Augustine and future of Constellation

[2001Kubrick]

I don't understand why this thread topic is not getting more attention. This is it for NASA if Obama has his way, folks! All signs certainly point to Obama looting NASA's budget and thus taking a huge regression in spaceflight, a declining role for America in space exploration, and a sizable step back for humanity.

 

[nimbus]

Bread and circuses :|

 

[ThereIWas2]

Find a reason to go

Many people think that without a clearly understood reason to send manned missions to the Moon, or Mars, they should not be expected to pay for it. I think that is quite a reasonable point of view.

So I propose the first task is to Find a Reason to Go. Once the support is there, the funding will follow. I would set the following budget priorities for NASA for the next 10 years:

• Close down the NASA manned spaceflight division except as necessary to support the remaining lifetime of ISS, and laboratory research into advanced life support technologies such as the "spandex space suit".
  
• Close down NASA hardware development in support of manned spaceflight. Save the paperwork on Ares and Orion but shut down all fabrication work. By the time we will have a reason to go, and even know where we are going, a lot of it will be obsolete anyway.
  
• Increase research on next generation deep space propulsion systems such as VASIMR and Focused Fusion, so when we do find a reason to go somewhere, we can get there quickly and cheaply.
  
• Increase funding for JPL and Deep Space operations, to support more on-going missions. Includes development of sophisticated robotic landers and orbiters, to be launched on Atlas, Delta, and SpaceX launchers as appropriate. Concentrate initial focus on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, and Deimos. Be looking for a Reason to Go there. Continue more basic exploration of outer planets. I think higher quality video, particularly from Mars, would be an excellent investment. Make it real.

Very important: this is just my ideas for NASA's priorities, not all of mankind, or even just American commercial operations.

In general I would like to see more "open source engineering", with peer reviewed papers and simulations. Work out all the math for various ways of getting somewhere and staying there. No contractor lock-ins.

 

[Hardcase]

Every year NASA becomes more and more risk adverse and reduces what it will allow humans to do in space. At the same time the robots become more and more capable. If we ever do launch a moon or mars mission with humans, most people will be disappointed at how little they will be able to do. I doubt humans will be allowed to travel more then a few miles from the lander, and they wont be allowed to handle a pick or any other type of tool which might puncture their suit. The fact is that right now if NASA didn't use 1980's computers on their unmanned missions we would see how much more capable then humans they really are, just look at urban challenge. In 20 years the entire idea of a manned space mission will seem quaint, right now it only appeals to old farts and chest thumpers. Going into space just to plant a flag on a hunk of junk is asinine. :twisted:

 

[radarredux]

According to the Human Space Flight Plans Committee page on facebook, the committee had originally targeted mid-September for the report, but now because of the length of the report they are talking the end of September.

 

[radarredux]

The Obama administration wanted this in the first place. I realy think they want to dismantel NASA ...

Don't forget, even though the Bush administration announced the VSE, they never asked Congress for adequate funds for it either. Every year they underfunded the human spaceflight budget, and Congress never chose to take it on themselves to increase the budget (which they certainly could have).

For years (decades?) NASA has been given too much to do without enough funding to carry out all the requested endeavors. This report (or at least what has been said in the public meetings and reported in the press) is simply calling out what has been a reality for a long time.

Also, don't forget, the Obama administration has not yet submitted their budget to Congress for NASA. This committee was put together in part to determine what could be carried out under different budget scenarios.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Indeed, the underfunding since the VSE was announced by Bush made this a fait accompli. At least the commission is staring the problem strainght in the face, and making a true asessment of where we stand.

 

[JonClarke]

Every year NASA becomes more and more risk adverse and reduces what it will allow humans to do in space.

At the same time the robots become more and more capable.

Very slowly. Gears, sensors, power sources, radiation protection, communications, etc. don't follow Moores law.

If we ever do launch a moon or mars mission with humans, most people will be disappointed at how little they will be able to do.

Quite the opposite. Humans will out-perform remotely controlled machines by factors of hundreds to thousands in most areas, not forgetting their ability to provide information in whole areas that unmanned machines cannot. Remote exploration and direct exploration are complementary methods, not in competition.

I doubt humans will be allowed to travel more then a few miles from the lander, and they wont be allowed to handle a pick or any other type of tool which might puncture their suit.

What evidence do you have for this statement?

The fact is that right now if NASA didn't use 1980's computers on their unmanned missions we would see how much more capable then humans they really are, just look at urban challenge.

"Urban Challenge" is utterly irrelevant to unmanned exploration. Why does NASA use "1980-'s" computers? Because they are not only adequate for the task they are actually better for it than the supposedly more modern ones.

In 20 years the entire idea of a manned space mission will seem quaint, right now it only appeals to old farts and chest thumpers.

Why?

Going into space just to plant a flag on a hunk of junk is asinine.

Who goes into space just to plant a flag? What "hunks of junk" have flags been planted on?

Jon

 

[Hardcase]

Very slowly. Gears, sensors, power sources, radiation protection, communications, etc. don't follow Moores law.

Sensors and communications equipment do follow Moores law. Besides Do you really believe that all of that stuff wouldn't be needed for a human mission to? A human mission will needed may times more gear and equipment the a robotic one. I really don't understand why you are arguing otherwise.

Quite the opposite. Humans will out-perform remotely controlled machines by factors of hundreds to thousands in most areas, not forgetting their ability to provide information in whole areas that unmanned machines cannot. Remote exploration and direct exploration are complementary methods, not in competition.

Really, which do you think returned more data about their respective worlds, the Apollo missions or the unmanned missions to mars? Apollo was way more expansive.

At one time humans massively outperformed robots, but soon they wont, as processing power increases more things become possible. Look at what this hand can do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kxj..._single.html?id=11018&feature=player_embedded

By 2030 there it will be possible to have a mobile robot with the possessing power of the human brain.

What evidence do you have for this statement?

I think you would be surprised what NASA will not let astronauts do. Besides how long do you think a spacesuit will last, current designs simple will not work on Mars if you don't what to sit in a tin can for most of the mission. As you said its hard to improve something like a spacesuit. The Orlan-MK suit is only rated for 15 EVAs its successor will be rated for 20 EVAs. 90 to 120 hours on the surface of mars isn't a lot of time, compared with how long a rover would last... I bet it would take a lot more abuse on the surface of mars then in LEO...

"Urban Challenge" is utterly irrelevant to unmanned exploration. Why does NASA use "1980-'s" computers? Because they are not only adequate for the task they are actually better for it than the supposedly more modern ones.

They are simply not adequate for any type of autonomous operation. Thats a fact not a opinion. NASA uses them, because it is risk averse, and is scared to use something which is not radiation hardened. Radiation is bad for humans to, it would be a lot easier to shield a computer then a human crew.

Why?

Because, in 20 years robots will be able to preform any task that humans might be asked to do in space as well or better. If you believe Henry Markram he will have a reversed engineered copy of the human brain running on a super computer by 2020, ten years later it will run on a desktop.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/08/henry-markam-project-director-of-blue.html

Maybe its the rise of libertarianism, but most people these days simply are not satisfied by looking at the tech created by a big government program. They want to own it, control it, not watch a select few pseudo explorers fly into space. Quite simplify for most people it doesn't matter if the picture is taken by a man or a robot, thats all they are ever going to see. People who feel otherwise are deluded.

Who goes into space just to plant a flag? What "hunks of junk" have flags been planted on

We planted one on the moon, and yes I consider it a piece of junk compared with other parts of the earth which are currently uninhabited. A lot of people seem to want to do it again, on mars.

 

[mattblack]

I think the United States government is taking the correct steps here. While the Constellation program was a great idea at the time, unfortunately we live in a different world now, just 5 short years later. Taking care of the economy and the citizens of the United States is much more important than going to the Moon or Mars right now. People like 2001Kubrick need to stop having kittens over the lack of manned space travel. We need to take care of the people living on this planet and stop worrying about how we are going to get off of it and what NASA will do for us.

And yet you choose to participate in a blog on a blogsite called "Space.com"??!!

The old "stop spending money on space and deal with the Earth" schtick was tired 20 years ago and is even tireder now. Space Exploration never has and never will hamper the fight against poverty, illiteracy and unnecessary war. The 'richest' space program on Earth -- belonging to the U.S. -- spends less than 0.55% percent of the Discretionary Federal Budget on space. More is spent on chewing gum, cheap booze, cheesy corn snacks, online gaming and porn than is spent on space. Why is space always being picked on? Because some people have little imagination to find something else to pick on? Some of these anti-space critics probably think something like 30% percent of the Federal Budget is spent on space.

And the reason so many have become passionate about space lately is because if it isn't utilized and sorted out in the next few years: mankind's push into space will be irrevocably damaged and may even end.

Permanently. Why would anyone other than space-haters want to see that happen? Americans -- your space program is in very serious danger: save it before its too late...

 

[2001Kubrick]

I think the United States government is taking the correct steps here. While the Constellation program was a great idea at the time, unfortunately we live in a different world now, just 5 short years later. Taking care of the economy and the citizens of the United States is much more important than going to the Moon or Mars right now. People like 2001Kubrick need to stop having kittens over the lack of manned space travel. We need to take care of the people living on this planet and stop worrying about how we are going to get off of it and what NASA will do for us.

And yet you choose to participate in a blog on a blogsite called "Space.com"??!!

The old "stop spending money on space and deal with the Earth" schtick was tired 20 years ago and is even tireder now. Space Exploration never has and never will hamper the fight against poverty, illiteracy and unnecessary war. The 'richest' space program on Earth -- belonging to the U.S. -- spends less than 0.55% percent of the Discretionary Federal Budget on space. More is spent on chewing gum, cheap booze, cheesy corn snacks, online gaming and porn than is spent on space. Why is space always being picked on? Because some people have little imagination to find something else to pick on? Some of these anti-space critics probably think something like 30% percent of the Federal Budget is spent on space.

And the reason so many have become passionate about space lately is because if it isn't utilized and sorted out in the next few years: mankind's push into space will be irrevocably damaged and may even end.

Permanently. Why would anyone other than space-haters want to see that happen? Americans -- your space program is in very serious danger: save it before its too late...

mattblack, you're spot on with your counterpoints. Thanks for defending my position and getting my "back".

Anyways, clint_dreamer, you do realize that "We need to take care of the people living on this planet and stop worrying about how we are going to get off of it " sounds much like famous last words?

I suggest you take a look at countries of the past. You can indeed imagine someone criticizing Queen Isabella for supporting Christopher Columbus' voyages? I mean, why waste all that wealth to support his journeys when clearly there were problems at home in Spain? It sure looks like Spain ended up making out pretty good on that deal for a few hundred years. Or, how about the British Empire that stopped exploring, lost it's colonies, and turned inward? Or Portugal? I think you will notice a common theme here. If America stops exploring (there's no place to go but space now), other countries will pick up the slack. Probably sooner than later, we will find out that we missed out on a colossal opportunity for wealth because we stopped progress. We will be relegated to what has become of the great Spanish, British, and Portuguese empires....going broke, powerless among the new world elites, and somewhat irrelevant.

 

[trailrider]

LET'S KILL AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM, INSTEAD OF SPENDING ALL THAT MONEY IN SPACE! Wait a minute! Are there stores or places to "spend your money in space"...yet? I thought all that money was spent right here on Earth! It pays salaries and wages for a multitude of PEOPLE, which is, in turn injected into the economy. Of course, that method of spending actually produces something, as opposed to giving "bailouts" to banks that then won't lend money so people can buy homes or even KEEP theirs! Well, what the heck! There is a lot of trash in the streets of American cities. We ought to be able to re-train "rocket scientists" to be street sweepers. (Cab driving is out! Too many foreign drivers nowadays. Back in the 1970's, it seemed like you needed a PhD to drive a cab in Southern California...since that was another period of massive layoffs in the aerospace and defense industries!)

Never mind that MANY, MANY of our technological advances in medicine have come from the space program! For example, it is now far easier to detect breast cancer because of the digitally enhanced mammography that can be done. Software was declassified by NRO or DOD about five years ago now, that enable medical science to make earlier detection of minute cancers. Hubble Space Telescope technology also helped in this regard. And that is only ONE benefit that has come directly from space exploration. The telemetry that enables paramedics to transmit a patient's vitals to a hospital came from the need to transmit crew's vitals to the ground! Advances in materials technology is being applied from everything from commercial airliners to fishing rods! I'd go on, but I'm preaching to the choir!

Something else, however... America has always been a frontier society. Our frontiers are now only straight up! One hundred and fifty years ago, restless youngsters could go West and grow up with the country. We no longer have that option available to our restless youth. Space could offer incentives to youngsters to stay in school, get a good education, and then go on to fulfill dreams...on the Final Frontier. If we give up on Space, we will suffer in ways only found in our most horrible nightmares!

Ad LUNA! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[Booban]

The 'richest' space program on Earth -- belonging to the U.S. -- spends less than 0.55% percent of the Discretionary Federal Budget on space. More is spent on chewing gum, cheap booze, cheesy corn snacks, online gaming and porn than is spent on space. Why is space always being picked on? Because some people have little imagination to find something else to pick on? Some of these anti-space critics probably think something like 30% percent of the Federal Budget is spent on space.

I would argue that the porn industry has more relevance for humanity than outer space and is money well spent.

You can't just say 0.55% is not a lot of money. NASAs 2008 budget was 17.3 BILLION dollars (0.6% of the US budget). I don't care how you frame it, that is a lot of money and should be well motivated.

Its not enough that it goes to employing scientists, NASA is not welfare for smart people. It is not enough that there are tech spin offs, pump 17 billion into regular research would probably be more directly productive.

I am not here because I hate space, but because I hate NASA/govt being so aimless in its mission and somehow think talking to you guys will change that.

I'm not even American but support the US conquering space for all the free peoples of the earth, who wants a bunch of corrupt communists up there? But it has to make sense, otherwise it would be like a pointless war, bleeding the country of its wealth and weakening it.

You have to think long term like the Japanese, Chinese, French, British Empire really, everybody else and combine industry and government resources behind the long term effort to bring those space riches back down to earth.

This willy nilly flipping rocks and hoping industry will play catch up is not enough. Why is Bigelow building a tourist space station when we already got one up there and it had to be halved because we didn't have enough money? Why didn't they build it together? Has NASA not even asked if Virgin Galactic or Bigelow are interested in building a habitat module for the planned moon base? Why the moon at all, we already know the moon is barren, Buzz said so. What are we going to do there? Every money making scheme I've seen has been shot down and there are no plans to even try them out.

So, nothing seems very well planned, NASA just wants to spend its budget because it has one. The moon base plan looks like the ISS, not because it made any sense, but was just something to do.

 

[mickp]

Good evening

First post, so be gentle

I am from the UK so I guess its not for me to tell the US how to spend its tax dollar, but there is no other nation that has the experience, tradition and has the vision to push the boundaries of space exploration. I have been fascinated since I watched apollo 11 as a very young boy - it captured the imagination and has someone has made the point elsewhere, where it does, then funding will follow.

I think the space shuttle and ISS are tremendous achievements, but I'm resigned to the fact that I may never see a more advanced launch vehicle than that, nor another winged lander in my lifetime. The intellectual capital and space hours experience should be exploited in the next steps. I regret to say that return to the moon doesn't do it for me. Why go back? Public enthusiasm ran out by Apollo 13, briefly rose again then faded away by Apollo 17. So what if the chinese get there next - they are still 2nd, why race to be 2nd. Is there any long term benefit to civilisation by having a moon base? I don't think so - so lets aim further and focus on capability rather than destination. The jury's out on mars also for me - Spirit and Opportunity have been incredible - do we need to land there yet? Landing will be a huge technological challenge. Whilst there was a 'can do' mentality in the 60s / 70s I would have expected lives ot be lost if Mars had been pursued after apollo. So my thoughts (I'll leave the costings / tech analysis to those better qualified)

1 Extend shuttle ops by a couple of years to close the gap (in timeframe but perhaps only one or two more missions). I really think it should be a Us national priority to have the ability to launch crew to LEO. If not to the ISS then the capability will be needed to support missions wherever you chose to go
2 Extend ISS to 2020 and pursue commercial options for crew / cargo delivery
3 Develop Orion - I would prefer a space plane option but that it one for the future (and on that there are a million concepts, lets pool it all to get one that works)
4 Develop Orion launch vehicle - I'm not sure about Ares 1, doesn't look right and to say it's partial development of existing stuff it is taking way too long (scrubbed test today). Alternatives? Another launcher from scratch, a mid size vehicle that bridges Ares 1 and V and does crew or cargo? Not sure. If Ares 1 works, is safe and can be launched quickly, eg as rescue mission, then go for that
5 Scrub Altair / landing capability until we decide where to land
6 Scrap Ares V and develop alternative cheaper HLV - more shuttle derived (shuttle c / b type thing which would make greater use of existing facilities). delta / atlas based, whatever, but trade off size for cost, simplicity etc - but get on with it
7 Develop a beyond LEO transport capability - Orion plus incremental modular vehicle built from one of more HLV launches
8 Initial basic target to send Orion round moon (possible on its own will do)? to test out Orion systems outside LEO and high speed rentry. Lets be bold on this and aim for 2017 or earlier?
9 This is where we start ot excite the imagination - next, small steps but an asteroid perhaps by 2020 ("before the next decade is out humans will visit a body beyond Earth / Moon" sort of target - one that fires what little imagination we have these days)
10 These steps build capability experience, in the same way ISS has for LEO work, in things such as beyond earth navigation etc - nothing too exotic, save all the costs of landing at this stage but get us out there,testing out all the time
11 Work needed on shielding for long duration flights, improved power (VASMR or similar) to reduce journey times - 2 year missions are too long just to get to mars or similar, we need to be able to get there more quickly - 3mths max?
12 Next step perhaps some sort of Mars flyby, Phobos - all the time extending
13 The ultimate goal, within reach of current technology, would be reusable beyond LEO 'spacecraft' that could dock at some small station in LEO or beyond where crews are ferried to the spacecraft. Ultimately further to Titan perhaps - carrying robotic landers. Keep v low level funding for human landing development and start programmme when destination is known. By then others may be on the moon, but the US is way beyond and could land on the moon in relatively short time if it needed for national interest. Commercial guys would probaly be at the moon by then
14 keep on with advanced robotic missions to the farthest reaches of the solar system
15 as an aside let the USAF tinker away with its private budget - they'll probably cover the quick reaction space plane type thing quicker than nasa and easier to sell to congress as a national security issue.

I think this is possibly pretty close to one of the Augustine options. There are cost savings - no lander, cheaper HLV - it gets us further out though, pushing the boundaries becoming real space explorers. We are seeking to find somewhere that brings us all benefit - be it minerals and other deposits to meet our growing needs on Earth, or a place where we can realistically construct a large long term settlement, sort of 'Earth Back up'. The key is getting the ability to go anywhere in the solar system routinely. Everythig else follows

That's what I would do, broadly - feel free to shoot me down!

 

[radarredux]

1 Extend shuttle ops by a couple of years to close the gap (in timeframe but perhaps only one or two more missions). I really think it should be a Us national priority to have the ability to launch crew to LEO. If not to the ISS then the capability will be needed to support missions wherever you chose to go

In general, extending the Shuttle program robs most of the resources for developing the next round of vehicles. For example, if NASA continues to pursue Ares I, every year they extend the Shuttle, the Ares I gets put off by a year because the development funds for Ares I are being used to fly the shuttle. The end result is the gap is never closed.

However... if NASA pursues the commercial route to LEO, this approach makes some sense because much of the rocket development cost is borne by the commercial developer. In other words, by killing Ares I and going with commercial to LEO, the total amount of money brought in to support space exploration increases -- the money Congress appropriates plus the money private investors like those supporting SpaceX bring to the table. In that case, you do have a chance to close the gap.

But to flip back to the negative, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommended that all shuttle components be recertified by 2010. So if the NASA is going to extend the Shuttle beyond 2010, and they want to follow the recommendations of the CAIB, the orbiters will need to go through an expensive recertification process. This is a major reason 2010 was set as the shuttle retirement.

 

[mickp]

I think the 'gap' issue re phasing out of shuttle / Ares 1 or commercial LEO is the real dilemma for the commission in the whole thing. Your point about 2010 for the shuttles is really key. I think what frustrates me is with all the expertise and $ being spent, they can't get Ares 1 working sooner, eg 2012. A gaps of 18-24 months is liveable with in my view - there was 6yrs between astp and shuttle, but we should aim for much better than that. I would stop the shuttle at 2010 if replacement could be advanced

 

[mattblack]

The 'richest' space program on Earth -- belonging to the U.S. -- spends less than 0.55% percent of the Discretionary Federal Budget on space. More is spent on chewing gum, cheap booze, cheesy corn snacks, online gaming and porn than is spent on space. Why is space always being picked on? Because some people have little imagination to find something else to pick on? Some of these anti-space critics probably think something like 30% percent of the Federal Budget is spent on space.

I would argue that the porn industry has more relevance for humanity than outer space and is money well spent.

You can't just say 0.55% is not a lot of money. NASAs 2008 budget was 17.3 BILLION dollars (0.6% of the US budget). I don't care how you frame it, that is a lot of money and should be well motivated.

