RE: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon
But playing the devil's advocate - I think that having the shuttle really did help with the HST. The ISS still has the potential to help with future mission staging and "might" actually produce some real science.
My turn to play devil's advocate. No question in my mind that the HST is the single most important astronomical instrument ever built (except perhaps for Galileo's little refractor). I say this both for the quality and quantity of data it's returned and for its ability to connect with a larger public. But HST was designed to be launched and serviced by the shuttle. Problems with the shuttle caused HST to be launched several years late, and current problems probably mean that Hubble will die too soon. Let me hasten to say that those servicing missions have been the high point of the shuttle's many times aloft. The question we can never answer is what kind of scope would HST have been with no shuttle. It's fun to speculate. We'd still have had heavy lift capability, so we could have gotten something up. Perhaps we'd have built a platform that was serviceable by robot (something HST isn't). Or perhaps we'd have launched new scopes every few years. That may have actually been the more economical way to avoid wear, tear and obscelescence. I remember one of the early shuttle missions where they rescued a satellite after its Pegasus booster had failed on a previous shuttle release. NASA was boasting how the shuttle had saved the satellite, when the shuttle-based launch had been the initial reason for failure. They could have sent the thing up on a Delta for a quarter the money and no risk to life. The Trib has an interestingly skeptical editorial today about the new NASA direction. In essence, they like the change in technology, but they're doubtful about the financials. While they're correct in their skepticism, the current situation is untenable, so change is absolutely necessary. I'm delighted to see the human space program go back to moving humans and the cargo business go back to unmanned rockets.
No devils nor advocacy here, but I agree with Michael, who wrote, "I'm delighted to see the human space program go back to moving humans and the cargo business go back to unmanned rockets." Here, here. Let's see if the politicians can leave it that way. I'd still like to see the ISS drop into the sea. Which reminds me, no one has answered my question: Just exactly what purpose is the ISS supposed to serve, besides justifying jobs, politicians' rhetoric, and the infamous STS? My memory is far from perfect, but I can't recall a single bit of science being reported that was grounded in experiments done aboard the ISS. Anyone? Kim
Quoting Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net>:
My memory is far from perfect, but I can't recall a single bit of science being reported that was grounded in experiments done aboard the ISS. Anyone?
If we plan on establishing a permanent base station on the Moon, or if we plan on travelling beyond the Moon to distant planets, we will need to know just what medical effects long term exposure to zero gravity will have on the human body. I think ISS provides a great and necessarty platform for that research, as well as providing a living environment that could be used as a model for living quarters once on the Moon. If you're going to live on the Moon or travel long distances you are going to need to know how long certain supplies last, how well your toilets function, how to provide water, how to make your air supply last longer, all kinds of things that the ISS does on a daily basis. You need to know how humans can coexist for extended stays in otherwise cramped quarters. A whole host of things that can't be done on Earth. So I think the ISS, in a not so glamorous way, is a great platform for the study of the things that NASA will need to know to advance space travel. But I could be wrong...
Good point -- I 'd forgotten the value of the station in studies of long-term space travel. -- Joe
OK. Maybe I can live with that. ----- Original Message ----- From: <diveboss@xmission.com> To: <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon | Quoting Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net>: | | > My memory is far from perfect, | > but I can't recall a single bit of science being reported that was grounded | > in experiments done aboard the ISS. Anyone? | | | If we plan on establishing a permanent base station on the Moon, or if we plan | on travelling beyond the Moon to distant planets, we will need to know just | what medical effects long term exposure to zero gravity will have on the | human body. I think ISS provides a great and necessarty platform for that | research, as well as providing a living environment that could be used as a | model for living quarters once on the Moon. | | If you're going to live on the Moon or travel long distances you are going to | need to know how long certain supplies last, how well your toilets function, | how to provide water, how to make your air supply last longer, all kinds of | things that the ISS does on a daily basis. | | You need to know how humans can coexist for extended stays in otherwise | cramped quarters. A whole host of things that can't be done on Earth. So I | think the ISS, in a not so glamorous way, is a great platform for the study | of the things that NASA will need to know to advance space travel. But I | could be wrong... | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Kim Hyatt wrote:
...Just exactly what purpose is the ISS supposed to serve...
At the moment it's not what it's _supposed_ to do but what it _can_ do with a crew a third the size of what it was designed for. With only two crew aboard they end up spending much of their time on housekeeping duties leaving little time for science. Patrick
participants (5)
-
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Joe Bauman -
Kim Hyatt -
Michael Carnes -
Patrick Wiggins