Mission to nowhere - (Space Shuttle)

The Australian
April 19, 2006

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-28737,00.html

Mission to nowhere

As the space shuttle struggles to return to orbit, Americans are
wondering aloud whether it's worth the effort, writes Cameron Stewart


PORTRAITS of dead astronauts line the walls of the Outpost Tavern in
Texas. Their ranks have doubled since the explosion in 2003 of the
space shuttle Columbia, and the astronauts' sunny smiles seem all the
more haunting given the horrific manner of their deaths.

Yet the locals in this ramshackle wooden watering hole near the Johnson
Space Centre never complain about the grim memories hanging from the
memorial walls for the crews of the ill-fated Columbia and Challenger
space shuttles.

This is the pub where NASA's astronauts come to play after a hard day
of mission training. It is therefore one of the few places where they
can talk frankly and freely about what has gone right - and wrong -
with America's space program.

But lately NASA might be relieved that it cannot hear the
Budweiser-fueled rantings of its astronauts.

It is 25 years ago this month since NASA launched its first space
shuttle with the promise that it would revolutionise the nature of
space travel. A generation on, that dream has gone sour.

Fourteen dead astronauts, two lost shuttles, continuing safety concerns
and huge budget blowouts have combined to cast a pall over the future
of America's space program.

As NASA administrator Michael Griffin admits: "What we have ahead of us
represents a challenge significantly greater than when we first went to
the moon."

Although NASA is celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first shuttle
mission in April 1981 with all the gusto its public relations team can
muster, some members of Congress, who hold NASA's purse strings, are
quietly wondering if it has all been worthwhile.

"This can't go on forever," a senior shuttle manager at the Johnson
Space Centre told The Orlando Sentinel. "There is some concern among
management that if we aren't able to solve the engineering problems
soon that Congress will grow less and less likely to continue funding
the program."

The shuttle program has failed to live up to expectations for several
reasons, not all of which can be blamed on NASA.

The much-touted scientific breakthroughs that were promised 25 years
ago as a result of on-board experiments in space have largely failed to
materialise.

Over the years thousands of experiments have been conducted on a
dizzying range of subjects from learning how quail embryos grow in zero
gravity to how alcohol ferments in space.

Many of these experiments had noble aims, such as helping improve the
quality of drugs or understanding the effects of ageing, and not all
have been in vain.

But if shuttle science has helped trigger any significant scientific
breakthroughs NASA has remained silent and the general public is none
the wiser.

Many scientists, such as Norman Sleep, a geophysicist at Stanford
University, says the scientific return from the shuttle program has
been limited at best. He and others point out that many of the shuttle
experiments can now be automated, making astronauts largely redundant.

The focus on science has also had the unfortunate effect of helping to
kill public interest in the space program.

NASA has found it impossible to sell the benefits of quail-egg
experiments to an American public steeped in the glory days of the
Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, when chisel-jawed fighter jocks
held the nation spellbound as they were catapulted into space.

Back then astronauts were super-heroes in an era when president John F.
Kennedy pointed at the moon and Congress promised unlimited funding.

Youngsters were raised on the story of how Alan Shepard, strapped on
top of his Mercury-Redstone rocket in 1961, waiting to become the first
American in space, urged the control room to hurry, saying: "Why don't
you fix your little problem and light this candle."

The astronaut corps in those days drove fast Corvettes, cavorted in
Camelot with the Kennedys and addressed Congress.

As Tom Wolfe wrote in his 1979 book The Right Stuff, it was a life of
"flying and drinking and drinking and driving".

These days NASA's astronaut corps prefer to drive family station wagons
and drink quietly in the Outpost Tavern in the shadow of their dead
comrades. They are as anonymous as their predecessors were famous.

It says much that one of the few shuttle missions to capture public
attention in recent decades was in 1998 when John Glenn, one of the
original Mercury astronauts, returned to space aboard the shuttle at
the age of 77.

Officially Glenn's mission was to help the understanding of the ageing
process, but its real purpose was to rekindle public interest in the
space program.

Sadly, this interest was rekindled for the wrong reasons. The fiery
destruction of Columbia in 2003 underlined the shuttle's imperfect
design.

It took two years before the next shuttle was launched and when it was,
in August last year, the intense public interest had nothing to do with
science and everything to do with whether the shuttle Discovery and its
crew would survive the mission.

Fears of another catastrophe arose mid-mission when NASA noticed that
pieces of foam had fallen off Discovery's external fuel tanks, the same
problem that triggered the events leading to the loss of the Columbia.

The problem even caused veteran Australian astronaut Andy Thomas to
lose his cool. While on board the shuttle, Thomas controversially broke
NASA's code of silence, describing the falling debris an "an emotional
disappointment [and] also an engineering disappointment", comments that
saw him banned from the post-flight press conference.

Since then, NASA has struggled to fix the shuttle's problems and
recently pushed its next launch date back again, this time from May to
July.

Given these problems, some are asking why bother sending the shuttle
back into space at all?

President George W. Bush has said the shuttles will be retired in 2010
as part of a shift towards sending astronauts back to the moon and
eventually on to Mars.

