POLL: Is Abandoning NASA's Moon Plan the Right Choice?

[EarthlingX]

This is where you can go after the hardest, trickiest part, getting to LEO:

Orbital Data for the Planets & Dwarf Planets
from
Relativity Calculator (forum)

 

[vulture4]

>>It can unify a country behind a grand and noble pursuit and at the same time motivate an individual to great achievements.

it might be Instructive to actually read Kennedy's speeches and his famous memo to von Braun. The moon race wasn't a quest to explore the universe, it was a substitute for a perilous nuclear arms race. Even bringing back the moon rocks was an afterthought. The mission was to get Armstrong back to earth; it ended there. And Americans rapidly lost interest after the first landing. I just don't think most space enthusiasts today remember how bored Americans were even with Apollo 12.

The geopoltical situation today is quite different. China is an economic competitor, but not an ideological adversary; China is as capitalist as we are. What possible geopolitical goal is served by re-enacting Apollo?

Of course, I would like to go tot hte moon. But to do so sustainably requires reducing the cost by at least an order of magnitude. Most of that cost is in going from the surface to LEO, and so an efficient, reusable lunch vehicle is the first step. Constellation killed all technology development because it was so expensive.

The people attacking Obama now should be attacking Bush for destroying the space Shuttle, the greatest and most difficult challange of the Space Program. More difficult than Apollo, and more important, it proved that we can build a reusable spacecraft and, through persistent effort, make it safe and efficient. Because our leaders are not conversant with event he basics of reliability engineering, they concluded that it could fly safely five more times and would then become a deathtrap. The first step in returning to the moon will be completed when we once again have a reliable, reusable launch vehicle.

 

[nimbus]

Do you have and actual facts to back up what you are saying? NO offense, but between you and the PhD holding scientists ACTUALLY DOING REASEARCH IN THE FIELD I'll go with them. The ITER project has already produced the reaction in an experimental reactor, so I don't know where you are getting your information from. Second, having worked in the aerospace industry, attended the conferences and partaken in the business development side, I can assure you 100% that no private business is ever going to do anything unless they believe there is little probability (i.e. 0.1%) that they will not recover their full investment plus a risk premium. By 2020, we will still be talking about missions to the moon and beyond, and we'll be playing catch-up. This co0untry leads and you want us to follow. Tell me, what, precisely, is the use in "affordable and reliable access to space" when there's nothing to do up there but come right back down. Nothing useful in LEO for the average customer.

Homemade Farnsworth fusors also produce the reaction experimentally.
http://vimeo.com/9239538
My information comes from people in the field. Dr. Nicholas Krall, Plasma Physicist, author of Principles of Plasma Physics: "We spent $15 billion dollars studying tokamaks and what we learned about them is that they are no damn good."

ITER would be done in 2020 or so at the earliest - if it has no further delays.

The European Union (EU) is also formulating a plan to complete construction on the multibillion-dollar machine in 2019, a year after currently scheduled, Nature has learned.

The USA just cut their contribution by 40% or so and there's some shuffling going on at the top level, because of the series of setbacks.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090527/ ... 9488a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100205/ ... 3721a.html
There will be no useful reactor because of how large and expensive the design is. IOW it's a science project more than an energy project. You could draw a parallel between it and Constellation. Supported mainly politically.

Affordable and reliable access to space for all the things that would be profitable in space. If you never go there there'll never be cheap enough access to space to make all those profitable activities possible. It's a catch 22 like I said, and you just repeated that. There has to be a loss leader. Applications run the gamut from vacuum processes and micro or zero gravity research, ISRU development on the moon, space solar power, and so on. Go look at the literature. There's a rich field of people thinking these up. For decades now.. From far fetched to very clever and feasible. Even small time stuff like space diving will spur things on. NASA is supposed to lead the way, not stagnate and micromanage what paths it already blazed.

 

[Xplaner]

Affordable and reliable access to space for all the things that would be profitable in space. If you never go there there'll never be cheap enough access to space to make all those profitable activities possible. It's a catch 22 like I said, and you just repeated that. There has to be a loss leader. Applications run the gamut from vacuum processes and micro or zero gravity research, ISRU development on the moon, space solar power, and so on. Go look at the literature. There's a rich field of people thinking these up. For decades now.. From far fetched to very clever and feasible. Even small time stuff like space diving will spur things on. NASA is supposed to lead the way, not stagnate and micromanage what paths it already blazed.

Fine, you are only going to believe your own sources and I can't claim to be innocent of that, however it is flawed to assume that the U.S. drives that project - it's primarily Japanese and French, both of whom do nuclear energy a lot better than we do (including Dr. Krall). But even if we are getting fusion power starting in 2050 or 2060, it will take decades to develop the technology to live and work on the moon, Mars and near-Earth asteroids and development won't begin until it is clear that astronauts can be supported in those places successfully. But enough with this line of argument, let's talk turkey:

So, SpaceX and the like can get me into LEO, and let us assume that I (being the average customer) can actually afford the ticket. What do I do when I get there? I mean, really, what is the product? Who is the customer? Can they afford the price? Why will they buy it? If the product is a flight into space, you have a problem. Ask yourself why the only venture capitalist putting real money into this is the U.S. Government. Sure, Paul Allen and Richard Branson and that sort have dumped money it, but now that the contest is over, do you really think anyone's going to operate at a loss trying to get their product to create demand? I mean, sure, I love hearing about the good science going on aboard the ISS, like the golf shot or the jersey that was flown. Oh wait, that's not good science. Is all we are getting from the ISS good PR stunts, or is that hearing about ISS work doesn't thrill the taxpayer anyomore?

Going to the moon is good for the country because it is good for the economy, which isn't going to be stimulated by low-end construction and manufacturing jobs. A strong space program doing things that haven't been done many times before and actually accomplishing useful things will benefit the country both economically, academically and emotionally. Continuing to pay the lion's share of the bill so that other countries can send astronauts to the ISS and do the same old stuff isn't that interesting.

To date, I have not seen, heard of or read about, anywhere, any viable business plan for a market in commercial human spaceflight, and believe me, I have done business development in aerospace for ten years and I know how these companies work. They are incredibly risk averse. None of them are going to undertake any project unless there is a bag of money on the table up front and someone else is funding the R&D and the training. And this "if you build it they will come" argument of yours holds no validity. The demand isn't there and the ISS isn't our future in space, it's our past (aka skylab 2.0)

 

[nimbus]

My own sources - sounds like you're implying I select what sources to trust. I don't. The ITER folks who say everything's going peachy and will deliver fusion to market on time and as soon as you say (actually, you're the only one I've heard say it'll be delivered so early) all sound like they're selling ITER rather than giving the straight dope. Which is understandable seeing as its their jobs that depend on people's support.

I never assumed nor implied that the US drives the project. It's just a notable because characteristic trend. ITER is behind schedule and way over budget. I haven't seen any news that even say otherwise. That it's almost undoubtedly a science rather than energy project is obviously the nail in its coffin, but that's as far as pro-ITER people will argue. There's no doubt that it won't deliver for decades yet.

Japanese and French, both of whom do nuclear energy a lot better than we do (including Dr. Krall)

Please show evidence for this, I'm curious.

But even if we are getting fusion power starting in 2050 or 2060, it will take decades to develop the technology to live and work on the moon, Mars and near-Earth asteroids and development won't begin until it is clear that astronauts can be supported in those places successfully.

What's the connection implied between the two? And fyi (since you don't seem to be completely in touch with fusion news) there's a few other fusion efforts that might just deliver before ITER's done with experimental phase. E.G. Tri-Alpha, Focus Fusion, General Fusion, Polywell. IIRC all of them cheaper than ITER by quite a bit.

So, SpaceX and the like can get me into LEO, and let us assume that I (being the average customer) can actually afford the ticket. What do I do when I get there? I mean, really, what is the product? Who is the customer? Can they afford the price? Why will they buy it?[...]

Like I said. There's plenty of things to do in space. Space based solar power for one, is supposed to be borderline unfeasible right now only because of space access costs. Then there's the rich people hotels, a good kick starter. It'll take however long it takes, but eventually there's plenty of reasons to go to and stay in space. Constellation as it was wasn't going to make things any faster than leaving the dirty space truck work to private industry ought to.

Going to the moon is good for the country because it is good for the economy, which isn't going to be stimulated by low-end construction and manufacturing jobs. A strong space program doing things that haven't been done many times before and actually accomplishing useful things will benefit the country both economically, academically and emotionally. Continuing to pay the lion's share of the bill so that other countries can send astronauts to the ISS and do the same old stuff isn't that interesting.

Going to the moon isn't automatically good. You can go to the moon on such a bad plan that it's ultimately a Pyrrhic achievement.
The low end construction and mfg jobs argument is made without context. No comment from me without more info.
The new policy may give such a "strong" (because based on stronger industrial base) program and do things that haven't been done (dunno how it wouldn't - teleoperated bots on the moon like that M2 project with GM as partner, or going to NEOs, or landing on Phobos, maybe teleoperating bots on Mars from there, and so on, there's plenty of examples in the literature).
Useful things is a vague thing to say. You could mean useful in the sense that it keeps people employed doing anything that feeds their household, or you could mean laying groundwork for future developments, for which easier access to space is item #1. Economic, academic and emotional all satisfied.
ISS - It can't be de orbited too soon either. Bad diplomatic move for intl partners and even the US public would probably not like seeing so many years and $B thrown down the sink so soon. Least worst choice is to make the best of it for a while more.

