NASA, get a fucking clue...

[MKSheppard]

Linky

NASA Nurtures Inventors to Produce Space Wonders of the Future

By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 2, 2005; Page A01

When Tony Bennett sings about "little cable cars" that "climb halfway to the stars," he's talking about San Francisco on a clear night. But when Jerome Pearson thinks about cables, cars and stars, he means the real thing.

Pearson is a proponent of "space elevators": Put a satellite in geostationary orbit so it stays in the same spot in the sky, drop thousands of miles of cable down to the surface, and run little carts full of stuff up and down. "We'll be developing a lunar base," Pearson said, "and the space elevator can be a part of it."

Sound crazy? Maybe, but the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts last year awarded Pearson a $75,000 grant to design his lunar space elevator, one of 12 far-out projects aimed at translating science-fiction hype into practical science reality in the next 10 to 40 years. The theme: Don't let today's facts get in the way of a good theory.

"Sometimes people who have cool ideas don't know NASA people who are interested in them," said the institute's senior science adviser, Ron Turner. "We wanted to reach out into the scientific community to nurture these revolutionary concepts."

Besides the space elevator, the 2004 awards included projects to alter plants genetically so they can prosper on Mars; to use sunlight to power a space-based laser that lunar explorers and passing spaceships can use as a power source; to make a superconducting magnetic field to shield astronauts from radiation; and to build a buoyancy-driven glider to fly in thick, "extreme" atmospheres such as those of Venus or Saturn's moon, Titan.

Some institute projects have already taken on a life of their own. NASA became interested in the "Entomopter" after an earlier grant showed how a larger version of a flying microrobot that mimics insects rather than birds could be adapted for aerial reconnaissance in the thin Martian atmosphere, where conventional aerodynamics work poorly.

The institute is also an enthusiastic promoter of "space tethers" -- cables that would dangle from satellites, grapple spacecraft in low Earth orbit and fling them into higher orbit or toss them toward the moon or distant planets.

The institute has helped pioneer space elevators for several years, awarding early grants to explore how they might be used to lift payloads from Earth, potentially reducing the cost of getting into space from $10,000 per pound with rockets to a modest $100 per pound.

Pearson, an independent aerospace engineer from Mount Pleasant, S.C., says building an elevator could be even easier on the moon, which has less gravity than Earth and no unguided space junk that could slam into the cable and break it.

"We can build them right now, and if we can develop the vehicle, you wouldn't have to have people," Pearson explained in a telephone interview. "They'd be like the Mars rovers, doing their own thing."

The basic idea would be for the elevator to lift carts full of lunar "regolith" -- the coarse lunar sand in which Neil Armstrong left his footprints 35 years ago -- upward to be ferried into Earth orbit for use as cheap radiation insulation in spaceships, space hotels and space stations.

The institute started in 1997 as a NASA effort to seek out far-sighted concepts that might not pay off for decades, but which could be priceless when they do.

"NASA recognized it suffered from 'not invented here' syndrome," Turner said in a telephone interview. "If it wasn't invented by NASA, then NASA didn't want to hear about it."

The institute, based in Atlanta, is run as an independent organization under the supervision of the Universities Space Research Association, a group of about 95 colleges and universities involved in space-related research.

Business manager Dale K. Little said the institute spends about $3 million a year on research, averaging about 15 of the peer-reviewed, $75,000 "Phase I" grants and about five follow-on "Phase II" grants of as much as $400,000 each.

"In our process, the word 'nurture' is very important," Turner said. "We want to get hold of the long-haired, sandaled professors and put them with the NASA people who might be most interested in their concept."

North Carolina State University plant biologist Wendy F. Boss and microbiologist Amy M. Grunden are using their $75,000 to develop plants for space environments by implanting them with genes from "extremophile" organisms that thrive on Earth in conditions of intense cold, heat, toxicity or radiation, or lack of oxygen or water.

They have inserted such a gene into cultured tobacco cells, Boss said in a telephone interview, and in March they will know whether the gene produces a functional enzyme that makes the cells hardier.

If it does, the pair will apply for a Phase II grant to identify genes that will produce specific characteristics in potentially useful plants. "They give you very little money and lots of pressure," Boss said. "But it's so much fun."

At Virginia Tech, aerospace engineer Craig A. Woolsey wants to design a glider that can fly through thick, soupy atmospheres -- such as those on Venus (sulfuric acid) and Titan (methane) -- by expanding and contracting to increase or decrease buoyancy, causing the aircraft to go up and down. Shifting weights inside the fuselage would regulate horizontal movement.

"Buoyancy gliding is a fairly tested idea, and it's proven to be very efficient in oceans," Woolsey said in a telephone interview. "But nobody has proposed using it on a celestial body."

