The thread for space cadets!

[hobbsyoyo]

ITER is planned to be the first energy-positive fusion reactor, and we know how to make antimatter - the only problem is to scale up the production facilities. Personally I like the concept of anti-matter farms - pretty sci-fi stuff, but theoretically doable in 60-70 years time frame.

Fusion isn't something that's in distant future, we know how to do it and we're in the stage of figuring out practicalities. If we threw more money at the problem, we'd probably get there much sooner. Unfortunately, the anti-nuclear hysteria in many countries and the costs and lack of guarantees are scaring the politicians from giving the whole thing a stronger backing.

I don't have faith that ITER or the National Ignition Facility will achieve their goals. Even if they did, I'm not confident that they would be scalable or profitable to actually make an industry out of them or their direct descendents. We just don't do fusion very well, haven't been able to make it work even though we have thrown lots of money, time and talent at the problem.

It will happen one day, but I don't think it would happen soon enough to get us to a nearby star in 90ish years.

Plus, even if we do figure out fusion, it's still a huge step to turn it into a working propulsion system in space.

One last thing, a 10x input to output ratio is pathetic for a power plant.

Argh I don't like playing the pessimist.

1.) Europe's Earth observation programmes are at least as robust and ambitious as Americas.

To be fair though, he said our program was bigger than any other country. He didn't compare our country's program to the program of Europe. USA #1

2.) Setting goals is one thing, doing something to actually make it happen is another. Every president since Kennedy has made such announcements, and neither have seen them through. The fact is, whenever a president sets a goal of getting somewhere long after he leaves the White House, it is almost guaranteed it's not going to happen.

This is painfully true and it makes me sad that this is a natural consequence of our system of government. It's much harder for us to set a priority like this and work towards it consistently and steadily Chinese style.
USA =/= #1

3.) Which is why Obama-appointed NASA administration tried to cancel the Orion altogether at first, and then tried to turn it into an ultra-expensive ISS lifeboat? I'd also question whether doing something less than what was accomplished 44 years ago is truly a sign of progress.

Orion is not an ultra-expensive ISS lifeboat. Working with NASA, they reconcieved Orion as a deep space exploration capsule instead of a lifeboat/lunar transport. The COTS program Obama put in place takes over the ISS lifeboat function. I mean sure, they will probably have an Orion docked at the ISS as a backup, but that's not it's main purpose.

Also, Obama is proposing to go out to asteroids and then Mars while giving funding to allow the private space industry to thrive and do it's own thing. We have never done these things before. Though I do take it that the asteroid landing program is ripe for cancellation by the next unsympathetic administration.

My personal comment - I tend to trust that Obama means well, but he really picked wrong people to take care of space policy. His new vision for NASA and the US space programme has caused chaos and disorganization, not to mention demoralization, in the agency and the subsequent political squabbles with Republicans have led to unprecedented politicization of space policy which really, really hampers prospects for sustainable, ambitious US space programme.

Obama hasn't been as ambitious as I would like. OTOH, his privitazation scheme is awesome from a young engineer's perspective.

I wouldn't attribute demoralization and chaos at NASA solely to Obama. NASA has been in serious trouble since Bush set ambitious goals that he didn't fund or push aggressively. The Columbia disaster, the uncertain budgetary climate and the aging and retiring of the workforce also plays a big part in NASA's problems.

1.) That is true, but what NASA truly needs is a long term vision that doesn't change every 4-8 years. Romney isn't saying what that should be. He mostly correctly sums up what the US space programme is good for, but from what he says here I don't think he has put much thought into what exactly it should accomplish in the next 10-20 years.

QFT

2.) This sounds like more militarization of space. The US military has always been uncomfortable with a *civilian* space programme, especially USAF has always tried to develop its own programme and undermine NASA. I fear Romney with all his sabre-rattling is about to give in to their pressure.

This was my take on Romney's statement as well. He might as well come out and say we need bombs in space because China rah rah rah.

3.) ITAR has indeed pulled the rug from under the feet of the US space industry. I am fine with it, because it helps Europe and others to outcompete US aerospace companies. However, if Romney wants to reform it, he will run into conflict with his "national security" agenda. The main reason ITAR is in place is to prevent technology transfers to China and Russia. Liberalizing the market would inevitably lead to such transfers. For this reason, I don't think Romney will facilitate any major change in this policy.

You're exactly right here. He will not change this, and couldn't do it even if he wanted to. There would be too much congressional opposition. I also don't think he means this seriously, it's a complicated issue and his quip here doesn't do the complexity of it justice.

