|
Author
|
Topic: Jim Lovell: ISS as "almost white elephant"
|
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 07-20-2009 06:55 PM
   
I heard a quality on the radio this evening and had to search around for the context: "The International Space Station, which has cost $100 billion, is "almost a white elephant," said Jim Lovell, who flew on both Apollo 8 and Apollo 13, according to the Washington Post."Until we can really get a return on our investment on that particular project, then it was money wasted," Reuters quoted him as saying." It's nice to hear a person who on the inside of the space program finally state the obvious. |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 07-20-2009 08:50 PM
I kept hearing him call it a "white elephant" as well. The ISS is not complete yet, so yes, it is not giving back anything. I don't think NASA or any of the partners are probably really happy with what Jim Lovell said. I personally think that is a lack of support and faith on the program on his part. Give it time, the ISS will prove it was a worthy investment. It took a while for the Space Shuttle to be accepted (heck, some people still think the Space Shuttle is the "white elephant" as well). |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-20-2009 10:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
It's nice to hear a person who on the inside of the space program finally state the obvious.
I was at the event this morning where Lovell made his remarks, and I have heard him speak about the ISS in the past. I believe his "almost white elephant" remark is being misunderstood.I believe Lovell was advocating further utilization of the ISS, not deriding it as useless. His full quote: "As Buzz says, there is a lot you could do with the International Space Station because we spent a lot of money getting it up there for almost nothing. It is almost a white elephant and until we can really get a return on our investment of that particular project, then it was money wasted." Lovell's comments were framed by a question: what should be the nation's priorities in space? He spoke favorably for an international push to Mars but I believe his perceived criticism of the ISS was misplaced by the media. As he and other astronauts on the panel said in the past and again today, they felt we should continue work on the station so that we can see that final return on our investment. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 07-21-2009 07:55 AM
I don't think it is possible to get a worthwhile return on 100 billion dollars spent on the ISS, especially when you factor in the cost of all the shuttle missions required to keep it going and building it.The quotes from Mr. Lovell and others give the impression that the ISS is not held in high regard by the old class of astronauts. Money, time and lives wasted to orbit the earth like we were doing 30, 40 and nearly 50 years ago all while flying a 25 year old space vehicle that is problematic and never lived up to it's hype. I think Mr. Lovell's quote was near perfect. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 07-21-2009 09:55 AM
I'll take a "White Elephant" over no program at all. At least we're still in the game.Has our space program been navigating with a jammed rudder for quite some time? Probably. Part of it is because any long-range plans we set as a nation never last more than 8 years or a change of Presidential administration (whichever comes first), and part of it is due to the fact that we (as a society) are not willing to spend the money required for a first-class program. Too many competing interests and not enough perceived political return or instant gratification. And NASA has evolved from a start-up "can-do" agency into an unwieldy bureaucracy worthy of any other in Washington. I respect Jim Lovell and his comments, but considering the realistic alternatives, as a taxpayer and citizen I consider myself the proud part-owner of an elephant! (Now where did I put that shovel?)  |
AstroAutos
Member Posts: 803
From: Co. Monaghan, Republic of Ireland
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 07-21-2009 10:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
I don't think it is possible to get a worthwhile return on 100 billion dollars spent on the ISS, especially when you factor in the cost of all the shuttle missions required to keep it going and building it.
I wouldn't completely agree - part of the purpose of the ISS is for humans to get used to long-stay voyages living and working in space and so there would be no point in returning to the Moon & building moonbases if the astronauts weren't properly trained and prepared to spend months at a time working on the moon.The ISS is therefore a huge step towards humans building moonbases and also for a long-haul voyage to Mars. I too respect Jim Lovell's comments, but the ISS is far from a waste of money. |
eurospace
Member Posts: 2610
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Dec 2000
|
posted 07-21-2009 02:02 PM
Let's not forget when listening to those old pilots (and Lovell, as a person, is a wonderful chap) that they are - pilots.They love to go places, but when being there, they don't really know what to do - other than to fly back. That was already the problem with the Apollo program where the pilot-astronauts were very reticent to accept to do science when on the Moon. It was very hard to finally get a scientist to the Moon - and only on the last mission. In other words: let these pilots fly the shuttle to the station and back. And let's please other people decide or judge what happens once we're on the station - and the station is about staying in space, at least for a while. There is enough to discuss about the value of the ISS without taking into account the view of - pilots. You don't discuss the value of a doctor's treatment by listening to your taxi driver. Or at least you shouldn't. |
kosmonavtka
Member Posts: 170
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 07-21-2009 07:53 PM
International co-operation in building the ISS (as well as the actual construction process) has been useful experience, if nothing else! |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 07-22-2009 06:45 AM
I respect Mr Lovell as he is a personal hero of mine. But it was disappointing to hear him publicly call the ISS a "white elephant". In all fairness, he should have shown his scorn for the previous US administrations, Congresspersons and Senators who stranded NASA in LEO. Everyone who cares passionately about human spaceflight should be supporting the ISS. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 07-22-2009 11:16 AM
I don't think NASA needed to be stuck in LEO for the last 30 years.The ISS and Shuttle have been mishandled from day 1. This is NASA's fault 100%. Politicians will always want to give you less while they take more from the taxpayers. NASA should have been more creative with their planning than getting the US stuck with ISS. For 25 years or more they have had no real plan or goals for the manned spaceflight program. The result is the built by committee ISS. |
spacebrane
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 07-22-2009 07:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
The ISS and Shuttle have been mishandled from day 1.
Well, yes and no. Yes, the Shuttle was (is) a disappointment. If it had turned out the way it was originally conceived, it would be a terrific space vehicle. But, that's water under the bridge.However, the ISS is an incredibly exciting space adventure. Through collaboration with numerous countries (something alien to the 1960s-1970s space program), humans have constructed the largest and most complex space habitat ever attempted. Crews of 6 people (male and female--again, inconceivable to the 1960s-70s space mindset), living for 6 months or more in space, gathering knowledge to prepare for long-duration missions to Moon and Mars -- this is seen as a "white elephant"? (BTW, Lovell's comments have been taken out of context). After enthusiasm for the space program from Mercury through Skylab, I found the years from 1975 to 1998 a bore; that changed with the launch of Zarya in 1998. We finally returned to von Braun's original vision for space exploration, which envisioned a space station even before trips to the Moon. Heck, even Pete Conrad said his time on Skylab was far more fun and valuable than his Apollo 12 Moon landing. We're finally living in exciting times again for human spaceflight, with the ISS and Constellation. Let's keep going!  |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 07-22-2009 08:39 PM
Hindsight is 20/20. Almost every venture we undertake in life has some risk and uncertainty associated with it. Had we discovered a great breakthrough on the ISS, we'd all be praising NASA. Although we haven't made that breakthrough (yet), the spin offs alone have been worth the effort and cost. And yes I'd also like to see us on Mars but I'm also a glass half full person. Go back and read Robert's post explaining what Mr. Lovell meant by his comment and you might see this a bit differently. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1587
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 08-25-2009 12:50 PM
I agree with Mr. Lovell 100% The money would have been better used perhaps on a smaller station (maybe even man-tended as Max Faget suggested) with the rest being used on Moon/Mars exploration. The ISS doesn't excite the average person-on-the-street. Since the decision on the ISS was partially based on political motives, what should we have expected? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-25-2009 01:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
The ISS doesn't excite the average person-on-the-street.
After Apollo 11, the moon landings didn't excite the average person-on-the-street. Maybe we should have canceled Apollo 12 through Apollo 17 to go do something we hadn't done before... And for the record, Capt. Lovell didn't say that the money spent on the ISS was a waste or should have been directed elsewhere; he said that abandoning the ISS before we saw a return on our investment would make it "almost a white elephant". |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 08-25-2009 06:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
... After Apollo 11, the moon landings didn't excite the average person-on-the-street. Maybe we should have canceled Apollo 12 through Apollo 17 to go do something we hadn't done before...
I think it is a bit short sighted to equate public interest in the Apollo program via television, etc, with the impact the Apollo program had on an entire generation of young people. Just because networks didn't carry the broadcasts doesn't mean kids weren't paying attention.There were many, many youngsters (myself included) who became interested in math and science and dreamed of a future where we could launch on a rocket into space. Most of those kids did not go on to become astronauts, but many of them (including me) went on to receive degrees in science and engineering and to contribute in those fields. While ISS has a great deal of value as a pure science platform, I doubt that it generates the excitement in the kids today that the Apollo program did in the kids of yesterday. As I understand it, of the 5 options being forwarded to the President, 2 have the ISS retiring in 2016 and 3 have ISS retiring in 2020. 7-10 years is a long time, so who knows what plans could change by then. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-25-2009 06:37 PM
Over 500,000 kids have attended Space Camp having only had the space shuttle (and later space station) to inspire them. This site exists because a young boy became excited every time he saw the space shuttle launch. Minimizing the impact that the shuttle and station have had and continues to have on today's worldwide youth is at least as short-sighted as marginalizing the impact the moon landings had on a prior generation. I know it can be difficult for those who lived through Apollo to see the shuttle and ISS as exciting but for those who grew up with it, the shuttle and station are our spacecraft and for many of my peers, they remain as interesting as any of the past moon missions. |
StarDome
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-25-2009 06:46 PM
It must be great to live in the USA and have a space program that inspires people.However, we are meant to be trying to inspire the whole of the worlds youth? Not just that in the USA? Apollo for sure did it for a lot of us worldwide. Many people like Robert and most of us on cS were inspired and still are, but you try talking to the youth of today especially in Europe and they are no way as enthusiastic about the future of space and the ISS as we were on here still are. For them it's not accessible, real or something to be inspired by. Most would say their role models are soccer players, tennis players, actors etc people of that ilk and not engineers, scientists, astronauts. The Apollo era inspired, motivated and brought people together in a way that some people feel the shuttle or ISS never will or could. For us though in our community, ISS and the Shuttle do remain an inspiration, and it's up to us to try and inspire the next generations that come along no matter what program is in place. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-25-2009 07:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by StarDome:
It must be great to live in the USA and have a space program that inspires people.
Doesn't it stand to reason then that Apollo wasn't as effective in Europe given the lackluster public support for ESA's activities within its 18 member states?Anecdotal evidence aside, all public polls taken at the time of Apollo show support levels were about the same as they were today, in the U.S. and around the world. As with most positive events in human history, we have a tendency to view them with rose colored glasses, which taints our ability to accurately compare with them the events that follow. I would put forth that public support for post-Apollo 11 lunar missions was on par with support for today's International Space Station expeditions, and while I would love for every flight to inspire an "Eagle has landed" response, that expectation is unrealistic and more importantly, detrimental to the long term presence of humans in space. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 08-25-2009 07:43 PM
Moon landings were inspirational I believe to many people other than politicians who wanted the money.The shuttle is a 30 year old yawn and the ISS defies understanding. If NASA does not do something with Constellation very soon, Americans will not even bother to support a manned program.
|
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1587
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 08-25-2009 10:57 PM
I did not mean to imply that the ISS does not do meaningful work. I just think it became a bloated federal project once the politicians made science decisions. I teach a class on the space program and when my students are exposed to it, they are very enthusiastic. The Shuttle is an amazing spacecraft, a testimony to American engineering but flying out of earth orbit is definitely more exciting to people |
StarDome
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-26-2009 01:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Doesn't it stand to reason then that Apollo wasn't as effective in Europe given the lackluster public support for ESA's activities within its 18 member states?
Apollo was effective in Europe, it inspired that generation of people and it has little to do with the support of ESA from its member states now as ESA, "as is" did not come into being until 1975 and only had 10 member states then. quote:
I would put forth that public support for post-Apollo 11 lunar missions was on par with support for today's International Space Station expeditions
In the USA maybe, isn't it said that 1 in 5 Americans doesn’t even believe that NASA took astronauts to the moon? That’s a fair few million people. I'd like to see the polls you suggested, especially that’s how support levels in Europe, which show the same levels of public support now as back then, what was the sample size, what were the questions asked, by whom and statistically how was that data analysed? After spending billions on the ISS, does it not seem a shame that it shouldn't be utilised for as long as it can be; given the billions of dollars it has cost to assemble. Let's hope that Ares et al inspires people as much as the other programs do, because it will be a shame if it doesn't, and let's see what the response is to a fast growing Chinese space program? Will there be another space race I wonder... maybe that’s what we need. |
teopze
Member Posts: 180
From: Warsaw, Poland
Registered: May 2008
|
posted 08-26-2009 03:51 AM
I always was a big fan of STS/ISS program but recently I tend to think of it as a 'white elephant', but a cute one  I would still keep it in orbit, possibly for as long as possible. It's still is a high-tech piece of technology that can be utilized in many many ways. One of my main arguments would be all the possible scientific breakthroughs (I'm not sure about it though...) but more importantly it's a motivation for private (space business, finally) companies to develop simple and effective means of LEO transportation (SpaceX, etc.). I think that this will eventually be main legacy of ISS. I thinks ISS will not provide expected scientific results, never ever. It will provide a lot of data etc, but nothing that will even remotely justify its cost (at least an average Joe/politician will never see it this way, I hope I'm wrong). I agree with StarDome. A space race is exactly what we now need. Competition was/is/will always be stimulating and will translate to innovations and fast-pace progress. ISS is a long term project and as such, at least to my mind, it is/was doomed from day one, especially considering all the delays and unfortunate deaths. Long term projects have to be divided in small steps, each more and more exciting than the previous one. Public opinion will never be satisfied with steady progress (such as adding new modules, blah, blah, blah). People always want more, MUCH more. Come on... even the Apollo project became ...boring from the public/media point of view... Competition is what we need, absolutely. This is the only way to attract attention, political support and KEEP people interested. Consider what comes next as a joke but... I would even suggest going as far as introducing a "drama" factor. Just play 'a terrible scenario' from time to time. Simple people like drama... use it, exploit it. |
albatron
Member Posts: 2732
From: Stuart, Florida
Registered: Jun 2000
|
posted 08-26-2009 02:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
After Apollo 11, the moon landings didn't excite the average person-on-the-street.
Having been around during that era, I have to say I don't believe this for a minute. The media may not have been excited about it, but the buzz (pardon the pun) was still worldwide. In fact, I believe the UK was as excited, if not more so, than us.However that's not the point about the ISS. As Rob pointed out, Capt. Lovell's statement was taken out of context. He has a point and a very valid one. It is NOT being utilized as well as it could be. Space and all things space always have been and always will be political animals. As long as politics runs it instead of science, we will tread water a long time. In the meantime, there has been - in spite of underfunding - under interest unless it's politically expedient yada yada yada, some tremendous science. Medicine in Zero-G, effects of Cerebral Palsy research, there's so much more. Long duration spaceflight knowledge, learning, etc. The current enemy regarding the ISS science, is the reporting of it. NASA is it's own worst enemy when it comes to garnering public support. Not just for the ISS. Them ol boys and gals that've been up there, are up there and will be up there, they done good. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 08-26-2009 10:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Minimizing the impact that the shuttle and station have had and continues to have on today's worldwide youth is at least as short-sighted as marginalizing the impact the moon landings had on a prior generation.
Perhaps my point was not clear. You said that the average person on the street was not excited about the post-Apollo 11 moon landings, so perhaps we should have canceled them. My point was that just because the media doesn't cover it does not mean people (in this case, kids) are not inspired. I still believe that Apollo missions leaving the earth to land on another heavenly body are more inspirational than shuttle missions flying in circles around the planet. Your mileage may vary. Regardless, the topic of the thread is Jim Lovell's assertion that the ISS will be a white elephant if it is decommissioned before its full value has been realized. For the amount of money spent on the ISS, I think that assertion is certain to be correct. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 08-27-2009 09:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by albatron:
The current enemy regarding the ISS science, is the reporting of it.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that science is a poor motivator for public support. I wish that was different and I don't think the answer is to shy away from my science coverage, but the general public seems to react more favorably to pretty pictures then they do scientific results (case in point, as popular as the Hubble Space Telescope is, most people only remember the colorful images and not the reasons why those photos are important to our understanding of the universe).But I digress; on the subject of space station science, we are just now reaching the transition point from assembly to science operations. STS-128 will deliver two racks devoted to materials and fluid science, and bring back many experiment samples. MSNBC's Alan Boyle writes on this subject in his recent Cosmic Log entry, Space station science revs up. While I feel that the ISS was a worthwhile project for what it taught us about solving engineering problems in orbit, as well working together with international partners, I think over the next few years, the outpost will gain the science platform reputation it was originally promoted to be. quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
My point was that just because the media doesn't cover it does not mean people (in this case, kids) are not inspired.
Ironically (or maybe appropriately), the same statement could be applied to the International Space Station today. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 08-27-2009 01:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by teopze:
ISS is a long term project and as such, at least to my mind, it is/was doomed from day one,
I think in my opinion the question that should have been asked 25 years ago was - is the decision that was made for the ISS and US involvement made to be involved in a long term project or made because there was nothing else to be involved in.That's pivotal. The ISS could be left to operate and build to those who are satisfied with low earth orbit. The US should be (and should have been) striving for more. The Shuttle costs to ferry and build the ISS should have all been billable to cover the costs and the NASA budget should have been used to reach for something greater. That would have been a win for our partners (except they would have had to actually cover the real costs of the ISS) and it would have freed the US to maintain the lead and expand manned space exploration. quote:
Competition is what we need, absolutely. This is the only way to attract attention, political support and KEEP people interested.
In the current political climate, I fear if there was real competition with Russia or China the US would concede. |
StarDome
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 08-28-2009 11:30 AM
That's certainly something that the US administration and NASA have been thinking and worrying about for a while I am sure. I spoke to Jeff Hoffman about that and he commented about the Chinese forging ahead. It even seems now that ESA are planning to buy a "Soyuz" capsule a year from the Russians to launch their own astronauts to ISS. They have apparently inquired about the possibility of the Russians increasing production from 4 to 5 Soyuz per year. As they realise the hiatus there will be once the shuttle finally retires. |
advertisement