either the Shuttle or the ISS -- operations. Keeping a vehicle going and maintaining a reasonable launch rate. Some would say the Russians accomplished this as well -- and I would agree -- but not with a HLLV or with a Space Station of ISS-class.
Other areas include, despite the FUD, 1) long-term human physiology, 2) assembly of large components in orbit, 3) life support system design, 4) systems engineering, 5) robotics and autonomous systems, 6) orbital power systems, 7) micrometeorite environment, 8) and I think I could name more.
Remember -- sometimes the best lessons come from learning what not to do. If you are not willing to risk some degree of failure, you'll never get off the ground. 747s don't look anything like the Wright flyer, but that flight at Kitty Hawk had to happen first.
Your post is in reference to the higher education system in America -- one that is universally known as the best in the world. If you were referring to the primary or secondary systems, I might give you some credit, but the University system in the US is sought out worldwide.
if you are unskilled, uneducated, or a suicide bomber, and are willing to swim the Rio Grande its NO problem
When was the last time we had a suicide bomber in the US? I guess you might consider the 9/11 hijackers suicide bombers, but even that weak analogy was almost 4 years ago.
I think this is stretching it. For example, the reason Buran could only do one orbit was because the Russians didn't develop an APU -- a critical piece of any large manned spacecraft -- which the Buran was not.
True. SS1 burned a modified rubber compound rather than a liquid fuel. I'm not sure that it will get you to orbit...
I can assure you it won't get you to orbit. Yes -- it's innovative and a great idea for a suborbital vehicle. But it emphasizes my point -- you can't use it for higher energy missions. Using cryos requires a big leap in technology -- one that SS1 hasn't made or demonstrated.
But my original question still holds, which is "for what purpose?"
If you want to go anywhere in cislunar space or beyond, you have to establish a LEO capability. LEO is 80-90% of the way to the moon in terms of energy required. The Shuttle and ISS are our current and best ways of doing this.
Thank-you for being civil in this post.
Karl didn't "leak" this -- he was told it by Novak himself. At worst, Karl made the mistake of accidently confirming it by saying "yeah, I heard that too." Finally, Plame wasn't even an agent at the time of the discussion.
Just another attempt to "get even" for Bush's election and his policy mandate.
I do find it amazing that there exists someone in the world (the parent poster) that without fail has the exact opposite opinion I have on pretty much every issue though! I wonder if demachina is gay? Not that there is anything wrong with that though! :)
Unfortunately, most of humanity is not immortal -- and to get between most useful places using this interesting, but impractical IPS requires long durations -- often in excess of centuries.
Bottom line, you still need lots of energy on trajectories that are closer to that of Hohman Transfers.
I'm being stalked on Slashdot! lol.
Wow -- another rant. Try thinking about your point first -- brevity is a virtue.
Here's my point: comparing SS1 to the Shuttle is pointless. SS1 doesn't have the problems the Shuttle has because it doesn't have to have the energy to reach orbit, nor does it have to bleed off the energy to deorbit. And the X-15 did what SS1 did a half a century ago!
Regarding the sensor problem, you really don't have a clue. Any vehicle using cryogenics will have a similar system. Do you have a better design? Burt and his team don't, and nobody else has a HLLV like the Shuttle to compare to.
That's right -- the Shuttle provides unique capability. Crap on it all you like, but it's still the best anyone has built. Someone will eventually build something better, and I look forward to that day. From where I'm sitting, that will likely be the good old USA.
Like the average Checkizstani knows the difference between West Virginia and Kentucky...
Look at Spaceship One. No fancy designs, no high priced systems ...,and no real spaceship.
Now you're talking!
Pretty much matches the overall market recently, vastly overperforms over the long run, and we're talking about the future -- you had a point?
Trust me, I've been a stockholder much longer than two years...
But wait - these are simply technical points (good ones too) that you make. Remember, I'm a Firefox user -- in fact a Firefox user on a Debian box.
All I know is that I'm making a good return on my MSFT investment too. I'm pretty happy 90% of the net users out there are using IE! I'm having my cake and eating it too!
I think that will only happen in Munchen.
You get only 8% market share and your main competitors haven't even tried in how many years?
As soon as MS decides to show up to this party, Firefox will follow the likes of Mosaic. It just isn't profitable for MS to play yet -- they are waiting to be "fashionably late."
As a MSFT shareholder I am pleased.
Thanks -- I'm guessing text based RPGs.
You're right too -- I don't care.
Mod away.
Anyone care to explain what the hell White Wolf is?
I'm sorry -- we just don't agree here. The US is one of the strongest forces for "good" in the world today. "Good" is an abstract concept, and in the eye of the beholder, but I think "by every reasonable analysis" this is more than obvious.
The risk of terrorism has not increased in the US -- it has decreased. What has increased is the FUD about terrorism abroad. The US didn't "invite" 9/11 -- it was cold blooded mass murder. Terrorism isn't about casualties -- it's very ineffective at that. It's about FUD -- and you have bought in hook, line, and sinker.
I care about Iraq because it was/is a security threat to the US and its allies. It no longer is -- mission accomplished. Eliminating a dictator and freeing the country were nice side-effects.
It sounds like you are from India. Here's the deal -- I don't care about most of this. Bottom line is that Bush has kept the homeland free of terrorism for the past 4 years or so. What happens in Smellistan is just noise.
Huh? It did belong there. It wasn't supposed to fall off, but it did.
I guess we better shut down NASA...
Peace. I agree. The trade was between building a high variable, low fixed cost Shuttle or none at all.
And we are capable of building better crew and cargo boosters.
It's happening now.
And the amazing thing is, with the exception of the External Tank, they did. People bash the Shuttle with their 20/20 hindsight, but it is a triumph of engineering. Perfect? No. Best on the planet? Yes.
RTFA. It doesn't fly with the Shuttle.