NASA and Space Station Alliance On Shaky Ground 73
coondoggie writes "Even as the latest shift of astronauts arrived at the International Space Station, challenges with the orbital outpost on the ground are threatening its future. Those challenges include the pending retirement of the space shuttle but also the way NASA and the ISS are managed. A report issued this week by the Government Accountability Office said NASA faces several significant issues that may impede efforts to maximize utilization of all ISS research facilities."
i see what you did there (Score:1)
maybe don't link to the comments section of the article next time...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently there's a "baddoggie" tag for that as well. Learn something new every day.
Re: (Score:1)
He always link to the same crappy site (which I assume he works for), and the summaries are always mangled with one or more stupid errors.
Never noticed that, it's true though. boo, hiss!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Note to editors on article link (Score:3, Informative)
2) Here is the one page, print version: http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/export/home/httpd/htdocs/news/2009/122309-layer8-nasa-iss-astronauts.html&pagename=/news/2009/122309-layer8-nasa-iss-astronauts.html&pageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/122309-layer8-nasa-iss-astronauts.html&site=printpage [networkworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR
No human spaceflight can't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Well now that Obama is going to cancel Ares 1, the USA won't have any human spaceflight capacity until probably the 2020s (assuming the rest of Constellation isn't canceled before then too). That can't be helpful for the future of the space station.
Re:No human spaceflight can't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither party has any interest in the future. One focuses resources on entitlements and the other on war.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one solution. Sarah Palin must be President!
Re:No human spaceflight can't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction. Both parties focus resources on entitlements and war.
This is shameful. Better to be a beggar in a world colonizing the Moon, Mars, and mining asteroids, than to be a CEO in a world in which the human spirit is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been re-watching Farscape and just got depressed at one statement. During one episode, human astronaut John Crichton states: "My planet doesn't even go to the Moon anymore." I realized that we haven't been to the Moon in my lifetime (born in 1975), much less anywhere else (manned) beyond low Earth orbit. By all rights we should have some kind of permanent Moon base in operation now if not a manned trip to Mars. Instead, we've pulled back and decided that we're ok with just orbiting around our plane
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone who would like to look at the actual data and draw their own conclusions.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/hist.pdf [gpoaccess.gov]
Page 321
Consumption expenditures 2010 Estimate ( % GDP )
Defense - 4.8
Nondefense - 2.5
Consumption expenditures 2002 ( % GDP )
Defense - 3.5
Nondefense - 2.0
Current Transfer payments 2010 Estimate ( % GDP )
Government social benefits - 11.0
Grants to State and local governments - 3.8
Other transfers to the rest of the world - 0.3
Current Transfer payments 2002 ( % GDP )
Government so
Re: (Score:2)
"Obama's agenda has always been to funnel all available money into entitlement programs and short-term make-work projects."
Really? I missed that. If that's really his agenda, he's really doing a bad job following it. Unless you consider the military an entitlement program.
Re:No human spaceflight can't help (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, NASA always has the option of building an alternative launch system [directlauncher.com] for a lot less money than the ARES craft. The beauty is that all of the engines are already built and tested, and the J-130 can loft about 30-40 metric tons of payload (say, an MPLM [wikipedia.org] along with the Orion module.
Re:No human spaceflight can't help (Score:4, Informative)
Unless you are a time traveler, that's an opinion - not a fact.
Assuming, of course, that DIRECT doesn't behave like pretty much any other large scale aerospace engineering project and end up cost well above estimates while performing well below predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
It uses exactly the same engines as the space shuttle stack which can lift the shuttle (68.5 metric tons) plus it's cargo (24.4 metric tons) to Low Earth Orbit (92.9 mt total). It should be able to lift a 20-25 metric Orion module with no difficulty whatsoever (even if you hauled up a few metric tons of water as
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
1. (grammar) A grammatically complete series of words consisting of a subject and predicate, even if one or the other is implied, and typically beginning with a capital letter and ending with a full stop.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
its time to INNOVATE and IMPROVE technology not be like the USSR and just keep using the same thing day in and day out never improving
Then Ares should be nixed as well. My view is that the problem isn't the insufficient sexiness of the technology, it's the feeble economics of space launch especially as practiced by NASA. The single most important economy of scale is launch frequency yet NASA has yet to use that economy of scale.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a world where a booster consists of only the engines, that would be a useful statement. We don't live in such a world.
Re: (Score:2)
In a world where...
I cant help but hear your post in the voice of Don LaFontaine.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't sound anything like him, but I was channeling him... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Ares 1 was almost done. To put people on top of a Delta-IV or Atlas requires man-rating them. Building a new launch system means throwing away years of engineering effort. If you want to start building Direct now, you have to consider all the work that's already gone into Ares in the cost. Is it still cheaper?
