Space Forum / Shuttle / February 2007

André wrote:

Only on powerpoint slides and in the minds of the gullible.

Wrong orbit for departing from, and the sample size is too small
for any sort of meaningful human research, even if there were a reason
to send people to Mars.

Just not anything that's actually worth more than a tiny fraction
of the cost of doing it.

Um, wrong.  Oil and water don't mix because they are immiscible;
it's thermodynamically favorable for them to be in separate phases.

    Paul

While what you say is partially true, all of these things could be better
researched either on the ground, or as small orbiting research labs, not the
hulking ISS NASA is giving us.  ISS is more of an engineering and jobs
program than it is a true research platform.  We'll have to see how much
money is spent on ISS research after the shuttle program ends and NASA
shifts its focus on Ares/Orion.  My guess is, not a whole hell of a lot.

Jeff

Wow, just because the first winged reusable space craft has not lived
up to your expectations for low cost access to space, does not mean the
program was "doomed" as you put it.  But then on another thread you
post how the shuttle could complete station construction by 2010 (good
job by the way), which if your correct the shuttle program would be
providing a pretty good yield of productivity in the systems latter
years, in spite of the faults you have pointed out.  Now, it seems you
want to subjectively complain about the shuttle costs but then you
gladly take for granted the work the shuttle program has done in space
station construction, scientific research, and technological
developments that the private sector has or will benefit from.   In
other words your above post disregards the merits of the shuttle
program, and I don't think that all governmental programs should be
judged on costs alone without understanding the programs benefits, as
listing the accomplishments demonstrates the productivity of the U.S.
tax payer dollars invested in any one program.
tom

Except that the high inclination (and associated launch payload penalty) of
the ISS orbit makes it undesirable as, say, an assembly point for LEO or
Mars missions.  That and it wasn't really designed for such a thing, so
there would likely be lots of issues (guidence and control, power, cooling,
communications, life support, and etc.).

It seems to me the best use of ISS is to use it for what it was designed to
be, which is a space laboratory in LEO.  Unfortunately, the CAM module isn't
likely to be launched, so there goes the best way to do research on various
"gravity" fields on living organisms.  You could have used it to simulate
lunar gravity, Mars gravity, and etc.

Jeff

The comments by Michael Griffin on January 11th, to the space
transportation association where he addresses issues concerning public
and private interest in space exploration might help some peoples
understanding and the benefits of balancing government and private
sector space exploration.  Oh yeah, jeff please type in
"bioastronautics" (maybe limit the search to .gov only) in a google
search, and you will find many of NASA's current studies into the
human bodies adaptation to space travel that will directly benefit
private sector space travel, and humankind alike.

http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23012

Prepared Comments by Michael Griffin before the Space Transportation
Association
NASA and Commercial Space: Public Trust and Private Interest
11 January 2007
Good morning. I'll bet you all are just chomping at the bit, waiting to
hear the details about how we at NASA are going to cope with a
full-year continuing resolution for FY07, and how that will relate to
the formulation of the President's Budget for FY08.
Well, me too.
We must first be clear on what we mean by "efficiency". Government
agencies do not generate profits, and should not, since we should never
compete with private industry. When technology reaches a point that an
activity can become profitable, as communication satellites did or as
many functions once performed exclusively by the U.S. Postal Service
have, the activity should be performed by private industry. The
government should develop and provide services and capabilities for the
common good, where the market cannot. For NASA this means that we
explore space, conduct scientific research, and develop technologies
that improve our ability to utilize air and space. Our measure of
efficiency is to accomplish a given technological objective within
given cost or schedule constraints. In the 1960's we were asked to send
humans to the moon and return them safely to Earth within that decade.
The NASA of that era accomplished that goal in a manner that I believe
was very efficient. Today we are asked to complete the very complex
assembly of the space station by 2010, return humans to the Moon not
later than 2020, and then to send humans to Mars and beyond. We are
asked to conduct scientific investigations and to meet engineering
goals that will improve our understanding of the Earth and space and
enhance our national competitiveness. We are asked to do all of this on
a go-as-you-pay budget. So efficiency in today's NASA lies in what we
can accomplish within the budgets we are provided. To do this, we must
understand our mission priorities, focus on life cycle costs, sponsor
partnerships with the commercial sector, and pursue partnerships with
the international community. In this way we will maximize the value of
every dollar spent to meet our objectives. ...
So, while efficiency is an important metric for success, it is not the
only measure that is applied to government programs. Of course, NASA
can be more businesslike in its operations. However, I firmly believe
that space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research
requires a multi-generational approach to sustain it. NASA was founded
as a public institution, must carry out its programs while operating
under the oversight of our stakeholders in the White House and
Congress, and must assure the long term success of its mission. In
contrast, contractors and businesses come and go; they succeed or fail
depending on how well they react to their markets. Hence, the need for
government ownership of the intellectual property that sustains our
missions will be with us as long as there is a government....
Yes, surely we can do better, and we are trying. Help us with that, by
bringing us your ideas. But remember also that the frustrating
constraints on government development programs are the result of
conflicting public policy considerations that, quite deliberately,
yield emphasis on numerous societal values to which we are more
strongly attached than we are to that of pure market efficiency."

tom

Nice sentiment, but it doesn't answer the question.