What IS happening to NASA?

[frodo1008]

As most people know I am generally supportive of NASA and the humam manned space program. But I am beginning to wonder what is happening here.<br /><br />There seems to be more and more delays to the next shuttle flight, more and more tests! There comes a time to bite the bullet and go forward. This IS not go fever, it is just common sense. I really hate to say it but if NASA cvan't even launch one shuttle this year, I think the negativists are correct and the program should be shut down. With all the resources going to the next project, which is the CEV.<br /><br />Then we read of possible continuing cut backs in the capabilities of the CEV itself! <br /><br />I have always had good feelings towards NASA, and I am indeed patient, but I am getting a litttle bit on the discouraged side here.<br /><br />Of course, I also blame a congress that wants a whole lot of things done without bothering to fund them properly. This is what gave us the kluged shuttle in the first place! That time it was Viet Nahm, is it going to be Iraq this time?<br /><br />Perhaps the only real hope are the private efforts of such as Burt Rutan after all! But we know that is going to take quite a bit of time and good fortune to even get up to where NASA is right now! <br /><br />Any actual information and thoughts on this by people such as shuttle_guy or propforce?<br /><br />Heck, right now I am even willing to accept the more negative opinions of some posters, provided they do it in a civilized manner. Please don't turn this forum into another free space!

 

[jschaef5]

There should be a point when safety is at an acceptable level and it seems people outside and inside NASA have set this a bit to high in light of the recent disaster. And now everything has gone mad. I am willing to bet that we could easliy find some daring astronauts the would be willing to fly no matter what the situation is. It would seem like a waste of a good system to just ditch it now. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[egom]

True point, I do think that the safety requirements for the astronauts are to high. I mean this IS pushing the technical capabilities of a nation and the human society to the edge not a walk in the park.<br /><br />I do not say to send the astronauts to a certain death, but a launch with a defect ratio of 5-10% is acceptable from my point of view (not beign in that ship). However we do not have all the data and maybe now if they launch that will be a certain failure.<br /><br />What I do not understand is why NASA instead of making 5 ships of the same model did not improve it and make the ships one by one slightly improved...<br /><br />EgoM

 

[qso1]

EgoM:<br />What I do not understand is why NASA instead of making 5 ships of the same model did not improve it and make the ships one by one slightly improved...<br /><br />Me:<br />They did improve each successive model, an example being the tiles on Columbia. When Challenger went into service, it featured the first of the quilted patched TPS.<br /><br />Each time there has been a delay or disaster in shuttle flights. A certain pattern emerges as to reflight. NASA annonces a launch date a year in advance. When they get within six months, it slips a few months. As the new data approaches, the date slips are measured in weeks, then days...and finally launch so the best thing to do is have patience. The shuttle will never be the machine everyone would like it to be. Fly the remaining missions and then retire it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I was looking at the movie "Apollo 13" the other day when it occured to me, what has happened here? These men not only put men on the moon, but they even rescued the three astroanuts of Apollo 13 from almost certain death! They didn't have desktop computers, they had slide rules for crying out loud!<br /><br />What has happened to the spirit of these kind of people? Was it just a generational thing? They weren't anymore super men than people are today, at least I don't THINK they were!<br /><br />Considering the problems that NASA has had, I don't blame them for taking reasonable precautions for safeties sake. However I would also like to see the fhuttle fly by the end of July, and absolutely by the end of this year. They are going to have a second shuttle on the pad ready for a rescue operation if necessary, and they are going to the relative safe haven of the ISS anyway! So what is the problem here?<br /><br />Maybe I am just perverse, but I would rather see the shuttle go out with some dignity and style than just sort of fade away!<br /><br />Another thing that I keep looking at over and over is John Young's retirement speach (I have DVD read write, so I DVD'd it, as it was that good!). I keep thinking if this man was in charge of NASA and congrress gave him anywhere near the kind of support that Von Braun got, we would be back on the moon in less than ten years! And on to Mars in less than twenty! <br /><br />But as he is fairly new I am still willing to give Mike Griffin the benefit of a doubt. There are only five months between July and the end of the year. If the shuttle does not fly in July there really isn't much time left. I can almost guarantee that if the shuttle doesn't fly this year that congress is going to pull the plug! And for once I can't say as I blame them! We along with our partners in the ISS will then have to find some other way to complete the station (I think that congress would still fund that kind of effort). <br /><br />Perhaps usi

 

[qso1]

