Scientist criticizes NASA's plans for manned space flight

[Orbinaut Pete]

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts125/090519fd9/leckrone.html

Woo-Hoo!
Go David!!!:speakcool:

 

[simonpro]

Breaking news: Scientist in supporting what's best for his pet project (regardless of everyone else) shocker! :hmm:

 

[Urwumpe]

Breaking news: Scientist in supporting what's best for his pet project (regardless of everyone else) shocker! :hmm:

I am really shocked! A unmanned satellite scientist who defends the space shuttle! Where is the traditional: The Shuttle steals our money complaint!

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

This guy (David Leckrone) retires in October.
If he wasn't retiring, I'm sure he would be fired anyway!

Frankly, I agree with him. I like the idea of returning to the Moon, etc. but as I have said before, there are other options out there that will give NASA much more capability (i.e. DIRECT).

And let's face it - the ISS is not currently doing what is was designed to do. Maybe once construction finishes, scientific output will improve. However it seems to me, that the ISS is held back from being what it could be by petty squabbles between the participating nations.

Something must be done - soon.
Let's hope Bolden can fix all

 

[ar81]

You may attach a VASIMR engine to aling ISS with moon, so you can use it for trips to the moon.

 

[tblaxland]

You may attach a VASIMR engine to aling ISS with moon, so you can use it for trips to the moon.

Use it for what on the way to the moon?

And it is not possible to keep an object in LEO aligned with the Moon's plane anyway so why bother lowering it's inclination? The only advantage is that lunar equatorial access and free-ish-return trajectories are somewhat improved.

 

[SiberianTiger]

You may attach a VASIMR engine to aling ISS with moon, so you can use it for trips to the moon.

1. Once you've done it, the plane will wobble away quickly.
2. You can already travel from where the ISS is to the Moon twice a month; Did that in Orbiter.
3. You still need a huge amount of propellant for a plane change of this scale.

 

[Moonwalker]

It is almost impossible to disagree with what David Leckrone said. We have to consider that he works on the Hubble project for more than three decades. Hubble and the Space Shuttle System is what made his but also many others lifework become possible and a success. Leckrone is right that the Shuttle is the most capable manned system NASA has ever build and operated, in case we talk about LEO operations. The end of STS will be a loss for many people at NASA and it certainly also is going to be a loss of human capabilities in LEO.

But as many other NASA peoply say, not only astronauts: now it is time to go further again. NASA has chosed a different, a new path for its future manned space flight program, which at least offers the capability to explore worlds beyond LEO manned. The Space Shuttle did not offer this at all, it prevented those proposals. That is an important fact in my point of view and makes the choice of Orion valid. The Space Shuttle has enabled the Hubble and depending careers, it has enabled the amazing Shuttle-Mir and Shuttle-ISS eras. But especially related to Hubble, I wonder if it is really a good idea to use an 80 tons vehicle and 7 astronauts and the depending required efforts to service unmanned stuff that does not work properly / gets a life time extension. I personally do not think that this is the way for a manned long term space program. And to be honest: without the Space Shuttle, Hubble would have remained a US national joke. This is what makes Hubble scientists love the Space Shuttle.

What to do with Orion once build? Well, as a journalist I would have replied: to transport crews to the ISS, to a future manned space station, and finally out of LEO one day again. We can build and operate space telescopes without the Space Shuttle flying, if a telescope is build properly.

 

[simonpro]

I am really shocked! A unmanned satellite scientist who defends the space shuttle! Where is the traditional: The Shuttle steals our money complaint!

He's a Hubble man, though. They don't count as unmanned as they rely too heavily on the Shuttle. Only ones that do.

 

[Moonwalker]

You may attach a VASIMR engine to aling ISS with moon, so you can use it for trips to the moon.

Beside the fact that a VASIMR engine still is prototype technology, the ISS is useless to start trips to the Moon from low earth orbit. The required equipment has to be carried into LEO anyway. Both, a crew module and a landing module do not require the existence of a space station.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Beside the fact that a VASIMR engine still is prototype technology, the ISS is useless to start trips to the Moon from low earth orbit. The required equipment has to be carried into LEO anyway. Both, a crew module and a landing module do not require the existence of a space station.

Not quite so. It's useful if you have a limited Earth-to-Orbit lift capability. This way, you have to send to a staging point more storable elements first, and less storable elements last (say, an LH2 booster which has a limited lifetime in orbit). Having such a staging point offers you a safety margin for unfavourable conditions intervention, that may prevent parts coming last to arrive on time (or a high launch rate is not desired).

Moreover, people usually have to adapt to the Zero-g environment, and this adaptaion is best done in a relatively more comfortable space station.

The station does not have to be the ISS, though.

 

[SPASE_1976]

Quoting from the video 3:30
"..and i hope the station becomes extraordinary scientifically productive but it is NOT today.. "

reflects my beliefs that the iss is decoration and wont be useful even in the future, after all he knows much more than me

 

[DanHawkridge]

After much thought and consideration, i think the Space Shuttle really is a very clever piece of engineering. It is incredibly useful and rather than scrapping the bird, they should seriously consider revamping it as a more 'space-plane' approach. Exploration is essential, but i still think there is a big hole if the space shuttle goes than Orion, Soyuz, and Proton's cannot fill in for. The spending on the Iraq War is over $625 Billion. Men were put onto the moon at $135 Billion (todays values). I certainly know which way id want my missile pointing...

 

[Moonwalker]

Not quite so. It's useful if you have a limited Earth-to-Orbit lift capability. This way, you have to send to a staging point more storable elements first, and less storable elements last (say, an LH2 booster which has a limited lifetime in orbit). Having such a staging point offers you a safety margin for unfavourable conditions intervention, that may prevent parts coming last to arrive on time (or a high launch rate is not desired).

Moreover, people usually have to adapt to the Zero-g environment, and this adaptaion is best done in a relatively more comfortable space station.

The station does not have to be the ISS, though.

You would have to launch multiple times to carry the payloads/equipment to the space station. Then you would have to launch the crew module and lunar landing module, rendezvous with the station, transfer the payloads/equipment and, well, I don't even have to continue.

And it would be not required really to adopt to zero g. About 3 days after lift off you are already going to experience gravity once again, not much but you do. Being in zero g quite a long time before might even be counterproductive for manned Moon landings (more than ever for manned missions to Mars). The best thing to adopt to the environment you'll have to work in and live in as a lunar landing astronaut is: simply the landing module.

Apollo offered and Constellation offer the best mission profiles I think (even a Soyuz to the Moon program also would not look any significantly different I think). Of course, anything is possible, at least theoretically as usual, but not from the budget point of view and infrastructure point of view, not even for a space agency like NASA.

To operate a space station and combine it with a second manned program to the Moon is nothing more than orbinautic dreaming. But at least that might be part of a good script for another James Bond 007 movie

Quoting from the video 3:30
"..and i hope the station becomes extraordinary scientifically productive but it is NOT today.. "

reflects my beliefs that the iss is decoration and wont be useful even in the future, after all he knows much more than me

Well, actually it is not a secret at all, nor a news, that the ISS is not extraordinary scientifically productive and that it is not even going to become so.

But just as the ISS is now and is going to be past 2010, it still is an amazing peace of teamwork and a great human achievement in orbit. I anyway doubt that manned space flight would ever become extraordinary scientifically productive so that it would satisfy each scientist and person down on Earth. Less than ever if Scaled Composites and others of this kind enter space one day.

EDIT:

I don't even think that manned space flight has to become extraordinary scientifically productive just to be justified. The stuff we do in space is great anyway, even if experiments would not take place. I did not get interested in manned space flight when I was 12 years old because of the science, but just because of flying into space by using the amazing technology we develope and use. The science actually just is a necessary evil, and I think that this was even the case for a lot of Apollo astronauts, more than ever for those who drove the lunar rover just because it is fun and the most uncommon things you can do.

