Development, not exploration, should be mission for HSF

[DarkenedOne]

Personally I feel that a large part of the vacillation that is going in NASA's mission is due to confusion as to the objective of human spaceflight.

What is the point of sending humans into space anyway?

So far NASA's primary reason given for human space flight is exploration. The problem is that real exploration is that being done entirely by unmanned probes and remote controlled robots these days. The greatest accomplishment that humans have made in the field of space exploration has been landing on the moon and return soil samples 7 times, and to do that required something like $170 billion. On the other hand we are able to send up rovers that sample the surface of Mars for a few hundred million each. We have sent probes to every planet in the solar system. We have even landed probes on asteroids.

My point is that arguing for human space flight from a exploration point of view is a loser.

So back to the question of why should we do it?

To me the reason is simple. It is the same reason that I am interested in space in the first place. When I came to the realization that our world is so small compared to what is really out there that is when I became interested in space. It is the same curiosity about what is out there that I believe has largely contributed to the success of many of our greatest movies such as Star Wars, Avatar, and etc.

Instead the mission for human spaceflight should to develop space for the betterment of humanity to the point that humans can travel to other stars and inhabit more than one planet.

Personally I believe that this objective despite being a long term one that will likely take hundreds of years to achieve will receive more public support than exploration. The reason is that exploration implies a purely scientific motivation. I think that it needs to be made clear that the motivation for development of space is not just science, but also economic and social as well. That we look to space not just out of curiosity, but also for the wealth of resources that can fuel the betterment and expansion of humanity.

In line with this new mission NASA would need to focus less on these expensive HSF sorties and more on advanced technology. Just look at Apollo. It cost $170 billion and after 30 years it has been of little benefit to humanity. We need to instead focus our money on further developing our space technology, lowering costs, and finding new applications for it.

 

[Booban]

You don't want human exploration, but you want human colonization.

Its the same thing.

All human 'exploration' missions have been about learning about human durability in space and the means to transport them. Whether it is collecting rocks from the moon or rocks from an asteroid, this human 'exploration' is advancing technologies for human colonization immensely.

I on the other hand believe that the goal of human colonization is for day dreamers and no bucks will be forth coming from Congress when their are day to day matters that demand immediate attention at home, among them saving this planet, but even THAT seems to be too distant a problem to solve.

I'm not saying I do not want human space colonization, I do. But this dream is so far off it is worthless and pointless to think about it now.

Human colonization will instead occur as a bonus in order to reap the riches of space. Do people want to go to dusty old Mars or gray rocky moon and live in little biosphere bubbles the rest of their lives? I'm sure we would have a lot of volunteers here, but I guarantee you you would all be homesick and on the first trip back if you could.

But down trodden hard on their luck people would go if they could get rich and live a better life and probably earn enough to move right back to earth and retire rich.

But the huge question, is how to get the riches!

Both Obama's plan and Constellation use the same arguments against each other and both are just as fallible to them. Sending humans to an asteroid to bring home some rocks are so much bigger a deal than sending them to the moon and bringing home some rocks? So the moon is been there done that, so will the asteroid be as well. We didn't have robots during Apollo, but we have them now. And we've learned alot of the moon using probes and satellites.

The solution is so simple and is exactly what we are doing now. Send out robots and machines to find the possibilities then send people to make it happen. In the meantime, keep astronauts in space stations, but devise better space stations and space ships.

The huge mistake was NASA and the Government dropping the ball and not developing a successor to the shuttle due to true short sightedness which is why we now have to go retro because of the shuttles dropping out of the sky!

 

[BurgerB75]

Sadly I think the colonization of space will only occur as a reaction to a global disaster of some kind. I just do not think there are enough people that want to colonize space to make the effort feasible.

Exploration, on the other hand, I think will eventually need to be hands on. Probes and rovers will only get you so much information. Yes there are fewer risks and it is (currently) substantially cheaper than human explorers but there is only so much they can do (based on their design). Human exploration is much, much more flexible when it comes to changing objectives. I hate to pick on the little Spirit rover but had that been a human driven vehicle it's nothing a little push or some quick work with a shovel wouldn't fix. The other advantage is in situ repairs. Think of the Galileo antenna problem. No way to fix that from the ground but I bet a spacewalk would have solved the issue (opinion of course).

The main problem is the fear of failure. Losing a half-billion dollar probe or rover has a lot less political and social fallout than the loss of a person. The problem there is that while it is a great loss, the people that signed up knew the risks and were ready to face them to advance our understanding of the universe and I salute them for it.

 

[Booban]

Yes human exploration is better, but how many martian rovers could we send for the cost of 1 human astronaut? Send thousands of them, it doesn't matter if some of them break, it's still cheaper than sending humans. Send humans when the robotic options are exhausted. We are no where near exploring our planetary neighbors with rovers to finding something the least bit interesting that would motivate sending humans.

 

[BurgerB75]

Yes human exploration is better, but how many martian rovers could we send for the cost of 1 human astronaut? Send thousands of them, it doesn't matter if some of them break, it's still cheaper than sending humans. Send humans when the robotic options are exhausted. We no where near exploring our planetary neighbors with rovers to finding something the least bit interesting that would motivate sending humans.

Agreed and I'm not arguing against rovers and probes currently. I would love to see hundreds of Spirits and Oppertunities rollin' about the Martian landscape. In the meantime, take the savings from the postponed human flights to improve our human spaceflight capabilities. Please note I said 'Postponed' and not 'cancelled'.

 

[DarkenedOne]

You don't want human exploration, but you want human colonization.

Its the same thing.

All human 'exploration' missions have been about learning about human durability in space and the means to transport them. Whether it is collecting rocks from the moon or rocks from an asteroid, this human 'exploration' is advancing technologies for human colonization immensely.

I on the other hand believe that the goal of human colonization is for day dreamers and no bucks will be forth coming from Congress when their are day to day matters that demand immediate attention at home, among them saving this planet, but even THAT seems to be too distant a problem to solve.

I'm not saying I do not want human space colonization, I do. But this dream is so far off it is worthless and pointless to think about it now.

Human colonization will instead occur as a bonus in order to reap the riches of space. Do people want to go to dusty old Mars or gray rocky moon and live in little biosphere bubbles the rest of their lives? I'm sure we would have a lot of volunteers here, but I guarantee you you would all be homesick and on the first trip back if you could.

But down trodden hard on their luck people would go if they could get rich and live a better life and probably earn enough to move right back to earth and retire rich.

But the huge question, is how to get the riches!

Both Obama's plan and Constellation use the same arguments against each other and both are just as fallible to them. Sending humans to an asteroid to bring home some rocks are so much bigger a deal than sending them to the moon and bringing home some rocks? So the moon is been there done that, so will the asteroid be as well. We didn't have robots during Apollo, but we have them now. And we've learned alot of the moon using probes and satellites.

The solution is so simple and is exactly what we are doing now. Send out robots and machines to find the possibilities then send people to make it happen. In the meantime, keep astronauts in space stations, but devise better space stations and space ships.

The huge mistake was NASA and the Government dropping the ball and not developing a successor to the shuttle due to true short sightedness which is why we now have to go retro because of the shuttles dropping out of the sky!

First of all there is a big difference between space exploration and space "colonization." The difference comes into your goals and operations. Take Apollo for example. Apollo was a giant waste of money if you are for space colonization. Why? Because you spend all your money on developing and maintaining large rockets and moon landers, and little on future technology. That is why 30 years latter Apollo has done little to nothing to aid current space efforts. Projects like the proposed Constellation were all about just using well proven technology, and would of done very little to actually advance technology.

As far as human colonization being so far off to even think about I would consider this a very short-sighted approach considering what can be gained. When you realize how small and insignificant we are, and how much we have to gain from developing space I think you would have to be insane to consider it not worth the messily 10 billion we spend on human spaceflight. Although I agree many people do think that way. Personally I believe that this is a weakness of many people.

 

[sftommy]

I think the ultimate, unspoken, goal of all space-flight is colonization, which is not even an end unto itself but a stage in something more metaphysical…

Exploration is just one of the stages of that total effort. Currently, robotic explorers cost makes them the best way to make the fastest progress. As we develop better robotics they will not only explore but build the habitats for humans to thrive in space or on other space entities. A certain logic then, applies towards curtailing HSF until robots build those habitats and they’re ready for humans to move into, although I do personally favor HSF sooner than that.

My favorite HSF motivator is the religious zealot whose followers are willing to sacrifice everything to make it happen. Any demagogues among readers here willing to step up?

