Slashdot Mirror
NASA Panel Says ISS Cuts Hurt Science
medcalf writes: "The AP reports that the International Space Station, as proposed, is incapable of doing much meaningful scientific research, and that NASA should thus stop characterizing the program as 'science-driven.' Factors listed in support of the recommendation are insufficient crew, lack of certain vital equipment and insufficient resupply missions. Makes me proud of spending $30 billion in tax money -- hey, isn't that about enough for a manned Mars mission? Perhaps a reevaluation of our goals in space, and what we are prepared to risk for the money, would be in order?" The AP article is summarizing the conclusions of a 23-member panel, which finds the current aim of a "core-complete" station too slender a justification of the past and current expenditures in the name of science.
NASA was formed to one up the Russians, not to do scientific research.
..."
From http://history.nasa.gov/brief.html
"... Formed as a result of the Sputnik crisis of confidence, NASA inherited the earlier National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), and other government organizations, and almost immediately began working on options for human space flight.
Some cats swing, and others don't. Don't you be the kind that won't.
You do get to vote on what NASA does w/its money.
Every time you vote for the people who represent you in Washington.
If it is as important as you think- get the word out, get others to rally around your platform and elect someone who will get the job done.
If you don't think people will do that now- what makes you think they would be more active if they were voting for how money is budgeted directly?
If the American populace determined the budget it would be a complete mess. And if you think a majority of your fellow citizens are in favor of huge expenditures for space exploration - you are mistaken
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
"I say we should be able to vote on what NASA should focus on next."
We do. Every two years in November. It's called "voting for the guys who dole out the budget."
"After every mission with the shuttle they spend 1000's of hours checking and replacing the >30k tiles that line the heat shield part of the body."
Let's see _you_ go through the atmosphere at Mach 20+ and hang on to all your parts. And even then the heat dissipation systems on the space shuttle are still the best thing being used out there.
"I'd say that the *design* is 25+ years old but the actual shuttle is at best a few years"
If that were true then Columbia would be able to make ISS flights. Tiles are replaced as needed, SSMEs are replaced as a part of scheduled maintenance, other incidentals like tires... Other than that, beyond the new glass cockpits and the Canadarms what you see is what's always been there.
The end of Apollo was really the climax of US space exploration. The shuttle/ISS are the post-coital cigarette.
But seriously, the US was all set to go to Mars, but in the heady days of the early 70s, the Nixon administration had other plans. After all, remember that Apollo was really just a political carrot held before us by the Kennedy administration. Once we got to the moon, the collective sigh was sent up: "Been there, done that". By the time of Apollo 13, people took rocket science for granted, and were caught off guard by the Apollo 13 debacle, which, in my opinion, was a textbook example of Nasa at both it's worst and at its best.
In theory, the shuttle program could have been a more practical stepping-stone, but various budget-cutting measures and a highly-diminished drive to go to space handicapped it before it ever flew. So, you get what you pay for. Signs of this are extant in the solid rocket boosters, which are a cheap (and dangerous) alternative to a throttleable booster system. Whole unmanned systems were developed on paper as shuttle derivatives, but never flew off the drawing board due to intransagent budget hawks
Challenger showed the pennywise-poundfoolishness of the various cost-saving measures. Hopefully the people will see the real threat emerging from China now - they want to go to the moon themselves - and vote in pro-space legislators. Slip on over to space.com or spaceflightnow.com to bone up n your space geek knowledge. Your brain will goo "Mmmmmm!"
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
Actually, the company I work for makes the space toilet, as well as the space suit and several other systems for for the ISS. I can assure you that very few, if any, of the engineers are making $145,000. The head of Engineering probably makes about that much.
You make it sound like there is absoulutely no accountability, this couldn't be further from the truth. Financials are due every month and quartlery major programs have full reviews. Things are expensive because they are manufactured in extremely low volumn. Go ahead and look at what these systems are designed to do and how reliable they need to be, then take into the account that you are only producing maybe 3 or 4 of them.
Mass production is what makes things cheap. Virtually all of the work for these things, from tooling to wire harnesses to assembly, are done by hand.
Remember that there was some under-the-table dealings going on with the land contract for the location of the SSC? And how a post-mortem investigation revealed that if the SSC had actually been completed, it would have sunk into the ground and partially collapsed? The SSC was a bad idea to start with - just a mechanism to keep particle physics theorists happy and give grad students places to work. Modern particle physics is really just a lot of navel-staring and has contributed very little to mankind since the initial developments of atomic theory in the 1940s and 50s.