posted 09-28-2005 12:31 AM               

quote:

---

The space shuttle and International Space Station — nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades — were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday.

...

Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, "My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible." Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said, "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."

---

posted 09-28-2005 01:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
"Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."

---

Thus each shuttle flight could carry 30% more payload if the ISS orbited in something more agreeable for a Florida launch.

30% would equal 15 out of 50 flights... 7.5 out of 25 flights... I would welcome a non ideological discussion on whether what Griffin is saying equates to what I have heard Walt speak of.

------------------
Kind Regards

Douglas Henry

Enjoy yourself and have fun.... it is only a hobby!
http://home.earthlink.net/~aztecdoug/

posted 09-28-2005 02:10 AM               

Cheers,
Matt

posted 09-28-2005 03:38 AM               

Cheers,
Matt

------------------
www.spaceracemuseum.com

posted 09-28-2005 08:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
... Our EVA knowledge grew exponentially, including repair and maintenance skills that will be necessary for any long voyage to Mars ...

---

1973: Conrad and Kerwin make a historic EVA to place a sun shade on Skylab to save it.

2003: No check of the Shuttle for damage from a known foam strike. No ability to repair the damage.

posted 09-28-2005 09:40 AM               

quote:

---

Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in.

---

quote:

---

I would welcome a non ideological discussion on whether what Griffin is saying equates to what I have heard Walt speak of.

---

I'm curious what exactly he is saying. My understanding is that ISS is in the orbit it's in because it was a compromise inclination for the international partners. So if it's in that orbit because it's an international project, and he wouldn't have put it in that orbit, is that a polite way of saying he would have preferred it not be an international project?

quote:

---

The shuttle may not be everything that it was initially conceived to be, but in some (important) ways it has been a platform from which we have learned how to work and live in space.

---

I hate playing devil's advocate on this one, because I'm about as pro-shuttle as anyone, but you could have done basically the same things with the Saturn-Apollo infrastructure. The heavy-lift capability of the Saturn V could arguably have simplified launch of a station (or multiple stations over the last 30 years) and Apollo CSMs on Saturn IBs could have handled crew transfer duties. (Or, better yet, led to an upgraded version similar to the planned CEV.) We theoretically could have substantially more experience with long-duration spaceflight by this point.

That's assuming, of course, that he's saying just that the ISS was a mistake, and not space stations in general; which I would have to disagree with.

quote:

---

1973: Conrad and Kerwin make a historic EVA to place a sun shade on Skylab to save it.

2003: No check of the Shuttle for damage from a known foam strike. No ability to repair the damage.

That's not what I would call EVA advancement.

---

I don't want at all to downplay the extreme importance of Joe and Pete's repair EVA, which I would argue is the first "real" working orbital EVA and the foundation of all spacewalking since.

But, it's just that -- the beginning, not the end. You create a false comparison picking STS-107 as the modern state-of-the-art EVA. A far better example might be STS-114, in which the crew conducted an EVA to perform unanticipated and unprepared fixes. Back in 1973, Conrad and Kerwin's EVA had the advantage of special tools, foreknowledge and advance planning; granted all of which was put together very rapidly. STS-114, however, reacted in-situ.

Even that aside, the complexity of EVA assembly and maintenance capability has matured quite a bit over the years, and particularly with Hubble and ISS.

quote:

---

The space shuttle and International Space Station — nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades — were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday.

---

All in all, it's an issue I have mixed feelings about.

Like I said, I'm a fan of the shuttle program. And I think it's easy to say that it was a mistake in retrospect, second-guessing decisions that were made more than 35 years ago without the context of the time.

When first conceived, Shuttle had a lot of potential that was never realized. (Someone who knows the timing better than I, was it originally planned as a replacement for Saturn-Apollo, or a complement?) NASA was dealt a bum hand in a lot of ways by Washington, and played it as best they could.

Robert's completely right that there have been a lot of accomplishments of the Space Shuttle era, and there was unrealized potential for a lot more.

posted 09-28-2005 09:59 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidH:
I'm curious what exactly he is saying. My understanding is that ISS is in the orbit it's in because it was a compromise inclination for the international partners. So if it's in that orbit because it's an international project, and he wouldn't have put it in that orbit, is that a polite way of saying he would have preferred it not be an international project?

---

I was wondering that too. Is Griffin politely saying that if the shuttle could have carried 30% more payload, and we hadn't gotten bound up in delays waiting for the service module, that the Space Station may have been done some time ago?

I mean 30% is a lot. If it takes 50 flights to build the ISS today, would it have only taken 35 flights if it were in a different orbit? How much more does it cost to fly 30% more shuttle flights? The shuttle is not cheap to fly.

I am just curious if this is what Griffin was saying. I would be impressed if the media could read between the lines or just do their usual job of sensationalizing his words without any thoughtful analysis.

------------------
Kind Regards

Douglas Henry

Enjoy yourself and have fun.... it is only a hobby!
http://home.earthlink.net/~aztecdoug/

posted 09-28-2005 10:02 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
The type of vehicle used to achieve LEO is (almost) immaterial with regard to these achievements.

---

Therefore, the type of vehicle chosen for the STS was very important to its accomplishments.

posted 09-28-2005 08:09 PM               

I think Mr. Griffin is dead-on correct, but ... that does not mean that the Shuttle and ISS were bad decisions. In order to make that assessment, one would have to consider ONLY the information available to decision makers at the time (including the considerable political constraints).

The appropriate question, I think, is given the information available at the time, what alternate options could have been selected that were (1) technically feasible, and (2) politically acceptable.

I have always thought that the space shuttle program lacked a measurable goal. Granted, it was originally supposed to be a shuttle to carry astronauts to a space station, but the station was cancelled and the shuttle ended up as a spacecraft with no place to go until the (reasonably) recent Shuttle-Mir and ISS flights.

Ultimately, it seems the shuttle was just about the only thing that could get funded at the time, and it served our nation well as a platform to improve our knowledge of how to live and work in space.

posted 09-29-2005 12:35 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodina:
This is not to say STS hasn't done great stuff -- the Hubble servicing, and all that -- but if we want a *sustainable* follow on to the shuttle, we need to start looking at the flaws of STS with a very critical eye.

---

Unfortunately, it took the loss of 107 for people to seriously start looking beyond the Shuttle program. I think the writing was on the wall for the Shuttle since the late 80s when it was obvious that it wasn't able to fly as often and as cheaply as originally promised...but since the Shuttle was all we had, we were kind of stuck with it. So we started to look for ways to better utilize the Shuttle, such as building the space station. It seemed more like NASA was trying to find a role for the Shuttle, instead of building a new spacecraft that could do bigger and better things.

Without the 107 loss, would we be talking about returning to the moon in 2018? I hope that we would, but I suspect the Shuttle program would still be going strong in 2018 if it hadn't been for 107...

I'm liking Griffin more and more...he's not afraid to speak his mind and share his opinions.

posted 09-29-2005 09:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...but what did materialize was a greater understanding for how to conduct on-orbit operations.... let alone extended stays on the lunar surface ....expanded the medical database from which long duration missions will be planned, and made advances in space-based robotics

---

The shuttle/ISS may have added, but all the major, ground-breaking achievements in these areas were by the Russians with Soyuz/Salyut/Mir - cheaper, simpler, more reliable. A lesson for the future?

Paul Bramley

posted 09-29-2005 10:06 AM               

Fortunately, as Robert noted, the shuttle is a vehicle that could perform viably as an independently, serving as a self-contained science lab, etc.

Since declaring the shuttle a mistake requires second-guessing the last 35 years of history, what if one imagines a scenario in which not developing the shuttle was the only difference? A history in which there is no shuttle, but Saturn and Apollo continue.