Its not enough that it goes to employing scientists, NASA is not welfare for smart people. It is not enough that there are tech spin offs, pump 17 billion into regular research would probably be more directly productive.

I am not here because I hate space, but because I hate NASA/govt being so aimless in its mission and somehow think talking to you guys will change that.

I'm not even American but support the US conquering space for all the free peoples of the earth, who wants a bunch of corrupt communists up there? But it has to make sense, otherwise it would be like a pointless war, bleeding the country of its wealth and weakening it.

You have to think long term like the Japanese, Chinese, French, British Empire really, everybody else and combine industry and government resources behind the long term effort to bring those space riches back down to earth.

This willy nilly flipping rocks and hoping industry will play catch up is not enough. Why is Bigelow building a tourist space station when we already got one up there and it had to be halved because we didn't have enough money? Why didn't they build it together? Has NASA not even asked if Virgin Galactic or Bigelow are interested in building a habitat module for the planned moon base? Why the moon at all, we already know the moon is barren, Buzz said so. What are we going to do there? Every money making scheme I've seen has been shot down and there are no plans to even try them out.

So, nothing seems very well planned, NASA just wants to spend its budget because it has one. The moon base plan looks like the ISS, not because it made any sense, but was just something to do.

Of course 0.55% percent is a lot of money!! Never said it wasn't. And I hope your porn comment was facetious, otherwise I wouldn't want to view the world as you do!! Look, too much of NASA's budget is being spent on the care and feeding of the Shuttle -- that's why this money needs to be spent going elsewhere besides Low Earth Orbit. Convert the Shuttle system into a heavy-ish lifter and that will probably be the biggest rocket you'll ever need.

And as for Bigelow not joining in with ISS? Bigelow's inflatable habitat designers used to work for NASA, who for a variety of reasons including politics, not-invented-here syndrome and budgets didn't use the inflatable habitats. More fool them. I say!! Also, Bigelow Aerospace Corp was formed years after the I.S.S. project started.

Private, Commercial Space will one day do wonderful things. But not until they start getting some real money to spend. The more ambitious their goals, the harder and more expensive it'll be to accomplish than they ever expected. It is, after all, rocket science.

And as for the Moon: it is a world. We've hardly scratched the surface of it's potential for science and resources and it's only 3 or 4 days away ride by rocket. "If God never intended us to explore space; why did he give us a Moon?"

Yes, it's barren compared to Mars. But compared to Earth, Mars is damned barren too!! Look; we have to stop judging the Moon and Mars by Earthly standards of usefulness and beauty. Some people are acting like they're surprised the Moon and Mars don't have trees, rivers, waterfalls and plants. Only the Earth does in our solar system! This is not Star Trek!! There are no 'M-Class' planets around here. We've got to stop dumping on the barren-ness of the Moon and Mars like it was their fault. We shouldn't not go there, just because they aren't duplicates of Earth.

Sheesh!

 

[mickp]

I would like us to go back to the moon, and visit mars but I suppose I am arguing that rather than invest in landing capability for those places at this stage (assuming the budget is not infinite), that money would be better spent getting us further out there so we can decide where best to land, which may or may not prove to be mars for example. So say by 2030, I would rather us have a robust capability to take humans around the solar system rather than have revisited / explored the moon and got to the stage where further afield trips to mars say are not yet accomplished. The former would mean a reasonable chance of a landing on beyond earth object in my lifetime, the latter route, perhaps barely. I think also that a destination rather than capability led project will be more susceptable to cancellation by future administrations. We're in it for the long haul. I would love the moon to be revisited but it doesn't inspire

There are argument it can be used as a test bed for landings elsewhere but most other targets have very different atmosphere / gravity issues, so 'one lander fits all' is unlikely

 

[Booban]

And as for the Moon: it is a world. We've hardly scratched the surface of it's potential for science and resources and it's only 3 or 4 days away ride by rocket. "If God never intended us to explore space; why did he give us a Moon?"

Yes, it's barren compared to Mars. But compared to Earth, Mars is damned barren too!! Look; we have to stop judging the Moon and Mars by Earthly standards of usefulness and beauty. Some people are acting like they're surprised the Moon and Mars don't have trees, rivers, waterfalls and plants. Only the Earth does in our solar system! This is not Star Trek!! There are no 'M-Class' planets around here. We've got to stop dumping on the barren-ness of the Moon and Mars like it was their fault. We shouldn't not go there, just because they aren't duplicates of Earth.

