Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NASA to spiral down the drain.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NASA to spiral down the drain.

    Previous Poly Thread

    Time

    Does Obama Want to Ground NASA's Next Moon Mission?
    By Jeffrey Kluger Thursday, Dec. 11, 2008


    Getting into a shouting match with the HR rep is not exactly the best way to land a job. But according to the Orlando Sentinel, that's just what happened last week between NASA administrator Mike Griffin and Lori Garver, a member of Barack Obama's transition team who will help decide if Griffin keeps his post once the President-elect takes office. If the contretemps did occur, it could help doom not only the NASA chief's chances, but the space agency's ambitious plans to get Americans back to the moon.

    The mere fact that the story is making the rounds reflects the very real friction between NASA and the transition team — which has sparked a groundswell of support among space agency employees to keep the boss. Within NASA, there is a real concern that while the Obama campaign rode the call for change to a thumping victory in November, change is precisely what the space agency does not need. (See photos of different countries' space programs here.)

    The stagnant NASA of the past 20 years has been poised to become a very new NASA — thanks, in many respects, to the outgoing Bush Administration. In 2004, the President announced a new push to return astronauts to the moon and eventually get them to Mars. Many skeptics saw the hand of political whiz Karl Rove in that, suspecting that the whole idea was just a bag of election year goodies for space-happy states like Florida and Texas, as well as for voters nostalgic for the glory days of Apollo. But Bush, NASA and Congress did mean business, and eventually came up with a plan under which the space station would be completed and the shuttle would be retired by 2010. That would free up about $4 billion per year, which would be used to pay for a new generation of expendable boosters as well as a 21st century version of the Apollo orbiter and lunar lander for those rockets to carry. (Read about the space moon race here.)

    "At the time, the shuttle had flown 290 people, and out of those 14 were dead — nearly one in 20," says Scott Horowitz, a four-time shuttle veteran who designed the Ares 1, one of the new boosters. "We needed something that was an order of magnitude safer."

    NASA has moved with uncharacteristic nimbleness in the last five years and is already cutting metal on the new machines in the hope of having crews in Earth orbit by 2015 and on the moon by 2020. Schedules have slipped some — the original plan was to launch the orbital missions in 2014 — and costs have swollen, though so far not dramatically. (See the Top 50 space moments since Sputnik.)

    "We've been moving in the right direction since the Columbia accident [in 2003]," says Chris Shank, NASA's chief of strategic communications. "The concern is that we'll lose that." Lately, that concern appears well-placed.

    The Obama team picked Garver to run the NASA transition, in part because of her deep pedigree and long history at the space agency, which saw her climb to the rank of associate administrator. But Garver started as a PAO — NASA-speak for a public affairs officer — and never got involved in the nuts and bolts of building rockets. She is best known by most people as the person who in 2002 competed with boy-band singer Lance Bass for the chance to fly to the International Space Station aboard a Russian rocket. Neither of them ever left the ground.

    Garver's lack of engineering cred is especially surprising in light of the eggheads with whom Obama has been surrounding himself — most recently, Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Chu, who has reportedly been tapped to be Secretary of Energy. Garver is also not thought to be much of a fan of Griffin — who is an engineer — nor to be sold on the plans for the new moon program. What she and others are said to be considering is to scrap the plans for the Ares 1 — which is designed exclusively to carry humans — and replace it with Atlas V and Delta IV boosters, which are currently used to launch satellites but could be redesigned, or "requalified," for humans. Griffin hates that idea, and firmly believes the Atlas and Delta are unsafe for people. One well-placed NASA source who asked not to be named reports that as much as Griffin wants to keep his job, he'll walk away from it if he's made to put his astronauts on top of those rockets.

    NASA is right to be uneasy about just what Obama has planned for the agency since his position on space travel shifted — a lot — during the campaign. A year before the election he touted an $18 billion education program and explicitly targeted the new moon program as one he'd cut to pay for it. In January of 2008, he lined up much closer to the Bush moon plan — perhaps because Republicans were already on board and earning swing-state support as a result. Three months before the election, Obama fully endorsed the 2020 target for putting people on the moon. But that was a candidate talking and now he's president-elect, and his choice of Garver as his transition adviser may say more than his past campaign rhetoric.

    The dust-up between Griffin and Garver is said to have occurred last week at a book launch party in Washington when, according to the Sentinel, a red-faced Griffin told Garver she was "not qualified" to make engineering decisions. Horowitz, who was not at the party but knows the NASA boss well, says he doubts that Griffin raised his voice.

    "I think that's bulls---," he says. "I believe that anything he was asked he was very honest in answering because he's a systems engineer. And Lori Garver is not equipped to make technical judgments on the architecture of a space exploration system." The unnamed NASA source concedes that Griffin can be brutally honest and occasionally tactless, but insists that his shouting is simply improbable. The Obama transition office did not return an e-mail seeking comment from Garver.

    For now, says the NASA source, both present and former astronauts as well as some NASA contractors are quietly — and sometimes not so quietly — lobbying for Griffin to stay. But the incoming administration is not saying anything so far. It was President John F. Kennedy who famously committed Americans to reaching the moon. Now it is Obama — who so often invokes the themes and style of JFK — who may decide if we go back.
    I've liked some of Obama's choices so far, especially his National Security choices and Secretary of Energy, but this pisses me off. I was hoping against hope that the previous poly thread wouldn't come true, but....
    Today, you are the waves of the Pacific, pushing ever eastward. You are the sequoias rising from the Sierra Nevada, defiant and enduring.

  • #2
    NASA is a huge waste of money. They should lay off most of those people.

    Comment


    • #3
      No right now it is actually a fairly small waste of money.

      Comment


      • #4
        not to be missed then

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm all for space exploration in a perfect world, but we really can't afford a moon mission right now. Our generation is having enough put on its tab at the moment as is.

          Comment


          • #6
            I disagree. We should throw every possible dollar into space. If we had done so in the 1970s, we could be energy independent right now, running largely off solar power. If we had continued to do so through the 1980s and 1990s, we could have permanent installations on both the Moon and Mars, and probably be exploring the asteroid belt. There is a literal treasure trove waiting for us right in our own Solar System, and the sooner we get to it and exploit it, the better off we'll be.
            Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
            Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              We should throw every possible dollar into space. If we had done so in the 1970s, we could be energy independent right now, running largely off solar power. If we had continued to do so through the 1980s and 1990s, we could have permanent installations on both the Moon and Mars, and probably be exploring the asteroid belt.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hey, anything is possible

                In all seriousness, though, I think we can all agree that we could be a lot further into space than we currently are if we had just invested in it 30 years ago.
                Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
                Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/

                Comment


                • #9
                  I disagree. We should throw every possible dollar into space. If we had done so in the 1970s, we could be energy independent right now, running largely off solar power. If we had continued to do so through the 1980s and 1990s, we could have permanent installations on both the Moon and Mars, and probably be exploring the asteroid belt. There is a literal treasure trove waiting for us right in our own Solar System, and the sooner we get to it and exploit it, the better off we'll be.
                  Orbital Solar Power is impossible for the simple economic reason that placing an object in orbit will NEVER be less then 10 times the cost of placing it on the earths surface near some existing power lines. Ten fold is the best possible increase in power production that could be realized in orbit if the panel was in constant sunlight above the atmosphere and that omits the cost of transmiting power presumably by microwaves to the surface.


                  As the the fate of NASA, the Space Shuttle has been a tremendous boondoggle, partly because it proved more expensive, and less safe then originally planned but first and foremost because it HAD NOTHING TO GO TOO! The name Shuttle reveals a key intent, the thing was always meant to transport people and equipment between the earth and a space station not to serve as its own week long 'destination' in space. Without the long durations of a real Space Station the research performed on the Shuttle was of practically no value in extending mans ability to survive in space for the durations necessary to make a Moon or Mars base more feasible. All the shuttle's satellite payloads could have reached space on a much cheaper heavy lift rocket and the short duration experiments done in automated capsules. The Russians who DID produce a Station and serviced it with expendable rockets (which an order of magnitude safer then the Shuttle) gained an almost complete monopoly on experience with long duration stays in space.

