NASA chokes again

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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