Ramping Up The Station Quickly And Cheaply

SpaceDaily.com ^ | April 25, 2003 | Bruce Moomaw

[MikeD]

The central problem with the space station is that its builders keep changing the justification for its existence as they respond to the latest failures in the manned space program.

Despite the protestations of some, cost is a critical issue for the international space station program, with over 60 billion dollars still to be committed in new funding allocations from the US, Europe, Japan and Russia -- all of whom have growing budget deficits.

Meanwhile, the growing failure to actually do any significant amount of science on the station is bringing the critical debate of what the station is actually going to do for the next 10 years to a head.

[MikeD]

I really like the idea of two Soyuz lifeboats and an automated Shuttle. You greatly increase crew safety and lower launch costs. Comments?

MD

[MikeD]

Space-talk ping.

[Drammach]

Never really cared for the shuttle.
There were, and are better ways (and cheaper) to do the same job, efficiently.
We need to lower the cost-per-pound ratio, and shorten prep and re-launch time.

Even if Columbia's problems HAD been "discovered" before re-entry, nothing could have been done about it.
They still would have had to attempt re-entry on their own.
We (or the russians) couldn't have launched a rescue mission in time.
The Columbia was not prepared to re-orbit and link up with the Space Station.
The options were: Die on attempted re-entry or die in space when oxygen ran out.
Both options suck.

Automating the shuttle makes no difference to safety.
Providing for emergency actions and having existing plans for same does.
This is the same old story, Challenger re-told.

Too much emphasis on mission, not enough on man.

I've said enough, I'm getting ticked off.

[MikeD]

Did you read the full article? The author suggests launching all crew members to the space station via Soyuz capsules. The automated shuttle would be used to ferry bulk cargo to the station. The shuttle launches are cheaper because they are not man rated, while the crew is safer because the Soyuz capsules are (sad to say) safer than the shuttle. Plus, two capsules instead of one allows the crew complement of the ISS to be expanded to six.

Other than additional reliance on Russian launch capability, I'm not sure there's a technical flaw in this proposal.

MD

[RightWhale]

The Russians CAN fund the ISS. They can have it, too. Maybe they'll get some use out of it, it's tired just like them. After all, it was Algore who convinced them to ditch the perfectly good Mir so work could proceed on the ISS. It's time to leave all the old mistakes in the past where they belong; there's a new world and America is filled with energy, energy enough to spill out and engulf the entire ME, Africa, China, and outer space. They won't know what hit them.

[Drammach]

Yeah, I read the full article.

I was "ranting" about the Columbia.
Maybe You didn't notice.

[tm22721]

Russia has had no astronaut fatalities since 1971 while we have lost 14 on the shuttle.

Maybe it's time to kill that boondoggle ?

BUMP

[MikeD]

The sad truth is that both of their fatal missions were completely stupid. The first fatal mission was Soyuz 1, where the parachute didn't deploy upon re-entry. The whole capsule was bug ridden and rushed to launch in a futile attempt to beat Apollo. The second fatal mission was Soyuz 11, where a valve stuck during re-entry. The atmosphere in the cabin slowly bled out into space. The crew tried to turn the backup valve, but it turned too slowly to be of any use.

There have been a couple of near misses (an aborted launch & landing in a lake come to mind), but no fatalities in 32 years. In addition, the Russians have launched almost continuously in those 32 years, while we only had four launches from 1973-1980.

Ah well. Our space program jumped the shark when we killed the Saturn V.

MD

[RadioAstronomer]

Ah well. Our space program jumped the shark when we killed the Saturn V.

Indeed it did. The interplanetary and unmanned science platforms have been very successful, however, the manned program is close to being a joke. I cannot believe we killed the SSC to help fund that stupid design of a space station. (And I even worked on the ISS for a while)

[Eaker]

Where is:

Tang 2
Velcro 2
Teflon 2

When was the last time that NASA was proud to present its customers their entre of delights?

What has the shuttle or the new space station done that Skylab didn't do? If anything, any advances are thanks to ground based technology making worm science easier.

If we ain't going to Mars then fergit'it.

[VRWC For Truth]

at an incredible cost to the U.S. of over $10 million per man-hour of lab work

Government efficiency at its finest.

[MikeD]

I cannot believe we killed the SSC to help fund that stupid design of a space station. (And I even worked on the ISS for a while)

To add insult to injury, we had another couple working Saturn V boosters and another Skylab. Instead of keeping them for useful science and/or mission, they were donated to museums. We could have had ISS twenty years ago for under a billion dollars, but we had to play nice with the Smithsonian.

I admit I'm a bit biased, being a newcomer to New Horizons, but I agree the unmanned space missions are going well. NH will be cheaper than Voyager 1 while still hitting two outer planets. Unfortunately, budget wrangling almost killed the mission -- if we don't launch in 2006 we'll miss Pluto's atmosphere. Then again, that's NASA for you....

MD

[MikeD]

at an incredible cost to the U.S. of over $10 million per man-hour of lab work

Government efficiency at its finest.

And how much of that goes to the worker/astronauts? Where are the labor unions when you need them? ;^{)

Oh wait, the unions help drive up the cost of going into space...

MD

[RadioAstronomer]

but we had to play nice with the Smithsonian

Yup! But they sure got ticked at us! LOL! We "borrowed" back the spare Voyager 2 main dish antenna to use on the Magellan. It is now swirling atoms in the Venusian atmosphere. ROFL!

[MikeD]

I wonder what they'd say if we "borrowed" back Enterprise and Skylab 2.

Oh wait, we no longer have the capability to launch Skylab 2 since we scuttled the Saturn V.

Sigh...

MD