I'm already bored with NASA's Vision for Space Exploration

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

askold

Guest
15 to 20 years to go to the moon - we've alreay been there. Yawn.<br /><br />Every day, somebody in congress announces they want to cut NASA's budget because they see no point to these adventures.<br /><br />The ISS is turning into a Bed and Breakfast in the sky - available to the highest bidder.<br /><br />And the shuttle continues on its perilous journey to oblivion.<br /><br />The only cool stuff out there is the interplanetary probes, the rovers and the telescopes. Let's put NASA's money there!
 
M

mattblack

Guest
>>The only cool stuff out there is the interplanetary probes, the rovers and the telescopes.<<<br /><br />No. You're wrong. Here's why:<br /><br />How could you be bored with the "Vision" already? Because they "haven't done anything yet"? They've done plenty, but this is not the 1960S cold war space race we're in now, far from it. Money is tight and although Nasa has had budget increases the last two years they aren't generous. It's going to take time to develop new manned spacecraft for leaving Earth Orbit, and money. Money that Nasa is scarcely going to have in the next 10+plus years. The lunar return will cost 'about' $104 billion (means it'll probably cost $120) but the design will still DOUBLE Apollo's capability for only slightly more than HALF (55-60%) of it's cost with adjusted dollars. What's wrong with that? Some of you will go "Yeah, but 14 years to repeat what we did 35 years ago.<br /><br />Wrong: For the reasons I just outlined above. The Moon is a world in it's own right. Look: I can't wait for humans to land on Mars. When I was 20 years old I was CONVINCED that by the time I reached my 40th birthday (this December) there would be a base on Mars. Imagine my dissapointment when these things didn't happen!! I can't describe to you the dissapointment and the hollowness (but I largely got over it). I love the Mars Rovers and the Cassini probes, I think they're fantastic. I'll say that again in case you don't get it:<br /><br />I THINK THEY'RE FANTASTIC!! But no humans will go to the Moons of Jupiter and Saturn in my lifetime, I'm reluctantly convinced of that. But we CAN go to the Moon and we CAN go to Mars, for less than the cost of invading a couple of countries. So to claim you're bored with the lack of progress is COMPLETELY understandable. I can't disagree. But you've got to be patient and stand behind Nasa and Michael Griffin. Their plan and their vehicles have a lot of potential for upgrade to Mars missions with the addition of Hab and Propulsi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
 
C

cuddlyrocket

Guest
I'm always at a loss when people object to our going to the Moon again because we've done it already. I usually try to answer them by saying something like: Have you been to Paris more than once? (I'm in London) When they (usually) say yes, I ask them why they went the second time when they'd done it already?<br /><br />Once you've done it once, it's not the <i>going</i> that's important. It's what you plan on doing once you get there.
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Interplanetary probes? We've already done those, even before Apollo. Yawn<br /><br />Service the Hubble? Like that is so 1990s.<br /><br />Send a man up at all? Why after Alan Shepard's flight?<br /><br />Rovers, did it already.<br /><br />Might as well close down NASA and get it over with according to your logic.<br />
 
T

toymaker

Guest
Sorry but that misses the point. There is little potential for exciting scientific discoveries on the Moon(and NASA doesn't mention colonisation or industralisation of space). <br />Interplanetary probes and telescopes have huge potential for exciting discoveries for our civilisation, for example finding another Earthlike planets.
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Science is not the be all and end all of human existance.<br /><br />The future belongs to the nations that go to space, not to those that just look at it.<br />
 
A

askold

Guest
I'm not bored with the Vision becasue it's taking so long (here it is October and we're not standing on the moon yet ...). I'm bored because its goals are so limited and uninteresting.<br /><br />Other than the intangible "putting boots on the surface of another world" - there's not much there. The "science" derived from the manned missions could be done for a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time by robotic missions.<br /><br />I'm just not looking forward to additional decades of push-pull Perils Of Pauline with the manned program: we have to put men in space; oh, we're so afraid to risk men in space; we have to put men in space; oh we're so ....
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
If we aren't going to move off this rock, set up bases and eventually settlements on other celestial bodies then why bother to study anything with probes and scopes. Scuttle rockets and space agencies, lets all just shove our heads into our intestinal tracks. It's more cost-effective since we appear to desire no goal whatsoever.
 
D

dobbins

Guest
Exactly!<br /><br />If humans aren't going to space then finding out what is there is as pointless as the middle ages arguments about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin.<br />
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
"I'm already bored with NASA's Vision for Space Exploration"<br /><br />Who cares?
 
