Article: Taking Back NASA

I wrote the following article for the student paper,

http://www.technicianonline.com/0123...2_sheppard.php

As a side note, the editor's intro line at the top has basically
nothing to do with what I say in the article, and is in fact wrong. Oh
well.

Yes, one could propose to scrap the shuttle and even the ISS, because they
aren't awefully cheap or effective to run but NOT until something better has
been put in place, otherwise you'll probably end up with nothing to fly in
the current climate of half baked ideas and unfinished concepts.

Kris
my Energia HLLV site:www.k26.com/buran/

"Alexander Sheppard" wrote in message
om...
I wrote the following article for the student paper,

http://www.technicianonline.com/0123...2_sheppard.php

As a side note, the editor's intro line at the top has basically
nothing to do with what I say in the article, and is in fact wrong. Oh
well.

Hansel ) wrote:
: Yes, one could propose to scrap the shuttle and even the ISS, because they
: aren't awefully cheap or effective to run but NOT until something better has
: been put in place, otherwise you'll probably end up with nothing to fly in
: the current climate of half baked ideas and unfinished concepts.

Well said. Much of motivation (or should be!) is not to remove or
otherwise not stop using old technology until the newer technology is in
place and functioning.

"Here I have this new computer that you can have in three months. In the
mean time I'll take that unit you're using there."

Yeah, right!

Eric

: Kris
: my Energia HLLV site:www.k26.com/buran/

: "Alexander Sheppard" wrote in message
: om...
: I wrote the following article for the student paper,
:
: http://www.technicianonline.com/0123...2_sheppard.php
:
: As a side note, the editor's intro line at the top has basically
: nothing to do with what I say in the article, and is in fact wrong. Oh
: well.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message ...
Hansel ) wrote:

: Yes, one could propose to scrap the shuttle and even the ISS, because they
: aren't awefully cheap or effective to run but NOT until something better has
: been put in place, otherwise you'll probably end up with nothing to fly in
: the current climate of half baked ideas and unfinished concepts.

Well said. Much of motivation (or should be!) is not to remove or
otherwise not stop using old technology until the newer technology is in
place and functioning.

"Here I have this new computer that you can have in three months. In the
mean time I'll take that unit you're using there."

Yeah, right!


Yeah, but the problem with the Shuttle was that it ate up so many re-
sources that they never could afford to develop something better.
Sometimes phasing out of something old and into something new works
and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the Shuttle it obviously
didn't, or otherwise we'd have something new by now.

Come on, twenty-five years of using the same old jalopies until the
oldest of them all eventually breaks apart means there must be *some*
roadblock to progress somewhere...!



--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

Ool ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message ...
: Hansel ) wrote:

: : Yes, one could propose to scrap the shuttle and even the ISS, because they
: : aren't awefully cheap or effective to run but NOT until something better has
: : been put in place, otherwise you'll probably end up with nothing to fly in
: : the current climate of half baked ideas and unfinished concepts.

: Well said. Much of motivation (or should be!) is not to remove or
: otherwise not stop using old technology until the newer technology is in
: place and functioning.

: "Here I have this new computer that you can have in three months. In the
: mean time I'll take that unit you're using there."

: Yeah, right!


: Yeah, but the problem with the Shuttle was that it ate up so many re-
: sources that they never could afford to develop something better.

Not with the budget that they have. It is enough to operate the shuttle
and build ISS as well as the existing other programs. To try and
build something new to replace the old, in this case, shuttle; given the
current budget gives you EXACTLY what you have now.


: Sometimes phasing out of something old and into something new works
: and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the Shuttle it obviously
: didn't, or otherwise we'd have something new by now.

Same can be said of a great many of programs.

: Come on, twenty-five years of using the same old jalopies until the
: oldest of them all eventually breaks apart means there must be *some*
: roadblock to progress somewhere...!

Agreed, NASA needs more money to run efficiently.

Eric


: --
: __ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
: ('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
: //6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
: `\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

"Hansel" wrote in message ...
Yes, one could propose to scrap the shuttle and even the ISS, because they
aren't awefully cheap or effective to run but NOT until something better has
been put in place, otherwise you'll probably end up with nothing to fly in
the current climate of half baked ideas and unfinished concepts.

snip

However, one could propose to scrap the Shuttle and ISS because they
don't serve any credible purpose and consume resources that we need
for a serious program of space development.

What's the most pressing problem in space today? It's not whether or
not two to three people are sitting in the ISS. It's the cost to
launch something (and not just people!) into orbit. The high cost of
space launch inflates everything. It doesn't make economic sense to
launch a million dollar satellite if it costs tens of millions of
dollars to put that into orbit.

The space shuttle and the ISS don't address this issue. If the US were
serious about manned space exploration, they would help private
industry develope manned vehicles. That's one of the things about the
Bush program. He can get rid of the shuttle and make NASA a steady
customer of private companies rather than a well-funded rival who can
shut down the market for decades.


Karl Hallowell

"Hansel" wrote in message ...
Yes, one could propose to scrap the shuttle and even the ISS, because they
aren't awefully cheap or effective to run but NOT until something better has
been put in place, otherwise you'll probably end up with nothing to fly in
the current climate of half baked ideas and unfinished concepts.

snip

However, one could propose to scrap the Shuttle and ISS because they
don't serve any credible purpose and consume resources that we need
for a serious program of space development.

What's the most pressing problem in space today? It's not whether or
not two to three people are sitting in the ISS. It's the cost to
launch something (and not just people!) into orbit. The high cost of
space launch inflates everything. It doesn't make economic sense to
launch a million dollar satellite if it costs tens of millions of
dollars to put that into orbit.

The space shuttle and the ISS don't address this issue. If the US were
serious about manned space exploration, they would help private
industry develope manned vehicles. That's one of the things about the
Bush program. He can get rid of the shuttle and make NASA a steady
customer of private companies rather than a well-funded rival who can
shut down the market for decades.


Karl Hallowell

Eric Chomko wrote:

Ool ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message ...
: Hansel ) wrote:


snip
: Come on, twenty-five years of using the same old jalopies until the
: oldest of them all eventually breaks apart means there must be *some*
: roadblock to progress somewhere...!

Agreed, NASA needs more money to run efficiently.



I'll have to disagree on that point. The last thing that NASA
needs is more money. It has not used what it has efficiently.
More money just means more money.

NASA has *never* operated a large program within it's budget
and it has never even met it's own internal estimates on cost.
It does a lot better with smaller, focussed, programs, but it
still tends to use more money to add more complexity. Case in
point.. OSP was a straight forward program with a specific technical
goal. Yet, three separate NASA centers had separate offices specifically
for that program - and as far as I can tell, none were subservient to
any of the others. Hardly efficient.

To get a feel for an organization, you have to look at how it has
operated in the past. What sections are the most efficient? What
happened to areas when they recieved a budget increase? What happened
when budgets decreased? NASA does not fare well in that sort of
analysis. NASA deliberately lied to congress about the costs of
developing Shuttle rather than build a Shuttle that they could
afford to build. NASA completely botched NASP and Space Station
Freedom on technical issues.

Eric Chomko wrote:

Ool ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message ...
: Hansel ) wrote:


snip
: Come on, twenty-five years of using the same old jalopies until the
: oldest of them all eventually breaks apart means there must be *some*
: roadblock to progress somewhere...!

Agreed, NASA needs more money to run efficiently.



I'll have to disagree on that point. The last thing that NASA
needs is more money. It has not used what it has efficiently.
More money just means more money.

NASA has *never* operated a large program within it's budget
and it has never even met it's own internal estimates on cost.
It does a lot better with smaller, focussed, programs, but it
still tends to use more money to add more complexity. Case in
point.. OSP was a straight forward program with a specific technical
goal. Yet, three separate NASA centers had separate offices specifically
for that program - and as far as I can tell, none were subservient to
any of the others. Hardly efficient.

To get a feel for an organization, you have to look at how it has
operated in the past. What sections are the most efficient? What
happened to areas when they recieved a budget increase? What happened
when budgets decreased? NASA does not fare well in that sort of
analysis. NASA deliberately lied to congress about the costs of
developing Shuttle rather than build a Shuttle that they could
afford to build. NASA completely botched NASP and Space Station
Freedom on technical issues.

Charles Buckley wrote in message ...
Eric Chomko wrote:

Ool ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message ...
: Hansel ) wrote:


snip
: Come on, twenty-five years of using the same old jalopies until the
: oldest of them all eventually breaks apart means there must be *some*
: roadblock to progress somewhere...!

Agreed, NASA needs more money to run efficiently.



I'll have to disagree on that point. The last thing that NASA
needs is more money. It has not used what it has efficiently.
More money just means more money.

NASA has *never* operated a large program within it's budget
and it has never even met it's own internal estimates on cost.
It does a lot better with smaller, focussed, programs, but it
still tends to use more money to add more complexity.

The key words here a "large program." NACA got the job
of being NASA, because it served the civilian and military
aviation industry so well and so selflessly. NACA never really
has any large programs comparable to Mercury, Gemini, Apollo,
Space Shuttle or ISS. What we need is a NACAA--a decentralized
Advisory Committee with largely independent research centers
that compete and cooperate on a lot of small research projects.

Case in
point.. OSP was a straight forward program with a specific technical
goal. Yet, three separate NASA centers had separate offices specifically
for that program - and as far as I can tell, none were subservient to
any of the others. Hardly efficient.

When it comes to true, innovative, competitive research, there
is no such thing as duplication. The problem is that we have
OSPs, NASPS, Space Shuttles, etc. that are preconceived solutions
to a basic problem--rather than truly competitive approaches to
a basic problem such as the need for frequent, reliable, low-cost
access to space. And for this basic problem, it is way past time
that private industry should be supplying efficient space transportion
in response to government-generated and commercial-generated
markets for large amounts of tonnage to LEO at low cost.

This type of infrastructure would allow an NACAA to do
very ambitious space exploration at far lower cost than is
now being projected going back to the moon and manned
explorations to Mars. With the proper, commercially-oriented
space transportation infrastructure, space exploration would
not have to be a budget-busting, all-consuming program. I
would envisage a number of relatively small projects--not
programs--conducted by more than one NACAA research center.

To get a feel for an organization, you have to look at how it has
operated in the past. What sections are the most efficient? What
happened to areas when they recieved a budget increase? What happened
when budgets decreased? NASA does not fare well in that sort of
analysis. NASA deliberately lied to congress about the costs of
developing Shuttle rather than build a Shuttle that they could
afford to build. NASA completely botched NASP and Space Station
Freedom on technical issues.

NACA peformed very well. NASA has been a huge bureaucracy
since 1959, when I worked at NASA headquarters. I worked as a
summer intern at NACA Ames in 1952--what a world of difference.
Too much money for oversize programs has been the problem--not
the reverse.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
(change x to len)
( http://www.tour2space.com )