I have some further thoughts on the ISS situation today over at Open Market.
66 thoughts on “NASA’s Costly Risk Aversion”
I’ve considered many a scenario w/ the FH. Including the Dragon mars lander that puts over 10mT on the martian surface for around $200m. Almost 40 person/yrs. of freeze dried food in one drop(10k kg/ 0.7kg.)
But back to your statement, FH is a rather late development in the Bigelow relationship so it really has nothing to do with the rest of your statement.
I wonder what that 72hp suitcase nuke power plants weighs? I’m thinking you could pack about a dozen of them in a Dragon?
Our first mars colony is not far off at all folks.
Oh, and who are you calling a darkie? You some kind of racist?
Matula,
Unllike you, I worked with many of the guys who testified to Congress post Columbia. These guys aren’t cowed, and none of them were punished. So you are talking from ignorance.
Now I go back to my other statement. If you think NASA was unfairly punished by Congress for Columbia, why now are you insisting they be punished for a problem with a Russian booster segment? The USOS segment of ISS, which is the part operated by NASA, is just fine. So why do you want to punish them? Further, why punish Europe and Japan? Is this more of your ignorance on the subject?
its clearly time for them to get out of HSF. Go back to just testing technology like in the NACA day
For once, Tom, you have a sensible idea.
Of course, some of us said NASA should do that years ago — and you called us imbeciles or worse, because we did not “support the President’s vision.”
Which, of course, you’ll now deny. Next week, no doubt, you will deny that you ever favored NACA-like technology development.
Unfortunately, it’s too late to convert NASA into an NACA-like organization. The time to consider such ideas was right after Columbia, when space policy was still being debated. At this point, the political establishment is already sod on the Bush Vision of Space Exploration, and we need to work within that framework.
Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of handwaving hypotheticals. NASA couldn’t deorbit ISS even if they wanted to. Congress wouldn’t let them, and even if Congress went along, ISS stands for international Space Station. The US can’t decide to deorbit it unilaterally.
Add to that the fact that NASA doesn’t have a plan for how to deorbit ISS. The original idea was to disassemble it at end of life and bring major pieces back using the Shuttle. That plan is now out the window. NASA has looked at other means of disposal but doesn’t have anything like an approved plan. It’s not as simple as you imagine.
Roskomos is now saying they’ve discovered the problem that caused the Progress loss.
They’re blaming it on a “chance” production fault.
Assuming that’s correct and there isn’t some contributing factor (like erosion of the Russian QA processes), it suggests the next Soyuz launch will be no riskier than past Soyuz launches. It also suggests that it will be no safer.
It would indeed by useful for someone like NASA to invest in NACA-type research into safety improvements, including reusable vehicles that can tolerate failures like the loss of engine power without a loss-of-vehicle accident.
By coincidence, Bobby Braun has an article in Space News this week about technology investment. Let’s see if Matula supports him or says something angry and foolish.
Any bets? 🙂
NASA doesn’t have a plan for how to deorbit ISS
That’s one of those things that pretty much takes care of itself, isn’t it?
The sky really is a fallin.’
Ken,
Originally Bigelow first habitat was supposed to be Sundancer, which was designed with Falcon 9 in mind. Now that he’s looking at Atlas V he upgraded to the BA330.
Also I was referring to the Dark Side of the force, or didn’t you catch the reference to Anakin Skywalker who started hanging out with the Emperor and ignoring the Jedi.
Leland,
So now you work at NASA? Its hard to know when folks hide their identity…
So you are saying they enjoyed testifying about the Columbia and looked forward to it with joy? That they viewed it as a “reward”, you know the opposite of “punishment”.
As for the ISS. The points still stands. If NASA is not willing to take risks with astronauts then its time for them to exit the human space exploration business. And this is a great time to do so, with the fault being Russia’s, before NASA burdens the commercial firms with their risk averse approach via a lot of rules and regulations for serving ISS.
Edward,
[[[Of course, some of us said NASA should do that years ago ]]]
No, what you were asking was not for NASA to go away to play with its robots, but instead to fund New Space schemes. Big Difference.
[[[The time to consider such ideas was right after Columbia, when space policy was still being debated. ]]]
That was a good time, but folks weren’t willing to do so then, with New Space pushing for NASA funding instead. Now, with the ending of Shuttle flights, shutting down of Constellation and the potential abandoning of the ISS you have a perfect time to discuss it. Unfortunately with COTS and CCDev NASA has basically bought off the New Space industry and SFF, so it won’t be.
ISS and Shuttle were always joined at the hip. The ISS justified the Shuttle and the Shuttle justified the ISS. The original plan indeed was to use the Shuttle to disassemble it, which is why it was suppose to keeping flying to 2015. But folks were in a rush to kill the Shuttle and so now you have another fine NASA mess because they had no plan B for deorbiting the ISS.
However if Russia decides its not able to support it, it actually becomes a moot point. The Earth is a big place and most of it is still empty despite the hand waving by environmentalists about it being overcrowded. Lots of places for the debris to strike.
As a side note, the Russians already have already talked about sinking it into the ocean in 2020.
[[[MOSCOW — A Russian space official said Wednesday that once the mammoth International Space Station is no longer needed it will be sent into the Pacific Ocean.
It’s a plan that’s long been in the works and is a step to avoid the station becoming dangerous space junk. It was supposed to plunge into the ocean as early as 2015. ]]]
Who knows, maybe Mr. Putin will have them move up the schedule so Russia is free to go BEO?
James Gentile also has one in the Huffington Post, with a much larger readership, discussing the importance of space innovations to the economy.
Innovations In Space Technology Are Still Key
Posted: 9/7/11 01:02 PM ET
No, what you were asking was not for NASA to go away to play with its robots,
You didn’t say you wanted NASA should “go away to play with its robots.” You said it should “go back to just testing technology like in the NACA days.”
So, now you’re denying what you said just yesterday?
Or do you not know what the NACA did? Maybe you think they just launched robot probes?
No, what you were asking… instead to fund New Space schemes. Big Difference.
I never asked NASA to “fund New Space schemes.” Repeating a lie constantly does not make it true.
There’s a big difference between “funding New Space schemes” and buying commercial services as required by the Launch Services Purchase Act.
Pretending you don’t understand the difference only makes you look stupid, Tom. Is that your goal? Do you thinking looking stupid will help you get tenure?
That was a good time, but folks weren’t willing to do so then, with New Space pushing for NASA funding instead.
Horse manure. I was not only willing, I said so publicly — and I was attacked by Tom Matula who wanted NASA funding for the Bush Vision/Constellation/Ares/whatever-you-call-it-this-week. And now you pretend you opposed it? Yeeesh.
Now, with the ending of Shuttle flights, shutting down of Constellation and the potential abandoning of the ISS you have a perfect time to discuss it.
If you spoke to any politicians, you would know better. I’ve spoken to more politicians in the last few months than you have in your entire life, so feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.
The Earth is a big place and most of it is still empty despite the hand waving by environmentalists about it being overcrowded. Lots of places for the debris to strike
The E-sub-c calculations disagree with you, Tom. People in the real world rely on math, not handwaving.
I was referring to…
Another service call? Where are ya on the list… Oh, here it is. Sense of humor, Matula… Hmmm… Seems to be a problem here. The Matula model was given a sense of humor but it didn’t take. We might have to recall that model. I’ll let ya know.
Edward,
[[[Or do you not know what the NACA did?]]]
Still lost in the 1960’s are you? You don’t seem to know how NASA develops technology today. In case you didn’t notice most of the new X-craft are robotic. The old days of NASA needing to risk a pilot to test new technology is as outdated as your ideas for “commercial” space development.
[[[I never asked NASA to “fund New Space schemes.”]]]
But you support the SFF schemes likes COTS and CCDev. COTS and CCDev are not “just” buying commercial services as you keep trying to spin it. NASA doesn’t pay the commercial aircraft industry to design and build commercial airliners so their employees are able to buy tickets on them. Both COTS and CCDev are simply new spacecraft development programs being disguised as “buying commercial services”.
BTW, last time I looked, Boeing, Lockheed, USA and ATK were ALL commercial firms, even more so then most New Space firms as you are able to buy their stocks and see their annual reports, so tell me again how New Space is “New Space”?
And now that CCDev will likely be NASA’s main spaceflight development program expect NASA to take a more active role in its “management”. Slowly but surely the “commercial” New Space firms will become NASA’s New Space Contractors…
Edward,
[[[If you spoke to any politicians, you would know better. I’ve spoken to more politicians in the last few months than you have in your entire life, so feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.]]]
