The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

sethmckiness · 2003-09-06 03:25:36

I was curious to see how many people have read this book, "Failure Is Not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to Apollo 13 and Beyond" by Gene Krantz. I found it to be very interesting.. The most intriguing aspect of this book was a little note left in the back of the book from the author.

I don't remember the exacting wording but it went something along the lines of saying that if you are really interested in seeing Man in Space, Do not just sit there, but actually so something about it. I believe it was geared towards the younger crowd, instilling the need for a fresh generation of Engineers, Scientists, and Controllers. But, as I have put in my other posts, I don't really know how I will, but I would like to help push man further into space(no pun intended). I currently feel that Our Space programs has Stagnated. We have the technology to build a galleon, but all we build are Triremes. I now there is a lot of cost to building craft that are capable of going farther then extreme LEO. But I feel the OSP is not enough. I feel that we should be looking to atleast shoot for the limits of the Magneto-sphere. Set our heights a little farther, and slowly work out away from the Earth. Make sure we can walk and jog before we try to run a marathon. We have learned alot about LEO, not thatg there still is not much more to learn, but I think we can Crawl well enough right now.. Lets atleast start walking.

dicktice · 2003-09-07 08:08:05

You mean: "Let's at least start tethering." All it takes is to properly engineer the winch machinery, now that carbon fibre exists for fabricating cables hundreds of kilometres long....

sethmckiness · 2003-09-07 11:20:45

dicktice "You mean: "Let's at least start tethering." All it takes is to properly engineer the winch machinery, now that carbon fibre exists for fabricating cables hundreds of kilometres long...."

Well, I do think Space Elevators and Tethers are interesting... If thats what you mean. But I think thats a bit of a leap for us. Lets get current of the shelf technology in space. The X-38 is a point in the right direction. Lets get a whole series of Boosters. I like Pegasus... Can we get anything bigger then that done? Could a Modified C-5 or AN-224 be used to such an extend. What I am getting at is, I think we could be slowly expanding our space capabilities. Finish the Station.. get that damn thing done. Then move on.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-07 12:56:37

The space elevator cables would be great for the future on the Moon, or even Mars, acting as beanstalks to space. However, due to Earth's greater size, the cables would have to be exponentially thicker to support the length of the cable all the way to the ground. Dr. Zubrin makes note of this in Entering Space, how no such system could work with the Earth for generations (the thickest part of the cable would have to be a kilometer in diameter), and by then we'd already have cheep ways to space.

As for the ISS, destroy the hunk of absurd junk. It was the worst waste ever; I can't think of anything more astronomically pointless. SkyLab had more living space and experimentation space than the International Space Station would have, if ever completed, and it went up in one piece, and cost a cool $2 million.
The Space Station has already exceeding $60 billion in launch costs alone. It was no more than an attempt to justify the Shuttle program, and both have now failed miserably.

The future is bleak. On to Mars, I say!

Algol · 2003-09-07 14:35:02

Actually, the space elevator cable would most likely be a ribon and would be a meter wide at its widest and mere microns thick.

High Lift

Lift Port

As far as the ISS is concerned, it will soon be the only capability that exists in space for performing microgravity experiments (once the shuttle is gone), so like it or lump it, because we need it. The OSP will be useful IMO for ferrying people to and from the ISS (and hopefully greatly reduce the costs involved) and maybe other platforms that might be developed in low earth orbit (fingers crossed).

But i do agree, it would be nice to have something that could take us further.

sethmckiness · 2003-09-07 14:48:23

If worse comes to worse the ISS could be boosted to higher orbits or integrated into Another space station. I don't remember where I saw it, but a picture of the ISS with a Taurus wheel for Artificial Gravity. While it may take months, a slow boost of the orbit could be accomplished. or integration with a better station. Don't waste what is already there.

sethmckiness · 2003-09-07 14:51:39

I guess the point of this topic is how people purpose to get from A(on Earth) to M(on Mars). What are the steps B,C,D et cetera that will need to be taken. I think there are current Mission plans that could work right now, but I don't think they will happen for atleast 20 years. So, Just curious on what people thinks need to happen for us to enable us to go to Mars... If you follow me.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-07 15:29:18

Huh, that website is fascinating (I read it all; very nice concept). I'm still a little incredulous, but hey, great if it works! Stranger things have happened in my lifetime.

As for the ISS, we do not need it, not for microgravity experiments (launched laboratories are much cheeper and more convenient); and exactly what do we need microgravity experiments for in the first place?

This new OSP is a cop-out, just like the Shuttle was a cop-out, a deliberate waste of time meant to keep a large ground crew busy that had nothing to do after Apollo.

We don't need the OSP, the ISS, or anything else of such insignificant nature. We need Mars, plain and simple.

Algol · 2003-09-07 21:21:33

Spiderman:

As for the ISS, we do not need it, not for microgravity experiments (launched laboratories are much cheeper and more convenient);

The ISS is a permanent (launched?) laboratory that is already there, why scrap it and relaunch smaller laboratories?

and exactly what do we need microgravity experiments for in the first place?

Oh come on! Its one thing being intent on going straight to mars, but its quite another blatantly ignoring all the research that is needed to get there.

NASA, understandably, has problems explaining how the ISS is going to benefit the whole of humanity with wonderous new technologies, but the majority of science conducted on board is absolutely critical to the future of space flight. Even having people up there, and studying them whilst they are conducting other experiments has delivered a wealth of vital information.

This new OSP is a cop-out, just like the Shuttle was a cop-out, a deliberate waste of time meant to keep a large ground crew busy that had nothing to do after Apollo.

Putting the ISS debacle asside, the OSP is exactly what is needed for ferrying crews back and forth, in that respect it is a producive step in the right direction.

In my opinion the shuttle was a marvelous craft that got stretched way, way beyond its intended operational life time.

Sethmckiness

I don't remember where I saw it, but a picture of the ISS with a Taurus wheel for Artificial Gravity.

This would be a good idea, expand the station. However the original station design incorporated a module with a centrifuge for doing large variable gravity experiments, this was dropped because the vibrartions would have interfered with the other experiments. Even though any affect would be of a lower frequency im wondering how a large artificial-g wheel might affect the station.

What are the steps B,C,D et cetera that will need to be taken

Well, if we use mars direct, the only step is to develop a heavy lift vehicle. (and obviously the mars direct technology too :;): )

sethmckiness · 2003-09-10 06:24:39

Quote
What are the steps B,C,D et cetera that will need to be taken

Well, if we use mars direct, the only step is to develop a heavy lift vehicle. (and obviously the mars direct technology too )

I think that may need a bit of a politcal coup.

Before we goto Mars we need a private funder. Or we need to regain some faith and support to our space program.

Palomar · 2003-09-10 12:37:16

I was curious to see how many people have read this book, "Failure Is Not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to Apollo 13 and Beyond" by Gene Krantz. I found it to be very interesting.. The most intriguing aspect of this book was a little note left in the back of the book from the author.

*"The History Channel" has created a 2-hour (?) long documentary from his book. It's very informative, and includes alot of film footage from the missions. Of course, the book would be much more detailed.

What an exciting career he and his colleagues have had; absolutely enviable! And smoking cigars in the control room; that's a definite "blast from the past."

Krantz was, of course, interviewed for the documentary. He admitted he'd felt self-conscious about shedding tears immediately after Apollo 13 splashed down safely. I thought that was very touching. How could you NOT get choked up? I always do, whenever I see the Ron Howard film, or see the actual footage of the event (I have it and Apollo 11 in my video collection).

It's a sad commentary on our own times, that we have to look so far back to the greatest achievements in space exploration: The memories are still so new and vibrant, yet the players are wearing 1960s/early 70s hair and clothing styles. It's like looking forward (expectations) and back (history) at the same time, which is extremely surreal -- at least for me.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-09-10 13:00:24

What an exciting career he and his colleagues have had; absolutely enviable! And smoking cigars in the control room; that's a definite "blast from the past."
Krantz was, of course, interviewed for the documentary. He admitted he'd felt self-conscious about shedding tears immediately after Apollo 13 splashed down safely. I thought that was very touching. How could you NOT get choked up? I always do, whenever I see the Ron Howard film, or see the actual footage of the event (I have it and Apollo 11 in my video collection).
It's a sad commentary on our own times, that we have to look so far back to the greatest achievements in space exploration: The memories are still so new and vibrant, yet the players are wearing 1960s/early 70s hair and clothing styles. It's like looking forward (expectations) and back (history) at the same time, which is extremely surreal -- at least for me.

I was watching my 2-dvd set of NASA Apollo missions the other day (which I pulled out of a $4.95 bargain bin at the Wal-mart,) and yes, it's a total riot to see everyone puffing on cigarettes (in a workplace...my God..<gasps>,) not to mention the all those super-skinny ties they were wearing..lol.