                  The key to not getting ripped off in Space is to set reasonable goals and not to try to leap forward in overly aggressive technologically ambitious goals. The Venture Star shuttle replacement suffered exactly this fate, in their hubris NASA wanted a vehicle that would be single stage to Orbit a goal even grander then the multi-stage-partially-reusable Shuttle which itself had been an overly grandiose goal. That is why I'm pleased with the new Ares designs from a purely engineering perspective, their based on much less ambitious technology and might actually be able to succeed at the stated goals.

                  But I can not agree with the current goals of NASA, maned space flight is simply not worth the cost in the present situation or even the more prosperous 90's for that matter. Human Space flights technological spin offs have never justified more then 1% of the expenditure and in the present crisis NASA should be slashed down to doing only un-manned probes and basic research on the few things that do find use in other industries like materials, fuel cells, computers and a few propulsion systems that might be useful in a generation or two when and if we get back into manned flight. Transfer the bulk of R & D into energy research as that will provide far more jobs and long term benefit then space boondoggles.


                  Politically the present Economy gives Obama full cover to change his position on NASA, he could do just about anything short of abolishing the agency and I hope he dose.
                  Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks - those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest. - Thus spoke Zarathustra, Fredrick Nietzsche

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by David Floyd
                    Hey, anything is possible

                    In all seriousness, though, I think we can all agree that we could be a lot further into space than we currently are if we had just invested in it 30 years ago.
                    The money you Yanks wasted on that stupid invasion of Iraq would have funded a lot of space exploitation. Too bad.
                    Libraries are state sanctioned, so they're technically engaged in privateering. - Felch
                    I thought we're trying to have a serious discussion? It says serious in the thread title!- Al. B. Sure

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


                      :roll:

                      Originally posted by Thoth


                      The money you Yanks wasted on that stupid invasion of Iraq would have funded a lot of space exploitation. Too bad.
                      This is one of the reasons I support space exploration,



                      Also I have no problem with Obama slashing NASA's budget, China is clearly the future leader of human endeavor in every field. I am confident they can probably make a lunar landing sometime in the next three decades with little trouble.


                      The long term benefits of space exploration are well worth any expenses. And we can not put these off for better times, because better times will never come and you can't really skip the costs of developing space tecc since advances in other fields don't tend to produce order of magnitude improvements in this field. It seems the only way to make space flight a little cheaper is to spend lots of money on it.
                      Last edited by Heraclitus; December 14, 2008, 03:04.
                      Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                      The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                      The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Permanent installations on the Moon and Mars?



                        Also I have no problem with Obama slashing NASA's budget, China is clearly the future leader of human endeavor in every field. I am confident they can probably make a lunar landing sometime in the next three decades with little trouble.
                        China will be lucky to make it through the coming global recession without massive social unrest. Predictions of their inevitable triumph are rather premature.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I seem to recall posts in a valiant attempt to argue that Canada had made great contibution in Iraq.
                          What's with the sudden reversal?
                          Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                          "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                          He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
                            Permanent installations on the Moon and Mars?

                            What is laughable about that?


                            The technical challenges of a Lunar base do not exceed that of a permanent space station. The real objection is that a lunar base is just as useless as the ISS.



                            Lunar colonies are another matter, that would be usefull since it would extend human habitats.


                            As to Mars, the tech to go there has been within our grasp since the 1980's, there is just no menacing superpower with which the US feels the need to measure dick size with.
                            Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                            The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                            The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut

                              China will be lucky to make it through the coming global recession without massive social unrest. Predictions of their inevitable triumph are rather premature.

                              I suppose you are right, but once the economy picks up the China can just pick up where it left off right?




                              Well we still have ESA. They aren't into human space flight but most of their projects seem to work out great in advancing space tech.



                              Also there are the private space investors, suborbital flight should be a stable industry in the next decade and orbital space flight for those willing to pay will probably follow no more than two or three decades after that.
                              Modern man calls walking more quickly in the same direction down the same road “change.”
                              The world, in the last three hundred years, has not changed except in that sense.
                              The simple suggestion of a true change scandalizes and terrifies modern man. -Nicolás Gómez Dávila

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X