What now for NASA??

[frodo1008]

I have put a great deal of thought into this. I have, as most of you know generally supported NASA, the STS system, and the ISS. But now it is becoming more and more apparent that NASA itself possibly has become too antsy to even fly the shuttle, even to the relative safe haven of the ISS. Of course, as congress seems just as bent on having NASA fly the shuttle (and it IS congress that REALLY makes the decisions, as the hold the budget strings in their hands) there is indeed a possible upcoming battle that would make this particular thread moot at best. In other words the shuttle will fly to the ISS to complete it through core complete over the next five years, and hopefully. Congress will at the very least realize that in order to come up with the next system for taking astronauts to LEO while still flying the shuttle, NASA is going to need some genuine funding increases. I would say this could be done for at least an increase of some 5% over the inflation rate. Now this IS just a guess, and you people are all perfectly welcome to come up with your own numbers here. Now, unfortunately to some, and fortunately to others this IS the most likely scenario for the immediate future of NASA. You can argue with it if you wish, but please don’t go after me over it, please don’t go giving me this “I am a taxpayer and I object to this!” kind of thing with me, I am (probably for the best) NOT in charge here, contact your congress person!<br /><br />Most of what I am going to say next is speculative, so this is a disclaimer, please do not tear it apart. Comment, even debate, just don’t go starting a large and useless flame war with me over every sentence in it. You know who I am talking about. <br /><br />Now, IF NASA does get away with shutting down the shuttle program, which seems to me to be as least the goal of some within NASA itself, what do we do next? The theme of this thread is based on this presumption. The first thing that happens is something that I at leas

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>What now for NASA??<<br /><br />This is the problem with columnists - and their eqivilant on message boards. "What NOW for NASA" just makes it sound like something has happened, now what? It's not the case. People have been force fed that STS-114 was not a success - which is a lie - and now we're seeing all sorts of people feeding off it (not aimed at you personally Frodo).<br /><br />Nothing has happened, the plan isn't going to change, the way I see it.<br /><br />Facts (not opinion): Shuttle till 2010. SDLV/CEV asap afterwards.

 

[dragon04]

Firstly, Frodo, you can't arbitrarily exclude taxpayer concerns from this thread. Unless you are willing to assume that the Federal Government feels no obligation to account to the taxpayer as to where and how his/her money is being spent.<br /><br />Having said that, Captain Obvious alights on my keyboard and types : "In order to continue flying the shuttle (if indeed NASA can fix the orbiter system to their satisfaction) AND go full bore on the CEV simultaneously, indeed NASA will need an increase in its budget".<br /><br />The question is not IF NASA's budget could or should be increased, but HOW it will be increased. On the surface, a very simple question. With a subtly complex answer.<br /><br />So, what are our options, Director Frodo? Let's look at your possible options to sell to Congress.<br /><br />1. Increase taxes.<br /><br />Upside - More money for NASA<br />Downside - Those pesky taxpayers.<br /><br />2. Cut or eliminate other currently funded Federal Programs. Explain to the taxpayer that while you really want to have more cops on the street, continue the war on drugs, sustain the Head Start and WIC programs and dozens of others, flying that amazing shuttle and funding the CEV program is just too important to ignore.<br /><br />3. (My personal favorite) Cut out the billions of pork barrel projects that have people studying the mating habits of the Indonesian Bucket Beetle and other such programs.<br /><br />4. Just print more money. The value of the dollar will go down, our trade deficit will decrease and NASA has loot.<br /><br />5. Have a National Lottery. If the average American has a choice between a loaf of bread or a Lotto ticket, there won't be toast with tomorrow morning's breakfast.<br /><br />6. A national Bond Issue. Right on the 2008 Federal Election ballot.<br /><br />7. Dollar for dollar tax credit for contributions to NASA.<br /><br />I'm sure you all get the point, so I won't belabor it any longer than I already have.<br /><br />Now, onto the bottom of your post <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Most of what I am going to say next is speculative</font>/i><br /><br />Same for me... Think of this as a fictional scenario:<br /><br />Hurricane Katrina floods New Orleans including the Michoud plant where the space shuttle external tanks are processed. The damage sets return to flight back an additional 6 months, so the earliest next shuttle launch is Fall 2006.<br /><br />NASA, the White House, and Congress decide enough is enough, and shuts down the shuttle program immediately. Most of the shuttle operations money is directed to an accelertated SDHLV program, with a goal of operational flights by 2011. That is, the focus is SDHLV first, not CEV first.<br /><br />Because of the increased capacity of the SDHLV over the current shuttle, most of the remaining elements of ISS are delivered to orbit in just three flights in 2011. Thus, ISS is largely completed just one year behind schedule.<br /><br />Meanwhile, by 2011 there are five means to take humans into space: Russian Soyuz, Russian/ESA Kliper, Chinese Shenzhou, t/Space's CXV, and SpaceX's Gemini-II on the Falcon V. If the US market fails to deliver by 2011, NASA has plenty of dollars (no shuttle operations to support) and probably back-up plans ready to go to rapidly develop a Gemini or Apollo class capsule within 3 years. Thus, in the worst case scenario (the private sector fails to deliver), the US has manned access to LEO and ISS by 2014 -- when the CEV was originally scheduled to fly.<br /><br />Thus, if all goes well (private sector succeeds), by 2011 we have most ISS components on orbit (some assembly required), a SDHLV, manned access to ISS and LEO, an active private space industry, and free dollars to pursue the next stage of VSE (going to the Moon, Mars, NEOs, or whatever is decided at that point).<br /><br />If the private sector fails to deliver, by 2011 we have most of the ISS on orbit and a SDHLV. Another 3 years of development for a manned capsule puts the US ma</i>