 

[Booban]

Take Apollo for example. Apollo was a giant waste of money if you are for space colonization. Why? Because you spend all your money on developing and maintaining large rockets and moon landers, and little on future technology. That is why 30 years latter Apollo has done little to nothing to aid current space efforts. Projects like the proposed Constellation were all about just using well proven technology, and would of done very little to actually advance technology.

As far as human colonization being so far off to even think about I would consider this a very short-sighted approach considering what can be gained. When you realize how small and insignificant we are, and how much we have to gain from developing space I think you would have to be insane to consider it not worth the messily 10 billion we spend on human spaceflight. Although I agree many people do think that way. Personally I believe that this is a weakness of many people.

What?? Apollo WAS future technology for the time, all current space efforts are based on Apollo! It put people on another planetary body! How is that not to do with colonization? Most human 'exploration' missions are in fact a goal unto themselves, learning how to live and work in space, such as having moon bases and the space station are all colonization goals. I so don't understand where you are coming from.

Constellation was in order to have a human space program AT ALL since the shuttles exploded! Not arguing that it didn't advance technology by todays standards, but the idea was to have a basis for spaceflight, and then build on that. Without Constellation we have zip, while paying American tax dollars to Russia to fly to a chiefly funded American space station. America can no longer talk about having leadership in space.

Please be specific when you say we have so much to gain from developing space. And 10 billion will not give you the development which you are talking about. There is alot to learn and spend 10 billion on to find more possibilities in space, before we take the great leap to colonization that will cost us, erm, google is a number right? googles of dollars!

 

[Valcan]

Colonization is the point BUT. That cant happen until you begin to use the resources in the enviroment. First we need to invest in larger and better equiped space stations. We need to seriously try mining the surface of the moon or nearby asteroids for water and other materials.

I always wonder why people obsess with planets or moons. Colonization is simply living in a enviroment as a new home in its most basic terms. A space station IS a colony. First learn to industrialize space. Create trade between the space and earth.

Space has many resources humanity needs. Including rare earths which will only become even more needed as man progresses into the future.

Want colonization of mars? Learn to live in space as a COLONY first.

And as ive said the whole debate on humans vs. robots is stupid. Both operate better in certain areas and enhance there perspective tallents. And colonization LEADS to exploration. Lewis and clark anybody?

 

[EarthlingX]

'Exploration' is more fit for Hollywood than NASA, i think, but some people mix the two, and that makes the resulting confusion.

'Exploration' to me is a propaganda word, with no substance, another word for tourism. If you want to just look, send bots. I want to touch and smell too - porns are nice, but a real woman feels much better.

Most of the space is made of, guess what, space, and Life's nature is to expand into new territories. If we are fast enough, we just might be able to make that step, before collapsing under our own growth.

 

[kelvinzero]

Im a space colonisation nut,
But I see it as a series of fairly cheap and sensible research projects we should be doing anyway just to live on this planet, then come the big rockets.

Look at the big problems of today

The middle east fighting and Oil shortage
Fresh water shortage,
Global warming,
Overfishing of oceans.

The two main solutions to dealing with this are:
Alternate energy sources that can function on a world without oil (or oxygen): eg solar and nuclear power.
Understanding how to run a biosphere.

The fact is that even if we never have any interest in moving into space, we must master living in totally managed environments where nothing is for free. The earth is becoming such an environment. Cities are having to learn how to recycle their drinking water. As a species we must start managing our atmosphere's CO2 levels.

That is all just about research really, on a more extravagant note, I would like to see the colonization of extreme environments start with earth. I would love to see domed IT-based cities, not so we can let the outside world go to pot, but to live right next to nature with zero effect while still having all the benefits of technology. I would love to see domed colonies extending over the sea bed. Perhaps in some atoll where the water is shallow but there is no land, so no value. I would love to see the deserts colonized and all that sand trapped beneath solar energy farms.

Space is cool too. If we could have run a permanent moon-base I think there would have been vast spin offs for these technologies. But even if they shut HSF down entirely the truly vital work can go on. There is never a reason or even the opportunity to throw our hands up and say it is too hard.

 

[JonClarke]

You can't have development without exploration.

Personally I feel that a large part of the vacillation that is going in NASA's mission is due to confusion as to the objective of human spaceflight.

What is the point of sending humans into space anyway?

So far NASA's primary reason given for human space flight is exploration. The problem is that real exploration is that being done entirely by unmanned probes and remote controlled robots these days. The greatest accomplishment that humans have made in the field of space exploration has been landing on the moon and return soil samples 7 times, and to do that required something like $170 billion. On the other hand we are able to send up rovers that sample the surface of Mars for a few hundred million each. We have sent probes to every planet in the solar system. We have even landed probes on asteroids.

People landed on the Moon six times not seven.

My point is that arguing for human space flight from a exploration point of view is a loser.

There is no evidence that it is a "loser:, in fact human space exploration has been immensely successful.

So back to the question of why should we do it?

To me the reason is simple. It is the same reason that I am interested in space in the first place. When I came to the realization that our world is so small compared to what is really out there that is when I became interested in space. It is the same curiosity about what is out there that I believe has largely contributed to the success of many of our greatest movies such as Star Wars, Avatar, and etc.

Instead the mission for human spaceflight should to develop space for the betterment of humanity to the point that humans can travel to other stars and inhabit more than one planet.

Personally I believe that this objective despite being a long term one that will likely take hundreds of years to achieve will receive more public support than exploration. The reason is that exploration implies a purely scientific motivation. I think that it needs to be made clear that the motivation for development of space is not just science, but also economic and social as well. That we look to space not just out of curiosity, but also for the wealth of resources that can fuel the betterment and expansion of humanity.

There are many reasons for exploration - scientific curiosity, the search for new opportunities. One does not preclude others. You have I assume heard of mineral and oil exploration?

In line with this new mission NASA would need to focus less on these expensive HSF sorties and more on advanced technology. Just look at Apollo. It cost $170 billion and after 30 years it has been of little benefit to humanity.

Other than revolutionising our understanding of the Earth, Moon, Sun and solar system andchanging the whole way people see themselves in the universe?

We need to instead focus our money on further developing our space technology, lowering costs, and finding new applications for it.

Those are means to ends, not ends in themselves. You need people reaching out into space, both directly and indirectly for these technologies to take effect.

 

[JonClarke]

'Exploration' is more fit for Hollywood than NASA, i think, but some people mix the two, and that makes the resulting confusion.

I think the cvonbfusion is with your limited understanding of the word.

'Exploration' to me is a propaganda word, with no substance, another word for tourism.

Really? Vasco de Gama, Magellan, Cook, Flinders, Peary, Nansen, Scott, Armstrong, just tourists? Minign and exploration companies that send billions each year likewise?

If you want to just look, send bots. I want to touch and smell too - porns are nice, but a real woman feels much better.

Err, yes, but your point?

Most of the space is made of, guess what, space, and Life's nature is to expand into new territories. If we are fast enough, we just might be able to make that step, before collapsing under our own growth.

And how the heck are we supposed to do this without exploration?

 

[DarkenedOne]

What?? Apollo WAS future technology for the time, all current space efforts are based on Apollo! It put people on another planetary body! How is that not to do with colonization? Most human 'exploration' missions are in fact a goal unto themselves, learning how to live and work in space, such as having moon bases and the space station are all colonization goals. I so don't understand where you are coming from.

First of all it is like I said before the vast majority of the money that was spent in Apollo was spent on the rockets and the spacecraft. Yes there were elements such as the technology to land on the moon and the life support. However the development of these technologies represented only a small fraction of the expense of the Apollo.

I do agree that space stations and bases advance HSF by providing experience in long duration human space flight and providing a platform for human spaceflight technology.

Constellation was in order to have a human space program AT ALL since the shuttles exploded! Not arguing that it didn't advance technology by todays standards, but the idea was to have a basis for spaceflight, and then build on that. Without Constellation we have zip, while paying American tax dollars to Russia to fly to a chiefly funded American space station. America can no longer talk about having leadership in space.

While Constellation did have a great vision that I really agreed with it was based on technology that belonged in the Apollo era and thus was far to expensive to be sustainable.

Please be specific when you say we have so much to gain from developing space. And 10 billion will not give you the development which you are talking about. There is alot to learn and spend 10 billion on to find more possibilities in space, before we take the great leap to colonization that will cost us, erm, google is a number right? googles of dollars!

Ten billion is a great deal of money if spent wisely. NASA simply has to stop it resistance to new technology and ideas if the US is going to have a worthwhile space program or if the human race is ever to make much use of space. There are a great number of promising technologies such as nuclear rockets, nuclear reactors for space travel, VASIMR, ion engines, and etc. These technologies would rapidly reduce cost.

 

[vulture4]

>>Constellation was in order to have a human space program AT ALL since the shuttles exploded!<<

The Shuttle was returned to flight and has been flying safely for five years. There certainly isn't any need for Constellation to have human spaceflight. Constellation was proposed by Mike Griffin not because the Shuttle wasn't capable but because he wanted to get rid of it and instead create "Apollo on steroids". He announced that both the Shuttle and ISS should be terminated in order to pay for Constellation without a both increase.

In the past, human spaceflight had been proposed as part of an international ideological conflict (Apollo) and as part of scientific and commercial development (Shuttle), and as a catalyst for international trust and cooperation (ISS). The Constellation program does not support any practical objective, so the new justification, "exploration" was created for it as though this had always existed.

In reality whether humans or robotics are better for science and even resource development depends on the cost of sending humans. With expendable vehicles the cost of sending humans is much too high to be practical. The cost of fuel is negligible; LOX is 60 cents a gallon! Most of the cost of launch is in building a new vehicle for every launch. That is why the Space Shuttle was built; to lower the cost of human spaceflight sufficiently to make it practical for something other than a political stunt. Obviously Shuttle was more expensive than planned, but it was our first attempt, and the costs are due to problems in the original design that were not foreseen. The people who actually maintain the Shuttle have thousands of ideas that would allow a new generation of Shuttles to be practical and safe. But within a year they will be laid off and dispersed.

The most disastrous effect of the Constellation program is that it will end any NASA involvement in reusable launch vehicles for at least a generation. It will absorb huge amounts of money on escape systems for capsules that are not needed, on new expendable launch vehicles that will be extremely expensive to operate, and on costly human flights to the Moon, Mars, an asteroid, etc, that, if they occur at all, will be unaffordable to sustain and will do noting to reduce the cost of human spaceflight to the point where the work people can do in space is worth the cost of sending them there. We can obviously continue human spaceflight without a gap by continuing the Shuttle program, which is at the peak of its productivity, but we cannot continue the Shuttle program without cancelling Constellation.

 

[EarthlingX]

'Exploration' is more fit for Hollywood than NASA, i think, but some people mix the two, and that makes the resulting confusion.

I think the cvonbfusion is with your limited understanding of the word.

Perhaps i don't see a point sending one or a couple of people somewhere far for a lots of money, once every couple of years, just to look. If they go, they should be doing something proportional to higher expenses more, than bots can do.
Or is space program only propaganda, muscle show ?

'Exploration' to me is a propaganda word, with no substance, another word for tourism.

Really? Vasco de Gama, Magellan, Cook, Flinders, Peary, Nansen, Scott, Armstrong, just tourists? Minign and exploration companies that send billions each year likewise?

Some of them were required for what they did, but Armstrong was a tourist. Nice show though, was watching it with huge eyes, very inspiring.
First scientist on the Moon was on the last mission, i think.

If you want to just look, send bots. I want to touch and smell too - porns are nice, but a real woman feels much better.

Err, yes, but your point?

You can feed your dog through the glass for some time, but then it dies.
At some point you need boots on the ground, not for exploring, for settling.

Most of the space is made of, guess what, space, and Life's nature is to expand into new territories. If we are fast enough, we just might be able to make that step, before collapsing under our own growth.

And how the heck are we supposed to do this without exploration?

By prospecting.

 

[kr1ross]

Question is moot you can’t have development of a new frontier with out exploring it.

The question should be is it feasible to develop space using rocket technology as our only means of propulsion?

It is time to let go of our emotions and lack of patience and look at some realities about this frontier.

Rocketry as our chief propulsion system means slow cumbersome orbital transfer trajectories in order to get any where else in our solar system even our moon not to mention limited to very small payloads. Then you have to build a rocket for every launch into space this is the most expensive part of the space program not to mention dangerous. The shuttle was said to be built to be reusable thus lowering the cost of getting into orbit it did not even come close to achieving this goal. Every launch requires the building of an enormous one time use external fuel tank; each shuttle mission cost over one billion dollars.

Human space flight beyond the Earth’s magnetic shield isn’t remotely possible at present we just don’t have the radiation shielding technology. Why do you think N.A.S.A keeps pushing the time line for a human space mission to Mars back? We are not going to spend billions of dollars on a mission where the space craft occupants would be dead from radiation before they reach their destination. This doesn’t even deal with the logistical problems of food water and air for such a mission remember we are not talking about an 8 day trip to the moon and back. If we had the means to shield the crew of a human mission to Mars you are talking two years round trip at best with at least one year spent in transit to and from destination cooped up in a space smaller than an efficiency apartment.

