Scathing report on NBC news today about NASA

[adzel_3000]

It is unfortuneate that CEV development is shouldering other worthy projects out of the way, in particular HST and JIMO. For most of its history it sometimes appears that NASA is in reality 2 competing agencies: Real Science and Buck Rogers. <br /><br />The Buck Rogers part is exciting and I am in favor of expanding outward. However, I do not see a true dedication to a Mars mission. Indeed, at several NASA sites I have found the following Great Disclaimer posted...."Note: NASA currently has no formal plans for a human expedition to Mars or the Moon." <br /><br />as seen athttp://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/explorationvehicles/html/s76_28046.html)<br /><br />Given the teams currently working on it the CEV will be a great vehicle that will get us into orbit and may serve as a building block for other missions or spaceflight hardware architecture. When it is suggested that the "balance sheet" must weigh in favor of a CEV versus HST (as is frequently suggested) I wonder whether CEV is therefore an end unto itself. Budgeting structures wherein NASA must pursue a win-lose philosophy under its own roof do not seem indicative of succesful long range planning. <br /><br />The concern I have with NASA is that it is an agency that has discarded a complete manned spaceflight hardware architecture and infrastructure (Apollo) in favor of what was, at best, a building block (STS). CEV is beginning to sound as though it is being developed along a similar avenue.<br /><br />In the broader sense the Russian Soyuz could be (and is) used as a ferry vehicle for personnel. A future Mars or Moon C-cubed vehicle could be built with a core vehicle similar to the modules currently used on ISS. This might allow a time savings of up to a decade in CEV development and deployment costs and allow us to get back to the Moon sooner.<br /><br />IMO (only)....A3K

 

[najab]

><i>It is unfortuneate that CEV development is shouldering other worthy projects out of the way, in particular HST and JIMO...</i><p>I'm not sorry to see JIMO go. It was too big and grand for a first mission for Prometheus. They should do something smaller and less expensive - JIMO had all the hallmarks of a mission that would end up costing three or four times the original estimate.</p>

 

[askold]

Realistically, I just can't see how this NASA, with this mindset is ever going to send a manned mission to Mars.<br /><br />Not unless the spacecraft trails a complete repair facility capable of doing an overhaul of the craft enroute ....

 

[wvbraun]

"Indeed, at several NASA sites I have found the following Great Disclaimer posted...."Note: NASA currently has no formal plans for a human expedition to Mars or the Moon.""<br /><br />These sites are outdated. Try this one:<br /><br />http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/<br /><br />and:<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/explore_main.html<br /><br /><br />"Given the teams currently working on it the CEV will be a great vehicle that will get us into orbit and may serve as a building block for other missions or spaceflight hardware architecture. When it is suggested that the "balance sheet" must weigh in favor of a CEV versus HST (as is frequently suggested) I wonder whether CEV is therefore an end unto itself. Budgeting structures wherein NASA must pursue a win-lose philosophy under its own roof do not seem indicative of succesful long range planning."<br /><br />The CEV is not an end in itself. It is primarily being developed for manned missions to the Moon, not for access to LEO.<br />Where did you get the idea that NASA should be exempt from setting priorities? Some areas of reserach will have to be cut in order to pay for the vision for space exploration, there is no other way.<br /><br /><br />"The concern I have with NASA is that it is an agency that has discarded a complete manned spaceflight hardware architecture and infrastructure (Apollo) in favor of what was, at best, a building block (STS). CEV is beginning to sound as though it is being developed along a similar avenue."<br /><br />So what are you suggesting here? That NASA should keep the Shuttle? Good luck with that... <br /><br /><br />"A future Mars or Moon C-cubed vehicle could be built with a core vehicle similar to the modules currently used on ISS. This might allow a time savings of up to a decade in CEV development and deployment costs and allow us to get bac

 

[adzel_3000]

"Some areas of reserach will have to be cut in order to pay for the vision for space exploration..." <br /><br />But I view HST, JWST, Spitzer, Cassini, MERs, MESSENGER, and JIMO as space exploration, not just research.<br /><br />"...there is no other way. "<br /><br />A better way might be to move NASA into a manned-only agency and allow them to re-focus their efforts on whatever hardware configuration or mission scenarios they feel can get the job of manned exploration done. Allow JPL, NSF, or some other body to conduct planetary science, earth science, astronomy, and astrophysics.<br /><br />--A3K

 

[wvbraun]

"But I view HST, JWST, Spitzer, Cassini, MERs, MESSENGER, and JIMO as space exploration, not just research."<br /><br />None of these missions is being negatively affected by the vision for space exploration (except Hubble). In fact, in the long run the vision will revitalize the unmanned Moon and Mars programs.<br /><br /><br />"A better way might be to move NASA into a manned-only agency and allow them to re-focus their efforts on whatever hardware configuration or mission scenarios they feel can get the job of manned exploration done. Allow JPL, NSF, or some other body to conduct planetary science, earth science, astronomy, and astrophysics."<br /><br />Manned and unmanned missions have to be coordinated to get the best results. You don't do that by breaking up NASA.<br />I think unmanned missions are worthwile but manned exploration should take precedence.

 

[adzel_3000]

Well, another chapter in an almost 50+ year debate!<br /><br />We'll have to agree to disagree!!<br /><br />--A3K

 

[lunatic133]

In a way deleting the hubble mission was detremental to VSE not the other way around. Saying that you're too risk averse to go to the Hubble isn't exactly going to prove to congress that NASA has what it takes to go to the moon and mars.

 

[crix]

Isn't that the best reason not to service it though?<br />

 

[crix]

WOW. Seriously, if we have that little faith in our hardware... man, that's depressing.

 

[adzel_3000]

<br />I am sorry I do not understand your response. <br /><br />I understand that NASA has various centers that focus on certain enterprises. I also understand that NSF is a separate organ. <br /><br />Yet are all the NASA centers under different budgetary umbrellas? It would seem that the budget conundrum for NASA is a choice (and this is merely a high level taxpayers understanding, only) between manned and un-manned activities.<br /><br />What I am suggesting is a split. Allow NASA to focus on manned spaceflight and aeronautics and some other agency (consisting of JPL, some portion of NSF, NOAO, etc) to focus on un-manned activity. The split would also be budgetary. The current dilemma between Buck Rogers and Real Science would then be eliminated.<br /><br />--A3K

 

[liquidspace2k]

For all those people not supporting what NASA is planning on doing. Then go support one of the starting up space companies. <br /><br />Government does things very inefficient. Private sector can always do things cheaper than the government, doesn't matter how efficient the government tries to be. Even tho the government programs don't have to pay taxes, they are still less efficient then the private sector

 

[starfhury]

My opinion is that NASA is was and should always be a manned operations first agency. NASA's ultimate goal is to get people into space or atleast craft, test and prepare the way for those who will follow. That being said, NASA will also always be in the unmanned probe business. NASA must build and launch these probes before dropping people into untested potentially dangerous situations. The two programs would create a self-sustaining feedback loop to some degree. Quick frankly, the space program is stalled and circling the drain because we don't have any serious plans of sending more people to space. The big red flag as always being the expense associated with it and the risk of loss associated with lives and material. If we want to have more and better science done, we need people. If we want more probes, we need more people. All of this work is being done so that people can gain more knowledge and better access to resources. Possible this is a simplistic view, but I think of it in terms of a gravitional problem. The current space program is a low density, low gravity situation with commesurate low attraction. Once we start to substantially increase the number of people going to space, we increase the density, increase the gravity and thus increase its attractiveness. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Yet are all the NASA centers under different budgetary umbrellas?</i><p>Yes. NASA's budget, as delivered by Congress, clearly spells out what is to be spent on Human Space Flight, Aeronautics Research and Earth/Space Science. There is very little room for NASA to then shift money from one budget to another.</p>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Instead, NASA’s saving the shuttle to service the space station – which has no serious mission and is only doing long-duration space flight studies: the ISS crew members are taking each other’s blood samples. <br /><br />That’s what NBC said.</font>/i><br /><br />From NASA's incoming administrator:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"we will spend the next several years—probably a decade—working our way out of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station dilemmas, even proceeding as expeditiously as possible." While he stated that NASA should complete the station to some degree to meet agreements with international partners, he warned that the scientific value of the station, particularly for exploration programs, "is inevitably limited." For the shuttle his assessment was blunt: "we should move to replace this system with all deliberate speed."<br /><br /> Getting to know Michael Griffin<br /> www.thespacereview.com/article/339/1<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote></i>

 

[spacester]

Thanks muchly for the link! OMG Mike Griffin is way too good to be true. There are a lot of potential policy decisions indicated by the quotes in that article. If he can walk the talk, we're in business.<br /><br />I've shifted to a parallel universe - heck not parallel, it's bizarre-o land. I'm agreeing with everything the NASA administrator says, I used to disagree with most everything (Psycho Dan). OK, he's not in charge yet, but if he can walk the talk, the space age begins today.<br /><br />On the subject of NASA's budget, how much of an impact will O'Keefe's reorganization end up having? It sounded like a step in the right direction, IIRC, organizing by missions and by capabilities, something like that.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"If he can walk the talk, we're in business. "</font><br /><br />Always keeping in mind that he doesn't operate in a vacuum...<br /><br />I really hope that he can shape NASA in the fashion that he speaks of, but he'll have a lot to work against, including institutional inertia and pork-barrel politics. At least it seems that he'll be pushing in the right direction.

 

[adzel_3000]

<br /><br />Here’s a link to the article right here at space.com….<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/ap_nasa_budget_050316.html<br /><br />The thrust of the cuts seems to be toward getting better earned value out of the programmatic approach at these facilities…which I am all for.<br /><br />I find it troubling that although these managerial changes are most likely overdue part of the rationale is as follows: “The president's focus on space exploration and a trip to Mars means the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland could lose 700 jobs by the end of 2006. Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., could lose 1,000 jobs, under Bush's proposed budget.”<br /><br />That’s a lot of jobs, particularly in Cleveland.<br /><br />The other concern is that the projects being targeted have to do with emissions and environmental concerns…<br />“Under Bush's plan, NASA Glenn's budget would be cut from $640 million currently to $520 million next year, eliminating two research programs that seek to reduce turbine engine emissions. “<br /><br />I’m all for going to Mars, but it should be budgeted as a stand-alone program. <br />---A3K<br /><br /><br />