From: John Seidts (jseidts@astory.com)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 19:51:52 PST
EXCELLENT IDEA! I'm tired of seeing the one for the presidential
re-election fund.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rikk Rogers" <rkltd@swbell.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] Another Columbia thread...
> Yo folks...
> How about a "I'd like to donate X $ to the space program in the old 1040.
> Any suggestions on how to get it done?
>
> I'm in for $100 a year if we can do it!
>
> rikk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]On
> Behalf Of Nathan Wilkens
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 12:30 AM
> To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> Subject: [MV] Another Columbia thread...
>
>
> Colleagues,
> I am both saddened and angered by today's great loss - I am also likely
the
> only person on the Mil-Veh list who is 100% NASA funded (the work I do is
> funded by NASA's Astrobiology program, and as such, they 'keep me in
> mocassins' so to speak, as well as CUCV parts) - so I'd like to give you a
> moment of my opinion on the subject.
>
> NASA has been horribly underfunded since Vietnam stripped NASA of the
> originally planned 100 Apollo missions per year (yup, 100 Apollos every
> year). The plan was to create a maintain a lunar colony immediately after
> the moon landings (and that does seem a bit crazy). Things only went down
> hill from there... The Shuttle program was devised in the early 70's
(based
> on 60's technology). By the 90's we were supposed to have a space plane,
> able to take off from a conventional runway, go single-stage to orbit, and
> land on a regular runway. This was to be a warplane as well as a space
> plane, so the Air Force helped fund the initial research. It never
> happened. As the shuttle program came online, it was only to be a first
> generation technology that was to be replaced by newer, more efficient
(and
> cheaper to operate) fleet of shuttles. This also never happened. The
solid
> rocket boosters (which caused the Challenger disaster) were supposed to be
> replaced with a new technology that would have increased payload capacity
by
> 5000 kg and increased safety. It was cut. Recent cuts include the X-33
> shuttle replacement (a horribly underfunded project from the start), the
> X-38 ISS emergency return vehicle, ALL big solar system probes (including
> the last chance to see Pluto for the next 250 years).
>
> Although I'm greatly saddened by the loss of the Columbia crew, I'm
angered
> to think it didn't have to happen. NASA's current budget sees less than
$5
> for $1000 I pay in taxes. I'd gladly spot them a $20 bill to dream again.
> Although I understand the need for the United States to be the policeman
for
> world peace, I often think how much better much of that money could be
used
> (and there are lots of horrible people in this world that quite frankly,
> don't deserve peace! Have you seen Black Hawk Down lately?). Did you know
> we could go to Mars for only $30 billion? And we could go to Mars to
stay,
> with permanent human habitation as the goal. Other minor issues, like the
> origin of life, how to protect Earth's vital resources, and how to
> economically mine space materials, could be answered along the way. Don't
> forget, the Apollo missions brought us trivial things like medical imaging
> and personal computers, as well as the moon! Finally, did you realize
that
> our space competition is from the Chinese? They have embarked on a
massive
> manned space flight program, with their first launch likely this year, and
> missions to land on the moon within 5 years?
>
> The Columbia crew has sadly 'slipped the surly bonds' and died doing what
> they enjoy the best. My thoughts go out to their families this evening -
> nothing saddens me more than to think how they must feel. 'Hero' is a
nice
> word, but it does little to soothe the pain of children whose mommy or
daddy
> will not ever come home again. At least their spouses knew the risks
> involved. If truly anything good is to come out of this pain, may it
bring
> a renewed emphasis (that includes funding) for our nation's (and our
> world's) funding in her space future.
>
> Thanks,
> Nathan Wilkens
>
> PS: All the mention of safety systems is correct - there is simply no way
to
> design a realistic safety mechanism that would have saved either the
> Challenger crew (at take off) or the Columbia crew (at maximum re-entry
> stress). Had today's problem occurred with a next generation space plane,
> it would likely have been able to do an emergency fire back into orbit and
> await repairs at the ISS (the current Shuttle fleet carries virtually no
> fuel - it's kept in the main central booster (the orange tank) at launch).
> No emergency pod would have withstood re-entry after being separated from
an
> out-of-control shuttle, and the telescoping hatch ejection works at such
low
> altitudes (10k feet or less) that it is nearly useless. Ejection seats
are
> out of the question as the astronauts sit on two levels, underneath each
> other. Basically, the current space shuttle fleet is too old and too
> expensive to keep running, and the US needs a new fleet of space shuttles.
> As far as the space shuttle Enterprise - it's a rusting hulk sitting next
to
> an SR71 and two really rusty Saturn V rockets at the Huntsville Space and
> Rocket Center.... sadly, rusting hulks that represent NASA and America's
> future, unless some drastic changes occur.
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:25:24 PDT