ISS Debate

[j05h]

>They really don't like people who climb down the stairs at the end of their mission, like Shannon Lucid, or a one-armed handstand during his post flight press onference, like Yuri Romanenko after 322 days in space.<br /><br />That's pretty funny about the handstand! Never heard of it before, that's some bravado. Shannon Lucid is compared (in Dragonfly?) to her crewmates. She exercsied properly, ate a balanced diet with as much vegetables as possible and yes, walked unaided after 6 months in freefall. Her two Russian mates drank vodka, ate saltpork and didn't exercise, they were carried out on stretchers. Diet and exercise make a huge difference. <br /><br />A few weeks ago, there were articles on a two-person bike-powered centrifuge. I've been thinking that something like that could be mounted axially in a TransHab-type module. Wouldn't work with the off-axis Bigelow inflatables, but the centrifuge could be built around the core of any center-line built inflatable. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

Following up to my own post:<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Should NASA and STS/ISS contractors work for free until they fulfill their obligations? If NASA and STS/ISS contractors promised to work for free (or had been forced to remain in a fixed budget), I would have no problems with them continuing to work on ISS</font>/i><br /><br />I found the following text on an article about ESA's ATV vehicle being delayed:<br />ATV delayed to May 2007<br />FlightInternational.com<br /><br />"Launch of the European Space Agency’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) has been delayed by 12 months, to May 2007, by a major flight-control software rewrite and other technical problems."<br />...<br />"Other issues adding to the delay include a fault-tolerance problem in a solar-panel deployment drive and failing attitude-control thruster valves. The solar-panel drive was unsuccessful in failure mode tests and had to be redesigned, while a small rod inside the thruster actuator valve kept failing fatigue tests. The decision to remove the rod required assembled and verified sections of the ATV to be disassembled to extract all 48 valve rods."<br /><br />"<font color="yellow"><b>ESA has fixed-price contracts with its industrial partner for the ATV, so the agency will not have to absorb the extra costs from the problems.</b></font><br />...<br />"The unmanned ATV was to have delivered supplies to the ISS from 2003. The date has been steadily pushed back until the decision this year to delay the launch from October to May 2006, and now May 2007."<br /><br />Four years of delay, but no added costs! Interesting.</i>

 

[frodo1008]

Aside from what Dobbins has said. Do you think that NASA is going to be the only user of the ISS? The only thing holding the other partners up to a great extent is the unfinished condition of the ISS. Most of the laboratories are theirs anyway. It seems to be another point of contention with those who are adamantly opposed to the ISS talk as if the US was going to be the only user. This will be far from the case. <br />Now as I said if the ISS is not going to be finished to at least the point of having six productive people on board then it is indeed possible that the entire project was not worth the effort made. But I don't think that either NASA, and certainly not the various partners want this to happen. As I stated earlier (and nobody seems to have a legitimate answer) it seems to me at least that if the ISS is finished to that point then it would be almost impossible that such a large facility, especially designed to do research work in space will not be a very great asset to the future of humanity. On the Earth as well as in space!!

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Agreed frodo, the people dragging the chain now are NASA, primarily because the Shuttle is out-of-service. True, it took the Russian a heck of a time to get the ball rolling on ISS, but NASA hasn't helped matters with regular launch slippages since that point.<br /><br />NASA might now wish to abandon ISS and refocus on VSE, but it should really see its obligations through to completion if at all possible. No one would like to run 24 miles of a marathon, only to pull out so close to home. Most of the remaining hardware is ready to go, it should be launched. Once the facility is fully built out, and the <b>possibility</b> exists to support more crew members on ISS, I'm sure it would provide additional incentive to the international partners to find inventive ways to get crew members up there. <br /><br />For example, t-Space strikes a deal with the Japanese or Germans or whoever ... fund us the $400M and we'll get you a way to put more bodies up on ISS. NASA wants to scale back, the international partners want to see their 'gravy' out of the project in terms of man-hours up there, private enterprise wants a leg-up ... a core-complete ISS provides opportunities for everyone to wheel and deal and get the end-point they desire. Far from a white elephant, the ISS's glory days are still ahead of her, for the sake of staying the course a few more years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA might now wish to abandon ISS and refocus on VSE, but it should really see its obligations through to completion if at all possible.</font>/i><br /><br />Griffin generally agrees; although, he has essentially put ISS completion on a fixed budget.<br /><br />I agree that there has been science done on ISS, and that much more science can and will be done with the build out of ISS.<br /><br />I also agree that ISS can serve as a destination for commercial services, and in fact, represents one of the best opportunities for kick-starting a private enterprise orbital capability (e.g., to ferry cargo and crew to ISS).<br /><br />My personal concern is the overall program management from the beginning. As a simple example, there was very little effort given to developing a man-tended, largely automated or tele-operated research facility. Such an orbiting research facility could have been put up a lot earlier, for a lot less money, deliver high quality science (and in some cases better quality science without humans bumping around inside), and validate the value of such research.<br /><br />A lot of it is not NASA's fault. Politics, as so often the case, is a major player. I think Congress has earmarked about $400 million for specific groups in their districts for just this coming year. I think Griffin has been doing a heroic job negotiating with a general goal of the VSE (which includes completing ISS), the fixed budgets, and the conflicting requirements specified by numerous members of Congress.<br /><br />So I guess my real complaint is in how government does things.</i>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>So I guess my real complaint is in how government does things.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Oh, there's no arguing that one! That's a world-wide problem, regardless of the style of government, the way the problem is approached, and the type project you are talking about. If anyone can find a solution to this one, they will become rich beyond their wildest dreams!<br /><br />It also doesn't help any kind of large-scale public works like NASA when the task trying to be achieved is such a technical challenge and therefore somewhat prone to setbacks that cost time. When the fixed costs are so high, it is difficult to see how any space-related project is going to run to budget unless it has a dream run where things perform flawlessly to spec. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"Didn't you notice how inaccurate NASA Watch's story was about there only being 8 shuttle flights left?"<br /><br />Careful. What NW reported was that NASA was takinga very serious look at that option. As I have detailed in several other posts, Griffin is taking this very seriously. HE has said he felt blind sided that this is not what he signed up for now that OMB and, by lack of objection, the White House is pushing very hard for no Shuttle money post 2008. OMB, and O'Keefe concurred, that NASA would need very little shuttle money post 2008 to meet the 2010 deadline. With the impact to the gulf region post Katrina if there is layoffs and the interantional comittments, Griffin is hopeful the budget will be worked out but it is not a sure thing. Also, to be technically accurate, NW reported on a memo sent from Griffin to Gerst - and that was a real memo. So not sure where your beef is. I won't disagree that the web site editorializes and I am not trying to defend him. Just pointing out the facts.

 

[erioladastra]

"Four years of delay, but no added costs! Interesting. "<br /><br />Griffin says he plans to get away from this nonsense we have now and so something similar to this. Lets hope he gets his wish!

 

[dobbins]

NASA Watch is a biased news source ran by a man with an agenda. Do not trust ANY biased news source that is agenda driven. Not NASA Watch, not Rush Limbaugh, Not one that you disagree with, and most of all not one you agree with because it's all too easy to fool yourself when you want to be fooled.<br /><br />

 

[erioladastra]

Agree - though I don't think there is an unbiased news source out there. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> But still, you need a better example of bias in NW since, in this case, his reporting is accurate.

 

[dobbins]

Examples?<br /><br />On the 8 flight story Cowling omitted the fact that both Houses of Congress have expressed strong support for the shuttle program in the NASA authorization bills they had already passed, a fact that lessened the impact of the spin he wanted.<br /><br />On the story about canceled space science he omitted the fact that the programs were planed future programs that only got preliminary funding last year, opting to make it sound like NASA was gutting the current research on the ISS.<br /><br />On the NASA budget stories he omits the fact that NASA is one of 16 agencies out of 23 monitored by the GAO that is out of compliance with their guidelines, and the fact that most of the complaints deal with the possibility that NASA might act in a corrupt manner in procurement in the future. That would detract from the spin of NASA as being inept in budget matters.<br /><br />This is typical of Cowing. NASA Watch started as an attack page on Goldin when he was administrator. It toned down when O'Keefe took over, and then turned rabid again with Griffin.<br /><br />Take a look at the NASA Watch header.<br /><br />" WARNING! This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something.<br />Remember: It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU."<br /><br />That is a clear danger sign that you are dealing with an activist site that is playing space politics, that it is agenda driven.<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

