Author Topic: Why manned spaceflight  (Read 121944 times)

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: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #380 on: 07/22/2009 02:16 am »
Mikegi:  You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, deliberately, I think, and reframing questions so as to deviate significantly from the original remarks.  So let me suggest that whatever I said to you wasn't that important.  I think you've raised some good points, and you may be right on all of them.

I like the idea of a lottery.  Of course the winner would have to pass various physical exams and sign a waiver for damages, but it would certainly raise public awareness.  And second place would get a pony!  OTOH, what if they gave a lottery and nobody came?  In other words, only a thousand people entered, what then?  Would the idea take?

On the lunar taxi idea: Shakleton-Tranquility-Shackelton.  No refueling, otherwise a depot system needs to be in place.

About the "harsh realities" that Celebrimbor brings up.  I had not yet considered the idea of "devil's advocates" because the tenor of some of the remarks against HSF, seems very much against, to the extent that positive discussions are actively discouraged.  The word "helpful" is not in the vocabulary of some of these advocates.

But some of them are helpful.  I've done some of the delta-vee, fuel and tonnage calculations provided on this forum, and the numbers get pretty large pretty quickly, plus they add up fairly quickly as well.  But at the same time, our war machine eats up funding and engineering know-how at about twice the rate that my "theoretical" plan might cost.  To me and a few others, this proves that HSF and colonization is certainly possible for America to achieve, even if the colony were not completely self-sustaining.  This would require a radical change in American politics, which might be more unrealistic than all that rocket power.

But harsher than the economic and political situation is the media drumbeat I hear that mocks HSF in many quiet ways.  On a sports show I saw a glimpse of the other day, they had a "poll", and 58% of the respondents thought going to the Moon was a good idea.  Both of the anchors were jokingly dismissive of the results, saying something like "You'd think we'd had enough technology by this time...", or something.  That was my take, and it was just one snippet of one dumb show, and I'm biased, etc., etc.  On July 20th, the WaPo had several articles in their "40th Anniversery" section, but it was all lukewarm, rah-rah-ree stuff, shoulders of giants, and all that.  Not blatantly unfavorable, but, what?  Damning with faint praise?

Anyhow, the scientists and politicians can't drive the process because the pols are corrupt, and the scientists too easily bought.  What's a citizen to do?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2128
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #381 on: 07/22/2009 02:26 am »
The movie The Right Stuff is not a document of historical fact nor is it a serious attempt to contribute to the debate on whether or not human space flight is worth doing. Its not even an attempt to get people interested in space flight. It was an attempt to make profit for film producers.

Who was that versatile "German" in the white smock pressing launch buttons all about the Cape blockhouses? Quiz: how many launches did the Mercury  astronauts watch and how many were failures (I do not know)?
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline veryrelaxed

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #382 on: 07/22/2009 02:46 am »
Well, he (W. vong Braun) was a commtted nazi in '42 (what does that imply?) and a murderer. 

And he would f'k us up if his entire murderous culture didnt surrneder in '45, becauise Braun's leader 'miscalculated' on all fronts

I, personally, don't give a shit about him.  He was a bastard and a murdurer.   Screw the f'kng Apollo if it was at THIS cost.

(just see the slave labor corridors in his V2 factories)

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #383 on: 09/17/2009 04:10 pm »
I've heard it said many times on this forum that "no one is even talking about ending US human spaceflight"...well, look at this:

Congress in hot seat over human spaceflight

Quote
Will the Obama administration and the 111th Congress go down in history as the politicians who turned out the lights on the US human-spaceflight program? That is the fundamental question several lawmakers are asking as they pore over options and observations that were presented by a panel charged with reviewing America's human-spaceflight effort.

Offline cozmicray

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #384 on: 09/17/2009 05:02 pm »
The USA does not WANT a manned space program.
The US citizens, Senators, Congressmen, President
don't WANT/NEED a space program.

For some unknown reason, without study, they accept
Wall street bailout -- Trillions of dollars  (11 B$ goldman sachs bonuses)
Automobiles --- Billions of dollars
Offense (DoD)  --- Wars all over  --- 100 Billions of dollars
Health care

Was there an Augustine type committee to study all these problems
before trillions of $$$ poured in to them.

US citizens, Senators, Congressmen, President spend on BIG items
  appearently at the snap of a finger
but agonize over a 1 - 4 $B  NASA budget

Ignore a CAIB, Aldridge and other reports, lessons learned.

NASA is not independent  -- a politocal puppet to spread some
crumbs of funding over the political landscape.

Just imagine the US congress riding heard over the CERN Large Hadron Collider --- it would be just a big empty hole in the ground.

Does the DoD (even with their broken aquisition system) develop
 a system (like CEV) that will only work on one other system(Ares-1)
No there are ALTERNATIVES  so there are no gaps!
There are two to four systems in development before they retire some system.

The US Public must realize NASA is important -- must be an independent
R&D entity for the betterment of the USA.

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: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #385 on: 09/17/2009 07:11 pm »
Well, this citizen wants manned space flight.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #386 on: 10/27/2009 09:31 pm »
I dunno, the free-market economist in me wants to see what'll happen if NASA gets cancelled altogether. If there's actual profit up there in space then private corporations will go out and grab it. If not, was a sustainable space exploration biz ever possible?

Clearing government out of the way might give commercial interests room to breathe. Or it might demonstrate that we're not ready yet, from an economic/technological standpoint, to take to the stars.
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1548
  • Likes Given: 1385
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #387 on: 10/27/2009 09:52 pm »
Well, this citizen wants manned space flight.

So does this citizen right here! It may cost a few more on the dime, but in the end from my standpoint its worth it!

Orbiter
KSC Engineer, astronomer, rocket photographer.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #388 on: 10/27/2009 10:17 pm »
I dunno, the free-market economist in me wants to see what'll happen if NASA gets cancelled altogether.

There is a role for NASA in the free market.  Pure research is not done by industry

Offline MoonRay

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #389 on: 10/28/2009 12:27 am »
I dunno, the free-market economist in me wants to see what'll happen if NASA gets cancelled altogether.

There is a role for NASA in the free market.  Pure research is not done by industry
Industry is working on pure research in every category every day!
« Last Edit: 10/28/2009 12:27 am by MoonRay »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #390 on: 10/28/2009 04:10 am »
A little but not very much pure research is done by industry.  The universities do a lot.  From the outside NASA does a little pure planetary research but mostly performs engineering research.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #391 on: 10/28/2009 08:22 am »
A little but not very much pure research is done by industry.  The universities do a lot.  From the outside NASA does a little pure planetary research but mostly performs engineering research.

But NASA doesn't do much of any pure research on its own. It's usually in partnership or supporting another gov't agency, or university/university scientist, or a combination of gov't agency and university/university scientist.

Even the planetary research is done within a NASA mission, and with a PI who is with a university, or an outside entity and not directly employed by NASA (like Southwest Research).

Offline MoonRay

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #392 on: 10/29/2009 04:22 am »
A little but not very much pure research is done by industry.  The universities do a lot.  From the outside NASA does a little pure planetary research but mostly performs engineering research.

But NASA doesn't do much of any pure research on its own. It's usually in partnership or supporting another gov't agency, or university/university scientist, or a combination of gov't agency and university/university scientist.

Even the planetary research is done within a NASA mission, and with a PI who is with a university, or an outside entity and not directly employed by NASA (like Southwest Research).


Taken from a recent article that I read ...

Contrary to myth, the private sector does tons of science — because it is so profitable. Consider IBM. The Times Higher Education Supplement’s survey last year showed that Harvard University’s science papers are the most cited globally (20.6 citations per paper on average) but coming in second was IBM (18.9), outranking all other universities and research bodies. And because IBM invests so much in science, it has for the past 12 years been awarded more patents (3,000 annually) than any other institution. And by its patents IBM earns more than $1 billion annually in licence fees.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #393 on: 10/29/2009 08:06 am »
I don't think it's really fair to judge research amounts or importance by the number of patents issued. It'd be more fair to compare by published results and papers.

You can't really patent things like a study of endocrine levels of human subjects in a long-duration zero G environment, or rough-surface hypersonic boundary layer turbulence, or the composition of Enceladus' vent plume material, or magnetic field strength of galactic center black holes.

The worth of new knowledge in NASA (and any other gov't agency) science research and funding shouldn't rely on whether someone can patent and profit from it.


Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #394 on: 10/29/2009 08:53 am »
Also investment in computers is very different from investment in space.

Even what you could call pure research being done for a masters degree could inspire a popular app that makes a few million a year or two later.

Nothing compares to computers when it comes to quick bucks and fast turnarounds and revolutions of technology. No matter how fast a computer gets, it will be too slow to show off all the features of a game written a couple of years later.

If pure space research was turning into big profits a couple of years later, Business would certainly be doing it.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3352
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 891
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #395 on: 10/29/2009 09:50 pm »
Contrary to myth, the private sector does tons of science — because it is so profitable.
You are attacking a "myth" that doesn't really exist.  Yup, industry does a lot of applied science. No informed person would dispute this. It rarely does pure, blue sky, fundamental research.

Now some industrial organizations (like IBM) do science that is far from immediate applications, but for the most part it's still directed in areas that have the potential to eventually be relevant to their business (or has the potential to become new business) IBMs research in things like nanotechnology may appear to be "pure research" at this stage, but it is likely to be laying the groundwork for thing they will need to do to stay competitive in the next decades.

Private companies do not fund their own LHC, Keck, Hubble, GP-B,  VLA, neutrino observatories, planetary science mission etc. If government funding disappeared, most of this research would simply go away.

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Why manned spaceflight
« Reply #396 on: 10/30/2009 12:32 am »
There's little question that basic research is good stuff.  But manned spaceflight has precious little to do with basic research.  It's more like very expensive performance art.  I think it happens to be good performance art, and don't really begrudge NASA their $6B a year to keep it going, but I also don't see any very strong argument for increasing the amount of money spent.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Tags:
 

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