Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shuttle and Space Station were Mistakes, Space Agency Chief Tells US Daily
AFP ^ | 9/28/05

Posted on 09/28/2005 9:02:35 AM PDT by anymouse

The US space agency NASA lost its way in the 1970s when it focused on the space shuttle and International Space Station, NASA chief Michael Griffin reportedly said.

"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."

Asked whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin told USA Today: "My opinion is that it was. It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible."

Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said: "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."

Griffin announced September 19 that the United States will send four astronauts to the moon in 2018 in a major return to its pioneering manned missions into space.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: griffin; iss; nasa; shuttle; space; spacestation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-176 next last
To: narby

You're right on all of that, IMHO. Space industry should be much bigger than NASA is now, though. I'm guessing, but industry will move into space when energy costs get too high for the corporations to continue to operate on earth. When the industrial corporations need to move into space, the barriers to private property will miraculously evaporate. Something like GATT, NAFTA, will appear, DSTA [Deep Space Trade Agreement], and it's off to the races.


61 posted on 09/28/2005 10:13:34 AM PDT by RightWhale (We in heep dip trubble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: chimera

I guess I expected the space program to advance more in the 40 years since we went to the moon.

What we have now is a great big disappointment to me.


62 posted on 09/28/2005 10:14:09 AM PDT by airborne (My hero - my nephew! Sean is home! Thank you God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Knitting A Conundrum

I think you've said it best, IMO.

A serious lack of vision!


63 posted on 09/28/2005 10:15:18 AM PDT by airborne (My hero - my nephew! Sean is home! Thank you God!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: anymouse
Interesting analysis. The Space Shuttle was the end result of a desire to make a space vehicle "reusable" to ostensibly save money -- I think Griffin is right that it was a bit too cutting-edge for the existing technology at the time, resulting in its inherent vulnerabilities now. The problem is that the stresses on the spacecraft require advanced engineering solutions. The Space Shuttle was a great leap forward, rather than an incrementally improved design. It should be noted that it has allowed some great science missions (UARS, Hubble, Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory, SRTM off the top of my head).

While there may be some small amount of science derived from the Space Station, the cost of maintaining a human presence in Earth orbit is so high (due to high launch and payload costs) that it doesn't seem worth the substantial effort to do it unless there is a more substantial science and technology benefit.

64 posted on 09/28/2005 10:15:52 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne
Well, me too, for that matter. The latest issue of the American Heritage Of Invention And Technology magazine details some of the history of the construction of the KSC launch facilities in the 1960s, and the plans we had originally for a very robust and active program of lunar launches using Saturn technology and the innovations developed for that effort. What we have today is a pale shadow of those early dreams. If those initial plans had been realized, we'd have permanent bases on the moon and exploratory mission to Mars by now, instead of just circling the Earth and (just) sending tinker toys to Mars.
65 posted on 09/28/2005 10:21:36 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: chimera

"I can tell you we learned a heckuva lot about planetary evolution and lunar geology from those samples. "

That and velcro makes it all worthwhile.


66 posted on 09/28/2005 10:23:20 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
That and velcro makes it all worthwhile.

That's the point. "Useful" to whom? If all you care about is money, you might as well go crawl away in a hole somewhere to die, pinching those pennies in enfeebled fingers. Real visionaries, the people who actually contribute to the advancement of humankind, know that learning, understanding, and wisdom all spring from the same source. Expecting immediate, monetary payoffs from efforts that, by their nature, have long-term, sometimes unforeseen, benefits, is the hallmark of a civilization in a state of decay and increasing decadence. Like I said, think small, be small.

67 posted on 09/28/2005 10:29:49 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

"Commercial jetliners fly with amazing safety records and make money doing so because they don't use unobtainium and push the performance envelope."

....as I wait here in the airport because the bankrupt airline (delta) canceled my flight so they could try to fill the next one. Unobtainium is what their reservation system appears to be made of today.

But I agree with you - he's better off admitting the failure that is obvious. And you don't need multiple PhD's to see it. How do you defend it?

Risk is ok. But the risk has to have some tangible reward that pushes the state-of-the art. The Shuttle is way past the point where any useful data is worth the risk of flying it.

What upsets me the most about Columbia is the completely useless "science" that was being performed on the flight that killed these astronauts. They should have been pushing the state of the art in spaceflight - if they had nothing that would accomplish that, they should not have been in orbit.

I am sure there is a place for reusable space hardware - but we know the shuttle isn't it. NASA is no longer a place for innovation - so they should stop pretending.

If Nasa employees really believed in the mission of NASA, They'd quit their jobs - in favor of using that budget to do something that really benefits flight and spaceflight.


68 posted on 09/28/2005 10:34:19 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Hopefully there will be a lot more power on the grid one of these years.

There are some dams that are adding generating capacity on the hydro electric grid here in the Pacific Northwest.

The Greens go nuts if anyone talks about building any new dams, but adding height or new generators to existing dams is sometimes feasible.

69 posted on 09/28/2005 10:36:03 AM PDT by concrete is my business (prepare the sub grade, then select the mix design)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: windcliff

Those who've flown military missions can't discuss them.


70 posted on 09/28/2005 10:36:15 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: chimera
I'm not sure an all-weather launch vehicle with 100% guaranteed safety is in the cards, for NASA or private industry.

I think the problem is with the rocket paradigm that dates to Vaun Braun in the 30's. Lifting things vertically with thrust alone and carrying 100% of your oxidizer is just dumb.

Aircraft based launchers I think are the way to go. They can lift far more weight using less thrust than pure rockets, and can have a "first stage" that's air breathing thus don't carry as much oxidizer. You can also do things like air-refueling, where you tank up a vehicle in flight with far more weight than it could safely heft off the ground. I think the SR-71 cannot take off with a full load of fuel and it hits a tanker as a matter of course.

One of the good proposals I've seen is a Vulcan Bomber looking vehicle with turbojets and a rocket engine in the tail. It launches with jets, hits a tanker for extra kerosene, then uses the rocket to fly to about 300k feet and Mach 10-12, where it dumps out an upper stage that could be a crew module or cargo stage. It could literally fly every day.

There were designs on the books in the 70's for turbojet/ram/scram/rocket vehicles. Yes, there is a heating problem. But we re-enter the shuttle from Mach 25 with no problem, as long as you don't smack it with FOD on liftoff. A vehicle with Shuttle re-entry ability, and using atmospheric oxidizer to about Mach 12 I'd think would be plenty doable.

The only problem is that it would kill the NASA pork barrel, and the technology would become public domain and other countries would purchase the technology eliminating the small "manned orbit" club we now lead. National security of allowing such a vehicle to be sold at will is a problem too. But I think we should take that risk and built it.

By the way, I haven't stopped laughing at the "space elevator" promoted by some. Yes, it could be built, but I think the potential failure modes are far worse than any flying vehicle. It's guaranteed to be hit by space junk, as literally EVERY hulk in space that's not maintained in Geosync WILL hit it eventually. There are some big hunks of junk up there, and you can't move the thing to avoid them.

71 posted on 09/28/2005 10:36:26 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: chimera

I would agree with you if I thought the shuttle and the ISS were anything more than a politically inspired waste of money. I'm actually a big fan of space exploration but we've been off track since Apollo except for the robotic missions which have returned an abundance of science. Maybe Griffin can get it back on track but I'm not willing to bet against future political interference taking us down another dead end road.


72 posted on 09/28/2005 10:38:43 AM PDT by saganite (The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

Screw going to the moon. I want to go to Mars.


73 posted on 09/28/2005 10:39:26 AM PDT by PeterFinn (The Holocaust was perfectly legal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chimera

"Everyone hammers NASA and sings the praises of "private industry". Well, in this business, there is no guarantee that either won't screw up."

you're right, of course. NASA should be more of a funding vehicle, in my opinion. Set the goals that need to be accomplished, and fund the ones that have the most promise.

If NASA were completely gutted, I think we could make a lot more progress (provided the budget was not re-allocated).

From a political view, I think NASA leadership is insane for admitting that the shuttle and space stations are failures......but maybe they've got an angle that we just can't see to get more money.


74 posted on 09/28/2005 10:40:26 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: narby
Airborne launch systems always involved some tare weight. With manned systems, you're always going to have some of that. The shuttle is expensive because the tare weight is high and we haven't been able to meet the original timetable for vehicle turnaround. Perhaps those initial estimates were overly optimistic, I don't know. But, whatever, the reality is that we have at this time only one mode of getting into space. Developing another is fine and is probably the way to go, but I'd hate to see another long-term "gap" in the program, or, perhaps worse, having to hitch a ride with others to get up there.

Look, people, we need to understand that our space program is still an R&D effort. We're going to have mistakes, restarts, delays, and the like. Those things happen when you're in a development stage. I don't like them anymore than you do but I have been in the research game long enough to know that they're going to happen. The key point is not to throw away the whole smash because of setbacks here and there. If we're serious about long-term exploration and colonization beyond this planet, we need to keep that vision in mind, and not let it be obscured by penny-ante politics and small-minded thinking.

75 posted on 09/28/2005 10:47:17 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
I'd like to add that the Space Shuttle, like Apollo before it, is a flight test program.

If you are testing the same vehicle system for 25 years, you need your @ss kicked.

BANG. You lose 2 shuttles and the public is snapped back to reality: Spaceflight is dangerous AND really expensive.

It is the way NASA does it. They solve technical problems by throwing personell at them. If a system is close to the edge, they just require more signatures for its inspection.

Not only is that expensive, it doesn't work. More than once the clanging of tools left in the orbiter has been heard when it was rotated to vertical. Every time, the required signatures stating that those tools were removed were in order. Once an entire scaffolding was left in place.

Space doesn't have to be expensive and dangerous, it is because NASA can't conceive of doing it in any way except as a test program. You can't sell cheap and reliable to them because they don't need it. They are spending someone else's money, and they like doing it.

76 posted on 09/28/2005 10:47:58 AM PDT by hopespringseternal (</i>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: anymouse

I've said this since the early 1980s at the tender age of 14!

We SHOULD have built a space station as a launchpad for deep space exploration, but it should have been on the moon.


77 posted on 09/28/2005 10:49:13 AM PDT by HitmanLV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I think Griffin is right that it was a bit too cutting-edge for the existing technology at the time, resulting in its inherent vulnerabilities now.

I think the problem with the shuttle was it cut corners. The original design was for liquid boosters in place of the SRBs (the cause of the Challenger loss, and probably contributed to the foam problem in the Columbia loss).

In the initial design, I think they also considered air launch, but didn't want to spend money on an ultra huge launcher aircraft, because the requirement was to lift very large payloads.

The "shuttle" should have been merely for human and modest resupply launches and designed for very quick turn arounds. Plus occasional of the Saturn V for unmanned large payloads like space stations and such to satisfy that requirement.

78 posted on 09/28/2005 10:50:50 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: saganite
Well, don't get me wrong, I'm not the world's biggest fan of either the shuttle or ISS. I just wanted to point out some practical, real-world examples of "useful science" that came of both, in contrast to a sweeping generalization made in an earlier post.

BTW, I think the robotic missions are fine, too, so perhaps my "tinker toys" comment should be taken in context. I see no reason why a robust program of exploration and development could not encompass both a manned and a robotic component. There are just some things that people do better than robots right now. Likewise, there are places where people cannot go right now and it makes sense to send machines there first if we want to learn about them.

79 posted on 09/28/2005 10:51:56 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: chimera
That and velcro makes it all worthwhile

If you do a cost/benefit analysis, you'd find that Apollo paid for itself a minimum of $3 benefit for every dollar spent. It could be as high as $8-10 benefit. Please note that this is Apollo, not Space Station, Space Shuttle, or ISS.

Among the benefits were: communications satellites, velcro (laugh, but it's a biggie), weather satellites - think what Katrina/Rita would have cost without weather satellites, medical telemetry (this one paid for Apollo all by itself) . I could go on, but the naysayers won't believe the numbers.

However, the Shuttle was a design abomination. We needed - and need two designs: a space truck, for heavy lifting, at over 20Gs, with no human pilot, and a manned vehicle, which can rendevous with what the heavy truck puts up.

Further on, we need moon, asteroid, or Mars mining facilities (watch the wackos go ballistic) so we can minimize the mass lifted from Earth and also second-source vital supplies.

After that, need a low-acceleration vehicle for interstellar transport, with a computer system that can survive more than 40 years. Maybe an Amiga.

80 posted on 09/28/2005 10:59:02 AM PDT by bIlluminati (If guns are outlawed, can we use tanks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-176 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson