|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 10:55 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Perhaps the civilian face of NASA is in robotic spacecraft? Its human spaceflight programme has always had an ulterior agenda.
NASA has always worked, alone or tangentially with other agencies, to further American interests. Unless the advancing of American interests is seen as something sinister or undesirable there have never been any "ulterior agendas". |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-17-2010 11:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
I knew of the secret Shuttle missions, and I'm sure it perturbed many within NASA.
Actually I believe they were most gratified as DoD money (and research if one counts the X-23 and X-24 programs, both USAF funded with NASA coming into the picture late) and their programs got the shuttle built as quickly as it did. The relationship between the DoD and NASA has always been a good one since the days of NACA. The research programs were about 50/50 DoD and NACA (Chuck Yeager was a USAF pilot when he broke Mach 1). Mercury got into space on the power of the ABMA's designed Redstone IRBM and the USAF's Atlas ICBM. Von Braun's team was already designing the Saturn 1 when they got rolled into NASA. The Gemini program wouldn't have flown without Titan and the USAF provided the transportation for those missiles (and Atlas)via C-133 aircraft transports. If anything, elements of the DoD usually get more perturbed having to work with NASA on certain projects when agencies like the USAF prefer to do their own thing for various reasons. If it were in the budget, the DoD likely would have loved to buy a shuttle orbiter outright and slap a big star and bar on the side of it to do with as they pleased. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 11:16 AM
Those who say there's no ROI in returning to the moon are mistaken, I believe, as is the notion that all the traffic would necessarily be (in terms of cargo) "one-way".The most obvious exploitable resource on the moon is Helium-3. As with open sea drilling platforms today, there's no reason to think mining bases couldn't be set up on the moon to bring the benefits of that valuable resource back to Earth. If we're considering pouring billions into esoteric hundred-square-mile windfarms, and cordoning off millions of bushels of corn for ethanol production, why not something that makes potentially much more sense? Furthermore, the technology advances that came out of the early manned programs easily justified the spending. That's one of the main reasons why scrapping Constellation and a "quick" return to the moon makes so little sense, when viewed from the perspective of the advances that would flow from the engineering ramp up a return to the moon by 2020 would entail. I think there's a consensus that governments are inefficient at spending our tax dollars in ANY scenario, so if the goal becomes spending the money in more productive ways there's little to the argument that returning to the moon wouldn't be a sensible undertaking in terms of ROI. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-17-2010 11:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Those who say there's no ROI in returning to the moon are mistaken, I believe, as is the notion that all the traffic would necessarily be (in terms of cargo) "one-way".
This may be so - but as I tried to point out not by governments. These days it would be for private venture capital to see the profits and fund the enterprise. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 11:44 AM
You're correct, but no existing company (or consortium) today has such capabilities; it would need to be the government spreading some "stimulus seed" first (and then leaving the handcuffs off later). |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-17-2010 02:00 PM
It's too much to expect for the commercial sector to have functioning HSF capability before bringing them on board. Although some of them have already made amazing progress, they need the infusion of government cash to develop a mature product. If you want a vibrant commercial space program, we'll need to seed them with tax dollars--and if we don't get started now, then when? Wait too long, and you're dooming them to extinction. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-17-2010 03:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...but no existing company (or consortium) today has such capabilities; it would need to be the government spreading some "stimulus seed" first (and then leaving the handcuffs off later).
And there is the crux of this whole topic. If no private enterprise venture can see either the profit or the possibility of profit have any motivation to develop the capabilities, why on earth should a government spread some 'stimulus seed'? |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 03:46 PM
An initial government investment in Helium-3 would pay off once revenue streams develop from the new commodity and regular taxes are collected, not to mention all the wonderful gadgets, ideas and other developments that flow when ingenuity is unleashed. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-17-2010 04:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
The most obvious exploitable resource on the moon is Helium-3. As with open sea drilling platforms today, there's no reason to think mining bases couldn't be set up on the moon to bring the benefits of that valuable resource back to Earth.
So in other words, you support the President's call to increase NASA's focus on "game-changing" technologies and basic research and development. Because, in order to mine Helium-3 and return it to Earth, we would need to devise an economically sustainable and efficient means of doing so. Not to mention that Helium-3 is useless (at least for power-generating purposes) without the fusion reactor it is meant to fuel, and that technology still needs to be matured (like VASIMR and other "game-changing" technologies, it too could greatly benefit from government investment, just ask Harrison Schmitt). So the smart thing to do before running off to the Moon would be to pause, invest in the reactor's development, invent the return capability and then, when ready, go after the Helium-3 when it can be quickly put into service. In addition, to keep from cost-plus contracts reducing the return on investment to the point of it being cost-prohibitive, NASA should encourage (a.k.a. invest in) private industry to undertake this work with their knowledge that NASA (and the U.S. government, in this example) would be waiting as the first paying customer for the end product. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 04:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So in other words, you support the President's call to increase NASA's focus on "game-changing" technologies and basic research and development.
No, I support the necessary funding to build on the money that's already been spent to make use of current technologies and systems to get us back to the moon as soon as possible. quote:
So the smart thing to do before running off to the Moon would be to pause, invest in the reactor's development, develop the return capability and then go after the Helium-3 when it can be best be put into service.
No, that may be the IDEAL thing, but not the most realistic or pragmatic in terms of shifting political winds and public impatience with too much incrementalism. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-17-2010 04:31 PM
Under the Obama plan, demonstration projects for processing lunar resources would be done by robotics. Realistically, how much of this would actually need to be done with humans being present? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-17-2010 05:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...public impatience with too much incrementalism.
I would suggest that the public has less patience for budget overruns and slipping schedules, almost unavoidable occurrences in a date-driven, politically-controlled program, than they care about incrementally growing projects. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-17-2010 05:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
No, I support the necessary funding to build on the money that's already been spent to make use of current technologies and systems to get us back to the moon as soon as possible.
We're back to square one! Why go to the Moon in the present circumstances? The government can't afford it and private enterprise can't see the point. As has been said - pause and develop the technology and then see if it is a viable proposition. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 05:47 PM
Define viable proposition.The point is, delay and failure to keep the public's imagination intrigued only increases the risk of NASA eventually (but sooner rather than later) withering and dying (either through attrition or simply having the plug finally pulled on an agency that could then too easily be characterized as outmoded and yesterday's news). If the moon gets pushed off the table because "the government can't afford it and private enterprise can't see the point", why is a round of spending on a whole "new direction" any more desirable? I guess my point is, NASA could be reassigned to basically going back to its roots, (and which is a known and accepted commodity by the public), or be repackaged as NASA 2.0, basically, and hope the public buys into the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric more than the moon-we-already-know reliable standby. As the public doesn't seem to buying into very much of what the Obama administration is selling these days, the choice for those who want to see NASA continue is, for me, an easy call. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 06:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I would suggest that the public has less patience for budget overruns and slipping schedules, almost unavoidable occurrences in a date-driven, politically-controlled program, than they care about incrementally growing projects.
Why do you think a whole "new direction" would be free of or fare better under the very same difficulties you cite? And are you touting as the main benefit of the "new direction" the open-endedness of it, so that there are no firm goals or timetables by which to effectively measure success, progress or failure? I hardly think a "we'll know success when we see it" approach is an encouraging formula for success; if it were a business plan it would be rejected by any bank being asked for seed money. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 06:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Under the Obama plan, demonstration projects for processing lunar resources would be done by robotics. Realistically, how much of this would actually need to be done with humans being present?
We could have probably had success in sending a robotic climber to scale Everest as well, but then what would've been the point? |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-17-2010 06:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
NASA has always worked, alone or tangentially with other agencies, to further American interests.
I'm curious as to which particular agencies you allude to? And in which programme? ISS? It was President Eisenhower who believed the civilian US space programme should be "small in scale and limited in its objectives." Without going too off-topic, there have been rumours of a secretive manned space programme for decades now. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-17-2010 06:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
We could have probably had success in sending a robotic climber to scale Everest as well, but then what would've been the point?
Setting up robotic processing plants on the Moon, whether to stockpile water and/or rocket fuel, or to gather Helium-3 for dispatch back to earth, is a bit different than a robotic climber scaling Everest, wouldn't you think? If we're going to be industrializing or settling the Moon, much of the early work could be done by robotics much cheaper and quicker than sending humans. We can get started on it within the next few years, as proposed in the recent budget.
|
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 06:28 PM
I'm glad we agree. Of course robotics could and should be employed for work-related tasks and in aiding man's space exploits. My only point was that where man CAN go, human presence is essential to exploration for it to have any meaning. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-17-2010 06:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
I'm glad we agree.
