Independant review to be held of NASA's manned space flight plans

[Orbinaut Pete]

At NASA's 2010 budget meeting yesterday, President Obama announced that there is to be an independant review of NASA's manned space flight plans.

The review will be evaluating NASA's plans to retire the Shuttle by 2010, as well as the plans for the Orion capsule, and Ares rockets. The purpose of the review is simply to reveal all options that are available to NASA. The review will be completed by August 2009.

I for one, support this.

Full story:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0905/07budget

 

[Brad]

I for one, don't want the shuttle "extended." It should of been retired right after Challenger.

 

[Urwumpe]

I would have liked the prototype shuttle to be replaced by a production-model shuttle in 1984. But nobody listens to me.

 

[SiberianTiger]

I would have liked the prototype shuttle to be replaced by a production-model shuttle in 1984. But nobody listens to me.

Surely they didn't. Who would listen to a 5 years old? :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Surely they didn't. Who would listen to a 5 years old? :lol:

I WAS ALMOST SIX THEN! :facts:

 

[Brad]

Now I am feeling REALLY OLD.

 

[RisingFury]

Goodbye, Ares!

 

[Moonwalker]

I would like to see the Shuttle retired as soon as possible, as already suggested by the STS-107 investigation. NASA should enter a path on which it was once in the 1960's until the mid 1970's, which was to make progress and to explore the space (no, the Shuttle does not, the ISS does not). The initial goal should be to complete which had been started with Apollo, scientific missions to the Moon to research potential interesting areas. The other goal should be manned missions to Mars.

If politics don't put NASA on a proper way, nothing beyond low earth orbit will happen. If politics is unable, NASA is too. If NASA continues to operate its 3 left oldtimers, and abandons any plans beyond LEO, NASA is going to lose its face. I'm sure there are many people, who would not be intereted anymore in what NASA is doing. NASA people say that people all around the globe know the four letters and what they stand for. So, please, live up to your name and don't waste another years on 40 years old technology.

Since we don't have real statesmen anymore, neither in the USA nor in Europe, and since we don't have real visionaries anymmore too but just boring policymakers, I do not expect anything useful for the independent NASA review. I also wonder who is going to review NASA, if not NASA itself. Kennedy did not need an independent review. He just asked von Braun if it would be possible to go to the Moon just still within the decade. He replied: "yes, it is".

We don't need independent reviews. We need a cold war or at least a serious race and real statesmen who are able do decide.

 

[Urwumpe]

Kennedy did not need an independent review. He just asked von Braun if it would be possible to go to the Moon just still within the decade. He replied: "yes, it is".

And so easy it is to put so many lies into so few sentences. History did never happen like that. Kennedy was not easily convinced and it was not Von Braun doing the important talking of getting Kennedy even close to it. The important president whisperer was Dryden, at the time Deputy Director of NASA. He was the guy to first say to Johnson that landing on moon would be possible. The Science Advisor of Kennedy was against manned spaceflight at all and Kennedy remained a skeptic for a long time.

In fact, an independent review by the Congress of the Apollo program took place already in 1963.

Such kind of glorification of history is the main reason, why there is such a strange fact of Apollo astronauts like Lovell envying Shuttle astronauts. Apollo was not all greatness and not all the glory that is mystified into it. And the Shuttle not a step backwards or boring. The shuttle is despite not meeting it's goals, a success. The Shuttle means working in space. And that in a way, that was even unthinkable during the Skylab days.

 

[tblaxland]

I would like to see the Shuttle retired as soon as possible, as already suggested by the STS-107 investigation.

I tend to agree but by "as soon as possible" I take that to mean flying out the current manifest, including the AMS.

NASA should enter a path on which it was once in the 1960's until the mid 1970's, which was to make progress and to explore the space (no, the Shuttle does not, the ISS does not)

The goal of the Apollo program was not to explore, it was just another battle in the cold war, ie, the goal was to beat the Russians. Just ask the Apollo astronauts (esp. Borman and Lovell). You could have as well had a race to create green spaghetti monsters, if it was able to demonstrate some additional military might.

Anyway, the Shuttle and ISS have sure explored some interesting engineering and technology. Exploring does not need to be just limited to exploring by expanding the places you have touched in the physical domain (although that makes more of a show). Exploring can, and should, be done in LEO and in the lab also. I would like to see a return to the Moon anyhow, now that the ISS is built. I am less convinced about Mars, but maybe in the long term.

We don't need independent reviews. We need a cold war or at least a serious race and real statesmen who are able do decide.

Well, you don't need a cold war or a race, but real statesmen - yes. In fact, you need more of a real statesman to declare a vision when there is no cold war to motivate you.

 

[Moonwalker]

Kennedy got under massive pressure when Gagarin entered space. Without von Brauns popularity and emphatic confidence and his team, Kennedy would not have annoucned the goal with such a confidence (and von Braun would not have become the director of the Marshall Space Flight Center and the alternate director of NASA later). Von Braun was the person who already tried to convince the Navy of space programs many years before NASA even existed, while he also presented concepts of using shuttles to assemble a station in space. He was the person who whenever possible, talked about going to the Moon and later strongly demanded that this is the only way to beat the russians.

Also, the goal of Apollo indeed was to explore the space and the moon by those who participated in the program. It was just a political goal for politians. Apollo did fulfill both intentions perfectly. It still remains the greatness and glory and the greatest adventure of manned space flight. It will remain the highlight until humans again travel beyond LEO. 125 Shuttle flights do not beat the greatness and glory of Apollo, which happened at a time when general aviation aircraft technology and navigation still was rudimentary compared to what we have today.

 

[reject]

Kennedy got under massive pressure when Gagarin entered space. Without von Brauns popularity and emphatic confidence and his team, Kennedy would not have annoucned the goal with such a confidence (and von Braun would not have become the director of the Marshall Space Flight Center and the alternate director of NASA later).

Why are you repeating this untruth? You make it sound like you were in the room with them. Urwumpe has already (accurately) described the real players and chain of events that lead to Kennedy announcing the moon as the next objective.

Also, the goal of Apollo indeed was to explore the space and the moon by those who participated in the program. It was just a political goal for politians.

You have to understand that NASA is a public funded government entity whose first role is to further the strategic aims of the United States in aerospace matters. Anything else is a fringe benefit. It is not a philanthropic organization. It is not funded to bring the world of Asimov or Clarke to reality.

The goal of going to the moon was, as others have pointed out, a play in the strategic game against the Soviets. Flags and footprints. The history behind the decisions to go for a shuttle and space station is similarly coloured by the strategic needs of the US as perceived at the time. To regard the shuttle and ISS as "misdirection" from the "proper" mission is to demonstrate a misunderstanding of what NASA actually exists to do. Its job is to jump in the direction its political paymasters tell it to.

 

[Moonwalker]

Why are you repeating this untruth? You make it sound like you were in the room with them.

Because I tend to listen to those who were part of the program, who partly knew both, Kennedy and von Braun, and because I like to read historical stuff published by the NASA headquarters.

The final major events that lead to Kennedy announcing the moon was the Russian program and the Gagarin flight, but also that von Braun was the major contributor of popularizing human space flight in the US since the very early 1950's already. He and his team were the most known and most capable ones to contribute to the success in space. Which was the reason why they (Dannenberg, Stuhlinger, Haeussermann, Grau, Fichtner, von Tisenhausen, Jacobi, Schlidt, Holderer, ...) moved to Hunsville. Von Braun became the director of the Marshall Space Flight Center already one year before Kennedy annnounced the program. One month before, von Braun wrote a letter to the vice president, in which he told that the US had "an excellent chance" of beating the Russians to a lunar landing. But that's only a few examples. It was also many conferences and lectures before, even in the White House, in which von Braun emphatically issued warnings repeatedly that the Russians are going to lead the space.

Also (once again), the political goal of Apollo was to beat the Russians. But for those who worked on the program it was more than that. And they got an excellent chance to do more than that, and they did more than that, better than any other manned space program at that time.

To say that van Braun was not a major contributor and that this is lies/untruth, is wrong. It is also wrong that NASA only follows political goals. NASA indeed is a governmental agency (you don't need to call me what NASA is about and why), but it does science as well, in orbit, in space, on Mars, it did so on the Moon but it also does more. It does more than any other agency or company. NASA is the most powerful thing which achieved the most amazing and the most advanced goals and technologies. Some people outhere across the web may try to underplay these facts, but it just won't work.

 

[Urwumpe]

He and his team were the most known and most capable ones to contribute to the success in space. Which was the reason why they (Dannenberg, Stuhlinger, Haeussermann, Grau, Fichtner, von Tisenhausen, Jacobi, Schlidt, Holderer, ...) moved to Hunsville.

The reason why was because the ABMA including all Operation Paperclip scientists became part of NASA - and the ABMA was at the Redstone arsenal in Huntsville since 1956, when the Guided Missile Development Division of the US Army around von Braun got the task to develop the Redstone and Jupiter Missiles. When NASA was founded, the ABMA became the nucleus of the Marshall Space Flight Center - including all buildings and engine test stands constructed for the Jupiter and Redstone programs.

What ever books you buy and read - they are not NASA publications, because NASA does not lie about their origins.

So does also the US Army:

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/chron2b/1956.html

No mystery behind why Von Braun was moved to Huntsville - and it sure had no reason like "Von Braun had been the best, blablabla".

Stop using weasel words - Von Braun and his team were not the most known and most capable ones. Before the Moon landings only von Braun was relatively reknown because of his PR work with Colliers and Disney, but the remaining members of his team are even today, only known to insiders.

When Explorer 1 was launched by the ABMA, Von Braun was still just a minor figure, but this launch added to his fame. "The best and what so ever" part came much later, when the Saturn V had lifted off. Even when it was decided that Von Braun will build the Saturn family, he was no legendary figure - there had been simple political and economical reasons behind, with the most important being, that he had something rare inside NASA: Large engine test stands.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/ch2.htm

 

[Moonwalker]

Again, for the last time:

Von Braun did not randomly become the director of the MSFC, receive a mandate to build the Saturn rockets, became chief architect of the Saturn V and the alternate director of NASA. He already was the most important person for the US Army in 1945.

Von Braun was the most prominent spokesmen and the major contributor of popularizing space exploration in the United States and one of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration from the 1930's until the 1970's. That's what NASA headquarters and MSFC sources clearly state up until today.

 

[Urwumpe]

Von Braun did not randomly become the director of the MSFC, receive a mandate to build the Saturn rockets, became chief architect of the Saturn V and the alternate director of NASA.

Mostly right.

Von Braun was the most prominent spokesmen and the major contributor of popularizing space exploration in the United States and one of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration from the 1930's until the 1970's. That's what NASA headquarters and MSFC sources clearly state up until today.

Yes. But hindsight has always 20/20. Von Braun did not get the task to design the Saturn Rockets (and he sure did not build them) because he was such a nice guy and children loved him on TV. He also did not get the task because would one day be considered the best rocket designer of the USA. The people did not know it yet. Operation Paperclip was the reason why Von Braun did not end in a soviet POW camp, but it did not give him any bonus especially not towards getting the Saturn contract. He was a highly regarded specialist on the large ballistic missiles like the V-2, because they had been unique. The Russians needed only a short time to reverse engineer them without having the original designers at hand.

And the very versatile Atlas rocket was not designed by Von Braun or his team at all - he was property of the US Army, the Atlas rocket and other ICBMs had been designed by an Airforce team led by the Belgian Karel Bossart. There had been alternatives around.

Von Braun got the Saturn contract out of cold rational and political reasons:

• His price for merging the ABMA with NASA was the Saturn heavy lift program. So, Saturn has to be build, if the ABMA should become part of NASA.
• He had the largest test stands for rocket engines in the USA in his institute.
• He had an early start on developing heavy lift boosters by a US Army contract issued shortly before the ABMA became part of NASA.
• Luck also helped him on the engine selection - the choice of using new engines instead of the already developed E-1 engines meant only a team with large test stands can be considered. No chance for new teams, only two developers left.
• The Atlas team was already awarded the contract to develop the Centaur stage with the same lightweight structures as the Atlas, making them no alternative for a short term selection.

There was never a single "Von Braun is the best rocket designer we have" in the equation. In terms of rocket design, Karel Bossart was even way better, because Von Braun prefered solution was always brute force, while Bossart invested into making the rocket lighter and smarter.

What made Von Braun the biggest rocket designer guy in history is actually something else, which also played a part in why he got the contract: He had great skills as manager and politician. He did never excel much as engineer of his own, but the way he led his team and his programs had been extraordinary: He was a moral-free opportunist. You have to say it that way. His work consisted not of solving technical problems, but solving political ones, especially by finding and exploiting opportunities. Like bluffing with not joining NASA without the Saturn program.

In my less rational and more emotional opinion on Von Braun, I would summarize his achievements as such: He made whole countries pay and build his moon landing dreams. How they did so was not his department.

-------------------------------SNIP------------------------------------

And that brings us right back on the real reason for the discussion: Von Braun never had the status to do anything without criticism. Never. And so did the whole spaceflight program. No glory, no religious devotion to the moon landing, the USA had not even been free of doubt if they could get to the moon before the Soviets. Or to the moon at all. All they did know was: Everything else, would be done by the Soviets earlier. And they had been historically right with this assessment.

But a moon landing was science-fiction then - imaginable, mathematically possible, but at the end of a long chain of unsolved technical and medical problems. And for that the USA should pay up to 5% of their federal budget? It was not only about "was it possible", but "Is it worth it". And every time, this question appears, there will be meetings, investigations, conferences and committees.

Finally, it was decided that the space race is far too important politically to leave the victory to the Soviets. And that not spontanously by Kennedy after talking with Von Braun. It took already one month from the famous briefing of Johnson by Dryden, one year after Kennedy decided to take the challenge of the space race, to the moment Kennedy embraced the moon landing as only chance. When Kennedy visited the MSFC (September 11, 1962)and met with Von Braun the first time, the important stuff was already decided and prepared. one half week after the MSFC visit, he held his famous "Not because it is easy, but because it is hard" speech at Rice University.

 

[francisdrake]

Sorry folks, I have to ask a question which maybe a little offensive to a community of space enthusiasts, but:

Would it make sense to limit future manned spaceflight to low earth orbit (just "to show the flag"), and do all real scientific work with robots?
The current goal of the constellation program (Mars and beyond) seems unreachable by far.
1 - Propper financing is extremely unlikely.
2 - The risk for the astronauts would be very high, probably prohibitive by todays standards.

Yes, going back to moon for "flag and footprint" missions would be possible, but why should anybody stay there? All lunar-science work (taking samples, fly them back to earth) can be done by robots at a fraction of the price.

My personal view is, that manned spaceflight is not done for scientific reasons, but to show off how capable we are. On the other hand, the vast majority of scientific work is done by 'robots' (unmanned spacecrafts and vehicles).

A Mars rover mission (including the launch vehicle) costs probably about the same as a Shuttle launch. And we had not to wait for an indefinite time to get stunning pictures and science data back from the mars surface, it was done with todays technology and budget!

I acknowledge that NASA has to develop a new manned orbital vehicle unless the US would accept to quit manned spaceflight totally, but I doubt that manned missions further than LEO really make sense. For less money and within a realistic time frame, we could have unmanned laboratories in orbit and on the surface of Mars and the gas giants' moons.

Manned missions affect us much more emotionally but - returning to the question above - shouldn't we assign the exploration of our solar system to unmanned robots?

 

[T.Neo]

Sorry folks, I have to ask a question which maybe a little offensive to a community of space enthusiasts, but:

Would it make sense to limit future manned spaceflight to low earth orbit (just "to show the flag"), and do all real scientific work with robots?
The current goal of the constellation program (Mars and beyond) seems unreachable by far.
1 - Propper financing is extremely unlikely.
2 - The risk for the astronauts would be very high, probably prohibitive by todays standards.

Yes, going back to moon for "flag and footprint" missions would be possible, but why should anybody stay there? All lunar-science work (taking samples, fly them back to earth) can be done by robots at a fraction of the price.

My personal view is, that manned spaceflight is not done for scientific reasons, but to show off how capable we are. On the other hand, the vast majority of scientific work is done by 'robots' (unmanned spacecrafts and vehicles).

A Mars rover mission (including the launch vehicle) costs probably about the same as a Shuttle launch. And we had not to wait for an indefinite time to get stunning pictures and science data back from the mars surface, it was done with todays technology and budget!

I acknowledge that NASA has to develop a new manned orbital vehicle unless the US would accept to quit manned spaceflight totally, but I doubt that manned missions further than LEO really make sense. For less money and within a realistic time frame, we could have unmanned laboratories in orbit and on the surface of Mars and the gas giants' moons.

Manned missions affect us much more emotionally but - returning to the question above - shouldn't we assign the exploration of our solar system to unmanned robots?

Simple answer- because humanity needs to branch out and colonise other worlds.

 

[Moonwalker]

"Humanity needs to branch out and colonise other worlds."

Says who?

Probably more than 99% of all current living humans do not at all feel and think that humanity needs to branch out and colonise other worlds. If we take registered Orbinauts into account only, which I guess is the worlds largest hobby space flight simulation community, it is not even 0.00004 % of the humankind. If we take all NASA and ESA employees into account, it is still well below 0.0003%. Space flight TV even in Germany is that much "interesting" that it gets kicked to fill the night-program in an infinite loop.

What humans really need already exists down here on Earth and as far as we know nowhere else yet. Life in Orbit, on the Moon or Mars is anything but as easy and worth living as it is on Earth. And it is highly unlikely that it would ever become as easy and worth living as it is on Earth (please do not start to agrue with a flat earth and Christopher Columbus). People travel to return. Apollo astronauts often say that man has come to discover the Moon and space, but in fact discovered the incomparable beauty of the Earth.

Human space flight is interesting. It inspires and stimulates people. But it is by far not as important and well overestimated by the 0,00X% of those who are interested in.

"Shouldn't we assign the exploration of our solar system to unmanned robots?"

Actually: yes.

I think that manned space flight is going to shrink anyway. After the ISS and the Shuttle there is nothing really new to come for now. Orion is going to only carry the half number of astronauts the Shuttle can carry. Well, there is Soyuz left but anything else not even the stars know of. Orion to the Moon is still more than far away and only a dream for now. And Mars manned, well, actually this is even still ridiculous.

 

[Hielor]

"Humanity needs to branch out and colonise other worlds."

Says who?

Probably more than 99% of all current living humans do not at all feel and think that humanity needs to branch out and colonise other worlds. If we take registered Orbinauts into account only, which I guess is the worlds largest hobby space flight simulation community, it is not even 0.00004 % of the humankind. If we take all NASA and ESA employees into account, it is still well below 0.0003%. Space flight TV even in Germany is that much "interesting" that it gets kicked to fill the night-program in an infinite loop.

What humans really need already exists down here on Earth and as far as we know nowhere else yet. Life in Orbit, on the Moon or Mars is anything but as easy and worth living as it is on Earth. And it is highly unlikely that it would ever become as easy and worth living as it is on Earth (please do not start to agrue with a flat earth and Christopher Columbus). People travel to return. Apollo astronauts often say that man has come to discover the Moon and space, but in fact discovered the incomparable beauty of the Earth.

Human space flight is interesting. It inspires and stimulates people. But it is by far not as important and well overestimated by the 0,00X% of those who are interested in.

"Shouldn't we assign the exploration of our solar system to unmanned robots?"

Actually: yes.

I think that manned space flight is going to shrink anyway. After the ISS and the Shuttle there is nothing really new to come for now. Orion is going to only carry the half number of astronauts the Shuttle can carry. Well, there is Soyuz left but anything else not even the stars know of. Orion to the Moon is still more than far away and only a dream for now. And Mars manned, well, actually this is even still ridiculous.

Having all of your eggs in one basket is a bad idea.

Heinlein put it well:

My opinions as to the future of Mankind are hedged in by this statement: I think it is necessary for the human race to establish colonies off this planet.

and

We need to have as many baskets for our eggs as possible. Even if we don't manage to ruin this planet ourselves, natural disasters or changes--or even changes in our star--could make it impossible to live on this planet.

It's the modern version of "manifest destiny."