New NASA Shuttle Program "Doomed To Failure"

Heartbreak writes "In a recent press release, the Space Frontier Foundation warns that NASA's Oribital Space Plane program, its latest initiative to take the load off the aging STS (the 'Space Shuttle'), is essentially doomed before it starts. 'NASA's unbroken string of cancelled vehicle programs' going back 20 years makes it a good bet that OSP will also fail. Is this just really, really, bad luck, or is NASA little more than a multi-billion-dollar jobs program for important U.S. aerospace contractors?"

Comments

Of course there will be a lot of failures ...

[Vertex Operator]

NASA isn't run by rocket scientists, after all.
Oh, wait, ...

-Chris

The Shuttle is the best replacement

[Bladesnitz]

Whether the OSP fails or not, I don't know. I do know that NASA greatly trimmed down the grandiose plan they had to ask only for a simple orbiter to complement the Station, rather than some super multifunction vehicle capable of doing more than we need.

NASA's problem is that they are trying to focus on doing something other than the Shuttle. The reasons the other programs failed is because NASA keeps trying to find better ways to do things. The same things they did in these programs, they did in the 60's and 70's, and the result of those experiements was the Space Shuttle.

The line of failures is due to the fact that NASA can't realize that the Shuttle is the compilation of the best ideas we have. If they want to really boost their space program, they should focus on building a new fleet of SPACE SHUTTLES, with new (lighter) computer systems, and incorporating other modifications, such as an crew ejection/escape system and modules that allow the shuttle to perform more tasks (that it is capable of). Examples of these tasks include the current research lab role, whereas a slight modification could turn the Shuttle into a heavy lifter capable of carrying the biggest of payloads to the Station.

I also think the failures are due to a huge lack of incentive. In the Capitalistic society we live in, there is no monetary incentive for a new shuttle; we can send satellites up on cheaper expendable rockets. The dreams for moon and mars colonies are so far in the future that the risk is far too great for anyone to invest in.

Difference

[Wyatt Earp]

The difference right now at NASA is that the USAF wants an orbital vehicle as well for sat delivery/recon/weapons deployment. They have the pockets and project management abilities NASA doesn't have.

After all, USAF was first to go supersonic with X-1. First to go to Mach 2 with X-1A, first to launch a vehicle get it into space and land it with X-15, first with a lifting body with Dynasoar, etc.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/orbitalexpress-02 a. html

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=452 2

So when it comes time to write the checks for something that will cost as much as the replacement for SST comes around, USAF will be able to say it has a greater need. Love it or hate it, when it comes down to it, National Defense and Intelligence Gathering gets the bucks. Launching rats and sunflowers for 10 days at a time doesn't really seem like a good spending of 5 billion dollars to Senators.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/star li ght.htm

USAF/NSA/NRO/DMA/CIA/DIA want to launch a number of birds. Discoverer II calls for 24 new birds. Future Imagery Architecture calls for up to two dozen.

Currently the US has around a dozen spy sats, so within the next decade the number could increase to around fifty. If one looks at articles about the follow-on to B-52/B-1/B-2 it seems more and more likely that USAF will move to an "Orient Express" type aircraft, or even launch conventional weapons from LEO.

I just think that since the DoD is going great guns with more and more systems in space, thats where a reusable launch vehicle will be.

Nasa is doing right...

[Helpadingoatemybaby]

Think about it -- you're in charge of a project not unlike the complexity of the Mars landers. You can see the project through too completion and risk public humiliation and a very public failure, or you can say "Well, it's over budget, let's start all over again." The larger the bureacracy the less impetus there is to finish a complex task.

Like all managers, NASA managers do not want to be in the public humiliation business, after all. Much better to start a project and leave NASA with it on your resume than have it punch a hole in Mars!

Now, having said that, let's look at the source, shall we: "Rick Tumlinson is a founder of the Foundation for the International Non-Govemmental Development of Space (FINDS), a multi-million dollar foundation which funds breakthrough projects and activities, and a founder of LunaCorp, a 7 year-old firm planning a commercial return to the Moon."

Do these lightly nutty folks have an agenda, or what?

Give NASA a goal, a date to achieve it and the threat of a budget cut and they'll work wonders. All they need is something to work towards. Why not Mars?

