NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
International Space Station (ISS) => ISS Section => Topic started by: kraisee on 11/16/2005 03:22 am
-
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1642944,00.html
Ross.
-
"...it was getting the cart before the horse to be worrying about money for human or other life sciences when we could not assure ourselves the continued capability to be able to place people in orbit in the first place..." - Griffin.
I agree with that.
"How many missions have to be cut for this one trip back to the Moon?" - Cowing.
One trip? And then we scrap all the equipment, I suppose. (rest of para edited due to the nature of the comment - Chris).
"...all of Nasa's energies are going [on replacing the Shuttle] and beyond that to the Moon and Mars...One feels instinctively that it's on the road to nowhere much at all." - Fraser.
Didn't anyone on the paper notice the obvious contradiction? Fraser is described as: "George Fraser, the director of the space research centre at the University of Leicester". Another group of robotic-only spaceflight adherents.
-
CuddlyRocket - 16/11/2005 8:29 AM
"How many missions have to be cut for this one trip back to the Moon?" - Cowing.
One trip? And then we scrap all the equipment, I suppose.
"...all of Nasa's energies are going [on replacing the Shuttle] and beyond that to the Moon and Mars...One feels instinctively that it's on the road to nowhere much at all." - Fraser.
Didn't anyone on the paper notice the obvious contradiction? Fraser is described as: "George Fraser, the director of the space research centre at the University of Leicester". Another group of robotic-only spaceflight adherents.
The real problem with the ISS is that hunk of foam that fell off the ET during the STS-114 mission. Take that away and you would have gotten the STS-121 mission flown during FY 2005 in September. We would be talking about the upcoming STS-115 mission which would increase the ISS capabilities and with the Shuttle back in business we would have been able to return to the 3 man crews the ISS had before the Shuttle was grounded. That hunk of foam is turning out to be very expensive.
The Robot part is going to touch off a rant. Robots are a tool, something that can be sent where men can't presently go, but they are a piss poor substitute for having a human on the scene. Go to the JPL website and you will find out just how much the Mars Rovers actually rove, a total of about 11 km in two years. The distance a human could walk in 3 hours without breaking a sweat! More than anything else Robots are like those unfortunate individuals that are referred to as idiot savants. Like someone who can sit at a piano and play any complex recital after hearing it once, but who can't learn to speak or be toilet trained. They are very limited tools which can do a few tasks very well and are total morons if anything else needs to be done. Robots do not, and likely never will be capable of the range of capabilities of a human. They are useful tools but the notion that they are better than a human or a substitute for a human is one of the dumbest concepts I ever heard.
-
As a policy I will never click a link with the Gaurdian as its an absolute disgrace of a tabloid, liberal, pro-insurgent and absolutely a disgrace to news. This paper loves anything that makes America look bad, so whatever they have to say, so what, I say.
-
Terry Rocket - 16/11/2005 8:58 AM
As a policy I will never click a link with the Gaurdian as its an absolute disgrace of a tabloid, liberal, pro-insurgent and absolutely a disgrace to news. This paper loves anything that makes America look bad, so whatever they have to say, so what, I say.
Their coverage of the war is close to treasonous, but I don't know if they are noted for being anti-NASA?
-
The Guardian in general and that article in particular are a waste of virtual ink. If I were Mr. (Dr?) Cowing I would be embarrassed to be associated with that rag in even a small manner. And the “one” trip back to the Moon quip is disingenuous at best. Keith knows as well as anyone that the VSE/ESAS is not about “one” trip to the Moon.
I don’t know what else Keith, or anyone else who engages in this arm waving over lost science projects, expects.
It is a simple fact that NASA cannot afford all that is on its plate and priorities have to be assigned. I would assert that continued US manned access to space is today the number one priority for NASA, period. If that means cutting ISS science programs, so be it. What good are those science programs if the US looses the ability to send humans into space anyway? Without the CEV we will loose manned space capacity; the Shuttle is not a viable option beyond 2010 politically or technically.
The ISS debacle is not of Dr Griffins’ doing, it has simply fell to him to make some sort of sense out of the program and utilize it as best we can while preparing to move on to bigger and more important things. Hard choices need to be made, choices that may not be politically palatable. Finally we have a NASA administrator in Dr Griffin who is willing to make them.
-
The Guardian is hated as much as The Sun during the Hillsbrough Disaster and The Mirror when it frabricated British Troops abusing Iraqi prisoners, but those two are self confessed tabloids. The Guardian pretends not to be one, but its support for the terrorist insurgancy to try and win some readership from its Liberal standpoint with the anti-war protest is as low as it gets.
Anyway, after all that I agree that it is a fact science is being cut. I don't think the VSE is a one trip pony. I don't think NASA is on its knees. I do think the ISS is an Albatros.
So Yes, the Gaurdian gives me a bad taste in the mouth, but the article is ok.
