Story Musgrave disses ISS

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
You have been served, space station:
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/a...-flight/39212/


From above:

"[The Space Station] does nothing for nobody and it never has,"
he says. "The cost of space station is 300 Voyager-class
satellites. We could have had multiple Voyagers landed or
floating in the atmosphere on every planet and on every moon of
every planet. That is what we gave up when we went with a jobs
program, which is what the space station is. And that's an
ungodly sin. And yes, I'm a human space flight person, but
listen to me. That's what we could have offered the public."

What he says is sort of true, at least as far as "exploration" goes. While
there is lots of experimentation on ISS, it's not exactly "exploring". And
yes, it's cost so much money (especially if you include the costs of the
shuttle program as used to support the ISS program), it's pretty much
gobbled up most of the manned spaceflight budget for decades.

I wouldn't mind seeing a suspension of the manned space program (outside of
ISS and Orion-lite) for the next 5 years just so we can get our house in
order. NASA currently spends far too much money on manned space programs
and too little on research and true exploration. I'd like to see a
LOX/kerosene engine developed in that timeframe so we can get rid of the
large segmented solids once and for all.

Any HLV built today would surely use large segmented solids and I've thought
they were a bad idea all the way back to the Challenger disaster, and my
opinion of them drops with every bit of new information I read about them.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Jeff Findley wrote:
What he says is sort of true, at least as far as "exploration" goes. While
there is lots of experimentation on ISS, it's not exactly "exploring". And
yes, it's cost so much money (especially if you include the costs of the
shuttle program as used to support the ISS program), it's pretty much
gobbled up most of the manned spaceflight budget for decades.

The first flaw in his argument is arguing for unmanned over manned. Human
spaceflight is about humans flying, not about humans building robots to fly.
I've observed that the humans-vs-robots argument is a fairly polarizing one:
either you're for HSF or you're against it.

I thought the real purpose of building a space station was to learn how to
live and work in space. We do that in earth orbit so we can try many
different things to see which one works best and, if the worst happens, be
able to evacuate the station and come home.

A space station could also be used to assemble the parts of the larger
spacecraft that leaves earth orbit. This technique was advocated by some for
the moon landing. Whether ISS is in an orbit that is useful for that is
something I'll leave to those who understand orbits better than I do.

I wouldn't mind seeing a suspension of the manned space program (outside of
ISS and Orion-lite) for the next 5 years just so we can get our house in
order. NASA currently spends far too much money on manned space programs

You're willing to sacrifice human spaceflight for robotic spaceflight. You
might want to check with the astronaut corps on that one

Glen Overby

"Glen Overby" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
What he says is sort of true, at least as far as "exploration" goes.
While
there is lots of experimentation on ISS, it's not exactly "exploring".
And
yes, it's cost so much money (especially if you include the costs of the
shuttle program as used to support the ISS program), it's pretty much
gobbled up most of the manned spaceflight budget for decades.

The first flaw in his argument is arguing for unmanned over manned. Human
spaceflight is about humans flying, not about humans building robots to
fly.
I've observed that the humans-vs-robots argument is a fairly polarizing
one:
either you're for HSF or you're against it.

I thought the real purpose of building a space station was to learn how to
live and work in space. We do that in earth orbit so we can try many
different things to see which one works best and, if the worst happens, be
able to evacuate the station and come home.

True, but in practice, Mir has shown that the astronauts, and the engieners
on the ground, are very reluctant to evacuate a space station even in the
face of life threatening situations like fire and decompression. One of the
main reasons for this is that they're designed to be operated and maintained
by astronauts on the spot. Without continuous manned operations and
maintenance, there is the very real possibility that something critical will
break that can't be fixed from the ground.

A space station could also be used to assemble the parts of the larger
spacecraft that leaves earth orbit. This technique was advocated by some
for
the moon landing. Whether ISS is in an orbit that is useful for that is
something I'll leave to those who understand orbits better than I do.

It could, but considering its high inclination orbit, it's not in an ideal
location for such a task. The high inclination causes a payload penalty for
anything launched from a lower lattitude, like KSC. Also, tt could be done,
but it would likely wreck the zero gravity environemnt inside its labs,
which might not make the international partners very happy since they've
spent quite a bit of their own money to build and fly their attached labs.

I wouldn't mind seeing a suspension of the manned space program (outside
of
ISS and Orion-lite) for the next 5 years just so we can get our house in
order. NASA currently spends far too much money on manned space programs

You're willing to sacrifice human spaceflight for robotic spaceflight.
You
might want to check with the astronaut corps on that one

For the next five years. We have far too many astronauts as it is. A five
year pause in flights (except for ISS, which will provide precious few
flights without the shuttle) will only weed out the surplus that won't be
needed in the future.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

You're willing to sacrifice human spaceflight for robotic spaceflight. �You
might want to check with the astronaut corps on that one

Glen Overby

There wouldnt be many astronauts left to comment....... since most
will have moved on to other jobs....

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:49:37 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

I wouldn't mind seeing a suspension of the manned space program (outside of
ISS and Orion-lite) for the next 5 years just so we can get our house in
order. NASA currently spends far too much money on manned space programs
and too little on research and true exploration.

I'd go along with that if we had some sort of assurance that the
budget currently going to Shuttle/Station would still stay at NASA and
not go off into the bottomless pit of entitlement programs, but I have
a no doubt that is what would/will happen.

And while I admire Dr. Musgrave, there is absolutely zero chance we'd
have gotten 300 Voyager-class missions instead of ISS. We'd have
gotten four or five, tops (one every five years), and welfare would
have swallowed the other $90 billion bucks.

Brian

On Apr 23, 4:01*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:

And while I admire Dr. Musgrave, there is absolutely zero chance we'd
have gotten 300 Voyager-class missions instead of ISS. We'd have
gotten four or five, tops (one every five years), and welfare would
have swallowed the other $90 billion bucks.

I started losing respect for Dr. Musgrave after reading his monday
morning quarterbacking of the Columbia accident in 2003. His plan for
an inspection EVA was predicated on knowing there was a foam strike to
the RCC, not the HRSI tiles as was originally thought to be the case,
and hence why an EVA was ruled out as the astronauts would not have
been able to go far enough to see the belly of the orbiter.

I also serious doubt that Musgrave is taking into account an
adjustment for inflation on the Voyager program costs. Assuming $800
million in fiscal year 1972, that would mean about 4 billion dollars
in 2009-2019 dollars. ISS, assuming $100 billion in total support and
construction costs, would mean "only" 25 or so Voyager class missions,
assuming that the money did not go elsewhere. So I'm not seeing where
he gets his cost accounting, much less anything else here.

Sometimes I have to wonder if the guy just isn't getting kooky in his
old age.
-Mike

On Apr 24, 12:24�am, Mike DiCenso wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:01�pm, Brian Thorn wrote:

And while I admire Dr. Musgrave, there is absolutely zero chance we'd
have gotten 300 Voyager-class missions instead of ISS. We'd have
gotten four or five, tops (one every five years), and welfare would
have swallowed the other $90 billion bucks.

I started losing respect for Dr. Musgrave after reading his monday
morning quarterbacking of the Columbia accident in 2003. His plan for
an inspection EVA was predicated on knowing there was a foam strike to
the RCC, not the HRSI tiles as was originally thought to be the case,
and hence why an EVA was ruled out as the astronauts would not have
been able to go far enough to see the belly of the orbiter.

I also serious doubt that Musgrave is taking into account an
adjustment for inflation on the Voyager program costs. Assuming $800
million in fiscal year 1972, that would mean about 4 billion dollars
in 2009-2019 dollars. ISS, assuming $100 billion in total support and
construction costs, would mean "only" 25 or so Voyager class missions,
assuming that the money did not go elsewhere. So I'm not seeing where
he gets his cost accounting, much less anything else here.

Sometimes I have to wonder if the guy just isn't getting kooky in his
old age.
-Mike

The sad FACT of columbia Management let schedule pressure drive the
program, and didnt even bother to look or consider the possiblity of a
killer problem even after some previous wing burn thrus Heck
management didnt even bother to actually have their own daily safety
meetings.

Ever heard of your only as good as your manager????

If nasa had manufactured 300 voyager or any other exploration
vehicles, the cost per unit would drop so much

Frankly I think nasa should be ordering more spirit and opportunitys.

They are a excellent design and 50 should be crawling all over Mars
and the moon as we speak today.

Why design and test, then find a real winner of a model, then forget
about it???

kinda like Apollo.............

Jeff Findley wrote:

For the next five years. We have far too many astronauts as it is. A five
year pause in flights (except for ISS, which will provide precious few
flights without the shuttle) will only weed out the surplus that won't be
needed in the future.

Perhaps one current astronaut will hang on and become the next Story Musgrave

On Apr 25, 1:56�am, Neil Gerace wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
For the next five years. �We have far too many astronauts as it is. �A five
year pause in flights (except for ISS, which will provide precious few
flights without the shuttle) will only weed out the surplus that won't be
needed in the future.

Perhaps one current astronaut will hang on and become the next Story Musgrave

thats assuming nasa will have any astronauts after ISS is deorbited.

By then it could be all private industries