Griffin hate mail continuing

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nacnud

Guest
<font color="yellow">We need a station with artifical-gravity like the one Von Braun proposed over 50 years ago<br /><br /><font color="white">Good point, but how much gravity is enough to counter the problems? The smaller the gravity needed the less the long term costs. As it stands the centrifuge module has been cannceled, and there have never been plans for small human rated centrifuges. Before we go to Mars these are the kind of experiments that need doing. The ISS could provide an enviroment to study these things, the physology analysis equipent is already there or will be soon, the power systems for such a module are there, the thermal systems are there, all is needed is the centrifuge itself. <br /><br />The question is whether the VSE will fund such a module before Mars flights.</font></font>
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
Can you elaborate? Why is it unreasonable to assume that Griffin, a holder of five master's degrees and a Ph.D., who has held several high-level positions and wrote the textbooks on spacecraft design, is more talented than the bulk of NASA's workforce?
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Right now we don't have any data on points between micro and Earth gravity. The CAM (centrifuge module) could have given us vital data on Lunar and Martian gravity that we need for long term planning. Because of this I think the CAM is more important than the Hubble. If it were up to me I would use that 19th flight for the CAM instead of the Hubble, even if it would result in more hate mail. ;-)<br /><br />Maybe there is an alternative. I'm wondering if it would be possible to launch the CAM on an ELV into a parking orbit near the ISS. Then a Shuttle could do a "two-fer" mission, attach whatever it bought up on the regular mission, then pick up the near by CAM and attach it to the ISS. If this would work for the CAM it might even be used for some other components reducing the number of flights needed to complete the ISS and freeing up more funding for the CEV.<br /><br />There is also the possibility of extending the artificial gravity test that was performed on Gemini XI. The Capsule was tethered to a Agena target and put in a slow rotation. Enough artificial gravity was produced to caused a camera to move from the control panel to the back of the Gemini capsule. The Gemini test was to see if it was possible to do this rather than any real work with artificial gravity, and it is in deed possible. We could try it with a CEV and a target vehicle once we get the CEV flying.<br />
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Why not a 20th flight, and even a 21st etc to get the module fully kitted out, funded from the VSE rather than the STS or ISS programs. Probably cheaper than developing an EELV capablity.<br /><br />Even better how about a 5.5m wide centifuge sent up on a SDV HLLV development flight.
 
D

dobbins

Guest
I Think there is a fear factor at NASA HQ. A fear that losing another crew on a shuttle flight will sink the whole maned program. That is why they are trying to fly as few flights as possible with the Shuttles. It wouldn't be the first time. The savings from canceling Apollo 18 and 19 were tiny, not worth the effort. But the cancellations came in a time of budget uncertainty shortly after the near loss of a crew in Apollo 13.<br />
 
D

dobbins

Guest
The ISS is in a high inclination orbit so the Russians can reach it. This is why we have such long gaps between launch windows from KSC. The high inclination orbit also increases the amount of fuel needed to reach it from KSC which results in reduced payloads for the STS and in the future the CEV. A High inclination orbit also limits it's usability as a staging area for deep space missions by lowering the time for launch windows from the station. That is what Dr. Griffin was talking about when he said stated he wouldn't have built it in that orbit. One of the reasons NASA didn't shed any tears over losing Skylab in 1979 was it's orbital inclination was so high, and the ISS is even worse than Skylab was.<br /><br />The harmful effects of Micro-gravity on humans are well documented. The ISS crew wastes a good portion of their work time on exercises to partially counter these effects, and with the high costs of sending someone up there time is at a premium. As I mentioned if you had a work place here on Earth with the same effects on health OSHA would order it closed down.<br /><br />Von Braun knew better than to send astronauts to a station that was a proven health hazard, which is something I can't say for the people that pushed for the ISS. He knew better than to build one in an orbital inclination that would cause problems, something I can't say for the people who bought into the ISS. He understood the need for a good solid basic design, something that the designers of that mess in space didn't get even after experience with the Mir.<br />
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
" Think there is a fear factor at NASA HQ. A fear that losing another crew on a shuttle flight will sink the whole maned program. That is why they are trying to fly as few flights as possible with the Shuttles. It wouldn't be the first time. The savings from canceling Apollo 18 and 19 were tiny, not worth the effort. But the cancellations came in a time of budget uncertainty shortly after the near loss of a crew in Apollo 13. "<br /><br />No, that is totally incorrect. HQ would much rather fly more Shuttles to complete ISS. The 19 or less comes strictly from the White Houses hard deadline.
 
