What do you want from of NASA?

[qso1]

The way the Bush program was presented back in 2004, the funding was to be drawn away from other programs within NASA. Science programs and aviation research programs are cut to support the VSE. There is no planned major budget increase as there was at the time of Apollo. This program is very nearly on the same scale as Apollo, especially when considering it is ultimately intended to provide a lunar base.<br /><br />Proper funding IMO should be to recognize that human spaceflight is currently difficult and expensive and fund it accordingly unless or until someone can prove otherwise. That someone being private industry/enterprise. <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>

 

[qso1]

I have a Time or Newsweek article from 1987 written by Easterbrook in which he talks about the cost of Russian rockets and states that Energia would have a pound to low orbit cost of just $300. This after the rocket had only flown once.<br /><br />Years later, the Energia remains at only two flights in part because the Russians could not financially afford it.<br /><br />Lets look at his comments from the post on the article he wrote for Wired:<br /><br />Easterbrook:<br />(1) Conduct research, particularly environmental research, on Earth, the sun, and Venus, the most Earth-like planet.<br /><br />Me:<br />Earth resources research has been one of the mainstays of NASA since the end of Apollo. How did we know about and continue to monitor the ozone hole or the chunks of ice falling off Antarctica and global warming in general?<br /><br />Easterbrook:<br />(2) Locate asteroids and comets that might strike Earth, and devise a practical means of deflecting them.<br /><br />Me:<br />Locating and tracking asteroids is currently best left to amateurs. At some point, NASA may be required to get involved but as for developing a practical means to deflect? I'm sure if NASA came up with an idea, Easterbrook will be there to criticize it.<br /><br />Easterbrook:<br />(4) Figure out a way to replace today's chemical rockets with a much cheaper way to reach Earth orbit. <br /><br />Me:<br />Private enterprise is better tasked for this these days and even they are not looking into chemical propulsion alternatives. IMO, we have simply reached a point where we are not apparently knowledgeable enough to break this barrier. NASA certainly cannot break it without adding more funding to an agency which most folks seem to think is useless and are unwilling to fund it beyond present and projected levels.<br /><br />One effort I recall was laser light craft which still utilizes chemical propulsion in the form of lasers striking the bottom of highly polished aluminum hulled vehicles to cause the air to explode an <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>

 

[kelvinzero]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><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 /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Enviromental research is pretty important. Learning to keep people alive in a closed enviroment is an important part of this research though. Satellites would be good to, certainly. Is that nasa's responsibility or should the people who think space is a waste of time cough up more money to defend the one asset we all value, namely the earth?<br /><br />The article doesnt mention ISRU at all which I think is the most promising way of eventually reducing the cost of getting materials into orbit in large quantities, which would provide the possibility of defending against various threats to the human race including asteroids. Space solar power could also be a great way of protecting the environment. <br /><br />I dont really know why men to the moon is considered a goal. I think the goal should be something industrial such as space solar power and then the issue of men or robots or more earth based research should be decided on this basis.<br /><br />NASA shouldnt need to solve all these problems for itself though. It would be great if its budget only needed to cover getting some tonnage to the moon and private

 

[thereiwas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But with space tourism coming into vogue, a motel six on the moon may not be that bad an idea. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But not one built by NASA at public expense.

 

[qso1]

Just because Easterbrook says its a motel 6 does not make it so. What NASA intends to put on the moon is a lunar base...not a motel. Big difference. In fact, it would be a waste IMO not to establish a lunar base because then...VSE would be largely Apollo repeated.<br /><br />Easterbrook has been a longtime critic of NASA and some of his criticisms are valid but others are not. He first came to my attention in 1980 when he wrote a critical peice on the shuttle which largely proved true. This in part because he wrote it a year before the first shuttle mission when it was evident to anyone with a brain stem that the shuttle was not going to deliver as promised in the early 1970s. He writes the current piece years before we can know for sure VSE will become operational and in what final form.<br /><br />I'll be pleasantly surprised to see VSE make it past the 2008 Presidential election in which I'm expecting a Democrat to win and in recent decades, most Dems have taken a dim view of human spaceflight and I suspect a Democratic Administration will put NASA human spaceflight at the center of the budget target scope. <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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Just because Easterbrook says its a motel 6 does not make it so. What NASA intends to put on the moon is a lunar base...not a motel. Big difference.</font><br /><br />Exactly! For one it's called a "lunar base", which most certainly implies serious business and not at all 'public financed flag-and-footprintery'.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">He writes the current piece years before we can know for sure VSE will become operational and in what final form. </font><br /><br />This might be coming out of left field, but perhaps he could be critiquing the current NASA published plan?

 

[qso1]

Nyarlathotep:<br />This might be coming out of left field, but perhaps he could be critiquing the current NASA published plan?<br /><br />Me:<br />And therein lies the problem. The current NASA plan will change before VSE is operational, we can all be sure of that. Therefore, Easterbrook would do better to specify its the current plan hes criticizing rather than a blanket criticism of NASA manned space flight. I say blanket criticism because in the following Easterbrook quote..."the manned-space funders need a new boondoggle. The moon-base idea, pushed by President Bush, fits the bill." Easterbrook has already determined going to the moon is a boondoggle and that the only thing the manned space funders as he calls them, do is seek out only boondoggles to fund. <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>

 

[thereiwas]

I think Easterbrook's reference to a "boondoggle" is more about the lack of a goal for a moon base rather than the specific technologies used to get there. With no obvious reason to build such a manned facility, the remaining most obvious purpose is to funnel public money to favored corporations. Since Cheney has been quoted as saying that such funneling *is* a goal of the administration, this is not a far stretch.

 

[nyarlathotep]

Easterbrook has acknowledged in his writing that limited manned jaunts (using a sensible architecture and robotic exploration to determine scientically interesting sites) may make some sense. <br /><br />What doesn't make sense is plonking down a heavy base at ludicrous cost to be regularly shotgunned by micrometeors for the sole purpose of simply having people on the moon.

 

[qso1]

IMO, his reference to a boondoggle is more about making headlines. I haven't ever seen him state what he thinks is a worthy goal of NASA human spaceflight. Not only that, NASA has not really defined what kind of lunar base they might actually build from VSE hardware or its derivatives so it seems premature to me to paint images of huge costly moonbases unless one is doing so to slant a readers view on human spaceflight.<br /><br />At least when he wrote about the shuttle in 1980, he was a lot closer to being on target because he had some meat to work with in the form of problems already being encountered in the shuttle program at that time. <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>

 

[qso1]

NASA would be doing precisely what Easterbrook acknowledges, particularly with regards to mars. NASA has been on record for decades that they want to utilize unmanned percussor missions that will build up to unmanned sample return missions and eventual human missions to mars.<br /><br />With the moon, there is no need for more than perhaps a handful of percussor missions since we did all that in the 1960s prior to Apollo.<br /><br />Therefore, when I read an Easterbrook article which advocates this idea...it strikes me as a way of making a reader think NASA is intent on sending humans from the getgo without any preps. Consider that many folks are not aware of the unmanned lunar efforts that preceeded Apollo.<br /><br />I have yet to see a current NASA proposal involving plonking a large moonbase on the moon just to have people on the moon. NASAs VSE is a response to their inability to get economical access to low orbit in the form of Venture Star. If NASA really had their way, they would be gunning for Mars IMO. <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>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Isn't Easterbrook the same clown who, shortly after Bush announced the new Vision for Space Exploration policy, claimed VSE would spend 1 trillion dollars to put a Man on Mars?

 

[qso1]

That I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised. Until this article surfaced, I hadn't seen anything from Easterbrook since the big Newsweek article which I still have in which he famously quoted $300 per pound cost of payload on a rocket that had only flown once at the time he wrote the article.<br /><br />That compelled me to ask...where did he get his cost figures...Russia? But I think even they would be more realistic in cost analysis despite communist propaganda of that era. <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>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Ah, yes. Easterbrook was the trillion dollar clown!<br /><br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4031857/

 

[qso1]

Thanks for the link. Thats one I'll have to read and I do recall the $1 trillion figure making the rounds but I didn't realize Easterbrook was quoting it. <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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">With the moon, there is no need for more than perhaps a handful of percussor missions since we did all that in the 1960s prior to Apollo. </font><br /><br />Absolutely. We don't need precursor missions because other than rock strata, there's absolutely nothing there to study. Nothing worth $210B through 2025.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">NASAs VSE is a response to their inability to get economical access to low orbit in the form of Venture Star. </font><br /><br />NASA is spending $210B on a high overhead, low fly-rate exploration system for 'economical access'? What kind of bizarro world do they live in, and why the hell do we keep giving them money? No, don't answer that, I know you're just going to try to spin $210,000,000,000.00 as low cost. You could wipe out malaria, vaccinate and provide clean drinking water, and supply everyone in africa infected with HIV with antiretrovirals for that sort of money. <br /><br />Hell, even with the change from solving those world heath problems you might even be able to build some of those rovers and earth observation satellites that Griffin cancelled.