Re: Space funding (was Re: Hillary needs to quit)

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:15:56 -0500, pv+usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (PV) wrote:

>fairwater@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Derek Lyons) writes:
>>No, most of space exploration technology is "current" because we spent
>>a lot of money discovering the top of the learning curve back in the
>>60's and 70's.  We can tweak efficiency a few points here and there,
>>but there isn't any magical 'technology' waiting in the wings.
>
>My. Ass. Well, "magical" is a bad term, but the shuttle is a giant pile
of
>crap. 

Technologically, no it isn't. There is not a better, high-performance
oxygen/hydrogen rocket engine than the Space Shuttle Main Engine (and
no one has figured out a better propellant combination.) The Shuttle's
Solid Rocket Booster, despite the Challenger Disaster, is by far the
best large solid-propellant rocket ever built, with by far the best
safety record. The Shuttle's External Tank is a spectacular
achievement in high-capacity, low-weight cryogenic storage, with a
mass fraction that is still the best in the space industry. The
Shuttle's computers still operate software that is orders of magnitude
more reliable than standard commercial software. There is still no
other operational reusable thermal protection system... Shuttle's
tiles are in a league of their own.

It is the Shuttle's operational difficulties and high cost that sink
it. NASA aims to solve some of this by re-applying Shuttle technology
into a new launch vehicle, the Ares.

Derek is correct. There is no magic wand we can wave to suddenly
reveal technology much better than that of the Space Shuttle. Life is
not Star Trek, we don't have anti-gravity and warp drive in R&D and
there is no Unobtanium fuel in testing, just waiting for that "pile of
crap" Shuttle to get out of the way.

>Many people, unfortunately without the funding, could do better with
>half a brain tied behind their back.
>
>Actually, calling the shuttle crap isn't entirely fair.

Especially since it is the vehicle responsible for 70% of the people
who have ever travelled into space and has done so with a failure
record statistically no worse than its chief rival, Russia's Soyuz.

>If the ISS was
>started when it should have been, as a followup to skylab in the 80s, it
>probably wouldn't have gotten so many cuts and dumbass redesigns. *

It was started in 1984. The cuts and redesigns came immediately. 

Brian