From: GBurch1@aol.com
Date: Sat Jul 17 1999 - 09:40:03 MDT
Is there a near-term role for manned space stations? I've just finished T.A.
Heppenheimer's "Countdown: A History of Spaceflight." One of the theses of
this book is that the original vision of the first and second generation of
space pioneers has been made irrelevant by the advance of electronics and
computers. He describes the story familiar to space enthusiasts of the
original conception of a gradual "conquest of space" through the building of
reusable spaceplanes, manned orbital space stations and eventual
interplanetary exploration and development. This vision, so compellingly
portrayed by Willy Ley and Chesley Bonestell in the 1952 Colliers Magazine
series, was adopted as essentially an article of faith by the second
generation of rocket and space pioneers, among them Arthur Clarke and Werner
von Braun. Heppenheimer makes the case that this vision has been handed down
to subsequent generations of space technologists and policy makers as a plan
of action that has been made at least partially irrelevant by the advance of
electronics and automation. For instance, he discusses how in the 1930s, 40s
and 50s Clarke and others envisioned geosynchronous communication "stations"
as being manned by astronautical switchboard operators, something that's
obviously not necessary now.
I grew up with this same vision and recall the Bonestell paintings
illustrating the Colliers articles as some of the most formative images of my
youth. The goal of building a permanently manned orbital platform as an
important foundation of a program of space exploration and development is
very deeply ingrained in my psyche. The idea that there will soon be humans
living off Earth all the time (if not yet "permanently") is one of the
exciting prospects raised for me by the first few ISS missions.
Now, it seems true to me that having a constant human presence off Earth (if
only barely so) has important positive social and cultural impacts. But is
there any economic rationale for it? I find NASA's relatively vague
pronouncements about microgravity research unconvincing. For the near term,
I can see ISS serving as a "construction shack" and repair base (the latter
requiring a -- probably automated -- "tug" for retrieving satellites to be
repaired) (such a tug could well be developed as a second-generation
derivative of ESA's ATV vehicle being created as part of the ISS program;
see:
http://adex3.flycast.com/server/socket/127.0.0.1:2800/iframe/SpacerComdailyspa
cenews/SpaceLeader/600 )
Is this latter mission for ISS really viable in the time before, say, 2025 or
so? I know there's been quite a bit of talk lately about "space tourism",
but I'm skeptical of this as a viable economic development within the next 25
years (after a fairly advanced nanotechnology is developed, yes). I'd be
especially curious to hear the thoughts of younger folks who may well not be
infected so strongly with the "space station meme".
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
"Civilization is protest against nature;
progress requires us to take control of evolution."
-- Thomas Huxley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:30 MST