You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
It seems a little far-fetched (to say the least) to be comparing the Chinese with Osama, no matter what context you're talking about. I realize the comparison was made light-heartedly, but they're so completely different phenomena that it's simply rather ridiculous.
In the long run, no one will ever 'win' or 'lose' a space race. Space is simply too big for that sort of thinking. Though, hopefully we'll all win by benefitting from the development of resources within the solar system.
Now, if we're talking about dominance of the lagrange points, that's another matter and one which does warrant some concern.
Artificially-induced hibernation is one long-term possibility. Of course, if there is a necessity for active work while in low-g environments, this rules out the hibernation option. However, it is attractive for transporting people between planets.
Also see this article.
GCNRevenger, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that realism is absolutely necessary. What I meant by creativity was essentially akin to not giving up and not making do with a lesser alternative at the sacrifice of future exploration.
In any case, I certainly agree that it would be ideal for the ISS project to be minimized as much as possible. Even if that means abandoning certain partners. But the problem with this is obviously political, and it is the 'fingers' of politics that grasp NASA's purse-strings.
I understand that it really makes no logical sense to continue with the ISS project. But part of the reality of the situation, I believe, also lies in the illogical and sometimes outright dumb nature of politics. So, taking that into consideration, what can be done to compromise vis-à-vis the ISS while at the same time not compromising the present and future integrity of the VSE? I don't necessarily have a ready answer, but this is a question that, I believe, needs to be answered lest we're stuck with another system that doesn't cut it.
Well, it's not as though I'm an expert regarding the present situation over at NASA or in the government. But I can say the following seems pretty clear:
We have an opportunity to do things right in terms of building a vehicle that will take us to the Moon and, with upgrades, to Mars.
Building two man-rated vehicles is not feasible given the current time constraints and the available budget.
We need to fulfill our obligations to international partners in the ISS project.
Building a new vehicle fit to the constraints of the ISS would not be ideal if we had to use the same vehicle for the projects lining up in the VSE.
The 2010 deadline has good points and not so good points, which vary depending on who you talk to.
---
I understand some may take issue with some of these points. But, realistically, the budget for NASA is not going to be as big as many of us feel it should be. And we have to work within these constraints.
In my view, this means it's time to get creative. I'm very glad that Mike Griffin is running things at NASA, because he seems to understand this necessity.
At the same time, there are always politics involved, and convincing politicians of the necessity of cutting out pet projects is like pulling teeth from alligators.
Given these various factors, most of which are not new, and all of which are well-known, compromises will have to be made. The situation is NOT ideal and no one should pretend it is.
But one compromise I feel should not be made is in utilizing a side mount design in order to ensure ISS interoperability. The upgradeability of such a design is questionable. I feel there are other options available. Whether an automated cargo vehicle with the capacity and dimensions necessary to house the remaining modules and equipment bound for the ISS can be built into an in-line design is a truly challenging question. But it is one I strongly believe, given my faith in good aerospace engineers to come up with good solutions, can be answered in the affirmative. The question then becomes whether such an effort will even be attempted and fully explored before it is abandoned for an alternative that seems easier today, but will provide numerous possible headaches tomorrow.
In my opinion, we must not let this time to take the reigns pass us up. This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to squander for the sake of political expediency. Our methods and our purpose should have firmly set upon the future of mankind in outer space and on other planets as the guiding principle for our actions today. Given this necessary vision, we must also welcome the necessity of compromise. But we must neither sacrifice nor confuse this with the fate of our future exploration efforts. In any event, that's what I believe.
Well, here's another controversial thing to consider:
If this extreme end of the hurricane cycle proves to be abnormally long and stretches for a good number of years, then wouldn't it be wise to start looking at the amount of NASA's space-related infrastructure in hurricane-prone areas?
Are there steps that can be taken to further reduce the possibility of damage in the event of large hurricanes?
Are the capacities of certain facilities better off in the long-run being moved to someplace like New Mexico?
Naturally, I doubt this is something anybody really wants or is able to consider given the short-term cost, logistics and politics involved, but it seems that, at some point, it should be taken into consideration.
An expansion of the number of areas capable of launching whatever CEV or SDV options end up replacing the shuttle would be a massive improvement over the present situation in my opinion.
It all eventually boils down to cost, but it seems certain solutions may be incorporated into the CEV design to facilitate some adaptability. In any case, I hope so.
I have to say I'm a little bit worried about some of these side-mount SDV options that are still on the table. The only reason I can think of as to why these would even be considered is in order to save cost by not having to modify the VAB and related structures as much. That seems to be a bad rationale, in my opinion, and I certainly hope that the in-line approach wins out.
