[sci.space] Astro-1: Limited success and nearly complete failure?

nagy%warner.dnet@fngate (Frank J. Nagy:VAX Guru,Wizard&Loose Cannon) (12/13/90)

Although the recent Astro-1 mission is, of and by itself, a
reasonable success, I would consider Astro to be pretty much
a complete failure.  The sense of this statement begins with Astro
being made up of a number of highly sophisticated instruments, with
Astro-1 being their first use.  As expected, there were a number
of "teething" pains getting the systems up and running.  However,
the original plans for Astro called for many re-flights so that the
learning pains for this first mission would not be so critical plus
allowing the instruments to be improved with each flight.

Insteed, we seem to have yet another NASA one-shot program.  My sense
from this is that NASA is totally incapable of long-range planning
for space science.

= Dr. Frank J. Nagy   "VAX Guru & Wizard"
= Fermilab Computing Division/Distributed Computing Dept/Special Projects Grp
= HEPnet/SPAN: WARNER::NAGY (43198::NAGY) or FNAL::NAGY (43009::NAGY)
= Internet: NAGY@FNAL.FNAL.GOV            = BitNet: NAGY@FNAL
= USnail: Fermilab POB 500 MS/234 Batavia, IL 60510

fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/14/90)

In article <9012131304.AA10293@fngate.fnal.gov>, nagy%warner.dnet@fngate (Frank J. Nagy:VAX Guru,Wizard&Loose Cannon) writes:
> 
> My sense from this is that NASA is totally incapable of long-range planning
> for space science.

Don't give NASA all the credit!

After all, a good deal of it should be given to those farsighted
folks in congress who have proven to be so good at funding long-range
programs of various sorts for so long.

--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes 
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------

mikegull@athena.mit.edu (Michael S. Gull) (12/14/90)

	But whose fault is that?  NASA's, as you suggest?  Congress, who awards
the funding?  The public, for not being interested in true astronomical 
missions, instead of the PR antics of sending up various non-astronauts?
The media, for not covering "uninteresting", "standard" shuttle missions?
Case in point: Neither the Baltimore nor the Washington local TV stations carried
anything to do with Astro, even though two of the instruments were local...
	Astro was designed for multiple flights, and should be used again.
The question is: Which is worth more in terms of science: Using Astro and
observing 139 targets out of 200+ planned? Or doing the usual sattelite-ferrying?
Or launching a sattelite?
	Personally, I believe that having the shuttle around is more of a 
benefit than its detractors would make us believe.  For the first time, we can
actually repair sattelites in space, easily.

							Mike