What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

Bill White · 2004-04-29 10:48:44

You make two great points Bill. Why send humans to explore when robots can do it, and do it better each passing year I might add. If you are to send humans then you must colonize. History has shown that the public has no patience for exploration, possibly because they view it as a fun feild-trip they can't participate in and feel jealous. I was born after the last footprints were left on Mars and I was shocked to dicover that the american public was bored with the moon landings as early as the second mission Apollo 12. We must avoid that mistake again at all costs. Now colonizing, or as the public would see it, expansion hows much more appeal to the public, because it does hold the promise that they or their children will go there. To the public, an effort to colonize Mars would be seen as getting a 51st state, and this gets your 'red-blooded americans' excited when usually they are NASA's biggest critics.
Secondly, I have heard that martian dirt is high in metal and other compounds dangerous for plants as well. I just naturally assumed that the first effort to make a permanent home on the red planet would employ hydroponics to grow needed food while at the same time experimenting with converting martian dirt into soil. Knowing how fickle plants can be I don't suggest we plan on using local dirt until a soil sample return gives us an exact working knowledge of what makes up the dirt.
Again, organization is the key. We can't plan for a serious mission to Mars until we have a plan of action in place. That means we lay out the problems of a mission and systematically solve them one after another. Until we can solve 90% of the problems here on Earth we can't expect any government to risk billions on flying our explorers there.

Dude, you have read my mind.

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 11:08:33

Go Bill go! I was going to answer Clark but you pretty much did it for me thanks.

Clark-I know NASA has done some great things for people here on Earth. I won't argue with you there because I agree that NASA is, overall, one of the BEST government agencies as far as getting your moneys worth. But come on, over a billion per shuttle launch? Scrapping MIR intentionally for the ISS which probably won't get past the 'Core Complete' stage? Not to mention all the spacecraft lost due to stupid errors, its inexcusable. There are countless benefits from NASA that we apply down here on Earth, but that's the point. NASA isn't doing enough to benefit themselves. They spend 15 billion a year flying circles around the Earth (lately they can't even do that) because Boeing and Lockheed sell them over-priced, out-dated rockets. There is no competition in the aerospace market and therefore no incentive to lower costs, increase efficency or pursue better methods of transportation.

The shuttle and ISS should have never been built and we should seriously consider scrapping them both. Fly the remaining shuttles as is till something better comes along. And why is over 300mill of the requested budget increase needed to return the shuttles to flight anyway? They are sitting in storage with billions already set aside to fly them and they aren't, so where is this money going? The bigger issue is why we are waiting so long and spending so much to fly the remaining fleet which will be retired in 5 years! NASA has had two tragedies with the shuttles in 24 years right? Then chances are they can fly for 5 more without a problem. And NASA wonders why they have no public support....

Palomar · 2004-04-29 11:19:05

*Write your gov't representatives. Keep giving them an "earful." Our elected officials need to be kept aware that some folks out there are concerned with the future of NASA and etc.

Some folks might respond, "They don't/won't listen/care anyway." But it's still good to keep it before them, or at least try.

--Cindy

Euler · 2004-04-29 11:31:23

And why is over 300mill of the requested budget increase needed to return the shuttles to flight anyway? They are sitting in storage with billions already set aside to fly them and they aren't, so where is this money going?

The shuttles are going through a thorough refit with lots of upgrades and safety improvements. There are also a lot of fixed costs associated with the shuttles that have to be paid whether it flies or not.

Bill White · 2004-04-29 11:56:49

And why is over 300mill of the requested budget increase needed to return the shuttles to flight anyway? They are sitting in storage with billions already set aside to fly them and they aren't, so where is this money going?
The shuttles are going through a thorough refit with lots of upgrades and safety improvements. There are also a lot of fixed costs associated with the shuttles that have to be paid whether it flies or not.

Why buy new tires for a car headed to the junkyard?

My dream scenario is to "space harden" the orbiters with long lived fuels cells, swappable cold gas manuevering jets, and re-fillable OMS tanks. Then strip off the tiles and clip the wings.

Send them up, one at a time and stay on orbit until it cannot possibly be repaired or maintained any longer. Use them to assist on-orbit assemblies. That robot arm and payload bay has to be good for something.

Then, after 4 or 5 years, if it cannot be maintained any longer, dump into the Pacific and then send up the next one.

= = =

NASA isn't the problem, IMHO. NASA is the way it is because that is the mandate it has gotten (on back channels) from Washington. America has the exact NASA most politicians want America to have.

The United States government has not been willing to open Pandora's Box. What happens when humans start flooding out into the solar system? Whether now or in 20 years or in 120 years?

Who wins and who loses from that happening?

Celestial property rights - - who gets to write those rules will be the greatest political game of the 21st and 22nd century.

NASA has gone no where because "the powers that be" are not ready to face the political, social and philosophical issues that arise once human beings start living and making babies on Mars.

Even George W. Bush calls for "exploration" not "settlement."

What does exploration mean? A bunch of uniformed US military personnel - - on assignment to NASA - - going to Mars and looking around and then coming home?

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 12:00:33

The shuttles are going through a thorough refit with lots of upgrades and safety improvements. There are also a lot of fixed costs associated with the shuttles that have to be paid whether it flies or not.

Ok, so this is costing billions of dollars? Why not build a whole new ship rather than spend billions on repairing our old soon to be mothballed fleet?

clark · 2004-04-29 12:03:35

I think that's why we are building the CEV. New ship to go where the previous ones cannot. We're going back to the moon in ten years, then going beyond that. People will be walking beyond LEO, again.

Building a new Shuttle will cost multi-billions, on top of the fixed costs associated with the current Shuttle fleet. It will take years to build one, or we could spend a fraction of the cost to build one, fix all three, and do the things we need to do now.

The age of sail is apporaching.

Bill White · 2004-04-29 12:08:49

I think that's why we are building the CEV. New ship to go where the previous ones cannot. We're going back to the moon in ten years, then going beyond that. People will be walking beyond LEO, again.
Building a new Shuttle will cost multi-billions, on top of the fixed costs associated with the current Shuttle fleet. It will take years to build one, or we could spend a fraction of the cost to build one, fix all three, and do the things we need to do now.
The age of sail is apporaching.

Ah, the $64 trillion dollar question. Will CEV be more than warmed over OSP?

Can we safely bet America's future on Boeing and Delta IV?

Will that be cash, or lease?

Dilbert link to follow when I have time. IIRC there is a Dilbert that ends:

Q: How big a fool do you think I am?

The answer is an unspoken thought.

A: That depends on whether I can persuade you to take the lease option.

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 12:10:27

Why buy new tires for a car headed to the junkyard?
My dream scenario is to "space harden" the orbiters with long lived fuels cells, swappable cold gas manuevering jets, and re-fillable OMS tanks. Then strip off the tiles and clip the wings.
Send them up, one at a time and stay on orbit until it cannot possibly be repaired or maintained any longer. Use them to assist on-orbit assemblies. That robot arm and payload bay has to be good for something.
= = =
NASA isn't the problem, IMHO. NASA is the way it is because that is the mandate it has gotten (on back channels) from Washington. America has the exact NASA most politicians want America to have.
The United States government has not been willing to open Pandora's Box. What happens when humans start flooding out into the solar system? Whether now or in 20 years or in 120 years?
Who wins and who loses from that happening?
Celestial property rights - - who gets to write those rules will be the greatest political game of the 21st and 22nd century.
NASA has gone no where because "the powers that be" are not ready to face the political, social and philosophical issues that arise once human beings start living and making babies on Mars.
Even George W. Bush calls for "exploration" not "settlement."
What does exploration mean? A bunch of uniformed US military personnel - - on assignment to NASA - - going to Mars and looking around and then coming home?

Bill, my thoughts exactly. I seriously believe there's no coincidence between the timing of this major shake up with NASA and the sudden burst of intrest by the Air Force in making 'the next frontier safe from terrorists'. I believe that the militarys desire to have sole access to space is the biggest obstacle to commercializing LEO and beyond. What is the Air Force going to do when the private sector can shuttle people and equipment to LEO for a vaction? I smell a new branch to the military coming, we already have land, air, and sea covered, next will be space. Just remember you heard it here first :bars2:

clark · 2004-04-29 12:15:21

I smell a new branch to the military coming, we already have land, air, and sea covered, next will be space. Just remember you heard it here first

A tad late on giving us the heads up deagleninja. [giggle]

The coming tranformation of Airforce to a Spaceforce was in the make after Rumsfeld and his Space Commission (prior to his stint as Defense for the Bush Administration). Most of the sugegstions have now been implemented, and an actual Space Cadre is developing that will be responsible for material aquisition.

For fun reading, take a look at Airforce:2025.

Oh yeah, just to brag, I called the Moon base. (another I told you momment) :laugh:

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 12:17:49

I think that's why we are building the CEV. New ship to go where the previous ones cannot. We're going back to the moon in ten years, then going beyond that. People will be walking beyond LEO, again.
Building a new Shuttle will cost multi-billions, on top of the fixed costs associated with the current Shuttle fleet. It will take years to build one, or we could spend a fraction of the cost to build one, fix all three, and do the things we need to do now.
The age of sail is apporaching.

Does anyone realize how many mars rovers we could build and launch if we scrapped the shuttle, told Boeing to take a flying @#$% and bought Russian Soyuz instead?

And why don't we? Well I believe there was an agreement in 2000 called the Iran-Nonproliferation Treaty (hope thats right) so because of more military closed-mindedness we can't. WTF does that have to do with space???

And NASA's recent snubbing of China is just the lastest goof in a long series of goofs. Technology not mature enough I believe they said, and our grounded shuttle fleet is? What hipocrits... :bars2:

Bill White · 2004-04-29 12:22:42

For the record, clark is correct. He and I have been batting these issues back and forth here at NewMars for years.

Yes, years. Is that :;): or ???

clark · 2004-04-29 12:32:59

Deagleninja, I hear ya, and I think most space advocates will agree. But the problem is that space advocates don't run the show.

NASA has, and will always be, part of how America ensures it's own interests. We went to the Moon becuase an argument could be made for national security reasons, yet even Kennedy thought the whole venture was a damn fool stunt. Nixon compromised and just gave NASA the Shuttle, nixing any space station. Regan proposed a space station, which has been altered to meet current US needs (clinton changing the orbit and scope to fit the needs of the day).

NASA buys from Boeing and Lockheed because it is in our national interest to have aerospace companies. It is in our interest to have a stable wworkforce of aerospace engineers. We don't neccessarily need to go to Mars or the Moon or the stars to secure our interests, so the politcians do the math, and use NASA and any other agency, to meet the needs and itnerests we have. That's why NASA has done a lot of work that has benefited our industries and scientific communities, or improved our international standing- but not sent people beyond LEO. It serves no other purpose than itself, exploration for explorations sake is a pretty low priority. Just the way it is. [shrug]

NASA dosen't make the laws, and dosen't set the goals. Congress and the President do. It's like the military. Give them a job, give them the tools to do it, then get out of the way. For far to long, our leaders have been holding them back.

And Bill, I think it's.... :sleep:

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 12:53:13

'NASA buys from Boeing and Lockheed because it is in our national interest to have aerospace companies.'

If this is true, wouldn't more aerospace companies be better than two?

And shouldn't our national interest include a prosperous future? Isn't securing more resources part of our national interest? Isn't spreading our culture and language part of our national interest?

And for the record, they aren't aerospace companies, they are military contractors who make pocket change with what meat they can tear from NASA's rotting corpse.

