On 8/9/07, Ted P Gemberling <tgemberl_at_uab.edu> wrote:
>
> Okay, I'll agree to that. But you're not suggesting we have to trust you
> that those systems are better than our current ones, are you? Caution is
> reasonable in this area.
Actually, I would argue that you're not qualified to be making the
statement that "caution is reasonable". If you are not an expert on
the technicalities of the status quo and you don't know much about
non-library solutions, why is your opinion on the matter relevant to
the discussion?
I don't say that as any sort of personal attack, but I think part of
our current condition is that statements like this by people that
would claim similar ties to technology as you are affecting the
direction we head in technologically.
>
> I don't think I can believe our failure to get people back to the moon
> in almost 40 years is due simply to "attitudes." NASA has used the Space
> Shuttle now for 25 years, and they've come to the realization, after
> spending billions of dollars, that they can't make it safe. So they're
> discontinuing it in the next couple of years. They're going back to the
> 60's technology for manned space travel, the capsule. This isn't a
> matter of attitude, but of technological limits. We're not ready for
> Star Wars yet.
I find a few flaws with the NASA analogy, honestly.
1) There is a monopoly (in the United States) on space travel. It's a
hugely expensive and dangerous and requires a massive infrastructure
to implement. If there was some sort of value in it, I think you
would see more technological acheivements because some enterprising
soul would look to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Government
agencies don't necessarily operate under these conditions.
2) In twenty five years, there have been two major accidents (with
human casualties) with the shuttle design. In 15 years there was one
major accident (with human casualties) in the capsule design (not
counting other countries' space programs). The safety factor isn't as
much of an issue. I mean, it is, but that's not a strong argument to
go back to 'the old way of doing things'.
3) The shuttle was not designed for interplanetary travel. There are
no landing strips on other planets. It would have required some other
sort of spacecraft to establish this. NASA's priorities and funding
changed, again, probably because there was little ROI to be had in
sending a human to another planet.
4) NASA would not be going back to the Apollo design, I think it's
fair to say. The computers onboard will not be less powerful than my
pocket calculator. Technologically they will be /far/ advanced from
the Apollo program even if the actual rockets may resemble them
somewhat superficially. A parallel to this would be BMW's MINI Cooper
vs. the original. While similar in form and function, oceans apart in
technology.
-Ross.
Received on Thu Aug 09 2007 - 11:43:48 EDT