I think NASA should get out of the manned launch business

[lunatic133]

I'm slightly more optimistic about the environmental thing ... I think in the future much cleaner and more efficient technologies will be invented, but there will also be a lot more people, so things will even out and be about the same as they are now. If we want to ALLEVIATE the problem at all, we need to go into space. Now nuclear war, that scares the living $@#^&%@ out of me.

 

[askold]

I don't know how I'm coming off as being against space exploration because I'm a HUGE space enthusiast. I've worked in aerospace - on the space laser project at TRW. I'm even a Star Trek fan - the original series, of course.<br /><br />I think the robotic missions are great. They're yielding great science and each mission builds on the previous mission. When one goes awry, NASA says "oh sh*t" and moves on.<br /><br />It's because I'm a space mission enthusiast that I'm so frustrated by the harm the manned missions are doing to the space program right now. They're soaking up inordinate amounts of money, in excess to what they're accomplishing. It's exasperating - assuming this shuttle ever gets off the ground, they're going to spend an entire day photographing it at the spacestation to make sure none of the tiles are damaged!<br /><br />I'm not going to advocate less safety and neither will anybody else. So, the only practical solution to to stop flying these manned missions until the technology has caught up to our need for manned spaceflight safety. The robotic missions will accomplish good science and at the same time will move the technology further along.

 

[lunatic133]

I guess it just baffles me that you call yourself a space enthusiast and yet you would never go there yourself. Most space enthusiasts will never be astronauts but would leap at the opportunity if it was presented. Those who wouldn't (afraid of heights, etc), would at least dream of people like them going into space and carrying on the dream. That you want to completely eliminate the human side of space exploration just totally boggles my mind. What's the point of exploring something, if you're just going to call it off limits anyway?

 

[frodo1008]

IF I had said that I ALWAYS get.... Then it would have been eqotistical. However, I won't get into a hair splitting contest with you here. So state it any way that you like!<br /><br /> Been over to FS lately? I know that you do sometimes post in that forum. What I am really saying here (and if you have been over there, and seen the kinds of exchanges that go on you would agree with me here) is that anyone with a moderate position on most of the threads in FS is going to get kicked repeatedly. As I am an indpendent moderate, who usually doesn't just lean in one particular direction all the time, but does try to lean one way of the other depending on the particular issue, I have had to develope a rather thick skin, and even some debating skills (which for a technologist is not necessarily a bad thing). This was my point, and if you go over you will soon see that it is indeed the vanishing position of an endangered species! Sorry, if my words got in the way of my message. <br /><br />Most of the people posting in this forum do at least make some attempt to understand each others viewpoints! This usually avoids the "Nyah!, Nyah!, and so's your old man! kind of posts (and even worse entire threads that seem to be made up of such posts!). Which I happen to think makes for far better debates!!

 

[frodo1008]

Your posts ARE getting better! Heck, even those of us who support NASA and the human space flight systems of the STS and the ISS are not as happy with the situation as we would like!<br /><br />However, most on these boards do support both President Bush's vision for NASA, and his excellent appointment of Mike Griffen as NASA chief administrator.<br />The reason that I point this out is that Griffen unlike O'Kiefe (who did a reasonable job himself) is NOT going to allow for a lapse in the human space flight capabilities of NASA. This means getting the STS system back to flying again, and finishing the ISS as we have promised our other partners in this project that we would do. However, what Griffen wants to do is to develope beter human space flight capabilities by the time this happens (in 2010). <br /><br />There is no doubt that human space flight is going to continue. Even if we of the US is not a part of it. ESA, the Russian space agency, and China alone will see to that. And no, I am not trying for another space race here, I am just stating facts. So as this seems to be a solid part of this current administration's vision for NASA, this entire thread is somewhat moot anyway. <br /><br />By the way, were you aware that over the last decade that the scientific and robotic mission sections of NASA have been the fastest growing (in funding) areas of NASA? The manned human space flight parts of NASA are not shoving out the robotic missions aside at all. <br /><br />Then finally, do you really think that the scientific and robotic mission sections of NASA would get the funding from the manned space flight parts of NASA if these were indeed cancelled? Do try to be impartial here, and think like a politician. If you do that then you will see why as imperfect as the present program is, it is the only way to go at the present.

