POLL. Is NASA doing a good job? How could it improve?

jimglenn · Jun 23, 2008

I am miffed due to all the Rove Drones saying Obama is wrong to consider cutting back manned space for awhile.They sound like my old man: Islam's goal is to take over the world. Bush is rite. America is under attack. While some of this is true, I think the current space program went awry when the shuttle and ISS were designed by the committee that did not have a clue. We have been orbiting this rock for 40 years, how much data do you think we need from Earth sats?Every place I ever worked, if you make something that blows up and destroys billions of dollars, and hurts people, someone gets fired. There is no accountability at NASA. At GRC they call it the "Country Club". Work 2 hours a day. Constantly underbid projects to get more money. Occasional shoddy engineering that results from too much computer sims that have errors. The half billion dollar project I helped with is now shoved in a dusty corner.Obama is right. What is your opinion?<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

neuvik · Jun 23, 2008

<blockquote>"In an age when space flight has come to seem almost routine, it is easy to overlook the dangers of travel by rocket, and the difficulties of navigating the fierce outer atmosphere of the Earth.  These astronauts knew the dangers, and the faced them willingly, knowing they had a high and noble purpose in life. "The cause in which they died will continue.  Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand.  Our journey into space will go on."    ( President George W. Bush, 2/1/2003, Address to the Nation ) </blockquote>Obama is wrong. Heres why I think that.We need data on Earth because the climate is ever changing.    NASA has done a lot for agriculture in a very short amount of time.  aspires.gsfc.nasa.gov/upload/AG_proj-006_4036_Eval_Report_Myers.dochttp://nctn.hq.nasa.gov/innovation/innovation104/images/July-Aug10.4.pdfI thought you would be on the it creates jobs and education part, but apperantly you are not.  How come your not trying to kill off the war on drugs, wont that save us money?http://education.nasa.gov/edprograms/stdprograms/index.htmlNASA has done wounders for the aviation industry, both general and commerical. Providing a reasearch base for large corporations, and programs from private businesses. http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/contributions/index.htmhttp://www.gaservingamerica.org/future_partnerships.htmNASA has done more that its share for the Biomedical field, working with companies to aid in R&D to promote the general welfare of the inhabitances of this rock.  And ongoin research could improve health, and preventive care by the patient to reduce doctor visits and SAVE MONEY. http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/successes/biomed.htmhttp://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/medicine_nasa_991103.html  NASA benifits the average Joe Sixpackhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/industry-02f.htmlhttp://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/benefits_of_space_program.html   Furthermore what are the top three things kid usualy want to be?  Doctor, Astronaut, Fire Fighter.       Do you even wan't to set the state where kids replace Astronaut with I dont know...attorney.      <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck </div>

jimglenn · Jun 23, 2008

I will examine your points further soon, but my understanding is that most of the valuable nasa spinoffs were from the Apollo era. Velcro, IC chips, control systems.  Yes the drug war should be reworked, but that is another thread.What do you think they are doing on the ISS to justify all the money spent? Can you find ONE reputable scientist to agree? The mere fact that this thread is mostly dead verifies it is a sensitive subject. I am not trying to embarrass anyone. I have been a fan of spaceflight since I saw the Mercury flights live on TV. The wars and other problems are holding peoples attention. But since Obama is offering change, I figured I would address and request feedback. Nobody is interested as usual. Where's my pal Frodo? He is an honest historian on space.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

neuvik · Jun 23, 2008

Are you against NASA in general or just the ISS? You post kinda seemed like you wanted to just close up NASA and the ISS was a reasoning for that. Don't you feel that ISS is a very tastey bit of pork?  A lot of jobs were created with it. The majority of practical advances came from the begining of the space program yes.  But there is a benifit to everyday life with having NASA around. The ISS experiments could be done with small scale satilites, or here on earth.   We've gained the experiance building the structure.   What the ISS plan needs now is some new updates for making it into a depot for further moon, and beyond travels.     If the very worst is decided, then the ISS should, at the extremly worst case secanrio, be moth balled.   Boots it up to a stable orbit for use in a future time, assuming that our sun has not engulfed the Earth before we are smart enough to keep exploring and building. I'm actually suprised on your stace for the ISS alone.  Where do you think the money would go in our fantastic government where theres not going to be some errors, underbudgeting, lobster dinners.   As for finding a well respected scientist that wants the ISS, I have not been successful.  However, would a Democrat suffice?      John Glenn. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck </div>

jimglenn · Jun 23, 2008

Stunning. The vacuum is absorbing any good ideas floating in the hyperspace. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cry.gif" border="0" alt="Cry" title="Cry" /> <h1 id="articlehed">How NASA Screwed Up (And Four Ways to Fix It)</h1> <div class="date_time"> Gregg Easterbrook <img class="img_middle" src="http://www.wired.com/images/icon_email.gif" alt="Email" /> 05.22.07 </div> <div id="embed"> <div id="pic"> </div> </div> <div class="left_rail"> <div class="title">See Also:</div> <div class="wrapper"> <img src="http://www.wired.com/images/slideshow/magazine/1506/ff_space_musk3_t.jpg" alt="" /> Elon Musk Is Betting His Fortune on a Mission Beyond Earth's Orbit </div> <div class="wrapper"> <img src="http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1506/ff_space_rockets_t.jpg" alt="" /> The Falcon 1's Rocket Science, From Its Avionics to Its Engines </div> <div class="wrapper"> <img src="http://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1506/ff_space_virgin1_t.jpg" alt="" /> Burt Rutan and Richard Branson Want You to Hit Space in High Style </div> </div> <div class="left_rail"> <div class="title">From Wired Science</div> <div> A Conversation with Shana Dale, Deputy Administrator of NASA </div> <div> Listen to the Audio Transcript (39:30 minute MP3) </div> </div> Here is a set of rational priorities for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in descending order of importance: (1) Conduct research, particularly environmental research, on Earth, the sun, and Venus, the most Earth-like planet. (2) Locate asteroids and comets that might strike Earth, and devise a practical means of deflecting them. (3) Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe. (4) Figure out a way to replace today's chemical rockets with a much cheaper way to reach Earth orbit. Here are NASA's apparent current priorities: (1) Maintain a pointless space station. (2) Build a pointless Motel 6 on the moon. (3) Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe. (4) Keep money flowing to favored aerospace contractors and congressional districts. Only one priority of four correct! Worse, NASA's to-do list neglects the two things that are actually of tangible value to the taxpayers who foot its bills — research relevant to environmental policymaking and asteroid-strike protection. NASA has recently been canceling or postponing "Earth observation" missions intended to generate environmental information about our world. For instance, a year and a half ago the agency decided not to fund Hydros, a satellite that would have provided the first global data on soil moisture trends. NASA focuses its planetary research on frigid Mars rather than Venus, which suffers a runaway greenhouse effect. The agency is conducting only a few sun-study missions — even though all life depends on the sun, and knowing more about it might clarify the global-warming debate. But $6 billion a year for astronauts to take each other's blood pressure on the space station? No problem!  ... .. .http://www.wired.com/science/space/magazine/15-06/ff_space_nasaHEY! I didn't make that patch. Nasty. Pretty low. Inappropriate.  Yet NASA has no program to research ways of deflecting space objects, and the agency recently told Congress it could not spare $1 billion to catalog the locations and movements of potentially dangerous asteroids. But hundreds of billions of dollars for a moon base? No problem! Of course, "Keep money flowing to favored contractors and congressional districts" is not a formal NASA objective, but these words explain the agency's core problem. Since the end of the Apollo glory days, NASA seems to have been driven by the desire to continue lucrative payments to the contractors behind manned spaceflight (mainly Boeing and Lockheed Martin) while maintaining staff levels in the congressional districts (mainly in Alabama, Florida, Ohio, and Texas) that are home to huge centers focused on manned missions. If the contractors and the right congressional committee members are happy, NASA's funding will continue and NASA managers will keep their jobs. The space station project was built to give the shuttle a destination, keeping the manned-space spending hierarchy intact. With the space station now almost universally viewed as worthless, the manned-space funders need a new boondoggle. The moon-base idea, pushed by President Bush, fits the bill. ACTUALLY I LIKE THE IDEA OF A MOON BASE. I know it can't be used to shoot to mars, the dynamics are wrong. But the moon has a certain allure to it. Perhaps a vacation spot. Safe haven from nuclear war on earth.   NEU: No, I don't want nasa closed or necessarily the funds cut, just a change of plans and implementation. I never liked the shuttle. The orig all liquid one might have been neat, if built, but the one we got is a dog. The ISS is not paying for itself on any level imaginable. Not sure what John Glenn would say, you have to ask him! Note I know nothing is going to change, this is a just an attempted hypothetical discussion. To me politics and war are not that interesting. I like the science and eqpt of war, but the use is just a bummer. Same as a gun. Good physics, bad result.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

neuvik · Jun 23, 2008

"The investment we have up there and the potential for learning new things are tremendous at a time when we're coming under additional global competition." The International Space Station is "the greatest, most complex laboratory ever put together." - John GlennMoon Base is a grand idea, would make a nice early warning base for potential NEO, and perhaps a deterance ability.  So there, we both win, I get further exlopration and militarization of space, you get vacation spot, and your interest in science and how it equips our glorious race to kill things.  Even if those things are rock and ice.  Too bad theres really but one presidential canidate that is entertaining further advances in space exploration and explotation.     and yes I understand this is all hypothetical.  It is a decent topic however.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck </div>

Korg · Jun 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am miffed due to all the Rove Drones saying Obama is wrong to consider cutting back manned space for awhile.They sound like my old man: Islam's goal is to take over the world. Bush is rite. America is under attack. While some of this is true, I think the current space program went awry when the shuttle and ISS were designed by the committee that did not have a clue. We have been orbiting this rock for 40 years, how much data do you think we need from Earth sats?Every place I ever worked, if you make something that blows up and destroys billions of dollars, and hurts people, someone gets fired. There is no accountability at NASA. At GRC they call it the "Country Club". Work 2 hours a day. Constantly underbid projects to get more money. Occasional shoddy engineering that results from too much computer sims that have errors. The half billion dollar project I helped with is now shoved in a dusty corner.Obama is right. What is your opinion? Posted by jimglenn</DIV> There was a war going on when we landed on the moon.  We didn't let that stop us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Stick in the mud, old soul, what are you doing here? </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jun 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am miffed due to all the Rove Drones saying Obama is wrong to consider cutting back manned space for awhile.They sound like my old man: Islam's goal is to take over the world. Bush is rite. America is under attack. While some of this is true, I think the current space program went awry when the shuttle and ISS were designed by the committee that did not have a clue. We have been orbiting this rock for 40 years, how much data do you think we need from Earth sats?Every place I ever worked, if you make something that blows up and destroys billions of dollars, and hurts people, someone gets fired. There is no accountability at NASA. At GRC they call it the "Country Club". Work 2 hours a day. Constantly underbid projects to get more money. Occasional shoddy engineering that results from too much computer sims that have errors. The half billion dollar project I helped with is now shoved in a dusty corner.Obama is right. What is your opinion? Posted by jimglenn</DIV>There's a lot of things I'd say in regards to the ISS, the Shuttle and NASA.  However, I'll cut to the chase. (rare for me, so screenshot that for posterity)How much does a dream cost?  Man's destiny is in space, not trapped on this ball of mud.  We've already seen what "cutting back" does.  We went to the Moon. We walked there.  But, we went, looked around and then left.  We should have gone back by now.  But, we haven't.  Not going back has hurt us and only MANNED projects have attracted enough attention to get people seriously interested in NASA's success.  Cutting back on manned space is saying that we're not only willing to shelve our dreams, but we're going to stop funding them as well.  No Buck Rodgers, no bucks.  The smaller, cheaper, faster approach to exploration has given us some successess. That's true! NASA has done more for less than any other agency in the US.  But, it's also given us some failures.  A few tons of scrap metal sitting somewhere on the Martian surface can attest to that.There's going to be some time when we're going to have to go.  It's unavoidable.  Why cut back on manned spaceflight anyway?  The cost?  Screw that.  Stop throwing money down the tubes.  The entire funding approach for NASA projects needs to be re-evaluated.  Their GA office needs to start sharpening freaking pencils BUT sharpen them in the direction of progress on a goal rather than progress on a freaking spreadsheet! Budge for SUCCESS, not for freaking BUDGET! You know what?  You can't fund "dreams" on a freaking balance sheet.  NASA says "We can get a man on Mars."  The government says "How much?" then NASA has to turn a friggin huge, ginormous crank that's hidden somewhere, deep within the secret bowls of the NASA machine and out plops a number that looks good, but doesn't make any sense to anyone.  We went to the Moon 20+ years ago not because the government asked NASA "How much?" but because the government told NASA "Do this."/rant offHere's the point: (Delete the screenshot I requested above. I guess old habits die hard.)1) Without manned missions, the public interest in space isn't as focused and, as a result, NASA's competitive weight for funds is impaired.2) There's no time like the present.  I'm tired of people pussyfooting around the idea.  We went to the Moon because we said we were going to damn well do it.  And we did do it.  That's the attitude of WINNERS.  It took giant brass balls to do it and we did... damn it.  In the end, it doesn't matter how much money you have left over. It only matters if you won or lost.  I want to win.  Cutting back on manned space is like little-leage freaking losing teams getting trophies just because they showed up.  Screw that.  I don't want a wall full of "gimme" trophies. I want a freaking huge solid-freaking-brass-ball-freaking-trophy that says "You are a badass! WINNER!" on my wall. 3) It's our destiny.  In fact, if the world were more concerned about humanity as a whole than their petty differences, the world would be a better place.  What better way to unite the world and get them thinking about humanity as a little knot of life stuck on some mudball in a second-class neighborhood of the Milky Way than by sending human beings out as representative explorers for our species?  Unite people, get them inspired, get them working together for a freaking goal they can realize - GO CLIMB THE MOUNTAIN! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

jimglenn · Jun 24, 2008

Yo, Packet!  Looks like my thread went mobile. Will catch up with your comments tonite, lunch is over, back to sweating over a hot soldering iron and logic analyzer! Later, dude.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Jun 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am miffed due to all the Rove Drones saying Obama is wrong to consider cutting back manned space for awhile.They sound like my old man: Islam's goal is to take over the world. Bush is rite. America is under attack. While some of this is true, I think the current space program went awry when the shuttle and ISS were designed by the committee that did not have a clue. We have been orbiting this rock for 40 years, how much data do you think we need from Earth sats?Every place I ever worked, if you make something that blows up and destroys billions of dollars, and hurts people, someone gets fired. There is no accountability at NASA. At GRC they call it the "Country Club". Work 2 hours a day. Constantly underbid projects to get more money. Occasional shoddy engineering that results from too much computer sims that have errors. The half billion dollar project I helped with is now shoved in a dusty corner.Obama is right. What is your opinion? Posted by jimglenn</DIV> NASA suffers from institutional thinking just like many other institutions.  Give them credit though, they are smart enough to realise it and seek outside ideas and methods to accomplish their mission, a very good example is the COTS program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

DrRocket · Jun 24, 2008

NASA like many U.S. government agencies has become a many-headed bureaucracy.  Some parts of NASA do useful science.  Some missions, such as the Hubble telescope have captured the imagination of the public.  But much of the work of NASA is PR and self-preservation.  That piece is self-serving and wasteful.  It is not the NASA of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions.NASA needs two things.  It needs to be streamlined to cut some of the waste and eliminate the use of NASA by Congress as a funnel for pork barrel projects.  Probably some of the centers could be consolidated.  But that will require the intervention of an outside group.  Consolidation was evaluated about 10 years ago.  The result was a major defensive play by each of the individual centers to protect their turf, and not much progress.The second thing that NASA needs will also make possible the necessary streamlining.  That is a clear definition of missions.  The study of the Earth and acquisition of sound data for decision making on environmental issues deserves high priority.  The study of the planets and deep space using unmanned methods also deserves high priority.  The development of aeronautical technology is probably something that ought to be turned over to the military and to the private sector.  Manned spaceflight missions are clearly the province of NASA, and a clear multi-year plan ought to be developed for manned missions.  That plan should include justification for the missions, not necessarily economic justification, but a combination of science, economics, and just plain vision for exploration of the solar system. The planned for manned missions ought to be realistic.  In recent years manned missions have probably occupied too large a portion of the NASA budget -- 50% or better -- and without a very clear vision of the mission.  Now, 50% of the budget might be the right figure, but only with a clear statement of purpose and a long-term commitment to that purpose.  Building and occupying a flying motel is not adequate.  That motel needs a measurable mission and a means of holding NASA accountable to completing that mission.  A similar comment applies to a Moon station or a manned mission to Mars, to the asteroids or to anywhere else.  It should not be that hard to explain why we are going and then to see that the stated purpose is achieved when we go.  We do it with the unmanned probes all the time.Once the long-term plan is developed and documented then what is needed is commitment from the people and from Congress to provide the resources to execute that plan.  Some flexibility will, of course, be needed.  But no plan is viable if it is sidetracked with every new administration for the latest social programs or military adventure.  NASA's biggest problem is that there is no widely-held vision of what it is that we expect NASA to do.  Consequently we have another formless government bureaucracy.  That can change, but only if the public demands it.  We might have to burn NASA down and rebuild it to get there, but it would be worth the pain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jimglenn · Jun 24, 2008

Thanks all for the energetic responses. Brian: COTS was forced upon everyone when mil standards were mostly eliminated. I saw people taking HP spectrum analyzers and taking them apart, repackaging into a space rack for the ISS. That could take many months. Perhaps 1/100 the cost of a custom built unit, but do you think it could withstand the vibration  and stress of a launch? COTS has other problems. The lead free tree hugger ROHS plan actually reduces solder joint reliability. There are places that will reball your BGA's with lead balls for demanding applications. You know, the shuttle foam problems started AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL FREAKS GOT THEM TO STOP USING TO FREON in it. Swear it is true.   Rocket: intensely surprisingly accurate appraisal of the situation. I did think the shuttle was burning up 80% of the flight budget. The ISS as a flying hotel is fun, parallels the guy with the inflatable shelter that actually worked up there, he wants to send people too. Many normal citizens do not understand the unaccountability of nasa and their contractors, or heck, the whole mil/industrial complex. If stuff is secret, you never find out about it to be able to complain. Normal companies survival depends on good ideas, reliable products, that have a market that produces a profit. None of this is true for current spaceflight. Each mission is an experiment. Remember the mars lander, they were working overtime, made a change in software.But did not go back and check the whole program. What happened is that when the legs snapped out, the vibration triggered the sensors that made it think it landed. So the engine shut off at 100' or more. Smash up. Then you have the billion dollar mars probe that apparently exploded when the propulsion system was pressurized. Leakage perhaps.Metric/english. Ok, this is tiring. Packet:You post was inspiring as usual. I feel we should return to the moon also. But let's figure a way to make it somehow profitable. How about moon dust relic encapsulated tokens? Would command a hefty price. Again, a vacation spot, for those with a few million. We could be forced into another Apollo like race by China. Their liquid fueled boosters are more reliable than our "light 'em and hope" solid motors. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/5/79e2907b-f6c6-4f4f-95d4-f92c7ddf33f4.Medium.gif" alt="" />   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jun 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...You post was inspiring as usual. I feel we should return to the moon also. But let's figure a way to make it somehow profitable. How about moon dust relic encapsulated tokens? Would command a hefty price. Again, a vacation spot, for those with a few million. We could be forced into another Apollo like race by China. Their liquid fueled boosters are more reliable than our "light 'em and hope" solid motors.   Posted by jimglenn</DIV>NASA is a trailblazer agency.  Their job is to be a scout.  They are to go out, explore, tell us where it is, how to get there, what it is and maybe a few things we can do with it once we arrive.  That's their primary mission.  The job is then supposed to go to those who will play the "Settler" part: Private Industry.What needs to be done?  Focus on technology transfers, cooperative ventures, facility and expertise leasing, consulting.. whatever it takes in order to get the private sector into space.  NASA knows a heck of a lot about how to get to space and how to survive there but they know jack-all about marketing or exploiting that.  That's not their job.  What needs to be done is to put the job of marketing and exploiting space firmly into the hands of the private sector.  In order to do that, "space" has to have an exploitable resource, whether it is natural or a machination of man. (Asteroids/Medical&Materials labs)  Space has exploitable environments and resources and we have the ability to get there.  Private Industry just needs either some help or needs to be pushed into the deep-end of the pool in order to get the idea across. Getting into space is tough.  It ain't easy or everyone would be doing it.  It may take some highly cooperative efforts between private industry, NASA and the government to help supply a firm toehold in space.  But, it has to be done.  Otherwise, people are going to tire of the "endless exploration" of space with nothing substantial to show for it.  (In their opinion.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

BrianSlee · Jun 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks all for the energetic responses. Brian: COTS was forced upon everyone when mil standards were mostly eliminated. I saw people taking HP spectrum analyzers and taking them apart, repackaging into a space rack for the ISS. That could take many months. Perhaps 1/100 the cost of a custom built unit, but do you think it could withstand the vibration  and stress of a launch? COTS has other problems. The lead free tree hugger ROHS plan actually reduces solder joint reliability. There are places that will reball your BGA's with lead balls for demanding applications. You know, the shuttle foam problems started AFTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL FREAKS GOT THEM TO STOP USING TO FREON in it. Swear it is true.   Rocket: intensely surprisingly accurate appraisal of the situation. I did think the shuttle was burning up 80% of the flight budget. The ISS as a flying hotel is fun, parallels the guy with the inflatable shelter that actually worked up there, he wants to send people too. Many normal citizens do not understand the unaccountability of nasa and their contractors, or heck, the whole mil/industrial complex. If stuff is secret, you never find out about it to be able to complain. Normal companies survival depends on good ideas, reliable products, that have a market that produces a profit. None of this is true for current spaceflight. Each mission is an experiment. Remember the mars lander, they were working overtime, made a change in software.But did not go back and check the whole program. What happened is that when the legs snapped out, the vibration triggered the sensors that made it think it landed. So the engine shut off at 100' or more. Smash up. Then you have the billion dollar mars probe that apparently exploded when the propulsion system was pressurized. Leakage perhaps.Metric/english. Ok, this is tiring. Packet:You post was inspiring as usual. I feel we should return to the moon also. But let's figure a way to make it somehow profitable. How about moon dust relic encapsulated tokens? Would command a hefty price. Again, a vacation spot, for those with a few million. We could be forced into another Apollo like race by China. Their liquid fueled boosters are more reliable than our "light 'em and hope" solid motors.   Posted by jimglenn</DIV> LOL sorry I was referring to Commercial Operations to Space (COTS)Not Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS)Although it is basically the same thing <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

BrianSlee · Jun 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The lead free tree hugger ROHS plan actually reduces solder joint reliability. There are places that will reball your BGA's with lead balls for demanding applications. </DIV> I was CAT C certified for soldering.  You should hear me cuss anytime I get near a soldering iron these days ;O) BTW I am always on the lookout for some SN62 or SN63 rosin core.  Military surplus is just fine thank you <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am miffed due to all the Rove Drones saying Obama is wrong to consider cutting back manned space for awhile.They sound like my old man: Islam's goal is to take over the world. Bush is rite. America is under attack. While some of this is true, I think the current space program went awry when the shuttle and ISS were designed by the committee that did not have a clue. We have been orbiting this rock for 40 years, how much data do you think we need from Earth sats?Every place I ever worked, if you make something that blows up and destroys billions of dollars, and hurts people, someone gets fired. There is no accountability at NASA. At GRC they call it the "Country Club". Work 2 hours a day. Constantly underbid projects to get more money. Occasional shoddy engineering that results from too much computer sims that have errors. The half billion dollar project I helped with is now shoved in a dusty corner.Obama is right. What is your opinion? Posted by jimglenn</DIV>First of all, Obama's suggestion that we curb *manned* missions is not a condemnation of th entire NASA program.  At most it's a rebuke of Bush's desire to return to the moon.  We've already been there and done that. IMO NASA does a great job spreading the money around to various projects that all have great scientific value.  There have been a few problems along the way, but hey, space travel is difficult, and it's an unforgiving environment.  I'm quite pleased with the tax money I've spent on space exploration.  I only wish I could claim the same thing about everything the government has spent my tax money on over the last 50 years.IMO we would be better off building space ships that allow humans to walk on Mars, so I too favor changing the current admiinstration's priorities as it relates to NASA, and manned missions to the moon.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

