Re: NASA's grand plan to revive human exploration...

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What I get from these plans, is that for some $104 billion in developement money, and some $2 billion per trip, we are going to send 4 people instead of 2 to the moon to stay up to 14 days.</font>/i><br /><br />AND you get to finish building a large space station and operate it for 6-7 years. Apollo never did that!</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA does not and will not have a bottomless Apollo budget for the foreseeable future.</font>/i><br /><br />Actually, I believe NASA's budget is comparable to the Apollo-era budget when adjusted for inflation. Because the total economy and government budget has grown faster than inflation, NASA's budget with respect to the percent of the national budget or GDP is much smaller today than it used to be.<br /><br />Also, in the 1960s NASA was very focused, whereas today its budget is spread across a spectrum of activities.<br /><br />Also, in the 1960s NASA hired exactly who they needed to achieve a highly specified goal, whereas today Griffin must work with the people he has. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, "You go to the Moon with the people you have, not necessarily the people you want."</i>

 

[dobbins]

NASA's highest budget in the 1960s was for 1966 when it was finishing up Gemini and acquiring the hardware for Apollo at the same time. The 1966 budget was 5.933 Billion dollars. Adjusted for inflation that would be 34.759 Billion dollars, more than double the present budget. When the big cuts started hitting after Apollo 11 Nasa's budget fell to 3.381 billion dollars for 1971. Adjusted for inflation that would be 16.084 billion dollars, roughly the size of the current NASA budget. We have an early 70s budget, not a 1960s budget.<br /><br />At it's peak NASA was getting 5% of the federal budget. Now it's getting far less, 0.7% of the budget. Even if NASA's budget was raised to 1960s levels it would be getting about 1.5% of the budget instead of the 5% it got in the 1960s. This is due to the huge increases in social spending since then, money spent on "solving problems down here instead of shooting it into space". The Department of Health and Human Services budget is over 30 times as large as NASA's entire budget, they spend more in a month than NASA does in a year. Raising NASA's budget to 1% of the federal budget wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to how much Washington spends each year, but it would be a boon to space exploration.<br /><br />A simple adjustment for inflation doesn't tell the full story however, the large number of governmental regulations that have come into effect since the 1960s affect NASA as much as any private business. In the 1960s NASA didn't have the additional costs of complying with OSHA, EPA, and a host of other rules that Washington has come up with since then.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why is a capsule such a bad idea. The biggest problem with it is that you can't return a lot of mass from orbit with it.</font>/i><br /><br />I think there are two nearly orthogonal problems that have kept access to space expensive (at least for Americans): the number of people to operate the system and how much of the system needs to be reconstituted for each flight.<br /><br />SpaceX is primarily focsed on the first axis - reducing the number of people involved. His projected costs savings for mass to orbit is largely based on work force reduction. The billing rate SpaceX has posted on their web site actually assume <i>no re-use.</i><br /><br />If SpaceX can reuse its first stage (lots of concern with salt water/air corrosion) he can lower his billing rates or just make more profit.<br /><br /><br />NASA's early vision of the Space Shuttle was something a little closer to the Kliper -- humans and maybe a small payload with limited cross range capability. The cargo bay was scaled up to support the military's desire for large satellites (and to capture Soviet satellites), and the wings were greatly expanded to support a greater cross range capability for a single polar orbit hop to capture said soviet satellite and return to Vandenberg which would have moved due to Earth's rotation.<br /><br />We can only wonder how successful the space shuttle would have been had it retained its smaller payload profile and limited cross range capabilities.<br /><br /><br />So... if you can design a system that compresses both axes at the same time -- small teams to operate AND large reuse of the components -- cost savings could be significant. Imagine the proposed CEV capsule launched on SpaceX's Falcon 9, with a small workforce, and with the CEV capsule and first-stage of the Falcon reused for 3-6 times. It could be very cost competitive.</i>

 

[drwayne]

The dynamics of the acquisition process have changed too. You can't have a Kelly Johnson going to Washington a few times and have a program kick off.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> When the big cuts started hitting after Apollo 11 Nasa's budget fell to 3.381 billion dollars for 1971. Adjusted for inflation that would be 16.084 billion dollars, roughly the size of the current NASA budget. We have an early 70s budget, not a 1960s budget.</font>/i><br /><br />While I agree that Apollo-era budgets were higher, and the peak in 1966 was much higher, I think that the average for Apollo over roughly a decade 1962-1972 was not that far off today's budget (maybe a factor of 25-50% but not the commonly perceived 700%). Also during that time NASA had to learn how to do everything, it built up the entire launch infrastructure, and it had to build lots of new stuff (as opposed to the ESAS which heavily borrows from existing systems, tooling, and people).<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">A simple adjustment for inflation doesn't tell the full story however</font>/i><br /><br />I think this is the more interesting aspect of the story, because it has implications well beyond a venture to the Moon or even NASA.</i></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">You can't have a Kelly Johnson going to Washington a few times and have a program kick off.</font>/i><br /><br />I don't know. Do we have the equivalent of a Kelly Johnson today?</i>

 

[dobbins]

Merritt Island was mostly a big swamp when NASA acquired it in the early 1960s, or to use politically correct language, a wetland. Under present regulations they wouldn't have been able to build the Kennedy Space Center.<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

Not that I know of in the non-black world.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Dobbins: Whoa! I just said the I was concerned, not in direct opposition (at least not yet) to the current plan.<br /><br />All of the Apollo landings found minable materials such as Iron and Titanium, and the Apollo astronauts didn't even have to dig below the surface, just sccop the materials into bags (the analysis of these materials was done back here on earth). So there are indeed space age materials just literally sitting on the moon awaiting somebody to scoop them up.<br /><br />The only real physical problem here is how to either smelt such materials into useful forms on the moon itself and then rocket completed forms off the moon, or as I think even better project the materials off the moon into space using a mass launcher, and using the properties of almost limitless solar energy and weightlessness make useful products from such materials in space itself. <br /><br />By the way, I agree that NASA is not a United Airlines, but if either NASA or somebody like Burt Rutan can succeed in developing true CATS, then there will indeed be such companies placing thousands into space. Those placed will not be explorers per se however, they will be the workers building a future for humanity in space!<br /><br />With a gravity of only 0.16 and no atmosphere these mass launcher(s) would be quite possible. I have read most of Zubrin's books, but the best book on the future of man in space copmes from Dr Gerard K. O'neill called "The High Frontier". This man was the true visionary for putting the human race into space.<br /><br />You are correct about the various treaties however. If NASA can indeed show, in even a small way that such materials can indeed be taken off of the moon and made into useful infrastructure for the futher exploration and exploitation of the solar system then I think there would be no problem in the relatively rich mining concerns here on Earth getting rid of anything that might stand in their way towards making the very large profits that such acti

 

[frodo1008]

Are you talking here about the ISS? I am definetly on record through other posts of mine as being in full support of the ISS! However, I don't think that is under discussion here. If you meant something else please make yourself clear.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Are you talking here about the ISS?</font>/i><br /><br />Yes. People see the $104 billion as the price just to get the first landing on the Moon, but I am pretty sure it includes the cost of completing and operating for many years ISS.<br /><br />So for $104 billion we get a landing on the Moon PLUS a space station. Thus, I am saying the plan is more ambitious than Apollo. (OK, there was skylab).</i>

 

[nyarlathotep]

I believe they actually did more science on skylab.

 

[dobbins]

" I believe they actually did more science on skylab"<br /><br />But did the science have any benefits? Just because it's science doesn't mean it's a wise investment. I think NASA should get back to it's NACA roots and concentrate on applied science that develops technology instead of worrying about pure research science.<br /><br />Lets get the technology right before we start worrying about the affects of micro-gravity on worms.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

It would not at this point be quite fair to compare Skykab with the ISS, as the Skylab was a totally completed lab when it was initially put up. The current ISS is FAR from finished, when it has all of its planned labs, and at least six people on board for at least a year, then perhaps such a comparison would be appropriate, but then I don't think it would be fair to Skylab!!

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">But did the science have any benefits? Just because it's science doesn't mean it's a wise investment.<br /><br /><font color="white">Unless you try out the science you won't find any benifits, did Faraday envisage modern electronic gadgets? As far as the ISS goes what other manned mirco gravity labs do you know of?</font></font>

 

[dobbins]

What artificial gravity labs do you know of?<br /><br />We already know Microgravity exposure is harmful to human health. Artificial gravity is what we need to be working on instead of wasting time researching an environment that humans can't take full advantage of because of it's hazards.<br /><br />NASA started this big deal about Microgravity in the 1980s when it was trying to justify a shuttle that had no where to go to. After over 20 years they have yet to come up with anything useful. When NASA was still the NACA it did research on applied science and built up a track record that resulted in the NACA being chosen as the core that NASA would be formed around.<br /><br />Applied science is that NASA needs to be doing, get the technology of space right, and that will make it possible for others to go there and do basic research. There are two things that we need to make space stations more than just a playground for a handful of scientists, artificial gravity and closed loop environmental systems that don't require some much consumables to be imported from Earth. That is what NASA needs to be working on instead pure research that might not pay off for decades if not centuries.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

No NASA needs to do both...<br /><br />NASAs aeronautics stuff hardly ever makes news headlines, similarly the basic science in micro gravity needs to be done, things like the physics of colloids. There is no other place to study these kind of things.<br /><br />Perhaps long-term human occupation of space needs gravity but there is a need for a place to do micro gravity research just like there is a need for CERN etc.<br />

 

[dobbins]

NASA doesn't have an unlimited budget, that means it has to set priorities. Applied science that WILL have benefits in a short time should have a far higher priority than basic research that MIGHT have a benefit in a few decades or centuries.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Fine, there is nothing wrong with that. Where would you do this applied research?

 

[dobbins]

Instead of getting involved with some big general research project like the ISS NASA should have built a smaller station that was a test bed for artificial gravity and closed loop environmental systems. Those are the basics that are needed for a station that will have a long term human presence and also the basics that are needed for long duration missions to Mars and beyond.<br /><br />Once the problems with those basics was worked out then it would have been possible to construct something more ambitious like a fully operational station that would serve as a space base and general research facility.<br /><br />Trying to do pure science research before you get the basics of space travel worked out is putting the cart before the horse.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">...a test bed for artificial gravity and closed loop environmental systems<br /><br /><font color="white">Like the Centrifuge Accommodation Module and the life support systems planned for Node 3. Too bad these have been cancelled to make way for the VSE.</font></font>

 

[dobbins]

It's just another case of NASA not having it's priorities straight. This is largely due to the squeaky wheel getting the grease, and some very squeaky wheels in the pure research community.<br /><br />We need the capability of moving beyond LEO that is part of the VSE. It's been apparent for a long time that the STS is a failed design that needed to be replaced. The problem isn't the VSE caused a cutback on the ISS, it's that the wrong parts were eliminated to keep the pure research people happy.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Apart from the solar truss is there any more US modules going up that aren't just to support the international labs... <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Why get sooo close to finnishing but then leave out the useful stuff. Yeah I know that the STS will run out of time and there are no other ways to get these things there but it is a shame.<br /><br />Still there is the moon to look forwards to <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Instead of getting involved with some big general research project like the ISS NASA should have built a smaller station that was a test bed for artificial gravity and closed loop environmental systems.</font>/i><br /><br />A large program provides job security for a large number of people for many years. Smaller projects do not.</i>