MSL and Apollo 12/Surveyor III slide shows

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,560
Reaction score
1,748
Favorite MSL images thus far slide show (70 images):

https://www.flickr.com//photos/69114620@N05/sets/72157646706035607/show/

To show how very far we've come with robotic landers, here's one of my favorite Apollo missions, a favorite because it landed next to a robotic lander, Surveyor III. Hopefully, we'll do the same with the Vikings, Soviet Mars 3, Pathfinder, MERs, Phoenix Lander, the MSL, and some of the ones that crash landed some day:

Apollo 12 with Surveyor III images slide show (30 images):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/69114620@N05/sets/72157646710329700/show/
 
Awesome-thanks for posting! The Mars pics still leave me stunned. Here are pictures form ANOTHER PLANET, for cripes sake! I find it kinda spooky to realize there are NO living souls on that planet (and if we don't get our **** together-there never will be!). Also still amazed at the effort that went into landing next to one of our exploratory craft in that whole vastness. Dang, I wish it the hayday of exploration again!
 
Man. I forgot about that. Thanks for posting. I was busy keeping my C 141A flying during Apollo 12's flight and counting the days to my early discharge.
 
Awesome-thanks for posting! The Mars pics still leave me stunned. Here are pictures form ANOTHER PLANET, for cripes sake! I find it kinda spooky to realize there are NO living souls on that planet (and if we don't get our **** together-there never will be!). Also still amazed at the effort that went into landing next to one of our exploratory craft in that whole vastness. Dang, I wish it the hayday of exploration again!
That's what gets me, too. That's ANOTHER PLANET with images so highly detailed that you could be standing there yourself! That's why I'm such a fan of robotic exploration, besides the fact that it has a higher science/cost ratio and risks no lives. Can you just imagine what it would be like to have a decent rover on Titan, what the hi-res images from THAT would be like? Even the lo-res images from Huygens were an amazing peek:

https://tinyurl.com/nywpk23 (Google image search URL)
 
these were great!! thanks for sharing!! Loved the Apollo 12 pictures....just amazing!
Comparing Surveyor's crude TV images of the moon with the MSL images shows how so very far we've come. But that Apollo 12 mission was one of my favs because of the landing next to the Surveyor. Besides the moon landing itself, the precision of the landing using what is now considered CRUDE technology, computers that weren't even as powerful as a modern digital watch, is amazing.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3

Interesting excerpts:

Surveyor 3 was the third lander of the American unmanned Surveyor program sent to explore the surface of the Moon. Launched on April 17, 1967, Surveyor 3 landed on April 20, 1967, at the Mare Cognitum portion of the Oceanus Procellarum (S3º 01' 41.43" W23º 27' 29.55") . It transmitted a total of 6,315 TV images to the Earth.

As Surveyor 3 was landing (in a crater, as it turned out), highly reflective rocks confused the spacecraft's lunar descent radar. The engines failed to cut off at 14 feet (4.3 meters) in altitude as called for in the mission plans, and this delay caused the lander to bounce on the lunar surface twice. Its first bounce reached the altitude of about 35 feet (10 meters). The second bounce reached a height of about 11 feet (three meters). On the third impact with the surface—from the initial altitude of three meters, and velocity of zero, which was below the planned altitude of 14 feet (4.3 meters), and very slowly descending —Surveyor 3 settled down to a soft landing as intended.

This Surveyor mission was the first one that carried a surface-soil sampling-scoop, which can be seen on its extendable arm in the pictures.

----------

I don't think the bounce points were photographed by the Apollo 12 crew. At least I can't find photos of that. Also, there's virtually nothing that I can find on-line of the 6,315 TV images sent by Surveyor III or the many thousands more sent by the other Surveyors. If anyone knows of any on-line sources for Apollo 12 Surveyor bounce point photos or those Surveyor TV images, please let me know.
 
That's what gets me, too. That's ANOTHER PLANET with images so highly detailed that you could be standing there yourself! That's why I'm such a fan of robotic exploration, besides the fact that it has a higher science/cost ratio and risks no lives. Can you just imagine what it would be like to have a decent rover on Titan, what the hi-res images from THAT would be like? Even the lo-res images from Huygens were an amazing peek:

https://tinyurl.com/nywpk23 (Google image search URL)

Exactly... and why I'm INCREASINGLY OPPOSED to "manned exploration"...

In the 60's, it was the ONLY way to achieve certain things... computers and robotics were absolutely in their infancy... most of the capabilities we have today were unthinkable then...

Thing is, technology has caught up, and costs for manned systems have gone up exponentially... plus our tolerance of "risk" is SO much lower today than back then, that it increases the costs further by an order of magnitude... Then when you couple in the additional costs of development required and the unending "slow burn" of manned development projects, due to their enormous costs having to be spread out over time due to insufficient funding and development problems with increasingly complicated and "safer" designs, all that compounds to make manned exploration a COLOSSAL waste of money... Look at Ares I/V/Orion development under the Constellation program... Constellation WASTED over $9 BILLION bucks and 6 years on a worthless, underperforming rocket that was ultimately cancelled, and caused a lot of problems and costs in Orion, which still has considerable issues and is a mere shadow of its original capabilities... Then the whole thing was cancelled. It's been said that SLS is going to cost around $40 BILLION bucks to build, and that with the already existing SSME's and five-segment SRB's paid for under Constellation largely, for use as first stages on Ares I. Plus, the SLS they're building won't even be capable of doing the missions they're proposing-- it will require an advanced booster development AND an all-new upper stage, plus an in-space propulsion stage development to even be capable of doing what they want... Nevermind that NO real missions have been approved or budgeted for SLS/Orion to do... and a rocket without payloads is a lawn-ornament...

If we had just a FRACTION of the money being poured down ratholes for HLV's that will probably end up canceled before ever flying, or won't fly for decades, we could have FLEETS of rovers and probes all over the solar system... There were plans for Titan probes, Titan boats, Titan balloons, maybe even rovers (though more categorization of the surface is really needed first) but ALL of that has fallen under the budget ax as more and more funding is siphoned off from the REAL exploration in the unmanned arena to be poured down bottomless ratholes in the manned program developments like SLS. Remember that we nearly lost Viking, the Voyager Grand Tour, Venus Orbiter, and a few others to shuttle development cost overruns and unforeseen difficulties... All those projects were either cancelled or deferred or scaled back to the point of irrelevancy at some point, but were saved by hard won battles and a peck of dumb luck from the budget cutters... As it was, Viking was pared back, Voyager was FINALLY approved once the idiots in charge were convinced we wouldn't get the chance to do a 'grand tour' of the planets again for 176 years due to planetary alignments if we didn't do it THEN, and Venus Orbiter was cancelled-- later revived as "Magellan" using old spacecraft technology and spares re-engineered into a new mission spacecraft... There were a lot of missions proposed that were cut or never funded because of shuttle development costs and overruns as well... We'll never know what all we missed since those projects died on paper before ever being started...

Don't forget too that most of the problems we've had with our robotic program have in large part been due to funding diversions into the manned program. Hubble ended up in orbit nearsighted to the point of uselessness due to insufficient testing... testing which was NOT completed due to funding diversions into shuttle development. Instead, they "certified" that the existing testing was "sufficient" and didn't realize there was a flaw in the testing procedure that allowed the Hubble mirror problem to slip through, and it launched that way... so to save the minor costs of additional testing and free that money up for shuttle cost overruns, it eventually cost us an additional billion-dollar shuttle mission to correct Hubble's flaws and save the thing from being a useless piece of space-junk... Also, the very design of Hubble was compromised by its reliance on launch and servicing from Shuttle... Hubble can only make observations of a given target for 45 minutes of every orbit or thereabouts-- since it's circling a huge honkin' planet in LEO, roughly half of every 90 minute orbit, there's this big blue planet between the telescope and what it's trying to observe... Plus the shock of the transition from +250 degree sunlight to -200 degree shadow behind Earth, and back again, every 45 minutes, causes a lot of problems that are only partially compensated for. Hubble would have been able to achieve AT LEAST TWICE as much science had it been put in a more observation-friendly position, like a LaGrange point halo orbit, either SEL-1 or SEL-2, or even a lunar lagrangian point, rather than in LEO... the temperature would be much more stable, and no huge honking planet in the way-- but it would have had to be launched by something other than shuttle, and could not be serviced by shuttles trapped in LEO (not without remote retrieval and brought back to LEO for servicing, then transited back out to the Lagrange point). Similarly, the problems on Galileo can be layed DIRECTLY on shuttle's doorstep... Galileo fell victim to the "everything MUST be launched on Shuttle" mantra of the late 70's and early 80's, and so had to live within the design constraints required for a shuttle launch... which meant no high-energy upper stage for propulsion through Earth escape velocity, and size and weight constraints which impacted the design. With only IUS for propulsion through escape, which is a low-efficiency crummy solid rocket, the weight of the probe was severely constrained. That's what led to the decision to use a deployable net "umbrella" type main antenna dish on Galileo, rather than a heavier solid dish as used on the Pioneers, Voyagers, and Cassini. Then there was YEARS of deferment of the launch due to development problems and underfunding, since most of Galileo's funding was diverted to shuttle problems, as well as deferments while Shuttle carried "higher priority payloads" like military satellites and comsats and stuff, attempting to prove its value to the Air Force, DOD, and prove itself to the commercial satellite market. With the approval of the Shuttle/Centaur, Galileo was somewhat redesigned to make use of the additional capability, but a lot of the decisions forced by the reliance on IUS only were not changed-- decisions that would return to haunt the mission. When Challenger was lost, Shuttle/Centaur was deemed too unsafe for a manned vehicle, and was scrapped for the shuttle program, again forcing a redesign and modifications to force Magellan onto IUS. Again it sat for years waiting launch in the backlog of "higher priority" launches in the wake of Challenger, which required expensive maintenance and storage as the vehicle awaited launch, driving up costs. Then, when Galileo WAS finally launched, it required a roundabout loop-de-loop around the inner planets, getting boosts from both Venus and Earth (twice) to gain enough velocity to even make it to Jupiter, since it didn't have a proper escape stage like Centaur... adding YEARS to the mission. The long time in storage and cold soak in space looping in the inner solar system to do flyby's to get the velocity needed to get to Jupiter caused the foldable main high-gain antenna to fail when it was finally deployed, nearly ending the mission (simply because a frozen umbrella didn't unfold). Work-arounds were hastily but tentatively achieved to allow Galileo to perform it's mission-- but we only got back maybe, at best, ONE THIRD of the science return and observations and pictures Galileo took... It would record data until its tapes were full, BUT it had to then transmit them back to Earth using its low-gain antenna, which limited the power (and thus the speed and amount) of data it could transmit back to Earth... hence about 2/3 of the data (AT LEAST) was simply "copied over" by the next set of observations (which were largely fixed due to the nature of the orbit and timing of passes over the moons and other desired observations which could not be altered on the timeline due to simple orbital mechanics...) Hence, scientists had to prioritize which data to beam back to Earth, and which simply allow to be deleted or copied over... We'll never know the true cost of THAT one... what groundbreaking scientific discoveries were simply copied over by the next set of observations, some groundbreaking themselves, some surely mundane... simply because of a failed antenna design forced onto the probe by the "requirement" that it be launched by the Shuttle, a system CLEARLY inferior for deep-space probes to other planets, ESPECIALLY probes on high-energy trajectories to the outer planets. Shuttle Centaur would go on to be modified somewhat and live on as the Titan IV Centaur... Fortunately most planetary mission planners and NASA itself seems to have learned their lesson-- no further big probes were needlessly hamstrung by being forced to be launched on Shuttle... Only some smaller probes for which Shuttle was a better match...

We should realize that 95% of what we know about the solar system and the planets and their moons is DIRECTLY attributable to the UNMANNED ROBOTIC SPACE EXPLORATION program... NOT in ANY way, shape, or form, due to MANNED EXPLORATION. The one exception of that is the Moon, but there's really NOTHING done by Apollo that COULDN'T have been done by a sufficiently robust and well-funded robotic program... In fact the Soviets explored at least ten times as much lunar territory with their robotic Lunokhod rovers than we did on all the Apollo missions combined, in terms of surface activities... (excluding Apollo CSM "SIM-bay" experiments and observation platforms). In fact, we've only JUST RECENTLY broken the distance records of the Lunokhod lunar forays with our Mars Rovers... We COULD have done pretty much everything Apollo did science-wise with a capable lunar surface rover and sample return mission(s) and dedicated large lunar orbiter spacecraft with surface observing sensors (and other experiments).

As it stands, it's quite likely that the James Webb Space Telescope (itself a troubled mega-development, having followed many of the patterns of the manned program instead of following a more conservative development plan like most robotic systems) will be the LAST of the "flagship missions" when it comes to large space probes... If it works at all. JWST has already blown its budget all to pieces and now is anticipated to cost several times the original estimates... and success is NOT assured. The program is years behind schedule and billions overbudget, and has narrowly avoided cancellation already. NASA has told the scientific community to "forget about flagship class missions for the foreseeable future". By definition, due to the sheer distances and difficulties involved, any Titan missions will be a flagship mission-- they simply cannot be done under the smaller classes of missions... not enough budget for the engineering, let alone the execution... Heck NASA had to pull out of the ExoMars project with the Europeans, which was going to culminate in a Mars Sample Return. If we cannot afford to even PARTICIPATE in a joint-venture MSR mission, how do we REALISTICALLY expect to fund a MANNED Mars mission, which will be an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE more expensive and difficult to achieve?? It's ridiculous...

More to come... OL JR :)
 
Continued...

Instead we get the same empty promises and vacuous talk about "Mars missions in 20 years" that we've had since the 1960's... We are NO CLOSER to a Mars mission NOW, despite all the cheery press releases to the contrary, than we have been at ANY POINT in the manned space program. While the 'goal' has tentatively been "endorsed", the reality is, any such attempt lies at the end of such a daisy-chain of necessary (and mostly unapproved and unfunded) developments and capabilities demonstrations as to be virtually a fantasy... While everyone talks about going to Mars and watches NASA-produced powerpoint rocket porn on YouTube, the reality is that SLS and Orion are sucking the life out of the REAL, EXISTING robotic exploration program we have now, and sucking its future away down a rathole of manned space funding boondoggles... With no flagship missions even on the drawing board for the foreseeable future, it will be TEN YEARS from when the next flagship mission IS approved before it will fly... it's not just a "manned spaceflight gap" that we're looking at-- it's an UNMANNED ROBOTIC EXPLORATION GAP as well, because while funding is siphoned off and the robotic program left to starve, those years are lost, and it will take ten years to design, build, test, and launch the NEXT APPROVED mission, from the time it's approved. Anybody remember that LONG hiatus in the mid-late 80's when NOTHING was being done on Mars or most of the rest of the unmanned program, except the periodic flybys of the Voyagers past their next planetary targets, after years of coasting through space... All that was due to the forced starvation of the unmanned program by shuttle development funding diversions...

Now we're seeing the SAME THING AGAIN with SLS/Orion. Only this time, instead of the hollow promise of a "spacecraft which will revolutionize the cost of space launch" we're spending all our money on a super-duper-uber rocket to NOWHERE, with NO approved or funded missions, which will undoubtedly by its very nature be THE most expensive launch system ever devised by man (which shuttle turned out to be, but SLS is going to put it in the shade in terms of launch costs and mission costs-- at least with shuttle you got the 100 ton reusable payload fairing and 3 main engines back at the end of the mission (most of the time anyway)-- SLS will toss it all in the drink.) Plus, instead of launching manned exploration missions every few months like Apollo or shuttle did, AT BEST SLS will ONLY fly about every 2-3 YEARS... about like the Chinese space program... NOTHING like the rate at which Apollos flew to the Moon (about every 5 months or so) or even shuttles, which at their heyday were launching every month and a half or thereabouts... (9 in one year is the highest shuttle ever achieved IIRC). NOTHING AT ALL like the Soviet program's best launch rates of around once per week during the Cold War, in the early-mid 80's... SO, even if SLS "works", it is going to continue to suck up the vast majority of NASA's waning budgets from now until the moment its finally canceled...
Every mission SLS ever flies will cost well over a billion JUST TO LAUNCH (shuttle costs were about this when one divides program costs by the 135 launches of the shuttle program, but this includes development and operations costs, facility costs, etc... which SLS DOES NOT...) SLS costs will actually be MUCH MUCH higher due to the fact that NONE of the development costs are included in this figure... strictly hardware and operations costs. It doesn't even really account for the infrastructure and most of the overhead costs to keep it an operational system. What it boils down to is SLS ALONE will cost many times what shuttle cost on a per-launch basis... it's 'too expensive to use'. You'll need a nearly billion-dollar Orion, NEW, for EVERY MISSION... Orion WAS to be reusable, but that was the first thing to go when problems developed. Now they'll just gut most of the electronics out of it and some system parts to "reuse" on a new spacecraft. Then of course you're talking a billion dollar development program for whatever payloads are required for the mission-- hab modules, MMSEV, surface lander, surface rover, surface systems, etc... then the cost for mission experiments, hardware, etc... Additional propulsion elements that will have to be first APPROVED AND FUNDED, then designed, developed, and tested... an all new upper ascent stage (second stage for SLS), Advanced Boosters (a billion dollar plus project alone, probably at least another billion for a large upper stage program, using the already paid-for J-2X engines). An all-new large in-space propulsion stage (CPS), which is probably another billion dollar development program... All this will take YEARS to achieve as well, even if it were all funded TOMORROW... it would take about a decade to design, test, and build all that stuff and have it ready for any potential mission... it will still take a decade if it's not approved for another five, ten, or even 20 years... So we're not going ANYWHERE ANYTIME soon, PERIOD!

As it stands TODAY, by the time we were ready to do a manned Mars mission, assuming a BEST CASE SCENARIO, in that everything is funded to the necessary levels, a reasonable time line schedule for development and testing, and no major problems or "show stoppers" cropping up in either the development or testing of these mission elements, or in the mission profile itself (like radiation or microgee exposure to crews, etc) then, by the time we were ready to go to Mars, we could have FLEETS of robots on every part of the Martian surface, exploring for YEARS at a time... Look how far robotic technologies have come in the 45 years since Apollo... Heck, look how far computer and robotic technology has come in the 38 years since Viking, which didn't even have a rover... Now, think HOW FAR robotic and computer technology will advance in the next 20-30 years, optimistically, when a MANNED Mars mission will be possible, AT THE EARLIEST... By that time we should be able to land a probe on the surface of Mars the equivalent of R2D2, C3PO, and Terminator all rolled into one... not just crawling tentatively across the surface of Mars a few feet a day, but AUTONOMOUSLY moving across Mars AT WILL, as easily as you or I could hike across the Badlands or retrieve a rocket... artificial intelligence and a suite of sensors, audio, visual, radar, laser mapping and ranging, etc. guiding every step. A fleet of robots receiving general instructions from Earth, and relaying back observations and results of experiments. A fleet of robots free to wander across the Martian plains, valley, mountains, and poles for YEARS, not just a handful of human meatbags stuck within a 10-20 mile radius of some pre-selected landing site deemed "safe" enough to attempt a landing and liftoff from... not requiring a salvo of launches of pre-positioned resupply, power, and other mission elements on the surface for a single human mission, or establishing a "base camp" to which future manned missions would inextricably be tied and required to land within range of... (or else the enormous expense of duplicating all these mission elements prepositioned at other landing sites...)
Plus, these robots would operate PERMANENTLY on the surface of Mars... no bulky, heavy oxygen, no life support, no food and water, only minimal heating requirements to prevent the systems from freezing in the "rover" or robot during the night or Martian winter, not like humans which tend to die if they get too hot or too cold. No worries about radiation and genetic defects or cancer from exposure... no worries about potential biological or chemical contamination from the Martian environment. No worry about a safe, reliable return spacecraft to return to Earth at the end of the mission. Plus, they can operate for YEARS, even (as has been already proven by the MER's) DECADES on the surface of Mars, continuously or near-continuously, unlike a human expedition which will only be on the surface from between about 30 days and maybe a year or so before it has to return. (I'll leave out the "Buck Rogers" plans of "one way tickets to Mars" firmly in the sci-fi books where they belong for now... NASA is NOT going to go to Mars that way, to stay, without the intention of return, and the companies and "nu-space" people proposing that methodology sound about as realistic as flying cars and backyard nuclear reactors sounds to us today, though touted as "tomorrow's reality" back in the 50's...)

By the time we're ready to go to Mars, sending soft pink meatbags that die without proper oxygen, pressure, carbon dioxide removal, temperature, food, water, radiation shielding, etc. etc. etc. at unbelievable expense will be about as foolish as folks who strapped wings to their backs or built various contraptions on bicycles and motorcars attempting to fly appear to us now... robots will be SO much more capable and affordable there'll be no need to risk humans-- in fact, it won't even be desirable... robots can achieve more.

We just have to get through the barrier in the mind that thinks otherwise. I think military drones and unmanned planes will FINALLY drive this point home for all to see, eventually...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Exactly... and why I'm INCREASINGLY OPPOSED to "manned exploration"...

In the 60's, it was the ONLY way to achieve certain things... computers and robotics were absolutely in their infancy... most of the capabilities we have today were unthinkable then...

Yep, and the primary reason for the robotics technology limited 60s "space race" in the first place was political. Still, the Soviets with their lemon N1 were forced to go for robotic exploration of the moon, the Opportunity MER only recently exceeding the distance driven by one of their Lunokhod rovers, with lunar samples returned to Earth via their Luna landers. Coming after the US moon landings, these lost the propaganda race.

all that compounds to make manned exploration a COLOSSAL waste of money... Look at Ares I/V/Orion development under the Constellation program... Constellation WASTED over $9 BILLION bucks and 6 years on a worthless, underperforming rocket that was ultimately cancelled, and caused a lot of problems and costs in Orion, which still has considerable issues and is a mere shadow of its original capabilities... Then the whole thing was cancelled. It's been said that SLS is going to cost around $40 BILLION bucks to build, and that with the already existing SSME's and five-segment SRB's paid for under Constellation largely, for use as first stages on Ares I. Plus, the SLS they're building won't even be capable of doing the missions they're proposing-- it will require an advanced booster development AND an all-new upper stage, plus an in-space propulsion stage development to even be capable of doing what they want... Nevermind that NO real missions have been approved or budgeted for SLS/Orion to do... and a rocket without payloads is a lawn-ornament...

All because, as you are well aware, the SLS is nothing more that a Shuttle-era jobs continuation program. The Opportunity rover program cost $2.5 billion with improved follow-ons based upon it to cost $1.5 billion or less each. Nearly six of those missions could have been done for the amount of money WASTED by Aries/Orion.

If we had just a FRACTION of the money being poured down ratholes for HLV's that will probably end up canceled before ever flying, or won't fly for decades, we could have FLEETS of rovers and probes all over the solar system... There were plans for Titan probes, Titan boats, Titan balloons, maybe even rovers (though more categorization of the surface is really needed first) but ALL of that has fallen under the budget ax as more and more funding is siphoned off from the REAL exploration in the unmanned arena to be poured down bottomless ratholes in the manned program developments like SLS.

I've said exactly the same thing in other forums more directly related to space exploration. We could send probes to everywhere. Robotic eyes and instruments everywhere. Plus, robotic probes lead to the development of technologies highly useful on Earth like robotics and AI. Manned missions lead to the development of zero-G toilets.

NASA et al have at times claimed that manned programs garner more public interest than robotic ones and yet web pages for the MER and MSL rovers and the Hubble get far more hits than anything else. How many web hits does the page for that $150 BILLION white elephant in the sky ISS get? I once took a look at the list of experiments being carried out there and 50% were related to ISS problems and negative influences on experiments carried out there, the other 50% weren't worth a microscopic fraction of what it was costing to carry them out.

From Wikipedia about the ISS - "Assuming 20,000 person-days of use from 2000 to 2015 by two to six-person crews, each person-day would cost $7.5 million." Thus, less than two man weeks (13.3 days) would cost as much as the entire $100 million dollar instrumentation budget for the Curiosity follow-on 2020 rover. Which is more valuable, what that rover will accomplished or two man-weeks on the ISS? The answer is obvious.

There were a lot of missions proposed that were cut or never funded because of shuttle development costs and overruns as well... We'll never know what all we missed since those projects died on paper before ever being started...

The other stupid money sink that should have been easily seen as very obviously hugely uneconomical before ever being built.

Don't forget too that most of the problems we've had with our robotic program have in large part been due to funding diversions into the manned program. Hubble ended up in orbit nearsighted to the point of uselessness due to insufficient testing... testing which was NOT completed due to funding diversions into shuttle development.

Because they couldn't afford to build a full-scale test facility after the USAF wouldn't let them borrow the one used to test photo-recon spysats.

Also, the very design of Hubble was compromised by its reliance on launch and servicing from Shuttle... Hubble can only make observations of a given target for 45 minutes of every orbit or thereabouts-- since it's circling a huge honkin' planet in LEO, roughly half of every 90 minute orbit, there's this big blue planet between the telescope and what it's trying to observe... Plus the shock of the transition from +250 degree sunlight to -200 degree shadow behind Earth, and back again, every 45 minutes, causes a lot of problems that are only partially compensated for. Hubble would have been able to achieve AT LEAST TWICE as much science had it been put in a more observation-friendly position, like a LaGrange point halo orbit, either SEL-1 or SEL-2, or even a lunar lagrangian point, rather than in LEO... the temperature would be much more stable, and no huge honking planet in the way-- but it would have had to be launched by something other than shuttle, and could not be serviced by shuttles trapped in LEO (not without remote retrieval and brought back to LEO for servicing, then transited back out to the Lagrange point).

Very interesting. Didn't realize that and hadn't even considered it.

Similarly, the problems on Galileo can be layed DIRECTLY on shuttle's doorstep... Galileo fell victim to the "everything MUST be launched on Shuttle" mantra of the late 70's and early 80's, and so had to live within the design constraints required for a shuttle launch... which meant no high-energy upper stage for propulsion through Earth escape velocity, and size and weight constraints which impacted the design. With only IUS for propulsion through escape, which is a low-efficiency crummy solid rocket, the weight of the probe was severely constrained. That's what led to the decision to use a deployable net "umbrella" type main antenna dish on Galileo, rather than a heavier solid dish as used on the Pioneers, Voyagers, and Cassini. Then there was YEARS of deferment of the launch due to development problems and underfunding, since most of Galileo's funding was diverted to shuttle problems, as well as deferments while Shuttle carried "higher priority payloads" like military satellites and comsats and stuff, attempting to prove its value to the Air Force, DOD, and prove itself to the commercial satellite market. With the approval of the Shuttle/Centaur, Galileo was somewhat redesigned to make use of the additional capability, but a lot of the decisions forced by the reliance on IUS only were not changed-- decisions that would return to haunt the mission. When Challenger was lost, Shuttle/Centaur was deemed too unsafe for a manned vehicle, and was scrapped for the shuttle program, again forcing a redesign and modifications to force Magellan onto IUS. Again it sat for years waiting launch in the backlog of "higher priority" launches in the wake of Challenger, which required expensive maintenance and storage as the vehicle awaited launch, driving up costs. Then, when Galileo WAS finally launched, it required a roundabout loop-de-loop around the inner planets, getting boosts from both Venus and Earth (twice) to gain enough velocity to even make it to Jupiter, since it didn't have a proper escape stage like Centaur... adding YEARS to the mission. The long time in storage and cold soak in space looping in the inner solar system to do flyby's to get the velocity needed to get to Jupiter caused the foldable main high-gain antenna to fail when it was finally deployed, nearly ending the mission (simply because a frozen umbrella didn't unfold). Work-arounds were hastily but tentatively achieved to allow Galileo to perform it's mission-- but we only got back maybe, at best, ONE THIRD of the science return and observations and pictures Galileo took... It would record data until its tapes were full, BUT it had to then transmit them back to Earth using its low-gain antenna, which limited the power (and thus the speed and amount) of data it could transmit back to Earth... hence about 2/3 of the data (AT LEAST) was simply "copied over" by the next set of observations (which were largely fixed due to the nature of the orbit and timing of passes over the moons and other desired observations which could not be altered on the timeline due to simple orbital mechanics...) Hence, scientists had to prioritize which data to beam back to Earth, and which simply allow to be deleted or copied over... We'll never know the true cost of THAT one... what groundbreaking scientific discoveries were simply copied over by the next set of observations, some groundbreaking themselves, some surely mundane... simply because of a failed antenna design forced onto the probe by the "requirement" that it be launched by the Shuttle, a system CLEARLY inferior for deep-space probes to other planets, ESPECIALLY probes on high-energy trajectories to the outer planets. Shuttle Centaur would go on to be modified somewhat and live on as the Titan IV Centaur... Fortunately most planetary mission planners and NASA itself seems to have learned their lesson-- no further big probes were needlessly hamstrung by being forced to be launched on Shuttle... Only some smaller probes for which Shuttle was a better match...