Well said, Dobbins<br /><br />NW is a good source of information, but my BS radar is on full alert when I go there. Every single time I've dug into the facts behind one of his political stories, I have found the kind of convenient omissions you did.<br /><br />Well said.<br /><br />When the media source consistently tells you what you want to hear, you owe it to yourself to turn the objectivity up several notches.<br /><br />He does get the scoops, though, from time to time, you gotta admit that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

I don't consider NW and it's related sites to be useless, I just make sure I have a salt shaker handy before reading them so that I have a supply of grains of salt. Cowing is a man with an agenda and quite willing to use spin and omission to slant his coverage to fit that agenda. The site is useful as a pointer towards real news, but should never be taken at face value.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

I am now looking at the newest crowd to gather here at SDC and I am truly saddened. They are rabidly against either NASA or any other government involvement in space. Heck they make orrery21 and askold look good! Just look at the titles here on M&L. They are making the rabid conservatives over on free space look good! Glad you came up with your ACCESS site spacester. You know as well as I do that even the supporters of the ISS, shuttle and NASA are not rabid about it. <br /><br />We also try to also support such as Burt Rutan and Elon Musk, but you know as well as I do that these efforts are NOT going to get us either back to the moon and certainly not on to Mars completely on their own, at least not within our lifetimes. After all, not only do they have to travel the territory already pioneered by NASA, they also have to show investors that they can do this while returning a fair profit!<br /><br />I am absolutely worn down by these newer types of anti NASA trolls! There is no possibility of reasoned debate with such (just as their is no possibility of reasoned debate with some over on free space) they not only have no actual knowledge of space matters, but their is no possibility of any kind of compromise whatever with them. The only good thing that I can see coming out of this is that true space enthusiasts will go away and not even get involved, although that is a sad loss to SDC, never the less it just means that SDC will become even more of a non entity to such as Mike Griffin than ever before. So NASA is just going to do what it has to do whether or not these types rant and rave or not! Luckily there are space advocacy groups that are willing to deal in truth regardless of these types, so there is still some hope anyway! So I don't think I am going to stay on SDC much longer. I do have other important things to do!!!<br />

 

[dobbins]

"They are rabidly against either NASA or any other government involvement in space."<br /><br />I see these types on a regular basis on political forums. I refer to them as "Libertarian Puritans" or "Rockheads" (because many are constantly quoting Lew Rockwell's radical site). The people I'm seeing here share many traits with the Rockheads, a nasty surly attitude, combined with a conviction that their ideas are unquestionable as theology.<br /><br />Trying to debate with people like these is as big a waste of time as trying to debate some point of theology with a religious fanatic. They have a boundless unshakable faith that the market will magically satisfy every whim they have, that "evil" government is the only reason that it hasn't.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Assuming that Bigelow ever manages to produce something other than hot air.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

NASA has reached Orbit. So far the best bet for the start ups (and their hangers on) is to go into the hot air balloon business. They seem to have an inexhaustible supply of the substance that gets them airborne.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

The last I heard a full sized Bigelow inflatable habitat (which by the way Bigelow would not even have if it wasn't for the research that NASA did originally) weighs in at some 50,000 lbs to LEO. The only current vehicle with this kind of capacity is the space shuttle, but I am afraid it is somewhat booked up at this time. Now, it might just fit into either an Atlas V or Delta IV Heavy EELV, but the military has them also booked up. <br /><br />The Russians might be interested as they might have something that would work, just possibly. I know that the followers of spacex would like the Falcon 9 to possibly do the job, but even the effervescent Elon Musk has recently admitted that it is harder than he thought to just get the Falcon 1 off the launch pad, so it just might be a little bit longer than people think before the Falcon 9 launches.<br /><br />You know it might just be possible that if Bigelow really wants to see if his inflatable hab will work that he might be able to work out something with NASA to use a shuttle launch to get one up to the ISS itself (where NASA was originally going to place such a habitat anyway). If nothing else this would result in great advertizing for Bigelow! <br /><br />Actually the ISS which will have more laboratory space and electrical power generation than anything before or for at least the next ten years or so, it is going to be used for science and learning to go on to the moon and Mars. Bigelow's habitats on the other hand will indeed be very handy as a tourist destination, if he can just get some kind of launch capapbility to help him get the things up to LEO in the first place. <br /><br />I do not see any reason why these efforts would even consider competing with each other as they would be in space for different purposes.<br /><br />I am sorry that you take so much of your valuable time and effort to so adamently oppose the ISS as we (the US through NASA) are going to meet at least most of our obligations to the other par

 

[erioladastra]

"On the 8 flight story Cowling omitted the fact that both Houses of Congress have expressed strong support for the shuttle program in the NASA authorization bills they had already passed, a fact that lessened the impact of the spin he wanted."<br /><br />But as I have said, Griffin has said that the congress is very focused on katrina right now and while supportive, are not personally talking to him much about additional money. I suspect when the whole picture gets viewed (e.g., layoffs, internation comittments etc) we will have more than 8 flights. But another bad hurricane hit or something else and we are in serious trouble. HEck, as Griffin said, even with out that we are in a very precarious position.<br /><br />As to the others - I don't disagree. I was mainly referring to the broken record about the 8 flights.

 

[erioladastra]

<br />Agree totally.

 

[JonClarke]

Found it! " MARS SURFACE ANALOG PROJECT: PREPARING FOR ASTRONAUTS’ FIRST HOURS ON MARS." http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1079.pdf<br /><br />Surface activities immediately after landing on Mars are possible, but a couple of days rest would be advisable. Ten percent of astronauts might need up to 10 days. The recommendation is that week of rehabiliation be scheduled during which time only contingency EVAs are carried out.<br /><br />"Results. Workshop participants agreed that the crewmember activities immediately after the landing of the sixth International Space Station (ISS) crew demonstrated that surface activities are possible immediately after landing on Mars. However, given that all three crewmembers exhibited reduced capabilities, the participants endorsed additional studies, including those on ISS crewmembers during the immediate post-landing period to infer the capabilities of future Mars astronauts. Long-duration crewmembers in attendance agreed that “a couple of days” for recovery would be advisable, with one<br />crewmember predicting that one in ten Mars astronauts<br />will need up to 10 days of on-surface recovery. The consensus was to recommend seven days of habitationa support for rehabilitation inside any vehicle in which the crew lands before any scheduled Mars surface excursion, including transfer to Habitat. The panel also acknowledged that contingency scenarios requiring earlier surface EVA can be accomplished if a higher risk level is accepted."<br /><br />Jon<br /> <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>

 

[dobbins]

Congress may have been focused on Katrina in September, but as an institution it has the attention span of a puppy. I've been following the antics of the Congress for a long time, dating back to the late 60s and the only time I have seen them maintain any focus for more than a couple of months is over something that can be used for partisan advantage. They managed to maintain a focus on Watergate because it was a chance for Democrats to beat up on a Republican President. They managed to maintain a focus on the Impeachment because it was a chance for Republicans to attack a Democratic President. What was behind these didn't matter, it was who they had a chance to screw that kept the interest of the Congress focused.<br /><br />Right now the Congress is focused on the Supreme Court nomination, and will soon forget that Katrina ever happened. Any future hurricanes or whatever will hold their attention for a month or two at most.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

Unfortunately I believe that you are correct here. It is the nature of politics!

 

[dobbins]

We are talking about a group that thinks next year's election is long term planning.<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

I agree, and have posted such to the point of boring people here nearly as much as my POGO posts do.<br /><br />I may yet start this as a separate thread over in the SB&T section - but I wonder if teh government could ever set up a government version of a skunk works project. Focused projects with focused goals, with minimal oversight and staffing. Working outside the normal government structures.<br /><br />Yeah, I can hear it now - when pigs fly....<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>