What do you want from of NASA?

[j05h]

What do you want from of NASA? <br /><br />I want top quality science and human/robotic exploration, not a state-run shipping company. <br /><br />It's a simple question that we always wrestle with. Please keep the discussion to NASA and results, not milspace or alt.space or kvetching about the past.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

Besides yours...<br /><br />1. The common sense God gave a gopher. They're as short of it as they are funding <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />2. A heavy lifter - 100mt or better max. Mars & lunar bases are waiting...<br /><br />3. More resources for advanced propulsions - pick 2 and <i><b>fly them</b></i> instead of doing PowerPoints and bad animations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

I like it.<br /><br />For example, NASA might do fundamental research on lunar construction techniques (as they did on expandable structures), and they should do research from a moon base. <br /><br />But they should not design or build that moon base, nor the method of getting there. That isn't fundamental research any more. The people who <i>do</i> build it are free to charge any tenants a reasonable fee of course. On the moon, even the air is not free. (See Heinlein's 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress')

 

[logicize]

I'm actually glad they are retiring the shuttles, we have circled the earth enough already. When the shuttle first came out it was awesome. I had hopes that the mission would grow to eventually include shuttles to the moon and beyond. But no, we just kept orbiting the earth, over and over and over. <br /><br />Still I am perplexed as to why it will take 20 years to get back to the moon. I'm glad were going, but if we could get it done in less time 40 years ago, than today, there is something wrong.

 

[docm]

1. the shuttle was never designed to fly, nor was it capable of, lunar missions.<br /><br />2. politics, poor planning and lack of foresight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[logicize]

I know the shuttle wasn't designed for it, though I was hoping for some evolution in the mission. As for the red tape, it's not just NASA.

 

[docm]

Never said the red tape was all NASA's. I've worked too long for governments myself to think that <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />The best evolution of mission would have been for the shuttle to never have been built and for an "Apollo II" to have been built, and I don't mean Orion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[logicize]

I agree. I still think an Apollo II option would be the best. Sure we can develop new methods, Orion. But meanwhile, we could get a lot of the prep work done with some Apollo type missions. We still have all the technology, I hope, and I think the costs would be minimal, since all the R & D has been done.

 

[Aetius]

I think that lunar exploration, research, and in-situ resource utilization should trump other concerns. International development of the Shackleton region of the lunar south pole ought to be the long-term goal of NASA, in my opinion.

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.<br /><br />Hang on, that sounds familiar <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[trailrider]

What I want from NASA is the following:<br /><br />National Aeronautics & Space Administration -<br /><br />1) Advancement of research in aeronautical technology in co-operation with industry.<br /><br />2) Advancement of research in space technology for the purpose of advancing both government and commercial exploration and development of space.<br /><br />3) Exploration of space in both unmanned and ESPECIALLY MANNED SPACE EXPLORATION.<br /><br />All this will be constrained by the budget, and it is up to all of us to lobby aggressively, on both an individual and collective (as part of NSS, Planetary Society, etc.) basis!<br /><br />Otherwise, and I am not really being facetious, we had better have our astronauts learn Chinese! Or Russian, or both, plus maybe Hindi! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">Otherwise, and I am not really being facetious, we had better have our astronauts learn Chinese! Or Russian, or both, plus maybe Hindi!</font><br /><br />You're not wrong <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

If an astronaut today is going to live on ISS for a while, or go there even for a short time via a Soyuz, they have to learn Russian. Most educated Indians already speak English.

 

[docm]

That was a satirical comment, not a policy statement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

logicize:<br />Still I am perplexed as to why it will take 20 years to get back to the moon. I'm glad were going, but if we could get it done in less time 40 years ago, than today, there is something wrong.<br /><br />Me:<br />One word...funding. G.W. Bush wants a return to the moon without proper funding. Kennedy spelled out a timetable and Johnson followed through with a major expansion in funding that allowed that time table to be met.<br /><br />Even then, the term "Crash program" was often used to describe Apollo. This tells me they knew they were moving pretty fast to get man on the moon and back to earth by 1970. But Apollo in actuality took just over a decade from the time of NASAs inception to the Apollo 11 mission.<br /><br />The current plan last I checked, was to try to have manned lunar landings by 2020 which is less than 20 years from now. Even less than 20 years from the time VSE was announced. There is not as big a rush to get to the moon so personally, I'd like to see it happen faster but...I don't think there is anything wrong beyond the funding thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>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.</em></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What do you want from of NASA? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />To do high-risk high-payoff technology maturation programs and ground truth on high-risk unknowns. a non-exhaustive list in no particular order<br />* solar sails<br />* space solar power transfer ( not huge solar sats, just power beaming proof of concept in space, from lunar orbit to surface for example )<br />* ISRU demonstrations and shakeout, on moon and mars<br />* nuclear-electric propulsion testing<br />* water ice presence confirmation on lunar poles<br />* long-term radiation effects on live organisms, outside the van allen belts, on a six-month martian cruise with mice on board for example<br />* land mice on mars <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />* partial-g effects research on live tissue, now where did that ISS centrifuge go ?<br /><br />there is lots of useful stuff that they could do, but practically never touch. <br /><br />EDIT: i better provide a rationale for all that. The reason why i would like to see these things resolved, is to remove high-risk roadblocks from potential business ventures.<br />For example, just getting ground truth on presence and accessibility of the speculated lunar ice would posisbly make several business cases close, and there could be a flurry of new commercial activity emerging.<br />Lunar tourism in general ? Well you can speculate and calculate payloads and add ISP numbers to death, but how can you put together solid business plans if you dont know if you tourists come back healthy after a two-week stay outside the van Allen belts ? No venture capitalist is going to put money behind something so speculative.<br /><br />If NASA would do these things, it would serve as a true catalyst for space development. Currently it operates more like a lightning rod ..<br /><br />By the way, Jon Goff had a somewhat more throrough list here:<br />http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/08/technologies-nece</safety_wrapper

 

[rocketman5000]

Tailrider and no_way you guys stole my thunder... <br /><br />your list is basically what I was going to say. But I wouldn't go for the unmanned probes. I still feel that is too much science and that NASA and it father the NACA was based in developing technology.

 

[kelvin_zero]

qso1:<br />Still I am perplexed as to why it will take 20 years to get back to the moon. I'm glad were going, but if we could get it done in less time 40 years ago, than today, there is something wrong. <br /><br />Me:<br />Maybe this time gap to develop the rockets again is a good thing because the ISRU technology is not mature yet. People are even questioning the value of including ISRU. To me it is the only point. However, people other than NASA can handle that. Yeah I think with NASA's budget you cant expect much except to build some rockets.

 

[MeteorWayne]

earth_bound_misfit.<br /><br />You know, I think you hit it on the nose. <br />That's what we all really want....then all that practical reality gets in the way and sours the porridge. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Maybe this time gap to develop the rockets again is a good thing because the ISRU technology is not mature yet.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Maybe you could actually read the posts before hitting reply ?

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One word...funding. G.W. Bush wants a return to the moon without proper funding. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />This isnt quite right. The funding is there, but its being squandered on replicating the existing capabilities

 

[jimfromnsf]

unmanned probes are just as much of NASA heritage as NACA. It is as much NASA's charter as technology development

 

[no_way]

btw, most of the list i posted ( excluding stuff that inevitably has to do with living organisms like quantifying radiation and arfitifial-g data ) would be cost-effectively done unmanned.<br />ISRU would probably need man-tending, but not for the first demos and shakeouts for sure.

 

[vulture2]

>>The funding is there, but its being squandered on replicating the existing capabilities<br /><br />I fully agree. Unfortunately the existing technology we are rebuilding is impractical. The most optimistic sceanario is that we will land men on the moon a few times before we run out of money and public support, like what happened in Apollo. It's like NACA building a giant biplane and crossing the Atlantic in 1919. Which, of course, Adcock and Brown actually did. Exciting, but impractical at an average speed of only 100mph. NACA never flew the Atlantic, but modern aircraft with NACA airfoils and cowlings made it possible for anyone to do it. <br /><br />With a practical way to reach even a low orbit, spaceflight can become widely available for both research and tourism. Without it, talk of using lunar resources is, frankly, completely unrealistic because no lunar base will be affordable.

 

[thereiwas]

The recent Wired issue has a one page article by Gregg Easterbrook titled "How NASA Screwed Up (And Four Ways to Fix It)".<br /><br />In summary, he presents "a set of rational priorities" for NASA: (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.<br /><br />He contrasts that with 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. <br /><br />See the linked article - I won't attempt to paraphrase his eloquent criticisms.