I think NASA should get out of the manned launch business

askold · Jul 14, 2005

Change NASA's mandate to only do science - with unmanned vehicles. Like the Hubble and the planetary probes. There's no value in going back to the moon, Mars is technologically unfeasable for decades, and the space station is a waste of time. Let private companies develop space tourism if they want to. We could have a gold-plated space science program if we used the money that's being wasted on manned exploration. Anyway - that's how I feel.

erauskydiver · Jul 14, 2005

Robots may inspire young minds, but they will never be able to inspire as much as a human being can. To me, that is the ultimate goal of manned spaceflight: Inspire children to become scientists, engineers, and strive to create and overcome challenges. The science that comes from manned spaceflight is just a bonus.

radarredux · Jul 14, 2005

> Change NASA's mandate to only do science - with unmanned vehicles. Like the Hubble and the planetary probes./i> I think this should be done under the auspices of the National Science Foundation (NSF). /> There's no value in going back to the moon,/i> Certainly debatable. /> Mars is technologically unfeasable for decades See Zubrin's "Mars Direct" plan. /> Let private companies develop space tourism if they want to./i> The other piece is to require the government to give first priority to commercially developed products or services. If t/Space develops the CXV, NASA should buy launches on that to ISS or to dock to a Lunar CEV. If Bigelow launches an orbital space station, then NASA should contract to Bigelow for experiments before doing it on the ISS. Historically NASA has sought reasons not to use privately developed services and capabilities and use its own in-house developed systems.

gunsandrockets · Jul 14, 2005

"...Mars is technologically unfeasable for decades, ..." America had the technology to send men to Mars decades earlier than today, but choose not to go! NASA had the technology to go to Mars by 1970. Saturn V provided the launch capability and the NERVA nuclear rocket engine provided the Mars transfer capability.

elguapoguano · Jul 14, 2005

I think NASA should get out of the manned launch business. Change NASA's mandate to only do science - with unmanned vehicles. Well then, I am sure glad you are not running NASA.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>) </div>

frodo1008 · Jul 14, 2005

"Change NASA's mandate to only do science - with unmanned vehicles. Like the Hubble and the planetary probes. " How old are you anyway? Obviously not old enough to avoid making a totally false and illogical statement like above. If there was no manned space program, and therefore no STS system, there WOULD BE NO HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE!! Perhaps you are just ignorant of space program history. The Hubble would be just so much space junk if it weren't for the STS manned repair missions. And specifically the first such mission. Despite the relative expense of such missions, robots alone would be far more expensive!! While interesting and important the scientific robotic exploration of the universe IS secondary. The primary reason for any space program is the exploitation of the vast resources of the solar system. This can ONLY be accomplished by human beings! Robotics in space are there to compliment human beings, NOT compete with them. If we do not move human civilization outwards off of this space ship Earth, human civilization at least (if not humanity itself) will be doomed within a few generations. Besides, while the average taxpayer may be interested in pictures from Mars and other places, a lot of the pure scientific information being obtained by satellites and observatories is quite frankly as boring as watching grass grow. The scientists themselves are indeed interested in such data as gamma rays, but the average truck driver could care less. But he just might be interested in seeing his children and grandchildren work in space. So in reality it IS the manned programs that end up paying for the more esoteric unmanned programs, not the other way around. I know that I have been perhaps quite sharp with you here, but I grow weary of having (usually teenagers, or even younger) posters raise this type of an issue who have themselves never done anything in their lives but sit in front of a keyboard and computer

spacefire · Jul 14, 2005

NASA should make robots that look like Arnold Schwartzenger, and everybody will be inspired. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

radarredux · Jul 14, 2005

> If there was no manned space program, and therefore no STS system, there WOULD BE NO HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE!!/i> This is not a super strong argument. While servicing missions helped fix the original vision flaw, extended its life, and added new capability, it is not entirely clear that using the shuttle system is the most cost effective strategy. For example, when all the costs of the shuttle program are taken into account, it may have been simpler just to build a new Hubble telescope (H2) and launch it. Costs for fixing a screw up (e.g., the original vision problem) should be carried by the contractor or an appropriate insurance mechanism. I believe all future space telescopes are being developed not to be serviced by astronauts. Having said all that, for many reasons (not just for science), I hope NASA does one more service mission to Hubble. /> but the average truck driver could care less. But he just might be interested in seeing his children and grandchildren work in space. So in reality it IS the manned programs that end up paying for the more esoteric unmanned programs, not the other way around./i> This is the "no Buck Rodgers, no bucks" argument (as opposed to the Tom Wolfe's version, "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers"). Once again, I am not sure this argument holds up very well anymore. How many people can name the U.S. astronaut currently in the ISS? How many people know there is an American in orbit right now? How many people knew the Columbia was in orbit before her accident? I bet more Americans can name the current Mars rovers than can name any astronaut in the last five years. I don't think the original VSE vision (under O'Keefe) would be a whole lot better: achieve Gemini capability around 2015 and Apollo capability around 2020. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> I just don't think t

