New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: This forum is accepting new registrations by emailing newmarsmember * gmail.com become a registered member. Read the Recruiting expertise for NewMars Forum topic in Meta New Mars for other information for this process.

#1 Re: Human missions » ISS - Beware the Bear » 2006-09-06 20:55:41

What's so suspicious about our elections?

During the election itself, Florida had ballots cast by thousands of voters who had been dead for years. Thousands of ballots were thrown out because the punch was in question. One polling station had the wrong party logo printed beside candidate's names. Voters were turned away at the ballot box, not permitted to vote; the excuse was an accusation of conviction of a felony when the real convict was a completely different person. During the 2004 election saw problems outside Florida; one electronic polling station in a traditional Democrat area was "accidentally" left in test mode so all votes were discarded. Another polling station recorded more votes for George W. Bush alone than the number of registered voters. The list of offences goes on, but the point is America has been claiming to be not only a major, democratic nation, but also leader of the free world. However, the stunts pulled during the last two presidential elections are the sorts of things you see in a third world country.

Well put, and enough said on that. If you can't remember the fact that the United States had no declared winner of the presidential election in the one before last, and it was ultimately decided by a court many weeks after the fact - despite the very well documented 3rd world class election shenanigans, you either have a very poor memory or are inventing revisionist history. Everyone saw it. Everyone knows it happened.

Why should I want to trust a country like this in any joint space mission??


All those stats you mention are just so much propaganda. You are looking and flaws and seeing flaws that aren't there of one particular country to the exclusion of all the rest.

The president publicly admitted today that America's spy agency operates secret prisons all over the world.  The CIA has become a secret police, secretly kidnapping anyone whom they think is a threat. The CIA now stands in the halls of infamy with the KGB, NKVD, Stazi, Gestapo, and others in this particular activity. The president also admitted that the US will not torture people "anymore", because the American government has been ordered to stop doing so by its Supreme Court.   

I guess that liberals, foreigners, and other "terrorists" have gotten to the president of the United States  - and filled his head with "propaganda" as well.

Why should I want to trust a country like this in any joint space mission??


I'd say there are countries that are a lot worse than the US of A, and that we should not partner with them because they abuse human rights. Your confusing a difference of degree with a difference of kind and pretending that differences of degree don't matter.

What kind of degree of difference? Is it more morally acceptable to torture and murder many hundreds or thousands of people (remember "Abu Grahib"?), instead of  10's of thousands?  Torture is torture and murder is murder.  America has crossed the line -  the level of immorality is the same.

American bombs killed far, far more people in Iraq than Sadam Hussein would have killed for the remainder of his leadership (with his activities being so closely monitored pre war). What's more, the American administration knew it  would be this way beforehand. Bush himself has admitted that over 30,000 people had been killed as a result of American action in Iraq (many place it at over 100,000).  Yet, Colin Powell stood in front of the world and touted knowingly incorrect and likley fabricated "evidence" of Iraqi wrongdoing as justification for these actions (remember the "mobile chemical weapons trailers"?)

Why should I want to trust a country like this in any joint space mission??


There are poor and rich people in this country because not everyone has the same qualifications to the same jobs, and not everyone can earn the same amount of money because people are different. What is so surprising about that?

Nearly one in five American children lives in poverty. That is a statistical fact. They don't work - and are getting a generally substandard education. Many don't get 3 meals a day. America is supposed to be the most prosperous society in the world - yet has some of the highest levels of domestic inequality in the civilised world.  Tell me how that is a "just society"?  This is a government that seems to have abandoned it's most vunerable.

Why should I want to trust a country like this in any joint space mission??


I also don't give a squat about the World's opinion about my country, as it more influenced by propaganda than by reality.

You keep believing that, while more and more of the world turns away from America as the example to follow and the country to work with.  If this way of operating continues, eventually there will just be an isolated America, still in denial and in decline - and still spying on their own citizens.

#2 Re: Human missions » ISS - Beware the Bear » 2006-08-30 20:40:32

Ya man, you’re absolutely correct. Deals with shady countries need to stop!

Why would anyone want to enter into a partnership with a country that has had  glaringly suspicious presidential elections, has a standing policy of continually spying on it’s own citizens, where 1 in 6 of  it’s citizens live in poverty despite immense domestic wealth, conducts bloody wars of occupation on countries knowingly using false pretenses – and knowingly at the expense of many tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives, regularly breaks trade agreements with other countries when they are no longer convenient, intentionally contravenes the Geneva convention on torture (as so ruled by its own supreme court), and knowingly continues to destroy the global ecosystem in order to continue to make it’s elite ruling class even more wealthy than it already is.

Globally, it is feared,  loathed, or at least mistrusted by at least half of the world’s population.

I expect that a nation of this sort could certainly not be trusted in any joint space endeavor.

Why should anyone trust the U.S.A. anymore?

#3 Re: Human missions » NASA Exploration Roadmaps » 2006-08-13 20:04:07

Nonsense, just heresay, and silly heresay at that. If NASA cancels Ares-I, then what will they do?

They are implying that there has been a "showstopper"  on Aries 1 (the Stick) related to the second stage, or how the second stage relates to the first stage. Apparently this was exposed at a recient design review. Details to come out soon.

Meet the new Aries 1 -  "Stumpy". Basically, the 5 segment SRB first stage of the Stick is broken in half and each half is placed on either side of the second stage (3 segs per side). The Stick's second stage is widened to STS ET dimensions and given an extra J-2X.

http://www.miomanager.com/Mio_Files/lib … /CLV1a.JPG

#4 Re: Human missions » NASA Exploration Roadmaps » 2006-08-12 10:49:50

Award contracts in October and November for construction of the first and second stages of the rocket that will carry the craft into orbit.


nasaspaceflight.com is strongly implying that they have inside information that the Stick is going to be killed off very soon.  It has become too problematic.

#5 Re: Human missions » Manned mission to Luna in 2018 » 2005-08-03 22:24:38

Bush said "finish ISS, then Moon and Mars," and Congress said "don't whack the Shuttle Army," but beyond the meddling with Hubble and "concerns" about ISS, NASA spends its money as it wishes.

You are completly incorrect. Every proposed NASA program and budget line item is approved by the White House and gone over line by line by House and Senate subcommittees and the GAO. Take the time and read a NASA budget some time. Take a look at the millions and millions of dollars of added non-space pork barrel projects that NASA has been forced into spending of its budget inorder to placate members of congress. Although NASA initiates its budgets, it does not "spend its money as it wishes"

And how NASA spends the money they do have is what is most often debated.

You just contradicted yourself.

Space travel has NEVER been a "national priority" for the citizenry of any country ever, and it is has actually never been a priority for any government either. The one time that space was "important" was as a political stunt to show up the Commies' when they were waging a (fairly sucessful) campaign against Capitalism and Democracy. You whining about "national apathy" about spaceflight is ludicrous in context.