 

[Urwumpe]

You would have to launch multiple times to carry the payloads/equipment to the space station. Then you would have to launch the crew module and lunar landing module, rendezvous with the station, transfer the payloads/equipment and, well, I don't even have to continue.

Yes, and do you know what: This is not bad. The opposite is bad. Monolithic structures and Columbus economies ("Every trip is a new discovery of the new world") are the worst kind of thing you can do, and still, you will find enough idiots on the planet to propose them.

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

I don't even think that manned space flight has to become extraordinary scientifically productive just to be justified.

At least you do think. Now you just need to get used to get rid of Aristotle and learn using experimental evidence...

 

[Moonwalker]

Yes, and do you know what: This is not bad. The opposite is bad. Monolithic structures and Columbus economies ("Every trip is a new discovery of the new world") are the worst kind of thing you can do, and still, you will find enough idiots on the planet to propose them.

I'm one of those idiots. I simply see no reason to agree to a fictive and costly lunar landing program by using a space station. Luckily NASA does not think much different.

Now you just need to get used to get rid of Aristotle and learn using experimental evidence...

Science in space is not really required to justify manned space flight. In future you'll be able to take a trip without being a scientist and without performing experiments. If you are rich you can do so today already.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm one of those idiots. I simply see no reason to agree to a fictive and costly lunar landing program by using a space station. Luckily NASA does not think much different.

Well, obviously you don't even dare to calculate the price, but just throw believes into the channel. Fictional lunar landing programs without a space station will be much more expensive in reality, than realistic space station programs with lunar landing option. As long as you just discuss fictional numbers, we can invent them all. And in reality, we have the ISS currently as reference. And I would say a pretty conservative reference.

Just to remind you: The dollar lost in value by the factor of 60 compared to 1968 (inflation), the 20 billion at the end of 1972 of the Apollo program would be today 1000 billion USD. Which is also comparable to the 5% of the federal budget number: If NASA would get 5% of the federal budget today, which would be 150 billion USD today, and that over 9 years, this would be again comparable.

So, even if you calculate favorable for the lunar landing, it costs 10 times more than the whole ISS project. The Saturn V development cost 6 times more than developing the Saturn IB. Despite having shared parts and despite having the Saturn V be made cheaper by putting the S-IVB development costs on Saturn IB. The whole Saturn V program did cost 6 billion USD in 1972. In todays money, this would be twice the ISS.

Science in space is not really required to justify manned space flight. In future you'll be able to take a trip without being a scientist and without performing experiments. If you are rich you can do so today already.

Yes, and having people send into space gets even cheaper and even more routine over time, also because of space tourism.

And two human scientist astronauts in a manned lab with the typical minimum laboratory equipment can do much more science in much shorter time and react to new discoveries better than any unmanned probe.

Is also a fact. Probes are robots and you use robots for making repetitive tasks. Using probes for one task and then having to design a new one is very ineffective.

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, obviously you don't even dare to calculate the price, but just throw believes into the channel. Fictional lunar landing programs without a space station will be much more expensive in reality, than realistic space station programs with lunar landing option. As long as you just discuss fictional numbers, we can invent them all. And in reality, we have the ISS currently as reference. And I would say a pretty conservative reference.

Just to remind you: The dollar lost in value by the factor of 60 compared to 1968 (inflation), the 20 billion at the end of 1972 of the Apollo program would be today 1000 billion USD. Which is also comparable to the 5% of the federal budget number: If NASA would get 5% of the federal budget today, which would be 150 billion USD today, and that over 9 years, this would be again comparable.

So, even if you calculate favorable for the lunar landing, it costs 10 times more than the whole ISS project. The Saturn V development cost 6 times more than developing the Saturn IB. Despite having shared parts and despite having the Saturn V be made cheaper by putting the S-IVB development costs on Saturn IB. The whole Saturn V program did cost 6 billion USD in 1972. In todays money, this would be twice the ISS.