Sheesh!

Even if we've only just scratched the surface of the moon, lets use our imagination, just what is it that we could possibly gain from exploring the moon? Or Mars? Or any barren planet for that matter?

Short of finding Life (unlikely and even then questionable usefulness) there isn't a single idea that makes sense.

Arctic/antarctic is a good analogy. We don't know too much about those places either, it is pretty barren and can't be colonized, but there are probably more creatures to be discover there and we are rather sure that they hold vast reserves of oil, yet it's too expensive to drill and bring home. And that is here on Earth. All we got are some expensive brainiacs huddled in an igloo there.

And that is what a moon base will be, a 17 billion dollar igloo for brainiacs, which is what the ISS is already. And worse, like the ISS, it will suck up money and keep us from researching other technologies, planets, and other reasons to be in space.

 

[mattblack]

With respect, your comments above have just proven that you Just. Don't. Get. It. On one hand you say there are no reasons to go into space. "Igloo for brainiacs" pronounced as if it were the truth. "Barren worlds; what's the point?" and other paraphrasing. But on the other hand, you say we must have reasons. You cannot have it both ways. The reasons either exist already, or they don't.

You got any?

Or are you just going to jabber the honorary catchphrase of the current generation: "What's the point, dude?"

But perhaps you're right; maybe there are no reasons.

It's all too hard, all too expensive, all to pointless. Let's just all curl up in a corner and die now, shall we? :x

"There isn't a single idea that makes sense".

I put on my Yoda voice: "So sure of this, you are?"

What qualifies you to say such things? What?! I dare you to take on Bob Zubrin or Paul Spudis or Ed Weiler and say that. You wouldn't stand a damned chance. In essence, your attitude is for enshrining mediocrity and a do-nothing, know-nothing mindset.

If there is no point, let's just go back to our awful sci-fi movies and games, with their lurid, false landscapes, situations and technologies. Maybe that would make you happy. It would make the anti-space crowd in the U.S. Senate and Congress happy. You not one of them lurking here in disguise, are you?

That was rhetorical.

 

[kelvinzero]

We will put fantastic effort into learning how to live on a barren world. The only question is whether we do it now as an adventure or later in a desperate scrabble for survival.

 

[wubblie]

I wonder if the Augustine commission could save Constellation simply by proposing that we drop the US-only provistion, and make it a partnership with the Russians. My suggestion would be as follows-
1) Cancel Ares I, and begin work on Ares V immediately. Make Constellation a 3 person mission, and orbit the astronauts/cosmonauts using Soyuz. There will be no loss in this, because the capabilities of the Ares I will be duplicated by private industry in the US after the Constellation mission is completed anyway.
2) Have the ESA and Japan work on habitation modules, and put them in LEO. Both should be pretty capable of launching pressurized modules by this time.
3) Either the Russians or US could handle the life support equipment.
So, the Americans will handle the heavy lifting, rovers, reactors, moon descent and ascent, the Russians will orbit and deorbit the astronauts, and the EU and Japan will handle some of the the pressurized habitation modules.
By the end of the Constellation program around 2030, the US will be in excellent position. We will have a heavy lifter, private industry will have man rated launchers, and we will have experience in long duration colonization of other worlds. *Then* we will be ready to take on a US only mission to Mars if we want, which is the real prize anyway.

 

[Booban]

With respect, your comments above have just proven that you Just. Don't. Get. It. On one hand you say there are no reasons to go into space. "Igloo for brainiacs" pronounced as if it were the truth. "Barren worlds; what's the point?" and other paraphrasing. But on the other hand, you say we must have reasons. You cannot have it both ways. The reasons either exist already, or they don't.

You got any?

Or are you just going to jabber the honorary catchphrase of the current generation: "What's the point, dude?"

But perhaps you're right; maybe there are no reasons.

It's all too hard, all too expensive, all to pointless. Let's just all curl up in a corner and die now, shall we? :x

"There isn't a single idea that makes sense".

I put on my Yoda voice: "So sure of this, you are?"

What qualifies you to say such things? What?! I dare you to take on Bob Zubrin or Paul Spudis or Ed Weiler and say that. You wouldn't stand a damned chance. In essence, your attitude is for enshrining mediocrity and a do-nothing, know-nothing mindset.

If there is no point, let's just go back to our awful sci-fi movies and games, with their lurid, false landscapes, situations and technologies. Maybe that would make you happy. It would make the anti-space crowd in the U.S. Senate and Congress happy. You not one of them lurking here in disguise, are you?

That was rhetorical.

Just take it easy now, its just an internet forum.

Nothing qualifies me, I make no claim to being clever at all. I don't have to be sure or come up with any ideas. I am just saying what I have read, by other smart people.

The challenge is for NASA and the smart people to come up with the ideas and reasons. The ideas that exist that I am aware of have all been shot down by other smart people, and NASA is not aiming for them anyways.

I am trying to clear here, so you get it; I want the US to be in Space, but want it to be productive. I am not employed at NASA so that is not my job to figure out how to do that.

You could argue that you have to go there first to figure it out, but I would argue that NASA is run by smart people that surely have imagination and can theorize without having to actually go there.

The public will not accept a mission to test 'core samples', how old this particular rock is or new technology for astronauts to recycle their pee on the moon. We've already screwed up the first time, this is a second chance, don't blow it.

I'm not smart enough to imagine any reasons for being there, can you? And more importantly, is NASA planning for that?

 

[mattblack]

"It's just an Internet forum."

So it is -- the only way sometimes for the likes of us, wherever we are in the world -- to express our frustration, passion and ideas. And what is at stake? The very future of the U.S. manned space effort which is in serious danger of extinction -- in this year or the next. We do this and other things because we care. In good economic times or bad, the U.S. civilian, taxpayer space program barely expend 0.6% percent of the discretionary Federal Budget.

Mostly, it's good value for money. But in recent years there has been some wastage and bad direction in terms of the launch vehicle design for Constellation. With only a modest increase in budget and some sensible, pragmatic choices -- including better investment in the COTS program -- some pretty good things can happen. Nobody expects miracles. Nobody's asking for 'colonies on the Moon', just a sensible, sustainable program of human spaceflight infrastructure that partners with Commercial Space and robotics. No 'igloos for brainiacs', just a small lunar outpost and/or a program of technology development and vehicles flexible enough to be adapted later for NEO operations and Mars.

It's not a race, but it shouldn't be a do-nothing, Earth orbit-only dead-end for the next 20-30 years either. This is the 21st Century, for heavens sake!! Things worthy of a new Century should be happening. Not insular, navel-gazing do-little time. In 1961 it was seen as possible, do-able, even imperative to reach the Moon. Now, it's being seen by some as a silly science-fiction frivolity or something impossible.

What the hell has happened to us?!!

And booban: your last post finally had some thoughtful comments -- I commend you.

 

[andrew_t1000]

My 2 cents worth!

As to a "why a manned mission to the Moon or Mars" -

First and foremost, I could do more science in a couple of hours with my eyes and a geopick than all of the Mars landers combined!
And I'm only an amateur rock hound!
The rovers and landers JPL have sent to Mars have done great work, no question of it, but they have barely scratch the surface.
No remotely controlled or robotic probe will ever be able to match the dexterity or have the decision making skills of a person.
When I say "barely scratched the surface" that is literally true, the deepest we have dug on Mars is less than 2 feet!
Give me a pick and a shovel and even in 1/3G I could still dig you a trench at least a foot wide, a couple of yards long and at least a couple feet deep in an hour.
And the whole time I would be looking and saying, "Oh wow! Look at that! Gee, that IS interesting!"
Robots won't be able to do that for a long while yet!

Secondly, why do we need an Ares? Russia already has Proton, remember?
That big rocket that lifted the big pieces of the ISS, because no one else had the heavy lift capability.

Thirdly, the idea of a single use launch system, like Ares should be an anathema in this day and age.
What ever happened to Venture Star with it's vastly superior aerospike engines, that use most of the same components the Ares J5(?) use.
Venture Star was going to be cheaper, safer, lift heavier loads, have a faster turnaround time.

We need a reusable spacecraft!
Not just for ground to LEO, but to go to the moon and Mars.
I'm not talking about building a USS Enterprise in orbit, but how about something like Discovery?
A ship that could be in service for a few dozen missions, so a Mars landing doesn't end up being a flag planting exercise, that brings back a few kilo's of Martian rocks and soil.

This all gets back to the need for an International Space Agency.
Now guys like Mr Booban, don't want to hear this, but it is high time we put aside our political, cultural and ideological differences and work together!

Well anyway thats my take on it all.