You are a young man, aren't you? You wouldn't remember the 60's. "Showing up the Commies" WAS THE NATIONAL PRIORITY OF THE DAY, not some little daliance. Maybe you are too young to remember the cold war. Allow me let you in on a little historical secret: it was the pivotal geopolitical event of the last half of the 20th century. The space race was a big part of it. Although the NASA budget peaked out at only about 1% of GNP in 1966, the point is that NASA got "whatever it took" to get the job done. That makes it a national priority. And in terms of national psychology of the day, the space program in the United States was a very big deal. TV networks would break away to live specials to cover a space event all the time. It was constant headline news, and astronauts were seen as heroes. It was a big deal in those days. The national attention and support that the U.S. space program recieves now is a tiny fraction of what it got then.

Blah blah blah, anti-American propoganda... I have not been that impressed with the product of Chinese schools by comparison... then there is the wildly out-of-control disparity in wealth combined with the fair trade reallignment of the Yuan/Dollar ratio, Chinese infrastructure (energy imparticular) racing to the breaking point, environmental problems (affecting health), poor worker conditions and general civil unrest... Ah and the state control of the economy, which has never worked, and the general institutionalized graft & bribery... Oh no, things are no where near rosy and gay in the PRC as you see in the America-hating Newsweek with glossies of Shanghi and Hong Kong.

You miss the point. Again. I was not saying that the number of Chineese engineering grads is the be all and end all, but rather simply just an example of the national direction and effort that many emerging nations are currently making, as opposed to the US or "the west" in general. How long do you think all of those "2nd rate" universities in those countries will remain that way anyway? It is their national priority to get better, and they will.  In the larger picture, if you really feel that the rise of the East is just a passing fancy that won't last - well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I would suggest that you get over your xenophobia though and look at things objectivly however. The U.S. government feels differently, as exemplified by their new alliance with India announced last week.

You are an angry young man, aren't you?

#6 Re: Human missions » Manned mission to Luna in 2018 » 2005-08-03 21:17:32

Has it every been any different. When in history has the vast majority of people taken a great interest in there own personal education and self betterment. And have the people that taken the interest had the means? Go back a few hundred years and only a small percentage of the people had university degrees. 

China has potential to do great things like any other nation or group of nation. China will also face many of the challenges others face. However, china is not going to pas the united states over night in space or economic strength.

Good points John.

Although comparing a University degree of today is not like comparing a University degree of several hundred years ago. What we would call engineers, technologists, and technicians now would have been called for the most part “tradesmen” in that time, and were schooled as apprentices.

The larger point that you make however is good concerning the percentage of the population aspiring to be professionally skilled and improving their lot in life. I agree with your observation: obviously it was not a majority of the population then or now. However, the question really is whether enough citizens of a nation are ready, willing, and able to support a great national cause in order to get the job done – not necessarily the majority. The great exploring nations of those days past had a sufficient volume of motivated skilled workers, fiscal depth, and national will to accomplish what they did. Does the United States have those ingredients now in order to continue leading in the exploration of the final frontier?

The postulation that I am putting to those who are unhappy with what they view as the sorry state, direction, and pace of the U.S. space program is that it is that way because the majority of the nation is satisfied with how it is and is projected to be.

I am asking those dissatisfied: “Why do you think that is?” “Why is it not a burning national priority to get people back to the moon in 8 years and on Mars in 15 years?”

“Why is the national will to do better than that not there?”

I ask if those who are dissatisfied feel as if is because the United States has peaked as a great nation and society – and has lost the interest to lead in the manner that it once did.
Does America want to be a nation of lawyers and celebrities – instead of engineers, scientists, and explorers?

That is the root question – not if NASA management is unimaginative or incompetent. NASA is only a tool and product of the nation it serves.

Oh, and by the way, of course China will not surpass the U.S.A. anytime soon, but at an annual GNP growth rate of 6% to 10%, how long will it take?

And one other thing: I am personally happy just to see the plans and efforts being put into place for the U.S. space program. It's the best thing to come along since the early 70's.

#7 Re: Human missions » Manned mission to Luna in 2018 » 2005-08-03 18:50:28

You guys crack me up! Never good enough, those NASA folks, are they? Never smart enough, never ambitious enough, never doing the right program, or doing it the right way.

So the United States Government announces that they will start expeditions to the Moon in 2018. Notice that I said United States Government, not NASA. A lot of you guys still think that NASA is some sort of stand alone organization that decides how much money to spend and what to spend it on. Get it through your heads: NASA is just one of the many, many arms of the U.S. federal government. How much money is spent on spaceflight, and what type of spaceflight it is spent on is the decision of politicians! You then criticize the hell out of NASA folks for not being ambitious enough, or doing the wrong program, or some other such thing. If the date for the moon is 2018, and the expeditions are a week or two in length twice a year, it’s because that’s what the government is prepared to spend on the endeavor! If you don’t like it, lobby your representative or senator, or the President. Tell them you want them to spend more tax dollars (or more borrowed money) on spaceflight – specifically on getting a permanent lunar base up and running by say, oh, 2014. Maybe while you are at it, how about humans on Mars by say…. 2020.? Colonists on Mars by 2035? It can all be done with enough cash. If public opinion supports it – it will happen. If they do not, it will not happen.

It is all about national priorities guys. If spaceflight were higher up on the list of those priorities, the U.S. would get to the moon faster, would get to Mars faster, would have a Hubble replacement faster, etc, etc. They do what they can with the funding they are allocated. Period.

EDIT: A last point associated with this. Since many feel that there isn't the political-national will in the United States (as reflected in their spaceflight budget allocations) to do more (or possibly even the desire to do less and less) in the arena of spaceflight (NASA is only the tool of that will), you all might do better to ask the question of "why?". Has the United States peaked as an empire, and no longer has the national will - or ability - to lead in space exploration in the future? Has it become too lazy and decadent - being far more interested in whom Tom Cruise is boinking this month, or what Britteny Spears is doing? The United States as a nation would rather spend more rescources on video games than space flight.  Is this apathy symptomatic of a nation in societal and economic decline - just as happend to other past exploring nations such as Portugal, Spain, France, the United Kindgom, and the Soviet Union? 

Case in point:

Remember that China graduates more engineers in a month than the United States does in a whole year, but the United States produces more pop music in a month  than China does in a year.  Who has the national will  to lay out the groundwork for leading the way in the future? I'm hardly saying that the U.S.A. is on the verge of collapse or anything,  but rather looking at trends and the long-term future. The fall of a great empire starts showing when it no longer has the will/ability to do the really difficult and expensive things.  I would ask those who are unsatisfied with the American space program and its direction: do you feel that the inability/unwillingness of the U.S.A. to carry out the VSE as expeditiously as you feel it should, or could, symptomatic of that decline?

Remember that the next time that you watch "Star Trek". The captian in real life may not be a fellow named James T. Kirk from Iowa, but maybe rather in 200 years from now  it may well be Hong Li from Shanghai.