At the University of Alabama, in Huntsville, physicist and electrical engineer Richard Fork is using his grant to design a space-based laser that could charge batteries on the moon or provide what he calls "wall socket" power for spaceships.

The crux of his idea is a rod-shaped laser core made of alternating wafers of titanium-containing sapphire, to amplify sunlight, and diamond, to remove heat, "like a roll of Life Savers," Fork said in a telephone interview. "It's encouraging that the ability to make high-quality diamond [at reasonable prices] is advancing."

Some of the grantees are very familiar to NASA. Massachusetts Institute of Technology aerospace engineer Jeffrey Hoffman, who went on five missions as an astronaut, won $75,000 to design a superconducting magnet system lightweight enough for a spacecraft to carry it and use the magnetic field for radiation protection.

"It's sort of embarrassing, because the idea is not new. The Earth itself has been doing it for billions of years," Hoffman said in a telephone interview. "There's a lot of disagreement about whether this is viable. We would like to find out that it is."

Another old space pro is Pearson, who spent 36 years with NASA's Apollo program and the Defense Department's Star Wars initiative before retiring to devote himself to research projects such as the space elevator, of which he was an early enthusiast. The elevator is conceptually possible because a satellite in orbit above the same spot on Earth (or the moon) is being equally influenced by gravity, which wants to pull it down, and centrifugal force, which wants to fling it farther into space.

The weight of a cable dropped to the surface of the host must be balanced by a counterweight, like a kite's tail trailing away into space. As long as this equilibrium is maintained, the cable may be virtually any length.

Theoretically. In practice, no material exists that is strong enough to dangle 23,000 miles from a geostationary satellite to Earth's surface without breaking from its own weight. The hope is that a cable made of carbon nanotubes will eventually do the trick, but a practical carbon nanofiber has not been invented.

Pearson's idea is to build an elevator from a satellite in lunar orbit to the moon's surface. Because the moon is only one-eightieth the mass of Earth, the cable can be made now, because existing composite fibers are strong enough to handle that load.

Also, on the moon there is no danger from derelict rocket stages, dead satellites and other space junk, nor is it necessary to work out a way for satellites to get past the cable without slicing it in two.

To get to the NASA institute's Phase II, Pearson intends to draw a picture of what a lunar space elevator would look like -- a vertical drop with a bending "branch line" heading part way to a base at one of the lunar poles, where explorers will be closer to whatever water ice deposits the moon has.

The cable cars would carry polar station supplies along the branch line, even as they dig regolith along the main line. And if the ascending cars can be moved beyond the orbital balance point to the counterweight cable dangling in space, centrifugal force would make them travel faster and faster.

"They could go far enough to get to higher Earth orbit, where the regolith could be used in space habitats," Pearson said. "It would make nice shielding from cosmic rays, and it would be real cheap."

*********************************

What a massive waste of money. All of this optimistic predictions forget
something; that you are going to need something to lift all of this pie
in the sky stuff into space, and well, the Shuttle is a piece of shit; all
this seed money would be better spent on reviving the Block II run
of the Saturn V, which is already designed.

Going into space will require a sustained effort, not pie in the sky, OOOH
WE SHALL DO IT EASILY because of this new widgit...

[Robert Walper]

IIRC, the elevator would require a massive object in stationary orbit for the concept to be feasible. Expensive to implement, but I heard that such a system once in place could cover it's initial costs fairly quickly.

I leave it to others more qualified to suggest whether the system would truely be practical or beneficial overall.

[BenRG]

all this seed money would be better spent on reviving the Block II run of the Saturn V, which is already designed.

Um... Shep... Maybe I'm hallucinating or something, but didn't NASA run those blueprints through the shredder? IIRC, one of the problems that they are facing right now (and why they are playing around with the 'heavy' configuration of the Delta 4 booster) is because all the Apollo/Saturn technology blueprints are gone.

Which is a pity, really. I read in a book called 'Lost in Space' that the Apollo/Saturn 1B system could get three people in orbit for less than a Shuttle, when you factor in post-flight maintenance and reconditioning costs of the 'reusable' shuttle.

[MKSheppard]

Um... Shep... Maybe I'm hallucinating or something, but didn't NASA run those blueprints through the shredder? IIRC, one of the problems that they are facing right now (and why they are playing around with the 'heavy' configuration of the Delta 4 booster) is because all the Apollo/Saturn technology blueprints are gone.

Incorrect, I googled this, the blueprints are in the National Archives.

NASA

Vicky from Lindwood
Will we ever consider launching another Saturn V?

I don't think so. The Saturn V production line was ended in 1970. The blueprint, the plans for them are housed in the national archive, so we could actually go find them and pull them out, build another one if we wished to do so, but it would take a fair amount of time to build the tools that were necessary to construct a Saturn V, and there's just no reason to do it. Plus, the technology is really very old. They had vacuum tubes in them; we would never build a vehicle like that today. If we wanted to have that kind of heavy lift capacity that the Saturn V gave us, we would build a new vehicle using modern technology.

[Patrick Degan]

Will we ever consider launching another Saturn V?

I don't think so. The Saturn V production line was ended in 1970. The blueprint, the plans for them are housed in the national archive, so we could actually go find them and pull them out, build another one if we wished to do so, but it would take a fair amount of time to build the tools that were necessary to construct a Saturn V, and there's just no reason to do it. Plus, the technology is really very old. They had vacuum tubes in them; we would never build a vehicle like that today. If we wanted to have that kind of heavy lift capacity that the Saturn V gave us, we would build a new vehicle using modern technology.

Because of course the vacuum tubes were far more crucial to the Saturn V's heavy-lift capability than its five F-1 engines and the six J-2s in the two stages that followed...

[dragon]

IIRC, the elevator would require a massive object in stationary orbit for the concept to be feasible. Expensive to implement, but I heard that such a system once in place could cover it's initial costs fairly quickly.

I leave it to others more qualified to suggest whether the system would truely be practical or beneficial overall.

Actualy there are numerous studies that have been done on the space elevator concept. Every year there is a meeting to debate the concept and they have concluded that its possible with modern technology but expensive and time consuming to build. But once built would drastic reduce cost of putting items into space. Also while people complain that NASA is wasting money people said the same thing about heavier than air travel, space travel, nano tech and many others that have turned out to be feasiable. And NASA is spending what is call concept money. In the last few decades only 1 in 10 ideas have paid off but those few have been worth it.

[MKSheppard]

Because of course the vacuum tubes were far more crucial to the Saturn V's heavy-lift capability than its five F-1 engines and the six J-2s in the two stages that followed...

That's the NASA "fluff" response Idiots.

[BenRG]

Regarding NASA's "fluff" response, apparently there is a lot of political clout in the space agency to try and keep the Shuttle and the ISS as their prime programs. Any suggestion of replacing the shuttle or mothballing and de-orbiting the ISS are ruled out without discussion.

That book I mentioned, "Lost in Space", alleges that Lockheed's "VentureStar" was steered onto a sandbank by Lockheed Martin itself because they didn't want to get rid of NASA's dependance on the Space Shuttle/cash cow. NASA is also accused of deliberately sabotaging a lot of private initiatives to develop what was referred to as an 'alternate access' vehicle - a rocket for servicing the ISS that isn't dependent on the Shuttle or the Russians - simply because they cannot accept any alternative to the Shuttle. They are spending billions on foredoomed 'upgrades' to the Shuttle rather than spend it on developing alternative vehicles for the same reason.

I'm not sure if those accusations hold water, but it would explain why NASA are throwing money at a long-term project like the Space Elevator rather than focussing on a replacement to the Shuttle.

[phongn]

They really should just make a new heavy-lift rocket centered around a modernized F-1A (or even the original F-1A) with whatever lessons we've learned since. It might well be cheaper than dragging out the old design and restarting the line.

[Chmee]

Regarding NASA's "fluff" response, apparently there is a lot of political clout in the space agency to try and keep the Shuttle and the ISS as their prime programs. Any suggestion of replacing the shuttle or mothballing and de-orbiting the ISS are ruled out without discussion.

That book I mentioned, "Lost in Space", alleges that Lockheed's "VentureStar" was steered onto a sandbank by Lockheed Martin itself because they didn't want to get rid of NASA's dependance on the Space Shuttle/cash cow. NASA is also accused of deliberately sabotaging a lot of private initiatives to develop what was referred to as an 'alternate access' vehicle - a rocket for servicing the ISS that isn't dependent on the Shuttle or the Russians - simply because they cannot accept any alternative to the Shuttle. They are spending billions on foredoomed 'upgrades' to the Shuttle rather than spend it on developing alternative vehicles for the same reason.

I'm not sure if those accusations hold water, but it would explain why NASA are throwing money at a long-term project like the Space Elevator rather than focussing on a replacement to the Shuttle.

The money being spent on researching technologies like the Space Elevator is a drop in NASA's bucket. Actually I'm glad that they're still doing research for breakthrough technologies, not just incremental improvements on 50 year old rocket technologies.

I saw some interesting presentations (years ago) for an orbital cargo-launch technology that's basically a monster cannon buried underground, a series of chambers filled with combustible gas that keep accelerating the payload until it leaves the 'muzzle' at escape velocity. The benefit is that all the propellant weight is on the ground, so 100% of the weight you put into orbit is payload. The drawback is that the acceleration is too rough for human passengers. But if you use conventional launch systems to get the astronauts into orbit, and the other method to get everything *else* into orbit, you get the ability to put a LOT of mass upstairs.

And you thought space elevator was way out!

