Slashdot Mirror
House Asks NASA to Postpone Space Plane
PipianJ writes "The House Science Committee has requested NASA to postpone the orbital space plane program (official letter (pdf)), thanks to lingering concern about the safety of the existing space program. On the other hand, isn't one of the ideas behind the orbital space plane program the fact that our current space program is getting more unsafe through the use of 20-year-old equipment?" The Senate is also getting into the act.
On the other hand, isn't one of the ideas behind the orbital space plane program the fact that our current space program is getting more unsafe through the use of 20-year-old equipment?
On the third hand, our current space program is getting more unsafe because of the incompetence of NASA. Why give them more money to pour down the rathole? Apparently a lot of people think NASA hasn't tried to design anything since the Shuttle. They have. They failed. Multiple times. The OSP is just another link in a rotten chain.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I really thought this quote from the last man to set foot on the moon was particularly insightful :
"NASA is too old, too bureaucratic, and too risk adverse. Either a new agency would need to be created to implement such a program or NASA would need to be restructured largely along the lines of the NASA of the late 1960s," Schmitt said.
Schmitt said of particular importance is for NASA to consist of engineers and technicians in their 20s and managers to be in their 30s, and the re-institution of design engineering activities in parallel with those of contractors.
Sadly, it's very hard to get rid of an agency the size of NASA and replace it with a bunch of young turks. I agree that NASA does need new blood, a new direction and a kick in the pants, but how that will happen is beyond me.
I've been often asked by friends and others just why it is we send people to space anyway. I fully understand all the inventions that we've gotten during the process, such as better rocket power, Tang, etc. But I have a hard time coming up with things that we've discovered because a person actually went along to accompany an experiment.
The best I know of is that humans are able to adapt to failures in space, so that if an experiment starts to go awry, an astronaut can fix things on the fly. But I have a hard time even coming up with human-controlled experiments that have had society-changing effects.
Can anyone here name some?
"Manned spaceflight is going nowhere because there's nowhere to go." Seriously, who IS this genius?
Actually, the comment is much, much, much more sublime and sophisticated than you think. Stop reading science fiction, and actually think about space. Where are we going to go? The other planets are ROCKS. Sure, there are people who want to live on rocks. But not as many as you think. Asteroid mining? VERY unproven. Power generation in space? Also VERY unproven to be economical.
Sorry, but "because it's there" is not good enough.
I think we'll get there eventually, but there have to be solid economic reasons to get there. Remember, Columbus didn't go for the hell of it, he did it to find a new route to China. Exploration has almost never been done "because it's there".
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I think people like Heinlein saw things in our culture that would keep us from keeping our edge and staying out front. They might not have had every detail covered- they weren't clairvoyant - but they had an intuitive 'feel' for the reality of the situation.
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?
According to this story, in the history of the shuttle program 15 flights have had tile damage due to debris falling off the external fuel tank and SRBs.
NASA's solution? Create a space plane that is entirely reusable, and doesn't require rebuilding/recycling SRBs with each mission and constructing a new external fuel tank.
So when a shuttle is destroyed by a technology known to be problematic, the House Science committee recommends... suspending effort on a project to remedy those problems?
<sarcasm>That makes a lot of sense... really</sarcasm>
Cuttings in space programs would probably seem less risky (in terms of reelection) than messing with cuts in social services, health benefits and pensions in the present economic climate.
Here's a nice opinion piece suggesting that we go back to using capsules, like the Russians and now the Chinese are using. It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me - if a "reusable" craft like the shuttle costs orders of magnitude more than one-time-use capsules, why not just make a bunch of capsules instead? You wouldn't have to worry about retrofits, upgrades, wear and tear, etc.
The problem is that NASA doesn't have the same backing as it did back in the 60's. We went to the moon because it was a priority, and a lot of money and effort was thrown at it. Now NASA is constantly struggling to make as much as they can out of a diminishing budget. I believe that this, more than anything else caused the accident.
If you are an administrator at NASA and you are told that their might be a problem with the age of the fleet and you know the odds of getting funding for a new project are near zero, do you keep that fleet flying? Of course. That's hardly the safest thing to do, but it's either that or close up shop and go work the chinese space program.
NASA puts safety as first as it can afford to. You can argue that NASA is an inefficent bureaucracy, but we seem to have no trouble financing the inefficent military bureaucracy. It's the nature of government, cope.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The problem with this pipe dream is that the cost of entering the space flight market is beyond enormous. It requires the kinds of R&D investment that's beyond the capabilities of many nations, let alone individual companies. Moreover, while there's profit to be had (launching satellites, subcontracting for the government, etc), it strikes me as doubtful that any company in this day and age would feel that future potential justifies the startup costs. After all, we live in a world of quarterly earnings reports and year-long planning horizons. How can you honestly expect a large corporation (or a small one, for that matter) to invest in something which won't turn a profit for 10 years?
But I have a hard time coming up with things that we've discovered because a person actually went along to accompany an experiment.
I suppose it's simplistic, but what about experiments that look for answers about humans? For example, research into the effects of zero gravity on the body and ways to combat it.
Of course, research into keeping humans healthy in space is only beneficial if you believe that we should explore space at all. But if someone doesn't believe we should explore space at all, I see little point in discussing the space program at all with them. All I'm left with is this nagging feeling that they wouldn't have considered colonization of the Americas to be worth the trouble.
Another project I'd like to cite is the Hubble, which, while not necessarily an endeavor requiring humans to deploy it, did require humans to fix the thing. I'm certain that without a manned space program, the Hubble would've been launched, declared broken, and promptly abandoned. Why? Well, I think they would've deemed the cost involved in developing some sort of robotic repair crew to be prohibitive. Easier to just ditch it and try again.
My view on it is this: Safety is important, but with all great things in life, there is risk involved. Space travel is by no means an exception to this rule.
If NASA isn't willing to take risks, then who is?
If someone doesn't do something *no progress* is going to be made. Well, at least China and Japan are putting some effort in to their space programs...
--Tim