NASA chokes again

[Jay Honeck]

After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?

This took two years to figure out?

I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become
of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with
this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management?

Here is the full article:
************************************************** **************

NASA Delays Post-Columbia Flight Again
By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer

NASA on Friday delayed by another two months the first space shuttle
flight since the Columbia disaster, saying it needs more time to ensure
that the fuel tank does not shed dangerous pieces of ice at liftoff.

Discovery is now scheduled for launch no earlier than July 13. The
flight had been targeted for late May.

A large chunk of foam insulation from the external fuel tank punched a
hole in Columbia's wing that led to the shuttle and crew's demise
during re-entry in February 2003. Now, the lingering concern involves
the possible buildup of ice on the tank once it's filled with
super-cold fuel, and the hazard such shards would pose if they came off
during the launch and hit the shuttle.

NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at a
midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result of
recent launch-debris reviews.

"This is consistent with our overall approach to return to flight,
which is that we're going to return to flight. We are not going to rush
to flight, and we want it to be right, so we're doing what we need to
do to ensure that," Griffin said.

Extra repairs to Discovery's fuel tank will be needed, namely the
addition of a heater, said NASA's top spaceflight official, Bill
Readdy.

The work means that NASA will have to remove Discovery from the launch
pad and return it to the massive Vehicle Assembly Building.

The prime area of concern is a 17-inch-diameter liquid oxygen line that
runs 70 feet down the lower half of the 154-foot tank. Its expansion
joints have produced ice in the past. After the Columbia accident, NASA
devised a foam skirt, or so-called drip lip, to wick moisture away from
the joints. Engineers believe it would reduce ice formation by 50
percent.

Shuttle managers decided a more comprehensive repair was needed.

Technicians will install a heater at the uppermost joint, something
already planned for flights beyond Discovery's. To add the heater on
Discovery, the shuttle will have to be hauled back to its hangar, which
will add days if not weeks to launch preparations.

NASA is also concerned about possible ice formation on the brackets
that hold the oxygen line to the tank.

The shuttle team is dealing with a few other unrelated problems with
Discovery, involving balky engine-cutoff sensors in the fuel tank and
thermal blankets contaminated recently with hydraulic fluid. Readdy
said the extra two months will provide time to resolve all of these
issues, and they will be tackled first while the shuttle is still at
the launch pad.

Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy said.
The test a month ago ago uncovered the intermittent sensor trouble and
a few other problems.

Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to postpone
the flight, to perform the extra work.

"I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over the
top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants the launch
to be safe.

"Schedule matters," he said. "It shouldn't matter to the point of
causing people to do dumb things or to take ill-advised actions ... We
want to launch Discovery when we can because the completion of the
international space station depends upon an expeditious launch
schedule. We don't want to launch it sooner than we can."

Columbia was brought down on Feb. 1, 2003, by a gash in the left wing
that was caused by a suitcase-size piece of foam that broke off the
tank during liftoff. All seven astronauts were killed 16 days later
during re-entry.

NASA wants the first two post-Columbia launches held in daylight to
ensure good photography of the shuttle and its fuel tank, which has
been modified to prevent big pieces of foam insulation from coming off.
Daylight also is needed over the North Atlantic in order to capture
good photos of the fuel tank as it drops off eight minutes after
liftoff.

The July window extends from July 13 until July 31. If Discovery does
not fly in July, the next opportunity would come in September. The
12-day mission will supply much-needed supplies and replacement parts
to the space station.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 29 Apr 2005 09:57:14 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in . com>::

>After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
>NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
>to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?

It sounds like NASA is being laudably prudent. But why these
modifications weren't performed before rolling the shuttle to the
launch pad is curious.


The article mentions:

NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at
a midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result
of recent launch-debris reviews.
....
Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy
said. The test a month ago uncovered the intermittent sensor
trouble and a few other problems.

Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to
postpone the flight, to perform the extra work.

"I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over
the top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants
the launch to be safe.

So it looks like the new administrator is a prudent professional. How
can that be bad?

The real question is, who made the decision to move the shuttle to the
launch pad knowing that had "intermittent sensor trouble and a few
other problems"?

