How do you feel about the death of NASA / US Space Program?

[techs]

Who said it would be weightless? It is certainly possible to use centrifugal force to create artificial gravity for the journey (and even on Mars), also transit times can be reduced to as little as 6 months using high energy mission profiles.

Micrometiorites while an issue probably aren't severe enough to threaten the mission since numerous craft have made it to mars before.

Can we build a a rotating spaceship capable of a two year plus mission to Mars? Maybe, but at a HUGE expense. Basically making it unfeasible.

And a "high energy" mission raises huge problems. The first being that you need either huge amounts of conventional fuels, or a nuclear engine. Such a large ship needed based on conventional fuels once again gets you into massive expense. And a nuclear engine is no where near ready, and while it may be possible, launching the nuclear fuel in such a large quantity may be politically impossible.
Numerous craft have made it to Mars, but they are mere specks compared to the size of the ship we would send. Exponentialy increasing the possibility not only of collision, but of a collision in an essential part of the ship. And manoeuvering a large ship, possibly a rotating large ship to avoid collisions gets you into both a fuel problem and structural stress problem if you plan on moving it quickly.

 

[DannyLove]

"How do you feel about the death of NASA / US Space Program? "

Well, it proves that we never landed on the moon. It saddens me because I enjoy knowing about the advancements in space.

 

[K1052]

Can we build a a rotating spaceship capable of a two year plus mission to Mars? Maybe, but at a HUGE expense. Basically making it unfeasible.

And a "high energy" mission raises huge problems. The first being that you need either huge amounts of conventional fuels, or a nuclear engine. Such a large ship needed based on conventional fuels once again gets you into massive expense. And a nuclear engine is no where near ready, and while it may be possible, launching the nuclear fuel in such a large quantity may be politically impossible.
Numerous craft have made it to Mars, but they are mere specks compared to the size of the ship we would send. Exponentialy increasing the possibility not only of collision, but of a collision in an essential part of the ship. And manoeuvering a large ship, possibly a rotating large ship to avoid collisions gets you into both a fuel problem and structural stress problem if you plan on moving it quickly.

All the gear and fuel doesn't need to go with the crew (nor should it). A lot of it can be sent on in advance or made on Mars depending on the mission. Most practical plans revolve around these points.

While some aspects of the mission would indeed be challenging there aren't any technical hurdles that cannot currently be overcome. Certainly it could never be expected for the mission to be 100% safe but what part of going into space is.

 

[So]

Can we build a a rotating spaceship capable of a two year plus mission to Mars? Maybe, but at a HUGE expense. Basically making it unfeasible.

And a "high energy" mission raises huge problems. The first being that you need either huge amounts of conventional fuels, or a nuclear engine. Such a large ship needed based on conventional fuels once again gets you into massive expense. And a nuclear engine is no where near ready, and while it may be possible, launching the nuclear fuel in such a large quantity may be politically impossible.
Numerous craft have made it to Mars, but they are mere specks compared to the size of the ship we would send. Exponentialy increasing the possibility not only of collision, but of a collision in an essential part of the ship. And manoeuvering a large ship, possibly a rotating large ship to avoid collisions gets you into both a fuel problem and structural stress problem if you plan on moving it quickly.

If you wanted to go nuclear, we had the tech in the 50's as well.
"This extreme design could be built with materials and techniques that could be obtained in 1958 or were anticipated to be available shortly after. The practical upper limit is likely to be higher with modern materials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion)

No reason why you couldn't build an orion at a lunar construction outpost. Yes, it would require a functional moon colony, but there is no reason we couldn't do that. There is water, abundant oxygen, and plenty of energy on the moon. All we need is carbon and that can be shipped up cheaply in the form of carbon fiber tank walls for almost no additional delta-v cost. Maybe a bit of nitrogen too...

I did the math about three years ago for the maximum high energy transit profile, on a close pass between the earth and mars. My estimate, assuming you use a high mass fraction for bombs, and use about 40k bombs, and accelerate at 1g roughly to the halfway mark and then turn around and decelerate for the second half gets you there in about 48 HOURS, accelerating to a whopping .05 C in the process! Of course, you'd be better off scheduling a ~1 month mission and coasting most of the way...

 

[AMCRambler]

If we cut Nasa's funding, they'll never be able to build the moon base that will allow us to reach Mars. The Chinese will beat us to Mars, terraform it and claim it as their own. Then when we run out of real estate in the US we'll have to learn Chinese when we move to Mars.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to learn Chinese.

 

[K1052]

If you wanted to go nuclear, we had the tech in the 50's as well.
"This extreme design could be built with materials and techniques that could be obtained in 1958 or were anticipated to be available shortly after. The practical upper limit is likely to be higher with modern materials."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

No reason why you couldn't build an orion at a lunar construction outpost. Yes, it would require a functional moon colony, but there is no reason we couldn't do that. There is water, abundant oxygen, and plenty of energy on the moon. All we need is carbon and that can be shipped up cheaply in the form of carbon fiber tank walls for almost no additional delta-v cost. Maybe a bit of nitrogen too...

I did the math about three years ago for the maximum high energy transit profile, on a close pass between the earth and mars. My estimate, assuming you use a high mass fraction for bombs, and use about 40k bombs, and accelerate at 1g roughly to the halfway mark and then turn around and decelerate for the second half gets you there in about 48 HOURS, accelerating to a whopping .05 C in the process! Of course, you'd be better off scheduling a ~1 month mission and coasting most of the way...

Orion will likely never be built given the political implications and costs associated with doing the needed R&D.

I think a VASIMR engine powered by a compact nuclear reactor is probably the way to go if we want to get fancy.

 

[Paratus]

Orion will likely never be built given the political implications and costs associated with doing the needed R&D.

I think a VASIMR engine powered by a compact nuclear reactor is probably the way to go if we want to get fancy.

ARES V

+

VASMIR

+

Nuclear Power

+

Transhab

+

In-Situ Resource Utilization

=

Survivable Mars Mission

 

[Q]

In part like OP said, it's 'sad' to see it go, seems like US is giving up, but the more realistic part of me thinks it's good to get rid of it due to the massive amount of $$ it costs.

 

[K1052]

ARES V

+

VASMIR

+

Nuclear Power

+

Transhab

+

In-Situ Resource Utilization

=

Survivable Mars Mission

Even with the Ares in doubt the Delta IV Heavy (or even the proposed extra-heavy variant) could be human rated in a few years. The extremely short trip duration makes the above extremely attractive and since the VASIMR is supposed to last a very long time a continuous Mars presence could be established.

 

[yllus]

Briefing: What NASA's proposed changes really mean

What does the Administration want NASA to do instead?

It is proposing that the agency spend $7.8 billion over the next five years to develop potentially revolutionary technologies, like rockets powered by ion engines that could dramatically slash the transit time to Mars and orbiting fuel depots that could make human missions to the moon or beyond feasible with smaller, cheaper rockets.

During the same period, it plans to spend $6 billion helping space companies develop their own rockets and crew capsules capable of carrying NASA astronauts to the International Space Station. Funding for the space station would be extended by five years, to 2020, under the new plan.

Personally, I prefer this research avenue for NASA. Don't build Apollo-on-steroids. Build something unlike what we've ever seen before. Push it!

 

[DrPizza]

The intentions of going back to the moon were to setup a base and launching pad for future deep space/Mars missions. It's a lot cheaper to get something into space when you are already effectively there.

I've brought this up several times before... Launch WHAT? It's far more expensive to send everything to the moon, including all the lauch equipment, so that we can send a rocket from the Earth to the moon - so we can re-launch it. Effectively, it's like saying "let's build a runway 2 miles into the air. Then, when planes take off, we'll have them land on the runway, and from there, they can take off again and reach 4 miles up." But, just where the hell are you planning to go from the moon? Outside the solar system? Please. We don't have the technology to get humans beyond our solar system - and sending men to the moon is in no way going to hasten the advancement of technology to travel faster & further.

The ISS is a complete waste of money. It's there for little more reason than to give the space shuttle something to do. 90% of the reason for the space shuttle & ISS is nothing more than public relations - some big project that the public sees and says "wow, that's really cool! Let's support NASA."

The only really positive benefit of the shuttle program was fixing the Hubble - and it was only a benefit because there was a major major screw up with Hubble in the first place - the flaw should have been caught before it was launched. Hubbles replacement won't be in low earth orbit though.

We have a lot to learn from space. Look at the Mars rovers - look at the advancements in robotic technology that such missions require. I'm not saying abandon space. In fact, robotic missions are probably more likely to advance our ability to travel further & faster - we can do far more robotic missions for the same dollar than we can human missions. More missions = more opportunities for advancement - and most importantly, greater risks can be taken for this advancement.

Until we have a cheap way of getting humans off this rock, there's no reason for human space exploration - anything a human can do, a robot can do. Well, except perhaps unstick itself from a sand trap. But even in that case - look at how long that Rover was able to move around the surface of Mars.

We should be exploring every corner of the solar system. There are oceans on the moons of Jupiter & Saturn - liquid water. Is there life there? There's absolutely no reason to send humans to these places. Besides, if we're looking for other life, it's a hell of a lot easier to sterilize robots than humans - the more we go, the more likely we're going to find traces we've left behind.

 

[TXHokie]

If we cut Nasa's funding, they'll never be able to build the moon base that will allow us to reach Mars. The Chinese will beat us to Mars, terraform it and claim it as their own. Then when we run out of real estate in the US we'll have to learn Chinese when we move to Mars.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to learn Chinese.

NASA space race will pickup again when China sends out a video of their astronaut pulling up the US flag on the moon and planting their flag on their way to Mars.

 

[So]

I've brought this up several times before... Launch WHAT? It's far more expensive to send everything to the moon, including all the lauch equipment, so that we can send a rocket from the Earth to the moon - so we can re-launch it. Effectively, it's like saying "let's build a runway 2 miles into the air. Then, when planes take off, we'll have them land on the runway, and from there, they can take off again and reach 4 miles up." But, just where the hell are you planning to go from the moon? Outside the solar system? Please. We don't have the technology to get humans beyond our solar system - and sending men to the moon is in no way going to hasten the advancement of technology to travel faster & further.

The ISS is a complete waste of money. It's there for little more reason than to give the space shuttle something to do. 90% of the reason for the space shuttle & ISS is nothing more than public relations - some big project that the public sees and says "wow, that's really cool! Let's support NASA."

The only really positive benefit of the shuttle program was fixing the Hubble - and it was only a benefit because there was a major major screw up with Hubble in the first place - the flaw should have been caught before it was launched. Hubbles replacement won't be in low earth orbit though.

We have a lot to learn from space. Look at the Mars rovers - look at the advancements in robotic technology that such missions require. I'm not saying abandon space. In fact, robotic missions are probably more likely to advance our ability to travel further & faster - we can do far more robotic missions for the same dollar than we can human missions. More missions = more opportunities for advancement - and most importantly, greater risks can be taken for this advancement.

Until we have a cheap way of getting humans off this rock, there's no reason for human space exploration - anything a human can do, a robot can do. Well, except perhaps unstick itself from a sand trap. But even in that case - look at how long that Rover was able to move around the surface of Mars.

We should be exploring every corner of the solar system. There are oceans on the moons of Jupiter & Saturn - liquid water. Is there life there? There's absolutely no reason to send humans to these places. Besides, if we're looking for other life, it's a hell of a lot easier to sterilize robots than humans - the more we go, the more likely we're going to find traces we've left behind.

I've said it before, even in this thread. Assuming that we're going to have to ship everything to a moon base is just silly. 90% of the mass for a mars mission could come from lunar resources and pretending that is impossible is like europeans pretending that an american colony could never produce shovels because it was "impossible" and therefore such a colony should never be pursued.

 

[Locut0s]

Good now maybe we can concentrate on some REAL science. Let me tell you most scientists are not amazingly stoked about the prospetc of going back to the moon. Sure in a perfect world we would be doing tones of space science AND sending men to the moon and beyond. The truth is that space probes return thousands of times more scientific data than any maned mission. At the moment sending people into space is good propaganda not good science. I would MUCH rather see another Hubble Space telescope sent up than another maned mission to the moon. We have learned a significant amount about Mars and the rest of the planets in the solar system by sending unnamed space probes and there is a shit load more there to learn via the same route. More space probes in space fewer people = better science. In the long run sure I would do cartwheels to see man walk on Mars and even the moon but it's just not good scientific return for the money!

Trust me there are many scientists out there applauding this decision!!

 

[So]

Good now maybe we can concentrate on some REAL science. Let me tell you most scientists are not amazingly stoked about the prospetc of going back to the moon. Sure in a perfect world we would be doing tones of space science AND sending men to the moon and beyond. The truth is that space probes return thousands of times more scientific data than any maned mission. At the moment sending people into space is good propaganda not good science. I would MUCH rather see another Hubble Space telescope sent up than another maned mission to the moon. We have learned a significant amount about Mars and the rest of the planets in the solar system by sending unnamed space probes and there is a shit load more there to learn via the same route. More space probes in space fewer people = better science. In the long run sure I would do cartwheels to see man walk on Mars and even the moon but it's just not good scientific return for the money!

Trust me there are many scientists out there applauding this decision!!

Yet again, you're assuming that the only purpose of space exploration is purely scientific, and that the only types of manned missions that can be conducted are "flags and footprints" missions.

 

[Locut0s]

Yet again, you're assuming that the only purpose of space exploration is purely scientific, and that the only types of manned missions that can be conducted are "flags and footprints" missions.

No I'm saying that robots can do 90% of what a person can do for 5% of the cost right now. There certainly are emotional, patriotic, and scientific benefits to sending people into space but they aren't worth the cost if you have a fixed budget to deal with and you have to cannibalize the robotic exploration of space to make the human exploration of space possible.

 

[So]

No I'm saying that robots can do 90% of what a person can do for 5% of the cost right now. There certainly are emotional, patriotic, and scientific benefits to sending people into space but they aren't worth the cost if you have a fixed budget to deal with and you have to cannibalize the robotic exploration of space to make the human exploration of space possible.

"Right now" being the key word. Additional investment in manned space infrastructure would yield disproportionate gains in benefits obtained. The space science we could do with a manned lunar colony producing probes in the shallow lunar gravity well would be many orders of magnitude superior to what we can do today.

 

[Jeff7]

Yeah, but the ocean sustains life and provides us with resources. The moon is a big fucking rock.

What the fuck are we gonna do, make the moon the most expensive strip mining venture?

Today's "Who gives a damn about that useless scientific exploration?" is tomorrow's "How did we ever live without this?"


And rather than rehash it completely, here's Carl Sagan's talk on scientific research, and how today's allegedly pointless scientific research is tomorrow's incredible breakthrough.

If we only stuck to solving immediate problems that we can see right now, and didn't devote resources to simply learning about the Universe, we'd still live in caves, because all our resources would still be going to ways of improving cave living.

*click**chip*
What's this? Sparks from striking some stones together? Quit wasting time, we still haven't figured out how to make this room drip-proof.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Wow had no idea they were completely stopping NASA. While there may not really be any real solid goals to most of the space explorations, I still think it's something cool to do so we can learn more about "what's out there" so it's sad to see it go.

I also always had the impression it was NASA that launched commercial satellites into space, or is there 3rd party organizations that do that?

I do think something better then the shuttle can be made though. IMO they should work on this. Maybe a giant rail gun to get it going, then it would require less fuel. I suppose the G force of that would be deadly though.

 

[So]

Wow had no idea they were completely stopping NASA. While there may not really be any real solid goals to most of the space explorations, I still think it's something cool to do so we can learn more about "what's out there" so it's sad to see it go.

I also always had the impression it was NASA that launched commercial satellites into space, or is there 3rd party organizations that do that?

I do think something better then the shuttle can be made though. IMO they should work on this. Maybe a giant rail gun to get it going, then it would require less fuel. I suppose the G force of that would be deadly though.

1. Aerospace companies like Lockheed/Boeing or the Russians will sell satellite launchers / launches.
2. Mass Driver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver#On_Earth

 

[zinfamous]

IIRC, this isn't the end of NASA, right? The entity will exist and continue to push advanced technology.

The only difference is that space missions are moving towards the private sector...as it's starting to make more and more sense. I think this gives NASA more room to focus on more revolutionary projects.

 

[Locut0s]

IIRC, this isn't the end of NASA, right? The entity will exist and continue to push advanced technology.

The only difference is that space missions are moving towards the private sector...as it's starting to make more and more sense. I think this gives NASA more room to focus on more revolutionary projects.

The main difference is that they will be moving away from maned missions which I think is a + as there is little to no scientific returns for manned missions. The ISS is basically a joke science wise.

 

[Cogman]

I've said it before, even in this thread. Assuming that we're going to have to ship everything to a moon base is just silly. 90% of the mass for a mars mission could come from lunar resources and pretending that is impossible is like europeans pretending that an american colony could never produce shovels because it was "impossible" and therefore such a colony should never be pursued.

Tell me, do you know of a magical way to convert "mass" to "fuel" Because that is what they would need. No? Then why even bring it up.

How would landing on the moon futher the ability of man to change the chemical makeup of things at a whim? Seems to me that we can study that without going to the moon.

If one day we can do it, then I would support a lunar mission/base. It would make sense. But this isn't a Sci-fi universe, there are actual physical laws that we don't know how to change (or if they can be changed).

 

[Locut0s]

Tell me, do you know of a magical way to convert "mass" to "fuel" Because that is what they would need. No? Then why even bring it up.

How would landing on the moon futher the ability of man to change the chemical makeup of things at a whim? Seems to me that we can study that without going to the moon.

If one day we can do it, then I would support a lunar mission/base. It would make sense. But this isn't a Sci-fi universe, there are actual physical laws that we don't know how to change (or if they can be changed).

Well they have shown that there is water at the polls. From water you can get Hydrogen. They have shown that there is plenty of oxygen that can be extracted from lunar rocks and soils. H(l) + O(l) = rocket fuel.

 

[mmntech]

When we landed on the moon, I think it was one of the few positive achievements that brought the world together regardless of nationality. Without the space program, we would not have seen the huge advances made in computers, communications, and the understanding of our own planet.

NASA has done a lot of stuff lately I don't agree with (ie climate research) but I think they're definitely worth funding. People have narrow visions these days. If it doesn't provide immediate benefits, why keep funding it? They could probably address bureaucratic waste without killing programs. It's a huge setback for human advancement.