I wouldn't be surprised if NASA announces the abrupt termination of the shuttle program in a few months but I don't really think that will happen. I see it as the normal time buildup to a return to flight only there is probably some apprehension.<br /><br />Another accident will close down the shuttle program pretty much for sure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I can't help but wonder if things might have been different for Apollo given the level of coverage of the technical issues and problems that is prevalent today.<br /><br />The unmanned test flights for the Saturn 5 had very significant issues with them, would Apollo 8 have been allowed to launch today?<br /><br />Would Apollo 13 have been allowed to launch when it did, knowing that a fix for the pogo issue was not applied it because they did not want to unstack the vehicle. Who knew a pallet containing an oxygen tank had been dropped at one point, and had an in correct voltage applied to it at another?<br /><br />The thing is, back then, who in the public knew such things? Back then, Walter Kronkite was cast as an expert on the space program. It was not a metric for the press to be the first to publicize some low level technical problem.<br /><br />Tighter coverage can be a good thing, but like everything in life, there is a balance involved.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I was looking at the movie "Apollo 13" the other day when it occured to me, what has happened here? These men not only put men on the moon, but they even rescued the three astroanuts of Apollo 13 from almost certain death! They didn't have desktop computers, they had slide rules for crying out loud! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It has nothing to do with technological capabilities. Slide rules or computers, engineering is engineering.<br /><br />What's different between the current Space Shuttle situation and Apollo 13?<br /><br />Well, probably the biggest is that no matter how willing the crews are, a fair number of people don't think it's fair to kill them just so we can go "whee, we put people on the Moon, aren't we cool?" And that's a reasonable reservation. I mean, people question whether to send *soldiers* into *combat* because they don't want to risk their lives without a good reason. And they're much more likely to die at their jobs than astronauts are.<br /><br />If Apollo 13 had missed the Earth, or they hadn't been able to jerry-rig the LiOH canisters to fit in the LEM, or the CM hadn't powered back up, do you think Apollo 14 would've flown on schedule? Is NASA really all that different today than they were then?<br /><br />The difference isn't that they're risk averse or less able to get the job done now. The difference is that the Apollo 13 crew lived. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[BReif]

Very valid observations about the continuing delays, and the congress continuing to expect perfection from underfunded programs. Congress, and the media are always very quick to place blame on NASA, the management, the engineers, or the design, when I beleive the actual blame lies with the congress itself, continuously underfunding the program, forcing cost cuts and corner cutting, but expecting perfection all the time, every time from the program. <br /><br />My outlook is this: If its worth doing, then its worth doing well, and investing adequate resources to do it well. <br /><br />Congress obviously has demonstated by their fickleness toward NASA and its programs that they do not beleive that it is worth doing. So, why do it at all. Its time to put up, or shut up with manned spaceflight.<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

NASA had almost a decade of no manned space flight during the switch from Apollo to the Shuttle. It will need anotherd ecade of no manned space missions to switch back to Apollo from the Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[egom]

Well, this not a political forum, but it seems to me that this is a matter of being overcautios. It may be because the whole society changed, who knows? I am not an expert in US politics and social matters to say this.<br /><br />However one other problem is that the people that did Apollo are still there at NASA. They do deserve the creidt for what they have done, but maybe it is time to take a fresh approach, or to take some real risks.<br /><br />EgoM<br />

 

[vulture2]

Because of the limited crew (just enough to maintain the ISS) the actual science performed on ISS in five years has only been comparable to a Spacelab mission. ISS will not cure cancer. But there are hundreds of well-designed experiments which could fly if the crew is increased to six, as can easily be done, and if there is still a way to launch and return experiments. Most of us will never go to the ISS, but it has been the destination for the first space tourists, paying their own way. The studies performed on Columbia were not "make work", and several papers have actually been published based on the experiments that were recovered intact or downloaded prior to the mishap. <br /><br />There is nothing material on the moon or anywhere else in space that is intrinsically worth bringing back to earth. There is only the value that our ingenuity can create. I hope we can develop sustainable and permanent habitation in space. But unless we can preserve our foothold at LEO and make it sustainable, not just technologically but also politically, scientifically, and economically, it is unrealistic to suggest that a little water ice will make a manned lunar base sustainable, let alone human flight to Mars.

 

[jschaef5]

"I was looking at the movie "Apollo 13" the other day when it occured to me, what has happened here? These men not only put men on the moon, but they even rescued the three astroanuts of Apollo 13 from almost certain death!"<br /><br />Wow i just got done watching that movie. We watched it on the bus on the way back from a field trip (and yes we do take field trips in college, its so cool!) I am not sure on the accuracies of the movie but what i found interesting was that the launch of Apollo 13 was hardly covered by the media and the people didn't care. And then when trouble arises everyone in the world began watching. It's almost like no one cares. Once we do something once, everyone thinks we got it down and that it becomes routine but for space flight this isn't the case as has been proven many times... I think the media is giving a wrong impression of manned space flight and NASA needs to fix it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

One can't argue that the ISS didn't live up to one of it's goals though: keeping russian rocket scientists from straying until Russia got back onto it's feet. With growing mineral/oil wealth russia is again able to keep them working on their own buck, and are even smelling profits in the form of tourism. <br /><br />With all the billions we're spending on anti-terrorism, what's 100bln more for anti-proliferation? Anything useful to come of the ISS is just a bonus, and now that it's there we might as well use it. <br /><br />

 

[BReif]

<font color="yellow">"I think the media is giving a wrong impression of manned space flight and NASA needs to fix it"</font><br /><br /><br />How does NASA fix the problem of media bias, or lack of media coverage. I don't think that they can do that. The American people need to do that by writing letters to the board of directors of ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, etc., telling them that you want to see more coverage of manned spaceflight. The media is in business to make money, and to score ratings. If they think people don't care about space, they won't cover it until it become sensational (ie. Apollo 13). If they know people want to get that kind of news, they may do more stories about space. Its all about meeting market demand.<br /><br />

 

[askold]

I think the underlying problem is that, today, NASA has the cart before the horse.<br /><br />During the time of Apollo, there was a good reason for a manned space program - the Russians put up the first satellite and the first man in orbit and scared the living daylights out of the US public. There was something very alarming about having Russians orbiting over our heads so we had to figure out all this space stuff before they did. We had a reason to go to space, so we did.<br /><br />Today, there's no pressing reason so there's no enthusiasm. So, we're venturing out to LOE, the moon and beyond before anybody has established a reason to do so.<br /><br />Here's the thing - finishing the ISS is not worth getting killed over. It was worth losing lives over Apollo but not over the ISS. When we build the CEV, NASA will be reluctant to fly it because going back to the moon is not worth getting killed over. Until we come up with a mission that's important enough, we're just wasting time and money.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I know I'll get flamed for this comment, but one of the things that made the Columbia tradgedy even worse than it was was that the mission goals that the astronauts spent their last days trying to accomplish had the distinct reek of "make work".<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I hope you won't get flamed. I hope we're all more mature than that.<br /><br />However, the STS-107 experiments only reek of make work if you either don't actually look at the manifest or have a personal dislike of these kinds of experiments. To others, it's very important work -- for instance, I don't think the scientists who designed many of the experiments would regard them as make-work. But a lot of people don't see the use in experiments without an immediate return. This is why people scoff at particle accelerators; what good are they, in the grand scheme of life? What value does the MINOS project (a neutrino detector) have for the average person? Does anybody live or die based on the population of tube worms around black smokers? Is it important that the coelocanth is not actually extinct? To a lot of people, probably not; these things are of academic interest at present. The experiments performed above Columbia were similar. MIDEX was very important to the Israelis, but is it important to Joe Schmoe, American taxpayer? Probably not.<br /><br />So was the work important? Depends on who you ask. Was it worth risking lives for? That is the question that leads to the current situation with STS. Make no mistake: it's a good question. But it can be paralyzing.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There apparently is no "Holy Grail" in LEO, nor are their any resources.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, there are a couple of popular dreams for LEO. One is the construction of waystations, which is something that feeds directly into the whole Space Shuttle concept. For decades, the dream has b <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

askold, I am trying to figure out why you are on a space forum if you think there is no need for space travel. You could say we don't need anything science related. We don't need technology. Why did we explore the seas? Why don't we just sit where we are technologically forever and not advance. This is what it sounds like you are saying. <br /><br />I think its human nature to expand and explore and develope... and I hope we have a great space program when that asteroid comes our way... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"However one other problem is that the people that did Apollo are still there at NASA. "<br /><br />Very few!

 

[erioladastra]

"Because of the limited crew (just enough to maintain the ISS) the actual science performed on ISS in five years has only been comparable to a Spacelab mission. "<br /><br />While one can debate the quality of ISS science (as some critics have of spacelab missions as well), this is a very inaccurate statement. Even in the last couple of years a far bit of science has been done (still well below the potential). Unfortuantely, since you don't hear much about it (e.g., unlike a shuttle mission, no one does a summary of the experiements every few weeks) it seems like little is done.

 

[vt_hokie]

Dr. Griffin recently made the comment that NASA is no longer a "technology agency". So, my question is, what exactly is it? Are we forever giving up on new technology? Is re-creating Apollo using old designs and antiquated hardware the ultimate goal of our space agency now?

 

[jschaef5]

"Dr. Griffin recently made the comment that NASA is no longer a "technology agency""<br /><br />When was this and source please? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

Frodo I agree that there is a problem with Houston!!!<br /><br /><br />There is alot of smoke now and again but I dont see too much fire...<br /><br /><br />I honeslty dont believe the Shuttle will launch in July... I may be proved wrong but this has been quite a long time to fix a foam issue... not the time to go and fix things that do not harm the astroanauts nor harm the mission.<br /><br /><br />I see the Shuttle funds slowly evaporate into the setting sun and CEV? Well who knows they want to keep it hush hush....<br /><br /><br />Ummmmm Perhaps the Old Shell Game from one shell to another to another and woola no peanut under the shell<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[askold]

"askold, I am trying to figure out why you are on a space forum if you think there is no need for space travel."<br /><br />How many times do I have to explain this? Let me summarize - the US space program is doing great science, but it's stuck in the mud with the manned program.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>When was this and source please? </i><br /><br />http://www.nasawatch.com/<br /><br /><i>An e-mail written by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin and obtained recently by The Plain Dealer comes right out and says that research centers, like Glenn, just don't fit the overall mission anymore: "We are not, any longer, a technology agency to any significant extent. Wishing otherwise is nice, but irrelevant."</i><br />