I'm not quite seeing the agreement yet. Under the proposed plan, the precursor work would be done by robotics. It has meaning because productive work would be accomplished by robots at a much lower cost. Humans would come later, after the infrastructure is completed. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-17-2010 07:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
So in other words, you support the President's call to increase NASA's focus on "game-changing" technologies and basic research and development.
NASA has been involved in "game-changing" technology investigations as well as basic research and development almost since day one of its founding. (I did some of this work in grad school many years ago.) While funding levels over the years have varied, why would one believe this President's funded research is going to produce better (i.e., "game-changing") results than, say, President Clinton's budgeted NASA work? One obviously hopes for great outcomes, but there is no reason to believe that research results will be any more profound than they were 5 to 25 years ago.I know firsthand several people who are currently working on NASA sponsored research and so-called "game-changing" technologies. That is, this work is going on now. Yes, there will be some additional funding of their and others' work; however, the "focus" will simply be because of the lack of a manned spaceflight plan or program. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 07:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
I'm curious as to which particular agencies you allude to? And in which programme? ISS?
As Scott Schneeweis (SpaceAholic) and Jay Chladek already mentioned, the DOD, and certainly the ESA, among others (don't forget the State Dept. too, and during Apollo 13, the IRS!) |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 07:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Under the proposed plan, the percursor work would be done by robotics. It has meaning because productive work would be accomplished by robots at a much lower cost. Humans would come later, after the infrastructure is completed.
How much later?I'm all for robotics in place of human work where that's advisable, but NASA needs to get on with something INSPIRING or it will be toast before too long. How long can we rely on the Hubble, and Shuttle launches the public has grown bored with, to keep interest piqued? The President's plan may be a dream for the private sector companies looking for research grants and seed money, but the public hears such things and yawns. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-17-2010 08:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
I hardly think a "we'll know success when we see it" approach is an encouraging formula for success...
Quite the contrary, that's the problem we face now. NASA keeps getting saddled with these large scale, medium-to-long-range goals with no stepping stone milestones to define interim success. Only the accomplishment of the ultimate goal is framed as a triumph, and as such the program is destined to fail because the public, and in turns politicians, become restless waiting for a "success." Take Constellation, for example: was it a success that we developed a Lunar Electric Rover concept? Was it a success that we had a prototype new EVA suit? Was it a success that we launched a new configuration for a launch vehicle? For the most part, the public and politicians said "no" because they were led to believe that only a landing on the Moon could be defined as a success for Constellation. The conditions that lined up to make Apollo possible were a fluke in history. They were the perfect storm and anyone who thinks they can be recreated today by "believing" or creating false comparisons (e.g. China) is fooling themselves and condemning NASA to one failure after another. Remember, "failure is not an option" originated in Hollywood. What NASA's human spaceflight program needs are short-term, achievable goals that build off of each other. In fact, the human spaceflight program could benefit from patterning itself after the unmanned program, with its stepping stone approach to exploration. JPL didn't attempt to send the car-sized Mars Science Laboratory on its first rover mission to Mars; no they sent a very basic, almost toy-size rover, which was then followed by a pair of coffee-table size rovers that benefited from the technology first developed for their predecessor. Constellation was the modern day equivalent of trying to send Mars Science Laboratory on the first attempt, or if you prefer, trying to do Apollo without Mercury and Gemini. The President's plan sets what should be a reasonably short-term achievable goal: transition crewed access to low Earth orbit to the private sector. The technology exists, as does the interest from industry to see it happen (albeit, its not always easy to identify as some companies are downplaying their interest until they see if Constellation is truly over). That goal is admirable for several reasons: (a) it removes the United States' reliance on other nations for access to space; (b) it empowers U.S. industry and provides a new market for the nation to compete worldwide, and (c) it frees NASA to focus on moving beyond low Earth orbit. The good thing about a short-term goal is that in a short time you can set another, building off the first. Once the LEO transition is underway, NASA can focus more of its resources on a heavy-lift vehicle, for example. And that too should be a short-term goal, without the burden of also having to develop a lunar lander or other complex system simultaneously. Once NASA has a string of short term successes under its belt, then it can proceed with pulling together the pieces to achieve a large objective, or several mid-size goals at the same time. One last point, we will be doomed to fits and starts if we keep wanting everything now. While I realize we all would like to see everything happen within our lifetimes, the sooner we can start recognizing that we need not "build the house" to be successful so long as we set a solid foundation for the next set of builders, the better off we -- the human race -- will be. That may sound idealistic but its a reality that must begin at some point and there is no better time than now. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-17-2010 08:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Constellation was the modern day equivalent of trying to send Mars Science Laboratory on the first attempt, or if you prefer, trying to do Apollo without Mercury and Gemini.
Constellation to a large extent (with the exception of the aberrant first stage design of Ares 1) were in the process of leveraging Project Apollo's architecture to return to the moon. Much of Orion and Ares closely emulate or are resurrecting legacy technology and lessons learned from prior programs... your analogy doesn't seem very applicable in this instance. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-17-2010 09:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
...your analogy doesn't seem very applicable in this instance.
I don't think you misunderstood my analogy then. Constellation was trying to do everything at once: develop a spacecraft, a launcher, a launch pad, a lander, a rover, a spacesuit, et al. without the benefit of having an existing infrastructure and experience base from which to build. As you pointed out, NASA instead was hoping to resurrect technologies and operational methods that, beyond the few anecdotal and oft repeated examples, were in reality turning out to be far more difficult then had been anticipated. Constellation would have benefited from a stepping stone approach; deferring the lunar hardware configuration (and by that I mean all of it) until the low Earth orbit, ISS-servicing version was deployed. At least then, NASA could have claimed a success on which it could have then pushed outward. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 10:14 PM
I must say Robert, I didn't quite understand many of the points you were trying to make; many seemed self-contradicting.The Constellation project would've had many interim testing steps along the way (Ares, Ares V, Altair, other components); how would these have been inadequate as measuring sticks as opposed to any of the (unspecified) ones in Obama's plan(s)? quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Take Constellation, for example: was it a success that we....launched a new configuration for a launch vehicle?
Isn't the answer to that a resounding YES? quote:
For the most part, the public and politicians said "no" because they were led to believe that only a landing on the Moon could be defined as a success for Constellation.
????? When did that (a negative public reaction to the launch of Ares) ever happen? How was the Ares launch discouraging in any way? quote:
The conditions that lined up to make Apollo possible were a fluke in history. They were the perfect storm and anyone who thinks they can be recreated today by "believing" or creating false comparisons (e.g. China) is fooling themselves and condemning NASA to one failure after another.
What was that "perfect storm", other than NASA's determination, an eager astronaut corps and a President and Congress willing to support the program? Of those components, the only ones missing today are the dollars... and it's Obama's job to provide the leadership and make his case convincingly to the country the way Kennedy did. That's what Obama put forth during the campaign as one of the reasons he should be elected, remember? quote:
Remember, "failure is not an option" originated in Hollywood.
C'mon Robert, you know better. True, Gene Kranz didn't actually say those exact words, but that line was in the movie because, as explained to the screenwriters by (Apollo 13 FDO) Jerry Bostick, it exemplified the "can-do" spirit and level-headedness of the people in mission control. Are you saying that spirit no longer exists at NASA? quote:
JPL didn't attempt to send the car-sized Mars Science Laboratory on its first rover mission to Mars; no they sent a very basic, almost toy-size rover, which was then followed by a pair of coffee-table size rovers that benefited from the technology first developed for their predecessor.
This is written as though we'd never been to the moon before and have no idea what to expect. Yes, new hardware needs to be built, safety rated and test flown. So what? How would it be different for any of the hardware called into service by Obama's nebulous proposals? quote:
The President's plan sets what should be a reasonably short-term achievable goal: transition crewed access to low Earth orbit to the private sector. The technology exists, as does the interest from industry to see it happen. That goal is admirable for several reasons: (a) it removes the United States' reliance on other nations for access to space; (b) it empowers U.S. industry and provides a new market for the nation to compete worldwide, and (c) it frees NASA to focus on moving beyond low Earth orbit.
ONLY IF a successful transition (to private sector ferrying vehicles) is made would the U.S. not have to rely on other nations; that's a pretty big if. As far as NASA being "freed up" to pursue moving beyond LEO, how is Obama's plan an improvement? We were counting on rides from the Russians anyway. Even if transition to American private sector rides is successful, it seems to me NASA would be more "tied up" supervising and coordinating with these fledgling companies than they would otherwise be if the Russians were taking our crews up. Where's the advantage in the Obama plan? quote:
The good thing about a short-term goal is that in a short time you can set another, building off the first. Once the LEO transition is underway, NASA can focus more of its resources on a heavy-lift vehicle, for example. And that too should be a short-term goal, without the burden of also having to develop a lunar lander or other complex system simultaneously. Once NASA has a string of short term successes under its belt, then it can proceed with pulling together the pieces to achieve a large objective, or several mid-size goals at the same time.
And we could do an even better job if we're willing to string things out for 100 years instead of maybe just 50. But NASA will be a corpse by then.You seem to be saying that the President's plan is bold and forward thinking and admirable considering it's what we're left with, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that it's the plan we're left with because Obama won't push for more -- the reasoning becomes simply circuitous. Obama's plan for NASA doesn't improve NASA; it's of the same mold as many of the other of this administration's plans, i.e. change just for change's sake, without regard to carefully thought-through consequences. The public recognizes it in the President's plans in other areas; I'm surprised that same pattern of counter-productive change isn't recognized by some here for what it really is. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-17-2010 10:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
The President's plan may be a dream for the private sector companies looking for research grants and seed money, but the public hears such things and yawns.
You're mistaken if you think there's overwhelming public support for returning to the moon. According to the Rasmussen poll taken just last month, only 26% of the US public support returning to the moon. Fully 52% are opposed, and 21% just don't care. And BTW, a majority of those polled felt that the space program should be funded by the private sector. Those are the facts that we need to face. Believing otherwise is the dream.
|
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-17-2010 10:34 PM
I don't dispute that there is a poor understanding by the public of the real need for a vibrant and LEADING space program. They consider the moon a been-there-done-that thing because the reasons for going back haven't been thoughtfully and dutifully put forward since we were there in the early '70's (other than perhaps just hearing we should go back just for the sake of going back -- though WE all know that's NOT the reason). The public has shown it will support programs that are necessary, well-considered and well-implemented. I haven't seen the numbers but I'd bet public confidence in NASA is still quite high, despite the declines in confidence to be expected after the Challenger and Columbia debacles. Don't forget too that the public is fairly bored with the shuttle... it's going on nearly 30 years! Imaginations can be brought to soaring again, but that can take time. If our space program does eventually peter out, I could accept it knowing we had leaders who made their strongest and most convincing cases for it. We didn't have that with the last administration, and unfortunately we don't have it now either. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-18-2010 02:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Don't forget too that the public is fairly bored with the shuttle... it's going on nearly 30 years!
Well it's ending soon so no need to fret. But what the American people really, really want is to see a human mission to Mars. And Constellation was not offering them that. You keep tying national security with NASA's civilian remit. Yet none of these arguments makes any sense. It hasn't stopped nations whom you describe as "ideological adversaries" from developing rocket technology. And why should it? Aren't their scientists and engineers also motivated by the same dreams as those at NASA? Every astronaut and cosmonaut who visited the International Space Station speaks about Earth as one world without borders. I'm sure the Shenzhou taikonauts think likewise. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-18-2010 02:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Define viable proposition.
A viable proposition is one which is economically sound. This means that the returns have to outweigh the costs within a fixed time frame.The use of Helium-3 from the Moon is hardly a sound investment for reasons already mentioned by Robert. The means of using it - fusion - has yet to be developed. Besides, when this does happen, cheap, plentiful supplies of fuel for a fusion reactor are readily available here on Earth. All one has to do is dip a bucket in the nearest sea! |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-18-2010 04:10 AM
The reports about Helium-3 on the internet vary even more than the reports of whether China really has its designs on the moon... you can pretty much take whatever position you like and find the "evidence" to support it. A consensus of sorts however suggests Helium-3 has the potential be a VERY valuable fuel source in about 20-30 years time, about the time it would take to set up the operations that could mine it and bring it back in economically feasible quantities to Earth. Some say it would be well worth it, others think not, but there seems to be enough agreement that the fusion technology using Helium-3 could probably be on-line by then as well. Can we agree then that the prospects for mining Helium-3 are promising? (And if we can't, what better potentialities await us on Mars instead?) In light of all the above I'd volunteer a slightly different definition of "viable proposition", since the only thing being debated on this thread is whether the Bush return-to-the-moon plan is more of a viable proposition than the "new-direction" Obama plan. Committing this nation to returning to the moon by 2020 or thereabouts puts us in a decent position to exploit the benefits of Helium-3 (if they are to be had, of course). There could be delays and all kinds of other setbacks, but then we'd have to assume the same under Obama's proposals. Obama's plan, on the other hand, has to succeed on so many more levels, and with all the extra political wrangling and jockeying involved in likely having to redefine objectives every few months, if not more often. (My God, try to picture the many more wasted man hours spent just in study groups, committees and preparing for testimonies before Congress the Obama plan would entail, as opposed to rallying Congress for a commitment NOW to just go back to a place we've already been and "know" fairly well). The Obama plan has to succeed on so many more levels, and face so many more uncertainties than just budgeting problems, but EVEN THEN, it is thought not to be able to get us to the moon any earlier, and probably five or more years later. And in exchange for what, exactly? Between these competing scenarios (and with all the above assumptions admittedly factored in), the question of which one is "better" just doesn't seem to me to be that tough a call. (And by the way, fusion could NOT be fueled using seawater, or such "equivalents"; Helium-3 has properties that are valued for fusion for a reason, even considering what technologies might flower in the next 20-30 years. The idea of being able to use "seawater", or banana peels or beer cans for energy is one promulgated by the "Mr. Fusion" device in the "Back To The Future" movies, but the idea is no more based on any near-term realities than is the "flux-capacitor" from the same films). |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-18-2010 04:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
But what the American people really, really want is to see a human mission to Mars.
Where is the evidence for this claim? quote:
You keep tying national security with NASA's civilian remit. Yet none of these arguments makes any sense. It hasn't stopped nations whom you describe as "ideological adversaries" from developing rocket technology.
Enhancing America's strength through a strengthening of our space program doesn't depend on "stopping" the technological advancements of ideological adversaries; all we need do is outpace any achievements they might realize by maximizing our own. quote:
Aren't their scientists and engineers also motivated by the same dreams as those at NASA?
Hardly. In some cases I'd say nightmares may be a more apt term; not every nation's scientists and engineers are as fortunate as America's. quote:
Every astronaut and cosmonaut who visited the International Space Station speaks about Earth as one world without borders. I'm sure the Shenzhou taikonauts think likewise.
I don't think you're wrong there, but they're not the ones calling the shots and the decisions made for them aren't by means of the the same kind of democratic process you and I might take for granted every now and then. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-18-2010 05:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
fusion could NOT be fueled using seawater
Yes it could. Seawater is the prime source of cheap supplies of deuterium which is the current basis for research into a fusion reactor. As such, despite Helium-3 possibly being a more potent alternative, it is the most viable and cost effective route to follow. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-18-2010 06:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Where is the evidence for this claim?
Poll: Americans Say U.S. Should Go To Mars I might also add that Obama mentioned Mars by name when he spoke to the STS-130/ISS crews from the White House. NASA administrator Bolden has also said Mars is the ultimate destination. quote:
All we need do is outpace any achievements they might realize by maximizing our own.
It's better to reach out than to be in continuous rivalry. Why take all our terrestrial problems into the cosmos? |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-18-2010 07:37 AM
The reason we do is simple - politics and politicians.  |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-18-2010 09:26 AM
And politicians are elected by the people! Rivalry is in our genes. Otherwise, let's get rid of the Olympics.  |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-18-2010 09:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
Seawater is the prime source of cheap supplies of deuterium which is the current basis for research into a fusion reactor.
Hydrogen is probably the source of energy of the future. Although I must say how come that a commercial version of the shuttle's fuel cells have not made its way to the "commercial" market - cheap oil? |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-18-2010 12:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Poll: Americans Say U.S. Should Go To Mars
That poll may be an outlier... it was taken right around the time of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11, when people were hearing on the news repeatedly what a great achievement and time it was for the U.S. space program. It probably made people a bit more euphoric in their responses.But another side to it is Americans may not have the proper appreciation of what a trip to Mars entails, i.e. that it is an exponentially more difficult undertaking than going to the moon. I doubt most Americans would support going to Mars instead of going to the moon if they knew the differences in the undertaking. |
Mercury7
Member Posts: 360
From: Greenville, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 02-18-2010 12:05 PM
I read the poll saying Americans were largely in favor of scaling back space exploration, although I wish I better understood the context of what was asked.I mean if I asked "With the economy doing so bad and unemployment at 10% do you really think we should be spending money to go back to the moon?" Anyway you get my point, media can make a poll turn out anyway they like. |
Topic Closed
advertisement