RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Mars Rover Landing

["Ross, Matthew" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> Check that last figure.  The death rate for astronauts is still on
> the order of 1% PER TRIP. 

"Ahh, one of my toes just died!" It's a 1% overall death rate. Most missions nobody dies on, it's the 1% (Actually, closer to 7%) of all person-trips (sorry, couldn't think of a proper term for it) that someone dies. Per Trip would imply that they're taking along at least 100 people each trip and that one dies each time.

> Hundreds of clones of Mogmios could
> cartwheel across the I-70 and suffer a lower death rate than that.  

I would love to see the statistical death rate of trans-highway cartwheeling. I suspect it would be much higher if it were as common a practice as spaceflight.

> The problem I see is not with a long-term goal of manned space 
> travel, but with the idea that manned space travel plays a key 
> short-term role in the pursuit of that long-term goal. 

Many things we've learned from manned spaceflight are key to that long term goal, such as its effect on the human body. Several of our more complicated "Zero-G" experiments also require direct human intervention, and can't be conducted in the 30 seconds allowed by freefall aircraft.

> In a decade 
> or three, after we have made what will probably be a 3-5 sigma 
> improvement in systems reliability, then I say: go for it.  Trying 
> to push a shuttle program that was designed in the 70s into the 21st 
> century is just nuts.

The shuttle programs lack of updates is nuts. At the very least they should be upgrading its armour and computer systems regularly instead of replacing them with the same stock they had in the Carter administration. I agree with the idea of keeping research costs down by keeping the structure so long as it works, but not implementing relatively cheap improvements is what lead to the recent disaster. Their search for replacement 486 chips was just sad.

> Also:
> 
> > With world population continuing to grow, it's not a field we
> > should allow ourselves to fall behind in over the deaths of people
> > who would have wanted the space program to continue and expand.
> 
> If world (over)population is the problem, I submit there are many
> better ways to address it.  I have to admit I am an optimist in a
> very deep sense.  Historically, the best way to reduce birthrates is
> to create societies above the subsistence level.

First, population pressure brings immediacy to the issue of extraterrestrial collonization, it isn't the only reason for it. Second, a reduced birthrate as we see in most first world countries is NOT ideal. ZPG is nice for a static housing viewpoint, but it doesn't handle disasters well. Third, even if the entire budget used on the space program was spent on this project, it wouldn't make a dent in it. It's a better solution, but its only feasible in relatively small groups.

> A rising tide
> really does float all boats, especially if your boat is stuck in a
> mud flat.  Heck, even if the West worked to insure the availability
> of potable drinking water to all, we'd be way ahead.

Part of the problem there is quantity. The West has more water than it needs, but its excess and waste wouldn't make a dent in India's needs for example, let alone the rest of the world. There are great efforts being made to create a viable system for purifying seawater. Once these start producing water at less than $100/gal, then we may start seeing the changes you're hoping for there. Since we're on the subject, care to guess what program has contributed the most to water reclamation technology? :-P

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion