Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA and Space Station Alliance On Shaky Ground

Posted by samzenpus on from the in-space-nobody-can-hear-you-disagree dept.

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."

19 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Note to editors on article link by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 3, Informative

    1) You link to the comments at the bottom of the article.
    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

  2. No human spaceflight can't help by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neither party has any interest in the future. One focuses resources on entitlements and the other on war.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by camperdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The existing Atlas and Delta-IV will be able to lift the Orion module just fine. Not only that, but Space-X's Falcon/Dragon vehicle will be ready well before then.

      Of course, NASA always has the option of building an alternative launch system 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 along with the Orion module.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by garyisabusyguy · · 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/

      Can't agree with tomhath either, looks like this administration is willing to invest in the future

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    4. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not only that, but Space-X's Falcon/Dragon vehicle will be ready well before then.

      Unless you are a time traveler, that's an opinion - not a fact.
       

      Of course, NASA always has the option of building an alternative launch system for a lot less money than the ARES craft.

      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.

    5. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by dirkdodgers · · Score: 4, 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.

    6. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by 0123456 · · 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.

    7. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by fotoguzzi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ares I is really not almost done, and the many redesigns of the Orion capsule to make up for Ares I's deficiencies have delayed the programme further. I believe (I may be wrong here) that the J-2X upper stage engine and not Orion is the "long pole" development item for Ares I.

      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 is made to take that route.

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    8. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      "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"

      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%....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    9. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by Rip+Dick · · Score: 2, Funny
      sentence (plural sentences)

      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.

    10. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      It uses exactly the same engines as the space shuttle stack

      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.
       

      As far as development, the only difficult thing that needs developing is the avionics. Everything else is fairly simple (changing the end cap on the tank, aft thrust structure, payload fairing).

      For certain large and handwaving values of 'fairly simple', sure. In reality, you're creating the most difficult parts of the structure from scratch, almost completely recreating the difficult parts of the fuel system, and creating the avionics and flight software from scratch.
       

      Engines are already built, in stock, and paid for. SRBs are already built, in stock, and paid for. There's more metal "bent" for Jupiter than ARES.

      In a world where how much metal is bent is a useful metric, that would be a useful statement. We don't live in such a world. In reality, your big costs are in integration and engineering - two tasks that for DIRECT/Jupiter are as big if not bigger than for Ares.

    11. Re:No human spaceflight can't help by khallow · · Score: 2, 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.

  3. Re:What a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mine is the Ramses-Hattusili Treaty.

  4. SpaceX to the rescue by QuantumG · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by 0123456 · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:SpaceX to the rescue by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People are ready and willing to pay to go do exploration and colonization.. if only the price wasn't so damn high.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  5. Re:i see what you did there by awyeah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apparently there's a "baddoggie" tag for that as well. Learn something new every day.

    --
    Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
  6. The first two points by CompressedAir · · Score: 3, 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?