#8 Re: Human missions » Early retirement for orbiter? » 2005-07-16 22:03:33

I can not see how there can be much cost to parking one or more obiters into its garage. Once the batteries are removed and all fuels, it simply can not cost you anything but a guards wages to watch over it.

Trust me - decomissioning will still cost $$$, despite the fact that it would seem to be a simple thing.

It's not as simple as draining the fuel tank and turning off the lights.

Fuel: Hydrazine, Nitrogen Teteroxide. Check out the occupational health and safety requirements for dealing with any component contaminated with such material. Any trace of this material must be removed from a decomissioned vehicle

Additionally, among many others requiring removal/safeing there are:
APUs, hydraulic systems, pressurised oxygen & nitrogen systems, cooling system, fuel cells, emergency pyros, computers, and yes - the batteries as well.

As well, they won't be going back to the garage. Once done with they will be going straight to a museum. Bays in the OPF need to be converted for servicing the CEV.

#9 Re: Human missions » Early retirement for orbiter? » 2005-07-15 17:43:39

And what makes them think that they will save any money with this plan? They have had nearly 2 years and have not save a dime while not flying any of the shuttles. How do they think not flying one of them would change that fact to allow for CEV money to be freed up.

Even when Shuttles are not flying, there is a substantial cost to keeping the Orbiters maintained and housed in the OPF. While a part of the Shuttle program inventory, each Orbiter is either flying, being prepped for flight, or in maintenance. Even during the latest program stand down, the cost of just “keeping the horses in the barn” is not a trifle. Every minute of any one of those activities outside of actually flying the Orbiter still costs substantial money in salaries and resources. The only exception to this rule was when Columbia was temporarily put in mothballs and parked in the VAB for several years about 5 years ago. Even then, there is a cost attached to that activity.

Additionally there is of course the cost of actually launching and flying a mission. That money WAS saved during the STS program stand down of the past several years. Those savings were not seen however, due to the RTF modifications to the remaining fleet that cost at least a billion dollars. If they had not flown for the past two years, and not spent any money on mods to the fleet, savings would have been seen.

If an Orbiter vehicle is pulled from the fleet and decommissioned, there will be a cost to decommissioning as well. But once parked at their final resting place, that Orbiter is no longer costing NASA money. Real dollars are saved.

#10 Re: Human missions » Early retirement for orbiter? » 2005-07-14 21:34:21

One pad at LC-39 is plenty to support 4 or 5 shuttle flights per year.

Just thought I'd add that we now not only have 1 shuttle prepped and launched, but another one on deck to launch within two weeks  for a rescue mission. Just how much work needs to be done to a pab after each launch to get it ready?

Although after this week they might just be better off cramming 9 people into a Soyuz.  roll

Yup, that's a very good point. Good call. Look to have extra supplies put on the ISS ASAP in order to support a stranded shuttle crew for 30-60 days to alleviate this problem. The addition of node 2 will really help in this matter (extra space). As for the rescue shuttle, it won't actually be sitting on the other pad waiting for the signal to go, but rather it will be sitting in the VAB. Wheeling it out to the one shuttle pad takes 5-6 hours. I would expect pad refurbishment in an emergency would take 2-5 days.  In the golden days of the Shuttle  program they launched 2 flights 15 DAYS apart from the same pad (yup - you read correct - 15 days).  So, one pad is still enough.

#11 Re: Human missions » Early retirement for orbiter? » 2005-07-14 20:42:25

Gentlemen gentlemen

Why is anyone surprised or indignant at the expected announcement of Shuttle Orbiter phaseouts/ISS scalebacks? Consider these items:

1) It is important to NASA that the VSE becomes permanent. For that to happen requires the support of the VSE program over the time span of multiple re-elections and political terms of office. The faster things are changed in a way that doesn’t allow turning back, the harder it will be to actually turn back from the VSE road. Shutting down Shuttle orbiters ASAP is one big way to do that. Once pulled from service and sent to a museum, it would be nearly impossible to put them back into service. Remember as well, it’s not just one Orbiter in 2007, but a second as well in 2009. As orbiters are phased out, facilities are changed immediately to accommodate VSE hardware. No going back.

2) The ISS is going to be scaled back – bank on it. The writing is on the wall here.  International ISS treaty (and a treaty is the law of the land for all signatories to it) obligations will be fulfilled however, albeit in some sort of modified downsized way. Baseline Shuttle requirements for ISS construction is to get the European and Japanese labs up, node 2 up, and the truss completed in some sense. Everything else slated for future ISS construction is a candidate for change/deletion. Probably looking at 12-18 Shuttle flights (likely 14-16). That’s 3-5 shuttle flights per year till the end of 2010.  Two orbiters doing 2 flights per year is four flights per year total. Achievable.

3)  NASA and everyone else have finally come to the conclusion that the Shuttle can never be made as safe as they would really like to be comfortable with. Everyone now realizes it  is just way too complicated a machine to ever be able get it all right all the time – even after 25 years of service. When you have that kind of feeling about a vehicle with no crew escape mechanism for critical flight periods, it gets very uncomfortable for all involved.  They want to get away from the Shuttle Orbiter ASAP because it is very difficult and expensive to operate – especially at the new heightened safety levels, and even when all is going well it still scares the hell out them now. You get the vibe: “let’s just get through the next 5 years as safely as possible and shut this program down”.

Now look for alternate ways of getting things done:

1) The EELV folks are desperately looking for more government work. The ISS might need a lot of alternate uplift capability if the Shuttles are only going to fly 15 or so more times. Might there be a good fit there? Don’t be surprised to see an American requirement for the sort of multipurpose unmanned tug/docking vehicle that attached the Russian Pirs module to the ISS a few years back and then detached itself and flew away. This sort of American system would allow for the transfer of cargo/logistics modules and even permanent smaller ISS components to the station using EELV’s as a launch system. ISS supporters are happy, the DOD is happy, Boeing/Lockmart is happy.

2) Getting the SDV program going as fast as possible is desirable. There are many reasons for this, continuity being one big reason. Part of that process would be to get launch support facilities for such vehicles up and ready well before the vehicles are ready. One pad at LC-39 is plenty to support 4 or 5 shuttle flights per year. Might as well get the other pad (LUT and hardstand), an assembly bay at the VAB, an MLP, and a firing room at the LCC converted to support the SDV heavy lifter. As soon as 15 or so Stuttle ET’s are manufactured, then Michloud needs to retool in order to build first stage cores for the SDV heavy lifter.

3) The Stick needs to be flight tested prior to manned CEV flights on it – once again requiring support facilities to be ready before the first vehicle arrives at KSC.

4) The CEV will likely be flight prepped in the OPF – therefore at least one bay will need to be rebuilt and ready by 2009-2010 to support CEV flights in 2011-2012. Shuttle orbiters will need to be permanently evicted for that to take place.

There is a lot on the plate here: fly and phase out the Shuttle, finish the ISS and develop alternate servicing for it, develop and fly a Saturn 5 class very heavy launch vehicle, develop and fly a mid-heavy manned launch vehicle, develop and fly a new manned spacecraft. All in 5-7 years! So, things gotta start happening now, not next year, or the year after that. The rate of change will exciting to watch. There will be nothing like it since the mid 60’s.

#12 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-06-27 22:39:10

Very few physiccal changes are required to stack and launch a Magnum booster out of LC-39. At least one assembly bay of the VAB will have to be re-configured, and at least one launch platform will have to be partially rebuilt, as the flame contrail from the first stage core will be directly below where the stuttle ET is now located.
As for LC-39 itself, the concrete hardstand can remain essentially the same. Umbilical arms will have to be added to the LUT to service a second stage of the vehicle. On the flip side, the payload changeout room and associated structures can be removed at  pad.

None of this stuff is anything resembling a showstopper.

#13 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-06-24 11:22:00

"Note: The images displayed may not reflect the hardware and overall concept of possible visits to either the Moon or Mars. However, the art work represented here serves as a comprehensive study of various concepts and ideas developed as possibilities over a period of years. The renderings were accomplished by NASA and/or NASA-commissioned artists."

This is at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima … ages/mars/ and introduces the photo you cite.

         -- RobS

Sorry, I assumed that everyone would properly understand that it was just a concept drawing of Magnum, since there is no formal design for this vehicle in existance.  However, it is very likley that the vehicle will resemble this in an overall general configuration. I just posted this to give people some idea of what sort of thing to expect.

I would be surprised if the vehicle would be as tall as illustrated though. What got me was the requirement for a lift capability comparable to a Saturn 5.

#14 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-06-23 23:10:22


Aw man - you beat me to it!

Looks like we will get the Magnum booster after all. You can say one thing about Griffin: he does things big, and by God decisively.

120MT lift. Big big booster.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima … ...038.jpg

Apparently the Shuttle army will live on!

#15 Re: Human missions » Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns » 2005-06-12 22:32:25

GregM, what is your per flight cost estimate for the Stick?

= = =

In my opinion, the bigger developmental issue for such a vehicle would be the man rating for the second stage. It would be this stage that would be doing the bulk of the flying – likely burning for up to 8 or 10 minutes, depending on the launch profile.

But this is true for any CEV system since the US has no man-rated 2nd stages whatsoever, correct?

Sure, very true. Couldn't agree more. There are currently no man-rated second stages in the US inventory. The point I was making was that the STS SRB is man-rated already - and that recertifying a modified version as the first stage of The Stick might be the easier part. But any second stage used in The Stick would be harder to certify because it would be new - or at least using current technology that has been never man-rated - hence this might be a bigger development issue than that of the STS SRB derivative first-stage of The Stick.

As for cost - oh God, who knows ? - since vehicle architecture isn't even defined yet. $60-90 million ??? (wild guess). I strongly suspect that it would be less than Delta 4 Heavy no matter what however. The thing is that the facilities for manned spacecraft launch already exist at LC-39, whereas all new facilities would have to be built to accomidate manned spacecraft for Delta-4, adding signifigantly to program cost. This is in some ways, The Stick's ace in the hole.

#16 Re: Human missions » Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns » 2005-06-12 21:57:06

Gentlemen, gentlemen

If they really want it to, "The Stick" can be made to work.

Yes, if you put a person in the place of parachutes on a single STS SRB as it is now, that person would be undoubtedly crushed in flight like a bug. No question about it. And yes, it currently has one axis gimbal capability. And yes, it currently has a limited self guidance capability. That’s why no one in their right mind would ever do such a thing. It’s the world’s largest skyrocket when taken on its own as it is currently configured – not a human LV.

That said….

There is nothing that would stop it from becoming one in very short order. The issues:

-Safety. This has three aspects. Firstly, overall SRM reliability. It is in a nutshell, excellent - possibly the best in the history of rocketry. It is already man rated, although modifications will require re-certification. The SRM is also one of the most thoroughly understood LV motors in the history of rocketry – bar none. Given enough flights, one will inevitably fail however, so…. Secondly, abort safety. I read that there is a lot of concern here about being unable to shut off a malfunctioning solid motor. This is incorrect. Every solid motor has a linear charge placed along the length of the casing on the outside. If that charge is blown, it tears open the length of the casing and the thrust out of the nozzle is cutoff. Happens almost instantaneously once activated. Since the CRV is going to have a launch escape system, the CRV can be pulled away from the errant booster, and the linear charge blown milliseconds later – basically cutting the thrust off of the malfunctioning SRB. Thirdly, there is no additional safety in having a liquid-fueled booster unless it is a multi-engine liquid booster with engine-out-to orbit capability. In that capacity, such an LV  can shut a sick engine down in flight and continue on to orbit.  Very few LV’s have ever had that luxury – Saturn, STS, & Proton I believe (and none of even these has this capability during the entire boost phase). Every other malfunctioning LV is going into the Atlantic no matter if it is liquid fueled or solid fueled – and a launch escape system for the CRV is going to be the only thing to save the crew’s lives in any such scenario.  Same with a sudden catastrophic LV failure: if it’s gonna blow up, it’s gonna blow up – liquid or solid fueled. Again, only a good launch escape systems is gonna save the crew.

- Thrust vectoring. There are several ways to deal with this, none of which involve the current SRB nozzle gimbal system. One crude method is to spray liquid fuel at right angles into the thrust stream at the nozzle. Titan 3 used this technique successfully for 30 years. A more likely scenario however is simply to develop a 2-axis gimbling nozzle for the motor. This may end up being the most expensive upgrade in developing such a vehicle, but it can be done. Adding fins would also be a help.

- Acceleration. Be aware that solid motor burn rate can be controlled these days by constructing the solid fuel in different shapes and mixtures. That, coupled with the fact that the SRB will be lofting at least 70,000 pounds of second stage and spacecraft should allow for a wild, yet acceptable ride. Could be looking at 3-6 G’s for crewmembers. No worse than Saturn.

A few other items – Griffin wants CEV flying in 2010-2011. So they need a booster that can be developed and man-rated in very short order using existing technology and facilities,  and at as low a cost as possible. The Stick looks very good in that regard.

In my opinion, the bigger developmental issue for such a vehicle would be the man rating for the second stage. It would be this stage that would be doing the bulk of the flying – likely burning for up to 8 or 10 minutes, depending on the launch profile.

#17 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-06-08 21:21:48

However, the one sticking point... SDVL. What are you evaluating that lets you assume SDV development will get the green light when so many of the cards are stacked against SDV development?

All we have to go on is Griffin's small comment that the Exploration Office had tenatively determined, internally, to choose an SDV route. He made this statement during a confrence whose audience included people greatly affected by this decision. Griffin also made statements that he supports SDV development, but he hasn't catagorically stated NASA will build SDV.

So why the leap of faifth here?

I think SDV is gonna happen for 5 reasons. None of these reasons are at this time solid – so hey, maybe I will be wrong – just trying to read the tea leaves like everyone else. None of which means that I support or am against an SDV heavy lift LV.

1) Griffin has testified to congress that he cannot envision doing the VSE without heavy lift capability.

2) Griffin has said that he believes that the STS system is a fundamentally good launch system. If I remember correctly, I believe that he was saying this in the context of leaving the complexities of the orbiter/spacecraft out of the equation, and focusing on the capabilities of the system as a LV.

3) Politically, shutting down LC-39, the VAB, the LCC, and the OPF is a very difficult sell to congress and the state of Florida – especially when replacement facilities to perform many of the same functions would have to be constructed elsewhere at government cost if LC-39 were shut down. A lot more political and regional support would be garnered if some of the VSE objectives could be accomplished using these existing facilities.

4) Griffin has told Marshall and Michoud that they have a good future with the VSE.

5) Most importantly, there is a VERY strong rumor that NASA will announce in the first week of July its plans to develop and fly some sort of SDV heavy lift LV  with an 80-100 ton payload capability (see the NASAWATCH site – it’s usually pretty reliable).


Personally, if NASA decides that they are gonna go the heavy lift route, I would prefer to see a Magnum type booster developed from STS components. I would be surprised to see that happen however, as costs and development times would be greater than some sort of Shuttle-C or Ares vehicle.


As for the other question concerning any envisioned role for the  private sector, I DO believe that there will be a spot at the VSE table for them. It will start slowly though. The private sector is gonna have to prove itself on an incremental scale before it gets the big fish. Initially, there will likely be a contract let for privately owned and operated resupply and other related unmanned cargo services to the ISS once the shuttle is decommissioned – something similar to the European ATV system. This will give Kistler, Falcon, Atlas 5, and Delta 4 some potential meaty work. Following that, there will be a need for unmanned launch services in the 10-30 ton payload range to support the VSE. There is even a chance that the CEV may launch on an EELV, although I lean towards the slightly greater likelihood of an STS SRB-derived vehicle for the CEV at this time. If the private sector can prove themselves in these roles – especially in ISS resupply, because it involves both LV operations and spacecraft operations – then I would imagine that they just well might get a larger role in the post 2015 time period. This would likely encompass the period following the first round of lunar missions. This might include crew ferry work to LEO as well as cargo. The architecture for Mars missions is really undefined at this point, so the private sector may or may not have a significant role to play in a direct way for that.

#18 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-06-07 21:56:10

So, how do you see it? NASA and Griffin that is.

So how do I feel? Well, I take a somewhat different approach than folks here I guess. I see the American civil space program as just that – a government program. As a government organization, it operates on different paradigms than other types of projects or organizational structures. We all sometimes tend to forget that NASA is just another arm of the US federal government. It is both hostage and benefactor to that reality. Issues such as spending funds in different parts of the country (spreading the money around), political attitudes of the day, public support, etc. are all necessary operating considerations. It is also has a complex relationship with the military-industrial complex, and all of the issues related to that. That will never change as long as NASA remains an arm of the federal government. So, I tend not to look at what I would personally want to see happen – but rather tend to try to envision what is likely to happen when taking into consideration all of the constraints and opportunities that NASA operates within. What I want really doesn’t matter. What is likely to happen does matter. So that said, I would expect the following to play out, based on the situation right now (tomorrow the situation may change and none of this may be valid).

1) The VSE is going to take hold and become NASA’s primary reason for existence. I would have not been so sure up until recently, but the huge organizational shake-up and reformation required to make NASA a VSE-centric organization has begun. This is the most significant thing to happen to NASA in over 30 years. Massive layoffs, transfers, and hiring, shutdowns, and startups have begun at NASA centers – and are likely to continue through to completion. Today for example, pink slips and transfers for many of NASA’s top brass were issued.  Toes are not only  being stepped on, but are being amputated if they do not support the VSE. None of this could have happened unless there was the blessing of the executive and legislature to do so. It is indicative of real commitment to proceed with the VSE at high levels. This is very significant and cannot be underestimated. Power is shifting.

2) Indications are that the Apollo-type project model will be used for VSE (obviously with many modifications because of the time gap). Industry will construct much of the machines and materials, but NASA will be firmly in program design and control.

3) Existing NASA centers that can contribute to the VSE will get lots of work. Ones that can’t will suffer.

4) Budgets will not be unlimited. Some NASA projects and programs that do not support the VSE will be delayed or cancelled.

5) The overriding prerogative in the near term will be to get the shuttle flying and finish the station. This is mostly just to get the damn stuff out of the way and off the plate. It is nothing more than an obstacle to getting on with the VSE. If they could, they would walk away from it right now – but  those ISS treaty obligations get in the way. Look for NASA to do anything it can to reduce those treaty obligations in order to get on with VSE.

6) If another shuttle is lost, the program will be shut down. ISS will be reconfigured in whatever form possible to continue on. The Russians don’t want to walk away from it, and will keep it going in that unlikely contingency.

6) The primary focus outside of fulfilling ISS commitments (in the next 5 years) will be to build a new manned spacecraft to replace the shuttle ASAP. Getting the Constellation project’s CEV flying by no later than 2011 will become paramount as 2010 approaches.

7) NASA will go with a heavy lift SDV launcher for big unmanned cargo, for reasons I described earlier in this post (and won’t get into again). Also there is a better than 50/50 chance that CEV will fly out of LC-39 on a STS SRB-derived LV, although that is less certain than the SDV heavy launcher happening.

8) Assuming that the VSE survives into the next presidential term or two, I imagine an actual return to the Moon in a period between 2014-2017. What happens in terms of permanency regarding lunar habitation is very fuzzy right now. A lot up in the air about that. Could be as little as a dozen expeditions lasting 2-4 weeks each, or a much as permanent bases.

9) I would be surprised to see a Mars expedition mounted before 2025. More likely 2030-2035. This date could be accelerated if the political desire is there to make it happen (read spending megabucks), or it could be put off indefinitely if the political winds blow ill. An expedition to a near-earth asteroid or Lagrangian stations may happen before the Mars attempt as a rehearsal.

10) IF a human Mars program is reasonably successful, then the floodgates will open. A barrier will have been crossed and human exploration of the solar system will commence. I would expect expeditions to the larger main belt asteroids, and eventually Callisto in a post 2050 time frame.


So, that is my best guess at what will play out at this time. Some folks may not agree with all I have laid out – and I don’t blame you. Hell, I don’t even personally agree with all of what I think is likely to transpire – but that is the way I think it will play out IF things continue on their current track unabated. And that is a BIG “IF”.  A lot of unpredictable will occur in the next 30 years, and will likely affect this prediction. But hey, that’s how I see it playing out at this time.

#19 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-06-06 21:06:26

Holy smokes gentlemen! You guys seem really angry! Don’t misunderstand me, maybe you all have a right to be so. I’m an outsider here, so maybe there is something I don’t understand. But let me recap some of your major points:

- Any SDV is useless, or at least massively wasteful and very impractical. Any attempt to start such a program would purely for politics’ sake.

- Any SDV program would be harmful to the US space program

- SDV will never happen

- EELV is the ONLY way to go on this matter.

- tSpace is another only way to go on this matter

- Falcon is another only way to go on this matter

- A clean sheet HLLV is another only way to go on this matter.

- Mike Griffin is a just a White House hatchetman, finishing off the job of O’Keefe.

- Mike Griffin is DANGEROUS, as he is lacking in wisdom.

- Mike Griffin is DANGEROUS, as has a hidden agenda.

- Mike Griffin is interested only in providing a welfare system to NASA engineers, as opposed to really carrying out the VSE.

- Griffin is blinded by his devotion to STS systems, to the detriment of all other options

- Rumsfeld really pulls the strings at NASA anyway, not Griffin

- Congress really pulls the strings at NASA anyway, not Griffin

- 6000 to 8000 NASA employees or contractors should be fired or reassigned. They are wasteful doing what they are doing.

- Hubble rescue will never happen

So, that said (or should I say read), let me ask you fellows this: do you believe that the US space program in its current form, or the form that it seems to be setting up to become, has any real future? Other than going to Mars at some point in the future, nobody here seems to agree with or have any faith in NASA to get the job done.

And yes, some of you sound a little paranoid, in the grassy knoll kinda way. Don’t take that as an insult, it’s not intended as such – it just really does sound that way. Maybe it’s just cynicism and loathing however.

#20 Re: Human missions » Shuttle derived revival - Space.com » 2005-06-03 23:04:33

Its Gonna happen. You can bank on it. Look for an announcement in July. SDV heavy lift is gonna be reality. If they were gonna go the heavy lift route for supporting VSE (and Griffin has always believed in that route) and do it fast, did anyone think anything else was really gonna be selected??  I know some folks like tSpace, or Falcon, or doing the whole thing by EELV, but one has to be realistic in a realpolitik kind of way here. A few points:

1) LC-39, the LCC, the VAB, the SRB processing facility, the SPF, and the OPF comprise NASA’s entire launch infrastructure. Pretty much every other launch facility is owned or run by the DOD or the private sector. NASA isn’t gonna scrap the facilities and staff of the largest launch facility in the world – and the only one it happens to own.

2) The above mentioned facilities are the only ones in the world that can currently process heavy launch vehicles and very heavy payloads. It is the only facility in the west that can currently process manned spacecraft. When it comes to processing several very large LV’s at once, the VAB is a priceless national treasure. Is anyone in the USA gonna scrap all of that infrastructure and build something else to replace it? No chance.

3) A lot of you guys love to dis the shuttle, but as a launch vehicle it is one of the most reliable LV’s ever built. One failure in over 100 launches. I’ll bet you that Atlas 5 or Delta 4  never does that well.  That said, the Orbiter portion of the STS is aging, is still very complex, very expensive to operate, has a propulsion system pushed to the max, and has to worry about TPS protection during launch. All very seriously problematic issues that have never really been solved to complete satisfaction.  However, the launch vehicle fundamentals of the STS system as a whole are very well understood – in fact better understood that any other launch vehicle ever developed. Take the Orbiter out of the equation and one will have the fastest developed, cheapest, and most capable heavy launch system one could get in 5 years. Hands down.

4) Production facilities for most SDV components exist NOW.

5) All competing heavy lift proposals are totally unproven in the sense that they have never been built or flown. No facilities for such proposals exist. Where would they be built, who would pay? What would development times for such vehicles be? Hell, Delta 4 sat on the pad for 8 months before it first flew.

Basically an STS derived unmanned heavy lift launch vehicle would be the fastest developed, cheapest overall, and initially likely the most reliable. Other HLV proposals might be better in the long run, but Griffin needs to keep the ball rolling on the VSE. Momentum is important here. One can debate whether the decision to go with a 100 ton lift LV vs. a 25 ton LV methodology for VSE is wise. However once the decision to go with the heavy lift capability has been made, it is difficult to argue with an STS-derived heavy lift vehicle as the best and most efficient “quick and dirty solution”.

Lastly, I might be so bold to comment on the audacity of the style of some of you folks criticizing Griffin and NASA. Don’t misunderstand me, everyone has the right to free speech and to voice an honest opinion. However, I was reading one post calling Griffin “an idiot”.  Unfreekin believable! This guy has 7 university degrees and is one of the most respected individuals in the spaceflight business for heaven’s sake! Are you guys that knowledgeable or smart?? Being a Trekkie, having a degree in physics or computer science, or being a member of the Mars Society STILL doesn’t qualify you to call these folks idiots. Do some of you guys have any idea how complex and difficult spaceflight is? What many, many folks at NASA do every day would be considered amazing by the standards of 99% of the population. It is exactly NOT like is portrayed in the movies or TV.

Just because you don’t agree with decisions made by others does not make them idiots.  To have any credibility at all yourselves, you had better be able to say that you have already walked a mile in their shoes before you criticize to such an extreme degree.

#21 Re: Unmanned probes » MPL "Landing" Site Identified?? » 2005-05-07 22:11:56

A few things on this:

1)Most Apollo LM decent engines were in fact shut down when the engine was still about 2-3 meters from the surface. If you look carefully, you will notice long, wire-like extensions coming out of the bottom of the LM footpads. These were contact sensors. When one of them sensed contact with the lunar surface, a light on the control panel inside would activate, and the Commander would then manually shut off the decent engine at that point. The LM would literally fall to the surface from that point on. If you watch the films of the powered descent taken out of the LM window, you can actually see the fall and jolt in the last few seconds. In Apollo 11, you can actually hear Aldrin call out “contact light” just prior to touchdown - this is the tip of a probe scraping the surface - not a landing pad.. On a few occasions, the Commander did keep the power on till touchdown, but most did not.

2)One thing about dust in a vacuum is that it behaves quite differently. It flies away very easily at almost no urging. It really takes a very minimal pressure to stir things up. Although we like to think of Mars’ atmosphere as being more significant than it really is, we have to remind ourselves that it isn’t, and is in fact closer to a vacuum.  It is not implausible that rocket engines could stir up surface dust at that distance whatsoever. The explanation of the low PSI of a decent engine is correct, think of it more liike a very, very strong breeze. To shoot a hair dryer at a half inch layer of dust from 3 or 4 meters away would be a better Earth-based analogy of what happens in a vacuum. Stuff still goes flying everywhere despite the relativly low pressure.

3) Lastly, the images from MSS are EXTREAMLY processed. The disturbed soil really isn’t that dark, compared to the surrounding soil. It is slightly darker in reality. As an example of a similar situation check this out:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/as15p93 … 377det.jpg

This is Apollo 15 on the Lunar surface. You can actually see the LM shadow. The heavy image processing brings out the contrast differences between the undisturbed soil and the soil disturbed by the descent engine during touchdown. The contrast difference really isn’t that extreme in reality (just look at images taken on the surface - the ground isn't really white). The heavy image processing is however, very useful in identifying the landing location.

They have probabally found MPL. The main body is likely in one crumpled piece, with small bits scattered around it.

#22 Re: Unmanned probes » Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future » 2005-04-15 12:02:01

Whoa there Cindy

I think you may have missed my point. The point of my thread is not the Voyager, Hubble, or any other particular programs’ threats or cuts.  I simply used them as examples because people here are so familiar with those particular situations. I just have easily could have used potential upcoming mission extensions on MER, Cassini, or Chandra as case history examples. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here. What I am really talking about here is overriding policy objectives for the American space program, not if Missions “X, Y, or Z” live or die – they are but chess pieces on a much, much larger board. In fact, although some people have alluded to the hard choices that have to be made in supporting one specific policy or another as a response to a more specific thread, I do not see this matter anywhere in this particular forum being addressed in and of itself - despite the fact that it will be the overriding factor in unmanned solar system exploration for the next 20-30 years.

What I am trying (and apparently failing) to speak to is about policy choices. Big picture stuff. I have been reading stuff here from a lot of folks supporting multiple initiatives that may in fact become in conflict or competition with one another under the new national civil space policy. It seems like some folks want to have it all (and hey – I don’t blame you, I really would like it all as well). They want people on Mars, on the Moon, asteroids, etc. Then they want other stuff as well – such as extensions on very successful ongoing programs that have run their pre-specified course, or new unmanned planetary missions.

You yourself have written these two things in two separate threads:


“Manned mission by 2020, right NASA? RIGHT, NASA??”

And then you put up a “save Voyager” poll.


What I am saying to you and everyone else is that it is unlikely that everyone is going to get everything all the time. There are times when missions such as the two that you have stated above - that you both want to see happen - will be in direct competition with each other – and one will loose. The money isn’t likely to be there for everything. Sometimes, something will have to give. That’s what I am talking about.

So, are folks prepared to support the policy choices that achieve whatever objectives they support, whether that is the VSE, non-VSE, unmanned, manned, or whatever mix of that is appropriate. Are they prepared to see some of the things that they want to happen not happen, for the greater sake of the overriding policy objective that they support?

That is what I am asking. I am challenging people to get off their chairs and speak to what they stand for in terms of the big picture, within the context of realism. To be prepared to bite the bullet on some tough individual issues if it is in support of their greater vision. Not whether Voyager, or whatever else, lives to see another day. It is big picture policy stuff that determines what individual missions get selected for flight, and which of those get mission extensions once flying.

Can you see the difference?

PS – Hubble and Voyager will likely get their extensions for political reasons, at the expense of something else. So don’t sweat it too much over these.

#23 Re: Human missions » Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous » 2005-04-14 19:50:45

The new NASA administrator has publicly stated that he cannot envision doing the VSE without an extremely heavy lift capability. Folks can safely assume that he wants it now that he is in charge. Probably looking at a LV in the 75-100 ton payload range.

The pad facilities for Delta 4 and Atlas 5 are not set up for such a heavy lift vehicle, and processing facilities for payloads of such scale are non-existent anywhere at CCAFS. Upgrading the pad and facilities to accommodate such an upgrade, in addition to the actual vehicle upgrades (which would be huge) would be bloody expensive and difficult – if at all possible.

At the end of the Shuttle era there will be literally billions and billions of dollars of launch facilities and processing infrastructure capable of dealing with vehicles and payloads of such scale and sophistication, and hundreds or thousands of trained employees with nothing to do.  Does anyone realistically think that they will junk LC-39, the VAB, the LCC, and the OPF?? These are the only facilities like this in the world. Hell, the VAB can process 2 and possibly 3 launch vehicles at once indoors. Unbeatable flexibility.

The shuttle SRB’s are stastically the safest large rocket in the world. One failure in some 220 launches. Nothing beats that – hands down. They would be excellent candidates as LV’s for the CEV. Launch delays due to LV problems on the pad would be few and far between.

My money is on the following scenario:

1) A very heavy lift LV is derived from STS components. Likely 2 or 4 STS SRB’s (possibly extended by a segment).  First stage of the core vehicle is based on the STS ET, with engines placed inline underneath. The engines are likely to be 3-4 RS-68’s, as no one wants to have to rely on the steady supply of Russian built engines (as good as the RD-180 is). By sticking with the RS-68’s, LC-39’s oxygen/hydrogen facilities can remain in service. On top of the ET will be a second stage, likely a loosely based on a Delta 4 or Atlas 5 upper stage (they both use the same engine system from the Centaur program), with 3-6 RL-10 type engines. Such a vehicle could give a payload fairing up to 7 to 8 meters in diameter, something that an EELV will never be able to accommodate. The vehicle will be processed and stacked at the VAB, and launched out of LC 39. Looking at 2 to 4 launches per year.

2) Constellation CEV launched by a LV consisting of a single STS SRB first stage, and an upper stage more directly derived from Delta 4 or Atlas 5 upper stage, with likely 2-3 RL-10 type engines. The LV and spacecraft will be processed at the OPF/VAB, and launched out of LC-39. Launch rates could be very high, as the processing for such a LV would be quite fast.

3) EELV’s used to launch Constellation’s unmanned payloads in the 15-25 ton range with diameters under 5 meters. Once things get started, there will be plenty of need for such services. Lots of things under 75 tons will need launch services in the Constellation project – and this is exactly the role that EELV’s were designed to do.

Just my 2 cents 
tongue

#24 Re: Unmanned probes » Where Do You Stand? - Decision time is now about the future » 2005-04-13 21:04:53

I have been reading quite a few posts here lamenting the possible demise of such things as Voyager and Hubble. I see there is even a "save Voyager" poll. I am the first to be saddened by the possible loss of such things as Hubble, Voyager - and many before them such as CRAF and the US Halley probe. I can remember reading about Voyager before it was launched and wondered at what secrets it would find in their travels. As much as many of us have an emotional attachment to such incredible missions, we must also realize that everything is done for a reason. It is only a matter if one agrees with the reasoning employed.

Most people are aware that the American space program is currently at a crossroads, attempting to define and proceed with what it should be and do in the 21st century. The largest part of this transformation has resulted from the President assigning NASA a long-term vision. This proposed change is the most sweeping and significant to NASA in at least 35 years. It will be little short of a re-invention. In response to these marching orders, NASA has begun to realign what and how it operates. Part of that reorganization is to strengthen and enlarge the things that it does that compliment the new vision, and to stop or scale down what does not compliment that vision. The first of those realigning steps are currently being taken. Some people are happy to see things getting started, while others are profoundly upset. It begs the question: what should be the raison d'etre for NASA? Is the new plan the correct one? If not, what should the primary focus of the American space program be? Should it even have a primary focus?

What the President has assigned to NASA is commonly called the “Vision For Space Exploration”, or VSE. The basic and overriding objective of the VSE is to firstly lay the groundwork for, and then proceed with, the human exploration of the Solar System. It begins with the completion of the Space Station, moves to returning to the Moon, then to  Mars, and then beyond Mars. Although not specifically officially stated, “beyond Mars” is thought to include larger asteroids, Jupiter (likely Callisto), Lagrangian stations, etc. At the core, the VSE is about humans exploring and pioneering, and even one day possibly colonizing. It’s about getting humans off of the third stone from the sun and out exploring the cosmos. Heady stuff indeed.  The thing is that this sort of stuff can be - but is not necessarily - science or scientifically driven. It is about humans expanding their envelope of existence (real, not virtual). It’s about seeing what’s over the next hill by climbing that hill in person (but it is not necessarily as important to know what that hill is made of (at least not immediately)).  It’s Lewis&Clark, Leif Erikson, Francis Drake, and Robert Scott sort of stuff. It is not James Van Allen, Marie Curie, or Enrico Fermi sort of stuff.

So what does this mean for the NASA paradigm that has been around up to this point? Basically many other NASA activities that do not compliment the VSE might end up taking a backseat, be ended, or not happen at all. Everyone must be realistic here: NASA is not going to get an unlimited budget to do everything, so sometimes things not directly VSE related are going to get sacrificed in order to help the VSE along. It is an inevitability. Already, we are seeing the potential killing off of some high-visibility NASA science & aeronautics programs that do not have much application to the VSE.  More will come in the future.

This question has a direct bearing on unmanned planetary exploration especially. Up to now, much of the mission selection for the US unmanned planetary exploration program has been driven primarily by scientific questions relating  to the solar system. The overall mission lineups were derived from the SSEC – essentially a science body. In the future, the science produced by planetary probes will need to have some sort of bearing on the VSE, as opposed to broader scientific desires. How do readers feel about that?

An excellent (but not the only) example of this question is the current issue regarding the  Voyager spacecraft. The Voyagers have lived way, way beyond their primary and extended missions. They are now only returning data primarily concerned with the interaction of the solar wind with intergalactic space, and with the physical conditions and properties of space at the edge of our solar system.  This is scientifically important from the perspective of people who study these matters, other people who support such research, and of course the folks who still operate the Voyagers. How much of this data will make a reasonably significant contribution to the VSE though? Probably not much. An argument for keeping Voyager going might be made that Voyager operations cost “only” $10 million/year – not much in the world of spaceflight. However, seeing that the Voyagers might have 15 more years of life in them, it really means that running the Voyagers to the end of  their operational life will cost $150 million. $150 million could actually make a difference to the VSE.

This is where a conflict lies with many supporters of the space program. Most would really like to see something like the VSE happen, and in a timescale that falls within their lifetime. Many dream of watching that future television broadcast of those first human footsteps on Mars, or high definition television broadcasts from the surface of the moon. Are those same supporters prepared to see a sometimes heavy price paid to achieve that however? Are supporters of the goals of the VSE really prepared for the drastic change in the way NASA will need to operate in order to achieve it? I’m not sure that some folks really grasp the ultimate enormity of the scope of the VSE, and the fundamental change in NASA that it will incur. Although not a race like it was in the 60’s, it will be much like Mercury/Gemini/Apollo in the sense of single minded purpose and objective – except it will last 20-30 years.  Realistically there is not ever going to enough money to do the VSE, and all the things that the geophysics, solar physics, particle physics, earth sciences, planetary sciences & astronomy communities want to do. So what gives?

Basically, there are three options:

1) Proceed with the current NASA plan as assigned by the President. This will give the VSE priority. Other activities will still happen at NASA, but they will rarely if ever override VSE priorities if NASA is forced to choose between the two. Other programs may suffer as a result. This will get the VSE objectives accomplished as soon as possible (10-25 years), but quite potentially at the expense of other unassociated NASA  activities.

2) Blend the VSE into NASA as a priority parallel with other unassociated programs. The VSE will then have to compete with other programs on a level playing field. VSE will not get all the resources when it desires, but other programs will not suffer at the expense of the VSE. It will however quite possibly take the VSE 20-40 or more years to achieve its objectives. There is also the real risk that any program that takes that long to accomplish will not survive long enough to fulfill its objectives. VSE might ultimately collapse under such a stretchout. Other non-VSE-related will however get the same treatment as in the
past decade or more.

3) Forget the VSE. Shut it down. Allow human spaceflight to continue  with earth orbital research involving 3-10 people at a time, as it has been for the last 20 years. One might even consider minimizing or shutting down that activity in the future if real payoffs cannot be demonstrated.  This would be a boon to all unmanned spaceflight. Robotic exploration of any and all places in the solar system might flourish. Other “pure science” spaceflight missions might also flourish. The downside: human spaceflight might dwindle to nothing. Following that, it might not restarted for a very long time, if ever. Humans will remain firmly bonded to the Earth for the foreseeable future.  One other risk: many taxpayers support unmanned spaceflight on the (possibly erroneous) understanding that these are unmanned “pathfinders” that firstly explore where humans will ultimately go to later. If the taxpayer is told that humans will NEVER EVER go to these places, then public perception might be that unmanned spaceflight exists solely to satisfy the curiosity of scientists at lofty universities – and public support for such endeavors under such a scenario might evaporate.

So, where do folks stand on this? I would be interested in hearing other opinions.

#25 Re: Unmanned probes » Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) » 2005-04-10 22:13:31

It's all about money baby, money. Rockets don't burn kerosene, hydrazine, or aluminium powder - they use cash for fuel.

What would it cost to do a second set of MER  rovers??

Just to do a very quick ballpark calc for starters: a launch service will cost at least 120 million for two launches. Spacecraft fabrication (two flight models+spares+test beds) at least 100-150 million. Mission ops 25-75 million (150 staff X $60,000 X 5 years = 45 million). Other expenses include DSN time etc.  So let's say between 250 and 400 million, maybe more. That's a big chunk of change. Not a showstopper, but it would mean sacrificing another mid-class planetary mission, or a major Earth orbital science mission. What would folks here propose killing off as a trade? A Cassini extended mission? Pluto-Kuiper?

Another comment about NASA getting folks to Mars by 2020?

A wonderful suggestion indeed – accelerating Bush’s Vision For Space Exploration. No one around here is gonna argue with that suggestion. The decision however lies with the US government.  Just getting the current plan of a new human spacecraft flying by 2014, return to the moon by 2018, permanent lunar bases by 2020-2024, and a human flight to Mars (not necessarily a landing) by 2030 - will be a monumental task of 25 budget cycles. NASA is going to need all the help it can get to steer the existing plan through multiple presidential administrations  and congresses. A single future president hostile to the new VSE plan could effectively scuttle the whole thing, and with it American human spaceflight. (some more cynical analysts in face believe that the real intent of the VSE is to do just that). To get future administrations and congresses to endorse an accelerated plan is not impossible by any means, but it would require a massive change in the sentiment of the US government toward space exploration (give more money to the cause), and/or wholesale cancelling of many existing and proposed NASA programs (and divert the money to VSE), and/or very significant alternate funding from significant sources (other governments or the private sector).

Start lobbying your congressman!

If the cash is available, almost anything is possible.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB