Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

GregM · 2005-04-13 21:04:53

I have been reading quite a few posts here lamenting the possible demise of such things as Voyager and Hubble. I see there is even a "save Voyager" poll. I am the first to be saddened by the possible loss of such things as Hubble, Voyager - and many before them such as CRAF and the US Halley probe. I can remember reading about Voyager before it was launched and wondered at what secrets it would find in their travels. As much as many of us have an emotional attachment to such incredible missions, we must also realize that everything is done for a reason. It is only a matter if one agrees with the reasoning employed.

Most people are aware that the American space program is currently at a crossroads, attempting to define and proceed with what it should be and do in the 21st century. The largest part of this transformation has resulted from the President assigning NASA a long-term vision. This proposed change is the most sweeping and significant to NASA in at least 35 years. It will be little short of a re-invention. In response to these marching orders, NASA has begun to realign what and how it operates. Part of that reorganization is to strengthen and enlarge the things that it does that compliment the new vision, and to stop or scale down what does not compliment that vision. The first of those realigning steps are currently being taken. Some people are happy to see things getting started, while others are profoundly upset. It begs the question: what should be the raison d'etre for NASA? Is the new plan the correct one? If not, what should the primary focus of the American space program be? Should it even have a primary focus?

What the President has assigned to NASA is commonly called the “Vision For Space Exploration”, or VSE. The basic and overriding objective of the VSE is to firstly lay the groundwork for, and then proceed with, the human exploration of the Solar System. It begins with the completion of the Space Station, moves to returning to the Moon, then to Mars, and then beyond Mars. Although not specifically officially stated, “beyond Mars” is thought to include larger asteroids, Jupiter (likely Callisto), Lagrangian stations, etc. At the core, the VSE is about humans exploring and pioneering, and even one day possibly colonizing. It’s about getting humans off of the third stone from the sun and out exploring the cosmos. Heady stuff indeed. The thing is that this sort of stuff can be - but is not necessarily - science or scientifically driven. It is about humans expanding their envelope of existence (real, not virtual). It’s about seeing what’s over the next hill by climbing that hill in person (but it is not necessarily as important to know what that hill is made of (at least not immediately)). It’s Lewis&Clark, Leif Erikson, Francis Drake, and Robert Scott sort of stuff. It is not James Van Allen, Marie Curie, or Enrico Fermi sort of stuff.

So what does this mean for the NASA paradigm that has been around up to this point? Basically many other NASA activities that do not compliment the VSE might end up taking a backseat, be ended, or not happen at all. Everyone must be realistic here: NASA is not going to get an unlimited budget to do everything, so sometimes things not directly VSE related are going to get sacrificed in order to help the VSE along. It is an inevitability. Already, we are seeing the potential killing off of some high-visibility NASA science & aeronautics programs that do not have much application to the VSE. More will come in the future.

This question has a direct bearing on unmanned planetary exploration especially. Up to now, much of the mission selection for the US unmanned planetary exploration program has been driven primarily by scientific questions relating to the solar system. The overall mission lineups were derived from the SSEC – essentially a science body. In the future, the science produced by planetary probes will need to have some sort of bearing on the VSE, as opposed to broader scientific desires. How do readers feel about that?

An excellent (but not the only) example of this question is the current issue regarding the Voyager spacecraft. The Voyagers have lived way, way beyond their primary and extended missions. They are now only returning data primarily concerned with the interaction of the solar wind with intergalactic space, and with the physical conditions and properties of space at the edge of our solar system. This is scientifically important from the perspective of people who study these matters, other people who support such research, and of course the folks who still operate the Voyagers. How much of this data will make a reasonably significant contribution to the VSE though? Probably not much. An argument for keeping Voyager going might be made that Voyager operations cost “only” $10 million/year – not much in the world of spaceflight. However, seeing that the Voyagers might have 15 more years of life in them, it really means that running the Voyagers to the end of their operational life will cost $150 million. $150 million could actually make a difference to the VSE.

This is where a conflict lies with many supporters of the space program. Most would really like to see something like the VSE happen, and in a timescale that falls within their lifetime. Many dream of watching that future television broadcast of those first human footsteps on Mars, or high definition television broadcasts from the surface of the moon. Are those same supporters prepared to see a sometimes heavy price paid to achieve that however? Are supporters of the goals of the VSE really prepared for the drastic change in the way NASA will need to operate in order to achieve it? I’m not sure that some folks really grasp the ultimate enormity of the scope of the VSE, and the fundamental change in NASA that it will incur. Although not a race like it was in the 60’s, it will be much like Mercury/Gemini/Apollo in the sense of single minded purpose and objective – except it will last 20-30 years. Realistically there is not ever going to enough money to do the VSE, and all the things that the geophysics, solar physics, particle physics, earth sciences, planetary sciences & astronomy communities want to do. So what gives?