J

j05h

Guest
>The future belongs to the nations that go to space, not to those that just look at it. <br /><br />exactly the point i've been making as well. Physical presence is all important. We need a new frontier, the first groups (be they nation, company or commune) that succeed in transplanting themselves into a space environment will have a disproportionate effect on Humanity and the future of Life. Imagine your distant bloodline being one of the gene-lines that repopulates Earth after a catastrophe, or the first to live secluded under Europa's ice.<br /><br />I truly don't see this in a nationalist agenda, this is a human enterprise. I hestitate to say "corporate" because I'm convinced that other groups will also succeed, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is never a China or US Mars base. In the same way that early exploration was funded by kings and performed by Knights, the new age might see Boeing and Energia technicians "sailing" forth with paying clients, no nation-state involved.<br /><br />One point on NASA that is appropriate to thread. The VSE could be accomplished for only several $100Million/mission if they used the recent Lunar-cruise Soyuz missions. Maybe it requires another BlokDM motor, and it would require developing a surface-lowLunarOrbit lander. It would be incentive to throw development cash at the lander, Habs and an in-situ fueling solution. I think the VSE could be accomplished for far less money if we opened/shared aerospace markets with Russia. There is currently a standing commercial offer to fly Soyuz around the moon for $100million - the fastest path back to the moon is blocked by INA. I'd rather see something like NAFTA implimented.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
It isn't nationalism, it's the United States is where my Grandchildren will grow up and live. I do not want their future compramised by short sighted policies that are made today. It's too late for me, my chances of going into space were destroyed by the choices that were made in the 1970s. The stakes are even higher for my Grandchildren.<br />
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
I'm more excited by Russia's "Kliper" than I am by NASA's VSE, becsause unlike NASA's Apollo inspired CEV capsule, the Kliper is actually a new, more advanced design!
 
J

j05h

Guest
I understand concern for your grandchildrens' future, I share it. What I'm arguing is that NASA is chump-change compared to what happens when private groups have economic and personal incentives to go and live out there. Industrial activity and viable businesses are what will enable your grandchildren to travel into or live in space. NASA has no incentive to send them, re. discussions on the charter. NASA isn't even the "space agency" that is really moving CATS technology along- that honor goes to the Department of Defense. AFRL and DARPA have been quietly sponsoring some very innovative research the past decade. <br /><br />I still don't think space will be settled by national space agencies. I also think that a private manned moon landing will occur before the next government mission.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
N

n_kitson

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Robots are soo boring.... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I'm sorry you find robots so boring. However, there are those that disagree. For example, the MER missions have been NASAs most successful missions in the last decade from a public interest paradigm. For example, in 2004 the MER missions drew more than 9 billion hits on the NASA website. This figure is an order of magnitude larger than the number of hits the VSE has drawn to the NASA website. Evidently, a lot of people didn't find these missions boring.<br /><br />After many decades of unfulfilled promises, robotics is a field that is currently coming into its own. Witness the recent DARPA Grand Challenge. We finally have autonomous vehicles. This is just the beginning.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">I'm always at a loss when people object to our going to the Moon again because we've done it already.</font>/i><br /><br />Nevertheless, this could eventually develop into a problem for NASA. Someone needs to start developing a good narrative (or probably a number of narratives) to broaden and deepen the support for the VSE.<br /><br />Someone posted a Dyna Soar link the other day, and there was a great QuickTime video showing a Dyna Soar docking with a small Space Station. Anyone with access to moderately inexpensive 3D modeling software (e.g., Maya or Blender), video editing software (e.g., iMove or FinalCut Express) and a little bit of training could produce some impressive video shorts.<br /><br />Here is one of the Dyna Soar videos (takes a while to download):<br />http://www.deepcold.com/deepcold/dc_movies/dyna_dock_movie_big.html<br /><br />Here is a link with specifications for 3D models of the spacecraft from "2001: A Space Odyssey":<br />http://www.strafe.com/2001/<br /><br />Someone (SDC, Boeing, Paul Allen) should sponsor a contest for short movies to inspire the next phase of space explorarion.</i>
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Once you've done it once, it's not the going that's important. It's what you plan on doing once you get there.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Actually, i have seen very little official talk about "what they are going to do there". Theres lots of discussion on how and when and with what money, but little on actual purpose of going and the plans of what to do. Which is actually exactly what is wrong with the entire VSE thingy. I believe that the currently ongoing Space Frontier Conference (good coverage here)bears much more relevance to humanitys future in space than all NASA's viewgraphs over last few decades put together.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">15 to 20 years to go to the moon - we've alreay been there. Yawn.</font>/i><br /><br />Someone could say "Skip the Moon and go straight to Mars", and the current workplan for the next 8 years would still pretty much be the same -- safe and reliable means to put humans into orbit, ability to put substantial mass into orbit, development of methane engines.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Every day, somebody in congress announces they want to cut NASA's budget because they see no point to these adventures.</font>/i><br /><br />The discussion of NASA taking a hit isn't so much a rebuke of the vision (VSE) or the initial implementation plan (ESAS) but a reflection of the reality of a budget disaster that has been slowly building over the last several years. Virtually <i>every</i> non-discretionary item in the federal budget is at risk of taking a hit over the next few years -- it will become an "every man for himself" battle soon. NASA better gird itself for the coming battle.</i></i>
 
D

dobbins

Guest
I'm worried about far more than just a rocket ride. In the future the resources of space will be as vital as the resources of Earth are today. They will be vital to national economies and affect the lives of people who never go into space, who never even see a rocket launched. Private companies are not going to take the finical risks of developing these if they aren't assured of ownership of the property they develop and protections under a system of laws. National claims to regions of the Moon or to other areas of space will be vital to establishing the climate that businesses need to make the investments.<br /><br />Nations that do not have a piece of the action will be left behind, I do not want the United States to be one of the have not nations of the future.<br />
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
" i have seen very little official talk about "what they are going to do there". "<br /><br />That is because the main issues at stake at present are technological and budgetary. Logistics dominates and will do so for a long time to come. Unless you get there you can't do anything.<br /><br />However these plans aren't occuring in a vacuum. There is a vast post Apollo literature both inside and outside NASA on what can be done on the Moon. Possibilities forLunar geology, astronomy, engineering research, materials science, biomedicine, and resource utilisation have been extensively studied. The VSE people would be well aware of these. Many would have contributed to them.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
I agree, there needs to be assurances from involved nation-states in space matters, but those do not neccessarily extend to bases and govt.-built industrial parks on Luna. There is every indication that as space property issues come up, the legal regime evolves to handle them. Witness issues of com-sat bandwidth and GEO slot assignments. If you can set up a lunar water mining operations as a US company, the US government will protect you on Earth, and back up any property claims. That is a given. <br /><br />At first it's easy to throw your hands up at this apparent chicken-and-egg issue. Past experience, especially with creation of the suborbital testing licenses, suggests that as the need arises, the government will regulate. They have been remarkably hands-off for the suborbital licenses - there was delibrate campaigning to keep the paperwork in-line with experimental aircraft instead of NASA-style mountains of forms. This bodes extremely well for American companies (and other orgs) that have the means to human spaceflight, development and settlement. The thing missing is economic incentive, and right now some very talented companies are bootstrapping toward those incentives. <br /><br />As I see it, right now, the Feds are giving a greenlight to whatever commercial space activities we can brew up. Both the President and Dr. Griffin know that some serious cuts are coming down, they have every incentive to promote entreprenurial space, especially if it is only the cost of writing laws (re. FAA AST office) vs the cost of buying EELVs. There isn't going to be enough money for US govt manned flight unless commercial interests bring it down radically.<br /><br />We will have a piece of the action, or all the action, but it requires citizens doing, not government missions. Space is a place not a program. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Logistics dominates and will do so for a long time to come. Unless you get there you can't do anything. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> And thats wrong, IMO. NASA shouldnt be worried with logistics, there is an existing and operational worldwide launch market after all, that is very much capable of dealing with lunar logistics as well, at least the first and most critical leg of the distance, from ground to orbit. <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There is a vast post Apollo literature both inside and outside NASA on what can be done on the Moon. Possibilities forLunar geology, astronomy, engineering research, materials science, biomedicine, and resource utilisation have been extensively studied<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> None of them deals with the fundamental question of "why". All these seem to point to the old song of some fundamental need of "doing science" which by itself is incredibly weak justification for such expenditures. Humanity's thirst for knowledge is of course to be commended, but it is not a strong driver for larger part of population. Greed ( read: desire to profit ) for instance has much larger foothold. But if, for a second, we try to imagine if the reason to go is not pure science but the actual expansion humanitys reach into space, the optimal methods of going forward towards that goal would be obviously very much different from the currently proposed architecture. I define humanity, by the way, as a bit more than a couple of government employees twice a year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts