What now for NASA??

[halman]

frodo1008,<br /><br />Perhaps I am dreaming, but I get the impression that most people in this country would support the construction of a base on the Moon. They understand where the Moon is, they know that we have been able to go there in the past, and building a base somewhere is a common step in opening up that place. Many people will object to the cost, until they discover that the cost is not really all that high, if spread out between every American. And building a base on the Moon would be something which would create jobs, jobs which are not likely to be outsourced to some other country for a while.<br /><br />We need something which we can take pride in, something which is positive, and future oriented. Americans are being held responsible for many of the world's ills, rightly or wrongly, and doing something off planet is an indication that we are turning our attention elsewhere. Creating new wealth is the only way that we will ever be able to absorb our national debt. Creating new wealth is the only way that we will be able to go on importing luxury items, like cars, televisions, and Nintendo games.<br /><br />Creating new wealth on Earth usually means depriving someone of their rightful share of said wealth, because there is not many ways left to create large amounts of wealth. Creating new wealth off-planet will become very easy, as resources are identified, processes are learned for extracting the resources, and products are developed which use these new resources. I believe that there is something almost instinctive in seeing possibility in new frontiers. A new frontier means that no one is there ahead of you, claiming all the good stuff for themselves, and that things haven't been used up there already.<br /><br />We need to believe in something, something bigger than ourselves, which will continue after we have gone. More than almost any other human activity, space exploration benefits all of us. Isn't that the kind of thing which we want to belie <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[askold]

"Then compensate us for the money we've spent."<br /><br />OK. That would cost us a small fraction of the cost to launch the thing.<br /><br />BTW, does that mean we can have the module and display it at the Smithsonian?

 

[askold]

"I am an expert in telecommunications and have been in the phone industry since before the divestiture."<br /><br />I too worked in telecom before divestiture! Developing PABX's at ITT (yes, that's with an "I").<br /><br />I remember those days clearly. You didn't own your phone - you rented it from the phone company. If you wanted a second phone in the kitchen - pay Ma Bell. If you want to call uncle Fred long distance in Boston - put on your Sunday clothes because it's a special occasion.<br /><br />I respectifully disagree - it's a good analogy. Breaking apart MA Bell and splitting local service from long distance accomplished exactly what was set out to do. It eliminated the comany's complacency - the same medicine I would suggest for NASA.

 

[7419]

This country is going through the process that Abraham Linclon feared above all else. And that is the Balkanization of the United States. Abe feared it would be through seccesion but in reality is taking place through race/ethnic/regionalism based on getting "our" piece of the pie. Certein areas of the counrty see a strong support for NASA's programs because it supplies a certain job base to the local economies. In other areas there is little to no support because it is viewed as robbing monies that could be "better" spent on their local problems. Never mind that most people in the US have no real grasp of the Federal budgetary process and spending. But if NASA seems cautious and adverse to risk consider that NASA gets it marching orders from both Congress and what ever administration is in power at the time. Neither of which been strong leaders in this area. NASA can propose but in the end like they said "no bucks, no Buck Rodgers". What is needed is a long term plan and the willingness of the Nation to continue it no matter who is in the White House or controls Congress. And the odds of that happening are slim to none.

 

[spacefire]

Outsource NASA!<br />"This is Kennedy Space Center, Bodivastra 3 ,acknowledge handover to New Delhi Space Center when you reach 220miles orbit"<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Outsource NASA! <br />"This is Kennedy Space Center, Bodivastra 3 ,acknowledge handover to New Delhi Space Center when you reach 220miles orbit"</font>/i><br /><br />Malaysia Floats Plans To Set Foot On The Moon<br />SpaceDaily.com<br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-05zq.html</i>

 

[frodo1008]

What you have done is to actually make a very great contribution to this thread after all! What I was doing with my suggestions was to play the devils advocate here. I would HOPE that what I suggested is indeed politically impossible. The reason that I suggested it is that we have a fairly large number of people on these boards who want NASA to do just what I suggested. People like askold (who would just as soon we chucked the entire manned space program anyway, that is what his real break up NASA agenda is really about) and spacefire who makes the same kind of suggestions (sometimes I think just to troll like, start up contriversy). <br /><br />If you think that my suggestions of what to do with the ISS, and other things really are politically impossible, then congress actually has more of my respect than I have given it at times in the past!<br /><br />I would hope that the most likely scenario for NASA is evidently what you (and I do respect your opinion, not only in this but in other areas also) must believe also. That is that NASA is NOT going to be disbanded, the shuttle WILL fly again, the ISS will also be completed by us to core complete, and then the Europeans and US will develop better forms of transport. Transport not only to the ISS but to other areas in LEO, and then on back to the moon, and eventually on to Mars.<br /><br />Again, what I was proposing was what I would hope would really be a worst case scenario! I know that this probably confused some on these boards, but I did not want to prejudice anyones' reactions.<br /><br />I am actually just as idealistic about space as I once was (a long time ago at the age of nineteen). I am closest to the excellent posts of halman in my own feelings about these subjects. I also agree with 7419, in his comments about the Balkanization of this great country! Actually, if you look at the entire Earth and mankind upon it there is an increased Balkanization of mankind as well. Sometimes, I have come to think th