Underlying this is the tacit realisation that the $US16.5 billion
($22.3 billion)-a-year space program has lost purpose and direction.
The shuttles have not left the legacy that either the White House or
NASA had hoped for.

But NASA has little choice but to keep the shuttles flying in order to
complete the construction of the international space station.

"We have to keep the space shuttle going until 2010 or until the
international space station is completed," US Senator Bill Nelson said
last week. "Not only for the obvious reason of being able to complete
this multibillion-dollar investment but ... from a standpoint of
keeping all of the educated and experienced workforce."

Existing plans are for a further 17 shuttle missions to assemble the
space station by late 2010, but unless safety issues can be resolved
quickly this schedule may be never be met.

The replacement for the shuttle is the capsule-shaped Crew Exploration
Vehicle, or CEV, which is still in the design phase and which is not
due to begin manned missions until 2014.

The new design abandons the shuttle concept of a fully re-usable
spaceship and goes back to an Apollo era-shaped capsule which is
perched on top of a rocket. Other parts, such as a lunar lander, will
be launched on a separate rocket that will be retrieved by the crew in
space.

The plan is that NASA will not only fly to the moon but will
effectively colonise it, staying there for months on end. On the moon,
"colonists" aim to be semi-self-sufficient, extracting oxygen from the
moon's soil and growing vegetables in lunar greenhouses. NASA plans to
get back there by 2020.

The plan eventually is that astronauts will become so self-sufficient
that NASA can one day attempt the holy grail of space travel: a manned
trip to Mars, a journey that would take three years.

A Mars mission would capture public attention like nothing since Neil
Armstrong first walked on the moon, but the scientific, technical and
logistical obstacles are huge.

"It's like Magellan," planetary scientist Wendell Mendell, manager of
NASA's Office for Human Exploration Science says. "You send them off
and maybe they come back, maybe they don't."

But the biggest obstacle may turn out to be political.

Congress is growling about the space program which, at face value, is
delivering nothing but bad news right now.

Political support for the program in the US has always been closely
married to national pride. Washington's support for the space program
has been strongest when it trumps the Russians or the Chinese or when
it creates new records and tests new boundaries.

But that support softens noticeably when shuttles explode and when NASA
has little to boast about.

After 25 years it is too harsh to brand the shuttle program a failure;
despite two crashes, the shuttle has worked largely as planned and has
carried out its missions, however uninspiring they may have been.

But the shuttle era will hardly be remembered as a shining success.

Perhaps its greatest sin was to strip the glitter from space travel.
Over 25 years the shuttle - when not exploding - has become a glorified
bus, dropping groceries off to the space station and helping to hatch
quail's eggs.

Without a target - such as the moon or Mars - it became the vehicle for
a journey to no-where, a mission without a purpose.

The Bush administration hopes to turn back the clock, to once again
shoot for the moon and beyond. It wants to revive the flagging interest
of a sceptical public.

But one wonders whether NASA will get over the limited achievements of
the space shuttle era. Or the haunting smiles of those on the wall of
the Outpost Tavern.

-----

The article has this interesting story about last years Return To
Flight mission:

".....Fears of another catastrophe arose mid-mission when NASA noticed
that pieces of foam had fallen off Discovery's external fuel tanks, the
same problem that triggered the events leading to the loss of the
Columbia.

The problem even caused veteran Australian astronaut Andy Thomas to
lose his cool. While on board the shuttle, Thomas controversially broke
NASA's code of silence, describing the falling debris an "an emotional
disappointment [and] also an engineering disappointment", comments that
saw him banned from the post-flight press conference....."

I ran a Google search on sci.space.history, shuttle and policy and
didn't find any discussion of this. Was Andy Thomas banned from the
post Return To Flight press conference last year because of on-orbit
comments?

-Rusty

"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Australian
April 19, 2006

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-28737,00.html

Mission to nowhere





It is 25 years ago this month since NASA launched its first space
shuttle with the promise that it would revolutionise the nature of
space travel. A generation on, that dream has gone sour.


It's gone sour for the simple reason we built the shuttle and
ISS without a clear purpose for their use. It was merely assumed
that if we built it 'they' would come. The science would somehow
produce breakthroughs that would make it all worthwhile.
That is called a wish, or a prayer. NOT a plan. If we're going
to ....again...spend a generation and hundred of billions we
should be able to flatly say "This is the benefits society will gain"

Tangible benefits that the public can see and touch someday.
Not some vaque promise of discoveries to come etc etc.

And guess what, here we are about to make the very same
mistake with 'to the moon and mars'. They say if we go
then some great discovery along the way is sure to happen
to make it all worthwhile. Maybe we'll dig up a fossil on
Mars. Maybe we'll find something to do on the Moon other
than merely survive.

But maybe not.

And if after all those years and billions we finally set foot
on Mars, what then? How will my life or of my children
benefit from that?

What if we don't find that 'fossil' or breakthough?

Will we feel like we do now, that it seems mostly a waste
of time and money, very precious time and research money.
Nasa needs to come up not with a /vision/, but a /plan/ that
puts something in the pockets of those left behind on earth.

That is how you get public support and budgets.

Here we are all fretting over oil, the wars and climate change
fossil fuels cause. And here we sit with all the clean energy we
could ever need in low earth orbit. And our primary research
agency, that operates in orbit, can't come up with a plan to
......EXPLOIT SPACE FOR OUR BENEFIT

It's time to stop dreaming of Trekkian adventures, and start
figuring out what space has for us. We need to start planning
for the future.

Nasa should be dedicated to one thing only, a scientific and
space based answer to our greatest single global need....energy.
Once that is set in motion, then pure science can be done
as a luxury, as it should be.

Before Nasa signs another contract, it needs to tell us
what is in space that we can put to use here...on earth
that doesn't involve cheap sci-fi cliches.



Jonathan

s













Fourteen dead astronauts, two lost shuttles, continuing safety concerns
and huge budget blowouts have combined to cast a pall over the future
of America's space program.

As NASA administrator Michael Griffin admits: "What we have ahead of us
represents a challenge significantly greater than when we first went to
the moon."

Although NASA is celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first shuttle
mission in April 1981 with all the gusto its public relations team can
muster, some members of Congress, who hold NASA's purse strings, are
quietly wondering if it has all been worthwhile.

"This can't go on forever," a senior shuttle manager at the Johnson
Space Centre told The Orlando Sentinel. "There is some concern among
management that if we aren't able to solve the engineering problems
soon that Congress will grow less and less likely to continue funding
the program."

The shuttle program has failed to live up to expectations for several
reasons, not all of which can be blamed on NASA.

The much-touted scientific breakthroughs that were promised 25 years
ago as a result of on-board experiments in space have largely failed to
materialise.

Over the years thousands of experiments have been conducted on a
dizzying range of subjects from learning how quail embryos grow in zero
gravity to how alcohol ferments in space.

Many of these experiments had noble aims, such as helping improve the
quality of drugs or understanding the effects of ageing, and not all
have been in vain.

But if shuttle science has helped trigger any significant scientific
breakthroughs NASA has remained silent and the general public is none
the wiser.

Many scientists, such as Norman Sleep, a geophysicist at Stanford
University, says the scientific return from the shuttle program has
been limited at best. He and others point out that many of the shuttle
experiments can now be automated, making astronauts largely redundant.

The focus on science has also had the unfortunate effect of helping to
kill public interest in the space program.

NASA has found it impossible to sell the benefits of quail-egg
experiments to an American public steeped in the glory days of the
Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, when chisel-jawed fighter jocks
held the nation spellbound as they were catapulted into space.

Back then astronauts were super-heroes in an era when president John F.
Kennedy pointed at the moon and Congress promised unlimited funding.

Youngsters were raised on the story of how Alan Shepard, strapped on
top of his Mercury-Redstone rocket in 1961, waiting to become the first
American in space, urged the control room to hurry, saying: "Why don't
you fix your little problem and light this candle."

The astronaut corps in those days drove fast Corvettes, cavorted in
Camelot with the Kennedys and addressed Congress.

As Tom Wolfe wrote in his 1979 book The Right Stuff, it was a life of
"flying and drinking and drinking and driving".

These days NASA's astronaut corps prefer to drive family station wagons
and drink quietly in the Outpost Tavern in the shadow of their dead
comrades. They are as anonymous as their predecessors were famous.

It says much that one of the few shuttle missions to capture public
attention in recent decades was in 1998 when John Glenn, one of the
original Mercury astronauts, returned to space aboard the shuttle at
the age of 77.

Officially Glenn's mission was to help the understanding of the ageing
process, but its real purpose was to rekindle public interest in the
space program.

Sadly, this interest was rekindled for the wrong reasons. The fiery
destruction of Columbia in 2003 underlined the shuttle's imperfect
design.

It took two years before the next shuttle was launched and when it was,
in August last year, the intense public interest had nothing to do with
science and everything to do with whether the shuttle Discovery and its
crew would survive the mission.

Fears of another catastrophe arose mid-mission when NASA noticed that
pieces of foam had fallen off Discovery's external fuel tanks, the same
problem that triggered the events leading to the loss of the Columbia.

The problem even caused veteran Australian astronaut Andy Thomas to
lose his cool. While on board the shuttle, Thomas controversially broke
NASA's code of silence, describing the falling debris an "an emotional
disappointment [and] also an engineering disappointment", comments that
saw him banned from the post-flight press conference.

Since then, NASA has struggled to fix the shuttle's problems and
recently pushed its next launch date back again, this time from May to
July.

Given these problems, some are asking why bother sending the shuttle
back into space at all?

President George W. Bush has said the shuttles will be retired in 2010
as part of a shift towards sending astronauts back to the moon and
eventually on to Mars.

Underlying this is the tacit realisation that the $US16.5 billion
($22.3 billion)-a-year space program has lost purpose and direction.
The shuttles have not left the legacy that either the White House or
NASA had hoped for.

But NASA has little choice but to keep the shuttles flying in order to
complete the construction of the international space station.

"We have to keep the space shuttle going until 2010 or until the
international space station is completed," US Senator Bill Nelson said
last week. "Not only for the obvious reason of being able to complete
this multibillion-dollar investment but ... from a standpoint of
keeping all of the educated and experienced workforce."

Existing plans are for a further 17 shuttle missions to assemble the
space station by late 2010, but unless safety issues can be resolved
quickly this schedule may be never be met.

The replacement for the shuttle is the capsule-shaped Crew Exploration
Vehicle, or CEV, which is still in the design phase and which is not
due to begin manned missions until 2014.

The new design abandons the shuttle concept of a fully re-usable
spaceship and goes back to an Apollo era-shaped capsule which is
perched on top of a rocket. Other parts, such as a lunar lander, will
be launched on a separate rocket that will be retrieved by the crew in
space.

The plan is that NASA will not only fly to the moon but will
effectively colonise it, staying there for months on end. On the moon,
"colonists" aim to be semi-self-sufficient, extracting oxygen from the
moon's soil and growing vegetables in lunar greenhouses. NASA plans to
get back there by 2020.

The plan eventually is that astronauts will become so self-sufficient
that NASA can one day attempt the holy grail of space travel: a manned
trip to Mars, a journey that would take three years.

A Mars mission would capture public attention like nothing since Neil
Armstrong first walked on the moon, but the scientific, technical and
logistical obstacles are huge.

"It's like Magellan," planetary scientist Wendell Mendell, manager of
NASA's Office for Human Exploration Science says. "You send them off
and maybe they come back, maybe they don't."

But the biggest obstacle may turn out to be political.

Congress is growling about the space program which, at face value, is
delivering nothing but bad news right now.

Political support for the program in the US has always been closely
married to national pride. Washington's support for the space program
has been strongest when it trumps the Russians or the Chinese or when
it creates new records and tests new boundaries.

But that support softens noticeably when shuttles explode and when NASA
has little to boast about.

After 25 years it is too harsh to brand the shuttle program a failure;
despite two crashes, the shuttle has worked largely as planned and has
carried out its missions, however uninspiring they may have been.

But the shuttle era will hardly be remembered as a shining success.

Perhaps its greatest sin was to strip the glitter from space travel.
Over 25 years the shuttle - when not exploding - has become a glorified
bus, dropping groceries off to the space station and helping to hatch
quail's eggs.

Without a target - such as the moon or Mars - it became the vehicle for
a journey to no-where, a mission without a purpose.

The Bush administration hopes to turn back the clock, to once again
shoot for the moon and beyond. It wants to revive the flagging interest
of a sceptical public.

But one wonders whether NASA will get over the limited achievements of
the space shuttle era. Or the haunting smiles of those on the wall of
the Outpost Tavern.

-----

"jonathan" wrote in message
. ..

"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Australian
April 19, 2006


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-28737,00.html

Mission to nowhere




Tangible benefits that the public can see and touch someday.
Not some vaque promise of discoveries to come etc etc.


Vague. And if we wish to use Nasa as a vehicle for our
dreams of discovery and a better world. What is it that
made those Trekkian visions of interstellar travel and
universal prosperity possible?

It was those wonderful little di-lithium crystals.
Unlimited and clean energy. Of course, as long
as they didn't 'decrystallize'.

In much of our best sci-fi it's energy that is the great
obstacle to Utopia.

And in much of our best sci-fi, the /lack/ of energy in the future
is the source of so many post apocalyptic nightmares.
We're deciding which future....right now.

And according the the Administrator, this decision was based
more on faith than anything else. Great!

Just great, our future rests on religious like hopes and prayers
not rational thought.


Just great


s







And guess what, here we are about to make the very same
mistake with 'to the moon and mars'. They say if we go
then some great discovery along the way is sure to happen
to make it all worthwhile. Maybe we'll dig up a fossil on
Mars. Maybe we'll find something to do on the Moon other
than merely survive.

But maybe not.

And if after all those years and billions we finally set foot
on Mars, what then? How will my life or of my children
benefit from that?

What if we don't find that 'fossil' or breakthough?

Will we feel like we do now, that it seems mostly a waste
of time and money, very precious time and research money.
Nasa needs to come up not with a /vision/, but a /plan/ that
puts something in the pockets of those left behind on earth.

That is how you get public support and budgets.

Here we are all fretting over oil, the wars and climate change
fossil fuels cause. And here we sit with all the clean energy we
could ever need in low earth orbit. And our primary research
agency, that operates in orbit, can't come up with a plan to
.....EXPLOIT SPACE FOR OUR BENEFIT

It's time to stop dreaming of Trekkian adventures, and start
figuring out what space has for us. We need to start planning
for the future.

Nasa should be dedicated to one thing only, a scientific and
space based answer to our greatest single global need....energy.
Once that is set in motion, then pure science can be done
as a luxury, as it should be.

Before Nasa signs another contract, it needs to tell us
what is in space that we can put to use here...on earth
that doesn't involve cheap sci-fi cliches.



Jonathan

s













Fourteen dead astronauts, two lost shuttles, continuing safety concerns
and huge budget blowouts have combined to cast a pall over the future
of America's space program.

As NASA administrator Michael Griffin admits: "What we have ahead of us
represents a challenge significantly greater than when we first went to
the moon."

Although NASA is celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first shuttle
mission in April 1981 with all the gusto its public relations team can
muster, some members of Congress, who hold NASA's purse strings, are
quietly wondering if it has all been worthwhile.

"This can't go on forever," a senior shuttle manager at the Johnson
Space Centre told The Orlando Sentinel. "There is some concern among
management that if we aren't able to solve the engineering problems
soon that Congress will grow less and less likely to continue funding
the program."

The shuttle program has failed to live up to expectations for several
reasons, not all of which can be blamed on NASA.

The much-touted scientific breakthroughs that were promised 25 years
ago as a result of on-board experiments in space have largely failed to
materialise.

Over the years thousands of experiments have been conducted on a
dizzying range of subjects from learning how quail embryos grow in zero
gravity to how alcohol ferments in space.

Many of these experiments had noble aims, such as helping improve the
quality of drugs or understanding the effects of ageing, and not all
have been in vain.

But if shuttle science has helped trigger any significant scientific
breakthroughs NASA has remained silent and the general public is none
the wiser.

Many scientists, such as Norman Sleep, a geophysicist at Stanford
University, says the scientific return from the shuttle program has
been limited at best. He and others point out that many of the shuttle
experiments can now be automated, making astronauts largely redundant.

The focus on science has also had the unfortunate effect of helping to
kill public interest in the space program.

NASA has found it impossible to sell the benefits of quail-egg
experiments to an American public steeped in the glory days of the
Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, when chisel-jawed fighter jocks
held the nation spellbound as they were catapulted into space.

Back then astronauts were super-heroes in an era when president John F.
Kennedy pointed at the moon and Congress promised unlimited funding.

Youngsters were raised on the story of how Alan Shepard, strapped on
top of his Mercury-Redstone rocket in 1961, waiting to become the first
American in space, urged the control room to hurry, saying: "Why don't
you fix your little problem and light this candle."

The astronaut corps in those days drove fast Corvettes, cavorted in
Camelot with the Kennedys and addressed Congress.

As Tom Wolfe wrote in his 1979 book The Right Stuff, it was a life of
"flying and drinking and drinking and driving".

These days NASA's astronaut corps prefer to drive family station wagons
and drink quietly in the Outpost Tavern in the shadow of their dead
comrades. They are as anonymous as their predecessors were famous.

It says much that one of the few shuttle missions to capture public
attention in recent decades was in 1998 when John Glenn, one of the
original Mercury astronauts, returned to space aboard the shuttle at
the age of 77.

Officially Glenn's mission was to help the understanding of the ageing
process, but its real purpose was to rekindle public interest in the
space program.

Sadly, this interest was rekindled for the wrong reasons. The fiery
destruction of Columbia in 2003 underlined the shuttle's imperfect
design.

It took two years before the next shuttle was launched and when it was,
in August last year, the intense public interest had nothing to do with
science and everything to do with whether the shuttle Discovery and its
crew would survive the mission.

Fears of another catastrophe arose mid-mission when NASA noticed that
pieces of foam had fallen off Discovery's external fuel tanks, the same
problem that triggered the events leading to the loss of the Columbia.

The problem even caused veteran Australian astronaut Andy Thomas to
lose his cool. While on board the shuttle, Thomas controversially broke
NASA's code of silence, describing the falling debris an "an emotional
disappointment [and] also an engineering disappointment", comments that
saw him banned from the post-flight press conference.

Since then, NASA has struggled to fix the shuttle's problems and
recently pushed its next launch date back again, this time from May to
July.

Given these problems, some are asking why bother sending the shuttle
back into space at all?

President George W. Bush has said the shuttles will be retired in 2010
as part of a shift towards sending astronauts back to the moon and
eventually on to Mars.

Underlying this is the tacit realisation that the $US16.5 billion
($22.3 billion)-a-year space program has lost purpose and direction.
The shuttles have not left the legacy that either the White House or
NASA had hoped for.

But NASA has little choice but to keep the shuttles flying in order to
complete the construction of the international space station.

"We have to keep the space shuttle going until 2010 or until the
international space station is completed," US Senator Bill Nelson said
last week. "Not only for the obvious reason of being able to complete
this multibillion-dollar investment but ... from a standpoint of
keeping all of the educated and experienced workforce."

Existing plans are for a further 17 shuttle missions to assemble the
space station by late 2010, but unless safety issues can be resolved
quickly this schedule may be never be met.

The replacement for the shuttle is the capsule-shaped Crew Exploration
Vehicle, or CEV, which is still in the design phase and which is not
due to begin manned missions until 2014.

The new design abandons the shuttle concept of a fully re-usable
spaceship and goes back to an Apollo era-shaped capsule which is
perched on top of a rocket. Other parts, such as a lunar lander, will
be launched on a separate rocket that will be retrieved by the crew in
space.

The plan is that NASA will not only fly to the moon but will
effectively colonise it, staying there for months on end. On the moon,
"colonists" aim to be semi-self-sufficient, extracting oxygen from the
moon's soil and growing vegetables in lunar greenhouses. NASA plans to
get back there by 2020.

The plan eventually is that astronauts will become so self-sufficient
that NASA can one day attempt the holy grail of space travel: a manned
trip to Mars, a journey that would take three years.

A Mars mission would capture public attention like nothing since Neil
Armstrong first walked on the moon, but the scientific, technical and
logistical obstacles are huge.

"It's like Magellan," planetary scientist Wendell Mendell, manager of
NASA's Office for Human Exploration Science says. "You send them off
and maybe they come back, maybe they don't."

But the biggest obstacle may turn out to be political.

Congress is growling about the space program which, at face value, is
delivering nothing but bad news right now.

Political support for the program in the US has always been closely
married to national pride. Washington's support for the space program
has been strongest when it trumps the Russians or the Chinese or when
it creates new records and tests new boundaries.

But that support softens noticeably when shuttles explode and when NASA
has little to boast about.

After 25 years it is too harsh to brand the shuttle program a failure;
despite two crashes, the shuttle has worked largely as planned and has
carried out its missions, however uninspiring they may have been.

But the shuttle era will hardly be remembered as a shining success.

Perhaps its greatest sin was to strip the glitter from space travel.
Over 25 years the shuttle - when not exploding - has become a glorified
bus, dropping groceries off to the space station and helping to hatch
quail's eggs.

Without a target - such as the moon or Mars - it became the vehicle for
a journey to no-where, a mission without a purpose.

The Bush administration hopes to turn back the clock, to once again
shoot for the moon and beyond. It wants to revive the flagging interest
of a sceptical public.

But one wonders whether NASA will get over the limited achievements of
the space shuttle era. Or the haunting smiles of those on the wall of
the Outpost Tavern.

-----

"Rusty" wrote:

[article from Australian]
Without a target - such as the moon or Mars - it became the vehicle for
a journey to no-where, a mission without a purpose.

Sooner or later we're going to have to outgrow this "get to the
Orient/ New World/ source of the Nile/ South Pole/ peak of Everest/
Moon" fixation.

Why do we call it "space?" Because there's a whole lot of _____ out
there compared to the number of "targets." Probably not smart to
define the latter as the only worthy reason for going.

If the shuttle/station years are to be criticized, it should be for
having made so little progress in getting to space affordably (and
therefore for the ISS being so expensive yet still so constrained in
personnel and activity)... not for the dearth of flags and footprints.

Or to put it another way, if we can get to a few hundred dollars a
pound to orbit, that makes getting to the Moon or Mars or any other
"target" a lot easier -- but not the reverse.

Rusty wrote:
The article has this interesting story about last years Return To
Flight mission:

".....Fears of another catastrophe arose mid-mission when NASA noticed
that pieces of foam had fallen off Discovery's external fuel tanks, the
same problem that triggered the events leading to the loss of the
Columbia.

The problem even caused veteran Australian astronaut Andy Thomas to
lose his cool. While on board the shuttle, Thomas controversially broke
NASA's code of silence, describing the falling debris an "an emotional
disappointment [and] also an engineering disappointment", comments that
saw him banned from the post-flight press conference....."

I ran a Google search on sci.space.history, shuttle and policy and
didn't find any discussion of this. Was Andy Thomas banned from the
post Return To Flight press conference last year because of on-orbit
comments?

-Rusty

Dunno but is this photo accurate?
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Pho...05-0166-12.jpg

BTW: The Dryden photo description mislabels Steve Robinson as Andy
Thomas.

I recall something about Wendy Lawrence and Andy Thomas feeling a bit
"under the weather" post-landing.

-A.L.

"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Australian
April 19, 2006

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-28737,00.html

Mission to nowhere

As the space shuttle struggles to return to orbit, Americans are
wondering aloud whether it's worth the effort, writes Cameron Stewart


PORTRAITS of dead astronauts line the walls of the Outpost Tavern in
Texas. Their ranks have doubled since the explosion in 2003 of the
space shuttle Columbia, and the astronauts' sunny smiles seem all the
more haunting given the horrific manner of their deaths.

Since Columbia clearly did not explode, it's clear that the author is trying
to sensationalize the failures and loss of astronaut lives that has occurred
during the shuttle program.

Yet the locals in this ramshackle wooden watering hole near the Johnson
Space Centre never complain about the grim memories hanging from the
memorial walls for the crews of the ill-fated Columbia and Challenger
space shuttles.

This is the pub where NASA's astronauts come to play after a hard day
of mission training. It is therefore one of the few places where they
can talk frankly and freely about what has gone right - and wrong -
with America's space program.

But lately NASA might be relieved that it cannot hear the
Budweiser-fueled rantings of its astronauts.

It is 25 years ago this month since NASA launched its first space
shuttle with the promise that it would revolutionise the nature of
space travel. A generation on, that dream has gone sour.

Fourteen dead astronauts, two lost shuttles, continuing safety concerns
and huge budget blowouts have combined to cast a pall over the future
of America's space program.

That's a stretch. It's become a political reality that the shuttle program
must end relatively soon (2010 or not too long after that). However, what
happens after that is certainly up in the air, but I'm not sure that future
plans will be held back by safety concerns. The "budget blowouts" are more
likely to cause serious problems with any post-Shuttle program.

As NASA administrator Michael Griffin admits: "What we have ahead of us
represents a challenge significantly greater than when we first went to
the moon."

Although NASA is celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first shuttle
mission in April 1981 with all the gusto its public relations team can
muster, some members of Congress, who hold NASA's purse strings, are
quietly wondering if it has all been worthwhile.

"This can't go on forever," a senior shuttle manager at the Johnson
Space Centre told The Orlando Sentinel. "There is some concern among
management that if we aren't able to solve the engineering problems
soon that Congress will grow less and less likely to continue funding
the program."

The shuttle program has failed to live up to expectations for several
reasons, not all of which can be blamed on NASA.

The much-touted scientific breakthroughs that were promised 25 years
ago as a result of on-board experiments in space have largely failed to
materialise.

Over the years thousands of experiments have been conducted on a
dizzying range of subjects from learning how quail embryos grow in zero
gravity to how alcohol ferments in space.

Many of these experiments had noble aims, such as helping improve the
quality of drugs or understanding the effects of ageing, and not all
have been in vain.

But if shuttle science has helped trigger any significant scientific
breakthroughs NASA has remained silent and the general public is none
the wiser.

The "technological spinoff" falacy rears it's ugly head. If exploration is
to be done, it should be done because it's worthwhile in its own right, not
because of the anticipated "technological spinoffs". We explore because
knowing more about the universe around us is a worthwhile goal, not because
anyone can predict what specific discoveries will be made and what the
economic benefit of those discoveries will be.

Many scientists, such as Norman Sleep, a geophysicist at Stanford
University, says the scientific return from the shuttle program has
been limited at best. He and others point out that many of the shuttle
experiments can now be automated, making astronauts largely redundant.

Not a lot of "hands on" geophysics to be done by repeated manned LEO
missions?

The focus on science has also had the unfortunate effect of helping to
kill public interest in the space program.

NASA has found it impossible to sell the benefits of quail-egg
experiments to an American public steeped in the glory days of the
Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecraft, when chisel-jawed fighter jocks
held the nation spellbound as they were catapulted into space.

Ignoring history here? The US public wasn't very excited about Apollo 13,
until the O2 tank blew open and it looked like the astronauts might not make
it back to Earth alive. I'm not sure they were too excited about the last
Apollo mission either. After all, there wasn't the political will to
support more missions, despite the exsistence of surplus Apollo hardware to
continue manned lunar missions in the early 70's.

Back then astronauts were super-heroes in an era when president John F.
Kennedy pointed at the moon and Congress promised unlimited funding.

Youngsters were raised on the story of how Alan Shepard, strapped on
top of his Mercury-Redstone rocket in 1961, waiting to become the first
American in space, urged the control room to hurry, saying: "Why don't
you fix your little problem and light this candle."

The astronaut corps in those days drove fast Corvettes, cavorted in
Camelot with the Kennedys and addressed Congress.

As Tom Wolfe wrote in his 1979 book The Right Stuff, it was a life of
"flying and drinking and drinking and driving".

These days NASA's astronaut corps prefer to drive family station wagons
and drink quietly in the Outpost Tavern in the shadow of their dead
comrades. They are as anonymous as their predecessors were famous.

It says much that one of the few shuttle missions to capture public
attention in recent decades was in 1998 when John Glenn, one of the
original Mercury astronauts, returned to space aboard the shuttle at
the age of 77.

Officially Glenn's mission was to help the understanding of the ageing
process, but its real purpose was to rekindle public interest in the
space program.

The real purpose was a political payoff to Glenn as a Senator, not to Glenn
the astronaut. Furthermore, I'm not sure his flight did much for the long
term interest in the shuttle program. After his flight, NASA didn't bother
to follow up on this supposed interest by flying other aging astronauts.

Sadly, this interest was rekindled for the wrong reasons. The fiery
destruction of Columbia in 2003 underlined the shuttle's imperfect
design.

It took two years before the next shuttle was launched and when it was,
in August last year, the intense public interest had nothing to do with
science and everything to do with whether the shuttle Discovery and its
crew would survive the mission.

Fears of another catastrophe arose mid-mission when NASA noticed that
pieces of foam had fallen off Discovery's external fuel tanks, the same
problem that triggered the events leading to the loss of the Columbia.

The problem even caused veteran Australian astronaut Andy Thomas to
lose his cool. While on board the shuttle, Thomas controversially broke
NASA's code of silence, describing the falling debris an "an emotional
disappointment [and] also an engineering disappointment", comments that
saw him banned from the post-flight press conference.

Since then, NASA has struggled to fix the shuttle's problems and
recently pushed its next launch date back again, this time from May to
July.

Given these problems, some are asking why bother sending the shuttle
back into space at all?

President George W. Bush has said the shuttles will be retired in 2010
as part of a shift towards sending astronauts back to the moon and
eventually on to Mars.

Underlying this is the tacit realisation that the $US16.5 billion
($22.3 billion)-a-year space program has lost purpose and direction.
The shuttles have not left the legacy that either the White House or
NASA had hoped for.

But NASA has little choice but to keep the shuttles flying in order to
complete the construction of the international space station.

"We have to keep the space shuttle going until 2010 or until the
international space station is completed," US Senator Bill Nelson said
last week. "Not only for the obvious reason of being able to complete
this multibillion-dollar investment but ... from a standpoint of
keeping all of the educated and experienced workforce."

Existing plans are for a further 17 shuttle missions to assemble the
space station by late 2010, but unless safety issues can be resolved
quickly this schedule may be never be met.

Finishing ISS may be a worthwile goal, but keeping the entire shuttle
workforce around to use on the next generation program may not make so much
sense. The next generation program will not be a space shuttle, so things
will need to change. Just how much this impacts the workforce is unclear.
But it's clear to me that the next generation program won't be better than
the shuttle in terms of safety and economics if it's run just like the
shuttle program.

In particular, focusing on reducing development costs, by "reusing" shuttle
hardware, isn't likely to make the program cheaper or more efficient in the
long run. Continuing to throw away hardware on every flight (launch vehicle
tanks and engines) and continuing to use the marginally reusable SRB's
doesn't sound like much of an improvement over the shuttle.

The replacement for the shuttle is the capsule-shaped Crew Exploration
Vehicle, or CEV, which is still in the design phase and which is not
due to begin manned missions until 2014.

The new design abandons the shuttle concept of a fully re-usable
spaceship and goes back to an Apollo era-shaped capsule which is
perched on top of a rocket. Other parts, such as a lunar lander, will
be launched on a separate rocket that will be retrieved by the crew in
space.

The plan is that NASA will not only fly to the moon but will
effectively colonise it, staying there for months on end. On the moon,
"colonists" aim to be semi-self-sufficient, extracting oxygen from the
moon's soil and growing vegetables in lunar greenhouses. NASA plans to
get back there by 2020.

The plan eventually is that astronauts will become so self-sufficient
that NASA can one day attempt the holy grail of space travel: a manned
trip to Mars, a journey that would take three years.

A Mars mission would capture public attention like nothing since Neil
Armstrong first walked on the moon, but the scientific, technical and
logistical obstacles are huge.

"It's like Magellan," planetary scientist Wendell Mendell, manager of
NASA's Office for Human Exploration Science says. "You send them off
and maybe they come back, maybe they don't."

But the biggest obstacle may turn out to be political.

Congress is growling about the space program which, at face value, is
delivering nothing but bad news right now.

Political support for the program in the US has always been closely
married to national pride. Washington's support for the space program
has been strongest when it trumps the Russians or the Chinese or when
it creates new records and tests new boundaries.

But that support softens noticeably when shuttles explode and when NASA
has little to boast about.

After 25 years it is too harsh to brand the shuttle program a failure;
despite two crashes, the shuttle has worked largely as planned and has
carried out its missions, however uninspiring they may have been.

But the shuttle era will hardly be remembered as a shining success.

Perhaps its greatest sin was to strip the glitter from space travel.
Over 25 years the shuttle - when not exploding - has become a glorified
bus, dropping groceries off to the space station and helping to hatch
quail's eggs.

Without a target - such as the moon or Mars - it became the vehicle for
a journey to no-where, a mission without a purpose.

The Bush administration hopes to turn back the clock, to once again
shoot for the moon and beyond. It wants to revive the flagging interest
of a sceptical public.

But one wonders whether NASA will get over the limited achievements of
the space shuttle era. Or the haunting smiles of those on the wall of
the Outpost Tavern.

Unfortunately, we can't overcome this problem by attempting to return to the
glory days of Apollo. Apollo was completely unsustainable from a political
and budgetary point of view. From that viewpoint, the shuttle program has
been far more successful than Apollo. The shuttle development and
operational period will have been far longer than Apollo's.

In the end, if one's goals are to create a long term, sustainable, manned
space program I believe that NASA has to get out of the business of building
and flying launch vehicles, and to a certain extent, manned spacecraft, and
focus instead on flying missions. Unfortunately, Griffin believes the
opposite, that NASA must be in charge of not only it's manned spacecraft,
but the launch vehicles for those spacecraft as well.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"jonathan" wrote in message
. ..


Nasa should be dedicated to one thing only, a scientific and
space based answer to our greatest single global need....energy.
Once that is set in motion, then pure science can be done
as a luxury, as it should be.

How do we know that space-based power is the answer? Considering the rate of
energy consumption, we may need to find at least an interim earth-based
solution. Like solar power, safer nuclear reactors, judicious use of wind
and tidal power, more efficient energy use etc.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

But if shuttle science has helped trigger any significant scientific
breakthroughs NASA has remained silent and the general public is none
the wiser.

The "technological spinoff" falacy rears it's ugly head. If exploration is
to be done, it should be done because it's worthwhile in its own right, not
because of the anticipated "technological spinoffs".

The most amusing part of this is that their is a significant number of
people on these newsgroups who define 'exploration' as "anything and
everything except whatever the Shuttle and ISS are doing".

The real problem is the term 'exploring', (like 'disaster', 'toxic',
and 'technology') has been used so often - it's become meaningless.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Key is low cost to orbit, after thats accomplished everything else is
easier.

reuse of hiigh cost shuttle infrastructure is the LAST thing
needed...........

CEV is just another shuttle program, of high cost little payback.

only thing about cev NEXT PRESIDENT WILL KILL IT since its a bush
program