The thread for space cadets!

[Thorgalaeg]

So better than the Hubble?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I feel justified in answering here between classes instead of doing another assignment because 'I'm working on homework' (my paper).

As for the assignment, a few pages back, Winner lamented our society's appetite for science fiction eye candy rather than real world current space endeavors. I brought up that it was because of our society's instant gratification culture. Perhaps you could bring something up about combating that?

Your comment made me think on it and I've come to the conclusion that it's both an overblown problem and also not really a problem to begin with.

For the overblown bit: For every Armageddon-esque movie, there are fifty serious documentaries on space. Our culture has an appetite for space, period. It isn't restricted solely to science fiction, this manifests when it comes up in nearly weekly news reports on various missions and developments, it shows up in a myriad of science shows like The Universe, it comes up in serious science fiction like Europa Report and it even comes up in Armageddon. People just love space and it really doesn't matter if they get it from whiz-bang space magicks! or more serious sources.

Why do I say it doesn't matter and isn't a problem? Well, just look at all of the mega-interest generated by the Curiosity landing. While people can certainly be mislead by science fiction movies, they aren't totally ignorant of the realities of space flight and they aren't turned off by those realities either. People are genuinely interested and while that interest may not rival Monday Night Football, it's still a big deal in our popular culture. So I say it's fine if there is a glut of crappy science fiction movies, they in turn generate interest in the real thing, and that's A Good Thing.

But more to the point of why I did and won't go into depth on this in the paper itself; well it's pretty well beyond the scope of the topic. We were also explicitly told during lecture not to turn in our 40 page manifestos.* While I touched on this topic tangentially, I can't really go into it in-depth and I don't really need to do so to make my point.

*There is a kid that is almost certain to turn in a 40 page manifesto. I've had him in other classes (and am stuck with him in all of my classes for the next 2 years) and he's uncouth to say the least. He has point blank told professors they are wrong during lecture - not by showing defference of any kind for the professor and gently broaching the inaccuracy, perceive or otherwise. Instead, he just shouts 'YOUR WRONG' during the middle of lecture.

This past week our Orbital Dynamics professor was giving us an overview of the history of space exploration and like any good professor, he paused to ask questions. Well this derp decided that the prof asking questions gave him license to try and debate the professor and every single person who had anything to say about anything. By the end of class he was trying to talk over the professor to 'correct' him about things that are simply a matter of opinion and muttering under his breath about the professor being factually 'wrong'. It was extremely annoying and the rest of class turned on him, but he doesn't pick up on social cues and as such will be sure to interject himself later on.

You propose to expand NASA's current plans, but in my opinion you stay to vague on where that expansion is supposed to be headed. If you want to excite the public, you need a vision where NASA is headed, something that the people can get behind. If you want NASA's agenda at the forefront of public society, there needs to be a clear NASA agenda first (which is of course difficult to formulate when politicians meddle with NASA all the time).

You can rely on Obama giving rousing speeches, but you have to give him a little more to work with than (forgive me the oversimplification): "We need to do space stuff,because...space!!!" I would add a short description in which direction NASA should be heading in the near future. What do you want to achieve?

Unfortunately, right now it is too late in the night for me to think about what my vision would be.

To address the criticism upfront, I do need to go back in and make more explicit references to the programs I'm talking about. This paper was intended to answer a question about one specific program (the asteroid mission) so I wrote it in light of that. My point was that Obama should double-down on that and increase funding and schedule more launches to support that mission instead of changing course drastically. So in essence, I'm advocating that Obama should focus the nations attention on this one program and use it as the focal point of NASA in general, much like Apollo or Shuttle programs were focal points even though other missions were going on concurrently. However, to be a good paper it needs to be readable by a more general audience than one professor, so I will definitely clear things up and I appreciate the advice.

Though like I said, the question was explicitly about one program (the asteroid mission) so that's what I was referencing when I say it should be expanded. I did bring up NASA commercial ventures to back up the notion that NASA is good for the economy and after that point, when I referenced programs, I was then talking about the asteroid mission as well as the commercial ventures. I will go back and clear that up though.

Well, my comments in brief:

1) First and foremost, identify what the purpose of the space programme is. Until that has been boiled down to a few clear points that can be sold to the public through a political process, all other discussion is rather moot. This could be seen as a "strategic" level of analysis, i.e. what is the overall objective. Why we are doing this. What is the benefit? How will this help us in the long term? And are any of these claims firmly based in reality, or have we just conjured them up to keep our jobs safe? Forgive for using the military analogy, but I can think of no better way to express what I mean:

See above. While I could have (and will) written this to make more explicit references to what I was talking about as far as goals and programs, it was implicit in that I was answering a specific question about a specific program. I suggest that Obama should make that program (the asteroid mission) the main purpose of the program in that it's the biggest and most difficult mission objective they face. I'm not downgrading the rest of their efforts, rather I think that the SLS/asteroid project should be the centerpiece (as it de facto already is) of NASA's reason to exist and Obama should try and raise awareness of that and advocate for increased funding for it.

Back to the (human spaceflight part of) space programme - like the German military, it's constantly being redirected to wildly different goals, which in the end assures that nothing at all is accomplished. From capturing Moscow returning to the Moon to seizing the Caucasus going to an asteroid to occupying Stalingrad going to Mars. No doubt, if winter clothing funds had been provided along with a firm strategic direction, NASA would have already been in Moscow back on the Moon, perhaps building a base and learning how to produce oil for the Reich warmachine propellant for transport to low-Earth orbit. By changing the strategic direction of the invasion of the USSR away from the Moon, Hitler Obama ensured that the program would be completely derailed, with a decade of planning and a stable bipartisan support of that goal squandered in a stroke of a pen. Even worse, he didn't even replace it with another overall strategic plan of his own, just a nebulous "we might do this and that" joke-of-a-plan called the "flexible path" (back to Berlin).

Yes! All this, exactly! What I'm saying is that now NASA needs concrete focus on this major objective, capturing an asteroid. Changing the objectives of the Constellation/SLS program yet again would be a disaster and would cause only more setbacks and overruns. So what I'm saying is that it's time to stop being vague about 'flexible paths' and only half-heartedly funding that path. It's time he set concrete goals, on the order of a decade in timescale, with a firm path to get to those goals. I'm not saying the asteroid mission is the best technical mission to accomplish, I'm saying it's the one that the agency has been working toward and at this point it's the only one they can hope to realistically accomplish in a decent timeframe. Going to the moon and especially setting up a moon base will require major readjustments to the mission architecture and in light of all the other major recent changes, it just isn't feasible to do IMO in the near future. Further, as I stated in the paper, the attempts to make NASA do a moon mission legislatively are completely fiscally impossible. It's not like Congress has authorized and funded their moon plans - rather, they are placing demands on NASA and giving absolutely no funding to do it and this is largely for political gain against Obama.

While I could have said, just go along with Congress's moon plan but demand funding for it, I don't think that's realistic for the reasons stated above. It's simply too big of a change too late in the process IMO. We have a launcher under development as well as a capsule. We will have to make the asteroid capturing device, for sure, but it's something that's under development already. A lunar lander, lunar suits, lunar surface vehicles, propellant depots (which IIRC are part of the lunar base plans) and the lunar base itself are not.

2) Only when you identify what you want to do and why, you choose the method of accomplishing the goal. This is the "tactical" level of analysis. I separate the two because they often get mixed up; people endlessly argue about how to do this and that in space, that they forget about why they want to do that in the first place. Whether you go back to the Moon in a two-stage chemical lander or a you lower yourself on a kevlar string from L2 is irrelevant from the strategic point of view.

The objective of what to do and why is already settled from my perspective - we're going to capture and asteroid and we should do it for the reasons laid out in my paper (the economic, political and technological gains to be had from an asteroid mission and the commercial ventures). The tactics of how to do it are already largely settled. Now looking at the moon proposal or other various missions, those don't have much of a justification of why to do it. Though I could do that myself, I chose not to because I feel that we're already committed and shouldn't change it up yet again. Also, political considerations weigh very heavily against the moon proposal. It was essentially another tool that the Republicans have used to get at Obama. Not only could they force him to concede the asteroid mission to them, but he would also have to make other major concessions to fund the moon mission such as de-funding Obamacare. I can't emphasize how central that is to the Republican plan, the asteroid mission is already funded (though at suboptimal levels), the Republican plan isn't and will only be funded if Obama agrees to massive cuts elsewhere.

And those massive cuts will involve massive fights with both parties and in the end will lead to NASA having to fight for money that it will have to take from Education, Health Care, the Military, Food Stamps, etc. That's not acceptable and my plan sidesteps that by sticking with the currently funded program and appealing to the Congress and the people to inspire them with NASA's mission in order to justify and increase of funding that doesn't have to come out of another department's budget.

1) Fire Bolden and all the people he brought to NASA, put all current plans on hold, and start with a clean sheet.

I think that would be a disaster to be honest. Not because they are above firing and infallible, rather because in the current climate it will be extremely difficult for Obama to appoint another administrator and will involve yet more political fighting and horse-trading at a moment where that's the last thing NASA can afford. You would be facing a NASA without leadership potentially for years if you did that and the last time it happened (after Obama was elected) you winded up with the Constellation program being cancelled, then partially resurrected, and yet more delays. It's also important not to send a scare that could negatively impact NASA other employees. With the sequester, everyone's job is already at stake and the last thing you want is to send a message is that everyone is expendable even more so than the current political machinations would imply.

2) Assemble a panel of leading spaceflight experts, representatives of the relevant committees of Congress from both parties, heads of relevant NASA centres, space entrepreneurs, representatives of space advocacy groups, leaders of other space agencies (ESA, the Russians, Indians, Japanese, even the Chinese), scientists, futurists, economists, and other relevant people, and have them formulate several STRATEGIC approaches for human spaceflight in the coming decades. These might include the well-known Moon first versus Mars first options, the "screw planets, Asteroids!" option, and others.

They already did that and the result was the plan to go to an asteroid (though capturing the asteroid was a later development). The problem is that you aren't going to get consensus because the various advocacy groups already have their own objectives (which can and often do run contrary to NASA objectives) and everyone who cares about space has their own personal priorities. I just don't see the point in repeating the work of the last panel, to be honest.

3) Evaluate the proposed options in terms of affordability, pay-offs, impact on the economy and education, and the potential for international cooperation. The best option would be adopted and translated into a binding mandate, hopefully enjoying bipartisan support. A "kill-switch" would be incorporated ensuring that if major changes are made to the programme that would derail it from its strategic objective, the programme would automatically be cancelled.

I completely agree with everything but the kill-switch. This is NASA dude, and if there were such kill-switches in place, nothing would get done. It's not like our government doesn't already do this in practice for various reasons; look at the Apollo program, or the DC-X to name but two.

4) Market the plan. Explain it to the public - why we are doing it, why is it worth your tax money, how will this benefit the nation and mankind at large in the future.
5) Stick to it.

[/QUOTE]
Yes yes and more yes!

A bit of American space alarmism, for entertainment purposes:

I don't think that alarmism is a bad thing. I know you've argued in the past that it only leads to short term accomplishments that are then abandoned like the Apollo program.

But that's only part of the picture: our alarmism lead to NASA itself and it's not as though everything shut down after Apollo. We do have this national obsession with being the best, even though that leads to self delusion (best healthcare in the world ). However, it's part of our national psyche and it isn't altogether a bad thing because it does push us to move, even if by moving we're only reacting. Because if there's one thing we do excel at, it's overreacting. We didn't have to set the lunar landing as a response to USSR's space achievements, it was a bit of overkill. But we did and look what it got us. Similarly, we didn't have even have to create a massive civilian department like NASA to counter the Russians either, the military had it's own space programs that could have been furthered. But we did create NASA in response to Sputnik and it did lead to Apollo and it didn't end with Apollo either. The downside is that naturally, we do tend to lose focus when we've won - we did cancel 3 planned lunar landings after all.

But the major difference between now and then is that technologically, socially and economically, we are at a point where our space advancement doesn't begin and end with NASA. NASA can lead the way in response to perceived threats, but it won't stop there, companies like SpaceX can and will move things along simply because they can. But NASA should lead the way and if that takes a perceived space crisis to focus our attention, then so be it.

Apologies for the myriad typos here. I'm in a rush and have to get back to my other homework. Srs business

 

[Winner]

Well, I don't want to quote-ize the post, so I'll just respond with a couple of points

1) I respectfully disagree with you on the asteroid capture plan. I just don't see it working from the strategic point of view, i.e. in terms of a) WHY are we doing it and b) HOW will this help the space programme in the long term. To me it really seems as a dead end - and by that I do not mean it would be a total waste of time and effort (as, for example, using the money for building a pyramid would be), just that it doesn't leave much in terms of capability. The mission ends, and then what?

2) The asteroid mission plan isn't a strategic goal. It is at best an operational goal. I have to ask - what is the US strategy in space? Can anybody really answer that at this point? I doubt it. And therefore, is it really all that smart to commit to a particular mission until you have your strategy figured out? I think the major reason for the US human spaceflight malaise today is that nobody has succeeded in establishing a credible strategy for it. In the absence of an overall strategy, administration after administration, beginning with Nixon, has focused on intermediary, ad hoc goals, hoping that somehow, sometime, things will just fit together and then it would be possible to claim that there was a strategy driving all these efforts all along. Well, that didn't work. In the absence of a strategy, these steps are taken in different directions and so in the end, the programme is just drifting, aimlessly, wasting enormous amounts of money in the process. That ought to cause backlash.

3) So, instead of planning for a mission, we should really just take a break and figure out a strategy. And by that I mean LONG TERM strategy, not a Zubrin's 10-year tactical plan. What do we want to achieve in 50 years? What's our vision? This needs to be formed around a consensus that is maintainable. This is where the Augustine committee failed miserably, and it chose to call the failure a "flexible path". Well, I am sorry, but the lack of a strategy isn't strategy. Obama should have told them "WTH is this crap? Start over and don't come back until you have a 10-page plain language document outlining a multi-decadal, affordable space strategy which is consensual enough for me to be able to sell it."

---

This is a challenge to all people here in this thread, by the way. Try to tell me what is the point of a space programme (any space programme, let's not limit ourselves to NASA). What should be our long term strategy with regard to human spaceflight?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Well, I don't want to quote-ize the post, so I'll just respond with a couple of points

1) I respectfully disagree with you on the asteroid capture plan. I just don't see it working from the strategic point of view, i.e. in terms of a) WHY are we doing it and b) HOW will this help the space programme in the long term. To me it really seems as a dead end - and by that I do not mean it would be a total waste of time and effort (as, for example, using the money for building a pyramid would be), just that it doesn't leave much in terms of capability. The mission ends, and then what?

2) The asteroid mission plan isn't a strategic goal. It is at best an operational goal. I have to ask - what is the US strategy in space? Can anybody really answer that at this point? I doubt it. And therefore, is it really all that smart to commit to a particular mission until you have your strategy figured out? I think the major reason for the US human spaceflight malaise today is that nobody has succeeded in establishing a credible strategy for it. In the absence of an overall strategy, administration after administration, beginning with Nixon, has focused on intermediary, ad hoc goals, hoping that somehow, sometime, things will just fit together and then it would be possible to claim that there was a strategy driving all these efforts all along. Well, that didn't work. In the absence of a strategy, these steps are taken in different directions and so in the end, the programme is just drifting, aimlessly, wasting enormous amounts of money in the process. That ought to cause backlash.

3) So, instead of planning for a mission, we should really just take a break and figure out a strategy. And by that I mean LONG TERM strategy, not a Zubrin's 10-year tactical plan. What do we want to achieve in 50 years? What's our vision? This needs to be formed around a consensus that is maintainable. This is where the Augustine committee failed miserably, and it chose to call the failure a "flexible path". Well, I am sorry, but the lack of a strategy isn't strategy. Obama should have told them "WTH is this crap? Start over and don't come back until you have a 10-page plain language document outlining a multi-decadal, affordable space strategy which is consensual enough for me to be able to sell it."

---

This is a challenge to all people here in this thread, by the way. Try to tell me what is the point of a space programme (any space programme, let's not limit ourselves to NASA). What should be our long term strategy with regard to human spaceflight?

Throwing down the gauntlet!

Main point of a space program. Long term strategy?

Finally I can reveal my baby.

Total Domination of Planet Earth by 2050
Kaitzilla

​

Abstract: It should be the goal of the United States to tear up the Outer Space Treaty (1967) and commit to fully seeding outer space with a mixture of convential weapons and WMD's large enough to ensure the obedience of the world below.

Promising new paths towards achieving this are coming to fruition and we need merely take the next step to claim the ultimate high ground.
Would not it be the greatest achievement to add "and achieved World Domination" to the end of this wiki?

There is no limit to the amounts and types of oppression that can be delivered from space.
The world will have no choice but to obey!



Step 1) Quietly seed space with various weapon platforms and WMD's. Not the big ones that will get noticed, but the small ones to keep the world frozen in fear while you consolidate and fully weaponize space.

You will need a secret space vehicle, unmanned preferably, to place the various suitcase nukes, VX nerve gas cannisters, and weaponized viruses into proper orbits.

You will want these weapon platforms to be as quiet as possible towards the planet earth with all minor communications with a more traditional satellite higher in orbit.
No matter how well shielded, someone will notice them optically sooner or later. Claim they are Jupiter or Venus. Or a comet.
If all else fails, admit they are a spy satellite and act disappointed that you had to admit that.


Step 2) Prepare to be able to seize control of space by destroying everyone else up there within 7 days at any moment.
Not only will this allow you take over as sole possessor, but being #1 at this will prepare you for Step 3.

A lot of this can be done from the ground. First is the reliable anti-satellite missile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-3

Clearly $100 million to shoot down 1 satellite is a bit steep. On the whole though, satellites cost more than that to put one up, so attrition is certainly on our side.
Work should be pursued on bringing the cost down as there are 3000 of them up there and we can ill afford to spend $300 billion shooting them all down the first week of conflict vs. the world.

Various laser solutions and missile batteries in orbit are also desirable if they can be achieved quietly.

Weapons and plans should also be targeted at all the sites on earth where rockets are launched from.

Additional solutions will be needed when the world resorts to cheaper micro satellites to counter our tyranny.


Step 3) Threaten the world. Show them you mean business if they don't do what you say.
The most practical way to show them you are actually serious is the nuke the moon every 1 hour for 3 days so 100% of humanity gets a good eye watering look.


Step 4) Destroy everyone's satellites. This will be a bloodless affair if everyone is sufficiently terrified.

If you properly set up optical shields and mists to foul ground lasers and anti-ballistic missiles to shoot down anti-satellite missiles, you should have sole control of space now.

Begin sending up the big weapons platforms. Don't be afraid of losses to space debris. Once you are on top, the world will be yours no matter the cost.

Rods from God and lasers to target individuals.
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god

Vast arrays of WMD's to target disobedient countries.

Bunker busting nukes to get at world leaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster


Step 5) Plan for the future and keep upgrading space based weapons. There is no limit to the amount of damage that can be done from space.
Steering an asteroid into a particularly troublesome region will blot out the problem forever.


Conclusion - This plan is meant to be visionary only, so excludes hard timelines.
Many of the technologies already exist, but simply lack the will to execute and advance properly.
Hopefully this paper will urge Congress towards adopting these measures and ensuring USA #1 forever.

 

[r16]

step 5 will make a happy day for all Commies still survivin' next time it happens . Considerin' what happened in February .

 

[uppi]

So better than the Hubble?

Yes, at least in terms of resolution. The atmosphere and the adaptive optics will absorb some light, so I don't know how they compare in illumination time.

And for adaptive optics to work you always need some reference object in your field of view, so if there is no nice reference star near the object you want to look at, you might be out of luck. You can avoid this by shooting powerful yellow lasers into the sky to make your reference object, but apparently this telescope doesn't have any (yet).

 

[Winner]

Just seen a documentary about the Project Orion. I've read about it before, but I am simply fascinated by the odd mix of plausibility and utter insanity than it combines in one package

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

As fantastic and dangerous as it seems, if we needed to get a really big ship into space and the time was too short to establish the sort of support infrastructure for orbital assembly, this could be the way.

I've been specifically playing with a few story ideas. One, say we find a 500 km Kuiper belt object heading toward a collision with Earth in 12 years. The impact of a body so big would eradicate all life on Earth, evaporate all oceans, melt the salt in the empty ocean basins, and heat bedrock in depths measured in kilometres. Nothing except perhaps a few bacteria living very deep underground would survive.


Link to video.

We start a crash program to build an Orion-type ship weighing thousands of tons, launch it from the surface (fallout be damned) and use it to deliver one huge (with yield in gigatons of TNT) thermonuclear bomb to the plenetoid, hoping to kick it enough for it to narrowly miss Earth.

At the same time, a second, backup Orion is being built in secret as an "ark" to save a breeding population of humans and genetic material from millions of species of animals and plants. This will be sent to Mars to, should the attempt to divert the planetoid fail, to continue life and civilization there.

Realistically speaking, I don't see much else we could do in such a (extremely improbable) situation.

---

Oh, and I also wanted to post a nice picture I've stumbled upon:

Hopefully this paper will urge Congress towards adopting these measures and ensuring USA #1 forever.

Day 2, Russia:

"Ah, #$%#$ mať. Load these ball bearings into our rokets and disperse them in various orbits. Say bye to space for the next few hundred years, Amerikans!"

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, I don't want to quote-ize the post, so I'll just respond with a couple of points

1) I respectfully disagree with you on the asteroid capture plan. I just don't see it working from the strategic point of view, i.e. in terms of a) WHY are we doing it and b) HOW will this help the space programme in the long term. To me it really seems as a dead end - and by that I do not mean it would be a total waste of time and effort (as, for example, using the money for building a pyramid would be), just that it doesn't leave much in terms of capability. The mission ends, and then what?

2) The asteroid mission plan isn't a strategic goal. It is at best an operational goal. I have to ask - what is the US strategy in space? Can anybody really answer that at this point? I doubt it. And therefore, is it really all that smart to commit to a particular mission until you have your strategy figured out? I think the major reason for the US human spaceflight malaise today is that nobody has succeeded in establishing a credible strategy for it. In the absence of an overall strategy, administration after administration, beginning with Nixon, has focused on intermediary, ad hoc goals, hoping that somehow, sometime, things will just fit together and then it would be possible to claim that there was a strategy driving all these efforts all along. Well, that didn't work. In the absence of a strategy, these steps are taken in different directions and so in the end, the programme is just drifting, aimlessly, wasting enormous amounts of money in the process. That ought to cause backlash.

3) So, instead of planning for a mission, we should really just take a break and figure out a strategy. And by that I mean LONG TERM strategy, not a Zubrin's 10-year tactical plan. What do we want to achieve in 50 years? What's our vision? This needs to be formed around a consensus that is maintainable. This is where the Augustine committee failed miserably, and it chose to call the failure a "flexible path". Well, I am sorry, but the lack of a strategy isn't strategy. Obama should have told them "WTH is this crap? Start over and don't come back until you have a 10-page plain language document outlining a multi-decadal, affordable space strategy which is consensual enough for me to be able to sell it."

---

This is a challenge to all people here in this thread, by the way. Try to tell me what is the point of a space programme (any space programme, let's not limit ourselves to NASA). What should be our long term strategy with regard to human spaceflight?

To address the points in order:
1)Capturing an asteroid and exploring it will work out the methods of how to do these types of things. Clearly, if we are going to be a space-fairing species, we need to have a handle on the kinds of things we can do to asteroids and how to work with them in order that we can exploit them in the future. It's one thing to examine rocks that have fallen to Earth (and were processed by that traumatic entry), it's quite another to grab an asteroid, explore it and chip pieces off. It will show us part of how to go about mining them, or moving them around for various purposes and most importantly, how to plan missions to do these things in the future. That's an important thing, I think, because having plans on paper to do stuff like mine asteroids is very different from learning from the experience of having actually gone to one.

2)Capturing the asteroid is both a strategic goal and an operational one. I don't see how you're missing that. The ultimate US goal in space at the moment is to learn about space and to invent the methods and technologies to push the boundaries and rise to the challenges presented by space and the asteroid mission would do just that and is therefore a strategic goal in and of itself. I'll come back to this point in a later answer.

Also, the asteroid mission isn't just about the asteroid either and that's how it's an operational plan part of a strategic goal bigger than just going to the asteroid. One of current strategic goals (though they are poorly defined) are to prepare us to go into deep space and go to Mars and establish bases outside of Earth Orbit. While again, there may be other ways to do that, capturing an asteroid is a major technical achievement and would teach us a lot about operating in the deep-space environment.


3)Well, you're ignoring the fact that our current 'flexible path' is in fact a very long term plan. It talks about building up infrastructure, technology and methodology in a systematic, long term manner that will eventually allow us to go to Mars. The problem isn't that we don't have long term objectives for NASA, because we do, the problem is that the plans aren't firm enough nor are they funded adequately to be realistic.

To your challenge:
The goals of the space program is to build up our capabilities in outer space. We pursue different missions to meet that aim (such as landing on an asteroid) but the overall goal is to prepare us for bigger things. I don't think any one mission should be the end-all be-all point of the program. If you do that you could end up repeating the end-of-Apollo shut down when the goal has been met. I think we have (and should continue to do so) moved our program to a longer-term footing where we are focused on doing things that will enable us to do bigger things. We built a space station and that helped us work out how to build massive projects in orbit and allows for research. We're going to an asteroid because that will teach us a lot about operating in deep space on a large scale and could help private industry learn a lot about how to exploit asteroids. We're pursuing a commercial program again to help commercial firms figure out how to do things cheaply, safely and effectively. So the ultimate goal is nebulous and isn't tied to any one thing. We should have a space program so that we can learn how to build a bigger, more inclusive and more far-reaching space program in the future.

Just seen a documentary about the Project Orion. I've read about it before, but I am simply fascinated by the odd mix of plausibility and utter insanity than it combines in one package
[/SPOILER]

I know, it's nuts! It's one of my favorite 'could have been' programs. BTW, on youtube they have clips of test launches they did to verify the overall approach. They built a scale model of the Orion ship and exploded a series of high explosive charges under it to send it up into the air. It's pretty cool

BTW, I was inspired by KSP and PlutonianEmpire's post a few weeks back to think about a hypothetical scenario of Earth having two moons.

In addition to our normal Moon, we also have a much smaller one, say ~1500 km diameter, orbiting near the edge of Earth's Hill's sphere, say, about 900,000 km. This 2nd moon is locked in an orbital resonance with our primary Moon. However, its inclination and appearance suggests it is a foreign body, possibly captured by the Earth during the Late Heavy Bombardment period about 4 billion years ago.

From the Earth, the 2nd moon appears pretty small, about 1/5th the Moon's apparent size in the sky.

Assuming it doesn't butterfly away humanity (as it probably would) and there was a space race as in our timeline's 1960s, which of the two moons would we visit first?

The moon we'd visit first is the one that takes the least travel time and thus the least consumables. So probably the primary moon. Even if the delta-v expenditure to reach the smaller, more distant moon was the same as it was to get to the larger moon (the case in KSP), the key difference between real life and KSP is that in real life you have to bring along air, water and food for that extended trip. That will make the crucial difference I think.

 

[Winner]

I'll be brief about my comments concerning the proposed asteroid capture mission (henceforward referred to as ASCAP - let's use an acronym to sound more NASA-ish ).

1) I agree with your reasons, but I don't see how they apply to ASCAP. This was discussed with the articles we posted in this thread before, but to recap - travelling to a boulder-size rock in cislunar space is not a proper mission to do any of the things you mentioned. Navigation/propulsion-wise, it's similar to sending an Orion to loiter for a while in L2 or low lunar orbit. Nothing new is learned there. The rock itself is far too small to provide any serious experience with landing on proper asteroids, which are kilometres in size. Bagging the rock and capturing likewise doesn't give us anything that would directly apply to deflection of proper asteroids. It's a stunt, not a part of any credible strategy for dealing with threatening asteroids. Concerning science - as mentioned by Spudis, Orion is not equipped for any in-depth study of the rock, and even less for experimenting with ISRU. The most the astronauts could do would be to chip off a few pieces and carry them back to Earth. Well, that can be done robotically with a much smaller probe/launch vehicle, so no need to waste one super-expensive SLS for such mission. Even if ASCAP goes ahead and the micro-asteroid is indeed bagged, captured, and put in an orbit around the Earth (or the Moon, whatever), give me one unquestionable benefit of sending humans to it in an Orion/SLS ($2-8 billion overall cost) instead of a simple robotic sample return mission which can be developed/launched for a small fraction of the cost.

2) As I see it, the ASCAP mission is an excuse not to do attempt something more worthwhile and ambitious. If the only purpose of ASCAP is to provide some rationale for the SLS (currently a rocket without a mission) while fitting in the limited budget, then that is again symptomatic of the lack of overall strategy in the US space programme.

3) At the very least, ASCAP should be changed into ASREC - Asteroid Reconnaissance mission, which would include people being sent BEYOND cislunar space to visit one of the larger NEOs in heliocentric orbit. That way, something new about human spaceflight would be learned and the SLS would be put to a good use. The costs should not be that much higher, and if it takes a few more years to prepare for it, so be it.

---

Now for the strategy - the "flexible path" is not a strategy. Sticking with the German military analogy, it would translate into "let's develop all kinds of fancy weapons our guys dream up, with the ultimate goal of attacking the USSR sometime in late 1970s".

A credible strategy must include an objective, a set of concrete steps and/or procedures to achieve it, and an analysis of resources needed to pursue it. In our world, we must realistically count with issues of limited public interest and thus limited political support for the space programme. A space strategy palatable to the politicians must therefore include some "sweets" to lure them in; something for them to justify it on other grounds than just philosophical principles, humanist ideals, or national posturing. Ideally, the strategy's objectives should be both interesting to the public and large, and worthwhile in terms of science, technology, economy, and long-term increase in capability - and no, these don't always come in one package.

I will refrain from suggesting a strategy of my own, because this is a BIG challenge. I need to think about it, but I am not sure I am even able to postulate it on my own in any consistent manner. The main stumbling block is, well, having to count with the realities of the world we live in. If I could start with a clean sheet, it would be much simpler.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'll be brief about my comments concerning the proposed asteroid capture mission (henceforward referred to as ASCAP - let's use an acronym to sound more NASA-ish ).

1) I agree with your reasons, but I don't see how they apply to ASCAP. This was discussed with the articles we posted in this thread before, but to recap - travelling to a boulder-size rock in cislunar space is not a proper mission to do any of the things you mentioned. Navigation/propulsion-wise, it's similar to sending an Orion to loiter for a while in L2 or low lunar orbit. Nothing new is learned there. The rock itself is far too small to provide any serious experience with landing on proper asteroids, which are kilometres in size. Bagging the rock and capturing likewise doesn't give us anything that would directly apply to deflection of proper asteroids. It's a stunt, not a part of any credible strategy for dealing with threatening asteroids. Concerning science - as mentioned by Spudis, Orion is not equipped for any in-depth study of the rock, and even less for experimenting with ISRU. The most the astronauts could do would be to chip off a few pieces and carry them back to Earth. Well, that can be done robotically with a much smaller probe/launch vehicle, so no need to waste one super-expensive SLS for such mission. Even if ASCAP goes ahead and the micro-asteroid is indeed bagged, captured, and put in an orbit around the Earth (or the Moon, whatever), give me one unquestionable benefit of sending humans to it in an Orion/SLS ($2-8 billion overall cost) instead of a simple robotic sample return mission which can be developed/launched for a small fraction of the cost.

Flying to a further out asteroid isn't going to give us any new propulsive techniques either with the current state of technology. We'd still be using a chemical rocket system to do a longer-range mission to a bigger asteroid. Actually, we'd learn quite a bit less from going to a further away, bigger asteroid than the current mission. The act of capturing and moving an asteroid - even a small(er) one is a major feat itself and will require fine tuning a lot of techniques, it's not like it's a perfectly symmetrical payload itself and moving it in this manner is a novel thing to do that we can learn from. Simply going to an asteroid and returning is not itself a new technique.

As for the difference between landing on a huge asteroid and a smaller one - there isn't much of a difference really. For either case the gravity is so minimal as to be effectively zero for all but the largest asteroids and I don't think there was talk of ever doing that. So either way, you're practicing 'landing' (more like docking really) with a large, unsecured object.

Going to a larger asteroid isn't going to teach us anything about 'proper asteroid deflection' either. You can't move a thing that big with the tools available in the time frame of this mission. So the best you could do is study it geologically, which you could with a smaller one just as well. For asteroids, bigger =/= more geological activity or more geologically processing. Many of the smaller asteroids are in fact chunks of larger former asteroids, thus you can learn the same things about them. On the other hand, capturing a smaller asteroid does in fact tell you something about how to move an asteroid, period whereas going to one and returning doesn't. Even though the current capture/move procedure wouldn't apply directly to deflecting a larger asteroid, it does tell you a lot about what you'd have to do to move a bigger one by giving you a sense of their mass distribution, how to anchor to one, how to keep a thrust vector aligned on a large, lumpy object, etc.

As for what Spudis said about not doing science, come on, you have to see the flaw in that attack. Of course Orion doesn't pack a lot of science instrumentation, but Orion isn't the only component of the mission! You still have to build a device to capture and move it (which could easily sport a science payload) and NASA is also actively planning a module to do more in-depth manned study at the asteroid. Point of fact, I literally got an email this morning from my Sat Team advisor about a NASA student competition to design just such a science module. So it's extremely short-sighted of Spudis to use that line of attack ----- not to mention that line of attack could be leveled at a mission going to a larger asteroid! Point being, science is very much on the mind of NASA planners as they figure out the architecture to go do this asteroid mission.

As for ISRU - again, a bigger asteroid doesn't mean that it will necessarily be easier to study ISRU. In fact, it could be harder because to get to a bigger asteroid that's further away than one that's parked at the Moon, you have to bring more consumables for the round-trip than you would if you just went to the Moon's orbit and back. What that means is that almost by default a mission to a larger, further out asteroid will have less science payload and less ability to study ISRU.

You're last question rests on faulty assumptions about what the asteroid capture mission can accomplish and what it's planned to do.

2) As I see it, the ASCAP mission is an excuse not to do attempt something more worthwhile and ambitious. If the only purpose of ASCAP is to provide some rationale for the SLS (currently a rocket without a mission) while fitting in the limited budget, then that is again symptomatic of the lack of overall strategy in the US space programme.

And what's more ambitious than capturing an asteroid, moving its orbit and going out and studying it? There's no possibility of a Mars mission in this timeframe and with the problems I previously raised about funding, a moon mission is out as well. I'm getting the feeling that a lot of the blowback against the ASCAP mission is simply because it isn't anything that people who've already made up their minds about NASA's future want to do. What I mean is that it doesn't satisfy the Mars Nuts or the Moon Nuts, so they wind up doing weird mental gymnastics (like Spudis's attack on the science capability of the mission) to discredit it - even when a cursory analysis shows they're way off and highly unrealistic.

3) At the very least, ASCAP should be changed into ASREC - Asteroid Reconnaissance mission, which would include people being sent BEYOND cislunar space to visit one of the larger NEOs in heliocentric orbit. That way, something new about human spaceflight would be learned and the SLS would be put to a good use. The costs should not be that much higher, and if it takes a few more years to prepare for it, so be it.

Please explain how this makes sense and how the SLS isn't being put 'to good use' under the current ASCAP plan.

Now for the strategy - the "flexible path" is not a strategy. Sticking with the German military analogy, it would translate into "let's develop all kinds of fancy weapons our guys dream up, with the ultimate goal of attacking the USSR sometime in late 1970s".

That's not a fair comparison at all because attacking the USSR is most decidedly not a justified exercise of state resources. Building up our capabilities in outer space from a commercial, economic, technological and political standpoint(s) are. We're building up our technology to go into deep space, we're working with international partners to do so (The ESA is building the Orion service module), we're developing new technologies as well. So all that is actually covered in the current flexible path. The flexible path is a strategy and I've said why, your rebuttal here rests on this flawed analysis from my perspective. How is it not a strategy? It's a strategy without a concrete, singular goal, for sure, but I've already talked about how doing that is not a guarantor of long-term success (see Apollo shut-down).

A credible strategy must include an objective, a set of concrete steps and/or procedures to achieve it, and an analysis of resources needed to pursue it.

How does the flexible path fail to provide this?
Objective: build up outer space capabilities with a long term (very long term) goal of going to Mars

Steps to get there: Testing deep-space hardware with manned missions
Building up the capability of private enterprise to do their own missions
Testing the methodology for long-range missions in the relatively near-field of cislunar space before moving on

Analysis of resources: Well all the above steps have their own analysis, but of course everything is horribly complicated by our dysfunctional government that can barely function in a year-to-year state.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I certainly agree with you that taking a clean-sheet approach and going for bigger, better things would be amazing. It's simply not possible in the current political climate I think.

 

[Winner]

I still don't see how bagging a boulder and changing its orbit is significant. How does it help? What does it prove? Are we going to need to bag boulders for our return to the Moon, or on our way to Mars? And I am *not* being flippant here, I just don't get it.

Visiting a larger asteroid in heliocentric orbit on a proper long-duration mission offers several advantages. One, it is a dress rehearsal for the trip to Mars in terms of transit times, navigation, communication, life support, etc. In fact, it would be quite similar in principle to a trip to the Moons of Mars, only shorter. (Meaning we could easily skip it and go for Phobos or Deimos straight away).

I disagree with the notion that it doesn't matter if we capture a few metres sized boulder or visit and study a 5 km asteroid. The former is likely going to be a piece of a bigger asteroid in the first place (as you said), but more importantly, we know little of the structure of the bigger rocks. Ideally, we should learn how "rubble piles" and other types of asteroids behave, try to drill deep into them, practice touching down on their surface (which might be difficult due to their rotation), find out if perhaps they don't contain water ice below the surface, these sort of things. It will also look better if you can put a flag on something that isn't of the same size as the flag itself.

The payoff in visiting a suitably large asteroid in its natural environment, instead of playing around with a tiny captured one, is bigger both in scientific and spaceflight experience terms, and it will also be easier to sell as 'exploration'.

At this point I'd like to stress that I don't think visiting asteroids of any kind is a vital next step for human spaceflight and that it should have priority over other kinds of things we can do in space. I am just pretty convinced now that IF we want to do something that makes sense and IF we must go to an asteroid, we might just as well go for something that's challenging and useful in terms of future exploration missions, as well as training in case we needed to deflect a large asteroid heading for Earth. The cost-benefit ratio is more favourable, in my opinion.

As for my question, I think it is relevant. I do not see WHY do we even need humans on the ASCAP. It seems NASA could accomplish everything that is of any technical/science value by unmanned automated or even teleoperated spacecraft (it'll be close enough to Earth for that) at a (much) lower cost.

---

Sheesh, I really did not want to get bogged down in this. To me, it's besides the point. If ASCAP was a part of a clearly defined strategic approach to human spaceflight, I would shut up at once. But in the absence of such strategy, we might just as well spend the money on bigger space telescopes or a robotic Mars sample return mission or any number of unmanned missions which could make a better use of SLS's heavy lift capability. In fact, it'd be better to kill beyond LEO human spaceflight dreams altogether because trying to do it without a strategy is just a waste of time and money.

"Flexible path" is not a strategy precisely because it does not present any kind of a goal or a direction. Apollo programme was based on a strategy. VSE was a strategy. Flexible path could be summed up as "we don't know where we want to go, how, when, what we want to do there, or whether we'll have money for it." You want to call that a strategy? A proper strategy would identify a goal or goals, justify them, offer a provisional timetable for achieving them, and set aside the necessary resources.

A main advantage of having a strategy is that you can measure the merit of a particular mission proposal (such as ASCAP) in terms of its usefulness for achieving the goals of the strategy. Not having a strategy means you don't know whether the proposed mission is useful or not; there is no baseline against which you can evaluate it.

I believe that's the problem here.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

I've been specifically playing with a few story ideas. One, say we find a 500 km Kuiper belt object heading toward a collision with Earth in 12 years. The impact of a body so big would eradicate all life on Earth, evaporate all oceans, melt the salt in the empty ocean basins, and heat bedrock in depths measured in kilometres. Nothing except perhaps a few bacteria living very deep underground would survive.


Link to video.

Ha!

That's got nothing on these two!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I still don't see how bagging a boulder and changing its orbit is significant. How does it help? What does it prove? Are we going to need to bag boulders for our return to the Moon, or on our way to Mars? And I am *not* being flippant here, I just don't get it.

Reread my last post.

Visiting a larger asteroid in heliocentric orbit on a proper long-duration mission offers several advantages. One, it is a dress rehearsal for the trip to Mars in terms of transit times, navigation, communication, life support, etc. In fact, it would be quite similar in principle to a trip to the Moons of Mars, only shorter. (Meaning we could easily skip it and go for Phobos or Deimos straight away).

And a trip out to the moon doesn't do that? A long (time wise) trip out there can test all of those things with the possible exception of navigation, but even that's debatable.

I disagree with the notion that it doesn't matter if we capture a few metres sized boulder or visit and study a 5 km asteroid. The former is likely going to be a piece of a bigger asteroid in the first place (as you said), but more importantly, we know little of the structure of the bigger rocks. Ideally, we should learn how "rubble piles" and other types of asteroids behave, try to drill deep into them, practice touching down on their surface (which might be difficult due to their rotation), find out if perhaps they don't contain water ice below the surface, these sort of things. It will also look better if you can put a flag on something that isn't of the same size as the flag itself.

---> Implying smaller asteroids can't be rubble piles or even big in their own right.

Also, reread what I said about landing on an big asteroid vs a small one (ie there's not much difference)

The payoff in visiting a suitably large asteroid in its natural environment, instead of playing around with a tiny captured one, is bigger both in scientific and spaceflight experience terms, and it will also be easier to sell as 'exploration'.

You say these things but don't justify them nor refute what I already said on it.

At this point I'd like to stress that I don't think visiting asteroids of any kind is a vital next step for human spaceflight and that it should have priority over other kinds of things we can do in space. I am just pretty convinced now that IF we want to do something that makes sense and IF we must go to an asteroid, we might just as well go for something that's challenging and useful in terms of future exploration missions, as well as training in case we needed to deflect a large asteroid heading for Earth. The cost-benefit ratio is more favourable, in my opinion.

And why is going to a small asteroid less useful? You've yet to address the issues I raised in the benefits of going to a smaller one versus going to a large one.

As for my question, I think it is relevant. I do not see WHY do we even need humans on the ASCAP. It seems NASA could accomplish everything that is of any technical/science value by unmanned automated or even teleoperated spacecraft (it'll be close enough to Earth for that) at a (much) lower cost.

You're the one saying we need to do a dress-rehearsal for longer, further out missions. Th current mission satisfies that and to my thinking you haven't discredited that, you've just said it isn't and ignored my counterarguments. I'm not trying to be combative, but I read this and just thought, what the hell, did he not read what I wrote?

Sheesh, I really did not want to get bogged down in this. To me, it's besides the point. If ASCAP was a part of a clearly defined strategic approach to human spaceflight, I would shut up at once. But in the absence of such strategy, we might just as well spend the money on bigger space telescopes or a robotic Mars sample return mission or any number of unmanned missions which could make a better use of SLS's heavy lift capability. In fact, it'd be better to kill beyond LEO human spaceflight dreams altogether because trying to do it without a strategy is just a waste of time and money.

"Flexible path" is not a strategy precisely because it does not present any kind of a goal or a direction. Apollo programme was based on a strategy. VSE was a strategy. Flexible path could be summed up as "we don't know where we want to go, how, when, what we want to do there, or whether we'll have money for it." You want to call that a strategy? A proper strategy would identify a goal or goals, justify them, offer a provisional timetable for achieving them, and set aside the necessary resources.

A main advantage of having a strategy is that you can measure the merit of a particular mission proposal (such as ASCAP) in terms of its usefulness for achieving the goals of the strategy. Not having a strategy means you don't know whether the proposed mission is useful or not; there is no baseline against which you can evaluate it.

I believe that's the problem here.

This is a massive mischaracterization of the mission's goals and the long-term plans of the Agency. It also neatly sidesteps the political realities that work against longer-term planning (such as setting a firm date on a Mars landing), whereas the current approach tries to deal with that issue on multiple fronts, one step at a time.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Spoiler :

Next Mars mission seeks to unravel secrets of Red Planet's atmosphere
This is a really cool mission to study the atmosphere of Mars, and it's on time and on budget. What's super-duper cool is that it will be able to communicate with Curiosity and they will be able to tag-team their scientific study of the atmosphere.

Spoiler Eclipse as seen from Mars :

Curiosity snaps sharpest-ever solar eclipse photos from Mars

Spoiler Massive Fireball of DOOM :

3-D-printed rocket part passes biggest NASA test yet
This article is pretty cool. NASA is looking into 3D printing metal parts for the SLS. It offers a much cheaper, simpler construction method for some parts. The one they just tested was made from two 3D printed parts, normally you have to make it out of over a hundred separate parts. They tested the part in a rocket thrust test and it performed above and beyond what's normally expected of that part.

Spoiler Leaking Space Suit Video :

Link to video.

Astronauts in orbit re-create scary spacesuit leak

Spoiler :

America's biggest rocket launches top-secret spy satellite
So a Delta IV Heavy just had a successful launch. I *think* it's only the second time they have launched this rocket and the first time was a failure. It's pretty impressive and it can lift a pretty big payload. This launch was to put a secret satellite into a polar orbit.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Are there any known optical or psychological illusions that, when looking at a star through a telescope, the star appears to flash?

I know it wasn't the twinkling caused by our atmosphere, but I don't know if I was imagining it, but the star I was looking at last night actually appeared to flash, with a greater brightness variation than the twinkling seen by the naked eye.

I don't know if it was a passing satellite, or a passing airplane with its strobe lights on, but I don't recall seeing a plane-ish shape go through my FOV, and I don't know if an overhead satellite crossed the FOV fast enough to look like crappy framerates on a 3-D computer program.

For the record, I was using a telescope with a 4.5" mirror, and the eyepiece was 15mm, although I was wearing my eyeglasses at the time, so I adjusted the focuser a bit more to compensate. The star is near +5 magnitude, seen from Earth. It was also past midnight, between 12, 12:30 am.

So, any idea on why a star would appear to flash? The length of the flash appeared to be approximate or slightly less to that of a camera's flash.

And no, no aliens, I'm sure it's terrestrial in origin. I just don't know what.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If you know what star it was, google it to see if it underwent a nova last night. If not, report what you saw to astronomers. There are any number of tricks your eyes could have played on you (and you mentioned several of them) but none are particularly more or less plausible than the others I think. I wouldn't really know for sure to be honest.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

If you know what star it was, google it to see if it underwent a nova last night. If not, report what you saw to astronomers. There are any number of tricks your eyes could have played on you (and you mentioned several of them) but none are particularly more or less plausible than the others I think. I wouldn't really know for sure to be honest.

Well, I don't think novae are quite that short, especially considering we just had one just last month (Nova Delphinae 2013, I think), and it lasted for a few weeks, and was naked eye for a while, at least with minimal light pollution.

And yes, I do know the star, and it is a known close binary (HIP 10644, aka Delta Trianguli), with a period of 10 days, and a google search for the past year revealed nothing out of the ordinary. The only issue is, both components (a G dwarf and either a G, K, or an M dwarf companion, still difficult to pin it down precisely AFAIK) are believed to still be in the main sequence, so I don't remember how favorable that might be for novae. (We were discussing this system via PM earlier this year.)

And a further note, I do live on the outskirts of Minneapolis, in the "red zone" for light pollution, but my house is favorably placed for 5th magnitude stars for the naked eye, but barely.

And I copypasta'd the post from the Celestia forum after I posted it there first, as the Celestia forum has at least one full-fledged astrophysicist that is a regular, active poster. Although I haven't been the nicest to him in the past, so that might be an issue.

 

[peter grimes]

Was the flash a single pulse, or was there more than one?

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Single pulse. And after further retrospection, I remembered I may have seen the star exhibit a similar pulse When observing it via a different telescope either last fall or the year before (Autumn 2012 and Autumn 2011, repectively).

Just another reminder for me to acquire and learn how to use astrophotography equipment, since I do want to start taking space pics eventually.