Anti-NASA group writing anti-NASA press release

[chascarrillo]

I can't say that I'm surprised that an organization that's so biasedly anti-NASA would write an anti-NASA press release (this hardly fits any definition of a news story). Before you give this "story" credence, look into the background of the Space Frontier Foundation. They basically want the first McDonalds on the Moon by 2020. They want to - get this - privatize and commercialize the International Space Station! They're one step from the Raelians.

From their statement:

Our definition of a "frontier enabling" technology or policy is one which has as its effect the acceleration of the creation of low cost access to the space frontier for private citizens and companies, enables or accelerates our use of space resources, and/or accelerates the rate at which wealth can be generated in space. In other words, is the project or policy going to provide a return on the national investment, if we define "return" to be the economically sustainable human habitation of space?

Policies of the Space Frontier Foundation

Re:Anti-NASA group writing anti-NASA press release

[sql*kitten]

They want to - get this - privatize and commercialize the International Space Station!

What's wrong with that?

Right now, the space programme is going nowhere. We have been able to place objects in orbit in the 1950s. Apart from the occasional scientific probe, NASA is basically the Greyhound bus service of LEO.

Space exploration won't happen for real until miners, production engineers, manufacturing corporations, porn stars, hoteliers ands couriers are using space as an everyday part of their jobs.

Apart from the commercial satellite users - telcos and broadcasters mainly - space is a black hole for money. It's got to pay for itself, or we won't be going anywhere.

Re:Use the space shuttle design

[jdhouse4]

You're right. But first, a slight correction. The shuttle's technology is actually a mix of 70's and 80's technology. The propulsion system is actually only about 10 years behind and the cockpit about 5 years.

Still, your point is well taken. NASA-Johnson Space Center always argues that any changes represent an unwise risk to the astronauts' lives. They argue that because NASA-JSC doesn't have to worry about costs.

And when NASA-JSC has upgraded the shuttle, the cost over-runs would take your breath away.

Jim Hillhouse (recovering aerospace engineer)

Re:Shame

[Wyatt Earp]

That's what pushed NASA and the Soviet program in the first place, and there is nothing wrong with using increased defense spending to fund technology. It's what drove pretty much every advancement in aviation, ships, cargo handling, communications, materials science, and aerodynamics in the last 100 years. And in the US intergration of the races in the military happened before the private sector intergrated. Military doesn't always mean bad.

All the early launchers were based on MRBM/ICBMs, getting a man in space simply meant you had the throw-weight to get a bigger fusion bomb to New York or Moscow. Back in the 50s and 60s fusion bombs were big.

Joint USAF/NASA work pushed technology in the 1960s. What became Skylab was going to be an Air Force Orbital Workshop. In Chuck Yeager's bio he talks about training pilots with F-104s modified to manouver with thrusters the same way that Dyna-Soars or X-15s would operate as they went to orbit.

The Soviets worked on the same sorts of military stations. Even MIr was designed to have a military application.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mir.htm

"The original Spektr design was to be armed with Oktava interceptor rockets and equipped with sensors to identify and track ballistic missile re-entry vehicles as well as discriminate decoys. In 1992, as directed by the Soviet Union's military and political leadership, all work on such projects was discontinued. The Spektr module was mothballed, then later converted into a civilian platform, partially funded by the United States."

"Minister of Defence Ustinov requested that the Americans be challenged. As a 'warning shot' the Terra-3 complex was used to track the space shuttle Challenger with a low power laser on 10 October 1984. This caused malfunctions to on-board equipment and temporary blinding of the crew, leading to a US diplomatic protest."

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/almaz.htm
http ://www.astronautix.com/craft/mol.htm
http://www.a stronautix.com/craft/speginal.htm
http://www.astr onautix.com/craft/usb.htm
http://www.astronautix. com/craft/terra3.htm

A world of fear

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe how right Micheal Moore is. We live in a world of fear. NASA is a perfect example. It's clear that it's priorities are only in protecting itself. After working there for 10 years I realized it was just white collar welfare. They told us to "do research", but gave us no money. We were just suppose to write papers and create things for the commericalization office to try to sell to investors. So totally broken on so many levels.

The top priorities for the Center admin. when I lefts were: (1) Safety, (2) Security, & (3) ISO 9000 compliance. He never even mentioned space flight! It's all about covering your ...

This war on Iraq is the same thing as well. We have to control everyone in the world, because we're so scared something bad is going to happen.

Everyone goes to chain resturants, because they're afraid to try any place they haven't been before. "Better to play it safe."

As they just look at you like your crazy if you question putting safety or security as number one. "What sane person would disagree with safety?"

I no longer fear a world quite like 1984 where governments control you're every move. I fear a world where everyone is afraid to do anything because they'll get in trouble, or something bad might happen, or you might lose you're insurance. It's really happening as we speak.

The media talks about terrorists or criminals so much that people think they're everywhere. The truth is it just gets the media higher ratings, but that there's very few of either. (ah, now did you just react negatively to that last sentance? That's because you've also been conditioned in to thinking it's not politically correct to ever underestimate the level of threat we are constantly under.)

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I never understood that when I was younger. Now, I found it to be more literally true than ever.

Remember, "Fear is the mind killer." and American's addicted to it.

With regard to NASA, they put all the managers in charge of the whole org. and it just hopeless now. None of the higher management care about getting anything done, except "avoiding risk". I would argue HUD gets more done than NASA.

I know there's a lot of support for the space program on Slashdot and I would love to see it too. But believe me, NASA not ever going to get anywhere w/o major change.

Rick.

NASA responds to its environment

[njdj]

NASA does what it has to do in order to get funding. That means that it has to have jobs in several different states, to get support from Representatives and Senators in those states. It spends a significant amount of money just to deal with the fact that it's split up into so many different centers.

Then, it has to award contracts into other different states to get support from the politicians in THOSE states. Ever wondered why Shuttle boosters are constructed in segments so that they can be conveniently shipped halfway across the country? Maybe you thought it had something to do with reliability or safety? (For the humor-impaired, that last sentence was sarcastic.)

It's a tribute to the few idealists left at NASA that it ever got anything done. Its main goal today is to preserve its own funding. It's become a nearly-complete waste of money.

Re:NASA critical parody

[sql*kitten]

On the other hand, I would really like to move to Mars (assuming I can get Internet access there), and I don't see a profit-driven operation accomplishing that anytime soon.

I know lots of Slashbots hate patents, but the reason a pharma corporation invests hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D every year is because the regulatory environment is such that if you discover something, you can have exclusive rights to it for a few years.

Now consider the state of Alaska. The problem: a lot of land, but no-one who wants to colonize it. The answer was called "homesteading". This basically meant that if you showed up on a plot of unclaimed land, fenced it and farmed it, after a certain amount of time, it was yours legally.

The commercial exploitation of space will be driven by similar concepts. Let's say a treaty is signed that any corporation who lands on the moon gets exclusive mining/colonization rights for a circle x km around their point of landing. That creates the incentive for investment, now a business plan can be written. Unless there's something in it for the investors, why would they invest their money?

Right now money spent on space is not an investment, it's a donation.

Re:NASA critical parody

[buzzbomb]

Internet access on Mars? Hmmm...

buzzbomb@mars:~$ ping yahoo.com
PING yahoo.com (64.58.79.230): 56 octets data
64 octets from 64.58.79.230: icmp_seq=0 ttl=242 time=757610.6 ms
64 octets from 64.58.79.230: icmp_seq=1 ttl=242 time=757638.2 ms
64 octets from 64.58.79.230: icmp_seq=2 ttl=242 time=757620.5 ms

--- yahoo.com ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 757610.6/757623.1/757638.2 ms


Well, it's faster than the actual implementation of RFC 1149.

Re:Use the space shuttle design

[EvilTwinSkippy]

That's like giving tax incentives to build vacation community in Antarctica. It sounds like it will work until you realize that except that your average joe sees Antarctica as a giant snowball. Add to that the fact that beyond penguins, all other food sources would have to be imported. And did I mention the weather?

At some point some guy is going to discover that some product that people want can only be found/produced in space. They will set up a trillion dollar mining/factory facility and in the process develop all of the infrastructure to get there and back quickly an cheaply.

Americans went west originally in search of Gold in California. Along the way they noticed a rather large land mass in between. (And I wouldn't exactly call Alaska a popular place to live these days.)

Conversely look at the war on drugs, and the prohibition. In both cases the government put its foot down, and got it run over.

I will sum it up as follows: There has to be some intrinsic value for something to be done. Government can either get in the way or profit from it.