A Space Station Out of Control
Rollo Tomasi
November 25, 2001
The international space station — the centerpiece of the American manned
space program — has encountered severe cost and management difficulties that
could damage its value as a platform for conducting "world class" science,
the supposed goal of the project. No more urgent task will confront the next
administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration than to
get this troubled program under control.
The station, which is now partially assembled and circling overhead with
three astronauts aboard, has had a difficult evolution since President
Ronald Reagan first ordered it built in 1984. Costs have escalated, forcing
repeated delays, redesigns and downsizings, and Congress has considered no
less than 25 different proposals to terminate the program.
This page has long been skeptical of the value of the station given its
rudimentary technology, huge cost and lack of a clear mission that required
the permanent presence of astronauts on a platform in low Earth orbit. But
it is getting harder and harder to consider backing out. Billions have
already been spent by the United States, 14 other countries are spending
large sums of their own, and the initial modules are already up and
functioning.
Nobody doubts that the station has been a great engineering achievement,
demonstrating that astronauts can indeed erect a platform in space with few
glitches. It is NASA's managerial performance that has been dismal. Early
this year the agency shocked the administration and Congress by revealing
that it would overshoot a $25 billion Congressional cap by almost $5
billion, exclusive of the $18 billion needed for shuttle flights to boost
astronauts and hardware into orbit. Worse yet, nobody could be sure that
that was the end of the cost overruns.
Faced with this latest crisis, the administration forced NASA to scale back
its plans for the station, an approach that was endorsed this month by a
special task force led by Thomas Young, a retired Martin Marietta executive
and former NASA official. The solution recommended by the Young panel was to
hold the program to a simple core station, able to accommodate only three
crew members for lengthy stays, while giving NASA two years to get its
management act together before deciding whether to complete a station able
to support six or seven people as had been expected. President Bush's choice
to be the next NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, deputy director of the
Office of Management and Budget, has made it clear that he will vigorously
carry out the Young panel's recommendations.
Should NASA fail to meet the challenge over the next two years, we could be
left with a station of minimal capabilities. A crew of only three would have
little chance of performing outstanding science. Huge cuts in research
equipment will also curtail research. A proposal to add additional crew time
by extending the length of shuttle and Soyuz visits to the station looks
mostly like a stopgap measure.
The Young panel urged that the highest priority be given to research aimed
at enabling humans to survive for long periods in space, a prerequisite for
more ambitious space exploration. Meanwhile, four Nobel Prize winners have
urged that the station support potentially "groundbreaking" research in
physics in low gravity. But in truth, it has never been clear just what
science needs to be done on a permanently manned platform in space as
opposed to an unmanned platform or an earthbound facility.
The space agency has two years to improve its managerial and financial
skills and to set clear priorities for what it actually intends to do in the
unique low-gravity environment of space. Then a decision can be made on
whether to expand the station to full capability or continue to limp along
with a three-person core. If the prospects look really bleak two years from
now, NASA might consider downgrading the station to an unmanned platform for
automated experiments that would be tended occasionally by visiting
astronauts.
______________
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company
Pat Kelley
Why not invite the Chinese to participate in development of ISS? In
case anyone has missed it, the Chinese economic juggernaut has continued
to gain speed in the face of the cooling of the U.S. economy, and the
decline of the Japanese fortunes.
The Chinese have long smarted over what they see as a slight from the
Western world, refusing to recognize the great technological strides
they've made. Even in the face of their incredible miscalculations over
the handling of social unrest, little is to be gained by trying to keep
them out of international space efforts.
The U.S. tacit permission for China to be admitted to the World Trade
Organization was an express recognition of the positive force of
economic engagement. Entangling the PRC in the thicket of capitalism
and the body of law which has to accompany success in that international
arena is viewed as a way of promoting reform and human rights.
The Chinese have a great deal of pride, and a desire to show the world
they can be a great nation and a great people. In the international
arena of space achievements, it takes two things: money, and
nationalistic pride. The Chinese have both aplenty, and their spirit
and excitement could reinvigorate human space efforts.
--
Pat Kelley “Perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."
President - George Washington
VelaTech
james oberg
Rollo, watch out, the Chief has passed the word to check up on you because
of your associations with some murder victims, I'd pick another call sign
for awhile.
H. McDaniel
> Just a thought, triggered by another thread about PRC plans in space.
> Why not invite the Chinese to participate in development of ISS?
Maybe they were invited a long time ago and said, no?
-McDaniel
hrtbreak
You should be able to write at least a full page on this one.
JJ Robinson II
Houston, TX
"james oberg" <job...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jwdM7.24715$GA2.6...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Joann Evans
Or, with no demonstrated manned space capability, or sufficently
heavy-lift launchers, or experience in station modules, they simply had
nothing to bring to the table as yet?
H. McDaniel
ESA had manned space capability? All they had was sending astronauts up piggy
back on U.S. and Russian flights just like the Chinese (who have been up on
Rooskie flights.)
-McDaniel
james oberg
[You should be able to write at least a full page on this one.]
Done that, see MSNBC's space site.
Re 'Rollo', I was teasing about the Hollywood movie reference.
Edward Lyons
H. McDaniel <ro...@neveryoumind.foo> wrote in message
news:3C01D39C...@neveryoumind.foo...
>
> ESA had manned space capability? All they had was sending astronauts up
piggy
> back on U.S. and Russian flights just like the Chinese (who have been up
on
> Rooskie flights.)
>
China has not had any of its citizens flown in space, not on Soviet/Russian
flights, nor on any other flights.
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
steve podleski
"Pat Kelley" <infu...@earthlink.net>
...
> The Chinese have a great deal of pride, and a desire to show the world
> they can be a great nation and a great people. In the international
> arena of space achievements, it takes two things: money, and
> nationalistic pride. The Chinese have both aplenty, and their spirit
> and excitement could reinvigorate human space efforts.
I think that the Chinese have much more pride than money.
Let's not take on another 'partner' who will be another financial sinkhole
and
bottleneck in the ISS developement and operation.
Jeroen
launchers and station modules.
Jeroen
"H. McDaniel" <ro...@neveryoumind.foo> wrote in message
news:3C01D39C...@neveryoumind.foo...
H. McDaniel
My mistake.
-McDaniel
Edward Lyons
H. McDaniel <ro...@neveryoumind.foo> wrote in message
>
> My mistake.
>
No problem.
What China did do, however, was to send two staff members in 1996 to the
Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Centre to undergo full cosmonaut training.
(They also sent considerable numbers of other staff to learn about other
aspects of manned spaceflight operations.) These two trainees returned to
China, and it is expected here in the West that they either will be the
first to crew Shenzhou on its first manned orbital flight (or perhaps with
one as commander of the prime crew, and the other the commander of a backup
crew), or they are the main trainers for the Chinese yuhanuan corps.
Possibly they fulfil both roles, trainers and flight crew. Time will tell.
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
Pat Kelley
fly a man-capable space vehicle. So far, the Chinese have built and
flown two. Given the ISS as a target I have no doubt the Chinese would
at least integrate the project of a Shenzhou docking with ISS into their
plans. A role as a low-cost supply system competing with the Russians
is one way to have them "contribute" short of pouring money into the
project, and construction of a habitat module using Chinese labor is
another. They might not be able to undertake a full-blown share of such
an effort, but might be willing to "cost-share" to ease the burden on
the other team members and make a fully-populated ISS a reality.
--
Pat Kelley 撤erseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."
Phill
Otherwise,how about Columbus module ?
Or,CRV vehicles - if only mockups at this point?
Then there was Hermes - which went a long way down the track towards being
flown?
And British Aerospace cooperation with NAA (now Rockwell) on several space
vehicle studies in late 60s and early 70s.
You've also got the Italian ISS modules.
Phill
UK
"Pat Kelley" <infu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C0A4B16...@earthlink.net...
> Pat Kelley "Perseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."
Pat Kelley
Phill wrote:
>
> I presume you mean a 'returnable' manned space vehicle ?
>
Exactly, which the Chinese demonstrated - where's the first ESA returned vehicle?
> Otherwise,how about Columbus module ?
>
Noted - replicated by a commercial firm (SpaceHab)
> Or,CRV vehicles - if only mockups at this point?
>
Yup - mockups don't count. Any secondary school can produce a mockup.
> Then there was Hermes - which went a long way down the track towards being
> flown?
>
Paper vehicles don't count - there are dozens of paper studies produced
by colleges, commercial firms, and individuals with equal credibility to Hermes.
> And British Aerospace cooperation with NAA (now Rockwell) on several space
> vehicle studies in late 60s and early 70s.
>
Studies are paper - where's the hardware?
> You've also got the Italian ISS modules.
That's Columbus - double counting, since you already mentioned those.
Like I said, the Chinese have done more to "earn their spurs" than ESA.
Good intentions amount to just that. You may whine about how the
Chinese have copied the Russians, but not one European shed a tear when
the Yanks complained that the Japanese got to where they are by copying
American technology. Where both the Japanese and now the Chinese have
shown how they deserve respect is in how they improved upon the
technology they "copied".
--
Pat Kelley 撤erseverance and spirit have done wonders in all ages."
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
>
>
> Phill wrote:
> >
> > I presume you mean a 'returnable' manned space vehicle ?
> >
> Exactly, which the Chinese demonstrated - where's the first ESA returned
vehicle?
http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/esaacrv.htm
The did fly a sub-scale version. However, decided X-38/CRV was cheaper or
easier.
>
> > You've also got the Italian ISS modules.
>
> That's Columbus - double counting, since you already mentioned those.
No, I believe he also means the MPLMs and Node 3.
http://www.aleniaspazio.it/program/infr/iss/mplm/mplm.htm
I believe Alenia Space has made more modules for the space station than any
other country other than the US.
(The Russians will probably top them, but that's not a done deal yet.)
Shardrukar
<infu...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Where both the Japanese and now the Chinese have
>shown how they deserve respect is in how they improved upon the
>technology they "copied".
Excellent point, IMO,....agreed fully!
Tom Moore
> Phill wrote:
> >
> > I presume you mean a 'returnable' manned space vehicle ?
> >
> Exactly, which the Chinese demonstrated - where's the first ESA returned vehicle?
Point of note. The chinese have launched 2 *unmanned* demonstrator
prototypes of thier planned manned vehicle. The Europeans launched a
subscale demonstrator of a CRV in 1997. The first chinese recovery,
we saw a lot of pictures. The second one was quieter, and I have seen
speculation (although at the present the source is escaping me) that
the second return vehicle's landing was less then desired.
Calling these vehicles man-capable at this point is a little
premature. Since the data from the chinese program isn't as easily
obtained its going to be a little hard to state for a fact that the
vehicles are man-capable until we actually see a manned launch.
As far as your discounting the European efforts with the ISS modules
(and lets not forget the European efforts with SpaceLab), you are
being extremely unfair to the Europeans. ESA and European aerospace
firms have demonstrated an ability to construct modules suitable for
orbital operations. The Chinese have yet to do so. The fact that the
Europeans hitch a ride on another country's manned launcher is not a
detriment IMHO. Its just being smart. Why pay billions to design and
build your own launcher to go to ISS when you can spend that money on
science and ISS modules instead.
Tom
Edward Lyons
Tom Moore <thomas_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a06238d9.0112...@posting.google.com...
>
> The fact that the
> Europeans hitch a ride on another country's manned launcher is not a
> detriment IMHO. Its just being smart. Why pay billions to design and
> build your own launcher to go to ISS when you can spend that money on
> science and ISS modules instead.
>
It is smart ... if it works. on the other hand, it also let's we Europeans
be held hostage to fortune, or even to ransom, when and if the Americans
prove to be less than reliable and turn around and screw us by not meeting
their end of the ISS bargain. (Entirely possible in the current
circumstance.)
Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK
Pat Kelley
the Chinese are avoiding this predicament by developing a personnel
carrier of their own. ESA has performed better than NASA in meeting
their committments, and now seems to be left out in the cold with the
trimming of the NASA ISS sails.
I'm a loyal American patriot, but I still remember Ronald Reagan's
famous saying, "Trust, but verify" - even when dealing with my own
government.
--
Tom Moore
True, but that would happen even if ESA had its own man-rated
launchers. The ESA effort here is based around ISS.. Any time you
have an international project if one of the primarys runs into
difficulties it affects the whole ball of wax. Space development is
full of financial risks. But in the long run, Alenia is now
considered an "expert" on construction of orbital modules. So ESA has
a European source to turn to in order to construct thier own station
if they felt like it. Ariane is easily capable of launching those
modules. The European ATV project supplies the on-orbit rendezvous
technology, as well as resupply capabilities, and by buying into the
CRV development, and possibly modifying it to use as a manned launch
capsule ESA can gain crew transfer. All of this capability is
acquired by ESA for a minimum of investment cost. The potential
capability returns are very high. Lastly, a good portion of the
current construction work (node2, node3, CRV) is being funded largely
by another entity which reduces financial risk while developing
technical prowess.
Minimum risk, maximize return on investment. Business concepts.
Something that is sadly missing from the NASA side of the house. Can
it backfire and ESA be left with an incomplete package? Sure, but
businesses fail like that too, just look at the internet for plenty of
examples. There is no such thing as a sure thing.
Tom