NASA Hopes Discovery's Move Is Not The Last 81
An anonymous reader wrote to mention the movement of the space shuttle Discovery. The upcoming mission, if it launches, is crucial to the future of American manned space flight. From the Washington Post article: "A successful flight will allow NASA to resume construction of the half-built International Space Station and possibly extend the life of the beloved Hubble Space Telescope, which has allowed humans to peer into far galaxies. But with the shuttle fleet due to retire in 2010, any serious problems during July's mission likely would bring a premature end to the shuttle program and disrupt NASA's plans to keep its skilled work force intact while a replacement spacecraft is being developed."
A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
If you don't want to kill the ISS completely, then focus on maintaining the ISS in orbit while developing the new generation vehicle (you could do this with a conventional booster). The use of the current shuttle should be restricted to non-ISS issue only.
Building something that cannot be used until the next generation space shuttle becomes available (for supply and emergency evacuation, etc) isn't exactly a smart thing to do.
Have courage and let go the ISS for now.
Re:A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
Building something that cannot be used until the next generation space shuttle becomes available (for supply and emergency evacuation, etc) isn't exactly a smart thing to do.
Do you really think NASA is that stupid? The ISS is supplied and evacuated by Russian Progress vessels. It's always been the plan to use the Shuttle to build the space station, and use Progress vessels to supply and man it after it's built. What do you think has been being used to keep ISS going for the past 3 years?
Re:A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
No they cannot. They do not have the proper means to deliver right now (both Arian and H-II are wrong for the size of the ISS payload, nor do they have experience in rendezvous maneuver with a station).
But if they want to, they should be definitely welcome to that.
the Indian and Chinese space programs will have more time to catch up to the US
No. If the NASA keeps its focus on the ISS only, then these nations would have time to play a catch-up (they are still about two decades behind NASA, mind you...but that doesn't mean it would take two decades to catch up, btw). If the NASA wants to stay on top, the next generation space vehicle is the place to put the money on.
And at this time, the NASA'd better do it right. And the congress shouldn't interject its stupidity into the new shuttle program like they did in 1960s.
Re:A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
With a Soyuz pod, the maximum number of staff is limited to three. And currently there are only two ports available on the ISS (so theoretically they could go up as high as six today).
In a fully configured mode, the ISS should hold at least three international teams (US, Europe and Japan, say). Each team has about 5 -- 6 staff scientists on board to conduct a variety of experiments. So it needs to staff about 15 or more people. There is no conceivable way to achieve that right now, because of the next generation shuttle problem (or a lack of thereof).
That is what I meant by my original post. I think others got it, though.
Jerry Pournelle has the answer YET AGAIN! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/topics/gettospace.h
Jerry Pournelle Wrote:
"I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences.
Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:
The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:
1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.
2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.
3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.
4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.
5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.
That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury."
------------
The problem is our GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT
Hurricanes? (Score:2, Interesting)
I just read about this on the BBC and they say it isn't due for lift-off until early July. So they expect to have it standing out there for nearly two months? What's the situation re the likely chance of a hurricane sweeping through the neighbourhood during that timeframe? Or is it safer there than where it was?
Dubious Assumptions (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a pretty big leap, in my opinion. I honestly don't mean to be a troll, but the shuttle has more or less proven to be a dangerously unreliable machine. So saying that a single successful flight will, ergo, guarantee subsequent successful flights is a bit like playing Russian roulette and figuring everything will be fine in the future as long as there's no bullet in the chamber this time. It just isn't very sensible.
Maybe it's just the wording, but it seems to me that it would be better to say something like, "despite the very high risk of catastrophic failure involved, NASA will attempt to continue to fly the space shuttle in order to maintain the ISS," since that would at least be honest and accurate.
Re:A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
Face it, the end of US spaceflights is near! (Score:3, Interesting)
A sad end to a once great US endeavour which was the envy of the world, but hey there's always the war on terror, look how popular that is making us, and at only 20 times the cost!
Re:SM4 needed (Score:3, Interesting)
They handle *some* unmanned space missions here. JPL out in Pasadena, handles quite a few unmanned missions as well. There used to be a fairly strong rivalry between the two, in fact, but I believe that that has started to go the way of the Hatfield vs McCoy rivalry.
The GSFC campus *is* huge, by the way, and the JPL campus is relatively small and on a hill.
One of the best things about the JWST (James Web Space Telescope, the follow-on to Hubble) is that it will primarily detect infrared frequencies (iirc) so it will be much more suited to do cosmological observations than Hubble. Will we finally nail down the true value of the Hubble Constant? Can we determine the values for the constants of integration from solutions to Einstein's Field Equations? Will Snakes on a Plane truly be the summer blockbuster movie that its name implies?
Re:A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, James webb who got us to the moon in 8 years, was incompetent
As far as I can see, it really doesn't matter very much. The Bush league fantasies about going to Mars via the space station and the moon are probably going to flounder sometime just before or after we get back to the moon for a day or two. Reason -- cost overruns and the fallout from Bush's nutty fiscal policies.Actually, if the USA can get heavy lift rockets and our own mission to their working, we will probably be ok. The reason is that private enterprise is not really interested in going to space for spaces sake. They want to go to the moon/mars and start exploration. They will also build small hotels to help fund it, but all this requires heavy lift capablities running at least once a month (or more) to be low cost enough.
Re:I have to agree (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Jerry Pournelle has the answer YET AGAIN! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A humble suggestion to NASA (Score:2, Interesting)
We cut SOFIA and fucked the German partners. Why not just cut the ISS? SOFIA was going to give us IR astronomy results that would have blown our socks off, just like we all collectively ejaculate whenever Hubble produces another piece of good science and pretty pictures. The ISS has barely even given me solid wood - it's clear which mission should be cut.