Xref: utzoo sci.space:6104 sci.space.shuttle:873 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!faline!thumper!karn From: karn@thumper.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Von Braun quote Summary: humans in space Message-ID: <1222@thumper.bellcore.com> Date: 12 Jul 88 20:23:37 GMT References: <1988Jun17.053132.5314@utzoo.uucp>, <3361@phri.UUCP> <4782@killer.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc Lines: 69 > The state of communications has not gotten so good as to defy phyics, now > has it? The non-manned approach works fine when in earth orbit, but what > happens when you get up there to around the moon? By the time the person > on the ground has reacted to a problem, six seconds will have passed in > transmission time! In a critical situation, this could mean the destruction > of the craft. Good point. But how many applications really require six second response time? Voyager seems to have been highly successful without humans on board, despite round trip times measured in hours. There may well be "deep space" applications which require short human response times and therefore humans in space, but this is a tiny fraction. > Also, the computers these days are not nearly advanced to do the sort of > problem manegement that you describe. Show me an unmanned launch vehical > which can do as much as the shuttle can! Let's try comparing the "versatile" shuttle against those old, outdated, unmanned launchers. 1. Unmanned launchers such as Delta, Ariane and Atlas-Centaur routinely put payloads into geostationary transfer orbit. With the Transtage, Titan can put them directly into their final geostationary orbit. But shuttle sticks you with this silly 296km circular orbit, and you need ANOTHER kick motor (in addition to the one you've already got for circularizing orbit at geostationary altitude) to pick up where the shuttle leaves off. 2. You can get Atlas, Delta and Ariane launches into polar, sun- synchronous orbit. But shuttle is restricted to low inclination orbits because the Vandenburg launch complex has been essentially abandoned. 3. In unmanned launches, the customer calls the shots. But when the shuttle was carrying commercial payloads, there was considerable friction between the payload people and the shuttle people. The reason? Trying to do too many different things on a single flight with an extremely expensive vehicle that NASA is counting on getting back. If the customer of an unmanned launch wants to fly a "risky" payload (i.e., one that could cause the destruction of the launcher or the failure of the mission should the payload fail in certain ways) why shouldn't he? After all, it's his money, and there aren't any astronaut lives at stake. (Of course, this wouldn't include external risks, e.g., people or facilities on the ground.) But not on the shuttle. As I've repeatedly commented before: if you want to get depressed, go read the GAS payload safety manual. And my copy was printed long BEFORE Challenger. > The most advanced computer in > the world is that 10 pound ball of grey matter resting on your neck... This is meaningless hyperbole. What does "advanced" mean? The ability to solve differential equations in real time? The ability to withstand thousands of rads of radiation? The ability to monitor hundreds of voltages, currents and pressures 24 hours per day, for years at a time, without making any mistakes? (By the way, *you* may be from Talos IV, but my brain weight is probably about 3 pounds, the average for Homo Sapiens). Most people know that there are some things computers do much better than humans, and there are other things that humans do much better than computers. An intelligently designed system will apply each resource where it is best suited. There is certainly room for discussion and disagreement as to exactly how to do this in any project. But in the realm of space travel, emotional romanticism has gotten the upper hand over rational design as in almost no other area of technology. The result? Expensive turkeys like the Shuttle that have sucked away almost all money from other, far more cost-effective projects and have nearly wrecked our space program in the process. Phil