Griffin sounds like just what NASA needs, and I'll bet the crew would
agree.

[Dave S]

Ok.. so let me get this straight.. The shuttle didn't pass "preflight",
so the flight is being delayed for safety reasons and modify or update
the equipment just a little bit more..

Sure sounds a lot like you are miffed because they are trying real hard
to avoid a case of "get there-itis".

So what if its been 2 years.. the last time it was over 4, wasnt it?

And the first one was a case of "I TOLD YOU SO" regarding the o-rings on
the SRB's..Theres nothing wrong with wanting to get it right..
Astronauts and engineers are professionals, not daredevils with a death
wish.

I would applaud the setback. Just like I would look another pilot in the
eye and say "Good Call" for scrubbing for equipment or weather issues.

Dave

Jay Honeck wrote:

> After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
> NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
> to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?
>
> This took two years to figure out?
>
> I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become
> of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with
> this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management?
>
> Here is the full article:
> ************************************************** **************
>
> NASA Delays Post-Columbia Flight Again
> By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer
>
> NASA on Friday delayed by another two months the first space shuttle
> flight since the Columbia disaster, saying it needs more time to ensure
> that the fuel tank does not shed dangerous pieces of ice at liftoff.
>
> Discovery is now scheduled for launch no earlier than July 13. The
> flight had been targeted for late May.
>
> A large chunk of foam insulation from the external fuel tank punched a
> hole in Columbia's wing that led to the shuttle and crew's demise
> during re-entry in February 2003. Now, the lingering concern involves
> the possible buildup of ice on the tank once it's filled with
> super-cold fuel, and the hazard such shards would pose if they came off
> during the launch and hit the shuttle.
>
> NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at a
> midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result of
> recent launch-debris reviews.
>
> "This is consistent with our overall approach to return to flight,
> which is that we're going to return to flight. We are not going to rush
> to flight, and we want it to be right, so we're doing what we need to
> do to ensure that," Griffin said.
>
> Extra repairs to Discovery's fuel tank will be needed, namely the
> addition of a heater, said NASA's top spaceflight official, Bill
> Readdy.
>
> The work means that NASA will have to remove Discovery from the launch
> pad and return it to the massive Vehicle Assembly Building.
>
> The prime area of concern is a 17-inch-diameter liquid oxygen line that
> runs 70 feet down the lower half of the 154-foot tank. Its expansion
> joints have produced ice in the past. After the Columbia accident, NASA
> devised a foam skirt, or so-called drip lip, to wick moisture away from
> the joints. Engineers believe it would reduce ice formation by 50
> percent.
>
> Shuttle managers decided a more comprehensive repair was needed.
>
> Technicians will install a heater at the uppermost joint, something
> already planned for flights beyond Discovery's. To add the heater on
> Discovery, the shuttle will have to be hauled back to its hangar, which
> will add days if not weeks to launch preparations.
>
> NASA is also concerned about possible ice formation on the brackets
> that hold the oxygen line to the tank.
>
> The shuttle team is dealing with a few other unrelated problems with
> Discovery, involving balky engine-cutoff sensors in the fuel tank and
> thermal blankets contaminated recently with hydraulic fluid. Readdy
> said the extra two months will provide time to resolve all of these
> issues, and they will be tackled first while the shuttle is still at
> the launch pad.
>
> Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy said.
> The test a month ago ago uncovered the intermittent sensor trouble and
> a few other problems.
>
> Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to postpone
> the flight, to perform the extra work.
>
> "I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over the
> top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants the launch
> to be safe.
>
> "Schedule matters," he said. "It shouldn't matter to the point of
> causing people to do dumb things or to take ill-advised actions ... We
> want to launch Discovery when we can because the completion of the
> international space station depends upon an expeditious launch
> schedule. We don't want to launch it sooner than we can."
>
> Columbia was brought down on Feb. 1, 2003, by a gash in the left wing
> that was caused by a suitcase-size piece of foam that broke off the
> tank during liftoff. All seven astronauts were killed 16 days later
> during re-entry.
>
> NASA wants the first two post-Columbia launches held in daylight to
> ensure good photography of the shuttle and its fuel tank, which has
> been modified to prevent big pieces of foam insulation from coming off.
> Daylight also is needed over the North Atlantic in order to capture
> good photos of the fuel tank as it drops off eight minutes after
> liftoff.
>
> The July window extends from July 13 until July 31. If Discovery does
> not fly in July, the next opportunity would come in September. The
> 12-day mission will supply much-needed supplies and replacement parts
> to the space station.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 Apr 2005 09:57:14 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
> in . com>::
>
> >After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
> >NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
> >to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?
>
> It sounds like NASA is being laudably prudent. But why these
> modifications weren't performed before rolling the shuttle to the
> launch pad is curious.
>
>
> The article mentions:
>
> NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, announced the delay at
> a midmorning televised news conference, saying it was the result
> of recent launch-debris reviews.
> ....
> Another fueling test of Discovery's tank may be necessary, Readdy
> said. The test a month ago uncovered the intermittent sensor
> trouble and a few other problems.
>
> Griffin said he accepted shuttle managers' recommendation to
> postpone the flight, to perform the extra work.
>
> "I want to launch as soon as we can," said Griffin, who took over
> the top NASA job just two weeks ago. But he added that he wants
> the launch to be safe.
>
> So it looks like the new administrator is a prudent professional. How
> can that be bad?
>
> The real question is, who made the decision to move the shuttle to the
> launch pad knowing that had "intermittent sensor trouble and a few
> other problems"?
>
> Griffin sounds like just what NASA needs, and I'll bet the crew would
> agree.

