Author Topic: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?  (Read 103204 times)

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #20 on: 11/11/2009 04:36 pm »
We should be cautious about asserting either a innate uniquely human desire to "explore,"

Ignoring the "uniquely human" part which is in my humble opinion not true, it remains that there are some portion of the human population who desire to explore. There's also a portion who do not share this desire. I think the mere fact that there are a considerable number of people who just want to go into space just to do it indicates a significant human desire to explore.

Even if the formation of this desire is completely accidental, it still exists.


What might those be? Tourism is the only one that passes muster.

What do you know? An example of the desire to explore. Tourism is a huge business globally. Why entertain myself in say, India when I can do so from the comfort of my living room for a lot less? And it's a desire that can result in near future human spaceflight.
Karl Hallowell

Offline ChrisSpaceCH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Bern, Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #21 on: 11/11/2009 04:36 pm »
Chris, this is exactly backwards. What manned space needs are short term goals. No one can predict the long term with any kind of confidence so no long term goal is even remotely convincing or persuasive. We need goals that are profitable within a 10 year window.

What might those be? Tourism is the only one that passes muster.

I'm sorry, but if thats your reasoning, then we ought to shut down HSF immediately, for there is not a single useful short-term goal in manned spaceflight. In the short term, unmanned in so incredibly superior in cost-benefit analysis that there is really no point in sending humans into space, IMO. Note, I am not against HSF, but I see it as an investment in the long-term future. So we need long-term goals.

As for tourism, no way. If there's one thing I am utterly opposed to it is space tourism in its current form. I see it as the epitome of decadence and capitalist extravagance to pay US$ 30+ million for a few days of floating around in space, mostly by the same people who destroyed the world economy last year. They should be behind bars, not up in orbit (my opinion).  And sub-orbital tourism only causes pollution for no appreciable gain.

Offline Jim Davis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #22 on: 11/11/2009 05:09 pm »
I'm sorry, but if thats your reasoning, then we ought to shut down HSF immediately, for there is not a single useful short-term goal in manned spaceflight.

If you are correct, that there is no useful short term goal for manned space, then shutting down manned space would be the proper course to take. It would be the proper course even if there are long term uses for manned space. Spinning one's wheels wasting time and money is unproductive. Put the time and effort into something with a more immediate return on the investment. If we do that, then the long term benefits of maned space, if any, will become apparent that much sooner.

Obligatory analogies: all the alchemists' efforts for hundreds of years never brought transmutation of the elements any closer to reality. All the people that strapped wings to their arms and jumped from towers never brought manned flight one minute closer to reality.

 

Offline ChrisSpaceCH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Bern, Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #23 on: 11/11/2009 05:16 pm »

Obligatory analogies: all the alchemists' efforts for hundreds of years never brought transmutation of the elements any closer to reality. 

Couldn't resist this one, sorry :D
True, we still can't transmute lead to gold. But their efforts were certainly not in vain, they did lead to a great many discoveries

Offline stockman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6916
  • Southern Ontario - Canada
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #24 on: 11/11/2009 05:32 pm »
what a load of crap... no goal is needed.... "Because it there" is good enough.

I for one want to be a space tourist (probably won't get the chance in my lifetime but its my goal none the less). All this talk of return on investment or long term vs short term vs shut it down because the cost benefit analysis says so is manure!!..

people whine that they shouldn't spend money on it from the taxpayers as its a waste... Then others whine that they don't want space tourism becuase its an example of excessive capatalistic spending... well we can't have it both ways and I for one applaud all the rich capatalists who not only invest in building an industry but those willing to pay for the first rides to hopefully make it viable. If I could afford it I would go too and I for one absolutely would not stand for being one of the unwashed proletariat who is TOLD by some higher authority that he can't go because THEY have deemed Manned space flight not worth the cost..

Those who think it a waste or have to have some goal or meaning attached to it can either help define one or get out of the way of those who are doing it despite them. ... just go back to watching wrestling or other reality TV and let those who are willing to risk life and treasure pave the way... no one said you had to come for the ride.

Besides, I know a lot of people who would probably pay a lot of money to see me get off the planet... :) ... but that is another topic... :)


rant off.

One Percent for Space!!!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #25 on: 11/11/2009 05:38 pm »
LOL...good rant stockman.

If ever one wanted to 'get away from it all', I certainly would be one of those in line as a space tourist.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #26 on: 11/11/2009 05:44 pm »

Obligatory analogies: all the alchemists' efforts for hundreds of years never brought transmutation of the elements any closer to reality. 

Couldn't resist this one, sorry :D
True, we still can't transmute lead to gold. But their efforts were certainly not in vain, they did lead to a great many discoveries
Technically, we can transmute lead into gold, and have done it in 1980 and 1972:
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm
Not economical, but still cool.

Sitting on our rears is not a very effective way to advance humanity. You have to try something. We can't just wait around for the "Singularity" (i.e. the Rapture for Nerds) to come. If something like that even happens, it'll be because a lot of work has gone into it.

If people hadn't tried to make gliders, etc, then we wouldn't have had the Wright brothers. Besides, it has been over 40 years since we first went to deep space. Isn't that long enough to see if we can do it better (more sustainably) this time? We have had ENORMOUS (order of magnitude or close to it) advances in electronics, solar power, and materials science (Bucky paper, made of carbon nanotubes and much lighter than steel while being far, far stronger, can be had for $1000/kg in bulk. Plus, we have advanced alloys like Al-Li and such.). I'm not saying it'll be easy, just that we might as well give it a shot.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ChrisSpaceCH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Bern, Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #27 on: 11/11/2009 05:46 pm »
what a load of crap... no goal is needed.... "Because it there" is good enough.

...


rant off.



Lol, yes, nice rant.

However, I still don't believe "because it's there" is a good reason.

Offline Launchpad911

  • Member
  • Posts: 61
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #28 on: 11/11/2009 05:48 pm »
Chris, thanks for an interesting topic to discuss. As to your three original premises-

1) Expanding human presence across multiple worlds (the "colonization" argument)

Colonization will never occur to the point a self-sustaining group of people exists on another planet or moon. The expense will always be too great for any one nation or group of nations to afford. But even if they could afford it, we must begin with a continued HSF program in order to obtain the necessary knowledge and technology to create a colony somewhere.

2) Gaining access to new ressources to sustain human growth on Earth

Bringing resources back to Earth from the Moon or Mars will never happen because it simply is too expensive to be practical. I have read "Return to the Moon" and am familiar with mining Helium 3 but with the current climate of fear regarding anything associated with "nuclear energy", it will never happen until we totally run out of oil. It would be easier and cheaper to mine the bottom of the ocean.

3) Exploration for exploration's sake (the "it's our destiny to explore" argument)

This is the only true reason to continue HSF. One thing that has always irked me is the belief we should have either HSF or UMSF, bot not both. UMSF has been very successful, the Mars Rovers as prime examples. Realistically though, all of the terrain they have covered in five years on Mars could have been covered by astronauts in a rover in five days. With brains on scene instead of back at JPL, decisions can be made much faster. Continued UMSF missions are necessary as a precursor to HSF. I believe we need both. 
To stop HSF altogether means we become that turtle, just waiting to get run over someday.


As for tourism, no way. If there's one thing I am utterly opposed to it is space tourism in its current form. I see it as the epitome of decadence and capitalist extravagance to pay US$ 30+ million for a few days of floating around in space, mostly by the same people who destroyed the world economy last year. They should be behind bars, not up in orbit (my opinion).  And sub-orbital tourism only causes pollution for no appreciable gain.

This is precisely why I don't believe space tourism will succeed or lead to anything greater. If the public gets so upset because execs have private jets, (Never mind the fact that politicians do too. The only difference is the politicians jet is paid for by taxpayers.) imagine how they will react to private spaceships. Personally, I have no objection to executives having private jets.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #29 on: 11/11/2009 05:51 pm »
Because we can, simple as that.  No further explanation should be required but this will not satisfy everyone, nor should it have to or be expected to do so.  But why is that not good enough for the majority?  Everyone, general public included, imagines the future with us exploring the cosmos (reference TV, movies, etc - even though some have a darker twist).  So how do we ever get there if we don't take those first steps and learn to build on them?

Now, I'll anticipate some of the arguements that always come up.

1.  Arguement:  It's too expensive.  Counter-arguement:  Cost for the entire US HSF effort is ~8 billion per year.  Last year Congress introduced ~32 billion dollars into the budget which were universally classified as earmarks.

