NASA Coincidence?

Uh, because they're using the same technologies in the same way as they did last time? They used stronger glue this time, but it wasn't good enough? Because the whole shuttle program is inefficient and unnecessary? Because remote-controlled robots are cheaper and at least as effective?

the chance of a catastrophic failure is a function of the system's complexity,i'm told by system theorists and the like. which is a classic engeneering maxum = "keep it simple, stupid."

the shuttle has so many wiz-bang knobs and redundant safety gizmo's that on every launch a few will fail. and as long as these failures do not creat a wicked and unforseen feedback loop between essential systems, everything will be ok.

however, if the right components fail in such a way that the the associated defficits and errors reinforce one another, bad and unexpected things can and do happen.

the best example of this, to my knowledge, involved the open sea ditching of that National Guard C-130 off of Crescent City, CA the other year. it turns out that the cause of this crash which killed 11 or 12 guys resulted from the signal coming from a power generator getting sent to the input for the govonors. causing a precipitous loss in power output by the engines.


so, i do believe that the shuttle should be grounded. also, that most of the work can be done by robotic missions. however, i do feel that there is a place in space for human beings. not for the scientific purpose, but rather for the social and environmental good that it is doing.

the benefits of manned space missions is that the people on board help to find an observational perspective which is outside of our ecosphere. which allows us to look at the planet as a whole and single entity. looking down this way it is possible to see that there really no political boundaries or boarders. it also shows us that we are living together in a finite space and that there is no such ching as an infinite supply of clear air or water, for example.

after the eisenhower to nixon splurge of manned space exploration, these concepts were in common discourse between us americans. which can be seen in the old catch phrase that the earth is a "big, blue marble."

again, i do not think that the shuttle is the appropriate means to this end, but strongly feel that people should be up there as our eyes and conscience.



focus all of our preceptions and feelings

There are no labor unions or redwood groves in space. Manned space missions do not contribute to social or environmental goals. Sending spacecraft into orbit specifically to take high-quality pictures of the Earth is a great idea, but there's absolutely no reason that human beings with their big, fragile throbbing-meat bodies have to go with the cameras. America talked a better game about war and the environment thirty years ago for a number of reasons, including the recent experience of two world wars, the novelty of environmental consciousness which was only a few years old then, and the need to present an image to the world that seemed more successful and humane than Red China and the Soviet Union.

I think people in space would be just as "cool" as any other nerd does, but moving people around the solar system with chemical rockets is just absurd. Without practical fusion power manned space flight is stupid.