[FPSPACE] No money to put astronauts back on Moon by 2020; Moonnot a rea...

[LARRY KLAES]

What is the rush?  That is what has gotten astronauts and cosmonauts killed in the past. 

I don't care about and for space stunts. I want to see missions that expand our knowledge and help us establish a permanent presence out there. 

The world that made Vostok 3 and 4 is over. Time to focus on this century and the next ones. 

Larry 

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Jens Kieffer-Olsen <dstdba at post4.tele.dk>

Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:36:32 
To: <fpspace at friends-partners.org>
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] No money to put astronauts back on Moon by 2020;	Moon
 not a rea...


Hi David, 
  
As we were reminded in Moscow back in 1996 our Russian hosts greatly 
value the memory of the sensational 1962 launch of first Nikolayev in 
Vostok-3 and less than 24 hours later Popovich in Vostok-4. 
  
That's an important capability, as recent shuttle crew rescue considerations 
have emphasized. 
  
Am I right that the US have never launched a manned spacecraft less than 
11 days after the previous? ( Gemini-VI in 1965 ). 
  
-- 
Jens Kieffer-Olsen 
Slagelse, Denmark    
 
-----Original Message-----
From: David Portree [mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:35 AM
To: kosmos327 at aol.com; fpspace at friends-partners.org
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] No money to put astronauts back on Moon by 2020;Moon not a rea...

David:
 
I'm sorry, I should have specified - I meant "leads in ways that matter." I don't think that flagpole sitting counts for much. Did all those long-duration Soviet flights yield biomedical data anyone could use? Only in a gross sense - they weren't gathered with much rigor. We had the most powerful rocket in the world - who has it now? We're close there, anyway. Number of launches - well, if your spacecraft are mainly recoverable spysats, then that matters, but if they operate for a long time without need for replacement, then it doesn't. Mass to orbit might be a better sign of leadership, assumning that the mass is doing something. Modules attached together - I think that the US is leading there, if you total up all the Mir and ISS modules launched on the Shuttle. Someone else can do the count, though, since I think it an arcane metric.
 
What are ways that matter? I think that to most people leadership in space is about exploring places ahead of everyone else and pulling off engineering feats no one has pulled off before. That sort of thing impresses people a lot more the metrics you cite. 
 
The problem here may be that we haven't defined what "leadership" means. 

David S. F. Portree

dsfportree at hotmail.com <mailto:dsfportree at hotmail.com> 
dportree at usgs.gov <mailto:dportree at usgs.gov> 
 
http://robotexplorers.blogspot.com/ <http://robotexplorers.blogspot.com/> 
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/ <http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/> 
 
http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/About/People/DavidPortree/ <http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/About/People/DavidPortree/> 
 



 
 
----------------
 From: Kosmos327 at aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:47:49 -0400
To: fpspace at friends-partners.org
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] No money to put astronauts back on Moon by 2020; Moon not a rea...

 
 
In a message dated 8/14/2009 9:35:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dsfportree at hotmail.com writes: Name an arena of achievement, and the US probably leads.
 
 
Man hours in space, number of modules attached together in orbit, launches per year, most powerful rocket, longest manned mission ...I could go on, but why? 
  
Regards, 
  
David L. Rickman 

 
----------------
 
 
----------------
 Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now. <http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&amp;publ=WLHMTAG&amp;crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1>