To date, I have not seen, heard of or read about, anywhere, any viable business plan for a market in commercial human spaceflight, and believe me, I have done business development in aerospace for ten years and I know how these companies work. They are incredibly risk averse. None of them are going to undertake any project unless there is a bag of money on the table up front and someone else is funding the R&D and the training. And this "if you build it they will come" argument of yours holds no validity. The demand isn't there and the ISS isn't our future in space, it's our past (aka skylab 2.0)

Well then. You're quite the big shot, know more than I do and there's no argument to be had. You have made your conclusions and won't change them. We'll just have to wait and see. I say private industry will do about the same (a sum of positives and negatives) as NASA was managing, and that we are in fact at the start of more, not less, space development. And that the recently ex-Moon plan was less good in the long term than this new one, provided it's done as suggested (instead of badly executed as Constellation was) and isn't some clever way for the admin to gradually gut everything but climate science, as some are speculating. That it's a positive to have eggs in a few baskets (ULA, SpaceX, Orbital...) instead of one (Ares.).
I never argued that ISS was the future. I think it's mostly ballast to NASA's progress.

In retrospect I'm curious how someone with 10+ years of such experience could start an argument over ITER being exactly as publicized on its official site as you report above, when the reality is nothing like it. Maybe it's just an implicit argument to authority.

 

[Xplaner]

My own sources - sounds like you're implying I select what sources to trust. I don't. The ITER folks who say everything's going peachy and will deliver fusion to market on time and as soon as you say (actually, you're the only one I've heard say it'll be delivered so early) all sound like they're selling ITER rather than giving the straight dope. Which is understandable seeing as its their jobs that depend on people's support.

I never assumed nor implied that the US drives the project. It's just a notable because characteristic trend. ITER is behind schedule and way over budget. I haven't seen any news that even say otherwise. That it's almost undoubtedly a science rather than energy project is obviously the nail in its coffin, but that's as far as pro-ITER people will argue. There's no doubt that it won't deliver for decades yet.

Japanese and French, both of whom do nuclear energy a lot better than we do (including Dr. Krall)

Please show evidence for this, I'm curious.

But even if we are getting fusion power starting in 2050 or 2060, it will take decades to develop the technology to live and work on the moon, Mars and near-Earth asteroids and development won't begin until it is clear that astronauts can be supported in those places successfully.

What's the connection implied between the two? And fyi (since you don't seem to be completely in touch with fusion news) there's a few other fusion efforts that might just deliver before ITER's done with experimental phase. E.G. Tri-Alpha, Focus Fusion, General Fusion, Polywell. IIRC all of them cheaper than ITER by quite a bit.

So, SpaceX and the like can get me into LEO, and let us assume that I (being the average customer) can actually afford the ticket. What do I do when I get there? I mean, really, what is the product? Who is the customer? Can they afford the price? Why will they buy it?[...]

Like I said. There's plenty of things to do in space. Space based solar power for one, is supposed to be borderline unfeasible right now only because of space access costs. Then there's the rich people hotels, a good kick starter. It'll take however long it takes, but eventually there's plenty of reasons to go to and stay in space. Constellation as it was wasn't going to make things any faster than leaving the dirty space truck work to private industry ought to.

Going to the moon is good for the country because it is good for the economy, which isn't going to be stimulated by low-end construction and manufacturing jobs. A strong space program doing things that haven't been done many times before and actually accomplishing useful things will benefit the country both economically, academically and emotionally. Continuing to pay the lion's share of the bill so that other countries can send astronauts to the ISS and do the same old stuff isn't that interesting.

Going to the moon isn't automatically good. You can go to the moon on such a bad plan that it's ultimately a Pyrrhic achievement.
The low end construction and mfg jobs argument is made without context. No comment from me without more info.
The new policy may give such a "strong" (because based on stronger industrial base) program and do things that haven't been done (dunno how it wouldn't - teleoperated bots on the moon like that M2 project with GM as partner, or going to NEOs, or landing on Phobos, maybe teleoperating bots on Mars from there, and so on, there's plenty of examples in the literature).
Useful things is a vague thing to say. You could mean useful in the sense that it keeps people employed doing anything that feeds their household, or you could mean laying groundwork for future developments, for which easier access to space is item #1. Economic, academic and emotional all satisfied.
ISS - It can't be de orbited too soon either. Bad diplomatic move for intl partners and even the US public would probably not like seeing so many years and $B thrown down the sink so soon. Least worst choice is to make the best of it for a while more.

To date, I have not seen, heard of or read about, anywhere, any viable business plan for a market in commercial human spaceflight, and believe me, I have done business development in aerospace for ten years and I know how these companies work. They are incredibly risk averse. None of them are going to undertake any project unless there is a bag of money on the table up front and someone else is funding the R&D and the training. And this "if you build it they will come" argument of yours holds no validity. The demand isn't there and the ISS isn't our future in space, it's our past (aka skylab 2.0)

Well then. You're quite the big shot, know more than I do and there's no argument to be had. You have made your conclusions and won't change them. We'll just have to wait and see. I say private industry will do about the same (a sum of positives and negatives) as NASA was managing, and that we are in fact at the start of more, not less, space development. And that the recently ex-Moon plan was less good in the long term than this new one, provided it's done as suggested (instead of badly executed as Constellation was) and isn't some clever way for the admin to gradually gut everything but climate science, as some are speculating. That it's a positive to have eggs in a few baskets (ULA, SpaceX, Orbital...) instead of one (Ares.).
I never argued that ISS was the future. I think it's mostly ballast to NASA's progress.

In retrospect I'm curious how someone with 10+ years of such experience could start an argument over ITER being exactly as publicized on its official site as you report above, when the reality is nothing like it. Maybe it's just an implicit argument to authority.

Okay, these are getting long, so I'm going to try to paraphrase rather that quote and, hopefully, we can remember what I'm responding to later:

First, "your own sources" means the sources you have chosen to reference, some of which are from the blogosphere and most of which cite competing ventures to ITER. You are also the first person I have ever met that questions French and Japanese dominance in nuclear energy. They are both ahead of us because they do more with it (they have to). We focus more on reactors that can power subs and carriers and have chosen not to follow other paths that only have commercial power applications. But yes, there are competing ventures, and that's good, but all of them require fuel. My original point was that was one of many applications for which harvesting materials more abundant off Earth than on will make more sense. Hence, yet another impetus for a strong manned space program that extends beyond LEO.

However, we seem to be confusing each other here. I could care less about Constellation, but I do think canceling a moon mission all together and spending that money to extend the life of the ISS is a big mistake and that is exactly what Obama said was his plan. Of course NASA can't do it without industry, but we aren't much farther than we were 40 years ago. What is needed is a comprehensive plan that includes unmanned probes, increased presence in LEO and manned missions to the moon and beyond. NASA has done LEO, so go ahead and let industry in, but be careful: good ideas don't always do well (Sea Launch or Iridium, anyone?)

Just out of curiosity, how do you know that ITER isn't anything like they say it is. I'm not a nuclear physicist, I am an aerospace engineer that works on Nav, guidance and orbital dynamics problems, so I can understand what they are doing to some degree, but when two people who can be regarded as experts in their field, but with competing agendas, say opposing things about a project, I just watch what they say and keep tabs. I like the implicit argument with authority, because nobody is going to be completely straight with us, but there's also something to be said for giving the experts the chance to make good.

 

[nimbus]

Like I said, I haven't seen anyone outside of official press releases who thinks that ITER is on time, on budget, or that it will deliver as anything else than an expensive science project. If you have evidence of the contrary, I'm curious to see it.

By blog I assume you mean the vimeo vid. That's the point.. Just making fusion reaction is a different story than commercially feasible energy solution. Progress reports in the news for the other actual energy approaches are at least as credible as anything off the ITER news machine. Or the actual R&D contracts and comments from R&D staff as for e.g. Polywell.

By off-Earth resources you mean He3, fusion fuel?

I didn't question relative French and Japanese nuclear/fusion research, I asked to see what evidence you had that they clearly did things better than the US on some efficiency metric like a per-$ basis. I lived in France for almost ten years, so I know that side pretty well from an insider perspective, but I'm an info glutton.

I don't know ITER is like I say.. But there's enough evidence for it that I'd bet on it. It's in the news reports and everything I repeated here from echoes in the industry is what fits with the news reports. I don't think there's anything extraordinary about it. It's a massive Rube Goldberg science project. With lots of political strings.

My understanding is that the new policy is just a policy. The exact plan is still in the works. Bolden just had a press conference and specifically said that his long term goal is Mars. Along with other "flexible path" destinations, that sounds good to me. But like I said, specifics of what and how they're planning are the missing piece needed before a good verdict can be made.

 

[JasonChapman]

There's not a lot I can say that hasen't already been said concerning this subject. I thought someone was joking when they said the 2020 moon missions had been scrapped. America is in danger of falling behind while the developing nation take the lead in space exploration, Obama won't be making any new freinds soon amongst the space communities, but then again why should he care, he wont be in office in 2020, the next US President will be the one left red faced while China plant their flag on the lunar surface, in fact I wouldn't be surpised if the next administration magic up a massion to Mars just to save face. It is indeed a sad day for the space industry.

 

[rbhale]

Simply put, cancelling Constellation is the latest and greatest blunder so far for the O'Bummer administration. Is there any doubt whatsoever that the only reason that idiot killed American manned spaceflight for generations to come is the fact that Constellation was not HIS idea? He is so jealous that a previous administration will have a meaningful legacy and he wouldn't and never will. King Hussein hates America and all she stands for. Manned space flight was the only thing we could do better and anyone else on this planet and he despised that.

There is no way private interests can put a man anywhere but extremely low earth orbit. As Americans, we have the technological know how, manpower and finances to go it alone. We need a strong national effort to stand above the rest of the world and to provide leadership. NASA and the manned space program was that kind of effort. Now it's gone and we'll have to stand by and watch China, India, Europe, Korea and all the other up and comers do what our brain dead so called leadership won't allow us to do. It would be wonderful if some American private company were able to put a man on the moon again, but wouldn't it be better if it were a NATIONAL effort and not just a small group of people?

 

[FreddyPieRSquared]

The three reply options weren't very flexible. I think the Orion program should have gone forward, but the budget is trashed. Shock and awe and then the global crisis have made it so our new president has inherited a real mess. I think it should be back-burnered, not because of its merits, but simply because we cannot do everything we want right now.

NASA is the only agency of the federal government that has always had my enthusiastic support. Unfortunately, my absolute favorite agency (administration) is a casualty of attrition. It is not politically smart to talk about returning to the moon when so many people are out of work.

 

[nimbus]

It is not politically smart to talk about returning to the moon when so many people are out of work.

Truism.. There's nothing wrong with it if it's done within budget (a <1% budget that's been stagnant for the recent past at least).

Echoes from KSC -

The future HLV development we're starting to hear about this week at KSC is most likely a RP-1/LOX First Stage. Don't be surprised that we may see a new version of the Saturn V again.

 

[Bromo33333]

There's not a lot I can say that hasen't already been said concerning this subject. I thought someone was joking when they said the 2020 moon missions had been scrapped. America is in danger of falling behind while the developing nation take the lead in space exploration, Obama won't be making any new freinds soon amongst the space communities, but then again why should he care, he wont be in office in 2020, the next US President will be the one left red faced while China plant their flag on the lunar surface, in fact I wouldn't be surpised if the next administration magic up a massion to Mars just to save face. It is indeed a sad day for the space industry.

I agree with this - we are in danger of falling behind. Though I would contend we'd be in danger of this even if the Constellation program were left intact.

Industrializing space (even if it is, at first, it is nearly entirely funded by government as would be the current plan) would render the "planting your flag on the moon" rather irrelevant, and it would not remove it form the realm of possibility either.

But given how things roll in Washington these days, the GOP is already whipping up opposition to the cuts rather specifically, so it is hardly a done deal.

 

[ItsRocketScience]

I think the proposed cancellation of Constellation and the re-alignment of priorities at NASA, is a big mistake. Why would any commercial company (usually investor backed) risk their capital to develop any space technology, let alone flight. What kind of return on investment would the shareholders see? It is so naive to think that a commercial low cost solution can be successful in the near future. Our commercial airlines are barely making any profits. What kind of profit would a commercial company achieve especially when they hit a bump in the road. Wouldn't it be easier for a commercial company to market a cell phone than market space technology. It's a surefire loser for investors and the taxpayer!

Big aerospace companies have the technology and experience to meet these challenges. To lose the vast knowledge and expertise of these companies in our greatest human endeavors, we are destined to a future where we continue to outsource our technology needs. Soon all of our smartest engineers and visionaries will be frustrated and throw in the towel. How can we encourage students to remain in the engineering field when there jobs were sold to India, China, Japan and Russia.

Thank goodness Obama plans to spend lots on infrastructure! All those soon to be unemployed college grads need a job. I guess they will have to keep living with Mom and Dad a while. So much for the housing market....etc.

 

[halman]

When the Constellation program was announced, the Moon was not the goal, Mars was. The Moon was just a stopover, a practice test, while the emphasis was on Mars. But no additional money was going to be spent on NASA, and the Bush administration even cut the agency's funding after the Constellation program was announced. In my opinion, Constellation was a sham, never meant to be completed, just a way to make it look like the U.S. was still serious about human space flight while the real money went to Iraq. It was a giant step backward, from the git-go. Were we going to be building on what we had learned from the shuttle program? No. Were we going to develop more reliable ways of putting people in space? No. Worst of all, completing Constellation meant cutting the International Space Station program short, so that funding could be transferred to Constellation.

If we can't do this right, maybe we shouldn't be doing it at all. And doing it right means spending money, a lot of money. Sure, the money is available in the larger federal budget, but space exploration is, apparently, not a priority to Congress or the American people. Jobs were the prime reason for Constellation, especially jobs for a major defense contractor, the folks who build the solid rocket boosters, whatever their name is this week. The costs of adding one segment to the existing SRB design were in the billions of dollars, which seemed kind of strange, but everyone just kind of gulped and went with it, because it seemed like it was furthering the cause. But it wasn't. It was never expected to fly, just to soak up lots of money, and then be canceled.

The space shuttle was a prototype, a test bed, which was severely compromised just to make it to actual, operational hardware. But it has proven to be a reliable, safe vehicle, as long as you operate it within parameters. Launching on an extremely cold morning was way, way outside of parameters, and a lot of people knew that we were going to lose the Challenger, but somebody with a lot of pull wanted it to fly THAT day, for some reason. Blaming the design for that failure is like blaming a the design of an automobile for spinning out and going off the road in icy conditions when the tires were bald. Columbia proved that you can not bombard the vehicle with stuff capable of puncturing a wing and expect it to return safely, which management knew, but choose to ignore.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the lifting body configuration for a re-entry vehicle, and we need to continue in that direction, because they are the future. Instead of building a capsule which would have to land in the ocean, we need a space vehicle which can return to the launch point so that it can be prepared for another launch. Access to space is still the most difficult part of space exploration, that getting from a standing start to 5 miles per second, and then coming back. We need to develop a reliable, inexpensive, and safe way of doing that, that will support a steadily increasing number of people living and working in space.

Step rockets are now old hat, so lets let the commercial sector start building and flying them, while NASA works on creating the next generation of launch and re-entry vehicle. As long as we can only have a few people in space at one time, not much is going to happen out there. We need to be sending dozens of people into space every month to make the dreams of space exploration a reality, and we are not going to be doing that with vehicles which can only transport 4 or 5 people at a time. Air travel was not a viable method of transporting people until the airplanes could carry 20 or 30 people, and space travel will be the same way.

Sure, we could have made Constellation work, and, yes, it could have taken people to the Moon and back. But what would we have accomplished? Merely proving that we could still do it? If we are only sending 2 or 3 people to the Moon at a time, we are just showing off. It will take lots of people to do anything effective on the Moon, or in Low Earth Orbit. Getting them there and back is our biggest challenge right now, which must be overcome before we can go further.

 

[EarthlingX]

When the Constellation program was announced, the Moon was not the goal, Mars was. The Moon was just a stopover, a practice test, while the emphasis was on Mars. But no additional money was going to be spent on NASA, and the Bush administration even cut the agency's funding after the Constellation program was announced. In my opinion, Constellation was a sham, never meant to be completed, just a way to make it look like the U.S. was still serious about human space flight while the real money went to Iraq. It was a giant step backward, from the git-go. Were we going to be building on what we had learned from the shuttle program? No. Were we going to develop more reliable ways of putting people in space? No. Worst of all, completing Constellation meant cutting the International Space Station program short, so that funding could be transferred to Constellation.

If we can't do this right, maybe we shouldn't be doing it at all. And doing it right means spending money, a lot of money. Sure, the money is available in the larger federal budget, but space exploration is, apparently, not a priority to Congress or the American people. Jobs were the prime reason for Constellation, especially jobs for a major defense contractor, the folks who build the solid rocket boosters, whatever their name is this week. The costs of adding one segment to the existing SRB design were in the billions of dollars, which seemed kind of strange, but everyone just kind of gulped and went with it, because it seemed like it was furthering the cause. But it wasn't. It was never expected to fly, just to soak up lots of money, and then be canceled.

The space shuttle was a prototype, a test bed, which was severely compromised just to make it to actual, operational hardware. But it has proven to be a reliable, safe vehicle, as long as you operate it within parameters. Launching on an extremely cold morning was way, way outside of parameters, and a lot of people knew that we were going to lose the Challenger, but somebody with a lot of pull wanted it to fly THAT day, for some reason. Blaming the design for that failure is like blaming a the design of an automobile for spinning out and going off the road in icy conditions when the tires were bald. Columbia proved that you can not bombard the vehicle with stuff capable of puncturing a wing and expect it to return safely, which management knew, but choose to ignore.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the lifting body configuration for a re-entry vehicle, and we need to continue in that direction, because they are the future. Instead of building a capsule which would have to land in the ocean, we need a space vehicle which can return to the launch point so that it can be prepared for another launch. Access to space is still the most difficult part of space exploration, that getting from a standing start to 5 miles per second, and then coming back. We need to develop a reliable, inexpensive, and safe way of doing that, that will support a steadily increasing number of people living and working in space.

Step rockets are now old hat, so lets let the commercial sector start building and flying them, while NASA works on creating the next generation of launch and re-entry vehicle. As long as we can only have a few people in space at one time, not much is going to happen out there. We need to be sending dozens of people into space every month to make the dreams of space exploration a reality, and we are not going to be doing that with vehicles which can only transport 4 or 5 people at a time. Air travel was not a viable method of transporting people until the airplanes could carry 20 or 30 people, and space travel will be the same way.

Sure, we could have made Constellation work, and, yes, it could have taken people to the Moon and back. But what would we have accomplished? Merely proving that we could still do it? If we are only sending 2 or 3 people to the Moon at a time, we are just showing off. It will take lots of people to do anything effective on the Moon, or in Low Earth Orbit. Getting them there and back is our biggest challenge right now, which must be overcome before we can go further.

I'm quoting this, so maybe some people will notice it, and read.

 

[mcnaut]

Average cost per launch...

Space Shuttle $1.2 billion
Soyuz > $50million
Falcon $50million.

Answer? Kill off the pork projects.

Re-tender using private enterprise.

Allow commercial enterprises to use foreign components if they so wish. (The military use Russian derived rocket engines, so why restrict commerce?).

Result - cost effective space-faring.

 

[SciFi2010]

Commercial aerospace is not about achieving lower costs by selling the physical product and outsourcing the production-process to other nations, but it is all about providing services (for example space launch) to governments, companies and individuals at lower costs by competition, new ideas and research. Several months ago I read an article about Scaled Composites (Spaceshipone & two). They had to ask approval from the US government before they could buy and use technology of other aerospace companies and I assume the backgrounds of all its personnel were also screened. They were also not allowed to pass this technology on to others, which means there’s a major difference with other kinds of commercial business: Aerospace technology belongs to the interest of national security and can not be sold or passed on to others without governments’ approval (even between American companies). That is a major advantage of commercial aerospace: aerospace companies could provide commercial services, but the physical product can not be exported and outsourced to other nations. In other words we could generate growing profits and investments with commercial aerospace and protect the research, the technology and the jobs at the same time (even if we decide to export these services). I do agree that at the moment commercial aerospace is too much confined to the market of launching of satellites. That’s why we also need space tourism for the masses starting in LEO and later on the moon and mars. First we need more investments to develop fuel-efficient jet-engines, rocket engines (whether it is air-breathing, non-breathing and hybrid) and cheaper/lighter (inflatable?) space modules in order to reduce the cost of (manned/unmanned) space launch and space stations at least 20 times or more. Maybe we do need the Orion rocket as a back-up plan to replace the Space Shuttle in case commercial aerospace will not deliver its promise in time, but I do think that in the near future the commercial aeroplane industry/infrastructure will merge with the commercial aerospace industry*. I fear if we focus too much on the moon-mission “old-style” and we do not develop a fuel-efficient commercial airplane and aerospace industry (and merge these 2 industries together) to lower the costs we will face tough competition from other nations in the future. (That is why America and EU have to make agreements not to outsource the essential production-line of the airplane industry to other nations and should decide to develop this option together). Not commercially exploiting this option would also diminish our possibilities to develop an economic viable plan to colonize LEO (Low Earth Orbit), the moon and mars. The space industry at the moment is too depended on government budget and policy for developing affordable LEO space-launch, “spaceports” and space colonization. We need to allow to the aerospace industry to ineract with each other and individual consumers. The civilian aerospace needs to develop commercial services to generate profits, investments and research without selling and outsourcing the technology (and we need the possibility to import components of the shelf). The only thing the government should do is to support the commercial aerospace and keeping an eye on whether the technology doesn’t fall in the wrong hands.

*Scaled Composites for example is already planning to transport people to different continents in “no-time”. Their long term vision is to reduce the launch-costs by using more simple technology, logistics, infrastructure and fuel-efficiency (airlift, decreased air-resistance, air-breathing and air-pressure compensation) by combining future fuel-efficient airplanes and rockets to launch satellites and “space-tourists” into LEO (with the possibility to dock to different “spaceports”) at significantly lower costs.

 

[moses296]

I am very uspet that the psace program is being cancelled this man has gone to far he needs to refocus what he is doing the NATIONAL SPACE PROGRAM is not and should not be messed

 

[nimbus]

the psace program is being cancelled

U was robbed

 

[EarthlingX]

This article by Rand Simberg
from www.popularmechanics.com addresses some concerns expressed in this thread:
The New NASA: A Path To Anywhere, And Everywhere

Published on: February 8, 2010
Guest space analyst Rand Simberg disagrees with the assessment of PM resident astronaut, Tom Jones who thinks that Obama's budget proposal is on the wrong track—and that NASA, not private space companies, should lead the way back to the moon. Simberg argues that the new path, outlined by the president's budget, holds promise of real progress.
By Rand Simberg

 

[seyfertgal]

I believe the United States must plant the flag on the moon, and be the first to do so. I don't think the President's decision to postpone this is something he was delighted with. There are a lot of priorities crying for funding in this country, and this one just has to take a back seat for now. That doesn't mean that we won't climb into a rocket and get there as fast as we can, one way or another, and I don't believe this constitutes the US abandoning the moon.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I believe the United States must plant the flag on the moon, and be the first to do so. .

