JCC The American Space Program and its Future...

Wake me up when we go to Mars.

 

Good of these people to spread the following loving messages in their most recent posts:

1. Curse unemployed people. Let's get rid of the excess population, eh? Then sci if nerds can finally go to space. Rand Paul 2016

2. All we have to do is create a perfectly efficient government with no waste at all to afford this. I guess this falls in the same category of "maybe not technically impossible" as warp drives, which these sort of people also think is a good idea.

 

India may well get there before you do.

 

45 years ago today w00000000t!

Bet some of yous guys's parents aren't even that old. No wait, don't answer that.

 

Linky. If we could put a man on the Moon, why can’t we put a man on the Moon?

 

Mars is totally going to happen as soon as taxpayers get on board with the idea of mounting a one way suicide mission.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that. I recognize that there seems to be a disconnect between what NASA was like in the 1960s and what NASA has been like from the 1970s onward, but the reason for that disconnect is because after the Moon missions were wound down, NASA when back to what its operating paradigm was always intended to be, which was a slow, steady methodical approach to solving the problems and challenges of space flight. Without JFK NASA's history could probably be summed up like this:

Mercury
Gemini
Space Shuttle
Space Station
The Moon.

It's called the Von Braun Paradigm. First you figure how to get to the edge of space, the you figure out how to get into orbit. Once you've figured out how to get into orbit you start figuring how to live in orbit. When you've done that you can start figuring how to perform actual tasks in space. When you've mastered that you have all the skills you need to build a space station. Once you've built your space station, you have an orbital outpost from which you can launch a mission to the moon. The reason why Apollo resonates so strongly and looked so incredibly spectacular is because it was barely possible with the technology of the time. The Space Shuttle Program, in contrast seemed a bit boring because all it did was go around in circles, but the Space Shuttle was never actually intended to go anywhere, what it was intended to do was give NASA experience in performing complex tasks in space, such as satellite repairs and space-based construction and to provide biomedical data on the effects of microgravity on the human body. The problem with the Space Shuttle was that it was a comparetively cheap system to build, but proved to be an expensive system to fly. As a result this fact coupled with the fact that development delays meant there was no Skylab to use as a stopgap while a larger space station was designed and built, the Space Shuttle did not live up to all of it initial promises especially in terms of its cost effectiveness, fast turn around time and ease of use, but when it finally got to do what it was designed to and assemble the International Space Station, it did its job superbly well. I've heard Robert Zubrin make these arguements before and I think that he does not understand how NASA was intended to be operated and how the Apollo Program, as impressive as it was, disrupted those plans.

 

I agree right up until the ISS. We could have had one or several ISS/spacecraft in orbit, used them, and have already continued to the Moon and Mars and so forth. The External tanks were going to be a part of the equation. They could have taken it all the way to orbit, cleaned it, and used it. Three miles of real estate were thrown away because lobbyists decided they could make mor emoney by ramming the ISS down people's throats. Profits are why we do not have a manned space program beyond low Earth orbit. "Superbly well". It was abused suberbly well in ripping us off. Over 100 billion dollars has gone into the ISS and that which sits in orbit was price tagged at 40 billion.

 

Ummm, actually no they couldn't. Skylab was also originally supposed to a wet workshop, which have required a space walk to unbolt a hatch that was sealed shut with 72 bolts. After personally getting into the neutral boyancy tank at the Marshall Spaceflight Centre in Huntsville, Wernher Von Braun and George Mueller made an on the spot decision to build Skylab as dry workshop because otherwise they would been asking the astronauts to do something physically impossible. Now if you were modify the ET on the ground and put it into orbit, that would be different.

 

I have no idea what that has to do with a tank in space. You can cut, move, or do whatever you want with it.

here's one of a number of pages on the matter.

