7 NASA Science Missions to Get the Ax

[adzel_3000]

7 Missions Face Budget Ax: Voyager, Ulysses, Polar, Wind, GeoTail, FAST and TRACE.<br /><br />Should Congress look into the vast reduction in NASA science spending? Hubble will soon be de-orbited and momentum is building to cut missions like JWST. Should we strip scientific endeavor for the Mars Program (a program without hardware or a blueprint)?<br /><br />From: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/voyager1-05a.html<br /><br />A little over 13 hours out from Sol, a veteran of the first space age - Voyager 1 - is working quietly in the depths of space as it travels away from our Sun at 17.163 kilometers per second. But now, NASA has told scientists working on these and other older missions that their missions may be terminated in October to save money, reports Nature. <br /><br />The decision - which NASA officials say is not yet final - has angered space scientists, who are calling calling the moves penny-wise and pound-foolish, and that it is being done without a usual formal science review. <br /><br />According to Nature, NASA officials told seven mission managers (Voyager, Ulysses, Polar, Wind, Geotail, FAST (Fast Auroral SnapshoT) and TRACE (Transition Region and Coronal Explorer)) that there is now no money to keep their projects operating after the current fiscal year ends in October. <br /><br />In the past, NASA has occasionally terminated spacecraft that are still working but that have far exceeded their life expectancy, and are no longer returning significant new science data. <br />Every few years a review by scientists outside NASA ranks the science value of operating missions to help the agency plan which ones should be extended and which ones terminated. <br /><br />But the panel never suggested that the missions marked as low-ranking in the most recent review should be shut down this year. <br /><br />For example, Ulysses, launched in 1990 to explore the Sun's polar regions for the first time, w

 

[adzel_3000]

<br />I would be curious to review the White House statement to see exactly what the spokesman was against. I realize they are attempting to build the CEV but I cannot understand how they expect to keep to a 2010 schedule in which the CEV is phased in and the STS phased out "seamlessly."<br /><br />There are parallels that concern me. Apollo was phased out after the 1975 ASTP project with the idea that STS would be available in a few years. STS first flight did not occur until 12 April 1981. The US had no manned space capability for almost 5.5 years. <br /><br />If CEV falls behind schedule (as it most certainly will) in the current budget climate it will certainly become a huge target. Ironically we may be flying Soyuz or a Soyuz derivative for quite a while.<br /><br />And meanwhile, unmanned projects will be cut on the promise of a one-shot Mars expedition. Unbelievable!

 

[paleo]

"A White House spokesmancame out this week and condemned the space shuttle. That's a prelude to eliminating it. So much for a commitment to space."<br /><br /> Getting rid of the White Elephant 'IS' a commitment to Space. Keeping it flying for a couple more years is more billions down the toilet. Support of the Shuttle is a commitmnent to NASA bureacracy and delaying any meaninful steps to Space exploration.

 

[adzel_3000]

That White Elephant, as you called it, is the only thing the United States has that can truly designate it as a "spacefaring" nation. <br /><br />It should not be eliminated until the CEV is a bit more than the newest whiz-bang, just over the horizon, technophile's wet dream. It should not be eliminated until CEV is an operational system (craft, crew, and infrastructure). All CEV is at present are some cad drawings, an MS Project schedule with "CDR' labelled as TBD, and some PR-driven images at a few industry and government web-sites.<br /><br />The United States' ONLY reason to call itself a spacefaring nation is presently moving toward a launch pad in Florida. It carries the hopes, energies, and dreams of many people, including the 18 who over a quarter century have given their lives for the program. <br /><br />It should not be referred to as a White Elephant.<br /><br />--A3K <br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/rtf_flash/start.html

 

[paleo]

Many people die for many reasons and the answer isn't to honor them by wasting tens of billions of dollars but to accomplish productive goals.<br /><br /> The USA a spacefaring nation? Your expectations are very low as in 'LEO' and not accomplishing much of anything except servicing another white elephant, the ISS.<br /><br /> Time to move on...not banging ones head against the same wall.

