Comments on: It’s ‘Make or Break’ Time for NASA

By: Andy K

Andy K — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:39:20 +0000

So apparently the future of Nasa is becoming less and less clear, but on a side note…

Does anyone have any info on Russia, Japan and the European Space Agency’s budget proposals for the future and whether or not they are actually moving towards the right direction? I sure hope so, for the sake of science.

I’m beginning to lose hope on Nasa (sad because I was optimistic that Obama would fund them more… I guess failed banks and automobile companies were more important).

By: typos_R_us

typos_R_us — Mon, 18 May 2009 03:42:11 +0000

49r: #19, you are completely wrong. How many 8 years olds will grow up dreaming about becoming robots and exploring space? You may be a first rate tech weenie and King of the Nerds, but your people skills leave a lot to be desired.
Any sort of space exploration that doesn’t have a human riding along/involved will fail. Only scientists are interested in science. Everyone else wants to use science to further their own agenda.
No humans = no interest = no money. No money = no space program. This debate is old hat and has been beaten to death many times. I recommend “Moon Shot” by Alan Shepard and Deke Slayton. Between sea stories they go over the human vs robot argument in some detail. To much for me to repeat here.
NASA is locked in their box. They will never willingly leave that box. So the only way to make use of the talent in that box is to destroy the box.
Defund NASA and let the private sector take over or let DARPA and the various military branches develop an alternative to the rocket. There are some ideas out there that need to be explored.
A space elevator would be best, although that will require enormous amounts of money being spent on materials research. I’m sure the spin-offs would pay for that, down the road.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:50:28 +0000

Not to be the eternal devil’s advocate here but the Ares V is just too cool to scrap.

Yes, because, you know, “billslayer’s” idea of “cool” (which is completely subjective — I think it’s antiquated) is enough reason to waste tens of billions of dollars on a hyperexpensive launcher.

And it can actually do the heavy lifting to get us to the moon to go get the damn Helium 3!

Yes, because we can’t get to the moon without “heavy lifting,” no matter how much it costs, and we have all those Helium 3 reactors sitting here on earth just waiting for fuel…

By: billslayer

billslayer — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:07:04 +0000

Not to be the eternal devil’s advocate here but the Ares V is just too cool to scrap. And it can actually do the heavy lifting to get us to the moon to go get the damn Helium 3! Once we came back with enough Helium 3 to fire up a fusion reactor that might be the biggest game changer…ever. Of course Obama might just cancel the Ares to have more money to build ghettos.

By: Robert Arthur

Robert Arthur — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:02:05 +0000

But despite attempts by Florida legislators to extend the program, external tank production has been shut down. This means that there will be a limited number of flights that the system can perform, regardless of how long we continue to fly, because each flight requires a tank.

…Once we run out of tanks, the program will end, with nothing in place to allow us to get astronauts to and from the ISS.

This is a false premise. Production of external tank assemblies at Michoud is not a limiting factor for Shuttle program extension, either to 2012 or 2015. Quoting from Nasaspaceflight.com:

MAF are already prepared for an extension, should it be called, with part builds of tanks up to ET-141 already complete and now in storage. Further tanks can be produced by refining the programming of new friction weld machinery at MAF, in the event additional ETs are required.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/downstream-processing-and-planning-preparing-fleet-to-sts-135/

There are no showstopping limitations of engineering or supply in extending the Shuttle program. When and if funded, it is possible for the program to continue to help close the gap in capability. It would be better, of course, for the decision to be made sooner than later. The “point of no return” rhetoric, however, is just that: an attempt to make the Shuttle program seem as if it is already dead, to make retirement seem inevitable. That’s policy maneuvering by people who support other options, not engineering.

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:33:04 +0000

#13 Ed Unneland:

The Ssaturn V first dtage separated at an altitute too low for reentry heating, and could have been redesigned for recovery. The most ambitious redesign proposal had the 1st stage turned into a flyback booster.

By: lefroy

lefroy — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:28:40 +0000

I have never understood why the US just turned its back on space exploration after Apollo. Expensive, yes – but at the moment of greatest triumph, when the country’s proper pride in its astounding achievement should have been unbounded, the impetus just sort of died – with no real regret, and even a kind of shame in some quarters. It was an eerie, defeatist sort of attitude. Not the US at all.

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:26:13 +0000

A better prize might be $250, $200, $150 million each to the first three companies to do a hundred separate orbital flights, at least 10% of which carry a person.

High flight number is a far better metric for the creation of a sustainable low cost access to space industry – which must include the creation of a market (not just a stunt). A market also helps the economic case close and the far greater flight number should little affect up front development costs while providing far greater opportunity for incremental development and the creation of a full on endurance race atmosphere.

That prize level might seem low but including some market revenue that might work out at around $3 million a launch – which is almost small expendable launch vehicle territory. So perhaps the flight number should be still higher and the prize value yet lower. The total prize pool really need not be high – less than a single Apollo or even Shuttle launch…

By: G Alston

G Alston — Thu, 14 May 2009 05:19:23 +0000

I too am a fan of Jerry Pournelle’s prize approach.

Indeed, I reckon that this coupled with a vital real-world LEO mission might be all that’s needed for the next step.

What vital real world LEO mission? Does such exist?

I think so: solar power sats. We already have proved the ability to be able to construct big things in space (ISS) so the logical next step is to build big things that actually do something. We also have an energy problem. Politics are against building fission plants, Bussard’s (Polywell) system is still in development and buried, and there’s a growing blowback regarding drilling (peak oil, environazis, or global warming hysteria, pick one or more of the many poisons.)

The ROI in energy production would offset the costs. At some point the effort would pay for itself. How long is up to the trolls in accounting, which currently seems like the most creative department in NASA.

Politically, we could offer to build SPS for use anywhere, e.g. African countries that are energy poor.

By: Mike Puckett

Mike Puckett — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:42:59 +0000

“It’s too expensive and dangerous to explore space with humans.”

It is impossible to colonize and settle space with robots. Robots do not advance human civilization into the cosmos. They can help but they cannot do it alone.