NASA Achievements?????

[Nickmick95]

Do you think Nasa Has done a good job in the past 30 years?
Answer this poll. P.S. In between Has and done should be NASA. Sorry!

 

[YL3GDY]

Looking globally, surely the good job has done. A lot of examples: HST, Viking, Voyager, Spirit/Opportunity etc. But, in spite of budget cut, some really nice science missions are postponed.

But with manned flight there are some big problems. IMHO, Space Shuttle programme was a big venture. As a result: very expensive and, honestly speaking, unnecessary system. Russians did the nice combination: even while their lunar programme failed, Soyuz vechicles fly and are quite cheap.

 

[mjessick]

http://www.nasa.gov/50th/home/index.html

 

[Andy44]

unmanned: yes

manned: no

 

[Torgo]

Given that the funding from year to year always seems to get changed, and the plans one president makes are scrapped by another, and all the other things that happen outside of NASA's control, they have done a good, not great, job.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Russians did the nice combination: even while their lunar programme failed, Soyuz vechicles fly and are quite cheap.

Maybe yes, but Russian interplanetary research programme was screwed up long ago. Comparisons to NASA aren't just appropriate.

 

[Eagle]

Yes overall.

Shuttle isn't quite the disaster everyone makes it to be. It works and can do things no other spacecraft can. (Buran had similar capabilities, but never went past its test flights)

NASA just made the mistake of thinking as the shuttle as a stopping point for the last 25 years.

The shuttle is quite roomy and has a smoother reentry, especially when compared to Soyuz. When its gone, people will realize how good it was, even with all its faults.

 

[Linguofreak]

The shuttle is quite roomy and has a smoother reentry, especially when compared to Soyuz.

Yet for all the smoothness of its reentry, it has also sustained the only breakup during reentry in the history of manned spaceflight.

When its gone, people will realize how good it was, even with all its faults.

As critical as I am of the shuttle, you are probably right to say that alot of its benefits will show up in hindsight. Especially if Orion screws up as badly as many people fear it will.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

The shuttle was good for what it was, and not for what NASA tried to make it. Frankly, we didn't a winged vehicle that we were going to try to shove into space every two or so months. The shuttle is a good work platform no doubt, but it is waaaaay over used. We don't need a gigantic vehicle with 7 crew just to stick a new module on the space station. A simple propulsion module wither Centuar or even a Fregat-like stage would be more appropriate, then the station crew could do all the EVA-work. When neccessary, the shuttle could have flown a big logistic flight every now and then with the MPLMs.

 

[Missioncmdr]

Maybe yes, but Russian interplanetary research programme was screwed up long ago. Comparisons to NASA aren't just appropriate.

True. But you have to admit, Russia has had a lot of success with Venus exploration.

Personally, I find it an amazing feat that NASA has gotten any sort of funding after Apollo 11.

In the unmanned side, there have been great advancements. Through robotic probes, we have visited every planet in the Solar System, landed on Mars several times, and sent a probe to Titan's surface.

As for manned space exploration, I will admit the Shuttle has its problems. We probably will not get a really good view on the Shuttle's worth until after it has ended and we can look back upon as a whole. Part of the problem, I believe, was the constant budget cuts to the Shuttle Program focing NASA to make more and more compromises just to get it off the ground. Another problem was the Challenger disaster which permanently derailed the Shuttle Program. Instead of frequent flights, NASA was forced to slow down. Commercial projects launched on the Shuttle were canceled. Funding was cut. Instead of building a space station and then focusing on a return to the Moon, NASA was stuck in low-Earth orbit. If you really know the Shuttle Program, the pre-Challenger and post-Challenger Shuttle almost seems like two completely different programs.

 

[GregBurch]

If you really know the Shuttle Program, the pre-Challenger and post-Challenger Shuttle almost seems like two completely different programs.

To the extent that's true, I think a big reason for it is because of the locked-in DOD and NRO support STS had before Challenger. Once that support was pulled, it was possible to see that the emperor's clothes were kind of skimpy, since the payloads NASA was carrying for DOD/NRO were not really the kinds that needed the STS' capabilities.

 

[Moonwalker]

"I'm a little bit disappointed about what we're doing now. I think we slowed down tremendously. We are afraid of heaving an accident. We've had of course two major Shuttle accidents and there's seven people onboard ech time. You have to be very careful but this is a risky business. I think we should have been flying the Shuttle a lot more than we have."

James A. Lovell


Personally I think that NASA is an awesome space agency. They always did and do great jobs although I think that STS is a big unnecessary gap between Apollo and Constellation (STS lasted too long after all). Anyway, NASA makes visions become cold reality. There is a lot of power and spirit which is not comparable at all to any other space agencies. Development and operation of the Space Shuttle fleet demonstrated this very well once again after Apollo. NASA has the power to do things which nobody has had that way until today.

There were two tragic accidents within the last 30 years which caused some critics. But mostly by people who can't really appraise NASA's work. Space flight was, is and remains a risky business.

The good job of NASA is going to continue. While they still operate the Shuttles, the work on Ares and Orion got into top gear already. 36 years after the last manned lunar landing still nobody else managed to go to the Moon. NASA is going to do so once again on its own and the only one. I just can't wait for that. Without any doubt, nobody else will manage that business until 2020...

 

[Andy44]

While we knock the shuttle for its accidents, and deservedly so, I think it's important to remember how risky the Apollo moon mission were. Apollo 13 was extremely lucky; had the accident occurred a few hours later when Lovell's landing party was on the ground everyone would have been lost, with mathematical certainty. The last Skylab Apollo mission almost killed its crew during the descent and splashdown. And Apollo didn't fly anywhere near the 100+ missions STS has.

As much as I knock STS, it's an amazing technical achievment and works safer than you would expect for something so much more complex than Apollo. It just costs too much and doesn't fly often enough.

 

[movieman]

unmanned: yes
manned: no

Agreed; though I'd also add that they've done good things on the aeronautical side too.

In fact, if the manned spaceflight side of NASA was run like the aeronautical side (i.e. researching new and improved technologies rather than trying to fly operational vehicles), we'd probably be much better off.


-----Posted Added-----

The last Skylab Apollo mission almost killed its crew during the descent and splashdown.

While I agree that Apollo had problems of its own, that was a screwup by the crew, not the spacecraft; there are good reasons why the RCS purge wasn't done automatically (e.g. you'd be in big trouble if it happened by accident in space) and it's not required on the shuttle because the ground crew do it rather than the astronauts.

 

[Jarvitä]

Yet for all the smoothness of its reentry, it has also sustained the only breakup during reentry in the history of manned spaceflight.

And Союз 1 was shot down by aliens?

EDIT: No, it crashed due to parachute failure. My mistake.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yet for all the smoothness of its reentry, it has also sustained the only breakup during reentry in the history of manned spaceflight.

Well, remember that Soyuz had also many reentry accidents, which just went good by plain luck - or ended deadly as well. Soyuz 1 for example, was a failed parachute deployment, killing the crew (one astronaut).

 

[Arrowstar]

The shuttle was good for what it was, and not for what NASA tried to make it. Frankly, we didn't a winged vehicle that we were going to try to shove into space every two or so months. The shuttle is a good work platform no doubt, but it is waaaaay over used. We don't need a gigantic vehicle with 7 crew just to stick a new module on the space station. A simple propulsion module wither Centuar or even a Fregat-like stage would be more appropriate, then the station crew could do all the EVA-work. When neccessary, the shuttle could have flown a big logistic flight every now and then with the MPLMs.

I agree fully. We didn't need the shuttle to put up payloads that could have been launched on EELVs for whatnot, and I think with the advancements shown by the ESA's ATV and even Russia's Progress vehicles, getting components to the ISS for construction *can* be done in an automated fashion with the station crew performing the actual assembly work. That said and has been mentioned, the shuttle makes a great repair platform and is also the only vehicle capable of returning payloads of the size/weight the shuttle works with back to Earth. There are definiately merits to both of those capabilities.

As has been mentioned, though, we really don't use either of those two capabilities often enough to warrant flying the shuttle as often as it is and exploration of the solar system is definiately a better use of manned space flight resources.

 

[YL3GDY]

Maybe yes, but Russian interplanetary research programme was screwed up long ago. Comparisons to NASA aren't just appropriate.

Look that I mentioned only manned Soyuz programme. Most Russian interplanetary missions are in past. But, have you heard about international Europa research mission? Director of Space Research Institute (Moscow) looks optimistically on RSA participation in it with their own probe.

Well, remember that Soyuz had also many reentry accidents, which just went good by plain luck - or ended deadly as well. Soyuz 1 for example, was a failed parachute deployment, killing the crew (one astronaut).

Watch that these accidents were at the beginning (Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, Soyuz 18-1and some more). Now it's a quite reliable craft: accidents with TMA-11 and TMA-12 wasn't critical. Soyuz is more profitable and can be a good platform for a Russian Moon vechicle.

Commonly speaking, unmanned flights have more bonuses that manned missions, IMO. It's good to send astronauts only if they will need to perform so difficult tasks that automated equipment would weight more than life support. Many experiments are better and cheaper done with robots, but manned spaceflight is more spectacular for them who allocate money.

 

[Moonwalker]

While we knock the shuttle for its accidents, and deservedly so, I think it's important to remember how risky the Apollo moon mission were. Apollo 13 was extremely lucky; had the accident occurred a few hours later when Lovell's landing party was on the ground everyone would have been lost, with mathematical certainty. The last Skylab Apollo mission almost killed its crew during the descent and splashdown. And Apollo didn't fly anywhere near the 100+ missions STS has.

I think it is important to remember that space flight on the whole is risky.

The success of STS still is above 98%. While for the 15 manned flights of the Apollo Program (7 to 17, Skylab 1 to 3 and ASTP) plus the loss of the Apollo 1 crew which even wasn't going to lift off makes it a 81% success. Not included is the "SCE to AUX" event which nearly ended in an abort during early ascent of Apollo 12.

I'd call STS a relatively reliable system. But any system had its glitches no matter if we talk about Mercury, Gemini or even Vostok, Soyuz and so on. 100% success is impossible. Astronauts have to deal with and they do.

 

[Urwumpe]

In summary - yes. It could have been better in the manned space program, but it was also not bad. And the unmanned space program of NASA in the last 30 years was pretty much outstanding - especially the many successful cooperations with ESA.