Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:33:35 +0000 (UTC), dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Andre Lieven) wrote:

>Josh Hill (usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:48:47 +0000 (UTC), kruegerb76@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> wrote:
>>
>>>What I'd like to know is: how many people think a manned mission to
>>>Mars is where NASA's time and effort should be going?
>>
>> Me! Me! Me!
>>
>>>If you get right down to it, what do you think should be NASA's
>>>priority right now?
>>
>> NASA has about the same budget, adjusted for inflation, as it did
>> during the Apollo years.
>
>I would suggest that you attempt tp make this claim amongst the
>experienced denizens of sci.space.history. They could then swiftly
>and with loads of facts, disabuse you of this incorrect notion.

NASA's budget peaked in 1966 at a bit more than twice what it is today
in inflation-adjusted dollars. When I take the average expenditure of
the Apollo years, from 1963-1972, I get 18.6 billion 1996 dollars per
year -- as opposed to the current 13.7 billion 1996 dollars. A bit
higher, but not I think nearly enough to justify the huge discrepancy
in accomplishment.

>> In 1961, we launched our first suborbital
>> flight; the following eight years saw pioneering unmanned missions,
>> our first orbital flight, our first flight with multiple astronauts,
>> our first spacewalk, our first docking, and the landing on the moon.
>
>Note that NASA budgets were *increasing* all through that period,
>until the gear was mostly developed, by FY 1966, when NASA budgets
>started to go... down.
>
>> NASA has done some good stuff in the 35 years since the first moonwalk
>> -- the space shuttle, Skylab (really the last gasp of the Apollo era),
>> the Hubble, a variety of successful unmanned missions, some of which
>> have made fundamental discoveries. Still, there's a great gulf between
>> NASA's accomplishments in the first decade of manned flight and those
>> of the last 35.
>
>Sure: No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

With the budget about 74% of what it was from 1963-1972, even
accounting for fixed and ongoing expenses, they should be able to do
plenty of Buck Rodgers stuff. It's not the budget.

>> Some say, and I suspect they're right, that the problem with NASA is
>> that after the moon landings it was no longer goal-directed. It
>> answers now to constituencies; its priorities are bureaucratic and,
>> frequently, unimaginative -- let's build another space station bigger
>> than the last two, let's make another expensive fix to keep the
>> shuttle, essentially an experimental craft that was never an
>> economical means to get material into orbit, flying long after it
>> should have been replaced by the next generation of manned spacecraft.
>
>Since that " next generation " is nowhere to be seen, this really
>means " lets stop flying manned spacecraft ".

No, it means that NASA chose to pour money into flying shuttles
instead of developing a new vehicle. The shuttle was a tremendous
achievement, but using what was essentially an experimental vehicle
with basic design flaws as a workhorse long after it became apparent
that it would never be safe or economical was a serious mistake. NASA
kept throwing good money after bad.

>> NASA's primary job should be exploration and experimentation, the big
>> stuff and the pioneering stuff that require the full resources of the
>> country. Let's let private enterprise handle the by-now routine tasks
>> of launching satellites and the like.
>
>Um... they *do*. Have you looked at who launches more satellites ?
>It ain't NASA.
>
>> NASA needs big goals if it's to
>> avoid squandering energy on unimaginative, unproductive, essentially
>> bureaucratic programs. It's like a dog chasing its tail.
>
>Theres an element of that, sure. Any organisation whose goal is met,
>and then which is not only not given a new goal, but is told that the
>old one was crap, well, they do lose morale...

>> That big goal -- it fairly screams "I'm the goal" -- is a manned
>> mission to Mars. More moon missions at this point would be
>> International Space Station redux -- a great effort, a great risk, a
>> great achievement to do something that's already been done.
>
>So ? Would you have suggested to Columbus " hey, dude, been there,m
>done that, go somewhere else ! " ?
>
>One cannot make space access routine ( Like, say, airliner flight ),
>by running away from doing things again.

Columbus is precisely why we /should/ go to Mars. There were other
routes to the Indies -- routes which actually got there -- and
Columbus could have used those routes. Instead, he chose to go by a
new one, and bumped into something unexpected.

I'm sure we'll have a permanent moon base someday, and viable space
stations. But the cost of space travel will likely have to come down
if these things are to yield economic benefits. And from the
perspective of science and exploration, as things now stand, the ISS
and return trips to the moon are just too boring and too expensive
given that the scientific and technical knowledge they yield can be
obtained elsewhere at less expense.

Who remembers the 20th group to climb Mt. Everest? The adventure is
gone -- not for those who fly or work in the space program, but for
the general public, which foots the bill.

>> And let's spend some of the money that would go to programs that don't
>> really require or benefit from human participation, such as lifting
>> large objects into orbit or performing experiments that could just as
>> well be done by machine, on scientifically productive unmanned probes.
>
>Free Clue: When NASA fails to get some cash for a mission, its not
>like that cash then flows to another part of NASA. It far more
>likely then disappears into other areas of the US Federal bureaucracy.

The figures don't bear that out. NASA's been getting lots of money,
but it's been going into two big sinkholes, the shuttle and the ISS.

>> In other words, let's stop being timid and re-create the highly
>> productive, highly focused mix of activities we had in the 60's
>> instead of frittering the budget away on the likes of the space
>> station and the shuttle.
>
>Wrong. Excitement is not a mission requirement. Getting work done,
>and building *infrastructure* is the long term mission, all else
>is flltprints and flags grandstanding, that creates more dead ends.
>
>> And while we're at it, why did they stop work on the SSTO, which could
>> slash the cost of lifting payload into orbit?
>
>Well, because it wasn't working. Google up " VentureStar "...

Not the Venture Star. though from what I've read it's not at all
certain that it wouldn't have worked. Google up "Delta Clipper."

>> It seems like a logical
>> step, one that could bring us closer to the day when space travel
>> becomes as safe, practical, and economical as air travel.
>
>It could be. But, one would be foolish to assume that its not hard,
>that it doesn't require materials, fuels and technologies that don't
>yet exist, and that one can do it all in one or two ( If you count
>the STS program ) steps.

Douglas thought otherwise.

>Note that there were many, many aeronautical steps between the
>Wright Flyer and the DC-3...

Sure, and we should be taking those steps. Both of the SSTO vehicles
were supposed to do that. I don't think it's at all certain that they
would have succeeded in doing so, but they would have been steps along
the way. Now we're going back to an incremental improvement of the
Soyuz/Apollo approach -- practical, but not pathbreaking.

>> We should
>> also proceed with the long-overdue restoration of the Apollo-style
>> crew and cargo capabilities that's already in the works, and nuclear
>> engines for long-haul trips such as the journey to Mars. Then, once
>> we've perfected the structural materials, on to the space elevator!
>
>Thats nice. Who pays ?

Hello? All but the space elevator, which can't be built until the
structural materials are perfected, are already in the budget, and the
space elevator appears to be economically feasible.

--
Josh

"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically
a media creation. I've never done anything. I've
worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But
that's not the kind of profile you have to have
to get elected to public office." - George W. Bush

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NASA Rushing To Mars As Per Bushs Policy
    ... >>NASA rushes plan to send humans to moon, Mars, despite doubts ... >>NASA officials like to say. ... >>Budget Director Joshua Bolten told congressional budgeteers last year. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • NASA Delays Mars Scout Mission to 2013
    ... WASHINGTON - NASA announced today that the next mission in the Mars ... The schedule slip is because of an organizational ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: Space exploration for the rest of us
    ... following the exploration of Mars for the first time, ... Those that advocate "human" exploration miss this: ... I don't see any reason NASA couldn't do the same with manned missions. ... fulfill their mission. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • NASA Mars Spacecraft Gear Up for Extra Work
    ... NASA Mars Spacecraft Gear Up for Extra Work ... Mars Odyssey orbiter, at the red planet since 2001. ... These mission extensions will begin Oct. 1, ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... >>What I'd like to know is: how many people think a manned mission to ... >>Mars is where NASA's time and effort should be going? ... > our first orbital flight, our first flight with multiple astronauts, ... Note that NASA budgets were *increasing* all through that period, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)