Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 03-01-2003, 05:12 PM

Bob Park, who is a noted opponent of man-in-space, wrote the following in the February 28 What's New:

Quote:

1. NASA: THE SHUTTLE AND THE HUBBLE-REPAIR MYTH.
For the first time, the need for a human presence in space is being questioned openly on Capitol Hill. But at a House Science Committee hearing yesterday, Sean O�Keefe invoked the Hubble repairs as an example of man doing what robot could not. It�s a NASA myth; Hubble was designed to be serviced. It was supposed to be like calling AAA for a jump start; NASA promised a shuttle launch every week. But the repair missions cost more than Hubble, and no other science satellite has ever been repaired in orbit. Moreover, Hubble had to conform to a NASA decree that everything that went into space had to be launched with the shuttle. This confined Hubble to a far from optimum low-Earth orbit that took it in and out of the Earth�s shadow and exposed it to the rain of space garbage from past missions. Moreover, Hubble�s dimensions had to conform to the shuttle�s cargo bay, and its launch was delayed for three years by the Challenger accident. Ironically, the Challenger accident finally forced NASA to drop its shuttle-only launch policy. Hubble has gone on to achieve greatness, not because of the shuttle and the man-in-space program, but in spite of it.

Now if we can put up a new space telescope for less than upgrading the old one, would it not make sense to have two of them for the price of one and launch it via a cheap unmanned rocket? (I due recognize this would take more time though.)

Now as I have said before, I am not against man-in-space like Dr. Park is, but for most of what NASA is doing with the shuttle can be done better with unmanned craft.

sakrilege · 03-01-2003, 06:23 PM

Having worked on NASA projects for 15 years, I would have to agree with you. Many things can be done cheaper unmanned thereby allowing more things to be done overall. But I would not eliminate manned space flight altogether either. Humans landing on the moon and Mars is a worthy endeaver IMO much like learning to sail.

On a related issue, in the early 80's I worked for Martin Marietta who built the external tank (ET), which is 'thrown away' after each launch. Martin had a program where they tried to convince NASA to use the ET in space after a launch. One of the designs was to use an ET as a telescope, another was to use a set of ETs as modules of a space station. NASA never bought into this reuse, and I think, passed on an opportunity to save money.

Valentine Pontifex · 03-01-2003, 08:25 PM

I can remember talk about the possiblity of using the external tanks even before Young and Crippen launched.
And some people were suggested that unmanned missions could use Shuttle technology (shuttle derived vehicles) though NASA was still on its Shuttle-only dogma at the time.

How can the ET be turned into a telescope? It really does not sound to me as a very good platform for that though I will admit to no expertise.

sakrilege · 03-02-2003, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Valentine Pontifex
How can the ET be turned into a telescope? It really does not sound to me as a very good platform for that though I will admit to no expertise.

Some of my coworkers were trying to come up with any use possible, the primary goal being ET reuse. The telescope would require removing one dome of the ET hydrogen tank and installing the optics inside near the other dome. Obviously, a lot of EVA work so manned flight required.

Friar Bellows · 03-02-2003, 05:23 PM

The next generation space telescope, the James Webb Telescope, will be launched with an unmanned rocket (e.g. Atlas V, Delta IV, or Ariane V), sent out to L2 (second Lagrange point, about 1.5 million km from Earth) and will be unservicable from Earth. It will be optimised for infra-red light, have 6 times the light gathering power of Hubble, and cost roughly $850 million, or a 1/4 to 1/3 of Hubble's cost. Launch date is 2010.

American Agnostic · 03-02-2003, 05:50 PM

Certainly many things in space can be done better and cheaper when they don't involve manned space floght. If science is the sole purpose of spaceflight then we can do a lot more by staying at home but that is sot its only purpose. Most of us would agree that the ultimate purpose of space exploration is to open up new territory and for this you need people. We'll never colonize the solar system if we rely solely on unmanned exploration.

03-02-2003, 06:51 PM

Manned spaceflight should be thought of as mission of exploration, not a mission of science. Exploration is about finding out the heretofore unknown, and we have to recognize that there is risk.
James Cooke, Christopher Columbus, Magellen, Lewis and Clark... there was risk, there was death. But the discoveries and the knowledge gained made those sacrifices worthwhile, in the end.
And in the process, those great explorers gained a kind of immortality, becoming part of the spirit of exploration that continues today and on into the future...

Happy Wonderer · 03-02-2003, 09:54 PM

My question is "why should we have to choose between manned and unmanned flight?" Does anybody know how many rockets could we send up for what our next little adventure in Iraq is projected to cost us? It seems that NASA has been chronically underfunded, why? The original space program led to many commercially useful products; it seems that one could make a business case for enhancing the program rather than crippling it. (Aside from the scientific and other reasons.)

WWII lead to many technological advances as well, but I'd rather the impetus for invention be space flight rather than war.

HW

Albion · 03-02-2003, 10:18 PM

Quote:

But the repair missions cost more than Hubble, and no other science satellite has ever been repaired in orbit.

The Solar Maximum Mission was repaired in orbit in 1984 and lasted another five years. it had been launched in 1980 and stopped working sometime in 1981 or 1982 (I don't remember exactly) because somebody had installed the wrong sort of fuses somewhere. The repair meant that it could observe the Sun until the following solar maximum. Probably not cost-effective in the big picture, but a real advantage for the solar physics community (of whom my husband is one, and he was a researcher on that satellite).

03-02-2003, 11:58 PM

"...WWII lead to many technological advances as well, but I'd rather the impetus for invention be space flight rather than war..."

Yeah, I agree, but as the old saying goes, "Neccesity is the father of invention". War often provides neccesity out the ying-yang, y'know?

But I think that space exploration often takes a backseat to other issues because of it's expense. And the fact that many politicians in charge of funding space exploration programs are often scientifically illiterate...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2003, 06:23 PM	#2
sakrilege Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Cleveland, OH, USA Folding@Home Godless Team Posts: 6,211	Having worked on NASA projects for 15 years, I would have to agree with you. Many things can be done cheaper unmanned thereby allowing more things to be done overall. But I would not eliminate manned space flight altogether either. Humans landing on the moon and Mars is a worthy endeaver IMO much like learning to sail. On a related issue, in the early 80's I worked for Martin Marietta who built the external tank (ET), which is 'thrown away' after each launch. Martin had a program where they tried to convince NASA to use the ET in space after a launch. One of the designs was to use an ET as a telescope, another was to use a set of ETs as modules of a space station. NASA never bought into this reuse, and I think, passed on an opportunity to save money.

03-01-2003, 08:25 PM	#3
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	I can remember talk about the possiblity of using the external tanks even before Young and Crippen launched. And some people were suggested that unmanned missions could use Shuttle technology (shuttle derived vehicles) though NASA was still on its Shuttle-only dogma at the time. How can the ET be turned into a telescope? It really does not sound to me as a very good platform for that though I will admit to no expertise.

03-02-2003, 05:23 PM	#5
Friar Bellows Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: arse-end of the world Posts: 2,305	The next generation space telescope, the James Webb Telescope, will be launched with an unmanned rocket (e.g. Atlas V, Delta IV, or Ariane V), sent out to L2 (second Lagrange point, about 1.5 million km from Earth) and will be unservicable from Earth. It will be optimised for infra-red light, have 6 times the light gathering power of Hubble, and cost roughly $850 million, or a 1/4 to 1/3 of Hubble's cost. Launch date is 2010.

03-02-2003, 05:50 PM	#6
American Agnostic Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: CA, USA Posts: 56	Certainly many things in space can be done better and cheaper when they don't involve manned space floght. If science is the sole purpose of spaceflight then we can do a lot more by staying at home but that is sot its only purpose. Most of us would agree that the ultimate purpose of space exploration is to open up new territory and for this you need people. We'll never colonize the solar system if we rely solely on unmanned exploration.

03-02-2003, 06:51 PM	#7
shifterknob Guest Posts: n/a	Manned spaceflight should be thought of as mission of exploration, not a mission of science. Exploration is about finding out the heretofore unknown, and we have to recognize that there is risk. James Cooke, Christopher Columbus, Magellen, Lewis and Clark... there was risk, there was death. But the discoveries and the knowledge gained made those sacrifices worthwhile, in the end. And in the process, those great explorers gained a kind of immortality, becoming part of the spirit of exploration that continues today and on into the future...

03-02-2003, 09:54 PM	#8
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	My question is "why should we have to choose between manned and unmanned flight?" Does anybody know how many rockets could we send up for what our next little adventure in Iraq is projected to cost us? It seems that NASA has been chronically underfunded, why? The original space program led to many commercially useful products; it seems that one could make a business case for enhancing the program rather than crippling it. (Aside from the scientific and other reasons.) WWII lead to many technological advances as well, but I'd rather the impetus for invention be space flight rather than war. HW

03-02-2003, 11:58 PM	#10
shifterknob Guest Posts: n/a	"...WWII lead to many technological advances as well, but I'd rather the impetus for invention be space flight rather than war..." Yeah, I agree, but as the old saying goes, "Neccesity is the father of invention". War often provides neccesity out the ying-yang, y'know? But I think that space exploration often takes a backseat to other issues because of it's expense. And the fact that many politicians in charge of funding space exploration programs are often scientifically illiterate...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.