• 635 Days Ago
• 05/13/2010

Reality Check

Armstrong and Cernan, veteran aerospace engineers, test pilots, and Apollo astronauts, know what they are talking about, as opposed to those who wrote Obama's proposal.

The biggest problem with Obama's plan is credibility. In 2007 it was to halt all US manned space exploration for 5 years. In 2008 it was to support Constellation and close the gap. In February it was to cancel Constellation and not explore beyond LEO. Last month it was a mission to Mars for less than what it costs to reach the Moon. Details? Schedule? Cost?

Constellation is real, and although it is expensive, it is a solid foundation to begin reaching out into the solar system.

What NASA cannot afford is to totally scrap major development programs every time that another know-it-all steps into the White House.

• 635 Days Ago
• 05/13/2010

Please Don't Listen to the Boomers Anymore

The Senate would be wise not to listen to Armstrong and Cernan. Those two are from the baby boomer generation who gave the world rocket propulsion, one of the most expensive and dangerous transportation technologies in the history of humanity. Those guys still think rockets are cool. The hard truth is that rockets suck. Obama should urge NASA to abandon all efforts at designing new rocket propulsion technologies. The US is correct to let the private sector, the Russians, the Europeans and others compete in that arena. NASA should simply buy rocket transportation from the lowest bidder for the time being until something better emerges. Something will because, again, rockets are not it.

Rockets or any form of propulsion technologies based on the use of propellant/fuel are not just primitive and dangerous but are woefully inadequate for interplanetary/interstellar travel and off-world mining operations. Spending many months in a dangerous, radiation-bombarded spaceship to travel to Mars is absurd. The cost to benefit ratio is prohibitive. Everybody know this, so there is no use in denying it. There is a reason that '2001, Space Odyssey' only took place in the movies. It's because of the rockets.

There is, of course, a way to solve this problem (there is always a solution) but our physicists will need to wake up from their stupor and reassess their understanding of motion. They do not understand motion even if they think they do. As long as we continue to rely on our centuries-old understanding of motion, we will be forced to fill our spaceships with a huge load of fuel and propellant. And we will continue to pay a mountain of cash for antiquated rocket technology.

NASA administrator Charles Bolden is correct to expect a breakthrough in propulsion. The current methods simply won't cut it. As I wrote in my comment to a recent Delta-V article on NASA, NASA must let go of their primitive ways and forge a new future worthy of the 21st century. Fearless and even rebellious leadership combined with a willingness to go against the grain are what is called for. This means that all of our current cockamamie rocket propulsion systems must be abandoned.

• 631 Days Ago
• 05/17/2010

Forget Mars, Go back to the moon

Going to the Moon was an expensive proposition (although less expensive than going to war) but was doable and desirable since it stimulated other technologies (more than preparing for war). Going to Mars, or an asteroid, will be astronomically expensive and dangerous.

Compare the physics (part 1)

Since the Moon orbits the Earth, then for navigational purposes the Earth is stationary (even though it really isn't). This means you can travel to/from the moon anytime you wish. Since both the Earth and Mars (and asteroids) are in orbit around the Sun, then for navigational purposes the Sun is stationary (even though it really isn't). Since the Earth and Mars are constantly moving with respect to each other, you can only travel between them during a 4-6 week gap (or so) every 780 days (26 months).

Compare communications time-delay

Speed of Light: we'll use 300,000 km to keep the math simple

<<< Moon >>>
the average distance from Earth: 384,399 km / 300,000 = 1.28 seconds (one way) so the message "Houston, we've got a problem" is possible and practical

<<< Mars >>>
1) the average distance from Mars to the Sun: 227,939,100 km / 300,000 = 759 seconds or 12 minutes.
2) the average distance from Earth to the Sun: 149,597,887 km / 300,000 = 498 seconds or 8 minutes.
3) the minimum time is 5 (12-8) minutes
4) the maximum time is 20 (12+8) minutes (although the Sun will be in the way for about a month)
5) in either scenarios 3 or 4, a help message could be sent to Earth but there is little that anyone on Earth could do about it.

Compare the politics (part 1)

In January 2004, the Bush-Cheney administration requested that NASA should begin planning manned missions to the Moon by 2020-2024. This led to the creation of the Constellation Program which included the creation of:

1) two new boosters (Ares 1 and Ares 5) which are derived from the SRB technology used on the Shuttle. Contrary to popular belief, one launch of each of these vehicles would double the payload capabilities of a single Saturn 5. Hardware destined for the moon (like Altair) would have been launched into Earth orbit via an Ares 5. Then the astronauts would follow in an Ares 1. Next, the two spacecraft would do an Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) prior to heading to the moon.
2) larger crew capsule known as Orion (could hold 4-6 astronauts)
3) a larger lunar lander known as Altair could hold 0-4 astronauts (zero means that the vehicle could land autonomously while bringing supplies from lunar orbit down to the surface)

Now it is true that the Bush-Cheney administration underfunded NASA over the years (probably related to tax cuts combined with increases in war expenditures related to Iraq and Afghanistan). This underfunding led to some delays and cost overruns in the whole Constellation Program but the delays associated with Ares 1 were the most visible. But was this NASA's fault or the fault of the administration and congress for cutting the funds? That said, wouldn't canceling Constellation after five full years be flushing tax-payer dollars (US$9 billion) already spent by NASA since 2004?

Analyzing Obama's Announcement

President Obama has suggested retargeting NASA's moon mission to Mars and/or nearby asteroids. So he is canceling Altair (the lander) while keeping Orion (the crew capsule). If NASA goes to Mars then they will need a lander so why cancel Altair? Meanwhile, a mission to Mars will average 9-18 months. There is no way that anyone is going to live in a capsule that small for that length of time. Why? Astronauts will be traveling to Mars in zero gravity which means the astronauts need lots of physical exercise so they can arrive at Mars able to walk via muscle power. Exercise equipment including additional food and oxygen will require more space. So Obama should have canceled Orion and kept Altair. (on the flip side, contract cancellation fees may be in control here)

Compare the politics (part 2)

We all know that John F Kennedy was talking to Werner Von Braun for a year prior to making this speech: "I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space, and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."

But I get the feeling that the Obama Administration didn't talk to any specialists prior to retargeting NASA towards Mars. Canceling the Constellation Program because America is fighting a two-front war is one thing, but the idea that any human can go to Mars anytime in this century is just sheer fantasy. Where was science adviser Steven Chu during this decision?

On top of this, I hope the Obama Administration didn't kill Constellation because it was first proposed by a Republican. If so, this is almost as dumb as the catholic-protestant swing seen in European history depending upon who was sitting on the throne.

Compare the physics (part 2)

1) The radius of the moon (at the equator) is roughly one quarter the size of the Earth. At the moon's surface, gravity is approximately 1/6 that of Earth.
2) The radius of Mars (at the equator) moon is roughly one half (53%) the size of Earth. At the surface of Mars, gravity is approximately one third (37%) that of the Earth.
3) These differences don't seem like much but remember that a booster is required to get into Earth orbit after a launch from Earth. I am not aware of any lander-style craft getting of Earth's surface (or even halfway off).

Politics (part 3)

Defense contractors (and the military industrial complex) naturally stay busy creating technology for war. These same contractors are probably the only people capable of creating technology to the moon or Mars. If we can keep contractors busy on creative pursuits like going to the moon, then maybe we can limit our exposure to destructive pursuits like going to war. Maybe we should make the contractors choose between the two goals.

One final point about Mars

It is going to be very difficult to go to Mars followed by a return to Earth (at least with current technologies). For those people who absolutely feel it necessary to go there in person, humanity should consider one-way colonization missions. The initial Mars base could be built using numerous robotic landings with people following only when it is safe to do so.

Final Points

Everyone knows you need to learn to walk before you run. Europeans required many centuries to gain sailing experience by paddling around the Mediterranean before venturing onto the oceans. This experience included learning to live away from civilization. Like wise, humanity's "Mediterranean of space flight" will be the area between the Earth and Moon. We need to develop technologies to learn how to live away from the Earth before we venture to Mars or the asteroid belt. Rescue missions to the moon will almost always be possible while rescue missions elsewhere will almost always be not possible. Americans need to press congress to vote down Obama's plan to kill any part of Constellation.

How to pay for it? Exit the war in Iraq and Afghanistan ($5 billion/month or $60 billion/per year). Did you know that the budget for the 30,000 soldier troop surge has been additionally budgeted at one million dollars per soldier per year? Calc: 1,000,000 x 30,000 = $30 billion/year. Imagine what NASA and its contractors could do with $90 billion. Things would be a lot better for NASA if they received an additional $9 billion.

I just learned that the U.S. currently supports a military force of one-half million (American troops in Germany and Korea account for 80,000 alone). Is there any return on this investment by US taxpayers?

• 631 Days Ago
• 05/17/2010

How about a simpler plan?

How about focusing in on Earth first with NASA focusing on a plan to clean up a good chunk of the space junk in orbit?

• 631 Days Ago
• 05/17/2010

I say we do both

Why can't we do both? Go to the moon, and set up some type of base station which will be used as the launch pad for extra stellar destinations in the future. And not a joint partnership installation like the Space Station, I'm talking about limited colonization of the moon for the direct benefit of the U.S. the country and people.

• 631 Days Ago
• 05/17/2010

Killing several birds with one stone

I will put my Foghorn Leghorn quote first, just to avoid premature invectation: "Its a joke, son, its a joke" (copyright, Warner Bros).
So here goes-- Go to the asteroid belt, find a nice sized metal asteroid.  Tow it home, drop it on a really poor country that is giving us lip. 1. All the dust in the atmosphere would eliminate global warming as a problem.
2. No one would ever give us lip again (indeed, no civilized country would probably speak to us again).
3. The poor country would now have valuable metals to mine and sell.
4. Overpopulation would not be a problem for another few centuries.