Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Scuttle the Shuttle?
Message-ID: <11730@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 6-Feb-86 23:00:07 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11730
Posted: Thu Feb  6 23:00:07 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Feb-86 05:48:02 EST
References: <8602061514.AA06010@s1-b.arpa>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 180

In article <8602061514.AA06010@s1-b.arpa> dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
writes [> = Paul, >> = my original response]:

>>But there are a lot of things that it [the shuttle] can do quite well that
>>no current or previous space transportation system could even aspire to do.
>
>Name one that justifies the cost of the shuttle system (vague
>references to philosophical principles not allowed).  And no ranting
>against bean-counters, either.

   Several are given below, with discussion of your claims that they
could be performed in other ways.  I believe that they are worth (ten
times) the money we are spending.  But it would be foolish for me to try
to convince you or anyone else of this--obviously you attach less value
to these things than I do.  I am just thankful that the majority of the
American people agree with me, and are even willing to spend more on
the shuttle program (according to Gallup polls).

>>The real question is not whether the shuttle is advancing
>>the exploitation of space (obviously it is) but whether it is doing
>>so more effectively and economically than the alternatives.  I wait
>>to see your proposed alternatives.
>
>It's not obvious to me that the shuttle is advancing the exploitation of
>space.  It's not making the launching of unmanned satellites any
>cheaper.  It's not a cheap enough launcher to make space manufacturing
>economical.  It has been (and is) soaking up money that could be spent on
>other more worthwhile endeavors:
>
>  - Development of cheaper launchers
>  - Unmanned probes to look for easily accessible extraterrestrial
>    resources (Earth co-orbital asteroids, lunar polar ice deposits)
>  - Development of space qualified teleoperator systems

   It is advancing it in the sense that we are learning by doing.  One
day we will have a cheaper launch system, and its development is going to
be completely dependent on the lessons that are being learned from the
shuttle program (and continued improvement in technology, of course).
Everybody would love to have a way of delivering cargo to earth orbit for
$10K/ton, but we don't know any way to do this.  If we did don't you think
we would build it??
   Let me also point out the rather obvious fact that in general one
project does not "soak up" money from other projects.  NASA is not in a
position to scrap the shuttle program, but even if it were there certainly
is not the slightest reason to believe that they could somehow take that
money and go spend it on whatever they want.  This is not the way our
government operates.

>>As far as I know nobody has had any success in space operations using
>>"robots and teleoperated manipulators."  I will put the ball back in
>>your court; you are making a positive assertion here, that these things
>>can be done.  Do you have one shred of evidence to back this up?
>
>Are not ALL the planetary probes robots?  And is not the shuttle arm
>a teleoperator?  It doesn't matter that the person controlling it is in
>the shuttle cabin or on the ground (except for a small speed-of-light
>delay).  NASA is planning an remote controlled orbital maneuvering
>vehicle for low orbit retrieval tasks and (I think) a remote controlled
>orbital transfer vehicle.  Teleoperated submarines are being used in
>the oil industry today, and have been used to manipulate radioactive
>substances for years.  The technology drivers for teleoperated systems
>(sensor technology, electronics, communications) are developing
>explosively, while the technology driver for manned space presence
>(cheap launch systems) is developing slowly.

   All planetary probes built to date are one-shot, *extremely* expensive,
single-purpose devices which only measure and record their environment;
they do not even attempt to manipulate it.  As for the shuttle arm; as
far as I know not a single thing has been accomplished with it without
the intervention of humans in spacesuits.
   I'm not sure what point you mean to make with "NASA is planning...."
If any of these things is in more than a very preliminary R&D stage I
would be very surprised.  And to the extent that they are doing these
things it seems that they are doing exactly what they want.  Or are you
making the illogical claim that the things that they are doing serve as
evidence that they could be doing much more if they wanted to?
   The reason that cheap launch systems are developing slowly is that
they are extraordinarily difficult to build.  The reason that we stopped
building Saturn V's is that they cost $300M or so each (in 1986 dollars).
The ESA has spent a lot of money on Ariane with mixed results.  What makes
you think that it is possible to launch sizable payloads substantially
more cheaply than we are doing now?

[Paul Dietz's responses to my list of things that could not be done
without humans in space follows, with my responses:]

>(1) Satellite repair.  This is a sparse market (for STS).  If
>satellites are designed properly there's no reason why one couldn't do
>it with teleoperators (as will have to be done in geosynchronous orbit
>anyway, where most satellites are).  The economics of satellite repair
>are dubious when the satellite has to be relaunched (as those two
>comsats with failed boosters will have to be).

   You say "there's no reason why one couldn't do it [repair satellites]
with teleoperators."  You have no evidence for this, as far as I can
tell, and I don't know of any knowledgeable person in the field who
agrees with you.  The complicated operations performed by astronauts
testing and repairing satellites can't even be duplicated by robots on
earth, much less in space!  It's just not possible, your wild claims
to the contrary.
   BTW, the *vast* majority of all satellites are in low earth orbit.

>(2) Recovery operations in earth orbit.  LDEF was deployed and will be
>recovered with the shuttle arm -- a teleoperator!

   I am not familiar with the specific procedures for deploying and
recovering LDEF.  I assume that it is specifically designed with an
adaptor for recovery by the shuttle arm, but even so I would expect that
the planned recovery operation involves a suited human stabilizing the
satellite.  Certainly humans will be required to fasten it into the
cargo bay for reentry.  And even in cases when the procedure is planned
to involve no direct human intervention past experience would seem to
indicate that there is a substantial probability that humans in suits
will in fact be required to assist the operations.

>(3) Servicing in earth orbit.  There appears to be no good reason why
>you couldn't service a properly designed space telescope (say) by remote
>control.  I believe a teleoperator with the proper appendages (screw
>drivers, grippers, refueling attachments, etc.) could be more efficient than
>a person in a bulky spacesuit.  Servicing in geosynchronous orbit will
>require teleoperators.

   Let me make the obvious point that just because you don't seem to
understand why these things are so difficult to do doesn't in fact make
them possible.  If you were to talk to those who actually do this work
perhaps you would get a better idea of what is possible and what is not.
In any case, if you wish us to accept your assertion that these things
can be done you are going to have to produce at least a few shreds of
evidence to this effect.
   By the time we can get objects of this size into geosynchronous orbit
why won't we be able to get people there as well??

>(4) Human-directed experimentation.  I said spacelab had produced some
>good science.  I heard on the news the other night, however, that preparing
>a science payload for the shuttle is five times (!) more expensive than
>for an unmanned launcher.  And it's seriously debatable whether it's worth
>the cost.  It certainly won't lead to space based manufacturing on any
>worthwhile scale until launch costs are reduced dramatically.

   I can't debate the value of these experiences, nor can I argue with
such an august source as (let me guess) the ABC News.  But the claim which
you make with such certainty I will question; I can easily imagine the
possibility of producing new pharmaceuticals in space, or semiconductor
crystals, or metal alloys or composites, of such value that their
manufacture in space could be worthwhile.  Or study of new materials
produced in space could lead to discovery of methods to achieve the same
results on Earth.  I'm not claiming that these things necessarily will
happen, but I don't see how you can be so quick to rule them out even as
possibilities.

>(5) Experimentation and study of humans in orbit.  This should be a
>means to an end, not an end in itself, and if human presence is
>deemphasized in the near term there's no reason to do this now.

   Why is (say) planetary exploration a worthwhile objective, but
study of the human race is not??

>(6) Space station construction.  Yes, I believe teleoperators COULD do
>this, and besides, it makes no sense to build a space station until
>launch costs are reduced to the point that humans make more sense in
>space.

   Again, I'll believe this when you produce some evidence.  I'd be
willing to bet you couldn't find a single person working on the space
station who would agree with you.
   Don't you want a space station at which to base your teleoperators? :-)

>I too believe in the use of space; I want my grandchildren to be born
>in space.  I just think the shuttle is a waste of effort and is not
>moving us towards worthwhile long term goals in space.

   The key question here is: what are the alternatives?  If you could
present viable alternatives we could discuss them.  But if all you can
come up with are fantastic claims about the potential of teleoperators,
with no evidence to back them up, I think I am going to have to vote
to stay with something that works.  Even if we could build the extra-
ordinarily complicated systems you describe they would certainly cost
*more* than the shuttle, not less...

   -- David desJardins