Let's see, wasn't Microsoft put on trial recently because claims were made that they were creating a monopoly in the market of software? Why isn't the United Space Alliance put on trial as well? We have two giant 'aerospace' companies that service all of NASA's rocket needs and they are working together to create one entity. That's a monopoly by any definition.

People need to wake up and realize that greed runs this country, not some touchy feely love of people and a wish to see everyone tucked in at night.

Bill White · 2004-04-29 12:56:40

Please don't take this too personally.

People need to wake up and realize that greed runs this country, not some touchy feely love of people and a wish to see everyone tucked in at night.

You say America is run by cynical greedy bastards? Really?

Film at 11. :;):

clark · 2004-04-29 13:03:09

If this is true, wouldn't more aerospace companies be better than two?

We subsidize the remaining two becuase there isn't enough of a market to justify one. The military has a need for launch on demand, and if one rocket system has a problem, and there is no alternative, nothing flies. That is unacceptable if you have a policy that requires you to be able to act when you need to. Furthermore, most of the stuff in space is US. Out of all the nations on earth, America is the one that utilizes, and depends on it's space absed assests (and by proxy, it's ability to replace those assests) to retain its current position.

And shouldn't our national interest include a prosperous future? Isn't securing more resources part of our national interest? Isn't spreading our culture and language part of our national interest?

Sending a couple people to the Moon or Mars creates a prosperous future for those people. It is in our national interest to secure a prosperous future for as many americans as we can. Securing more resources from space has not proven economically viable, so it's moot. And as for spreading our culture and language... well, we've been doing that on Earth, where all the people are. Going into space to do that is just trying to fill an endless void.

Why isn't the United Space Alliance put on trial as well? We have two giant 'aerospace' companies that service all of NASA's rocket needs and they are working together to create one entity. That's a monopoly by any definition.

Those two companies compete against each other for NASA contracts. They formed the United Space Alliance at the behest of government direction. You can't have the government ask them to take over the Shuttle and then charge them with monoply behavior.

Furthermore, there is a growing alternative to the current aerospace giants. Go check out SpaceX.com, and take a look at what Elon Musk is doing with the Falcon rockets.

People need to wake up and realize that greed runs this country, not some touchy feely love of people and a wish to see everyone tucked in at night.

So how do we make that work for us?

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 13:05:18

Bill-I take nothing personally, I know it's not new to most people here. Basically I am just sick of how people support wars and presidents that start them. People don't seem to realize that the loudest voice in our government is the militarys and they don't see how other great programs suffer when we spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting wars that create new enemys. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, this country was quietly taken over after WW2. We lost that war and are still losing it.

clark · 2004-04-29 13:06:17

Ah, we have a follower of Eisenhower! Beware the Military-Industrial Complex....

Bill White · 2004-04-29 13:51:28

Will that be cash, or lease?

deagleninja · 2004-04-29 18:13:15

Bill- Cash, I ain't that stoopid.

Clark-

First point, there is a large enough market for rockets and if they were cheaper there would be more of a market. Fact: five years ago NASA owned the satelite lauch industry, now the only have about 24% of the market. Why is this? Becuase cheaper alternatives are abundant now. There may not be much of a market in the US now because Boeing and Lockheed haven't lowered their prices as they promised.

Second-England benefits today from a relation it formed with country hundreds of years ago. Colonists have always developed new technology that others have benefited from. Ever heard the saying 'necessity is the mother of all invention'? It has proven to be true throughout all human history. When has anyone EVER attempted to use space for resources? Was there an attempt to create a solar power station that I missed? You can't say this is a moot point without trying. This country was pulled out of the Great Depression in part by creating highways. It was expensive at first as most infastructure is, but the payoff well and still is well worth it.

Third- They may compete with each other but only to a point. Insurance companies do the same thing. they compete to a point and they don't cross it. Profit is always assured, and not just a little profit. Yes alternatives are coming but our government isn't building the infastructure they need to make money.

And yes, laugh if you will, but this country has been in a downward spiral since WW2. The government is collecting much more money, even after adjusted for inflation, than they ever have while our benefits like social security are drying up. Highways aren't maintained like they used to be, now we have to pay toll. A single parent can barely support two children at the poverty level when one income used to provide for a family of four. And the reason is that we are spending about 25 cents on dollar to fund a military that starts wars that have nothing to do with defending our freedom. Vietnam, Korea, Panama, Bosnia, Iraq (twice), Afganistan which of these countries were a threat to us? Still laughing?

Michael Bloxham · 2004-04-29 22:45:08

Im going out on a limb here, but I tend to agree with a lot of what DeagleNinja is saying. I fear the US is slowly alienating itself from the rest of the world, and the political climate of today has only served to make this worse. What will become of the future, when the growing economies of the EU and China may (will!) become a major economic threat to the US?

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-29 23:23:49

Getting awful political in here... wars happen. They always have, they always will. Its in our interest to make sure we can win them all. /endrant

This notion that Nasa "owned the launch industry," huh? Ummm, no they didn't. Boeing's delta rockets and others have launched most US satelites.

And this idea that there is a market for rockets... ummm no. There is no market for light/medium space launchers at the moment. There is simply nothing to launch but the occasional satellite. This isn't going to change until we stop launching things on slow-motion exploding aluminum skyscrapers that only work once.

Third, the "why aren't we using space reasources!?!?!?!" question... well thats because space reasources are way up there and we're down here. Its HARD getting up there, much harder than crossing a big puddle in a wooden boat! Comparisons with English colonialism are inappropriate.

And mining the Moon? For what, Iron? We've got plenty of that here and He3 isn't that great a fusion fuel. "Solar power satelites" on the industrial scale are still a ways off without a heavy launcher and breakthrough transmission gear... its easier just to make a nuclear plant or whatnot.

Nasa isn't in the habit of building things; Nasa is more of an operations and research business, Rockwell made the F-1 engines for the Saturn-V, Lockheed makes the Shuttle main tanks. Nasa doesn't build rockets much anymore, though they may design them.

Furthermore, the reason that Nasa turned over much of Shuttle ops to LockMart/BigB is that they have a profit motive, so it is in their interest to minimize costs provided that Nasa doesn't cave to their every fiscal demand. The reason there aren't but two companies is that getting into the business is very hard and demand is down.

I'm willing to believe that Nasa has concerned itself with keeping engineers employed much more than it ought to when Nixon started swinging the axe...

...But the US in a downward spiral compared to China/EU? Oh come now. The EU is much worse off economically than it appears, with France and Germany's economies stagnating under their quasisocialist mechanisms. China's runaway economic growth also cannot last forever, and will slow down before too long, when wages start to increase and energy production becomes a factor.

Ian Flint · 2004-04-29 23:45:19

Ahh...deagleninja...

I share your frustration with this country.

Bill White · 2004-04-30 00:24:39

As always, GCNRevenger is the voice of reason. Damn you!

Still, if the goal of "exploration" is to look around and come home - - then count me amongst those who favor robotic exploration. Add the prospect of permanent settlement, be it 20 years or 120 years, and then humans in space interests me.

Be it 20 years or 120 years, writing the rules for ownership of celestial objects will be the first species-wide political challenge we face.

deagleninja · 2004-04-30 06:07:56

First of all, I'd like to appologize for becoming so emotional. I get frustrated when people talk about the problems with our space program as if it were a single problem that could be fixed by turning a wrench. I have felt, and continue to feel, that the problem is much larger than that. I feel that thebigger problem is our culture which sadly is more focused on self-indulgence rather than self-improvement. The reek of apathy is everywhere, even in some responces seen here. Take GCNRevenger's comment for instance:

GCN-'wars happen. They always have, they always will. Its in our interest to make sure we can win them all'

What is winning to you? Have we won the Iraq War? Has killing thousands of civilians been worth the price of our impatience? There hasn't been a decent motivation for any of our wars since WW2 in the 40's. We start wars to test our 'combat effectiveness' so that when the boggie man of the decade 'trys to take our freedom' we can be prepared. I can't believe you can swallow that without choking...

