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

Josh Hill (usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx) writes:
> 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.

Indeed. Now, price out some technological artifacts from then,
and now, and you'll see that a lot of prices have far more than
doubled since then.

> 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.

Well, then you're failing to take in the difference bewteen sunk
and constant costs, such as pension payouts, and the like, and the
effects that such costs have in squeezing whats reasonably discretionary
after those costs.

>>> 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.

And, they are. At it's peak, NASA could, in one year, fly five Gemini
capsule flights ( 2 cramped guys, no cargo ) a year ( 1965, 1966 ),
or a max of four Apollos.

Since the 80s, they've had years with more shuttle flights than that,
per year, with loads more people and payloads flown. Thats plenty of
the Buck Rogers stuff.

> It's not the budget.

Yes, it is. Theres little room in NASA's budget to *both* continue to
operate the shuttle, and various robot probes, per year, *and* pay to
develop a new manned spacecraft, possibly with a new launcher, too.

>>> 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.

Thats what I said: fly now, or stop flying, to pay for a later ship.

> 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 cannot just take it's budget and spend it as it chooses. Congress
takes a dim view of gov't agencies usurping the spending perogatives
of Congress.

If Congress says " Heres 7 Billion to fly the shuttle with ", then
you spend that money for the purpose that they told you.

>>> 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.

Yet, theres not a lot unexpected about Mars today...

> 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.

Then, get Congress to fund new and cheap launcher development.

> 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.

Thats as it should be. I, for one, am greatly pleased that the
" adventure is gone " when I get into a 767...

>>> 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.

Because thats what the appropriation from *Congress* says. Take away
both programs, and there is AbZero guarantee that NASA sees a penny
of that cash.

>>> 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."

I'm well familiar with it. I saw the first flight footage at the
1993 Worldcon, intro-ed by Jerry Pournelle. Look at DC-X2's bill of
$450 million ( estimate ) to develop a half scale model, and a bill
of $5 *billion* to build DC-Y.

>>> 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.

Easy to do; Did their money follow their thought ?

>>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.

Practical works.

>>> 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,

No, they've been *proposed* by the President; But the Pres doesn't
write and pass the Budget...

> and the space elevator appears to be economically feasible.

" appears to be " is the operative phrase. VentureStar's fuel tanks
appeared " feasable " at one time, too.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... eat up most of the discretionary budget. ... At it's peak, NASA could, in one year, fly five Gemini ... money to do cool Apollo-style stuff but has done so at a much lower ... the shuttle, a wonderful accomplishment but a lousy space tug. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Should "The Stick" be scrapped?
    ... As of 2004 nasa had budgeted $2.2 billion for return to flight ... (RTF), but some of that came at the expense of other programs, such as ... the shuttle programs return to flight, ... NASA's FY2006 shuttle budget request is $4.5 ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: I Dream of Jeanne
    ... :> wars so we can save money. ... :> Your negative bias toward NASA is noted. ... :> Until the Chinese space program takes off and the first commerical ... :> You seem pretty sure that the next shuttle launch will be a failure. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: One-year delay for RTF-3?
    ... >Shuttle never returned to flight. ... The way the NASA spokesperson said it, ... structural implications that there was no money to address. ... or if NASA will need to beg Congress for special ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Here We Go Again!
    ... :>the Air Force backing the project, it was far more likely that NASA would ... :about the Shuttle, and NASA doesn't seem to have learned any lessons ... money that was budgeted into Shuttle would have gone to USAF to build ...
    (sci.space.policy)