Conference 7.286::space

    *Yes!!!*
    
    This has been debated on many occasions and generally boils down
    to the fact that there are many things that cannot be done, and
    many more that cannot be done well except by a human. After January
    I did a lot of thinking about this and I believe that we need to
    continue the man in space program.  I was on the Atlantic Missile
    Range from 1957 until 1969 (6 months before the first Atlas test
    shot thru the last manned shot before the moon landing).  I personally
    supported every manned flight until the last one before Neil Armstrong
    walked on the moon.  I knew Gus Grissom personally, and yes it was
    a blow when I went to the control room to support the simulated
    launch test and found that he was dead, but it did not stop the
    programs, and neither should this last tragedy.
    

    
    a second on .1      I like the rational conclusions of the Rogers
    commission report:  we have put our eggs into one basket, to the
    harm of other baskets (relied too much on the shuttle, neglected
    expendable launch vehicles).  Maybe 50 years from now, AI and
    teleoperators will be able to function in space as well as man,
    but it's not even close now.  For non-routine missions (research,
    new observations, satelite repair/return, space station construction,
    etc.) nothing matches a person's ability to improvise, to do it
    differently from the plan.  So we must preserve manned access to
    space.
    	But, using a manned vehicle to do routine launches of satelites
    is a waste of resources.  When the shuttle truly becomes an
    economical, safe 'truck', sure, use it routinely.  But the shuttle
    is far from that now.    - Chris

@begin<soapbox>

Forget things like efficient launching of satellites, collection of scientific
data, etc. - I agree that much of this can be done as well by machine alone, 
although some activities still require a human in the close vicinity.

What about the need for the expansion of human horizons, for new human
frontiers, fulfilling of humanity's destiny, etc.?  I suspect there is a
real driving need in many of us to know that people, not just machines,
are out at the limits of man's reach.  We need someone to identify with in 
spirit, even if we ourselves can not go.

So sure, we do need to automate more of our space-truck missions.  But we also
need our Ninas, Pintas, Santa Marias, Beagles, Mayflowers, Spirits of St. Louis,
Eagles, and Challengers.  To deny this is to deny part of the human spirit.

@end<soapbox>

    I agree with re: .3
    Man needs to be there to enjoy it, to feel its real, to impact on
    the social mind.
    
    When man walked on the moon, it had more significance, it help to
    broaden our minds. More then all the unmanned space missions put
    together.
    
    	Gil

    yes men should go to space, because that's what men (generically)
    are all about, going places and doing things.
    
    The argument against maned spaceflight is generally a budget argument,
    although safety is used as a reason against it. Congressmen are
    under a great deal of strain right now to reduce the deficits, NASA
    is a very easy target at this time since they had such an unfortuante
    accident. SAY NO TO THE BUDGET CUTTERS!

    And yes to manned space flight.
    
    dave

    From an economic viewpoint, there are very persuasive arguments
    against manned flight. Right after the accident I saw an argument
    on one of the news shows where it was pointed out that things like
    satellite repair cost more than replacement, etc.
    
    Beyond the pro argument of man's need to explore is the much more
    concrete attraction that I think NASA sees. Manned flight sells,
    satellites don't. How many people will shuffle through TV channels
    to find the next Titan launch? But I can't wait to see the audience
    share for the next shuttle launch. In a sense the accident has made
    manned flight much more salable(sp?) to the general public. NASA
    must continually sell its budget to congress and therefore to the
    public, and that means selling the program.
    
    Me, I'm for manned flight.
    
    						-Brian

    I have been a space exploration bug since reading Willy Ley's
    "Rockets Missiles and Space Travel" in the eary 1950's.
    I say that we should enjoy space travel now, for by 2000 it will
    be academic.  World resources are being used up at an increasing
    rate, and we should run out at least by 2010.  The anti-nuke
    forces are assuring we must use fossile fuel.  No oil, no lube,
    no lube = no machines - I MEAN NO MACHINES.  
	ENJOY WHILE WE CAN.

    Fossil fuels are not the only source of lubricant, merely the cheapest.
    The people with vested interests (i.e. oil companies) are as much
    responsible for our continuing dependance on fossil fuel for all sorts of
    things as any pressure groups. I doubt the space program is going to
    be stopped by something of that nature, but it may provide an impetus
    to find an alternative.
    
    gary

  Notice that the ship Columbus sailed in did not stop halfway to America
and set up shop.  Why do we continually say "Man in space"?  There's nothing
there but lots of nothing (by comparison).  I think we should use machines
to *into* space, but let's use men to go *to* 'other rocks'.  Granted, that's
going from the bottom of one well to another, but at least there's something
there when you get there.

John

    Not to be picky, but one slight error in your analogy is that for
    hundreds (thousands?) of years people were making short excursions
    on the water, following coastlines, etc., before anyone got clever
    (or brave or smart or ...) enough to try going a long distance to
    another hunk of land.  (Yeah, I know, they always wound up on a
    hunk of land somewhere, but the distance is the important thing.)
    
