Return to flight slipping

clark · 2004-03-26 12:11:14

GNC, it's a fantasy, but one I like...

There are only two reasons for a country to have human spaceflight or beyond-Earth robot spaceflight...

There is no reason to have human spaceflight, other than warm esoteric philosphicaly based principles. People don't need to go.

1: To stay ahead of OTHER countries economicaly and militarily when humanity moves off this luke-warm salty mudball.

America is the only country to place a person on another planetary body other than this luke-warm salty mudball. We don't need humans in space to have an effective military- we need more boots on the ground, and better birds in the sky. Economically, we don't need people. The greatest advances, the greatest profit, have all come from non-human related space activites.

. There are reasources to be had (in the long term, anyway) by traveling into space.

None of which require people there to get. We need resources for the people of Earth- not for the people in space. We don't need people to go get those resources since we can devise simpler solutions using robots.

Countries that don't try to grow their economies to new available reasouces and efficencies are doomed to live in the shadows of those that do.

True, but doing so dosen't require that we use people in space to achieve the ends. That's the point. We need to manufacture an exscuse becuase there is no legitimate reason to put people into space.

2: The human desire to explore that is hard-wired into us, this is natural and inevitible, since we CAN go, we will go.

The human desire to procreate is hard wired into us as well, but we can control it, right? It's not inevitable, and it's not natural to live in an environment that cannot support us. We can still explore by proxy, much as Spirit and opportuntiy do now. In terms of interstellar exploration, beyond Sol, the next next step, we may very well find that we can go no further. That all that is left are proxies.

Space may not have an end, but it's not about that, in my mind, it's about finding where our reach ends. How far can we reach? That is what space, all exploration, all scientific inquiry, is really all about.

But we don't need people in space to find that out. [shrug] Sorry.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 12:12:28

See my new thread in Free Chat. . . :;):

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-26 13:53:12

People don't need to go into space, granted. But people don't need TVs, cars, radios, clothes, candy, etc etc, either. People could live in the woods as hunter gatherers if we really wanted to throw out everything that people "needed."

People want to go into space. Sending probes is their way of doing this, from a scientific and economic point of view, but people still want to experience space on a first hand basis. And I don't think it's just about exploration. When people came to America, they weren't just explorers, they were coming to America for new experiences. Saying probes are essentially the best way to reach out into space is like saying that the "Magellans" of the world were the only way to reach out to the Americas (and the rest of the world). I say the colonizers were the best way.

We can argue about economics all day and night, but in the end it winds up being about one thing. People want to go into space. That's enough for me to say it's okay to get them there. We just have to do it cost effectively. We need the right technology.

clark · 2004-03-26 14:56:33

We can argue about economics all day and night, but in the end it winds up being about one thing. People want to go into space.

People want to be Queen of the Ball. Should we set up a government agency to make that happen too?

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-26 16:38:58

You've got too much faith in robots...

The mighty MER rovers, with all their bells & whistles, will not have moved even a single kilometer over their respective lives, and this took months and requires painstaking guideance from Earth, considering the time lag. An astronaut in a space suit could do all this in a day or two easy and more. Robots also lack the manual dexterity of humans, and this is not going to change any time soon due to the time lag, and AI of that level of sophistication will be a project for our children or theirs... A "robot colony" of nationaly signifigant economic capacity is a rediculus proposal. You NEED humans up there.

Exploration by proxy is also somthing of an oxymoron... sure its interesting to see all the color-doctored photos coming back from the MERs and such, but its not exciting. If society as a whole didn't heed the need to reproduce, it would cease to exsist. Just like the need to explore, if we don't, then our society will stagnate or even collapse. This is a lesson of history, like the Chinese empire of old, and not empty space-fanatic rhetorict.