 

[halman]

mrmorris,<br /><br />The technology needed to explore space has been feasible since the 1950's. It took the Cold War and thermonuclear weapons to get governments to invest seriously in rocket technology. The technology is the easy part. The politics is what has consistantly been proven to be the stumbling block. A lot of people avoid the discussions of motivating Congress, raising public awareness, convincing Big Business to invest in different technology, and such, because there are so few hard and fast answers, yes or no questions, or proven fourmulas.<br /><br />A lot of space enthusiasts are uncomfortable in social situations, preferring to spend their time reading, studying, and playing with the hardware. But getting those nerds to organize, to march in the streets, to write letters, to talk to strangers is the key to getting what we want. We can discuss the pros and cons of capsules, lifting bodies, and boosters all day, and accomplish nothing except entertaining ourselves. Writing a letter to the editor, a Congressperson, or a business owner would probably advance our cause a great deal more. Many cities have a local access channel. Figure out a way to get some time on it, and get some techy friends to help produce an educational video. Maybe it will not affect anyone's opinion, but at least you can say that you have been on TV.<br /><br />We each have a voice. If we let our voices be heard, saying the same thing, someone will notice us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[askold]

It seems that what you want is for NASA to do everything it ever wanted to do, plus some additional things and get a budget increase to do it.<br /><br />This is spite of NASA's obvious failings in the recent past.<br /><br />Why is NASA exempt from budget compromise, accountability and the need to accomplish goals?<br /><br />And it's meaningless to comapre NASA's spending to spending on cigarrettes or Starbucks coffee. If that were a valid argument then you could justify anything in this world that costs less than cigarrette comsumption.

 

[frodo1008]

And you just simply want to shut the entire operation down!<br /><br />Mike Griffin has already told congress that NASA can do all the things that it needs to do for just the same kind of budget increase that it got this last time (I think it was less than 5% over inflation). <br /><br />So the increase would not even register against the federal bedget deficit, let alone the entire budget. Does this really seem like too much to even you?<br /><br />If after NASA is destroyed you think that either the manned or even the unmanned programs are going to be saved and go to more efficient agencies, it is YOU who are living in fairy land! Just the transfer to other agencies alone would require far more money than the current 5% increase for at least the amount of time it would take NASA to complete the CXV and CEV programs! <br /><br />I am also quite certain that the general federal government would even lose some of the smaller robotic programs in the mess. One of the reasons that NASA was created was to bring all of these various smaller programs together into one agency that would have the power to push them forward. What makes you think that the average taxpayer gives a hoot about most of the scientific satellites and telescopes that NASA has launched over the years? <br /><br />Eventually, every effort that didn't result in almost immediate profit to corporations would disappear for lack of interest. <br /><br />You propose a VERY bleak future!<br /><br />I didn't set up this thread to get into another useless (less than useless, actually) flame war with someone of such an extreme viewpoint. If you have something constructive to add, then please do so, but if mrmorris thought that my original post had little political validity, then your own are totally off the negative possibility scale, thank God!!<br /><br />You DO have one possible point to your argument here. There may very well come a time when the pure private interests' involvement in the exploitation of the resou

 

[gofer]

The robotic space exploration by NASA is doing just fine, IMHO with the telescopes, the planetary probes, and the earth observation sats. The Hubble alone is worth every penny we spent on it.<br /><br />Now, what we are talking about here is manned space exploration only, aye? <br /><br />NASA should not base its plans on the expectations of increased funding. Frankly, as far as I can see, there is not so much support or interest in the general populace to send someone from the government into space on their dime apart from the prestige reasons which are not sufficiently long-term at all (the same arguments have been made for the support of bases in the Arctic, for example). <br /><br />Convert the ISS into a tourist destination. Don't be shy about it. It is in a perfect orbit for that. And that only. That, and earth observation. Pursue construction of infrastructure, tugs, fuel depots, and bases on the moon. Think *payloads* first, launchers second (currently it's the other way around) Do prizes, and contracts for the "small fry" that are to be the future backbone of the us space *industry*<br /><br />What NASA needs to do is to select a path that at least promises an access of a *private citizen* to space exploration. Show the 'lowly taxpayer' that at least sometime in the future he/she too could zoom around to the Moon and beyond. <br /><br />"Kick the starter" so to speak as the private investor can raise enourmous amount of money if it sees at least some return (not necessarily monetary), not achievable by the government (the entire wolrd travel industry is over 1 trillion dollars!!!)<br /><br />Or, to hold on to its ruinous present course... of "the space is not for the masses it's dangerous and expensive and for heroes only" axiom (as I fear it will with the current approach)<br />

 

[askold]

I never said to shut NASA down. You can't defeat my arguments by simply making stuff up.<br /><br />I'm just not willing to write NASA a blank check. <br />

 

[frodo1008]

We do have other countries involved in the ISS. If they wish to also convert the ISS into a tourist attraction, then I have no objection either. But perhaps we should consult them first?

 

[frodo1008]

Neither is congress willing to write NASA a blank check. NASA is quite possibly the most watched and regulated federal agency of all. If you don't trust your congressperson to do this, then I suggest that you get real busy come next election!<br /><br />By the way, a lot (not all admittedly, but a lot, or even most) of NASA's problems brought out by you and others on these boards are BECAUSE of congresses micro management of NASA.

 

[alonzofyfe]

In the realm of the "politically impossible", I would like to add the following:<br /><br />There will never be an Apollo II. Anybody who is waiting for the day when a "visionary" President announces a goal to accomplish some great space mission, where the country (or the world) unites in this great quest, is going to wait forever. It will not happen.<br /><br />Bush has proposed the establishment of a lunar colony. I expect that it will not get done. There are three major obstacles.<br /><br />(1) Politics. The proposed colony is a Bush project. The next Democratic president to get elected is not going to want a Bush shadow hanging over his presidency -- is not going to want press coverage and public attention focused on a Bush project. So, he will announce his own project. NASA will once again switch gears, scrapping old plans and drawing up new plans -- that, in turn, will get scrapped with the next Republican president that gets elected.<br /><br />(2) Expense. Social Security is in trouble, our nation is in debt, and a war that was supposed to pay for itself by selling Iraqi oil has cost us $300 billion with no end in sight. Oil is at $70 per barrel with projections that it will go higher. Cuts will have to be made, and they will be made in the space program.<br /><br />(3) Culturally, NASA is not permitted to take risks. NASA must make its manned missions perfectly safe. This will increase the cost. However, increased cost will not mean increased funding. It will mean fewer missions.<br /><br />If there is a lunar base, it will, at best, go the same route at ISS. It will be planned with a particular capacity and duration. Cost overruns will require that the cost and the duration then be doubled. An accident or two will close NASA for 3 years at a stretch, until, the base (however much of it gets built) is abandoned.<br /><br />We have seen this pattern for 30 years now . . . Skylab. the Space Shuttle, ISS, Venture Star . . . . I remember when NASA's goal, only 5 years ago,

 

[askold]

I was with you right up until the suggestion to put coal in orbit.<br /><br />Why do we want to do that?

 

[halman]

gofer,<br /><br />What we are talking about is building a bridge, between Earth and space, which can support all kinds of traffic, and which will promote business and industry. We are not sending people into space to be tourists, they are there to do a job, just as Lewis and Clark were not tourists, but explorers. One of the primary functions of government is to do exactly what we propose that the space program accomplish, which is to open up new territories for development. We are not suggesting that NASA do the development.<br /><br />I would be very surprised if the CEO's of corporations like General Electric, Sperry Rand, Dow, and such would turn up a chance to have a research laboratory on a space station for free for 5 years, with transportation of researchers to and from the station included. This is the kind of boost that government is supposed to give private industry, not corporate welfare programs which buy up unsold or unsellable products to help the companies bottom line. This is investment into learning, which always pays off big.<br /><br />If space exploration and development are to become major industries, it will not be because of space tourism, it will be because of private investment in mining, processing, and production in outer space. Space tourism will never be adequate justification for the huge investment that Cheap Access To Space will require. The only justification will be the belief that more money will be made in the future than has been made in the past, and that we can benefit from that creation of wealth.<br /><br />There has never been a frontier such as this one, because, in the past, an individual could travel to the frontier by himself, on foot, and there was no need for government intervention, until the frontier had grown considerably. California had a population of several hundred thousand before it was decided that building a railroad out there would be worthwhile. Even though the government didn't build the railroads, they <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[spacefire]

yeah, it'd be easier to extract all this stuff from an asteroid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[alonzofyfe]

