Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!mvk
From: mvk@pawl.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: NASA: A Can-Do Agency Becomes A Can't Do Bureaucracy
Message-ID: <=^1$NW#@rpi.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 90 22:24:13 GMT
References: <8824@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 227

In article <8824@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> gwalsh@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Gerald J. Walsh) writes:
>
>"NASA:  What Goes Up -- A Can-Do Agency Becomes A Can't Do Bureaucracy"
>
>(from the Los Angeles Times Opinion Section - Sunday July 22, 1990)
>(by Gregg Easterbrook - contributing editor to Newsweek and the Atlantic)
>
>
Ordinarily, I wouldn't respond to such trash, but since there may be some
people out there who might take this too seriously, here goes:

>Consider these current NASA failings:
>
>-The space station, with construction costs up from $8 million to $37 billion
>even as the design has shrunk, will require more maintenance than previously
>acknowledged, NASA now admits.  And there's still barely any explanation of
>what astronauts will [do] once aboard.

$8M for a space station, is he kidding?  $37G may be correct, if you count a
lot of things we'd build anyway as part of the station because they will be
used on the station.  As for work, they'll be doing mainly materials research,
with quite a few medical, biological, astronomy, and earth resources experiments
as well.  The most important task they'll accomplish is to learn how to live in
space.  It may not sound all that exciting, but it's got to be done if we want
a spacefaring civilization.
>
>-Though environmental science is a pressing political issue, NASA's $17 billion
>"crash" initiative won't put the first environmental research satellite into
>orbit until the next century.
The "Earth Observing System", to which he probably refers, is a comprehensive
system designed to study the Earth as one ecosystem.  There are several other
satellites already being built which could be called environmental satellites.
These will be launched shortly.
>
>-A Mars mission, whose potential price tag NASA will not discuss publicly, may
>cost $500 billion, according to internal agency estimates.

Mars is 400 times as far from Earth as the moon is.  Sending a crew there and
bringing it back will take at least a year and a half -- 50 times the length of
a lunar mission.  Do this safely will require new technology and quite a bit of
money.  But the money will be spent over a 30 year period.
>
>-The White House just announced permission for U.S.-built satellites to be
>launched aboard Soviet rockets from a for-profit spaceport to be built in Cape
>York, Australia.  The U.S. commercial satellite industry had been pressuring
>for this, because the Cape York consortium promises lower prices than NASA or
>any U.S. company can provide.  That they can do something in space we can't is
>perhaps the most frightening indictment of the U.S. space effort.

Right now, the American companies are launching all the satellites they can
handle.  McDonnell Douglas is launching about ten per year, and Martin Marietta,
Orbital Sciences Corp., and General Dynamics should reach that mark shortly.
Cape York is still in the planning stages.  It will be many years before it is
operational, if ever.  By that time McDonnell Douglas and perhaps Martin
Marietta plan to have new, heavy-lift boosters available.>

>-The space shuttle fleet is indefinitely grounded because of hydrogen-fuel
>leaks, but that's the least of its problems.  Launching cargo on the shuttle
>can cost 10 times as much as using expendable rockets.  The shuttle continues
>to be unreliable, with a peak launch rate of nine flights per year instead of
>the 50 NASA promised.

Shuttles are not the only launch vehicles that have fuel leaks.  As for costing
ten times as much as an expendible -- no way!  At least not any expendible we're
currently building.
>
>Statistical studies by NASA continue to suggest another shuttle flight
>catastrophe is probable.  The shuttle still relies on the no-turning-back-
>solid-rocket boosters that destroyed Challenger.

Spaceflight is dangerous -- always has been and always will be.  To not expect
another accident is to bury one's head in the sand.  There will be more Shuttle
disasters; there will be more ELV failures, airplane crashes, and automobile
accidents as well.  The estimated failure rate for the Shuttle is 1 in 78.
For Apollo it was 1 in 10.  That puts the Shuttle at 8 times as safe as Apollo.
If you like actual numbers: 1 accident in 35 launches.  3.5 times as safe as
Apollo.  The SRB's have been redesigned, and the ASRM's come online in 1995.>

>Today, the White House is upset about NASA performance, but continues to allow
>Vice President Dan Quayle to run space policy.  Nothing could please NASA

see below.


>Technologically, the shuttle is a remarkable achievement.  But operationally,
>the system is a white elephant.  The shuttle is far too expensive to launch
>more than a few times a year;far too complex to be reliable, and its premise is
>elementally flawed because it risks precious human lives on prosaic cargo-
>delivery missions.

The Shuttle has not made "prosaic cargo-delivery missions" since the Challenger
accident.  It does carry up items which will not fit on an ELV due to size or
weight constraints.  The Shuttle is the only heavy-lift booster the US will
have for the next five years.  Look at the manifest.  The Shuttle is being used
for (1) Spacelab science missions, (2) heavy-lift launches, (3) satellite 
retrieval missions, (4) satellite repair missions, and (5) assembly and supply 
of the Space Station.

>How can the Soviets stage some 90 space launches per year and the United States
>only about 15?  Because, for the majority of missions, Soviets use relatively
>low-tech, low-cost "dumb" boosters.

Part of the answer is that the Soviets need 90 launches per year to maintiain
their capability.  There satellites last only a couple of weeks to a couple of
months each.  American satellites usually last for several years.  I believe it
was NORAD that recently said that the number of American and Soviet operational
satellites is about equal.
>
>How can the NASA logjam be broken?  The nature of the U.S. space fleet must be
>changed.  Here's the program:
>
>1)  [Park the shuttle].  The shuttle fleet should be converted from a payload-
>delivery system into scientific research vehicles able to stay in space for a
>few weeks at a time.  For pure research purposes, the shuttle would fly three
>or four times per year.  Astronauts and scientists working in the shuttle bay
>could perform all the basic research and commercial manufacturing experiments
>proposed for the space station.

This *IS* the primary purpose of the Space Shuttle over the next five years.
About 30% to 50% of the scheduled flights are Spacelab flights.  Astro, SLS,
IML, Spacelab Dx, Spacelab Jx, USML, Starlab, ATLAS, and SRL are all Spacelab
flights, most of which will be flying more than once in the next five years.
>
>2)  [Cancel the space station].  It won't be necessary if step 1 is taken, and
>money saved could be used to fund steps 3 and 4.

Wrong.  If we want to explore the solar system and create a spacefaring civil-
ization, we need to learn how to live and work in space.  For that we need a
permanent manned prescence.  The Space Station will give us that knowledge and
allow us to perform some long-term experiments.  2 to 4 weeks in Spacelab is 
not enough time for most of the experiments planned for the Station.
>
>3)  [Build new boosters].  It's absurd for the United States to debate a Mars
>mission when we can't even get routine payloads into low-Earth orbit.  This is
>like arguing over the rules for a road race when you don't even own a car. 
>NASA's first priority should be developing affordable launch systems that work.
>Because NASA stopped all rocket research to prevent shuttle competitors from
>developing, the United States has not designed a new expandable space booster
>in almost 25 years.  Using current advances in computer science, materials
>technology and aerodynamics, it should be possible to design new throwaway
>boosters that would have at least as much power as those in use - yet be far
>cheaper.

It's called Pegasus, and it's brand spanking new.  No, NASA didn't build it,
but NASA has decided (with some coercion) that it should not be doing things
that private enterprise can do.  So Pegasus was built by OSC.  The Delta, Atlas,
and Titan rockets have also undergone modifications.  NASA no longer owns   
these but instead contracts out launch services from the parent company.  This
is now free enterprise.  Because there is a market for larger expendibles,  
Martin Marietta and McDonnell Douglas plan to build the Titan IV and the 
Heavy Lift Delta respectively within about five years.

>Four years ago, when the Air Force thought the Strategic Defense Initiative
>would happen, generals realized SDI could never be practically launched from
>the shuttle - putting the system into orbit would cost more than SDI itself. 
>So the Air Force initiated a cheap booster project, Advanced Launch System. 
>NASA jumped into hyperspace over this program, lobbying frantically for its
>cancellation.  Now, with the military budget shrinking, Advanced Launch System
>research has all but stopped.  It should be revised.

All proposed funding for ALS was recently cut by the House of Representatives.
NASA wanted it but didn't get it.
>
>4)  [Build a spaceplane].  More than 30 years ago, the Air Force was routinely
>dropping the X-15 spaceplane from a B-52 bomber, flying it to the lower reaches
>of orbit and bringing it back for standard landings on runways.  The X-15
>program was put together quickly, didn't cost much and never had an accident. 
>Forward into the past!

It's called the National AeroSpace Plane, and it's being funded in the follow-
ing ratios: NASA and DoD: 25% each, McDonnell Douglas, General Dynamics, 
Rockwell, Rocketdyne, and Pratt and Whitney: 10% each.  It's scheduled for
suborbital test flight in 1998 and orbital test flight in 1999.

>
>The spaceplane does have one technical drawback that drives NASA crazy: It
>would be impossible to build a huge spaceplane.  The vehicle would be for crew
>and small payloads only, which means spaceplanes could not take large
>satellites into orbit, resulting in a lower percentage of manned space
>launches.  It is for this reason that NASA hates, hates hates any mention of
>the word spaceplane.

We're not NASA-bashing here, are we?   ;)
>
>A new U.S. space fleet based on science-only shuttles, cheap new "dumb"
>boosters for most cargo launches and a spaceplane would make NASA programs
>affordable, flexible and reliable.  The agency would be shaken up from top to
>bottom during the conversion, breaking bad habits and instilling new vision. 
>NASA would have an exciting short-term goal - building and testing the new
>fleet - and far greater prospects for exciting long-term goals, once affordable
>and practical means of access to space comes into existence.

It seems like most of his plan is already in existance, although not all of it
is being carried out by NASA.
>
>Leadership starts at the top.  It is no coincidence that NASA was most
>effective during a period when two Presidents, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B.
>Johnson, showed they were personally concerned with outcome of missions.
>
>But Bush has yet to send the get-tough signal.  Letting NASA appoint its own
>self-study commision is hardly going to get the agency's attention.  Putting
>Quayle in charge of space policy will not make any entrenched bureaucrat lose a
>moment's sleep.  In fact, Quayle's presence sends the signal that NASA can get
>away with murder.  If Bush were serious about NASA reform, Washington insiders
>know, he would have assigned somebody else.  It's time to chart NASA a new
>course to the stars.

It seems he has a political axe to grind.  Can you tell what politcal party
he's affiliated with? :)  Having the President, Vice President, and National
Budget Director all personally "pro-space" is something this country hasn't
had in a long, long, time.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry if my attitude annoyed anyone, but I perceived the article as hostile
and replied as such.  I am not against open discussion of alternatives to NASA
plans or to the agency itself, but this guy seemed to criticizing the current
agency with no idea of current programs, plans, or goals.  He doesn't want to
reform the space program as much as he wants to sell papers.

Let's face it, NASA is having its problems, but, IMHO, it's really just bad
timing.  Remember all the problems the U. S. Navy had about a year ago? Not
unlike the situation NASA is in.  We gave the Navy some time, and the rash of
problems subsided.  We should do the same for NASA.

Mike                                               mvk@pawl.rpi.edu
>