The key to any serious exploration is to develop a new dependable form of propulsion - chemical rockets have run their course. Serious funding needs to be invested in truly advanced ideas: nuclear propulsion, solar sails, ion electric propulsion, etc. Ion thrusters are clearly the best choice since they have already been used to push a small probe through space (though chemical rockets had to get it into orbit in the first place). NASA has strange philosophies when it comes to risk – they will endanger human lives using antiquated chemical rockets, but won’t risk developing new ideas like Ion engines because of funding. C'mon NASA take the risk already...!
That must make me the Hal .0052... Seriously, you don't think they can shield the A-nauts on their travels to the Moon and Mars? Or when they are bouncing around making a Lunar colony? Don't you know that notion flies in the face of 60+ years of Science Fiction?? Oh, and when I was in Houston for Thanksgiving the family went to eat a a great German place over by NASA. My nephew works for a NASA sub-contractor and a bunch of us met him for weinerschnitzel. We had been talking about the death of JFK, and how my Mom and I got to see his "Let's go to the Moon and party!!" speech at Rice Stadium, so the Lunar landings came up. My dumba$$ brother-in-law said he believed they were faked. Did I say he was a dumba$$? He was before that little jewel of a comment and will remain one until he dies or is carried away by aliens. (my sister should be so lucky!) I watched the first landing live on the tube listening to Walter on CBS cover it with awe in his voice. I trust Walter Cronkite to know a phony when it's staring him in the face. He finally figured out Vietnam, didn't he??
Oh, and when I was in Houston for Thanksgiving the family went to eat a a great German place over by NASA. That's "at a great German place". Even my goofus brother-in-law couldn't eat the whole building.
LMAO! Exactly. I just caught a talk here from a solar flare expert (they use the flares to study the magnetic properties of the sun*). Anyway, he said if we get a flare like the one that happened last month, astronauts would need a meter or two of lead to protect them. That would make an absurdly heavy ship. Maybe he was exagerating. Thanks for the NASA story. Did I mention already that my grandmother didn't believe in the moon landings, even though her son was one of the nerds with horn-rims working on the project! It was really poignant. * the guy was using the flares to study the magnetic structure of the sun. I never knew this, but flares are incredibly magnetic entities. He showed gorgeous close-up films of the solar flares and they made those stereo-typical arches you associate with iron filings around a bar magnet!
Then what did they do recently on the space station? Those flares we had not long ago were monstrous, right? (I should know this stuff, but I didn't have any sleep last night!)
Yikes! a *great* German weinerschnitzel restaurant in Clear Lake - man that place has changed... They are still inside and protected by the earth's magnetic field in low orbit, but they do have warnings and areas of extra protection on the ISS.
If he were really bold he would cancel the shuttle program and make them come up with something that was better instead of continuing the boondoggle that is the shuttle program.
And here's a better program to replace the Kennedy space program, nee Bush. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05ALDR.html OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR Fly Me to L 1 By BUZZ ALDRIN Published: December 5, 2003 ARTICLE TOOLS E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Format Most E-Mailed Articles Single-Page Format READERS' OPINIONS Forum: Join a Discussion on Op-Ed Contributors TIMES NEWS TRACKER Topics Alerts National Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Stations Space OS ANGELES For the last 24 hours, news reports have been soaring into orbit that President Bush and NASA are busy preparing their vision for the future of America's space program — and that this vision may involve sending astronauts back to the moon, and perhaps establishing some sort of permanent base there. I applaud the instinct, but I think that a moon shot alone seems more like reaching for past glory than striving for new triumphs. Instead, I think the next step in our space program should be to create a floating launching pad for manned and unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond. This is not a task for the unfinished International Space Station, which is intended to be a floating laboratory rather than a bridge to the heavens. A much more practical destination than the moon or the space station is a region of space called L 1, which is more than two-thirds of the way to the moon and is where the gravity fields between the Earth and Moon are in balance. Setting up a space port there would offer a highly stable platform from which spacecraft could head toward near-Earth asteroids, the lunar surface, the moons of Mars and wherever else mankind decides to travel. Unlike the Moon and the International Space Station, which is in low-earth orbit, L 1 is not the site of strong gravitational pulls, meaning that spacecraft can leave there without using much energy. Thus L 1 would be the most sensible position for a base that would function as a test area and way-point for robotic flights as well as a support station and safe haven for human exploration of the solar system. It would also be relatively cheap, at least in terms of space travel. To create a port at L 1 we can use the building methods that have already proved successful for Skylab and the International Space Station — and we can probably get it up and running for $10 billion to $15 billion, significantly less than the International Space Station, which will likely exceed $100 billion in the end. We can also save money by shifting away from using the space shuttle as the transport vehicle and by developing a new, more flexible launch vehicle and crew module to get people and cargo up to the L 1 port. Unfortunately, NASA's work on future vehicles — including the much-ballyhooed "orbital space plane" — has stalled since the disaster with the Shuttle Columbia. And even before then, the agency had been focusing on the wrong sort of craft: one limited to transporting four astronauts at a time with little or no cargo-carrying capability. Such a craft would essentially be duplicating what the Russian Soyuz craft already does adequately: bringing several astronauts up and back from a space station, but little else. Moreover, NASA's "Supersized Soyuz" approach focuses only on serving the International Space Station, rather than working toward a more expansive vision. There are better ways to invest our money in a new craft. One that would be relatively quick and easy would be to keep what works in the current space transportation system — the rocket boosters, external tank and trained staff — and combine them with new elements. The tanks and boosters we now use will soon be predictable and safe, as a part of NASA's post-Columbia efforts. And if we stick with them, no new buildings or untested ground-transportation methods would need to be built. The big change would be to replace the aging shuttle orbiter with a new crew module that would hold perhaps eight or more astronauts, and build a so-called heavy-lift vehicle, capable of carrying cargo, that would attach behind the module. This craft would be capable of variable crew and cargo configurations. The crew module would need built-in escape and rescue capabilities for the people aboard. The early version might have to make parachute or parafoil landings in the ocean, although eventually it should be modified to make runway landings. Fly Me to L 1 Published: December 5, 2003 ARTICLE TOOLS E-Mail This Article Printer-Friendly Format Most E-Mailed Articles Single-Page Format READERS' OPINIONS Forum: Join a Discussion on Op-Ed Contributors TIMES NEWS TRACKER Topics Alerts National Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Stations Space (Page 2 of 2) Over time, more powerful engines and reusable rocket boosters could be added to make possible sending even larger payloads and more passengers into space at a lower cost per person and per pound. But the important thing for the president to think about at this point is the long-term future of space flight and for NASA to pursue all avenues, big and small, to come up with the best plan. Unfortunately, NASA has limited its $135 million orbital space plane development contracts to a few giants: proposals by Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. As a result, the space agency has shut the door on the smaller, entrepreneurial companies that are responsible for some of the most innovative current thinking on space technology. The farther reaching scope of an L 1 effort calls for collaboration and competition — two qualities that should be part of the cultural change NASA pledged to undertake after loss of the Columbia. In addition, NASA might even look at a new competitor as a possible partner. The modernized, Soyuz-like manned capsule that China sent into orbit in October is potentially safer and seems technologically more robust than the Russian version. Working jointly with China would not only fill a needed gap when America's agreement with Russia on using Soyuz runs out in 2006, but it would also make a potentially important political alliance. China and America are on the verge of a new space race — with economic competition expected from Japan, Europe and perhaps India — and it is better to start off with cooperation than with confrontation. The tragedy of the Columbia, combined with China's successful launch, have put NASA at a crossroads. America's continued leadership in space depends on decisions made now. President Bush should realize that the first step is a bold new vision from the top. Buzz Aldrin, an astronaut on the Apollo XI moon mission, is chairman of Starcraft Boosters, which develops reusable booster rockets for spacecraft.
Well we shouldn't cancel the Shuttle program until we have some sort of new system proven and running at the very least. All of the Shuttle tragedies have been caused by foolish departmental oversights that could have been prevented. Our current fleet is certainly viable for another decade or more if obvious flaws are corrected instead of going ahead with a launch and hoping for the best. I believe a return to an Apollo style capsule (ie) a Russian Soyuz on top of a military Delta IV or Titan IV would be the quickest and cheapest way for the US to have a human/ supply transport to the ISS. We could have a system like this up and running in under a decade easily, it’s just a matter of NASA swallowing some of their pride and returning to a more simplistic launch vehicle. With duel launch capabilities the Shuttle fleet would be spared a great deal of wear and tear. This would allow more time for inspections etc. for the heavy lift launches the Shuttles were originally designed to make.
KingCheetah, What do you do, work wise, when you're not running down doomed beasts on the sun-baked savanah?
IIRC, we were promised something that would go into space once a week and cost less than unmanned rockets and we got neither, from my reading of the post mortem it's unsafe at any speed and we're depending on *luck* to make sure astronauts get home safely, takes three months between launches, and it's a welfare program for space program employees, and I used to work in the space program. Most of the stuff they use it for we could do unmanned or hire the Russians to do, which, if you believe the spiel about saving money and commercializing, is the right thing to do, unless you have to line the pork barrel.
What about the "Space Tether" I dont' recall much about the science, and don't feel like looking it up, but I think this might be a viable option for getting stuff into orbit. Also, Gregg Easterbrook, I believe, did an article in the atlantic monthly about Sea-Launch, a few months ago, which is basically a commercial operation (a joint venture of Boeing & Russian companies) that tows payloads out to see and launches them, many times more cheaply than NASA and safely too(and it employs otherwise out of work Russian scientists). However, congress, with helpful pressure from aerospace lobbysists, hasn't made life easy on them, which is quite unfortunate.
I've heard two things about the tether's early problems. 1) Tests with really short tethers have been nearly disasterous. There's something about the complicated nonlinear dynamics of the thing that always leads to wild crazy swings. 2) Computer simulations of a space tether show similar instabilities, if I'm remembering this correctly. I still think it sounds cool though! Go go space elevator!
Oh, okay. I would insult superstring theory, but you could probably kick my ass, by the looks of things anyway. I bet it's hard for you to find furry costumes that fit properly. You must have to go for sleeveless furry outfits.
I agree with Rimrocker about the romance of manned space flight. I will also support the president on this program of his. Good job GW.
Must you derail every one of my threads with one of your witty B-Barbs? ...and please don't insult my Superstring - that's how I got the underwear modeling gig. What were we talking about?
Ahhhhhh! My eyes! LMFAO. nice work. The image is called "muscleheadfurry.jpg" beautiful. And an excellent "string" reference to boot. Well, that's because I'm getting trashed here in the manned versus unmanned debate. It we do go with manned spaceflight, I'm with Buzz Aldrin's suggestions. ... And lead cod-pieces for all astronauts!
Where a man on the moon makes us look like incompetents... http://www.msnbc.com/news/999348.asp?0dm=s118k Wrap These Guys Up’ As an occupier, General Petraeus did everything right. Then a lot went wrong By Christian Caryl and John Barry NEWSWEEK Dec. 8 issue — No U.S. commander in Iraq has done a smarter job than Maj. Gen. David Petraeus. Practically every military observer agrees: in the seven months since his troops took charge in the northern city of Mosul, the 101st Airborne Division commander has put in a flawless performance. That’s what’s most troublesome. . . . Now the cash is gone, and the first installments of Congress’s new appropriations have yet to arrive. The people of Mosul feel cheated. “We’re all contending with the ‘man on the moon’ problem,” says Petraeus. “The locals say, ‘You’re capable of putting a man on the moon, and you haven’t given me a job’.” . . . In any occupation, it’s never easy to find the right balance. “You live sort of a roller-coaster existence,” Petraeus says. “The highs are very high, and the lows are very low. The night the two helicopters crashed, we really felt like we were on the upswing. We’d been aggressively wrapping these bad guys up. And then you have this terrible, beyond-belief loss of life.” The only way to deal with such setbacks is to keep going, the general says. “You move forward with more commitment, because we believe that’s what the soldiers would have wanted. One soldier came up to me at the memorial service for the guys who died in the Black Hawk crash and said, ‘Hey, sir, we just got 17 additional reasons to get this thing done right’.” Yet even as Petraeus recounts the story, you know that he didn’t need even one more reason than he already had.