Once again, very interesting. I knew the delay in Galileo's launching due to the Challenger incident led to the lubricant in the antenna release mechanism drying out leading to a failure of the high gain antenna to fully deploy, but I didn't realize all of the other very negative factors related to a Shuttle dependent launch.

We should realize that 95% of what we know about the solar system and the planets and their moons is DIRECTLY attributable to the UNMANNED ROBOTIC SPACE EXPLORATION program... NOT in ANY way, shape, or form, due to MANNED EXPLORATION. The one exception of that is the Moon, but there's really NOTHING done by Apollo that COULDN'T have been done by a sufficiently robust and well-funded robotic program... In fact the Soviets explored at least ten times as much lunar territory with their robotic Lunokhod rovers than we did on all the Apollo missions combined, in terms of surface activities... (excluding Apollo CSM "SIM-bay" experiments and observation platforms). In fact, we've only JUST RECENTLY broken the distance records of the Lunokhod lunar forays with our Mars Rovers... We COULD have done pretty much everything Apollo did science-wise with a capable lunar surface rover and sample return mission(s) and dedicated large lunar orbiter spacecraft with surface observing sensors (and other experiments).

I once saw a comment in an article about manned vs unmanned space exploration where a scientist said that if you want to roughly determine the scientific value of a space mission, simply count the number of scientific papers written about it. He went on to say that a single, then-recent unmanned probe mission had generated far more papers than the ISS had in its entire history.
 
Continued...

Instead we get the same empty promises and vacuous talk about "Mars missions in 20 years" that we've had since the 1960's... We are NO CLOSER to a Mars mission NOW, despite all the cheery press releases to the contrary, than we have been at ANY POINT in the manned space program. While the 'goal' has tentatively been "endorsed", the reality is, any such attempt lies at the end of such a daisy-chain of necessary (and mostly unapproved and unfunded) developments and capabilities demonstrations as to be virtually a fantasy... While everyone talks about going to Mars and watches NASA-produced powerpoint rocket porn on YouTube, the reality is that SLS and Orion are sucking the life out of the REAL, EXISTING robotic exploration program we have now, and sucking its future away down a rathole of manned space funding boondoggles... With no flagship missions even on the drawing board for the foreseeable future, it will be TEN YEARS from when the next flagship mission IS approved before it will fly... it's not just a "manned spaceflight gap" that we're looking at-- it's an UNMANNED ROBOTIC EXPLORATION GAP as well, because while funding is siphoned off and the robotic program left to starve, those years are lost, and it will take ten years to design, build, test, and launch the NEXT APPROVED mission, from the time it's approved. Anybody remember that LONG hiatus in the mid-late 80's when NOTHING was being done on Mars or most of the rest of the unmanned program, except the periodic flybys of the Voyagers past their next planetary targets, after years of coasting through space... All that was due to the forced starvation of the unmanned program by shuttle development funding diversions...

Now we're seeing the SAME THING AGAIN with SLS/Orion. Only this time, instead of the hollow promise of a "spacecraft which will revolutionize the cost of space launch" we're spending all our money on a super-duper-uber rocket to NOWHERE, with NO approved or funded missions, which will undoubtedly by its very nature be THE most expensive launch system ever devised by man (which shuttle turned out to be, but SLS is going to put it in the shade in terms of launch costs and mission costs-- at least with shuttle you got the 100 ton reusable payload fairing and 3 main engines back at the end of the mission (most of the time anyway)-- SLS will toss it all in the drink.) Plus, instead of launching manned exploration missions every few months like Apollo or shuttle did, AT BEST SLS will ONLY fly about every 2-3 YEARS... about like the Chinese space program... NOTHING like the rate at which Apollos flew to the Moon (about every 5 months or so) or even shuttles, which at their heyday were launching every month and a half or thereabouts... (9 in one year is the highest shuttle ever achieved IIRC). NOTHING AT ALL like the Soviet program's best launch rates of around once per week during the Cold War, in the early-mid 80's... SO, even if SLS "works", it is going to continue to suck up the vast majority of NASA's waning budgets from now until the moment its finally canceled...
Every mission SLS ever flies will cost well over a billion JUST TO LAUNCH (shuttle costs were about this when one divides program costs by the 135 launches of the shuttle program, but this includes development and operations costs, facility costs, etc... which SLS DOES NOT...) SLS costs will actually be MUCH MUCH higher due to the fact that NONE of the development costs are included in this figure... strictly hardware and operations costs. It doesn't even really account for the infrastructure and most of the overhead costs to keep it an operational system. What it boils down to is SLS ALONE will cost many times what shuttle cost on a per-launch basis... it's 'too expensive to use'. You'll need a nearly billion-dollar Orion, NEW, for EVERY MISSION... Orion WAS to be reusable, but that was the first thing to go when problems developed. Now they'll just gut most of the electronics out of it and some system parts to "reuse" on a new spacecraft. Then of course you're talking a billion dollar development program for whatever payloads are required for the mission-- hab modules, MMSEV, surface lander, surface rover, surface systems, etc... then the cost for mission experiments, hardware, etc... Additional propulsion elements that will have to be first APPROVED AND FUNDED, then designed, developed, and tested... an all new upper ascent stage (second stage for SLS), Advanced Boosters (a billion dollar plus project alone, probably at least another billion for a large upper stage program, using the already paid-for J-2X engines). An all-new large in-space propulsion stage (CPS), which is probably another billion dollar development program... All this will take YEARS to achieve as well, even if it were all funded TOMORROW... it would take about a decade to design, test, and build all that stuff and have it ready for any potential mission... it will still take a decade if it's not approved for another five, ten, or even 20 years... So we're not going ANYWHERE ANYTIME soon, PERIOD!

As it stands TODAY, by the time we were ready to do a manned Mars mission, assuming a BEST CASE SCENARIO, in that everything is funded to the necessary levels, a reasonable time line schedule for development and testing, and no major problems or "show stoppers" cropping up in either the development or testing of these mission elements, or in the mission profile itself (like radiation or microgee exposure to crews, etc) then, by the time we were ready to go to Mars, we could have FLEETS of robots on every part of the Martian surface, exploring for YEARS at a time... Look how far robotic technologies have come in the 45 years since Apollo... Heck, look how far computer and robotic technology has come in the 38 years since Viking, which didn't even have a rover... Now, think HOW FAR robotic and computer technology will advance in the next 20-30 years, optimistically, when a MANNED Mars mission will be possible, AT THE EARLIEST... By that time we should be able to land a probe on the surface of Mars the equivalent of R2D2, C3PO, and Terminator all rolled into one... not just crawling tentatively across the surface of Mars a few feet a day, but AUTONOMOUSLY moving across Mars AT WILL, as easily as you or I could hike across the Badlands or retrieve a rocket... artificial intelligence and a suite of sensors, audio, visual, radar, laser mapping and ranging, etc. guiding every step. A fleet of robots receiving general instructions from Earth, and relaying back observations and results of experiments. A fleet of robots free to wander across the Martian plains, valley, mountains, and poles for YEARS, not just a handful of human meatbags stuck within a 10-20 mile radius of some pre-selected landing site deemed "safe" enough to attempt a landing and liftoff from... not requiring a salvo of launches of pre-positioned resupply, power, and other mission elements on the surface for a single human mission, or establishing a "base camp" to which future manned missions would inextricably be tied and required to land within range of... (or else the enormous expense of duplicating all these mission elements prepositioned at other landing sites...)
Plus, these robots would operate PERMANENTLY on the surface of Mars... no bulky, heavy oxygen, no life support, no food and water, only minimal heating requirements to prevent the systems from freezing in the "rover" or robot during the night or Martian winter, not like humans which tend to die if they get too hot or too cold. No worries about radiation and genetic defects or cancer from exposure... no worries about potential biological or chemical contamination from the Martian environment. No worry about a safe, reliable return spacecraft to return to Earth at the end of the mission. Plus, they can operate for YEARS, even (as has been already proven by the MER's) DECADES on the surface of Mars, continuously or near-continuously, unlike a human expedition which will only be on the surface from between about 30 days and maybe a year or so before it has to return. (I'll leave out the "Buck Rogers" plans of "one way tickets to Mars" firmly in the sci-fi books where they belong for now... NASA is NOT going to go to Mars that way, to stay, without the intention of return, and the companies and "nu-space" people proposing that methodology sound about as realistic as flying cars and backyard nuclear reactors sounds to us today, though touted as "tomorrow's reality" back in the 50's...)

By the time we're ready to go to Mars, sending soft pink meatbags that die without proper oxygen, pressure, carbon dioxide removal, temperature, food, water, radiation shielding, etc. etc. etc. at unbelievable expense will be about as foolish as folks who strapped wings to their backs or built various contraptions on bicycles and motorcars attempting to fly appear to us now... robots will be SO much more capable and affordable there'll be no need to risk humans-- in fact, it won't even be desirable... robots can achieve more.

We just have to get through the barrier in the mind that thinks otherwise. I think military drones and unmanned planes will FINALLY drive this point home for all to see, eventually...

Later! OL JR :)
I've seen various short stores on-line about the development of planetary microprobes that would roll along, some by mass shifting, others by the work of nitinol "memory wire," etc. Not nearly as much capability as a large lander, but they'd be light, cheap, and you could literally just sprinkle them all over the place. No active programs that I know of to actually make these a mission.

If someone would take the time, like you have, to actually learn what was being done vs what should be done to be most efficient at the scientific exploration goal in space and could then actually force implementation of that goal, what a wonderful world this could be. However, as you well know, we have the best (worst) government money can buy, and that money is what determines what is done and what isn't. Only by extremely rare chance will that produce anything even remotely approaching optimal results.
 
If one is really interested in how the space program works, I can suggest two "must reads" for them to consider...

First is "The Hubble Wars" by Eric J. Chaisson... It's a detailed account of the trials and travails of the Hubble Space Telescope, basically from the inception of the program, through its troubled development and delayed launch and subsequent "crisis" of the discovery of the mis-ground mirror and NASA flailing to correct it; the infighting and stupidity of prima-donna NASA managers and administrators in the oversight and operation of the Hubble program, and the ugly side of prima-donna scientists worried more about their career and "guaranteeing their discoveries and protecting their fiefdoms" rather than working toward what's best for the program and science and the expansion of knowledge of mankind... It's really an interesting read. He discusses the problems with Hubble caused by its shortchanged development program and inadequate testing, the limitations imposed on the design by the requirement it be launched and capable of being serviced by Shuttle, the solar-panel problem and severe vibration induced by passing in and out of Earth's shadow every 45 minutes (or thereabouts) that nearly ruined the mission entirely, and which the Air Force was fully aware of and which they could have corrected on the ground for a tiny fraction of the final costs required to fix it on orbit later, had the Air Force's personnel working on their spysat programs been allowed to discuss the matter with them beforehand (since Hubble was basically just a poor-mans copy of existing spysats anyway...) The problems with observations from LEO, which is all shuttle was capable of reaching, versus even geosynchronous orbits or stationing the telescope at a Lagrange point for virtually limitless observations was also discussed... it's a VERY enlightening read!

The other suggestion I'd make is "ISScapades" by Donald K. Beatty... it's a detailed, at times almost excessively detailed, history of the troubled comedy of errors that passed for the development and deployment of the ISS from its beginnings in the Reagan Era as "Space Station Freedom" to its continual descoping and modification by ill informed and constantly changing NASA management and political needs as it was bandied about by political forces in charge of its funding and purpose, the continual and repeated super-expensive redesigns, and how basically the science and experimentation for which it was originally envisioned ended up as self-serving tripe to justify its continued expensive existence for little more than political expediency.

If one is so inclined, I'd also highly recommend "Dragonfly: NASA and the crisis aboard Mir" by Bryan Burrough... an extremely interesting read on the realities of US/Russian cooperation in space and the political realities of the space program, where science is a mere justification for the political purposes for which the space program primarily exists.

"Star Crossed Orbits" by Jim Oberg is another terrific read... excellent insight into the program and the political realities governing it. I've also read a number of books on the unmanned robotic probes programs run out of JPL, and a history of JPL itself... they're very insightful into the divides between the "quasi-NASA, semi-independent" JPL and the rest of NASA institutionally and semantically, and the great divide between the manned and unmanned programs. You're absolutely right that the manned program gets precedence on EVERYTHING within NASA and government because it is, virtually entirely, a POLITICAL exercise serving political purposes; "science" and expanding the knowledge and understanding of the universe around us is STRICTLY a secondary or tertiary "by product" of the space program-- little more than a "happy accident" or some kind of little anticipated bonus. It is CERTAINLY NOT where *any* priority lies, especially outside the unmanned program itself, which is why the robotic program is very much the 'second string' at NASA when it comes to any sort of priority for funding or support. Even science within the manned program is basically a joke... the inside joke at NASA among astronauts about ISS is, like shuttle "science" before it, more "peeing in jars and looking at stars" than anything approximating useful scientific research. And, you're absolutely correct... MOST ALL the "research" on ISS is self-serving and practically useless to the rest of humanity-- most of the research is directed towards and focused upon "assessing, minimizing, or coping with the microgravity effects on the short, medium, and long-term health effects on astronauts on extended space missions, and various strategies to mitigate those effects." Much of the rest is focused upon the effects of vibration and other problems associated with human research in microgravity"... IOW, on the fact that, as most scientists eager to do microgravity research in orbit that NASA was trying to recruit support for ISS from in the early-mid 90's had realized: ISS, or ANY "manned" microgravity research was going to be super-expensive and create a VERY poor environment for performing delicate microgravity research-- as humans move about the station and bump into things, open and close doors, and various other things of everday life, they create a lot of vibration and induce unwanted accelerations into the equipment mounted in/on/outside the station in which delicate microgee experiments are being conducted-- in short, it's a p!ss-poor microgee environment, too "noisy" with bumps, rattles, booms, and unwanted vibration that screws up delicate experiments-- extremely sensitive microgee experiments can be damaged by unwanted accelerations of even THOUSANDTHS of a gee, ISS experiences regular and unanticipated accelerations and "bumps" far exceeding that! That's why MOST of the scientific community turned against ISS, once the REALITIES of the limitations of microgee research aboard were exposed, and the BREATHTAKING costs of "manned research" understood... "Man tended" or automated research platforms could have achieved FAR more worthwhile research goals at FAR lower cost than the unbelievably expensive and practically worthless scientifically ISS...

ISS is basically about as interesting as watching paint dry-- another political exercise in a long line and endless pantheon of political exercises...

NASA has never been about "science"... it never has been, never will be... "science" is a convenient EXCUSE NASA invokes to validate its existence or its aims, goals, and programs... but the reality is, NASA is a political animal-- it was born for a political purpose, served a political aim, achieved political goals, and now is a full-fledged bureaucracy in its own right, still solely focused on achieving the political aims of its political masters... anything more is a byproduct or happy accident.

Later! OL JR :)
 
Now we're seeing the SAME THING AGAIN with SLS/Orion. Only this time, instead of the hollow promise of a "spacecraft which will revolutionize the cost of space launch" we're spending all our money on a super-duper-uber rocket to NOWHERE, with NO approved or funded missions, which will undoubtedly by its very nature be THE most expensive launch system ever devised by man (which shuttle turned out to be, but SLS is going to put it in the shade in terms of launch costs and mission costs-- at least with shuttle you got the 100 ton reusable payload fairing and 3 main engines back at the end of the mission (most of the time anyway)-- SLS will toss it all in the drink.) Plus, instead of launching manned exploration missions every few months like Apollo or shuttle did, AT BEST SLS will ONLY fly about every 2-3 YEARS... about like the Chinese space program... NOTHING like the rate at which Apollos flew to the Moon (about every 5 months or so) or even shuttles, which at their heyday were launching every month and a half or thereabouts... (9 in one year is the highest shuttle ever achieved IIRC). NOTHING AT ALL like the Soviet program's best launch rates of around once per week during the Cold War, in the early-mid 80's... SO, even if SLS "works", it is going to continue to suck up the vast majority of NASA's waning budgets from now until the moment its finally canceled...
Every mission SLS ever flies will cost well over a billion JUST TO LAUNCH (shuttle costs were about this when one divides program costs by the 135 launches of the shuttle program, but this includes development and operations costs, facility costs, etc... which SLS DOES NOT...) SLS costs will actually be MUCH MUCH higher due to the fact that NONE of the development costs are included in this figure... strictly hardware and operations costs. It doesn't even really account for the infrastructure and most of the overhead costs to keep it an operational system. What it boils down to is SLS ALONE will cost many times what shuttle cost on a per-launch basis... it's 'too expensive to use'. You'll need a nearly billion-dollar Orion, NEW, for EVERY MISSION... Orion WAS to be reusable, but that was the first thing to go when problems developed. Now they'll just gut most of the electronics out of it and some system parts to "reuse" on a new spacecraft. Then of course you're talking a billion dollar development program for whatever payloads are required for the mission-- hab modules, MMSEV, surface lander, surface rover, surface systems, etc... then the cost for mission experiments, hardware, etc... Additional propulsion elements that will have to be first APPROVED AND FUNDED, then designed, developed, and tested... an all new upper ascent stage (second stage for SLS), Advanced Boosters (a billion dollar plus project alone, probably at least another billion for a large upper stage program, using the already paid-for J-2X engines). An all-new large in-space propulsion stage (CPS), which is probably another billion dollar development program... All this will take YEARS to achieve as well, even if it were all funded TOMORROW... it would take about a decade to design, test, and build all that stuff and have it ready for any potential mission... it will still take a decade if it's not approved for another five, ten, or even 20 years... So we're not going ANYWHERE ANYTIME soon, PERIOD!

I guess I'll just go ahead and point out the work that SpaceX is doing as far as reusability and Dragon v2 go. If I had to guess, they probably wouldn't hit a billion on a human trip to Mars.
 
If one is really interested in how the space program works, I can suggest two "must reads" for them to consider...

First is "The Hubble Wars" by Eric J. Chaisson... It's a detailed account of the trials and travails of the Hubble Space Telescope, basically from the inception of the program, through its troubled development and delayed launch and subsequent "crisis" of the discovery of the mis-ground mirror and NASA flailing to correct it; the infighting and stupidity of prima-donna NASA managers and administrators in the oversight and operation of the Hubble program, and the ugly side of prima-donna scientists worried more about their career and "guaranteeing their discoveries and protecting their fiefdoms" rather than working toward what's best for the program and science and the expansion of knowledge of mankind... It's really an interesting read. He discusses the problems with Hubble caused by its shortchanged development program and inadequate testing, the limitations imposed on the design by the requirement it be launched and capable of being serviced by Shuttle, the solar-panel problem and severe vibration induced by passing in and out of Earth's shadow every 45 minutes (or thereabouts) that nearly ruined the mission entirely, and which the Air Force was fully aware of and which they could have corrected on the ground for a tiny fraction of the final costs required to fix it on orbit later, had the Air Force's personnel working on their spysat programs been allowed to discuss the matter with them beforehand (since Hubble was basically just a poor-mans copy of existing spysats anyway...) The problems with observations from LEO, which is all shuttle was capable of reaching, versus even geosynchronous orbits or stationing the telescope at a Lagrange point for virtually limitless observations was also discussed... it's a VERY enlightening read!

The other suggestion I'd make is "ISScapades" by Donald K. Beatty... it's a detailed, at times almost excessively detailed, history of the troubled comedy of errors that passed for the development and deployment of the ISS from its beginnings in the Reagan Era as "Space Station Freedom" to its continual descoping and modification by ill informed and constantly changing NASA management and political needs as it was bandied about by political forces in charge of its funding and purpose, the continual and repeated super-expensive redesigns, and how basically the science and experimentation for which it was originally envisioned ended up as self-serving tripe to justify its continued expensive existence for little more than political expediency.

If one is so inclined, I'd also highly recommend "Dragonfly: NASA and the crisis aboard Mir" by Bryan Burrough... an extremely interesting read on the realities of US/Russian cooperation in space and the political realities of the space program, where science is a mere justification for the political purposes for which the space program primarily exists.

"Star Crossed Orbits" by Jim Oberg is another terrific read... excellent insight into the program and the political realities governing it. I've also read a number of books on the unmanned robotic probes programs run out of JPL, and a history of JPL itself... they're very insightful into the divides between the "quasi-NASA, semi-independent" JPL and the rest of NASA institutionally and semantically, and the great divide between the manned and unmanned programs. You're absolutely right that the manned program gets precedence on EVERYTHING within NASA and government because it is, virtually entirely, a POLITICAL exercise serving political purposes; "science" and expanding the knowledge and understanding of the universe around us is STRICTLY a secondary or tertiary "by product" of the space program-- little more than a "happy accident" or some kind of little anticipated bonus. It is CERTAINLY NOT where *any* priority lies, especially outside the unmanned program itself, which is why the robotic program is very much the 'second string' at NASA when it comes to any sort of priority for funding or support. Even science within the manned program is basically a joke... the inside joke at NASA among astronauts about ISS is, like shuttle "science" before it, more "peeing in jars and looking at stars" than anything approximating useful scientific research. And, you're absolutely correct... MOST ALL the "research" on ISS is self-serving and practically useless to the rest of humanity-- most of the research is directed towards and focused upon "assessing, minimizing, or coping with the microgravity effects on the short, medium, and long-term health effects on astronauts on extended space missions, and various strategies to mitigate those effects." Much of the rest is focused upon the effects of vibration and other problems associated with human research in microgravity"... IOW, on the fact that, as most scientists eager to do microgravity research in orbit that NASA was trying to recruit support for ISS from in the early-mid 90's had realized: ISS, or ANY "manned" microgravity research was going to be super-expensive and create a VERY poor environment for performing delicate microgravity research-- as humans move about the station and bump into things, open and close doors, and various other things of everday life, they create a lot of vibration and induce unwanted accelerations into the equipment mounted in/on/outside the station in which delicate microgee experiments are being conducted-- in short, it's a p!ss-poor microgee environment, too "noisy" with bumps, rattles, booms, and unwanted vibration that screws up delicate experiments-- extremely sensitive microgee experiments can be damaged by unwanted accelerations of even THOUSANDTHS of a gee, ISS experiences regular and unanticipated accelerations and "bumps" far exceeding that! That's why MOST of the scientific community turned against ISS, once the REALITIES of the limitations of microgee research aboard were exposed, and the BREATHTAKING costs of "manned research" understood... "Man tended" or automated research platforms could have achieved FAR more worthwhile research goals at FAR lower cost than the unbelievably expensive and practically worthless scientifically ISS...

ISS is basically about as interesting as watching paint dry-- another political exercise in a long line and endless pantheon of political exercises...

NASA has never been about "science"... it never has been, never will be... "science" is a convenient EXCUSE NASA invokes to validate its existence or its aims, goals, and programs... but the reality is, NASA is a political animal-- it was born for a political purpose, served a political aim, achieved political goals, and now is a full-fledged bureaucracy in its own right, still solely focused on achieving the political aims of its political masters... anything more is a byproduct or happy accident.

Later! OL JR :)
Your posts and the documentaries I manage to see will easily do. Especially your posts since the documentaries usually aren't very critical of NASA. Any more time spent on the subject will just tick me off for no good reason since the problem is system and will never be fixed due to public ignorance and apathy enhanced with more than a little propaganda.
 
It's ironic that a lot of things touched on I experienced directly and affected my career to the point I'm very happy to report I'm not a part of anymore. I worked my ass off as a lowly aircraft mechanic to go to school at night with a young wife and son at home whom I was exhausted and used up by the time I did get back to them. As proud as I was working on the Shuttle, right next door was the Atlas assembly line withering away on life support because the mandate was 'everything launches on the Shuttle' mind set at the time. Sure- all the satellite manufacturers were really happy to go with the program as 'hardening' a bird to take the g-forces, acoustic and mechanical vibrations, etc. was a lot more expensive than a soft 'man-rated' lift vehicle. Folks don't realize the Shuttle was a 1950's design based partly on the Air Force's "Dyna-Soar" program. When you realize the 'supersonic wall' was still a reasonably fresh breakthrough, the Shuttle was a pretty impressive achievement however bastardized it was at the final iteration (no manned, winged booster to take off tp get into the upper atmosphere with. no fly-around capability, etc, etc.). Heck- at that time we were still recycling Atlas E-birds (cold war ICBM's) into 'atmospheric test missions' (I still have the jacket from the last to go) so you have a litmus of what we were dealing with from the Pentagon, Congress, NASA and any official from Road Narrows, Nevada who had a say in 'appropriations' (i.e.YOUR tax dollars). We had cpld war era veterans, guys coming off the big "Moon Race" and "The Next Big Thing" dreamers all fighting to keep a piece of the pie. After Endeavour was finished ( I was still a mechanic at the time) , I had the obligatory 'fake check' ceremony standing in front of it while the Reps from Rockwell were all standing around smiling and shaking everyone' hands. I asked one of them "What now?" He replied "Well, any new design will not require this tooling ( a massively complex and expensive 'buck' requiring a fulltime group of tooling engineers to support) so we're gonna scrap this pile of junk" Broke my heart (if you know anything about the SR-71 fiasco). We had just gotten the Shuttle Centaur designs and preliminary testing completed to go into production, but our test mockup was being used to validate the Hubble mission. inside the walled off part of the hangar was an artist's rendition of the Hubble, show with a man-rated 'office' in the rear with crew quarters, guidance center and all kinds of goodies that never made it to production. Somebody got thepicture off the wall before I could-dang it! Anyway the propaganda machine was oiled and fired up as soon as we got good access to the mock up room and the Hubble group moved on with the trimmed up and near sighted bird. We were "going interplanetary" with our proud heritage of the Centaur, now squattier and modified to fit the Shuttle. We had the complete bird ready for final acceptance and I was putting strain gages on the 'saddle' that sat in the bay to elevate and launch the mission. Then I was sent to Florida ( we all had to spend time to support and I kept passing it off to the younger, single guys all summer) for a mod to prove a launch abort fuel dump would work (Shuttle landing gear would not support a fully loaded Centaur with Galileo mission capable) and then the Challenger happened. I had left the day before. We were shocked-that was one of OUR babies! When I got back I resumed the strain gage documentation of the launch cradle and while the mood was depressing and somber, the crew took extra pains to make sure everything was perfect because "We're going to Jupiter"! Rumours were floating NASA was going to cancel, but an Air Forcer said something to the effect "By God, we'll use Air Force pilots and they damwell are gonna fly what we tell them to!" Like Luke said, the rest is just crappy history. You live thru these things and get a little jaded, a little disgusted and then you just have an impotent rage against the political machine that creates this kinda mess. I swear if Jeff ever ran for Congress, I'd vote twice!
 
