Glenn - Space station getting shortchanged (CNN)

[dreada5]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/02/21/glenn.flight.ap/index.html<br /><br />I disagree with Glenn. I think returning to deep space manned missions is a national imperative for the US.<br /><br />If we stay at the ISS for the next few decades (at the expense of VSE), NASA will lose its big budget support and be relegated to being a more run-of-the-mill, less prestigious agency conducting relatively humdrum science work (perhaps that's what democrats want), but next decade's big story will be the advances space tourism makes in LEO access & habitation and not NASA endeavours.<br /><br />What the gov't should do is provide funding for ISS via other means ie. via other agencies/scientific institutions such that ISS becomes a long-term national laboratory (as others have previously discussed). <br /><br />NASA must pursue VSE.

 

[mattblack]

I also disagree with him: What he's essentially saying is that the ISS is the most important thing in American manned spaceflight, present AND future. He's right about it's science potential being impacted because of funding, but he's wrong to say it should be an ISS or nothing deal. <br /><br />With correct funding -- restoring the $500 million cut and in the future, eventually raising Nasa's budget to something approaching 1% percent of Gross National Product, Nasa could do it all -- a full science program for ISS, planetary probes AND the development of the Orion CEV etc.<br /><br />ALL of it, for a mere 1% percent. Think about it... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[saurc]

Even now, the space shuttle flight's are being considered as 'regular' work of NASA, not as important events. It is really important to keep up the ISS, but we MUST go back to the moon, or on to near Earth asteroids or eventually Mars, so as to sustain public interest in manned spaceflight.<br /><br /> />LEO is a Prison; it's time for a Jailbreak!!<br /><br />I like that... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[j05h]

John Glenn is a Democrat and has consistently supported ISS. Democrats, as a party, have supported only flying in circles for decades, with the occasional deepspace probe. They have shown no inclination for pushing the boundaries of the human sphere through NASA. The usual answers are "good jobs in important districts" and "use the money to fix problems here." Whatever his other failings, they left it to a Texan to point the way upward. <br /><br /><i>>What the gov't should do is provide funding for ISS via other means ie. via other agencies/scientific institutions such that ISS becomes a long-term national laboratory (as others have previously discussed).</i><br /><br />I'm glad someone else has picked up on this. NASA should finish ISS as required, then Station should become a national lab. I'd recommend a US-Russian "Institute" to coordinate the station, comprised of sites in both nations that are independent of the space agencies. The simplest way to start this process would be with the technical team that handles translation and the ISS knowledgebase: TTI. If ISS is going to live up to it's goals, whatever form the cash takes it needs other funding sources once completed. There simply isn't enough money inside NASA to do both station maintenance/science and exploration.<br /><br /><i>> NASA must pursue VSE.</i><br /><br />Yes, but the VSE encompasses more than just NASA. Have you read Marburger's speech? Both he and the president were pretty clear that they expect industry, academia and all of us to step into space.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Yes, but the VSE encompasses more than just NASA. Have you read Marburger's speech? Both he and the president were pretty clear that they expect industry, academia and all of us to step into space.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think "industry" is destined to be "in space" whether NASA is or not. Look at Bigelow, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic etc. <br /><br />If NASA's not careful (ie goes Glenn's way), industry will arrive at VSE destinations in years to come before NASA does!!

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Marburger's speech?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What did he say?

 

[spacelifejunkie]

I have long believed that entrepeneurial space endeavors will land on the moon before NASA will. John Glenn is in a looonnng line of people who consider NASA's efforts as less and less important. When I say efforts, I mean exploration and VSE. The ISS will be nearly obsolete by the time it is finished if Robert Bigelow has anything to say about it. SpaceX/Bigelow Aerospace will be sipping Tang on the Moon and Mars while funding for NASA will be eternally quibbled over in Congress in front of an increasingly disinterested public. <br /><br /><br />SLJ<br /><br />PS - The public will start to become interested again when they become spacefaring.

 

[mithridates]

