Slashdot Mirror

Could this be a cover for NASA to give money to the Russian space program without Congressional outcry to keep all those scientists employed instead of them drifting off to less than-honorable gigs to actually make money to keep their families fed?

1998 Report suggesting giving Russia Space Program bailout

NASA says the shuttle costs $2.2 billion/year to have around and $85 million per flight. Since NASA had only been making half a dozen flights a year, this equates to $500 million per flight average mission costs.

That'd better be one important satellite you're trying to repair. We could have replaced even the Hubble Space Telescope for the price of the shuttle missions we've done to service it.

A few comments on your proposal:

• The Radio-Isotope-Generator (RTG) power sources on Voyager et al have some significant problems with regard to the political implications of getting them up there. You may or may not recall the farce that surrounded Cassini's launch, and the fears that a launch accident would have spread plutonium dust over the eastern seaboard.
• Disregarding the above, RTG's aren't a magic bullet. After 10 years in space, Voyager was down to 1/2 the original power. I've got no idea what Hubble's power requirements are, but I wouldn't assume you can just drop a couple o' RTGs in and stop worrying...
• Rather more serious than this, however, is that Hubble is a big satellite. Over 11 tonnes. 14 times heavier than the Voyager probes, which took the heaviest available launcher (a Titan-IIIc) to throw them out of earth orbit. Short of reviving the Saturn-V, there's not a lot on the shelf that'll get Hubble much out of it's current Low Earth Orbit. Oh, and when it does go out there, most of the optics are likely to be knackered by the transit through the Van Allen belts....
• The exact mission you're describing - go a ways out there and look back at ourselves - has already been attempted. Lookup Triana aka "Gore-sat" for more details. To summarise: It's a great PR effort but the science is lousy.

Page isn't with the Tribune? I used to like his columns occasionally.

Bully for him not letting the other guy frame the debate. (Wouldn't it be fascinating if we could snap our fingers and abolish either problem? But we can't, just as we don't have to choose, and anyway that choice would not be particularly meaningful -- it would be like someone coming to you and taking one of your children away -- you choose which.) That's what someone tried to do here by injecting "everything." BTW, from firsthand experience I'll share that racism is doing just fine, it's just quieter these days.

Here, too, we can pursue more than one objective at a time, it's a question of priorities. And I think we have those priorities wrong. Fight teen pregnancy or build a moon base? Is this a trick question? NASA's budget is now $14 billion (plus deficits). That's real money, even these days.

As for whether NASA's work is all worthwhile AND economical, I wouldn't go to NASA's site at all (though yes, I have often). I rely on any number of articles by scientists upset over the diversion and waste of funds on manned spaceflight. Here is an example forwarded to me by a good friend, who is also an aero/astronatical engineer, which discussed ISS and manned flight generally from a scientist's perspective. It should be thought-provoking.

Go to NASA's site and read everything you can about unmanned projects. Now if you had to pick manned or (ten times as much) unmanned flight (with no loss of life), which would you choose? :) Of course the choice is not so stark: it's about priorities.

Again, I favor space exploration and scientific inquiry, but am cool to manned, which we do not need yet. In fact it is because I am eager for us to push the boundaries of science that I am against manned spaceflight at this time. It cost far too much and benefits us little -- and kills people.

W e l l , I 'l l l e t y o u d e c i d e f o r y o u r s e l f .

The last time a government body tried to choose a single computer as a standard, it caused a big stink. The body: NASA. Here's a letter from Dan Goldin, then-NASA administrator, who replied to a congressman on this issue. (http://www.reston.com/nasa/a/07.02.97.goldin.lamp son.html)

Goldin didn't institute this policy, I feel, but some other clown at a NASA agency. Today, since NASA's mandate needs more than a bunch of Windows workstations (with fault tolerances that would give a man-rated program like the Shuttle cause for abandoning spaceflight altogether since destruction of the spacecraft or launch failures would be a virtual certainty) to handle scientific programs and the like. For NASA, moving to Windows just made no sense. For Capital Hill, there is some sense for this until you realize that, in these days, standardizing on a single platform locks a company into the faults (many dangerous) which can result in data destruction or security compromises.

Someone on the Hill needs to be reminded of their own laws. Problem is that the Hill MAKES the laws, and it wouldn't be the first time where Congress does its "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" routine.

