Space news /comments

[Benefactor]

This is exactly what I was talking about before in connection with the US space programme. ESA is about to terminate the ATV programme, after spending billions of Euros on it. Instead of gradually evolving it, building up on the technologies and experience, they will just throw it away and start again.

Considering how limited the funding for space is in both US and Europe, such decisions are criminal.

Scrapping the ATV is idiocy, what happened to all the talk about upgrading it to be able to carry people?

 

[Winner]

Scrapping the ATV is idiocy, what happened to all the talk about upgrading it to be able to carry people?

That's how European manned spaceflight operates - a lot of talk, no funding, no results -> need to rely on the Russians and the Americans.

That is, I don't really think it would have been a good idea, unless the cost of the whole thing could have been reduced. We need something a little more innovative than another dumb space capsule.

 

[Murky]

I'm surprised that nobody has posted about Neil deGrasse Tyson and his new book "Space Chronicles."

 

[Winner]

I surprised that nobody has posted about Neil deGrasse Tyson and his new book "Space Chronicles."

You're welcome to post a summary or perhaps some interesting points we could discuss

 

[Murky]

You're welcome to post a summary or perhaps some interesting points we could discuss

Tyson's basic argument is that the quest for exploring space spurs innovation which in turns creates new economic growth. So spending money on the space program has a high rate of return and is well worth the investment.

 

[Winner]

Tyson's basic argument is that the quest for exploring space spurs innovation which in turns creates new economic growth. So spending money on the space program has a high rate of return and is well worth the investment.

He made that argument in that article for Foreign Policy that I pasted in this thread.

He's very right about that and politicians need to hear that more often. Normally, their attitude to space exploration is shaped by the wrong belief that it is effectively a waste of money that's being done just in order to keep the scientists busy and perhaps accrue some international prestige as well. If they could be made aware of the fact that it actually helps a lot in keeping their countries competitive and rich, they might reassess their lacklustre support for it.

 

[Veles]

On April 12th 1961 a spacecraft Vostok-1, with a first human to journey into outer space on board, completed an orbit of the Earth.

I congratulate all progressive humanity on that occasion.

 

[red_elk]

On April 12th 1968..

Yes, today is an anniversary of a great technological achievement of mankind.
(Though it had happened in 1961 )

For those who didn't see last year a documentary movie about the first human spaceflight:

Movie trailer

Link to video.

The movie itself can be watched here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/firstorbit

 

[Winner]

Gagarin definitely is a hero. I mean, it took a lot of courage to do it - if anything had gone wrong, he would have died and we'd only learn his name in 1991 when the Soviet archives opened for a while.

What was the thing he said? "I see Earth, it is so beautiful."

---

In other news, A. C. Clarke's monolith is not on the Moon, but on Mars

(link)

 

[red_elk]

Gagarin definitely is a hero. I mean, it took a lot of courage to do it - if anything had gone wrong, he would have died and we'd only learn his name in 1991 when the Soviet archives opened for a while.

He was a hero, but you failed a little bit with your usual anti-Soviet bashing.
The first radio broadcast about the spaceflight happened in 10:02, 12.04.1961, when Gagarin was still in space. All fatal incidents with the Soviet cosmonauts (there were 2 of them with 4 people died, Komarov, Volkov, Dobrovolsky and Patsaev), were publicly reported.

 

[Murky]

News from NASA

NASA Planning Group Takes Key Steps for Future Mars Exploration

Spoiler :

WASHINGTON -- NASA's Mars Program Planning Group (MPPG), established to assist the agency in developing a new strategy for the exploration of the Red Planet, has begun analyzing options for future robotic missions and enlisting the assistance of scientists and engineers worldwide.

NASA is reformulating the Mars Exploration Program to be responsive to high-priority science goals and the President's challenge of sending humans to Mars in the 2030s.

"We're moving quickly to develop options for future Mars exploration missions and pathways," said John Grunsfeld, an astrophysicist, five-time space shuttle astronaut and associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate at the agency's headquarters in Washington. "As part of this process, community involvement, including international, is essential for charting the new agency-wide strategy for our future Mars exploration efforts."

Grunsfeld leads the agency-wide Mars program reformulation effort along with William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Directorate, Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati and Chief Technologist Mason Peck.