I'm not sure whether I disagree with him or not. I think most of the work we need to do in space development involves getting the average person interested in the idea, and it turns out that the space station is getting quite bright and will be even more so after the next two solar power arrays are installed:<br />http://www.space.com/spacewatch/060915_iss_watch.html<br />Anybody know exactly how it's going to look after construction is finished? To have it be that visible in the sky really does amount to almost continuous advertising for the idea of travelling to space, as every time it gets noticed overhead people will give it some thought. To imagine the difference this makes, think about an imaginary station a few km in diameter, so large and bright that it rivals a crescent moon. That would be a thing of wonder. Anything that approaches something like that is good.<br /><br />However<br /><br />I'm not really a big fan of human spaceflight in general and do think it's mostly a waste of money. I think we should we spending almost all our money on unmanned probes and especially on space telescopes. Since the most interesting thing in space to the average person is the idea of another Earth, and those solar systems are so far away that we can't even conceive of going there anytime soon, we should be spending most of our time and money actually looking at what's out there and trying to find something that will excite the mind of the public in a way that no other discovery has until now. A telescope such as the terrestrial planet finder or Darwin is exactly what we need.<br /><br />But since we seem so inclined to spend money on human spaceflight, maybe keeping the station there is a good idea, who knows. Korea for example just selected two people to be trained as astronauts that will go to the space station next year, and though I don't know what they're going to do that'll help out science a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> What did he say?</i><br /><br />Basically that NASA was building the railroad and that industry and others should step up to provide payloads and lunar products. Also, that NASA can't do everything planned on their end without some new thinking. <br /><br />Speech:<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999<br />Analysis:<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1116<br />SDC Thread:<br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=467679&page=14&view=collapsed&sb=7&o=0&fpart=1&vc=1<br /><br /><i>> I think "industry" is destined to be "in space" whether NASA is or not. Look at Bigelow, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic etc.<br />If NASA's not careful (ie goes Glenn's way), industry will arrive at VSE destinations in years to come before NASA does!!</i><br /><br />I'd extend this one ridiculous step: international business will have humans on Mars before NASA returns to the Moon. I also think it will be a small, fast media stunt, not a mining or science flight. Comsats are already the biggest segment of spacelaunch (not sure about budgets, that's probably DoD). <br /><br />While his analysis of station utilization may be correct, John Glenn's "plan" seems to be full funding for ISS (which probably means Shuttle Forever, too) and damn the VSE. <br /><br />The ISS has been sucking NASA dry for 2 decades, and now he wants it to kill the VSE. They've cancelled plenty of science missions to fund Station construction. Everytime there is any balancing to be done, the first thing that takes a hit are science probes, then climate monitoring, then station science. Science has become the new A <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If we stay at the ISS for the next few decades (at the expense of VSE)</font>/i><br /><br />I think this is the problem with Glenn's position: He wants to cut VSE funding and give it to ISS. VSE is already stretched over a very long time. There is a already a 4-year gap between the last Shuttle launch and the first single-stick launch, and there is about an 8-year gap before anything more complicated than the single stick is launched. Maintaining a competent launch team, equipment, and contractors during these long breaks are going to be challenging enough.<br /><br />If John Glenn wants to stretch that time frame out further, NASA might as well layoff/retire most of the launch crew, sell off the equipment, and watch the contractors go off to other activities. Then a decade or two later start again from scratch to rebuild a new capability.</i>

 

[dreada5]

Thanks J05H

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I also disagree with him: What he's essentially saying is that the ISS is the most important thing in American manned spaceflight, present AND future. He's right about it's science potential being impacted because of funding, but he's wrong to say it should be an ISS or nothing deal. "<br /><br />As suspicious as I am about the Democratic party as a whole and it's preferred policy regarding manned spaceflight, I don't think you fairly characterized Glenn's position as reflected by the CNN story.<br /><br />First off Glenn said he supported the Moon and Mars goals of NASA. Secondly Glenn's main concern was he feared NASA was planning to abandon ISS after 2016, thereby wasting all the money spent to build ISS in the first place.<br /><br />I think Glenn's fear is misplaced and based on old news. More recent information from NASA supposedly shows NASA wanting to support ISS missions out to 2020!

 

[mattblack]

Yes, I know about the ISS to 2020 thing; which makes me suspicious of Mr Glenn's assertion that ISS is being shortchanged -- Does he think nothing else will happen in manned spaceflight at and after 2020, that nothing else will matter? In one breath he says he supports man on the Moon & Mars, but in the next breath he says ISS is better and more important than VSE and that there couldn't possibly be more money for both. Mr Glenn has not joined the likes of Barbara Mikulski (D.) in helping Nasa get more money for their relatively chickenfeed budget. He thinks it is an either/or proposition.<br /><br />I don't believe ANY destination in space, LEO or beyond should be the ultimate end-point for manned spaceflight. Each goal, ISS, Moon, Mars and NEOs should be accomplished in turn as quickly as practical -- not in a 1960's style Space Race but NOT as a slow, stretched-out, deferring crawl that we're suffering now, either.<br /><br />More money is spent on porn, narcotics, bad junk food, cigarettes & gas-guzzling traffic jams than could EVER be spent on manned spaceflight, even if Nasa's budget were TRIPLED. Can anyone tell ME where this useful money, bled from the economy, could be better spent?<br /><br />Plenty of places, that's where -- not least of all in space. It's the 21st Century!! We should be doing things worthy of this new Century. For the environment, for the economy, for education and for the future of mankind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> I don't think you fairly characterized Glenn's position as reflected by the CNN story.</font>/i><br /><br />The lines in the story that bothered me were:<br /><br />"<i>Diverting money from the orbiting research outpost to President Bush's goal of sending astronauts back to the moon and eventually on to Mars is preventing some scientific experiments on the space station</i>"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"<i>He said he supports the president's moon and Mars goals but not at the expense of the space station</i>"<br /><br />The problem I have with these positions is that Congress is penny pinching NASA, and Griffin is fighting hard to protect the future (VSE). Building out the VSE architecture, like building out ISS, requires a hard minimum on investment, and without that minimum amount of money, you might as well shut it down completely. Its like the line, "You can't be a little bit pregnant."<br /><br />Unfortunately, in order to keep those minimum dollars for building out ISS and VSE, a lot of smaller items get whacked... or at a minimum their growth going forward is contrained much more than originally planned. These "smaller items" are usually science-oriented activities; hence the complaint that science is being killed off to support the VSE.<br /><br />But the real problem is that Congress hasn't given NASA the funds to (1) build out ISS, (2) build out VSE, and (3) fully fund all the planned science activities. Don't blame NASA. Blame Congress.</i>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Worrysome text, true. But taken in context with the other Glenn statements such as about ISS status after 2016 not nearly as much.