Benford on Space Exploration 384
gid-goo writes "Gregory Benford looks at what we should do in the aftermath of the Columbia accident. Is the shuttle, or the International Space Station for that matter, useful? Or just payola to aerospace interests and a means for keeping Russian rocket scientists employed?" Benford's comments about the necessity of a closed biosphere and of some way for astronauts to stop muscle and bone loss are far more insightful than the usual discussions about where our space exploration priorities should lie.
Ensure.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked. (Score:5, Funny)
"the [current space] station recycles only urine... it is camping in space, not truly living there".
Last time I checked, my crap got recycled in the great outdoors.
Re:Last time I checked. (Score:5, Funny)
Let's face it at $10k/kg lift costs, a ton (metric) of already orbiting feces has a value of $10,000,000. Assuming 1.5kg of crap produced daily (3 man crews, sounds sensible) we're talking about $15k down the spout per day the ISS is occupied (double that during changeovers when there are six people on board). A metric ton would be accumulated every year and nine months give or take.
Heck, throw the competition wide open to other uses. How thick a layer of crap is required to make a good meteor shield? If the space elevator needs a counterweight, would several tons of crap suffice to shorten the amount of cable necessary? How about military uses? stick a JAM guidance pack on it and drop it on Kim Jong Il. Not only would it provide a fatality but it would make any former dictator so dispatched the object of endless jokes.
Am I joking? In some parts, yes. But the idea of storing very expensive material (including the most expensive crap there is) in some sort of storage space and running contests for creative use of the stuff would certainly create an increased level of interest. You could do it as a green contest, as a guy thing (it's the world's equivalent of those jars and cans every guy has in the garage to store washers and other random stuff he might have a use for in the future), or a farmer thing (we're back to feces fertilizer) but everything there is horribly expensive. Let's get our money's worth.
Nice Article, but (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. At the risk of sounding jingoistic, I believe that nations should compete with another to explore. This competition is the only way to foster space exploration until space becomes commercially viable.
Last point. What was something on Iraq doing in a space article?
Re:Nice Article, but nothing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice Article, but (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice Article, but (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the author that little hard science is being done on the shuttle or ISS that can't be handled with automation; this recommends cutting funding, yet the author turns around and proposes spending money to put man in space for its own sake -- what happened to the interest in science? Science aimed at keeping man is space is unnecessary if having man is space is unnecessary.
I find, "Such an adventure would resonate with a world beset by wars and woes" deadly condescending. You know what would resonate with the world? Getting rid of some of those "wars and woes." Think a cure for AIDS, or even malaria. New infrastructure for transportation and commerce. Or universal drinkable water, not to mention food. Or a thousand other challenges that we can do, with enough money and labor and, yes, science/technology, and which we really should tidy up before we reach for the stars -- by "reach" I mean pursue projects that are about entertainment more than science or commerce.
The thing is, we really do care about helping mankind more than distracting it, if the problem is in front of us (e.g., Nobel Peace Prize winner Doctors Without Borders [doctorswit...orders.org]). Space travel only wins when everything in the abstract.
Apollo stands as one of mankind's greatest achievements. There's no need to one-up it, and there's no need to live in space. We haven't conquered living on Earth.
Re:Nice Article, but (Score:3, Offtopic)
Mod this man up, he knows what he's on about (Score:3, Interesting)
And yes, heterosexuality (or for that matter lesbianism) doesn't spread AIDS anywhere near as fast as male homosexual practice, but the only real blocker is the kind of social arrangement practiced by Christianity or Judiasm. Horrors! We'd much rather die slowly and painfully, taking others with us, than learn from the bigots!
Jews survived the black plague singularly well because they adhered to the `silly' rules in the books of Deuteronomy and Numbers, while their Catholic neighbours didn't. Those rules have reasons behind them. There's a lot that the ancients knew well, but we refuse to learn. At our cost.
Common sense isn't, is it?
Re:Nice Article, but (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with saying "Let's get everything fixed up here, first" is this: It can't be done. Solving the problems mentioned, and the untold many in tow behind them, would require lifting most of the species to a standard of living comparable to or equal to that of the United States. We do not have the resources to do that, especially if that standard of living includes environmental integrity as well. Where are those resources? In space: Cheap energy, vast mineral resources, no ecosphere to assault.
The evidence is extremely poor that humanity would indeed focus on solving its ills. Most likely, without some driving idea, without a frontier, we will see an increasing self-absorption and a general numbing of our best impulses. As they say, change is inevitable but growth is not... and the only hope lies in growth, in reaching beyond, not back.
Re:Nice Article, but (Score:3, Interesting)
AMEN.
I think it is time that humanity needs to reach for new frontiers again. The Moon is one place humans should return to, given that we know the Moon has a large supply of strategically important metallic elements, all of which can be used to build space colonies between the Earth and the Moon and also to eventually build spacecraft that will take Man well beyond Mars.
Re:Nice Article, but (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, we do need space resource extraction, not least of all to provide energy for all those liberated people who aren't dying of malaria et al and want to live a modern life.
More efficient, safer launch vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)
We must not, under any circumstances, abandon human space flight. We as humans are explorer by our very nature. We cannot allow tragedy to sway us from our neverending quest for knowledge.
Re:More efficient, safer launch vehicles (Score:2)
Let's see we lift all this heavy space craft into orbit, use loads of fuel etc and then what? We let the thing glide back down!!!
Build rockets, build them cheap and lob pletny of them up there. If some idiot wants to go along for the ride sure, but mostly lets get payload up there.
Re:More efficient, safer launch vehicles (Score:2)
Re:More efficient, safer launch vehicles (Score:5, Informative)
For me I'm much more interested in spending the bulk of NASA's limited budget on interesting payloads that leave LEO rather than developing trucks to deliver the payloads to LEO. After all, 60's technology was fine for getting us to LEO and the Shuttle isn't going to take NASA to Mars.
Since the beginning of the shuttle program there were plans for a shuttle derived unmanned heavy lift vehicle [astronautix.com] that basically looked like a huge boxcar strapped to the side of the external tank. The only recoverable parts were the engines themselves, which would parachute to Earth after entering the atmosphere with an ablative heat shield. I believe that with most of the weight of the shuttle structure, wings, and crew cabin removed, such a booster would have had nearly the capacity of the Saturn V. It seems that such plans could be resurrected and within a year or two we have a heavy lift vehicle that can take advantage of economies of scale for shuttle solid rocket boosters and external tanks which I believe, ironically, are the cheapest parts of the shuttle. NASA can then use the proven Soyuz (thank you very much Russia for keeping the rocket and capsule assembly lines going) to get human crews into orbit until some suitable replacement is made.
Once NASA again has heavy lift capability it can then concentrate on truly interesting payloads that can take us to Mars and beyond. I'll cry if NASA does get the go ahead for a Mars mission and comes up with a scheme where dozens of shuttle missions (either the remaining three vehicles or next generation shuttles) are required to build the spacecraft in orbit from small components.
Maybe we can take a lesson from cats? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not off-topic, mods. (Score:5, Informative)
Cats spend up to 20 hours a day sleeping and yet still manage to stay fitter than most human gymnasts.
Purring creates vibrations through the cat's body helping to maintain muscle and bone density.
Transducers in an astronaut's suit could produce similar resonant vibrations. These vibrations could simulate the stresses of g-forces by rapidly moving the astronaut a very small distance back and forth.
Sorry I didn't connect the dots for you in the original post.
Re:This is not off-topic, mods. (Score:3, Funny)
"Aw heck, Joe, it's just the damn suit again..."
"Oh.. Don't let Sally see that.."
Re:This is not off-topic, mods. (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe it would work for bones. I doubt it, but maybe.
OTOH, I can already guarantee it won't do anything for muscle. The only way (yes, the ONLY) way to cause muscle to increase in mass (or to even retain mass) is to force it to work against resistance. That's why people wishing to increase strength lift weights.
Obviously, that's not an option in space. A decent weight set will weigh 400-500 pounds all told, when you have to lift it and pay the weight penalty, and then won't weigh anything at all in orbit. A 275-lb barbell is enough resistance at Earth-surface gravity that I won't try to bench it without a spotter. That same barbell would make for a pretty poor workout when it has inertia, but no actual weight.
Maybe this calls for one of the rubber band contraptions. Bowflex, SoloFlex, and the like are not that great-the best thing to do with them is to call them pop-art coat racks. However, in the absence of gravity they might be the only real option.
Which brings up another question: Has NASA ever put returning astronauts on anabolic androgens? (What the uninformed call 'steroids?') The one legal use they have in humans in the US is to speed recovery from injury, and they might play a part in recovering from long orbits and the resulting bone and strength loss.
Very insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
People who want robots to do the work in space and see no need for humans miss the point - we have no need for humans because of our lack of ambition.
Re:Very insightful (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the article, Omkar? Evidently not; Benford wants humans to go to Mars. His objection to the current shuttle-ISS program is that it offers absolutely zero progress towards getting there: no experiments with true recycling, no experiments with generating artificial gravity by spinning the station. Instead, we're spending billions to have people do trivial stuff, and if you're going to do trivial stuff, it's better to have machines do it.
Re:Very insightful (Score:2)
If anything.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If anything.. (Score:5, Interesting)
A good point! Here's something that has stumped me for years: Why in bejeepers is everyone gung ho about mars? We've got a perfectly good stepping stone that's 9/10's of the way to anywhere in our solar system parked about 300k kms from us! Not only that, should the need arise, it's conceivable in time of need those stationed there could be evacuated. Perhaps I've just read too much Robert Heinlein (Methusalah's Children, for one. )
If someone wouldn't mind elucidating why the moon is such a poor choice, I'd appreciate it. Please, don't let it be merely that the moon is less interesting politically.
There's a Moon up in the sky, it's called the Moon (Score:3, Funny)
Plus, check out the view from the Moon versus the one from Mars. The Sun is a spec in the sky from Mars, but the Moon not only has the same view of the Sun as from Earth, it's also got the Earth in the sky - how fantastic is *that*?!
And for the "This Old Habitat" crowd - all that Moon dust should make for some schweet mooncrete mix for making places to live. I dunno about the Mars dirt...
And that's not even _talking_ about all the free green cheese...
Post was funny, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The worst religion of the lot is materialism. More deaths directly attributable to that throughout history than any other single belief group (except possibly people who believe that smoking won't give them cancer).
Even the Cattleticks fall short, they only (directly) got somewhere between 60 and 100 million, not counting starting or provoking numerous world and `civil' wars. Materialism is evil, convert someone away from it today.
What I'd like to see (Score:5, Insightful)
A new spaceplane, designed for crew. See the Orbital Space Plane [orbital.com].
A new technology, reusable launch vehicle. See the Space Launch Initiative [slinews.com].
Continuing with the Prometheus Project [space.com]. We fucked up when we stopped persuing NERVA/Rover [astronautix.com].
Mars. Need I say more? [nw.net]
I'd also like to see a space elevator persued, but I don't know that we have the tech yet. Then again, I haven't looked into it that much either.
Yeah, so that's my wishlist. Only a few hundreds of billions of dollars in imaginary cash NASA doesn't have...
Re:What I'd like to see (Score:5, Insightful)
If we try for the Moon again, which we haven't done in OVER 30 years, and we succeed, then I think we could set our sites on manned Mars shots.
Why the moon? (Score:3, Interesting)
The moon is a day or two away by chemical rocket. Mars is somewhere between a few weeks (if we build something really futuristic like an Orion drive) and eight months (if we do a minimum-energy Hohmann orbit) away. Mars has an atmosphere, so you can do aerobraking and make propellant out of it, neither of which you can do on the Moon. Mars has a nice diurnal cycle, the Moon doesn't. The temperatures are totally different. The science you want to do on each place is totally different.
If you want a less challenging target for your initial mission, try a near-Earth asteroid. Much more science return - and learning more about NEOs might give us the chance to figure out how best to deflect them.
Space Elevator feasible? (Re:What I'd like to see) (Score:5, Informative)
According to this article [wired.com] mentioned earlier [slashdot.org] on Slashdot:
Re:Space Elevator feasible? (Score:5, Insightful)
They failed 6 times before succeeding in stringing the first telegraph line under the Atlantic Ocean.
They barely had steam engines running and they were already linking Europe to American across an OCEAN. THat is the power of human innovation and drive.
Now everytime we lay down wire across the Atlantic it can hold more bandwidth than all of the other wire previously put down.
Re:Space Elevator feasible? (Re:What I'd like to s (Score:5, Insightful)
Space elevator? no thanks. (Score:3, Insightful)
- It would be a money sink that would never pay back its construction costs - a tax money sink, because no commercial firm could ever get investment funding (not this side of AD 3000 anyhow).
- It would be the worst sort of governmental monopoly, a choke point where everyone must bow and scrape to the groundbound owners, in order to get a lift.
- It would be The Definitive Terrorist Target - and the bad guys only have to get lucky once. It would be utterly indefensible from a simple kamikaze attack, being so long that no weapons installation could keep cover over its whole length without weighing it down.
- It would be a murphys-law magnet, untested technology carrying staggering tension loads in atmospheric, vacuum, radiation and electromagnetic conditions that would be experimental at best. And that's even before an orbiting piece of space junk slams into it.
- And it would be a catastrophe waiting to happen, when (not if) it snaps and rains megatons of carbon cable down upon the ground below.
Bleh.
Re:Space elevator? no thanks. (Score:5, Informative)
- It would be a money sink that would never pay back its construction costs - a tax money sink, because no commercial firm could ever get investment funding (not this side of AD 3000 anyhow).
The cost is actually quite modest. Figures between $5bn and $40bn have been mentioned. At the lower end of the scale, this is about 15 shuttle launches. At the high end, it's a tiny fraction of the US defence budget. The benefits to the first company or government who does this are the ability to launch satellites at a tiny cost, build further space elevators for (relatively) next to nothing, and in the long term the full exploration and exploitation of natural resources in space.- It would be the worst sort of governmental monopoly, a choke point where everyone must bow and scrape to the groundbound owners, in order to get a lift.
This is certainly true in the short term. In the longer term, many elevators can be built by different companies and governments. (Only the first elevator is expensive - once that's working the others are cheap to build).- It would be The Definitive Terrorist Target - and the bad guys only have to get lucky once. It would be utterly indefensible from a simple kamikaze attack, being so long that no weapons installation could keep cover over its whole length without weighing it down.
The proposal is to have an exclusion zone around of the order of 10-100 miles. It would be extremely hard to fly unnoticed into such an area. Attacks from underneath (submarines, etc) and attacks from people actually travelling on the elevator are harder to deal with. In the end it doesn't matter however. Once one elevator is up, you build more, and you keep a few reels of carbon nanotubes "parked" in space to cover this eventuality and natural disasters.- And it would be a catastrophe waiting to happen, when (not if) it snaps and rains megatons of carbon cable down upon the ground below.
Yes, we've all read Kim Stanley Robinson too. He's a good writer, but not a great scientist. A break in the cable is most likely to happen in the first 20-40 miles (ie. in the atmosphere). So the 20-40 miles of cable drops down - into the exclusion zone which is just a harmless area of sea. The top part slowly drifts off into space. There's even the possibility of repairing a broken cable by lowering more down to earth before it drifts off.Rich.
Point by point expose of JM (Score:5, Informative)
Complete bollocks. Specficially, if it cost $20G to build (they say $10G), it need only make $2G/a to handily beat bank loans and stuff as a payback means. So double the $100/kg lift costs to $200/kg, big deal in the face of the $10,000-$30,000/kg it is now. $2G / $100/kg extra profit == 20Mt/a, 55,000t/day, 2300t/hr, a 400t load every 10 minutes.
Need to halve that load? Triple the price instead of doubling it. Or use the elevator to build more, and amortise the costs between them.
And we don't have one now? Go ahead, build your own Saturn V or Energia-Groza, be my guest.
Once they have half a dozen of these up, owned by 3 or 4 countries or consortia (I'd guess USA, EU, China, Russia, India, Brasil), that starts to break down anyway. If Australia wanted to build the first one, that would cost us $10,000 a head. If it built the 8th one, maybe $500 a head and every Australian gets their first 2kg hauled to space for free. If the people living in Perth pooled their gree kilograms, we could loft a 3000 tonne satellite.
Ever tried to hit something a meter wide from 10 km away? With defenses on the elevator shooting back at you and at your shells?
Clearing a corridor 10km wide around this would be no problem, and keeping it clear with SDI technology (near the ground, a perfectly ordinary Vulcan radar-guided cannon would do the job) relatively simple. Can you outfly a laser? Could your aircraft or missile survive several hundred unexpected megawatts of microwaves tuned to some vital dimension? How about a smart remote-targeted crowbar dropping in on you from LEO at mach 20?
Any concievable replacement would be worse.
It would have to be a clever piece of space-junk, smaller than a peanut and yet more destructive than a nuke. You haven't had a look at the design, have you?
If they were kind enough to put the elevator up on the Equator (not necessary, but it helps), it (or more specifically the defenses on it) would actually make a pretty good street-sweeper for the space industry.
That statement just betrayed your complete ignorance of how the elevator would work.
Of the 100,000km length, less than 100km would be in atmosphere. Take what is presumably the worst case: the cable snaps about 50km up. 50km of cable fall to earth, the top 30km or so burning up on re-entry, the balance stays in orbit. That's right, losing 0.05% of the cable makes very little difference to its orbit. Soon the lost 50km is replaced by shipping it out along another cable and unreeling it off the next segment above the damaged one.
But what about the bottom 20km? Even if it were heavy (did you read the line saying `paper-thin?'), it would fall into the ocean. Even if they anchored it at, say, Kununurra (in the far north of Western Australia) and it were heavy, you'd still only lose a stripe of desert a few m wide and 20km long. Big deal.
Now, important step, visit High Lift Systems [highliftsystems.com] and RTFM. Then come whinging back here.
Re:Space elevator? no thanks. (Score:3, Funny)
- And it would be a catastrophe waiting to happen, when (not if) it snaps and rains megatons of carbon cable down upon the ground below.
Then we'll just put the earth attachment point right next to Mecca. Two birds, one stone, or somthing.
Re:Space elevator? no thanks. (Score:4, Informative)
I'll bite.
The ribbon would weight 7.5 kg/km (yes, that's per kilometer). So the whole ribbon with its 100,000 km would weight 750,000 kg. Of course only the portion below the severed point would fall back. If that happens at an altitude of 1,000 km (region of space debris), only a mere 7,500 kg would fall back to Earth.
7,500 kg...
1 megaton = 1,000,000 t = 1,000,000,000 kg
Your apocaliptic image of "rains megatons of carbon cable" is off by 6 orders of magnitude. Not to mention that with its low density, the ribbon would not plummet down, but would probably be picked up by winds and fall quietly, much like a piece of cloth.
Just watch out for the climber. Oh here it comes! "INCOMING!"
Re:What I'd like to see (Score:5, Informative)
- A new spaceplane, designed for crew. See the Orbital Space Plane [orbital.com].
Wings add greatly to the weight, and there are lots of tradeoffs, like high landing speeds. Arguably adding wings to the Shuttle killed Columbia, certainly it was a wing failed, and the tiles are necessary because of the aerodynamic shape required, and the slower reentry that wings impose/allows, leading to overall higher heat load (compared to Apollo, Shuttle has to cope with a somewhat lower temperature but for much longer).A new technology, reusable launch vehicle. See the Space Launch Initiative [slinews.com].
The SLI has been cancelled.
Continuing with the Prometheus Project [space.com]. We fucked up when we stopped persuing NERVA/Rover [astronautix.com].
Prometheus is a development of a nuclear power plant for space use; it is for ion drives. NERVA will not be supported under this program.
Mars. Need I say more? [nw.net] I'd also like to see a space elevator persued, but I don't know that we have the tech yet. Then again, I haven't looked into it that much either.
It seems doable with hardly much more technology than we have right now. Scaling up the production of carbon nanotubes to production of tonnes rather than milligrams is required, and a demonstration of a few percent more strength, and a reasonably large wodge of cash- about $15 billion ;-)
Re:What I'd like to see (Score:4, Informative)
Here's [usra.edu] a good paper on the subject. It's a 15mb pdf, but worth the download.
In it, a good many of the technical problems are solidly examined, and reasonable solutions are proposed.
The approach presented is to launch an initial spool of very thin cable into geosynchronous orbit. This spool will be some thousands of kg in mass; this won't be *that* much harder than putting up a communications satellite. Then you lower that cable down to earth (and raise spool-unreeling spacecraft up past geosynch. as a counterweight), and you have a sort of "mini" space elevator that can haul up a mere 1200 kg. A series of climbers then ascend, each epoxying on a new layer of cable. Continue for 2 years, and you have a cable that can carry up as much as the shuttle. Continue for 5 years, and you have one that can lift a million kg.
All the solutions to the technical problems will require lots of research/testing to truly overcome, so it'd likely still be decades away, even with full effort. And that's also assuming the cable itself can be built.
I think that's the paper's main weakness, actually: its reliance on finding an epoxy to construct the cable with, that will allow the overall cable strength to be similar to the inherent nanotube strength. The proposal calls for 3-cm lengths of carbon nanotube to be assembled into the cable (in a mostly flat ribbon shape) with the epoxy. This is because such lengths of carbon nanotubes have indeed been produced, and the paper is trying to go with known technology as much as possible.
Now it seems to me that finding an epoxy strong enough to hold on to the fibers would require finding a substance with nearly as much strength as the fibers themselves. Otherwise, the epoxy will fail when the load becomes great, and the fibers will just slip out. A strong rope does you no good if you can't hold onto it!
Though perhaps there's something about epoxying materials from fibers that I don't understand. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The terrorist-threat angle is another concern. Though a terrorist attack would presumably occur at the low end of the cable, which would have minimal effect on the earth.
The main environmental risk is that of the cable breaking at a high point, possibly at the counterweight. The paper say that if this happens, "About 3000 kg of 2 square millimeter cross-section cable ... may fall to Earth intact and east of the anchor." It goes onto say that further study/simulation is necessary to determine the full threat.
So again, for me, I'm not so sure that the epoxy technique of cable construction will work. We may have to wait until we have enough nano-scale control to be able to construct the cable with full-cable-length nanotube, finely interwoven. Of course, once we can make nanotubes like that, a lot of other possibilities for space travel may open up.
I wrote this after the shuttle died. (Score:5, Interesting)
If anything, our commitment to space should be radically expanded. The current problems in the space program are the result of all power and authority over the development of space exploration being held in a single decision-making body. NASA, which is a marvelous organization and which certainly provided the basis for the early successes in space, is simply not equipped to move space exploration ahead. It is a government entity, unbound by market considerations, and weighed down by bureaucratic inefficiencies which make radical changes - such as the introduction of new technologies in a cost-effective manner - impossible.
The question, however, must be posed whether space exploration in itself is valuable enough to transfer to the private sector. This question is analogous to the gradual shift in the control of earthbound exploration schemes from sovereign control to chartered corporations. To answer the question, however, without respect to the analogy, no, space exploration in itself is not particularly valuable. It is another medium, another vehicle for transporting humans and their commerce, as well as seeing what's out there. I doubt any private venture at this point would find this to be a profitable scheme without, to be circular, some way to make profits from it.
Thus the analogy: space travel is valuable only insofar as it brings benefit to the people of this planet, or, more specifically, to the shareholders of any corporations which undertake it. In near space, the profits are easy to identify. The GPS system which allows boaters to find their way to fishing spots provided the "spiritual" basis for private venture such as XM Radio. Government-financed spy satellites showed private corporations that money could be made selling space-based imagery of the planet.
But none of these requires human space flight. In order for there to be profit in the human expansion into space, there must be some market for the products which can be produced exclusively or most efficiently in space, whether directly in the case of manufactured goods or indirectly in the case of products developed using experimental data acquired in space. As one discussion group poster noted in response to a question on the necessity of humans to supervise space-based experiments, "It's hard to count ants from 140 miles down."
The International Space Station is a fiasco, and so is the space shuttle. Given the radical developments in materials sciences and knowledge of the effects of space on human bodies, it is as unlikely that the shuttles would have remained in private service for twenty years as to consider that Boeing might continue to build aircraft using the processes and materials perfected during the development of, say, the now-obsolete 727. Even a plane that has had a 30-year lifespan such as the 737 is today not the same plane except in the most superficial way as the first model that flew out of Everett Field.
My plan for space would include the following broad steps. First, ground the shuttle fleet only as long as is necessary to conduct materials review of the launch equipment (fuel tank and rockets), the cooling tile system, and any particularly vulnerable areas of the shuttle's structure (particularly any structural elements on the bottom of the spacecraft). Second, apply any changes rapidly - within no more than two years - with a national commitment to redeploy the shuttle as a stopgap measure in the interests of national security and commerce (as well as prestige). Third, set a hard deadline to retire the shuttles by 2014 at the absolute latest - perhaps 2012 to coincide with the 50th anniversary of American spaceflight. Fourth, provide incentives to corporations to begin manned space flight outside the scope of NASA oversight. Fifth, turn NASA into a regulatory agency for the purposes of establishing safety guidelines; and a science agency which would fund and oversee pure science activities in space. Sixth, provide ongoing incentives for the next two or three decades to promote human exploitation of space by private corporations.
The money for such incentives could probably be found in the monies freed up by the unfortunate loss of Columbia. I would name two incentive packages: the Challenger Fund for the rapid commercialization of space exploration, and the Columbia Fund for the ongoing support of pure science exploration by government or commercial entities. A third package, the Apollo Fund - deriving its name from America's other fatal space mission, Apollo I - would subsidize development of safety mechanisms and alternative propulsion schemes for space exploration.
Our planet is small. Our resources are limited. Only a hundred miles above our heads is the gateway to, literally, a universe of options. There are planets packed with natural resources and room for human habitation. There are asteroids which at once pose a direct threat to our planet and could be a staggeringly rich source of raw materials for the improvement of human civilization. And, as always in a new realm, there is a near infinite space which will provide further insights into this incredible and complex universe in which we are such small but special players.
