Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Valentine Pontifex · 03-13-2003, 12:02 PM

Europe has an interest in manned spaceflight? Since when? Russia's current interest has much to do with current arangements with the United States. Otherwise they cannot afford it. China is developing a manned space program as I noted.

Private enterprise does not have as of yet an interest in manned space flight. They certainly are NOT spending any money do develop such a capacity though there is not much that could stop them from doing so if they wished to. There are plenty of places outside of the U.S. to launch from. To tell the truth, I am disappointed that there is not more true comercial interest in launchers. I would have thought FAR more would have been done by now.

NASA has not exagerated (or out-and-out lied) about spin-offs?

Quote:

After an international team from BioCryst Pharmaceuticals and the University of Alabama, Birmingham developed a potential flu drug, NASA stepped in and exuberantly announced that the protein crystals they used were grown on the shuttle. Wrong. Science magazine revealed that the relevant crystals were actually grown on Earth (Science 14 May 99). One of the UAB researchers, Lawrence DeLucas, in a defensive letter to Science (Science 4 Jun 99), puffs that space-grown crystals "were used to determine several inhibitor-protein complex structures and to optimize the cryopreservation protocol." Furthermore, "NASA's contribution to this project was substantial in terms of 10 years of funding support." Nobody doubts that NASA spends a lot of money - the issue is whether space-grown crystals are worth the staggering cost of growing them. In another letter to Science (Science 25 Jun 99), W. Graeme Laver, who grew the crystals for Biocryst, clears that up. Laver quotes from a letter he received, in which DeLucas acknowledges that crystals grown on the NASA shuttle "did not show any improvements compared to Earth-grown crystals."
source

Quote:

1. MICROGRAVITY: REPORT DUMPS ON PROTEIN CRYSTAL GROWTH.
The impact of space-grown crystals on structural biology "has been extremely limited" according to a National Research Council study released Wednesday that evaluated biotechnology research plans for the International Space Station. Enormous investment in protein crystal growth on the Shuttle and on Mir has not led to a single unique scientific result, the panel concluded, and should be de-emphasized. The study confirms warnings of the American Society for Cell Biology, which two years ago called for cancellation of the space-grown protein crystal program (WN 17 Jul 98). The NRC study was undertaken for NASA, which hopes to regain credibility lost a year ago after a NASA press release proclaimed: "NASA develops flu drug in space." The implication was that data from crystals grown on the shuttle was essential to the design of the drug. A NASA funded crystallographer, Larry DeLucas, had made the same claim in congressional testimony (WN 11 Apr 97). But Science magazine (25 June 99) disclosed that the crystals used were not even grown in space, but in Australia. Space-grown crystals can be distinguished only by their cost.
source

Quote:

2. EAU DE MONEY: "SPACE IS JUST ANOTHER PLACE TO DO BUSINESS."
That was the justification given by the Reagan White House for a space station. Industry, however, was unwilling to invest a dime in the idea. But, you ask, aren't there all these great spinoffs like Tang and Teflon and Velcro that came from the space program? No. An internal NASA report, done for Dan Goldin in 1992, says it's an urban myth, concocted to sell products (WN 22 Jan 93), and NASA found it worked wonders at budget time. One commercial experiment on Columbia involved the scent of a rose, which is supposedly altered when it blooms in microgravity. The company, perfume giant International Flavors and Fragrances, claims that fragrances from STS-95 led to a perfume, Zen, and a body spray, Impulse. Of course, the ads can say the aroma came from heaven by way of NASA. Is it a truly fabulous scent? It is to die for.

3. PROTEIN CRYSTALS: THE ONES GROWN IN SPACE ARE DIFFERENT.
They cost more...three orders of magnitude more. We were surprised to find that Columbia had yet another commercial microgravity protein crystal growing experiment. We assumed that had all died away after a National Research Council study, conducted at the request of NASA, concluded that the work had no significant impact and should be curtailed (WN 3 Mar 2000). That confirmed warnings two years earlier from the American Society for Cell Biology (WN 17 Jul 98), which called for cancellation of the program (http://www.ascb.org/publicpolicy/nasareport.html). A story in Science (14 May 99) had revealed that the supposedly space-grown crystals used to develop the flu drug were not grown in space. They were actually grown in Australia, which may be upside down, but it's not in space.

source

Quote:

3. REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NASA SPINOFF CLAIMS WERE EXAGGERATED!
"To much of the public," a NASA report admits, "NASA's technology transfer reputation is based on some famous examples, including Velcro, Tang and Teflon. Contrary to popular belief, NASA created none of these." NASA merely publicized them. The study concluded that "there have not been very many technology transfer successes compared to the potential." This rare outbreak of candor was applauded by NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin, who called for the study. In 1991, during a Senate debate on an amendment to slash funding for Space Station Freedom, Sen. Heflin (D-AL) produced a NASA list of 74 "space spinoffs"--everything from synthetic teats for piglets to portable ice rinks. WHAT'S NEW challenged anyone to document that a single item on the list actually owed its existence to the space program (7/19/91). There were no takers.

source

Quote:

...By then NASA will have spent nearly $8B (the original total cost estimate) just in planning. During the debate, Sen. Heflin (D-AL) produced a list of 74 "space spinoffs" provided by NASA. Yes, there it was--stuck between portable ice rinks and artificial teats for piglets--Magnetic Resonance Imaging! Only last April, you may recall, MRI was a spinoff of high-energy physics (WN 19 Apr 91). We would like to inform our readers of any technologies on NASA's list that can actually be shown to owe their existence to the space program. We can send you the "space spinoff" list if you would like to comment on the roots of the technologies.
source

LostGirl · 03-13-2003, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Private enterprise does not have as of yet an interest in manned space flight. They certainly are NOT spending any money do develop such a capacity though there is not much that could stop them from doing so if they wished to. There are plenty of places outside of the U.S. to launch from. To tell the truth, I am disappointed that there is not more true comercial interest in launchers. I would have thought FAR more would have been done by now.

I too am disappointed. There's a near-future series of SF books (actually, the first one, maybe two are now past, and some of his ideas in the novel actually happened) by Michael Flynn, beginning with FireStar. In any case, it's a pretty good representation of what it would actually take to make space profitable, and government involvement certainly isn't all that helpful. I think it's disappointing the way that time and time again, we have decided to ignore the one thing that drives NA society forward: money and profitability. NASA never had to be profitable, they just had to get it done. So we end up with massively wasteful and expensive shuttles that are barely worth putting up in the air. NASA was on the way to developing a SSTO (single stage to orbit) but it was going to take too long to develop and we had to go to the moon NOW. But in the long run, SSTOs are necessary if we're going to make use of space as an economic resource.

Finally, it's and important point the Mr.Flynn has in his books - the massive amounts of money spent on the space program are not spent "in space", they're spent on earth, to companies that make the components of the shuttle. Then, I suppose it can be argued that we essentially throw away the object of that worth, but it's still in essence a way to massively redistribute taxpayer money all across America.

03-13-2003, 03:44 PM

Quote:

"...There's a near-future series of SF books (actually, the first one, maybe two are now past, and some of his ideas in the novel actually happened) by Michael Flynn, beginning with FireStar. In any case, it's a pretty good representation..."

I like Allan Steele's Near Earth stories for much the same reason... a nitty-gritty look at what working in space, as well as the kind of timeline it might take. Most of his stories in that vein are collected into the book Sex and Violence in Zero Gee...

Quote:

"...Europe has an interest in manned spaceflight? Since when?"

From the ESA website... "...Through its participation in the International Space Station programme, Europe acquires technical, operational and scientific know-how and industrial capabilities in the key areas required for any future manned exploration and exploitation of space at a fraction of the cost it would take to build the complete in-orbit and ground infrastructure on its own..."

"...Welcome to the European Space Agency web site for human spaceflight. Our aim is to implement Europe's participation in the development of space infrastructure, such as the International Space Station, which makes it possible to perform experiments in an environment where weightlessness is the major characteristic, very different from that we have on Earth..."link

I don't know if this satisfactorily answers your question, but here it is. I originally heard about the ESA's continuing interest in manned spaceflight on a BBC broadcast. I'll see if I can find the transcript somewhere...

Quote:

"...Russia's current interest has much to do with current arangements with the United States..."

I agree that their money problems, as well as a lack of Cold War rivalry, has done much to stifle the Russian interest in space exploration. But time and a change of fortune could change that...

Quote:

"...Private enterprise does not have as of yet an interest in manned space flight. They certainly are NOT spending any money do develop such a capacity though there is not much that could stop them from doing so if they wished to. There are plenty of places outside of the U.S. to launch from. To tell the truth, I am disappointed that there is not more true comercial interest in launchers. I would have thought FAR more would have been done by now..."

Well, I think there is more going on than you might realize, but I agree that the sour global economy has let a lot of hot air out of the aerospace and satellite industries, for the time being. Remember, there has to be a reason for private industry to turn to space, and the higher costs associated with doing business there. Could be that lack of cheap power, or increasingly strict environmental restrictions could force some industries to consider Earth orbit or the moon. Is this going to happen tomorrow? Not at the rate we're going, for damned sure. I do believe energy costs will be one of the prime motivating factors that will encourage private industries to consider off-Earth sources and locations...

I didn't deny that NASA might have over-hyped it's tech spin-offs, I just wanted to see some source material. Which you provided... thanks! I am a firm believer in "considering the source" of anything I read or hear...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.