Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/28/03 8:40:09 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes:

>> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 28 06:42:41 2003
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> 
>> In a message dated 5/27/03 10:17:55 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes:
>> 
>[...]
>> >All this I know more or less. What I do not get clearly
>> >is why do you think that there is no exit from this vicious circle,
>> >e.g., by the trick proposed by the author of the article that started
>> >this discussion - namely, by using a break in shuttle launches for
>> >introducing by a side door some new launches waiting in the wings...
>> 
>> Launches to do what?  
>>
>Sorry, should be "launchers" in my text above.
>Fortunately, from the following it seems you have understood 
>that properly.

Yeah, the issue is when the craft itself is the goal, replacing it is a 
failure.

Nonsensical, but with no real goals of places to go - its understandable in 
government.




>> NASA has nothing to do.  Its not like ISS 
>> has a purpose toward some long term goal.
>> 
>> And again, it shows shuttle as a failure, which makes station useless.
> 
>> So launching flights to it with Soyouz serves no purpose.  
>> You might as well just shut it down.
>> 
>> How does a new launcher help them?  To NASA that would doom them.  
>> All new launcher designs proposed would need a tiny fraction 
>> of the number of ground support staff.  I.E. it would gut 
>> the staff sizes of the big centers.  
>> And hence gut NASA political power and influence.
>> 
>Quite true...
>
>> >> and since shuttle and statino are the only 
>> >> maned space programs in NASA currently or in the planed future, 
>> >> canceling eather negates the other, which could trigger 
>> >> the shutdown of all US, or possibly Russian, manned space operations.
>> >> 
>> >> So station and shuttle are wed.  If one dies, both die - 
>> >> and possiobly maned space flight with them.
>> >> 
>> >There is only one exit I see here: inserting a new manned space 
>> >program into NASA future - going to Mars and/or returning
>> >to the Moon. Without that we will indefinitely put billions 
>> >into that black Shuttle/ISS hole just for nothing.
>> >
>> >-- Zenon Kulpa
>> 
>> Thats a good idea, but NASA will fight hard to stop it, 
>> and neiather goal generates much public interest.
>> 
>If properly formulated, and by a popular and appropriately
>powerful political force (say, President of the U.S...) 
>it may...

not realy unless you can generate public interest.   Popular presidents have 
tried, but no go or interest.  Even the bulk of Kennedy's proposals for the 
future of space were ignored.  Only Apollo, the race with the soviets, was 
picked up on.




>> Frankly I'm hoping for military or commercial interets to force the 
>> development of the new launchers which do gut NASA and invalidate 
>> Shuttle station and  much of the rest.  Thjat would shake up NASA 
>> to its roots.  Perhaps it would be shut down and replaced, 
>> or refocused toward usefull goals for practical or exploration goals.
> 
>> Hell just shut down and gotten out of the way would help us toward space.
>> 
>Probably true too.
>The promising route now seems to go through X-prize
>and subsequent space tourism market development.

Thats a possibility.


>
>-- Zenon Kulpa


Kelly