Slashdot Mirror
H.R. 3057: To the Asteroids, Moon and Mars
apsmith writes "Democrats have just introduced the Space Exploration Act of 2003 to the U.S. House of Representatives; the author is Nick Lampson of Texas, with 26 co-sponsors. The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA, beyond the Low Earth Orbit of the Space Station and Shuttle, outlining a series of incremental steps for human spaceflight. These include development of reusable spacecraft for carrying people around in the Earth-Moon vicinity, including to the nearby Lagrange points; sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid; establishing a lunar base, and sending people to Mars with a base on a Martian moon by 2024."
Rep. Lampson's congressional district includes Johnson Space Center, which would benefit greatly from an expansion of manned spaceflight.
But then again, I could be wrong.
Looks like someone is trying to get NASA back on track after a long period of waffling in the manned spaceflight program. The fact that it's a little bit of pork-barelling doesn't hurt either, but I can overlook that :)
Rumors about their infamous program where true. Their advanced weapon programs contained powerful rockets capable of shuttling us to Mars and back.
Nope, not true. We've had rockets powerful enough to take us to Mars for years. We've just not had powerful enough rockets to take us, and all the oxygen we need to breathe while there, and burn to blast off and get back. If you run the numbers you'll see why, and then see that even super-duper-Iranian rockets aren't going to make up the difference.
The scientists are going to be able to make it to Mars though, and it's not because of a rocket break-through - it's because a few people were thinking outside of the box and figured out a better solution.
Liora
"Why bother sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid?"
There is a high likelyhood that within the next 50 years we will detect an asteriod on it's way towards our planet for impact. Once detected, the only way to know how to best deal with it is to go TO it and determine exactly what type of asteroid it is. If it is a solid iron-nickle then we can actually bring the tools along with the survey crew to move it. If it turns out to be porous, there are other methods that can be used. The point is that we will need to determine this, and the most reliable piece of diagnostic equipment you can put in space is still a human. I would sleep a lot better at night knowing that we at least have the capability to intercept one of these beasts before it nukes us. This bit of exploration also becomes a part of survival. I love dual-use designs.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Psst.. Corporations dont care about exploring Uranus, they care about profits.
Show them how to profit by putting a man on the moon, or on mars, or on Saturn, and they'll be on it like a hobo on a ham sandwich.
BTW, there's no such thing as "cost efficient" space exploration. There are no immediate tangible benefits, therefore even if the cost was 50 cents, it'd be inefficient.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Here's the highlights:
... and additional studies to establish goals are not needed at this time.
... the main hurdle to be overcome is the lack of a national commitment to such activities.
"(7) There have been numerous commissions and study panels over the last 30 years
(8) While there are significant technical and programmatic hurdles
(11) While the ultimate goal of human space flight in the inner solar system is the exploration of the planet Mars, there are other important goals for exploration of the inner solar system that will advance our scientific understanding and allow the United States to develop and demonstrate capabilities that will be needed for the scientific exploration and eventual settlement of Mars."
w00t! I claim Tharsis Tholus!
"(20) Completion of the International Space Station with a full crew complement of 7 astronauts and robust research capabilities is essential if the United States is to carry out successfully a comprehensive initiative of scientific exploration of the solar system that involves human space flight."
Not so hot on this one.. again, Zubrin's proposals are passed over. Ah comprimise.
If you're not familiar with Zubrin, he made a plan 10 years ago to get to Mars with existing technology (Saturn VII), that would allow scientists months of surface time there, all for $10B:
http://www.nw.net/mars/docs/nearterm.txt
"(4) Within 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to and from Martian orbit, the development and deployment of a human-tended habitation and research facility on the surface of one of the moons of Mars, and the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from Martian orbit to the surface of Mars and back."
Again, given Zubrin's work (that he presented to Congress), this is a bummer. We'll spend a lot of time building huge spaceships, instead of getting to Mars and settling it. A lot can happen in 20 years though.. perhaps any legislation like this is good. It's especially understandable given the recent shuttle disaster.. law-makers don't stick their necks out too far.
"(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."
Now that's what I'm talkin' about.
(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for carrying out this Act--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
According to this article there's lots of good stuff worth looking into:
(pasted from the link above)
The Lunar rocks may also be examined according to the chemicals that they contain. Such analysis indicates:
They are rich in refractory elements, which are elements such as calcium (Ca), Aluminum (Al), and Titanium (Ti) that form compounds having high melting points.
They are poor in the light elements such as hydrogen (H).
There is high abundance of elements like Silicon (Si) and Oxygen (O).
The high concentration of rare metals like Titanium, and the availability of abundant amounts of Silicon and Oxygen has led to serious proposals about mining and manufacturing operations in the future for the Moon.
but I can read Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars", a famous book that tells of the plan he prestend to Congress years ago. In it, he describes how to use Saturn VII rockets to launch a 2 phase, conjunction-class mission to Mars. The first phase carries no humans, instead carrying a machine to create rocket fuel, air and water out of the martian atmosphere. Once the return fuel is ready, you launch the second trip, with scientists. They get there after 9 months of artificial grav (tether-linked comparments set spinning) and set down to a full supply of oxygen and water, maybe even a backup supply.
They then do a many month investigation of the area surrounding the landing site, find life, invent martian versions geology, climatology, etc., and return home.
His estimated cost: somewhere around $10B, $20B and up for variations.
Repeat, repeat, repeat: settlement.
That was 10 years ago, and that's all off the top of my head.
You need the full GDP of the $US ($10T, or 1/5th of the money in the entire world) to do the same? I hope this isn't how the whole of JPL thinks, but if it is, perhaps that's why our space program is stagnant.
Now tell me what's wrong and ludicrous with his ideas (if you care to investigate them) and I'll find someone who can help you understand them.
If it turns out you're right, write a letter to these poor, misguided chumps in Congress.
Otherwise submit a proposal for their funding.
Or, get out of JPL and join me at McDonalds.
One of the things that you have to keep in mind is that NASA requires the use of military grade hardware. It has to undergo strict testing for a period of several years before it can be approved for mission-critical usage. You wouldn't want your CPU to glitch (Pentium 1, anyone?) and cause the spaceship to veer off course, would you?
This quote better sums up Kennedy's vision for space and technology:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The lagrange points are more like areas, and they move a bit due to the gravity of other bodies like the moon and sun. But considering the vast distances involved, if you're within a few kilometers a few tiny Ion thrusters will keep things in place. Plenty of room for a bunch of structures at each point.
Notice that the $50 million and $200 million are for setting up the "Office of Exploration", the review panels, the proposal competitions, reports to Congress, etc. This is funding for the planning itself, not the actual missions. That would not come until the missions are better defined.
space based power stations have clear economic advantages. (solar cells are much more effective without an atmosphere in the way - power can be wirelessly beamed to earth)
space based asteroid mining has clear economic advanatages (rare minerals, densely packed, re-entry is essentially effortless - just wrap up and give gentle push 'down')
and those are undeniable, well known, well studied advantages.
what happens when we discover what is really on the moon or mars? formerly considered rare minerals, alien compounds, space-worthy organisms?
there -is- money to be made in space. nasa doesn't advertise it because it isn't their focus. in the meantime we've been sending people into space for the last 30 years for no particular reason - to perform experiments robots could do with cheaper, older, safer Apollo-level technology. Not until we started -building- the space station, has the shuttle program shown us -any- benefit.
If we show corporations the potential goldmines in space (figuratively and literally) and allow them reasonable rights for their effort - they will figure out how to make it cost effective.
along the way we'll get some great technology/services.
wouldn't you rather have Boeing footing half the bill for space plane development, instead of getting paid to fail at it? should we really worry about them have a 5-10 year monopoly on scramjet technology for their effort?
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
It's fun to get paranoid about shooting down reconnaisance satellites, but there are serious problems with doing so. The major problem is that once a low Earth orbit spacecraft is destroyed, pieces of it begin caroming around at phenomenal speeds, possibly leading to a chain reaction. Throw in the fact that some satellites are atomic powered and we are talking the potential for a SERIOUS mess.
In principio erat Verbum.
Consider the X33 program. MacDonnel Douglas built their Delta Clipper prototype (scaled down), and Lockeed Martin the aerospike engine and some smaller-scale mockups. Lockheed won the contract, and then the entire project was scrapped by NASA.
It's financially impractical to build a full-scale man-rated spacecraft as a prototype in a competitive bid system. No company has an amount of capital sufficient for this that they can afford to lose if they don't win the bid.
IMO the general approach used with X33 was a correct one: publish a Request For Proposal and see which aerospace companies come up with something that meets the requirements.
The requirements on X33 were far too loose. Tighten them up, focus the general configuration of the vehicle (capsule, lifting body, winged) and get some prototypes built at the expense of the bidding companies. Then award a contract and penalize the company for these massive cost overruns. Some decent project management skills would go a long way here!
No. There are two lagrange points for the sun-earth system which are relatively close. And there are two in the moon-earth system that are MUCH closer. The moon is only on the order of 275000 miles from the earth, and the lagrange point between the two is relatively close to the moon. They are points designated where the gravitational attraction on a mass between the two bodies is equal to zero.
There are other lagrange points, but you get the idea.
The bill in question is EXCELLENT and the JPL "employee" made me laugh. Here's why this bill should be encouraging to everyone interested in space exploration.
e velop.pdf
1. It gives NASA specific goals that the general public (and politicians) can relate to. More importantly, it lifts expectations higher than low earth orbit.
2. It fosters public debate on space exploration. Whether it passes or not, such debate is needed.
2. It will provide more than the current shoe-string budget to advancing NASA technologies needed for space travel. Take for example the Johnson Space Center's Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory and the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VSIMR).
The plasma rocket drive is not powered by conventional chemical reactions as today's rockets are, but by electrical energy that heats the propellant. The propellant is a plasma that reaches extreme temperatures -- 50,000 and above. Some scientists call this the fourth state of matter.
This new type of technology would dramatically shorten human transit times between planets (about 3 months to Mars). Not only will planetary missions be fast, but the plasma drive will propel robotic cargo missions with very large payloads (more than 100 tons to Mars). Obviously, trip times and payloads are major concerns when using conventional rockets.
The laboratory was founded at NASA Johnson Space Center in December 1993. The lab director is NASA astronaut Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz. He has been working on the development of a plasma rocket since 1979. Work began at Charles Stark Draper Laboratory then continued at the Massuchusetts Institute of Technology Plasma Fusion Center before moving to JSC.
For more information about the rocket: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/reference/aspl/d
Just to nitpick, it's not the twin paradox; it's relativity. The twin paradox is die to relativity as well, but him living longer is not because of the paradox. Which isn't even a paradox anyway.