Or they could scrap the shuttles now, while they're ahead
I have to admit, from my standpoint, this option is looking more and more attractive. Now, of course there are a number of negative ramifications associated with this. But, realistically, at some point it's best to cut the losses, cut to the chase and say, "Hey! It's time to build a better boat." So, is it time yet? Well, I really find myself wanting to say "yes."
I agreed with you up until about this point:
so the F-22 would still be unstoppable
I realize you're speaking in terms of relative circumstances, but no weapon is unstoppable. In fact, I would say the more complex a weapon becomes, the greater the chances become of finding a way to counter it effectively. This may not occur for some time, but it's still a reality.
China would have to be absolutely insane to get into a shooting war with America, their economy is so heavily dependant on ours that stopping all trade would be even more catastrophic to China then America... their nation would cease to exsist as a world power overnight.
I think it's safe to say that if the United States and China were to enter into a serious state of active conflict with one another, then neither country would be much to speak of by the end of it. The foolishness of such an endeavor would be tantamount to national suicide for any nation involved in such a conflict.
I agree entirely that the best way to design any vehicle is to have a single destination and design everything accordingly. The real problem here is convincing the people with their hands on the purse-strings to fund three essentially different programs.
I know I'm not the only one who thinks it would be great if we could just focus on getting to Mars, but the unfortunate political liabilities that crop up in the event of abandoning our obligations to the ISS are difficult to ignore.
In the end it comes to one of two ways, as I see it, to get the job done and make sure it moves forward.
One, you can figure out a way to inspire the American people and instill in them the spirit of what it means to get to Mars. You can go to congress and do some heavy lobbying and then, maybe, hopefully, you can get some serious funding and support for a real, hardcore, take-us-there-now Mars initiative. I see this as a real long shot.
Two, you can see what incentives you can give to private companies to help with a Mars effort. Then, you see what can be done, realistically, with radical technological initiatives that can get us to Mars faster and, most importantly in this situation, cheaper. The problem is that you need drive, focus and at least a fair amount of money to fund radical new technologies. And you also need at least some 'luck' since no breakthroughs are gaurunteed.
A third way to go is simply to cut government out entirely and try to raise interest solely among corporations and individuals. Despite how attractive this option is, I believe it will be the most difficult in certain ways. The most difficult problem here is convincing really large investors that they're investing in a sure thing, or at the very least that they'll get significant return on their investment. Sure, it's easy to convince someone like me that this is awesome and we should do it, but drumming up the kind of money and support necessary to fund an initiative solely through private interests will be damn difficult.
Anyways, if we could just get congress to wake up to the realities of what needs to be done, then I think that would help a lot. But, who knows? For the time being I'm hoping for all three possibilities.
Hello, I just thought I'd pop in since I find this discussion quite interesting.
Taking into account Mad Grad Student's quote:
Well, that's the whole point now, isn't it?
Well, what I see with the whole CEV concept as it is currently envisioned is rather a lot of points. And, indeed, a number of potential holes as well. However, I fail to see "the whole point." This, I think, is the crux of the potential problem with this program as it currently stands.
Now, one could be somewhat justified in saying that there is a rather intensive focus on creating a vehicle that may suit the needs of a Lunar exploration mission in the nearer term and a potential Mars exploration (presumeably with heavy modifications) in the longer term. But then adding in requirements such as docking-capabilities with the ISS and cargo ferrying & etc and eventually you've got quite the laundry-list.
In reality, designing a vehicle with a single mission in mind and with a singular focus and purpose of mind will, in the end, yield the best results. Now, this being my opinion, I am strongly in favor of creating some sort of modular adaptability. For instance, if you have one well-designed man-rated cargo and personnel shuttle, you could use that as your primary vehicle for LEO & ISS missions.
Now, I'm not the first to mention this, but why not just launch whatever additional components & modules are needed ahead of time and dock them with the cargo shuttle in space. Heck, it might even be possible to expand the ISS to the point where it could oversee this building phase (I recognize this might not be the most ideal option, but it's an idea).
It seems to me that if you try to make one vehicle wear so many hats, it would be best to add the extra components while already in orbit instead of trying to lift off with everything at once. At least, this seems a better way to provide focus for the engineering teams on the various systems they would be designing for the CEV. This way you have one LEO personnel & cargo shuttle module capable of Earth reentry, one Lunar modular attachment system and then, in the future, a Mars exploration modular system could be designed specifically around the challenges of such a journey and setting up the initial outpost. Anyway, those are my two cents.
Pages: 1