On 3 Oct 2005 22:46:35 -0700
"Raving Loonie" <raving.loonie_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Ray Vingnutte wrote:
> > On 3 Oct 2005 20:36:40 -0700
> > "Raving Loonie" <raving.loonie_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Ray Vingnutte wrote:
> > > > http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18259
> > >
> > > Masterful 'Double-speak'. He would be a very successful
politician.
> > >
> > > Here is the essence of the man ...
> > >
> > > ' ... The press coverage has been such as to make it appear that I
> > used
> > > those words to characterize the programs. In fact -- and I would
hope
> > > that this goes without saying -- I did no such thing. I was asked
by
> > an
> > > interviewer if shuttle had been "a mistake," and I provided my
answer,
> > > which addressed the difficulty of the design challenge and the
paucity
> > > of funds with which it was undertaken. This answer was given in
the
> > > article, and was quoted correctly. But the use of words such as
> > > "mistake" and "blunder," as well as the overall pejorative tone of
the
> > > article, was not reflective of my remarks nor of the general
context
> > of
> > > the discussion. ... '
> > >
> > > is aptly summerized two sentences later with
> > >
> > > ' ... it is useful to recall Norm Augustine's observation that
most
> > > people believe we should have a robust space program; it is just
that
> > > no two people agree as to what that program should be! ... '
> > >
> > > And re-emphazied shortly thereafter ...
> > >
> > > ' ... It is true that we have not met our original goals for these
> > > programs, for myriad reasons dating back 35 years or more,
involving
> > > strategic and budgetary decisions made, properly or otherwise,
above
> > > NASA. Although this is not the fault of the dedicated people, past
and
> > > present, who have worked in these programs, I think we all know
that
> > we
> > > can do better, and that we will. But even if everything were in
our
> > > favor -- and it is not -- it would be several years before we
could
> > > have available a successor to the shuttle. In the interim, we must
> > > complete the station and the only tool with which we can
accomplish
> > > that is the shuttle. At this point, an expeditious but orderly
> > > phase-out of the shuttle program, using it to complete the
assembly of
> > > the station while we develop a new system, is the best thing we
can do
> > > for our agency and for the nation.... '
> > >
> > > And re-emphasized yet again at the end ...
> > >
> > > '.. It is not my intention that they should be used to criticize
or
> > > diminish the efforts of those who have devoted their lives -- and
in
> > > some cases given their lives -- to the space program. Space
technology
> > > is still in its infancy. To criticize the shuttle and station
because
> > > our best efforts have fallen short of the goals we have set would
be
> > > like criticizing the early aviation pioneers because they did not
> > > understand, then, how to build transcontinental aircraft. ...'
> > >
> > > --------------------------
> > >
> > > Actually, Griffin reminds me a bit of Kennedy ...
> > >
> > > '...We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in
this
> > > decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but
because
> > > they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and
measure
> > the
> > > best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one
that we
> > > are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one
which
> > > we intend to win, and the others, too. ...'
> > >
> > > Here is a link for a videoclip of the speech:
> > > http://realaudio.rice.edu/Rice/Kennedy/KennedyRice.ram
> > >
> > > The above mentioned quote starts about 8' 30" into the the clip
> >
> > Yep, I wonder if the problem has been that there was no real goal as
> > with Apollo. Apollo was clear cut, to go to the moon. The ISS and
the
> > shuttle didn't seem to have a goal other than to build the ISS, and
for
> > what exactly?. Personally I can't see the point in going back to the
> > moon with putting man on it again at this time unless it will be
totally
> > different to Apollo, ie a permanent long term strategy this time and
I'm
> > not convinced that that is the aim. If it's just going to be another
go
> > there and leave a lot of litter and then cancel because of
spiralling
> > costs then whats the point. And it will cost a packet to maintain
make
> > no mistake.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > See http://webcast.rice.edu/speeches/19620912kennedy.html for full
> > > transcript.
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder if David Griffin can pull it off ? Maybe.
> >
> > Does he even know what he's supposed to pull off?, it's one thing to
> > make sweeping statements about going back to the moon but what
exactly
> > for?, what does it really mean?.
>
> And this is the whole problem in a nutshell. IIRC, you would have
> witnessed the fizzle go out of the Apollo missions. The science was
> great. The engineering was *fantastic*. The public became bored and
> disinterested.
>
> I seem to remember that the whole *purpose* of the shuttle was to
> rekindle excitement in space travel ? ... It was hobbled from the
> outset. The ISS has always felt like a reluctant make-work project.
>
> The shuttle was amazing technology for it's day. Easy to forget how
> *old* that technology is.
>
> 8 1/2" floppies ?
> CPM operating system ?
>
> It was the dawning of the age of the electronic calcultor and LED
> watch.
>
> Look at the list of space missions round about 1962. Venus & Mars
> flybys. Lots of failures, too!
>
> First lunar landing ...
> USA Apollo 11 16 Jul 1969 Manned Lunar Landing
> Last lunar landing ...
> USA Apollo 17 7 Dec 1972 Lunar Manned Landing
>
> It took the public less than 4 years to loose interet.
>
> Then the following ..
> USA Voyager 2 20 Aug 1977 Jupiter/Saturn/Uranus/Neptune Flyby
> USA Voyager 1 5 Sep 1977 Jupiter/Saturn Flyby
> USA Pioneer Venus 1 20 May 1978 Venus Orbiter
> USA Pioneer Venus 2 8 Aug 1978 Venus Probes
>
> And then this series ...
>
> USA Mars Global Surveyor 07 November 1996 Mars Orbiter
> CIS (former USSR) Mars 96 16 November 1996 Attempted Mars
> Orbiter/Landers
> USA Mars Pathfinder 04 Dec 1996 Mars Lander and Rover
> USA Cassini 15 Oct 1997 Saturn Orbiter
> ESA Huygens 15 Oct 1997 Titan Probe
>
>
> The roughly twenty year period from the end '70s until the late '90s
> was relatively sparse.
>
> STS-1 was in 1981. That period was the the shuttle years. ... It was
a
> make-work period before deciding what to do next
>
> Cassini, Huygens, Hubble and the Mars Rovers are rekindling interest
in
> space exploration, big time!
Yeah but they didn't need man in space to do it(excepting Hubble
service missions). Those rovers on Mars are a prime example of what can
be done without the massive cost and risk of adding humans to a mission.
Date alone from those rovers can take years to study.
If we/they spent the money on these robotic missions instead we could
have them all over the solar system. Maybe even have some beaming back
as near to real time videos as well as still images.
Once we have done that then maybe consider spending the massive amounts
needed to send man out there plus by them hopefully our technology would
have evolved to lessen the risks for people.
>
> The pictures of Saturn's moons are stunning. So incredibly different
> from each other, by and large. I doubt that anyone imagined the
> incredible diversity.
> =====================
>
> It's time to go to Mars!
>
> Or seriously explore the moon in depth.
To what end exactly?, this is my point here, that there is little point
in putting man back on the moon. All this talk about building a base and
having it permanently manned and could be used as a stepping stone to
mars and the like is like fantasy at this time, I really can't see it
happening. Look at the state now, NASA has no means of launching people
into low Earth orbit and may not for some time. Yet in what about 12-14
years time they want to land man back on the moon and I have to ask
again for what exactly??. Say it does cost 100billion to get there then
how many more 100billions is it going to cost to build a base, have it
permanently manned, re-supplied etc, it would end up like the ISS is
now, a huge waste of money and doing virtually nothing.
Send robots instead.
>
> .... Going to Mars seems to be only inspiring choice.
>
> Each new mission seems to bring new substantive questions. The
> trip/colonization is worth it, IMO. ...
If that was the aim yes I would say if they are going to do it good do
it, but I'm not sure that it is the aim,
>
> A permanent base on the moon is like a make-work project for an eye to
> future colonization.
I would agree if we were having this discussion in maybe a hundred years
or so when our technology was better.
>
> ... Better to go to Mars first and THEN build a moon colony. There
> might be a greater incentive for it as a prelude to a Mars colony.
>
> Surely, in the 35 years since Apollo, we have aquired enough skill and
> technology to stage in Earth orbit.
>
> Why complicate things by doing so on the moon ? O.K. ... The gravity
> is less. The ground is solid. Yet, the environment is almost as
hostile
> as earth orbit.
They seem set on doing it so good to them but don't be surprised if it
goes the Apollo way and after a few missions it's terminated.
>
> =====================
>
>
> See http://library.thinkquest.org/C005921/pastmissions.htm for quotes
&
> ref.
>
> ...
> USSR Luna 2 12 Sep 1959 Lunar Impact
> USSR Luna 3 4 Oct 1959 Lunar Flyby
> *USA Pioneer P-3 26 Nov 1959 Attempted Lunar Orbiter
> *USSR Luna 1960A 15 April 1960 Attempted Lunar Flyby
> *USSR Luna 1960B 18 April 1960 Attempted Lunar Flyby
> *USA Pioneer P-30 25 Sept 1960 Attempted Lunar Orbiter
> *USSR Mars 1 (Mars 1960A) 10 Oct 1960 Attempted Mars Flyby
> *USSR Mars 2 (Mars 1960B) 14 Oct 1960 Attempted Mars Flyby
> *USA Pioneer P-31 15 Dec 1960 Attempted Lunar Orbiter
> USSR Sputnik 7 4 Feb 1961 Attempted Venus Impact
> USSR Venera 1 12 Feb 1961 Venus Flyby (Contact Lost)
> USA Ranger 1 23 Aug 1961 Attempted Lunar Test Flight
> USA Ranger 2 18 Nov 1961 Attempted Lunar Test Flight
> USA Ranger 3 26 Jan 1962 Attempted Lunar Impact
> USA Ranger 4 23 Apr 1962 Lunar Impact
> *USA Mariner 1 22 Jul 1962 Attempted Venus Flyby
> USSR Sputnik 23 25 Aug 1962 Attempted Venus Flyby
> USA Mariner 2 27 Aug 1962 Venus Flyby
> USSR Sputnik 24 1 Sep 1962 Attempted Venus Flyby
> USSR Sputnik 25 12 Sep 1962 Attempted Venus Flyby
> USA Ranger 5 18 Oct 1962 Attempted Lunar Impact
> USSR Sputnik 29 24 Oct 1962 Attempted Mars Flyby
> USA Mars 1 1 Nov 1962 Mars Flyby (Contact Lost)
> USSR Sputnik 31 4 Nov 1962 Attempted Mars Flyby
> USSR Sputnik 33 4 Jan 1963 Attempted Lunar Lander
> *USSR Luna 1963B 2 Feb 1963 Attempted Lunar Lander
> USSR Luna 4 2 Apr 1963 Attempted Lunar Lander
> USSR Cosmos 21 11 Nov 1963 Venera Test Flight
> USA Ranger 6 30 Jan 1964 Lunar Impact (Equipment Failure)
> *USSR Venera 1964A 19 Feb 1964 Attempted Venus Flyby
> *USSR Venera 1964B 1 Mar 1964 Attempted Venus Flyby
> *USSR Luna 1964A 21 Mar 1964 Attempted Lunar Lander
> USSR Cosmos 27 27 Mar 1964 Attempted Venus Flyby
> USSR Zond 1 2 Apr 1964 Venus Flyby (Contact Lost)
> *USSR Luna 1964B 20 Apr 1964 Attempted Lunar Lander
> *USSR Zond 1964A 4 Jun 1964 Attempted Lunar Lander
> USA Ranger 7 28 Jul 1964 Lunar Impact
> USA Mariner 3 5 Nov 1964 Attempted Mars Flyby
> USA Mariner 4 28 Nov 1964 Mars Flyby
> USSR Zond 2 30 Nov 1964 Mars Flyby
> USA Ranger 8 17 Feb 1965 Lunar Impact
> USSR Cosmos 60 12 Mar 1965 Attempted Lunar Lander
> USA Ranger 9 21 Mar 1965 Lunar Impact
> *USSR Luna 1965A 10 Apr 1965 Attempted Lunar Lander
> USSR Luna 5 9 May 1965 Lunar Impact (Attempted Soft Landing)
> USSR Luna 6 8 Jun 1965 Attempted Lunar Lander
> USSR Zond 3 18 Jul 1965 Lunar Flyby
> USSR Luna 7 4 Oct 1965 Lunar Impact (Attempted Soft Landing)
> ...
> *Denoted Failed Mission
Thanks for that.
>
Received on Mon Oct 03 2005 - 23:25:41 PDT