Author Topic: What should NASA's mission be?  (Read 11297 times)

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #20 on: 11/18/2010 12:41 am »

But why?  Is expanding human presence permanently beyond LEO sufficient?  Would the public be satisfied if the only result was fancy hotels on the moon catering to the super wealthy?  Personally i think there needs to be a little more meat to make most Americans believe this is a worthy investment.  Reducing our reliance on the middle East oil; minimizing global warming, curing cancer,...

I think they could be satisfied with rich tourists on the moon.

 The problem with human space flight as it exists now is that it is totally dependent on the government dole. It needs to move towards being self sustaining. The wealthy are the first to adopt many things because they have more disposable income.

 If you get a situation where a company transports NASA astronauts as well as passengers to the moon you are in a better position than NASA transporting its own select few to the moon at tax payer expense.  As the passenger market grown it becomes less and less dependent on the government. If the tax payers tire of lunar travel there is hope that all is not lost.

It also gives the ability to travel to more groups than just a few NASA screened astronauts.

Offline blasphemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Slovakia
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 1081
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #21 on: 11/18/2010 08:56 am »
NASA senate bill got it right, IMHO:

Quote
The long-term goal of the human space flight and exploration efforts of NASA shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth orbit

This basicaly boils down to a moon base. Its time for us to go back, and this time, to stay.

But why?  Is expanding human presence permanently beyond LEO sufficient?  Would the public be satisfied if the only result was fancy hotels on the moon catering to the super wealthy?  Personally i think there needs to be a little more meat to make most Americans believe this is a worthy investment.  Reducing our reliance on the middle East oil; minimizing global warming, curing cancer,...

The public is primary reason why a moon base would be best. What are the alternatives? Visiting a NEO, or a flyby of Venus or Mars. I believe permanently manned Moon base is the most interesting for the public out of these. Also, it is the best choice for research, we have barely scratched the surface, and a human presence will greatly help the exploration. On the other hand, there is not so much a human can do on a mission to NEO or a flyby of a planet, that cannot be done by robots.

I dont understand why reducing our reliance on oil, minimizing global warming or curing cancer should be NASA manned spaceflight goal..  ???

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #22 on: 11/18/2010 09:21 am »
The public is primary reason why a moon base would be best. What are the alternatives? Visiting a NEO, or a flyby of Venus or Mars. I believe permanently manned Moon base is the most interesting for the public out of these. Also, it is the best choice for research, we have barely scratched the surface, and a human presence will greatly help the exploration. 

But the public is not interested. That's the inconvenient truth here. NASA's primary achievment has been to make space flight appear about as interesting as a car trip to the mall for Joe Sixpack. Renewed landings on the moon (or Mars, for that matter) won't change this fact. Sure, it'll be cool for the first few images, and maybe when the first tourist sets foot on lunar soil, but after that, the public will quickly lose interest again (as happened during Apollo, or during Shuttle, the current peak of interest for Shuttle is only because people know it will be the last few flights).

A moon base will be seen as "ISS on the moon". And ISS is about the most boring thing we have yet done in space, as far as the public is concerned (nobody has a long enough attention span to remain excited during more than 10 years of construction).

I predict even a Mars landing will be seen by many as a repeat of 1969 with different colors.

Space travel is boring to the TV audience. That's a fact. It only gets interesting during the (very rare) firsts, or when something goes badly wrong...
« Last Edit: 11/18/2010 09:23 am by aquanaut99 »

Offline Integrator

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #23 on: 11/18/2010 10:13 am »
The mission depends on the transportation.  Design, build the robust transportation, then ask, what can we do with this?  Build on that as we gain practical experience out there and technology advances.  We are presently caught up in an endless cycle of analysis paralysis and hand wringing anxiety.

Get on with it already.

INTEGRATOR
"Daddy, does that rocket carry people?"
"No buddy, just satellites."
"Why not?"
   --- 5 year old son of jjnodice,  21.01.2011

Offline RBSB

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #24 on: 11/18/2010 10:37 am »
The mission depends on the transportation.  Design, build the robust transportation, then ask, what can we do with this?  Build on that as we gain practical experience out there and technology advances.  We are presently caught up in an endless cycle of analysis paralysis and hand wringing anxiety.

Get on with it already.

INTEGRATOR

Build "robust" transportation and they will come?  The problem today is lack of payloads not lack of transportation.  Sure NASA can follow through with NASA's 2011 authorization and develop a 70 mT HLV for $11.5B with initial launch capability in 2016, but then what?  With currently planned exploration budgets this HLV will consume half the Exploration budget flying or not.  The remaining budget is sufficient for roughly 1/2 payload per year.  HLV turns into an expensive anchor.  It is even more likely in my oppinion that NASA's budget will be trimmed to help reduce the deficits.

The existing EELV's were originally planned to be produced at something like 18 Atlas's and 40 Delta's per year, yet combined anually they are launching around 6 to 8.  SpaceX and Orbital have plans to substantially increase America's launch rate capability.  But we are still in a position of wondering what payloads will fill this capability.  ISS and Exploration have substantial launch needs.  This seems like a perfect match.

Besides, NASA being an anchor tenat along with the DoD provides sufficient market for these companies to truly compete bring down prices.  These lower prices and even more importantly an affordable crew capsule provides Bigelow the means to affordably access his space station.  Bigelow has the need for another 20 launches per year, just to start with.  This increases the rate further reducing prices,....  NASA, DoD and commercial users all benefit.

But if an HLV is built right now this constructive spiral of launch improvement won't exist.  Add HLV a decade from now when exploration is ready for it and it will be a benefit not an anchor.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #25 on: 11/18/2010 12:02 pm »
The mission depends on the transportation.  Design, build the robust transportation, then ask, what can we do with this? 

Build and they will come is the wrong paradigm.

Offline CitabriaFlyer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #26 on: 11/18/2010 12:53 pm »
Assume for the moment that Congress decreed that from 2020-2030 NASA shall fly 4 lunar sorties per year.  Each sortie should carry a crew of 4 and last for two weeks.  Additionally, from 2020-2030 NASA shall fly a manned mission beyond the Earth Moon system every 2 years (NEOs, Venus fly by, JWST servicing but not Mars surface.) 

Assume Congress constrains NASA from developing or owning launch vehicles.  NASA is to accept bids on the basis of who can lift a kg to orbit the cheapest.  If the following entities bid, who would win?  Assume there is no political influence or need for redundancy (not realistic) and a decision is purely driven by economics.

1)  ULA with frequent EELV launches and depots (for which they will have to eat ACES development)
2)  The Direct Corporation with SDHLVs with or without depots but having to eat the developmental cost
3)  SpaceX with Falcon or Falcon derivatives and depots (they have to eat development costs.)

4)  None of the above

Offline blasphemer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Slovakia
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 1081
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #27 on: 11/18/2010 04:20 pm »
There are no less than 3 private (thus hopefully, quite cheap) launch systems available for NASA to launch the heavy payloads - Atlas, Delta and Falcon. I think it would make much more economical sense to upgrade to super HLV one or more of these, than to develop yet another launcher or SDHLV from scratch.

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #28 on: 11/18/2010 04:27 pm »
There are no less than 3 private (thus hopefully, quite cheap) launch systems available for NASA to launch the heavy payloads - Atlas, Delta and Falcon. I think it would make much more economical sense to upgrade to super HLV one or more of these, than to develop yet another launcher or SDHLV from scratch.

Delta isn't cheap.

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #29 on: 11/18/2010 11:01 pm »
Assume there is no political influence or need for redundancy (not realistic) and a decision is purely driven by economics.

1)  ULA with frequent EELV launches and depots (for which they will have to eat ACES development)
2)  The Direct Corporation with SDHLVs with or without depots but having to eat the developmental cost
3)  SpaceX with Falcon or Falcon derivatives and depots (they have to eat development costs.)

4)  None of the above

I'll vote #5) other
While NASA could start by buying launch services using Atlas and Delta and "quickly" start pulling in Falcon as it proves it self and ramps up rate, I believe the real benefit of this competition is the continuous improvement aspect. Have on ramps, such as already exist in NLS2, that allow additional competitors to bid on the launches.  This will force ULA and SpaceX to continue to upgrade their vehicles and process or be shut out.  Innovation will be the name of the game.  This not only benefits Exploration but every other aspect of space utilization.  For now only America has the space spending power to enable this kind of a future.  It certainly would be nice to capitalize on it.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #30 on: 11/18/2010 11:26 pm »

I'll vote #5) other
While NASA could start by buying launch services using Atlas and Delta and "quickly" start pulling in Falcon as it proves it self and ramps up rate, I believe the real benefit of this competition is the continuous improvement aspect. Have on ramps, such as already exist in NLS2, that allow additional competitors to bid on the launches.  This will force ULA and SpaceX to continue to upgrade their vehicles and process or be shut out.  Innovation will be the name of the game.  This not only benefits Exploration but every other aspect of space utilization.  For now only America has the space spending power to enable this kind of a future.  It certainly would be nice to capitalize on it.



I so agree with this statement. If it were possible for NASA and others to buy services then the service providers would have lots of incentive to find ways to reduce prices or increase capability. This is the tragedy of the shuttle.  The shuttle was a great idea that ran on too long. If for instance after 10 years or so they had been replaced. You could have replaced them with something that takes less labor and/or is more suited to NASA’s missions but we live in a world where NASA has to ask Congress  “May I?” And often the answer is no. The sort of system can never deliver much in the way of evolutionary progress and revolutionary progress can be stymied by lack of funding or a misalignment of politics.

Heavy lift could then evolve Organically (i.e. in a cost effective manner for the company). 

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #31 on: 11/19/2010 08:58 am »
There are no less than 3 private (thus hopefully, quite cheap) launch systems available for NASA to launch the heavy payloads - Atlas, Delta and Falcon. I think it would make much more economical sense to upgrade to super HLV one or more of these, than to develop yet another launcher or SDHLV from scratch.
Delta isn't cheap.
    To be fair to the much-maligned Delta, the production facility is ticking over pretty slowly. ULA's 2007 paper on ISS cargo delivery revealed that that the infrastructure is/was presently sized to build 7 boosters and 5 upper stages/yr on a single shift, on two shifts that's 14 and 10, and 20 and 15 with "minimal" additional tooling. That's up to 6 Heavies/yr without major new facilities and without affecting Atlas -- a huge launch capacity.
    Delta prices would probably come down if there were, y'know, demand.
    -Alex

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What should NASA's mission be?
« Reply #32 on: 11/19/2010 09:22 am »
To second Alex: I think it is reasonable to request a marginal/fixed cost breakdown before anyone starts calling Delta expensive (ie. evidence). With the advent of the RS-68A, the Delta's outlook is definitely improving.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2010 09:25 am by madscientist197 »
John

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0