As far as anyone making the moon or Mars their permanent home well lets just name a few places here on Earth. Antarctica, Greenland, the Atacama Desert, Gobi Desert, Sahara desert just to name a few as harsh as these places are they are paradise when compared to the lunar surface and any other world in our solar system. Only when we finally discover another world that is like our home world where they can go outside without a space suit are you going to get people willing to make another world their permanent home. At best when we develop propulsion systems that make direct flights to our destinations in our solar system will it become financially feasible for human exploration and mining of asteroids and planets to take place.

One thing the Human rocket space program has proven is that rocket powered space fight will not open up our solar system to human space travelers. Every Shuttle mission takes money away from R & D into technology that will allow the development and exploitation of space.

We need to ditch N.A.S.A.s engineers and leaders who are stuck in the 1950s 60s and 70s cold war era way of thinking and bring in people with fresh ideas.

Rocketry will be to the real Human Space flight what the hot air balloon is to modern aviation, a novelty and not practical or reliable for human transportation.

 

[kelvinzero]

Im afraid I disagree with that point by point, Kr1ross.

Can't develop without exploring? In one sense that is obviously true but that does not mean the first step towards industrializing space is to send human explorers. Development (of relevant technology) can happen without human explorers. I personally put this as the priority.

You don't like rocketry. You didn't explain your alternative. I have a slight suspicion you are about to suggest antigravity

Six months each way is too long? No! If we want to live there permanently, six months is nothing. Rocketry certainly is sufficient, in fact I sort of like that these forced long mission times means that more effort will go into ISRU and closed loop life support, where effort belongs. Not that I would say no to VASIMR etc, but it is not like that is being ignored.

Radiation is a problem, but as far as I know not a major one. Sensible precautions would reduce it to a minor proportion of total risk. It does deserve more research though if only to confirm this.

The logistical problems of food, water and air are easy to calculate, and are not major hurdles.

The volunteers to go on such missions will far FAR outnumber available seats. If only one in million people were willing, that would give you thousands of candidates.

 

[JonClarke]

Perhaps i don't see a point sending one or a couple of people somewhere far for a lots of money, once every couple of years, just to look. If they go, they should be doing something proportional to higher expenses more, than bots can do.

Strawman argument. Nobody is is suggesting that peoploe go "just to look". The Apollo astronauts did not go to the Moon "just to look". They took tens of thousands of images, hours of video, made thousands of scientific measurments and observations, corrected nearly half a tonne of samples, drilled holes, deployed instruments, tested equipment. Future mission will be even better because they will build on past lessons.

Or is space program only propaganda, muscle show ?

Certainly at times, but it is also a lot more than that.

Some of them were required for what they did, but Armstrong was a tourist. Nice show though, was watching it with huge eyes, very inspiring.

The Apollo 11 astronauts were test pilots who successful testsed the essential basics of lunar exploration. The also took photos, collected rocks, deployed a range of instruments, one of which is still in regular use, made measurements and observations. How many tourists do that? I suggest you read a little more.

First scientist on the Moon was on the last mission, i think.

The first professional scientist was Jack Schmitt on Apollo 17. But all the Apollo astrinauts had university degrees and extensive lunar science training from the best - El Baz, Silver, Shoemaker, and many others. They made excellent observers and technicians.

At some point you need boots on the ground, not for exploring, for settling.

Of course. But you need to do that exploration first.

By prospecting.

Prospecting is done by self taught people, usually as a hobby. Exploration is done by professionals. That is why mining companies do exploration using geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, and other experts. Not a bunch of prospectors.

 

[halman]

The mission of human space flight? To expand the sphere of human activity beyond the planet Earth. Ultimately, that will result in colonies, some in space, some on planets. But they will be the result of the industrialization of space, not of exploration efforts. Lewis and Clark were not looking for a new home, neither were Magellan, Cook, et al. Exploration is fundamental to growth, the acquisition of new knowledge, the mastery of new techniques.

One technique which we have yet to master is getting people into space and back. The change in velocity from standing on the ground to orbiting the planet involves about 5 miles per second, or 17,500 miles per hour. We have learned how to use brute force to accomplish this, but we are still a long way from being efficient at the process.

Talking about going beyond Low Earth Orbit right now seems ludicrous to me, because we are still so limited in our ability just to get into space. The Apollo program did space exploration a great dis-service, by implying that we were advanced enough to travel to the Moon on a regular basis. The Saturn V was going to be the launch vehicle of choice for lunar exploration in the 1970's, which is partly why NASA saw so many dreams put on hold. It was just too expensive to send three people to the Moon on a throw-away rocket over and over again.

Many people have derided NASA for being stuck in Low Earth Orbit. They want to see humans walking on the Moon, or Mars, not floating around in a space station. But space stations are going to be where the majority of people will live and work in space for a long time, because that is where the industry will be, not on a planetary surface. But for industry to become established, people will be needed. Supplying the personnel demands of corporate space stations is going to take more than 3 or 4 or even 5 people per launch, and the launches are going have to be a lot cheaper, and more reliable.

This is the area which NASA needs to focus on for the next few years; how to get people into space and bring them back at a sustainable cost. Any talk of missions to other worlds, or to comets and asteroids is premature until we have secured access to space that is cheap enough for a company to send up a dozen people every few months. Crew rotation of station crews demands a vehicle different than a space capsule, something which can land at the take-off site, be turned around quickly, and fly again and again.

Once a cheap and easy way into space is developed, it can be sold as a working system to a company to operate, and NASA can start putting its money into sending people to other places. This will happen someday, I am sure. How long it takes depends on how long it takes NASA to focus all of its energies on this one problem. We could do it in less than 10 years, or we might stretch it out for another 25 or 30. Programs like Constellation will only delay that concentration on perfecting the fundamental technology of space flight.

 

[kelvinzero]

About Apollo,

The huge shame of apollo was how it quickly it ended once we actually got there. After all that buildup of effort and architecture it was all thrown away with only a few man-days of actual time on the moon. All that effort, and then for example for the revelation of water at the poles to wait another 30-40 years.

If we agree that we need a sustainable mission architecture, then I think the proponents of development and exploration will both win.

 

[EarthlingX]

JonClarke, i'm just very annoyed how the word has been abused, and will let pass some of the details.

This might be interesting :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZvKBAaHnsQ[/youtube]

 

[Booban]

You must be kidding, his last name is Braun!?

Well, he did sound convincing, but this sounds alot like "going back to the drawing board". Well, he's convinced me that this is necessary, but it also means we basically got zip and we not going to an asteroid or anywhere else by 2025 as they think. Whatever budget or time frame these big brains come up with, just double the number at least.

Then I wonder why make such a big fuss by removing the moon as a goal, and bring something entirely new to the table by having an asteroid as a goal. Either or, whats the big deal? I've read that an asteroid is advantages because its new, simpler and cheaper because it has even less gravity than the moon so you don't really need a lander. But I think there are sufficient unknowns with an asteroid compared to the moon which will push risk and cost up. For example, does anyone know if asteroids are not normally accompanied by debris floating around them?

 

[Booban]

The Saturn V was going to be the launch vehicle of choice for lunar exploration in the 1970's, which is partly why NASA saw so many dreams put on hold. It was just too expensive to send three people to the Moon on a throw-away rocket over and over again.

.....Programs like Constellation will only delay that concentration on perfecting the fundamental technology of space flight.

Well, Constellation was just to have something to do and put people in space the cheapest and most reliable way we know how until we develop something better. So cancel Constellation and it looks like you saved a lot of money. Oh, but they are STILL going to send people up in space, but with private rockets. Private rockets are also developed with a great deal of money which will be recouped with profit when they charge NASA for the rides. NASA will not have saved anything at all, except that the money will go into some rich peoples pockets.

And isnt a heavy lift vehicle part of the Obama plan now? Isnt this vehicle really a 'rocket' which just doesn't sound like a great leap from the Saturn V. All current or near future rocket technology don't sound like they will bring a huge cost decrease in launch prices.

So money will STILL be flowing out to 'old' technology unless the breaks are totally applied, private rockets are canceled, heavy lift is canceled, and really focused on research.

 

[JonClarke]

JonClarke, i'm just very annoyed how the word has been abused, and will let pass some of the details.

How has it been abused? Please give examples.

This might be interesting :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZvKBAaHnsQ[/youtube]

Can you give a precis? I don't have sound.