|
Author
|
Topic: Space station: a money pit?
|
E2M Lem Man
Member Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 06-14-2007 08:43 PM
   
Here is a link to an article on Time online: Another Glitch for NASA's Money Pit ...and here is my reply: In response to Jeff Klugers' article in "Time" online:
Jeff Kluger- who I believe once wrote with astronaut Jim Lovell about how the NASA team saved 'Apollo 13' from a near tragic end, now writes about how wasteful and unsafe the International Space Station is, calling it "an historic stinker" and a "money pit".
It deserves better than that!
The many thousands at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that work the shuttle and space station on a daily basis are doing the best they can with what little national assets they have been given. Has Kluger forgotten that the shuttle was originally to fly experiments to monitor the Earth environment? Then launch satellites and become a workhorse for exploration and that the (International) space station was "the next logical step"?
The space shuttle was just that: a shuttle- a transport and delivery system to deliver cargo personel and equipment, and the station was originally to be different laboratories in orbit to find out if the systems of man and machine could work well in space- and then the station (short for way station) would be where we would experiment and then construct the mechanical systems needed for the exploration of the Moon and Mars.
Are we just to climb aboard our spacecraft and leap into space with our silk scarves flying into the wind? Can our bodies and machinery survive the long term missions to Mars and back? Only politics have made the shuttle and station more or less than what we wanted.
The reasons for a national aerospace agency are still the same as when it was formed nearly 50 years ago. Fundamentally they are to push the barriers back on scientific knowledge and technology. Hopefully thereafter private industry will follow their lead. NASA is handicapped as they do not get a guaranteed portion of the national budget, but so are many other agencies.
The difference lies in how much we get back in dividends from the investments we make with NASA. NASA has consistently delivered better than its budget every year of it's existence, I believe. If anyone doubts this they just have to look at the on-line yearly report, "NASA Spinoffs".
The Robert Bigelows and Elon Musks are following up on this national legacy but so are the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and many other nations. At the current rate of national investment to our space agency, a mere .07 per cent (less than a penny of every tax dollar), we will soon become a second rate scientific nation! Each of these other governments invests more than 10% of their yearly budgets on their space programs.
The real story, Kluger is that the NASA can do so much with staples and duct tape... where could they go with more?
J. M. Busby |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 06-15-2007 12:34 AM
Didn't read the article. First sentence of the second paragraph made me stop: quote:
Today, the most underachieving machine NASA ever dreamed up got into trouble again, when computers that control the station’s oxygen, water supply and orientation failed.
For one, it's not NASA computers which failed and two, the present station is nowhere near to what "NASA ever dreamed up".As you pointed out, NASA does what it can with what it has (ie. limited resources). Chris. |
Lunar rock nut
Member Posts: 911
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 06-15-2007 01:32 AM
This really makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck. It is opinions like this that drag the program further down. Unfortunately there are those who will believe this.Terry |
rocketJoe
Member Posts: 103
From: Huntsville, AL USA
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 06-15-2007 12:27 PM
From the TIME article: quote:
The station was originally proposed 23 years ago as an $8 billion orbiting laboratory that would perform cutting-edge biological research, manufacture new and highly marketable materials impossible to make in the gravity environment of Earth and generally pay for itself many times over. Close to two decades past deadline and now carrying a projected $100 billion price tag, it has not returned a lick of good science — nor is it likely to.
Stating upfront that my personal opinion is that the unmanned NASA missions are a far better investment with regard to the cost/benefit ratio, I will have to agree with Kluger's statement above. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 06-15-2007 01:00 PM
Yes a lot of dedicated and highly talented individuals have elected to commit their lives to ISS and Shuttle - but that doesnt insulate the respective programs from being assessed as net liabilities and divergent from our strategic space objectives.
------------------
Scott Schneeweis
URL http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/ |
randy
Member Posts: 2176
From: West Jordan, Utah USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 06-15-2007 06:36 PM
I agree completely with Terry. It really sticks in my craw that these people do everything they can to drag the program down, and uninformed people believe them!Randy |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 06-15-2007 07:24 PM
I can't really blame anyone for having these feelings about the ISS or the shuttle. NASA is terrible at promoting whatever good the ISS will provide. I see footage of marathons in space, but never hear ANY mention of the science being returned by the ISS. I know more about the science experiments from 171 days on Skylab (from over 30 years ago) than I know about the last 2000+ days aboard the ISS. It's not as if I have a greater interest in Skylab either...and I hazard to guess I follow the ISS more than the average person does. I don't doubt that some science must be taking place on the ISS. I just suspect most people don't know what it is. And if taxpayers don't see a benefit of the ISS, how can they be expected to support it?Go to the NASA ISS main page at: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html I don't see any mention of the science being performed on that main page. In fact, to find anything you have drill deeper into their website...and even then you only get a few links that tell you anything. Whereas, on the main ISS page, you have 4 links to Suni's Boston Marathon in space and at least one link to an interview with Martha Stewart. NASA does a wonderful job of trying to convince us that they're wasting money. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 06-18-2007 10:38 AM
The $100 billion is worth the money for the hope, optimism and peace the ISS offers ! |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 06-19-2007 12:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
Yes a lot of dedicated and highly talented individuals have elected to commit their lives to ISS and Shuttle - but that doesnt insulate the respective programs from being assessed as net liabilities and divergent from our strategic space objectives.
Scott, so what would those "strategic space objectives" be? From your post, are you implying that human spaceflight is a waste of money and that military space should dominate the agenda? (I wouldn't completely disagree if that was your point, by the way). Chris.
|
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-23-2007 11:35 AM
Apologize for the latent reply but just ran across your request for clarification Chris:I am/remain a strong advocate of human spaceflight and use "strategic" in the context of advancing the full spectrum of national interests (Commerical/Economic/Military/Scientific). However the aggregate impact of focusing exclusively on the Shuttle and ISS program (and not capitalizing on Apollo) has been a steady decay in space access/dominance which continue to have emerging adverse consequences to United States long term strategic interests. ------------------
Scott Schneeweis
URL http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/ |
garymilgrom
Member Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 08-23-2007 01:01 PM
Two points: Mr. Schneeweis infers an important point - you don't build capability by cancelling programs. With hindsight we see how valuable the resources supplied by an Apollo CSM and Saturn family of boosters would be alongside the Shuttle's capabilities. Moving forward we should keep Shuttle while developing Ares. Yes it will take much more money, another discussion.And issman makes an important point too - what price is Hope worth to millions/billions of people on this planet? I think it's worth a great deal. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-24-2007 01:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
However the aggregate impact of focusing exclusively on the Shuttle and ISS program (and not capitalizing on Apollo) has been a steady decay in space access/dominance which continue to have emerging adverse consequences to United States long term strategic interests.
I agree that the tendency to build a system (launch vehicle, manned spacecraft) only to disregard it for another one is a rather stupid (not to mention wasting taxpayers dollars). It was the case with Apollo, now the Shuttle and the ISS (which isn't even complete!)...Even if Ares will use parts or derivatives from the shuttle...I can't help but think about Soviet/Russian space vehicles developped 40+ years ago and still flying: Soyuz for manned access to space and Proton for heavy payloads (Mir and ISS modules!). Chris. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 08-24-2007 01:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by garymilgrom:
And issman makes an important point too - what price is Hope worth to millions/billions of people on this planet? I think it's worth a great deal.
That's a whole new discussion. I fear that the "Hope" you are referring to only concerns space aficionados like us and the people who will get a job (or keep theirs).Half the world's population doesn't have access to drinkable water. I'm not sure that sending people to the Moon is going to quench their thirst. Quite the contrary... But again a whole new discussion... Chris. |
John Charles
Member Posts: 339
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 08-24-2007 06:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
I fear that the "Hope" you are referring to only concerns space afficionados like us and the people who will get a job (or keep theirs).Half the world's population doesn't have access to drinkable water. I'm not sure that sending people to the Moon is going to quench their thirst. Quite the contrary...
Of course, even at a whopping 0.7% of the federal budget (not the mere 0.07% cited upthread), NASA's funding could not solve all the world's pressing problems (why limit it to drinkable water?).Also, from my observations, any hope conferred by NASA is distributed more widely than just to NASA and contractor employees and supplicants. Of course (full disclosure), I am one of them. ------------------
John Charles
Houston, Texas |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 08-24-2007 07:32 AM
I agree with a lot of what he posted, the ISS is a money drain, has very little return of what is spent and has produced little, if anything beneficial to the space program or the public at large.The inhabitants spend most of their time repairing, fixing, and housekeeping the place that little worthwhile takes place. The ISS is exactly what happens when you build something by committee. Nasa needs to rid itself of this white elephant before is sucks up even more of their resources. As for the Shuttle, the article is correct, is does appear that the shuttles purpose is simply to be a delivery workhorse. But, that was one of the reasons for the shuttle to be built. The stagnation at NASA for the last 20 years is partially their fault and partially the politicians fault. |
SpaceDust
Member Posts: 115
From: Louisville, Ky USA
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 08-24-2007 04:17 PM
Is it really a money pit or just the lack on NASA's part to tell us what the spin offs are? Seems like in the 60's you heard something every day. I can't begin to tell you the last time I heard of a spin off from the space program....period. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-24-2007 04:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceDust:
I can't begin to tell you the last time I heard of a spin off from the space program....period.
You can receive a free copy of NASA's Spinoff magazine or read the online version. |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 08-24-2007 04:44 PM
One of my favorite supervisors from the past had a saying; "you don't know how deep the puddle is until you step in it". Space is our puddle and the shuttle and ISS are our steps; we must find out how deep it is. |
robsouth
Member Posts: 769
From: West Midlands, UK
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 10-02-2007 10:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by MCroft04:
Space is our puddle and the shuttle and ISS are our steps; we must find out how deep it is.
Pretty impressive looking puddle.  |
advertisement