Author Topic: Exploration concepts and principles?  (Read 99915 times)

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #60 on: 05/25/2013 01:07 am »
Texas, Florida and California fight hard to fund NASA.

Other states don't care.

It's not a lack of will. It's a lack of NASA jobs in your area.

That's the way the system was set up.

Apollo failed to support the big income states so those big income states will not support NASA.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #61 on: 05/28/2013 08:38 pm »
Texas, Florida and California fight hard to fund NASA.

Other states don't care.

It's not a lack of will. It's a lack of NASA jobs in your area.

That's the way the system was set up.

Apollo failed to support the big income states so those big income states will not support NASA.
'Fraid not. You missed quite a few, Mississippi, Alabama, and Utah for example and you seem to ignore the fact that the Apollo program DID in fact "support" and bring a lot of money into the "big" income states during the entire program just like the Shuttle did and SLS is doing. Several states do NOT care and this reflects with their "status" in the place they have in the various groups that actually decide policy. (And before you deride the "input" of the above mentioned states I'll quitely remind you where the EXACT specification for "130-tons" to orbit came from? That's the number the "experts" told the state delegation would REQUIRE SRBs remember :)

No it really IS a lack of will. Along with a lack of resolve and an inability to "see" anything beyond a short-term/near-term money/jobs/votes perspective that has been ALL that NASA and HSF has ever meant to the politicians.

Advocating doesn't do any good because the only thing they take away from such things is "sound-bytes" and "talking-points" that they can spout back and do not have to, (or intend to) do anything with.

In a way this can be a good thing in that without "directed" action and a mandated focus NASA can simply build up capability with slow steady progression. The down side is that eventually there comes a point where both funding and support within the political structure are required to move beyond simply building capability.
Besides, from a purely political point-of-view it is very entertaining to watch the various sub-groups and interests undercut, back-stab, and deride each other when given a public forum. The one thing they do NOT want is a consensus opinion presented...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #62 on: 05/28/2013 08:47 pm »
Quote
we using enough resources for 1.5 "Earths"? Why yes we are. What most people fail to realize is we're PRODUCING resources at well above 2.5 Earths by the "definition" being used by, for example, the study you cite. We are much better at extracting, refining, and production than anyone seems to be taking account of.
No that is not true.
No it's true, it plays quite well into the hands of TPTB that folks think scarity is going to happen any day now. Makes the "common folks" afraid which makes them easier to deal with :)

Quote
We have stated on this thread that with the chicken coup analogy, the roosters are running an oppressive regime.
I could almost wish that were true, in which case there would be something to aim at fighting "against" for the cause... Unfortunatly you can't fight "stupid" nor can you change willful ignorance. For some strange reason those "qualities" seem to be the number one needs for being elected to office :) 

Quote
No doubt we are producing (reproducing) at a rate of 2.5 Earths.  The "too many chickens in the coup" argument does not have enough urgency to start a new exploration space race. 
There is no "urgency" because it is proven false. Worse there is nothing "out-there" worth spending money and resources on HERE to go out there and get. Whether it be "elbow-room" or gold/platinum asteroids there just isn't sufficent "need" at any level to go get it.

Short of every nation on Earth suddenly being knocked down to low level Third World food and resource production methods nothing is going to cause enough of a "scarcity" issue to push the idea of colonization off Earth as being viable. (And if THAT happens we won't have the capability of doing anything about it anyway)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #63 on: 05/28/2013 09:08 pm »
Uh, just a minor nit but WVB didn't USE kerolox for his shuttles...

True, that is a minor nit for historians.  The major nit would be in the pointless use today of such toxic propellants.
True to both "nits" :)
Quote
The point still holds that with kerolox launches, at the rate of 900 or so in a year, would not affect the global carbon footprint all that much.  The common wisdom holds that launch costs would reduce in line with the mass production of so many nearly identical rockets.
Agreed in that context though I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect. The whole "3-reusable" stages, at a hundred flights each over the whole program, and you started with a good number of "shuttles" in the first place...
Quote
It has never been the case that the US simply has not had the money or the industrial capacity or the workforce talent to engage in such an endeavor.
Oh but we've been working on that "problem" for several decades now haven't we :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #64 on: 05/28/2013 10:46 pm »
Texas, Florida and California fight hard to fund NASA.

Other states don't care.

It's not a lack of will. It's a lack of NASA jobs in your area.

That's the way the system was set up.

Apollo failed to support the big income states so those big income states will not support NASA.
'Fraid not. You missed quite a few, Mississippi, Alabama, and Utah for example and you seem to ignore the fact that the Apollo program DID in fact "support" and bring a lot of money into the "big" income states during the entire program just like the Shuttle did and SLS is doing. Several states do NOT care and this reflects with their "status" in the place they have in the various groups that actually decide policy. (And before you deride the "input" of the above mentioned states I'll quitely remind you where the EXACT specification for "130-tons" to orbit came from? That's the number the "experts" told the state delegation would REQUIRE SRBs remember :)

No it really IS a lack of will. Along with a lack of resolve and an inability to "see" anything beyond a short-term/near-term money/jobs/votes perspective that has been ALL that NASA and HSF has ever meant to the politicians.

Advocating doesn't do any good because the only thing they take away from such things is "sound-bytes" and "talking-points" that they can spout back and do not have to, (or intend to) do anything with.

In a way this can be a good thing in that without "directed" action and a mandated focus NASA can simply build up capability with slow steady progression. The down side is that eventually there comes a point where both funding and support within the political structure are required to move beyond simply building capability.
Besides, from a purely political point-of-view it is very entertaining to watch the various sub-groups and interests undercut, back-stab, and deride each other when given a public forum. The one thing they do NOT want is a consensus opinion presented...

Randy

Those smaller states are supported by the big ones. Texas and Florida had the find the money for SLS. Nelson and KBH had to fight hard and put their reputations on the line to do that.

It's a recession. Procuring funding for projects that don't create jobs in your state is a bad idea. Texas and Florida get to support SLS in terms of mission design and launch operations.

California has JPL which fights to keep it's planetary missions funded. They don't want their money going to SLS which is what Charlie is trying to do. He'll most likely fail like when he failed to cut Mars funding and Insight was selected under another class and Mars 2020 was announced.

There is a will to do manned BEO exploration just not a way for everybody to keep all their funding for jobs in their state at the same time.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #65 on: 05/29/2013 08:14 am »
Surely the New York economy benefited from the construction of the Apollo Lunar Landers at Grumman.

Here is a concept.  The 60s economy really was accelerated by the development of the mainframe computer by IBM.  There was an entirely new industry that had sustainable growth and enabled a government surplus to even be capable of going to the moon.

If this had not happened, there would have been a deficit since we would have simply been attempting to go to the moon during a period of time when a war being conducted (1960-70s).

In order to even afford to go to the moon, there would need to be 10x the number of new inventions to offset the deficit, pay for new government programs (obamacare), sustain a national defense and have new missions for exploration.  With a 35% corporate tax being one of the highest in the world... All new innovations (including non NASA inventions) will wait for lower taxes or simply go to other countries.

It's like I'm saying that we will need 10x innovation to really be able to think about doing anything for exploration.  The last thing the US economy needs is another 200 billion program that is constantly behind schedule and over budget.  budgets seem tk be continuously cycled to emulate a pulse width modulation generator. 


Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #66 on: 05/29/2013 07:51 pm »
Those smaller states are supported by the big ones. Texas and Florida had the find the money for SLS. Nelson and KBH had to fight hard and put their reputations on the line to do that.
No. In fact quite the opposite in many cases. The "requirement" for 130tons to LEO, that came directly from the Utah delegation and their "experts" statement of the fact that THAT exact requirement would "guarantee" the vehicle would need SRB boosters. Then Nelson and KBH turned around and dropped support for the Utah SRBs in favor of "competing" out the booster contracts with an eye towards Texas, Alabama, or Florida based LRBs. (The infighting was so bad that PACs from Texas and Florida were funneling money into Utah to use against Hatch's reelection) Mississippi normally doesn't care and pretty much depends on the support of Florida to not get their "share" shut down but they came out in support of SRBs which has "tabled" the matter for the moment.

"Finding" funds for the SLS has never been a problem, actually getting the money allocated and released IS a problem.

Quote
It's a recession. Procuring funding for projects that don't create jobs in your state is a bad idea. Texas and Florida get to support SLS in terms of mission design and launch operations.
No this isn't about 'creating' jobs, nor actually about "saving" them, (ATK has yet to rehire any of the SRB workstaff, and they won't until they actually start producting boosters at something resembling the Shuttles rate, in other words probably never) its about money in the right places. Period. It doesn't matter to anyone at this point when of even really "if" anything actually gets built and flys. Mission support and launch operations are actually a VERY small part of the process. Production and assembly is more important but Texas and Florida have a larger percentage of actual NASA as opposed to contactor employees.

Texas and Florida would take a major "hit" if something happened to NASA itself but in the context of actually building and flying the SLS/Orion they would only be minorly effected if it was cancled. The POLITICAL fallout however would be pretty huge (Nelson and KBH et-al would feel the pain) meanwhile the smaller more contractor oriented states would not be much effected because we've ALREADY taken out hits over this.

Pretty much the one thing no one involved wants to happen is for someone to question why NASA hasn't really "done" much since 2011 and why Congress seems ok with that situation.

Quote
California has JPL which fights to keep it's planetary missions funded. They don't want their money going to SLS which is what Charlie is trying to do. He'll most likely fail like when he failed to cut Mars funding and Insight was selected under another class and Mars 2020 was announced.
Actually Bolden hasn't been that aggressive about supporting planetary missions but he's not trying to gut them either. He's had to fight tooth and nail to keep ANY funding going with Congress which I think is rather funny since Griffin and Congress were on opposite sides of the argument when HE ran NASA.

California has the best/worst of both worlds in that it has extensive NASA personnel as well as contractors in the same state. On one hand they want to pump up the contractor work, even if that means limiting the direct sponsored NASA work but on the other hand between NASA and the military they need to keep the funds flowing to keep it flowing to the contractors.

Quote
There is a will to do manned BEO exploration just not a way for everybody to keep all their funding for jobs in their state at the same time.
No there is no POLITICAL will in Washington for actual manned BEO exploration. There is currently little "will" to continue HSF at all. The fact that those in Washington would rather see American astronauts dependent on the Russians for access to space rather than a non-NASA "commercial" (not a "normal" contractor) operator is pretty much proof of that. The whole mess of the SLS/Orion and lack of full funding is another.

In Washington SLS/Orion is THE program and everything else is compared to and contrasted to that metric alone. The Shuttle workforce is pretty much "gone" in all areas, there are no plans to ramp up hireing or make large rehires of employees either NASA or contractor. The current level of funding (or lack thereof) is pretty much seen as the "norm" for the foreseable future because the people in Washington just don't 'care' enough to change it. The only danger to 'jobs' under the present circumstances is not being able to transition from the current "project" to another one should this one be canceled. Given that 90% of the "pain" is already out of the way in that regard, I don't see much chance of a major change coming out of Washington between now and the mid-2020s at least.
("Major change" being an actual Program started or shift in real policy. If SLS/Orion gets canned, there will just be another "program" started with the same funding)

Given how the infighting has now been brought out into the open I probably won't be too surprised if the whole "block" of Congressional control over NASA falls apart in the near future. The sad part is that it won't make any difference in actual support or funding and it won't open up the process enough to allow a major shift in real policy. I'm very much afraid that the result is going to be a very sharp decline in the American space program to the point where HSF for America will be a thing of the past.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #67 on: 05/30/2013 01:04 pm »
...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.

Never said it was linear.  The launch cost trendline would be down, and it would accelerate over time, as the economy accomodated the demand of tourists and others.  It is not as important the rate of increasing slope of that cost line.

But anyhow... we're not going anywhere, not even where they say they're aiming.

Until there's a principled grass roots movement on HSF, the political players will struggle with divining and implementing competent and useful exploration concepts.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2013 12:54 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #68 on: 05/30/2013 09:40 pm »
Fix your quotes..
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #69 on: 05/30/2013 10:05 pm »
...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.
(Fixed, had "qutoe" instead of "quote" just FYI :) )
Quote
Never said it was linear. The launch cost trendline would be down, and it would accelerate over time, as the economy accomodated the demand of tourists and others. It is not as important the rate of increasing slope of that cost line.
I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise actually, I only meant that there were a LOT of "assumptions" in the overall architecture as well as missing a lot of "factors" that didn't occur to the thinking at the time :)
(No "tourists" or others actually, while there was some "assumption" of commercial applications the general "thinking" at the level we're talking about was pretty much "government" program(s) only)

Quote
But anyhow... we're not going anywhere, not even where they say they're aiming.

Until there's a principled grass roots movement on HSF, the political players will struggle with divining and implementing competent and useful exploration concepts.
The political players don't "struggle" at all, that would imply they "care" at all and they generally don't. (As with the general population, the percentage that DO is far to small to be effective even if it WAS organized)

The general problem here is that "grassroots" implies at least a general consensus that is capable of presenting a coherent and united plan/front to the polticians. In general a "grassroots" movement doesn't even have to have a large percentage of the general population involved it just has to be able to grab and maintain enough "attention" (media, political, populist, etc) to be taken seriously. In the end though getting to that point pretty much takes one of two things:
- A lot of money
OR
- A lot of people
(Having both helps of course but overall the former will get you the latter and the latter will get you the former...)

In the case of the first you need to have either access to it from the start or a way to make "investment" attractive to those who have it.
In the second case you either have to keep your "goals-and-vision" generic enough to reach and hold a consensus over the majority of people, or find a way to gather and hold together a coalition of views that are close enough together to keep from falling apart over a long period of time. (Difficult at best)

My thinking for quite a while now has been that Government is obviously not going to ever get the job done. They have no incentive and pretty much every reason imaginable to NOT do so. Commercial is hampered by a lack of incentive in the way of profit opportunities with "Government" servicing being the only one currently available and viable. Even then it would take quite a while to reach the point where the "markets" would be available and grown enough to wean themselves off the government and really, not that much incentive to do so in the short term.

I am feeling that it will probably take an actual NPNGO (Non-Profit-Non-Government-Organization) throwing money "down-the-rat-hole" without regard to actual "return" for an amount of time at each stage (LEO, Cis-Lunar, Lunar, etc) of space development to really get the ball rolling. It is going to definatly take a very long range "vision" and some compelling reasoning to organize, raise-money, lobby, and defend such an organization but since the main REASON for HSF is actually Human Space Flight in and of itself, trying to "justify" or "explain" any other reason ends up falling flat over one point or another.

The "vision" thing is actually prett easy and has been "used" over and over again with little long term results: Spreading Human presence across the Solar System and beyond...

Getting that squeezed down into a "power-point" presentation enough to raise donations and organize around tends to be where everything falls apart due to conflicting plans and visions. That is also a very real problem.

The "idea" would be to take a step:
1) Routine, cheap access to LEO

And basiclly throw money at ALL the solutions till the viable ones come to the surface letting those that "fail" fail but also letting market and economics "prove-out" the real answers in such a way as to make them obvious AND commercially viable. Once that's done you will have built both the market AND the service and can step on to the next step and let matters take their course.

Problem is its going to take a LOT of money and a LOT of failures before the solutions shake themselves out. That's not something that a government or commercial enterprise can do on their own, the field is to broad and the pay-off to distant/obscure.

But I don't really see any other way to DO what is needed...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #70 on: 05/31/2013 01:14 pm »
Never said it was linear.
...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.
(Fixed, ... )

Thanks for the advice and the repair!  Could you two quickly solve the mission prioritization problem too?  Thanx.  Much obliged...

Quote from: JF
Never said it was linear. The launch cost trendline would be down, and it would accelerate over time, as the economy accomodated the demand of tourists and others. It is not as important the rate of increasing slope of that cost line.

Quote from: Randy
I wasn't meaning to imply otherwise actually, I only meant that there were a LOT of "assumptions" in the overall architecture as well as missing a lot of "factors" that didn't occur to the thinking at the time ...

As you mentioned, the USG has no "incentive and pretty much every reason imaginable to NOT do so"; to not support HSF.  It is the functional equivalent of "keeping" humanity in LEO at best.  It is every bit as effective as public law 'xyz' to the same end.  It is only private individuals, 'tourists", if you will, which can break the logjam.  It is tourists walking on Luna, or visiting a ring station who will pay the way.  Photoshopped selfies on a starry background will not pay the way, even on an introductory level.

Until there are people up there, there is no need to grab a rock, fry the water out of it, and have a drink.

Quote from: JF
But anyhow... we're not going anywhere, not even where they say they're aiming.

Until there's a principled grass roots movement on HSF, the political players will struggle with divining and implementing competent and useful exploration concepts.

Quote from: Randy
The political players don't "struggle" at all, that would imply they "care" at all and they generally don't. (As with the general population, the percentage that DO is far to small to be effective even if it WAS organized)

The general problem here is that "grassroots" implies at least a general consensus that is capable of presenting a coherent and united plan/front to the polticians. ...

That is correct.  And as long as the mass media continues to mock any ideas which have not been 'rigorously examined' in the invitation only scientific circles, and released for public consumption, we are simply not going to have a grassroots movement, and will not be going anywhere.

Not invented here.  Move along, move along.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2013 01:15 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #71 on: 06/03/2013 10:23 pm »
Never said it was linear.
...I'd point out that the launch cost thing isn't so linear as one might expect.
(Fixed, ... )

Thanks for the advice and the repair!  Could you two quickly solve the mission prioritization problem too?  Thanx.  Much obliged...
Oh I did that already! However it has been sent to commitee who are bringing in a panel of "experts" to varify that I can spell my name right before moving on to see if I overused comma's followed by a rigerious test period where they will establish if the paper I used was of the proper quality.... You know this IS Washington we're talking about! There are some sensative behinds that might come into contact with this stuff! ;)

Quote from: JF
As you mentioned, the USG has no "incentive and pretty much every reason imaginable to NOT do so"; to not support HSF.  It is the functional equivalent of "keeping" humanity in LEO at best.  It is every bit as effective as public law 'xyz' to the same end.  It is only private individuals, 'tourists", if you will, which can break the logjam.  It is tourists walking on Luna, or visiting a ring station who will pay the way.  Photoshopped selfies on a starry background will not pay the way, even on an introductory level.
One could actually wish this was something that the USG activily cared enough about to be an issue to them. Unfortunatly, "tourism" has never broken a logjam yet and I am highly doubtful it will do so in this case as well. It is a factor of course, but by itself it simply wouldn't be enough. Someone has to build up the "need" market for humans in space enough to bring the cost down to where many more people could afford to take a "vacation" in space. Moreso there is a direct need for places and activities for those people to go TO in space as well. And I really don't see how that can be a "bootstrapping" activity.

Quote from: JF
Until there are people up there, there is no need to grab a rock, fry the water out of it, and have a drink.
It can be argued that there is a "need" to prove it can be done at all, however there is also an argument that the government isn't really the ones to do it either.
On the gripping hand argument, the government never tends to look at the various intermediate steps from point "A" to point "B" and in this case it could be argued that SOMEONE is at least looking at some of those steps even if the actual mission doesn't ever come off.

Quote from: JF
That is correct.  And as long as the mass media continues to mock any ideas which have not been 'rigorously examined' in the invitation only scientific circles, and released for public consumption, we are simply not going to have a grassroots movement, and will not be going anywhere.

Not invented here.  Move along, move along.
The problem is more than that, the problem is even if the mass media "got-onboard" the general public is still going to dismiss the idea of a major human presence in space unless and until it becomes significantly relevent to the daily life of the avererage person. So far as can be "shown" in any significant way there isn't really a good REASON to put people into space.

The things that effect peoples daily lives in fact do NOT require humans in space and it is very hard to "argue" that there are such reasons when (so far) every one that has been tried has fallen flat in the face of reality.

That's one of the major reasons I'm wondering if it won't take a "different" approach to the subject. Putting people into space not because they are "needed" but because the program is based on putting people into space whether they are "needed" or not. There is no real way to make that a justifiable "goal" from a government or commercial perspective, it doesn't fit the mentality/fiscal model of the former and is not cost effective for the latter but in the end it has so many "uses" both would participate if someone ELSE did it.

We've had similar periods before where something like this has pushed exploration and/or colonization but it has taken a heavy "media-campaign" and a feeling of envolvment within the general public to make it happen. The problem though is those movements weren't sustainable over long periods then and with the current "attention-span" of the general public it would be even more difficult today. Probably worse though is you would not WANT to depend on public attention but a very deep and broad "attention" of public, private, commercial and government all together.

As I noted before I can see a broadly based and commited NGO doing the work necessary to get past the "logjam" we are presently at but the very high start-up costs are daunting to say the least. This is something that I simply can't see getting rolling with anything like a simple "kickstarter" program that's for sure.

Anyone have any ideas?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #72 on: 06/07/2013 01:19 am »
Ok... So the OP regards the thoughts and aspirations of sustained BEO missions.  Let's put our focus on some more history.  This is going to be good!

***
Chapter 1:
1903:  Wright Brothers invent the airplane
1903-1914:  United States loses leadership to Europe with the use of aircraft during WWI.
1915:  Congress approves a bill to establish a national advisory committee of aeronautics consisting of 12 members and one employee.  Organization name is NACA.  Objective:  catch up to Europe with aircraft.
..late-1940s:  Technology catch up in aircraft is accomplished.
****
Chapter 2:
1957:  Sputnik is orbiting over the Earth
1958:  Congress passes the National Aeronatics and Space Act to start NASA.
..late 60s-early 70s:  Men walk on the moon, the technology catch up is accomplished.
***

Chapter 3:
Has any other country taken a flight crew beyond low earth orbit???

Reference:
http://history.nasa.gov/naca/overview.html

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #73 on: 06/07/2013 02:41 am »
Chapter 3:
Has any other country taken a flight crew beyond low earth orbit???

I know you know that the answer is no.

The Chinese are doing their darndest.  They quite realize that more face would be lost in a fatal accident than would be lost in proceeding slowly and cautiously.  So two points for Slytherin.

The problem is more than that, the problem is even if the mass media "got-onboard" the general public is still going to dismiss the idea of a major human presence in space unless and until it becomes significantly relevent to the daily life of the avererage person.

This is the part where I get on my knees and beg to disagree.

The general public has been instructed to mock the idea by the MSM, plain and simple.  They are called sheople for a good reason.  The MSM must do as it is instructed.

Look at the arguments on this forum how the "real" science is in the heist, and how we've been to the Moon already, and there's no scientific "there" there.  The rabbit hole's not all that deep.  It's just that the rabbits have been ritalined into submission.

The only idea that works is the honest idea of colonization, starting with tourism, open to the general public, and paid for by the general public.

The endless discussions about hardware are designed to limit the pragmatic discussion about the validity of tourism.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #74 on: 06/07/2013 04:41 am »
Chapter 3:
Has any other country taken a flight crew beyond low earth orbit???

I know you know that the answer is no.

The Chinese are doing their darndest.  They quite realize that more face would be lost in a fatal accident than would be lost in proceeding slowly and cautiously.  So two points for Slytherin.

Ha, yes John!   ;D

You and I as well as any other guy would tell you that it doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that we haven't explored beyond earth orbit. 

But we have been stuck using a mouse with three clicky buttons to synthesize complex things that are so over designed it takes five years to prepare for a design review.

And then you have six modes of communication while you design (IM, email, desk phone, cell phone, video chat, and also common face to face yappin).  This communication also includes typing on keyboards so small that only a squirrel with zero skills in human systems integration would appreciate.

Humans have not explored beyond earth orbit.  But somebody is going to need to Google this fact to figure this out. Then they can move onto the next weblink (such as the next video from Beiber or Psy).  The internet is a black hole that prevents progress from the random distractions.

I might propose an idea to the recent national research council survey.  We probably should shut NASA down.  Then start a brand new national advisory council just decide what humans could/should do for space exploration.  Then stick a dozen people in a non-internet connected room with a pencil and paper pad.  Let them sketch out a new space plan in one week. After that, give it to *ONE* employee to do (maybe Bolden).  This person's job is to procure all the materials and resources needed to pull off the plan.  If neatness is paramount, use a typewriter or a stencil to write the plans.

I have supreme confidence that there is no way this group would come up with a 500 billion dollar boondoggle to lasso a boulder in space to return it to lunar orbit (where there are no plans to return).
« Last Edit: 06/07/2013 07:58 am by RigelFive »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #75 on: 06/07/2013 05:20 pm »
Then stick a dozen people in a non-internet connected room with a pencil and paper pad.  Let them sketch out a new space plan in one week.

Mental apathy works.  I have made this essential proposal some years ago, and began broadcasting it to the mental ether.  Obviously, you have picked up on some of this.

Quote from: Rigel
have supreme confidence that there is no way this group would come up with a 500 billion dollar boondoggle to lasso a boulder in space to return it to lunar orbit...

Well, they are planning on a 50th anniversary redo of Apollo 8, with a sidetrack to the rock.

But that's not the epiphany.

If ya wanna catch a running cow on the prarie, you use a lasso.  The people who do this (known as cowboys for some unknown reason), do not attempt to grapple the 'tumbling' cow.  First, they lasso it, and 'detumble' it using the leverage of 20 to 40 feet of rope.  Then the guy gets off the horse, grapples the cow and brands it.

If you just gots to grab an asteroid, you do it with a lasso.  Here's how:

A.  Find your asteroid [cow] with your Ziltoid fleet.  The rate of tumbling must be accurately characterized and not exceed the capacity of the spacecraft.  The spacecraft matches the orbit of the asteroid, gets close, and opens up a pretty tough netting, attached to a ring thing.  At the open end of the net are gimballed hydrazine thrusters which can open and close the mouth of the net.  Notice that topologically speaking, the net resembles a "bag".  It is designed to actually come into contact with the rock.  The rock must be substantially one piece, and none of its constituent pieces should be able to pass thru the net openings.

Before closure, the spacecraft moves well ahead of the ring thing, deploying its tether.

B.  When the tether is extended to its design length, the net closes upon the asteroid.  This is the actual lassoing of the cow.  Because of its tumbling and its contact with the net, the asteroid/spacecraft system will also start gyrating.  The gimballed thrusters on the spacecraft work continuously to dampen the asteroid and de-tumble it. 

Because of the length of the tether (the lasso) the angle of that gyration is kept pretty small, within the angular limits of the gimbals.

C.  Eventually, within a few hours to days, the asteroid is de-tumbled, the tether retracted appropriately, and the system moves to that extremely safe DRO, missing Moscow, Shanghai, London, and New York by some 200K to 300K miles.

It won't be $500B however.  Using the JWST metric, it could cost $46B.  But I think it could be done for well under $26B.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2013 04:05 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #76 on: 06/08/2013 01:21 am »
Yes!  Design at its greatest!
« Last Edit: 06/08/2013 01:45 am by RigelFive »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #77 on: 06/08/2013 04:04 pm »
A bit of reflection reveals that the previous sketch does not illustrate the expected action of the rock and spacecraft accurately.

The rock, outmassing the spacecraft by a goodly amount, will not move in space that much, but the the spacecraft will have to make fairly drastic maneuvers around the sufficiently lazy tumbling asteroid, using the long, flexible moment arm of the net, ring thing, and tether to constantly apply a retarding force to the tumbling asteroid.

The tumble of the asteroid can be described by a rotating ellipse of radial force vectors which will have to be first estimated by the Ziltoid observation sat, and confirmed by the prox ops of the spacecraft.  In addition, the mass of the asteroid would have to be sufficiently accurately characterized by the Ziltoid; again, the spacecraft would determine the mass of the asteroid to a greater accuracy, in order to calculate the forces and vectors needed for detumbling along its orbit.

The gimballed thrusters of the spacecraft could then be instructed to de-tumble the asteroid.

Budget so far? Well under a billion.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #78 on: 06/08/2013 05:35 pm »
How do you get the depicted moment arm with a tether? Rigid boom is required, otherwise the comet cow just winds up your tether around itself like a ball of yarn. And if cow's rotation axis points towards your spacecraft?
« Last Edit: 06/08/2013 05:41 pm by R7 »
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline RigelFive

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • I hope that you relish Tranya as much I
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Exploration concepts and principles?
« Reply #79 on: 06/08/2013 09:20 pm »
I'm thinking the time required to stop tumbling will be too short. You're going to have to approach with such a slow velocity and angular velocity in order to prevent an impact.  It will be better to just land on the thing/cow.
 :-X

Tags:
 

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