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

[Cogman]

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.

Nobody uses Hydrogen as rocket fuel. And for good reason.

Although liquid hydrogen gives a high Isp, its low density is a significant disadvantage: hydrogen occupies about 7x more volume per kilogram than dense fuels such as kerosene. This not only penalises the tankage, but also the pipes and fuel pumps leading from the tank, which need to be 7x bigger and heavier. (The oxidiser side of the engine and tankage is of course unaffected.) This makes the vehicle's dry mass much higher, so the use of liquid hydrogen is not such a big win as might be expected. Indeed, some dense hydrocarbon/LOX propellant combinations have higher performance when the dry mass penalties are included.
Due to lower Isp, dense propellant launch vehicles have a higher takeoff mass, but this does not mean a proportionately high cost; on the contrary, the vehicle may well end up cheaper. Liquid hydrogen is quite an expensive fuel to produce and store, and causes many practical difficulties with design and manufacture of the vehicle.
Because of the higher overall weight, a dense-fuelled launch vehicle necessarily requires higher takeoff thrust, but it carries this thrust capability all the way to orbit. This, in combination with the better thrust/weight ratios, means that dense-fuelled vehicles reach orbit earlier, thereby minimizing losses due to gravity drag. Thus, the effective delta-v requirement for these vehicles are reduced.
However, liquid hydrogen does give clear advantages when the overall mass needs to be minimised; for example the Saturn V vehicle used it on the upper stages; this reduced weight meant that the dense-fuelled first stage could be made significantly smaller, saving quite a lot of money.

 

[marvdmartian]

The way NASA has been run for the past 20+ years, it doesn't surprise me at all that this has happened. And frankly, if they had tried to go to the moon with this version of NASA, it would have taken twice as long, and cost 5x as much as predicted.

NASA has become one of the most politicized programs in the government, where funding has become tied to results, more time is spent trying to find more methods of obtaining funding than actual intelligent work being accomplished, all wrapped up in overpriced and under-performing vendors. When we sent man to the moon, back in the 60's, NASA kept pretty tight control over the program, and made certain that the vendors they used got it right, the first time, or got hammered for it. Everything was so incredibly over-engineered that even after Apollo 13's incapacitating explosion, they were able to keep those guys alive and get them back home. And they employed some of the most brilliant minds of the time.

Did it cost dearly? You bet it did! The Apollo program was by no means cheap, which is a big reason why it ended prematurely. But it was successful in it's mission, and even with a nearly one year delay (after the command capsule fire of Apollo 1), it got men safely to the moon and back.

That's the kind of dedication this country will need, in order to duplicate those efforts, and which I believe the current incarnation of NASA is incapable of giving us. I feel sorry for all the astronauts that have been waiting to go up into space, but hope that the civilian companies that step in to do what NASA can't will have sense enough to hire these guys, or at least make a deal with the government, so they can be "borrowed". Hands down, they're still the best qualified to do the job, imho.

Nobody uses Hydrogen as rocket fuel. And for good reason.

Um, you do realize that the shuttle main engines are still burning liquid H2 and O2 for fuel, right? It's only the solid rocket boosters that don't use that for fuel. H2/O2 rocket engines are still a very viable option for space flight.

 

[iGas]

Not a great lost. NASA haven't produce anything worth while since the early 80s.

 

[Cogman]

Um, you do realize that the shuttle main engines are still burning liquid H2 and O2 for fuel, right? It's only the solid rocket boosters that don't use that for fuel. H2/O2 rocket engines are still a very viable option for space flight.

Fine, I should have said "in space". There is a reason they don't use the liquid fuel for the entire mission.

 

[techs]

The way NASA has been run for the past 20+ years, it doesn't surprise me at all that this has happened. And frankly, if they had tried to go to the moon with this version of NASA, it would have taken twice as long, and cost 5x as much as predicted.

NASA has become one of the most politicized programs in the government, where funding has become tied to results, more time is spent trying to find more methods of obtaining funding than actual intelligent work being accomplished, all wrapped up in overpriced and under-performing vendors. When we sent man to the moon, back in the 60's, NASA kept pretty tight control over the program, and made certain that the vendors they used got it right, the first time, or got hammered for it. Everything was so incredibly over-engineered that even after Apollo 13's incapacitating explosion, they were able to keep those guys alive and get them back home. And they employed some of the most brilliant minds of the time.

Did it cost dearly? You bet it did! The Apollo program was by no means cheap, which is a big reason why it ended prematurely. But it was successful in it's mission, and even with a nearly one year delay (after the command capsule fire of Apollo 1), it got men safely to the moon and back.

Agreed.

In fact you can date the decline of NASA from the Reagan administration when they decided that NASA and particulary the Space Shuttle must pay for itself. They put a terrible flunky with very limited engineering skills in charge of NASA. And "Bingo" overnight came up with ridiculous plan as to how the shuttle would pay for itself. So a few years later NASA launched the Challenger in dangerous conditions trying to live up to a schedule drawn up by bean counters.

However, it also needs to added that the military has been screwing with NASA since the 80's. The military wants its own space program, not answerable to NASA. The military screwed up the shuttle by constantly changing its requirements for what the shuttle needed to do, knowing that NASA would have to pay for every change the military asked for. Since the conditon was the military didn't need a space program because NASA would meet its needs.

 

[So]

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).

Using solar power to crack oxygen from aluminium oxide (moon dust) isn't exactly magical. Nor are the shuttle's solid rocket boosters which are fueled by the reaction of aluminum and oxygen. Gee, surprise! The ENTIRE SURFACE OF THE MOON is rocket fuel.

 

[So]

Fine, I should have said "in space". There is a reason they don't use the liquid fuel for the entire mission.

Yeah, because US rocket engineers perfected solid boosters for the ICBM program and had more experience with them. Apollo and virtually every other orbit capable system is 100% liquid fuel.

 

[feralkid]

Just like seeing what was across that giant ocean west of Europe. It's obviously empty and devoid.

Except for all the snakes and dragons.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

Ohhh, sure! I forgot that all we have to do is get there. Then, we just snap our fingers & we have all the hydrogen & oxygen that we need. And, why the hell would you need to get oxygen from the rocks? Wild guess: because you didn't realize that the process of getting hydrogen from the water also gives you oxygen? Getting oxygen from the rocks just uses more of your precious energy. Speaking of which, you do realize that it takes energy to get hydrogen from oxygen? A lot of energy. A whole shitload of it. More energy than you'll get in return in your rocket engines. It doesn't happen magically.

Where are you storing this hydrogen? What facility? You know that you need to keep that liquid hydrogen pretty damn cold - colder than it is on the moon, right? (And, that's when you're not facing the sun - despite what Pink Floyd says about the Dark Side of the Moon, you're going to be getting plenty of sunlight. What's that? You'll do all your work in a darker area? Great! Your solar cells should work just fine in the dark to provide the needed energy.)

How are you gathering this water? How are you gathering these rocks? Think for a moment - go down to the beach and pretend you are going to produce oxygen & hydrogen from the VERY easily obtainable water there. How much equipment do you need? Give this some serious thought - and stop and look at the International Space Station. The ISS barely does more than keep a half dozen people alive IN LOW EARTH ORBIT! The ISS is a TINY step compared to a lunar base, let alone a lunar base capable of producing fuel for rockets.

Building a lunar base capable of refueling rockets is to the ISS as rowing across a river and building a shack is to sailing across the ocean and building the Taj Mahal. We're not there. We can't afford it. At present time, it's a pipe dream and a huge waste of resources. In the future, once our technologies have advanced - and they will advance through robotic missions - then it'll be time.

 

[Fenixgoon]

i still want my goddamn 40 TeV particle accelerator in texas. i didn't know about it at the time (seeing as i was 5 in 1992), but we could have had the largest particle accelerator on the planet by a large margin? fuck man, we might have found the higg's boson by now.

 

[So]

Ohhh, sure! I forgot that all we have to do is get there. Then, we just snap our fingers & we have all the hydrogen & oxygen that we need. And, why the hell would you need to get oxygen from the rocks? Wild guess: because you didn't realize that the process of getting hydrogen from the water also gives you oxygen? Getting oxygen from the rocks just uses more of your precious energy. Speaking of which, you do realize that it takes energy to get hydrogen from oxygen? A lot of energy. A whole shitload of it. More energy than you'll get in return in your rocket engines. It doesn't happen magically.

Where are you storing this hydrogen? What facility? You know that you need to keep that liquid hydrogen pretty damn cold - colder than it is on the moon, right? (And, that's when you're not facing the sun - despite what Pink Floyd says about the Dark Side of the Moon, you're going to be getting plenty of sunlight. What's that? You'll do all your work in a darker area? Great! Your solar cells should work just fine in the dark to provide the needed energy.)

How are you gathering this water? How are you gathering these rocks? Think for a moment - go down to the beach and pretend you are going to produce oxygen & hydrogen from the VERY easily obtainable water there. How much equipment do you need? Give this some serious thought - and stop and look at the International Space Station. The ISS barely does more than keep a half dozen people alive IN LOW EARTH ORBIT! The ISS is a TINY step compared to a lunar base, let alone a lunar base capable of producing fuel for rockets.

Building a lunar base capable of refueling rockets is to the ISS as rowing across a river and building a shack is to sailing across the ocean and building the Taj Mahal. We're not there. We can't afford it. At present time, it's a pipe dream and a huge waste of resources. In the future, once our technologies have advanced - and they will advance through robotic missions - then it'll be time.

None of these are even CLOSE to dealbreakers. It's called infrastructure. The technology is there. The infrastructure never will be unless we build it. You're imposing an unreasonable requirement on any colonization program: the magical ability to get infrastructure for free. The simple fact is, if you put people up there, doing REAL work every day, expanding a base's capabilities and you keep sending more people there, geometric growth sets in REAL fast and you could have a viable moonbase and trans solar exploration for, more or less, twice the budget that we spend today.

Also, unlike a space station, moonbases don't tend to fall out of the sky after a few years.

 

[zinfamous]

ARES V

+

VASMIR

+

Nuclear Power

+

Transhab

+

In-Situ Resource Utilization

=

Survivable Mars Mission

I was listening to one "space travel expert" chat abotu potential Mars missions a few months ago, and he had a bit of a novel approach to the whole thing:

One way missions.

No one thinks about it, b/c they find the idea reprehensible. But the reality is that there is a pool of candidates who would likely volunteer to take a one-way trip and establish such extra-terrestrial bases to be continually populated with following one way trips, until technology/cost makes return more possible.

Makes sense to me, anyway. odd that the money people don't seem to think this way...

 

[zinfamous]

i still want my goddamn 40 TeV particle accelerator in texas. i didn't know about it at the time (seeing as i was 5 in 1992), but we could have had the largest particle accelerator on the planet by a large margin? fuck man, we might have found the higg's boson by now.

blame the end of the Cold War, and Congress's woeful history of "not understanding the realities of science" for the end of that project.

The only thing that kept the money going for it was the belief in the minds of the financial committee that somehow, some way, regardless of what every researcher involved in the project testified, the Texas accelerator could lead to a big-bad Soviet-smashing weapon of doom.

seriously. it's just like CERN: all it took was one scientist to mention the 0.000000009% chance that a micro blackhole would form, and the laymen turn that into "We're All Gonna DIE!!!!" That thought is literally what kept the Texas project going for so long, and why it dried up so suddenly.

 

[Jeff7]

Also, unlike a space station, moonbases don't tend to fall out of the sky after a few years.

They just have problems with the long distance from Earth, micrometeorites, and solar radiation.

i still want my goddamn 40 TeV particle accelerator in texas. i didn't know about it at the time (seeing as i was 5 in 1992), but we could have had the largest particle accelerator on the planet by a large margin? fuck man, we might have found the higg's boson by now.

Or Project Prometheus. Say goodbye to low-power RTEGs, and welcome in genuine fission reactors, generating more than 100 kilowatts of power for all kinds of fun new instrumentation. No Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter.

Dammit, I mean look at that, just the communications system was impressive: Telecommunications link: 10 Mbit/s (4×250 watt TWTA)
Some probes are lucky to have that much wattage available for the entire spacecraft.

 

[So]

They just have problems with the long distance from Earth, micrometeorites, and solar radiation.

Both of which are easily solved by using bulk regolith to build your roof.

 

[Locut0s]

I was listening to one "space travel expert" chat abotu potential Mars missions a few months ago, and he had a bit of a novel approach to the whole thing:

One way missions.

No one thinks about it, b/c they find the idea reprehensible. But the reality is that there is a pool of candidates who would likely volunteer to take a one-way trip and establish such extra-terrestrial bases to be continually populated with following one way trips, until technology/cost makes return more possible.

Makes sense to me, anyway. odd that the money people don't seem to think this way...

Given the dedication, resolve and bravery of most astronauts there would still be a lot of people volunteering for one way missions!

 

[techs]

I was listening to one "space travel expert" chat abotu potential Mars missions a few months ago, and he had a bit of a novel approach to the whole thing:

One way missions.

No one thinks about it, b/c they find the idea reprehensible. But the reality is that there is a pool of candidates who would likely volunteer to take a one-way trip and establish such extra-terrestrial bases to be continually populated with following one way trips, until technology/cost makes return more possible.

Makes sense to me, anyway. odd that the money people don't seem to think this way...

Given the dedication, resolve and bravery of most astronauts there would still be a lot of people volunteering for one way missions!

Uh, what's the point of a one way mission? The goal of going to Mars is bringing some it back to Earth.
We have already landed probes on a one way mission. And it would be plain dumb to just send some people there to die.

The next logical, and cost effective method, is to send a round trip unmanned mission.

 

[Jeff7]

Both of which are easily solved by using bulk regolith to build your roof.

Uh oh, did someone just say Weeaboo?



In any case, yeah, that would work, but would of course require extensive excavation, which goes back to what you said about infrastructure.
(And of course, we could send robots there first to get some of the hard work done first. They of course don't need breaks. Or oxygen.)

 

[zinfamous]

Uh, what's the point of a one way mission? The goal of going to Mars is bringing some it back to Earth.
We have already landed probes on a one way mission. And it would be plain dumb to just send some people there to die.

The next logical, and cost effective method, is to send a round trip unmanned mission.

Again, it's not necessary to think only round-trip at this time. The most cost-effective current goal would certainly be one-way, and there are plenty out there who would be willing to do it.

lest you forget that most of the settlers during the colonial age accepted a one-way mission. Sure, it's a bit different, but if you send out a group of people, maybe even a small colony of people to establish an on-going community, a one-way mission is the earliest method that allows such a colony to happen.

The only reason to argue against it is accepting that someone is going there to die. Well, that's pretty damn silly, really. We're all going to die. It only matters to the person who dies where they die. If they want to live the remaining x years of their lives contributing to the most important exploratory mission in human history, then why the hell wouldn't we let them?



and yeah, you're right that a un unmanned roundtrip mission makes sense...but we're talking about methods of establishing an inhabited colony. The point is that there is no reason to think that a colony should only be established if round-trip missions are possible. If you're going to look into the feasibility of inhabiting the planet, then you really don't expect to return anyway, right?

 

[Bateluer]

Its irritating, though I don't think NASA is dying by any means. They've taken a major set back and it'll take us years, possibly decades, to regain what we're going to lose, but their not dead.

But just think, when the Chinese walk on Mars, we'll be there to take pictures with very advanced robots that are monitoring Mars for signs of climate change.

 

[Locut0s]

Uh oh, did someone just say Weeaboo?



In any case, yeah, that would work, but would of course require extensive excavation, which goes back to what you said about infrastructure.
(And of course, we could send robots there first to get some of the hard work done first. They of course don't need breaks. Or oxygen.)

Don't think it would involve much excavation really. All you need is a sturdy inflatable structure say that can sustain the weight of maybe a foot or two of soil on the roof.

 

[Locut0s]

Its irritating, though I don't think NASA is dying by any means. They've taken a major set back and it'll take us years, possibly decades, to regain what we're going to lose, but their not dead.

But just think, when the Chinese walk on Mars, we'll be there to take pictures with very advanced robots that are monitoring Mars for signs of climate change.

Like I was saying above I think it's a step forward, for science anyway.

 

[DrPizza]

None of these are even CLOSE to dealbreakers. It's called infrastructure. The technology is there. The infrastructure never will be unless we build it. You're imposing an unreasonable requirement on any colonization program: the magical ability to get infrastructure for free. The simple fact is, if you put people up there, doing REAL work every day, expanding a base's capabilities and you keep sending more people there, geometric growth sets in REAL fast and you could have a viable moonbase and trans solar exploration for, more or less, twice the budget that we spend today.

Also, unlike a space station, moonbases don't tend to fall out of the sky after a few years.

You're imposing an unreasonable requirement on any colonization program: the magical ability to get infrastructure for free. BINGO!!!!

I'm not imposing that requirement - you're GREATLY underestimating the cost of building an infrastructure that would even remotely allow such construction on the moon to take place. You're talking about decades upon decades of launches to put the materials on the moon in the first place before you can even consider that men on the moon would be able to accomplish ANYTHING using the materials found on the moon, except perhaps for some of the water that could be used to help grow a few plants.

If we put our minds & resources to it for the next two decades - all that we could accomplish is to build something on the moon that would keep a few human beings alive. Let me repeat that: 2 decades just to build enough to keep a few guys alive on the moon for a couple months at a time. About the only thing they'd be able to accomplish up there is a great big low gravity circle jerk. They are not going to build anything using resources found on the moon.

"But, there's aluminum oxide on the moon!" So what. What are you going to do? Do you know how much energy it takes to turn aluminum oxide into aluminum? Once you have aluminum, what are you going to do with it? Shape it with your hands? Think about it - look at the equipment it would take just to harvest your hydrogen. Now, look at the equipment on Earth that it takes to build THAT equipment. And, look at the equipment needed to build the equipment that builds the equipment to build your hydrogen plant. If you're starting with raw materials, you have to be able to convert that into the aluminum. That's going to take a LOT of energy - multiple launches of solar cells worth - just for the energy aspect of it. Many multiple launches for the rest of the equipment to produce reasonably sized pieces of aluminum that you can do anything with. Many many multiple launches for equipment to fabricate anything out of that aluminum. etc.

Seriously - sending men back to the moon wouldn't be science fiction - we could do it. Building a base on the moon where we mined resources & built *anything* using components on the moon - that's science fiction at present time.

 

[So]

You're imposing an unreasonable requirement on any colonization program: the magical ability to get infrastructure for free. BINGO!!!!

I'm not imposing that requirement - you're GREATLY underestimating the cost of building an infrastructure that would even remotely allow such construction on the moon to take place. You're talking about decades upon decades of launches to put the materials on the moon in the first place before you can even consider that men on the moon would be able to accomplish ANYTHING using the materials found on the moon, except perhaps for some of the water that could be used to help grow a few plants.

If we put our minds & resources to it for the next two decades - all that we could accomplish is to build something on the moon that would keep a few human beings alive. Let me repeat that: 2 decades just to build enough to keep a few guys alive on the moon for a couple months at a time. About the only thing they'd be able to accomplish up there is a great big low gravity circle jerk. They are not going to build anything using resources found on the moon.

"But, there's aluminum oxide on the moon!" So what. What are you going to do? Do you know how much energy it takes to turn aluminum oxide into aluminum? Once you have aluminum, what are you going to do with it? Shape it with your hands? Think about it - look at the equipment it would take just to harvest your hydrogen. Now, look at the equipment on Earth that it takes to build THAT equipment. And, look at the equipment needed to build the equipment that builds the equipment to build your hydrogen plant. If you're starting with raw materials, you have to be able to convert that into the aluminum. That's going to take a LOT of energy - multiple launches of solar cells worth - just for the energy aspect of it. Many multiple launches for the rest of the equipment to produce reasonably sized pieces of aluminum that you can do anything with. Many many multiple launches for equipment to fabricate anything out of that aluminum. etc.

Seriously - sending men back to the moon wouldn't be science fiction - we could do it. Building a base on the moon where we mined resources & built *anything* using components on the moon - that's science fiction at present time.

And I think you're greatly underestimating the ingenuity of the engineers involved in space operations. First of all, I'm confident that you could get the a bootstrap base going in twenty or so saturn five scale launches, or, (as implied by the article I posed way back on page 1), several hundred smaller launches using the economy of scale provided by a "model T" atlas sized rocket made on a REAL production line.

 

[DrPizza]

And I think you're greatly underestimating the ingenuity of the engineers involved in space operations. First of all, I'm confident that you could get the a bootstrap base going in twenty or so saturn five scale launches, or, (as implied by the article I posed way back on page 1), several hundred smaller launches using the economy of scale provided by a "model T" atlas sized rocket made on a REAL production line.

Perhaps you need to read that article again. It's talking about low earth orbit. Low earth orbit is cheap. It doesn't take much to get things there. It's not talking about the moon.

Again, the difference between low earth orbit & going to the moon is like crossing a river & crossing the Pacific Ocean.