The Next Five Big NASA Failures

Another inflammatory opinion piece from Jeffrey Bell, but he says some things I know from experience are true.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I wonder if Bell has ever had one optimistic thought in his life? Re "This is a pretty scary list of disasters.": the majority of the topics he's discussing haven't happened yet, and are mostly, as he details them, ill-conceived projects, not "disasters". Plus Genesis was a "fiasco"? I don't think so.

On the other hand, I apparently share similar experiences that underscore the veracity of some of his statements and allegations about the inner workings of the aerospace community.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Kind of a depressing article. I like JIMO even if it's now unfeasible.

Since no sources are cited, from where does this $2200M figure originate? And, why is the impression given that the only purpose for this technology development is a Hubble repair mission? :-k

From the article (reagrding JIMO):

I disagree with this point. If JIMO is actually launched (sometime between 2011-2014), it will reach Jupiter ~6-7 years later and will complete scientific observations ~4 years later.

So if JIMO does not have a lander (actually i believe an impactor is suggested - not a lander), we would have to wait for a lander to finally reach Jupiter, maybe at ~2030 (in the best case).

JIMO needs heavy instrumentation and a lander. I know that this is hard, but if this doesnt happen, outer planets science will become uninteresting and boring. Imagine if JIMO does not carry heavy payload, and discovers something amazing. We would be stranded again, as we are now (after the Galileo results). We would just have to wait for a decade for the JIMO follow-up again...

The other problem comes from the fact that ESA has a stupid policy against "nuclear space". So, their actual studies about Jupiter and beyond suggest for a small orbiter (smaller than Galileo, Cassini etc) with solar concentrators for Jupiter (study by Astrium: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=35982). Not even RTGs. So don't expect anything "strong" for the outer planets exploration from space agencies other than NASA.

And by the way: Cassini has amazing instrumentation, including Huygens (can't wait for this mission!). I don't see why they can't do anything similar for JIMO. What if they combine gravity assists and the advanced propulsion?

I think this is wrong, because the objective for JIMO is not to just enter in orbit around Jupiter but to orbit the three icy moons. The three icy moons have circural orbits around Jupiter. If a spacecraft uses aerocapture at Jupiter, it will have to enter an elliptical orbit, since the perijove (periapsis) will be at the upper layers of Jovian atmosphere and the apojove (apoapsis) somewhere at the altitude of Callisto's orbit. In order to circularize this orbit and achieve rendezvous with Callisto (and later on with the other moons), JIMO would need tons of propellant.

On top of that, the planned observations of Jupiter require high performance instrumentations (especially the sounding radar for ocean detection and maybe active remote sensing observations), so lots of power is needed.

So I believe the nuclear reactor and for propulsion and power supply is the best solution. I hope they can make it work.

The article reads like more NASA won't fund my pet project sour grapes to me, and it was obviously not written by someone who had spent a lot of time working in the private sector. The private sector urinates away just as much money as NASA does, and on projects which are insanely stupid, whereas NASA's stuff is rocket science.

I've worked for companies that have shelled out literally billions of dollars to have "experts" come in and show the company how to run their business. These "experts," without exception, didn't know their excretory organs from the proverbial hole in the ground. They told the companies to switch to different proceedures, which anyone with a rudamentary grasp of physics would know couldn't possibly work. They instituted policies and proceedures which dramatically cut the productivity and efficiency of the company, and these policies were only reversed after management had been threatened with legal action and bodily injury.

I have sat in literally thousands of hours of meetings where folks who had no idea of what they were talking about, were trying to convince us that this or that training proceedure would help employees better understand what the company expected of them. Had the people in charge of the meetings understood anything about what the company did, and the kind of people who worked for them, they might have been able to generate productive ideas, instead it was money down the drain.

And lest someone cry that it's far worse for a government organization to do this, than it is for a private sector operation, let me point out that those wasted dollars could have gone towards growing the company, pay raises and bonuses for the employees, and better and safer products for consumers.

__________________
We want our children to go to the planets. Burt Rutan 6/21/04
Tuckers! Science! Automotive Oddities! Boycott Trek XI! Building my hot rod with the help of the intarwebs Those who would delay scientific progress for a little temporary prosperity shall have neither. MachineCast

A uranium fueled reactor is actually a safer choice over an RTG. As long as a uranium reactor hasn't ever been started the fuel elements are very safe, much more so than plutonium. It isn't until the reactor has been run that all the nasty elements are formed.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

[hijack]Say, Evan, you wouldn't happen to be the same Evan that posts over at HSM, would you?[/hijack]

Guilty.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

Sending up nuclear material of any kind will be opposed on the grounds that it might cause an ecological catastrophe should the rocket explode on lift off.

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

No doubt. But, the slightly enriched fuel used in a uranium reactor before it has been run is so mildly radioactive that you could carry a fuel pellet around in your pocket safely. It is far preferrable to plutonium and a public case can be made for that.

__________________
When I am done here I think I will go create something from metal.

Same here.

This happened in ~three year cycles.

The outside, "objective" consultants had not a clue as to how our business worked technically, how it ran, who were its customers, or what its objectives were. Instead, "Anderson" et al, just read from their prompters, the top management that brought them in to silence the corporate CEO and the BoD, nodded in sync, and the findings were accepted as gospel.

What did the findings reveal? Something we in middle management had known all along: there was no leadership from upper management, instead mostly impediments, and at a certain level in the business, management knew little and cared less about the customer and the product.

What was done? Hey!

Upper management played a a simple game of musical managers. They all got up from their offices in executive row, and marched around. When the music stopped playing, each would then grab the nearest VP chair. This was called "reorganization" and was to be the cure to all our problems, since the consultants had said that "reorganization of upper management" was the number one critical item in the path to a successful future.

So, we'd wind up with the same management team, only in different roles. Those who didn't know their new assignments would be the worst, since most of them subscribed to the standard MBA doctrine that "I can manage anything. Don't bother me with those technical details. How much is this going to cost?"

Any guesses as to what happened? You there, in the third row, yes, you're correct!

After about three years things would deteriorate to the point where the corporate CEO and BoD would agree that something had to be done, so they would bring in yet another task force of consultants, this time from [fill in the blank] at another exorbitant fee. The consultants would investigate and recommend a "reorganization of upper management", and...

My name is Yon Yonson,
I work in Wisconsin,
I work in a lumbermill there.
The people I meet
when I walk down the street,
They say, 'What is your name?'
And I say
'My name is Yon Yonson,
I work in Wisconson...

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Here he strikes again

be warned Jeffy Bell is one of those genuine ranting Shuttle haters

He has also remarked before that Mars missions will get chopped and Sample Return will always be 10 years away. There is a lot of NASA bashing from his so anything that comes out of Jeffery Bell's mouth ought to be taken with a grain of salt

Why do I get the feeling that Bell was conked by a surfboard on Waikiki which permanently set his toggle switch to "negative"?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Cassandra.

I have the distinct impression he had most of that article all written and ready before the launch, he just had to make the finishing touches.

Having said that, I find myself agreeing with most of it...

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

I knew EXACTLY who had written that article when I saw the title and before I even clicked on the thread lol.

Me too. But he does have good points--even if it's for the wrong reasons. HLLVs will give future JIMO/sample return missions and future station construction more of a chance to succeed. Trying to fund them now is a distraction to badly needed lift capability. He was spot on in going against OSP.

Jeff Bell again
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zy.html
is this a rant, or does he have a point ?

Yeah, he has a point. SSTO is a rediculously inefficient and expensive means of getting into space with current technology and will remain so with any forseeable technology.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson