Conference 7.286::space

Yuri Gagarin (sp?) was neither a chimpanzee nor a dog.
    John Sauter

The basic fundamental research onboard Friendship 7 was the measurement
of the effects of low earth environment on the human body. And the unplanned
demonstration of the value of a human pilot who can override automatic reentry
sequences.

I think the point he was making is that space travel is still a risky business
and it is wrong to lead the public to beleive otherwise, directly or
indirectly. Carrying 'non mission essential' passengers could be seen as
creating this impression.

From an experienced astronaut's point of view this belief is reinforced
by the fact that a lot of the passengers' training consists of learning
how to keep out of the way of the rest of the crew.

You cannot deny that there is a certain amount of PR in carrying teachers,
congressmen etc into orbit at this stage. We are certainly approaching the
stage where 'ordinary people' can and should be carried into space but looking
at it from a technical point of view, it is probably worth waiting until
there is somewhere to take them to (i.e. the space station).

However, NASA is constantly fighting for funding and public support and
the mission would have a great way to bring space home as well as to school.

gary

re .1

Neither were Shepard, Grissom or Titov

re: this whole note:

Glenn was bad enough, but Carl Sagan went so far as to suggest that humans
don't belong in space; that robots are better.  I suggest that Sagan himself
is in space right now....

Dan

Tom Gold was on CNN at about 4pm saying the same thing. I thought that was
a very tacky attempt at point scoring. I half expected the planetary science
camp to say something but I thought they'd at least wait a while. (FWIW,
Gold held that the surface of the moon was covered in several miles of dust
and any heavy (as in manned) spacecraft would sink on landing).

I guess that seeing some major portion of your life's work being put on
hold for a few decades from budget cuts will drive some people to this.

gary

I'm afraid I agree with John Glenn on this. The shuttle is very much an
experimental vehicle. It is hard enough to design an aircraft to acceptable
safety standards and you can usually count on building hundreds of those.

The media have barely mentioned the remainder of the crew. Whereas with
Christa the eyes of the world were on this mission and are now wondering
whether it is safe to send anyone up again. 

I hope that the shuttle does resume operations as early as possible.

Mark

Christa was not the first person sent up for political, rather than
experimental, purposes.  (Senator Garn was first)

Christa was not the first 'civialian' sent up.  Various Hughes and
RCA technicians have been up before to oversee launches of their
satellites.

In fact, the satellite technician on this flight was GOING to go
up 2 flights earlier, but Garn bumped him.  Then he was going to
go up the next flight, but Rep ?? bumped him again.

A commentator on NPR used exactly the word I was thinking when I
looked back on the NASA PR and media hype associated with this
flight.  "Hubris".

I feel that an essential part of almost any government agency's job is to
inform the citizenry of what it is doing and convey the results in a way
that can benefit the public.  Part of NASA's job is to explore the new frontier
of space, thus part of their job is to inform us about that exploration.
And I think that this should be more than just filling libraries with volumes
of technical information.

I think that the program of sending a teacher, and then a journalist, and
then <fill-in-the-blank> is an excellent way for NASA to discharge its duties
to the public.  It IS part of NASA's mission -- it was a proper part of
Challenger's ill-fated mission.

It must continue.

Bob Fleischer

I feel that at this point, civilians should not be forbidden.  Perhaps they
should have before the disaster.  The important thing is informed consent.
Now it is nearly impossible that a potential civilian would not know what
kind of danger s/he was facing.  If s/he agreed to accept that risk, then
fine...let the person go.

I would also like to point out that the "unmanned-is-better" advocates are
not without a valid point of view.  Anyone who knows me knows what an absolute
supporter/lover of the shuttle I am.  However, I think that it is foolish
to insist that ALL space flights must be manned, and that ALL space flights
depend on a fleet of (now) 3 vehicles which can only fly about once every
2 months.  Time-critical flights like Galileo and Ulysses (both going to
Jupiter initially...Ulysses then turns north up and over the Sun) should
not have to depend on the incredibly strict safety requirements of personned
flight.  If a Titan had blown up, they might well have decided that it was
worth the risk of sending Galileo on another one, since to wait for a review
board would mean missing the launch window which only comes once every 2-3
years.

On the other hand, personned flight capability is essential for lots of
things...repairs, space station, experimentation, etc etc etc.

Burns


Burns

Yeah, there is no need for a shuttle launch of some of the satellites, but
even if Ulysses were scheduled to launch on, say, a Titan 34D, a Titan failure
would make them very nervous. Have they built a backup of the probe? Have
they a contingency plan in the event of launch failure. Given budget crunches,
possibly not (this is conjecture, I haven't been following this project).

In the past, two of each space probe were usually built. If the first survived
launch the backup was usually sent to somewhere like Goddard, where it would
be used in the event of problems on the flight vehicle (test fixes etc)
and ultimately tested until system breakdown in the space simulation chambers
to learn more about spacecraft survivability. Finally it ends up in the
National Air & Space Museum. In this way it serves a number of useful purposes.
The Soviets also tend to build duplicate spacecraft but their strategy is
to launch both and alter the mission profile of the second if the first
survives (their Halley probes, for example).

In the days of tight budgets, these backup craft often do not get built. NASA
has had such an incredible success rate that everyone has forgotten the risks
involved in manned and unmanned spaceflight. 

gary

re .10:  We have often done the same (built spacecraft in pairs):

	Pioneer 10 and 11 (10 survived Jupiter, so 11 was sent on a more
			   dangerous path which allowed it to go on to Saturn)

	Voyager 1 and 2	   (1 survived Saturn, so 2 was sent on the more
                            dangerous path to allow the outer planet tour)

	Viking 1 and 2     (1 landed safely, so 2 was landed in a slightly
			    more risky terrain)

Probably others...

Galileo has only one flight article, as does Ulysses.  Another thing lost
(I presume) by delaying Galileo is that it was to make the first close
encounter with an asteroid on the way to Jupiter.  Unlikely that celestial
mechanics would give us that freebie again for the next launch window.

Burns

re: .7 REP ??? is Nelson, of Florida(?)

I've listened to the unmanned stuff all week and tried not to let it get
to me. You can't argue it economically, at least at the moment. Unmanned is
cheaper. Lots cheaper. There's the repair issue. However, the cost of having
humans on one shuttle flight would pay for a spare satellite in a lot of
cases.

So you have to be more pragmatic and forethinking. If you envision really
intense research in the outer planets, it doesn't make sense to keep
launching things that are self contained. Take pieces up to the space
station and build it a little at a time. You can build some big, neat
things and push them out to the planets. But you can't make them survive
lift-off. Additionally, you can't get the average person on the street
excited about an unmanned satellite. At the first sign of recession they
want that &*^% stopped. Men on the moon they can agree with.

The last point on this is simple to understand. Some of us (perhaps most
participants in this file) are simply committed to this sort of evolution
of the human spirit. It is a form of intellectual expansion and vicarious
fulfillment I simply demand in return for my tax $$. I just won't vote for
someone who doesn't support it.
						-Brian

RE: .12 -> .7:  Yes, Representative Bill Nelson is right here in Florida
		serving the district which contains the KSC.

One of the VALID resons for using people in the entire space program has
always been to keep the imagination and interest of the tax paying public.

I believe that almost all of us share the idea that space is the 'Final
Frontier' (were could I have heard that?).  The problem is that Sagan and
the scientists have a hard time communicating to anyone below the educational
level of a PhD.  They are caught up with their intellectual view of the universe
and are, in fact, at least as valuable to our future as the more visible
pioneers such as the 7 who died.

Glenn is caught up in the test pilot and engineering view of the program.

As with all things moderation is required.

Space is the key to EVERY human's future.  We MUST continue going into space
- manned, unmanned, and intellectually.

FLAME UP!!

Don

Lets put this in proper perspective.

Several reasons exist for 'Man in Space'.  The formost has been touched on
in this note: "ADVENTURE".  Man in space has an appeal that keeps the people
interested.  Other valid reasons exist, such as medical research, industrial
research, etc.  These are expected to yield great results.  As Jake Garn
stated "When medical research in space provide the cure for a major disease,
the program will have justified every dime spent since the '50's".  Senetor
Glenn Believes in Man in Space as much as we all do, he simply draws the
strings in at 'civilians' in space.  A matter of opinion, and one which he
is free to make.

Understand, also, that Crista was not the first civilian on the space shuttle.
The various corporate technicians and engineers that have traveled with there
companies satilites were civilians.  Digital has contracts with NASA, that
does not mean that I am not a civilian.  Crista was the first civilian without
previous aerospace involvement, thats all.

RE: .12
As for satilite repair, while the time is comming, you may find that it is
cheaper to replace than repair at this time.  I may be wrong, but...

regards,

jim

re .11

My point was not that the US didn't build and sometmies launch backup. It
was that the success record is good enough that mission planners have become
a little too complacent about the possibility of failure. In times of tight
budgets, a backup becomes an attractive target.

gary

The distinction I make about S. Christa McAuliffe is not that she was the
first civilian (I was a soldier once, but I wasn't inhuman...), but that
she was most probably a much better communicator than the test pilots and
technicians which had gone earlier, and this is not meant to disparage these
people, but just that Christa was a TEACHER, a communicator to young people,
and she had 15 years experience at it.

The space "experience" has not been communicated (by those who have exper-
ienced it) in what I would consider vivid terms. Typical communications are
of the "go at throttle-up", "Houston, do you read?", "it sort of sticks to
my boots like wet beach sand" variety. Communicating the experience in 
vivid and comprehensible language, directing it to young people (the future
of America, we're so fond of saying) is at least as valuable as seeing that
the satellite is revved up properly and off on time.

Glenn as a senator and presidential candidate is one of the least interesting
people to listen to, even ignoring the vacuity of the statements. Probably
thinks bathtubs should be handled by test pilots. Sagan would suggest a robot,
I suppose, but it would rust... :^)

Send teachers, send writers (not journalists [vultures]), send artists and
poets... Otherwise we end up with a technical triumph enclosed in an emotional
vacuum.

John Osborne (ex-teacher and artist, just to show my bias...)

re .16:

Amen, John -- couldn't agree with you more!

(I've never been an artist or a writer or a teacher -- I'm an engineer.
But I know that there are other sides to life, too.  I'm still human, and
need more than just "technical results".)

Bob Fleischer


P.S.  Quite honestly, the thing that makes me saddest/maddest about this was
"why didn't they send the teacher up before the senator and the
representative?" As a taxpayer I got  nothing out of "politicians in space"
(except for a couple of influential legislators who are unusually beholden to
NASA for given them something that "money can't buy").  But I and my family
were looking forward to the lessons from space.

Newsgroups: net.columbia
Path: decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!peora!jer
Posted: 7 Feb 86 13:56:02 GMT
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corporation, Orlando, Fl
 
 
One of the things that initially made the shuttle incident seem
particularly tragic to me was the idea that Ms. McCauliffe was just an
ordinary citizen, a teacher who had in essence won a sort of "contest" to
be on the shuttle, but then it had turned out so tragically.
 
Subsequently, though, I read her essay which won her the position on the
shuttle.  In it, she explained that all her life she had been interested
in the space program, and had wanted to be an astronaut, but had been
discouraged from it by the societal pressures upon women which discouraged
women from becoming astronauts.  She concluded by saying that, while she
couldn't "start her life over" and become an astronaut now that things had
changed, this gave her an opportunity to participate in the program.
 
I have since come to think of her more as someone who was apparently well
familiar with the nature of the space program, including apparently the
risks, and someone who, had things been different, might have been one
of the regular crew herself.
 
This does not in any way reduce the tragedy of the disaster, but (sort of
like the parable of the workers who were hired in the evening but paid
the same as those who worked all day, I guess) makes me think of her more
as "one of the crew".  Thus I think any monument to the 7 astronauts should
honor them equally.
-- 
UUCP: Ofc:  [email protected]  Home: [email protected]  CCUR DNS: peora, pesnta
  US Mail:  MS 795; CONCURRENT Computer Corp. SDC; (A Perkin-Elmer Company)
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642     xxxxx4xxx

Part of the reason that people like Sen. Glenn have commented negatively on
"citizens in space", I think, is due to the connotations of that phrase.
"Citizens in space" seems to imply that they really have no legitimate role
there.  It seems to imply that the person thus selected would just be the lucky
winner of the first lottery for a free round-trip on the shuttle -- on a par
with winning a free round-trip to Hawaii.  The phrase (ironically, in
retrospect) seemed to connote that the risky experimental part of space
exploration is over, and a new era of safe space travel was at hand. 

NASA never needed to convey any of these impressions in order to pursue the
legitimate aim of communicating the realities of space exploration to the
"common man", and especially to America's school-age youth. 

I think that NASA would have better handled Christa McAuliffe's selection by
describing it as a competitive selection for a "special mission specialist".
She would be a "special mission specialist" in the sense that NASA had no
continuing need for such a specialist in its astronaut corps, but did have a
need for this specialty on one flight. 

This is in essence what happened.  The competition was very intense.  (As with
the other astronauts, the loss of the cream of the crop of human potential
makes the loss all the greater!).  The person selected received a
mission specialist's basic training.  Ms. McAuliffe was in reality as much
a mission specialist as the (Hughes?) engineer on that flight.

I hope and pray that NASA resumes its plans for a few "special mission
specialists" to communicate better its activities to the public.  (I sure hope
that a teacher goes up again before another politician.)  But I hope they don't
call it "citizens in space".  That name doesn't do the program justice. 

Bob Fleischer

I stand corrected on my use of "mission specialist".
(Obviously, I am not a "specialist specialist".)
--------------------

From:	RHEA::DECWRL::"seismo!s3sun.CSS.GOV!sdcsvax!sdcc3.sdcsvax!loral!pavo@SRI-IU.ARPA" 11-FEB-1986 11:21
To:	[email protected]
Subj:	RE: \"private citizen in space\" is a poor choice of phrase

Date: Mon, 10 Feb 86 06:52:49 pst
Cc: 
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Organization: we_reserve_the_right_to_refuse_service_to_anyone

A few clarifications:  a mission specialist is generally an astronaut and
whose main responsibilities lie in riding herd on the mission experiments
and payload deployments.  a payload specialist is generally a non-astronaut
(a technical person) who rides along to perform certain experiments or
tasks that they are well suited to (in particular, Jarvis of Hughes was
a payload specialist because he was researching zero-g effects on fluids,
I believe).  a mission specialist is also the flight engineer on lift-off
and landing and sits in the 3rd seat behind the commander & pilot.

		jim