The Saturn-Apollo system really allows orbital work only in connection with a space station (as with Skylab). The space station was delayed in large part because of the desire in Washington to have a station that would be all things to people, which priced it out of a range they were willing to pay, and constant revisions led to constant delays. Some of this may have been shuttle-connected, but there's no reason to believe a lot of it wouldn't have happened anyway.

Even if you assume that quagmire could have begun a few years earlier if not for shuttle delays, you're still talking about a lengthy period of time with no station. (And possibly no difference at all -- unless this alternate history leads to a U.S.-only space station, there's no reason to believe Russia would want to replace Mir any sooner.)

So in terms of living and working in microgravity, you potentially have a scenario in which the U.S. has essentially no capability -- just what can be done in the confines of an Apollo capsule. No labs, no long-duration flight, etc.

Keeping the Saturn-Apollo system would have maintained the capability to go to the moon, but only as long as Washington was willing to continue to pay to do so, and the political drive for further Apollo missions was pretty well playing itself out. No shuttle probably would have allowed A18-20, and maybe a little more beyond that, but probably not much. In terms of the amount of additional knowledge/experience gained, it's questionable how much new would have been yielded from continuing to do the same thing.

In terms of doing anything beyond that, it's questionable how politically viable any of the plans to go beyond cislunar space using nuclear power would have been. There's also a question of how much Washington would have been willing to invest in new technology/infrastructure to go farther.

Sure, it's possible to imagine an alternate history where, without the shuttle, humans would have had continuing presence on the moon and made it to Mars by now.

But it's also possible, based on the way Washington treated spaceflight during that period of time, to imagine a scenario where we went back to the moon a few times, started talking about a space station that was decades away when talks started, and, with only a spacecraft that could be used to go somewhere but had nowhere to go, lost any sense of direction at all.

Despite the talk of being on Mars by 1981, that would have required not only a history with no shuttle, which could have happened, it arguably would also have required different attitudes in Washington, which probably wouldn't have.

For all of the shuttle's faults, it kept U.S. spaceflight viable during the years that we were stuck in LEO. Was it what stuck us in LEO during those decades? Maybe, maybe not.
And if not, if Congress still didn't have the will to move beyond (and there's a decent argument to be made for that), what would have happened if we were stuck in LEO with no shuttle and no station?

------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972

posted 09-29-2005 02:20 PM               

quote:

---

SUBJECT: GRIFFIN USA TODAY ED BOARD COMMENTS

Background: Administrator Griffin spoke with USA Today editorial board members and reporters on September 27. He discussed a wide range of issues, including how he believes the space shuttle and international space station should have been developed and run differently. USA Today said Griffin called the shuttle and station "mistakes."

The country has a sound and fiscally responsible plan to move forward, in a deliberate fashion, to explore space. This is the appropriate path forward for NASA and the country. That plan includes utilizing the space shuttle to meet our international commitments and assemble the space station, then retiring the shuttle, after decades of service, in 2010. It is time to retire the shuttle and move to a system that will allow expanded exploration of the universe. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board noted that the shuttle system was not designed to explore beyond low earth orbit. The ability to return to the moon, and move on to Mars, requires a new system and deliberate plan to transition to that new system. If America is going to explore, and we are, we must accomplish our goals with a system other than the space shuttle.