Uhhh, we did that 40 years ago, 6 times. :roll:

 

[edkyle99]

This article by Rand Simberg
from http://www.popularmechanics.com addresses some concerns expressed in this thread:
The New NASA: A Path To Anywhere, And Everywhere

Published on: February 8, 2010
Guest space analyst Rand Simberg disagrees with the assessment of PM resident astronaut, Tom Jones who thinks that Obama's budget proposal is on the wrong track—and that NASA, not private space companies, should lead the way back to the moon. Simberg argues that the new path, outlined by the president's budget, holds promise of real progress.
By Rand Simberg

I'm not so sure. Satellite launch was "commercialized" away from NASA control after Challenger. There were some positive results at first, most notably with Delta 2 and Atlas Centaur, but, over time, these "commercial" successes faded. Rather than fostering a U.S. technology base, the companies involved switched to supporting Russian and Ukrainian and European and Japanese rockets and rocket engines and payload fairings and tanks. The end result was more destruction of the U.S. space technology base.

Why should we expect that commercializing human space launch would provide different results?

- Ed Kyle

 

[DarkenedOne]

This article by Rand Simberg
from http://www.popularmechanics.com addresses some concerns expressed in this thread:
The New NASA: A Path To Anywhere, And Everywhere

Published on: February 8, 2010
Guest space analyst Rand Simberg disagrees with the assessment of PM resident astronaut, Tom Jones who thinks that Obama's budget proposal is on the wrong track—and that NASA, not private space companies, should lead the way back to the moon. Simberg argues that the new path, outlined by the president's budget, holds promise of real progress.
By Rand Simberg

I'm not so sure. Satellite launch was "commercialized" away from NASA control after Challenger. There were some positive results at first, most notably with Delta 2 and Atlas Centaur, but, over time, these "commercial" successes faded. Rather than fostering a U.S. technology base, the companies involved switched to supporting Russian and Ukrainian and European and Japanese rockets and rocket engines and payload fairings and tanks. The end result was more destruction of the U.S. space technology base.

Why should we expect that commercializing human space launch would provide different results?

- Ed Kyle

:shock: Wow. Your the first person I have ever heard say that commercializing unmanned space flight was a mistake.

The EELVs that exist to day are significantly cheaper than the space shuttle, less risky than they space shuttle, arguably more reliable than the space shuttle, and have a greater launch rate than the space shuttle. They are better than the space shuttle in practically all the important aspect except for the fact that they do carry human crew and cannot carry out the sophisticated operations that the shuttle can. Yes it is true that have outsourced some of the components, but as I understand it they have not done so for the more important ones.

Honestly why do you think that they have never turned back.

So yes I think everyone would be satisfied if the commercial manned launchers turn out to be as successful as the unmanned commercial launchers. If that is the case than in a decade we will have two or three commercial manned launchers that are cheaper and safer than the space shuttle we have today.

 

[edkyle99]

:shock: Wow. Your the first person I have ever heard say that commercializing unmanned space flight was a mistake.

The EELVs that exist to day are significantly cheaper than the space shuttle, less risky than they space shuttle, arguably more reliable than the space shuttle, and have a greater launch rate than the space shuttle.

Neither EELV has to date demonstrated a greater launch rate than Shuttle. Last year Atlas 5 managed to match Shuttle's five launches, but Shuttle has matched or out-launched Atlas 5 or Delta 4 five times in eight years since the EELVs began flying - and that includes the post-Columbia stand down. Since 2002, Shuttle has flown 23 times (even though it flew zero times in 2004 and only once in 2003 and 2005). Atlas 5 has flown 20 times. Delta 4 has flown only 11 times.

I surely hope that the EELVs cost less than Shuttle! The EELVs, on average, haul much less payload mass than Shuttle, and they obviously don't carry crew. Shuttle is not just a launch vehicle, but also a spacecraft payload. Put an astronaut-carrying spacecraft on top of an EELV Heavy and the entire bit will rival a Shuttle mission in cost.

But Shuttle is a system that will soon be gone, so lets not waste time talking about it here.

Yes it is true that have outsourced some of the components, but as I understand it they have not done so for the more important ones.

First stage propulsion, to me, is pretty darn important!

The EELVs cost far more than expected. Some reports have Delta 4 Heavy at more than $500 million per flight compared to an original $150 million goal. The costs are in part forcing the closing of the Delta 2 program, which just happens to be the most reliable launch system in the U.S.. But like Shuttle, it too will soon be gone. (Soon to be gone Shuttle and Delta 2 together accounted for 13 of last year's 24 U.S. launch attempts.)

In the past two years, EELV has launched a grand total of just two commercial satellites. The EELV's aren't really even in the commercial game. That doesn't look like great success to me.

I'm not suggesting putting commercial launch back into NASA's hands, but the current system isn't helping the U.S. keep up with the rest of the world in space launch.

- Ed Kyle