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

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Someone posted a Dyna Soar link the other day"</i><br /><br />Yes, that was me. Dyna Soar represents the type of vehicle that I'd like to see NASA develop!

 

[dobbins]

There is one other point, the plans that exist now are very generalized. You can't make more detailed plans until you have more knowledge about the Moon and you can't get that knowledge without returning there. Some of this knowledge can be gained by sending robots, but robots are and always will be very limited in their capabilities. Robots are specialists. They can do a few things very well, but they do not and never will have the range of capabilities that a human does.<br /><br />Robots can't adapt very well. When Apollo 11 was landing the LM's preprogrammed course was taking it to a field of boulders. Armstrong was able to take control and land safely, a robot would have crashed. Earlier this year one of the Mars rovers got stuck in the sand and it took a month to get it unstuck. A Human driving that rover could have hoped off, walked over to gather a few rocks to place under the wheels, and restored traction in a matter of minutes.<br /><br />Humans were prey to other animals for thousands of years and evolution gave us an innate ability to quickly spot things out of the ordinary as a result of this. Humans have an intuitive ability to spot something out of the ordinary that no robot can come close to matching. The out of the ordinary is the sort of thing that results in the most rewarding discoveries.<br /><br />Once we return with robots and with humans we will gain the more detailed knowledge we need to make more detailed plans.<br />

 

[dobbins]

The National Space Society has a list of barriers to space settlement, here are two of them.<br /><br />Lack of Sovereignty<br /><br />Both the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Moon Treaty of 1979 forbid nations from claiming any part of the Moon or other celestial body. Article 11; Paragraph 2 states "The moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." This has left a void of any legal system that would enable private entrepreneurs and companies to plan and execute commercial space activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies.<br /><br />Moon Treaty and "Common Heritage" Principles<br /><br />The Moon Treaty, passed by the United Nations in 1979, yet ratified by only four nations (none of which were space faring at the time) strictly forbids the private ownership of any part of the Moon or other celestial body. Article 11; Paragraph 1 states "The moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind." Article 11, Paragraph 3 states "Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person." Despite the lack of ratification, no space-faring nation has ever publicly challenged this treaty.<br /><br />I would like to see the USA opt out of the 1967 Space Treaty if it can't be modified to allow for sovereignty and ownership. That would make the situation clearer for private interests that want to peruse space. I would also like to see the United States publicly state that it is in no way bound by the UN Moon Treaty of 1979 and that it will not allow this piece of nonsense to infringe on it's rights or the rights of it's citizens.<br />

 

[JonClarke]

I would differ. I see both treaties as a very establishing important principles for space development. Terrestrial national territorial sovereignty should not and must not be exported off the earth. The history of the imperialism in Asia, Africa and Asia shows the wisdom of this, as does on a smaller scale, the 19th century tragedy of the commons.<br /><br />There is ample precedent to this. On earth the open seas are free to everyone. This has not precluded their use in commerce, science, or warfare. All territorial claims in the Antarctic are in abeyance, this was not precluded commerce in the form of tourism and fisheries, or extensive science. No nation can lay claim to earth orbit, even when spacecraft. But communications, navigation, and earth observation satellites are big business.<br /><br />As I understand in, the prohibition of territorial claims beyond the earth does not preclude either development of resources or ownership of infrastructure. For example in Antarctic treaty, while suspending territorial claims did not mean that Antarctic resources could not be developed. Indeed, prior to its proclomation as a world park, which halted such plans, negotiations were well advanced for a framework for mineral and petroleum exploration in the Antarctic. In the same way, freedom of the seas and open skys does not mean that nations and corporations do not exercise contol over ships or spacecraft, or mean they have no rights of redress against those who interfere with them.<br /><br />Of course legal systems are but the reflections of principles expressed in accordance with the needs and aspirations of the times. They continually evolve as well. Freedom of the seas means a very different thing now to what it meant in the 1950's - or the 1850's and 1650's for that matter.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <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>

 

[j05h]

>I would like to see the USA opt out of the 1967 Space <br /> />Treaty if it can't be modified to allow for sovereignty and <br /> />ownership. That would make the situation clearer for <br /> />private interests that want to peruse space. I would also <br /> />like to see the United States publicly state that it is in no <br /> />way bound by the UN Moon Treaty of 1979 and that it <br /> />will not allow this piece of nonsense to infringe on it's <br /> />rights or the rights of it's citizens. <br /><br />I have to disagree with the Sovereignty issue. It would be important if it mattered now. When soveriegnty issues come up, lawyers and industrialists will figure out the basic legal regime. As of now, the most appropriate laws are Nautical - possesion is primary. The real problem is a lack viable business plans, and this seems to be changing rapidly. <br /><br />Not to sound like a jerk, but anyone that claims the lack of ownership rules is holding back their Great Space Business, then they don't have their systems & organization together. "The Man" isn't keeping anyone serious from flying.<br /><br />I also would like to see the US pull out of the OST. The Moon Treaty is a dead letter. No space-capable nation signed it. I'm not talking about national appropriation, but for private, industrial usage. If the water flies from the moon via US company to a US owned Bigelow hotel to be consumed by tourists flying from around the world, who's going to complain? If someone else tries to steal your water, they will have assets that can liened against on Earth. These are still going to be companies in actionable nations back home. <br /><br />I really don't think the legal regime is holding anything back, esp. for Americans. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[dobbins]

I can't think of a better way to destroy ant private interest in the development of space than the UN's absurd concept that dead beats who contribute nothing to the development of space have some "right" to the rewards as a "common heritage" or that developing a resource gives the developer rights of ownership.<br /><br />The Space treaty is almost as bad because limitations on sovereignty insure that attempts to create a space law are meaningless.<br />

 

[john_316]

Here are my questions:<br /><br /><br />If we cut ISS now and ground the shuttle how much money do we save on the proposed shuttle flights?<br /><br />How much sooner would CEV/SRB stick fly?<br /><br />Could we modify or launch CEV on Delta IV Heavy as well as another launch vehicle? I know it would take time to certify DHV but it will also take time to recert SRB stick.<br /><br />How much faster can we have CEV fly if we give it 5 billion now rather then later? <br /><br />HLV should not use SSME it should use RS-68 rocket motors....<br /><br />Just a few thoughts and questions....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[askold]

"There is a vast post Apollo literature both inside and outside NASA on what can be done on the Moon..."<br /><br />Then NASA should publish this, because the VSE treats the moon as a stepping stone on the journey to Mars.<br /><br />Yet the VSE says basically nothing about how we're going to get to Mars or when. Compound this with the fact that NASA can't get people reliably into LEO and the whole venture seems like a pipe dream.

 

[dobbins]

Killing the Shuttle won't result in any huge savings because most of the costs are labor related. If you simply fire all the people working on the shuttle then you won't have a workforce when it comes time to launch the CEV. You can't just call up the employment agency and tell them to send over a thousand highly skilled technicians next Monday when it's time to fly.<br /><br />NASA lost a lot of talent during the 1970s when Apollo was abruptly killed. we don't need to repeat that mistake.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Terrestrial national territorial sovereignty should not and must not be exported off the earth.</font>/i><br /><br />Of course, without these efforts in the 1500s and 1600s we would not have had the United States and its great experiment in democracy. This era of exploration was motivated to a great extent by greed, both of nations and individuals.<br /><br />Likewise, the ages of the industrial revolution and now the information revolution was and is being led to a great extent by greed. Investors would not invest and there would be no capital markets to fund the development of new technologies and capabilities.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Killing the Shuttle won't result in any huge savings because most of the costs are labor related. If you simply fire all the people working on the shuttle then you won't have a workforce when it comes time to launch the CEV.</font>/i><br /><br />But Griffin has also said that the new systems must use a much smaller work force than the current system. This makes sense too, because without a smaller operational budget there is no money to do anything new. If the CEV/CLV and HLV are built, but their operations budgets consume all the money, then there will be nothing left over to do any of the future activities, whatever those may be. This is what has largely plagued NASA for last 1-2 decades -- numerous efforts have been cancelled because of the continuing cost overruns in both STS and ISS.<br /><br />Here is the quote from Griffin during a Q&A for ESAS:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Clearly, we will not be able to retain the entire shuttle workforce for this new--to move over to this new vehicle, because it is considerably smaller and, frankly, if we can't do our new space launch architecture with fewer people than we executed the old one, the price will not go down. <b><font color="yellow">And it is important that we reduce the cost of human space excess in order that we have available some money to do other things.</font>/b><p><hr /></p></b></p></blockquote><br />Clearly the workforce will be reduced, the only questions are when and how. One approach is to scale that work force down now and accordingly lowering the shuttle launch rate (see the other thread about reducing the total ISS missions to 8). It keeps critical personnel and equipment operating, but frees up resources to preserve (in the case of cut backs) or accelerate the transition to a more economical system.</i>

 

[dobbins]

The plan was for the shuttle program to wind down over 5 years with retirements and attrition taking care of most of the cuts. That darn foam and Katrina screwed the plan. There was supposed to be a flight in September. It would have come out of the FY 2005 budget. That would have left 18 flights spread over 5 years giving NASA the option of winding the program down with fewer flights in the final years and possibly retiring one of the Shuttles as soon as the end of the FY 2007 year.<br /><br />The Foam killed the other FY 2005 flight. The Foam and Katrina have cut down the planed FY 2006 flights to just 2 planed. That will mean 17 flights in 4 years instead of 18 in 5 years. This screwed the wind down plans and resulted in NASA having more flights near the end than planed creating the budget crunch that has stirred so much passion on the board.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Katrina should not have been a surprise to anybody. Natural disasters are a part of life, and shame on this nation for not planning ahead and budgeting for that. You know what? Someday soon California's going to have a major earthquake. Perhaps Mount Rainier will decide to erupt. Large hurricanes will continue to strike our southern and eastern shores. And many other natural calamities will occur. If this country has to scale back its space program and other domestic programs every time a natural disaster occurs, God help us!

 

[dobbins]

I was refering to the disruptions at Michoud where the work on the fuel tanks is done. NASA lost a lot of time after having it's New Orleans facility damaged and it's work force made homeless. That delayed a return to return to flight and reduced the number of possible flights in FY 2006. That has nothing to do with costs of Katrina on the federal budget. That delay would have still happened if we had a big surplus.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Ah, I see, my mistake.

 

[JonClarke]

NASA (and many others) HAVE published this literature. It is available in NASA and Lunar and Planetary Institute reports, memoranda, and mongraphs, in technical and scientific papers in many journals, and in various compendia. All available from a good library. Some (shock!) is even available on the internet.<br /><br />Mars is still too far down the line to have a realsitic time table. Lots of things have to happen first. But it is good to have that as a long term goal. <br /><br />As for not being able to launch people reliably to LEO, in 1961 NASA could not do that either, and 8 years later thay landed Apollo 11 on the moon so given leadership and resources it can be done.<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>

 

[JonClarke]

Without decrying the achievements of the 16th and 17th century we have come a long way since then. Just as well, do we really want to repeat the abuses and mistakes of those centuries throughout the solar system?<br /><br />Norf should be assume that the history of the United States should or will be the norm for any exploration and settlement of the solar system.<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>

 

[barrykirk]

What was it.... I think it was Max Plank who said, and I'm paraphrasing this badly, physics will be complete within 5-10 years. Everything of significance has already been discovered.<br /><br />He said this in the early 1920's or late 1910's and he was at the time one of the top 5 physicists in the world.<br /><br />How do you know that their is nothing exciting waiting for us to discover on the moon.<br /><br />Max Plank made his statement just before the discovery of Quantum Physics, yet some of his own discoveries were pivitol for it's creation.

 

[barrykirk]

A newer more advanced design? If I have to move all of the stuff in my house I'd rather have a 1950 vintage pickup truck than a 2005 Corvette.<br /><br />Klipper can't get us to the moon.

 

[dobbins]

Excuse me, the big problem in the past was the explotation of native peoples. Care to tell me what native peoples we are going to exploit off Earth?<br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Kliper can't get us to the moon.<br /><br /><font color="white">Only cause the Russians won't let you ride for free anymore <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Kliper has been designed from the outset as being capable of going to the Moon, just like the Soyuz is.<br /><br />Admittedly as things stand all you could do is a flyby, so long as a sutable Earth departure stage was available, but you see my point.<br /></font></font>

 

[dobbins]

Lunar access was never mentioned until a few weeks ago. That is not a good sign for the project, mission creep is something that has killed many past projects by driving costs up.<br />

 

[haywood]

Oh, really Toymaker?<br />Then what do you plan to do with all that knowledge from other worlds?<br />This is the same old "science for science's sake argument" and it's very, very old.<br />Finding other "earthlike planets"? So...<br />Then what?<br />We start to speculate that there may be life on those "earth-like" planets. Then what?<br />Do we plan to go there? According to your logic, we don't.<br /><br />"There is little potential for exciting scientific discoveries on the Moon".<br /><br />Says who?<br /><br />I'm afraid you've totally missed the point of manned Space exploration or maybe you're not in favour of it at all.<br />

 

[nacnud]

I thought that it had always been part of the Kliper spec. even from before 2005.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Key features of the 2005 version of Kliper were: <li>Missions: Delivery of crews and cargo to space stations and their return to earth; space station lifeboat; autonomous missions to orbit for space research or tourism; lunar orbital missions. Maximum mission duration five days with full crew and payload.<br /><br /></li></font>

 

[dobbins]

Kliper was anounced in Febuary of 2004. The first mention of a Lunar flyby capability didn't happen until 28 September of this year.<br /><br />Because of the vast difference in energy that is encountered on reentry from a lunar flyby this is major mission creep that will drive up the cost of the project and makes it more likely that this will be yet another paper space plane.<br />