EagleRJ said:
How is a single engine the safest way? The shuttle has abort scenarios for the loss of one or two main engines, and in some cases, it can still make it to orbit. The reliability of rocket engines is nowhere near what would be required to rely on just one, especially with hypergolics. Maybe with the introduction of aerospikes or another technology. Right now, we're better off having the redundancy of multiple engines.
It makes sense to have the minimum number of engines if the failure of any engine results in the failure of the mission. The vast majority of the time an engine failure will result in an abort or worse.
Agreed that projects like the SCSC would help us understand our universe better. It's not like going back to the moon would be wasted money though. How many everyday products were initially developed for the Apollo program? The moon still has plenty of mysteries, and may hold plenty of resources, like Helium3, which may be the key to developing fusion power. It's a logical stepping stone to further exploration, too. We still need to develop our life support systems and other expertise before we can go further.
The amount of real science done on a shuttle mission would pale in comparison to the science done by the many projects that could be funded by one shuttle mission. A shuttle mission is $5-700 million in direct costs, sometimes more.
I agree that the moon does have mysteries that would be interesting to solve, but they could be solved just as well, perhaps better, without sending human beings there.
Our last accomplishment in space was the introduction of the Space Shuttle in 1981. The ISS is a needed step, but right now, it's all we can do to keep it supplied with rickety Russian launch vehicles until we can restore our own launch capability. We need much more support for it to perform its intended science functions.
Risk goes with any venture other than sitting watching TV. We accept, and try to minimize, the risk that goes along with intercontinental air travel, don't we?
Since 1981?? Chandra, SOHO, Cassini, Hubble Telescope, Galileo, numerous Mars missions... Do I need to go on? Any one of these programs has produced considerably more useful scientific data than the shuttle or ISS has without risking human lives and at a reasonable cost. For that matter, exactly what science has been done on the ISS? Of that science what of it needed human intervention?
During the search for Columbia wreckage they found a worm experiment in which the worms were still living. Everyone was fascinated and amazed, but no one asked why we were spending billions of dollars and risking these people lives to do worm experiments!?!
The Russians actually make some of the best rockets in the world.
True, robotic probes definitely have their place, and are very useful for quick, relatively cheap exploration, but what's the point, if they're not clearing the way for human explorers? Overpopulation and diminishing natural resources demand that we either reduce our numbers, or expand off of this planet. I personally vote for the latter- we're explorers by nature.
Overpopulation and limited natural resources are major problems that are largely ignored. It needs serious attention if the human race is to maintain its vitality beyond the next 100 years or so. But, the idea that a significant percentage of the population will ever leave this planet is absurd.
Robotic probes are capable of much more useful exploration and examination per pound or per dollar than human beings. Human beings are not very efficient at gathering data, but they are excellent at interpreting data and figuring out why….
What if science also happens to be spectacle?
In some cases it is, in the case of manned space flight it is generally not.
Thanks for the reply.
Scott
