----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:16 PM Subject: RE: NASA Goes Deep
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship >> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:45 AM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: NASA Goes Deep >> >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/opinion/20porco.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1> >> >> The cost to the nation of this misstep was >> enormous. For starters, we lost an investment, >> adjusted for inflation to 2007 dollars, of $160 >> billion. That was the cost to get to, land on, >> walk on, drive on and otherwise explore the Moon. >> (Of that amount, $29 billion, in >> inflation-adjusted dollars, was the approximate cost of the Saturn >> V.) > > But the investment paid off...there was no nuclear war. It was a > wonderful > way to show who really had the better missile technology without > making each > other go boom. > >> Equally troubling is what we put in place of >> Apollo. The $38 billion developmental cost of the >> shuttle has gotten us nowhere in the solar system >> fast. And the International Space Station could >> have been built with only half a dozen Saturn V >> launchings instead of the more than two dozen >> shuttle trips that will be required to finish it. >> The bottom line: a colossal misuse of funds and a >> disheartening lack of progress and loss of time. > > The whole point of the shuttle was to make space travel a lot more > straightforward: in terms of both cost and regularity. The reusable > nature > of the shuttle meant that, eventually, only the solid rockets would > have to > be replaced. The expensive shuttles would each be used a number of > times a > year (> one time/month) and the maintenance costs were supposed to > be > minimal. This would result in launch to orbit costs of no more than > $100/kilo. I remember believing this in the '70s. > > Instead, we have a program that's actually more expensive per kilo > than that > provided in the '60s. The new plan is to go back to the '60s > technique of > rockets and capsules. IMHO, this reflects the fact that we've hit a > physics/technology wall...and will need new types of space > technology before > human space travel is anything more than a multi-billion dollar > entertainment expenditure. > IMO, the shuttle era space program (and actually the era immediately preceeding it) is an example of what happens when a science program becomes a political football. There *were* plans for human occupation of space and the moon before the shuttle program. Much of what was planned then and now could be done by brute force methods. (Like the Saturn V) The Shuttle was an attempt to employ a bit of finesse and bring down costs. It would have been a good idea if it had been designed *in addition* to the existing Saturn V program and what you would have gotten was a smaller shuttle with lower haulage requirements that would have likely been safer as it could have been launched atop a SatV. Political decisions deemed that "there could only be one" method of getting people and equipment into space, and this "one size fits all" mentality is what wasted 30 years and billions of dollars. If the remaining shuttles do not end up permanently in space serving minor duty I will be a bit pissed over the waste of resources. xponent Overly Opinionated Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