mattblack · Jul 14, 2005

Oh don't be silly!! If Nasa gave up manned launch that would be like saying: I was once in a car accident, I'm too afraid to drive now. In fact, it's statistically FAR more dangerous to go driving in your car today than to strap into a Space Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

radarredux · Jul 14, 2005

> it's statistically FAR more dangerous to go driving in your car today than to strap into a Space Shuttle./i> Depends on how you measure safety. If it is by lives lost per miles traveled, then I would probably agree. If it is lives lost per hour traveled or trips taken, then I think the shuttle is much more dangerous. If 1 out of every 50 car trips killed everyone in the car, I don't think too many people would be traveling in cars right now.

askold · Jul 14, 2005

It seems that the argument to support manned space flight has to do with the “sizzle” of space flight and not the “steak”. I don’t buy it. The vast majority of people involved in the space program do not go into space – they stay here on the ground. Why would a young engineer be more inspired by a manned flight to the ISS than an unmanned flight to a comet? Frodo1008: how old am I? Old enough to remember the Mercury launches! And my statements are not totally illogical as RadarRedux points out. Additionally, I’m not saying that there never was a reason for the manned program – there was. But that time has passed. For right now, the science we need to do is best done by robots. Manned flight would not have benefited the recent missions to the comet, Mars, or the outer planet. If we had sent people to Mars rather than the rovers would they still be there? The next mission to Mars should return some Martian material back to Earth – that’s better done with robots. If, in the future, a mission arises that would be better done by humans, then we should do it with humans.

lunatic133 · Jul 14, 2005

I am going to say the same thing that I have said in all of the other related threads. Children can be inspired by robotic exploration, yes. When I was 11 I was inspired by Pathfinder and the launch of Cassini. But the reason was that I thought that if we sent robots there first, then maybe, someday, I'd have a chance to go. And maybe there isn't a chance I'll ever go to Mars, and I almost definitely will never see Saturn, but I'd still like to live with the knowledge that maybe someone like me will get to go. If my eleven year old self found out that the robots were all there were, that there was no chance that we, humans, would explore other worlds, then I don't think I'd be nearly as interested. In fact, I think that being told "This is all there is, look but don't touch," is possibly the most depressing thing you can say to a child. In the future, saying "Sorry, you can't go to space, you're not a robot," may be as bad as saying "Sorry, you can't go to space, you're black." And no matter how much you can say "That won't happen,' if people, children or adults, are no longer inspired by something, then there won't be any funding. If human space flight goes, then I'm willing to bet a hundred bucks that robotic spaceflight will follow. Nobody's going to want to order the steak if it's too dry to sizzle. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If we had sent people to Mars rather than the rovers would they still be there?<hr /></blockquote> Probably not, however, they would have also covered a lot more ground and found much more innovative/open ended ways to study what they found there. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The next mission to Mars should return some Martian material back to Earth <hr /></blockquote> Actually, the next mission to mars is the MRO, which is just an orbital satellite. The next lander is the Phoenix, which will take some interesting data, but will not include a ro

frodo1008 · Jul 14, 2005

RadarRedox There are several problems with just replacing the Hubble instead of servicing missions. One is the simple and practical point that even a brand new Hubble has consumables, and changes in what astronomers wish to do would make the telescope obsolete very three years or so, meaning that you would have to either have a new telescope or a servicing mission every three years or so. So about every three years we can have a manned shuttle repair mission at about $500 million, or we can indeed just build an entirely new telescope and hope that it gets launched and set up properly for some $2 billion every three years, your choice here! The other reason is related to the first. When the first Hubble had its vision problems with all the negative attendant publicity, are you so isolated from political reality that you actually think that congress representing the American taxpayer would just have authorized another $2 billion for a replacement telescope? And this without even making an attempt at repair for about half the price? Once again, your choice! Then you go on to state that you support another manned mission, which we know will not take place for at least another year or two, thus keeping the manned program going for at least that long! I apologize if I sound too negative to your thinking (actually positive to the manned space program), but I have spent quite a bit of time over on free space battling with both extremes of the political spectrum (liberals and conservatives), as I am personally an independent moderate I often get in the unenviable position of being the voice of logic in the middle. As an unintended result of this I have become somewhat harsher and sarcastic myself. Believe me, I am being trained by some of the best on the internet! So if I bite back harder than it seems necessary on the more polite forums such as this one please forgive me!!

gunsandrockets · Jul 14, 2005

"If human space flight goes, then I'm willing to bet a hundred bucks that robotic spaceflight will follow." Bingo!

frodo1008 · Jul 14, 2005

vishniac Thanks for the compliment. It is indeed nice to be appreciated! Your minor criticism is well taken. However, as I have not read this article by this Jeffrey Bell, I don't know how to comment on it. Except that you, yourself must have at least agreed with him (and by inference my own post as well) enough to have acquired this unpleasant feeling! IN my own case I am NOT even talking about the very real possibility of NEO collision. I always find it grimly amusing when scientific types talk about such events in terms of statistics. Such as, every hundred years we can expect an object of such and such a size to strike the Earth. Grimly amusing, as statistics is so loose that that could very well mean that the Earth could in actuality be struck just about anytime!! From ten minutes from now to two hundred years from now. Statistics in this case is really only relative in that smaller objects usually hit the Earth more often than larger objects. What is really frightening about this is that even relatively small objects (that do strike the Earth with fair frequency) can do incredible damage! The Meteor Crater outside of Winslow Arizona is such an object. It dug a crater some 550 feet deep and one mile wide, and it was estimated to have been an iron core meteorite no bigger that a football field! Such an object striking say, Central Park in New York City would make the terrible damage of human efforts such as 9/11 look tiny in comparison. Only nuclear weapons are comparable! Millions would be killed, and tens of millions injured. The property damage would be measured in the TRILLIONS not just billions, and the US economy would be essentially destroyed! And this would be a relatively small object. Now, as the objects get larger…. Well, now I am acquiring an unpleasant feeling!! NO, I am not even posting about these possibilities. What I am worried about is much more subtle. It seems to me that mankind

tap_sa · Jul 15, 2005

Excellent points about oil and industry! I've bumped into the oil issue while pondering about fully selfsustaining moon/mars base. It's relatively easy to imagine ISRU tools to make metals, semiconductors and volatiles from raw material that is available at those locations. But that's not enough. For example you are making some sort of robot to help you at the base. How do you make the PCB for your CPU of 100% moon origin that controls your robot? How do you connect the servos to your control box? If the robot needs hydraulics, from where do you get the hydraulic fluids and seals? Nylon, Kevlar, membranes in your fuel cells, epoxy resin etc. etc. ? On the Earth most of this stuff originates from crude oil. On Moon and Mars we don't have luxury to just drill a hole in the ground and pump hydrocarbons. Amish lifestyle doesn't fly very far in a moon base so the only option is to manufacture the necessary hydrocarbons by some other way. Use brute force to combine hydrogen and carbon, first to methane and more complex HCs from that, or, the biological way by growing oil plants. I believe that all products containing complex HCs will have so high value in a selfsustaining moon/mars base that after the products no longer serve their original purpose even toughest neocon resident will do recycling without question. There is no 'garbage' in space. When (note the optimism here <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />) such selfsustaining base is reality, what will follow from it? Residents who live in a very hightech enviroment not based on oil (drilled from rock) and take recycling for granted. Isn't that the kind of people that we need back here on Earth too if we are to survive without falling back into hunter-gatherers once the oilwells run dry? IOW in space we will be forced to learn a lifestyle that suits well on Earth too. The crucial difference between recycle-preaching econuts of today and future moon/mars base dwellers is that latter can show a

askold · Jul 15, 2005

So, what will be the goal of the mission to the moon? Many of these posts seem to be saying: mankind must go into space, later we'll come up with a reason for being there. This is the kind of reasoning that gets NASA funding cut back in congress. "Because it's in our nature to explore" is not a very compelling argument.

frodo1008 · Jul 15, 2005

Get hold of a copy of the latest edition of Dr. G. K. O'Neill's classic book "The High Frontier". There was also a NASA publication that I have somewhere on the same subjects, if I can find it I will be happy to give you the number. However, I don't know if it is still in print, but I am pretty sure the book is. What Dr. O'Niell's main topic was, is the colonization of space by manufacturing actual city level colonies in space itself. While this is still quite some time from now, what is pertinent is that we are going to have to build infrastructure in space itself from materials available in space itself. While the initial cost of doing this may be great, in the long run it will be far, far cheaper to do this than bringing up everything from the Earth itself. I have hardly ever tried to give out links in any of my posts before, but here goes: http://www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/ Hey, it looks like it worked! This is an organization that is carrying on Dr. O’Niell’s work and study. Here is one place you can get a copy of his book. One of the relatively unknown, but truly terrific results of the Apollo landings on the moon was the analysis of the lunar soil. Hot Dog! With some effort I just found my copy off the NASA study itself. It is called “Space Settlements A Design Study” and went by the number NASA SP-413, dated 1977. In chapter 2, Physical Properties of Space, on page 14, are charts of both the content of the lunar rocks and the lunar soils from every Apollo mission that landed on the moon except Apollo 17 (I don’t know why this omission, but as all the others are there it doesn’t really matter anyway). I will give the major amounts of the minerals found in the soil from Apollo 11. The others vary by not too large an mount. These are: Aluminum: 7.4 % Iron: 12.2 % Titanium: 4.5 % Silicon: 19.6

mrmorris · Jul 15, 2005

"One is the simple and practical point that even a brand new Hubble has consumables, and changes in what astronomers wish to do would make the telescope obsolete very three years or so, meaning that you would have to either have a new telescope or a servicing mission every three years or so. So about every three years we can have a manned shuttle repair mission at about $500 million, or we can indeed just build an entirely new telescope and hope that it gets launched and set up properly for some $2 billion every three years, your choice here! " That's an interesting mix of cost numbers you've picked. Strangely, they all seem to be selected to favor the argument you want. You've picked the lowest 'cost' number for the shuttle possible, plus a very high cost number for the new scope (the Hubble cost 2B largely because it was designed to be serviced by the shuttle). ESA is developing the Herschel Space Observatory, with a larger main mirror than Hubble, *and* the Planck Observatory, and launching them together for under 800 million US. Even at the time Hubble was being built, astronomers were screaming because three non-serviceable scopes could have been built and launched for the price being paid for Hubble... and put into better orbits for viewing. The initial 'cost' of Hubble was 2B, and I don't *think* that included the $500M 'cost' of launching it on the shuttle. There have since been four servicing missions, and we're trying for a fifth. So a minimum of $4B has been sunk on the Hubble, possibly $4.5B, and we may pay as much as $5B (plus another $300 million to de-oirbit Hubble, of course... assuming no cost overruns). All this over about a 29-year period (funding approved for Hubble in 1977, figure SM4 if it happens will be in 2007). If instead we'd budgeted $150 million/year into an observatories program starting in 1977 and ending in 2008, by the end, we would have spent $4.5B. We likely w

le3119 · Jul 15, 2005

You causually made a statement at the end of your post that frankly disturbs me: "The internet IS NOT LIFE!!" No, really. I wish NASA would have canned the ISS and built a space station/lunar transport, by now we'd have access to the Moon every 2-4 weeks. Let the Russians take up the long shifts on the lunar outpost, that's what they're good at. We'd have a lot more leverage in the world with a lunar base with some intl coop. to boot. The ISS is the problem, IMO. Okay, out.

askold · Jul 15, 2005

I looked at the O'Neill web set you reference and now I see the influences to your thinking. Though I respectfully disagree. I think that mankind already has a perfectly good spaceship upon which to live in the universe - the Earth. If we don't trash it, we won't have to move out. (If I may anticipate your next comment - no, that doesn't make me a Luddite.) I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of exploring space to the extent that it benefits mankind - there have been many practical spinoffs from the space program. I'm even comfortable with the idea of spending money for not-so-practical things, like figuring out the age of the universe. My gripe is with NASA's manned space program as it is currently being run. The shuttle is not going to the moon or Mars, it's not even going to Hubble - it's going to the ISS. And it's going to ISS because we agreed to build the thing even though it's a pretty useless piece of hardware. Meanwhile, NASA's been hit by 2 unfortunate vehicle losses which has made it so risk-averse that it's been practically immobilized. Except for the Shuttle money-spending - NASA's still able to do that. I think that our best bang for the buck is to concentrate on robotic missions. That will yield practial benefits without resulting in tragedy everytime something goes wrong. While doing this, we may develop technologies that will overcome the obstacles we currently have to long-distance missions (Mars). It may take a long time to develop these technologies - maybe 10 years or a hundred years. Who cares? What's the hurry? The hurry seems to be driven by at least 2 factors: 1) The need to witness somebody stepping on Mars, like we witnessed man stepping on the moon. 2) The idea that Earth's demise is imminent and we need to figure out a way to get off now. I don't buy either of these arguments.

frodo1008 · Jul 15, 2005

I do not really wish to take up the same type of war on these threads that I end up with over on free space. The figures that I quoted were official NASA figures. Of course, everybody on these threads is an expert except for NASA!! I mean they just have to do the job now don't they! As I pointed out do you really believe that the American taxpayer would have had NASA just leave the original Hubble (which with the storage for the Challenger accident, eventually DID cost some $2 billion) in orbit almost totally useless for the task that it was originally built. And then just completely build a new telescope? I admit that I was going to do the same type of thing that is usually done by either the censervatives or the liberals over on FS, and make a sarcastic comment about your pat on the back comment. My comment was meant as explanetory, it was not meant as eqotism. Your reply on the other hand is just the same kind of thing that I see over on FS all the time. Such comments over there usually elicite other even mere sarcastic and harsh comments until the whole thread desends into a general flame war. Is this what you and others really want over here? If I have to face this kind of thing on all these threads, then I will gladly say the you people were totally correct and I was totally wrong to support NASA's manned space program. I can just as easily go off line and fully enjoy myself playing Diablo II. Then, to top it off YOU say that you support manned space flight anyway!

frodo1008 · Jul 15, 2005

I really, really grow tired of having to go over this same point again, and again, and again! But for the sake of this particular thread I will do it again. At the end of the Apollo program, Wherner Von Braun proposed that the program continue on to form a more permanent human presense in space. If, in its infinete widom "CONGRESS" had allowed his program to continue we would now have fully rotating large space stations, colonies on the moon, and at least bases on Mars!! However, as it was so much more important to blow holes in rice paddies in South Viet Nahm congress turned a deaf ear to the most knowledgeable rocket scientist of all time. NASA even tried to get enough funding to build the space shuttle as the program it should have been all along, a true two stage completely reusable fly back booster and orbiter. Even this was too expensive initially, and so NASA had to come up with the kluge of the current STS system. Admittedly a magnificent kluge, but still a kluge. It would have been far less expensive in the long run to have done it right from the beginning. It WAS the politicians that destroyed the US apace program not the managers, engineers, scientist, and other working people like myself! And as we are now fighting more wars, I fully expect another such assault on the programs at this time. You people want to sit around and argue over the capacity of squirt guns while the building is burning down around you!!

frodo1008 · Jul 15, 2005

If other people like myself have forced you into making a post like this one then we are achieving at least some progress here. Much better than your first post on this thread, even if I still disagree with you, you now have some valid points of argument. One place that I still disagree is what I have already pointed out. Not only will we destroy this planet within some 200 years at best, but with the rise of such countries as China and India this process will accelerate exponentially! I am not a pessimistic person by nature, but I AM a realist. I do not even need to talk about something as controversial as global warming. Just the straight out and out pollution is going to steadily get worse and worse. To be perfectly honest with you I am not even sure that getting human industrialization off the planet is going to save this space ship. I do know that there is nothing else that can in the long run be done about it. Any engineer will tell you that you can not design a perfect system (a system that has no losses). Regardless of how hard we try. the Earth is a closed system, and eventually is going to be used up! Well, I am not entirely correct here, there IS one other solution, and that is total nuclear war, sort of a final solution to all our problems. But, as this would throw out the baby along with the bath water, even I am not so pessimistic as to really call it a viable solution, and I don't think you are either. And no, I am not saying the we must immediately take drastic steps to get humanity into space. Don't get me wrong, I do think that this would indeed be great, but I am too much of a realist to back such an effort. However, to just abandon what efforts are even now being made, even if these efforts are somewhat less than perfect is no answer either! And besides if you read my prior posts you will find that I do fully support the continued robotic exploration of the solar system. On another thr

mrmorris · Jul 15, 2005

"As I pointed out do you really believe that the American taxpayer would have had NASA just leave the original Hubble (which with the storage for the Challenger accident, eventually DID cost some $2 billion)" Well -- actually what I was pointing out is that if Hubble hadn't been designed for the shuttle, then it wouldn't have had to be stored after the Challenger disaster, and wouldn't have cost as much even before the storage it wouldn't have required and therefore wouldn't have been a $2 billion dollar embarrasment that required another $500 million mission to repair. "My comment was meant as explanetory, it was not meant as eqotism. " Re-read it. "I often get in the unenviable position of being the voice of logic in the middle." Had you said 'I always try to take a middle path', or 'I always try to provide arguments in the middle ground', than you would be explaining your position. Stating definitively that you are '...being the voice of logic...' implies that everyone else is being illogical and only you are correct. That's egotism, whether it's unconscious egotism of not is another matter.

I think NASA should get out of the manned launch business

askold

Guest

erauskydiver

Guest

radarredux

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

elguapoguano

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

spacefire

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mattblack

Guest

radarredux

Guest

askold

Guest

lunatic133

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

askold

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

le3119

Guest

askold

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page