Why "waste" Columbia w/ non-station mission?
Jorge R. Frank
news:LL3R9.2113$Fj2.1...@news2.news.adelphia.net:
> I know Columbia can't dock with the station now, but why fly it at all
> right now? All shuttle flights should be devoted to getting station
> construction wrapped up for now, then do research on the completed
> station, instead of a solo extended shuttle flight. Why has Discovery
> been sitting in a hanger for a year with no real work (until now)
> being done on improvements? We could have used Discovery on some more
> assembly missions! The money saved by canceling Columbia's research
> mission most definitely could have paid for an assembly flight, thus
> saving the station program even more money, thus helping it reach Core
> Complete sooner, and possible available funds that could be used for
> assembly of an Expanded Crew configuration.
>
> I mean I understand the need to do research. But research could wait
> until the "lab" is built first.
An old thread, but a new article on space.com has a good answer to this
question:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_preview_030113.html
<quote>
"The payloads on the mission are not studying space per se, but they are
using access to spaceflight as a tool to understand physical and biological
phenomena," said John Charles, NASA's mission scientist for biological and
physical research.
Although this mission isn't going to the orbiting outpost, the ISS program
is indirectly responsible for the creation of this shuttle science mission.
Congress directed NASA to keep the science community busy while the station
was under construction and its full research capabilities still were
limited, Charles said.
"This is simulated space station science -- although the science itself
stands on its own right -- with the goal of keeping the scientists who are
involved in this type of activity engaged and productive and moving forward
until the space station can assume the leading role of research," Charles
said.
</quote>
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Jim Kingdon
> stands on its own right -- with the goal of keeping the scientists who are
> involved in this type of activity engaged and productive and moving forward
> until the space station can assume the leading role of research," Charles
> said.
OK, although the word "simulated" is a bit strange - this is the kind
of stuff which flew on Shuttle all the time in the 80's and 90's.
Then it was pretty much shut down (in terms of flight opportunities)
when station construction began. This led to a hue and cry which is
what Charles was talking about when he said "Congress".
STS-107 is an attempt to address this, but it has a certain element of
"too little, too late". The researchers in these fields have already
gone something like 5 years (I'm sure someone will correct me on the
exact timetable/missions) with few/no flight opportunities.
There are GAO reports on this subject from the early 90's. I imagine
they are still online at http://www.gao.gov and/or http://www.gpo.gov/