The US Future for Space Travel . . . Discussion

[CaptnKirk]

There are currently 3 random postings in this forum about Space Programs:
(Hopefully this won't be a 4th random posting, but will focus on the topic)

BBC Bush Proposal
Bush OK's New Moon Mission
Space Station Worse than MIR

Some of the comments are just bashing from each side to the other over a partisan positioning of Politicial Agenda,
and some is just throwing out random thoughts without looking toards a functional goal.

Do we really want to go to the Moon ? why and for what - what advantage would a moonbase have over a orbital station.
Would not an orbital platform be a better cohice (Internationalional Space Station became to 'Politically Cotrrect')
for an assembly point from a logistical service view ? why fly for a week and try to land in another gravity well,
only to have to re-launch from that reduced effect gravity well to accomplish a mission,
when an orbiting platform can be reached in a 24 hour window, docking is a minimal effort, and re-launch
of any fabricated mission module for a deep space probe is a lesser Orbital Mechanics problem than
flight origination from a natural satellite ? We can move the platform to our position for launch advantages.

The ISS was so severly compromised by international political concessions that it became more like a AirStream Trailer
in space than a functional research facility. The Space Shuttle itself was compromised to become nothing more than
a Space Truck for the Air Force to haul large spy Sats into orbit, forfieting it's original NASA Mission design plans.

I'll let this run for a while and see what your collective thoughts are, then I'll add to the discussion later, as it develops.
A return to some of the 'Original' Space Shuttle plans and design capabiltites may be in order.

 

[tallest1]

I know you're trying to bring up an intellectuall discussion but are you implying that we shouldn't bother with a space program at all? While the ISS isn't what you see in the movies, the research that they conduct up there may very well be a savior to your children's children.

As far as a trip to the moon goes, we sure as hell can't afford it right now or anytime in the near future. Though if we get stuck with another big spender running the government, it'll probably get pushed with the same 'ol political objectives.

 

[Moonbeam]

By the light of the silv'ry moon I want to spoon
To my honey I'll croon love's tune
Honey moon, keep a-shinin' in June
Your silv'ry beams will bring love's dreams
We'll be cuddlin' soon by the silv'ry moon

 

[CaptnKirk]

My interest is in what direction Space Research should go - Why go back to the Moon?
Been there, done that - what we saw and learned was that it's not worth a return to,
hence the fact that we have not sent anything back there since our last 'walk' in '72.
We left it in a suspended state of exploration for 32 years - there's a reason, not just bugetary.

If we had stayed with the 'Original' design and usage plan for the Space Shuttle we could have
built a huge Space Station platform by now - there have been over 100 Shuttle launches.
One of the 'Original' design plans that got axed - cubic dollars and Politics at home,
was for the external tank to be boosted into a parking orbit for selective retrevial and
retrofitted into compartments for a unified space hub mechenism.
The external tank is approximately 28 feet in diameter (3 story building plus),
and 154 feet long (half the length of a football field)
When it is jettisoned there is enough fuel left in the tanks that one of the OMS type of rockets
on the shuttle if modified for use on the tank base dome structure, could have been used to continue the
flight into an orbital insertion velocity to park it indefinately at an altitude in the 100 to 120 mile range,
where they could be retreived and joined to makle a rather colosal sized unit with a ring of 6 units and a
core shaft of 2 oribital docking units to make an 8 segment base platform.
Add-ons of 'Tinker Toy' hub type adaptors would allow continuous expansion capability.

The tanks carry Hydrogen (Fuel), Oxygen (breathing air and oxidizer) which can provide the
power through recombination to supply electricity (as is done now on the Shuttle) and
the leftover residue from this process is breathable oxygen and drinking water.

Think about it - 8 joined three story modules, each 1/2 the length of a football field would house a lot
of personel and equipment, and we allready hauled them up there once - only to throw it away.
That's where you build a staging facility and factory - hours away instead of days.

 

[Witling]

QUOTATION: "For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: It might have been!" John Greenleaf Whittier (1807?1892).

Sometimes up, sometimes down, politics controls expenditures. It's my understanding that the current space shuttle is an animal designed by a committee. Military budgets were tapped and that gave the military extensive input into what was going to happen. I have no doubt that in a technical sense we could bring off a very clever trip to mars and back. But, the money's the rub. I'd rather have my money spent making sure that all Americans had health care and that throughout the world people had telephone service and did not have dirt floors. Heck, I might even want to see that all human beings got enough to eat. Imagine Abdul, an 18 year old Palestinian youth going to his job every day at the local pre-manufactured housing plant. "Sorry boys, I can't go on the terrorist raid today, I've used up all my annual leave."

 

[charrison]

Best news out of this:

The scrapping of the shuttle. At 500M a launch it is an incredible waste.
Hopefully nasa will be smart to build some unmanned heavy lift and light something to carry people.

Nasa has been lacking long terms goals, the moon and mars will make good goals.
I dont see much reason to return the moon, but the mars is a good goal, just because of the challenge it will present.

 

[Moonbeam]

The potential for natural resources on the moon vastly outweighs the problem of the gravity well, in my opinion. And the moon is much more fun than space. Just imagine strolling around. And you could keep fit by lifting heavy weights. There might be lots of frozen water and plenty of room.

 

[LunarRay]

I see no benefit for the cost involved. The technology developed for moon missions if applicable to us earthers will be developed out of necessity and cost benefit.. feed the hungry and shelter the homeless first. If any one wants to go somewhere out there then get the rest of the earthers to chip in as well..

 

[MovingTarget]

Actually the moon has quite a few advantages, besides being close to home. We still do not know too much about the moon, but lack the recourses/manpower to fully investigate it (as we have the structure of the earth). Do you really think we understand it completely from a geologic standpoint from a few "walks"? Its all about research and exploration, my freind. You can read all about foreign lands, but until someone actually goes there, then that knowledge is useless. It is a stable platform away from our planet. You could study space in an environment that isn't sheilded by an atmosphere. Interferometer array, anyone? Sure, we could put one in orbit, but a truly large one could easily be built and maintained on solid ground (you don't have to boost/adjust the orbit and can place it on something solid, much like today's buildings. It is easier to construct larger things on a surface and leave them there.). The moon provides an excellent platform for it. Then, there's recourses. The moon could have deposits of ice and other materials we would need in space, not to mention other elements/materials we could mine for use much like we do on Earth. But he moon does have things Earth doesnt have as much of. Take Helium-3 for example. That isotope is thought to be prevalent on the lunar surface and is a possible fuel for fusion reactors. Hell, any kind of nuclear research could be done on the moon without endangering our blue orb here. Same goes for biological research for the most part. Just because it is expensive to go to the moon in our lifetime, the research and technology we develop to do so would make it as easy/cheap to go there one day as it is to go on a commuter flight. But it has to start somewhere. Its in our nature to explore, and to not return to the moon would be a true waste of our talents.

 

[Zephyr106]

The ISS was so severly compromised by international political concessions that it became more like a AirStream Trailer in space than a functional research facility.

Actually, it wasn't international political concessions that resulted in this, but NASA's feet dragging on the issue of a "space taxi" that could provide life boat capabilities for 7 people. Because the station is so labor intensive to maintain (perhaps someone can enlighten me on why?), you need at least 5 people on board to do meaningful, intensive research.

In my opinion the shuttle needs to be replaced ASAP and a "people moving" capability be created with a reusable capsule or small glider. A pure shuttle replacement with large cargo capacity in addition would be nice, but probably prohibitively expensive, knowing how everything with "military" or "NASA" attached to it turns out. So cheaper boosters (read- Soyuz) could launch the raw materials for space stations or other projects without the need for costly human safety considerations. As a Russian scientist said (maybe it was the creator of the Soyuz?), the goal should be to lower the cost per pound to orbit as much as possible. Only then would space truely be opened up to more research, people, mining, etc.

Zephyr

 

[B00ne]

The base on the moon thing: I dont know what to say about that. I have a hard time seeing benefits for launching a deep space mission (mars) as contrary to assembling in Orbit and launching from there. Actually landing on the moon and then relaunching from there seems like a terrible waste of precious resources that all have to be shot up there in the first place. I can see benefits in building a moon base for very large telsescope arrays. But I suspect that would even bust the budget a mars mission would require. Unless u could manufacture things up there - which i do not see possible in a forseeable future. So basically I have no clue why Bush wants to go to the Moon. Btw, does NASA want to go to the moon too (I mean seriously and not as some kind of what if... fantasy)?

Question: What kind of political concessions are u talking about regarding the ISS. The only concessions that I am aware of have to do with a lack of money. All I know is the ISS is extremely behind schedule due to U not having transport anymore and the russions not having money. I wonder why we (US+Europe) dont revive that russian Energia Rocket which can haul 100 metric tons into Orbit?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The potential for natural resources on the moon vastly outweighs the problem of the gravity well, in my opinion. And the moon is much more fun than space. Just imagine strolling around. And you could keep fit by lifting heavy weights. There might be lots of frozen water and plenty of room.

There is no frozen water or any kind of water on the moon. This has been proven already by scientist.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison
Best news out of this:

The scrapping of the shuttle. At 500M a launch it is an incredible waste.
Hopefully nasa will be smart to build some unmanned heavy lift and light something to carry people.

Nasa has been lacking long terms goals, the moon and mars will make good goals.
I dont see much reason to return the moon, but the mars is a good goal, just because of the challenge it will present.

I've never been comfortable with the "Bottle Rocket" type launching, Challenger was the Ultimate signature of how flawed doing it that way is.

Launching from a "Howard Hughes" type plane makes for sense.

Using a "Non-Solid" Fuel is even better. I hope the guys doing the X - project of putting lightweight Composites into space beats out the Government funded, Military First Operation.

That's why this issue is being forced, not just because the Shuttle Fleet is depleted through attrition but because the Government is about to be upstaged.

 

[zephyrprime]

Hopefully nasa will be smart to build some unmanned heavy lift and light something to carry people.

I think this would be best to do also.

I don't see how a moon base would really help us in any way. I don't see that it would be a big help in getting to Mars. Getting anything there would be even more expensive than getting something into orbit. Plus you have gravity on the moon so assembly anything really big would require scaffolding. Yeah sure, spending all the money on it would help us technologically but you could get an even bigger gain technologically by spending the money on a myriad of domestic research projects.

 

[Wag]

Anyone read 3001?

I think we should work on building a Space Elevator first. That would just open up everything.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Anyone else think this is just a coincidence?

Link 1

Link 2

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The potential for natural resources on the moon vastly outweighs the problem of the gravity well, in my opinion. And the moon is much more fun than space. Just imagine strolling around. And you could keep fit by lifting heavy weights. There might be lots of frozen water and plenty of room.

There is no frozen water or any kind of water on the moon. This has been proven already by scientist.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html

everyone of us need to realize that our planet is not sustainable with our current population growth. The solar system won't last forever and in order for the human race to continue, we must explore space and maybe move toward space colonization at some point.

im off in my own little sci-fi world here.

 

[glugglug]

While it would never be inhabitable, I think the chemicals in the venetian (Venus) atmosphere would be a good alternative to oil.

 

[Moonbeam]

Don't say never. Venus would be a nice place to grow tomatoes someday. Where there is a will there is a way.

 

[Bitdog]

To avoid childish "one up man ship",
the scientists should be making the decisions as to our space adventures,
instead of the polititions.

 

[amok]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
My interest is in what direction Space Research should go - Why go back to the Moon?
Been there, done that - what we saw and learned was that it's not worth a return to,
hence the fact that we have not sent anything back there since our last 'walk' in '72.
We left it in a suspended state of exploration for 32 years - there's a reason, not just bugetary.

If we had stayed with the 'Original' design and usage plan for the Space Shuttle we could have
built a huge Space Station platform by now - there have been over 100 Shuttle launches.
One of the 'Original' design plans that got axed - cubic dollars and Politics at home,
was for the external tank to be boosted into a parking orbit for selective retrevial and
retrofitted into compartments for a unified space hub mechenism.
The external tank is approximately 28 feet in diameter (3 story building plus),
and 154 feet long (half the length of a football field)
When it is jettisoned there is enough fuel left in the tanks that one of the OMS type of rockets
on the shuttle if modified for use on the tank base dome structure, could have been used to continue the
flight into an orbital insertion velocity to park it indefinately at an altitude in the 100 to 120 mile range,
where they could be retreived and joined to makle a rather colosal sized unit with a ring of 6 units and a
core shaft of 2 oribital docking units to make an 8 segment base platform.
Add-ons of 'Tinker Toy' hub type adaptors would allow continuous expansion capability.

The tanks carry Hydrogen (Fuel), Oxygen (breathing air and oxidizer) which can provide the
power through recombination to supply electricity (as is done now on the Shuttle) and
the leftover residue from this process is breathable oxygen and drinking water.

Think about it - 8 joined three story modules, each 1/2 the length of a football field would house a lot
of personel and equipment, and we allready hauled them up there once - only to throw it away.
That's where you build a staging facility and factory - hours away instead of days.

Actually, I think where most people get caught up is that they tend to go for a one or the other view on OP vs. MB. IMO, a combination of the two is likely the most efficient method. Raw materials and propellant manufactured on the moon and boosted to an OP where launches occur, while science can be done on both.

 

[dmcowen674]

1-11-2004 Bush Administration: Snow - Bush Space Plan Not Too Costly

WASHINGTON - Space-exploration proposals that President Bush's is preparing to put into his next budget will not undermine his administration's goal of cutting the federal deficit in half within five years, Treasury Secretary John Snow said Sunday.

Snow said the administration's budget, which will be sent to Congress on Feb. 2, will outline the new space proposals plus a plan that will accomplish the goal of cutting record budget deficits in half through a combination of stronger economic growth and spending restraint.

"We can do both. We really can," Snow said in an interview on ABC's "This Week." "This is a country of enormous resources, and we have the capacity to pursue a number of priorities at one time, but we have to do so within the framework of fiscal responsibility. I think you'll see that reflected in the budget."

Snow said that Bush was "not one to shy away from bold visions."

On ABC, Snow said the administration remains confident that the economy is beginning to rebound at a strong enough rate to make a significant dent in the unemployment rate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where's all the new Shuttles that we've been building that don't cost that much?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-11-2004 Bush Administration: Snow - Bush Space Plan Not Too Costly

WASHINGTON - Space-exploration proposals that President Bush's is preparing to put into his next budget will not undermine his administration's goal of cutting the federal deficit in half within five years, Treasury Secretary John Snow said Sunday.

Snow said the administration's budget, which will be sent to Congress on Feb. 2, will outline the new space proposals plus a plan that will accomplish the goal of cutting record budget deficits in half through a combination of stronger economic growth and spending restraint.

"We can do both. We really can," Snow said in an interview on ABC's "This Week." "This is a country of enormous resources, and we have the capacity to pursue a number of priorities at one time, but we have to do so within the framework of fiscal responsibility. I think you'll see that reflected in the budget."

Snow said that Bush was "not one to shy away from bold visions."

On ABC, Snow said the administration remains confident that the economy is beginning to rebound at a strong enough rate to make a significant dent in the unemployment rate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where's all the new Shuttles that we've been building that don't cost that much?

They will likely take years to develop. New heavy lift could be developed in short order. We currently do no need the shuttle for 9/10s of what nasa does.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Look to the Chinese to do this first, perhaps with the aid of Russia. Russia has heavy launch vehicles developed now. We will talk a great deal, but I expect others will actually do it. Making a new model SUV is far more important to us.

They are already graduating more engineers than us, and can do things for less money.

Chinese will have base on the moon in 30 years, we will not.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Look to the Chinese to do this first, perhaps with the aid of Russia. Russia has heavy launch vehicles developed now. We will talk a great deal, but I expect others will actually do it. Making a new model SUV is far more important to us.

They are already graduating more engineers than us, and can do things for less money.

Chinese will have base on the moon in 30 years, we will not.

We have the ability to heavy lift, we have jsut been wrapped in the shuttle. Delta rockers are far beyond anything the chinese have right now.