NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[dobbins]

What kind of Science?<br /><br />It doesn't say anything about "Ivory Tower Science". I would say that the intent of the Congress is shown by the selection of the NACA as the core of the new space agency. They picked an organization that did applied science, the kind that would lead to new technology, as the focal point of the space program. They didn't opt for some research group that only did pure science that might never have any useful applications.<br />

 

[dobbins]

A publicly financed program that is not popular will not be financed for long.<br /><br />That is the reality of life. If you want a multi-billion dollar Ivory Tower science club you had better find some means of paying for it yourself, because it isn't going to get fianced by Washington.<br />

 

[dobbins]

"Let's take a little look at the flagship project, Apollo."<br /><br />Yes let's look at it. After Apollo 11 the American public looked at NASA and asked "What's next?" NASA replied "We are doing science, the astronauts will bring rocks back for scientists to study!" The Public in effect told NASA "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!". Public interest imploded once they thought that Astronauts weren't doing anything but picking up rocks for scientists to play with, and NASA's funding dropped like a rock.<br /><br />For the past 36 years you Science buffs have kept the pressure on NASA to make science the focal point of the space program, and for the same amount of time the public has been telling you that they don't give a damn, and NASA funding throughout that period has been grudging and subject to cuts. It's been barely kept alive by the fact that humans are at least doing something in space. Lose that last shred of Buck Rogers and you won't have any bucks at all for your Ivory Tower science.<br /><br />The public doesn't care about the effects of microgravity on aphids. It doesn't care about gamma rays from deep space. It doesn't care about the chemical composition of some distant nebula. If that is all NASA offers them they won't pay for it, there won't be a NASA, or any robot probes to Saturn, or an ISS researching microgravity, or any of the rest of the science.<br /><br />Science buffs that constantly attack the exploration side of NASA are doing more damage to the space program than the people who whine about "shooting money into space". You are the people who give credibility to the whiners because you are the ones who have convinced the public that they aren't getting what they want out of a space program that they are paying for.<br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yes let's look at it. After Apollo 11 the American public looked at NASA and asked "What's next?" NASA replied "We are doing science, the astronauts will bring rocks back for scientists to study!" The Public in effect told NASA "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!"<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Precisely my point. A public inspired project is going to get you firsts and NOTING more. A few moon landings. No more public interest. No more funds left for ANYTHING.<br /><br />NASA is MUCH more than a basic research program. Do you call Hubble basic research? Do you call the X43 basic research? Do you call Deep Impact basic research? No these are clear science missions which are intended to develop technology that respectively contributes to our understanding of the universe, improves our transportation systems and provides an ability to defend ourselves.<br /><br />You can shout all you care about what you think NACA and Congress intended. It's as pointless as shouting at the trooper that gives you a speeding fine, saying "but my car is designed and intended to go more than 55mph". Congress gave as an Act, and that Act is VERY clear in its intention.<br /><br />It's the law.

 

[dobbins]

If 36 years of failing to get a a well funded space program hasn't convinced the science buffs that Ivory Tower research will NEVER get funded then nothing will.<br /><br />Just what part of not giving a damn is beyond your comprehension?<br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That is the reality of life. If you want a multi-billion dollar Ivory Tower science club you had better find some means of paying for it yourself, because it isn't going to get fianced by Washington. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, you may not be aware of this, but Washington pays for a lot of science research - both basic and applied - and will continue to do so. Fortunately, out politicians have had the foresight (with some exceptions) to apoint agency leaders that understand that what America needs to remain the great nation it is today is to stay at the forefront of science and technology, not to waste our money on resources to give a patriotic high when the flag waves on a desolate rock.<br /><br />- In the medical industry federal funds pay for research into new drugs and medical devices, often in areas that will affect less than one percent of the population. I don't see the lack of public support ending those programs.<br /><br />- Outside science and technology, federal funds provide for road projects, dams and bridges, often in the face of complete lack of public support. Yet the money keeps flowing.<br /><br />- Federal funds keep our airlines flying, not much public support there.<br /><br />In our country, we elect a government to represent us. We may not agree with every rule they make. We may not support every project they do. But we trust our collective representatives to do what is right for national interests. Our representatives have been doing this for over 200 years. Sometimes one of them will conceive a crackpot project that has no purpose but to plant a flag, but over the next three of four years, representatives will change and balance will return.

 

[dobbins]

NASA is highly visible, and that means it's a target every time somebody wants some bucks for some other program.<br /><br />If you don't have a broad base of support that goes beyond a few science nerds the program will be cut and cut deeply. Your elitist attitude, your sneering remarks about flag waving and patriotism helps to deprive NASA of the public support it needs.<br /><br />People like you have done more damage to the space program than any other group. You are the ones that are killing it with your petulant childish demands that the public finance something that it doesn't give a damn about.<br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If 36 years of failing to get a a well funded space program hasn't convinced the science buffs that Ivory Tower research will NEVER get funded then nothing will<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The "Ivory Tower" research has been well funded. We've had 36 years of funding, very good funding:<br /><br />- A fantastic and highly successful Mars program has been running since the early 90's. This has so captured the public interest that it spawned three major movies.<br />- We've had an incredibly successful space telescope<br />- High altitude balloons have been developed<br />- A functional scramjet has been designed<br />- A number of outer-solar system probes have been highly successful<br /><br />There are numerous other examples. Space science hasn't had a NASA funding problem. It's the showcase, ridiculously expensive programs that do nothing but plant flags that have had the problem.

 

[dobbins]

Adjusted for inflation the funding is less than half of what it was when there was more public interest. The only thing that has kept it that high is the faint remnants of NASA's past glory that still exist in the maned space program.<br /><br />Again you have shown an inability to comprehend the fact that the vast majority of the public doesn't care about the things that interest you and are willing to cut them for something they consider a higher priorty than "shooting money into space" for something they have close to zero interest in.<br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>elitist attitude, your sneering remarks about flag waving and patriotism helps to deprive NASA of the public support it needs. <br /><br />People like you have done more damage to the space program than any other group. You are the ones that are killing it with your petulant childish demands that the public finance something that it doesn't give a damn about. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I find ad hominem attacks counter-productive to constructive debate. I have no interest in talking to someone that resorts to them to try and make his point.<br /><br />Enjoy your weekend.<br />N

 

[dobbins]

Just what do you think "waste our money on resources to give John B Dobbins a patriotic high when the flag waves on a desolate rock" is?<br /><br />YOU are the one that opened up with an ad hominem attack and now you have proven my point about your petulant childish attitude with your response.<br />

 

[frodo1008]

I think you fellows ought to take a break here and consider:<br /><br />What I have said before about this just being a discussion board. NASA is going to do what NASA is going to do, and anything we say here certainly is not going to change that.<br /><br />This means that NASA is still definetly going to continue its very good space science programs, no doubt about it. <br /><br />However, NASA is also going to go back to the moon. Hopefully, this time will eventually result not only in more science being done (and geological scientists at least, are panting away at what can be learned here), but just as importantly, will be the start of not only exploration, but also exploitation of the actual resources of the moon itself. This will then allow such a build up of the Earth/moon infrastruture as to inable us to go on to Mars in such a way as to make for a far more likely safe and successful journey to the red planet. If updated older technology is all that can now be afforded to do this at this time of possible budget constraints, then so be it. Arguing over the methodology isn't going to get us anywhere, just as arguing over whether science or exploration, or even exploitation is the most important isn't going to get us anywhere either. <br /><br />Sp let us shake, be friends and support whatever NASA is going to do, as that is what is going to happen anyway. What we can do is to support NASA at this time. <br /><br />And if we wish to see other things done such as the building of space planes for eventual cheaper CATS, then support the efforts of such as Burt Rutan, because I really think that the leaders of the pure private space tourism industry are headed in that direction anyway! So, hopefully we will indeed all eventually realize the mutually acceptable dream of moving humanity into space!!!!<br /><br />So do Have A Great Day!!!

 

[dobbins]

The thing is NASA isn't going to do anything if it's budget is gutted. There is a move to do that right now, and the purist science dweebs are feeding the people who want to gut NASA with their attacks on the maned program.<br /><br />If NASA doesn't have a broader base of support it's funds will be slashed, and it won't have that base without a maned program.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

I'm a firm believer in the old saying that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. If NASA's budget gets cut, I think the "VSE" should be pushed back, rather than crippling the existing shuttle and space station programs that have had so much invested in them in order to get to this point.

 

[dobbins]

I Favor making Congress Critters pay for the vote. If California senators vote for a cut, then cut programs centered in California.<br />

 

[flameira]

"The ISS should be finished by flying the remaining shuttles "as is". Precautions and maintenance in accordance with pre-Columbia/post-Challenger guidelines should be maintained. <br /><br />NASA needs to declare the STS as flawed, and the remaining missions as hazardous. Only volunteers will be allowed to fly the remaining missions, and those flights will be limited to only qualified and essential crew. NASA needs to make clear that in the present environment it is unable to make the shuttle safe and satisfy our international commitments at the same time. "<br /><br />Totally agree with anvel.<br /><br />

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How many useful projects are being canceled to plant a few flags? Without even researching it I can think of <br /><br />- JIMO <br />- Prometheus <br />- JWST (delayed, and delayed, and...) <br />- TPF <br />- X43 <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />JIMO was <b>way</b> too ambitious from the start. Choosing such a complex mission profile as the 'technology demonstrator' for Prometheus was an insane idea. Besides which, JIMO would have required a heavy-lift launcher - which wouldn't have existed if not for the VSE.<br /><br />Prometheus isn't a mission, it is a program which, TTBOMK, is still funded under the VSE. In fact, nuclear propulsion is almost a <i>requirement</i> for the "Mars and Beyond" part of the VSE.<br /><br />JWST has been delayed for technical as much as budgetary reasons.<br /><br />TPF has significant overlap with the ESA's Darwin mission. It makes sense for NASA and ESA to collaborate - Cassini-Huygens has shown how successful these trans-Atlantic collaborative missions can be.<br /><br />The X-43 program has met its original goals. They have successfully tested hypersonic scramjet technology. What more do you want the project to do? The -B and -C would have been nice to see, but now that NASA has proven the basic concept of Scramjet propulsion, the private sector can use the results - if they want to.

 

[flameira]

"Also, the Moon isn't just a rock:"<br /><br />I go with mattblack here.<br /><br />My 2 cents:<br /><br />I too am disappointed with "Apollo II" scenario. But, and I mean but, we have to think that's "going to the moon". It's not sailing to America!!!<br /><br />I mean, who has done it?? Nobody except USA. How many times (period)? Just once.<br /><br />But what are the perspectives now? Can we build a small base? Can we accomplish several flights to the same location? If yes to the above, that would be an improvement - a step forward! Not as big as most of us would want or desire in their lifetimes but, how many years did the Great Pyramids take? Why? Were they waiting for the stones to grow???<br /><br />The crucial thing is keeping the FLAME burning!! And, the Moon is an excellent fuel for inspiration for us all!<br /><br />I'm european and I regret not having my european gorvenments worried in participating in such inspiring endeavours because I think that is a mankind endeavour not just a US.<br /><br />Nowadays everybody can put a spaceplane, launch a rocket, missile, fly supersonic, hypersonic... damn, even the US can fly a ill-designed shuttle a 112 out of 114 times!! If this is superior to launching humans to the Moon, I prefer the "Middle Ages" of the Apollo program anytime soon! (better than later... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> )<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"I pray to God every night that the U.S. grows a brain and cancels the I.S.S. in favor of an actual space program."</i><br /><br />And I pray that people such as yourself don't destroy what has taken so long to build. But since I believe in free will and I don't really think that God intervenes directly in our affairs, I think it's up to people like me to speak up for programs like ISS and speak against the type of destructive policy you're calling for!

 

[vt_hokie]

If we can't even finish the ISS, I have no confidence that NASA will ever achieve anything of significance with the "VSE".

 

[dobbins]

The only reason I can think of for completing the International Space Blunder is to avoid undermining our credibility with the space fairing nations we foolishly signed a contract with to construct the thing. It's worthless as an operational base, isn't and won't be doing the research that needs to be done on gravity and closed loop habitats, and scientists who don't have a personal stake in it consider the work being done or planned to be garbage of little or no value.<br /><br />It started with Space Station Free-DUMB which was never anything other than attempting to find a justification for a Shuttle that never should have been built. Then when Free-DUMB ran into trouble along with the Russian Mir II the half baked plans were combined. Maybe it ought to be called Mirdom since it's a combination of two failed programs.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Well, I couldn't disagree more, and I hope that Dr. Griffin doesn't go back on his word, and sees the ISS through to completion.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I hope that Dr. Griffin doesn't go back on his word, and sees the ISS through to completion.</font>/i><br /><br />I am sure that a decision of that magnitude would need to be made by the White House. Griffin make be asked to provide multiple alternatives and provide his recommendation, but any such decision would need to be vetted through several levels. As a comparison, look how long it took to get the green light to unveil the results of the ESAS.</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

Well, then I hope that Bush doesn't go back on his word, and sees the ISS through to completion!

 

[dobbins]

I've stated elsewhere that we should live up to our commitments to build the ISS. Just because you made a stupid mistake signing a contract doesn't give you a right to back out of it.<br />