Yes, and I expect they treat you the same way they treat all the space cadets that constantly pester them about NASA. They shake your hand, say they will read your material, then dump it in their circular file as soon as you are gone.
You don’t seem to know how NASA develops technology today.
Laugh.
Which of us is PI on a project that won an award for technology development?
Which of us is an Internet troll?
In case you didn’t notice most of the new X-craft are robotic.
Okay, you really don’t know what the NACA did.
The NACA did not build x-vehicles, Tom, with one exception. The NACA existed for 30 years before it did the X-1, which was a joint Air Force project the NACA entered into reluctantly.
What the NACA did for most of its history was fundamental aviation research and testing. It developed technologies like the NACA cowling and the NACA airfoils.
The NACA’s job was not to build airplanes but to enable other people to build airplanes. Even the F-22 still uses NACA-series airfoils.
Yes, and I expect they treat you the same way they treat all the space cadets that constantly pester them about NASA.
Let’s see, Tom. One Congressman walked out on meeting with Karl Rove to have breakfast with me.
Are space cadets like you treated the same way?
No, wait. You don’t talk to Congressmen about your ideas at all. All you do is insult people and post incoherent ramblings on the Internet.
Then you get angry and upset because your International Lunar Development Corporation still isn’t funded.
Is this your idea of rational behavior?
Edward,
[[[Which of us is PI on a project that won an award for technology development?]]]
Gee, so now even you are personally addicted to NASA money. Yep, NASA has really bought off the New Space crowd and turned them into New Space Contractors…
[[[ One Congressman walked out on meeting with Karl Rove to have breakfast with me. ]]]
And now you are having delusions…
[[[Then you get angry and upset because your International Lunar Development Corporation still isn’t funded. ]]]
Its not my ILDC as you keep lying about. Some folks came to me and asked how the Moon could be economically developed. I told them based on what has worked on the past. I am helping them develop the idea, but unlike you, I don’t need to push it. As Robert Heinlein stated, when the time is right folks build railroads. When the time is right ILDC will be created and will enable lunar economic development. Meanwhile in the interim Hawaii is taking the first step in building the foundation for it. But you will learn about that in due time 🙂
I’ve considered many a scenario w/ the FH. Including the Dragon mars lander that puts over 10mT on the martian surface for around $200m. Almost 40 person/yrs. of freeze dried food in one drop(10k kg/ 0.7kg.)
But back to your statement, FH is a rather late development in the Bigelow relationship so it really has nothing to do with the rest of your statement.
I wonder what that 72hp suitcase nuke power plants weighs? I’m thinking you could pack about a dozen of them in a Dragon?
Our first mars colony is not far off at all folks.
Oh, and who are you calling a darkie? You some kind of racist?
Matula,
Unllike you, I worked with many of the guys who testified to Congress post Columbia. These guys aren’t cowed, and none of them were punished. So you are talking from ignorance.
Now I go back to my other statement. If you think NASA was unfairly punished by Congress for Columbia, why now are you insisting they be punished for a problem with a Russian booster segment? The USOS segment of ISS, which is the part operated by NASA, is just fine. So why do you want to punish them? Further, why punish Europe and Japan? Is this more of your ignorance on the subject?
its clearly time for them to get out of HSF. Go back to just testing technology like in the NACA day
For once, Tom, you have a sensible idea.
Of course, some of us said NASA should do that years ago — and you called us imbeciles or worse, because we did not “support the President’s vision.”
Which, of course, you’ll now deny. Next week, no doubt, you will deny that you ever favored NACA-like technology development.
Unfortunately, it’s too late to convert NASA into an NACA-like organization. The time to consider such ideas was right after Columbia, when space policy was still being debated. At this point, the political establishment is already sod on the Bush Vision of Space Exploration, and we need to work within that framework.
Politics is the art of the possible, not the art of handwaving hypotheticals. NASA couldn’t deorbit ISS even if they wanted to. Congress wouldn’t let them, and even if Congress went along, ISS stands for international Space Station. The US can’t decide to deorbit it unilaterally.
Add to that the fact that NASA doesn’t have a plan for how to deorbit ISS. The original idea was to disassemble it at end of life and bring major pieces back using the Shuttle. That plan is now out the window. NASA has looked at other means of disposal but doesn’t have anything like an approved plan. It’s not as simple as you imagine.
Roskomos is now saying they’ve discovered the problem that caused the Progress loss.
They’re blaming it on a “chance” production fault.
Assuming that’s correct and there isn’t some contributing factor (like erosion of the Russian QA processes), it suggests the next Soyuz launch will be no riskier than past Soyuz launches. It also suggests that it will be no safer.
It would indeed by useful for someone like NASA to invest in NACA-type research into safety improvements, including reusable vehicles that can tolerate failures like the loss of engine power without a loss-of-vehicle accident.
By coincidence, Bobby Braun has an article in Space News this week about technology investment. Let’s see if Matula supports him or says something angry and foolish.
Any bets? 🙂
NASA doesn’t have a plan for how to deorbit ISS
That’s one of those things that pretty much takes care of itself, isn’t it?
The sky really is a fallin.’
Ken,
Originally Bigelow first habitat was supposed to be Sundancer, which was designed with Falcon 9 in mind. Now that he’s looking at Atlas V he upgraded to the BA330.
Also I was referring to the Dark Side of the force, or didn’t you catch the reference to Anakin Skywalker who started hanging out with the Emperor and ignoring the Jedi.
Leland,
So now you work at NASA? Its hard to know when folks hide their identity…
So you are saying they enjoyed testifying about the Columbia and looked forward to it with joy? That they viewed it as a “reward”, you know the opposite of “punishment”.
As for the ISS. The points still stands. If NASA is not willing to take risks with astronauts then its time for them to exit the human space exploration business. And this is a great time to do so, with the fault being Russia’s, before NASA burdens the commercial firms with their risk averse approach via a lot of rules and regulations for serving ISS.
Edward,
[[[Of course, some of us said NASA should do that years ago ]]]
No, what you were asking was not for NASA to go away to play with its robots, but instead to fund New Space schemes. Big Difference.
[[[The time to consider such ideas was right after Columbia, when space policy was still being debated. ]]]
That was a good time, but folks weren’t willing to do so then, with New Space pushing for NASA funding instead. Now, with the ending of Shuttle flights, shutting down of Constellation and the potential abandoning of the ISS you have a perfect time to discuss it. Unfortunately with COTS and CCDev NASA has basically bought off the New Space industry and SFF, so it won’t be.
ISS and Shuttle were always joined at the hip. The ISS justified the Shuttle and the Shuttle justified the ISS. The original plan indeed was to use the Shuttle to disassemble it, which is why it was suppose to keeping flying to 2015. But folks were in a rush to kill the Shuttle and so now you have another fine NASA mess because they had no plan B for deorbiting the ISS.
However if Russia decides its not able to support it, it actually becomes a moot point. The Earth is a big place and most of it is still empty despite the hand waving by environmentalists about it being overcrowded. Lots of places for the debris to strike.
As a side note, the Russians already have already talked about sinking it into the ocean in 2020.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/international-space-station-2020_n_911361.html
[[[MOSCOW — A Russian space official said Wednesday that once the mammoth International Space Station is no longer needed it will be sent into the Pacific Ocean.
It’s a plan that’s long been in the works and is a step to avoid the station becoming dangerous space junk. It was supposed to plunge into the ocean as early as 2015. ]]]
Who knows, maybe Mr. Putin will have them move up the schedule so Russia is free to go BEO?
James Gentile also has one in the Huffington Post, with a much larger readership, discussing the importance of space innovations to the economy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-m-gentile/innovations-in-space-tech_b_950212.html
James M. Gentile
Innovations In Space Technology Are Still Key
Posted: 9/7/11 01:02 PM ET
No, what you were asking was not for NASA to go away to play with its robots,
You didn’t say you wanted NASA should “go away to play with its robots.” You said it should “go back to just testing technology like in the NACA days.”
So, now you’re denying what you said just yesterday?
Or do you not know what the NACA did? Maybe you think they just launched robot probes?
No, what you were asking… instead to fund New Space schemes. Big Difference.
I never asked NASA to “fund New Space schemes.” Repeating a lie constantly does not make it true.
There’s a big difference between “funding New Space schemes” and buying commercial services as required by the Launch Services Purchase Act.
Pretending you don’t understand the difference only makes you look stupid, Tom. Is that your goal? Do you thinking looking stupid will help you get tenure?
That was a good time, but folks weren’t willing to do so then, with New Space pushing for NASA funding instead.
Horse manure. I was not only willing, I said so publicly — and I was attacked by Tom Matula who wanted NASA funding for the Bush Vision/Constellation/Ares/whatever-you-call-it-this-week. And now you pretend you opposed it? Yeeesh.
Now, with the ending of Shuttle flights, shutting down of Constellation and the potential abandoning of the ISS you have a perfect time to discuss it.
If you spoke to any politicians, you would know better. I’ve spoken to more politicians in the last few months than you have in your entire life, so feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.
The Earth is a big place and most of it is still empty despite the hand waving by environmentalists about it being overcrowded. Lots of places for the debris to strike
The E-sub-c calculations disagree with you, Tom. People in the real world rely on math, not handwaving.
I was referring to…
Another service call? Where are ya on the list… Oh, here it is. Sense of humor, Matula… Hmmm… Seems to be a problem here. The Matula model was given a sense of humor but it didn’t take. We might have to recall that model. I’ll let ya know.
Edward,
[[[Or do you not know what the NACA did?]]]
Still lost in the 1960’s are you? You don’t seem to know how NASA develops technology today. In case you didn’t notice most of the new X-craft are robotic. The old days of NASA needing to risk a pilot to test new technology is as outdated as your ideas for “commercial” space development.
[[[I never asked NASA to “fund New Space schemes.”]]]
But you support the SFF schemes likes COTS and CCDev. COTS and CCDev are not “just” buying commercial services as you keep trying to spin it. NASA doesn’t pay the commercial aircraft industry to design and build commercial airliners so their employees are able to buy tickets on them. Both COTS and CCDev are simply new spacecraft development programs being disguised as “buying commercial services”.
BTW, last time I looked, Boeing, Lockheed, USA and ATK were ALL commercial firms, even more so then most New Space firms as you are able to buy their stocks and see their annual reports, so tell me again how New Space is “New Space”?
And now that CCDev will likely be NASA’s main spaceflight development program expect NASA to take a more active role in its “management”. Slowly but surely the “commercial” New Space firms will become NASA’s New Space Contractors…
Edward,
[[[If you spoke to any politicians, you would know better. I’ve spoken to more politicians in the last few months than you have in your entire life, so feel free to continue making a fool of yourself.]]]
Yes, and I expect they treat you the same way they treat all the space cadets that constantly pester them about NASA. They shake your hand, say they will read your material, then dump it in their circular file as soon as you are gone.
You don’t seem to know how NASA develops technology today.
Laugh.
Which of us is PI on a project that won an award for technology development?
Which of us is an Internet troll?
In case you didn’t notice most of the new X-craft are robotic.
Okay, you really don’t know what the NACA did.
The NACA did not build x-vehicles, Tom, with one exception. The NACA existed for 30 years before it did the X-1, which was a joint Air Force project the NACA entered into reluctantly.
What the NACA did for most of its history was fundamental aviation research and testing. It developed technologies like the NACA cowling and the NACA airfoils.
The NACA’s job was not to build airplanes but to enable other people to build airplanes. Even the F-22 still uses NACA-series airfoils.
Yes, and I expect they treat you the same way they treat all the space cadets that constantly pester them about NASA.
Let’s see, Tom. One Congressman walked out on meeting with Karl Rove to have breakfast with me.
Are space cadets like you treated the same way?
No, wait. You don’t talk to Congressmen about your ideas at all. All you do is insult people and post incoherent ramblings on the Internet.
Then you get angry and upset because your International Lunar Development Corporation still isn’t funded.
Is this your idea of rational behavior?
Edward,
[[[Which of us is PI on a project that won an award for technology development?]]]
Gee, so now even you are personally addicted to NASA money. Yep, NASA has really bought off the New Space crowd and turned them into New Space Contractors…
[[[ One Congressman walked out on meeting with Karl Rove to have breakfast with me. ]]]
And now you are having delusions…
[[[Then you get angry and upset because your International Lunar Development Corporation still isn’t funded. ]]]
Its not my ILDC as you keep lying about. Some folks came to me and asked how the Moon could be economically developed. I told them based on what has worked on the past. I am helping them develop the idea, but unlike you, I don’t need to push it. As Robert Heinlein stated, when the time is right folks build railroads. When the time is right ILDC will be created and will enable lunar economic development. Meanwhile in the interim Hawaii is taking the first step in building the foundation for it. But you will learn about that in due time 🙂