Re:No human spaceflight can't help (Score:5, Insightful)
Ares 1 was almost done.
That will be why it wasn't supposed to make its first flight to ISS until around 2016.
To put people on top of a Delta-IV or Atlas requires man-rating them.
The whole concept of 'man-rating' is mostly nonsense: if a rocket isn't safe enough to launch some spam in a can, it's not safe enough to launch a billion-dollar satellite. There are issues with using the Delta and Atlas, but they're relatively minor compared to building a whole new launcher: ensuring that the trajectory used always allows a safe abort, improving engine-out performance (where your satellite is toast anyway so you might as well crash and burn on an unmanned launch), etc.
If you want to start building Direct now, you have to consider all the work that's already gone into Ares in the cost. Is it still cheaper?
Yes. Because you only have to build one new launcher and not two.
Re: (Score:2)
Man rating goes a little beyond launching spam in a can. First of all, a satellite can withstand higher G forces. Second, a satellite has broader temperature and pressure tolerances. Third, a satellite doesn't need an abort system capable of pulling it away from the soon-to-be fireball that used to be the launch vehicle.
The key word here is "little". The ULA knows how to lower G forces (assuming that becomes necessary). You get higher gravity losses, but it's not a deal killer. Second, satellites don't have broader temperature and pressure tolerances. Recall that the humans will be flying inside a pressurized, insulated can. They will have the same temperature and pressure sensitivity as any other valuable payload. Third, the abort system is part of the payload not the launch vehicle. The part that you need is some sort of
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Even the number and type of engines has not been decided for Ares V, the supposed Batman to the Ares I Robin.
By contrast, all the major pieces and launch infrastructure are available to make the NLS/DIRECT idea work if the decision
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, they both suck. Trading Ares for DIRECT is just as bad a deal because they both have horrible recurring costs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No human spaceflight can't help (Score:4, Interesting)
jpmorgan, you need to keep up on the news, good and bad
"Reporting on a White House and NASA meeting last Wednesday, sources say that the President has decided to give NASA an additional $US1 billion in 2011. The extra funding will serve to create a new heavy lift rocket, as well as to increase the fleet of satellites controlling Earth’s land, oceans and atmosphere.
The objective is to have the heavy rocket ready for a 2018 launch"
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/12/obama-gives-nasa-bigger-budget-backs-new-rocket-cancels-ares-1/ [gizmodo.com.au]
Can't agree with tomhath either, looks like this administration is willing to invest in the future
Re:No human spaceflight can't help (Score:4, Informative)
One billion a year extra isn't going to get a heavy lift rocket ready in nine years.
Note also that that extra billion is the lowest rate of growth of any budget item so far. Most of them are getting 9-12% increases, this is closer to 6%....
Re: (Score:2)
You need to keep up on the American political process. First, $1B is chump change when we're talking rocket development. But it's a moot point.
Obama will ask congress for an additoinal $1B in funding to build a heavy lift rocket. Congress will, as expected, decline to spend that amount of money on such 'frivolities' when they're desperately trying to pay for an expanded health care system and repay $1T spent digging holes in the ground.
I don't know why everybody is so shocked over this. Obama told everybody
Re: (Score:2)
$9 billion buys you a new engine design and work on a 1st stage, plus integration work with an existing 2nd stage (such as Centaur). i.e. something like what SpaceX will have by H1 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if human spaceflight continues to consist of dicking around in earth orbit like a project Mercury SUV, it's not much of a loss.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the point of the constellation project - to make it feasible to leave LEO. Constellation has now been thoroughly dismantled so who knows.
SpaceX to the rescue (Score:5, Interesting)
Current estimates suggest they will lower the cost of cargo to the ISS from $46,000/kg to $20,000/kg. The Dragon capsule will serve as a lifeboat too, increasing the number of crew that can be permanently stationed at the station.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the "true profit motive in a free market" for space exploration and colonization? Mining? Hotels?
Or are you suggesting government bounties of some sort? Because artificial incentives ponied up by government with taxpayer money hardly count as true profit motives in a free market, though they may in some cases be reasonable ways for the government to get something done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People are ready and willing to pay to go do exploration and colonization.. if only the price wasn't so damn high.
Re: (Score:2)
Give space exploration and colonization a true profit motive in a free market and we'll be on Mars in a decade.
It's not happening now. NASA has obstructed space development and exploration in a number of ways, but my view is that if we were this close to profitably landing on Mars, private industry would be well on its way, NASA or no NASA. The truth is that we don't have a "true profit motive" for going to Mars in the near future. That is, we don't have any serious business plans that would expect to make a profit by landing on Mars in ten years. NASA, the legal environment, etc aren't the only obstacles. You also
Re: (Score:1)
The sooner NASA is privatized the better. There really is very little the government does without colossal waste involved. Give space exploration and colonization a true profit motive in a free market and we'll be on Mars in a decade.
Do you also believe that the only way to raise revenues is to cut taxes ?
/
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if America is ready to tolerate a vehicle with a 33% success rate, which is what Falcon 1 has. Talk about carnage. I laugh at how much stock you people put in the amatures at SpaceX.
Re:SpaceX to the rescue (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if America is ready to tolerate a vehicle with a 33% success rate, which is what Falcon 1 has.
If I remember correctly, Atlas had about a 75% failure rate before NASA stuck John Glenn on top, and I think the first Mercury/Atlas unmanned test flight exploded shortly after launch.
Failures are expected during development, the question is whether you can fix the problems and move on (and sustain funding while you're debugging the system), which SpaceX appear to be doing.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
1. You're not real good at math.
2. You're a malcontent armchair retard.
3. Neither cargo, no the life boat Dragon has anything to do with Falcon 1.
4. You can't spell amateur.
5. You don't seem to know what it means if you could spell it.
6. Kindly fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You know my favourite part about Slashdot? Watching retards like you embarrass yourself. I *could* correct you on all your errors but it's just so much more fun to watch you repeat that same stupidity in post after post. People who know what they're talking about will read what you say and think "gee, what a blow hard loser" and people who don't know the difference will read my flames of you and jump on the bandwagon of hating you. It's win-win, and so much entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! You are really torqued up. Why such a SpaceX fanboy? Of course you cannot refute anything I say. Yet you waste everyone's time and reply anyway. Who then is the loser?
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't know why people feel the need to make up FUD about SpaceX. If you want to criticize them it's not hard, just point at their schedule and link to some of their claims from 5 years ago. I guess what I'm saying is that if you want to be a troll, be a smart troll, do some research.
Re: (Score:2)
You know a great way to back up a "it's the truths!!!" retort? References. It also helps if you log in coward. In any case, that's not much of an argument.. there's much better ones you can make against SpaceX, my point is, why are you aiming so low?
Re: (Score:2)
The previous poster is correct. Proof that SpaceX is not ready for prime time is seen in the dismal success rate of the Falcon 1. The Falcon 9 is an order of magnitude more complex. I think America's space future would be more wisely bet on the men that sent us to the moon and built the space station than some web hack hobbyist with too much money to spend.
Re: (Score:2)
"More expensive to run experiments in the ISS" (Score:2)
The first two points (Score:4, Interesting)
The first two points in the article cancel each other out. To paraphrase, they are:
1. It costs too much, so no one flies experiments, and
2. There are too many experiments for the crew to handle.
No one goes there anymore, it is too busy. -- Yogi Berra
If the ISS is kept running for 5 years, we will get more out of the fifth year than we did the first year. If it is kept running 10 years, we will get more out of the 10th year than the 5th year. Launch cost will be dropping regardless of the fate of Ares, and as current research opens up new research the demand for space launch capabilities will increase. Remember, in the absolutely most boring future, the Russians could build a second Progress assembly line. The probable success of SpaceX just makes that better (notably in the "return of material" area.
Now, is any of this worth it? That's more of a policy decision than a technical one. I think it is, half for the science and half for the global cooperation required. Remember, this International Space Station represents the efforts of 2/3 of the planet (land area-wise, heh, not population). When is the last time that has happened without there being a war in progress?
Re: (Score:2)
And since the Shuttle is being shut down, putting up new habitation modules isn't likely.
As far as I know, there never were plans to extend the size of the ISS past six even when the Shuttle's end wasn't considered. Someone would have to build the habitation module first. And even with the end of the Shuttle, there are several vehicles (Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, Proton) that can launch such modules to the ISS.
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a dumb idea for SpaceX.
Have them start up by making trips to the ISS carrying odd shipments (like fancy meals and such) claiming them as training exercises. As NASA loses intrest in the ISS (the government right now is much more intrested in giving free medical insurance to Mexican Crack Whores than science), they can take over the routine stuff. Soon, the only way for the US to reach the ISS is through SpaceX. That pretty much gives them full control over it (with maybe some complaints by a bankrupt
They should just dump it in the sea (Score:2)
...like the giant albatross that it is. It serves no useful purpose but it's soaking up all of NASA's budget, budget that could be spent on more interesting/useful stuff like the Mars rovers.
Poorly worded title (Score:1)