qso1 · Jun 25, 2008

I am miffed due to all the Rove Drones saying Obama is wrong to consider cutting back manned space for awhile.Well, maybe the so called Rove drones are right in this case. I'm not a Rove Drone but I have followed NASA activities since Apollo 8 and the one thing that clearly stands out after all this time. The idea that cutting NASAs budget for awhile is gonna solve some other problem is crap IMO.How do I know? Its been tried. And I'm not using some "My old man" argument. I'm using actual budget data going almost to the very beginning of NASA. To sum up...Obama has rolled out the tired old argument that cutting NASA budgets will somehow improve some other program such as education.Okay.NASA budgets were from 2 to 4 % GDP prior to 1970-75. The same kind of arguments were made then. The NASA post Apollo budgets went down to 1% GDP after 1975 and continued a long slow overall decline despite increases here and there to keep up with inflation. NASAs budget is now around .6% GDP.So where are the bennies from all that cutting? I think the current space program went awry when the shuttle and ISS were designed by the committee that did not have a clue.Hmmm, wonder if thats also because the Von Braun plan...presented in 1969, included a shuttle, lunar mars missions/bases...etc...was almost totally rejected by the Nixon Admin in part due to the success of the tired old argument. The shuttle being the only surviving part of the Von Braun plan...and it capped at $5.5 billion in development costs in 1972.Stating someone has no clue totally ignores reality. NASA knew what it wanted, politicians and the public knew what they wanted and the two didn't match. We have been orbiting this rock for 40 years, how much data do you think we need from Earth sats?Every place I ever worked, if you make something that blows up and destroys billions of dollars, and hurts people, someone gets fired.Lets have some specifics. There is no accountability at NASA. At GRC they call it the "Country Club". Work 2 hours a day. Constantly underbid projects to get more money. Occasional shoddy engineering that results from too much computer sims that have errors. The half billion dollar project I helped with is now shoved in a dusty corner.Obama is right. What is your opinion?I agree to some degree with the underbid and country club thing. But underbidding is done precisely because NASA contractors know they are proposing a project that will more than likely meet its demise eventually, for budgetary reasons.Obama is wrong on this as far as I'm concerned because the country club underbid thing can be found in any government agency. There are far larger targets to go after nowadays than NASA. And as I mentioned but will emphasize here. If people really really want their hard earned tax dollars to go to the things they want them to, they will hold government accountable and heres how.If tommorow, Obama were to say "Abolish human spaceflight to fudn education, social programs etc." And then proceeded to show me how he would make government accountable...for example, directives that would ensure the money would go to the things mentioned...and followups be done on an annual basis to see if cutting NASA budgets is working on these other programs...I'd back him!But two problems come from that. I'd have to be somehow 100% convinced he would have the support necessary to do that. And realistically, no matter what politicians say in Washington about accountability, its usually not evident in actual deeds in the long run.An example of that, your hard earned tax dollars were cut from NASA post Apollo, wanna know where the vast majority of that went? Lets see, did cancer get cured...was poverty ever eradicated? No...but we did get a nice $500 billion dollar S&L scandal coutesy Reagn Admin. The public was tasked with the burden of paying that off...over the next three decades!Year after year...decade after decade of deficit spending...the amounts wasted in the S&L scandal, and money lost to deficit spending would dwarf NASA spending in its entire existence. Oh did I mention that little Iraq thing? In 2003, we could find someone who would tell you NASA should be cut to fund programs here at home. Cant afford to have NASA but we can afford to have the Iraq mess?I wont even get into the time when we had budget surplusses large enough to finance several NASAs while Clinton was Prez! Maybe save that till later.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jun 25, 2008

But since Obama is offering change, I figured I would address and request feedback. Nobody is interested as usual. Where's my pal Frodo? He is an honest historian on space. Posted by jimglennAll politicians do this.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jun 25, 2008

Stunning. The vacuum is absorbing any good ideas floating in the hyperspace.  How NASA Screwed Up (And Four Ways to Fix It) Gregg Easterbrook 05.22.07Nothing like the usual eye catching headline from a guy who once said in print...the Energia rocket would be cheap to operate. Saying it in part because it was simply fashionable to believe the Russians were better than us at spaceflight. Not to mention that anything NASA does wont please this guy as long as it involves human spaceflight. See Also: Elon Musk Is Betting His Fortune on a Mission Beyond Earth's Orbit The Falcon 1's Rocket Science, From Its Avionics to Its Engines Burt Rutan and Richard Branson Want You to Hit Space in High Style From Wired Science A Conversation with Shana Dale,Another group of NASA critics...including one who has already experienced failures comparable to NASA with simple expendable rockets. I do think that private industry can succeed at human spaceflight one day and it may well be these guys who are at the forefront of confirmed success as they are now. But right now, they still have a ways to go.Deputy Administrator of NASA Listen to the Audio Transcript (39:30 minute MP3) Here is a set of rational priorities for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in descending order of importance:(1) Conduct research, particularly environmental research, on Earth, the sun, and Venus, the most Earth-like planet. (2) Locate asteroids and comets that might strike Earth, and devise a practical means of deflecting them.(3) Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe.(4) Figure out a way to replace today's chemical rockets with a much cheaper way to reach Earth orbit.Here are NASA's apparent current priorities:(1) Maintain a pointless space station. (2) Build a pointless Motel 6 on the moon. (3) Increase humanity's store of knowledge by studying the distant universe. (4) Keep money flowing to favored aerospace contractors and congressional districts.Only one priority of four correct! Worse, NASA's to-do list neglects the two things that are actually of tangible value to the taxpayers who foot its bills research relevant to environmental policymaking and asteroid-strike protection. NASA has recently been canceling or postponing "Earth observation" missions intended to generate environmental information about our world. For instance, a year and a half ago the agency decided not to fund Hydros, a satellite that would have provided the first global data on soil moisture trends. NASA focuses its planetary research on frigid Mars rather than Venus, which suffers a runaway greenhouse effect. The agency is conducting only a few sun-study missions — even though all life depends on the sun, and knowing more about it might clarify the global-warming debate. But $6 billion a year for astronauts to take each other's blood pressure on the space station? No problem!No problem, are you for real...no problem?It took more than fifteen years to get just the first peice of station to orbit! All because of constant design and redesign imposed by Washington for the express purpose of saving money! No problem, one of the reasons ISS has become so expensive is because of nothing but problems in development...none of which were strictly technical in nature. Yet NASA has no program to research ways of deflecting space objects, and the agency recently told Congress it could not spare $1 billion to catalog the locations and movements of potentially dangerous asteroids. But hundreds of billions of dollars for a moon base? No problem!No problem? Wheres the beef? Wheres the moon base that NASA has so easily funded no problem? We are almost a decade away from seeing the first piece of flight hardware for that program actually fly...IF it were to remain on schedule. No problem? I dont think you have to worry much about lunar bases. Once the new Admin is on duty, that will be the first thing to go.It would be nice, but we dont actually need NASA for asteroid deflection duty unless we actually see one coming our way. And rest assured, if we see an asteroid coming our way...NASA wont be able to get its requests processed fast enough.Of course, "Keep money flowing to favored contractors and congressional districts" is not a formal NASA objective, but these words explain the agency's core problem. Since the end of the Apollo glory days, NASA seems to have been driven by the desire to continue lucrative payments to the contractors behind manned spaceflight (mainly Boeing and Lockheed Martin) while maintaining staff levels in the congressional districts (mainly in Alabama, Florida, Ohio, and Texas) that are home to huge centers focused on manned missions. If the contractors and the right congressional committee members are happy, NASA's funding will continue and NASA managers will keep their jobs. The space station project was built to give the shuttle a destination, keeping the manned-space spending hierarchy intact.Well folks, ya get what ya pay for. When we decided to ax NASA budgets in the 70s...we got a lot of what is mentioned above. I challenge this guy...or anyone else to find a single document that states the station has but one purpose...to provide a destination for shuttle. Von Braun didn't mention that in 1969.The shuttle did not need a destination. The shuttle did not actually need space station. Space station is the next logical step for human spaceflight for anyone left in America still interested. Even current docs do not suggest station was to keep shuttle employed. It actually turned out to be more like we need shuttle to get station in orbit since we were too cheap to fund heavy lift alternatives that would have been less expensive..in part because were too busy as a society, thinking anti human spaceflight critics have all the answers. With the space station now almost universally viewed as worthless, the manned-space funders need a new boondoggle. The moon-base idea, pushed by President Bush, fits the bill.I thank human spaceflight critics for constantly dogging the station during its development in the 80s and 90s which insured we got what they say we got. Hmmm where is the document that states "We at NASA would like to propose a new boondoggle..". ACTUALLY I LIKE THE IDEA OF A MOON BASE. I know it can't be used to shoot to mars, the dynamics are wrong.Might wanna bone up on how spaceflight is done before assuming the dynamics (Whatever that was supposed to mean) are all wrong for going to mars via moonbase. Its actually less demanding than launching from earth if we had a lunar base on the moon processing rocket fuel. But that can only happen if we actually ever go there. But the moon has a certain allure to it. Perhaps a vacation spot. Safe haven from nuclear war on earth.   NEU: No, I don't want nasa closed or necessarily the funds cut, just a change of plans and implementation.You dont want NASA underfunded or closed? News to me after reading all the above. I never liked the shuttle.This sounds like a child that didn't get the neato Christmas toy he wanted. The orig all liquid one might have been neat,Ditto.if built, but the one we got is a dog.What? Has someone else built a better one? I'd be the first to agree the shuttle has proven expensive. I have said in recent years that the shuttle was (And still is) a great technical success. Its just an economic failure but thats far from being a dog. What exactly specifically makes it a dog? What neato thing has it not done within its design capabilities and the tasks laid out for it? The ISS is not paying for itself on any level imaginable. Posted by jimglenn I would agree that ISS is not paying for itself, and at this point probably never will. But again, I wish to think the anti human spaceflight critics who successfully got Washington to drag out the stations development thru the 1980s and 1990s. They are just as responsible as any NASA official or contractor in that critics stay solely focused on cost which is what ended up making station so costly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Jun 25, 2008

What is your opinion? Posted by jimglennBy now you have seen I'm largely a human spaceflight supporter. This does not mean NASA cannot improve or that NASA is not wasteful in some ways. I will first address the improvements I can see that are needed.1.I really think it was a huge mistake to shift NASAs focus from cats (Cheap Access To Space) and direct it to go back to the moon and eventually mars and heres why.CATS would have addressed the one serious problem still vexing NASA today. Getting to space in a way much less expensive than the way it always has. Either by way of SSTO, 2STO or some other less expensive means assuming its within humanities technical capability to do so.The number 1 problem with Constellation is that it has appeared to many to be Apollo version 2.0. And since there is really no actual plan I'm aware of to go to mars, Constellation really looks like Apollo 2.0. For awhile, NASA did investigate the idea of an asteroid mission but I'm quite sure budgetary problems would eventually kill that if they haven't already.2.NASA is on the right track IMO in its plan to retire shuttle once ISS is complete. But only if it offers a viable replacement vehicle to avoid the U.S. becoming totally dependant on foreign powers for access to space. Constellation Orion vehicles would be sufficient and it may well be that the private sector will eventually provide a solution.3.If in the event the private sector becomes successful with economical access to low orbit. NASA should look at utilizing that capability. If the private sector is successful at say, the time when Orion might be flying missions. NASAs next step would be to replace Orion with private sector solutions where possible.4.Although your and many others are not for ISS, a lot of people see some kind of use for it beyond just keeping contractors fat and happy. If simply keeping contractors fat and happy were all ISS was about, it would not have been an international effort.You and other HSF critics usually would also criticize humanities propencity for making war. Maybe the ISS has value beyond measure that critics fail to see. Maybe it has begun to teach humanity how to get along well enough to possibly someday not have to rely so much on war. As for scientist supporters, Most of us here may not be able to name a scientist who would support ISS, but that does not mean there are none. Obviously many scientists had to support and be involved in all aspects of ISS development for ISS to exist at all.Having said that, its too late to improve much about ISS from an economic standpoint and thats the only real standpoint I can see that has merit with critics. What would have to be done now would be to insure another ISS is not built in much the same way this one was. I once proposed possible solutions for making ISS more economical developments but thats history. We have ISS and nothing short of retiring it will save any money.I'm not for anything that has as its sole focus, saving money to improve other areas (Educ, Social, etc.) that should have been improved long ago following the money savings logic, and were not.In fact, much of the NASA improvements as far as really expanding HSF, would require budget increases that the public is obviously not going to support, despite already being shown what happens when budgets are cut too low as in the shuttle compromise and ISS being drug out for two decades.Here are some basic facts (World Almanac and Book Of Facts):NASAs record budget was not 1996, 1986, or even 1976...it was 1966. That year NASA had a budget of around $5.5 billion dollars. That would be around $32 billion dollars today after factoring in inflation since 1966. Any other agency would have had record budgets within the past decade or at most, two decades...not four decades ago.NASAs current budget is about $17 billion dollars annually or around 50% of the record budget. This makes NASA the only agency in governent that I'm aware of that has survived such draconian cuts and lived to tell about it. As your probably aware, any agency that is faced with 2 to 5 percent of a budget cut recoils loudly at the prospect of such cuts. NASA faced a 50% cut after Apollo.You could actually afford to increase NASAs budget 25% and accomplish much of what was originally planned by Von Braun in 1969, and still be well below any record spending level.And if one really wants to go beyond fashionable Obama sound bites. One should ask the question, after all that cutting, why dont we have better government services? why dont we have better government? Why are we falling behind in virtually every area of measure long after critics claimed NASA budget cuts would improve our areas of measure so to speak.Did the U.S. really get the great society promised by President Johnson and backed by HSF critics.As a result of the NASA savings we already have been realizing since the 70s...has cancer been cured, has aids been cured, has poverty been greatly reduced, or in President Johnsons words, sort of...has the war on poverty been victorious? He did refer to it as the war on poverty.What people should ask Obama is..."Where are the bennies from the last three decade round of NASA reduced budgets?"Here is what I think is the most important fact of all.The U.S. finally posted budget surplusses under Clinton in his second term. On of which was listed at $237 billion dollars. It appeared we could afford a record NASA budget and effort and still have plenty for other programs. Instead, NASA got the usual reasons for budget cuts.This is what makes the argument of affordability hollow IMO and why I would not be able to propose much in the way of NASA improvements. You get what you pay for and if NASA is in as bad a shape as what critics claim, what do they expect for the money? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

jimglenn · Jun 25, 2008

QSO: I have to address your voluminous posts a little later, but one example of heads rolling after a mistake was the recent air force event where some nuke missiles on a B52 were flying around, unknown to the brass. TWO top level officials were FIRED. Of course nasa might do like the military did after abu garib was discovered (blame it on a couple scapegoat privates). Fire the guy who installed the O-rings, or sprayed on the foam! They still cannot solve that problem. Doh, how about putting the people payload at the top of the rocket like they did in the old days?Makes too much sense, I guess.Packet: my impression was that Obama wanted to PUNISH nasa. I could have that wrong. Don't you people agree that Burt Rutan, if he rcvd 10,000 times more funding, could get more bang for the buck? I do. He's a genius. But should ditch the low ISP hybrid motor. Use cryo fuels! Crank out the thrust. Bring back the DynaSoar! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Jun 25, 2008

QSO: I have to address your voluminous posts a little later, but one example of heads rolling after a mistake was the recent air force event where some nuke missiles on a B52 were flying around, unknown to the brass.Thats cool. TWO top level officials were FIRED. Of course nasa might do like the military did after abu garib was discovered (blame it on a couple scapegoat privates). Fire the guy who installed the O-rings, or sprayed on the foam! They still cannot solve that problem.This sounds more like a personal issue with NASA than anything actually factual. I cant say for sure if NASA fired anyone post Challenger or not. But the very nature of spaceflight is such that when there is a screwup, firing someone is not necessarily the answer.NASA did bring in several new persons immediatly after the accident. James Fletcher being one. In addition, sometimes key personel get canned without the public necessarily knowing. Joseph Oshea after the Apollo fire, assigned to some meaningless desk job. Planning a future NASA was not ever going to see. Consider the heat NASA got after the accident. How people vilified NASA management. Its easy to do this if you dont really know what the NASA/contractor managers are really thinking when something bad does happen. Its just a faceless bureaucrat.Watch the Apollo fire part of Tom Hanks production of "From The Earth To The Moon" and you will see a very human side to the management question, a Rockwell Intl. manager (Harrison Storm) breaking down and crying. How many managers might well have experienced this very thing after Challenger while seeing how they were portrayed? Is that a good reason to fire them?Put yourself in a NASA managers shoes and you read your post here. How would you feel? Doh, how about putting the people payload at the top of the rocket like they did in the old days?Makes too much sense, I guess.Uh, now your advocating the very thing that wasnt economical...doh. The whole reason for getting away from expendable man on top rockets was cost. The whole reason for the shuttles existence is that it was widely believed that a reusable spacecraft would change the economics of human spaceflight.So widely believed that the Nixon Administration mandated that NASA could proceed with shuttle development, but nothing else human flight wise of all the stuff proposed by Von Braun. But even with the shuttles approval, there was a catch...the cost was not to exceed $5.5 billion 1972 dollars.Shuttle did eventually exceed the cap. But by that time Watergate was long since history and nobody knew the full extent of what poor funding would get.The original traffic model for shuttle called for as many as 60 flights annually. The most the shuttle has flown in any year is 9 times. It averages about 4 flights annually. A reusable system still makes economic sense. The problem was, the shuttle is not quite the economic solution. Kind of like the airlines. Before there was the much renowned extremely successful and economic DC-3, there was a mediocre DC-2. Packet: my impression was that Obama wanted to PUNISH nasa. I could have that wrong.'I never thought that Obama wanted to punish NASA. Obama simply does not care one way or the other about human spaceflight. So he talks of it being uninspiring. If the shuttle was one thing, despite two accidents, maybe it was too successful. NASA wanted routine operation of a shuttle. Now its so routine for humans to go into space, the Obamas can lament the shuttle as not worthy of press coverage. For NASA, a case of "Be careful what you wish for". Don't you people agree that Burt Rutan, if he rcvd 10,000 times more funding, could get more bang for the buck? I do. He's a genius. But should ditch the low ISP hybrid motor. Use cryo fuels! Crank out the thrust. Bring back the DynaSoar! Posted by jimglennIf you have read my posts, you'll know that I'm a strong advocate for transitioning to private sector funded human spaceflight regardless of who does it. Yes, if he recieved more funding...the SS1 might well have been the first private sector human orbital flight from the getgo. This is exactly what is happening with NASA. If NASA had been properly funded over the decades, they too, could get taxpayers more bang for the buck.And despite the waste, inefficiency present in all taxpayer funded efforts, few if any government agencies have been as efficient and successful as NASA has while operating on such severly limited funds.Rutan probably would have gone the cryo route were it not for that pesky little funding thing.I actually liked the Dynasoar idea myself. But there again, NASA was planning to do just that when it initially proposed the OSP in response to the Bush plan to return to the moon. Why didn't NASA get approval to develop that little winged vehicle atop an expendable or partially expendable vehicle? No bucks, no Buck Rogers.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

