A field was chosen as the meeting place, because the man was piloting a hot air balloon. Changes in wind and weather caused the man to become disoriented, and in short order, he'd lost track of his position. Try as he might, though, he couldn't regain his bearings.
Suddenly, the balloonist saw a man walking past his position on the ground below the balloon. The pilot released some hot air from the balloon, and caused it to descend until it was about forty feet above the pedestrian below.
"Hello," cried the balloonist. "Can you help me?"
"What's the matter?", called back the man on the ground.
"I'm supposed to meet someone in a little while, but I'm not sure where I am. Can you tell me my position?"
"Certainly,” came the reply. "You're about forty feet above the ground, at a position of about 41 degrees: 23 minutes north latitude, and about 73 degrees: 29 minutes west longitude."
"I'll bet you're an engineer," called the balloonist.
"Why, that's RIGHT,” yelled back the man on the ground, clearly surprised. "How did you know?"
"Well," said the balloonist, "I asked you a very straight-forward question. And the answer you gave me was technically correct. But, I can't understand what you said, and am really no better off now than I was a moment ago."
"I'll bet you're a manager," yelled back the engineer.
"As a matter of fact, I AM. But how did YOU know THAT?"
"Well," said the engineer, "you made a promise you weren't sure you could keep, and you have no idea how you're GOING to keep it. You have no idea where you are, or what direction to head, and your entire endeavor is completely out of control. But now – all of a sudden -- it's MY fault."
A man was flying an ultralight plane in the Seattle area. The usual fog and drizzle appeared, and he became totally disoriented. His companion, who had never been fond of flight anyway, was terrified.
Suddenly, out of the fog both men spied a large glass-walled office building. Some people were visible on a rooftop patio.
"Where AM I?" shouted the disoriented pilot?
"In a PLANE!" came the in-unison reply.
Whereupon the man banked left 90 degrees, flew exactly two miles while descending slowly, and landed at his intended target.
His guest was VERY impressed, but perplexed. "How in the WORLD did that response to your question help?" he asked.
"Easy," replied the pilot. "They gave me advice that was entirely correct but totally useless. I knew it had to be the Microsoft tech support headquarters.
Much like the management team at Morton Thiokol in charge of the solid rocket booster with the defective O rings that ended the Challenger flight, the current NASA management never learned that you can choose two but not all three of the following: "cheaper, better, faster".
The really amazing thing is that NASA is still committed to resuming shuttle flights by next year.
As someone who has worked in the aerospace industry, let me tell you the real problem. The Space Shuttle concept was flawed from the beginning. It is a program that should have been canceled 25 years ago, but has been kept going by politics and PR. Why is it flawed? Let me tell you a couple of the reasons.
1. When the space shuttle concept was pitched to Congress in the early '70s, it was advertised as being very cheap because it is reusable. They lied. Today a typical satellite launch with a conventional unmanned, non-reusable rocket costs between $50 and $150 million depending on the orbit, etc. (This is the cost of launching. It doesn't include the cost of the payload.) A shuttle launch is about $600 million. Was it worth $600 million each to put an ex-senator, a Saudi prince, a school teacher, etc. into orbit? What else could we do with those tax dollars?
2. The "experiments" done on the space shuttle are by and large junk. Most of them really don't need to be done on the shuttle, but could be automated to work without human intervention. One of the few good major experiments the shuttle has launched is the Hubble telescope, which is doing very good science. However, given the cost of the a shuttle launch, it would have been cheaper to launch the Hubble on a conventional unmanned rocket, and instead of sending crews up for service, it would be cheaper to simply build and launch more Hubbles.
3. The idea of a reusable launch vehicle is bogus. Both the launch environment and re-entry environment are very stressful (lots of vibration, lots of g's, lots of heat) and dangerous. Reusing a launch vehicle is analogous to using the same car in demolition derbys over and over again. Eventually it can't be safely patched up. One reason the shuttle is so expensive is that NASA spends a lot of time and money refurbishing it after each mission.
4. Man in space is an expensive and usually unnecessary. Most of what is done in space does not need a human being there. Communications, GPS, weather, military, don't need humans in space. Lots of good science (e.g. Hubble, Mars rover, LANDSAT, etc.) don't need man in space. The entire Mars rover program (launch, payload, operations) cost half that of a single shuttle launch. And putting a man in space adds tremendous cost and complexity to a program: you have to provide a life support system, etc., and you have to bring him/her back. An unmanned non-reuseable launch vehicle doesn't have to be brought back. Therefore, it doesn't have to be built to withstand the tremendous temperatures and stresses of re-entry.
No the problem that caused the Columbia disaster is a fundemntally flawed concept of a reusable manned spacecraft which never should have been built.
Very good, roomy, cheap vehicle launched from high atmosphere aircraft. He is in that prizemoney contest for the shuttles replacement. Development is underway and he exprects to have one built in just a few years if he gets more funding.
upgrade mission, to put in a new Power Control Unit, new solar arrays, and a new camera. He's a "scientist- astronaut", and he's had a love affair with Hubble and the science it does for years.
About manned vs. unmanned: In the 60's, the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo astronauts were the "Cold Warriors" in what was obviously a political battle between America and the Soviets for the hearts and minds of the Third World, and so of course the missions had to be manned, and there was a lot of public support. Even now, the idea of "man in space" seems to resonate with the public, because it puts a human face on the whole enterprise, and gives them heroes. Do you think the American public would support a program with no manned flights, even if it were more cost-effective from a science standpoint?
Given the current (and future) Federal budget deficits, the public should support a reprioritizing of government spending.
Actually, not liking the space shuttle does not necessarily mean that I don't think there should be no manned space program. The shuttle was designed to be the answer for everybody's space needs and fails at all its requirements. I simpler, non-resuable manned vehicle whose only purpose is to put men in space and not everything else, would make sense for the few things that justify manned space operations.
Remember, the shuttle program started in the early 1970's. That is old for high technology. Do you remember the kinds of computers and electronics gear people were using 30 years ago? Several months ago, before the Columbia failure, I heard a news report on NPR that NASA, to find spare electronic components for the shuttle, sometimes looks on EBAY. A replacement is justified on that basis alone.
A large part of the rationale for keeping the shuttle fleet is so that we can staff and maintain the international space station. Yet as far as I can tell, there is little or no scientific reason for this project. Budget cuts have already gutted what little science can be done on the station.
To me, one of the biggest jokes is the life sciences component, in which they tout growing protein crystals of better quality, so that we can "cure cancer, AIDS, heart disease, etc." Protein crystals are necessary for determining the X-ray crystallographic structure (i.e., three-dimensional structure) of proteins. It is true that solving the structures (over 21,000 lodged in the U.S. Protein Data Bank) of the relevant proteins has led to advances in the above disease problems, and many others besides. However, virtually all of these structures were determined using "Earth-grown" crystals, and an investigator could hardly get a small NIH grant if he had a method to grow better crystals. Yet, NASA wants to rationalize a multibillion space station, in part, because we can get better protein crystals in space.
Frankly, in my opinion there is only one justification for the space station. It is far better that Russian rocket scientists to work on the space station than for the North Koreans.
is that it inspires generations of little space cowboys to wanna grow up to be astronauts and/or scientists and engineers, and this can only be a good thing as far as i'm concerned. i'm not commenting on the magnitude or importance of this impact, just the very existence of it.
to follow up on a point you made, the greatest such benefit however has been to inspire kids in *other* countries to join their ranks (witness, the ethnic composition of the EE/ME/Aero graduate departments in almost any of our top-rated universities). not being an isolationist i happen to think this too is a wonderful thing.
your arguments about the foolishness of the STS program are logically irrefutable. i know of many "Texans" who think the same but dare not speak it for fear of getting fired or being blacklisted in the "community"
however i would point out (for others) that manned space flight (in general) is less susceptible to such B&W conclusions, mainly cuz we don't have as much experience there as with launching spacecraft/payloads. some exploratory and critical missions will most definitely require manned operation. in fact the "science" harvested during Apollo was certainly impossible using the primitive automation of the 70s. most NASA folk i've talked to readily admit that Apollo, for all its faults, was definitely a good thing, a valuable learning experience. but very few would in all honesty say the same about the Shuttle.
engineers. It certainly did with my generation. When I was ten years old, I thought the X-15 rocket plane was the coolest thing there was.
NASA is heavily involved in science education in the public schools, and this is one of the best things they do.
Beyond this, heros like the astronauts serve an important function in society. The triumph of the human spirit is something we can all celebrate, and that can bring us all together.
