A Bad Blow to NASA

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-05-31 09:05pm

The problem is, there are no worthwhile manned space projects in this day and age. The Space Station is a colossal failure and a fine example of what happens when you disregard the sunk-cost fallacy in real life. Everything that we want to do in space right now with current technology can be done cheaper and better with machines.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2003-05-31 09:19pm

RedImperator wrote:Arrow, NOBODY in the private sector has the kind of capital to fund a private space mission, especially not when the only payoff will be new technology that MAY be useful in industry on Earth. Obviously, there's a ton of money to be made--the first guy to tow an asteroid home and sell the metal is going to put every mining company on Earth out of business, but billions of dollars will be lost by others before he gets to that point. Try to imagine someone privately building an interstate highway or every skyscraper on Manhattan Island and you'll start to see just how huge such a project would be, and those examples would only require proven technology and have at least some chance of recouping their investments.

If your using the NASA system, no one does have the money. I've heard of some half-way fleshed out ideas for manned spaceflight that aren't too expensive (such as the cheap Mars mission - I forget the project's name). Even if no technology is produced and you only get a doctrine on how to approach a private manned spaceflight mission you'll still have something worthwhile that might be used by others at a later time. (Hell, look at how long it has taken some war doctrines to be implemented properly)

The problem with NASA is that it's a government agency. Generally, anything that is run by the government wastes money, as there really isn't any incentive to keep costs down or choose the optimal way of doing something. Also, politics plays a much bigger role in the management at the higher levels, with Congress and the President dictating directives for their own adgendas.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-05-31 09:24pm

Sea Skimmer, Robert Zubrin, the architect of the "Mars Direct" concept, is of the opinion that it was ruined for the same reasons so many space programs are.

Overruns because of the US Government's "Cost Plus" policies. He worked in Lockheed during the time they were pitching the Venturestar program to NASA. The Lockheed CEO at the time, who's one of those "we should be on Mars by now" types, was pledging over a billion dollars of Lockheed's own money in R&D.

When he left, Lockheed changed it's policy on ponying up the money. When Robert Zubrin wrote Entering Space in 1999, he predicted that, since Lockheed isn't putting any of it's own money into the program, it'll be called off as soon as a engineering snag occurs and the Federal Government is unwilling to pay to overcome it.

He was right.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-31 09:51pm

From what I've read, what we should be doing is finishing the ISS to use, not primarily as a scientific research station, but as a construction and launching station. Given that it would be better to assemble stuff up there, we could rather easily stick the stuff necessary for a manned Moon base up there via smaller rockets, and then get it to the Moon.

Then, with the Clementine data on lunar ice, we can build a refueling station on the Moon, which can produce cryogenic hydrogen/oxygen for a fraction of what it would cost us to blast fuel into orbit. That fuel could both support the ISS (refueling a reboosting system) and fuel any Mars missions we might want to do in the future.

Of course, Congress wouldn't like this idea because it's "too ambitious". *sigh*

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-05-31 09:58pm

Crayz9000 wrote:From what I've read, what we should be doing is finishing the ISS to use, not primarily as a scientific research station, but as a construction and launching station. Given that it would be better to assemble stuff up there, we could rather easily stick the stuff necessary for a manned Moon base up there via smaller rockets, and then get it to the Moon.

Then, with the Clementine data on lunar ice, we can build a refueling station on the Moon, which can produce cryogenic hydrogen/oxygen for a fraction of what it would cost us to blast fuel into orbit. That fuel could both support the ISS (refueling a reboosting system) and fuel any Mars missions we might want to do in the future.

Of course, Congress wouldn't like this idea because it's "too ambitious". *sigh*

NO!

Mars Direct is a much simpler and inexpensive plan. And it'll get us there quicker!

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-31 10:10pm

Arrow Mk84 wrote:If your using the NASA system, no one does have the money. I've heard of some half-way fleshed out ideas for manned spaceflight that aren't too expensive (such as the cheap Mars mission - I forget the project's name). Even if no technology is produced and you only get a doctrine on how to approach a private manned spaceflight mission you'll still have something worthwhile that might be used by others at a later time. (Hell, look at how long it has taken some war doctrines to be implemented properly)

That's still missing the point: if there's no profit to be had, nobody's going to do it. Even Mars First will cost too much money for too much risk for gain that's too far off in the future. No investor is going to sink his money into something that might not pay off until his grandchildren are grown. Without significant technological advances to bring down the cost of lifting payload into orbit, the private sector will not be willing to pay for a Mars mission.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-05-31 10:22pm

Lonestar wrote:NO!

Mars Direct is a much simpler and inexpensive plan. And it'll get us there quicker!

Yes, yes, I know it's a simpler and more inexpensive plan. But it relies on lifting a bunch of extra crap from Earth into orbit--mainly fuel to get to Mars. What I'm suggesting, and it's probably been suggested before, is to establish a small robotic (or, heck, even manned) lunar base to produce fuel. THEN worry about Mars.

I know that this approach won't be fast, but it would theoretically work in the long term. And it wouldn't be limited to only Mars, as you could fuel near-earth asteroid missions and everything else.

Come on. Let's focus on Mars and ignore the Moon, huh? Are you fucking kidding me?

But anyway we're getting off the topic.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-05-31 10:26pm

Ignoring the enviromental debate for a moment - Is the engineering behind Orion sound?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-05-31 10:36pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Ignoring the enviromental debate for a moment - Is the engineering behind Orion sound?

Well, Orion would work if you ignored air resistance when launching the thing, but you can't. Orion was largely abandoned as a project, replaced by Daedelus (the nuclear fusion equilvent that was sort of designed by the British), which has similar problems when launching from the surface, but if you built it in space it should be really effective for space travel. If they designed and worked out the specific engineering for Daedelus and built it in orbit, it could be quite a nice ship.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-05-31 10:41pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
Yes, yes, I know it's a simpler and more inexpensive plan. But it relies on lifting a bunch of extra crap from Earth into orbit--mainly fuel to get to Mars. What I'm suggesting, and it's probably been suggested before, is to establish a small robotic (or, heck, even manned) lunar base to produce fuel. THEN worry about Mars.

I know that this approach won't be fast, but it would theoretically work in the long term. And it wouldn't be limited to only Mars, as you could fuel near-earth asteroid missions and everything else.

Come on. Let's focus on Mars and ignore the Moon, huh? Are you fucking kidding me?

But anyway we're getting off the topic.

Uh, the bennie of Mars Direct is that we Wouldn't have to launch fuel etc into space to get to Mars. Just the intial Heavy luanch vehicle that'll send the Mars HAB capscule there. Later on, using indegenious fuels From Mars it would return. It would have maybe 5 people who'd stay there a little bit less than a year. Mars has more to offer than the moon does, scientificaly. (we've been to the frickin' moon)

That said, the Moon would be a great place to set up an observatory.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-05-31 10:45pm

Lonestar wrote:Uh, the bennie of Mars Direct is that we Wouldn't have to launch fuel etc into space to get to Mars. Just the intial Heavy luanch vehicle that'll send the Mars HAB capscule there. Later on, using indegenious fuels From Mars it would return. It would have maybe 5 people who'd stay there a little bit less than a year. Mars has more to offer than the moon does, scientificaly. (we've been to the frickin' moon)

That said, the Moon would be a great place to set up an observatory.

Only a little less than a year? I'd think they'd have to stay there for a while longer while the Earth/Mars launch window lined up again, like 2 years or so. I could be wrong of course, so that's why I'm asking about this.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-05-31 11:28pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: Only a little less than a year? I'd think they'd have to stay there for a while longer while the Earth/Mars launch window lined up again, like 2 years or so. I could be wrong of course, so that's why I'm asking about this.

As I don't have The Case for Mars immediately on hand, I can't be sure. It could be you're right.

The point is, the Mars mission would spend quite a bit of time on Mars getting stuff done, rather than go there, spend two days, and go back.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-05-31 11:42pm

The engineering behind Orion is sound. Unfortunately, there's the minor effect of frying anything near when it launches.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-05-31 11:42pm

Lonestar wrote:As I don't have The Case for Mars immediately on hand, I can't be sure. It could be you're right.

The point is, the Mars mission would spend quite a bit of time on Mars getting stuff done, rather than go there, spend two days, and go back.

I'll go find my copy, too. It's in a box somewhere not yet unpacked. I know that the astronauts must stay there for a while while the planets realign.

I had a thought on the matter just now and it seems to me that the trip to Mars would probably end their career, as once they returned to Earth two or so years later, they'd have to be in physical therapy for a very long time (what is the figure, one day of physical therapy for every day in space?) Of course, they'd probably make millions on book deals and talk show appearances, plus I think any astronaut worth their salt would leap at the chance to be the first person on Mars.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-01 01:39am

Well, they'd be in 1/5 or 1/6 gravity, not zero-g. That would help quite a bit, I'd think.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-01 01:41am

Damn lack of edit button...

I wonder if one would get any benefit from jumping on a trampoline in low-g? You get pretty significant if momentary g's off of it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-01 01:49am

Howedar wrote:Well, they'd be in 1/5 or 1/6 gravity, not zero-g. That would help quite a bit, I'd think.

~1/3 gravity on Mars, actually. But that is not enough to prevent muscle atrophy and then there is the trip there and back. Considering it could well be a three year mission, that's a long time to be outside of Earth's gravity.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-01 02:02am

Okay. I expect that the difference between 1 and 1/3 is less than between 1/3 and 0, at any rate. Plenty of exercise ought to keep them in passable shape, I'd think.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-06-01 02:03am

Of course, the trip would be a bit more of a problem.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-01 02:19am

phongn wrote:The engineering behind Orion is sound. Unfortunately, there's the minor effect of frying anything near when it launches.

Well, the Chinese might build one in a few decades if we don't do anything with further exploration.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-06-01 02:21am

Gil Hamilton wrote: Well, Orion would work if you ignored air resistance when launching the thing, but you can't. Orion was largely abandoned as a project, replaced by Daedelus (the nuclear fusion equilvent that was sort of designed by the British), which has similar problems when launching from the surface, but if you built it in space it should be really effective for space travel. If they designed and worked out the specific engineering for Daedelus and built it in orbit, it could be quite a nice ship.

I was thinking of the Chinese building one in a few decades to capitalize on our lack of effort if we don't do anything. I suspect the air resistance problems could (theoretically) be overcome.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-01 02:26am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Howedar wrote:Well, they'd be in 1/5 or 1/6 gravity, not zero-g. That would help quite a bit, I'd think.
~1/3 gravity on Mars, actually. But that is not enough to prevent muscle atrophy and then there is the trip there and back. Considering it could well be a three year mission, that's a long time to be outside of Earth's gravity.

We may just have to accept them being unable to walk for several months on return. Though as I understand it, the bigger problem is the loss of bone mass. It could cause the formation of large numbers of kidney stones of considerable size during the mission.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-06-01 02:28am

A centrifuge would be nice, but it would take up a hell of a lot of additional mass.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-01 03:17am

Sea Skimmer wrote:We may just have to accept them being unable to walk for several months on return. Though as I understand it, the bigger problem is the loss of bone mass. It could cause the formation of large numbers of kidney stones of considerable size during the mission.

*nodnod* Loss of bone mass and kidney stones are large problems. Muscle atrophy can be fought by excerising alot, I'm not sure how you'd combat the problems you listed.

Not to mention the psychological problems that come with sticking 7 people in something that will likely be the size of a 747 fuselage for such a long time with no way to get out and no privacy. This may not seem like a problem, but NASA is really worried about it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-06-01 03:24am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I was thinking of the Chinese building one in a few decades to capitalize on our lack of effort if we don't do anything. I suspect the air resistance problems could (theoretically) be overcome.

I'm not sure how the air resistance problem can be overcome, since Orion isn't exactly aerodymanic like a rocket or shuttle is, but my knowledge of Orion is a bit limited. Way I'd do it is just built Orion in orbit or on the Moon, so you wouldn't have any atmosphere to resist. Really, China has alot on their plate as far as large projects go, I don't know if they can afford to develop and build Orion, especially if they've got to build it in space. I believe you mentioned in another thread that China's got it's hands full with domestic projects right now, like water movement and modernizing their country.