To summarize, I don't think either candidate has a clear idea what to do with the US space programme. It's not on top of their list of priorities, and they will delegate leadership on it to other people, leaving the thing to run itself. NASA has an inbuilt momentum that carries it forward despite the lack of political leadership; however, you can't expect any breakthroughs in terms of human spaceflight or truly ambitious unpiloted mission in such an environment.

Yes and no. I agree with the thrust of this statement. OTOH, I'm optimistic that the COTS program and the CCDev program will pay huge dividends for everyone. Not so sure the asteroid landing program will come to fruition for the same reason the Aries program crashed and for the political reasons that you and I have covered.

 

[Crezth]

That is true, but what NASA truly needs is a long term vision that doesn't change every 4-8 years. Romney isn't saying what that should be. He mostly correctly sums up what the US space programme is good for, but from what he says here I don't think he has put much thought into what exactly it should accomplish in the next 10-20 years.

I don't agree. I think you can argue that it needs both, but not that it doesn't need more funding. As it is, NASA is struggling to afford more than one ground crew for long-term missions. And forget about multiple avenues of approach, more than one mission, etc.

I know that you, personally, are pro-space and pro-NASA (to the extent that NASA is pro-space, anyway), but comments like Romney's I often hear touted by people who don't see the "value" in space science anyway. I don't harbor any delusions that Obama cares about NASA, but Romney? He just picked up on a trite talking point that lets him say "I am pro-NASA!" and wave an American flag without actually *doing* anything.

Besides, it's not like higher funding and clearer goals are at cross-purposes. But, as you say:

NASA has an inbuilt momentum that carries it forward despite the lack of political leadership;

and politicians clearly have no desire to take charge on any NASA issues. That's why I say you might as well give them more money, if you aren't going to do anything else.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Freakin love you guys.

 

[Winner]

I don't have faith that ITER or the National Ignition Facility will achieve their goals. Even if they did, I'm not confident that they would be scalable or profitable to actually make an industry out of them or their direct descendents. We just don't do fusion very well, haven't been able to make it work even though we have thrown lots of money, time and talent at the problem.

Well, if you base that on your 'gut feeling', fine. Mine's different. And ITER isn't supposed to be a power plant; it's a test facility that's supposed to prove a) fusion is viable as a power source; b) we can produce the 2nd component of the fuel mix (tritium) in the reactor itself.

Orion is not an ultra-expensive ISS lifeboat. Working with NASA, they reconcieved Orion as a deep space exploration capsule instead of a lifeboat/lunar transport. The COTS program Obama put in place takes over the ISS lifeboat function. I mean sure, they will probably have an Orion docked at the ISS as a backup, but that's not it's main purpose.

Nope.

Orion CEV was first conceived during the Bush-era Constellation programme, which Obama then cancelled. Obama people wanted to cancel the whole thing, including the Orion capsule. That ran into severe opposition in the Congress, so they backtracked and wanted to make Orion from a deep-space, high-performance spacecraft into an ISS lifeboat. That would be like using BMWs to plow fields, so they backed off even from that and in the end agreed to return to the original mission for Orion (which got renamed, even though people still refer to it as Orion). This is why I am a bit sarcastic when Obama hails future Orion missions as his achievement.

COTS was conceived and started by the previous administration (under Mike Griffin), but Obama sensibly continued in it.

Also, Obama is proposing to go out to asteroids and then Mars while giving funding to allow the private space industry to thrive and do it's own thing. We have never done these things before. Though I do take it that the asteroid landing program is ripe for cancellation by the next unsympathetic administration.

Again, the commercial incentives for private sectors were launched under Bush. Obama people simply continued in them, perhaps increased funding, I don't recall exactly now.

As for the mission to asteroids... I don't see the point. The cancelled Constellation project was about to return people the the Moon, this time to stay, for comparable cost in money. I see that as about 10 times more valuable an achievement than going to some rock the size of a large building, float around a little for a few days, and then hurry back to Earth. This can be done by robots with ease.

Obama should have gone straight for the big prize, Mars. The so-called "flexible path" is not really flexible at all, it's a joke, and everybody knows it. At least Obama decided to extend support for the ISS beyond 2020, but I guess anybody with some sense in them would do the same thing - you don't invest a 100 billion dollars into a lab over more than a decade to operate it just for a few years.

Obama hasn't been as ambitious as I would like. OTOH, his privitazation scheme is awesome from a young engineer's perspective.

Right, but for the third time, he hasn't come up with it, he inherited it from the previous administration.

I wouldn't attribute demoralization and chaos at NASA solely to Obama. NASA has been in serious trouble since Bush set ambitious goals that he didn't fund or push aggressively. The Columbia disaster, the uncertain budgetary climate and the aging and retiring of the workforce also plays a big part in NASA's problems.

Bush certainly screwed things up by not pushing for adequate funding for Constellation, that's painfully true. Perhaps if he didn't waste trillions in Iraq, it would have been easier to find a few billion dollars to speed up things with Constellation

The thing is, Obama cancelled it, then got stuck in a trench war with the Congress, and in the end ended up with the STS, which is basically a reincarnation of Ares-V, and the Orion he had tried unsuccessfully to kill. Years of effort were lost or thrown into disarray, and NASA ended up with a mission that's nowhere near as ambitious, but will cost about the same and take much longer to accomplish.

Obama could have reformulated Constellation by changing the timetable, cancelling Ares-I and outsourcing that part of Const. to a private subject, something along these lines. By cancelling it and thus declaring war to the space advocates in Congress, he pretty much derailed NASA's human spaceflight programme for at least a decade.

That's the brutal truth, sorry, Obama fans.

I don't agree. I think you can argue that it needs both, but not that it doesn't need more funding. As it is, NASA is struggling to afford more than one ground crew for long-term missions. And forget about multiple avenues of approach, more than one mission, etc.

I know that you, personally, are pro-space and pro-NASA (to the extent that NASA is pro-space, anyway), but comments like Romney's I often hear touted by people who don't see the "value" in space science anyway. I don't harbor any delusions that Obama cares about NASA, but Romney? He just picked up on a trite talking point that lets him say "I am pro-NASA!" and wave an American flag without actually *doing* anything.

Well, I think that space community in the US needs to get over the "give us more money!" cry that's often their only response in debates about space policy. Don't take me wrong, I agree that more money would be good (does someone disagree with that? ) - it's just that this is hardly going to happen in this political-economic climate, therefore the focus should be on using NASA's budget more *effectively*. The agency is still getting what, 18 billion dollars each year? That is about 4-5 times more than the 2nd biggest agency gets. Yet the results seem pretty meagre for that kind of money. Something needs to be done about it. I agree that Romney or his people are hardly honest about their intentions and they would never accomplish anything of note if they got the chance.

and politicians clearly have no desire to take charge on any NASA issues. That's why I say you might as well give them more money, if you aren't going to do anything else.

NASA's problems aren't that different from any other large governmental bureaucracy. They tend to get petrified over time and more inefficient, especially if they are used to getting their dough no matter what. NASA's problems are exacerbated by a lack of political guidance and unstable/uncertain political support for its programmes. As one space commentator quipped, it's like if every new president wanted to redefine the mission of the US Navy

What NASA needs is a clear political mandate to accomplish something inspiring and difficult - a sort of Kennedy-esque "organizing purpose" that forces people to focus on important thing instead of getting lost in trivialities.

 

[Crezth]

Well, I think that space community in the US needs to get over the "give us more money!" cry that's often their only response in debates about space policy. Don't take me wrong, I agree that more money would be good (does someone disagree with that? ) - it's just that this is hardly going to happen in this political-economic climate, therefore the focus should be on using NASA's budget more *effectively*. The agency is still getting what, 18 billion dollars each year? That is about 4-5 times more than the 2nd biggest agency gets. Yet the results seem pretty meagre for that kind of money. Something needs to be done about it. I agree that Romney or his people are hardly honest about their intentions and they would never accomplish anything of note if they got the chance.

NASA barely receives half of one-percent of the federal budget. So, yeah, about 16 billion dollars. That's a lot, I mean, sure, but it's not really enough. We give ten times that, regularly, to industry and the like for equivalently "meager" results. And I would argue that NASA's results aren't that meager when you consider that it's funding hundreds of research projects in dozens of states, putting robots on Mars, and ensuring SpaceX remains relevant.

NASA's problems aren't that different from any other large governmental bureaucracy. They tend to get petrified over time and more inefficient, especially if they are used to getting their dough no matter what. NASA's problems are exacerbated by a lack of political guidance and unstable/uncertain political support for its programmes. As one space commentator quipped, it's like if every new president wanted to redefine the mission of the US Navy

What NASA needs is a clear political mandate to accomplish something inspiring and difficult - a sort of Kennedy-esque "organizing purpose" that forces people to focus on important thing instead of getting lost in trivialities.

This isn't going to happen. It's just not going to happen. The same political climate that won't up NASA's funding isn't going to tell it what to do and by when. That should be obvious: you wouldn't give an organization a clear mission without giving the impression of arming it for the task. It's politically nonsensical.

Government organizations do tend towards corruption and bloat, make no mistake. But NASA was receiving twice the funding it receives now in the '60s in adjusted dollars, when it had a clear mission, and that was just enough to accomplish that albeit difficult task. What it does with what it has now is pretty damn impressive, all things considered. Just getting a robot to Mars is a task of no trivial difficulty.

Now if you're either unable or unwilling to give NASA a clear mission, you should at the very least up its funding. Worst case scenario, most of it gets siphoned off by private bodies that do care, and you boost science and technology and the economy for nothing.

e: Part of the reason the US space community believes that "more money" is the answer, and I've had the pleasure of working with several individuals from NASA and the USAF, is that Washington simply does not care about space. I mentioned above and I should reiterate that the idea we will get a bipartisan Kennedyesque directive from a charismatic individual with the backing of the entire political atmosphere is a simple pipe dream. Not only is there the obvious partisan opposition - any move by either side will be seen as a power-grab by the other - but there's no particular will on behalf of the people to, you know, beat the Russians to space, or something. I think people all believe that landing on Mars would be "cool" and are perhaps glancingly aware that space science improves the general welfare, but insofar as fitting this into a schema that is separated from the political partisanship in the government? People can't do it; the answers are predictable: let private enterprise do it, why spend money on space when we can spend money on the poor, government spending doesn't create jobs, the environment is more important, etc. In other words, seeing Washington in action is enough to dissuade many people who work in or with NASA that the Kennedyesque directive isn't coming. So failing that, we take the best tack we can: just give us more money, here's a list of reasons why it will help, and we'll work it out.

 

[warpus]

Have a slight bout of insomnia and found this:

Deep Space Habitat Configurations

You guys might find it interesting, it's basically deep-space plans involving astronauts - mostly outlining what sort of spacecraft might be used.

Dated March 14, 2012

 

[Winner]

Have a slight bout of insomnia and found this:

Deep Space Habitat Configurations

You guys might find it interesting, it's basically deep-space plans involving astronauts - mostly outlining what sort of spacecraft might be used.

Dated March 14, 2012

I've seen those when they first appeared. Depressingly unambitious, if you ask me.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

About last week or so, there were some rumors swirling around triggered by comments tweeted by astronomers saying that based on all the Kepler data so far, there are absolutely zero Earth-size planet candidates in the habzone in the Kepler samples, and that it is extremely unlikely to find any in Kepler's remaining lifetime, regardless of any potential mission extensions.

So, will the Kepler mission have been all for nothing, or ultimately a waste of money?

 

[Winner]

ESA picks exoplanet telescope for launch in 2017

-> It's called 'Cheops' and it will further study known exoplanets, including perhaps learning something about their atmospheres.

Future of European lunar lander to be decided soon

-> ESA wants to land a probe on the Moon's south pole to look for water and test key technologies necessary for future human exploration.

----

@PlutonianEmpire: What? It's gives us a wealth of data! Plus, keep in mind that for Kepler to find a planet, the planetary 'plane' of the star needs to be aligned with our line of sight. This is of course very improbable, therefore Kepler has likely seen just a fraction of the planets around the stars in its field of view.

 

[Glassfan]

NASA just isn't what it used to be;

NASA's stagnant budget over the years as a percentage of GDP:


Decline in staff:
1964 NASA employees 81,200
1970 NASA employees 32,548
2012 NASA employees 18,800

Furthermore, at the height of the Apollo program in 1968, NASA ran hundreds of facilities around the world, now it is down to a few dozen. And...

..."However, over 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are more than 40 years
old and reaching the end of their designated life spans. At the same time, the Agency is
undergoing considerable changes in mission focus with the retirement of the Space
Shuttle Program after 39 years and uncertainty about the facilities needed for the next
space launch program. Moreover, NASA is dealing with these challenges at a time when
growing budget deficits are straining the resources of all Federal agencies. This will
require the Agency to make even more difficult decisions regarding its infrastructure."
- DECEMBER 19, 2011 AUDIT REPORT NO. IG-12-008, OFFICE OF AUDITS, NASA’S INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES

 

[Winner]

Well, people need to face the fact that the good old days are over. Unless NASA is given another major challenge comparable to the goals of the Apollo programme (along with the funds to tackle it), the agency will have to transition to a new mode of functioning. Shedding unneeded centres and facilities is a part of this process, as they only weigh the agency down.

 

[Crezth]

What are you thinking of for "unneeded" centers and facilities?

 

[Glassfan]

What are you thinking of for "unneeded" centers and facilities?

Can't speak for Winner, but our local NASA facility, the John Glenn Research Center (formerly the Lewis Research Center) was on the chopping block and was only saved by the direct personal intervention of the powerful Senator/Astronaut.

Military "Base-Closings" were big in the news in the 1990s, but NASA also quitely suffered steady attrition since the 70s.

 

[Crezth]

NASA Glenn isn't "unneeded" in any sense of the word. It's an important facility.

 

[Winner]

Yeah yeah, all facilities are "needed", especially if local politicians lobby for them. NASA needs to slim down, which includes merging, downsizing, or closing centres and facilities which are no longer cost-effective to operate.

Otherwise the "dead weight" will gradually eat bigger and bigger proportion of the agency's budget.

 

[Crezth]

How do you figure? I find that claim rather suspect since these facilities have been around for quite some time and NASA still has the capability to launch complex and successful rover missions despite having a fraction of the working staff it did in the '60s.

 

[Winner]

China Eyes New Rockets for Space Station, Moon Missions

Charles Vick, senior technical analyst for GlobalSecurity.org in Alexandria, Va., said that China’s buildup of a new family of boosters "implies a capability that the U.S. may find difficult on the world stage of geopolitical influence to contend with, much less compete."

Vick said that the Long March 5 offers China the capability to carry out crewed lunar circumnavigation and lunar orbit flights.

(...)

The actual white paper language states: "China will conduct studies on the preliminary plan for a human lunar landing."

The Long March 5 seems to be part of a larger family of vehicles, Cheng said, "reflecting a fairly effective effort at amortizing the costs of developing new technologies by applying them across a family of launch vehicles. This will likely generate efficiencies in production. We have probably not seen the last of China as a competitor for providing commercial space launch."

In Cheng’s view, the Chinese are pursuing space launch with state-owned enterprises as the preferred solution path.

"In the United States, we’re going to rely more on SpaceX, a private company, in the hopes/expectation that they will be able to fulfil launch commitments and even deliver people, while making a profit, and hopefully innovating," Cheng said. "A classic clash between two fundamentally different approaches.".

Cheng said that the concentration of major facilities on Hainan island, including the new launch site, "is probably a factor in growing Chinese assertiveness over territorial claims to the entire South China Sea."

-> I wonder where they got this picture (note the last rocket!):

This would imply the Chinese are considering building a "Moon rocket" in addition to the LM-5.

---

Also, repost from the chamber:

Spoiler :

 

[Winner]

ESA might slam its €1.5 billion Hershel telescope into the Moon

-> Hershel is now out of its stock of helium coolant, making it basically a 3-tonne piece of space junk. Since heretical ideas like replenishing the coolant are apparently out of question, a group of scientists want to crash it into one of the Lunar polar areas to repeat the LCROSS experiment.

Interesting. Why aren't we designing these hyper-expensive spacecraft for reusability - I imagine a small automated "tanker" spacecraft wouldn't have been that difficult to build, had the telescope been designed with that option in mind - that's the billion €uro question.

 

[strijder20]

'Heretical ideas'? Replenishing fuel in space is rather costly.
However, the thing's only 3 years old, so replacing it with a newer one won't be a great improvement in quality thanks to new technologies.

 

[Winner]

'Heretical ideas'? Replenishing fuel in space is rather costly.
However, the thing's only 3 years old, so replacing it with a newer one won't be a great improvement in quality thanks to new technologies.

I was being sarcastic. Hershel is of course a great achievement for ESA, but in principle, why aren't we designing these multi-billion pieces of hardware to be as reusable as possible? ESA has mastered automated docking already, so technologically, there is little in the way of preventing in-space coolant replenishing that would allow Hershel to serve for twice or thrice the time.

Right now, we're operating under a completely wrong paradigm in space. We conceive a mission, we design a unique spacecraft to perform the mission, and then we throw it away and repeat. Even in the most commercialized space endeavour (communication satellites), we're still throwing away expensive satellites just because of one malfunction. Imagine maritime shipping operated under such principle - whenever a boat/ship experiences a problem, we sink it and build a new one. We wouldn't get very far with that mentality, would we?

For more, I encourage you to listen to this podcast (there are interesting idea about how cislunar space should be developed).