Resistance Against Advancing Technology

[DarkenedOne]

Apollo proved to be a great success. It proved that man can travel to other celestial bodies. Unfortunately however it at the same time proved that human space travel was incredibly expensive. It was so expensive in fact that after just 6 flights the whole thing was cancelled. Now when when you consider it cost 170 billion dollars in todays money to put 12 people on the closest celestial body it also paints a bleak prospect of humans ever traveling to other planets. However there is hope. As new technology and methods it is reasonable to assume space travel would become better and cheaper, just as technology advances in other areas here on earth such as computing.

Unfortunately with regards to human spaceflight technology is practically at a stand still. The technology we use today in our manned vehicles is practically the same technology used when we went to the moon 40 years ago with a few improvements. This fact is also reflected in our spacecraft. The best most affordable and reliable spacecraft for manned spaceflight is still the Soyuz, which is over 40 years old. The Space Shuttle is 30 years of age.

Personally I blame this on the low priority that developing human spaceflight technology has at NASA and in Congress. There have been many good technology that have worth pursuing over the years, but no significant amount of funding was ever given for their development. A few of which I will talk about now.

Nuclear power in space has been proposed numerous times as being the best way for energy production on the Moon, Mars, and Deep Space. There have been to my knowledge at least 3 programs to develop nuclear power for space each time getting cancelled due to budget cuts.

Ion and plasma thrusters are another technology that shows immense promise for manned spaceflight. Ion thrusters has been used successful on commercial satellites for over a decade. They have been propelled several space probes. Their higher impulse has allowed unmanned spacecraft to accomplish more with less fuel and lower cost. It has the potential to do the same with manned spaceflight.

Closed loop life support is another big one human spaceflight. By recycling more waste about spacecraft we can significantly reduce amount of consumables needed for extended missions. We have already had a great deal of success on the ISS with water and oxygen recycling. We will need to take it farther for Moon and Mars outposts.

On site resource utilization is yet another great technology that has vast potential. The solar system is full of matter that if collected and refined could prove very useful. Mars mission planners proved that using the atmosphere of Mars could be used to make rocket fuel for a return trip and that it would cut down on the costs immensely.

People I could go on, but I think you all get the point. The reason I bring this up because there seems to me that there is a great deal of resistance to developing new technology for human spaceflight. I was really excited when NASA announced its intention to go back to the moon, but I was utterly disappointed when I realized their architecture for doing so was simply "apollo on steroids." I knew that they would not be able to pay for it because it was essentially a larger version of Apollo, and there was no reason to think that they would be able to fund it now. When the government finally realized this several years later I was excited when Obama's administration proposed funding development of "game changing" technologies. Hopefully this sounds like a real effort to take human spaceflight into the 21st century, however there is resistance in the Congress to this idea. Their proposed bill would take away not only the commercial crew funding, but the game changing technology R&D funding as well.

 

[kelvinzero]

I share your pain

Fights over the recent budget have been totally dominated by the HLV vs Commercial debate.

I think the problem is that there is no existing powerful group lobbying for exploration technology. Space scientists want money to go to pure science missions and see HSF as a vast waste. The shuttle guys want money for more shuttle flights and for SDHLV, the commercial guys want more missions that exploit their architectures.

Significant money for life support or ISRU etc has to come from one of these groups and doesn't give them anything. One exception is Propellant depots, which is especially appealing to the commercial guys since it would allow their hardware too be used for things that would otherwise require HLV. Also the development itself will probably create launches for them.

 

[SteveCNC]

I think there has been vast advances since apollo , back in those days solar panels were at about 5% efficiency on a good day , there was no reclaimation used on apollo (which does cost money BTW) . From my personal perspective manufacturing has made huge improvements since the 70's , these days we use better processed materials and can hold much closer tolerances , some machines can hold +- .00004 in. all day with no problem at all .

While many probes and such have not had huge advances in propulsion technology they mostly stick to what they know works with only improving sensors and such . If the mission can be completed with old school propulsion then why develope a new one I think is the general idea there . Commercial space enterring the picture is what will make the best advances in many of the technologies used , with that many more people working in the field there can't help but be advances .

 

[DarkenedOne]

I think there has been vast advances since apollo , back in those days solar panels were at about 5% efficiency on a good day , there was no reclaimation used on apollo (which does cost money BTW) . From my personal perspective manufacturing has made huge improvements since the 70's , these days we use better processed materials and can hold much closer tolerances , some machines can hold +- .00004 in. all day with no problem at all .

While many probes and such have not had huge advances in propulsion technology they mostly stick to what they know works with only improving sensors and such . If the mission can be completed with old school propulsion then why develope a new one I think is the general idea there . Commercial space enterring the picture is what will make the best advances in many of the technologies used , with that many more people working in the field there can't help but be advances .

It is true that we have made great advances in some areas, however these advances have originated in industries other than Human spaceflight.

We have made significant advances in computing largely from the computer industry. We have made significant advances in solar cells due to satellites and the Earth solar industry. We have made significant advances in materials from the aerospace industry. We have made great advances in communication largely due to the telecommunications industry.

However human spaceflight cannot rely on other industries to develop technology. There are some technologies that human spaceflight requires that are simply no useful in other industries, such as the need for life support.

 

[nimbus]

Personally I blame this on the low priority that developing human spaceflight technology has at NASA and in Congress.

And they can get away with it because the public allows it. That's where the blame is. A public that would balk at NASA getting slightly larger rockets than last time (e.g. DIRECT's Jupiter plan, with the early model being basically just the later 246 model's with less engines) and auxiliary techs like ISRU, life supp. etc, because that public absolutely NEGLECTS to actually look at the numbers.. E.G. That gutting NASA this way (aux. techs, potent (but cheap) Jupiter rockets) has nearly zero consequence on the other budgets (e.g. social programs) that literally dwarf NASA's.

Nuclear power in space has been proposed numerous times as being the best way for energy production on the Moon, Mars, and Deep Space. There have been to my knowledge at least 3 programs to develop nuclear power for space each time getting cancelled due to budget cuts.

Same as above. Nuke fear mongering by public "Greenpeace" groups. The public gets the space program it deserves.

I was excited when Obama's administration proposed funding development of "game changing" technologies. Hopefully this sounds like a real effort to take human spaceflight into the 21st century, however there is resistance in the Congress to this idea.

Exciting, probably. But it's doubtful the admin genuinely cares about space development so much as it being well-budgeted in their overall government budget and policies. Which in no negligible proportion is relative to public approval... And we're back to the public being too neglectful of the actual budget proportions, too neglectful to realize (for a while anyway, if we really are getting past it nowadays) that those nuke fears were inaccurate, etc.

Politicians don't do what's best for the public, they do what the public permits and approves of.

 

[vulture4]

Nuke fear mongering by public "Greenpeace" groups. The public gets the space program it deserves.

A number of major nuclear sources have been launched, and while there have been public concerns these have been patiently addressed by NASA which, by the way, considers many environmental concerns to be very credible indeed and addresses them with detailed plans that carefully ensure public safety and environmental protection, and in general the public has indeed been satisfied. The JIMO, which was to use a reactor of substantial size for electric propulsion, was canceled because of overall budget limitations (due to the Bush tax cuts, among other things), not public opposition. The idea that extremist environmental activists are what is preventing NASA from utilizing nuclear power in space is itself narrow-minded and unfair to the generally thoughtful and educated people in both the environmental movement and the space program.

 

[nimbus]

Yeah, ok. Nuclear power's conspicuous absence in recent times as the practical solution it is hasn't been due in large part to that kind of pressure. And I'm Daffy Duck.

 

[kelvinzero]

Good to know

I think there hasn't been very much nuclear power because there havent been many particularly high mass BEO missions, robotic or otherwise. Curiosity is using nuclear power of course. It is just bigger. I doubt solar power would cut it.

I'm personally much more interested in ISRU and closed cycle life support anyway. I mean, even an antimatter rocket probably couldn't get us to mars as fast or as 'cheap' as we got to the moon, but as a base approaches self sufficiency, its effective payload per dollar spent launching it approaches infinity.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Nuke fear mongering by public "Greenpeace" groups. The public gets the space program it deserves.

A number of major nuclear sources have been launched, and while there have been public concerns these have been patiently addressed by NASA which, by the way, considers many environmental concerns to be very credible indeed and addresses them with detailed plans that carefully ensure public safety and environmental protection, and in general the public has indeed been satisfied. The JIMO, which was to use a reactor of substantial size for electric propulsion, was canceled because of overall budget limitations (due to the Bush tax cuts, among other things), not public opposition. The idea that extremist environmental activists are what is preventing NASA from utilizing nuclear power in space is itself narrow-minded and unfair to the generally thoughtful and educated people in both the environmental movement and the space program.

Well I would say that it is not the environmental movement. They have bigger issues to deal with, and nuclear power in the form of RTGs has been used in space for decades without any problems. However there is one organization dedicated to stifling space nuclear power. They are the "Global Network against weapons and nuclear power in space". There have been protests against high profile scientific mission such as Cassini that used RTGs for power in deep space.

However ultimately it has come down has come down to a lack of will and funding to develop these advanced technologies.

 

[zigi_24]

The problem is that we spend too much money from budget on things "we don't really need", while technology and space part is left behind. If budget is rebalanced, where around 50B $ on NASA and another 100B $ for private space sector is invested annually, things could go faster and important issues would be solved easier. Just a suggestion.

 

[halman]

The United States space program has been a game of catch-up from the start, with no sustainable method of advancement. From the very first, cost was no object in beating the Russians to the Moon. If you are a fan of science fiction, you would understand how bass-akwards our space program has been. It was all laid out in the 1950's: First, you reach orbit, than you build a space station, then you build a lunar shuttle, than you go to the Moon, then you do whatever you want, because the new wealth will make anything possible. One step at a time, gradually developing the ability to do more.

The Soviets were not interested in going to the Moon in the 1960's, until the United States made it a matter of national prestige. They wanted to build space stations and learn how to live in space, which was far more important, in their eyes, than some dash to plant the flag on the Moon. There is evidence that Kennedy had no intention of actually sending men to the Moon, he just wanted a bargaining position to deal with the Soviets. His untimely death made Apollo a done deal, which screwed the space programs of both the U. S. and the Soviets. Had the U. S. not thrown down the gauntlet of being first to the Moon, a rational, sustainable space program could have evolved.

Fast forward to the late 1960's, and NASA is told that they can only have one (1) launch vehicle. And that they will have to share it with any other agency which wants access to space. (The Air Force.) What had started as a small, reusable space craft suddenly ballooned into a massive, complex, monster, which kept changing before the designers eyes. Budget cuts did away with a fly-back booster, than with liquid fueled boosters, but there was no other path forward, so NASA pressed on, and actually came up with a workable, albeit expensive launch vehicle.

Then, the rules changed again, and the Air Force was no longer a partner. NASA had to come up with the funds to finish the shuttle itself, when the agency could barely keep the lights on. In order to keep money coming in, NASA got involved with everything under the sun, diluting the agency's focus on space flight until the Human Space Flight program was less than half of the budget request each year. All that would change once a space station was approved, but Congress had seen too much money disappear during Apollo to go along with any kind of open-ended program in space, and NASA found itself with the perfect vehicle for building a space station and no space station to build.

The harm that the Apollo program did to space flight is beyond measure. Even though I was thrilled at the time of the first Moon landing, by the time at Apollo 17 flew, I realized that we had killed the concept of space exploration both at home and abroad. It can be truthfully said, I believe, that only the Russian determination to build working space stations and to learn how to work and live in space kept the U.S. space program alive, by showing that progress was possible without spending a major portion of the national budget. In many respects, we are where we should have been in the late 1960's, learning how to keep an outpost in space operational, and how to keep people alive in space for extended periods of time.

We still need to master getting back and forth between Earth and orbit so that it is a routine, inexpensive trip, one that more than 3 people can make at one time. Ballistic re-entry may be safe, and it may be cheap, but it is not going to work in the long term. We need a space craft that can carry a dozen people both up and down, and which can land at the point of take off. Until we can accomplish that, there really is not much point in making plans to go to the Moon, or to Mars, because we still have not learned the basics of getting back and forth to space. A lot of people understand that intuitively, I believe, because we have not made space travel as routine as flying in an airplane, or riding in a ship. So they resist making plans to go further, because we are not ready.

This viewpoint did not come to me easily, and I was a devoted champion of going to the Moon with all possible dispatch. I still believe it to be the single most important goal in space, but we have to learn to get to and from space first, with enough people to do things right, before we take on that goal. We should be able to rotate the crew of the International Space Station in one launch, with extra seats, which we could do with the shuttle, barely. But flying the shuttle was anything but routine.

If it were up to me, I would redesign the External Tank so that the insulation was on the INSIDE, irregardless of how much it would reduce the payload, so that the shuttle could places besides the space station, could launch without concerns about the Thermal Protection System, and keep the shuttle flying until we have something like it to replace it with. Only something a bit cheaper to fly. But it is not up to me, so what I say doesn't matter.