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

[nacnud]

I really think I can remeber luna flyby being mentioned before Sep 2005...<br /><br />...yep this thread mention it back in September 04

 

[dobbins]

"It has also (as of September 28, 2005) been declared that it will be used on trans-lunar missions"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliper<br /><br />A TPS that can survive a reentry from a lunar flyby is far harder to achive than one comming in from LOE. If the Russians do manage to convert this space plane to reality fine, I drink a toast to them. Until then, I've seen far too many space planes that never got off paper. <br /><br />The Space plane concept dates back to the German anti-podal bomber of the 1930s. So far every effort to build one has turned into a money pit and only one has made regular flights, the Shuttle which also turned out to be a money pit in operational costs as well as development costs.<br />

 

[j05h]

>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 />That NASA & the Primes need so many people to launch rockets IS the problem. Look at SpaceX's ground operations - it's around a dozen people to launch Falcon I. I know you know this, but salaries and the Standing Army are what have killed NASA's dreams of cheap access. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" but salaries and the Standing Army are what have killed NASA's dreams of cheap access. "</font><br /><br />It wouldn't be so bad if manpower and flightrate had proper ratio. The Cape should launch something on weekly basis.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">A TPS that can survive a reentry from a lunar flyby is far harder to achive than one comming in from LOE.<br /><br /><font color="white">Just make it thicker, the modular design of the Kliper should cope fine, though I'm with you on the wings. Still think that Luna fights were considered before September 05 though.</font></font>

 

[askold]

I've always suspected that the manned portion of VSE has more to do with protecting currrent NASA jobs than with important science - NASA has become a mature, self-perpetuating bureaucracy.<br /><br />I watched Griffins news conference a couple of months ago on NASA TV - where he took questions from NASA employees: half of the questions were about jobs! Very little about the great science they would be doing ....

 

[dobbins]

You are making an assumption that science is the holy grail and the only thing that matters. This assumption has created a badly unbalanced space program, one that is very low on most peoples list of priorities. The concept of science for science's sake has already undermined public support for the space program and made it a target for budget cuts. Reducing the maned space element will only result in even less public support for funding NASA, perhaps to the point of elimination of the agency altogether.<br />

 

[erauskydiver]

Does anybody know if Space X is even AS9100 compliant?

 

[gsuschrist]

There is no need or imperative to return to the Moon. Life on Earth just jogs along quite fine without man needing to step off our planet.<br /><br /> Space Keener's are in constant denial. We fudge the importance of space exploration. It's a positive endeavor but it's not going to ever be much more than a tinkering on nearby orbiting bodies. We're not going to colonize Mars or the Moon anymore than we colonize the South Pole or the bottom of the ocean or the Greenland ice sheet. We don't need the mineral from asteroids, etc. Our modern technological world does just fine. If this is incorrect, then it's an opportunity for private enterprise, and not the governmnet, to prove otherwise. Let them spend their own money.<br /><br /> So why go to the Moon? It's fun and exciting. Why build a NASCAR or watch a football game? The taxpayer doesn't give a hoot about research being done at a South Pole research station anymore than he's going to care what's done on the Moon or on the ISS. It's all about a rocket blasting off and the landing and riding the surfance on a Moon Buggy. 'In your face' action and dramatic moments. A real way to lose support for a lunar mission is to emphasize a Moon base. The first questions will be 'how much will it cost' and 'why'. Fuzzy answers won't cut it. The bells and whistles of the spacecraft should be marketed.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"We're not going to colonize Mars or the Moon anymore than we colonize the South Pole or the bottom of the ocean or the Greenland ice sheet."</font><br /><br />I smell a wager <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I watched Griffins news conference a couple of months ago on NASA TV - where he took questions from NASA employees: half of the questions were about jobs! Very little about the great science they would be doing ....</font>/i><br /><br />The same was true when the Moon2Mars commission released their report. And prior to that report, Congress people were very vocal that no NASA facilities would be cut. Tom Delay suddenly became a big space advocate when JSC became part of his district.<br /><br />Preservation of jobs and their related votes have always been a major aspect of NASA.</i>

 

[erauskydiver]

Is it any surprise? You'd be worried about your job too if there were potential threats out there to it. Everybody has to put food on the table.