[Typhonis 1]

OK modernising the tech for block 2 Saturn V would cost us how much?? and what benefits would it grant over the current shuttle?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Almost everything about the shuttle is bad, but NASA is incompetent and royally fucked it up and will not just junk it and start from scratch. The Saturn V can carry more cargo, its ultimately cheaper (because they don't have to basically rebuild half of it everytime like they must with the "reusable" orbiter) and its much more versatile. It can lift anything from heavy loads to LEO or GSO, and even send spacecraft to escape velocity.

Personally I relish the maxed-out Energia more than a modernized Saturn V. But perhaps a from-scratch vehicle built from a modernized F-1A would be better.

[Patrick Degan]

It's a terrible thing to say this, but it may well have been merciful for my father to have died when he did, in 1978. He gave his life to NASA from the 1950s onward; hell, he worked for Werner von Braun at Redstone Arsenal before being transferred to Michoud in 1961. The way NASA is being run these days would have been an unending source of aggravation to him in his retirement years.

[Gustav32Vasa]

I saw some interesting presentations (years ago) for an orbital cargo-launch technology that's basically a monster cannon buried underground, a series of chambers filled with combustible gas that keep accelerating the payload until it leaves the 'muzzle' at escape velocity. The benefit is that all the propellant weight is on the ground, so 100% of the weight you put into orbit is payload. The drawback is that the acceleration is too rough for human passengers. But if you use conventional launch systems to get the astronauts into orbit, and the other method to get everything *else* into orbit, you get the ability to put a LOT of mass upstairs.

And you thought space elevator was way out!

This sounds better IMO.

[Chmee]

This sounds better IMO.

This briefly describes the system I mentioned.

[Mange]

One of the few interesting things from Arthur C. Clarke's 3001 - The Final Odyssey was how he described the space elevator in function (not to forget his earlier novel, The Fountains of Paradise, but IMO his description in 3001 is better). While Clarke didn't come up with the concept, that's the closest I think we will get, it will stay on paper and in fiction.

[SirNitram]

A space elevator, if they can get it working, is worth the effort. The key is 'If they can get it working'. I have serious doubts on the carbon fiber currently being produced being up to it.

On the upside, if it does work, space travel can become a lot cheaper....

[Chmee]

Here's the FAQ for the local (Seattle) company doing space elevator work:

http://www.liftport.com/faq.php

[Xon]

It's a terrible thing to say this, but it may well have been merciful for my father to have died when he did, in 1978. He gave his life to NASA from the 1950s onward; hell, he worked for Werner von Braun at Redstone Arsenal before being transferred to Michoud in 1961. The way NASA is being run these days would have been an unending source of aggravation to him in his retirement years.

I would have to agree with you there. NASA is a fucking joke these days, run by political power jockies with utterly no regard for actually doing their job.

For someone from the high of the space-race, it would be soul destroying to see how far NASA has fallen. How bad the bureaucracy nightmare has become.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Personally, I like optimism and the bringing in of new projects, but I see ESA, Russia and Japan doing this stuff. Not NASA. The Saturn Vs are also hideously expensive and outdated.

[phongn]

Personally I relish the maxed-out Energia more than a modernized Saturn V. But perhaps a from-scratch vehicle built from a modernized F-1A would be better.

How about the maxed-out Saturn V designs? Puny Vulkan is no match for the might of Saturn

[MKSheppard]

It's a terrible thing to say this, but it may well have been merciful for my father to have died when he did, in 1978. He gave his life to NASA from the 1950s onward; hell, he worked for Werner von Braun at Redstone Arsenal before being transferred to Michoud in 1961. The way NASA is being run these days would have been an unending source of aggravation to him in his retirement years.

Hmm, it's possible he might have been briefed by B-Bruce Briggs
at one time, von Braun apparently retired in disgust when Briggs
correctly predicted NASA"s future as a politicized agency at
a meeting to show his results. I can scan in the section for you
from Shield of Faith

[Col. Crackpot]

where the hell would we build this space elevator anyway? Do we really was a 200 mile long cable going straight up into space anywhere near anything? *cough* Mohammad Atta *cough*

[Chmee]

where the hell would we build this space elevator anyway? Do we really was a 200 mile long cable going straight up into space anywhere near anything? *cough* Mohammad Atta *cough*

Well, the guys proposing it want an equatorial location in the Pacific .... personally I think it would look great in Crawford, TX.

[SPOOFE]

I think the OP misses the fact that most Space Elevator concepts are planned for decades from now, at the earliest. The seed money is to find out as much as possible, now, long before it's actually possible... ensuring that when it IS possible we have a wider body of knowledge to draw from.

I mean, really... $75,000 isn't going to build a new Saturn.

And if you REALLY want a feasible, cheap, and powerful heavy-lifting system, what about the old Omega nuclear-propulsion idea?