"NASA...You have a problem..."

GOM · 2001-09-12 11:57:31

This might not be a popular link here, but I think it's important to know what the reality of the situation is.

http://www.nasaproblems.com/

hollowayiocom · 2002-01-17 17:00:50

I think another problem is O'Keefe the new NASA administrator. He's already OK'ing scalebacks on the ISS and is on record as wanting "closer ties to the pentagon." He's former military and a noted penny-pincher.

I think the handwriting is on the wall here and it reads "military puppet."

It seems to me that a human mars mission should other ways besides NASA to get the job done. NASA at this point is unreliable.

Disland · 2002-03-16 09:54:54

I think we have to forget about Nasa, China will reach Mars before America at this rate!
What Nasa needs is some solid competition. They've pulled on the reins since they made it to the moon and the USSR split. Hopefully a new pressure from the East (military or otherwise) will stir things up a bit.

Space.com article on China's possible future manned launch

Adrian · 2002-03-16 17:18:44

I do wonder about China's potential space capability. On the one hand, they are showing some serious dedication to the task of getting humans into space, and with their Shenzhou spacecraft they have a very unique way of keeping experiments and mini-space stations running in orbit for not insignificant amounts of time.

On the other hand, they're still using quite primitive technology. If China really did want to reach parity or even leapfrog America, I would suggest that they should begin research into nuclear powered spacecraft and some kind of cheap and cheerful heavy launch solution. I don't think they have that kind of technical expertise though.

Not that I believe this is China's main goal - from the Space.com article cited above and other articles I've read, what China is concerned about is getting into the 'high ground' of space with spy satellites and even anti-satellite weapons, without which war cannot properly be waged against large powers (e.g. America). Do I think China will enter a conflict against America? Of course not. I don't even think Taiwan would make them do it; just because a country is developing its military capacity does not necessarily mean it will be aggressive.

The obvious question is, "If China is mainly concerned with the militarisation of space, why are they sending humans into orbit? After all, there's not much they can do there." And no, there isn't, not when it comes to war. So I think in the worst case scenario, China is developing human capabilities simply because they want a well rounded space programme, and in the best case scenario, they're actually interested in space science and manufacturing.

Well, that was quite a meandering train of thought...

Phobos · 2002-03-17 21:23:40

I remember reading an article sometime back that China is planning to send a manned mission to the Moon before the end of the decade. I'll do a search on the internet and see if I can find anything, might be all in my imagination.

RobS · 2002-03-23 01:56:24

Space.com and Spacedaily.com have had quite a few articles about the Chinese space program. Their goals seem to be (1) manned space flight; (2) a space station; (3) a mission to the moon. I think their main motivation is simple: China is a superpower; superpowers put people in space; therefore China puts people in space. The USSR never put people on the moon. If China does, in some sense it can claim to be the new rival to the USA. Economically, in a few decades the Chinese will have the world's second largest economy (right now it is after the US, Japan, and Germany, I think). China will be the other superpower by the mid twenty-first century and they want to look the part.

-- RobS

Shaun Barrett · 2002-03-23 06:12:52

"China will be the other superpower by the mid twenty-first century ... "
I guess you mean that the USA will still be a superpower(?).
Without wishing to be a party-pooper here, I sometimes shy away from being too certain about things 50 years hence.
If you go back to 1902, the pre-eminent world power was Britain. She ruled a land area approximating to a fifth of the world; an empire upon which the sun never set. Her navy was the envy of the world and regarded as invincible. She was a manufacturing powerhouse producing quality finished goods made with raw materials from every corner of the empire. And, as a result of this vast economic power, Britain became the world's foremost financial centre; with no currency held in higher regard than the Pound Sterling.
50 years later, the situation had changed out of all recognition. The empire was gone, the much-vaunted British Navy had been made obsolete by something called air-power, Britain's manufacturing position had been overtaken by the Soviet Union and America, and her wealth had been heavily eroded by two major and debilitating wars. In short, Britain was a spent force.
Having said all that, I don't predict a similar decline for the USA, but history does show us that 50 years can make a huge difference to the balance of power in the world.
What if China becomes the only superpower? Now there's a scary thought!

Phobos · 2002-03-23 17:30:21

What if China becomes the only superpower? Now there's a scary thought!

all your bases are belong to us

Shaun Barrett · 2002-03-23 20:26:21

Uh-oh!!! I just figured out that Phobos is a spy for the Red Chinese! Don't write in with anything you don't want Beijing to find out about!

RobS · 2002-03-24 21:42:04

If a United States of Europe really does form--and in a sense its part way there now--it may be the superpower, with the United States and China close behind. We'll see. . .

But I'd like to get back to the "NASA, you have a problem" thread. I am not in the position to defend NASA--I have never worked for them, though I was a graduate student on the Viking mission many moons ago--but I do think they get a bum rap sometimes. They have available far more money for space exploration than anyone else, but they also have immense pressures from Congress and the media. Any mistakes are very costly of prestige and and threaten continued funding. As a result, they have to be super-cautious about safety issues. Furthermore, the new environment they work in involves international diplomacy and constant compromises to please dozens of foreign colleagues. The International Space Station is in an orbit that is not very useful for launching a craft to Mars because a more equatorial orbit would be unreachable from Baikonur and the other Russian launch pads.

And going to either Mars or the moon without NASA will be very difficult. The weak link in any Mars mission plan is the first few hundred kilometers: getting the craft into low earth orbit. Commercial satellite launches do not require the ability to put more than about 25 tons in low earth orbit. The Ariane 5 is about at that size, the Titan III also, the new Delta 5 (?), and the Chinese Long March rocket will be scaled to the 20-25 ton range as well. The Space Shuttle puts about 25 tons in low earth orbit as well. Twenty-five tons is enough to throw about ten tons to geosynchronous orbit, and also toward the moon (without braking at the other end) and to Mars. Right now commercial launching is driving the economics of space transportation. Everyone wants to reduce the cost of launching to low earth orbit below a few thousand bucks per kilogram (the shuttle's costs are about $8,000 per kilogram, most of the other launchers in the $9,000 to $5,000 per kilogram range). Even at $5,000 per kilogram, a Mars mission costs about $1.4 billion to get to low earth orbit (assuming an IMLEO or initial mass low earth orbit of 280 tons, which Mars Direct does). This is generally regarded as prohibitively expensive.

If launch costs come down to about $500 per kilogram to low earth orbit, however, then a Mars Direct launch--even 25 tons at a time--comes down to $140 million, a huge cost savings. It'll be ten or twenty years, however, before the launch costs drop that much (if then). If the French or the Japanese could do it, they would; if private launchers could do it, they would. The technology to do it has not yet been put in place (it may exist, but no one has put the pieces together).

If launch costs come down to $500 per kilogram by, say, 2020, I think a Mars mission becomes almost inevitable, with or without a Mars society. Every year the technology for making such a trip becomes easier to obtain; the modifications necessary to what is already known become smaller. And the launch weight will keep dropping. Werner von Braun's original proposal in the 1950s called for an IMLEO of something like 35,000 tons. Mars Direct's 280 tons might possibly halve by 2020 through better development of solar thermal rocket engines, inflatable habs, lighter nuclear reactors and rovers, more use of robotics to assemble refueling facilities on the Martian surface and moons, etc. And entrepreneurs are already looking at the ice present at the lunar poles with great interest. One could go get it for a few billion dollars now with space shuttle technology, and it will lower the cost of fueling a Mars vehicle considerably. So I think there's good reason to hope humans will walk on the moon by 2015 or so, and on Mars in the 2020s. But we'll see (if we're still alive then).

RobS

Phobos · 2002-03-26 21:17:02

Uh-oh!!! I just figured out that Phobos is a spy for the Red Chinese! Don't write in with anything you don't want Beijing to find out about!

Oh no, I've been found out.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-03-27 06:27:24

Hi RobS! I just want to ask a question about lunar ice.
I've noticed that a lot of people talk about water ice at the lunar poles with some conviction. Are we absolutely sure there is water ice there? I mean is it a fact?
I suspect I've missed one or two important announcements about this because I thought lunar ice was a theory with some supporting evidence; but not enough evidence to send astronauts after the water, or for entrepreneurs to get excited about it ( ? ).
I stand ready and willing to be persuaded on this!
(PS I've phoned the NSA about you, Phobos; there's nowhere you can hide! I suggest you turn yourself in.)

RobS · 2002-03-27 12:37:35

Regarding lunar ice, I understand it is the best explanation of the available data. The Clementine spacecraft and one other--I can't remember the name--used the same device to detect hydrogen that is being flown in Mars orbit right now by Odyssey. There is also radar reflection data that supports the lunar ice theory. How that works, I do not know. The same radar reflection data suggests large quantities of ice in the permanent shade of Mercury's north and south poles (any volunteers for a flight to Mercury?). You might want to do a search using Google on Clementine and maybe on Paul Spudis (who was one of the chief scientists on Clementine and has published estimates of the number of billions of tons of ice at the lunar poles). Until we actually land something, lunar ice remains an unproved theory. But the data sounds pretty reliable.

-- RobS

RobS · 2002-03-28 01:01:46

Here's a website with more information about lunar ice: http://www.mines.edu/research/srr/gustafsn.pdf. If you back off to "srr" you'll be at a website giving abstracts for a conference on the utilization of space resources. Lots of interesting papers. Gustafson's is a nice Powerpoint; simple and easy to follow.

For those wanting to fly around the solar system, there's a very nice chart giving the delta-vee between the Earth, moon, Mars, and Mars's moons at http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html.

It shows, among other things, that it is easier to fly from low earth orbit to Mars orbit (using aerobraking at Mars) than to land on the moon or even to settle into a low lunar orbit. It is even easier to aerobrake into Mars orbit than put a satellite into geosynchronous orbit! From Phobos, the delta-vee to Earth is 1.9 km/sec; the delta vee from the surface of the moon to earth is 2.3 km/sec.

I did a little calculating with my calculator. If one has a source of lunar liquid oxygen/hydrogen fuel, there are many reasons to use it, among other things, to stock a "gas station" for space vehicles in a geosynchronous transfer orbit. This is an elliptical orbit with its low point 250 miles above the earth and its high point 22,300 miles above the earth. If you launch vehicles into this orbit and refuel them at the "gas station," you save about 20% or more in fuel going to Mars, because the fuel for the last 1.3 km/sec of delta-vee does not have to be hauled up from low earth orbit. If you refuel in a geosynchronous orbit, then again in low lunar orbit for a flight to the lunar surface, you cut the total fuel needed to fly cargo to the surface of the moon in half! The savings for putting a satellite in geosynchronous orbit are closer to the Mars situation; you save 25% or so in fuel used. This is a technique for improving the efficiency of chemical rockets significantly.

-- RobS

Bill White · 2002-03-28 15:59:07

Has anyone seen information on Luna's Malapert Mountain?
Space.com has an article dated 3/26/02

www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_mountain_020326.html

They say this location is 76 miles from the Moon's south pole and being 16,400 feet high it receives sunlight over 90% of the time. Great place for solar panels!)

If water ice is nearby, the solar power could be used break the water into H2 & O2 and then used to launch other quantities to a facility as described by RobS

However, even if the technology seems simple enough, I believe POLITICS will rear its ugly head - in light of the Moon Treaty (which the USA did NOT sign) and the Outer Space Treaty - actually exploiting those resources may be far more difficult than merely figuring out how to do it from a technical perspective.

The National Space Society (being astonishingly naive IMHO) says just change those treaties. However, look at the international uproar over the Kyoto Treaty (USA won't sign) and the ABM Treaty (USA withdrawl).

If the US Government is to permit or support such a lunar facility, then the corporations which will benefit from such a facility will need to donate a whole lot of money to various Washington politicians.

rgcarnes · 2002-03-28 23:21:49

Please consider that NASA, although using the universally recognized acronym to disguise it's true identity and function, stands for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It is a branch of the government paid for ultimately by the taxpayers. Do not forget the word Administration. What does it do? It ADMINISTERS the funds allocated to it by congress.

For a time during the real activities in the second half of the 20th century, many scientists, mathematicians, technicians, and engineers actually did what their labels implied. Probably out of the exciting possibility that they might actually be allowed to do what they fought long and hard to obtain their training for. Many still do.

It seems, though, that many of them have climbed their career ladders and become administrators and they are administrating. An example of what happens as this situation progresses is very deftly illustrated in the children's story by Dr. Seuss: The Bee Watcher From Hawtch-Hawtch. Try finding that story if you can. It probably won't be very easy. Somehow it doesn't seem to be as readily available any more! I'll admit that I wonder to myself if real, or percieved, pressures by those in authority might have something to do with that lack of availability.

Consider also that as "administration" becomes paramount, the tendency to claim "all of the authority while accepting none of the responsibility" also grows.

Please forgive the wordiness, but remember that the word hiding behind the acronym is "administration".

Rex G. Carnes

Phobos · 2002-04-01 20:26:42

I think that's part of the problem with government institutions, the number of administrators seem to grow like malignant cancer cells. In my local school district it was uncovered that there's something like 3 admins to every 1 teacher. Good grief, what's the reasoning for that kind of ratio?

Michael Bloxham · 2002-04-02 13:25:33

What about the ESA? Now that europe has turned into a new super-economy what does that mean for the European Space Agency? Will the ESA mature into the new space authority?

I think Keefe did a good thing by cutting funding for the ISS. In my opinion the ISS should never have been built. ISS expenses already are in the $200 billion range. If we had spent that kind of money on a launch vehicle, say the VentureStar, we would have saved billions of dollars in launch costs. The fact is we are in desperate need of a reusable launch vehicle. NASA needs to focus on nothing else, not even a mars mission. We need all the brains working on the next generation RLV. Lowering launch costs to 10% would mean lowering the cost of launching anything into obit by 10%. Including a mars mission. I have several proposals for this type of vehicle. Goals should be set up like this:

1. Safety. Reliability. It should appeal to the public.

2. It should be not only be man rated, but civilian rated also. I beleive the No1 way to provide long-term funding for space agencies like NASA is to invest in Space Tourism. Therefore, this new RLV should be designed with long-term goals like space tourism in mind.

3. It has to be cheap. Lower than 10% of the operating costs of the space shuttle.

I'm still working on my own design, based on the X34. I have also verified my theory on Chryslers 'Natrium' fuel (See 'Chyrslers New 'Natrium' Fuel. The Future of Space Propulsion?', in the Interplanetary Transportation forum). Indeed the Ruthenium catalyst works fast enough to supply the engine with the required amount of hydrogen. And yet the fuel is completely nonflammable.

Adrian · 2002-04-03 04:17:54

About China: They've just announced plans to construct a crewed space station. There are no details to support this intention, but that's usually taken as a sign that they don't want to give too much away. This follows the success of their third test flight for the now man-rated Shenzhou spacecraft, and is in addition to their already-stated plans to put a man on the Moon by 2010.

Unlike the ISS, I think that China will probably do well with their space station. This is simply because they have neither the resources (i.e. a space shuttle) to construct an ISS-style spacestation, nor the experience (spacewalks). Instead, I imagine they might do something like Skylab - a single-piece spacestation that can be constructed much quicker and easier. They won't have to deal with funding difficulties in Russia, and indeed they won't even have to worry about health and safety regulations since they can do what they like.

Of course, this will result in a smaller and less capable space station than the ISS, but it will be far more cost-effective.

Edited By Adrian on April 03 2002 at 05:18

Shaun Barrett · 2002-04-05 00:50:27

Alexander's appeal for fewer goals for NASA seems like a good idea to me; and it sits well with Michael's idea of concentrating on a first-class RLV. Michael is right on the money when he says making LEO flights 10 times cheaper is fundamental to the future success of all kinds of space projects.
I can sense the frustration you both feel at the endless dithering and time-wasting of the NASA administration. I'm sure we all feel it. Sometimes, in my darker moments, I put on my conspiracy investigator's hat and start thinking they can only have done it deliberately! In today's dollars, if you add up how much money NASA has had to play with in the
30 years since Eugene Cernan left the the last footprint on the moon, they must have spent nearly 400 billion dollars! Dr. Zubrin claims he can establish a permanent outpost on Mars for less than 10% of that!!
Sometimes I feel like yelling down the phone to NASA: "What the #### are you guys doing there all day!!" The whole working life-times of talented scientists are slipping by while NASA debates and prevaricates. What a waste.
I agree with Michael and Alexander 100%; it's high time for somebody to pick a goal and stick with it and achieve it in the designated time-frame! If Michael's idea of a cutting-edge SSTO launch vehicle is going to speed up everything else, then let's do it and stop talking about it!
There! .... I feel better now.

Aaron Chester · 2002-04-05 10:20:55

Once the government gets involved they mess up everything. They are only intended to be groundbreakers and not business managers. The government was able to get us to the moon, build a space station, and build a dependable RLV. Now they need to sell everything they have to the private sector and get out of the way.

A lot has been made of Lewis and Clark's expedition. Once Lewis and Clark made the expedition, the next step was for the government to sell the land Lewis and Clark explored. So far, the government has not sold anything to the private sector. Rather, they continue to monopolize space assets.

We are beginning to see a change in this, primarily because of people's overwhelming interest in space, but it could change faster if NASA was dissolved and a new government agency was formed. This agency would go even further into the "final frontier". This agency's only goal would be to get us to Mars. This would stop the government from putting its fingers into Near Earth space. This does not mean there would be no government assets in Near Earth space. Just as there were forts in the territories there would be sattelites and space stations designed for the military. However, the private sector would be hired to build and maintain these assets.

In fact, I believe that the ISS should have been built by private companies rather than the government. All of the components were built by the private sector. The only other company needed to complete the space station would have been a space construction business that would have put the space station together. Just as others have mentioned, once the ISS was built then the government could have bought time and space on the station.

I know I am rambling, but I believe that if we are to get anywhere, we need to stop relying on the government to build the next RLV. Instead, the government should be trying to build the first inter-planetary spacecraft. The technology developed through this endeavour could be used by the private sector to increase the efficiency in the systems they build.

GOM · 2002-04-17 11:28:16

Test.

Just checking to see if I'm still registered. I thought this board was gone.

hmmm

I guess we have a bunch of new smilies....

:0 ???

RobS · 2002-04-23 17:57:13

I think it is easy to criticize NASA if you aren't involved in it. Perhaps one can get to Mars and spend much less money than NASA does. But NASA must do what it does at a minimal risk to human life, and reducing the risk to human life is immensely expensive. NASA also has to deal with everything from improving aircraft safety to flying probes to Pluto. Mars is not and should not be its only focus.

For that matter, Mars should not be our only focus--and I say that as someone who went into planetary science because of his love of Mars and who writes sci fi novels about Mars to this day. We have to return to the moon some time, and the chances are good it will be before we go to Mars; the moon's hundreds of times closer, after all, and its water is potentially more valuable than anything we can haul back from Mars any time soon.

We Mars lovers must remember that to many people, Mars is just cold, icy ball of distant rock. The difference between the moon and Mars often boils down to emotions, with some people loving each world more. If one strips away the emotion, one ends up with lots of question marks; does Mars have life? Can it tell us something about the evolution of Earth? Can we ever terraform it? But there are equally pressing question marks about the moon; can it provide humanity with cheap rocket fuel? Can it provide materials for building solar satellites? Can it provide a platform for immense radio telescopes? Can it fuel fusion reactors with helium 3? Can it become a tourist destination? The answer to the last question is: the moon can be a tourist destination more quickly and cheaply than Mars.

My point is, we cannot preclude lunar exploration. It will not be an either/or question; it will have to be moon and Mars. It will PROBABLY mean we will return to the moon before humanity sets off for Mars.

There is no doubt that NASA can do things more cheaply than it does. But I would not expect that privatization of space can do it much, much more cheaply.

-- RobS

AndyM · 2002-04-24 00:20:54

I agree that NASA shouldn't limit itself to solely Mars exploration, but from a scientific point of view Mars is much more interesting than the moon. In geological terms, the moon is just a distant lump of icy rock whereas Mars has had and might still have significant geological activity. But as you mention, there are still worthy technological challenges in going back to the moon.

GOM · 2002-04-26 12:26:47

It will PROBABLY mean we will return to the moon before humanity sets off for Mars.
-- RobS

We should have a base on the moon now! I'm not even aware of any plans to do so. We haven't set foot on the moon in 30 years. It's very frustrating.

Then we have this crippled ISS flying circles around Earth.

We don't seem to be nearly ready to send any humans to Mars, although I'm glad they are at least sending robots over there every once in a while....

Right now space of all flavors is taking a back seat to the war on terrorism, imo. I HOPE I live long enough to see humans back on the moon, but I'm not holding my breath.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2001-09-12 11:57:31

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#2 2002-01-17 17:00:50

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#3 2002-03-16 09:54:54

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#4 2002-03-16 17:18:44

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#5 2002-03-17 21:23:40

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#6 2002-03-23 01:56:24

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#7 2002-03-23 06:12:52

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#8 2002-03-23 17:30:21

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#9 2002-03-23 20:26:21

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#10 2002-03-24 21:42:04

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#11 2002-03-26 21:17:02

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#12 2002-03-27 06:27:24

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#13 2002-03-27 12:37:35

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#14 2002-03-28 01:01:46

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#15 2002-03-28 15:59:07

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#16 2002-03-28 23:21:49

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#17 2002-04-01 20:26:42

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#18 2002-04-02 13:25:33

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#19 2002-04-03 04:17:54

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#20 2002-04-05 00:50:27

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#21 2002-04-05 10:20:55

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#22 2002-04-17 11:28:16

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#23 2002-04-23 17:57:13

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#24 2002-04-24 00:20:54

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

#25 2002-04-26 12:26:47

Re: "NASA...You have a problem..."

Board footer