Where Should Space Exploration Go From Here? 1159
Since Congress has been steadily cutting back on support for NASA, Nick suggests this idea: "I'm sure there are many taxpayers out there like me that would love to see NASA's budget doubled. The problem is there isn't enough support to get congress to increase the budget by that amount, and I really don't want people to pay that don't care to. I propose an opt-in, one-time contribution box added to tax returns. I would require that my money be used only to advance the space program with either a shuttle replacement, an extra crew compartment for the space station, or a launch vehicle for a manned trip to Mars. Would you support a bill that would allow taxpayers to voluntarily contribute money to NASA? Are you ready to put your coin where your Dreams are?"
The asteroid belt. (Score:3, Interesting)
nasa publicity. (Score:2, Interesting)
Where? Forward. (Score:3, Interesting)
The only reason space isn't the top priority of all of the governments of the world today is because we humans as a majority don't really seem to care what happens to our great great great great (and so on) grandchildren. We only care about the here and now. The folks and NASA and the folks in other space programs across the world may be the only ones who care about the future of humanity.
We (the United States) need to stop wasting our money on our already most-powerful military for the purpose of revenge against the middle east and start backing NASA more. Start researching new ways to travel in space, and make a colony in Alpha Century a priority. If we really are the evolved species we claim to be, we'll start caring less about squabbles on this blue marble and more about exploring the universe in which we live.
But again, that's just my 2 cents (and a paper clip)
Mars/Moon/Europa (Score:1, Interesting)
easy.... (Score:4, Interesting)
getting to mars with the new propultion technology is the lynchpin that will put emence presure on governments to allow for the exploitation of space and the flurry of missions to discover new things in the solar system.
Simplify.... (Score:5, Interesting)
--
Bless the crews of the Columbia and Challenger. From your sacrifices will come greatness.
Money to NASA (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not do this with NASA, as well? Especially since my state has a NASA research center. I'd be happy to spend an extra $10 for my license plate to show that I support our NASA research.
More info at http://www.oplates.com/
Re:MONEY gets in the way (Score:1, Interesting)
Also, it's interesting to look back at Feynman's analysis [virtualschool.edu] of the Challenger case.
Concluding quote from the doc: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled"...
Mars! (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like to find out more about Mars.
We don't need manned missions either, just some good robots.
I'd like to see a couple sample return missions. One of the most intriguing ideas recently is the suggestion that there may have been life on Mars at one point.
Finding out if there was (or wasn't) life on Mars could tell us a lot about how likely there is life on other planets. Let's get some probes on there, and roam around a bit, dig up some stuff, and bring it back!
Until launch costs get much cheaper (and that's a whole 'nother rant), let's just do some good, meaningful science. We have the technology. NASA's existing budget (if we weren't building the ISS) is good for a dozen missions per year to the rest of the solar system, plus another spiffy space telescope.
Now's the chance to take the money from something that isn't nearly as useful (the shuttle and ISS) and put it into answering some questions about life, the universe, and everything.
Let's do it!
Simple way to move 10x faster (Score:4, Interesting)
First, take half of NASA's budget, and make it totally devoted to unmanned missions exclusively. NASA suddenly gets 10x more research done for half the money.
Second, take the other half (billions of dollars, BTW) and make a series of prizes to be won by any group willing to take the risks. Prizes could include:
$200M prize for first profitable 100 megawatt power plant space.
$200M prize for first profitable factory that produces at least $1M in sales. $100M bonus if its a product that currently produces a lot of toxic waste.
$500M prize for agriculture pod that produces 1000 tons of food per year. $250M bonus if it's a forest pod that produces wood.
The key is that SPACE HAS TO PAY FOR ITSELF. Right now the risks are too high and expensive to get started.
Note by the way that this is the ideal way to sell space to people. "Think about all the bad, bad stuff that we can put in orbit instead of polluting the earth. Cheap power. Cheap products. Great for the economy.
Too bad this entirely logical, rational, practical and most importantly, extremely likely to succeed scenerio will never happen. NASA will never give up the control.
First we need space mining (Score:3, Interesting)
Step 2. Build an ore processing space station so we can mine the asteriods. This will provide most of the raw materials needed for everything else, such as
Step 3. Large scale self-sufficient space station. This might not be a single station. There might be one station devoted to living quarters, recreation, etc. and another for manufacturing and science.
It would probably be decades before this system reaches the break even point, and a few more decades before it pays for itself (financially). But that gives you...
Step 4. Profit! (sorry, I couldn't help myself).
That's my amateur class analysis. Feel free to blow huge holes into it.
game on! (Score:4, Interesting)
Giddy up - I'm all for it. Maybe we can get a tax exempt charity status for NASA donations. Maybe one already exists, I dunno. If it was on my 1040 though I'd like that -- more people would see it at least. It'd put it on the forefront of my mind come Tax time.
Personally, I have two uses for the federal government. My military and my space exploration. Beyond that, they're pushing into things that I think my state should handle. I'll spare y'all that ramble though.
I like the idea of space exploration. I sure wasn't around in 1969 when man landed on the moon, but I still get a little lump in my throat when I see things about that era. It makes me proud, not only to be an American but just to be a human being. Hell, I'm filled with awe when I read little tidbits about the early Russian space program, and I was raised in the '80's when the Russians were "bad bad peopole."
I think it's about time we set a real goal for space exploration again, although I'm certainly no expert on this subject. It just seems like it's time to me. We need somebody to step up like JFK did and say "We're going to point X by date Y, and there's no stopping us."
What will we do when we get to Mars, or a station on the moon? I don't know. We'll get something out of the deal though as a society as a whole though I think. Necessity is the mother of all inventions, right?
As it sits, over 50% of my money goes away in taxes right now -- I'd much rather it go to things that I really had an interest in is all.
Up is easy; down is harder (Score:5, Interesting)
It was at this point that I started thinking. Ever read Starship Troopers? In that book, Heinlein advanced the idea of mobile infantry troopers being dropped from orbit to ground in their own individual little re-entry pods. I started thinking about this.
Picture an astronaut in his spacesuit. He's enclosed in an egg-shaped structure made of aluminum and ablative materials, just barely big enough to hold him. Maybe the structure has a small solid-fuel booster attached that's sufficient to execute a de-orbit burn. With nothing more than the mass of the astronaut and the shell to push around, you wouldn't need much energy to execute such a manuver in low Earth orbit. After the burn, the spent booster falls away (to burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere) and the shell, with astronaut inside, descends through the upper atmosphere, shedding heat through ablation. (In other words, the heat shield boils away on the way down.) At a reasonable altitude, say 100,000 feet or so, the shell opens via explosive bolts and the astronaut free-falls, Kittinger-style. At a suitable altitude, the parachute opens automatically and the astronaut touches down safely.
The advantages of such an orbit-to-Earth system seem kinda obvious to me. We know all about ablative heat shields, having used them for the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs as well as every ICBM ever built. A small, symmetrical re-entry structure would be relatively immune to the kind of atmospheric forces that may have destroyed Columbia. Finally, not to seem morbid, in the event of a failure, only one life would be lost instead of the lives of an entire crew.
I don't know. It's just an idea.
Plans layed out bu von Braun (Score:2, Interesting)
Manned Space Exploration: (Score:3, Interesting)
The "flying box-car" we have now.. either in current config, or structurally refigured to a more current design.. (this design was finalized in the seventies, remember). The Shuttle is a great idea.. but its _old_.
ram-driver/mass-lifter.. bung a ruddy great magnetic impulse tube up the side of Kilimonjaro or something, and use that to hurl crap into space. use small gadabouts to retrieve said stuff to the station/s. All we need then is a relatively small (read: 3 crew, small) craft to get people up there to service, position, etc.
Re-useable self launching vehicle.. Delta Clipper style. Though Buzz Aldrin seems to think it is a step backwards, the videos of the tests at White Sands are quite impressive. (Even if it _did_ fall over and blow up on the second test). Extremely "Flash Gordon" and evoked mental images of the "bounce rockets" that Heinlein usually had laying about.
I personally think a shuttle-type craft is the way to go. its not a bad idea, its just an old idea that could do with some updating.
As far as funding goes, let NASA patent its inventions, for a change, and let them charge for spaceflight. Citizens in space? No problem.. sign that fat juicy check and you can ride shotgun, Mr Billionaire! Just sign this D/D waiver.. have a nice trip!
Its time to stop treating NASA as the bastard stepchild of the US.GOV and begin viewing it as the scientific testbed it is. NASA's only vehicle, at the moment, is the Shuttle. All the other rockets (Titan, ESA stuff, etc) are owned by other countries or by the Armed Forces.
Unfortunately, NASA is the first one to get their budget slashed whenever belts get tightened, and five minutes after vehicle blows up people who control said budgets promise to "spend whatever it takes" for safety. Then they slash the budget some more. How else do you explain a 20+ year old spacecraft still flying routine missions?
(And no, ejection seats wouldnt have helped.. even if the pressure suits could have kept them alive at 40 miles up, I think the mach-18 or so speeds would have presented an issue the instant the canopy popped).
I love NASA, I love spaceflight.. im tired of it being viewed as a joke until something (experimental and dangerous) goes wrong, and then CNN is glowering at me, accusing me of not even knowing the orbiter was coming home today, or who was on it. (The press is 2/3 of the problem, I suspect. The minute a launch gets scrubbed, they get pissed, and 10 minutes after an accident, they are demanding accountability and raking up stories about "fired" directors (who actually just ended their tenure, according to o'keefe).
Maeryk
Vehicles are a secondary consideration (Score:5, Interesting)
I doubt it would take any incredible breakthroughs in materials science to make it work... you could just use normal superconductor technology and conventional rocket/jet vehicle tech.
I know this is an old idea, so why haven't I seen more about it? Anyone have ideas what the weaknesses in this method are that it should be ignored for so long?
Road Map for Space (Score:2, Interesting)
Where Should Space Exploration Go From Here? (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Risks of Tether, Advantages of Space Plane (Score:1, Interesting)
A space tether would be a huge structure. Yes, it would be thin. It would nevertheless be very tall. As a result, it would be easy to hit. A cruise missile, ICBM, or an airplane that struck the tether would break it. An explosive device, including either a conventional explosive or a nuclear device, would break it. If the tether were stationed at sea, a submarine could clip the tether, or shoot a torpedo at it.
There would be no way to defend the tether from terrorists. You would have to create a large no-fly zone and a no-sail zone around the perimeter. This would create a humongous, circular no-commerce zone that would harm the global economy.
Natural events are also dangerous. A lightning strike could break it. An earthquake or volcanic activity could result in enough stress on the tether to break it. A tornado, with winds in excess of 400 mph, could damage the tether.
If a tether ever became damaged or underperformed its design specs, there would be no way to repair it. It must always remain in place.
Should we ever decide to remove the tether, there would be no way to take it down without it causing a catastrophe on the ground. Thus, there would be no way to ever upgrade the tether.
What comes up must come down. A good engineer builds something so not only does it perform well, but when it breaks it won't cause major problems.
Any breakage of the tether would result in catastrophe. First, there would be damage to the ground. Anything that big (about as long as the circumference of the Earth) is not going to totally burn up in the atmosphere.
The tether has the advantage of allowing many trips into space. That is also one of its biggest disadvantages. If we could take 50+ trips into space every year, we would become highly dependent on space. Our economic security and probably our military security and national security would come to depend on this tether.
The big problem is that once the tether is destroyed, you're probably looking at years before a replacement tether could be erected. If the first tether were brought down by terrorists or a wartime enemy, then military conflict would have to subside before the reconstruction project could begin. As a result, many of the tether-dependent assets we would have in space would be stranded for many years. Eventually the assets would die off from lack of oxygen, fuel, and supplies.
Advantages of space planes
The advantages of space planes are significant. First, you would have more than one space plane. Thus, if one were destroyed, you could still reach your assets in space with your other space planes.
A space plane is less vulnerable to terrorism because it is (1) smaller and (2) mobile. That makes it a lot harder to hit.
If a space plane comes down, it poses almost no risk to the ground. A good example is Columbia. Even if the fears about radioactive or toxic debris prove true, the area of effect will be minimal, relative to the area of effect of the tether breaking.
Space planes could go into space much more often the shuttle. That would be the whole point of building them. If that is not technologically achievable, then we would just stick with the shuttle. But even today, the space shuttle is based on 30-50 year old technology. If we commit financial resources behind something, we can build it. That's what we've always done.
Re:Article in Time Magazine (Score:5, Interesting)
Eaterbrook's article is right on. The shuttle has killed the space program. I heard Walter Cronkite being interviewed right after the burn up. He spoke about the exploration of space. Made me sad. That was what NASA was about in the 60's when he was covering launches. Now it's a waste of time joyride that accomplishes nothing and everyone knows it. I hate to admit it because I'm a space nut. I want to see man in the stars. I want to see the human race out there. Right now all I see is us marking time.
There are cheaper and more efficent ways that are available. Hell, there were better ways when the Mercury capsules were being shot around the world.
Check out the x-13 project.
NASA and Congress like the income generated from shuttle launches. That carries more weight than any dream of space.
Let NASA sit tight (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither science nor democracy nor human safety will benefit from giving NASA free reign. We who pay the bills have to decide what the goals our and then work with the engineers to realize them. NASA has focused on self-promotion for too long, though it does a good job of it; its contractors do the work. I am astonished to hear insinuations that NASA budget cuts were behind Challenger, because they didn't have enough money to do it safely. Well, if true, they shouldn't have done it at all.
Frankly, I think watching too much Star Trek and Star Wars is what perpetuates the manned space program. There is very little real science that can only be accomplished with manned flight, except perhaps research to support manned flight, and the circularity of that argument is obvious. The ISS practically exists to justify the shuttle program. We are squandering the opportunity to accomplish more in space and on the ground by funding an extravagantly expensive program based on the assumptions of 70's technology. The capabilities of robotics and automation, and our understanding of science, has advanced far since then.
If decionmaking were placed in the hands of scientists (not NASA) instead of voters, if anything manned spaceflight would suffer the most. Many scientists have been furious for decades at the Shuttle for siphoning money off from useful research, especially interplanetary probes like the ones that brought us so much, Pioneer and Voyager and Mariner and Viking and so on.
The shuttle is not financially justified, especially given its incredibly poor return, when they are many other projects in health, research, and education threatened with cuts because the U.S. faces a record budget deficit. It is hard to shrug off NASA's budget as "only" $14 billion (plus billions in cost overruns) when programs like Head Start that cost "only" $2 billion are criticized as too expensive. Certainly there are a lot of roads that could be built, too; a billion buys a lot unless it's unnecessary space travel.
Absolutely, manned space travel is neat stuff, and I love it. As a kid I paid rapt attention to the shuttle's development, toured a mock-up at Rockwell, and trekked out to the desert to see Columbia land after its very first mission. I am shocked to see it destroyed in 2003, possibly for some the same reasons of mismanagement as Challenger (if it proves relevant, similar but nonlethal tile damage had occurred before, just as known O-ring malfunctions predated Challenger). But we can not let this tragedy spur us into the totally illogical course of wasting even more money on a program that will inevitably lead to more deaths for no reason better than "space is neat stuff."
Is our goal manned space flight for its own sake? *That* is the kind of bad decision democracy can make.
Re:Next gen vehicles (Score:4, Interesting)
Your proposal to use "regular propulsion" to get to a max altitude has some merit, but not the way you think it does. A big, fast airplane powered by low-bypass turbofans or turbo-ramjets might be a good platform to launch a light rocket ship from, but it would take a lot of engineering to figure out if that would be more cost effective than using a small spaceplane (powered by rockets exclusively: Air breathing single stage rocketry is, I believe, not viable) coupled with a large semi-reusable heavy launch system.
And what the heck do you need flight control and power for on reentry? Just pick your de-orbit point to land wherever you want. The last thing you need when coming down from space is more speed, so an engine is totally useless. The ideal spacecraft gets into orbit with only enough fuel to maneuver and de-orbit. Any excess fuel is a colossal waste because of the equations that govern orbital insertion.
Space station (Score:3, Interesting)
The first short-term priority should be a cheap efficient way to launch materials into space. If it costs a small fraction what it does now to get material into space, the space station will get built much faster and using far less expensive materials and designs. Humans can still ride the space shuttles or some similar thing, but materials can survive a much more violent (and one-way) trip to space. Perhaps the shell of the launch vehicles could double as space station modules.
Once the space station can support a fairly large crew, how about adding an assembly facility, so that long-range space craft can be sent into orbit in pieces, then launched from the space station. Additions to the station will also become easier to complete.
The basis of all exploration beyond Earth orbits seems to me to lie in a functional space station. Without it, space will continue to be wildly expensive and insanely dangerous.
Then, explore, baby!!! With the problem of re-entry gone for long range space vehicles, long range missions should be much cheaper and safer. So let's start by exploring the moon a bit more, some asteroids (and see if money can be made mining those suckers), and then Mars.
Long-term goal? Space station in Mars orbit and at least a minimal surface base.
Re:Let NASA make the decision (Score:3, Interesting)
Space exploration has languished without a raison d'etre for decades now. What better motivation could there be than eliminating the largest source of pollution on Earth, providing for the energy needs of the entire planet in the process?
Re:Let NASA make the decision (Score:1, Interesting)
Skimming over the fact that MGS was not a failure, the Mars missions have actually been incredibly useful. Not content with disposable rockets, NASA has shown that there is a lot of value in disposable missions. Instead of spending $100M on one huge mission, you can now spend $10M each on eight small missions which do the same job, and you can even sustain a failure or two.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Let NASA make the decision (Score:1, Interesting)
Instead of just accepting the lameness of the shuttle program, NASA will likely spend next year's budget trying to figure out what they already know. We're not going anywhere else anytime soon. Especially since Bush doesn't even remember if he has ever visited a NASA facility. Just great.
But then again, maybe he did?? [austin360.com]
More horsepower gets you into trouble FASTER (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider how seemingly simple modifications can have unforseen implications. The External Fuel Tank USE to be painted white, until a handful of years ago when some beancounter discovered ~200K of savings simply by allowing the foam covering to remain unprotected by a millimeter thick paint spray. We never had this problem before, but now the last 10's of shuttle missions suffered from Foam Erosion.
Risk mitigation requires any and ALL changes to intricate systems be compiled and monitored over time. The Engineers at Kennedy where OBVIOUSLY concerned about the external fuel tank, and should have spent more time correcting the malfunction.
Replacing the on-board computers with Intel 64-bit Microprocessors? Running 2.5GHz? This is just tinkering with complex systems without fully understanding that more horsepower just gets you into trouble FASTER. The interconnections between processors, how the processors collect data, how reliable the data rate is at 2.5GHz and expecially HOW FAST YOU CAN CHOKE YOUR TELEMETRY Stream back to NASA central are just 4 ways to run into catastrophe.
Makes me madder than a One-Legged Man in a butt-kicking contest.
The SSX and DC-X (Score:5, Interesting)
The X-series (discounting the dumb X-33/34, and I use dumb lightly) were a smashing formula for success, and they were the blueprint for the process of getting man on the moon. Pournelle says we need a similar project to focus on building a space ship. Haven't you always wanted a space ship? :)
Armadillo Aerospace (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as our space efforts are funded by the government, they will always be politicized. People on Slashdot always say "we should give NASA more money," or "we should let NASA be more independent," but you just can't alter the fundamentally political way in which they're run. It's one of the bugs in democracy. Actually, it's present in other political systems as well ("In Soviet Russia, politicians assasinate YOU!"), but that's not important, because I don't think anyone here thinks we should give up democracy for the sake of greater efficiency in NASA. But look at the government programs that surround you every day. Look at the bitter controversies over what age sex education ought to be taught in the public schools (if at all, and should the subject of condoms be raised?). Look at the way the post office raises the price of stamps a penny every year, instead of a nickel every 5. So long as the entire county has to live under only one government, governmental programs are always going to be inefficent, as they must satisfy at least 50% of the population, and a few rich interest groups. The essence of democracy is what they say about a good compromise: "everyone's a little bit upset."
NASA probably was useful in its day. They did get the ball rolling after all. But today, with corporations sending up satellites as part of routine business, expecting a govenrment program to do all of America's space exploration is just not a good idea. We need sustainable space efforts, we need people who have an interest in bringing the cost of getting into space down, and who can take risks without having to think about what it'll mean next November.
Well, this has been a bit of a rant, but that's alright.
Solutions for NASA? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, it is difficult for me to imagine what goes through the minds of people trying to stop NASA at every mishap. Do they really believe that we'll magically fix all the problems we have here on Earth before the population density grows so high that real-estate in Antarctica starts looking attractive to management? I believe our future lies in space, spreading out from the Earth is the only way to ensure the long-term survival of the species, and Mars is the second step in that goal.
For those of you with less lofty ideas, might I remind you of the HUGE number of technological advances that came out of the well-funded space program of the 1960's? Anyone here use plastic? How about microwave ovens? Miniaturized computers (aka laptops)? Batteries to run them? All of these are available to us now, because they were developed for use in the space program, and then refined by the military.
Imagine what kinds of new technology we'd see if Congress would toss the same $2 billion dollars at NASA that they're tossing to AIDS resarch. Isn't our long-term survival and quality-of-life worth just as much as our short-term survival? Probably not. Most politicians can't see beyond the next election, so having things like an actual Goal for the nation is a concept that died with the Soviet Union.
I think if the public knew (or remembered) all the good that CAN come from a well-funded space program, they'd be screaming at Congress to fund them, knowing that in 5 years they'd get it all back in lower-priced consumer goods.
Re:The Budget Sucks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The obvious answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Up is easy; down is harder (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't find a link, but this was seriously considered. Might not be a bad emergency way to get out of space...but I don't want to be the first. : )
Re:Let NASA make the decision (Score:3, Interesting)
No building stuff in orbit. Just two big damn rockets and five people spend half a year on Mars. Now THAT, my friends, is space exploration.
Re:Let NASA make the decision (Score:3, Interesting)
"When Columbia's tiles started popping off in a stiff breeze, it occurred to engineers that ice chunks from the (external) tank would crash into the tiles during the sonic chaos of launch: Goodbye, Columbia. "
Freakin' prophetic.
Re:Make it cheap, and they will come (Score:1, Interesting)
If planes would have similar rate of failure tens or hunders of airplanes would be destroyed daily, who would use them then?
Back to the original question: Space Shuttle has a very little to do with a space exploration. Best solution is to send light and cheap probes t o the other planets.
Re:Make it cheap, and they will come (Score:5, Interesting)
Think cheap dumb boosters - the kind of vehicle the shuttle should have been before it was hijacked into being a commuter service. Keep in mind, we don't need to throw away the STS infrastructure (crusty as it may be.) Just replace the orbiter with a larger unmanned payload module, keep the external fuel tank and boosters. Then, build dozens of payload modules, external fuel tanks (screw the insulation - which is needed to keep ice from forming on the fuel tank, make the payload module disposable), and boosters, in order to get economies of scale. Since there's nobody on board, we don't have to worry about having 99.999999% reliability, nor do we have to waste money on life support.
Just so you know, this payload version of the shuttle already exists on paper, as one of the alternate configurations of the shuttle combo - known as the Shuttle C [orbit6.com].
If you're curious about other never-built shuttle designs, visit http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/sld02
Or, we can buy Russian rockets wholesale, if we don't want to invest in our domestic rocket industry. Just don't put pilots in cargo vehicles - there's no point! If you want to send up pilots, put them in spacecraft specifically designed to deliver people... survivable spacecraft.
Manned Space Exp.NOT necessary (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes history interupts itself... (Score:2, Interesting)
hrm....if we can just solve the loss of life problem, maybe we can distract Bush from the idea of war until he forgets about it.
Re:Next gen vehicles (Score:1, Interesting)
Shielding isn't necessarily heavy. There are ways around that by using composites where the different materials are combined in such a way that the electron clouds of the various orbitals of the various materials join to create the effect of the presense of a much heavier material. With this approach, you can create something like a half-meter of "pseudo-lead" in a few millimeters or less of the composite.
This same technique is being considered for radiation shielding fabrics (for space suits, which have been terribly neglected for quite a while). Not all of them are adequate for reactor use, but a few (one or two candidates) materials have been found with the necessary thermal properties.
The sad truth is that nuclear propulsion is feasible right now, and is not being considered (or even discussed, if the ignorance of the subject by some of the seemingly otherwise sagacious posters on this thread is any indication) solely for political reasons.
It's entirely possible that... (Score:4, Interesting)
However, that having been said, making expensive incremental advances is the best we can do until then -- so we must keep plodding along.
But what I want to know is WHY haven't important advances like the linear aerospike engine developed for the X-33 been put to use? I thought NASA's job was to push technology forward, not to bury it. For those unaware of what a linear aerospike engine [boeing.com] is, here's one small tidbit that helps explain its value: conventional rocket engines lose effectiveness as the ambient air pressure changes and must use expensive and complex nozzle geometry changes to minimize this. The linear aerospike maintains a near-constant efficiency from surface to orbit.
Before the X-33 program was folded amidst cries of bug-ridden technology and cost overruns (ostensibly due to a single fuel tank failure during testing -- remember the early problems with shuttle tiles? the Apollo 100% oxygen atmosphere that resulted in 3 deaths before everything was redesigned to become more flame-retardant? The X-33 fuel tank problems were a stalking horse designed to let the military take it over.), the linear aerospike performed flawlessly. And where is it now? Check the url above to see in what part of Boeing it resides.
And with the inherent weaknesses of the decades-old shuttle fresh in your mind, check out this link [216.239.53.100] (originally from www.milnet.com, but now only available via the google cache) for the advantages the X-33 presented over the shuttle. The VentureStar might not have made as good a truck as the shuttle, but unmanned cargo rockets (like those the Russians do so well) are better vehicles to boost freight into orbit.
Perhaps when we have a Chinese space station passing over the US every ninety minutes the government will figure out that NASA has a role other than a place to take funding from to backfill budgets that cannot be supported on their own merits.
Eventually, when large scale robotic manufacturing and practical nanotechnology drive the cost of making things through the floor (assuming it doesn't bury us in grey goo), we'll be able to grow space elevators and put hotels and shopping centers in orbit (not to mention nanotech development facilities, zero-G hospitals and organ farms). Until that time, access to space will continue to be controlled/blocked by that servant of the people, the gummint.
Where? Anywhere but where we've been! (Score:2, Interesting)
The townspeople wanted to explore those islands, and at one time they sent small, fast boats out past the waves to one of the islands, and discovered many great things. Amazingly, it only took them ten years of research to reach that distant island.
The waves were a problem though. Once they got past the waves, they could go anywhere they wanted, but coming back through the waves destroyed the boats. So the town's leaders decided that if they just built a fleet of large ships, they could go out and back through the waves many times easily. So the town used up all of their money to build these wonderful large boats.
The problem was, once past the waves...that was as far as the boat could go! It would motor around for a while, staying close to the entrance, then come back through the waves. It was a wonderful boat, to be sure, but the huge cost of building and sailing her left almost no money to build anything else! The large boat sailed for nearly 35 years, and never went anywhere. It just went outside the harbor and then back.
Over time, the concept of going to those far islands soon faded from everyone's mind because they had convinced themselves that this was "exploration", when they actually explored nothing more then the harbor entrance.
Occasionally the large ship would sink, and the townspeople would grieve for the loss of the crew. Sadly though, they were so blinded by large boat's wonderful technology, and so forgetful of what true exploration is, that they could think of nothing better then building another boat to sail around the harbor entrance. After all, it was all they knew how to do!
The distant islands were still there, filled with wondrous treasure, but the townspeople couldn't see them anymore, because the large boat was in the way.
It was sad, you know.....
If they had only lifted their eyes a little bit higher, the could have seen past the large boats to the islands beyond. They would have seen the treasure sparkling in the distance. They might have remembered what exploration really means. They might have populated those bright specks, they might have lived in heaven.
Return to the moon in a new vehicile & stay lo (Score:2, Interesting)
An extended stay on the moon seems like it would be a good test prior to taking a trip to Mars. I think its been too long since we've gone there.
I wouldnt mind us paying for this by doing sattelite launches for comercial purposes etc, (ala Russia). The only requirement I'd put on this is that it should not impact scientific research or become NASAs priority.
But anyways ya, I'd give to space exploration if I knew it wouldnt be going to administrators paychecks but rather to new developments / research.
Oh My God!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I know that this won't get modded up. First it is an anti-space exploration post (i.e. flamebait). Second, there are over 700 other posts out there - good luck moderators.
Anyway...
Here is the next direction NASA should take into space: they shouldn't send humans into it!
It is expensive.
It is dangerous.
It achieves little but inspiration for powerless/low social status techno-geeks.
Instead, our country should explore alternatives that advance science and technology as much as NASA uplifts our geeky spirits. There is, to my mind, only one true alternative to the wasteful, and hardly economically viable model of space exploration we currently have. That alternative is to explore and study the OCEAN.
Obviously, satellites, and mechanized thingamajigs belong in our country's arsenal of neato-exploration-based stuff. Their practical benefit is a widely heralded success.
However, the economic reality of sending people hurtling into the upper atmosphere and beyond, for a dubious "scientific" cause of "jus' cuz we can" is one that our country (and that no country on earth) can accept.
An intensive study of the ocean, based on the same sorts of ideas that NASA uses to explore space would yield inumerable direct benefits to commerce, defense, and concomitant scientific progress. Further, in terms of inspiring geeks, I can think only of the CS majors at my coastal university who I see walking alone on the beach, looking out to sea for answers. If we as a nation decide that our tax money ought to be spent in beneficial research and exploration into new frontiers, then, lone geeks on the beach everywhere, the ocean has the answers waiting for you.
Re:Make it cheap, and they will come (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm pinning all of my space dreams and hopes on the advent of mass-produced carbon nanotubes.
I don't like to break this to you, but nanotubules simply do not have the tensile strength to support a space elevator (the studies carried out on this were in New Scientist about 3 years ago, I don't recall the exact date). The only substance strong enough to build a space elevator with is neutronium, and this has two disadvantages:
Personally, my space elevator hopes lie with a less matter-based approach. I can see two possibilities that may be feasible. The first is a pure energy elevator, where vehicles equipt with an ion drive based propulsion system ride up a microwave beam generated by an orbiting powerstation, thus reducing the need to rely on the low energy yield of chemical fuels. The second is a hybrid, where magnetic fields are used to bind specially shaped molecules together more tightly, as a sort of 'structural integrity field'. The problem with this approach, is that a power failure would be very expensive, since the entire structure would collapse.
Same garbage talk as last time we lost a shuttle.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure look for alternatives for the future, but don't act stupid now because of this.
Considering what they do they are safe. *Accidents* happen, it wasn't a fundamental design flaw, it was a damned ACCIDENT
Now the program will be on hold for years, and people will complain about safety, cost, bla bla and delay even longer.
Space travel is NOT safe.. Yes its sad this happened but its space travel things do happen.. geez get a grip.
Re:The Budget Sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
Where do you think they GOT all that older stuff?
And we aim to keep it that way. The only way to stay ahead is to keep moving forward.
And the real way to waste money on the military is to do it half assed. Spend some, so it looks like you're doing something. But not enough to actually run (and win) a campaign in the unfortunate event it is needed. Then your investment (and manpower) IS completely wasted.
"Fair" in warfare means "We win, and all my guys come home."
My $0.02 (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, a "from orbit" escape system wouldn't be a bad idea. Set up a "mini" space station that orbits in the same general area as the new shuttle system. Said mini station would merely be a truss (similar to what they've been putting on the ISS), with two Apollo-style capsules attached, a solar panel system to keep the capsule systems warm and the batteries charged, and a small set of OMS thrusters to automatically maintain the station's orbit. This way, if an orbiter is ever damaged on the way up again, and it's uncertain whether or not it will survive re-entry, it can dock with this, the crew can return to Earth in capsules, and a later servicing flight can come up to repair the orbiter and replace the capsules.
I'm not sure we can cease shuttle flights altogether, and I also think it's important to remember that Columbia was the oldest in the fleet and on the verge of being retired. I think we have to keep flying Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavour for the time being. Along those same lines, I'm also an advocate of "Big Can" [space-frontier.org] construction projects in orbit. It's a clever hack.
I also think it would be dangerously stupid to build just a reusable launch system again. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) are extraordinarily powerful and extremely reliable, and we're in need of a good heavy-lift booster system...especially if we're going to do what NASA needs to do in the near future -- the Moon and Mars. A system similar to what Robert Zubrin proposed in A Case for Mars would be great: basically, a space shuttle launch stack without the space shuttle, and the primary tank fueling four SSMEs. I believe this would allow you to throw ~200 tons into LEO, but I don't have the book in front of me.
Once a new reusable launch system and heavy-launch system are in place, I'd give the last three shuttles a final flight into orbit, with return capsules for the crews. Once in orbit, they ought to be stripped down and overhauled for use as orbital "tugboats"...
And lastly, start going somewhere again...first the Moon, then Mars and the asteroids...then...who knows?