POINTS

Space Shuttle

• The space shuttle does some things very well, like heavy lift, but it is a very complex machine and has its limitations. That's a major reason why the shuttle will be retired in five years after completing assembly of the space station and we will replace it with a new, safer generation of spacecraft that will meet our future exploration goals and needs. The space shuttle simply is not designed to accomplish the long-term goals of the Vision for Space Exploration.
  - However, we are using key components from the space shuttle system for our future exploration vehicles, the space shuttle main engines and solid rocket boosters.
  - The Shuttle was designed as a multipurpose vehicle, which led to its complexity. NASA's new architecture separates crew and cargo vehicles. This approach was also recommended by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.
• Despite its limitations, Griffin has said it would be unwise to permanently ground shuttles now because of cost and risk – You need an orderly and deliberate phase out and retirement and that will take five years. [list]
• If we shut down now and allow the work force and skills to atrophy (like what happened between Apollo and the first shuttle flight 1975-81), you add a lot of risk into launching missions. NASA needs to avoid a large time gap between flying space shuttle missions and flying new vehicles.
• Shutting down the shuttle now won't save money. In fact, it will cost more than an orderly transition to the new vehicles.
  - Consequences of shut down the shuttle program include:
  -- It will cost about $10 billion to pay for our international partner obligations
  -- It will cost money to let go the shuttle workforce. Workers whose skills and institutional knowledge would be lost. We can't afford to lose those workers. The cost of rehiring and retraining them would be more than maintaining the current workforce.
  -- It will cost money in early termination fees for our current shuttle contracts

International Space Station

• Griffin has said he believes it was a mistake to change the planned orbit of the space station from an inclination of 28.5 to 51.6 degrees because it limits flexibility in performing certain exploration missions.
• Griffin said changing the inclination to 51.6 means the station could do research, but not be a real stepping stone for exploration.
  - 28.5 degrees inclination, which is the latitude of NASA's Kennedy Space Center, would allow us to carry heavier payloads to orbit.
  - Also, the 28.5 inclination is closer to the planetary plane inclination (the orbital plane, which is called the ecliptic, where most of the planets revolve around the Sun) and therefore a station located at 28.5 could have been used as an easier launching point for planetary missions than 51.6.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

International Space Station Expedition 12

• NASA and Russia confirmed at the Flight Readiness Review meeting for the next crew for the international space station on Sept. 19 that NASA Astronaut and Expedition 12 Commander Bill McArthur will have a ride back to Earth next April on the same Soyuz that will bring him to the station this October.

---

posted 09-29-2005 05:54 PM               

Saturn Vs would have been ideal heavy lift vehicles to construct the next generation of space station after Skylab. Sure, the Saturn V was expensive, but the greatest cost was in development, not production. It was a technology that could have been utilized until next generation Saturn lift vehicles could be developed.

The nice thing about hanging onto Apollo and Saturn technology would have been our ability to return in the moon in the matter of a few years (when the decision was made), instead of now waiting 13-14 years as is the current plan. Perhap by now we'd have "Saturn X" rockets carrying missions to Mars if we had only continued building from the technology we had in the early 70s.

posted 09-30-2005 09:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
With the benefit of hindsight, I think the best option would have been to hang onto the Apollo and Saturn technology and forget about the Shuttle. Saturn IBs could have continued launching crews to our original space station (Skylab), continuing orbital science without the 6 year gap with no spaceflight at all (from ASTP to STS-1).

---

Not to Skylab, unless a means for resupply was established, not only for food, clothes, film, equipment, etc. but also eventually for atmosphere, TAC gas, etc., which would require not only figuring a way to carry, but also a way to recharge supplies not designed to be recharged. An alternative to the trash airlock would have to be established (throwing trash out into space being the obvious choice). And this doesn't even beging to address the question of equipment failure.

quote:

---

Saturn Vs would have been ideal heavy lift vehicles to construct the next generation of space station after Skylab. Sure, the Saturn V was expensive, but the greatest cost was in development, not production. It was a technology that could have been utilized until next generation Saturn lift vehicles could be developed.

---

Agreed. But the issue was never the lack of a launch vehicle, it was political support for a space station. Is there any reason to believe that would have changed if Saturn-Apollo had been kept?

quote:

---

The nice thing about hanging onto Apollo and Saturn technology would have been our ability to return in the moon in the matter of a few years (when the decision was made), instead of now waiting 13-14 years as is the current plan.

---

But only for more Apollo missions, and one could question how supportive Washington would have been of a plan to go back and only do what we had done before. Sure, you could do more with additional or new infrastructure, but that takes you back to needing more time and money.

quote:

---

Perhap by now we'd have "Saturn X" rockets carrying missions to Mars if we had only continued building from the technology we had in the early 70s.

---

Possibly. Over the years, there hasn't seemed to be much political interest in building HLVs, much less Super-HLVs. Without developing the proposed nuclear upper stage, which likely would have been a polical hot potato, it seems you're pretty much back to the drawing board in developing a Super-Heavy. Is there any reason there would have been more political support for a super-heavy without the Shuttle than there was with?

quote:

---

The smartest approach to continue to grow from existing and proven technology. The vast effort to develop Apollo and Saturn technology was trashed in the mid 70s with no thought of the VALUE that this technology would serve for the future. The fact that future lunar missions will depend on proven components of the Shuttle stack shows just how valuable (and cost effective) it is to use what we already have and what we already have experience with.[/b]

---

Agreed. It's a shame that Apollo and AAP were never allowed to live up to their full potential. It's also good to see a plan now that relies on the "Greatest Hits" of the last 40 years to move forward.

I just believe that, given the realities of the political situation of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, even without the Shuttle, the full potential of Apollo/AAP would not have been realized in that environment. Shuttle, for all its faults, seems to have been much better suited for an era where there was little political ambition for space exploration.

------------------
http://allthese worlds.hatbag.net/space.php
"America's challenge of today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow." - Commander Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 Mission, 11 December 1972

posted 09-30-2005 01:05 PM               

The issue of resupplying Skylab could have been solved with launching unmanned vehicles (similar to what is done with the ISS today). Or another solution would have been to develop a second generation Skylab, designed for a longer lifespan.

posted 10-03-2005 10:17 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KSCartist:
that there was no political or national support to maintain the Apollo/Saturn technology after Skylab and ASTP. I remember reading a magazine on a flight to Florida in 1972 about a mission to Mars by 1986-Congress and the White House killed that program and barely funded the shuttle
Tim

---

posted 10-03-2005 10:20 AM               

Is a permanent manned presence in LEO really that laudable a goal when it eats up our entire manned space program budget?

Cheers,
Matt

posted 10-03-2005 04:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
Is a permanent manned presence in LEO really that laudable a goal when it eats up our entire manned space program budget?

---

Having a multipurpose CEV that's suitable for both LEO and lunar missions should make it more affordable to continue supporting the station while working towards a return to the moon. All of the initial flights of the CEV will likely be ISS visits. Once the vehicle is fully tested in LEO and the lunar lander (and the HLV) are available, then lunar missions can begin.

It would seem that the cost of the development of the CEV and it's launch vehicle could almost be shared with private industry...since it's an ideal vehicle for private industry to use to travel into space as well. Or, at a minimum, the contractor who builds the CEV should be able to construct CEV for private industry if, by increasing the production of the vehicles, it will decrease the overall unit price of the CEV capsule (this saving NASA some money in the long haul).

posted 10-07-2005 11:09 PM               

In fact, I dare to venture that if we built a new STS type sytem(s) with the new knowledge and technology of today we could have a vehicle that would live up to expectations of 70's designers. Wouldn't that make the whole shuttle experience a success as opposed to a mistake ?

Sorry if my wording isn't perfect, but I couldn't let our aged shuttles get pummeled like this. Even after a long work week I had to make a point, even if it was an off the top of my head rambling

Oh yes, the ISS Orbit. Politics of an international program caused this. Not ideal for STS, but better for our Russian partners.

posted 10-08-2005 09:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Clemmons:
When we have men and women going to space, they need our support.
They deserve to come home alive. Their budget should not be cut, and if we can't support them, then we should call everything off until we can. Our Astronauts deserve better.
Over the past thirty five years, NASA has tried to live with the short funds that were appropriated without letting Congress know that these orbiters were not flightworthy. They let the Orbiters go to Space with major defects that we wouldn't tolerate in the planes we fly on every day.