Griffin is a bean counter and it shows. NASA has tremendous internal
problems which Griffin needs to fix before the organization can begin to be
anything approaching effective.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 04:07:05 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote in >::

>> Griffin sounds like just what NASA needs, and I'll bet the crew would
>> agree.
>
>Griffin is a bean counter and it shows. NASA has tremendous internal
>problems which Griffin needs to fix before the organization can begin to be
>anything approaching effective.
>

That seems like a reasonable assessment given what's happened here.

At least Griffin is considering fixing the Hubble telescope. He
sounds like he's trying to do the right thing.

[Hilton]

Jay wrote:
> I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become
> of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with
> this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management?

Gene Kranz is my hero (so too is Scott Crossfield). I have Failure Is Not
An Option recorded on my DVR (from the DW channel) and watch it every few
weeks. When I asked Gene Cernan about Gene Kranz he was quick to stress
that there were numerous other great Flight Directors at the time and that
he was somewhat surprised that Gene Kranz was singled out.

Hilton

[Chris]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
> NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
> to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?
>
> This took two years to figure out?
>
> I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become
> of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with
> this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management?

hand the program over to Disney, it might work then!

[Jay Honeck]

> Ok.. so let me get this straight.. The shuttle didn't pass "preflight", so
> the flight is being delayed for safety reasons and modify or update the
> equipment just a little bit more..
>
> Sure sounds a lot like you are miffed because they are trying real hard to
> avoid a case of "get there-itis".
>
> So what if its been 2 years.. the last time it was over 4, wasnt it?

If, after over 20 years of shuttle flights, they can't do a pre-flight
inspection in less than 2 years, I would just as soon NASA give us back the
billions we have given them (this year) so we can donate it to the Chinese
space program.

Look, I understand the need for great care after Columbia -- but it's been
TWO YEARS. The whole time, there have been over 10,000 people at the Cape
on the payroll, doing precisely...what? Then, just when everything is
poised on the pad for launch -- OOPS! -- we forgot to install the heater???

It's a national embarrassment.

We visited NASA in March, and were very impressed with the facility. I'm
glad they have preserved much of our Apollo history, and I'm gladder still
that there are so many people dedicated to space flight. It's our future,
and anyone with a brain stem knows it.

But, dammit, they've got to actually PERFORM. Now. Either sh*t or get off
the pot.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
> NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
> to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?
>
> This took two years to figure out?
>
> I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become
> of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with
> this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management?
>
> Here is the full article:
> ************************************************** **************
>
> NASA Delays Post-Columbia Flight Again
> By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer
>

NASA's big problem with the shuttle is that they over promised 35 years ago
to get it funded. They promised a safe, inexpensive, reusable space truck
with quick turnaround time. Arguably, they missed each of those marks. In
addition, they tried to sell space travel as routine, and people hold them
to that standard.

Unfortunately, space travel is anything but routine, and the shuttle (or any
other space vehicle) has more than a few single points of failure that have
fatal consequences.

NASA, Congress, and the US public need to recognize and admit that if we're
going to continue manned space flight, we will suffer losses. We need to
accept that fact and move forward without all of the hand wringing and
political posturing that we get with every accident. Not that we shouldn't
strive for a perfect safety record, but even if NASA had unlimited funding,
riding rockets would still dangerous.

For me, it comes down to this (choose 1):

- Continue manned space flight and recognize that people are likely to be
killed from time to time, despite the best efforts to prevent accidents.

- Discontinue manned space flight.

KB

[AES]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:

> For me, it comes down to this (choose 1):
>
> - Continue manned space flight and recognize that people are likely to be
> killed from time to time, despite the best efforts to prevent accidents.
>
> - Discontinue manned space flight.
>
> KB

Yes, those are the choices ** except replace "likely" by "certain" in
the first of these choices.

And in making the choice, recognize that if you want to perform
important and useful tasks with taxpayer money in space ** obtain
spectacular and otherwise unobtainable scientific knowledge, perform
extraordinarily useful and economically important engineering functions
like weather satellites, GPS, broadcasting ** then the basic fact is
that:

* There is NO useful role or need for sending people into space to
accomplish ANY of these missions.

* In fact, the enormous increase in mission costs and complexity and
the enormous limitations on performance required to include passengers
on any space mission and get them back safely pretty much guarantees
that no useful scientific or engineering results will result from those
missions ** as the history of our space effort to date fully
demonstrates.

If some want to argue that sending more people to the moon (or, God save
us all, to Mars) will somehow demonstrate the greatness of our nation,
well, they're welcome to do so (and I'd agree that the Apollo program
was probably justified, in its time, on that basis alone). And I have
no opposition to, and wish all good fortune to, private efforts in the
Burt Rutan style.

But our shuttle and Space Station programs should have been abandoned
long ago and their funding redirected to unmanned space capabilities and
challenges. Given the present and likely future state of space
technology "lunar colonies" are as utterly unnecessary as they are
immensely expensive; and the idea of sending people to Mars in the
foreseeable future is a fantasy. It's not a matter of policy choices,
it's a matter of the laws of physics.

[Jay Masino]

Dave Stadt > wrote:
> Griffin is a bean counter and it shows. NASA has tremendous internal
> problems which Griffin needs to fix before the organization can begin to be
> anything approaching effective.


The main problem NASA's facing is that funding for all of our existing
projects (especially Earth science), most of which are providing a lot of
good science, is being funneled away into Bush's big waste of
time/money... moving towards putting men back onto the Moon and eventually
Mars. I know a lot of you really want to see people on the Moon/Mars, but
the benefit vs. cost just isn't there. We're better off continuing low
cost use of robotic exploration.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> At least Griffin is considering fixing the Hubble telescope. He
> sounds like he's trying to do the right thing.

Although I'm a fan of Hubble, it's hard to tell whether fixing it is worth
it, since a replacement telescope is presently being built (James Webb
Space Telescope) which is expected to significantly out perform Hubble. I
think it's really just a matter of a few years where Hubble might fail and
James Webb isn't up yet.


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Look, I understand the need for great care after Columbia -- but it's been
> TWO YEARS. The whole time, there have been over 10,000 people at the Cape
> on the payroll, doing precisely...what? Then, just when everything is
> poised on the pad for launch -- OOPS! -- we forgot to install the heater???

The shuttle isn't exactly a Cherokee. It's probably 1000 times more
complex. They also need to make absolutely sure that this first flight
goes absolutely flawlessly. There were probably issues that became
apparent on the pad, that weren't in the vehicle assembly building.


> It's a national embarrassment.

That's ridiculous. Being incredibly cautious after we lost an entire
crew, is just being smart.