But what's so cool about these Apollo films is the amazing quality of the mission films, in which they drove the buggy all over the place, hopping out here and there, falling down (I sooo glad they didn't puncture their suits!), picking up rocks, or just bouncing around like kids in one of those inflatable bouncer thingys you see at the local carnival. It's fascinating to see how short the horizon is too, what seems really far way is actually quite close, and brightness of the day contrasting with the pitch-black sky above.

Gosh, if only we could just forget about the Middle East and get our butt back to the Moon, at least. That's the America that I want to be living in...with a drive to go out into the great frontier of space on these amazing missions that inspired such awe and wonder among those of us here on Earth...

It doesn't hurt to dream though, does it?

B

Palomar · 2003-09-10 13:49:24

It's fascinating to see how short the horizon is too...

*Yeah, really. {{Bounce, hop, bounce, hop}}...<!PLOINK> right over the horizon's edge! Ha ha.

I've often wondered what went through the minds of the guys who had to stay all alone in the capsule as it orbited the moon, while the other 2 guys were on the surface. To go completely around the backside of the moon, knowing at that point in time you're the human being furthest from the Earth. And the moon is between you and the Earth. And you're -all alone- in that capsule.

...probably that's when you start thinking of all those scary cartoons and movies you read/watched as a kid...

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-09-10 14:29:09

And just imagine the joy and relief he felt when the lander rose up from the surface of the Moon, looking out the window as the tiny craft slowly closed in on the capsule, knowing that you wouldn't have to be alone anymore.

It still blows my mind that all of this was done almost 35 years ago...like a peice of the future dropped in the middle of the 20th Century...

B

Spider-Man · 2003-09-10 21:17:29

Spiderman:
The ISS is a permanent (launched?) laboratory that is already there, why scrap it and relaunch smaller laboratories?

Because it still would be more expensive, if we are to continue using it. All the necessary equipment for new experiments must be launched there, which means you have to dock with it, transport crew and specialists, bring more food, and simply keep running the orbital catastrophe.
If a research lab is launched instead with all its equipment, even its starting crew, like SkyLab, it will be inexpensive, functional, and efficient.

It makes much more sense financially, logistically, scientifically, in all ways but politically to launch smaller laboratories for different general areas of experimentation.

It was an atrocious waste of time. It makes me quite sad.

Oh come on! Its one thing being intent on going straight to mars, but its quite another blatantly ignoring all the research that is needed to get there.

You assume that astronauts will have to travel more than days in zero-g. They need do no such thing under the Mars Direct plan.

NASA, understandably, has problems explaining how the ISS is going to benefit the whole of humanity with wonderous new technologies, but the majority of science conducted on board is absolutely critical to the future of space flight.

Okay... then how?

Even having people up there, and studying them whilst they are conducting other experiments has delivered a wealth of vital information.

That's what MIR was for. I think thirty years of doing absolutely nothing but LEO experimentation has given us all the information we'll need to determine how much safer a six-month, 5/8 gravity tour to Mars will affect the human body.

Putting the ISS debacle asside, the OSP is exactly what is needed for ferrying crews back and forth, in that respect it is a producive step in the right direction.

If there are multiple research labs put into orbit, then yes, it becomes moderately functional.

In my opinion the shuttle was a marvelous craft that got stretched way, way beyond its intended operational life time.

Agreed. This is what NASA is famous for, building machines that go way beyond their intended operational limits (Voyager being the most spectacular example). The inglorious mistake with the Shuttle was depending on that reputation ? not simply for unmanned probes into deep space that no one would shed a tear over, but for actual spaceships carrying human beings.

It's a sad commentary on our own times, that we have to look so far back to the greatest achievements in space exploration: The memories are still so new and vibrant, yet the players are wearing 1960s/early 70s hair and clothing styles. It's like looking forward (expectations) and back (history) at the same time, which is extremely surreal -- at least for me.

Mm, I know exactly what you mean... What's depressing for a younger person like me is seeing such a glorious past that occurred before my birth, and then realizing how terribly things have been handled, and how we are going nowhere. I grow increasingly depressed by the situation...

And all of you are so poetic and sentimental; I love it. I share your heartfelt reverie.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-11 02:33:23

What gets me about the Moon landings is how the astronauts managed to sleep in hammocks strung up inside the lunar module.
Remember all those nights when we were kids and we had sleep-overs or slept out in tents or whatever? Remember how excited we were and how we'd talk and laugh and couldn't get to sleep for hours?

Imagine lying in a hammock in a high-tech tent with a friend on the Moon!! You're 385,000 kms from home, camping out on another celestial body, the walls of your tent are no thicker than canvas, outside is a hard vacuum (not rain! ), there's not another soul on that rock but you and your buddy, and mission control says: "Lights out guys".
YEAH ... SURE!!!!

[Then imagine you're lying there with the soft hiss of the life-support system in the background, and you hear something outside tapping on the walls .... !!! Uh-oh. ]
:laugh:

Palomar · 2003-09-11 06:04:25

Byron: "And just imagine the joy and relief he felt when the lander rose up from the surface of the Moon, looking out the window as the tiny craft slowly closed in on the capsule, knowing that you wouldn't have to be alone anymore."

*Yeah, I thought about that too. That was another super-tense moment for those guys. It would have been beyond awful if any one of them had failed. The guys in the LEM would have been doomed, the guy in the capsule would not only know there's nothing he could do to save them, but he's also going home (another solitary 3 days while grieving as well), re-entering the atmosphere, and splashing down alone.

Shaun: "What gets me about the Moon landings is how the astronauts managed to sleep in hammocks strung up inside the lunar module.
Remember all those nights when we were kids and we had sleep-overs or slept out in tents or whatever? Remember how excited we were and how we'd talk and laugh and couldn't get to sleep for hours?

Imagine lying in a hammock in a high-tech tent with a friend on the Moon!! You're 385,000 kms from home, camping out on another celestial body, the walls of your tent are no thicker than canvas, outside is a hard vacuum (not rain! ), there's not another soul on that rock but you and your buddy, and mission control says: "Lights out guys".
YEAH ... SURE!!!! "

*And thinking that even a micrometeor striking the LEM...I doubt I would have slept very well. I also wonder when the "anti-climactic" point in the mission came for them.

--Cindy

Algol · 2003-09-11 12:09:42

Spiderman, youre being extremely short sighted. We all want to go to mars, but its not the only goal out there, even if the astronauts dont travel to mars in zero-g there will be plenty of missions where they will!

As far as microgravity experiments, if you bothered to read what theyre actually doing you'd realise that its important on going research that can only be done in microgravity.

I do agree with you that mutiple mini stations would be better, different experiments are suited to different orbits, they should be permanent though because there is always on going research to be done. As for the ISS, its there, so we should use it. Mothballing it would give completely the wrong signal and would not free up any money for anything.

Theres more than just mars out there, if we concentrate on just mars then once were finished we wont have the ability or momentum to keep going or do anything else, it'd be apollo all over again.

Spider-Man · 2003-09-11 12:36:12

Theres more than just mars out there, if we concentrate on just mars then once were finished we wont have the ability or momentum to keep going or do anything else, it'd be apollo all over again.

I disagree with this, that we will go back to stagnation again. The stagnation occurred because we reached the astronomical Azores, the Moon, and then decided anything further was too far. We didn't go back to the Moon because there's nothing there we have the ability to process efficiently, not for another few decades at least (like He3 [helium 3], the wealth of minerals locked in oxides across the lunar surface, etcetera).
Mars was our next target, but budget cuts prevented further development. Dr. Zubrin notes that what's really prospective are the asteroids, near Earth and in the Main Belt. Using the same technology that would bring us to Mars, we could go to an asteroid, land people on it, do experiments, everything for only a few billion dollars, and in four years instead of the eight required to develop a Mars Direct program.

In my opinion, the two programs should be concurrent, one springing off the other as we launch into space.
And when we return to the Moon, we can use the very same technology from Mars Direct for a "Moon Direct" of sorts, but also for a much cheaper price.

Such is our future, if we reach for it. The stars are within our grasp.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-09-06 03:25:36

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#2 2003-09-07 08:08:05

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#3 2003-09-07 11:20:45

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#4 2003-09-07 12:56:37

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#5 2003-09-07 14:35:02

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#6 2003-09-07 14:48:23

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#7 2003-09-07 14:51:39

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#8 2003-09-07 15:29:18

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#9 2003-09-07 21:21:33

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#10 2003-09-10 06:24:39

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#11 2003-09-10 12:37:16

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#12 2003-09-10 13:00:24

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#13 2003-09-10 13:49:24

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#14 2003-09-10 14:29:09

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#15 2003-09-10 21:17:29

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#16 2003-09-11 02:33:23

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#17 2003-09-11 06:04:25

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#18 2003-09-11 12:09:42

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

#19 2003-09-11 12:36:12

Re: The drive for Space - ways to increase public support

Board footer