Comments on: Lightning hearing

By: Brent

Brent — Sun, 22 May 2005 03:25:33 +0000

We can’t throw up our hands and say space stations are worthless because we built one that can only hold enough people to keep it functioning.

If everyone in a society needs to be farmers to keep themselves fed, there’s no time for anyone to learn metal smithing. Similarly, if every waking minute of ISS crew time is spent on maintenance, no science will get done.

When we have a station where 5 people turn wrenches and the other 50 can do absoultely nothing all day and the station still provide life support, then we have the leisure time to have a bunch of dedicated scientists and engineers get some real work done.

By: Brian Campbell

Brian Campbell — Fri, 20 May 2005 18:00:44 +0000

I think another thing to remember about when RWR said all that, was that the space station envisioned was much larger in terms of both living space and capability, then what it is now — so there was at least the potential for some of those claims to be realized.

But courtesy of bugetary nickle & diming, and political compromises (both of which resulted in a nearly-perpetual redesign exercise), what we have now is a smaller, less application-friendly station. Ironically, it seems that all these efforts may have contributed to a far larger bill, than if they simply left well enough alone. (Actually, this parallels the fate of a lot of space (& some military) programs — like the shuttle!)

By: changehappens

changehappens — Fri, 20 May 2005 17:42:14 +0000

The Space Station today is what it has always been. An industrial policy by the US government with heavy political purposes. Bill Clinton sold it to a skeptical Congress on the grounds it employed Soviet scientists in peaceful pursuits. I guess the thousands that have worked in Iran never got that message. Anyway, now that the original policy is obsolete, ie Iran is close to having the Bomb, the Space Station is obviously superflous. If the US was interested in a real space station, they would have used the Moon instead. Never have to worry about CMG’s breaking. Never have to reboost its orbit. Of course many other things have to be done, but thats where “E” for exploration comes in.

Another purpose of the ISS is to give purpose to the Space Shuttle. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knew all along that the Shuttle was doomed to have another disaster sometime during ISS construction. The question was when and unfortunatley it did happen in the middle of construction. Now the only thing left is to kill the Shuttle and ISS as gracefully and responsible as possible. Give credit to Griffin and Bush for recognizing the obvious and coming up with a brilliant plan to recover from the last 20 years of NASA and US government disinterest in space exploration.

By: Cecil Trotter

Cecil Trotter — Thu, 19 May 2005 18:43:16 +0000

Yes, RWR said those words before congress…. so? You go back far enough and I’ll bet you can find that someone said the same of Skylab.

But, it is now my turn to ask you “what is your point?” Is the RWR quote supposed to be proof of a right wing conspiracy or something?

By: cIclops

cIclops — Thu, 19 May 2005 17:05:09 +0000

Many thanks for the pointer to Zubrin's article in The New Atlantis. Once past the NASA rant, Zubrin makes a lot of powerful points, especially in the last section 'Why Now? Why Us?' He's got enough energy there to power himself to Mars :> For those keen on reading, the article is here

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Thu, 19 May 2005 16:32:20 +0000

“A space station will permit quantum leaps in our research in science, communications, and in metals and lifesaving medicines which could be manufactured only in space.” – Ronald Reagan, 1984 State of the Union Address

By: Cecil Trotter

Cecil Trotter — Thu, 19 May 2005 16:20:54 +0000

“Hutchison’s understanding of science must have ended in the 8th grade if she still thinks that the space station will cure cancer.”

I think Dan Golden used to make that claim as well.

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Thu, 19 May 2005 15:27:02 +0000

Hutchison's understanding of science must have ended in the 8th grade if she still thinks that the space station will cure cancer.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Thu, 19 May 2005 14:25:10 +0000

Also, the policy stipulates that the president be the ultimate arbiter of the decision.