'This notion that Nasa "owned the launch industry," huh? Ummm, no they didn't. Boeing's delta rockets and others have launched most US satelites'
This is simply an uninformed comment. I have already stated that Boeing and Lockheed create rockets for NASA. NASA however oversees their launches from their facilities and sets the timetable. Fact is that most customers are now using foreign, cheaper rockets because ours cost too much. The US is now a minor player in the launch of commercail satellites, and I might add that buisness is good and getting better.

'And this idea that there is a market for rockets... ummm no'
Apparently you aren't familar with advances in micronization. Satellites the size of shoe boxes are 5 years away. By lucky coincidence, so are reuseable launch vehicles to get them there 'cheaply'. The drastic cost reduction means that soon universities can launch their own science packages into orbit. A whole new market is developing and our government missed the boat.

'Third, the "why aren't we using space reasources!?!?!?!" question... well thats because space reasources are way up there and we're down here. Its HARD getting up there, much harder than crossing a big puddle in a wooden boat! Comparisons with English colonialism are inappropriate'
Again, we have the small view tossed in our faces as THE excuse. The resources of asteroids, the Moon and Mars are for those that use them, not us. Our benefits will mainly come in the form of new innovations produced by people struggling in a hostile environment. About my analogy, I could just as easily say that the Atlantic Ocean was hardly a 'big puddle' to 17th century colonists. How many private endeavours crossed the ocean at that time?

'And mining the Moon? For what, Iron?'
Mining the moon will be done to create bigger and better habitats on the moon, not to bring back to Earth.

'LockMart/BigB.....it is in their interest to minimize costs'
Yes, and they have choosen to minimize costs by squashing competition and continuing to make basically the same design for decades. Oil companies don't want to shake things up for the same reason.

'The reason there aren't but two companies is that getting into the business is very hard and demand is down'
The reason there are two companies is that competition has been asborbed through mergers. Demand is 'down' because foreign countries and companies can do it cheaper. And it's hard getting into the buisness because NASA deals with no one else and Boeing/Lock lobby to keep NASA using their goods and no one elses.

'...But the US in a downward spiral compared to China/EU? Oh come now.'
I did not compare the US to China or the EU. I said we have been in a downward spiral since WW2. You can't look at others and say 'well, I'm doing better than that guy' as a benchmark of greatness. Compared to our earlier acheivements, we are falling behind our own pace. Our government hasn't made infastructure a priority for decades. When you don't invest in a future, you won't have one.

'I'm willing to believe that Nasa has concerned itself with keeping engineers employed'
Finally something we can agree on. NASA looks to be finally done with it's hiring freeze so maybe some fresh minds with give it the performance boost that JPL is currently enjoying.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-04-29 10:48:44

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#27 2004-04-29 11:08:33

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#28 2004-04-29 11:19:05

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#29 2004-04-29 11:31:23

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#30 2004-04-29 11:56:49

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#31 2004-04-29 12:00:33

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#32 2004-04-29 12:03:35

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#33 2004-04-29 12:08:49

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#34 2004-04-29 12:10:27

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#35 2004-04-29 12:15:21

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#36 2004-04-29 12:17:49

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#37 2004-04-29 12:22:42

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#38 2004-04-29 12:32:59

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#39 2004-04-29 12:53:13

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#40 2004-04-29 12:56:40

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#41 2004-04-29 13:03:09

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#42 2004-04-29 13:05:18

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#43 2004-04-29 13:06:17

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#44 2004-04-29 13:51:28

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#45 2004-04-29 18:13:15

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#46 2004-04-29 22:45:08

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#47 2004-04-29 23:23:49

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#48 2004-04-29 23:45:19

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#49 2004-04-30 00:24:39

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

#50 2004-04-30 06:07:56

Re: What the heck is taking so long? - Red Planet In Red Tape

Board footer