 

[bushuser]

Maybe its because I've never had a government job, but it strains credulity to think that millions of dollars and an army of professionals are necessary to make intermittent contact, store data, and plan housekeeping commands for these probes. You could find hundreds of grad students who would be honored to take on the task for near minimum wage. If NASA bundled all 7 for competitive bidding, you could save them for probably less than 2 million a year.

 

[paleo]

Bushuser,<br /><br />You are proposing what would be one of the more long term productive steps in space exploration. Not only do you 'get the job done' at a sane cost but also create a current and future pool of keeners bursting with enthusiasm.

 

[adzel_3000]

Paleo,<br /><br />I must disagree that STS crews (including Columbia’s last mission) are wasting time or pursuing non-productive goals or ever banging their head against the wall. I have followed all of the missions for several years (indeed, since the Enterprise check-out flights) and I have yet to see a mission that was a waste of time or money. I was glued to NASA TV and various websites for the 20 days in January 2003 that Columbia was prepped and flown. The experiments and work being done were fascinating and making contributions. The perspective of the crew and what they had to say as they passed over the Earth was poignant.<br /><br />I think many people expect science and engineering to be all flash, drum-roll, and new out of the gate kewl-stuff. Unfortunately the bulk of it (including going to the Moon, developing a new satellite, or a new technology for use in science) can be pretty laborious and tedious work. Occasionally, when you look up and recognize where this widget is going to fly or what sort of spectra is channeled thru a new instrument do you realize…wow…and then go back to it. <br /><br />All of the STS crews (and now ISS) are doing solid work and making important contributions. The idea that STS and ISS are White Elephants really negates their importance and suggests a short-sightedness and a societal meme that is incongruous with ever attaining the lofty goal of getting to Mars. <br /><br />The systems are imperfect, true, but they are extant and available. I cannot say that for CEV, etc. STS and ISS were never meant to be an end-all program. They were to be key building blocks and the people at NASA and their contractors have dedicated decades to using what has been given them and keeping the program going. We will get to Mars. We may ride there in the CEV and the other building-blocks that will be developed. We should not discontinue STS until those building blocks are operational.<br /><br />An example of how ISS will contribute to Mars exploration

 

[adzel_3000]

Voyager 1 is a human artifact that is now further from our home star than any object ever created by human minds and hands. It is a vanguard of science and is exploring a region of our star system that has never been encountered before. That seems very key to the over-riding goals and mission statement of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.<br /><br />In a sense, the 2 Voyagers are humankind's only currently functional starships. Every day they are pushing back the horizon and reporting on a variety of solar system interactions.<br /><br />From the VIM web-site, consider these points:<br /> <br />"Mission Objective <br /><br />The mission objective of the Voyager Interstellar Mission (VIM) is to extend the NASA exploration of the solar system beyond the neighborhood of the outer planets to the outer limits of the Sun's sphere of influence, and possibly beyond. This extended mission is continuing to characterize the outer solar system environment and search for the heliopause boundary, the outer limits of the Sun's magnetic field and outward flow of the solar wind. Penetration of the heliopause boundary between the solar wind and the interstellar medium will allow measurements to be made of the interstellar fields, particles and waves unaffected by the solar wind. <br /><br /><br />Voyager 1 is escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.6 AU per year, 35 degrees out of the ecliptic plan to the north, in the general direction of the Solar Apex (the direction of the Sun's motion relative to nearby stars). <br /><br />Voyager 2 is also escaping the solar system at a speed of about 3.3 AU per year, 48 degrees out of the ecliptic plane to the south. <br /><br />Both Voyagers are headed towards the outer boundary of the solar system in search of the heliopause, the region where the Sun's influence wanes and the beginning of interstellar space can be sensed. <br /><br />The heliopause has never been reached by any spacecraft; the Voyagers may be the first to pass thr

 

[paleo]

adzel:<br /><br /> Does the Shuttle have a benefit? Yes. Does it have the best benefit for billions and billions and billions and the decades in time? No.<br /><br /> The question is 'bang for the buck' and not just a residual benefit because nothing much else is happening.<br /><br /> What else could have been done with the billions wasted between the last Shuttle flight and the next flight (next flight to accomplish what?).<br /><br />

 

[adzel_3000]

Paleo,<br /><br />You seem to think that STS arrived on the scene due to mass incompetence and poor foresight. The "nothing else is happening" is the US space program and an effort that millions have dedicated their hopes, lives, and energies toward. They put forth a plan near the end of the lunar landings that included STS, space laboratories, a continuation of moon missions, and an eventual trip to Mars. In the end the politicians gave them 2 options: 1) Shuttle 2) DC will decide to spend those billions and billions elsewhere.<br /><br />Fortuneately, they went for option 1 and kept a viable manned space program in play. <br /><br />They tried. And continue to try.<br /><br />STS was oversold. Launches will never reach the price tag of $100 per pound and shuttle will never fly once per week. It could have, potentially, if the right budget had been offered, the right research pursued, and economies of scale reached. That's a future that won't happen.<br /><br />What we have is an extant system that works. It gets us there. It may be interim. It is not a waste considering where the money could have gone. <br /><br />Maybe its just a basis of comparison. Technology can be a grind and programs take time. You clearly have worked on projects that were efficient and with teams that made the ideal decisions and the right calls at critical technical and programmatic junctures. Please encourage those folks to change careers and pursue CEV and the ongoing work. Clearly, we need 'em.<br /><br /><br />The next STS flight will accomplish a great deal. It will:<br /><br />1. send a team on-orbit to continue construction of an endeavor that is suggesting to a collective humanity that big goals can be accomplished together...ISS may just be the first step in international cooperation on big projects like Mars or solar power sats.<br /><br />2. transfer a crew that, like others since 2003, have stood watch and kept a Dream alive that 7 of their colleagues gave their lives for.<br /><br />3. will show t

 

[adzel_3000]

Paleo,<br /><br />Here is a brief list of the more moderate benefits that have touched the lives of many, many people. These are just some examples of shuttle-based technologies.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />3-D Biotechnology<br /><br /><br />Developed for Space Shuttle medical research, a rotating cell-culture<br /><br />device simulates the microgravity of space. This allows researchers to<br /><br />grow cells in three dimensions. The device may one day help<br /><br />researchers find cures for dangerous infectious diseases and offer<br /><br />alternatives to patients who need organ transplant surgery.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Artificial Heart<br /><br /><br />Technology used in Space Shuttle fuel pumps led to the development of<br /><br />a miniaturized ventricular-assist pump by NASA and renowned heart<br /><br />surgeon Dr. Michael DeBakey. The tiny pump, a mere two inches long,<br /><br />one inch in diameter, and weighing less than four ounces, is currently<br /><br />undergoing clinical trials in Europe, where it has been successfully<br /><br />implanted into more than 20 people.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Blood Serum Research<br /><br /><br />An astronaut's body, once free of gravity's pull, experiences a<br /><br />redistribution of body fluids that can lead to a decrease in the<br /><br />number of red blood cells and produce a form of space anemia.<br /><br />Monitoring and evaluating blood serum was required to understand these<br /><br />phenomena. However, existing blood-analysis technology required the<br /><br />use of a centrifugation technology that was not practical in space.<br /><br />NASA developed new technologies for the collection and real-time<br /><br />analysis of blood as well as other bodily fluids without the need for<br /><br />centrifugation.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Artificial Limbs<br /><br /><br />Responding to a request from the orthopedic-appliance industry, NASA<br /><br />recommended that the foam insulation used to protect the Shuttle's<br /><br />external tank replace the hea

 

[spayss]

Anvel and Paleo you both have hit the nail on the head. We have a space program to get results. The residual benefits are good but we would get residual benefits if we spent a hundred billion dollars on developing a better mousetrap. The shuttle's goal was to establish a method of efficient, frequent, relalively inexpensive access to space. It has failed miserably.<br /> The shuttle and space station have been even less of a learning experience. . The essence being that the return on knowledge has trickled to droplets despite buckets of money being spent. What we haven't learned is how cut off the money flow and turn around the infrastructure to actually getting productive results.<br /><br /> Anvel. I hope you're wrong but am afraid you are right. The CEV will become a bloated unwieldy mission and 20 years from now the apologists will be trying to justify the failure of results by grasping at straws to justify the waste of time and money.