Government is normally not allowed to pick one competitor over another for anti-competitive reasons. Bidding is normally done for things where multiple standards are impractical (like fighter jets).

Standardizing on Windows for Congress puts up a big "HACK ME" sign to terrorists and other people with time to waste. UNIX isn't a panacea, but it has a hell of a better resistance to attacks and doesn't suffer from Microsoft's code insecurity and bloat.

Most importantly, Mac OS X is the only UNIX family that runs Microsoft Office, but without the virus compromising technologies like ActiveX and VBScript.

It's important to realize that while NASA is not technically getting a budget cut, its funding certainly isn't increasing. It's just decreasing less quickly. There are some interesting details on the budget changes at NASA Watch. The budget "increase" is 2%, but the compounded inflation for the last seven years appears to be about 14% (GDP based) (IANA economics expert, so my calculation could be off, but you get the idea). So you see that while the budget did increase by a few hundred million dollars, the amount of money they have to work with has been steadily declining.

For what its worth, here are some decent sites containing current NASA and other country's position, and progress on civilian space travel:

http://www.reston.com/nasa/tourism.html
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/general_public_ space_travel_and_tourism_volume_2.shtml
http://www.nss.org/alerts/releases/release36.html
http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/space/civilian_space_ travel/

MODS: Don't mod me because of age/sex/religion/creed/color/name. If you must criticise, please post contstructively rather than zealously. thanks

But seriously, not all areas are suitable for wind power. What about Solar Power Satellites ????
Yes, it would require a significant upfront investment, but as the Slashdot thread on Asteroid Mining from a week or two ago showed, the long-term payback is huge. . .

Don't forget Heinlein's book Waldo Inc., where wireless power transmission was used to power everything (including flying cars). RAH also covered the inevitable health effects of living in a world saturated by electromagnetic radiation.

As far as projects go, NASA is developing solar power satellites using microwave power transmission. There was a slashdot article a while back on this, but I'm too lazy to dig up the url (surely you can find it yourself)

Neh

• Officia l NASA press release
• Boeing's ISS page
• ISS teleconference
• NASA Spacelink
• CNN special feature
• Congress' ISS Authorization Act
• Zvezda statistics
• Discovery Channel coverage
• Unofficial ISS Users' Guide
• NASA press kit
• Yaho o! ISS directory

- vl

I remember when NASA use to try to squeze every ounce of life out of it's probes, Just look at the history.

Neptune and Uranus where secondary objectives for voyager II if it survived that long.

Pioneer 10 and 11, first probes to cross the asteroid belt, visit jupiter, and visit saturn. They continued obtaining data from them long after the jupiter and saturn(pioneer 11) flybys. Pioneer 10 expired in the mid 90's (launched 1973) and they are predicting pioneer 11 (launched 1972) to kick the bucket anyday now. It is still returning usefull data, though it has no budget!

Pioneer 6, launched in 1965 is considered NASA's oldest operational space craft, I know it was still running in 1996, I think it is still running...

Pioneer Venus launched in 1978 was designed to last a year, they kept it going until 1992.

The Viking missions, launched in 1976, they kept them going till the landers died in the mid 80's.

The Skylab rescue, instead of writing it off they salvaged the derilict space station.

They salvaged and repaired Solar Max with the shuttle, to bad they where to cheap to launch a reboost mission to keep it going later (under the NEW NASA)

And finally the (Orbiting Astronomy Observatory) OAO-3 copernicus. Launched in 1972, it was kept going until the early 1990's. As the Gyro's failed (one by one) the control software was modified to handle first only 2 working gyro's, then only 1 working gyro.

Which btw. is what happened to GRO, it now has only 2 working gyro's. GRO was designed to be serviced by the space shuttle (just like solar max, and hubble). NASA acknowledges that they can modify the software to safely control/re-enter with 1 or 0 operating gyro's.

This is a waste of tax payer money, and a direct effort by the NEW NASA to distance itself from the successful programs of the OLD NASA.

Did you hear since the VP is in charge of the space program that Al Gore invented outer space ?

TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken

While I vent some deep links to nasawatch
comments on the crash
likely excuses by NASA
FAQ on why to crash
SpaceflightNow crash status

I remember when NASA use to try to squeze every ounce of life out of it's probes, Just look at the history.