The reason to put coal in orbit:<br /><br />There are three important elements that we are going to need in developing space habitats that may not be easily obtainable -- hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon.<br /><br />Oxygen is available on the moon, and can be refined from lunar soil in abundance.<br /><br />The molecules that I selected were those that contained these elements in abundance. Amonia (nitrogen and hydrogen) and coal (carbon and hydrogen). Oil will work just as well. So would any fat, for that matter.<br /><br />We might be able to get hydrogen from lunar ice at the poles, and carbon from certain asteroids. If this is the case, then delivering carbon into orbit would be less useful.<br /><br />However, even if we can harvest these chemicals from asteroids eventually, it may be useful to have some of these elements that are a bit easier to get to, at least to start off.<br /><br />However, I hope that this does not start to derail this thread, because it is not about building space habitats, but about what should happen with NASA.

 

[halman]

AlonzoFyfe,<br /><br />Certainly, NASA is going to be interested in finding sources of hydrogen in space, and hauling it up to orbit in a complex molecule may not be the best way of obtaining it. Eventually, of course, we will mine the atmospheres of the gas giants, which are rich in organic molecules. We also must remember the water ice in Saturn's rings, which could be mined for hydrogen.<br /><br />Half of the purpose of this thread is to stimulate discussion regarding what lies in the future for NASA and private space enterprises. If it turns out that we do need coal in space, than I am certain that there are private outfits which would love to transport a cargo as forgiving as coal.<br /><br />But the most likely scenario is that a substitute would be found for an element which is too expensive to utilize. "Neccessity is a mother!" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

AlonzoFyfe,<br /><br />The idea of building a base on the Moon has been around for decades, which makes it rather difficult for one party or another to claim it as their own. And the stakes are getting very high. In my opinion, this country desperately needs the infusion of creativity and innovation which a lunar base project would foster. The cost of a lunar base is not going to have any great effect on the federal budget deficit, but it could have a tremendous effect on the country.<br /><br />Creating a highly visible, attainable goal, which challenges our technology, yet will reward us with even better technology, is probably the best way to create jobs, unify the populace, and signal the private sector that there is a future in this country. Even though all may not agree on the importance of building a lunar base, few could portray the effort as imperialistic, or detrimental to the good of any one. The money would have no discerable effect if spent on Earth, yet could stimulate a revolution in space technology.<br /><br />Creating new wealth is the only way that this country can dig itself out of the hole that it has dug. Space offers the most potential for the creation of new wealth, because the resources are lying around waiting to be picked up, and energy is free.<br /><br />Any politician can turn things around so that support of an opponent's goal is not viewed as dissertion of the party. Our ship is sinking, and everyone wants to prevent that. A high technology public works project is just the ticket to keep money flowing through the economy, while creating something of lasting value.<br /><br />Somebody one said that politics is the "art of the possible." In other words, finding the compromise, getting argreement, changing people's minds, all are part of the job of a politician. The hard part is getting the public educated well enough so that they understand what is being done, and why it will benefit us more in the long run that it will next week. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I would HOPE that what I suggested is indeed politically impossible. "</font><br /><br />Yes... well don't read <b>too</b> much into 'politically impossible'. There are four basic types of 'impossible' ideas that are routinely brought up in relation to spaceflight.<br /><br /><b>Physically impossible</b>: Notions which defy the laws of physics. Generally these try to get around one ot more of Newton's three laws. Space drives that either ignore action/reaction or are completely reactionless are the most common.<br /><br /><b>Technologically impossible</b>: Notions which require technology beyond what is currently available. A recent one was adding ion drives to the shuttle orbiters and sending it to Mars. Ignoring for a moment the numerous *other* flaws with this idea, we do not have the technology to have a power source in space that could supply ion drives with the amount of power required for such an idea. Mind you, space nuclear power plants are technically <i>possible</i>, but we don't have them.<br /><br /><b>Engineering Impossibility</b>: Ideas which try to make existing devices perform tasks for which they were never designed. A recurring example is the suggestion to have the shuttle orbiters stay at the ISS for months on end. The shuttles probably <i>could</i> have been designed to do this with reasonably available technology (albeit with probably significant downsides in payload), but they were not.<br /><br /><b>Political Impossibility</b>: It's not going to happen because Congress, the Senate, the President won't go for it.<br /><br />The four are ordered from hardest to overcome to easiest. Overcoming physical impossibilities require massive paradigm shifts while political impossibilities are as changeable as the wind. I can think of several events which would change the political climate to make it much more likely that the ISS or STS programs would be ended early. Ergo -- don't base too much on my belief that ending t

 

[alonzofyfe]

Halman;<br /><br />I strongly believe that there will come a day when we are obtaining all of our materials for space development from space itself. If there is no hydrogen on the moon, we will find it in the core of a burned-out comet or, as you say, the gas giants. We will get carbon from carbon-based asteroids and nitrogen from somewhere.<br /><br />I am more concerned with how we get to that point in our history. I am interested in the next 10 to 20 years, more than in how a space civilization will obtain its materials 100 to 200 years down the road.<br /><br />In the near term, I think that dumping useful materials into high earth orbit would be useful. If done on a large enough scale, it would produce some innovation in the launch industry, which, in turn, will contribute greatly to the development of near-earth space.<br /><br />As I said, I do not have my heart set on shipping coal. I think that it will be useful; but, if not, ship something else instead.<br /><br />More importantly, your statement that <i>In my opinion, this country desperately needs the infusion of creativity and innovation which a lunar base project would foster.</i> identifies exactly what I think will NOT happen.<br /><br />The country is not going to unite behind a project to colonize the moon. There are 10,000 organizations out there with their own projects that are all despirately seeking government money. A lunar settlement project will cause them to descend on Washington to say, "Don't fund that project, fund my project instead."<br /><br />You claim that this money would have no effect if spent on Earth. Yet, these organizations all look at their project plans and think, "Oh, what great deeds I could accomplish if I only had $100 million. Yet, the government wastes its money on this lunar colonization scheme."<br /><br />Now, please do not tell me how wrong these people are. Right or wrong, they all want the same thing. They want this money funding their own projects, and they are not going to be

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"But getting those nerds to organize, to march in the streets, to write letters, to talk to strangers is the key to getting what we want. We can discuss the pros and cons of capsules, lifting bodies, and boosters all day, and accomplish nothing except entertaining ourselves. Writing a letter to the editor, a Congressperson, or a business owner would probably advance our cause a great deal more."</font><br /><br />I'm afraid that I'm too cynical to believe that writing such letters would accomplish anything more than wear and tear on my fingers... On the other hand -- writing on this board <b>does</b> entertain me, so I get something back from the fingertip abuse.<br /><br />I hope that NASA will accomplish something great in the next couple of decades. I think that the appointment of Griffin makes that more likely than has been the case since the inception of the shuttle program. Even if he leaves at the end of Bush's term as he's indicated he will, I hope that he will have set NASA on a good direction and provided an example that the next admin will feel the need to live up to. Likewise his appointment was met with such acclaim by Congress and the scientific community, I think it will impose a feeling in the next president that he must also look long and hard for an ideal candidate for the position.<br /><br />My greatest hopes, however, are for the private sector. All of my hopes are riding on the longshots like SpaceX at the moment, with little left to spend on letters to Santa Claus... er... my Congressman. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[alonzofyfe]

"I'm afraid that I'm too cynical to believe that writing such letters would accomplish anything more than wear and tear on my fingers... On the other hand -- writing on this board does entertain me, so I get something back from the fingertip abuse."<br /><br />I tend to agree with this.<br /><br />Letters to congresscritters tend to do little good.<br /><br />First, they do not read the letters. A staff person reads them. Particularly interesting letters may be forwarded to the congresscritter. However, 'important' letters are those written by constituents who promise to be able to generate large campaign contributions.<br /><br />Letters to the editor and any other public presentation of ideas will do more good, if it is done on a large enough scale to affect polls, which, in turn, will tell the congresscritter, "If I go along with X, I may get more votes."<br /><br />However much an individual is interested in space flight, they tend not to vote on this issue. Party affiliation/general philosophy is still the largest factor affecting most voters. Economic issues are next. (Who will best promote the industry in which I work?)<br /><br />For the amount of time, money, and effort it would take to engineer a shift in public attitudes towards space, one could probably build a half dozen lunar colonies.<br /><br />Engineering changes in public attitude is an extremey expensive and labor-intensive project.<br /><br />The reason that I think that the future of space development resides in commercial space is because commercial space offers people things they already want to buy. No great shift in public attitude is required -- and every shift in one person's private attitude brings with it a little extra money.<br /><br />Following this model of selling people things they already want to buy -- I argue for approaching these other organizations who want government money and explain to them how space development will help them acquire things they already want to buy.<br /><br />An example: Go