> We visited NASA in March, and were very impressed with the facility. I'm
> glad they have preserved much of our Apollo history, and I'm gladder still
> that there are so many people dedicated to space flight. It's our future,
> and anyone with a brain stem knows it.
>
> But, dammit, they've got to actually PERFORM. Now. Either sh*t or get off
> the pot.

If they made a mistake this time, and we lost another crew, it could
mark the complete end of the space program. They need to be extra
careful.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

Kyle Boatright > wrote:
> NASA's big problem with the shuttle is that they over promised 35 years ago
> to get it funded. They promised a safe, inexpensive, reusable space truck
> with quick turnaround time. Arguably, they missed each of those marks. In
> addition, they tried to sell space travel as routine, and people hold them
> to that standard.

That's true. Unfortunately, they have to oversell in order to continue
to get funding.


> Unfortunately, space travel is anything but routine, and the shuttle (or any
> other space vehicle) has more than a few single points of failure that have
> fatal consequences.
>
> NASA, Congress, and the US public need to recognize and admit that if we're
> going to continue manned space flight, we will suffer losses. We need to
> accept that fact and move forward without all of the hand wringing and
> political posturing that we get with every accident. Not that we shouldn't
> strive for a perfect safety record, but even if NASA had unlimited funding,
> riding rockets would still dangerous.
>
> For me, it comes down to this (choose 1):
>
> - Continue manned space flight and recognize that people are likely to be
> killed from time to time, despite the best efforts to prevent accidents.

That's absolutely correct. This is the main reason why I don't think we
should be messing around with sending people to Mars. There's a REALLY
good chance that the first crew we send will probably die. Maybe even the
second or third crew. It's not really worth the risk compared to robotic
exploration.

--- Jay

--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jay Masino]

AES > wrote:
<SNIP>
> But our shuttle and Space Station programs should have been abandoned
> long ago and their funding redirected to unmanned space capabilities and
> challenges. Given the present and likely future state of space
> technology "lunar colonies" are as utterly unnecessary as they are
> immensely expensive; and the idea of sending people to Mars in the
> foreseeable future is a fantasy. It's not a matter of policy choices,
> it's a matter of the laws of physics.

I generally agree with most of what you've said, except there's a pretty
reasonable amount of science that's done in Earth orbit that's probably
worth it (various medical experiments in zero gravity, etc).



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[gregg]

Kyle,

While much of what you say is true, it seems to me that there's no urgency
to the program: no great goal, no pressure.

so therefore there's no tendency to accept risks and press on.

As an example, we accepted the deaths of the apollo 1 fire becasue we, a
majority of the nation - were still serious about winning the Race to the
Moon. So we were willing to take risks and did.

But it seems to me that most of the nation ignores the Space program and
therefore sees no reason to accpet risks - there' sno Big Goal that
inflames people's minds.

And, therefore, no one sees a need to hurry or risk.

Gregg


Kyle Boatright wrote:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> After more than two years, and less than a month from scheduled launch,
>> NASA decides to pull the shuttle off the launch pad, transport it back
>> to the vehicle assembly building, and install a HEATER?
>>
>> This took two years to figure out?
>>
>> I swear, Gene Kranz must shake his head in disbelief at what has become
>> of our space program. Can anyone imagine NASA going to the moon with
>> this kind of hand-wringing, risk averse management?
>>
>> Here is the full article:
>> ************************************************** **************
>>
>> NASA Delays Post-Columbia Flight Again
>> By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer
>>
>
> NASA's big problem with the shuttle is that they over promised 35 years
> ago
> to get it funded. They promised a safe, inexpensive, reusable space truck
> with quick turnaround time. Arguably, they missed each of those marks.
> In addition, they tried to sell space travel as routine, and people hold
> them to that standard.
>
> Unfortunately, space travel is anything but routine, and the shuttle (or
> any other space vehicle) has more than a few single points of failure that
> have fatal consequences.
>
> NASA, Congress, and the US public need to recognize and admit that if
> we're going to continue manned space flight, we will suffer losses. We
> need to accept that fact and move forward without all of the hand wringing
> and political posturing that we get with every accident. Not that we
> shouldn't strive for a perfect safety record, but even if NASA had
> unlimited funding, riding rockets would still dangerous.
>
> For me, it comes down to this (choose 1):
>
> - Continue manned space flight and recognize that people are likely to be
> killed from time to time, despite the best efforts to prevent accidents.
>
> - Discontinue manned space flight.
>
> KB