D

dobbins

Guest
That is incorrect. Skylab was planed to have a 28 degree inclination, but the people with Earth Science experiments wanted a higher inclination to cover more of the Earth's surface. Because of this it was launched at a 50 degree inclination.<br />
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"The ISS is in a high inclination orbit so the Russians can reach it."</font><br /><br />What would we do if the Russians couldn't reach it, since Russian flights are the only thing keeping the station going? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Maybe flying on Soyuz boosters launched from KSC?<br /><br />After the USSR broke apart the Russians found themselves with their launch facilities in another country and the Kazakhs have screwed them from time to time over rent payments. I think they would have been open to a deal that would have given them use of the cape which would have been a good bargaining chip to use against the Kazakhs.<br />
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Don't feel bad, it's been a long time since anyone had to worry about the orbital inclination of Skylab.<br /><br />It just stuck in my mind because of a long running gripe I have with the space program, the pure Science Prima Donnas. Half these people think the maned space program is nothing more than a playground for them to run whatever experiments they fancy, and the other half want to cut it out completely so they can buy more robot probes.<br /><br />If the Wright Brothers had to deal with people like them they would have had one group demanding they not waste money on maned airplanes and make unmanned planes for their use, while the other half would be demanding they spend all of their time building the same design for scientists to fly in.<br /><br />I Think NASA should be more like the NACA was, mainly concerned with applied science instead of Ivory Tower research. I want NASA to improve the technology of space flight instead of worrying about the effects of micro-gravity on nematodes.<br />
 
S

scottb50

Guest
I wonder if Soyus could even reach the ISS from the Cape? might be a moot point. It follows it couldn't reach it from the ESA facilities either.<br /><br />The orbit ISS is in is a pretty good compromise and allows observation of pretty much all the globe at some point or another. Earth observation being a major objective it makes more sense than an equitorial or slightly higher inclination. That's why polar orbits are the real goal, except you lose the help of the Earths rotation. The ISS is in a place Soyus and Shuttle can reach. I would be interested to see what the Europeans can deliver to ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
It could have reached it from the cape if the ISS had been built in a 28 degree inclination instead of a 52 degree inclination. Then the station would be useful as a staging platform for deep space missions. It all depends on if you want a base for operations or if you want a science research platform. I consider the later to be a waste of a maned platform, Earth science can be handled by unmanned probes.<br />
 
H

henryhallam

Guest
<font color="yellow">I wonder if Soyus could even reach the ISS from the Cape?</font><br /><br />It could indeed, and with a slight increase in payload capacity compared to launching from Baikonur.<br /><br />If ISS had been built in a 28.5deg orbit, even better payload capacity could be gotten from KSC launches, but capability from Baikonur would be (vastly!) reduced.
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Actually we do drop fully constructed homes in place, they are called modular homes, or trailers, or double wides. The reason for this is it's cheaper to build one in a factory and transport it in one or two sections than it is to build it in place. These fill the niche for lower cost homes.<br /><br />Construction costs are even higher in space where it costs millions of dollars to get your construction crew to the job site. The more you can build here on Earth the cheaper the over all costs. If we still had the Saturn V we could have sent a station the size of the ISS up on a handful of launches instead of the several dozen launches of the STS that it will take by the time the ISS is completed.<br /><br />A Heavy lift launch capacity is part of the mix we need until we get to the point where construction costs in space aren't several orders of magnitude higher than they are down here.<br />
 
D

dobbins

Guest
The important thing is you do what you can afford. If a trailer is more affordable than a house, then that is what you have to settle for.<br /><br />The Old Apollo days of bottomless pockets aren't coming back anytime soon.<br />
 
P

publiusr

Guest
Enough with the tin can talk! VentureStar was a piece of crap to start with and Rutans craft was a joke. Griffin is the first true engineer as NASA Chief in awhile, and I trust his vision. Rutan's little toys is beyond useless, and the HLLV bashers are full of it. JIMO was going to be a pig, and any good Europa lander is also going to be sizable. The alt.space frauds and their Griffin bashing are doing more harm to NASA than Proxmire ever could. Too bad they can't join him in the grave.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
<font color="yellow">Rutan's little toys is beyond useless...<br /><br /><font color="white">Not if it can provide a revenue stream for the development of a private orbital vehicle.</font></font>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY