Re: Alt Hist--NASA done right?
- From: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:07:09 -0500
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4a5a7b90.219627656@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sure, a lot of SF is set in the future, in space, implying space
exploration
advanced, but are there good Alternate History chronicling how NASA made
all
the right moves?
Well, first you have to handle the Really Hard part... Defining what
exactly constitutes 'all the right moves', and separating those that
were NASA's fault from those where the 'failure' stems from external
circumstance.
1) Kept Skylab; delayed the Shuttle (bird in the hand = two in the bush).
2) Establish a permanent base on the Moon.
3) Establish a base on Mars.
Natch, all three would be would have a continuous robotic presence, with
room for the ocassional visit by us meatbags. Also there would be robots in
orbit in general to clean up the place because of all the space debris and
to maintain satellites--for a reasonable fee to the companies that own said
satellites.
Oh and the timeframe:
1) 1970s
2) 1980s
3) 1990s
-- Ken from Chicago (who thinks the big mistake was letting Spacelab fall
and burn, and that it should have bought Mir and use it as a fix-er-up, to
train astronauts, maybe launch a habitat module as a refuge in
emergencies)
Ken from Chicago shouldn't be asking what if's like this if he fails
to understand the difference between Skylab and Spacelab, and just
Yes, I'm constantly mixing up the name for the 1970s space lab in orbit (tho
that might have been the NASA first "real" stumble, naming it "SKYlab"
instead of "SPACElab".
what an orbiting heap o' junk MIR was. (Not to mention it never was
for sale.)
It's a PR move and training move for astronauts. It's like the difference
between biking outdoors and riding stationary bike. Having an actual
destination in orbit and something to repair would provide actual training
for astronauts in space for EVA and measurable results. It's like giving an
auto mechanic class a beater car to restore instead of just giving them
theory and sims. In the process you give astronauts actual practical work
experience in space with a freer hand than they would on spiffy new ISS.
And considering Russia was / is selling flights into space, they might have
been open to some offers.
-- Ken from Chicago
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Alt Hist--NASA done right?
- From: Carl Dershem
- Re: Alt Hist--NASA done right?
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: Alt Hist--NASA done right?
- References:
- Alt Hist--NASA done right?
- From: Ken from Chicago
- Re: Alt Hist--NASA done right?
- From: Derek Lyons
- Alt Hist--NASA done right?
- Prev by Date: Re: From the recent past
- Next by Date: Re: This is not the robocar I wanted!
- Previous by thread: Re: Alt Hist--NASA done right?
- Next by thread: Re: Alt Hist--NASA done right?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
