Author Topic: Augustine Committee - August 12th public meeting in Washington D.C.  (Read 430731 times)

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
fight against a blind, deaf, practically headless behemoth that is the space programs and industry around the world.

keep fighting.  you are not alone.

there are those of us that fight away from the light.  in dark corners and offline.

don't give up, no matter how many "left turns" you see them make in succession.

good luck.
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
I sent some feedback. Thanks for the link.
Maybe I should retire from space advocacy after this, it's going to suck anyway, and it all just makes you a bitter person when you fight against a blind, deaf, practically headless behemoth that is the space programs and industry around the world.

So that's what it is that's got me in a ruff lately....(except you forgot politics...ggrrrrr)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
fight against a blind, deaf, practically headless behemoth that is the space programs and industry around the world.

keep fighting.  you are not alone.

there are those of us that fight away from the light.  in dark corners and offline.

don't give up, no matter how many "left turns" you see them make in succession.

good luck.

The way I see it is that even though the odds for propellant depots are long, they're the best they've been in a long time, and likely the best they will be for a while.  It's worth giving it our best shot right now to try and convince people, even if we think the odds are long.  Worst case, the idea has really gotten a lot of technical attention, and probably made it that much more likely to succeed next time around if this time it doesn't work.

That said, while I've been burning the candle from both ends to do what I can to support this, my primary plan has always been to work at ways to make depots a commercial reality, even if NASA decides to be irrelevant.  Plan for the worst, work for the best, and never give up hope.

~Jon

Offline Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Mining is not allowed in the Antarctic.

Not the first ones.  They will be outposts, supplied from earth.  There will be generations of outposts/bases before there will be one such as you propose.

The early bases/outputs will be like the Antarctic stations, constantly requiring logistics flights.   The western forts analogy is decades later.

Nice post Jim!

If you want to build independent bases a good place to start is seeing if you can 1) build one at the Antarctic base or the Mars Society's Arctic base, one that can survive on it's own resources without external support, 2) build one at LEO that can do the same. Then you might be ready to start thinking about building one on the Moon.

kkattula's comments apply equally well to a Moon base BTW.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688

The way I see it is that even though the odds for propellant depots are long, they're the best they've been in a long time, and likely the best they will be for a while.  It's worth giving it our best shot right now to try and convince people, even if we think the odds are long.  Worst case, the idea has really gotten a lot of technical attention, and probably made it that much more likely to succeed next time around if this time it doesn't work.

That said, while I've been burning the candle from both ends to do what I can to support this, my primary plan has always been to work at ways to make depots a commercial reality, even if NASA decides to be irrelevant.  Plan for the worst, work for the best, and never give up hope.

~Jon

Right on!

Offline spacester

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 178
is that the lunar station at least has the possibility of growing itself in terms of both size and functionality, using locally grown materials.

In other words, a lunar base would be capable of OUTPUTS.

Not the first ones.  They will be outposts, supplied from earth.  There will be generations of outposts/bases before there will be one such as you propose.

The early bases/outputs will be like the Antarctic stations, constantly requiring logistics flights.   The western forts analogy is decades later.

Points taken, but perhaps you overstate the case?

I'd be the last guy to assert that anything approaching self-sufficiency is anything other than a long, long ways off. Of course there will be continuous resupply.

Saying there can be "Outputs" is not saying it will be self-sufficient.

Saying that an outpost could grow using locally available materials is not saying that the ISRU stuff would not be heavily supplemented with Earth-sourced stuff.

But the reason I'm posting is to see if you can accept the idea that not all Outputs must be physical product returned to Earth. Or even physical products to L-1, L-5, Mars, LEO, NEO, or farside outposts.

What were the main outputs provided by the early days of the world wide web, the outputs that fueled the explosive growth? There were two "industries" that were HUGE in that expansion - what were they and what did they have in common? (Hint: they were NOT physical products)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Depots, lunox, "infrastructure," "outputs" from space bases--all of these things are great for a vigorous program, but at what scale do they begin to make sense?

My worry is that in a burst of enthusiasm we will build a high-capacity infrastructure but then be unwilling to spend enough money to make good use of it. We could get locked into high maintenance costs without deriving much in the way of cost savings. Then we'd be worse off than we are now.

That's why I'd really like to see more economic analyses of infrastructure proposals.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
As legacies go, an affordable Heavy Lift Vehicle would be a nice start.

Secondly, Propellant Depot technology.

Thirdly, a long range manned space-flight capability. (radiation/micro-gravity mitigation etc)


Every time someone suggests we should go to Mars, (or anywhere else), lack of these things puts it "at least 10 to 15 years away". And sets the price at "humungous".


"The longest journey is the one you never start..."

LOL.  Time to Mars has always been 20 years in the way, but has expanded with the adoptiion of the VSE to always 30 years away.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
1) build one at the Antarctic base or the Mars Society's Arctic base, one that can survive on it's own resources without external support, 2) build one at LEO that can do the same.

Um ... how would a self-sufficient "base" on LEO work ? Live off of .. sunlight and orbital debris alone ?
We should phone ISS and let them know how this trick works ..
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
1) build one at the Antarctic base or the Mars Society's Arctic base, one that can survive on it's own resources without external support, 2) build one at LEO that can do the same.

Um ... how would a self-sufficient "base" on LEO work ? Live off of .. sunlight and orbital debris alone ?
We should phone ISS and let them know how this trick works ..

Picture lots of MPLMs...in a nice big expanse
« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 04:13 pm by robertross »

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
1) build one at the Antarctic base or the Mars Society's Arctic base, one that can survive on it's own resources without external support, 2) build one at LEO that can do the same.

Um ... how would a self-sufficient "base" on LEO work ? Live off of .. sunlight and orbital debris alone ?
We should phone ISS and let them know how this trick works ..

And you want to go to Mars? You will have to have an expanded space station or new station. A long term 180-360 day test (in the environment it will be expected to work) of all the life support equipment would be mandatory before putting astronauts 78 million Km (average) from Earth.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
All documents from previous meetings plus other documentation.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/related_documents/index.html

Location where documents for/from this meeting should be appearing.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/08_12_meeting.html

Twitter from HSF committee

http://twitter.com/NASA_HSF

NASA TV home page

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

I am expecting this to be on the Public Channel so it should be on those regular TV stations that you normally get NASA TV on. Dish etc.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 04:48 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Depots, lunox, "infrastructure," "outputs" from space bases--all of these things are great for a vigorous program, but at what scale do they begin to make sense?

My worry is that in a burst of enthusiasm we will build a high-capacity infrastructure but then be unwilling to spend enough money to make good use of it. We could get locked into high maintenance costs without deriving much in the way of cost savings. Then we'd be worse off than we are now.

That's why I'd really like to see more economic analyses of infrastructure proposals.

I guess one of the reasons I'm a fan of depots is that they don't need to be massive pieces of infrastructure that require huge maintenance costs.  There are single EELV-launch depot concepts out there that are big enough to support missions up to and bigger than ESAS-class lunar missions, as well as missions beyond.  These are probably not going to start out manned.  Think of them as big satellites.  They may be very voluminous, but really, don't have to be that much more complicated then maintaining a GEO bird.

Now some of the latest steps, like lunar bases of sufficient complexity to allow us to get LUNOX...those are more legitimate questions.  To me, I think at some point they make sense, but it's a question of timing.

And yes, I agree that more research into the economics would be good.  Unfortunately, up until the last few months, we've had to focus most of our time just convincing people that doing stuff that's only a slight extrapolation past what the Soviets were doing in 1972 doesn't require any advanced black magic.

~Jon

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
It is confirmed, HSF Committee meeting will be on NASA's Public and Media TV channels.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 04:57 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline spacester

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 332
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 178

What were the main outputs provided by the early days of the world wide web, the outputs that fueled the explosive growth? There were two "industries" that were HUGE in that expansion - what were they and what did they have in common? (Hint: they were NOT physical products)

So no one is interested in pursuing this line of thought?

Or maybe you know the answer and are afraid that I'm going to suggest replicating those industries on the Moon. That's not where I'm going with this: the key here is what they had in common in a very generic sense.

I'll add a third activity that shares this common thread, a thread that I believe can be woven into a sensible, economically sound "fabric" with which we can exploit the Moon and become a space-faring nation and species. What was the main, almost-always-present state of mind of all the Apollo Astronauts (with the possible exception of John Young ;-) )?

If thinking along these lines - or posting a question asking you to think afresh - is somehow against the rules here - written or unwritten - then just let me know and I'll go away. I've given up trying to force people to think thoughts that challenge their prior conclusions.

There is a fear here that I will never understand: these are just thoughts! Are new thoughts dangerous? I've never felt that way, but maybe that's just me.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80

What were the main outputs provided by the early days of the world wide web, the outputs that fueled the explosive growth? There were two "industries" that were HUGE in that expansion - what were they and what did they have in common? (Hint: they were NOT physical products)

So no one is interested in pursuing this line of thought?


Maybe people see this subject as off topic for this thread.  Start a dedicated thread and see if you get some responses.  Couldn't hurt.

Mark S.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 05:01 pm by Mark S »

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
spacester, it's an interesting line of thought but this is not the time or place.

The Committee meeting will begin shortly.

Tweet: Phil McAlister announcing the meeting will begin in 3-4 minutes.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 05:05 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Could the Augustine Commission ask for a much much needed additional month to review options.. like they ask to be able to look at options outside the existing budget?

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Huh.  Had 10 or 15 seconds of audio, then it stopped.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Could the Augustine Commission ask for a much much needed additional month to review options.. like they ask to be able to look at options outside the existing budget?

Time constraint on 2010 budget?

I don't see Dr. Ride there, again.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Tags:
 

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