In February, Grunsfeld named veteran aerospace engineer Orlando Figueroa to lead the MPPG. In March, the group established an initial draft framework of milestones and activities that will include options for missions and sequences bridging the objectives of NASA's science, human exploration and operations and technology.

Starting today, the scientific and technical community across the globe can submit ideas and abstracts online as part of NASA's effort to seek out the best and the brightest ideas from researchers and engineers in planetary science. Selected abstracts will be presented during a workshop in June hosted by the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston.

The workshop will provide an open forum for presentation, discussion and consideration of concepts, options, capabilities and innovations to advance Mars exploration. These ideas will inform a strategy for exploration within available resources, beginning as early as 2018 and stretching into the next decade and beyond.

"Receiving input from our community is vital to energize the planning process," said Doug McCuistion, director of the Mars Exploration Program at NASA Headquarters. "We'll integrate inputs to ensure the next steps for the Mars Exploration Program will support science, as well as longer-term human exploration and technology goals."

The new strategy also will be designed to maintain America's critical technical skills, developed over decades, to achieve the highest priority science and exploration objectives.

NASA has a recognized track record of successful missions on Mars, and exploration of the planet is a priority for the agency. The rover Opportunity, which landed on Mars in 2004, is still operating well beyond its official mission of 90 days. There also are two NASA satellites, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey, orbiting Mars and returning unprecedented science data and images.

In August, NASA will land the Mars Science Laboratory, "Curiosity," on the planet's surface. This roving science laboratory will assess whether Mars was in the past or present an environment able to support life. In 2013, NASA will launch the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution orbiter, the first mission devoted to understanding the Martian upper atmosphere.

To view the call for abstracts and workshop information, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/apr/12-112_MPPG_Update.html

 

[Winner]

He was a hero, but you failed a little bit with your usual anti-Soviet bashing.
The first radio broadcast about the spaceflight happened in 10:02, 12.04.1961, when Gagarin was still in space. All fatal incidents with the Soviet cosmonauts (there were 2 of them with 4 people died, Komarov, Volkov, Dobrovolsky and Patsaev), were publicly reported.

This was the first one. Had it failed, there'd have been a cover-up, similar to the one that surrounded the greatest tragedy in the Soviet space programme (the explosion on the pad which killed dozens of people).

This is not anti-Soviet bashing, it's just the reality in which the Soviet system operated. It doesn't diminish the heroism of people who actually took part in the space programme - Komarov for example was an exception guy who almost survived something that was unsurvivable (only to die because of a parachute failure ).

 

[red_elk]

This was the first one. Had it failed, there'd have been a cover-up, similar to the one that surrounded the greatest tragedy in the Soviet space programme (the explosion on the pad which killed dozens of people).

It could possibly be covered up, if something happened on start. But when Vostok-1 was landing, it was too late, because of message in the news. And the landing was arguably the most dangerous part of the flight.

 

[Winner]

Anyway:

Europe's Ariane-5 rocket will be uprated

-> This is the so-called "Midlife Evolution" upgrade. It should increase the payload to Geostationary orbit (GEO) by about 20 percent, without any increase in the rocket's overall per-launch cost. Needless to say, a more powerful upper stage allows more robust interplanetary missions - should ESA receive enough funding to be able to actually afford launching its probes on Ariane's instead of Russian vehicles of dubious reliability (I am looking at you, Proton).

Also:

Russia continues building its new cosmodrome in the Far East.

-> What I don't understand is how they plan to overcome the laws of nature, since Vostochny's northern latitude will significantly hamper their rocket's performance, at least in so far as launches to GEO and the Moon are concerned. The best spaceport in the world for these launches is currently the ESA's facility in French Guyana, which is just a few degrees north of the equator.

 

[Lillefix]

Anyway:

Europe's Ariane-5 rocket will be uprated

-> This is the so-called "Midlife Evolution" upgrade. It should increase the payload to Geostationary orbit (GEO) by about 20 percent, without any increase in the rocket's overall per-launch cost. Needless to say, a more powerful upper stage allows more robust interplanetary missions - should ESA receive enough funding to be able to actually afford launching its probes on Ariane's instead of Russian vehicles of dubious reliability (I am looking at you, Proton).

I was so close to write here how surprised I was that they would finally use the Da vinci engine, because according to Wikipedia the new upper stage wouldn't be ready until 2017. Then I read the article more carefully and it actually says it won't happen until 2017. So yeah, wikipedia is still correct.

 

[Winner]

I was so close to write here how surprised I was that they would finally use the Da vinci engine, because according to Wikipedia the new upper stage wouldn't be ready until 2017. Then I read the article more carefully and it actually says it won't happen until 2017. So yeah, wikipedia is still correct.

It's just "Vinci".

They should also replace the solid boosters with something more... advanced. Vega should eventually lead to it. Theoretically, it should be possibly to turn Ariane-5 into a semi-heavy-lift vehicle. It's not going to happen, but it would be nice to have something capable of supporting a manned lunar mission architecture.

 

[Winner]

I know this isn't entirely new, but:

The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there’s no good reason to go into space—each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

 

[dutchfire]

Where in space do you want to go in the next half a century? And how would that help anything?

Also, I think at least one Chinese dude will visit the moon in the next couple of decades.

 

[Winner]

Where in space do you want to go in the next half a century? And how would that help anything?

Luna, Mars, asteroids, and the moons of Saturn, to begin with.

Civilization on Earth is now in more peril then ever before, except for a few hot moments during the Cold War. Many things can happen here which could, potentially, lead to a major disruption of our civilization and perhaps even extinction of our species.

This alone makes permanent settlement of other planets/moons a reasonable proposition, especially since the real expenses wouldn't be very high compared to the overall world spending. If life's only real purpose is to preserve itself, then it should be our responsibility as the "pinnacle" of evolution on this planet to ensure its continuity.

Also, I think at least one Chinese dude will visit the moon in the next couple of decades.

Perhaps, perhaps not. The Chinese are moving at their own pace. Speaking of which, a good article from Space Review:

A new policy typology to better understand the goals of China’s space program

 

[Winner]

Can private subjects "own" parts of the Moon or other celestial bodies (except Earth)?

-> An American think-tank believes they can due to a loophole in the outer space treaty (OST) that bans countries from annexing territory in space. Basically, the US government could recognize claims made by private subjects, without having to actually safeguard or enforce them. In this way it would avoid actually annexing parts of the Moon while still providing some legal certainty to those who press these claims.

Specifically, he suggests legislation whereby the US would recognize claims made by private entities, American and others, which meet certain conditions regarding habitation and transportation. While it would recognize those claims, he said, the US government would not attempt to defend those claims by force. “If that’s the case—it’s not an American entity, and it’s not going to be defended by the US government—how could that possibly be a claim of sovereignty?” Simberg asked.

In the white paper, Simberg offers a hypothetical example where, under such a system, the US would recognize a claim made by a company incorporated on the Isle of Man with investors from Dubai. “To say that such a recognition amounts to a ‘national appropriation’ by the U.S. of the legal real estate established with such a claim is plainly absurd,” he writes.

The legislation to do this would be based on a proposal called the Space Settlement Prize Act, which would award claims to private organizations that establish inhabited bases on the Moon and other bodies. Those settlements would have to be permanently occupied with regular transportation that is open to anyone able to pay the fare. The first entity to meet those requirements would be entitled to a claim of 1.5 million square kilometers (600,000 square miles) on the Moon or 9.3 million square kilometers (3.6 million square miles) on Mars; each subsequent claim would be 15 percent smaller.

Simberg said the large size of those claims was designed in part to allow for enough territory for an eventual sovereign state on a body, but also for economic purposes. “It allows an entity to go to investors and raise the money to go out and stake the claim,” he said.

The economic argument is also one of the core reasons for pursing such a property rights scheme. “Property rights are key to economic development,” Simberg said. They provide “equity and financial certainty that underlie the free market economy.” Moreover, he argued, “property rights are the foundation of human liberty.”

I kind of support the idea in principle. It would stimulate private activities in space and provide at least some incentive to actually settle other planetary bodies. I would prefer though if the OST itself was amended to make this fully legal. More safeguards should be put in place with regard to the possibility of life on Mars (we don't want it to be destroyed by careless corporations).

Other than that, why not? Space is literally the final frontier, and frontiers have always attracted people who were willing to take considerable risks. The argument against space we hear most often is that settlement makes no economic sense. That may be true, in short or medium term. The logical implication is that if it is to be done, it has to be done for reasons other than short-term economic gain. This type of incentive could actually help subjects interested in this area overcome their reluctance and take such risks.