[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: starship-design: The Case for Space

"L. Parker" wrote:

> > The lower level of technology into space the better. I don't
> > want my access
> > limited into space
> > because of QM37 mega-transitor that's on the  cutting edge of
> > stupidity.
> As long as you aren't being needlessly antitechnology - sure. If it wasn't
> for the quote in your signature I would have thought you were doing just
> that.

I am not antitecholgy, but I am aware that deep space access requires
independent human habitat far from earth, and like to keep things simple if 
possible ,and have several options open and alternate plans for development.
I do how ever distrust BIG things because there is no longer any feedback to
the people in control,or I can't fix it myself.   

> Nobody wants to trust their life, or their children's lives, to
> untried technology. This is reflected in the current space program in
> spades. Almost all computer hardware and software employed in spacecraft are
> at least two generations out of date - and therefore thoroughly debugged!
> There are similar situations for most other hardware components as well.

 There still can be mistakes - look at the metric - english measurement that
the latest mars probe. I hope Microsoft does not develop the life support.
On the flip side of the coin, some the probes sent out in the 70's are still
back data. 
I agree with most things but differ in details. 
Like the space station. I would have dumped the current design and the shuttle,
and spent the 1/3 the money on international reusable launch vehicle, 1/3 on the
ground with live
testing and 1/3 to build it. I also still like the ring-wheel type space
As a Canadian I can't really tell NASA how to run its job as I don't pay taxes
to them. <grin>.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Einstein
"We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents...
 We borrow it from our children.