 

[askold]

Well, then let's be honest and just say we're doing this to keep space engineers with no transferable job skill busy until they retire - rather than making up fairy stories about asteroids hitting Earth and killing everybody that isn't already living on another asteroid ...

 

[dobbins]

"There is no need or imperative to return to the Moon"<br /><br />There is no need or imperative to do space science if humans aren't ever going to go there. It's as pointless as debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. We might as well go ahead and shut down NASA.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Is it any surprise? You'd be worried about your job too if there were potential threats out there to it.</font>/i><br /><br />But it does speak to motive. It appears to those on the outside that NASA employees and contractors are primarily concerned with keeping their jobs and only secondarily concerned with doing something of value.<br /><br />When I watched the Moon2Mars Q&A there appeared to be absolutely no excitement about doing something new, only fear about losing their jobs. It was further compounded by the reaction by NASA employees and contractors to Griffin's statement which was so obvious to everyone outside the bubble: the STS and ISS were mistakes.<br /><br />Even the new plan bends over backwards to provide as much job security to as many of the existing players as possible, yet these people complain.<br /><br />I, who pay the salaries of these people and would like to see objectives accomplished, have little sympathy for people who are primarily interested in taking my money and have only passing interests in accomplishing objectives.</i>

 

[tap_sa]

Perhaps some of these people want to send probes to explore all corners of the universe just so that we know what kind of wonders we'll miss forever when we'll just wait here for the next cataclysm.<br /><br />Oh well, unless the cataclysm hits us really soon now reaching CATS is inevitable next step and allows the other people to do the boring things, like settle another worlds. Independent Mars? *Yawn*

 

[dobbins]

Let's not make the mistake of judging all NASA employees by the loud ones, the whiners are always the ones who make the most noise. Many of these people are highly skilled and capable of earning a bigger paycheck in the private sector than a government position pays, they are there because of a true dedication to space exploration.<br />

 

[dragon04]

To some extent, these guys are absolutely correct. There IS no imperative to return to the moon or land men on Mars. At least no obvious imperative.<br /><br />But a lack of imperative isn't the etched in granite reason to not continue to put men and women in space.<br /><br />I think like anything else, to get to the point where we can make a new home on other worlds when it comes time that it IS imperative to do so, we must work through a linear progression of increasing technologies for manned spaceflight.<br /><br />I think it would be a mistake to shelve manned exploration completely. For example, we're pretty sure we're not going to get hit by a planet killing rock any time soon. Nevertheless, the potential exists whether it be next week or next century.<br /><br />It would be nice if the real life Cochran invented warp drive next week, or we came up with some gravitic propulsive system. But the realities are that it appears there will be no quantum leap in technology anytime soon, and that barring the construction of an Orion in Earth orbit, we probably better continue to play around with getting people to other places by chemical rocketry.<br /><br />I'm not sure that I totally buy into the idea that we're doomed if we lose our current launch infrastructure ; we've proven we can do amazing things on fairly short notic provided the proper motivation. But having said that, I can't endorse scrapping manned spaceflight altogether. Better safe than sorry, I suppose.<br /><br />What I CAN endorse is putting together an effective next-generation manned spaceflight program that can adapt to varying situations and conditions. And while I'd love to see humans on Mars by 2025, I'd be happy if it took until 2125 if it meant having the best spacecraft for the job.<br /><br />Cost is not really the issue, I think. It's how that money is used and the timeframe over which funding is dispensed. I'd hate to see a cheaper hastily constructed craft that had to be scaled back from the ideal b <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Let's not make the mistake of judging all NASA employees by the loud ones, the whiners are always the ones who make the most noise.</font>/i><br /><br />That is true.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Many of these people are highly skilled and capable of earning a bigger paycheck in the private sector than a government position pays, they are there because of a true dedication to space exploration.</font>/i><br /><br />I just wish we had a policy that encouraged and supported them to move into the private sector. As an extreme example, the government could terminate NASA's manned space program but set aside the same amount of money for prizes, service contracts, etc. The good people would form companies, compete, and win these awards. The good scientists and engineers would make more money, no goverment money would be spent on non-delivered capability, and there would be an incentive to be as efficient as possible. Likewise, these companies could pursue additional revenue streams, increasing the dollars for the scientists and engineers and accelerating progress in space.<br /><br />I realize such a plan would never happen, in part because Congress people want to guarantee that dollars go to specific locations (that is, their districts) -- something that a free market approach could not provide them.</i></i>

 

[john_316]

If we begin a modest drawdown of troops in Iraq and conversion of 1/3 of that money to NASA then we would have a operational CEV ready for flight prior to 2010.<br /><br />Even though I am strong advocate of the invasion of Iraq I do need to point out that 10 more years in Iraq is just a lie and horse**** and as a soldier I know this to be true.<br /><br />I am beginning to tire of the spending spree of this administration and no benefits from some of the departments in it. NASA is also one of those departments that isnt giving results in certain areas of research just paying salaries for people till retirement. The DOD is also guilty of this mentallity. <br /><br />I am still amazed how we can continue to emphesise certain budgets in some agencies of the federal government that *correct me if I am wrong* no longer need them...<br /><br />Which also brings up a host of other speculations. One regarding the weather and storms not only in Florida, Louisiana and California but what happens in a next severe storm we lose a launch pad, repair facilities, or even the vehicle assembly building???<br /><br />Is there any thought of building a launch facility at white sands? Perhaps Georgia or South Carolina? <br /><br />I just get this gut feeling that the storms are gonna be worse the next few years and I have a feeling a catagory 6 or even 7 hurricane is on the horizon in the Atlantic in the near future... <br /><br />I must admit when was the last time we had 3 or more Cat 5 hurricanes other than this year???<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"We're not going to colonize Mars or the Moon anymore than we colonize the South Pole or the bottom of the ocean or the Greenland ice sheet. We don't need the mineral from asteroids, etc."<br /><br />Well, we could do with more platinum, which will likely be mined from NEA's robotically. This isnt going to happen however until we drastically lower the cost of getting to LEO. <br /><br />There's absolutely no reason other than tourism and nationalistic flag planting that we should be sending people to the moon. There's no radiation shielding, it's at the bottom of a huge grav well, and any exploration planned for a manned mission can be done for 1/100th the cost remotely from KSC.

 

[erauskydiver]

I'm pretty sure that the hurricane scale tops at Category 5, so you'll never see a 6 or 7.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">There's absolutely no reason other than tourism and nationalistic flag planting that we should be sending people to the moon.</font>/i><br /><br />You should read the book Moonrush. The Space Review has an article this week that extends some of the market models in Moonrush.<br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/479/1</i>

 

[dobbins]

"Is there any thought of building a launch facility at white sands? Perhaps Georgia or South Carolina?"<br /><br />If anything went wrong with a launch at White Sands the rocket would crash onto land perhaps in a populated area. This almost did happen in 1947 when a V2 launched at White Sands went off course and crashed near Juarez Mexico. This is why the military started testing rockets at the Cape, if they went off course they would crash into the Atlantic instead of into a populated area.<br /><br />A launch facility in Georgia or South Carolina would have to be on the Ocean so there wouldn't be any advantage in avoiding hurricanes and since both are north of KSC some of the free energy available at a more southern latitude would be lost.<br />

 

[john_316]

<br />Well it seems some are already mentioning new hurricane catagories, such as livescience.<br /><br />http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/051020_hurricane_winds.html<br /><br /><br />There hasnt been 3 or more Cat 5 hurricanes on record ever before in one year. Its just the beginning.<br /><br />Though a Cat 6 or 7 on a new scale isnt likely Wilma had 175 mph winds, more than Katrina or even Camill and she isnt over yet she has risen back to a Cat 3 and exsorbing tropical depression Alpha so she may hit Cat 4 or 5 again before pooping out...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />