Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: gratuitous anthrophobia (was Re: Shuttle computer reprogramming)
Message-ID: <1988Oct11.212620.2071@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <6689@nsc.nsc.com> <6980@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <1938@kalliope.rice.edu> <1988Oct8.234146.11950@utzoo.uucp> <1348@thumper.bellcore.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 88 21:26:20 GMT

In article <1348@thumper.bellcore.com> karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
>Oh, come on Henry, I'm right and you know it. :-)

Phil, I am perfectly willing to concede that you are 100% right, given the
assumption that "manned spaceflight" means "manned spaceflight on the NASA
space shuttle under NASA's rules".  A silly assumption.  Even ESA or JSA
would tell you that, not to mention the Soviets and some of the less orthodox
commercial-launch projects in the US.

>Just see my previous postings regarding Microsat for evidence of what
>you can do for very little money when you don't have human lives riding
>on it.

Remember Voyager (the Rutan one, not the JPL one) for evidence of what you
can do for relatively little money when you *do* have human lives -- those
of enthusiastic volunteers -- riding on it.

>Even in the unmanned arena, AMSAT has made significant
>contributions to spacecraft technology, usually because we were forced
>to by the cost of the existing solutions...
>Necessity is often the mother of invention in AMSAT, and more often than
>not, the necessity comes from the lack of funds to do things the
>"standard" way.

AMSAT has done some very ingenious things, I will admit.  However, I don't
know about AMSAT, but some of the people I know who are in similar 
situations will admit that (a) stringent constraints do lead to some very
creative solutions to problems, but (b) they kind of wish they could opt
for a bit less creativity and a bit more productivity.  The amateur-radio
folks are in an anomalous position, in that advancement of technology is
one of the reasons why they have spectrum space in the first place.  Many
other would-be space users are interested in results and would be happy to
(in fact, would prefer to) use last year's technology if it gets the job
done.  AMSAT has had its share of high-tech failures, as I recall.

>But if you combine relatively lavish funding with a "you
>cannot fail, human lives and lots of money are on the line" directive,
>then you get extremely conservative...

No argument.  The future of manned spaceflight lies with the USSR, and
maybe with some of the crazies like Gary Hudson, not with NASA.

>... The perception of the space shuttle as the
>ultimate symbol of American high technology is a master stroke of NASA
>public relations; a close look at subsystems like the onboard computers
>reveals just how out-of-date much of its technology (necessarily) is.

A close look at Soviet space (and aviation) hardware reveals just how
limited the real need for up-to-date technology is, in many (not all)
areas.  The booster that launches Soyuz, more frequently and dependably
than the US shuttle, is essentially the same one that launched Sputnik.
Over 1000 launches later, it still works fine.  Out of date?  Who cares?
Name one other launcher on which I can buy a trip to a space station
just by plunking down enough cash.  For that matter, name one other
launcher that could get me there without costing twice as much.  Ever
read Arthur C. Clarke's short story "Superiority"?
-- 
The meek can have the Earth;    |    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
the rest of us have other plans.|uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu