NASA still has Go Fever. Here is how to cure it for good.

[willpittenger]

Apollo 1 was not enough to cure NASA of its Go Fever. Even after Challenger and Columbia were lost, they still have it.<br /><br />I think the best way to fix it would be to move the "routine" parts of NASA to private for-profit companies. Instead of simply building and servicing NASA's spacecraft, they would own those spacecraft. I figure three companies would suffice.<br /><br />One company would buy the interplanetary probes from JPL and pay JPL to run them. It would not charge NASA anything. Rather, it would get its money from private consumers. Think of Mars Express with its 3D images of Mars. Many would pay good money to have those turned into holograms for their desk. Others would like something similar of the Apollo 11 landing site or Tycho. (That would pay for a lunar orbiter.)<br /><br />Another would run the next-gen space telescope with similar offers to the public. This telescope would have a special full color sensor (rather than filter wheels) that would be used for all images intended for public sale. Filter wheels would be used for science imagery. This helps keep scientists from complaining that the public imagery would prevent their research from being exclusive. The public images would be of a lower quality but would still look good on your desk. (The scientists in charge of Hubble's instruments always complain when ever the organization that runs it attempts to release images that show the telescope's ability. They currently have veto power over images.) If a scientist still does not like it, tell them to "Go use someone else's telescope!" NASA would be left out entirely here.<br /><br />The final company would get all of NASA's manned spacecraft responsibilities. NASA would provide all research astronauts. The company would provide pilots and astronauts to run the shuttle arms or whatever would be equivalent. Space walks could be done by either and would depend on what is being done. If NASA wants to perform experiments on crew, the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

* They are still ignoring safety issues.<br /><br />* The problems with Galileo were all traceable to the "launch it with the shuttle" requirement.<br /><br />* NASA still doesn't have a real use for the station that can't be performed by other systems.<br /><br />* ISS will not get a habitation module. Private funding would mean a "hotel" could be docked to the side. (Tours of the research side would be extra.) Different hotel operators would equip their modules differently. Traffic to and from the station would be provided by the third company. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Safety Issues: I think the loss of Challenger and Columbia proves my point. With Challenger, they were in a rush to complete the mission. From what I heard, they push the contractor AND Marshall into accepting risks they did not want. Supposedly, NASA was going to go with the Thiokol's approval, but then pretty much demanded said approval. In Columbia's case, they were told the foam could be a problem. NASA officials were discounting that theory for some time after the accident.<br /><br />Galileo: This probe was specifically designed with a shuttle launch in mind. Maybe the tape would still have been a problem had the probe been designed for a ELV launch, but the antenna problems would be gone. The shuttle was the reason why the antenna was designed to fold up. Cassini and Voyager both used fixed antennas. Both were ELV-launched. Don't we have a rule about keeping things simple?<br /><br />Station: The station was the reason why NASA developed a reusable system. Not having the hotel part even as an option limits ISS's funding. Not having the habitation module was a direct result of that and prevents more than three crew members from staying aboard for any serious length of time. The crew size limits what you can do to not much more than construction and maintenance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Nothing you just stated supports the logical contention that NASA has "Go Fever" currently.<br /><br />You talk about events that are in the past, or events that, even if accepted at face value, have nothing whatsoever to do with "Go Fever". <br /><br />Galielo being packaged for the shuttle has nothing to do with "Go Fever". Manning and use of the station has nothing to do with supporting your contention about "Go fever"<br /><br />You basically just repeated the statements you had used previously, none of which address how safety issues are being ignored at this time which would be the logical basis for asserting "Go fever" was present.<br /><br />"Go fever" may in fact be present now. But to show that it is, you need to talk about things that are happening *now*, and pertain to overlooking flight issues for schedule now, not years ago.<br /><br />And if you find yourself replying "But I have no insights into what is happening inside NASA now", perhaps you should ponder whether you have sufficient data to support your contention stated so boldly in your thread title.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA still has Go Fever<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IMHO (and that really doesn't mean much at all) I believe the total opposite is true. Nasa (and probably rightly so) has become "risk shy" since the Columbia lost. If Nasa didn't do risk assessment and Go while there was still great risk, then Apollo (to name one) would've never flown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

If they truly had Go-Fever they would have said -- "Aw, screw the falling foam, it didn't hit Discovery and probably wont in another 100 missions. Let's get straight back to launch in November". <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>

 

[frodo1008]

I looked at what you are saying here, and I started to laugh. Thanks for the entertainment. I almost literally had to catch myself before I fell out of my computer chair!<br /><br />Why, you might ask? Simply because of the irony that almost ALL of the other NASA bashers (and they are seemingly becoming legion) on these boards are busily chopping at NASA for having the exactly OPPOSITE attitude! <br /><br />Even some of us that support NASA and its manned space program have been made in recent times to have some doubts whether the shuttle isn't being held hostage to the media hype that surrounds every accident there has ever been in the manned space program! <br /><br />For instance, my own personal (and anyone that has followed my posts on this forum knows how very adamant I am about safety and reliability, and rightfully so) feelings in the current shuttle situation is that as the shuttle is going to launch only to the ISS, which in turn can be used as a "safe haven" and even possible repair area, then the shuttle should be flown as soon as practical. And then flown as many times as it takes to complete the station to what we told our partners that we would do. The only time the shuttle should even be considered for going to any other destination other than the ISS is a possible Hubble repair mission. Then by 2010 the shuttle should be honorably retired, and we move on to other things!<br /><br />To me at least (being a relatively simple and direct person) the answer to these terrible accidents is quite simple. Find the problem(s), fix the problem(s), and move on. The dangers and resulting complexities of human space flight will ALWAYS be so great that any other attitude will guarantee that humanity will NEVER leave the Earth in any meaningful manner EVER again!<br /><br />I would very much like to believe that the good people of NASA are as fully aware of this as I am!<br /><br />So, Good Luck, and God's Speed to Them!<br />

 

[drwayne]

I see we thought somewhat alike SG.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I figure the next response will be something along the lines of "The examples I have given show a pattern of behavior that has not gone away" - with the "not gone away" part hanging out there unsupported.<br /><br />Wayne<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I did work on a program some years ago that definitely had a case of "Go Fever" - except the name given to it was that the program was "Success Oriented". Maybe that explains why we had to go 10 flights and 6 plus years to get a success.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I am still convinced it is a problem. However, I gave up attempting to convince anyone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[drwayne]

You are going to have a tough time convincing someone of something when you show NO *direct* evidence relating to your claim.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[danwoodard]

>>>The shuttle was the reason why the antenna was designed to fold up. <<<br /><br />The antenna was derived from the TDRSS design, and has deployed reliably with both Shuttle and ELV launches. It's large size would not have fit in an ELV or the Shuttle, and, had it worked, would have allowed a much higher data rate than a smaller antenna.

 

[willpittenger]

So what does Cassini use? As for the ELV, they would have just used a larger shroud. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[fingle]

Re: Not having the hotel part even as an option limits ISS's funding.<br /><br /> I think a hotel would be a bad thing to have attached to a research facility. Anyway the tours would be a lot more exciting if they started and ended with a 20 minute hop in some kind of fancy little runabout, flying saucer design for kicks, scooter for max kicks.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[fingle]

no thats a bad idea too. all those pesky tourists are bound to bump into something important. they will just have to admire iss from afar, through telescopes.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>