Augustine and future of Constellation

[Booban]

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!
....
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.

I actually agree with that, I see astronauts as cheap robots. To build a robot that could even come close to do all the things people could do would break the NASA budget. Proof after seeing that Mars lander that had trouble putting dirt in an oven.

I am sure your geopick would make many fascinating discoveries, but the real question is what could a robot, or you, possibly dig on the moon that would make the a 17 billion dollar per year NASA budget worthwhile? If you dug and it sprouted out a gush of oil would it be worth sending it back to earth? Gold? Diamonds? Helium 3? A monkey?

I think we all just thought, "wow moon monkeys would be worth it!". Yes it would, but come on now...

I think right now, we just want to send really cheap robots, but many of them, to different places so we can just do a little scratching everywhere. Then we get a better picture of where we really want to go rather than pouring down all the money on the moon and getting stuck there.

Now, an ISA. Why that wouldn't work is because it would be NASA bureaucracy times the number of countries involved. When countries compete against each other each dollar is more efficient, when they join forces everyone just tries to see how little they can spend and get a free ride. Look at NATO.

America still leads the world in space technology, the US has little to gain from anyone else. The US also has plenty of money so it has not to do with that. But unless you are pulling up moon monkeys no one wants to throw money in the void of Space.

 

[Hardcase]

There three big myth about human space flight.

1.) humans are better then robots.

The above statement is simply not true by any objective measure of ROA.

2.) a space colony will prevent human extinction.

The truth is that an isolated group of humans in a hostile environment is for more at risk of extinction then humans on earth. If ensuring the survival of humanity it is far better safer and cheaper to create self sufficient and hardened communities in isolated locations. I really don't see anything which could make the earth less habitable then mars. Besides I have a suspicion that the latter half of the 21 century will be more different then many people seem to think it will be.

3.) stopping human space flight will destroy space exploration forever.

This is simple a reaction to the fact that human space flight is so efficient and ineffective that deep down its supporters know that if it is canceled bringing it back will require a purpose, and they are unable to objectively provide one.

 

[mattblack]

There three big myth about human space flight.

1.) humans are better then robots.

The above statement is simply not true by any objective measure of ROA.

2.) a space colony will prevent human extinction.

The truth is that an isolated group of humans in a hostile environment is for more at risk of extinction then humans on earth. If ensuring the survival of humanity it is far better safer and cheaper to create self sufficient and hardened communities in isolated locations. I really don't see anything which could make the earth less habitable then mars. Besides I have a suspicion that the latter half of the 21 century will be more different then many people seem to think it will be.

3.) stopping human space flight will destroy space exploration forever.

This is simple a reaction to the fact that human space flight is so efficient and ineffective that deep down its supporters know that if it is canceled bringing it back will require a purpose, and they are unable to objectively provide one.

I would only firmly disagree with your first point: a couple of Astronauts in spacesuits with a geological toolbag each could do in a couple weeks what Spirit and Opportunity took five years to accomplish. Trouble is -- it would cost so much to send them there. As for "stopping human spaceflight eliminating space exploration forever": no -- PrivateSpace will eventually get there, but probably not in the lifespan of most reading these words. And don't forget -- manned and unmanned space have always had a synergistic relationship. If all manned space were stopped because the "Anti-Spacers" whined about its cost and managed to stop its funding:

*How long do you think it would be before they declared probes were a waste of money, too and stopped them as well?! answer: NOT LONG.*

Think that wouldn't happen? Think again!! If a $300 million dollar Marsprobe could be accomplished the next time for only $2 million, they'd declare that was too expensive also. Because that's how their minds work...

 

[mattblack]

There three big myth about human space flight.

1.) humans are better then robots.

The above statement is simply not true by any objective measure of ROA.

2.) a space colony will prevent human extinction.

The truth is that an isolated group of humans in a hostile environment is for more at risk of extinction then humans on earth. If ensuring the survival of humanity it is far better safer and cheaper to create self sufficient and hardened communities in isolated locations. I really don't see anything which could make the earth less habitable then mars. Besides I have a suspicion that the latter half of the 21 century will be more different then many people seem to think it will be.

3.) stopping human space flight will destroy space exploration forever.

This is simple a reaction to the fact that human space flight is so efficient and ineffective that deep down its supporters know that if it is canceled bringing it back will require a purpose, and they are unable to objectively provide one.

I would only firmly disagree with your first point: a couple of Astronauts in spacesuits with a geological toolbag each could do in a couple weeks what Spirit and Opportunity took five years to accomplish. Trouble is -- it would cost so much to send them there. As for "stopping human spaceflight eliminating space exploration forever": no -- PrivateSpace will eventually get there, but probably not in the lifespan of most reading these words. And don't forget -- manned and unmanned space have always had a synergistic relationship. If all manned space were stopped because the "Anti-Spacers" whined about its cost and managed to stop its funding:

*How long do you think it would be before they declared probes were a waste of money, too and stopped them as well?! answer: NOT LONG.*

Think that wouldn't happen? Think again!! If a $300 million dollar Marsprobe could be accomplished the next time for only $2 million, they'd declare that was too expensive also. Because that's how their little minds work...

 

[darkmatter4brains]

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.

I was watching a show on developing fusion reactors the other night. This is something that could put a complete end the energy crisis and be a BIG step towards improving the human condition.

BUT, in that show they also mentioned that the UK alone spends more money on RINGTONES every year, then the world does on fusion research. ringtones? These must be the most useless thing on the planet.

You really do have to wonder where our priorities are some times.

EDIT: One possible reason for getting to the moon again:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/h ... 00630.html

India has supposedly admitted this is part of their ambition of getting to the moon.

 

[Booban]

EDIT: One possible reason for getting to the moon again:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/h ... 00630.html

India has supposedly admitted this is part of their ambition of getting to the moon.

And at the end it say's its unfeasible and water is better. So either it becomes feasible or earth runs out of water or no moon base.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

EDIT: One possible reason for getting to the moon again:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/h ... 00630.html

India has supposedly admitted this is part of their ambition of getting to the moon.

And at the end it say's its unfeasible and water is better. So either it becomes feasible or earth runs out of water or no moon base.

I believe it was just somebody's opinion that it was unfeasible, while according to others it IS feasible. In addition, there are a number of desirable features a helium3 reactor would have that water reactors would not have.

But, that's besides the point. The Earth's resources are not limitless. We should be thinking of getting resources from space - Helium 3 on the moon being one example. When it comes time that we really need it, this isn't something you can do overnight. We should slowly be working towards this as a goal and developing the technology. The moon is a perfect place to start. Right now, I see us heading the other way. We'll just have to see what the end of September brings as far as the Augustine report and, more importantly, Obama's reaction and response to it.

 

[MeteorWayne]

This discussion is not related to a mission or a launch, so will be moved to Space Business and Technology tomorrow.

Meteor Wayne (with Mod Hat)

 

[Booban]

I believe it was just somebody's opinion that it was unfeasible, while according to others it IS feasible. In addition, there are a number of desirable features a helium3 reactor would have that water reactors would not have.

But, that's besides the point. The Earth's resources are not limitless. We should be thinking of getting resources from space - Helium 3 on the moon being one example. When it comes time that we really need it, this isn't something you can do overnight. We should slowly be working towards this as a goal and developing the technology. The moon is a perfect place to start. Right now, I see us heading the other way. We'll just have to see what the end of September brings as far as the Augustine report and, more importantly, Obama's reaction and response to it.

How long it takes or if its water or helium 3 or whatever isn't the point. It's not feasible now, the scientific community is divided on the issue and there are plenty of resources on earth (You recycle don't you?) for the foreseeable future.

Congress will not throw money at such uncertainty. The only thing that will happen is hedging their bets and keeping a manned space program barely alive, or at least better than a competitor nation, which is the fact of space history so far.

When NASA and the scientific community can get behind something, then the money will flow. But I have heard of no concrete plans from NASA, perhaps because it is premature.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

I believe it was just somebody's opinion that it was unfeasible, while according to others it IS feasible. In addition, there are a number of desirable features a helium3 reactor would have that water reactors would not have.

But, that's besides the point. The Earth's resources are not limitless. We should be thinking of getting resources from space - Helium 3 on the moon being one example. When it comes time that we really need it, this isn't something you can do overnight. We should slowly be working towards this as a goal and developing the technology. The moon is a perfect place to start. Right now, I see us heading the other way. We'll just have to see what the end of September brings as far as the Augustine report and, more importantly, Obama's reaction and response to it.

How long it takes or if its water or helium 3 or whatever isn't the point. It's not feasible now, the scientific community is divided on the issue and there are plenty of resources on earth (You recycle don't you?) for the foreseeable future.

Congress will not throw money at such uncertainty. The only thing that will happen is hedging their bets and keeping a manned space program barely alive, or at least better than a competitor nation, which is the fact of space history so far.

When NASA and the scientific community can get behind something, then the money will flow. But I have heard of no concrete plans from NASA, perhaps because it is premature.

Congress doesn't have to throw money at uncertainty. If you noticed above, I said we need to develop towards these goals SLOWLY. All Congress has to do right now is keep the moon mission alive. If we get a permanent base there, that's a BIG step in the right direction for gathering resources from the moon, or even elsewhere. (Even asteroid missions for mining or deflecting ones on dangerous paths). Keep the momentum going is all they really need to do. The idea is not to stagnate and let the technology die like we did for the last 40 years. 40 years ago we went to the moon in 10 years, now it's going to take us 15+ years 40 years later! And, at this point it's not outside the realm of possibility that we don't go at all, OR that a competitor nation does beat us back.

As you can see, the possibility of gathering resources from space isn't really in the forseeable future either. It would be nice if we could just have some long term vision as a race for a change, and not have to get our a$$ kicked at the last minute and be forced into a state of very chaotic change.

 

[nimbus]

There three big myth about human space flight.
2.) a space colony will prevent human extinction.

The truth is that an isolated group of humans in a hostile environment is for more at risk of extinction then humans on earth.

A colony has better odds of preventing extinction than no colony.

 

[Booban]

Congress doesn't have to throw money at uncertainty. If you noticed above, I said we need to develop towards these goals SLOWLY. All Congress has to do right now is keep the moon mission alive. If we get a permanent base there, that's a BIG step in the right direction for gathering resources from the moon, or even elsewhere. (Even asteroid missions for mining or deflecting ones on dangerous paths). Keep the momentum going is all they really need to do. The idea is not to stagnate and let the technology die like we did for the last 40 years. 40 years ago we went to the moon in 10 years, now it's going to take us 15+ years 40 years later! And, at this point it's not outside the realm of possibility that we don't go at all, OR that a competitor nation does beat us back.

As you can see, the possibility of gathering resources from space isn't really in the forseeable future either. It would be nice if we could just have some long term vision as a race for a change, and not have to get our a$$ kicked at the last minute and be forced into a state of very chaotic change.

I am completely for going slowly and long term planning, which requires that we don't keep changing our minds. Setting up a moon base may be a BIG step in the WRONG direction.

Maybe the helium 3 guy is wrong and the water guy is right in which case we should have gone with the asteroid water mining idea. Maybe we should let the Chinese spend half their GDP on a moon base which doesn't pan out while we sit smugly on an asteroid. It should be clear that there won't be money for BOTH.

The Space Station and Space shuttle were also billed a small step while we learn how to live and work in space safely close to earth. Now people see them as a dead end which distracted us and diverted resources. We had Apollo and Saturn V and dumped that for the Space shuttle. Now we are dumping that and the space station for something completely new again ,a moon base. Maybe we should first build a new station further away at the Lagrange point and a better shuttle?

This eagerness to advanced space exploration is making us miss steps and not going slowly at all. Would it not make more sense to put all the money from this moon base into researching this helium 3 power plant so it actually works? To invest in robotic probes so we know that there really is water in asteroids? To investigate saturns or martian moons to see if those are better alternatives to our own moon? Many people say we should go to Mars instead, though we seem to know just as much about it as the moon.

There simply won't be money to do everything, or afford mistakes. If the moon base is a mistake we will be paying for it for decades! Again.

PS how come this thread and Angry at NASA threads are duplicates in the Missions and Launches forum?

 

[MeteorWayne]

PS how come this thread and Angry at NASA threads are duplicates in the Missions and Launches forum?

The reason was that this software allows the mods to leave a copy behind in the old forum when it is moved. I try and do that for a day or two so those who are participating can see that it has been moved.

then I go back and clean it up; that has been done for a few topics today.

Wayne

 

[darkmatter4brains]

Congress doesn't have to throw money at uncertainty. If you noticed above, I said we need to develop towards these goals SLOWLY. All Congress has to do right now is keep the moon mission alive. If we get a permanent base there, that's a BIG step in the right direction for gathering resources from the moon, or even elsewhere. (Even asteroid missions for mining or deflecting ones on dangerous paths). Keep the momentum going is all they really need to do. The idea is not to stagnate and let the technology die like we did for the last 40 years. 40 years ago we went to the moon in 10 years, now it's going to take us 15+ years 40 years later! And, at this point it's not outside the realm of possibility that we don't go at all, OR that a competitor nation does beat us back.

As you can see, the possibility of gathering resources from space isn't really in the forseeable future either. It would be nice if we could just have some long term vision as a race for a change, and not have to get our a$$ kicked at the last minute and be forced into a state of very chaotic change.

I am completely for going slowly and long term planning, which requires that we don't keep changing our minds. Setting up a moon base may be a BIG step in the WRONG direction.

Maybe the helium 3 guy is wrong and the water guy is right in which case we should have gone with the asteroid water mining idea. Maybe we should let the Chinese spend half their GDP on a moon base which doesn't pan out while we sit smugly on an asteroid. It should be clear that there won't be money for BOTH.

The Space Station and Space shuttle were also billed a small step while we learn how to live and work in space safely close to earth. Now people see them as a dead end which distracted us and diverted resources. We had Apollo and Saturn V and dumped that for the Space shuttle. Now we are dumping that and the space station for something completely new again ,a moon base. Maybe we should first build a new station further away at the Lagrange point and a better shuttle?

This eagerness to advanced space exploration is making us miss steps and not going slowly at all. Would it not make more sense to put all the money from this moon base into researching this helium 3 power plant so it actually works? To invest in robotic probes so we know that there really is water in asteroids? To investigate saturns or martian moons to see if those are better alternatives to our own moon? Many people say we should go to Mars instead, though we seem to know just as much about it as the moon.

There simply won't be money to do everything, or afford mistakes. If the moon base is a mistake we will be paying for it for decades! Again.

PS how come this thread and Angry at NASA threads are duplicates in the Missions and Launches forum?

Booban,

I think we basically agree on most points. Except for maybe one thing. Let's say we go to the Moon and create a base, and it doesn't work out, OR let's say it DOES work out, but something comes up in the political environment and, since Congress is usually more concerned with getting elected and covering their backsides, they cancel the whole darn thing and make giving any money to space interests in the future almost taboo.

To ME, that doesn't mean the Moon base was a bad idea, or it was the wrong thing to do. It means Congress is screwed up! Their priorities are not in order. And let's face it, with the way the political environment is these days, ANY large-scale space endeavour could easily end like that, whether it be robotic mining on an asteroid, moon base, or Mars Direct. And, the input from the scientific community, or how right it was in the first place, probably won't mean squat at that point.

So, to me, the idea isn't to pick and choose missions that seem to have the biggest glimmer of hope they won't get canned by a whimsical Congress - It's do what is RIGHT. Since the issues are debatable on which IS right, we should probably be doing several things at once. But, there comes the money issue again! I'd have the same point about that - let's get our priorities on order. Let's stop spending more on ringtones than we do on space!!

Anyhow, obviously the world is far from reaching the ideal I mention above, but a guy can dream, right! And, state what he thinks is right until he's blue in the face, even though it will probably change nothing

(In additon, one nice thing about mining in space, it's a type of space mission, that has the potential to pay for itself.)

 

[Booban]

I think that's basically what I am saying, we can't afford to do all the big projects, if we try one, it will probably be canceled, especially for not being the RIGHT one and hurt investment in other areas and the future. I'd love it if NASA was so confident in mining for helium 3 with a moon base, but apparently they are not because I haven't heard anything specific about it.

Therefore spend the little money we have on small projects to figure out which big project would be the right one.

I'll stop spending on ring tones if you stop spending on porn. :mrgreen:

 

[darkmatter4brains]

I'll stop spending on ring tones if you stop spending on porn. :mrgreen:

:lol: :lol:

 

[vulture4]

>>I'd love it if NASA was so confident in mining for helium 3 with a moon base, but apparently they are not because I haven't heard anything specific about it.

Helium three mining, like solar power satellites and drugs produced by continuous flow electrophoresis, is another vain attempt to create a product of infinite value to justify the nearly infinite cost of human spaceflight with current expendable technology. Unfortunately the claims for helium-3 have no factual basis. The boron-11 + proton -> 3 helium-4 reaction has all the advantages of helium-3 fusion and the reactants are readily available.

Many claims have been made that human spaceflight will bring fabulous benefits that can justify any expense, but these claims have all collapsed on close examination. There is only one way to make human spaceflight practical, and that is to reduce the cost.

 

[nimbus]

The boron-11 + proton -> 3 helium-4 reaction has all the advantages of helium-3 fusion and the reactants are readily available.

Isn't PB11 significantly more difficult to fuse than He3?

 

[neutrino78x]

I don't have a college degree, but why would you not use Hydrogen-Hydrogen fusion, like the Sun does? Or if anything, deuterium-hydrogen. My understanding is that it has something to do with fewer neutron emissions, but even with hydrogen-hydrogen, you still have far less radioactive waste than with fission right???

 

[vulture4]

>>I don't have a college degree, but why would you not use Hydrogen-Hydrogen fusion, like the Sun does?

The proton-proton reaction is so slow that even in the sun's core it takes an average of a billion years, and so is probably not practical for the local power plant. Of course we're lucky that's the case, or the sun would have burned out long ago. The lowest-energy fusion reaction is Deuterium + Tritium; I wold agree there is less hazard than with fission, however much of the energy is in the form of neutrons which are hard to stop and generate hazardous radioisotopes in the confinement vessel structure. Consequently there is interest in reactions that produce most of their energy in the form of charged particles, such as 3He + 3He and p + 11B. This is sometimes called aneutronic fusion.

No one has produced energy in practical amounts from controlled fusion of any kind, and certainly D-T fusion would probably come first. However what work is being done today on aneutronic fusion (by physicists, as distiguished, I'm afraid, from space enthusiasts) is mainly on the p+B reaction despite its somewhat higher time-density requirement. Probably the most promising approach is that of interstellar ramjet pioneer Robert W. Brussard, using an ingenious combination of electrostatic and magnetic confinement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell). As dificult as fusion is, if nonthermal processes advocated by Dr. Brussard are practical (using electrostatic acceleration of the impacting particles rather than thermal heating) then the time-density criterion may be less important.