2.  Arguement:  What will be gained?  Counter-arguement:  I don't know.  That's why it's called exploration.  However, every time this country (or other countries engaged in it leading to the founding of this nation) there were generally economic and strategic gains.

3.  Arguement:  Robots can do it just as well and at a smaller cost.  Counter-arguement:  Not really.  Robots are still highly specialized for a unique series of objectives.  Those same objectives can usually be performed by humans in a much smaller amount of time (Mars rovers for example).  Humans may cost more up front but the flexibility and ability to make real-time decisions and adjustments to a plan cannot be matched with robots.  It's a trade and why the real answer is the two do not have to be mutally exclusive and should be symbiotic. 

4.  Arguement:  It's too dangerous.  Counter-agruement:  True, many things worthwhile are.  If you believe this, stay home. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #30 on: 11/11/2009 05:55 pm »

Ideological or religious (if you differentiate between them). My personal opinion is, if colonization happens, it will be on industrial grounds. The unobtanium miners get shipped out to Saturn by the Great International Unobtanium Mining Cartel, Ltd., and left there. Cue basso profundo: "...16 tonnes, and whadaya get...?" (Some people here will also remember Tennessee Ernie Ford.)

Another day older and deeper in the Trojan belt asteroid..

I guess I lump ideological in with religious. Sometimes it's hard to differentiate the two. Sometimes that ideology can get left by the wayside once profitability is obtained. The Puritans of New England certainly were never as hardcore once they began to build a good financial base.

Now the spread of colonization in space, once established, might well be more like the spread of Polynesian and Melanesian peoples in the Pacific, but that is much further into history. They were continuing to find new lands to occupy until only a few hundred years ago. Essentially they ran out of unoccupied places to go, except for some colder islands off the coast of New Zealand that they were not technologically prepared to make use of.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #31 on: 11/11/2009 06:26 pm »
...
Colonization will never occur to the point a self-sustaining group of people exists on another planet or moon. The expense will always be too great for any one nation or group of nations to afford.
If self-sustaining is possible, then it requires no more money than the up-front costs, by definition. Don't ever say never, unless you can point to a law of physics. Lots of people used the same argument about powered flight or landing a man on the Moon (even landing ANYTHING on the Moon). That's not to say it'll happen in the next 100 years, but human history is much longer than that. As far as expense, just look at a modern city. Look at those ridiculously huge buildings, far bigger than any rocket. Look at the trillions of dollars we spend every year just in the US government. These sorts of figures would have been mind-blowing to someone just 200 years ago. I'm not a believer in unstoppable progress, but I am ambitious enough to think that colonization of space is within the realm of human capabilities.
Quote
Bringing resources back to Earth from the Moon or Mars will never happen because it simply is too expensive to be practical. I have read "Return to the Moon" and am familiar with mining Helium 3 but with the current climate of fear regarding anything associated with "nuclear energy", it will never happen until we totally run out of oil. It would be easier and cheaper to mine the bottom of the ocean.
It might take less than 100 years to totally run out of oil, if China and India can get up to US and European standards of living. I can see a country like Japan investing in space-based power if the specific power of solar panels and electronics continues to climb while launch costs either stay the same or decline. I basically agree with you about the Helium-3, though. As far as other minerals (like rare earth minerals or platinum-group metals), then I can definitely see a market for them if you can find asteroids that are rich in these metals. Platinum and gold are above $1000 per troy ounce, right now ($1100/t.oz and $1350/t.oz). That's about $43,000 per kg for platinum, right now. If you can find a rich platinum deposit in the asteroids (which may be unlikely), it may well be worthwhile to harvest it, once we have launch costs down to $4000/kg and a SEP infrastructure set up. And that's basically only with very near-term technologies and prices. Perhaps platinum doubles in price while launch costs drop to $1000/kg? It's certain a plausible scenario in which it would be both feasible and profitable to harvest space resources within our lifetimes. It probably won't happen like that, but it is possible.
Quote
3) Exploration for exploration's sake (the "it's our destiny to explore" argument)

This is the only true reason to continue HSF. One thing that has always irked me is the belief we should have either HSF or UMSF, bot not both. UMSF has been very successful, the Mars Rovers as prime examples. Realistically though, all of the terrain they have covered in five years on Mars could have been covered by astronauts in a rover in five days. With brains on scene instead of back at JPL, decisions can be made much faster. Continued UMSF missions are necessary as a precursor to HSF. I believe we need both. 
To stop HSF altogether means we become that turtle, just waiting to get run over someday.
Totally agree.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #32 on: 11/11/2009 06:32 pm »

2) Gaining access to new ressources to sustain human growth on Earth

Bringing resources back to Earth from the Moon or Mars will never happen because it simply is too expensive to be practical. I have read "Return to the Moon" and am familiar with mining Helium 3 but with the current climate of fear regarding anything associated with "nuclear energy", it will never happen until we totally run out of oil. It would be easier and cheaper to mine the bottom of the ocean.


Well to me, this is a short term view. I'm NOT saying it WILL happen, but to say it NEVER WILL, is short sighted. In 100 years time, we may in fact find it economically beneficial to have some sort of off-Earth space endeavor to meet the needs of humanity. Maybe it's energy. Maybe it's to escape pollution. It may be a local notional need (China's population). To rule it out is presumptuous.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #33 on: 11/11/2009 07:37 pm »

2) Gaining access to new ressources to sustain human growth on Earth

Bringing resources back to Earth from the Moon or Mars will never happen because it simply is too expensive to be practical. I have read "Return to the Moon" and am familiar with mining Helium 3 but with the current climate of fear regarding anything associated with "nuclear energy", it will never happen until we totally run out of oil. It would be easier and cheaper to mine the bottom of the ocean.


Well to me, this is a short term view. I'm NOT saying it WILL happen, but to say it NEVER WILL, is short sighted. In 100 years time, we may in fact find it economically beneficial to have some sort of off-Earth space endeavor to meet the needs of humanity. Maybe it's energy. Maybe it's to escape pollution. It may be a local notional need (China's population). To rule it out is presumptuous.

On the one hand, I think the notion of bringing solar-system resources to Earth is not so far-fetched as all that. With durable solar sail unmanned cargo ships, you could certainly take advantage of the pipeline effect. It doesn't matter how long it takes for the oil (or whatever) to get from the wellhead to the gaspump, so long as it continued coming out of the pump at the required rate (i.e., merely requires sound planning). It's also possible in the interests of protecting the terrestrial environment we will a) not stripmine the seabed, and b) move all dangerous and/or dirty industries to the handily nearby Moon. Then we would most likely be bringing those solar-system resources not directly to the nice, clean Earth, but to the dirty, uninhabitable Moon. The taxpaying public could probably be talked into this, if they could be convinced there was no other way to have all the consumer goods they want *and* a clean environment to live in.

On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily count on such a scheme to further the interests of HSF, or foster space colonization. Mining operations on Titan, Callisto, and the Jovian Trojans would most likely be fairly easy to automate. The population of space workers might be restricted small cadres of desperately bored, but highly paid mechanics, itching to get home and spend their travel bonus.

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #34 on: 11/11/2009 07:44 pm »
Given the lack of a well-defined HSF mission, shouldn't NASA's HSF switch from an operational mode back to a more R&D mode? Do research on less expensive ways to get to LEO, prop depots, standardize components so that trips to space can be segmented, etc. They could use the ISS as a testbed.

That way we'd have many tools on-the-shelf, ready for when there's a need for a mission beyond LEO.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #35 on: 11/11/2009 08:37 pm »
Given the lack of a well-defined HSF mission, shouldn't NASA's HSF switch from an operational mode back to a more R&D mode? Do research on less expensive ways to get to LEO, prop depots, standardize components so that trips to space can be segmented, etc. They could use the ISS as a testbed.

That way we'd have many tools on-the-shelf, ready for when there's a need for a mission beyond LEO.


Well there is definitely a push to more R&D, and even the Augustine Commission sees that as a fundamental necessity before we head to Mars.

I think everyone here on NSF can agree that R&D is good for NASA as a whole.

But now we are at that crossroads as to costs, lost jobs, lost talent, lost infrastructure (use it or lose it) from where we are now to where we will end up. Where do you find that balance. That is the hotly debated topic, for it ties into the choice of vehicle. Do we abandon all that for a commercial and/or EELV architecture? Do have a combination?