---

I agree that manned spaceflight should be funded on an appropriate level to allow for the maximum safety of the astronauts. However, as you know, all manned spaceflight is intrinsically dangerous and "life threatening." We will never see a time when it is "commonplace" and safe to venture into space. Manned missions should be fully funded, but there will always be problems and hazards that must be overcome. And, of course, NASA should have corrected any problems with the insulation on the external tank before STS-107 and STS-114.

All of our manned missions so far have been "test flights" IMHO. All of the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and space shuttle missions were "tests" of our system of conquering space. They were a progression of man-rated vehicles with which we hoped to explore space. Even the six moon landings were aboard vehicles that will soon be replaced by better vehicles. And these vehicles only get us to our destination. Accomplishing something useful at the destination is another matter.

Perhaps the question is not "How safe can we make space travel?" The question may be "Is mankind ready for space travel?" We may not be ready. If there is no "passion" to venture into space at an appropriate level of funding, perhaps we are not ready to have a real space program. Low earth orbit is one matter, real spaceflight beyond LEO is another matter.

Russia's space program is entirely in LEO, so far. They have never even attempted a manned mission beyond LEO. Why is that? Perhaps they realized that the risks were too great compared with the benefits that they would receive by reaching the Moon. It is easy to say that they wanted to be "first" on the Moon. But after 36 years they have not attempted once to be the second country to reach the Moon. They know that it takes a great deal of research and experience in space before we will be ready to venture beyond Earth and establish a base on the Moon and eventually on Mars.

Administrator Griffin may have been correct. While the 114 shuttle missions were remarkable, they may have distracted us from our real goals in space.

posted 10-10-2005 02:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sy Liebergot:
... NASA's next big mistake was involving Russia and moving it into an orbital inclination of 51.6 deg. You see, one of our major forward planning features was to use the Station as a transportation node, i.e. construct upper stages on-orbit and head back to the Moon and on to Mars. We even planned a sample isolation module for Mars return samples. All that went away when we gave up on i=28.5 deg. and approx. 30% of payload lift capability. All this to save money. But then I rant.
Sy Liebergot
"Apollo EECOM: Journey of a Lifetime" www.apolloeecom.com

---

Sy,

A good point that somehow always escapes public discourse to date.

I wonder how much more the ISS cost taxpayers to build given the 30% payload penalty. I also wonder if given the payload penalty and the two year delay in the service module, would the ISS have been completed already?

An former CIO of mine used to say, success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.

------------------
Kind Regards

Douglas Henry

Enjoy yourself and have fun.... it is only a hobby!
http://home.earthlink.net/~aztecdoug/

posted 10-11-2005 08:32 PM               

Or was it a decision made based upon available information on what it might take to accomplish the lunar goal based upon assumptions made in advance in the place of known facts?

Did it seem like a mistake to order those Saturn V's in November 1968?

It is only with the benefit of hindsight, including a known outcome, that these assessments can reasonably be made.

That's what I think, anyway ...

posted 10-11-2005 11:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
Was it a mistake to order Saturn V rockets for Apollo 18, 19, and 20?

---

No, the mistake was in cancelling Apollo 18, 19, and 20. And most of the Apollo era guys didn't need hindsight in order to recognize it was a mistake.

posted 10-12-2005 03:40 AM               

The shuttle is undoubtedly the most sophisticated spacecraft in history, it looks good and it's even reusable. It's also amazingly expensive. It's NASA's F1 Ferrari, racing round and round the same track, cheered on by die-hard petrol heads.

Now it's time to grow up and buy a boring family car that gets us places.

Cheers,
Matt

posted 10-12-2005 09:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
Now it's time to grow up and buy a boring family car that gets us places.

---

posted 10-12-2005 05:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSpace86:
Agreed. As soon as the Space Station is completed the way it was intended to be finished, in a little over 20 flights, not 15 or 16 (however many they have planned now).
-Rodrigo

---

posted 10-12-2005 11:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott:

And then what will the ISS do?

---

Good question, lol.
-Rodrigo