 

Which sounds easy on paper, but they discovered in the process of developing Skylab that somethings that seemed easy on paper were virtually impossible the pool and if something already looks impossible in the pool, how hard do you think its going to be in orbit? So they asked themselves, why try to passivate a spent rocket stage in flight, when its far easier and far less aggravating to do the conversion on the ground, in the factory. I readily agree that, yes docking three or four converted ETs to each other would have made a pretty respectable sized space station, but the idea of boosting an off the shelf ET into orbit after its job is done and then figuring out what do with it is a pipe dream, and NASA is smart enough to know that, which is why they never seriously pursued it and did what they actually did, which was to design a purpose built space station from the ground up.

But that wasn't the point I was trying to make in my original post. My point was that Robert Zubrin wants to apply Apollo methodologies to Mars. I don't think you can. I think Mars is simply too far away for an Apollo-style brute force approach to spaceflight to work. Even with the eventual heavy lift variant of the SLS, which will be able to put something like 200 tons of usable payload into orbit, how may launches will it take to assemble the Mars Transfer Vehicle in orbit? Three? Four? Five? Thanks to the ISS we now have 13 years of space-based construction experience, which we'll need when we go to Mars and back to the moon. What we don't have yet is experience flying and navigating in open space, which is the whole point of adopting the flexible path approach, to gain that experience in preparation for Mars.

 

Are you trying to tell me that a tank or container of any sort once put in orbit cannot be cut into? they are no indestructable, they just didn't want to bother since the ISS was decided upon and no one could be up there to get a free one in orbit.

Zubrin's Mars Direct was a great idea but did not allow for much room within for a 6 month journey. SLS is 200 tons? Well hell, that's plenty. All they have to do now is use the damned thing and go.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasas-journey-to-mars/#.VH6t-KXTmBY

NASA is developing the capabilities needed to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars in the 2030s – goals outlined in the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and in the U.S. National Space Policy, also issued in 2010.
Mars is a rich destination for scientific discovery and robotic and human exploration as we expand our presence into the solar system. Its formation and evolution are comparable to Earth, helping us learn more about our own planet’s history and future. Mars had conditions suitable for life in its past. Future exploration could uncover evidence of life, answering one of the fundamental mysteries of the cosmos: Does life exist beyond Earth?
While robotic explorers have studied Mars for more than 40 years, NASA’s path for the human exploration of Mars begins in low-Earth orbit aboard the International Space Station. Astronauts on the orbiting laboratory are helping us prove many of the technologies and communications systems needed for human missions to deep space, including Mars. The space station also advances our understanding of how the body changes in space and how to protect astronaut health.
Our next step is deep space, where NASA will send a robotic mission to capture and redirect an asteroid to orbit the moon. Astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft will explore the asteroid in the 2020s, returning to Earth with samples. This experience in human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit will help NASA test new systems and capabilities, such as Solar Electric Propulsion, which we’ll need to send cargo as part of human missions to Mars. Beginning in FY 2018, NASA’s powerful Space Launch System rocket will enable these “proving ground” missions to test new capabilities. Human missions to Mars will rely on Orion and an evolved version of SLS that will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown.
A fleet of robotic spacecraft and rovers already are on and around Mars, dramatically increasing our knowledge about the Red Planet and paving the way for future human explorers. The Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover measured radiation on the way to Mars and is sending back radiation data from the surface. This data will help us plan how to protect the astronauts who will explore Mars. Future missions like the Mars 2020 rover, seeking signs of past life, also will demonstrate new technologies that could help astronauts survive on Mars.
Engineers and scientists around the country are working hard to develop the technologies astronauts will use to one day live and work on Mars, and safely return home from the next giant leap for humanity. NASA also is a leader in a Global Exploration Roadmap, working with international partners and the U.S. commercial space industry on a coordinated expansion of human presence into the solar system, with human missions to the surface of Mars as the driving goal. Follow our progress at www.nasa.gov/exploration and www.nasa.gov/mars.

 

Neil Degrass Tyson makes the argument that political and economical incentives are the most important factors for understanding why Homo Sapiens were driven to explore the world they live in, and this will also be true for space exploration. The US probably wouldn't have landed on the Moon in 69, if it weren't for the fact that the USSR were competing with the US for global hegemony during the Cold War era.

He goes on the say that the only way we'll probably get to Mars is if China somehow make an announcement that they intend to put a man on Mars. He might be correct. I don't see much hope for a future in space when we have so many pressing issues to deal with down here on Earth. However, Neil also says that investing in space exploration will be the key to solving many of our problems on Earth; basically it would create a dynamic and vibrant atmposphere that could inspire an era of great innovation, growth and progress

Human space exploration has such great potential, but it requires us to be brave, because this is a long term project.

 

On the upside. Orion launches tomorrow.

 

Orion: lobbing half-century old tech into space, just for the helluvit. This is the age-old adage that applies to everyone and everything from the individual professional level up throught multi-billion dollar government institutions: When people don't know what to do, they just do what they know how to do. And this is pretty much all NASA knows about doing anything.

Mars is an unsolvable financial and technological problem, so NASA is simply doing something else entirely for the simple reason that it knows how to do it.

 

If they actually use SLS to due what could have been done with Saturn rockets and later the Space Shuttle, then fine. Instead they built a space station we didn't need for a cost overrun of 100 billion dollars. I do not care if is reusable(though that wold be preferrable) or expendable. I do nto care what the cost is so long as it does fit within NASA's budget. Just do some damned thign with it. They say it will go to NEA's. Good. They say it could go to the Moon. Good. Along with a small habitat Orion could go to Mars. Good. Just use it and progress. The ISS could have been a Moon/Mars ship instead of a space station.

 

Did the Republicans sign up just so they could convert martians to Christianity if they find them?

 

The flight just ended. Sounds like Orion passed with flying colours.

 

Nice. My facebook is gonna blow up.

 

Yeah, its been all over NASA's various media feeds all day, as you can imagine.

 

Explorers in the Age of Sail were motivated by the possibility of increased trade with Asia, and the logistics of loading up a water-borne ship with goods and sailing it around the world weren't that complex compared to going into space. Sure, there were challenges associated with spending months and years at sea, but at least they didn't have to worry about their air supply or their bones and muscles degenerating due to lack of gravity. Not to mention that their voyages could clearly bring back something of value to make them worthwhile. What is there in space that's worth going out there for? I suppose there's mining for minerals on asteroids, but for the foreseeable future the costs will outweigh the gains, which is also the reason we haven't gone back to the moon. I also don't see how going into space is going to solve problems here on Earth. Is it going to prevent wars, end world hunger, or solve global warming, and if so, how? Exploration during the Age of Discovery didn't prevent wars between the likes of Britain, France and Spain, and even technological progress such as the advent of the internet has not prevented conflicts from breaking out today, so why would the exploration of space help things any?

 

Well, exploring the frontier is always a great challenge, but the rewards in terms of technological advancement would be significant. The development of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) had a trickle down effect on society at large, and space exploration will have the same effect for sure, but to what degree is yet unknown. We can't solve all our problems, but there is no doubt that technology has allowed more people to live better lives; however, it's true that for every solution to a problem, a new problem seems to arise, but this is not to say that it isn't beneficial - or worth the effort to solve the problems we have now. The internet solved many problems, but it also created new problems for us to solve.

Space exploration could eventually give rise to new knowledge and technology that would allow us to solve the puzzle of global warming. New technology could greatly increase our ability to prevent world hunger; 3D printing for example has great potential in that regard; and because of the challenges associated with exploring the frontier, humanity might begin to see the struggle for survival as a global effort - removing itself from the geopolitical paradigm of modern civilization - which could potentially decrease the level of conflict across the globe.

This is an idealistic prospect for sure, but in a world where political realism reigns supreme, it wouldn't hurt us to have some faith in the future, and bet on a better tomorrow. Exploring the frontiers of space would be a good place to start, in my opinion.

 

The gross underfunding of NASA is perhaps the worst government policy travesty there is in modern America.

Watch this, and try not to get mad:



The bailout payed to those corrupt bankers who screwed their banks into the ground was more than all the money NASA has received and used in its entire history.

It's difficult to put into words how damning this is.