Manned space travel always was, and still is, a pointless project.

[MicroBalrog]

Anytime I see someone suggest that manned spaceflight is a waste or some kind of boondoggle, I'm reminded of this quote (courtesy of L. Neil Smith):

Damn you! I was going to quote that!

[roo_ster]

Anytime I see someone suggest that manned spaceflight is a waste or some kind of boondoggle, I'm reminded of this quote (courtesy of L. Neil Smith):

"Manned spaceflight versus robotics? Let's see ... on your wedding night, would you be satisfied to send in a remote, and receive telemetered progress reports?"

Uh, yeah, that's a wonderful rationale to take money from those who earned it and toss it at a gov't program.  :rolleyes:

[roo_ster]

The author elicited a reply to his article:


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yjg4MDc1NDViZTdhYTMxMzQ5NzU2Y2VkZmE5ZmI5NDU=

The Case for Space   [John Derbyshire]

My reader email of the month, if not the year, came in this afternoon. I reproduce it here with the sender's permission. Thank you, Sir.

    Mr. Derbyshire:

    Very interesting perspective [referring to JD's article]. As a retired NASA astronaut perhaps I might add an item or two for your consideration.

    •  1   We have done things in the Shuttle era that I have been told have made our lives safer in this country. Our classified work can never be fully known, but on my first mission, STS 39 — an unclassified DoD mission — we did some very complex simultaneous maneuvers with multiple orbiting vehicles that would have been impossible to choreograph with robotic/deployable systems. We were told after the mission that results of our work greatly enhanced our ability to recognize ballistic missile threats, among other things. If true, and perhaps we will never really know, I would think this information and its utilization in America's defensive systems would be significant. This is just one example of which I have some personal knowledge.

    •  2   I do believe that our ability as a nation to mount an effort that faces down a specific and daunting challenge is not insignificant. Perhaps there is merit in the fundamental accomplishment of difficult things. This is not to justify space exploration for its own sake. But, certainly the accomplishments of the space program in general give America a self-confidence and international stature that the rest of the world can only aspire to. Perhaps also this may give rise to American efforts in facing up to new challenges in the future. I have wondered for years how America would fare if we took on the mission of energy independence, for example, with the same can-do spirit with which we have addressed our space program efforts. All out, make it work, do what it takes, get it right. I suspect the results would be impressive, if only we had the will. We look at ourselves differently, and the world looks at us differently, since we landed on the moon. That isn't all bad.

    •  3   We have established rapport in the international community of nations through peaceful and technically difficult endeavors, rather than always being about economic- or military-focused concerns. We have worked with partners from around the world on both the Shuttle program and the International Space Station. All involved nations have expanded their technical corporate knowledge and achieved things they had not previously done. Is lifting a nation's eyes skyward with satisfaction, and even awe, completely insignificant? I'm not so sure. Would peaceful international cooperation be possible without the space program? Sure. But the space program has provided a focal point that has engendered good will and national pride among nations.

    •  4   On a more fundamental level, as a spacewalker myself (3 total, 2 on the Hubble), I can tell you that one major forward technical stride in the Shuttle era is in our ability to accomplish meaningful work in vaccuum and microgravity. We progressed from very simplistic tasks to the highly complex, and EVA (Extra Vehicular Activity — spacewalk) has become a heavily leaned-on and highly reliable capability in our space operations tool box. Perhaps that expertise is ultimately to no avail, since I take your argument to say that the entire space program was unnecessary, but I wonder if the intrinsic understanding of how to not only get to and from space safely, but to also live and work in space, in and of itself, will have utility and application that we don't yet foresee. I do worry just a little bit that we might lose that expertise if we declare victory and quit our spacefaring ways when the ultimate application may be yet ahead of us.

    Warm regards to you and all the good folks at NR.

    Greg Harbaugh
    NASA astronaut (retired)
    Missions STS 39, 54, 71, 82

[Me]  As a space nut from way back in childhood, there are few bigger thrills for me than getting an email from an astronaut. As an enthusiast for the human race in general (and even occasionally in particular), I yield to no-one in my admiration of "the fundamental accomplishment of difficult things." As a green-eyeshade conservative, though, I don't want the federal government spending huge scads of money on enterprises whose fruits, when not un-disclosable, amount to vague uplift, knowledge that is useful only in furtherance of similar future government enterprises, or the establishment of rapport between members of a very thin slice of half a dozen nations' high-technical elites.

I would give everything I have, ten times over, to have been where Greg has been and see what he has seen. I don't see any reason why U.S. taxpayers should fund my enthusiasm, though.

[S. Williamson]

Because it's become so heavily mired down by regulations that the only people who can do it is the government?

[AZRedhawk44]

I'd build a rocket in my barn... if I was allowed to.

.
.
.
.
.
.
... and if I had a barn.

[Uncle Bubba]

A few years ago (or 15 years maybe...may have been when I was in high school), NASA had plans to launch a satellite that was powered by a small nuclear reactor.

Florida went banana-flavored-apescat.

"But what if it blows up and leaks radioactive stuff on the coast or into the ocean?"

I'm sure the reactor was going to be powered off for launch and stowed in a relatively inert state, inside a shielded housing, with tracking capabilities in the event of a failed launch...

But you know how coastal elites are about windmills, oil drilling and space launches.

I remember that one. It wasn't so much "Florida" as it was a small segment of that state's population augmented by members of pret' near every Leftist anti-nuke organization (redundant, I know) in the country. They "if'd" NASA into cancelling the launch. "If it blows up...", "if it crashes into the ocean...", "if it goes the wrong way, back onto land...". To all of which I say "If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle."

[S. Williamson]

I remember that one. It wasn't so much "Florida" as it was a small segment of that state's population augmented by members of pret' near every Leftist anti-nuke organization (redundant, I know) in the country. They "if'd" NASA into cancelling the launch. "If it blows up...", "if it crashes into the ocean...", "if it goes the wrong way, back onto land...". To all of which I say "If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle."

"Smellin' a lot of IF coming off this plan..."

[Nick1911]

"Smellin' a lot of IF coming off this plan..."

Thanks, I needed that laugh today. 

[erictank]

Uh, yeah, that's a wonderful rationale to take money from those who earned it and toss it at a gov't program.  :rolleyes:

Where did I say I supported stealing from people and throwing the proceeds at the government?  :rolleyes:  Might one suggest a closer examination of my actual post?

I said I supported MANNED SPACEFLIGHT.  Not "a government space program".  I thought Space Ship One's winning of the X-Prize was a fantastic start - and something worth pursuing on a much larger scale, if we can get enough people behind it.  And get the frakking government(s) out of the way.

Or do you think we should just wait around for the next great-big-rock to hit ol' Sol III?  Even beyond that, I'D like to get off this rock, even if it's only briefly.  If you don't, that's fine by me.  Not asking you to pay for my trip, either.  Just asking you not to stand in my way, or in the way of those who are working on the capability for us (as a species) to do it, is all.

[restorer]

I'm personally surprised that nobody's built a space fighter yet.  There are a LOT of targets in orbit that would be devastating to lose...

As far as manned exoatmospheric flight is concerned, where do you think the X-15 project was headed? It was amazing what they did with that ship...it held the altitude and speed records for rocket-powered flight until 2004 when SpaceShip One bettered them. 43 years! Where could we have been in that time? Some of those tests qualified as space flight and the pilots had astronaut status. We were well on our way to aircraft-type spacecraft when the whole manned space race thing started. The Cold War rationale prevailed...."the Russians put the first man in 'space' so we must not fall behind." The emphasis changed to the "monkey in a can" approach, i.e. manned capsules.

There was bitter division among the scientists at Redstone about this. Most wanted to continue developing spaceflight without the "Hollywood factor" but they lost the argument, so "monkey in a can" it was. Either way, Von Braun was the unifying and driving force. The way he did it was the way we can't (or won't) do it now; find a person who has a vision, knows what he/she is doing and has the passion and drive to see it through. Then give him a goal, give him the resources and money, then get out of the way. NASA is now a glorified white-collar jobs program run by PR types and bureaucrats.

My father worked at Redstone during the early days programming flight controls and I got to meet Von Braun and some of his guys from "the old country" several times. Von Braun actually kept his houseboat at our marina (he was afraid of our Dachshund....go figure.) Some of those guys still had group pictures from Peenemunde on their walls. If we had just given them their head we would probably be waaaaayy out there by now. We lost the fire-in-the-belly after the moonshots got to be old hat. We've gotten some unexpected benefits from the program along the way (several mentioned in this thread already) but we would have had those plus some had we continued the unmanned probes and followed the X-15 manned program to the logical next steps.

[S. Williamson]

So now that the "fire in the belly" is long gone, what's an alternative?  Privatization of space flight?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/industry/

Aside from asteroid and lunar mining, how could one convince investors to fund space flight?  Maybe flights from Tokyo to New York City in an hour?

[AZRedhawk44]

Maybe flights from Tokyo to New York City in an hour?

The number of people that could:
1.  afford such a service;
2.  and are in good enough health that the launch/acceleration/0-gee/re-entry/deceleration;

is really low.

Who knows... maybe the porn industry will lead the way?

[MicroBalrog]

That's true, AZ, but intercontinental air travel was also once unaffordable for most people.

[restorer]

So now that the "fire in the belly" is long gone, what's an alternative?  Privatization of space flight?

That's the way to go. The startup capital is enormous, of course. It has been so expensive that until now only governments could afford to do it. Initially you would need a "sugar daddy" (the US government is also known as "Uncle Sugar") like Richard Branson or Paul Allen.  If you research what they are funding you'll find that they are well on their way to commercial spaceflight, having pre-sold tourist flights years in advance. An advantage that the private sector has is the ability and desire to partner with great talent....the talent follows money, as the old saying goes. Can you see a genius like Dick Rutan working for NASA when he can accomplish so much more, so much faster? He's not hobbled with having to go through umpteen jillion internal committees just to get a new widget approved, then going through the bidding process to find out who will build it the cheapest. Free market and capitalism is the key. You still have to deal with the government, though. The FAA currently has regulatory control...I guess they will retain it as the industry matures. It's in government's best interest to fast-track private development, especially now, since we are going to have a 5-10 year gap between the current Shuttle program and it's successor. We are having to hire the Russians for our heavy lift capability. Wouldn't you rather be able to subcontract American companies to do that?

As the commercial spaceflight industry matures the cost will drop...it always does with a new technology, so it will be easier to attract investors. You could probably also be a contractor to the governments. Could you imagine what you could charge to clean up the mess we've made in orbit? That would fund a lot of R&D. Certain industries would also help fund expansion. Some research and processes can be performed in zero gee that can't be done on the planet.

As far as mining and asteroid wranglin', I don't think we have a clue yet about how much money is to be made there. It's raining soup in space and we don't know about bowls yet.

[MechAg94]

There are lots of possibilities.  The biggest hurdle is finding ways to get into high orbit cheaper. 

[AZRedhawk44]

There are lots of possibilities.  The biggest hurdle is finding ways to get into high orbit cheaper. 

It all boils down to the gigantic gravity well of the Earth.  I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd guess it takes a hundred tons of fuel to lift a ton of cargo into space.

That will never be cost effective.

It will truly take pioneers.  People willing to depart Earth for long term: years, perhaps even decades or their entire life.  People willing to settle in orbit or on the Moon.  Willing to take their families and begin real colonies.

Dangerous?  You betcha.

But so was Roanoke.  And many other colonial voyages.

One other thing that strikes me:

Heavy lift (Saturn rockets, Space Shuttle System, etc) is much more dangerous than modern lightweight manned vehicles like the X15 or SpaceShip One.  It's also more expensive to launch.

A lighweight orbital "commuter" project would be fantastic... keep your payload stuff on heavy lift systems, but send up your astronauts in devices that are slower to ascend, and operate more like a plane than a rocket.

Loss of payload?  It sucks, but it doesn't cost lives then.  Also cheaper and faster to rotate crew on and off of orbital stations.

[DustinD]

There have been some recent missions that carried plutonium that received almost no protests.  I think most of the anti nuclear hysteria is over. NASA has a few nuclear space plans that do not seem to be gathering much attention from the shrinking anti-nuke crowd.

The mass fraction from the earth’s surface to low earth orbit is about 25 to 1 for standard heavy lift boosters.

[MicroBalrog]

DustinD: In pure theory, how would this ratio look with Orion-drive rockets?

[DustinD]

I think any modern Orion type propulsion would use normal boosters to get to LEO (low earth orbit), and then use the nukes from there. If you took off from the ground you wouldn't have a mass ratio per say, just a whole lot of weight that has to be used to survive and distribute the pulses. The payload fraction seems to be about 1/3rd for a smaller Orion, and more than half the total weight for the larger ones. I am not sure how much different the design would be if it was to start in LEO vs the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) has lots of information and references. So would www.hobbyspace.com www.nasaspaceflight.com and www.nuclearspace.com

There is also this YouTube video of an updated concept for an earth to mars Orion craft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1vKMTYa40A

[S. Williamson]

If it would be possible to get an orbital refinery up and running, I wonder how much space junk could be re-formed into useful equipment without ever returning planet-side...

[MechAg94]

Some years ago I remember some guys looking at using lasers or pulsed lasers to actually give lift to a launch vehicle.  The only testing that made TV was lifting some small shiny discs about 50 feet or so.  I was curious if that tech fizzled out or not.

[KD5NRH]

Why not just take NASA's budget, convert it into nickels, stack them up and climb the stack to the moon?

It would certainly be quicker than waiting for them to do anything, and when you get tired of it, you can knock the stack down and take it back to the bank.