    Granted, we should have gotten to the point now where we routinely
    make excursions to other "lands", but due to the various reasons
    already discussed our space program gave up after we reached the
    moon.  I agree, there isn't a LOT of ANYTHING in space, although
    it is a good source of next-to-zero gravity, which does make some
    manufacturing operations easier (making spherical bearings, etc.).
    
    Remember all the noise about trips to Mars in the 1990's which were
    common during the Apollo days?  I believe they'll still happen,
    but the U.S. probably won't be the ones making the voyages.
    
    Columbus is an interesting example, though, in that he persuaded
    the powers that be (government, queen, whoever) to go into hock
    to support a journey which wouldn't immediately bring a "real"
    return.  Sure would be nice if someone could convince Uncle Sam
    to hock his welfare system, etc., and invest the dough in something
    which would bring a return.
    

  Maybe we'll run out of dirt and the government will set up a commission
on locating new resources...

    Another problem with the analogy of course is that there wasn't
    anything interesting to do in the middle of the ocean. If you could
    have seen the new world from 50 miles out to sea, they might have
    stopped there for a while. Or if there were some interesting
    manufacturing or science that could be done there, or if they could
    deploy communications buoys to make life back home better.
    
    The problem with going somewhere is that somewheres always have
    mass. And that means they have gravity and collect dirt and gas
    and all kinds of crud. By going to another planet we can study that
    planet, but we can get terrific views of very distant places just
    a few hundred miles from our own planet.
    
    We should go other places, but let's not overlook those terrifice
    weekend getaways near home, either.
    						-Brian
    

    The money spent (by US taxpayers) between Mercury and Apollo 11
    on manned spaceflight was the same as spent by American women on
    cosmetics in 1969.
    

    I have always (20 years) believed the emphasis on a "manned space"
    program has been a serious error, mainly because it has been to the 
    exclusion of the unmanned space program. I believe the economic
    arguments are not the primary cause, but rather the "evolutionary"
    approach taken by NASA and the influence of the military - we evolved
    from jets to spacecraft.

    For instance, like it or not, the newest generation of commercial
    aircraft will not be flown by people, people will just be the cargo.
       
    If I wanted to launch a satelite and took competitive bids in an
    open market, I believe NASA would be at a serious competitive
    disadvantage to programs like Arienne(sp) due to engineering costs
    associated with keeping humans alive in space. 
    
    If there had been no humans on Challenger, we would still be flying
    wouldn't we ?
    
    						I'd like to fly too,
    
    						Bruce
    
    

    I don't believe that the newest generation of commercial aircraft
    will be pilotless.  The ``newest generation'' is the Boeing 757
    and 767, and they are definitely manned.
    
    I also think that the space shuttle would not be flying today even
    if it were unmanned.  Consider the Titan, which is grounded due
    to a malfunction even though it is unmanned.
        John Sauter

    RE: Unmanned air transport.
    
    I don't think you will find too many people who are willing to risk
    themselves to a computer with no backup 5 miles in the air, especially
    after most people have fought with computers over their bills.......
    
    At this time the technology exists and is used occasionally to land
    "hands off" on aircraft carriers, yet most of the aircrews use this
    feature VERY reluctantly, even though it works.
    
    Men belong in space, it's just we needn't put all of our apples
    in one basket (shuttle). Use the appropriate vehicle for the job.
    
    dave

    I was not very precise ... I meant that new aircraft designs may rely
    on computers for the operation of the aircraft, and that if the
    computer fails, that aircraft CANNOT be flown manually. 
    
    Isn't the shuttle itself such an example ? 
    
    I also wonder what a computer failure would do to a 747/757/767
    ? Can they be flown manually without computer assistance ? Isn't
    it the aircraft industry that originally designed "fault tolerant
    computer systems" ... i.e., Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR) for
    just this reason ? 

    								Bruce

    I believe there are some military planes that cannot be flown unless
    the computer is working.  Also, the space shuttle cannot be flown
    with the computer(s) down.  However, as far as I know all of the
    commercial passenger planes are stable enough that it is possible
    to fly them manually.
        John Sauter

    Aren't the 757 and 767 all 'fly-by-wire'... i.e. electronic control
    linkages that cannot operate without some of the avionics? I've seen
    them referred to in aviation magasines as flying video games. I vaguely
    remember something about a 757 being struck by lightning sometime back
    and loosing altitude while the cockpit rebooted.
    
    The F-16 (and the YF-17 and F-18) is fly-by-wire. One of the criticisms
    against it during the flyoffs was that there were a number of
    kill-points where a well aimed or lucky low calibre round would render
    the plane uncontrollable by destroying the wiring from the cockpit
    to the control surfaces.
    
    This doesn't mean that a pilot is not necessary however. Now you
    need a pilot and a computer.
    
    gary

    RE:.19
    
    The 757 is fly by wire but actually I'd really rather be in a 757
    with the engines shut down than in a 747. If you lose your engines
    on a 757 (and along with them your electrical power for the cockpit)
    a small air turbine drops down out of the fuselage to provide electric
    power for the controls. There was an Air Canada flight about a year
    ago that ran out of fuel mid-flight. He was able to glide the plane
    to a safe landing at a nearby air field. One of the comments I remember
    from the artical was that they wouldn't have stood a chance if it
    had been a 747. Lose your engines there and there's no backup power
    for the flight surfaces. 

    
    
    	It's news to me that a modern jet has control sufaces capable
    	of gliding.
    
    zack
    

    the way you glide a jet is to go down real sharply until your airspeed
    comes up above stall speed and then you can control the descent from there.
    Of course the glide path is similar to a brick but a good pilot
    can pull it off...like that guy up in Canada.
                               
    dave

         More on RATs (Ram Air Turbines). 

         In a previous life I was a stress engineer for an aerospace
         company making little windmills for Concorde, British
         Aerospace Hawk Trainers etc. As a matter of fact I stressed the
         RAT for the Canadair Challenger Biz-jet. My understanding was
         ALL civil airliners had them. 

         Rats provide backup hydraulic power for primary flying
         control surfaces, undercarriage lowering and usually flaps.
         Some also provide limited electrical power (for shouting HELP
         on the radio), essential instruments and in Concorde's case I
         believe some electrics were needed for the primary control
         surfaces. 

         I remember a Hawker Hunter being lost over the Meditteranean
         because he popped his Rat after a flameout but oversped and
         bust the quill drive between the RAT blades and hydraulic
         pump. We got the wreckage back for examination (the pilot
         banged out OK).  Never did understand the reason for the
         quill, the Rats had automatic pitch control anyway. 
         
         J 

    I think at the time of the Air Canada 767 incident, I remember reading
    that the plane was desinged with a 16:1 unpowered glide ratio. Coupled
    with the RAT, this margin gives the pilot some flexibility in finding a
    place to set the plane down in the event of an emergency.
    
    Glenn
    

Re .19:

Indeed.  The novel War Day has an account in it of someone who is in
Air Force 1 during an EMP attack.  He watches all of the escorting F-16s
drop out of the sky because their avionics get fried, while the 707 stays
aloft because of superior shielding (and perhaps because there are hydraulic-
only systems for the controls).
				/AHM

    This discussion has certainly made a sharp turn off track.
    
    But while here I thought I'd point out that Air Force One is scheduled
    to become a 747 in 1988.  Based on a few comments in here it sounds
    like being President might a bit less safe?
    
    Don

    RE .21 & .22
    
    	I seem to recall that the B-727 has a glide ratio of 12:1. 
    	That beats the heck out of 6:1 in my Cessna 172.  'Course my
    	stall speed is CONSIDERABLY less than that of a 727, which
    	makes it easier to find a suitable palce to put it down.
    
    	Ken Roller (Proud owner of a Cessna 172, known as a Cessna brick
    	when the power goes away)

The RAT on the 767 provides hydraulic power for some of the
control surfaces and for the landing gear.  It does not provide
enough for the flaps.  The 767 in Canada landed at higher than
normal speed and rate of descent and collapsed the nose gear.  I
believe that the electronics were powered by battery.  I don't
know if the batteries were used till landing or until the RAT
was deployed.

		Tony 

Article: 1322
From: [email protected] (Kenneth C. Jenks)
Newsgroups: sci.space.science,sci.edu,sci.engr.biomed,sci.med
Subject: ANNOUNCE: "Humans In Space" WWW pages
Date: 13 Sep 1994 15:43:39 GMT
Organization: NASA/JSC/SD5, Space Biomedical Research Institute
 
I've just completed the first draft of a World Wide Web document
called "Humans In Space."  This set of hypertext pages, with copious
illustrations, should help you understand the basics of space
physiology, and what happens to the human body in the space
environment.  It is written as a general introduction, and it does
not assume that you have an in-depth background on medicine or the
space environment.  The URL is:

  http://medlib.jsc.nasa.gov/intro/humans.html
 
The document has many in-line images, so you might want to turn
those off if you're on a slow Internet connection.
 
The document includes questions at the end of each section, and
a few basic science experiments that you can perform to help you
understand the basics of space biomedicine.  It should be useful
in the classroom setting.
 
I would very much appreciate comments on the content, presentation,
usefullness, or any other matter related to this document, and I
will dig up answers to any questions you have about space medicine.
I would especially appreciate comments from people who don't have
much expertise in space biomedicine, because you are my primary
target audience.  
 
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/SD5, Space Biomedical Research Institute
      [email protected]  (713) 483-4368
 
     "The human element is the foundation of our manned space program.
      When it's powered and running, it knows no limits.  It's
      infinitely flexible and has resilience and reliability and
      strength that no mechanical system can match.  We call that
      machinery a team and we power it with spirit."
	-- Marsha Ivins, astronaut