 

[phaze]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This is the kind of reasoning that gets NASA funding cut back in congress. "Because it's in our nature to explore" is not a very compelling argument. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think it is.<br /><br />We're looking to learn more about everything. We don't always know the immediate application of new knowledge, but yet we still try to keep on...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Some Congressional committee was once criticising a grant-giving agency about waste. One of the grants that they particularly lambasted was for establishing how the eyes of some long extinct animal worked. Something to do with a focusing mechanism.<br /><br />An engineer working in the telecoms centre read an article on this, and realised this would solve a problem in optical fibre communications, resulting in multi-million savings per annum.<br /><br />Then there is the story that Michael Faraday was once showing a young Queen Victoria his latest experiments. At the end she said that it was all very interesting but what use was it? His answer was: Of what use is a baby? And this baby was electrical generation!<br /><br />Manned spaceflight is inherently novel and difficult. It forces advances in many fields. It's estimated that the Apollo programme advanced the computer industry about six years from what it would otherwise have taken. Compare the size of that industry six years ago to now. Then work out the cumulative extra economic activity since the end of Apollo and compare it with the cost.<br /><br />It also inspires. Granted robotic exploration does too, but nowhere near as much. For some individuals perhaps, but not the generality of the (tax-paying) population. And not just the scientifically interested. The Surveyor craft gave us pictures from the surface of the Moon. But Armstrong gave us 'that's one small step...' and Aldrin gave us 'magnificent desolation'.<br /><br />Robots are excellent at some scientific exploration, but it really does depend on what science you are talking about. Funnily enough, the missions chosen tend to be the ones that produce the maximum return from robotic missions. And funnily enough, they're better at these than humans. Surface geology is on the boundary. Spirit and Opportunity are marvellous, but their limitations are obvious. Compare their results with even Apollo 11, let alone the later week-long missions. Even

 

[frodo1008]

A truly excellent post !! I would hope by now that askold at least has some reasonable answers to his lead post. While he does indeed make some points in his opinion, I think that most of us on these boards still fully support MASA's manned efforts. Most of us who support MASA's manned efforts also support the robotic efforts, and most of us who support NASA itself also support the private commercialization efforts of people like Burt Rutan and Ed Musk! Unfortunately, the converse is not always true!<br /><br />While many of us would be quite content to realize that NASA has its faults, many of its oponents shoud try to realize that of just about all the agencies of the federal government NASA is one of the few that has actually done what it has said it would do! NASA DID put men on the moon! NASA has built (even with its flaws) the finest space study facility in space in the ISS, and NASA has "Kept the Dream Alive" all of these years with the space shuttle.<br /><br />Further I believe that NASA is on the verge of going on to far, far greater things!!

 

[john_316]

<br /><br />Ditto Frodo1008!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />

 

[halman]