Basically, there are three options:

1) Proceed with the current NASA plan as assigned by the President. This will give the VSE priority. Other activities will still happen at NASA, but they will rarely if ever override VSE priorities if NASA is forced to choose between the two. Other programs may suffer as a result. This will get the VSE objectives accomplished as soon as possible (10-25 years), but quite potentially at the expense of other unassociated NASA activities.

2) Blend the VSE into NASA as a priority parallel with other unassociated programs. The VSE will then have to compete with other programs on a level playing field. VSE will not get all the resources when it desires, but other programs will not suffer at the expense of the VSE. It will however quite possibly take the VSE 20-40 or more years to achieve its objectives. There is also the real risk that any program that takes that long to accomplish will not survive long enough to fulfill its objectives. VSE might ultimately collapse under such a stretchout. Other non-VSE-related will however get the same treatment as in the
past decade or more.

3) Forget the VSE. Shut it down. Allow human spaceflight to continue with earth orbital research involving 3-10 people at a time, as it has been for the last 20 years. One might even consider minimizing or shutting down that activity in the future if real payoffs cannot be demonstrated. This would be a boon to all unmanned spaceflight. Robotic exploration of any and all places in the solar system might flourish. Other “pure science” spaceflight missions might also flourish. The downside: human spaceflight might dwindle to nothing. Following that, it might not restarted for a very long time, if ever. Humans will remain firmly bonded to the Earth for the foreseeable future. One other risk: many taxpayers support unmanned spaceflight on the (possibly erroneous) understanding that these are unmanned “pathfinders” that firstly explore where humans will ultimately go to later. If the taxpayer is told that humans will NEVER EVER go to these places, then public perception might be that unmanned spaceflight exists solely to satisfy the curiosity of scientists at lofty universities – and public support for such endeavors under such a scenario might evaporate.

So, where do folks stand on this? I would be interested in hearing other opinions.

hubricide · 2005-04-14 18:47:45

Good question.

To me, the Voyager spacecraft is important because it is one of the most distant man-made objects ever (if not the most distant.. I don't know offhand) and still moving further away, it's still returning data, and nobody really knows what happens at the edge of our solar system.

I don't understand why it costs even $10 million a year to keep monitoring it, but that still seems like a small price to pay. It seems like a waste to just stop looking at the data.

Both Voyager and that other probe (Pioneer?) also seem to be experiencing more gravity than they 'should' be.. Surely that's interesting enough to warrant $10 million a year. You know, gravity, one of the fundamental forces that makes the entire universe work (as far as we can tell)? I'll cough up the $10 million myself. Big deal.

If Voyager were to be canceled, though, I wonder if someone else could simply monitor the data. Would it require extremely expensive equipment, or would it be easy for some university or similarly scientifically-minded body to do? How often does that rickety bucket of bolts even return anything?

SpaceNut · 2005-04-14 20:14:39

the idea of cancelling them for the cost of only a small amount of the budget is a bean counters approach to handling the situation.
now what would be the replacement cost in the far off future when we are ready for the step to go beyond. it would be a cost that is a far cry more than the total of all the years that was estimated that they might stay working.
bean counting in this way is way off. now going after why it cost so much to recieve dat and record it for later researchers to analyze later. now that is a question that should be answered in addition to the one of off loading the responsibility for others to do this function in a outsourcing manner.

ps sorry about the caps not working...

RobertDyck · 2005-04-14 20:41:48

Refocusing NASA to human exploration of the solar system is good. It will involve reducing space centers and eliminating thousands of jobs, but it also means creating an equal number of jobs elsewhere. A smart employee will figure out if his/her job is one of those scheduled to be eliminated and position him/herself to get one of the new jobs.

This may mean cancelling existing projects before they're launched, such as X-38 or Node 3 or the Commercial Enterprise Module on ISS, but you don't abandon a probe that's already in space. Hubble has been the most successful mission in space ever; abandoning that is just plain stupid. Voyager is on an extended mission out of the solar system. Pioneer 10 & 11 were the first probes to leave the solar system, but their power supply died so we didn't get any data. The tidbit we have now is watching them with a telescope and measuring their progress. Voyager 1 & 2 are still sending back data, they have plasma instruments specifically designed to measure the heliopause. Now that it's about to arrive at the heliopause they want to stop listening!? A mission that far requires many years to get there, if we can't stick with a mission through to the end how do you expect to accomplish anything? Is the next decision to launch the Pluto/Kuiper Express then abandon it before it arrives? Simply listening does not take a lot of money.

