Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Leaked White Paper Condemns NASA Life Sciences 31

Posted by simoniker from the time-for-tree-surgeon dept.
WayneConrad writes "SpaceRef has a summary of a leaked Johnson Space Center white paper (pdf) that severely criticizes NASA's Life Science program. According to the paper, science is being done without proper controls, with too-small sample groups, and is often not relevant to the ISS's stated bioscience mission (to develop countermeasures against the deleterious effects of microgravity). The paper states,'NASA's founding fathers would turn in their proverbial graves at the sight of such a convoluted organization' and 'Voodoo science is not worth the cost. The limb of the fault tree Life Sciences is perched upon is perilously close to breaking.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked White Paper Condemns NASA Life Sciences More

Leaked White Paper Condemns NASA Life Sciences

Comments Filter:
  • Now really, the only real way to combat muscle atrophy in space is to exercise, or to create a stable artificial gravity, which allows the muscles to be exercised. What do they need to research?

    Oh, and another straw on the camels back?

    • Re:Effects of microgravity (Score:5, Informative)

      by WayneConrad ( 312222 ) * <wconradNO@SPAMyagni.com> on Thursday October 23, 2003 @03:39AM (#7288478) Homepage

      What do they need to research?

      The effects of microgravity include:

      • Increased heart rate, narrowed pulse pressure, reduced plasma volume, decreased heart chamber volume and facial edema
      • Loss of bone mass
      • Decreased muscle strength and endurance, muscle atrophy, and delayed muscle repair
      • Loss of red blood cell mass, loss of hemoglobin mass, and loss of plasma volume
      • Transient reduction in white blood cells
      • Behavioral and psychological problems (it's not easy living in a can).
      • Motion sickness

      These will all need to be solved for any long missions like a trip to Mars using chemical propulsion; that's what I thought the stated goal of ISS Life Sciences is.

      (More info here [spacebio.net])

      • Maybe a stupid question, maybe not. Say we ultimatly just give the colony ship idea a try (LONG way off probably, but still), what would the effects of micro-gravity be if humans existed in it for several generations? Just a thought.
      • There is an easy solution to that: don't send humans into space for the time being. Eventually, we can build spacecraft that are large enough to generate "artificial gravity" by rotation. Until then, robots and teleoperators are far cheaper and more effective for space exploration and scientific missions into space.

        • There is an easy solution to that: don't send humans into space for the time being.

          I would revise that to, "Do not send humans into space to stay on the ISS". This amounts to the same thing in the short term, because replacing the ISS with a station which has artificial gravity will take time.

          Eventually, we can build spacecraft that are large enough to generate "artificial gravity" by rotation.

          "Eventually"? If I'm not mistaken, a Gemini capsule performed a rendezvous with an Agena rocket, pulled a t

          • The Livermore "community space suit" station was designed as an alterative to this (more usable volume AND artificial gravity), and it would have launched in ONE shot of a Titan.

            Well, that's nice, but it hasn't happened yet. Until people actually demonstrate cheap technologies for lifting people into orbit and keeping them there, we have to go by current prices, and they are hugely expensive. I'm sure that if costs for such projects come down to something that's comparable to unmanned launches and the

            • Until people actually demonstrate cheap technologies for lifting people into orbit and keeping them there, we have to go by current prices, and they are hugely expensive.

              Q: Who has the most to lose from the demonstration of cheap technologies for launching people and letting them work in space?

              A: The people now collecting billions from the expensive contracts to build and maintain the current systems.

              Unless we do something to upset the apple cart, we will be stuck with a couple people in orbit doing no

              • Unless we do something to upset the apple cart, we will be stuck with a couple people in orbit doing nothing and going nowhere. I do not find this an acceptable state of affairs. The people now running the show are some of the biggest obstacles to progress, and they have to be shoved out of the way.

                Don't worry--when the costs have come down enough, China, India, Europe, Japan, and other nations will do that, no matter how cushy the relationship between the US government and large US aerospace contractors

                • Don't worry--when the costs have come down enough, China, India, Europe, Japan, and other nations will do that, no matter how cushy the relationship between the US government and large US aerospace contractors may be.

                  Europe won't do it. Europe's creative drive is spent, gone, kaput. Japan can't even find a launch site that lets them get birds into orbit on schedule, and is experiencing an inverted population pyramid with all the lack of dynamism that implies. So's Europe, for that matter.

                  The USA is the

                  • Europe won't do it. Europe's creative drive is spent, gone, kaput. Japan can't even find a launch site that lets them get birds into orbit on schedule, and is experiencing an inverted population pyramid with all the lack of dynamism that implies. So's Europe, for that matter.

                    Well, at least China, India, Japan, and Europe haven't abandoned education, science, or engineering. The US educational system is in shambles and if the US didn't import a large fraction of its scientists and engineers, it wouldn't h
      • And it will have to be solved using an artifical gravity... (think spinning cylinder) It's pretty much the only way they'll be able to make the trip, land, then be able to walk, without assistance, on the surface immediately afterwards.
    • Seems to me NASA should be persuing the genetic basis of microgravity effects, in the hopes of combating it at the molecular level. They could compare gene expression at 1G and (nearly) 0G...
  • Let's get the flames out of the way quickly:

    1. NASA sucks! They spend billions for nothing.
    2. ISS sucks! It's just a space hotel for the Russians.
    3. The Shuttle sucks! Rockets are are cheaper. My PC has more computing power.
    4. Armadillo all the way 'cuz Carmack is cool and he's OSS!
    5. Rutan will kick everybody's butt.
    6. The Chinese and Indians are going to rule space!

  • Here's something I wanted to bring up but didn't put in the original article (it's too editorial). Check out the email that SpaceRef received from the paper's author (in color on page 1 [spaceref.com]). Here's an excerpt:

    The opinions expressed in the leaked copy were solely that of the author prior to editing and feedback. Based on the feedback received in the intervening period since the first draft, several of the major concerns were addressed in subsequent drafts and others are in the process of being addressed.

  • Scientific Article? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neglige ( 641101 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @05:51AM (#7288818)
    Well, if I had to peer review the white paper, it sure wouldn't score high on the scientific and language scale...

    Figures 10 and 11 speak volumes to the point. These charts read more like a plan for the invasion on Normandy [...] (p. 23)

    Honestly, the paper reads more like a rant than a suggestion on how to improve the processes. I'm not sure if the "paper" was intended to be scientific (if so, it failed) - I'm not even sure what the intention of the paper really is. Maybe venting some steam.

    If he wanted things to get better, ticking off the people in charge with an agressive tone won't get him anywhere. Perhaps a friendly tone would have been as ineffective, but people would be more willing to listen.
  • So, more taxpayer's money is being wasted on projects with a debatable purpose and bad management.

    If all the effort and money that's now being poured into the spacerace and technology push were to be invested in getting our act to getter on this earth, the quality of life of millions could be improved.

    We just might not have to move to Mars if we'd spend more on sustainable development of energy sources, environmental issues, etc.

    Call me naieve.

    --Stachel
    • Another foolish waste theory. What spacerace? Who do you think we are "racing" against?

      Every single dollar spent on Space research has returned approximately three times the return on non-space research has done.

      Do you watch Cable TV?, Do you have a GPS device? Ever ride in a boat/plane?

      40 years ago luddite idiots like you objected to the space race when we actually HAD a space race, and now they use products that DEPEND on the results of the space research every day,

      People that object to spending

    • There will not be much quality of life on Earth when the population gets above 10 billion and we can no longer afford to spend the resources or have the space to build the ships to take people to other planets.
    • No, it's only a "waste" when it's poorly managed and implemented. That's the real issue right now. Just recently, I read where NASA broke a brand new, expensive satellite, because somebody neglected to follow the proper procedures to secure it to the transport platform. They tried to move it, and it fell off, onto the floor!

      These types of mistakes just shouldn't be happening, and they're costing all of us in taxpayer dollars.

      That doesn't mean the space program itself is a bad idea. I just think we mig
  • If this was really NASA's goal, they'd get better results by putting a research colony of monkeys in orbit.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close