Economically speaking, space travel is a losing proposition beyond small satelites to Earth orbit. This is because the infrastructure and technology do not exsist... You are aware of the catch-22 i'm sure, and this is because all ventures are bound by the need for PROFIT. Governments on the other hand are not, and are hence better suited to very-long-term investments like space travel.

clark · 2004-03-26 17:12:37

The Mightey MER rovers are quite an accomplishment, and they are one more step in the evolution of our abilities. We're still learning how to land things near Mars, not just on Mars. The previous rover was smaller. I mean the previous one that made it; we're still learning how to get there, how to do all of this orbital travelling well. It takes time, and it takes experience. Beyond these two rovers are future robotic probes. Larger probes, with greater power- the biggest limiting factor of any space mission.

We will get sample returns for a fraction of the cost of any manned mission you care to dream. We can send dozens of probes, dozens of sattelites, all looking at different aspects of Mars that will tell us more than any handful of people you send. Some of our greatest advances in the last century were from orbital observatories, looking down on earth. That was done through many years, and many sattelites. We have what, three sattelites in orbit of Mars now? We're all excited becuase we've finaly found evidence of water! We have just scratched the surface of all that we may learn, and we can learn far more, far faster by leaving humans out of the equation.

But that's not why anyone here wants to send people to Mars. No one here wants to know more about Mars, they want to know Mars. And I grant you, robots will never give us that.

We may need to explore, but I don't neccessarily believe that we need to explore space. As in, people. A proxy can serve to meet the needs of exploration, if it serves to meet the challenge. To stop exploring is really to stop challenging the current situation. It means remaining in the tree, or not question that the world is flat. Exploration isn't about starting new cities where there were none.

Ad Astra · 2004-03-26 17:35:47

In terms of ISS needs, Russia has to send a Soyuz up every six months because the Soyuz rescue capsule will not last any longer than that. Russia is using cost savings as a way of justifying year-long ISS stays. I agree with the Russian decision, if only because NASA's been too timid about allowing its astronauts stay in space for any length of time approximating a lunar or Mars excursion.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-26 22:02:54

Unfortunatly, there are some severe limiting factors for robots in general... that
1: They don't cope with things they aren't designed to cope with. If a rover tips over or gets stuck, then the mission is at end. If simple little science rovers can get into such trouble, then mining robots will certainly need oversight.
2: They're slow. Having to wait on human commands will limit their effectiveness and efficency no matter how advanced they become. For all the MER's capabilities, one human geologist with a small field kit could have told you there was water in a single Martian sol. Just making them bigger isn't going to make them much faster or more efficent.

I reject the notion that a robot-only mission will be more effective than a human one... there are lots of things you can do from orbit, but there are many more things you cannot. And robots will never be as efficent as having a man be there. What if we find a cave? It will take months or years to build a cave-bot, and another month or year to prepare for launch and get mated to a Delta, and then months to fly it to Mars... or a man in a space suit can take a flashlight and walk in. Who needs sample return missions? All that trouble for a few measly pounds of what you can scrape up? Send the lab to Mars, and then you'll get some serious throughput of materials of interest, not whatever you can scrape up near the return vehicle every few years. You get the picture, human versitility makes all the difference.

Robots? Faster? Certainly not.

We do need to explore, and space is the frontier... the bottom of the ocean has been done, the highest moutains conqured, and now it is time for somthing else. And the only "else" is UP. Exploring by proxy gets boring fast, and all the pictures in the world are only enough to take the edge off it. Yes they're pretty and spectacular, but they are still just images... Needless to say how little people care about the photos from camera men on Shuttle/ISS, which would have been all the rage during the early days of capsules.

But people on Mars... thats the ticket... the next big thing

People will also expand to places that have been explored provided the conditions are favorable, this is a given really, if for no other condition than it better saites the need to explore if the frontier is right outside your front door. Or airlock. People live in lousy conditions here (Inuit in the arctic, Bedouns in deserts) for less of a reason than that.

MarsDog · 2004-03-27 07:00:22

Metal, silicon brained Robots are preparing the way to Mars,
For the delicate biochemical Robots which require a whole ecosystem.
-
Patience, wait a a little longer, till the red carpet is rolled out,
Welcoming the tourists.

Rxke · 2004-10-02 07:37:20

And again, thanks to the stormdamage

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap2004100 … ml]ABCNews

tentatively may or july, now...

Ad Astra · 2004-10-02 19:46:29

I'm waiting for the official word from NASA, but a delay is not unexpected.

It's frustrating, for sure, but it's best to wait up and do this right.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-02 20:49:20

The unofficial news sources have it delayed until May. Thanks for not hurricane season 2004 but NASA Florida it may not be over just yet. when your winds still blow even though the months of November some years.

Hurricane Damage Delays Shuttle's Return To Flight Until May
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04zi.html

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-10-04 00:34:06

A handle of whatever alchol you choose says that the shuttle doesn't fly till the second quarter of 06' if it ever leaves the ground again at all.

We should just cut our loses now, and get our collective shit in order on what we are going to do post-ISS, make a plan, and put it into action.

Unfortunetly that's not going to happen, the shuttle will get scuttled, the ISS will fall from the sky ala Sky Lab, the BSI will die because of internal NASA and contractor politics as well as political apathy and in 2100 people will be saying how quaint manned spaceflight was and the dream of off world colonies will still be '30-50' years off...man the future sucks.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-04 10:33:59

Alot of the delay will ride on how quickly they can repair the Nasa facilities and to how soon after they can get back to working on the remaining CAIB recommendations before flights can occur.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-05 06:14:53

It appears that Nasa contractor are in normal mode, pressing forward to the new target date and not worrying about why.

A decision by NASA officials to postpone the first space shuttle flight since the Columbia accident because of hurricane damage to Kennedy Space Center is having little effect on the eastern New Orleans plant that makes external fuel tanks for the orbiter, a plant spokesman said Monday.

http://www.nola.com/busines....360.xml

SpaceNut · 2004-10-08 10:28:13

I beleive that Nasa todate has only cleared 5 out of the required recommendations that the CAIB put forth in there report.
This one would have give those on the ground the info to stay in orbit rather than come down and would have lead to at least a space walk to explore the damage that was done.

Kennedy Space Center upgrades video system
http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/27576-1.html

SpaceNut · 2004-10-12 07:27:58

Another unofficial news quote from a senior ISS official said Tuesday. The Space Shuttle returns to flight tenative date of the May timeframe, for possible launch window is for mid-May to early June.

U.S. Shuttles May Resume ISS Flights in May
http://www.reuters.com/newsArt....6476794

SpaceNut · 2004-10-20 08:06:48

Talk about your screwed up process and chain of command as indicated by the most recent attempts to change the next shuttle launch date. In addition, work on further missions such as STS-116 and STS-117 were put on the back burner until such time as the Shuttle program's schedules begin to become a bit more real.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=14267

Not sure of mission label meanings

IS WAS
STS-114/LF1 Launch NET 5/12/05 NET 3/6/05
STS-300/None Launch NET 6/16/05 NET 5/5/05
STS-121/ULF1.1 Launch NET 7/10/05 NET 5/5/05
STS-301/None Launch NET 9/6/05 NET 7/1/05
STS-115/12A Launch NET 12/8/05 NET 9/29/05

Nasa return to flight page
http://www.nasa.gov/news/highlights/returntoflight.html

Shuttle current status
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/oc … tatus.html

SpaceNut · 2004-10-21 07:29:18

Mostly a small rah rah article into the efforts to get the shuttle flying again.

NASA Glenn working to get shuttle flying
http://www.cleveland.com/news....130.xml

SpaceNut · 2004-10-22 06:27:46

Well the final shuttle Enterprise will soon be on display at the Smithsonian. I wonder how much of a crowd draw it will have.
I know that I would still love to go see it if I could but pictures will have to do for now.

Air and Space Museum Launches Space Hangar
http://www.artdaily.com/section....w=11377

Space shuttle Enterprise is centerpiece of museum
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns....&cat=AN

Ad Astra · 2004-10-22 22:05:36

Another http://www.planetary.org/aimformars/stu … pdf]report calls for retiring the shuttle well before 2010. Echong the position of Lori Garver, the group wants to retire the shuttle after ISS is core complete (only about 7 flights away.) Other missions would be accomplished with ELV's.

The plan is probably the best in terms of astronaut safety (early shuttle retirement,) getting a good CEV (early shuttle retirement = more funding available earlier,) and creating economies of scale for the Delta IV and Atlas V, who will probably be tapped to launch the rest of ISS.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-22 22:42:22

Anything that gets rid of Shuttle earlier can't be a bad thing...

If Boeing went ahead and performed the upgrades to the Delta-IV, or even just strapped some standard GEMs to the HLV stack, the HLV model could likly lift station componets and a tug module for the rendevous maneuver.

With the uprated Delta-IV "EELV+" you could also launch the CEV with no solid rocket motors or send a pretty decent payload to the Moon with only two shots of the "HLV+" model.

John Creighton · 2004-10-22 22:52:14

Wow Sounds like alot, is this all within the projected budget and are all these manned missions. I hope we can do all this:
from:
http://www.planetary.org/aimformars/stu … report.pdf

Stage One, access to LEO, through 2010
• Shuttle-Orbiter return to flight (RTF), complete the ISS through at least “US Core Complete”
• Select and demonstrate launch vehicle for CEV
• Demonstrate early CEV use for crew transfer at the ISS
• Negotiate with international partners to obtain best way to transport remaining heavy modules to the ISS
• Retire Orbiter as soon as above steps are completed
• Costs distributed across full Exploration window

Stage Two, interplanetary cruise, through 2015 and beyond
• Develop interplanetary cruise capability; uprated CEV, and necessary additional modules for the destination selected
• Ensure HLLV available, probably a Shuttle-derived HLLV
• Enable lunar orbit missions, remote sensing, Rovers with sample return
• Enable visits to Sun-Earth-Lagrange #2, astronomy, etc.
• Enable visit and study of near-earth objects (NEOs)
• Enable visits to Mars vicinity, including moons Phobos and Deimos. Include remote sensors and Rover with return samples. Begin infrastructure placement. Select sites.
• Select destinations as appropriate: science, public, other interests

Stage Three, human surface landings, 2020 and beyond
• Prepare infrastructure for moon and/or Mars bases
• Build on thorough preparation in preceding stages
• Initiate human landings at selected destinations
• Plan for future solar system exploration

John Creighton · 2004-10-22 23:00:16

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-03-26 12:11:14

Re: Return to flight slipping

#27 2004-03-26 12:12:28

Re: Return to flight slipping

#28 2004-03-26 13:53:12

Re: Return to flight slipping

#29 2004-03-26 14:56:33

Re: Return to flight slipping

#30 2004-03-26 16:38:58

Re: Return to flight slipping

#31 2004-03-26 17:12:37

Re: Return to flight slipping

#32 2004-03-26 17:35:47

Re: Return to flight slipping

#33 2004-03-26 22:02:54

Re: Return to flight slipping

#34 2004-03-27 07:00:22

Re: Return to flight slipping

#35 2004-10-02 07:37:20

Re: Return to flight slipping

#36 2004-10-02 19:46:29

Re: Return to flight slipping

#37 2004-10-02 20:49:20

Re: Return to flight slipping

#38 2004-10-04 00:34:06

Re: Return to flight slipping

#39 2004-10-04 10:33:59

Re: Return to flight slipping

#40 2004-10-05 06:14:53

Re: Return to flight slipping

#41 2004-10-08 10:28:13

Re: Return to flight slipping

#42 2004-10-12 07:27:58

Re: Return to flight slipping

#43 2004-10-20 08:06:48

Re: Return to flight slipping

#44 2004-10-21 07:29:18

Re: Return to flight slipping

#45 2004-10-22 06:27:46

Re: Return to flight slipping

#46 2004-10-22 22:05:36

Re: Return to flight slipping

#47 2004-10-22 22:42:22

Re: Return to flight slipping

#48 2004-10-22 22:52:14

Re: Return to flight slipping

#49 2004-10-22 23:00:16

Re: Return to flight slipping

#50 2004-10-23 09:08:48

Re: Return to flight slipping

Board footer