-
Ok people, that's about as much about the publication as I'm willing to allow.
Let's keep it on the article or I'll have to lock this thread.
-
We have to make sacrifices to support the VSE or they'll be no NASA and no Science.
-
I'm completely with Griffin on this one. First off, truly meaningful, relevant life science coming out the ISS is years off, and that's only if we can pull off 19 Shuttle flights without a hitch.
Secondly, most of the big life science already went out the window when they cancelled the centrifuge and hab modules.
Thirdly, the life science we can get out of actually flying the CEV and landing on the moon will dwarf anything a scaled-down ISS could provide.
-
Ad Astra - 16/11/2005 12:34 PM
We have to make sacrifices to support the VSE or they'll be no NASA and no Science.
There certainly won't be any science done after 2010 by NASA if they don't have a way of getting to the ISS. Nor will there be any science done by the ESA or Japan if the modules they built aren't launched. Last of all the amount of science that can be done on the ISS with 3 of the 4 solar arrays sitting on the ground is very limited.
Cutting what can be done this year isn't an ideal situation, but it beats being able to do even less a couple of years from now than would be possible with a completed ISS.
-
Can NASA sell their stake in the ISS?
-
Mr Cowing evidently believes ISS "Science" is more important than assured American owned and controlled manned access to space:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/11/iss_science_cut_1.html#more
The writer, Prof Ostrach, urges us to "contact as many of your senators and congressmen and voice your opinions ASAP". I will do so, to urge that Dr Griffin be allowed to do what must be done to assure the US has manned access to space.
-
Dogsbd - 16/11/2005 1:42 PM
Mr Cowing evidently believes ISS "Science" is more important than assured American owned and controlled manned access to space:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/11/iss_science_cut_1.html#more
The writer, Prof Ostrach, urges us to "contact as many of your senators and congressmen and voice your opinions ASAP". I will do so, to urge that Dr Griffin be allowed to do what must be done to assure the US has manned access to space.
If Congress will cut NASA a bigger check, then it can do more. Otherwise choices have to be made and microgravity research isn't going to matter much if there is no way to get to a place where microgravity exists. Personally I was very disappointed when the CAM was deleted because I think studies of the effect of Lunar and Martian level gravity is far more important than adding to our knowledge of the effects of microgravity. Despite my disappointment I'm not trying to kill off our best hope of actually getting to the places where Lunar and Martian gravity exist.
-
I have a personal opinion on this. It's a simple one. Manned Space flight and exploration first and foremost. Science is automatically limited unless we broaden our horizons past this planet.
-
David AF - 16/11/2005 2:53 PM
I have a personal opinion on this. It's a simple one. Manned Space flight and exploration first and foremost. Science is automatically limited unless we broaden our horizons past this planet.
Life Science is an important part of exploration. It would be nice to know the long term effects of Lunar gravity before we start building a Moonbase. It would be helpful to know the long term effects of Martian gravity before we send someone on what will be a very long duration mission.
-
Dobbins - 16/11/2005 3:01 PM
Life Science is an important part of exploration. It would be nice to know the long term effects of Lunar gravity before we start building a Moonbase. It would be helpful to know the long term effects of Martian gravity before we send someone on what will be a very long duration mission.
Knowing the effects of various gravity fields on humans is moot if we don't have the means to expose humans to those gravity fields.
Paraphrasing something Dr Griffin said, when we get back to the Moon we will have a very nice low gravity lab. And we can learn from it before and while we build a Moon base and/or travel to Mars. But we have to have the means to get there or, as I said above, all else is moot.
-
I'm not happy with how stark a choice many people on both sides of debates try to make. Science OR Exploration. Robots OR Humans. A balanced space program should have room for both. A balanced space program will have the broadest popular support, a necessity for any publicly financed program. What we need is more funding instead of constantly arguing over the same dollars. It's going to be a lot harder to get that funding if space advocates keep stabbing each other in the back over current funding.
-
I agree that more money, just a tiny fractional increase actually, would pay for it all.
But given that it does not appear that there will be more money, even that tiny fraction of increase, hard choices have to be made and I believe Dr Griffin has made the correct choices.
And it may just be Dr Griffins strategy to force Congress to make these decisions. IE Griffin says: "given the money I have to work with I will do ABC"... thinking congress may step up with more money to do XYZ... and if not XYZ not getting done is purely the fault of Congress.
-
Dogsbd - 16/11/2005 12:42 PM
Mr Cowing evidently believes ISS "Science" is more important than assured American owned and controlled manned access to space:
Uh, I hate to point out the obvious - but the letter is not from me. I post lots of things on NASA Watch that contain opinions other than my own.
Moreover I have never made any such statement - you have arrived at a false conclusion about my opinions on this topic and are trying to put words in my mouth.
-
All subsequent posts on this thread have been deleted and the thread is locked.
Reason: The following posts went off subject.