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Mike Beede]

In article >,
(Jay Masino) wrote:

> The main problem NASA's facing is that funding for all of our existing
> projects (especially Earth science), most of which are providing a lot of
> good science, is being funneled away into Bush's big waste of
> time/money... moving towards putting men back onto the Moon and eventually
> Mars. I know a lot of you really want to see people on the Moon/Mars, but
> the benefit vs. cost just isn't there. We're better off continuing low
> cost use of robotic exploration.

I heard a couple of the Mars Rover drivers talk at a conference
a couple weeks ago. Someone asked them if manned exploration
made any sense vs. the Rovers. They both agreed that a human
would be greatly more capable than a robot.

Mike Beede

[Kyle Boatright]

"gregg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Kyle,
>
> While much of what you say is true, it seems to me that there's no
> urgency
> to the program: no great goal, no pressure.
>
> so therefore there's no tendency to accept risks and press on.
>
> As an example, we accepted the deaths of the apollo 1 fire becasue we, a
> majority of the nation - were still serious about winning the Race to the
> Moon. So we were willing to take risks and did.
>
> But it seems to me that most of the nation ignores the Space program and
> therefore sees no reason to accpet risks - there' sno Big Goal that
> inflames people's minds.
>
> And, therefore, no one sees a need to hurry or risk.
>
> Gregg

I tend to agree. NASA's mission in the 60's was to put man in space, then
put an American on the moon. A glorious undertaking. Since then, their
mission has been to keep man in space (and to create a stream of projects
that make man in space "necessary"). There is a circular argument in there
somewhere around the fact that NASA puts people in space, and without a need
for people in space, there wouldn't be a need for NASA. Therefore, one of
NASA's prime goals is to make sure there are ongoing projects which are
built around keeping man in space.

I've never met a bureacracy that didn't fight tooth and nail for its
continued existance, and I'm sure NASA is no different... After all, nobody
wants to lose his/her job, and no politician wants jobs killed in his/her
district.

KB

[gregg]

Mike Beede wrote:

> In article >,
> (Jay Masino) wrote:
>
>> The main problem NASA's facing is that funding for all of our existing
>> projects (especially Earth science), most of which are providing a lot of
>> good science, is being funneled away into Bush's big waste of
>> time/money... moving towards putting men back onto the Moon and
>> eventually
>> Mars. I know a lot of you really want to see people on the Moon/Mars,
>> but
>> the benefit vs. cost just isn't there. We're better off continuing low
>> cost use of robotic exploration.
>
> I heard a couple of the Mars Rover drivers talk at a conference
> a couple weeks ago. Someone asked them if manned exploration
> made any sense vs. the Rovers. They both agreed that a human
> would be greatly more capable than a robot.
>
> Mike Beede


Mike,

while I agree that a human would be greatly more capable than a robot, I
don't think we've exhausted the mining of information robots can give us.
Until we do - until the ONLY way to get more information is to send a
human, I vote for sending eveer more capable robots, and not risking the
human life nor spending the zillions to put the human there. Those zillions
are better spent, in my opinion, on more robots.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

[Jay Masino]

Mike Beede > wrote:
> I heard a couple of the Mars Rover drivers talk at a conference
> a couple weeks ago. Someone asked them if manned exploration
> made any sense vs. the Rovers. They both agreed that a human
> would be greatly more capable than a robot.

Sure, but is it worth the money or the risk?


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Jay Masino) wrote:

> Mike Beede > wrote:
> > I heard a couple of the Mars Rover drivers talk at a conference
> > a couple weeks ago. Someone asked them if manned exploration
> > made any sense vs. the Rovers. They both agreed that a human
> > would be greatly more capable than a robot.
>
> Sure, but is it worth the money or the risk?

Yes, The alternative would be far more costly in the long run.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule