How would you suggest we attempt manned exploration at no risk to the people involved? Considering the complexity of the issue, I would say their safety record is pretty good.
It’s a very risky proposition and I’m not sure the age of the equipment is a valid worry. But, I certainly don’t want anyone exposed to unnecessary danger
[quote]vroom wrote:
Heh, you won’t like where the money for a replacement vehicle/fleet should come from though… :p[/quote]
It would be nice to get some input from someone that lives in a country that actually has a fucking space program. You’ve already fucked up enough threads with your pedantic moaning and graoning. DOn’t fuck up this one.
lol, i can just imagine RJ and Vroom sitting in a tree sharing a banana split.
since i’ve no knowledge of the topic i’ve nothing to say. except that it’s their jobs and they wanna do it whether it’s really safe or moderately safe.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
lol, i can just imagine RJ and Vroom sitting in a tree sharing a banana split.
since i’ve no knowledge of the topic i’ve nothing to say. except that it’s their jobs and they wanna do it whether it’s really safe or moderately safe.[/quote]
I think it would be a safer venture if you get the gov’t out of the actual management of the program. I don’t think going to space is as dangerous as NASA has made it to be.
Did anyone see the documentary about the space race contest where Steve Jobs (Or one of those early computer geek guys) offered 10mil for the first private group to build their own craft,enter space, and return safely? It was very fascinating. I think gov’t stifles man’s creativity.
The “Russians are doing it right?” You are kidding, correct? I hope so. I very much agree that we need to get the government out of the space program - or at least let free enterprise onto the playing field. But before you extol the Russian model read Dragonfly: NASA and the Crisis Aboard MIR by astronaut Burrough. Great insider look at their program, their philosophy, and how they work in comparison to us.
BTW - NASA plan is to retire the shuttle fleet by 2008. New vehicle is in development. Remember the glide tests of a year or so ago? In the meantime, get back in the saddle!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It would be nice to get some input from someone that lives in a country that actually has a fucking space program.[/quote]
Why is the robotic arm on the shuttle called the “Canadarm”?
Unless what you want is feedback only from countries who have launchpads into space? I’m sure a thread filled with Chinese, French and Russian posters would make you happy.
The way I see it, with the budgets as low as there are everywhere for space exploration, we can use all the cooperation we can get.
Agreed! Vertical take-off does seem a bit outdated. And as far as I know there are a few research projects in the works for a shuttle that takes off like a normal plane; however all mock-ups I have seen would still need to be launched from a lifter plane. The energy required to escape the gravity of earth is immense; of course you can’t really escape gravity.
Anything that NASA decides to switch to would still involve plenty of risk–not to mention the cost is still super expensive.
As far as my concern for the life of the astronauts–it is no greater than my concern for the armed service members sent to fight our wars.
BTW - NASA plan is to retire the shuttle fleet by 2008. New vehicle is in development. Remember the glide tests of a year or so ago? In the meantime, get back in the saddle!
It’s precisely the “saddle” that I’m worried about.
I’ve am a die-hard proponent of manned exploration. Manned exploration offers flexibility and the human interest component cannot be overlooked.
I have to be completely honest: I never was a big proponent of the Space Station. UNLESS, it was used as a base from which to assemble hardware for deep space mining/exploration.
Worse, the Station seems to be NASA’s primary goal for keeping the shuttle flying.
Dinking around in low Earth orbit is nice for pictures, but it doesn’t generate the kind of interest to make this take off.
In summary, I think we are about one more disaster from people getting turned off.
I just think NASA needs to up the freakin’ ante on the new vehicle.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
It would be nice to get some input from someone that lives in a country that actually has a fucking space program.
Why is the robotic arm on the shuttle called the “Canadarm”?
Unless what you want is feedback only from countries who have launchpads into space? I’m sure a thread filled with Chinese, French and Russian posters would make you happy.
The way I see it, with the budgets as low as there are everywhere for space exploration, we can use all the cooperation we can get.
As for the shuttle, yes, you need something smaller and cheaper (not to mention safer… 2 losses per 100 launches, give or take a few, is not good)[/quote]
I stand corrected, Pookie. Canada is truly a leader in watching, and allowing other countries to actually GO to space. But good job on inventing a robotic arm, and sending up comm sats.
I guess I should rephrase my statement. Vroom was bitching about the tax burden of funding a space program - in a country that he pays no taxes to. Not appropriate for this discussion, especially coming from the designated Canadian rock thrower.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I stand corrected, Pookie. Canada is truly a leader in watching, and allowing other countries to actually GO to space. But good job on inventing a robotic arm, and sending up comm sats.[/quote]
Why should all countries reinvent the wheel and launch payload themselves when you can cooperate with another country that already has launch capabilities? Not to mention that spots near the equator are better for launching than spots up north or far south of the equator (that’s why you use Cap Canaveral and not Bangor, Maine for example… or why France launches from Kourou, French Guinea).
That way, resources spent in one country on perfecting launch capabilities don’t have to be duplicated tens of times. Another country, smaller, with less ressources (say Canada, eh?) can concentrate on a domain where they are world leaders and both countries profit from the venture. You can also “sell” your payload capability and allow the program to somewhat finance itself.
Seeing everything with “Us against the world” glasses is… misguided I’d say.
We don’t pay taxes and we don’t get to vote in your elections either. Commenting, arguing and discussing is still allowed, until T-Nation blocks off all Canadian IPs at the server…
Anyway, I think vroom’s point was that an increase in budget for the space program would have to mean a decrease in the Iraq war spendings. I think that’s wrong too. The money can come from any number of sources; or simply add to the current deficit.
Rainjack, that was quite uncalled for. Congrats on letting your character shine through. How old are you again?
The space program is often billed as a worldwide endeavor for the betterment of mankind – perhaps you could be a little bit less childish when discussing it?
With two seconds of thought, you might have realized what I was saying. It costs a lot of money to have a public space program. Don’t you think it might have to wait until after the war on terrorism, or at least the war on Iraq, becomes a less expensive issue?
Anyway, with that insult, I’m taking back my Canadarm. More seriously, we have a program, but we don’t do our own launches, much like many other countries.
Also, I was actually jumping in quick to be in agreement with Jerffy on a topic, which hasn’t happened in a long long time. I’d like to see a modernized space program – because science and exploration are relevant to all of mankind.