Now is not the time to draw back from our commitment to space. If anything, we should conclude that the loss of Columbia means that we have reached the limits - after 40 years of remarkable successes - of government monopoly over rich space exploration.
I suspect that the crew of Columbia and their families would agree. After all, they were drawn to the space program because of the opportunity to do something revolutionary, brave, and necessary for our world, not because they wanted to get rich. They would - I hope - support any initiative which would have given them more opportunity to do the work they loved. If we could demonstrate that private control of the space program would, in fact, radically expand that space program - in the same way that private corporations increased and improved the reach of the automobile, the airplane, telecommunications networks, and the Internet - I believe that those astronauts and the astronauts who remain would support us.
Don't give up on space. It is not only our future, but also our present. Make it better, do not declare it dead with those men and women who have died in their ongoing quest to expand the reach and the value of our lives.
Re:I wrote this after the shuttle died. (Score:2)
The one thing I would change -- make the "Apollo fund", in the tradition of its namesake, a fund to answer Mr. Benford's questions of living for long periods in zero-gee and keeping our wastes to ourselves, with the goal of actually heading back to the moon and eventually to Mars, and plow the safety mechanisms and propulsion schemes into the "Challenger Fund".
A Mars mission would probably require significant government coordination, but I like the ideas.
(These opinions offered just on the off-chance you're an aerospace-contractor lobbyist or someone else with the power to make it happen.
Re:I wrote this after the shuttle died. (Score:2)
Well spoken (Score:3, Interesting)
the space shuttle IS over-rated.
and personally i hope to see a space-elevator someday. a much cheaper and perhaps a much more environmentally friendly way to escape this gravity well
TVOntario (Score:5, Interesting)
SciFi author Robert J. Sawyer [link [sfwriter.com]] explained that the space program is more than just about vanity, or the desire to prove worth. If it weren't for curiosity, none of us would have left Africa some 6-7 million years ago.
I believe the space program is necessary, because it allows us to test new technologies to their limits. Like pens that can write upside down...
I would also like to point out that NASA seems to be ignoring the first A. That's a great error in my eyes. Atmospheric transportation will always be more common than interstellar imo.
The final thing I have to add, is the fact that humanity will reach a population impasse. Even if (hopefully when) all of the world develops, and rates of population increase drop, consumption of natural resources will eventually deplete reserves. I believe space exploration is but one link in the chain that will lead us away from Earth, and towards a new home. Maybe one with track lighting?
Re:TVOntario (Score:2)
That's an overreaching generalisation on an evolutionary process that took place, as you mention, 6-7 million years ago. While I'm not an authority on human evolution, I think it's fair to say that curiousity need not necessarily be the primary reason. The quest for food, for instance, could be one possible reason.
But all the same, your point about curiousity being a motivator for exploration raises an interesting point, albeit in a socio-cultural sense. One of the very interesting things about the history of exploration is that most explorers were European; there were very few Oriental explorers. Why didn't any Easterner "discover" Europe, just as Vasco da Gama "discovered" Goa in the late-16th century? As an old National Geographic article (can't remember the issue/year; sorry) once pointed out, European explorers needed the East; by the fifteenth century, the ancient Silk Route was closed by marauding invaders. The West needed to re-open a trade route to the exotic East to continue its import of spices, perfumes and tea. There were pecuniary benefits here; the explorers were, actually, entrepreneurs.
My point is simple:- projects such as the ISS or even the trip to Mars are all fine, inspiring and impressive, but as long as there's no real economic motive, I don't think space exploration can survive.
So, the question is, can space bring in the big bucks? Quite possibly, yes [nasa.gov].
Basic Research (Score:5, Insightful)
While I won't deny that it's great to gain knowledge for its own sake, that's really not the point. Governments for years has understood the value in making significant contributions to basic research so that private firms can capitalize on those findings and bolster the economy of the nation making the investment. Whether or not that model is viable in today's global, instantaneous information-sharing age is debatable, but to continue in that mentality, we must look beyond such tragic, yet short-term disasters such as Columbia and understand where we would and would not be without our ventures into space experimentation if we were to cease. Leadership demands sacrifice.
We need bigger goals (Score:5, Interesting)
Going to the Moon was a good example of the opposite - we picked a real high target, of which we weren't really sure how to achieve it, and set it as a clear goal. And when working toward the goal, we made tremendous advances in science, creating many new practical technologies and materials.
ISS, on the other hand, has never been a grand target, we have always played it safe, always known how it is would be achieved, so basically it is just an expensive toy, there is nothing fundamentally new to be discovered by building it.
If we concentrated our efforts on something bigger, like flying to Mars or creating a Moon base then we might not get immediate gratification. But working towards these tough but clear goals would create a motivation for making all kinds of smaller advances that would all support the main goal, just like they did in the sixties. For example, we could solve the closed ecosphere problem, the technologies from this advance alone would have the potential to significantly improve everyday life.
But instead no one is willing to take risks any more, and we are stuck with doing the same stuff over and over again, putting all sorts of junk in low Earth orbit, something that we have known how to do for ages, and trying to convince ourselves that we are making great progress while actually being stuck in an Escher house [sbu.edu].
What use is the ISS and the Space Shuttle (Score:2, Insightful)
I have never really heard a good explanation, why we need the ISS and Shuttle, and how exactly are they supposed to help us achieve bigger goals like spreading life elsewhere in the Universe or making spaceflight commercially viable.
I'll take a wack at this.
The ISS will allow the space based construction of larger space craft. One of the biggest problems for long range exploration is the cost of sending up large crafts. If instead we can blast small crafts up to the space station with components and build the "Enterprise" in space, it will cost much less.
The Shuttle and its Human payloads are a means for us to learn about the dangers and physical consequences of space on us. Not to mention, that the shuttle is necessary to supply the ISS with the supplies it needs to expand and preform research.
Both the Shuttle and ISS have been used for space based research. It used to be the case that the standards of measurement were based on earth. These were imprecise due to gravity and other constraints. Thanks to research in space (where there is no gravity) certain new measuring standards are being used in scientific study on earth.
The two together work as baby steps on our quest to tame the wilds of space, something that we're approaching responsibly.
Re:What use is the ISS and the Space Shuttle (Score:2)
But we should remeber that when NASA decided to turn it's attention away from merely "launching men into space" (Mercury) and towards "going to the moon" (Apollo) there was an intermediate program (Gemini) that served to solve potential problems associated with the Apollo design.
Gemini astronauts help perfect docking in space (which a Lunar Orbit rendevous demanded), and longer term space flight.
The goal should not be "to build a space station" but to "develop an experimental platform for testing problems associatef with long duration spaceflight".
Good Reason (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll get modded down for this, but oh well... (Score:2, Insightful)
maybe--just maybe--we rally around national tragedies± because we need to create a pain to counter balance the numbness of our mundane life necessary to keep from hating ourselves. or maybe we really are the navel-gazing, imperialistic gluttons that the world thinks we are, incapable of imaging a world beyond Must See TV and the Cosmo sex quiz, too callused to even give a damn. how did we get here? where are we going? where have we been?
boy, this generation needs a hero.
Re:I'll get modded down for this, but oh well... (Score:2, Interesting)
If we want to develop tomorrow's cures for AIDS or other diseases that grab our attention in horrific ways or otherwise improve our quality of life, we have to expand our knowledge -- in some ways only experimentation in space can. Granted, it's not a panacea for every social ill, but Tower of Babel I think is going too far. The rewards we reap in applications for healthcare, engineering, and otherwise could be used for the greater good or to become a nationalistic bully. However, that's a rather short-term effect.
Instead, if we invest everything now in our close-to-home problems, we might solve those problems. What about the future? We won't be prepared if we don't look ahead.
Re:I'll get modded down for this, but oh well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost certainly not. We've been trying to solve these problems for literally thousands of years and seem only infinitesimally closer. A major benefit of space exploration and development is the possibility it offers for real paradigm-shattering. It's clear we must do things differently, if the species is to survive the next hundred years; and there's absolutely no reason to think that, confined to the same place, we will do that.
I had the same initial reaction...but (Score:3, Insightful)
But if you look at the lives of any one of the astronauts you'll see that every day of their lives they worked hard to be the best that they could be. They reached for the stars and sacrificed the comforts of earth to help all mankind in our pursuit of a higher goal. They knew the high risks of space travel and went anyway...to help all of us. I don't mourn their loss, but appreciate their lives for how they lived them. Each of them was a hero.
Wherever you have people you'll have conflict and corruption and evil. The space program gives us some hope of getting away from all of that. Colonizing new places and having new beginnings where just maybe the world won't turn out the way the Earth has.
It'll be a cold day in Hell before we solve ALL of mankind's problems. Giving people hope and a sense of wonder may just help that cause more than throwing money at all our other problems.
Re:I'll get modded down for this, but oh well... (Score:5, Insightful)
i hate to be a cynical bastard, but i can't get past the fact that the columbia tragedy is little more than a glorified car accident
Astronauts risk their lives for the best of motivations-- they want to advance science. You can question if the space shuttle is the best way to do this, but I don't think you can question the motivations. And maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but the advancement of science is a great thing. NASA wants to make the world a better place by furthering our understanding of the universe. They want to expand the notion of what it means to be human. They want to visit the stars, and this is the first step.
And when the space program suffers a setback, when these men who are carrying the hopes and dreams of a better future for everyone die, it's pretty discouraging, and worthy of my grief. There's that moment of doubt -- maybe we are just glorified fucking monkeys who should give up and stop trying to be anything more.
But I'm convinced that man has done great things, and these great things always started with men and women willing to push the notions of what these monkeys can do. We need a hero? We already have them.
Re:I'll get modded down for this, but oh well... (Score:5, Insightful)
No offence but _yes_, you SHOULD get modded down for this. Not because what you say is *unorthodox* but you have got the wrong *reasons* for your argument
Pushing the envelope is always done by a select few. Thats why they are heroes. Why are Formula-1 drivers heroes ? They are ready [sorry for the cliche] to "go where no man/woman has gone". Every advancement _especially_ space is taken with risks and the people who come forward to shoulder the risks for the first few times - cheaply put , those who are ready to be guinea pigs for the betterment of humans _ARE_ DEFINITELY heroes in my book. right ?
Why dont we mourn the death of starving kids? I come from India and I have seen what you say exactly. You bet I agree with you and we should mourn them. But you shouldnt ask why we _are_ mourning the death of the shuttle astronauts. They _were_ pioneers who died for a cause.
Thanks.
vv
Speak for yourself (Score:2)
The astronauts are heroes because they choose to face risks known and unknown to advance scientific knowledge. We can debate over the value of the science that NASA pursued on Columbia's mission, but there is a big difference between the absurdity of a random car wreck and the pursuit of knowledge. There is also a big difference between the astronauts and those who engage in perilous and essentially selfish and useless pursuits such as (fill in the blank with ego-driven sport of choice). If nothing else, I imagine that the Columbia failure will lead us to better knowledge of space flight (perhaps we will devote more resources to hypersonic research, ionosphere research, plasma physics and so on).
As to African children, bread and milk, I suggest that you consider the possibility that the US is not the 'great satan' responsible for all evil on the planet. Do African leaders bear any responsibility for the problems in their countries? I guess in your world view they do not, but somehow the US is the party responsible for fixing these problems while leaders like Mobutu lined their pockets with the proceeds of their nations' treasuries. Check out Michaela Wrong's book "In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz" for a recent and easily accessible account of Mobutu's misrule. The book by no means excuses the US or Belgium (former colonial power of Congo), but come on! At some point these places have to take *some* responsibility for their own welfare. The worst leader in Africa today seems to be Mugabe, though it's so hard to choose from such an ill-esteemed array of kleptocrats. I suppose somehow Americans are the reason for his misrule.
What's next on the hit list -- Oh it's the evil of our creating weapons to kill terrorists. I guess you're right, we should wait for terrorists to come here and kill us. I guess we should sit down with them and discuss how we feel about terrorism, and try to find some common ground, because after all, everyone is basically a good person, right? And we're all basically alike, right? Please. The inhumanity of individuals like those who commit mass murder by hijacking planes is obvious to me -- is it not obvious to you?
As to the issue of self-hate -- well, speak for yourself. If must-C-TV bothers you, don't watch it, and find something better to occupy your mind than fulminating on the habits of the majority of stupid people.
Speak for yourself (Score:2)
The astronauts are heroes because they choose to face risks known and unknown to advance scientific knowledge. We can debate over the value of the science that NASA pursued on Columbia's mission, but there is a big difference between the absurdity of a random car wreck and the pursuit of knowledge. There is also a big difference between the astronauts and those who engage in perilous and essentially selfish and useless pursuits such as (fill in the blank with ego-driven sport of choice). If nothing else, I imagine that the Columbia failure will lead us to better knowledge of space flight (perhaps we will devote more resources to hypersonic research, ionosphere research, plasma physics and so on).
As to African children, bread and milk, I suggest that you consider the possibility that the US is not the 'great satan' responsible for all evil on the planet. Do African leaders bear any responsibility for the problems in their countries? I guess in your world view they do not, but somehow the US is the party responsible for fixing these problems while leaders like Mobutu lined their pockets with the proceeds of their nations' treasuries. Check out Michaela Wrong's book "In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz" for a recent and easily accessible account of Mobutu's misrule. The book by no means excuses the US or Belgium (former colonial power of Congo), but come on! At some point these places have to take *some* responsibility for their own welfare. The worst leader in Africa today seems to be Mugabe, though it's so hard to choose from such an ill-esteemed array of kleptocrats. I suppose somehow Americans are the reason for his misrule.
What's next on the hit list -- Oh it's the evil of our creating weapons to kill terrorists. I guess you're right, we should wait for terrorists to come here and kill us. I guess we should sit down with them and discuss how we feel about terrorism, and try to find some common ground, because after all, everyone is basically a good person, right? And we're all basically alike, right? Please. The inhumanity of individuals like those who commit mass murder by hijacking planes is obvious to me -- is it not obvious to you?
As to the issue of self-hate -- well, speak for yourself. If must-C-TV bothers you, don't watch it, and find something better to occupy your mind than fulminating on the habits of the majority of stupid people.
Not a troll (Score:3, Interesting)
His article is spot on. He calls for an era of space exploration akin to that of the late 60's. People died. We had a GOAL. They were heroes. Yet we kept going and we made that goal.
Not only does he call for a return to space exploration, but he points the way - centrifugal gravity and long term stand alone bio-support, aka a biosphere.
So what does it take to overcome this tragedy? I dunno, would a million people sending copies of Benford's article to @whitehouse.gov addresses be a start?
Are we just going to putter around for years and turn this into a double tragedy?
Please let's not.
Baby Boomers (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that this is an excellent point. Having grown up in the 1980s and 90s, I watched NASA's budget drastically shrink relative to the GDP and I watched NASA stumble along at a terribly slow pace with minimal public support. One can't help but think how great it must have been in the 60s and early 70s when the public was jazzed and scientists were having fun. But this is a frightening point...
Can it really get worse? I personally feel there might be something to this: what happens when a large part of the population suddenly retires, the nation goes broke? Can interest shift further away from space exploration? Is this our last chance to get people interested in NASA before we see an even greater decline in public support?
What do you think?
Benford doesn't know what he's talking about (Score:3, Interesting)
Specifically, the 1998 STS-90 mission [Neurolab], among other things, studied how humans perceived centrifugal motion in the absence of an existing 1G gravity vector. This mission was designed to study the vestibular system, but others have looked at cardiovascular effects.
The long and the short is that it helps some, but the inertial problem is still sticky. Worse, it tends to make the astronauts sick. Losing track of your vertical tends to make your body do bad things.
A simple review of Pubmed/Medline would have showed all of this. But then, Benford's strength always was was fiction, wasn't it?
Actually, I've read his work. I don't think fiction's really a strong-point, either.
Re:Benford doesn't know what he's talking about (Score:4, Informative)
Boeing designed a centrifuge module for the ISS [boeing.com] that was a bit larger--2.5 meters or so, but it's not for human use.
Re:Benford doesn't know what he's talking about (Score:2, Informative)
It seemed to me that Benford was talking about the long-term effects of centrifugal motion on the human body. Those experiments weren't keeping the subjects under continuous centrifugal motion for months at a time, so I think his point is still valid. Spinning the shuttle for a few minutes is hardly a test of long-term effects.
Re:Benford doesn't know what he's talking about (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a look at the "off-axis rotator" they used in these Neurolab experiments. It's really *small*... no wonder if it made them sick: Astronaut Training for The Vestibular Team Experiments [nasa.gov]
Gregory Benford's technical credentials are somewhat better established than yours, Anonymous: Gregory Benford Professor Plasma Physics and Astrophysics [uci.edu] And, not that it's relevant or anything, but some of his fiction strikes me as being some of the best SF written in the last several decades (I'm a fan of "Across the Sea of Suns" myself).Centrifugal Gravity (Score:5, Informative)
Curious ignorance (Score:5, Interesting)
I have asked many people lately who was the first woman in space. Invariably the answer is either "I don't know" or "Sally Ride". This is such a pity
The world is amazingly ignorant of the history of space exploration. This is saddening. Considering the absolute minor number of injuries and deaths involved in space exploration compared to what has actually been happening, it is all rather amazing.
Re:Curious ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
Laika! But she was kind of a bitch.
Really - Valentina Tereshkova, the pilot of Vostok 7. The only thing remarkable about Sally Ride (or other "female firsts") is that women in the west were prevented from pursuing that field for so long. The Soviet Union had no shortage of flaws, but they were more equal-opportunity than the West.
And actually I rather dislike the story of Laika. She was sent to her death (an unpleasant one, slow suffocation, dehydration, or burning up) and they knew they had no way to get her down. The Americans weren't much better, killing lots of monkeys and chimps. At least by the time they actually managed to get a primate in orbit it was late enough that they were also able to land it safely. Maybe there's a message there about prematurely putting humans in space...
Re:Curious ignorance (Score:2)
Unfortunately, she didn't live long enough to eat that last meal; IIRC there was a problem and she was cooked alive. I don't remember for sure, but I think that the craft itself remained functional for a while after Laika's death.
Space Tourism! (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem at the moment is that space is too expensive; even the Russians charge thousands of dollars per pound, and they've got the cheapest launchers going.
The reason for the high cost? We don't launch enough. The point is that if you look at the technologies out there, this one might save you 20%, that one 10% etc. But each doubling of the number of launches typically saves you 15%; and it's a gift that carries on giving. The minimum cost for launching into space appears to be very low; comparable to the cost of a Concorde flight, the amount of fuel used per person is somewhat comparable.
Therefore we need a purpose for space that requires launching a lot. Space Tourism is likely to meet that niche.
Reliability is of course the second question after price. However, take the Shuttle; it's extremely likely that both crashes are caused by design flaws in the Shuttle; and that the number of flaws that remain undiscovered will decrease over time. Therefore the reliability of the Shuttle should increase, and there's no known limit to how reliable launch vehicles can be.
It seems from surveys that many people would like to go into space, so the interest is certainly there. If the low cost vehicles are available, then it permits travel to low earth orbit. Mars, the moon, the asteroids would then be possible, and it seems that LEO is more than halfway to these places.
a commercial advantage (Score:2)
Once in place, the maintanence costs for these power generators will make space travel seem quite cheap for the cost incurred.
Re:a commercial advantage (Score:2)
Space Tourism has a gradual path it can take; just more and more people going, price gradually coming down and down.
SPS needs an antenna 100m across in space from the get-go or you get no energy. That's 10s of billions right there, at the most optimistic.
"Failsafe" Does NOT Exist (Score:4, Insightful)
The internal combustion engine... wonderful invention, and how many people went on to die from trains, cars, and planes. Numbers by now in the *taking a stab in the dark* hundreds of thousands, but look at the benefits, how much more quickly goods and people can be moved from point A to point B. Took a lot of suffering, a lot of checks and rechecks, a lot of "well person x was killed so kill project x" noise from people who can't accept change and their mouthpieces in the media.
My largest hope from all of this is that the end result that is achieved is better, faster, safer, cheaper, more technologically advanced space vehicles will be spawned, and the exploration shall continue.
Read your alternate history... there should have been a story on slashdot sometime in 2000 with a title like "Man Lands On Mars".
We can do a heck of a lot more than we currently do. Somebody just needs the balls to get the ball rolling.
Not space station, not Moon, Eros! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not space station, not Moon, Eros! (Score:3, Funny)
We owe Mars to our parents and our children (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that I have young children, I would truly love to see this nation embark on a bold adventure that will ignite and challenge their imagination. Even if NASA started planning a Mars mission tomorrow it would be at least a decade or more before the first landing. I would relish being able to raise my children against the backdrop of having such a mission planned and follow with them each step necessary to take the next giant leap for mankind. From such an ambitious mission perhaps my children and their generation will learn by example that with planning, courage and commitment this nation can continue to achieve great things. Perhaps, just perhaps, their generation would then be inspired to take the next leap beyond the inner solar system, and so on, and so on.
As I see it, we pay so much in taxes for things that are mundane and temporary. I would not object to a small sliver of my taxes going towards something that is not so much for us, but for the generations to come. Just as our generation does not lament the money and resources spent by our parents four decades ago to reach the moon, our children will not lament the money and resources it will take to reach Mars. They will only lament if our generation fails to have the vision and courage to take the next steps beyond those taken by our parent's generation.
post-Shuttle (Score:3, Insightful)
We've learned a lot in the third of a century since the Shuttle was designed - new refractory materials, thermal flux reduction by better aero boundary layer control, simpler and more reliable boost propulsion systems (hybrids), aero control through surface plasma generation, orbital reboost using solar electric magnetic thrusters, autonomous robotics, etc. We can build a far better launch system today than we could in the 1970s.
The Shuttle is old stuff. It's neither as good as we need, nor as good as we can do. Whenever we launch one, we loft about 180,000 pounds of mass into orbit that we have to bring back, after delivering a payload of around 55,000 lbs. If the Shuttle were operated as an expendable vehicle, we could put nearly a quarter of a milliion pounds into low earth orbit every time we push the button. Wouldn't you rather put the ISS up with 10 launches than 50 launches?
Rethinking the Shuttle doesn't mean scrubbing human presence in space. It simply means thinking for the long haul, considering how best to get the "stuff" (infrastructure) up there (expendible launch) and add human presence for assembly, test, and operation only as really needed (Shuttle follow-on systems). Expendible launch systems operated in intelligent balance with crewed systems will give us routine access to space lots sooner than "manned every time" systems.
However our nation decides to go forward, we owe a debt of gratitude to our fellow Americans who are willing to hazard their lives in going to space. They are among our best and bravest. For the Challenger and Columbia crews, I hope within the next couple of decades, somebody writes your names on a cliff on Mars in remembrance. With any luck, it will be one of your sons or daughters who does it.
The U.S. will not drop out of manned flights... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, als long as there are Communists, manned space flight is safe...
A Space Program Derived From American Values (Score:5, Insightful)
This sort of incentives-based policy is in the tradition of American values. It should be no surprise that such values are being eroded as the 'nation of immigrants' changes from pioneering independence to bureaucratic dependence. The use of a socialist bureaucracy to explore space is a fundamentally different experiment that other proven American approaches to expanding the resource base available to humanity.
In 1989 I was working on grassroots legislation to reform NASA [geocities.com]'s launch services policies. This led to the passage of P. L. 101-611, The Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 [google.com]which required NASA to procure launch services from private vendors whenever possible. This is common sense if proper boundaries between public and private functions are to be maintained. As radical as this may sound to many who see NASA as a space transportation company, it was, in fact, Presidential policy at the time and the legislation was therefore, in fact, redundant, but bureaucratic inertia demanded separate acts by the Legislative branch to reinforce the Executive's own command structure. This legislative effort started out as an attempt to passsomething along the lines of the Kelly Act of 1925 (which formed the basis for Jerry Pournelle's recommendations [jerrypournelle.com] first put forth by his Citizen's Advisory Council for Space Policyin 1980), but compromised when it became clear that resistance from NASA, and its contractors, to citizen involvement in space policy was so intense that serious reform would be impractical. My testimony before Congress [geocities.com] legislative follow-up to P.L. 101-611 made recommendations for a focus onincentives for commercial investment, rather than plans or "programs". An example of incentives-based legislation, applied to fusion energy policy, was recommended for passage by Bussard, R. W., one of the founders of the US fusion program [geocities.com] in a letter confessing some of the subterfuge to which technical leaders resorted. It is still quite relevant today given the reliance on Middle Eastern oil and problems with fission energy. The point here is that incentives are more effective in general than governmental programs.
The first settlers in America experienced enormous causalities their first years they were in America. Entire colonies were lost. The original colonies included a substantial variety of fundamentally differing approaches to settling North America. America's frontier wasn't built by a centrally controlled bureaucracy -- and there is no reason to expect such a bureaucracy will take Americans to their next frontier.
Space policy is a touchstone of American values since Americans are spiritually a pioneering culture. Let's not forget who settled the frontier, how those "immigrants" differed from later immigrants, and what sort of "program" they had to settle the new frontier.
In 1989 I was working on grassroots.... (Score:3, Insightful)
In 1989 I was working on grassroots legislation to reform NASA's launch services policies. This led to the passage of P. L. 101-611, The Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 [google.com]which required NASA to procure launch services from private vendors whenever possible.
You're admitting to this?!?
You must be be asking for a beating. Either that or confessing your sins.
The biggest problem in our corrupt government is that our agencies are forced to farm out to the lowest bidder instead of building the parts that they need themselves for one tenth the price.
If Government agencies were allowed to run their own factories for essential military and space exploration equipment we wouldn't have half of the failures that we do from shoddy equipment in our military. _AND_ it would cost less (in the long run).
But I guess greasing the palms of politicians and getting your buddy or your district a lucrative government contract at the expense of space exploration and US tax dollars is worth it.
A question of cash (Score:2, Insightful)
We need to get kids excited about space also (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with having a long term goal of going to Mars. If it takes 100 years to solve the problems, so be it. However, if we're ever going to do anything noteworthy in space after going to the moon, we need to start getting today's kids excited about space again. I remember how much I was wrapped up in all things space as I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, but I don't see any kids today being engaged the same way.
We need as many as possible to buy a telescope and use it, show what's there to our kids. Share it with the local elementary school (I did this last year and 99% of those attending we're just astounded with seeing what's up there). Attend local astronomy star parties. We need to buy rockets from the hobby shop and launch those things with our kids. Take them to see real rocket launches (like we did recently at Vandenberg) and show them what's happening when they go into orbit (via a space sim like Celestia). Go to see IMAX 3D space shows. If you're in Southern California at the right time, take the kids to JPL's open house or to Vandenberg's open house. Launch ballons with a camera on it and take pictures from the edge of space!
Just do something to get more and more people excited about space and going to Mars. Don't let kids think that Star Wars is the true model of space flight. Don't let people think we know everything there is to know about space. Just do something. Everyone who gives a crap about space should do something, and not just sit there.
Eyes on the prize... (Score:5, Interesting)
What is the point of NASA and the Space Administration;
1. Military space support
2. Space-based business
3. Learning about the nature and evolution of the universe.
4. Getting a significant number of human beings off the planet before the sun get's too toasty to support life on the third rock.
The first three items need a cheap and reliable facility for getting hardware up as often as possible. The shuttle was never designed for this duty. The next generation human transport won't be either. There has to be two tracks for getting stuff up there. One track for hardware, flown by wire and robots, managed with a minimum risk to human life.
The next track needs to be a safe, effective, relatively inexpensive way to get large numbers of people off the planet and back again safely. By separating the tasks intelligently we should be able to cut costs and design time, and build optomized systems for the appropriate tasks at hand.
Next we need to stop pissing billions away on pointless millitary spending designed to blast little brown people into giving us their natural resources. There're plenty of resources circling the sun, and the first ones to begin mining them are going to get filthy rich (that includes enough hydrocarbons to float the Iraqi's in an ocean of oil.) We need to stop playing footsies with our neighbors and get the heck off the planet. If we diverted 25% of the millitary budget to space exploration, development, and utilization, we'd be visiting substantial cities at L5, the Moon, and on Mars within all our lifetimes. Things on the big happy checklist of skills to develop include;
1. Protecting people from hard/solar radiation outside the earths magnetosphere.
2. Creating a sustainable, portable biosphere (3 feet of water surrounding a living enclosure would stop virtually all of the hard radiation, as well as insure sufficient water for living in sustained trips into space, and providing a barrier to high velocity microparticles.)
3. Providing artificial gravity, the problems of bone loss are the tip of the iceberg for long term exposure to zero-G. We are optomized for 1 G living and less will causes serious long term problems. We already have the research to indicate the long list of problems associated with zero and low G living. We may even need to build rotating structures on mars and the moon to provide suitable gravity (building structures on rotating arms like a centrifuge, to provide additional artificial gravity.
4. Isolating or biology from their biology. Until we actually begin the serious process of teraforming a planet... we need to make sure their bug don't infect us, and our bugs don't infect them. This is going to be a solid gold bitch. We don't even have a clue how to do this (bacterial sporse can survive vacuum, high temp, hard radiation, and deep cold. In short, we don't even know how to sterilize our tools and ourselves to the degree necessary to indure the saftey of our people and any rare ecologies we may contact.
5. We have to improve our ability to move through space... we have to move so much faster. Chemical rockets are just not going to feed the bulldog, we need to do so much better.
6 We need to come up with a sane means to explore space, in such a way that the entire world receives a share of all the benefits, while those who put up the big wagers, receive a fair portion of the rewards. As it stands, international law, UN conventions, and a variety of treatise, make truly rewarding exploration of space virtually impossible.
7. We need to have a 5, 20, 20, and 50 year plan that suggests we haven't somehow lost our Father's testicles somewhere in the haze of Lunar exploration. Our parents and their parents, had more testicular fortitude in their little fingers that the entire damn nation has in it's 50 states. What kinds of stories of hardship did the persevere through to get to this country and to succeed here, ultimately planting human foot step on the moon. How many of them died striving for something better for themselves and the children's children. We run out of steamed milk for our lattes and life ends are we know it...
I feel for the men and women that died so bravely. I especially feel for their families... now suck it up, don;t make their sacrafice a popcorn fart in the wind, and let's get on with the business of advancing the entire species.
The answers my darlings are out their waving at us...
Genda B.
P.S. If it comes out that this was another avoidable tragedy resulting frmo the cutting of cost and cutting corners by greedy contractors... I suggest the next shuttle be tiled with high level managers from both the guilty corporation and NASA as an indication that we are not amused.
This needs a few +1 Insightfuls (Score:3, Informative)
In a big way. Well put, my feelings exactly (spelling errors and all
As for the article, pure rubbish. Unrelentless ranting. Science fiction.
Space is about as safe as a highway of drunk drivers, always has been, always will be. How can you say for one minute NASA should make it look easy to go 100km up at 17,580mph, in 394 degrees K tempatures, sustain it, and then accurately drop back to the planet and hit a runway in Florida, startng the decent as far back as the Pacific?
NASA and all the others who have worked on the Shuttle have worked miracles over the years. I for one am glad they went ahead at whatever the cost, because wasteful or not, we're further ahead of where we were.
Perhaps then, along the articles lines of thinking, we should ban cars, because they have failed more than once, and the auto industry is just pissing awaay our hard earned dollars. I suspect the author uses a computer with Windows? Better not save any data on it, as "Microsoft wants us to believe our hard drives are safe, when in fact they are not. Once is an accident, twice is a defect."
(OK Maybe he'd be right on the last one.)
My point is: Shit happens. There will be accidents. Build a new space plane, it will crash at least once. So will the next one. And the one after. Let us not forget, launching a rocket into space that comes back down safely is the most dangerous, costly, complex thing mankind has ever done. And with good reason: It is the greatest thing mankind has ever done.
"Science" on the shuttle is a waste of money (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I haven't read the article. This is about a newspaper article I read yesterday, that I think fits in this discussion.
In the Dutch paper "Volkskrant", there was an opinion piece by a biologist yesterday. He explained that currently, the experiments done in the Shuttle are nowhere near worth their money. The experiments done (like what's the effect of zero-gravity on species x) test no important hypotheses and the outcome is usually not published in high profile magazines.
Once in a while, every scientist working in a field that could possibly have something to do with zero gravity research gets a request for ideas for experiments. They're basically begging for things to add to shuttle science missions. He doesn't really take these things seriously, since these experiments never test anything important. The important stuff (what's the effect of long term zero grav on humans) has been pretty much covered by now.
Also, a Shuttle flight costs $500 million. You can run his institute on that for a hundred years.
So his proposal is to give the $500M to the scientific community instead, to be used for pure science, and see if the scientists themselves spend it on experiments in Shuttles. "Of course they wouldn't".
Re:The Dutch didn't Pay for them (Score:2)
Who cares that this scientist is Dutch. The exact same argument also goes for American scientists. Give them the chance to spend that $500M on whatever research they think is important, instead of giving it to NASA to desperately find something slightly scientific to do with it.
The exploration of space is going to continue... (Score:2)
We simply just need better vehicles.
Perhaps a goal is that of Spaceship of Ezekiel [earthportals.com]
Go ahead and take a look at the patent [uspto.gov] for a wheel within a wheel. How obvious it is once seen, how foolish one feels thinging someing more complicated.
The simplicity/safty needs to be improved on what we have.
As a species we lack perspective and love comfort (Score:3, Insightful)
Humanity has to become better at fulfilling our ideals as a species. We need to be hardier, capable of extended periods in micro-gravity without any drugs to keep us from pissing out our bones.
We need NASA to help big energy companies safely deploy technologies which will enable a hydrogen economy, not just for the seven wealthiest nations, but for everyone, because there's no prize for half-assing global technology like automobiles and power-plants. We need to get that stuff out there.
We should park the ISS at L4 and take a decade to scour all our rubbish out of low-earth orbit. Wouldn't it suck if the shuttle was struck by something someone accidentally dropped while working on the ISS months before?
The cool thing about all that "cleanning up LEO" would be that while a bunch of flyboys are playing RPV with radar and massive glad-bags, we could still be doing all the bullshit science that's made NASA and graduate students slaving away at research colleges happy for years.
Maybe we could take a good thirty years to finish that clean-up job, and by that time we'll have the kind of genetics technology which permits us to endure complete weightlessness, and maybe even allow us to hibernate just like bears so we don't need as much food, air, or have to worry about all that pesky psychology and some reality-tv producer buying all the NASA footage and making a tv series out of it.
And everyone here knows that there's absolutely no reason why we can't engineer perfectly good stuctures at the bottom of the well, develop the technologies to sustatin life in them. We could wrap up that knowledge, send it into orbit and create a civilization.
What stops us?
We do. We let clerics and technologists tell us fairy tales and we wet ourselves. Some of us have been trained from birth to entertain them.
We let politicians and their day-to-day pissing contests and in-fighting hamstring us in everything from feeding ourselves to enabling us to justify stepping on someone's face.
We let merchants push our buttons, control what we do with things we own, and we enjoy being controlled in so many different ways that it's become woven into the very culture...what we wear, what we play, and what we drive, what we want to wank to.
Our biggest problem is us.
And since we're quite happy being dipshits, until something happens to change that, solving any of these other little problems isn't going to matter.
Solar Power Satellites? (Score:4, Informative)
Mars exploration is a thought, at least it's dramatic enough that it might grab people's attention. I submit that we would be better off pursuing a goal in space with some obvious practical benefit, e.g. this scheme of Robert Kennedy of the Ultimax Group:
Apparently NASA "studied" the SPSS idea again a few years back. They said it looked good, but they needed to reduce launch costs "a problem which is being addressed" (by the space shuttle?):Mirrors & Smoke: Ameliorating Climate Change with Giant Solar Sails [catalog.com];
Topic: Mirrors & Smoke, and Other Shady Schemes [interesting-people.org]
Bright Future for Solar Power Satellites [space.com]
Big. Dumb. Boosters (Score:4, Insightful)
A reusable orbital delivery system makes about as much sense as reusable toilet paper - yes it is possible, but the cost to make it reusable far exceeds the savings. Every kilo you boost to orbit costs about ten kilos in fuel. Therefore, adding any weight that is not payload is extremely wasteful. If you add one kilo to make something "reusable", that is a kilo of payload you give up.
The rocket engines on the shuttle are very complex - turbopumps, combustion chambers, cyrogenic fuels. The solid rocket boosters are MUCH simpler - why did NASA not use just them? Simple - solid rockets are not throttleable - one lit off, they make as much thrust as they want to, and while you can to an extent control that thrust by how you design them, there will be unavoidable variations in thrust from unit to unit. You cannot get several of them balanced out - in the shuttle, the main engines are used to balance the load out by shifting their thrust to make up for variances.
However, we have for some time known how to build hybrid rocket - solid fuel, liquid oxidizer. These rockets are throttleable and can be made restartable.
Imagine this: We start making hybrid rockets, roughly the size of the shuttle's SRB's. They are NOT designed for reuse (if they can be made reuseable without weight penalty great, but otherwise fugetaboutit).
For normal, unmanned payloads, you use 1 or more of these rockets (one for smaller payloads like a comsat, up to five or more for big chunks of the ISS). If they go foom on launch it is unfortunate but not catastrophic.
For manned missions, we launch a MUCH SMALLER vehicle, big enough for the (astro|cosmo)nauts and not much else (if they need a big experiment, you launch it as an ummanned launch). Because the launch vehicle is much smaller, you don't need as many of these boosters. You can therefore inspect the HELL out of the ones you use.
Since you are making the boosters by the truckload, you can quickly get the economies of scale to bring the cost down. This argument was also used for the shuttle, but since the shuttle is such a complicated bird this promise never materialized. I assert that BDB's (big dumb boosters) would be able to achive this goal.
Also, since these boosters are standard parts, you could farm them out to several companies (hell, GPL the damn design!) This would allow for competition, as well as innovation. We could even allow them to be build in other countries (e.g. Russia). How about getting a degree of commonality between the Russian space program and the US?
Finally, given the fact that you could use a non-cryogenic oxidizer, you could relatively safely ship these things into orbit, thus allowing (lunar|Mars) missions to use them to provide the delta-V to leave orbit.
NASA keeps focusing on "sexy" technologies like SCRAMjets and such, and those are find as research projects. But for workhorse applications, why not K.I.S.S.?
Big Dumb Boosters. Beat that into NASA, beat that into your Congresscritter, beat that into the National Space Society and the Planetary Society, beat that into your fellow
Three cheaper launch alternatives (Score:3, Interesting)
Tethers [tethers.com] ( 1 [space.com], 2 [nasa.gov], 3 [spaceflightnow.com] ) attached to counterweights can be used to transfer spacecraft from one orbit to another. The first tether has an orbit that skims the atmosphere, where a craft catches and connects to the end of the tether. The craft is lifted into low earth orbit and subsequent tethers help it to reach escape velocity. Using the tethers takes energy out of the orbits of the counterweights, some of which can be put back by using the tethers for descent as well as launch.
J. Storrs-Hall (once moderator of sci.nanotech) envisioned a space dock [imm.org], a linear motor suspended 100 km above the ground that accelerates spacecraft to an elliptical orbit. He computes an amortized cost of reaching low earth orbit of 42 cents per kilogram. From the elliptical orbit, it's a relatively small safe step to escape velocity.
A space elevator [highliftsystems.com] ( 1 [space.com], 2 [nasa.gov] ) is an excellent long-term solution. A cable is hung from a weight in geosynchronous orbit, reaching down to the Earth's surface. The elevator climbs the cable, carrying a craft. When it reaches GEO, the craft detaches and spends only a little fuel getting to escape velocity.
Tethers and the space elevator require novel materials for strong cables, probably using carbon nanotubes. The frame to hold up the space dock is in compression, and something we could build with little or no advance in material science. Any of these alternatives would be vastly cheaper and vastly safer than putting human lives on the noses of fuel tanks subjected to unreasonable speeds and stresses.
Re:Simple .. spend $ on health, education... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Americans can do whatever they want (Score:5, Insightful)
-calyxa
Re:Americans can do whatever they want (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Americans can do whatever they want (Score:2, Insightful)
Without any hesitation, I would agree. Without ANY hesitation.
Let's Stay Up (Score:5, Insightful)
For one, how many technological advances have been created from our desire to reach into space? How many products have reached the basic consumer market because people at NASA (or wherever) thought them up.
Second, there are too many unknowns. Money aside, there are many reasons to continue space exploration (including the space station) and almost no reasons to stop it.
Third, we have no need to stop exploration. When the gov. runs out of money then maybe I'll concede, but for now, we're all fine and there's no need to stop the programs. If it's not broken, then don't fix it.
So, I don't feel that the Shuttle accident should have any negative impact on any countries space programs. Astronauts know the risk they take, and certainly they understand far better then me how insanely difficult it is to fly into space and back. Frankly, I'm amazed we can do it at all, but hell, the internal combustion engine boggles me sometimes.
I feel that in this situation, it's better to learn from the mistakes that were made instead of refusing to take any more risks.
Re:Americans can do whatever they want (Score:4, Interesting)
The good men and women of the lost shuttle Columbia must be honored. There can be no better way to honor these heroes than by honoring the dreams that led them through the many trials of becoming astronauts. These accomplished men and women dreamed of space exploration with the truest American pioneering spirit. This dream must be honored. The dream must be enacted into reality. It is a most American dream.
We honor the dreams of the astronauts of the Columbia by supporting an aggressive and visionary policy of manned space exploration beyond earth's orbit. No statue or monument can do better justice to our fallen heroes, for a statue or plaque would represent little other than the failure of our American dream; and would commemorate merely the mediocrity of the American spirit. Dream big. No excuses. We must go to Mars.
We must go to Mars. Not for profit, though profit will come by it in the end. We must explore Mars. Not for the glory of America, though glory will come of it. We must embrace Mars as the first step in the destiny of Mankind. That is, outward.
America. She is not Great by Her name alone, but by mighty deeds and kindest embraces we may show the Sadaam's of the world that their cruel hands lead not to greatness, just to mediocrity of human potential. We may make them fearful of our weapons, but weapons will not inspire their dreams of what can be.
Come let us pay tribute to the crew of the Columbia
Re: Curious (Score:4, Informative)
The escape velocity of Mars is 5.03kps as compared with Earth's 11.2kps escape velocity. That figure is based on its gravaty.
As for the atmosphere, here is more info out of a Newsletter from the Coconino Astronomical Society about what is in the atmosphere and how they know. You may want to read the whole letter at http://www.lowell.edu/cas/news/2002_sep. pdf (warning! it gets boring fast).
In order to determine if a gas is retained by a planet, the following formula is used.
Escape velocity of molecules = the square root of (2 times Boltzmann's constant times the effective temperature / molecular weight times the mass of the hydrogen atom).
The escape velocity of Mars is three miles per second. Therefore, Mars has carbon dioxide and no water vapor in its atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has a molecular weight of 44; water has a molecular weight of 18. Obviously, water vapor requires much less energy to escape the Martian gravitational pull than carbon dioxide. Hydrogen and helium molecules are not present in any of the inner planets because of their atomic weights of one and four, respectively
Mars Return (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Uhhh... (Score:2)