Lunar helium is certainly not needed to determine whether 3He fusion is feasible, and it would not make sense to commit resources to lunar extraction without such evidence. Helium-3 can be produced artificially by beta decay of tritium or extracted from terrestrial natural gas, either of which may actually be easier than extracting it from the moon, where the concentration, though high in a relative sense, is still only about 10ppb. That's a lot of ore that would have to be either shipped back or refined on the moon with infrastructure constructed there. If safe, inexpensive lunar flight is developed, it would be interesting to ship back a few tons of lunar material and see if 3He can be extracted. But to go to the moon with current technology in the hope that mining 3He will pay for it is simply fantasy.

>>To ME, that doesn't mean the Moon base was a bad idea, or it was the wrong thing to do. It means Congress is screwed up!

A moon base may be a very good idea, but that does not mean it is a good idea to try to build one with primitive expendable rockets that cost $5B per flight. That's like trying to support a base at the South Pole with dogsleds. . It would be more productive to use the money to develop more practical technologies for human spaceflight, including fully reusable launch vehicles.

>>The Space Station and Space shuttle were also billed a small step while we learn how to live and work in space safely close to earth. Now people see them as a dead end which distracted us and diverted resources.

Diverted resources from what? The Shuttle has flown over 130 times, and carried far more people and cargo into space than any other manned spacecraft. The orbiters were designed to fly 100 missions each. They should be replaced when we have a reusable launch vehicle with greater capabilities and lower cost. The ISS is our first permanent foothold in space. We should build on these accomplishments, finding practical applications for human spaceflight in LEO while building public support for development of new technologies to make human spaceflight practical. If we cannot find productive applications for human spaceflight in LEO, and the resources to sustain it, we will certainly not find them on the moon or Mars. When we can convince the taxpayers to give us the resources, and develop the appropriate technologies, we can go further. Constellation will be much too expensive for lunar flight, and inferior to Shuttle for ISS support.

The best strategy at present would be to cancel Constellation completely and use the funds to continue Shuttle to 2020, as originally planned, and to restart the technology demonstrator and advanced technology launch vehicle programs.

 

[neutrino78x]

The proton-proton reaction is so slow that even in the sun's core it takes an average of a billion years, and so is probably not practical for the local power plant.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

The lowest-energy fusion reaction is Deuterium + Tritium; I wold agree there is less hazard than with fission, however much of the energy is in the form of neutrons which are hard to stop and generate hazardous radioisotopes in the confinement vessel structure.

Right, that one I knew about. That's why one of the Apollo astronauts wants us to mine Tritium on the Moon, I think.

I don't really agree with him, though. It takes so much energy to go up to the Moon, extract tritium and come back that we should probably stick with nuclear fission, wind, solar thermal, and geothermal! lol

A moon base may be a very good idea, but that does not mean it is a good idea to try to build one with primitive expendable rockets that cost $5B per flight. It would be better to use the money to develop more practical technologies for human spaceflight, including fully reusable launch vehicles.

I think a small lunar scientific base would have benefits, including radio and infrared telescopes on the far/dark side, but I think the next target for colonization should be Mars!

 

[vulture4]

>>infrared telescopes on the far/dark side,

Possibly you mean radiotelescopes. However in reality I have not seen radioastronomers suggest that there was any major advantage to locating telescopes on the lunar farside. Radiotelescopes in isolated terrestrial locations are shielded by the earth itself from all frequencies except the limited band which undergoes atmospheric reflection (i.e. short-wave radio). Even for those frequencies, a radiotelescope is after all highly directional, and the atmospheric layers that reflect the radio energy tend to keep most of the energy from escaping into space at these frequencies. Simply placing the radiotelescope in a high earth orbit or a lunar Lagrange point, halo orbit, or earth-trailing solar orbit at a reasonable distance from earth would reduce terrestrial radio interference to an insignificant level while allowing a lightweight deployable zero-G structure and continuous exposure to sunlight for solar power, and direct line-of-sight to earth for communications. This notwithstanding, if we have large colonies on the moon, they may well be able to build useful telescopes. It's just that it is hard to make the case that this is, by itself, a significant justification for human lunar flight while the cost remains so high.