The 'rules' say commercial should be utilized to the fullest extent possible for ISS, but that doesn't go for exploration. If we abandon exploration, we essentially abandon the current infrastructure built up from the shuttle and rely on commercial for the near term, or perhaps even the long term. I hope to find a balance: SDLV for exploration, commercial for ISS. In the mean time, use the existing infrastructure to transition to commercial for ISS, since it won't be ready in time once shuttle retires. Hence my vote for Direct.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #36 on: 11/11/2009 09:55 pm »
Chris, thanks for an interesting topic to discuss. As to your three original premises-

1) Expanding human presence across multiple worlds (the "colonization" argument)

Colonization will never occur to the point a self-sustaining group of people exists on another planet or moon. The expense will always be too great for any one nation or group of nations to afford. But even if they could afford it, we must begin with a continued HSF program in order to obtain the necessary knowledge and technology to create a colony somewhere.

What makes you think you have a possibility of being right here? "Never" is a long time. My take is that you will be wrong inside of two centuries.

Quote
2) Gaining access to new ressources to sustain human growth on Earth

Bringing resources back to Earth from the Moon or Mars will never happen because it simply is too expensive to be practical. I have read "Return to the Moon" and am familiar with mining Helium 3 but with the current climate of fear regarding anything associated with "nuclear energy", it will never happen until we totally run out of oil. It would be easier and cheaper to mine the bottom of the ocean.

And it'll never happen because we'll never run out of easy to extract oil? Or easy to extract rare earths? Platinum group metals?

Quote
3) Exploration for exploration's sake (the "it's our destiny to explore" argument)

This is the only true reason to continue HSF. One thing that has always irked me is the belief we should have either HSF or UMSF, bot not both. UMSF has been very successful, the Mars Rovers as prime examples. Realistically though, all of the terrain they have covered in five years on Mars could have been covered by astronauts in a rover in five days. With brains on scene instead of back at JPL, decisions can be made much faster. Continued UMSF missions are necessary as a precursor to HSF. I believe we need both. 
To stop HSF altogether means we become that turtle, just waiting to get run over someday.

What's the point of space exploration, if you're not going to do anything with that knowledge? The two reasons you dismissed above as "never" happening are basically most of the justification for space exploration. Without that, the only need to explore is to catch the few ways that things like asteroids or gamma ray bursts could mess up a Earth-based civilization. You don't need a manned program for that.

Quote
As for tourism, no way. If there's one thing I am utterly opposed to it is space tourism in its current form. I see it as the epitome of decadence and capitalist extravagance to pay US$ 30+ million for a few days of floating around in space, mostly by the same people who destroyed the world economy last year. They should be behind bars, not up in orbit (my opinion).  And sub-orbital tourism only causes pollution for no appreciable gain.

Chris, I two things to say here. First, I don't respect your opinion. Envy doesn't have a place here. Second, you ignore that manned space flight isn't going anywhere unless there is demand. At current prices, the only demand comes from extremely rich people (maybe lotteries too, if that ever works out). I consider the "extreme decadence" a necessity (and a pretty cool thing as well), if there's going to be commercial space flight.

Quote
This is precisely why I don't believe space tourism will succeed or lead to anything greater. If the public gets so upset because execs have private jets, (Never mind the fact that politicians do too. The only difference is the politicians jet is paid for by taxpayers.) imagine how they will react to private spaceships. Personally, I have no objection to executives having private jets.

Who cares? It's not taxpayer money and the envious don't have the power to block space travel from all countries. If the US gets too hostile to commercial manned space flight and rich people in space, then that business and those rich people will move to friendlier places.
Karl Hallowell

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #37 on: 11/12/2009 03:00 am »
Given the lack of a well-defined HSF mission, shouldn't NASA's HSF switch from an operational mode back to a more R&D mode? Do research on less expensive ways to get to LEO, prop depots, standardize components so that trips to space can be segmented, etc. They could use the ISS as a testbed.

That way we'd have many tools on-the-shelf, ready for when there's a need for a mission beyond LEO.


Well there is definitely a push to more R&D, and even the Augustine Commission sees that as a fundamental necessity before we head to Mars.

I think everyone here on NSF can agree that R&D is good for NASA as a whole.

But now we are at that crossroads as to costs, lost jobs, lost talent, lost infrastructure (use it or lose it) from where we are now to where we will end up. Where do you find that balance. That is the hotly debated topic, for it ties into the choice of vehicle. Do we abandon all that for a commercial and/or EELV architecture? Do have a combination?

The 'rules' say commercial should be utilized to the fullest extent possible for ISS, but that doesn't go for exploration. If we abandon exploration, we essentially abandon the current infrastructure built up from the shuttle and rely on commercial for the near term, or perhaps even the long term. I hope to find a balance: SDLV for exploration, commercial for ISS. In the mean time, use the existing infrastructure to transition to commercial for ISS, since it won't be ready in time once shuttle retires. Hence my vote for Direct.

I understand what you're saying but it seems to me that we need a new way for the future: segmenting HSF missions into individual legs that can be individually optimized. Right now, it looks to me like the optimization is performed on the entire mission, which is far more difficult and leads us right back to the current HLV mess we're in. For example, is it better to have:

1) A large 80-100mT rocket that can launch everything at one time but never gets built because it's too specialized, would cost a fortune to develop and support, and has too low of a planned flight rate

 -or-

2) Several inexpensive, standardized 20-30mT rockets that can be used for several types of missions but would require multiple launches for the rare large-scale mission


I'd rather see my tax $$$ go towards #2. It's more flexible and leaves billions of $$$ to develop in-space components, like a depot, etc.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #38 on: 11/12/2009 03:23 am »
Given the lack of a well-defined HSF mission, shouldn't NASA's HSF switch from an operational mode back to a more R&D mode? Do research on less expensive ways to get to LEO, prop depots, standardize components so that trips to space can be segmented, etc. They could use the ISS as a testbed.

That way we'd have many tools on-the-shelf, ready for when there's a need for a mission beyond LEO.


Well there is definitely a push to more R&D, and even the Augustine Commission sees that as a fundamental necessity before we head to Mars.

I think everyone here on NSF can agree that R&D is good for NASA as a whole.

But now we are at that crossroads as to costs, lost jobs, lost talent, lost infrastructure (use it or lose it) from where we are now to where we will end up. Where do you find that balance. That is the hotly debated topic, for it ties into the choice of vehicle. Do we abandon all that for a commercial and/or EELV architecture? Do have a combination?

The 'rules' say commercial should be utilized to the fullest extent possible for ISS, but that doesn't go for exploration. If we abandon exploration, we essentially abandon the current infrastructure built up from the shuttle and rely on commercial for the near term, or perhaps even the long term. I hope to find a balance: SDLV for exploration, commercial for ISS. In the mean time, use the existing infrastructure to transition to commercial for ISS, since it won't be ready in time once shuttle retires. Hence my vote for Direct.

I understand what you're saying but it seems to me that we need a new way for the future: segmenting HSF missions into individual legs that can be individually optimized. Right now, it looks to me like the optimization is performed on the entire mission, which is far more difficult and leads us right back to the current HLV mess we're in. For example, is it better to have:

1) A large 80-100mT rocket that can launch everything at one time but never gets built because it's too specialized, would cost a fortune to develop and support, and has too low of a planned flight rate

 -or-

2) Several inexpensive, standardized 20-30mT rockets that can be used for several types of missions but would require multiple launches for the rare large-scale mission


I'd rather see my tax $$$ go towards #2. It's more flexible and leaves billions of $$$ to develop in-space components, like a depot, etc.

You forgot an option:

3) A Directly Shuttle Derived vehicle, which can scale up by adding/removing engines/stages to go from 40mT to 120mT, to enable you to build to-mission using a common core design.  This way you are not forced into any one profile, overbuilt or tons of launches, you can build as much launcher as you need for the particular mission, much like you can with the EELV's now but with a larger base core to work from derived from the shuttles stack.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: What is the objective of Human Space Exploration?
« Reply #39 on: 11/12/2009 05:01 am »
You forgot an option:

3) A Directly Shuttle Derived vehicle, which can scale up by adding/removing engines/stages to go from 40mT to 120mT, to enable you to build to-mission using a common core design.  This way you are not forced into any one profile, overbuilt or tons of launches, you can build as much launcher as you need for the particular mission, much like you can with the EELV's now but with a larger base core to work from derived from the shuttles stack.
What mission will require 40+mT to LEO in the reasonably near future (i.e. 10 years)? We aren't going to the Moon or Mars. The HSF mission for the next 10 years is the ISS. How much fixed support/infrastructure does your option #3 require year after year while waiting for a mission? Why don't we spend that money on new, incremental ways to explore space: depots, reusable spacecraft that stay in space, etc. instead of on developing and maintaining a large, rarely used HLV (a.k.a. cancellation-bait)?


Tags:
 

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