Leaked White Paper Condemns NASA Life Sciences 31
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.'"
Effects of microgravity (Score:1)
Oh, and another straw on the camels back?
Re:Effects of microgravity (Score:5, Informative)
What do they need to research?
The effects of microgravity include:
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])
Re:Effects of microgravity (Score:2)
Re:Effects of microgravity (Score:1)
Re:Effects of microgravity (Score:1)
Re:Effects of microgravity (Score:2)
No, the solution is to break out of the box (Score:3, Informative)
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"? If I'm not mistaken, a Gemini capsule performed a rendezvous with an Agena rocket, pulled a t
Re:No, the solution is to break out of the box (Score:2)
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
That's the box you've got to break out of! (Score:2)
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
Re:That's the box you've got to break out of! (Score:2)
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
Okay, Polyanna, ever read history? (Score:2)
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
Re:Okay, Polyanna, ever read history? (Score:2)
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
Re:Effects of microgravity (Score:2)
Re:Effects of microgravity (Score:1)
Proactive flames (Score:1)
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!
Is the author under management pressure? (Score:1)
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:
Scientific Article? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
What a waste (Score:1)
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
Re:What a waste (Score:2)
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
Re:What a waste (Score:1)
Re:What a waste (Score:2)
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
Better results with monkeys (Score:2)