Palomar · 2005-04-15 04:12:39

GregM: I see there is even a "save Voyager" poll.

*Yep. And created on a Poll-Only basis (hoping people would vote and NASA would see, as stated in the description) because the original discussion thread (Stephen's, which was linked to in the Poll) was serving its purpose quite well. Not sure why we need yet another discussion thread for this (and Hubble and etc.). ???

Robert Dyck: Voyager 1 & 2 are still sending back data, they have plasma instruments specifically designed to measure the heliopause. Now that it's about to arrive at the heliopause they want to stop listening!? A mission that far requires many years to get there, if we can't stick with a mission through to the end how do you expect to accomplish anything? Is the next decision to launch the Pluto/Kuiper Express then abandon it before it arrives? Simply listening does not take a lot of money.

That's it in a nutshell. :up:

GregM: So, where do folks stand on this? I would be interested in hearing other opinions.

I thought Stephen's thread was addressing that. Really, I don't see the need for redundancy. :-\

--Cindy

GregM · 2005-04-15 12:02:01

Whoa there Cindy

I think you may have missed my point. The point of my thread is not the Voyager, Hubble, or any other particular programs’ threats or cuts. I simply used them as examples because people here are so familiar with those particular situations. I just have easily could have used potential upcoming mission extensions on MER, Cassini, or Chandra as case history examples. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here. What I am really talking about here is overriding policy objectives for the American space program, not if Missions “X, Y, or Z” live or die – they are but chess pieces on a much, much larger board. In fact, although some people have alluded to the hard choices that have to be made in supporting one specific policy or another as a response to a more specific thread, I do not see this matter anywhere in this particular forum being addressed in and of itself - despite the fact that it will be the overriding factor in unmanned solar system exploration for the next 20-30 years.

What I am trying (and apparently failing) to speak to is about policy choices. Big picture stuff. I have been reading stuff here from a lot of folks supporting multiple initiatives that may in fact become in conflict or competition with one another under the new national civil space policy. It seems like some folks want to have it all (and hey – I don’t blame you, I really would like it all as well). They want people on Mars, on the Moon, asteroids, etc. Then they want other stuff as well – such as extensions on very successful ongoing programs that have run their pre-specified course, or new unmanned planetary missions.

You yourself have written these two things in two separate threads:

“Manned mission by 2020, right NASA? RIGHT, NASA??”

And then you put up a “save Voyager” poll.

What I am saying to you and everyone else is that it is unlikely that everyone is going to get everything all the time. There are times when missions such as the two that you have stated above - that you both want to see happen - will be in direct competition with each other – and one will loose. The money isn’t likely to be there for everything. Sometimes, something will have to give. That’s what I am talking about.

So, are folks prepared to support the policy choices that achieve whatever objectives they support, whether that is the VSE, non-VSE, unmanned, manned, or whatever mix of that is appropriate. Are they prepared to see some of the things that they want to happen not happen, for the greater sake of the overriding policy objective that they support?

That is what I am asking. I am challenging people to get off their chairs and speak to what they stand for in terms of the big picture, within the context of realism. To be prepared to bite the bullet on some tough individual issues if it is in support of their greater vision. Not whether Voyager, or whatever else, lives to see another day. It is big picture policy stuff that determines what individual missions get selected for flight, and which of those get mission extensions once flying.

Can you see the difference?

PS – Hubble and Voyager will likely get their extensions for political reasons, at the expense of something else. So don’t sweat it too much over these.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-15 13:13:49

So lets simply:
Space exploration has only two categories of choice manned or robotic. The destination and desired knowledge or scientific question that needs answer only means a choice of cost per question answered. With that a machine though it can do many things is most likely made for single purpose and results in more needing to be made to answer all questions of need. Where as man once there is only limited by consumable resources and perhaps tools that are available to answer most questions directly. So with that said doing the missions all with robots will be cheaper but only to a point and they will if designed correctly to last would need multiple extensions of funding to gain all possible data using each specific unit.

Does that mean you would count the probe unit as junk just because it has out lived its date of expiration or that it has achieve maybe one of it mission goals that it is capable of.

Dook · 2005-04-15 15:51:55

I once wanted to save Hubble and we have had extensive debate about it but I have since changed my mind. For the cost of a mission to service and repair a few of Hubble's systems we can have a completely new space telescope, and without the need for a costly and risky space shuttle mission.

As a side issue if the shuttle is not needed to repair Hubble then the shuttle is not really needed at all and can be retired then we can buy out our ISS commitment to other countries. What would you rather have over the next 7 years?

1) Risky space shuttle launches to the ISS and a shuttle mission to keep a few of the Hubble's systems going for a few more years.

or

2) New space telescope put at the L1 point and a NASA Design Reference Mission sending humans to mars.

You say we are currently at a crossroads. In my opinion we have been stuck at this 'crossroads' for far too long. The Presidents long-term vision is no vision at all. We are going to relearn how to go to the moon, something we did with 60's technology, so we can eventually use it go to mars? That is ridiculous and shows absolutely no confidence in NASA. It's not good leadership!

Proclaiming "Beyond Mars" is great but it is far too soon to know where we will go after mars. Mars first!

As far as saving Voyager...I can't believe it costs $10 million a year to continue that program. I think a lot of axing needs to be done there to reduce it's cost but don't axe the entire program.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-04-29 02:15:38

If Voyager were to be canceled, though, I wonder if someone else could simply monitor the data. Would it require extremely expensive equipment, or would it be easy for some university or similarly scientifically-minded body to do? How often does that rickety bucket of bolts even return anything?

To kinda answer a question I know something about...

Expensive? Not really. The only major expense is having a receiver sensitive enough to receive the data. The DSN is currently the only NASA-run set of receivers that could do so, which isn't to say the Russians couldn't use some of their larger radio telescopes, or perhaps Greenbank, etc.

How often do they return data? Every day - oftentimes every 16 seconds for some instruments. They don't have data recorders (tape or otherwise) that can store more than a couple of days worth of data due to power requirements. Miss a day (or a hour) of reception - miss a day (or an hour) of data collection - which happens due to weather quite often:

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/wee … /index.htm

Shaun Barrett · 2005-04-29 03:53:19

If it's Voyager v. Humans-to-Mars by 2020, I choose Mars.
If it's Hubble v. Humans-to-Mars by 2020, I choose Mars.
If it's the ISS v. Humans-to-Mars by 2020, I choose Mars.

[If it's the Space Elevator by 2020 or Humans-to-Mars by 2020, I choose the former ... because the former will get me the latter anyway, not by 2020, I admit, but bigger, better and more often!]

In this regard, I'm quite ruthless and single-minded and I agree with GregM; Mars is that important to me.
However, it's unlikely that sacrificing Voyager, Hubble or the ISS (or all three) will guarantee Humans-to-Mars. The world just doesn't work that way in my experience. At the risk of seeming cynical, it's not impossible we could sacrifice all those programs and still not get a human on Mars by 2020!
I'm still very concerned about the distinct possibility we'll be squandering decades and billions on multiple 'play-it-safe-no-risk-is-acceptable-risk' Sample Return Missions (SRMs) to Mars. (I can go along with one SRM but that's my limit.)

To this extent, then, I think GregM's question is too hypothetical to really mean very much in the real world. And I don't say that with any hint of dismissive disdain for the question itself - which is perfectly valid and logical in itself.

Just a point of view, that's all.

Grypd · 2005-04-29 04:14:42

The reason it costs so much to keep voyager is that they are constantly having to design code to keep it pointed towards the Earth so its weak signals can be intercepted. Voyagers internal systems are struggling to get frame of reference with us and occasionly threaten to start tumbling. This is not that much of a problem as the yoyagers have plenty of hydrazine fuel on board to correct it is the electrical supply that will doom them. The voyagers will not survive past 2015 when there power generation will fall below operating levels.

But given the push and a choice between the voyagers and the CEV im sorry I will go for the CEV. We need to get off this planet and out of LEO. I beleive the Moon is a good place to start and have allways thought that for the cost of the almost useless ISS we could have had a permanent prescence on the Moon years ago.

Ian Flint · 2005-04-29 15:21:33

I agree with Shaun. There is no choice.
The VSE is a nice idea, but has an unrealistic timeline. I doubt the CEV will be completed on time. And, I doubt the program will get much further than that. This is based on the assumption that no other president after GWB will push the program faster, of course.

Since the VSE will probably fail, I have to support the extended missions of all robotic probes and Hubble.