DrRocket · Jun 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I challenge this guy...or anyone else to find a single document that states the station has but one purpose...to provide a destination for shuttle. ...Posted by qso1</DIV>In fact the ISS was rescued by the Clinton administration for the purpose of providing work, $600 million worth, to the Russian aerospace industry so that their engineers would have something to do other than sell their services to regimes with which we have some major differences of opinion in regard to terrorism.  Putting up the ISS effectively occupies most of the available shuttle launch agenda.  edited to add: http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/jp_931210.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jimglenn · Jun 26, 2008

Thank you Rocket! Drum roll and cha ching on that one. Work for russians. Wild and crazy.QSO, no beef, but you have to be a gov analyst or equivalent. I am not overloaded by information. To reach the man on the street, it should be distilled down. Perhaps not to just sound bites, but a few paragraphs. You are misreading me, I do not hate nasa. Just desire better performance and more imagination. Burt Rutan was asked why nasa never made the kind of flip up drag brake he has on SS1. He said no one there could have thought of it! I have seen the decline in engineering quality from the early days when things mostly worked to what we have today. Apollo used real systems engineering. This is a lost art now. We have kids fresh out of school with Ipods and earrings, lots of people from other countries, others that were not present in the 1960's. WHERE IS THE TALENT? WHO HAS PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE? Very few of them. Today it is all PC's, software, and shuffling paperwork. Take the FCF Fluid Combustion Facility for example. Did you ever hear of it? $500 million down the drain, I believe. Shoved in the corner with the flywheel electric storage unit perfected for the ISS, when the battery company that gets a million bucks per battery pack complained about it. Now I saw plenty of shoddy engineering at a contractor, for example after going to Goddard for $7K of soldering and wiring training, they did not seem to have the money to buy the specified test eqpt in cleveland. Not long after that, I read  that an SRB had to be separated by the backup circuit. Hmm.For Apollo, folks who were experienced at building machines that could perform, did much better work than today. Every component was separately tested, then integrated into the next assembly, and tested again. On shaker tables. Under power. Not some arcane code running in a computer than no one really know is working right. The simple reason for all the problems is lack of skill. Mixing up metric and english units? Was that Mad Magazine?Reusable normal rockets with the people on top can be easily built. They use parachutes for the SRB's, don't they? Why not Saturn V stages? Should have kept  that beast going. A Soyuz beater it was. No, the shuttle was not my toy. It could have been all liquids. The Long March is. Why can't we do it?Here is the ideal space station:http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast26may_1m.htm<img src="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/vonbraun/vonb_wheel.gif" border="2" alt="see caption" hspace="5" vspace="5" width="300" height="180" align="right" />  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jimglenn · Jun 26, 2008

As far as launching from the moon to go to mars, you people know more about that, but I think it comes down to economic and logistics. Carrying structure, engines, fuel, payload. Breaking the trip up may cost more. Than from earth or earth orbit. Here are some moon numbers for a ref.http://www.phys.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/ruimtereizen.html#v341An an example, I provide some numbers that I found for the Apollo 11: <ol><li>From launch from Earth until an orbit around the Earth: 52 times as much fuel as payload.</li><li>From an orbit around the Earth to an orbit to the Moon: 0.3 times as much fuel as payload.</li><li>From an orbit to the Moon to an orbit around the Moon: 0.02 times as much fuel as payload.</li><li>From an orbit around the Moon to landing on the Moon: 1.1 times as much fuel as payload (because you have to use the rocket engines to slow down your fall to the surface).</li><li>From launch from the Moon until an orbit around the Moon: 0.9 times as much fuel as payload.</li><li>From an orbit around the Moon to the Earth: 0.3 times as much fuel as payload.</li><li>For landing on Earth you need no fuel, because you can use the atmosphere of the Earth to slow the space ship down.</li></ol> So anyone can see that stopping off at the moon gives you the advantage of having a low G field to take off from to go to mars. But is the orbit of the moon advantagous to do that? Will it fling you in the right direction with enough force to help? Could be just blasting off from earth orbit will be cheaper. Unless the moon is a way station. THIS IS FUNNY:<h3> 9.3. What About Arguments?</h3> Journeys to other planets take a very long time. You can prevent people getting into arguments during such trips in various ways: (1) by only sending people who don't get into arguments quickly, (2) by making clear beforehand who is in charge of each part of the mission, (3) by making the travelers get to know each other very well already when they are still on Earth, (4) by teaching the travelers how to cope with irritation and with other potential reasons for arguments. There will probably be fewer arguments than usual, because a mission to another planet is quite dangerous. If you're in a dangerous situation, then you're probably less likely to argue about small things, because those are then less important. (bring some girls)<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-kiss.gif" border="0" alt="Kiss" title="Kiss" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

POLL. Is NASA doing a good job? How could it improve?

jimglenn

Guest

neuvik

Guest

jimglenn

Guest

neuvik

Guest

jimglenn

Guest

neuvik

Guest

Korg

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

jimglenn

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

jimglenn

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

jimglenn

Guest

qso1

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

jimglenn

Guest

jimglenn

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page