I guess I'll just go ahead and point out the work that SpaceX is doing as far as reusability and Dragon v2 go. If I had to guess, they probably wouldn't hit a billion on a human trip to Mars.

SpaceX and NASA are two TOTALLY different animals...

NASA is basically threatened by SpaceX but dependent upon it, thanks to COTS and, perhaps, (but nothing is written in stone yet!) CCICap (Commercial crew, basically-- the new acronym is about as clumsy as they come... don't see why they couldn't have kept calling it CCDev...)

SpaceX offered to develop a human rated all-liquid (effectively a modern-day do-over of Saturn V) for $3.5 billion dollars total development cost-- that's a GUARANTEED PRICE, not some typical big old-school NASA contractor "price plus" contract that basically pays them extra for going over budget and over schedule on the development, which is why NASA development programs are pretty much neverending budget sinks taking decades and costing billions with little/nothing to show for it. SpaceX effectively said, "Give us $3.5 billion and we'll deliver you a man-rated modern Saturn V in five years (IIRC on the schedule). If it costs more, we'll eat the difference."

NASA said, "Thanks, but no thanks." The basic reasoning is that SpaceX is the "new kid on the block" and they "don't really know or understand what it takes to do these really big projects. They don't have a proven track record like Boeing, Grumman, Lockheed/North American, Pratt & Whitney/Rocketdyne, ULA, ATK, etc. etc. etc..." (all the usual suspects BTW that normally get those fat billion dollar development contracts that run years over schedule and billions over budget and usually get canceled before anything flies). Plus, NASA doesn't want to "farm out" its rocket development-- nevermind that they haven't developed a successful flying vehicle since the shuttle in the early 1970's-- 40 years ago basically. Nevermind that the successful design and development and state of the art know-how now resides in industry, mainly among the aforementioned "favorite contractors" of NASA, especially in ULA which designed, developed, tested, and now flies the EELV's, Delta IV and Atlas V, for DOD and NASA.... (among others). No, former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin demanded (or at least readily endorsed the idea, same difference) that "only NASA could develop the next generation manned exploration space vehicle and booster" even though it required basically the complete reconstitution from scratch of the design and engineering organization and capabilities within NASA to do it "in-house", because MOST of the experienced engineering base is OUTSIDE NASA, NOT within it... (at least not in terms of booster design and development-- manned spacecraft, which basically is a PAYLOAD, YES... booster development, no...) Is it therefore any wonder that Ares I/V development was a basket case and SLS, although better (less ambitious) is going to take over a decade to get flying and will cost the better part of $40 BILLION dollars to develop??

Of course, the politicians like it that way. Had Columbia not disintegrated during reentry over Texas, they were QUITE content to fly shuttles until they literally fell apart... that was the plans NASA and Congress had before Columbia-- fly shuttles until AT LEAST 2020, recertify them to fly to 2030. NASA basically knew that it'd be a stretch to keep shuttles going to 2020 or much past that, and sooner or later they'd need a shuttle replacement, and a cheaper one at that, which is why they were developing the "Orbital Space Plane" (OSP) when Columbia disintegrated... it was a slow-roll shuttle successor program, since NASA couldn't get funding for a full-fledged development program for a shuttle replacement. Shuttle served Congressional interests perfectly-- to distribute pork to the "right contractors" in the "right Congressional districts" in the so-called "space states" (primarily Utah, Texas, Florida, and Alabama). So long as it was working correctly for that, operations and safety were no great concern of Congress, no matter how much rhetoric to the contrary.

Thankfully, NASA decided to let "commercial space" (ie, anything NOT directly under NASA control and budgeting) get a piece of the pie to resupply ISS, once it became clear that 1) it wasn't cost effective to spend $450 million to launch a shuttle hauling a few tons of supplies up to ISS all the time, 2) the Russian Progress couldn't resupply ISS alone, 2) the combination of the Progress, ESA's ATV, and Japan's HTV wouldn't be capable of keeping ISS supplied with the shuttle retired, 3) this meant that there would have to be SOME way of taking up the slack... thus basically COTS commercial resupply was a decision "forced on NASA by reality" more than a conscious choice over other possibilities. COTS provided the funds to bootstrap commercial space operations like SpaceX, and to an extent, Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) (which of course already had it's own small satellite launchers, primarily in Pegasus and repurposed ICBM's modified into launch vehicles (like Minotaur).

For now, NASA and its contractors are resting on the laurels and proclaiming from the rooftops, "rockets and space is HARD-- ONLY *we* (NASA and big time "old-space" companies that have been NASA/gov't "cost-plus" contractors for decades) can do it! These "kids" at SpaceX and commercial nu-space are a bunch of inexperienced, overeager, naive, and overambitious space cadets that don't understand just how hard it is! Only *we* can be trusted with the lives of astronauts and deep space missions and heavy lift and things like that..." Of course, truth is, SpaceX is learning fast... it's not an ancient bloated bureaucracy like NASA or top-heavy "military-industrial complex" old-space cost-plus contractor like most of the existing NASA contractor base that gets such programs like SLS development, etc... but instead they are a lean, mean, modernly organized and operating space company pioneering a "new way of doing business" and getting things done...

Now, let's play a little thought game... what's going to happen in a few years if SLS is still in development and testing and SpaceX is flying Falcon Heavies regularly and reliably to orbit hauling 70 tonne payloads, launching and landing reusable Falcon 9 stages, launching and returning astronauts from ISS under CCICap (commercial crew) (as well as any other "commercial users" that might pop up-- space tourists, Bigelow hotel flights, man-tended space industry, whatever), and flying payloads with Dragon, and tinkering with developing Red Dragon and working on how to land a Dragon on the Moon (manned or unmanned)... Let's say that SLS development is going swimmingly and a few test flights have been made, but it's still a couple years away from the first manned missions to *anywhere* other than test flights, and it becomes obvious that SLS has no payloads except Orion, and that without payloads it won't be doing ANYTHING. Furthermore, when it dawns on everyone that, since SLS is based on the same old super-expensive shuttle hardware (SSME's and SRB's, among others) and that now that SLS will REUSE NOTHING, but instead dump all those parts on the ocean floor offshore of Florida or in the South Pacific or Indian Ocean after burning most of those expensive parts into burnt cinders... that SLS WILL be THE most expensive launch system ever devised by man (shuttle notwithstanding-- the present record holder but which will be eclipsed by SLS costs due to the low flight rates and getting NOTHING back after each flight). Don't you think there are gonna be some hard questions asked??

There's gonna be a forehead slapping moment when public outrage at the expense of SLS/Orion becomes generally known and understood among the sleeping "public" (who only cares when their tax dollars are going to something they don't want instead of something they DO want) and Congress FINALLY has to face facts that are now the 800 pound gorilla in the room... When it's TOTALLY apparent to even the most slack-jawed politician that SLS/Orion is going to cost well in excess of a billion per launch, before mission costs, and that SpaceX can basically do ALMOST the same thing NASA is doing, just in a different way, for a small fraction of that.

After all, in the 6 years after the loss of Columbia, NASA spent over $9 billion bucks to develop a crew rocket that basically didn't work (Ares I), a super-mammoth HLV that was STILL not capable of launching everything needed (Ares V), and a new human deep space exploration spacecraft that had been stripped down to the bare bones of what was proposed (Orion). When the Constellation debacle was cancelled, NASA had Orion at CDR (ready to start bending metal, basically), Ares I was a basket case (although they "fudged" things to make it look like it was past PDR and they were making progress-- it was facing a number of huge issues and potential show-stoppers and was already YEARS behind schedule and billions over budget). Ares V was basically just a paper rocket, still unable to close the design due to additional requirements being shoved onto it due the anemic performance of Ares I. In the same time NASA spent $9 billion dollars and six years of largely WASTED effort, SpaceX developed a new human-capable (yet operated unmanned for COTS resupply) all-new spacecraft (Dragon), TWO new boosters (Falcon 1 and Falcon 9), and an all-new engine (Merlin) and took it through several different iterations and modifications to uprate its performance (from the original ablatively cooled Merlin design through the modern uprated Merlin "C" used on Falcon 9, with more upgrades in the offing). They did all that in about the same time period, and using only about a billion bucks or so... a pittance in terms of space development costs... (heck program OVERRUNS in most projects are more than that!)

I've had old-space pud-knockers whine, "you REALLY believe that SpaceX did ALL that for ONLY $1 Billion bucks??"... My reply is, "okay, let's play devils advocate-- lets say they WERE underestimating their actual expenses by a factor of three... Let's say they spent $3 Billion developing Dragon, Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Merlin... that's STILL only ONE-THIRD what NASA *WASTED* on Ares I/V and Orion development, in the SAME TIME FRAME... It's STILL the biggest bargain around!"

Of course, time will tell... there's a lot still up in the air... NASA has, so far, its fat development contracts for SLS and Orion... that could change with a new Administration or major shakeup in Congress, or if something major happened... SpaceX is working hard to perfect vertical launch and landing via boostback or vertical powered landing downrange... they've been making remarkable progress, but they HAVE suffered setbacks recently, as most complex projects do. Time will tell if they succeed in making their idea of reusability work reliably, and if it's actually a money-making proposition that can cut launch costs as much as they say. They're making good progress on their 53 tonne-to-orbit launch vehicle, Falcon Heavy, but IT HASN'T FLOWN YET! Impossible to say how well it will work until it has a flight history. Falcon 9 operations seem to be going well, though there's the usual difficulties and setbacks that cause delays. Dragon is working well, and its modification into a crew ferry vehicle seems to be progressing well, but it hasn't flown in that configuration yet, so problems may still show up. On the NASA side, SLS is progressing well by most information we get, but again, it hasn't flown yet, and time will tell if there are more "teething problems" down the road to come that will delay the development. Costs are pretty easy to figure out will be substantially more than shuttle, due to a combination of lower flight rates and no reuse of anything. SLS also STILL has NO missions approved and budgeted other than some test and demonstration flights, and NO hardware approved or funded for development to do any missions.

So, things are in flux... but if I were a betting man, I'd put my money on SpaceX for sure, based on their past performance and NASA's past, current, and ongoing debacles...

Later! OL JR :)
 
I guess I'll just go ahead and point out the work that SpaceX is doing as far as reusability and Dragon v2 go. If I had to guess, they probably wouldn't hit a billion on a human trip to Mars.

Plus, the way SpaceX would go to Mars and the way NASA would go to Mars would of course be completely different...

NASA seems h3ll bent on always picking *THE* most expensive, time consuming, and difficult way possible to do ANY mission in space. Just look at the Mars DRM's (design reference missions) and you can see that... look at the Constellation program's plans for lunar missions... look at SEI... it's an ongoing thing at NASA-- it's their theme...

SpaceX, of course, will choose whatever method that seems technically feasible and has an acceptable level of risk (which will undoubtedly be too much for NASA). It won't necessarily be "lowest cost" but it won't be too far above that, either...

Different methodologies will of course get you different results, different timelines, and of course different costs and levels of risk...

Later! OL JR :)
 
It's ironic that a lot of things touched on I experienced directly and affected my career to the point I'm very happy to report I'm not a part of anymore. I worked my ass off as a lowly aircraft mechanic to go to school at night with a young wife and son at home whom I was exhausted and used up by the time I did get back to them. As proud as I was working on the Shuttle, right next door was the Atlas assembly line withering away on life support because the mandate was 'everything launches on the Shuttle' mind set at the time. Sure- all the satellite manufacturers were really happy to go with the program as 'hardening' a bird to take the g-forces, acoustic and mechanical vibrations, etc. was a lot more expensive than a soft 'man-rated' lift vehicle. Folks don't realize the Shuttle was a 1950's design based partly on the Air Force's "Dyna-Soar" program. When you realize the 'supersonic wall' was still a reasonably fresh breakthrough, the Shuttle was a pretty impressive achievement however bastardized it was at the final iteration (no manned, winged booster to take off tp get into the upper atmosphere with. no fly-around capability, etc, etc.). Heck- at that time we were still recycling Atlas E-birds (cold war ICBM's) into 'atmospheric test missions' (I still have the jacket from the last to go) so you have a litmus of what we were dealing with from the Pentagon, Congress, NASA and any official from Road Narrows, Nevada who had a say in 'appropriations' (i.e.YOUR tax dollars). We had cpld war era veterans, guys coming off the big "Moon Race" and "The Next Big Thing" dreamers all fighting to keep a piece of the pie. After Endeavour was finished ( I was still a mechanic at the time) , I had the obligatory 'fake check' ceremony standing in front of it while the Reps from Rockwell were all standing around smiling and shaking everyone' hands. I asked one of them "What now?" He replied "Well, any new design will not require this tooling ( a massively complex and expensive 'buck' requiring a fulltime group of tooling engineers to support) so we're gonna scrap this pile of junk" Broke my heart (if you know anything about the SR-71 fiasco). We had just gotten the Shuttle Centaur designs and preliminary testing completed to go into production, but our test mockup was being used to validate the Hubble mission. inside the walled off part of the hangar was an artist's rendition of the Hubble, show with a man-rated 'office' in the rear with crew quarters, guidance center and all kinds of goodies that never made it to production. Somebody got thepicture off the wall before I could-dang it! Anyway the propaganda machine was oiled and fired up as soon as we got good access to the mock up room and the Hubble group moved on with the trimmed up and near sighted bird. We were "going interplanetary" with our proud heritage of the Centaur, now squattier and modified to fit the Shuttle. We had the complete bird ready for final acceptance and I was putting strain gages on the 'saddle' that sat in the bay to elevate and launch the mission. Then I was sent to Florida ( we all had to spend time to support and I kept passing it off to the younger, single guys all summer) for a mod to prove a launch abort fuel dump would work (Shuttle landing gear would not support a fully loaded Centaur with Galileo mission capable) and then the Challenger happened. I had left the day before. We were shocked-that was one of OUR babies! When I got back I resumed the strain gage documentation of the launch cradle and while the mood was depressing and somber, the crew took extra pains to make sure everything was perfect because "We're going to Jupiter"! Rumours were floating NASA was going to cancel, but an Air Forcer said something to the effect "By God, we'll use Air Force pilots and they damwell are gonna fly what we tell them to!" Like Luke said, the rest is just crappy history. You live thru these things and get a little jaded, a little disgusted and then you just have an impotent rage against the political machine that creates this kinda mess. I swear if Jeff ever ran for Congress, I'd vote twice!

GREAT story, but so sad... At one time I wanted to be an astronaut... back when everyone was still reveling in the glory of Apollo, even though it had ended, and the future seemed filled with promise with the shuttle program coming up-- the era of reliable, frequent, and best of all CHEAP spaceflight, that was going to open up a whole new era for mankind... only the shuttle we got wasn't any of those things... Oh, the bean counters and politicians and bigshot program managers tried to MAKE it that way, but reality has a way of getting in the way, and when ignored, sooner or later it catches up to you and bites down hard... like it did January 28th, 1986. That was the day reality set in. Not that it changes things much, especially for people profiting from sailing with the tide and current, riding the momentum of "the way things are"... might change things somewhat at a lower level, but like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, the underlying fact remains that the boat's still sinking...

Of course that's nothing new... look at our beloved leaders, rearranging deck chairs in the economy, health care, even foreign policy, meanwhile we're moving full speed ahead through a field of icebergs, and on most counts we're already up to our necks in water... It's nothing new... things only change just as much as they HAVE to, and only when there's NO CHOICE... In the case of the shuttle program, it would take the events of February 3, 2003 to really make the point that shuttle's time had come and was long gone.

Shuttle Centaur was an interesting beast... you read about it today and it seems incredulous that it ever got past the safety people... launching a liquid hydrogen stage inside the payload bay of a manned space vehicle, inside the manned orbiter. As I understand it, tanking and detanking it, the risks from a propellant leak, the dangers of liquified air forming and coming into contact with something it shouldn't, as well as the propellant dump procedures in the event of an abort, since the shuttle's landing gear couldn't handle the stress of a fully-fueled Centaur sitting the payload bay, and I doubt the thing was designed to handle the stresses of being turned horizontal anyway for a landing, having to pump liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen overboard from ports on the wingtips or vertical stabilizer (can't recall which at the moment)... the whole thing just seemed very dicey. Not that Centaur wasn't a good stage, far from it... just that the whole scheme behind using it in that way, with the shuttle, didn't seem particularly safe. Of course there was a LOT about the shuttle that could be said on that count... John Young seemed to sum it up best when he said about the idea of using the first shuttle launch to test an RTLS abort, "I think not-- RTLS is taking a high risk of death to avoid certain death." Shuttle's abort strategies and methods relied upon such a nearly impossible line of perfect conditions as to be effectively nonexistent...

The idea of a shuttle wasn't bad, the execution was bad... the guys who built it were victims of the bean counters and managers and politicos and generals, all pulling it this way and that, trying to turn it into something it could never be and achieve the original goals set for it. So it's been throughout most of NASA's history, truth be told. Course, that's nothing new either... look at health care and the unfolding debacle that's occurring and will continue to occur there...

Anyway, it's just sad how dreams die. In the end, I realized that I'd never get the chance to do anything like that, and that what I was doing, farming, was really all I could ever look forward to. I used to have teachers lament over the fact I didn't apply myself... I could pass without cracking a book or taking notes, just half-listening in class and doing as much work as I had to do to get by. After my Granddad died, by the time I was fifteen I was basically running the farm by myself, for my grandmother-- Dad was working 60-70 hours a week or more at the nuclear plant. They lamented that if I only applied myself, I could do anything... Course I figured I had enough to do... and in the mid-80's, what could I do... I was fascinated with nuclear physics, atom bomb construction, etc. What could I do by applying myself-- create a better way to kill 10 million people in a millionth of a second?? Plus, I thought, "What about what *I* want... I don't want to cure cancer or invent new bombs, or some other technology that would undoubtedly be screwed up and misused by mankind... I decided I just wanted a quiet life, on the land, with as few people around as possible. I didn't need good grades for that. So I just drifted through school and now I'm here.

We're all "here"... just like with the space program, we're victims of forces beyond our control... strings pulled by madmen with no idea or care for the consequences, no vision of the greater good or long term gain or long term consequences, only desiring the most they can get from the here and now.

Oh well... such is life.

Later! OL JR :)
 
Back
Top