I vote for more overall funding for NASA or an X-prize style system open to private enterprise.

John Creighton · 2005-04-29 16:03:25

I go with choice 1) or 2). The manned program is important but so is science. Everything should be looked at from the perspective of its marginal return. I am prepared to sacrifice some stuff for the manned program. For instance Hubble can burn but that is just because I think a new telescope will be better. Voyager I am not so sure about. It seems kind of unique and not that much would be saved by cutting it.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-04-29 20:15:04

Where do I stand? Good question.

First, very simple choices can be made in relation to going to Mars (VSE or no VSE) based on what is being done right now. Forget for the moment the Moon (hard as that may be).

What is the value of what we've already spent money on in robotics? Well, MESSENGER was absolutely worthless to the VSE - but it's on it's way now so it's too late. Deep Impact? Deep why?! Dawn? Say goodnight. Same for every mission not currently slated to the Moon, Mars, or studying the Earth and/or Sun radiation environment.

One caveat - Pluto/Kuiper. So many people ask me about Pluto (especially about pictures) that this mission has to go forward for public relations if nothing else. Think about the people who know of your interest in the space program and if they've asked you the same.

But solar-studies probes like Ulysses, etc. are valuable for understanding and monitoring the radiation environment - which is of paramount importance to piloted exploration to Mars, or anywhere for that matter. These should actually be high-priority keepers (even over the Voyagers, Hubble, or Cassini).

What about what some have mentioned as being in the future? See above (and yes - that includes the JWST, and even JIMO - which is simply a science project gone mad despite the nuclear propulsion argument).

Robotic science probes not used for human colonisation on Mars and space-travel research are alright, but secondary right now. The only caveat to this would be P/KE as before, and the NEA's, as those missions can be done quickly and cheaply.

Do the primary missions with no extensions unless the chance of replication (like with Voyager) is small, and move it on going to Mars, is pretty much where I stand.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-04-29 20:32:14

A hearty welcome to New Mars, by the way, Visionary Explorer.
Your quote:-

One caveat - Pluto/Kuiper. So many people ask me about Pluto (especially about pictures) that this mission has to go forward for public relations if nothing else.

You're lucky. Most of the people I know have barely heard of Pluto. Most of them wouldn't know what the Voyagers were, have no idea of what the Voyagers achieved, and haven't the slightest inkling that any mission to Pluto has even been discussed. The Kuiper Belt could be something to hold your trousers up, as far as they're concerned. :bars:

Do the primary missions with no extensions unless the chance of replication (like with Voyager) is small, and move it on going to Mars, is pretty much where I stand.

Your position makes good sense to me. :up:

Visionary Explorer · 2005-04-29 20:48:32

A hearty welcome to New Mars, by the way, Visionary Explorer.
Your quote:-
One caveat - Pluto/Kuiper. So many people ask me about Pluto (especially about pictures) that this mission has to go forward for public relations if nothing else.
You're lucky. Most of the people I know have barely heard of Pluto. Most of them wouldn't know what the Voyagers were, have no idea of what the Voyagers achieved, and haven't the slightest inkling that any mission to Pluto has even been discussed. The Kuiper Belt could be something to hold your trousers up, as far as they're concerned. :bars:
Do the primary missions with no extensions unless the chance of replication (like with Voyager) is small, and move it on going to Mars, is pretty much where I stand.
Your position makes good sense to me. :up:

Hi Shaun! I'm glad to be here.

Kuiper Belt... trousers... oy!

It's odd, but a lot of younger people (way younger than me at 35) ask me about Pluto all the time. Mainly those not yet in secondary school, so that might be why I get those questions - that and they know I have like a terrabit of space "stuff" stored away in stacks of CD-R's - but unhappily for them none of it is from Pluto.

Let's see if I can make some more sense shortly.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-04-13 21:04:53

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#2 2005-04-14 18:47:45

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#3 2005-04-14 20:14:39

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#4 2005-04-14 20:41:48

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#5 2005-04-15 04:12:39

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#6 2005-04-15 12:02:01

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#7 2005-04-15 13:13:49

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#8 2005-04-15 15:51:55

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#9 2005-04-29 02:15:38

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#10 2005-04-29 03:53:19

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#11 2005-04-29 04:14:42

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#12 2005-04-29 15:21:33

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#13 2005-04-29 16:03:25

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#14 2005-04-29 20:15:04

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#15 2005-04-29 20:32:14

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

#16 2005-04-29 20:48:32

Re: Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future

Board footer