Neptune and Uranus where secondary objectives for voyager II if it survived that long.

Pioneer 10 and 11, first probes to cross the asteroid belt, visit jupiter, and visit saturn. They continued obtaining data from them long after the jupiter and saturn(pioneer 11) flybys. Pioneer 10 expired in the mid 90's (launched 1973) and they are predicting pioneer 11 (launched 1972) to kick the bucket anyday now. It is still returning usefull data, though it has no budget!

Pioneer 6, launched in 1965 is considered NASA's oldest operational space craft, I know it was still running in 1996, I think it is still running...

Pioneer Venus launched in 1978 was designed to last a year, they kept it going until 1992.

The Viking missions, launched in 1976, they kept them going till the landers died in the mid 80's.

The Skylab rescue, instead of writing it off they salvaged the derilict space station.

They salvaged and repaired Solar Max with the shuttle, to bad they where to cheap to launch a reboost mission to keep it going later (under the NEW NASA)

And finally the (Orbiting Astronomy Observatory) OAO-3 copernicus. Launched in 1972, it was kept going until the early 1990's. As the Gyro's failed (one by one) the control software was modified to handle first only 2 working gyro's, then only 1 working gyro.

Which btw. is what happened to GRO, it now has only 2 working gyro's. GRO was designed to be serviced by the space shuttle (just like solar max, and hubble). NASA acknowledges that they can modify the software to safely control/re-enter with 1 or 0 operating gyro's.

This is a waste of tax payer money, and a direct effort by the NEW NASA to distance itself from the successful programs of the OLD NASA.

Did you hear since the VP is in charge of the space program that Al Gore invented outer space ?

TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken

While I vent some deep links to nasawatch
comments on the crash
likely excuses by NASA
FAQ on why to crash
SpaceflightNow crash status

I remember when NASA use to try to squeze every ounce of life out of it's probes, Just look at the history.

Neptune and Uranus where secondary objectives for voyager II if it survived that long.

Pioneer 10 and 11, first probes to cross the asteroid belt, visit jupiter, and visit saturn. They continued obtaining data from them long after the jupiter and saturn(pioneer 11) flybys. Pioneer 10 expired in the mid 90's (launched 1973) and they are predicting pioneer 11 (launched 1972) to kick the bucket anyday now. It is still returning usefull data, though it has no budget!

Pioneer 6, launched in 1965 is considered NASA's oldest operational space craft, I know it was still running in 1996, I think it is still running...

Pioneer Venus launched in 1978 was designed to last a year, they kept it going until 1992.

The Viking missions, launched in 1976, they kept them going till the landers died in the mid 80's.

The Skylab rescue, instead of writing it off they salvaged the derilict space station.

They salvaged and repaired Solar Max with the shuttle, to bad they where to cheap to launch a reboost mission to keep it going later (under the NEW NASA)

And finally the (Orbiting Astronomy Observatory) OAO-3 copernicus. Launched in 1972, it was kept going until the early 1990's. As the Gyro's failed (one by one) the control software was modified to handle first only 2 working gyro's, then only 1 working gyro.

Which btw. is what happened to GRO, it now has only 2 working gyro's. GRO was designed to be serviced by the space shuttle (just like solar max, and hubble). NASA acknowledges that they can modify the software to safely control/re-enter with 1 or 0 operating gyro's.

This is a waste of tax payer money, and a direct effort by the NEW NASA to distance itself from the successful programs of the OLD NASA.

Did you hear since the VP is in charge of the space program that Al Gore invented outer space ?

TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken

While I vent some deep links to nasawatch
comments on the crash
likely excuses by NASA
FAQ on why to crash
SpaceflightNow crash status

is This what you mean?

I wonder if this is the future of NASA... :) On the other hand, if commercialization helps future missions, like putting three interferometers orbiting the sun, which effectively yields to a very high powered "telescope", helping to find those nearby planets.

Since I currently work in the aerospace industry and have experience with both governmnet and industry types, I must say that you are right where your father was concerned, but you are not right today. NASA is not the place it once was. It no longer contains the best and the brightest. Right now, the government is about as far behind technology as they possibly could be. And better faster cheaper has produced remarkable success stories except for the last couple screw-ups that are largely due to part of NASA. No private company has gone into space extensively because there are not enough rewards to going into space. I personally think this current venture is a boondoggle and a horrible thing for anyone (government or private) to do. But the fact of the matter is that NASA has fewer and fewer good people. And they have been playing games with taxpayer money. Programs have been funded with other programs monies. Check out www.spacer.com or NasaWatch to get a feel for the problems with NASA and the space industry as a whole. Don't get me wrong, private industry can be pretty stupid too (i.e. Roton) but NASA has had much more success with unmanned missions that manned ones.

Stay tuned.

4 March 2000: Boeing's missing tanks not explosive, Huntsville Times

"Huntsville workers for Boeing accidentally threw away the two $375,000 tanks last month and later found a piece of their protective covering in the Huntsville landfill.

Boeing has said that if the tanks must be replaced, then NASA, not Boeing, must pay for them, due to terms of a contract between the organizations."

....

By coincidence, this month is "Property Awareness Month" at NASA MSFC ...

the latest rumor: the russians will launch the module on June 18,2000. See NasaWatch article.

This story is just CYA BS.

The real answer is probably related to the rumor that NASA forgot to put heaters on the explosive bolts. This would have prevented the cruise stage from separating and the lander+DS2 probes would have burned up in the atmosphere.

Cm'on, even if the lander rolled down a ravine, the DS2 probes would still work! After all, they were designed and tested to CRASH into the surface.

Here's a couple of other possibilities if this works out. ;) http://www.reston.com/nasa/humor/shuttle.ads.html http://www.reston.com/nasa/commercialization/iss.a ds.cooke.html

Here's a couple of other possibilities if this works out. ;) http://www.reston.com/nasa/humor/shuttle.ads.html http://www.reston.com/nasa/commercialization/iss.a ds.cooke.html

TrevorB wrote:
[many things that are so flattering of Goldin, he might as well have been paid for writing them]

Goldin has taken a decade to be humbled to the point that he'll accept even the slightest hint of returning NASA to its original purpose, the same one it serves in the aeronautics industry: fostering new technologies and assisting industry in achieving what it's actually best at.

The most important thing NASA does, period, is space exploration via planetary probes. The "better faster cheaper" program in that area is a response (a good one) toward brutal budget cuts he backed.

The program Goldin loves the best is astronautics, in the form of the Shuttle and International Space Station. These are program which cost many billions of dollars, yet will achieve negligible science results. The lower flight rate of the shuttle in the post-Challenger era has only led to higher per-launch costs. "Privatization" in the form of the United Space Alliance is a figleaf for the benefit of Congress; it hasn't changed shuttle management, goals, or procedures much at all, and hasn't lowered costs except at the expense of personnel. We've seen the outcome of that policy in the wiring problems aboard the shuttle fleet.

Private business has never been charged with planetary exploration, so your comparison is pointless. If you look at what the private sector HAS accomplished in space, you will find hundreds of communications, weather, and imaging satellites, none of them put there by government programs.

As long as Goldin is running the space agency, we will continue to see many billions of dollars poured down the hole of the ISS program, and more billions spent dithering with "future technologies" intended to build massive public-works corporate welfare like VentureStar to keep Lockheed Martin in business ... all while the space science mission operates on a shoestring, and even what-if thinking about human exploration of Mars is all but banned.

Almost everything that you praise Goldin for accomplishing, has instead, been accomplished IN SPITE of his administration.

Effective exploitation of near-Earth space will never be accomplished by a government program more interested in providing pork-barrel projects for Congressman and standing in for foreign aid to Russia. That's what Dan Goldin stands for, and if you don't see it, I'm sorry for you.

For a more clear-headed approach to thinking about Goldin and NASA, visit NASA Watch. Though sometimes attitude gets the better of them, they offer a welcome antitode to the "company line" of pro-NASA boosterism. And if you still aren't convinced, read Dragonfly, and be enlightened.

Just wait a few years until NASA, ESA, and other aerospace agencies start allowing for the launch of floating billboards. These would be thin mylar sheets miles wide, with reflective coating sprayed on for letters.

Imagine camping in the woods, or sailing through the middle of the Pacific, and seeing a gigantic "Drink Coke" or "Where do you want to crash today" billboard in the sky, obscuring your view of the moon and the Hale-Bopp II and other astronomical delights.

Also, on a slightly related note of commercialization madness (and annoyance), check out
This Crazy NASA Possibility. Kind of scary.