 

[frodo1008]

Fantastic! First try and I get the full spectrum of response here! <br /><br />First I get Shuttle_RTF whose response is that NASA is going to continue down the present path! I especially like his defense of the most current shuttle flight. This just also happens to still be my own personal opinion also. Sorry Shuttle_RTF if I gave any other impression, but what I am shooting for here is alternative approaches. I mean from what we have recently seen NASA does seem to be losing some of its edge in general. Heck, even such a positive stalwart as shuttle-guy is becoming disgusted! However, politically I still think that your scenario (as I said), IS the most likely to continue at this time. And fine with me!<br /><br />Then there is the furthest from this response in RadarRedux. I like the way he sets up his position (like I did my alternate positions) as a hypothetical case. If NASA does lose its nerve (or more legitimately, NASA really DOES feel that the shuttle is so difficult that it really IS too much of a risk to fly) then his scenario is just as legitimate as anybody else’s. <br /><br />The only problem with this scenario is that while we would finish the ISS at the same time (or taking only slightly longer) as we would have with the shuttle flying, there would be NO progress on the ISS at all in the meantime. With using the shuttle, there would be a steadily increasing level of capability for the ISS (and at the same time something for the public to actually SEE as progress). Actually this applies to ANY scenario that excludes shuttle flights. Can we even allow for the lack of interest that might result for the public in general in the meantime, as there would be NO shuttle or other US human space flights for some 5 years? The only thing that I can see saving this scenario is the activity of either or both the Russians and the especially the Chinese. I mean from a nationalistic and therefore political viewpoint. <br /><br />Then there is the middle w

 

[grooble]

*points at Mr Morris standing by the table with a cup of rum*

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Can we even allow for the lack of interest that might result for the public in general in the meantime, as there would be NO shuttle or other US human space flights for some 5 years?</font>/i><br /><br />I agree this is a risk (I hated the second half of the 1970s for this reason), but I think the risk is not huge and can be ameliorated.<br /><br />First, the general population is barely aware of ISS and the shuttle program (outside disasters and the first return flights). The space program wasn't even a topic in the last election, and the President has hardly mentioned the new VSE since his initial speech. So I think a hiatus in ISS construction will hardly be noticed.<br /><br />Second, NASA can ameliorate any concerns about lack of progress on ISS by redirecting the public's attention. The MERs have been a great boon for NASA, and I think Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) will do wonderful things too. NASA can also direct people's attention to the X Prize Cup, which is largely about bringing space to the rest of us -- not to mention bringing back some barnstorming type risk, excitement, and glory to space. And NASA can talk about the next great adventure to the Moon, perhaps using LRO images to show previous landing sites and future landing sites.</i>

 

[frodo1008]

I know it is probably both a little dumb and naive of me, but I just don't quite understand your point here.

 

[frodo1008]

You do have very good points here, but admittedly in the interests of reality, I don't think that this is going to be politically palatible to the currently conservative congress. This is particularily true if the CHinese continue to make progress!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">but admittedly in the interests of reality, I don't think that this is going to be politically palatible</font>/i><br /><br />I agree with you. I am just speculating on possibilities.</i>

 

[askold]

I think the place to start is the ISS - since it's now driving what happens to the shuttle. What are the current requirements of the ISS and can the components in orbit accomplish those goals? If the only requirement is to study the effects of space travel on people and that can be done with the modules in orbit, then don't launch any more pieces. To our partners with modules ready to go - sorry, they'll look nice in some museum. Such are the risks of multi-decade programs - sometimes they don't pan out. Look at the Superconducting Super Collider in Texas - 14 miles were dug and $2billion were spent before it was cancelled - sorry.<br /><br />Next, break up NASA. It's a bloated bureaucracy. Break it up like IBM and the phone company.

 

[cdr6]

What's next? Good question. NASA is up a smelly edifice with out a means of propulshion. (Thanks to our buds in congress... remember these are the boys who cut the guts out of everything in the space program dating back to Apollo.)<br /><br />1. We need to figure out what our goal(s) is/are. <br /><br />2. What is the reality of the situtation? Chances are our good buds are not going to fund more than one vehicle? Based on past preformance, I think not. So forget the cool "pr" type runway landing lifting bodies et al. <br /><br />3. Lets take stock, what have we got that works and will do the most good for ISS duty and the Moon? (Apollo Capsule comes to mind.) (Remember: form follows function.)<br /><br />4. Base on item 2 above, what can we build that will take the shortest/least expensive effort, and at the same time deliver the most bang for the buck. <br /><br />5. If we fast track CEV, can we mod out the shuttle to fly cargo only (no crew) to ISS. What kind of effort is needed to pull deliverables from the cargo bay and down load equipment/trash containers? With the return trip/landing possibly through the use of VSTOLAND or equivelant?<br /><br />6. Can we fast track mods to build a shuttle derived cargo pod instead. If we do this how do we bring down racks and experiments?<br /><br />7. How long to mod out chosen boosters for CEV or can we use off the shelf systems as an interm booster? <br /><br />8. Can we spell this out in high school terms so congress can understand.<br /><br />9. Using items 2, 4, and 8 above can we get the American people behind the effort.<br /><br />10. How about passing the orbital duties on to the Russians, and we concentrate our effort(s) on the Moon and Mars programs?<br /><br />11. To borrow a phrase from the late Moya Lear, "No more f***ing around take that g**damned thing out and fly it!"-Dec 32 1979<br /><br />That is what I see that needs to be done next. Once these questions are resolved the next step beyond that is to develope our METL (Mission

 

[alonzofyfe]

Actually, I spent some time just listening to NASA press conferences recently on the Discovery mission, and I do not think that NASA has the capacity to execute a manned space program any more.<br /><br />It has a conflicting goal of attempting to engage in an inherently risky activity in a way that involves little or no risk.<br /><br />I think about the colonization of the Americas. There were people in this era who were willing to take risks. Ships filled with people and entire villages of settlers disappeared in the early colonial period, yet nobody stopped the program until they could come up with a completely safe way of settling America. There were still people willing to take the risks, and they were allowed to do so.<br /><br />This is not NASA's fault. The sense that I got from these press conferences is that the culture itself is pushing NASA into becoming an agency in this direction. Society itself is talling NASA, "If you have to spend 10 times as much money to improve the safety of space missions by 1% -- then spend the money."<br /><br />Of course, NASA is not going to be given 10 times as much money. Instead, it will end up launching 1/10 as many flights.<br /><br />I strongly suspect that this will continue into the indefinite future. The next CEV will have to be made perfect. This means that it will be expensive. This means that there will be a minimum number of launches.<br /><br />There are still people around today who are willing and even eager to take risks. Manned space flight must be put in the hands of these types of people.<br /><br />Up until 1990, the fatality rate for climbing Mt. EVerest was 37%. Nobody ever said that we should close Mount Everest until a safer way to climb it had been found so that those making the attempt were no longer facing these extreme risks. Instead, we said, "It's their life. I think they are nuts, but it is up to them."<br /><br />These were people for whom the adventure was worth the risk.<br /><br />Think of bullriding, prof

 

[cdr6]

Tell us Askold, what all does NASA do, who are they partnered with/to? Who do they support? Serious anwsers only, please.

 

[askold]

I don't understand the question - you want me to describe all of their departments? This info is available on the NASA site, if you're interested.

 

[cdr6]

You make very good points and very good arguements...all except for your last paragraph. <br /><br />NASA knows their work is dangerious/ and can be deadly. It's the public and our other good buds "the watch dog press" whitch cannot come to grips with reality. The former has been raised on the extreemly lucky Apollo program, and too much "star drek". (The public knows not of research/experimental flight programs or the processes involved.) While the later is in it only for what sells, and nothing sells like disaster, see also Hearst and /or "Yellow Jounalism". <br /><br />Also sharing in the blame is congress who has emasculated the space program from Apollo onward. An all the time sniping at said agency... <br /><br />It was John Glenn himself who said that eventually we are going to lose people in space... On national TV no less.<br /><br />Besides can you imagine the outcry if on that same program/press conference the speaker told the public/press to "suck it up!"...Sometimes the ogre stands forth and demands payment. <br /><br /><br />

 

[cdr6]

The question is what does NASA do, not it's departments. <br /><br />Almost everybody who is clamoring for the dismemberment of that agency has absouilty no clue what all NASA does besides space. <br /><br />I was digging to see if you were one of those, or your statement was balanced against all of the work in all of the fields and all of the areas that NASA is involved in. Eg. An intelligent statement. <br /><br />Too many people freely throw that line around with out knowing what they are asking for.

 

[alonzofyfe]

CDR6<br /><br />I meant for my argument to be interpreted as saying that NASA cannot accept the reality of the risks of space because they are not permitted to do so, not because they are gulty of self-deception.<br /><br />I think that many NASA employees are capable of accepting the risk. However, NASA as an agency is being forced to adopt a "no risk" ideology, mostly for the reasons you mentioned.<br /><br />Ultimately, the effect is the same. I expect that the next NASA manned space program will be at least as disappointing as the last.

 

[askold]

Saddly, before I make a comment on this (or any) discussion board I do not first undertake a detailed and exhaustive study of the matter. I don't have charts, spreadheets or a powerpoint presentation to backup my comment.<br /><br />NASA is big. They develop new flight systems, they operate existing flight systems, they develop manned and unmanned systems, they operate telescopes, they research new airplane flight control systems, they support biology experiments in space, they give presentations to little kids in schools, etc.<br /><br />Breaking up Ma Bell was good for the phone company, for other companies and for the public. I believe that very big organizations are no good and can benefit from breaking up.

 

[dragon04]

Everything comes with an associated price, Askold. Before Ma Bell was broken up, you paid one phone bill. When your stuff didn't work, Ma came and fixed it for free. <br /><br />Now, while you can get competetive rates for long distance, you also pay 75 bucks for a tech to show up at your door.<br /><br />I am an expert in telecommunications and have been in the phone industry since before the divestiture. Were it not for VOIP, the overall cost to the consumer would be higher.<br /><br />And VOIP has its drawbacks. Lose your power or your internet connection, and you can't call 911. Or anyone for that matter.<br /><br />Baby Bells are regrouping. MCI saves you money if and only if you make enough long distance calls every month to override their fees.<br /><br />Splitting Ma Bell and ATT has made life cumbersome for most average users. Terrible analogy, my friend <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Hurricane Katrina floods New Orleans including the Michoud plant where the space shuttle external tanks are processed. ... shuttle operations money is directed to an accelertated SDHLV program<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Um, if Katrina will be thorough at Michoud, i dont think you are going to see any shuttle-derived vehicle that uses external tanks.<br />Theck out these threads on its potential impact. In short, if the tooling is lost or substantially damaged, this might be the end of ETs or at least a very long delay.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

".....then don't launch any more pieces. To our partners with modules ready to go - sorry, they'll look nice in some museum."<br /><br />Then compensate us for the money we've spent. Look, we have an agreement. We build them, and NASA launches them. We've done our part. Now do yours, or cough up the cash.

 

[halman]

frodo1008,<br /><br />The federal government spent 2,128 billion dollars in 2003. If the government would spend 1 percent of the budget on manned space flight, that would be 21 billion dolllars. Compared to the 4.5 that was actually spent on manned space travel. The government is nickel and diming spaceflight, and spending its money on reacting to what the world has handed us. We are not investing in the future, making informed choices about how to spend our money, by selecting long term goals, and funding them throughout the lifespan of the project.<br /><br />Because America is fractured, splintered, segmented, no one wants to make sacrifices for anyone who is not well known, close by, or of the same beliefs. Selecting a national goal would be a way to get people more motivated about their country. We may not agree with the goal, but it would provide a focus for our efforts. We need to decide what we want to be, and begin to work toward that, rather than drifting into crisis after crisis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Excellent post as usual halman. I could not agree more!<br /><br />If you truly challenge the people of this incredibly diverse and wonderful country truly amazing things can happen, like putting men on the moon!!<br /><br />Lets go again!! And then go out into a far brighter future for our decendants within this fantastic solar system!!

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"*points at Mr Morris standing by the table with a cup of rum*"</font><br /><br />Generally a frosty mug of beer. In any event -- I've been pretty explicitly asked not to contribute, so I'll sit this one out. Even if I weren't asked -- s'not really my type of thread -- I act as the angel of vengence for inaccurate statements made about technology. What frodo suggested is not <b>technically</b> impossible. Politically it's so flipping unlikely that 'impossible' is probably the term to use, but I care little for debating politics.