 

[paleo]

"The residual benefits are good but we would get residual benefits if we spent a hundred billion dollars on developing a better mousetrap."<br /><br />That's why he spin-off justification is bogus. Why can't you have a successful program and have mission succes?. NASA groupies assume the two are not mutual.<br /><br /> Imagine Ford Moror Company telling share holders they shouldn't worry that shares are worthless because no cars were sold in a year.... but, golly gee, they had developed a new system of windshield wipers. Why can't they expect BOTH profits and breakthroughs? <br /><br />

 

[adzel_3000]

I'm curious but is this view of the space program based solely on the events of the Columbia accident? The suggestion that for thirty years nothing's happened is a remarkable statement. How do you quantify this?<br /><br />Also, you speak a great deal about waste. But your definitions are totally subjective. This seems to be merely your view of the program and it is really not one that takes in the history or politics of the endeavor. <br /><br /> I have seen this attitude prevail time and again and I find it unfathomable. As a member of a caretaker generation I recognize that the program has flaws, I also recognize that the STS is an interim step. If we had P & M'ed about STS the way you guys have manned space would have ended around 1986 with Challenger. <br /><br />The people at NASA have worked long and hard to hold back the night. Now that the promise of a new horizon is dawning I do not believe that taking to a public board and calling that experience a waste or a loss is appropriate. (And I certainly hope that if you are in an active Space PAC you are not sharing this view with legislators as they will quickly link what you describe as past incompetence with any future endeavor!)<br /><br /> Also, given the level of the scandal as you describe it (and the scale of billions of dollars and decades of inactivity would certainly make it a scandal to dwarf all others), who, exactly, do you deem responsible? Is there a specific NASA administrator or all participants. Were the astronauts unknowing dupes? Was Congress? Or just, as you call them, the NASA groupies?<br /><br />--Just Curious.<br /><br />A3K

 

[adzel_3000]

Hey anvel,<br /><br />I agree. A regular launch system is what will be needed. AND one that is reliable and straightforward and relatively non-complex (as non-complex as anything dealing with that much energy can be).<br /><br />Once on-orbit and beyond nuclear is the way to go. And a power plant, not RTGs. <br /><br />My primary concern with a discontinuation of STS is that if nothing is immediately available then one bad budget year, international conflict, or natural disaster will get the pols turning and cutting a CEV that is still in a design phase. <br /><br />That nearly happened several times during the Apollo-Shuttle interim years (1975 - 1981).<br /><br />But I see your point. <br /><br />Kind Regards,<br /><br />--A3K

 

[adzel_3000]

I like your VW analogy. I've been to several conferences where Mars vehicles were being designed more like space-going Hiltons than exploration vehicles. As crude and ugly as Mir was...it did the job.<br /><br />The jobs thing has always concerned me. Bureaucracies gain their own momentum and tend to exist to propagate themselves. There will most likely be some of that. Could NASA be done away with? Could a new, more efficient approach be taken in which Project Let's Go To Mars is run by a consortium of government and industry agencies, something like the Manhattan Project. Here's the goal...let's do this by such-and-such a date and re-evaluate.<br /><br />--A3K<br />

 

[kauboi]

NASA, ESA and JAXA should unite and work together. It is a logical approach since space concerns everybody. Competition is good you may say? I see everybody in a similar position now. It would be wise to take a next step together dont you think? If they are wating for a worthy competitor to play political games with I dont think theyll do anything in a long time. Or maybe we should start rooting for China?