The ISS is orbiting the Earth. It does not fly to the Moon, nor does its current costs include such a program at all.

Beside comparing historic and current costs in relation to the inflation, I doubt that you are seriously able to realistically calculate the costs for a space station lunar mission program for NASA, considering all and every current and fictive facts and factors. Not even NASA would be able to realistically do so at the moment, which is not unusual anway.

If you would be able to do so, even as a single person, I strongly doubt that such a space station lunar mission program would turn out to be cheaper than the current Constellation proposals, less than ever is that all comparable to the current operation of the ISS. I think the space station usage theory is pretty much a pipe dream.

Yes, and having people send into space gets even cheaper and even more routine over time, also because of space tourism.

And two human scientist astronauts in a manned lab with the typical minimum laboratory equipment can do much more science in much shorter time and react to new discoveries better than any unmanned probe.

Is also a fact. Probes are robots and you use robots for making repetitive tasks. Using probes for one task and then having to design a new one is very ineffective.

The landings on Mars and nice colour pictures of it took place without any human body involved on the spot. Even if you land there or on the Moon manned, you don't really need to do science. Apollo could have easily taken place by just stick the flag into the surface, wave into the camera and return home again. Just like you don't need to do science onboard Concorde or on top of Mount Everest for example as well. Science is just the figurehead of fiscally funded manned space flight. I would still be interested if there is nothing else aboard a spacecraft beside the instrumentation and systems, food, colour cameras, the crews and that's it.

 

[Urwumpe]

The landings on Mars and nice colour pictures of it took place without any human body involved on the spot. Even if you land there or on the Moon manned, you don't really need to do science. Apollo could have easily taken place by just stick the flag into the surface, wave into the camera and return home again. Just like you don't need to do science onboard Concorde or on top of Mount Everest for example as well. Science is just the figurehead of fiscally funded manned space flight. I would still be interested if there is nothing else aboard a spacecraft beside the instrumentation and systems, food, colour cameras, the crews and that's it.

Yes....that is why leading a spaceflight agency is no easy job. Because there are always people coming up, who talk just like that, and often they are politicians, who have made talking without bothering the brain their source of income.

Because in reality, this kind of thinking is absolute bull**** - you wouldn't even get the money for cutting the first metal that way. Let alone get the required large group of astronauts motivated to get from the test flights to the landing. But maybe you think, test flights are not needed... Or crew rotation. Or science.

It is all simple, as long as you are not responsible. Because if you have to care for the project, you suddenly see the demands it has: It is not just the political goal of landing on the moon, that is a demand, this goal spawns new demands. And these demands also spawn new ones. And at a point, you need to be able to get these demands out of your hands and into the responsibility of somebody else, before they multiply.

 

[Moonwalker]

you wouldn't even get the money for cutting the first metal that way.

I know. That's why science is the figurehead of fiscally funded manned space flight, but won't be so for space tourism.

Let alone get the required large group of astronauts motivated to get from the test flights to the landing. But maybe you think, test flights are not needed... Or crew rotation. Or science.

Test flights are a requirement, just like the sciences to design, built and operate the vehicle (especially aerodynamics is an interesting part). But to fly the missions, you don't really need to carry insects, animals, measure the internal pressure of your eyeball and do another gimmickry to say: look, that's the important benefit of manned space flight. Most people, the huge majortiy outhere, does not even care anyway.

Maybe I should express myself in a different way: Orbiter does not provide the ability for sciences that is done aboard the ISS. But we still love it just to simulate the mission profiles mechanically/technologically.

Of course, a governmental space agency really needs science to tell people how important human space flight is in that context, blah... But I personally don't need it to be interested in manned space flight. I would even pay for it with no science aboard. Less than ever would I need science as a space tourist. You know already, I'm not scientifically obedient on the whole anyway