askold,<br /><br />The reason that manned space flight came about is because there are people who believe that space is going to be an important arena for the human race's activities, especially industrial. We have to get off of the rock someday, and the sooner, the better, so that we can spread out, learn, grow, and develop. This is the nature of evolution, and adaptation, the drive to inhabit any place that we can wrest a living from the environment, and to utilize all the resources that are available to us.<br /><br />Science in space has been breathtaking in its discoveries, but the robots are only the advance guard, to tell us about what we will be facing when we go there in person. Certainly, scientific inquiry into the nature and creation of the Cosmos is important, but it will not provide us with any tangible returns for a long time. If we can establish a vigorous, thirving off-planet infrastructure, there will be more money for science than we will know what to do with. If we do not start developing this frontier, there is a grave danger that all science may come to an end, as more and more resources are required to deal with environmental changes, scarcity of natural resources and energy, and fewer and fewer dollars for esoteric, abstract, or irrelevant information to be gathered.<br /><br />This planet can support a very large number of people, if they do not consume much energy, require much in the way of natural resources, or want to live an American lifestyle. However, there is very grave doubt that this planet could sustain its current population if everyone tries to live like Americans. By using resources from off-planet, and performing our industrial processing outside the planets ecosphere, we can enjoy a very wealthy lifestyle without dooming ourselves in the process.<br /><br />NASA is a government agency charged with doing what the private sector can't, or won't . That is what government is for, to create the infrastructure needed for growth, ef <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"It's because I'm a space mission enthusiast that I'm so frustrated by the harm the manned missions are doing to the space program right now. They're soaking up inordinate amounts of money, in excess to what they're accomplishing. It's exasperating..." <br /><br />My turn to take a whack at you<br /><br />So it seems your real beef with manned space exploration is mismanagement rather than manned space exploration itself. I should point out that the problems with the Space Shuttle go back to design compromises forced upon NASA by the USAF. I also point out that the problems with the International Space Station go back to design compromises to satisfy the desires/needs of the international partners.<br /><br />The 'wasting of money' you blame on NASA is really a reflection of lack of interest in manned space exploration. If manned exploration were truly valued these 'money wasting' programs couldn't have been hijacked by the State Department or the Department of Defense. If anything the money spent on the Shuttle and the Space Station should be paid for out the budgets of the DOD and the DOS. It's those factions who are wasting NASA's money and not the pro-manned space exploration faction.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

WOW! Another right on post! <br /><br />But, let those of us who actually realize the truth not pile on askold too much. I am personally fully prepared to believe his statement that he really is a space enthusiast. I think that while his heart is in the right place on this issue, it is only a lack of knowledge (which we many have now provided him in some truly great posts!) that has given him what most of us belive to be an incorrect opinion. Indeed we perhaps even owe him a debt of gratitiude for starting such a thread, and providing us with a place to so throughly educate him on facts that he may very well have not been aware of.<br /><br />Heck, I don't even really expect him to change his mind. The only thing I would ask him to do is to consider the excellent arguments that we have put forth, and perhaps take some of the edge and harshness off of his viewpoint.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

By the way, I just started a new thread in defense of the ISS. I entitled it "What good is the ISS anyway?. I hope that using such a title will get a response. As askold brought up his (and quite a few others) distate for NASA's support of this facility as one of his reasons for his opposition to the manned programs of NASA. I would like to invite him and anyone else who is interested to go over and read a much more detailed defense of the ISS. Over on FS I think the original thread for this talked about actually dismantling the ISS! Yeah, I know they do get kind of rambunctious over there!!

 

[JonClarke]

It's those international partners you decry that are keeping the ISS flying and crewed for the past two and a half years. A bit more gratitude would be in order for this fact.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"It's those international partners you decry that are keeping the ISS flying and crewed for the past two and a half years. A bit more gratitude would be in order for this fact."<br /><br />Ahh. Let's look a little closer at this. By international partners (plural) you really mean Russia (singular). Yes the Russians have kept ISS going. But that's the least I would expect the Russians to do to protect their space station.<br /><br />Did I say their space station? Oh right, the International Space Station should properly be renamed Mir 2 for that is what it truly is. And pretty much built on the American taxpayer's dime too, quite a nifty bargain the Russians got there.<br /><br />So what did the U.S. get out of this 'International' Space Station with the marvelous orbital inclination of 51 degrees? Oh yeah the squeezing out of the remaining life of the U.S. Shuttle fleet. What a deal!<br /><br />The fact is the ISS has more to do with the State Department and international relations than with NASA and manned space exploration. I expect once NASA has fulfilled it's 'international obligations' it will find some way to ditch the financial drag of the ISS as quickly as possible. <br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

If we ditch the financial drag, then we also ditch the research that such a facility will accomplish, indeed giving the Russians and others the benifit of what we (the American taxpayers) have paid for. Not too intelligent, even for American polticians!!

 

[spacefire]

doesn't it have a backup??!?!?! If it's such a critical element that its malfunction would destroy the Shuttle, it should have a backup! They could've launched with the backup and got the job done but of course, only glaring errors are ever allowed to pass by the ultra-vigilent eye of our fine space anegncy.For instance debris hitting the ceramic tiles-repeatedly discounted until in blew a hole in them, or a frozen O-ring.<br />That's NASA for you! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

1)how many ECO sensors are there? is this a redundant system? Maybe 2 sensors measuring the levels of LOX and checking eachother's readings?<br /><br />2)the way you talk about it makes it sound like the onboard sensor decides automatically when to shut-off the fuel flow. Can the cut-off signal also come from the ground? Since this would have to be a split second decision, is there a computer on the ground that can analyze say -conflicting sensor readings and decide which one is right and which one is faulty and make a decision? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

If you are going to use this kind of sarcasm then perhaps you would be better off with the experts over on free space! If you just ask for a reasonable explanation from someone like shuttle_guy who has actual information and not just innuendo, then do try to ask the question in a reasonably nice manner.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">If you are going to use this kind of sarcasm then perhaps you would be better off with the experts over on free space! If you just ask for a reasonable explanation from someone like shuttle_guy who has actual information and not just innuendo, then do try to ask the question in a reasonably nice manner.</font><br /><br />Are you implying I was being rude asking this question from Shuttle_guy? <br /><br /><br />Granted, I'm no Shuttle expert, but then again neither is NASA <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

thanks for the reply. I would think shutting off the engine does involve shutting the LOX and fuel supply to it, maybe repressurizing the lines with an inert gas, shutting off the turbopumps, turning off the A/C and firing the grill and so on... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />why can't they launch with 3 sensors? <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">ou so isolated from political reality that you actually think that congress representing the American taxpayer would just have authorized another $2 billion for a replacement telescope?</font>/i><br /><br />If a contractor screwed up, you go after them financially. If you screw up, you hope you have insurance. But more importantly, if you have a solid track record of using someone's money wisely, then you earned some forgiveness points. For example, we lose missions to Mars, but that hasn't prevented NASA from getting additional funding for new missions. Missions like the MERs earn a lot of good will that can be spent when things go wrong. I don't think NASA's manned space program has earned a lot of good will money over the last quarter century.<br /><br /> /> <font color="yellow"><i>Then you go on to state that you support another manned mission</i></font><br /><br />Yes, there is an emotional response. But I think there are also bigger picture issues. I think flying a mission to Hubble earns a lot more good will points than flying a mission to ISS. I also think the return on science for the Hubble mission is greater than one to ISS. Finally, I think to say we are "too afraid" to fly to Hubble -- the primary rationale for cancelling the mission -- does more psychological damage to any effort to explore anything. If we are too afraid to fly to Hubble, how can we have the courage to fly beyond LEO?<br /><br /><br />By the way, I am not against manned exploration of space. My concern is how it is justified and how it is executed.</i>

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>This is the kind of reasoning that gets NASA funding cut back in congress. "Because it's in our nature to explore" is not a very compelling argument.</i><br /><br /> /> <font color="yellow"><i>I think it is. We're looking to learn more about everything. We don't always know the immediate application of new knowledge, but yet we still try to keep on...</i></font><br /><br />I think there is a mismatch in the discussion. I think it is important to do basic science even if we cannot identify any immediate value for the results of that science. But while this is a sufficient argument for <i>me</i>, I don't think it is a sufficient argument for <i>Congress</i>.<br /><br />The correct argument to make depends on who the intended audience is.

 

[askold]

"I understand it's not the fuel sensor of my car but..." <br /><br />Actually, I think part of the problem is that it is like the fuel sensor in your car, if your car were a '72 Buick. It's hard to get parts, the design is not very up-to-date ...

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow"><b>You DO NOT shut down a rocket enginge by shuttilng off the fuel ! That would be destroy the engines followed by the Orbiter and it's crew. </b></font><br /><br />So you're telling me that if the ET runs dry and nothing is done , instead of the engines simply shutting off the whole thing will fall apart? Isn't that rather poor engineering? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>