NASA Prepping Plans For Flexible Path To Mars

FleaPlus writes "A group at NASA has been formulating a 'Flexible Path' to Mars architecture, which many expect will be part of the soon-to-be-announced reboot of NASA's future plans. NASA's prior architecture spends much of its budget on creating two in-house rockets, the Ares I and V, and would yield no beyond-LEO human activity until a lunar landing sometime in the 2030s. In contrast, the Flexible Path would produce results sooner, using NASA's limited budget to develop and gain experience with the technologies (human and robotic) needed to progressively explore and establish waypoints at Lagrange points, near-Earth asteroids, the Martian moon Phobos, Mars, and other possible locations (e.g. the Moon, Venus flyby). Suggested interim goals include constructing giant telescopes in deep space, learning how to protect Earth from asteroids, establishing in-space propellant depots, and harvesting resources/fuel from asteroids and Phobos to supply Moon/Mars-bound vehicles."

Comments

nasa is not gonna get much done

[ionix5891]

if it gets "rebooted" very 4/8 years by new president/administration

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[Third Position]

if it gets "rebooted" very 4/8 years by new president/administration

Yes, it seems to be a shell game. Making an "exciting new announcement" every couple of years creates the illusion of things happening without ever producing any tangible results. I've pretty well lost faith in the proposition that we're going to be going anywhere in my lifetime again. John Derbyshire wrote an insightful article detailing a number of reasons why. I think he's hit it on the head.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[captainpanic]

What, you can't design and build a simple rocket within 4 years?

Come on, this is 2010 - surely we can design rockets a lot faster than in 1969...

[/sarcasm]

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[realityimpaired]

I know you're being facetious, but we can design 'em faster than in 1969, largely because we still have the designs from the 1969 rockets as a starting point. They only starting point that they had back in the '60's when they started the plan to shoot for the moon were the V2 and the rockets used in the Mercury program. Nothing of the size/scale that could push a capsule to the moon had ever been built before.

We can't say that in 2010... people have been to the moon, and rockets of the scale needed to push people to the moon, if not further, have already been built and refined. There's decades of research that they don't need to repeat in order to start building rockets like that again. I'm not saying that putting an astronaut on the moon by 2014 is a likelihood, or even a possibility. But I am saying that it probably won't take as long as it did the first time. :)

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[Nyeerrmm]

In this case, no. The Bush plan was underfunded and overplanned. Ares has proven to be a colossal money sink, using a contracting method that has been incapable of creating an actual working vehicle since the space shuttle, and kept alive by political considerations rather than practical reasons.

The flexible path provides new and early 'Firsts' that can be accomplished much more cheaply and fits better within expected budgets. It moves to take NASA out of the LEO ferry game, and keep it doing what it does best -- Exploration. The mission steps outlined by the Augustine commission were designed specifically to deal with the always changing political goalposts. The flexibility means that if funding changes our the target changes its not a cessation of an entire program, just some relatively minor revisions.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[vlm]

What, you can't design and build a simple rocket within 4 years?

Come on, this is 2010 - surely we can design rockets a lot faster than in 1969...

I can't think of any rocket designed in '69...

Depending on how you want to count the saturn-1, it took somewhere between 1960 to 1967 or 1962 (really 1961) to 1967 to design and build the moon rockets, so figure 5 to 7 years back in the olden days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[Verio Fryar]

It moves to take NASA out of the LEO ferry game, and keep it doing what it does best -- Exploration

NASA 40 years ago did some exploration, but since then everybody involved has retired. Nowadays NASA expertise is only LEO operations and it has to relearn how to "explore".

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[Nyeerrmm]

Oh, they're still exploring, just mostly with robots lately. I think once you have a consistent, reliable, cheaper transport to LEO it will be easier to translate that to manned missions as well. I hope anyway.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[camperdave]

Design is not the problem. Politics is. Mike Griffin had a pet project which has been nicknamed "the stick", or ARES-I. A single solid rocket capable of launching a 20 tonne payload into orbit. ATK, the folks that build the SRBs for the shuttle were given the contract to develop and build the solid rocket. ATK is based in Alabama, and Alabama's senator, Richard Shelby, holds NASA's purse strings. So, no money for NASA unless ATK gets a big fat juicy contract.

Another problem is NASA's "Not Invented Here" syndrome. ARES-I is a 20 tonne launcher. Billions have been spent developing it. However the US already has a perfectly fine rocket that can launch 20 tonnes into orbit; the Delta-IV Heavy. Oh, but that was designed by the Air Force. Can't have that at NASA.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[GameMaster]

You seem to have forgotten the Mars rovers, the stardust probe, and all the other robotic probes they've sent out recently.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[khallow]

Decision paralysis isn't the only threat to space development and exploration. Shitty programs that actually harm space development are worse (such as the Ares program, which builds a government funded competitor to commercial launch vehicles, in effect both building an inferior, unnecessary launch vehicle and undermining US commercial activity in space at the same time).

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[jgtg32a]

But isn't the ARES-I the smallest of the ARES series, and it matches the Delta-IV max load.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[Gilmoure]

Wait, a Bush plan has turned out to be non-workable and only resulted in gov't money being sent to contractors. Say it ain't so!

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[flitty]

ATK is based in Alabama

No, they are headquartered in Minnesota, but they do have facilities there, along with california, minnesota, utah, virginia, ... you get the idea.

So, no money for NASA unless ATK gets a big fat juicy contract.

Or it could be that they are basing ARES-I on 20 years of engineering data, rather than starting from scratch to make a new human-flight rated rocket, which is no small proposition.

Geeze, if you're gonna get all conspiracy theorist you could at least get the basics right.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[rwa2]

I would be pretty happy with sending out a fleet of rovers to explore other planets and moons... what's the roadmap for that?

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[CecilPL]

The goals for the next series of lunar missions are very different than the goals for Apollo.

The point of Apollo was to prove that it could be done. We sent 2 men at a time down to the surface in a tin can, with a computer no more powerful than a graphing calculator. They walked around for a few hours collecting rocks and taking pictures, spending a couple days at most on the moon.

What we want to do now is send 6 people at a time in relative comfort, have them do real science, and figure out how to actually live on the moon. These missions should culminate with a permanently staffed base akin to the ISS, in 6 month crew rotations.

The latter might take a little more research time.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[pe1rxq]

The Delta-IV and Atlas-V both have more than 20 years of history.... And can launch the Orion just fine. Only thing needed was some human rating on those rockets which would have been cheaper than the sinkhole Ares-I turned into...

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[interploy]

Are you sure of that? Payload capacity is one thing, but the biggest hurdle in the Ares rockets is reducing the vibrations enough to make them safe for human transport. Keep in mind that at the time the Ares was chosen, the design was already deemed to be nearly twice as safe as either the Delta IV or the Atlas V. Considering that the Delta IV or Atlas V were never designed to carry humans to space, it could very well be that both rockets would require a major retrofit to account for this same problem.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[camperdave]

Liquid fueled engines do not have nearly the same thrust vibration issues that solids do, and on liquids it's more easily damped.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[camperdave]

But isn't the ARES-I the smallest of the ARES series, and it matches the Delta-IV max load.

Exactly. It's a pointless rocket. Billions of dollars have been spent developing a rocket that duplicates the capabilities of an existing rocket.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[MJMullinII]

Liquid fueled engines do not have nearly the same thrust vibration issues that solids do, and on liquids it's more easily damped.

Not to mention they can be turned off. Solid rocket boosters cannot be stopped once they are started, even if a catastrophic failure is detected. Lest we forget the Challenger.

By separating the Crew Launch rocket from the Heavy Lift rocket (Ares I and the Ares V), NASA is ensuring Humans never have to be sent into space with a system that can't be aborted if a failure is detected, much like the Apollo era, where the little "tower-jet" rocket on top could have pulled the Crew Capsule *OFF* the Saturn V if the Saturn V had malfunctioned on the launch pad (the parachutes used for landing would have then deployed and allowed the Crew Capsule to float safely -- hopefully away -- from the exploding Saturn V on the launch pad).

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[Golddess]

But isn't the ARES-I the smallest of the ARES series, and it matches the Delta-IV max load.

Exactly. It's a pointless rocket. Billions of dollars have been spent developing a rocket that duplicates the capabilities of an existing rocket.

I don't know much about rocket development, but isn't that a bit like saying "why'd Western Digital spend billions developing a 1TB HDD when they've already got 1TB HDDs" when in reality the new 1TB HDD is just a single-platter version of their brand new 2TB HDD?

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[camperdave]

By separating the Crew Launch rocket from the Heavy Lift rocket (Ares I and the Ares V), NASA is ensuring Humans never have to be sent into space with a system that can't be aborted if a failure is detected...

Umm... Ares I is a solid fuel rocket whose sole purpose is to launch the crew.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[lennier]

John Derbyshire wrote an insightful article detailing a number of reasons why. I think he's hit it on the head.

That would be the article where he says this?

It starts you down the path to true wisdom—the "fixed incredulity" that Mrs. Thrale remarked on in the character of Dr. Johnson. (It took Johnson's friends six months to persuade him that reports of the great Lisbon earthquake were true. He was, said one of them, "the last man on earth to whom one should bring a wonder.")

Why does he think such hard-core skepticism as represented in Dr Johnson's six-month lag in accepting the reality of a simple earthquake is "the path to true wisdom"?

Doesn't give me much confidence in his views on science.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[QuantumG]

First of all, it's Ares I. ARES is a completely different project.

The reason why Ares I has costed billions of dollars is that they are trying to develop the next generation of aviation development tools.

See, ever since the 60s rockets have been developed much the same way people write software. You hack something together and then you test it. If it blows up, you add a patch or two to the design, build another one and test it. Repeat until you get a rocket that flies n times without any major faults, where n is some large number.

The shuttle was slightly different. A lot of analysis was done before it was built so a much smaller test program was required. But it was still very empirical and required lots of wind tunnels and gray beards.

With the Ares class boosters the goal is to develop modeling and simulation tools that allow comprehensive analysis of the design in the computer. That way when the first booster is built it will work first time. The Ares I-X flight we just had was not a test flight of the Ares I design, it was vaguely similar in profile but it wasn't a test flight in the traditional sense. The point of the flight was to get ground truth data for the simulations. It was about sensors.

So when NASA finishes developing these modeling and simulation tools, they'll try out a bunch of Ares I designs and then build it and put humans on it and fly it.. no tests. Then they'll design Ares V, try out a bunch of designs in the computer, then build it and fly it on a mission.. no tests.

That's NASA's job, to push the frontier.

Now, with all that in mind, what do I think of this? I think this will be as successful as "formal methods" in software engineering.. a really expensive way to get a false sense of security. I think the majority of accidents in rocketry are caused by the things you *can't* model. It's caused by a faulty part not being checked properly. It's caused by someone leaving a hose connected for too long because they've never used a pressure gauge because most of them are faulty and no-one ever does anything when they complain. It's caused by engineers telling flight controllers that hardware is not rated for operation under current conditions and the flight controllers demanding the engineers prove that the hardware will fail before calling a scrub. I think the only way to make rockets is to test test test, because reality is a harsh critic.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[camperdave]

You're putting too much stock in the word "series". ARES-I and ARES-V are not minor variations of the same rocket. They are two entirely different rockets. All they have in common is the five segment solid rocket motor. On the ARES-I, this SRM makes up the entire first stage. There is a small second stage, and the service module of the Orion acts as the third stage in order to get the crew into orbit. By itself, the ARES-I cannot launch an Orion module into orbit.

The ARES-V shares the same overall structural profile as the current space shuttle system does: Big LOX/LH2 external tank, flanked by those new five segment solid rocket motors. That's where the similarities stop. The tank is 10 metres in diameter, compared to the shuttles 8.4m tank. It has 6 RS-68B engines underneath that, which in the predicted thermal environment at the bottom of the rocket, would melt.
,br> The upper stages of the two rockets do share a common engine, the J-2X. The ARES-I upper stage is 5.5m in diameter, 25.6m long, and is designed never to reach orbit. The ARES-V upper stage is a 10m diameter tank, but only 22.5m long. It is designed to reach orbit, and to loiter for up to six days before being used to push the Orion and Altair on a trans-lunar injection orbit.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[camperdave]

The simulations showed that Ares 1 could not lift the Orion module into orbit. So what did they do? Build a more powerful Ares 1? No, they stripped down the Orion. It has gone from a six person crew to a four. It has gone from landing on land to an Apollo style splashdown. They've even stripped out the toilet. Guess what? It still can't lift the Orion into orbit. Orion now has to use it's service module engine to get into orbit, which means less fuel for manoeuvering.

NASA's job may have been to push the frontier, but recently it has been hobbled by politics, both internal and external.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[MJMullinII]

By separating the Crew Launch rocket from the Heavy Lift rocket (Ares I and the Ares V), NASA is ensuring Humans never have to be sent into space with a system that can't be aborted if a failure is detected...

Umm... Ares I is a solid fuel rocket whose sole purpose is to launch the crew.

No, it isn't. The Area I uses liquid fueled engines. Originally they were going to be based on the same engines the Space Shuttle uses, but those plans were later scrapped when it was determined better engines with higher performance could be manufactured.

After all, the designs of the Space Shuttle's engines are over twenty-years old.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[MJMullinII]

By separating the Crew Launch rocket from the Heavy Lift rocket (Ares I and the Ares V), NASA is ensuring Humans never have to be sent into space with a system that can't be aborted if a failure is detected...

Umm... Ares I is a solid fuel rocket whose sole purpose is to launch the crew.

No, it isn't. The Area I uses liquid fueled engines. Originally they were going to be based on the same engines the Space Shuttle uses, but those plans were later scrapped when it was determined better engines with higher performance could be manufactured.

After all, the designs of the Space Shuttle's engines are over twenty-years old.

----- EXCUSE ME -----!!!!!!!

You were right in that the *FIRST* stage does indeed use a solid rocket engine, the *Second* stage however uses a liquid fueled rocket.

I have no idea where I got the idea it was completely liquid fueled.

In any case, it does have the "Crew Escape" rocket system of the earlier Apollo era capsules.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[sznupi]

And this crew escape system might be in large part useless. There are not only doubts if it can pull off the capsule clear quickly enough out of failing rocket (which, although failing, is still firing), but there's huge issue afterwards:

- capsule uses parachutes for soft landing

- first stage of the rocket, likely disintegrated at this point, was filled with, essentially, termite-like substance

- ...which now gives you rain of ignited termite

- in an area where capsule needs to use parachutes

See the problem?

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[Golddess]

Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[jgtg32a]

Good info thank you

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[camperdave]

Smack dab in the middle of the most dangerous part of the launch sequence to boot.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[khallow]

With the Ares class boosters the goal is to develop modeling and simulation tools that allow comprehensive analysis of the design in the computer. That way when the first booster is built it will work first time. The Ares I-X flight we just had was not a test flight of the Ares I design, it was vaguely similar in profile but it wasn't a test flight in the traditional sense. The point of the flight was to get ground truth data for the simulations. It was about sensors.

I strongly disagree. The goal of Ares is to build Ares I. The simulation nonsense is simply a convenient way to rationalize the Ares I without leaving an opening for rational debate. Anyone knowledgeable has been bought off (check out the contracts that Lockheed, Boeing, and ULA have from NASA). The less knowledgeable? Well, they're arguing against NASA supercomputers running state of the art models so ignore them.

If NASA were serious about developing rocket simulation software, then they'd test it against more than just a single rocket. For example, it'd be inexpensive to build sounding rockets by the thousands to test borderline test cases and develop better flight avionics and testing equipment.

camperdave, who also replied to your post had it right. Every time the Ares I turned out not to have the capabilities that NASA needs for its mission, they've compromised the mission. We found out years later about the initial assumptions that went into the Exploration Space Architecture Study (ESAS), the report that justified the Ares I. It turns out that the ESAS made many assumptions about reliability, safety, and cost that are one-sided, these all favor Shuttle-derived rockets with an ATK solid fuel first stage. This kind of rocket just so happens to be the rocket that Griffin, the former Administrator of NASA, had advocated prior to his appointment.

Now how about the Ares V and other components of the Constellation program? It's worth noting here that Ares V is a promise, not something that is actually being worked on. Putting off heavy lift development for at least ten years after the start of Ares in 2005 is suspicious in my view. I consider this a case of bait-and-switch. NASA promises a heavy lift, Saturn V-class vehicle and delivers the Ares I along with a vapid promise to start on the Ares V at some future date. Same goes for all the other components of the Constellation system. They ended the Altair lunar lander. The only things that remain active, can fly on the Ares I. In other words, there's no bridge being built from now to the heavy lift, beyond Earth orbit future promised by Griffin.

The Delta IV Heavy has roughly equivalent performance, reliability, and it's flying now. Yet NASA still plods on with the Ares I.

So to summarize, NASA uses a really shifty set of initial assumptions to justify the Ares I, weak and impossible to replicate methods to design and test the Ares I, compromises the mission every time Ares I fails to deliver, develops only the parts of the Constellation program that will fly on Ares I with Ares V development being postponed to some vague date in the future, and ignores an existing rocket that could do what NASA needs from Ares I. This is just a huge gift to ATK Aerospace. I seriously think we'll find some massive corruption scandal at the bottom of this.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[cthulhu11]

Indeed, ignited ants would be much safer.

Re:nasa is not gonna get much done

[MJMullinII]

While the system was never used during the Apollo era, the Soviets had a similar system that was used successfully following a catastrophic failure of one of their launch vehicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_escape_system#Usage

While the two might not be directly comparable, launching a vehicle is the same regardless of the mechanics of your craft,...so there is a precedent for a system like this successfully saving crew lives.

"flexable path"

[addsalt]

sounds like a marketing term for "one way"

Re:"flexable path"

[insufflate10mg]

So you're suggesting we add grains of salt to what we hear from NASA? Solid point, solid point.

Going Nowhere

[rally2xs]

NASA is going nowhere unless the gov't stops the loss of our prosperity overseas. Yes, I mean outsourcing. Good manufacturing jobs get replaced with crap-wages retail jobs so more and more people live near the poverty line. You can't tax people like that to pay for sky adventures by NASA, and there's fewer and fewer rich people to tax, too. Eventually the Chinese are going to wise up and stop lending us money, and that'll be that for a whale of a lot of things, with things like NASA getting the axe first.

Re:Going Nowhere

[Third Position]

I'd agree with that. We need to stop outsourcing, virtually unlimited immigration, and starting pointless and expensive wars, and then we might be able to achieve a space program that isn't chronically dysfunctional.

Support the American Third Position!

Re:Going Nowhere

[Hal_Porter]

Eventually the Chinese are going to wise up and stop lending us money, and that'll be that for a whale of a lot of things, with things like NASA getting the axe first.

I do wish people would stop saying that.

Total US debt in 2009 $12,867.5 Billion. Total debt owned by China 789.6 Billion. China owns only about 6% of US debt and the odds are they will reduce that gradually to reduce their risks if the dollar depreciates or there is inflation in the US. The Iraq war is forecasted to cost $2 trillion by the CBO - Afghanistan is a bargain at a mere $500 Billion. The US spends almost that much a year on defense. $8.3 trillion evaporated in the financial crisis, way more than any of these numbers.

So even if the Chinese T bills were destroyed instantaneously it would still be a shock 10x less severe than the financial crisis, or less than half an Iraq war.

Of course the Chinese gradually diversifying away from US debt is likely to have much less effect than that.

Re:Going Nowhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck it then, 400% outsource tax and embargo on China. The dollar will crash but then we'll be forced to create our own industries. Make an exception for raw materials, but embargo everything else. We'll lose out on cheap plastic toxic crap and computer stuff, but American companies have the plans and they will create factories or someone else will take their place.

Re:Going Nowhere

[JackieBrown]

Compare that to World War II and consider that we use technology more and (as a result) less Americans have died (then include inflation..)
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/art14_world_war_ii_spending.html

Re:Going Nowhere

[Anonymous Coward]

and i wish ppl would stop calling it defense.

Re:Going Nowhere

[dkleinsc]

Out of curiosity, is that US total debt figure including or not including the portion owed to Social Security? See, there was a wonderful bait-and-switch pulled on the middle and working classes over the last 25 years or so that went like this:
1. Notice that Social Security will eventually be broke unless we do something about it. A commission led by Alan Greenspan is formed to figure out what to do about it.
2. The commission recommends raising FICA taxes to build up a surplus in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, to reduce the risk of having to cut SS benefits. Congress follows the recommendations of the commission.
3. Fast forward about a decade, and lo and behold government is running a surplus if you include the extra SS revenue (but a deficit if you don't). So when George W Bush gets into office, he says "We'll send everyone a $300 check as their portion of the surplus, and also use the surplus to justify a nice hefty tax cut for the top tax brackets."
4. And lastly, since the SS Trust Fund "doesn't exist", the same people then argued that either benefits had to be cut, or the SS system privatized, because government couldn't afford it anymore.

The effect of this is that over the last 20 years overall tax burden is shifted from the progressive income taxes to the regressive FICA taxes.

Frequently, the same folks who argue that the SS Trust Fund doesn't exist and therefor SS shouldn't exist also include the T-Bills owned by Social Security in the "Total US debt" figure as a way to argue for cuts to other programs.

Re:Going Nowhere

[benjfowler]

Unlikely. The Chinese buy US T-bills because they /have to/, to maintain their dollar-yuan peg which helps keep their currency low, and their squillions of workers employed. They're doing this to contain unrest and prop up their odious totalitarian regime. As always with the Chinese, this is COMPLETELY about naked Chinese self-interest, or rather, the naked self-interest of the Chinese government.

As an aside, the US could play some financial games to make life REALLY hard for the Chinese government. Perhaps our friends in Beijing needs a timely little reminder of who's the superpower -- and who's the wannabe middle-power...

Remember, US overconsumption is funded by the Chinese government forcing their own people to be underpaid in sweatshops.

Re:Going Nowhere

[benjfowler]

Any suggestion of a tariff would drive the armies of armchair free-trade extremists batshit crazy. Would would be distorting the market, you see.

Re:Going Nowhere

[Hal_Porter]

Well economic isolation definitely shut the Soviets up.

Re:Going Nowhere

[Hal_Porter]

I don't disagree. Still World War II was not something the US had a choice about. It's arguable that Afghanistan was necessary but invading Iraq was almost pure adventurism.

Re:Going Nowhere

[Hal_Porter]

Well this is true too - in fact this shows the T bills are far more important to China than they are to the US. Without them the Chinese currency would appreciate and their trade surplus with the US would reduce. On the other hand Chinese domestic demand would grow. Of course there are lots of other places that want to export to the US - Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are obvious ones. All of them would buy T bills to weaken their currencies.

In fact if China started to unload them quickly the price would drop and they would lose money. The other export driven economies would pick them up. I've read that China is becoming less competitive even with an artificially weakened currency and factories are moving to places like Vietnam and Malaysia.

Vietnam is actually an ideal candidate to copy the Chinese model where foreign currency is seized from private owned factories and put into a state run fund that buys T bills to weaken the currency. Then again Vietnam doesn't much (any?) treasuries at the moment, presumably for political reasons. Malaysia does of course and it would make sense for them to buy more if they are already competing successfully on cost with China. In fact if they did and Vietnam didn't it would seem to make even more sense.

Re:Going Nowhere

[rally2xs]

We don't need no steekin' tariff. All we need to do is pass the fair tax (www.fairtax.org). The removal of the IRS, all income taxes, etc. etc. from AMERICAN industry will cause the prices of AMERICAN goods to fall. Everything retail then gets taxed with the retail sales tax that is the Fair Tax, and foreign stuff ends up costing relatively more than American stuff. Yet, its not a tariff. That's what we should be working toward. Great potential for bringing back our industries from overseas, Mexico, and Canada. Broadens the base of taxpayers to include those that don't pay taxes now - rich people sitting on a pile and spending a little of it each year, illegal aliens, criminals (esp. the drug dealers making trillions of untaxed income), and, a new group, tourists. None of those are paying a dime now, so we get 142 million tax returns in 2008 for a country with 305 million citizens plus probably 20 million illegal aliens. That's nuts. We should have maybe 200+ tax returns. But with a retail sales tax, the inefficiency of even handling individual tax returns goes away, and the $$$ is simply collected when people buy new items at retail.

Re:Going Nowhere

[CrimsonAvenger]

Out of curiosity, is that US total debt figure including or not including the portion owed to Social Security?

That figure is the external debt. Which does not include the "debt" to the Social Security Administration. I have read that the unfunded liability of the SSA (you know, the sort of thing that corporations get slammed for in court regularly) is on the order of $100 trillion.

See, there was a wonderful bait-and-switch pulled on the middle and working classes over the last 25 years or so that went like this:
1. Notice that Social Security will eventually be broke unless we do something about it. A commission led by Alan Greenspan is formed to figure out what to do about it.
2. The commission recommends raising FICA taxes to build up a surplus in the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, to reduce the risk of having to cut SS benefits. Congress follows the recommendations of the commission.

Which had already happened before that, and will happen again.

>3. Fast forward about a decade, and lo and behold government is running a surplus if you include the extra SS revenue (but a deficit if you don't). So when George W Bush gets into office, he says "We'll send everyone a $300 check as their portion of the surplus, and also use the surplus to justify a nice hefty tax cut for the top tax brackets."

But, but...it was the Clinton Administration that claimed that we had a surplus. Bush taking them at their word was disingenuous at best, but otherwise he'd have had to call them liars (and the lads on the left would have crucified him). Plus, of course, opposing his proposed income tax cut on the grounds that the "surplus" that Clinton had achieved wasn't REALLY a surplus would have made the Democrats and the Media look bad....

4. And lastly, since the SS Trust Fund "doesn't exist", the same people then argued that either benefits had to be cut, or the SS system privatized, because government couldn't afford it anymore.

Actually, they suggested privatizing it since the stock market was appreciating in value far faster than your "investment" in Social Security. They fell for the "but prices will NEVER go down" fallacy that infected so many people during that period.

Note: about five years ago, in discussing housing in Florida, I heard three well-educated, technically literate people assert that "housing prices could never go down". When I realized I was the only dissenter from that PoV, I went home, wrote my mortgage company a really big check, and have been the sole owner of my home since.

The effect of this is that over the last 20 years overall tax burden is shifted from the progressive income taxes to the regressive FICA taxes.

Yep, pretty much. And that process will continue. It can't help it, really. SSA is structured such that it MUST be paid from SS taxes. As the fraction of our population of SS age increases (as it has pretty much every year since it was instituted), the amount of SS taxes must increase.

And as the amount of SS taxes increase, the fraction of our budget that is the SSA will increase. Note that the SSA is the largest single budget item today. And while you can cut the Defense Department, you can't cut SSA (paid for by SS taxes) and Medicare (paid for by Medicare taxes) (first and third largest items in the budget right now).

In order to actually balance the current budget, we'd have to eliminate the Defense Department, and reduce all other discretionary spending by ~70%.

Or, alternately, double income taxes across the board.

Frequently, the same folks who argue that the SS Trust Fund doesn't exist and therefor SS shouldn't exist also include the T-Bills owned by Social Security in the "Total US debt" figure as a way to argue for cuts to other programs.

It doesn't exi

Re:Going Nowhere

[rwa2]

Wow, pretty cool stuff. Where can I read more? Google got me to one blog, but it might as well be yours? :>

Re:Going Nowhere

[jackbird]

Plus, of course, opposing his proposed income tax cut on the grounds that the "surplus" that Clinton had achieved wasn't REALLY a surplus would have made the Democrats and the Media look bad....

Wasn't that Al Gore's "Lock Box" campaign promise?

Re:Going Nowhere

[Hal_Porter]

Any tax on imported goods is a tariff. And tariffs don't have a very good record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act#Economic_effects

Mind you I can accept something like Cold War era CoCom restrictions on high tech exports to hostile, illiberal states. When it comes to imports though I think you're probably in danger of repeating Smoot Hawley - especially as you say this should apply to all imports, not just ones from China. That's pretty much guaranteed to lead to the affected countries putting a tariff on American imports and that leads you into a serious economic crisis.

Take the froggy path!

[Xinvoker]

I think the flexible path is a step in the right direction. Rather than landing on the Moon and Mars every 50 years, NASA should move to establish permanent bases.Experience with asteroids is an important bonus too. Leaving LEO for private companies can also save them a lot of money to deal with that. Ares I can be scrapped, but Ares V could still be useful.

Re:You're kidding.

[MichaelSmith]

Asteroids are a good target for missions because they are easy to get to in energy terms. There were plans to do it with Apollo. Doing something is better than doing nothing, and an asteroid mission is pretty much all NASA could do now outside low earth orbit. It is actually easier than going to the moon.

Space: faster, further, sooner

[captainpanic]

Can't wait until we all start spending loads of money on space programs again.

I believe that it's all money well spent.

Re:Space: faster, further, sooner

[Third Position]

Yeah, but first we need money to spend. Given that we're already spending money we don't have, I'm not very optimistic about seeing funding for space increased any time soon.

Sounds Great but...

[AllyGreen]

They need to settle on a plan and stick to it!

Re:Sounds Great but...

[MichaelSmith]

They need to settle on a plan and stick to it!

A novel idea.

The Necessity of ..

[cpscotti]

In other news: A Case For the Necessity of Science Fiction
I would really love to see that stuff (and it really sounds a good idea) but.. such things have been said so many times that I can't help but make this connection..

Why do people care so much about Mars?

[American Terrorist]

Just because it's one of the few planets in the solar system whose gravity/temperature won't instantly kill you? Am I in the minority here by preferring to spend my entire life on earth than visit a desert with no breathable atmosphere? Why is it so important to send people to a barren rock before we have the technology to make it livable? Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth? Who tagged this article 'getyourasstomars'? Why does going to mars in the near future matter even a tiny bit for our present situation?

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[jamesh]

Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth?

That always bugged me too. The idea that we should be exploring other planets in case we screw this one up just doesn't work... how badly would be have to screw this one up that starting from scratch would be easier than fixing this one???

By all means go and explore Mars because it's a fantastically cool thing to do, but don't do it under the pretense that we might kill the Earth so bad one day that we need somewhere else to go.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[MichaelSmith]

Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth?

I would prefer to preserve the rainforests in orbit around Saturn.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[amck]

1-2 billion is probably a closer number for "sustainably support"; it depends on what requirements you choose. Current Western energy consumption, etc.

Getting a few thousand people off this planet is not sustainable unless space elevator plans really pay off. Shipping them to Mars with the resources they need to become self-sustaining there is not an option over the next few decades. We solve the 'peak population' crisis before
colonizing Mars, or die in the process.

Check out the numbers for what it would take to live on Mars again, and compare them with living in the Gobi desert. Then explain what you can do on Mars that you can't do in the Gobi, and why you're not colonizing there first.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[smpoole7]

Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth?

.

And how are you going to preserve them? First, figure out what's killing them: OVERPOPULATION. People clearcut the forests to make room for houses and farmland.

So? Move the freakin' population out into space. That's not a case of "exploring in case we screw this one up," it's a clear, unambiguous case of exploring so that we WON'T screw this one up. Can't you see that?

The only alternative is a future filled with angst, tightened belts and draconian population controls. And you have been warned: I will fight that future with every breath that I possess.

Our destiny is the stars, dood. Let's start making it happen before things DO get so bad here that we can't.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[smpoole7]

Sigh. You assume that it's all drain and no return. Wrong! See the link above (and the links referenced therein). This would pay for itself if it was done right.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[T Murphy]

Human-caused disaster is not the only scenario that would drastically reduce the Earth's carrying capacity. Calderas such as Yellowstone, ice ages* and asteroids are the first things that come to mind, and over a few thousand years the chances of one of those happening starts to be significant (given averages on these events, we're due for all three). Given progress from one man walking on Mars to thousands living there would likely take hundreds of years, we better start early.

Not that we should start spending billions of dollars on ice-age prevention or something, but it is always good to keep in mind that there's a reason the vast majority of species no longer exist, and odds are humans will join that group eventually.

*I realize an ice age would not kill off humans as long as there is still a habitable zone. The threat to humanity would come with the fight over the remaining land and food.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[mdwh2]

I support space travel, but this makes no sense. What's the limiting factor on supporting people on Earth?

If it's land (either to live on, or to grow food), you're still better off colonising deserts or Antartica, than other planets. If it's resources like oil, I'm not sure what good other planets will do.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[khallow]

Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth?

Hell no. You don't need to spend money just to leave something alone.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[camperdave]

Moving people into space is not going to help. Population growth is exponential. Space exploitation is geometric. Population growth is always going to "win".

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[Chris Burke]

That always bugged me too. The idea that we should be exploring other planets in case we screw this one up just doesn't work... how badly would be have to screw this one up that starting from scratch would be easier than fixing this one???

Basically by implementing one of the concepts on this page to destroy the earth utterly.

Seriously, there's practically nothing we could do that would make earth less habitable than Mars. Global Thermonuclear War? Even if Ferris Bueller had failed to talk down that computer, the end result would be a planet far more suitable than human life. Gigantic meteor impact? They've happened before. Mass extinction followed, but the biosphere itself pressed on, as did the oxygen atmosphere it created. On post-KT-repeat earth, you could still walk around and breath the air, maybe with the help of a dust mask, and maybe find some resilient plants and animals to eat. As opposed to requiring a massive infrastructure just to keep you from dying in moments on the surface of Mars. We could poison and kill every ecosystem on earth and what remained would still be a better starting point for 'rebooting' than any other heavenly body we know of.

And you're right, we're probably much better off preventing these situations from happening in the first place than trying to move off-world in case they happen.

On the other hand, I do believe that in the very long term self-sustaining off-world colonies are both possible and desirable.

It's just the idea that we could actually pull that off, yet not be able to pull off keeping the earth habitable even in the aftermath of severe catastrophe, seems pretty silly to me.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[madpansy]

Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth?

Hell no. You don't need to spend money just to leave something alone.

Unless someone else owns the land you think should be left alone.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[lennier]

"Wouldn't the vast sum of money required be better spent preserving the rainforests here on earth?"

It probably would, but preserving the rainforests is a tough problem involving political and business corruption, where it's not at all clear what to spend money on - giving money to any organisation involved in the Amazon is as likely as not to make matters worse, since they're probably already turning a blind eye to logging.

Re:Why do people care so much about Mars?

[sznupi]

On the other hand, I do believe that in the very long term self-sustaining off-world colonies are both possible and desirable.

It's just the idea that we could actually pull that off, yet not be able to pull off keeping the earth habitable even in the aftermath of severe catastrophe, seems pretty silly to me.

Eventually "we" won't be able to pull that off, so off-world colonies will become necessary. The Sun warms up, Earth will become inhospitable in few hundred million years, billion tops (and yes, that time scale is why I used "we" loosely; beings which can be still classified as us won't be able to fix the situation...and most likely won't exist; OTOH one might hope that it's fixable/irrelevant for the intelligence that might exist then)

Plagiarism?

[SalaSSin]

...establishing in-space propellant depots, and harvesting resources/fuel from asteroids and Phobos to supply Moon/Mars-bound vehicles.

Well, after Jules Verne, NASA is checking out other science fiction writers for ideas... The Mars trilogy, by Kim Stanley Robinson, sound familiar?

Re:Plagiarism?

[jgtg32a]

I seem to remember hearing that some President said to the heads of NASA pick something from 2001 and its funded, they chose the Shuttle

Re:Plagiarism?

[WalksOnDirt]

I'm reading Red Mars now. I'm quite disappointed in the science though, so perhaps NASA should look someplace else.

Re:You're kidding.

[stiggle]

'Easy' to get to and provide potential for resources.

While getting hit by an asteroid isn't that common - we've been hit in the past by big objects from space and its a world changing event. Personally, I'd like it not to change so I can stay living here.

An alternative they never consider...

[master_p]

An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership', i.e. a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid, complete with its own gravity (out of rotation) and nuclear propulsion (project Orion). Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets, it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system, and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.

Re:An alternative they never consider...

[MichaelSmith]

Our hardware is too unreliable

Launching from Earth is too expensive to build something which will mass thousands of tonnes

Assembly in vacuum and microgravity by humans is too dangerous and expensive

I could go on. We are just not there yet. We won't be there in 100 years either.

Re:An alternative they never consider...

[BodhiCat]

um yea, i think Auther C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrik has that idea in um, 1968.

Re:An alternative they never consider...

[OldBus]

How do you know they never consider it? I've not heard anything specific from NASA, but they do seem to have plenty of people who do dream up long terms plans and ideas. Don't forget that most of the people there read/watched science fiction just like we did and many of them were inspired to take up their careers at NASA because of it (see various bios on the NASA sire if you don't believe me).

The problem comes in turning those blue-sky ideas into reality. There is no 'just' when it comes to space. Whenever you find yourself asking, "Why can't they just..." it is almost always for a good reason. A mothership's a great idea, but how do you build one. You've got to get the parts into space. Are you going to test the nuclear propulsion? How long will this project last and will Congress give you the funds? These are the sort of real questions that need to be answered and have scuppered programmes before now (and look likely to scupper NASA's current plans - which are less ambitious than the mothership idea).

The way I look at things, I ask are they likely to cost a lot more than what is happening now. To do this, you need to assume there will be no miracle leap in technology in the short-medium term. For example, if raising parts to space cheaply relies on a space elevator, then rule out the short-medium term. Obviously, we have ideas that one could be built, but technological breakthroughs need to happen to make it a reality. While this is possible (and even likely, I hope), don't assume that we will have a functioning elevator within 20 years.

So, using only slight advances in current tech, could we build a mothership for approximately the same as what the ISS cost? I don't believe so - it would clearly need to be bigger and would involve research and testing in propulsion systems. Given that the US, Russia, ESA, Canada and Japan are struggling to find the cash to keep the ISS up beyond 2015 (when most of it is already built) who is going to fund and build the mothership?

Sorry to sound so negative, but I get fed up with all the unrealistic ideas and whining about NASA on Slashdot. Being a Brit with a government that does no funding of a manned space programme at all, I think they do a fantastic job given the resources they have to work with.

Re:An alternative they never consider...

[mdwh2]

Yeah, I'm sure they never considered that. Obviously if only they'd considered that, we'd be there by now. Another thing they haven't considered is ships equipped with warp engines.

(And anyhow, many designs of both manned and unmanned ships do involve a mothership and separate lander. No, the mothership isn't the size of a space station with artificial gravity, but given how much it's taken to just build a straightforward space station, perhaps this isn't quite so straightforward.)

Re:An alternative they never consider...

[khallow]

An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership', i.e. a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid, complete with its own gravity (out of rotation) and nuclear propulsion (project Orion). Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets, it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system, and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.

The reason they never consider it is because it is a terrible idea unless you build them in quantity. Building just one that does everything, would be immensely expensive even by the current and past standards of space development and exploration. Hence, in no way would it make the Earth-Mars trip a "commodity" unless you had a large fleet of them. It also doesn't do much to address the expensive Earth to orbit trip or the other trips from significant gravity wells to space (Mars, Moon, etc).

Re:An alternative they never consider...

[Warbothong]

An alternative they never consider is the creation of a 'mothership', i.e. a big enough spaceship that can act as a space station and as as a small planetoid, complete with its own gravity (out of rotation) and nuclear propulsion (project Orion). Assembled in space and never landing itself on planets, it can be a stepping stone for mankind to the solar system, and make the trip Mars-Earth a commodity.

To build such a ship would require lifting a hell of a lot of material into space, a very expensive proposition for rockets and they are the only definite, we've-done-it-before way to get into space (although sending up lumps of raw material sounds like a great use for a space gun, if any ever get built). Whether that comes from Earth or any other planet, the difficulty remains (although at least on Earth we are already here, with heavy machinery, manufacturing, people and fuel). In my opinion, if you're going to send up chunks of metal by rocket then they may as well have electronics built in and do some exploring whilst we're lifting up the rest. An alternative source of materials would be asteroids, many of which are rich in metals, and their miniscule gravity doesn't present the same problem as that of planets. However, doing any serious construction and refinement is beyond our robots' control ability at the moment, and remote control would likely be too laggy to prevent serious mishaps. This means we must either send people to the asteroids, a task for which getting them to Mars is a stepping stone, or bring the asteroids closer to Earth, in which case we'd better have a decent defense system to deflect those that go astray.

In short, everything we're doing/planning at the moment (robotic exploration (although we don't currently retrieve our probes for recycling, this is, as far as the outer planets are concerned, just a matter of choosing their route, since the Sun can do the hard work of bringing them back, but as it stands we can usually get a lot of great data by smashing them into things instead), long-haul Mars missions, asteroid deflectors, etc.) more or less, would need to be done in a mothership-style programme anyway, so where's the problem in doing them?

Re:An alternative they never consider...

[ColdWetDog]

... but I get fed up with all the unrealistic ideas and whining about NASA on Slashdot

I too am surprised (and often annoyed) with the 'Star Trek' scenarios that some posters build on. Even Kim Stanley Robinson's Mar's Trilogy required enormous amounts of resources that magically appeared - both from Earth, then from Mars itself.

We're not anywhere close to being resource independent. Anywhere. Budgets exist for a reason - we don't have enough money to do everything we like. Yes, keeping the US government from invading random little countries would save us billions (and do a lot of other good things as well), but shutting down the entire US military, Social Security and Medicare simultaneously won't get us off planet in any great numbers any time soon.

That's why I like the flexible approach. There is plenty to be learned by doing the grunt work of assembling the largest structure in space then getting it out of orbit, around another planet and back again. It is very unlikely that anyone will assemble the resources to do this in a 'hero project' fashion - it is going to take many smaller steps if it is done at all. I think most Slashdotters looked at the Bush plan and said 'yeah, right'. It hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of happening because nobody was going to give NASA anywhere near the money to do it. This might work. Maybe.

So shut up with the matter converters, FTL and getting laid. Ain't gonna happen.

Yes. Next stupid question?

[Kupfernigk]

The title of the post suggests this is a troll. An asteroid strike is a very credible threat, as the geological evidence for past ones is all around us. The last one that could have been really serious was Tunguska, which had it hit head on rather than at an angle, and in an inhabited region rather than Siberia, would have been so destructive that it would have been worth the cost of deflecting it. That was in 1908. The next possible impact is, I believe, in 2037/8.

Only last week hard evidence was reported that asteroids themselves collide. This implies that yet another mechanism to cause asteroids to leave their relatively stable orbits and head Sunwards exists (apart from gravitational deflection by planets.)

The cost of a program to detect all credible collision threats and do something about it is, I imagine, around $1 billion per annum. The cost of a single asteroid collision in the developed world could easily run into thousands of times that. Look on it as relatively cheap life insurance, on a par with solving the Year 2000 problem and cheaper than protecting the US eastern seaboard against inundation, and it makes a lot of sense.

Re:Yes. Next stupid question?

[khallow]

The cost of a program to detect all credible collision threats and do something about it is, I imagine, around $1 billion per annum.

At a billion dollars per year, I don't think it'd be cheap insurance. But we should be able to reduce the cost of the surveillance systems over the next few decades. A system in the $100 million per year range should be a steal for what you'd get out of it.

Re:Yes. Next stupid question?

[CrimsonAvenger]

At a billion dollars per year, I don't think it'd be cheap insurance.

Let's see. Katrina cost about $200 billion to $1 trillion, depending on whose figures you like the most.

So $1 billion per year would be a bargain to prevent an impact that would do AT LEAST as much damage as Katrina.

Note also that it's about 0.05% of the federal budget. Chump change, in other words.

Re:Yes. Next stupid question?

[FleaPlus]

The cost of a program to detect all credible collision threats and do something about it is, I imagine, around $1 billion per annum. The cost of a single asteroid collision in the developed world could easily run into thousands of times that. Look on it as relatively cheap life insurance, on a par with solving the Year 2000 problem and cheaper than protecting the US eastern seaboard against inundation, and it makes a lot of sense.

FYI, the estimated annual cost for finding 90% of near-Earth asteroids more than 140m in diameter is expected to be at least $50 million; currently only $4 million a year is spent on this. Here's a recent summary of the situation:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=new-report-warns-against-smaller-ne-2010-01-22

The bad news in the report from the National Research Council is that the $4 million in annual funding that several major NEO detection programs receive is nowhere near enough to meet a 2020 deadline set by Congress in 2005 for scientists to find 90 percent of near-Earth objects greater than 140-meters in diameter--space rocks of this size are likely to cause regional, rather than global, damage, though global damage is still possible. The mandate has yet to receive any funding. One of these regional-threat objects strikes Earth on average every 30,000 years, the report states.

Even $10 million in annual funds "would not allow completion on any time scale" of the Congressionally mandated survey of the threats, according to the report. Meeting Congress's goal would take at least $50 million in annual funding; even better would be $250 million in annual funding, with the latter allowing for completion of the survey and support for a space mission to test a mitigation plan.

Re:Yes. Next stupid question?

[khallow]

So $1 billion per year would be a bargain to prevent an impact that would do AT LEAST as much damage as Katrina.

It's not that simple. As I understand it, a Tunguska event happens about once a century and even with Earth's greater population, such impacts will not hit a populated area most of the time. So you're basically spending as much as you'd lose. Further, without some sort of asteroid deflection system, you're just providing early warning. You can save the people, but not the buildings.

My view is that an asteroid warning system can be had for less than a billion dollars a year. Perhaps even as little a few million dollars a year (for a shoe-string Earth-based system).

Re:Yes. Next stupid question?

[CrimsonAvenger]

It's not that simple. As I understand it, a Tunguska event happens about once a century and even with Earth's greater population, such impacts will not hit a populated area most of the time. So you're basically spending as much as you'd lose. Further, without some sort of asteroid deflection system, you're just providing early warning. You can save the people, but not the buildings.

Using the higher of those Katrina figures, we're talking about 1000 years worth of overwatch to save the cost of one devastated city.

Note, by the by, that Katrina did NOT destroy most of New Orleans. Or even a terribly large part of if, in spite what you may have heard to the contrary. A complete loss of the city would have been far more expensive that a paltry trillion dollars.

Note also that while North America north of the Rio Grande (and Australia, of course) has a quite low population density, the rest of the land area of the world tends to be one big heavily populated target as far as a falling rock is concerned. Probably at least 10% of the Earth's surface is heavily enough populated that 1000 years worth of falling rocks would devastate something costing more than a trillion to replace.

Finally, note that I was assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that we'd have a means of deflecting the falling rocks. If we don't, then there's really not much reason to bother watching for them. Because sure as shooting we won't be able to develop a working asteroid deflector in the limited timeframe between detection and required deployment of same.

Re:Yes. Next stupid question?

[khallow]

Finally, note that I was assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that we'd have a means of deflecting the falling rocks. If we don't, then there's really not much reason to bother watching for them.

This is incorrect. Three days warning for a Tunguska event would be extremely valuable even if you couldn't save any of the buildings or evacuate most of the people. You still can evacuate some people, organize logistics, and the rest can huddle in places that give them a better chance of survival.

Re:Yes. Next stupid question?

[CrimsonAvenger]

This is incorrect. Three days warning for a Tunguska event would be extremely valuable even if you couldn't save any of the buildings or evacuate most of the people. You still can evacuate some people, organize logistics, and the rest can huddle in places that give them a better chance of survival.

Umm, no. You won't even be able to convince the people at Ground Zero that they're going to be pasted in three days, much less begin preparations for the event.

Note hurricane evacuations, as an example - everyone down here knows that it might happen. They're mostly prepared to do so when needed. They mostly have far more than three days warning. And still evacuations are a cluster-fuck of the first magnitude. Note Katrina as an example - the need for the evacuation (from a known and recognized danger) was clear more than three days in advance, the evacuation was done quite well (exceeding all expectations, actually), and yet people stayed behind in far greater numbers than I think most people believe to this day.

Most places don't have plans in place to evacuate at all, much less within three days. So most places couldn't even begin to make preparations for the disaster within three days.

Note also that logistics preparation are only possible if you know exactly where the rock is going to hit (wouldn't do to set up your logistics base at Ground Zero by accident), or if you set up well outside the possible impact area. In the latter case, it's too far out to be especially useful, and will have to be moved once the rock actually falls.

I note you said "evacuate some people". Presumably those people would be the government officials? And other "important" people, of course....

Re:Yes. Next stupid question?

[khallow]

Note hurricane evacuations, as an example - everyone down here knows that it might happen. They're mostly prepared to do so when needed. They mostly have far more than three days warning. And still evacuations are a cluster-fuck of the first magnitude. Note Katrina as an example - the need for the evacuation (from a known and recognized danger) was clear more than three days in advance, the evacuation was done quite well (exceeding all expectations, actually), and yet people stayed behind in far greater numbers than I think most people believe to this day.

I live in the US. Hurricane evacuations are usually pretty effective which is why I brought it up. The problem with Hurricane Katrina simply was that the evacuation wasn't ordered till roughly 24 hours prior to landfall for the hurricane. What can be done in 3 days cannot be done in much less time. In addition, local authorities failed to provide transportation for something like tens of thousands of people without cars.

Orbiting Fuel Depots

[BodhiCat]

Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time. Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes! Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.

Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots

[FleaPlus]

Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time. Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes! Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.

This. Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions (particularly those beyond Earth orbit) is fuel. Fuel itself is cheap, and nobody cares if you lose it, so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is (making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups). Then you can launch the much-lighter unfueled spacecraft up by itself (or construct it in orbit), allowing you to launch much more elaborate spacecraft using smaller rockets. Fuel depots are a HUGE technology multiplier in spaceflight. It's really a shame that NASA's prior architecture for various political reasons was pretty much explicitly constructed to avoid any use of fuel depots or in-space refueling.

Aerospace engineer Jon Goff at "Selenian Boondocks" has some really great write-ups and conference papers about propellant depots and how they can benefit a human spaceflight architecture:
http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/09/space-2009-papers/
http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/07/depot-centric-human-spaceflight/

One of the old arguments against propellant depots is that the technology is untested, although ULA just reported on the results of their in-space tests this month:

http://selenianboondocks.com/2010/01/additional-av-017-flight-experiment-information/

Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots

[BodhiCat]

yes, do the math, calculus shows that about 99% of a rockets mass is gone by the time it gets to orbit, this is mostly fuel. The trick is to have fuel that burns fast enough to get a rocket into orbit w/o burning up the engines themselves.

Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots

[WindBourne]

And the nice thing is that fuel, water, many items could potentially be launched via another cheaper mechanism.

Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots

[DerekLyons]

Orbiting Fuel Depots, 'bout time. Use of the LaGrange points, asteroids, yes! Scifi has known this for years, 'bout time that NASA caught up and went for long term development of space instead of quick one-shot missions.

This. Not everybody realizes that the vast majority of mass you need for space missions (particularly those beyond Earth orbit) is fuel. Fuel itself is cheap, and nobody cares if you lose it, so you can just launch it up to a fuel depot to whoever the lowest bidder is (making it a great catalyst for commercial space startups).

Would you consider building one fuel station for the entire United States in a Bangor Maine a good idea? No? Well, that's exactly what an orbital fuel depot is - a single gas stations that's only useful for those in the near vicinity. The other 99.9999999% of us are fucked because now we have to pay someone to ship the fuel from Maine to wherever we happen to be.
 
The real reason Jon Goff supports orbiting fuel depots is hidden at the end of the quote above - it's a smokescreen to hide subsidies for commercial space businesses. In reality, without complex bidding rules and mechanisms to raise the cost of the fuel by spreading the flights across multiple bidders, you are going to end up with a sole provider.
 
 

Then you can launch the much-lighter unfueled spacecraft up by itself (or construct it in orbit), allowing you to launch much more elaborate spacecraft using smaller rockets.

And considerably increasing the real costs of those 'more elaborate spacecraft' because of the need for an increased number of launches and the hidden costs of the orbital fuel depot subsidy.
 

One of the old arguments against propellant depots is that the technology is untested, although ULA just reported on the results of their in-space tests this month

That's *one* argument against depots. (I outline others above.) And if you read the comments, you see them obliquely admit to another problem - the amount of cryogens that must be expended to keep the remaining amount cool during the months or years long storage period... another hidden cost of depots.

Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots

[khallow]

How about the United Launch Alliance, an organization with a lot more experience in designing and flying rockets than NASA has? For example, NASA hasn't designed a new rocket since the Shuttle, unless the Ares I should happen to fly at some point (which is looking unlikely). The ULA has designed several variants of the Delta IV and the Atlas V, including the Delta IV Heavy a real life equivalent to the Ares I. These have deployed in the past ten years.

In 2009, NASA launched 5 Shuttle missions. In comparison, ULA launched 8 Delta IIs, 3 Delta IVs (including 1 Delta IV Heavy), and 5 Atlas Vs. That's more launch platforms and more launches than NASA. The ULA just so happens to be looking into propellant depots while NASA has yet to seriously look at the issue.

Re:Orbiting Fuel Depots

[BodhiCat]

Would you consider building one fuel station for the entire United States in a Bangor Maine a good idea? No? Well, that's exactly what an orbital fuel depot is - a single gas stations that's only useful for those in the near vicinity.

Not a good analogy. For rockets trying to get away from earth is only the first step. Getting out of orbit around the earth is the second. And having enough fuel to do more mission is the third.

Having an orbiting fuel depot would allow smaller rockets to launch with the main payload, either human or robotic, an then add boosters or fuel from the depot once on orbit.

Re:You're kidding.

[JackieBrown]

I would like to see a link to the thousands in the US that have died in the past 10 years by asteroids.

They have no Idea

[Torino10]

Where they should be going. The main purpose of manned spaceflight should be to develop the technologies to form permanent self sustaining colonies off of Earth.

With the abandonment of the Centrifuge Accommodations Module (CAM) we cannot determine if Humans or even most vertebrates can reproduce in reduced gravity and how much gravity is required.

All experiments with mice in microgravity have have indicated that cell division after fertilization does not occur, and that more advanced fetus that were launched do not undergo cell migration and/or cell differentiation properly.

If it is found out that Centripetal acceleration is an adequate substitute for gravity, then the asteroids may be our best bet.

Re:They have no Idea

[OldBus]

As something of an outsider (being British - we have no manned space programme at all which seems to suit the majority of the population here), it appears to me that there are lots of ideas - the problem is which one. NASA itself clearly has a very definite idea - Constellation, Orion, the flexible path leading to Mars. That is quite a definite vision for space exploration. However, lots of other people have other ideas and some of these people are very powerful.

Personally, I can't really comment which is better or not, but while America itself remains divided NASA will struggle. It needs serious funds for its programme.

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the only part of America which doesn't seem to have a definite opinion yet is the White House - and that's the most crucial opinion of all. Of course, that is probably not true. I'm sure Obama does have an opinion. The worry for someone like me as a lover of manned space flight is that he would rather spend the money elsewhere but is afraid to go down in history as the President who killed the US manned space programme. Of course, it's not my taxes which will pay for it.

Re:They have no Idea

[khallow]

If it is found out that Centripetal acceleration is an adequate substitute for gravity, then the asteroids may be our best bet.

If the rotation rate is low, then centripetal acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity at the human scale except for subtle effects (like things not falling straight down or a slight decline in acceleration with height). We have done experiments with people in long term rotating systems and below 1 revolution per minute there's no obvious effect (no nausea, etc). Even in faster rotating systems, people tend to adapt rather quickly. I believe current thought is that even 10 revolutions per minute should be adaptable, if the person doesn't move much (say as in a bed on the side of a rotating cylinder). So you can generate 1 gee of acceleration with roughly 9 meter radius at 10 revolutions per minute and 900 meter radius at 1 revolution per minute.

The real unknowns are simply to get a working artificial gravity system in the first place and to figure out just how much artificial gravity is needed by humans.

Re:They have no Idea

[jgtg32a]

On a somewhat related topic I just finished Planetes, which I highly recommend.
 
Its suppose to be hard SciFi for the most part, but one thing that I've always wondered about and I can't really find anything about it is human growth in low gravity. One of the secondary characters was born on the moon, and she was 12y/o and was I guess about 6' tall. I was wondering if there was any truth to that?

Re:They have no Idea

[CrimsonAvenger]

One of the secondary characters was born on the moon, and she was 12y/o and was I guess about 6' tall. I was wondering if there was any truth to that?

Given that there is at least one 13 year old child who is over seven feet tall right now, there's no special reason to believe it can't happen on the moon.

In any case, it's a common scifi meme, so it's not terribly surprising that they went with it.

Re:They have no Idea

[CraftyJack]

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the only part of America which doesn't seem to have a definite opinion yet is the White House - and that's the most crucial opinion of all.

We're supposedly due to hear more about that sometime around the end of the month.

Re:They have no Idea

[jgtg32a]

yeah but her growth was because of the moon, I was wondering if there was an validity to it

Re:They have no Idea

[CrimsonAvenger]

yeah but her growth was because of the moon, I was wondering if there was an validity to it

As I said, a fairly standard scifi meme.

Alas, it'll be at least 30 years before we know for sure. It'll be at least that long before someone born on the moon has had time to grow up to age 12. And probably a great deal longer, since the odds of us getting past the ISS in the next 20 years is pretty slim.

Unless, of course, Bill Gates decides to aim his fortune at the Final Frontier. And that's none too likely....

Re:They have no Idea

[apoc.famine]

Last I knew, the theory held that 2 RPM was about the limit where humans didn't really notice the apparent motion. 10 RPM is pretty high - one rotation per six seconds. That's the difference between the "scenery" drifting lazily by, and whizzing by. Your estimation of 9m at 10 RPM is very, very bad. The difference in acceleration between your head and your feet at that scale would be very noticeable. I'd be willing to bet that it would be very, very unpleasant.
 
The calculations I had a physics class do on this once showed a practical lower limit of a 500m radius station. This is fucking huge, but not impossible to build. We're talking 5x the size of a football stadium! The major issue would just be getting that much stuff into space in the first place. It'd be the ISS, but 5x longer and 10x wider, with the corresponding increase in structural elements needed to tie it all together.
 
While it would be pretty hard to build, I'd LOVE to be able to look up and see something like that!

Re:They have no Idea

[khallow]

Your estimation of 9m at 10 RPM is very, very bad. The difference in acceleration between your head and your feet at that scale would be very noticeable. I'd be willing to bet that it would be very, very unpleasant.

I doubt many people could move normally under such circumstances. The trick here is that you are lying down parallel to the axis of rotation. So your entire body would roughly be at the same level of acceleration. One hypothesis is that merely sleeping at one gee would be enough exposure to keep the human body healthy. You would work/exercise in zero/low gravity the rest of the time.

Re:They have no Idea

[Torino10]

The real unknowns are simply to get a working artificial gravity system in the first place and to figure out just how much artificial gravity is needed by humans.

Which is why I'm upset that the CAM was never flown to the ISS, it was specifically designed to do research of that nature among other things, unfortunately it is sitting in a parking lot in Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module

We need to know exactly where and what it will take to establish off world colonies now, even if it will take decades to actually establish them, in order to know where manned space exploration should concentrate it's energies. I'm pretty sure a rotating space station with a radius of 150 to 200 meters will be sufficient as it will have a rotation of around 2 to 3 rpm , but centripetal acceleration is not gravity and there is the possibility that even mild Coriolis effects could have drastic implications on fetal development.

I seriously doubt that the 1/3 gravity will be enough to allow people to have children.

Re:You're kidding.

[smpoole7]

Won't this be an unnecessary drain on taxpayers?

.

It never ceases to amaze me how often this objection is raised. The original drive to the moon in the 1960's is one of the very few examples of a government program that WORKED, and that paid for itself many times over. This point has been raised many times over as well: a quick Google search, in fact, led to this comment from September of 2007 right here on /.:

...from a poster named "Tausin," with plenty of links to prove the point.

Besides, even if it did cost, why not invest in the future in the most tangible way? Rather that sitting on this planet whining about resources running out, why not go "out there" and FIND MORE? Rather than worrying about overpopulation, why not go find some more real estate??? Man, even if we never make it to Mars, putting viable colony/way stations at the Lagrange points would be cooler than liquid helium. :)

It's time for us to stop whining and tightening our belts and worrying about the future. It's time to start MAKING IT.

As for a change of administrations killing this new initiative, it won't happen if the people get behind it. That's a simple sales job. And to quote Jerry Pournelle, one great way to start is just to ask everyone to go outside tonight and look up at the stars for a while.

Just look at them. :)

They do, and immediately reject it

[Kupfernigk]

If you don't mind going back to the Stone Age while we divert all the earth's engineering and energy resources for a decade or so, feel free to assemble enough like minded people to put it to an electorate that screams when oil goes to $4/US gallon.

Reading Between the Lines

[Ralph Spoilsport]

tells me this: "We're not going to Mars".

This is a bureaucratic method of killing the overall project of a Mars mission. What happens is each sub project runs into "unexpected delays and expenses" that make it impossible to complete the sub project, or delay it so that it splits up the co-ordination with the other projects for a Mars Mission. Apologists will take up the side of NASA, and they should, but in reality there are facts mitigating against NASA even existing, such as the simple fact that the USA is bankrupt and can't pay its bills, and (according to the Hirsch Report from the DoE) the USA needs to spend 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars converting itself to a non-fossil fuel culture if it hopes to maintain a technical civilisation at all.

In short: good luck with this new plan - cool if it works out - but it has "Cover My Ass" and "Plausible Deniability for Mission Failure" written all over it.

RS

Re:Reading Between the Lines

[khallow]

Reading Between the Lines tells me this: "We're not going to Mars".

This is a bureaucratic method of killing the overall project of a Mars mission.

I wasn't aware that there was an "overall project" to go to Mars. Or the Moon. Or anything past LEO for that matter. Merely saying that there's some goal to do something isn't a project. You can't kill what didn't exist in the first place.

and (according to the Hirsch Report from the DoE) the USA needs to spend 20 years and hundreds of billions of dollars converting itself to a non-fossil fuel culture if it hopes to maintain a technical civilisation at all.

Perhaps you would like to provide evidence for your assertion? I glanced through the Hirsch Report and it speaks of peak oil, not of peak fossil fuels. A lot of people seem oddly unaware that there are more fossil fuels than just oil. They also seem unaware of biofuels, electric powered cars, and other alternate technologies to an oil-based transportation infrastructure.

Re:Reading Between the Lines

[Domint]

. . . in reality there are facts mitigating against NASA even existing, such as the simple fact that the USA is bankrupt and can't pay its bills . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
The money allocated to NASA from the 2009 Federal Budget was 0.55%. Saying that NASA is the source of our financial woes (or that its complete dismantling will do anything to correct them) is like arguing that the reason a person is going bankrupt is due to the 1$ they give to the Salvation Army bell ringer every Christmas. It's a retarded argument, and one that really needs to stop.

Re:Reading Between the Lines

[elrous0]

"We're not going to Mars".

You just now figured THAT out. Actually, its more accurate to say "NASA isn't going to Mars." One day a man *will* set foot on Mars, but there won't be a NASA logo on their spacesuit.

Re:Reading Between the Lines

[myowntrueself]

I don't think they were arguing that NASA is whats driving the USA to bankruptcy.

It seems to me that the only large scale, extravagance that the USA funds these days is war.

And that is whats driving the USA to bankruptcy (in more ways than one) and what will ultimately prevent the USA from having a viable space program.

Re:Reading Between the Lines

[khallow]

It seems to me that the only large scale, extravagance that the USA funds these days is war.

You missed entitlements.

NASA will never get to Mars

[too2late]

if they keep getting "rebooted" every 10 years

interesting but

[phrostie]

interesting but, this sounds vague enough to be part of an election campaign.

Re:You're kidding.

[Mattskimo]

They're certainly a bigger threat than terrorism, if that's what you mean. Imagine the Tunguska object (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_Event) had entered the atmosphere a few hours later over a city, say Paris or London. Within seconds it would have killed orders of magnitude more people than terrorism ever has.

We could start now

[coder111]

Thousands of tonnes could (theoretically) be launched by something like Project Orion. The estimated cost of the fallout would be ~20 people getting cancer across the world. I think more than that get killed in car crashes, wars and famines and other pointless ways each weekend, . So I think this is the price humankind is able to afford to do more space exploration.

Computer hardware was even more unreliable in the 70s-80s, and people managed to get by. You can always have some redundancy and hot-swappable modules, both with computer and with other hardware.

Assembly under the sea is just as dangerous, and we still manage to do it.

For the price of Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we would probably be in Mars already. It's just a matter of priorities and long term goals. We don't have any anymore. It's all about next quarter profit, getting rich and doing 2 chicks at the same time. There aren't any big plans or visions anymore.

--Coder

Re:We could start now

[javakcl]

For the price of Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we would probably be in Mars already. It's just a matter of priorities and long term goals. We don't have any anymore. It's all about next quarter profit, getting rich and doing 2 chicks at the same time. There aren't any big plans or visions anymore.

This is so freakin' true, it's unbelievable. Never ceases to amaze me how we're willing to spend billions on senseless wars, but can't on something that might benefit the race as a whole in the centuries to come (assuming we don't blow ourselves to bits over some stupid religious war). Too bad we can't all get along.

Re:We could start now

[FleaPlus]

Thousands of tonnes could (theoretically) be launched by something like Project Orion. The estimated cost of the fallout would be ~20 people getting cancer across the world.

Um, yeah, and the next day after the proposal you'd get front-page headlines saying "Dangerous NASA Plan Would Give Cancer Dozens of People" and the day after that you'd have the already tenuous popular opinion set against NASA. NASA has to be funded by Congress, and can you seriously see more than half of Congress willing to support that plan and face the resulting political attacks when they run for office again?

Re:We could start now

[MichaelSmith]

Thousands of tonnes could (theoretically) be launched by something like Project Orion. The estimated cost of the fallout would be ~20 people getting cancer across the world.

Lets launch it from your home town, since it is your idea.

Re:We could start now

[sznupi]

For something like proper Project Orion - I wouldn't mind volunteering, if there was no other place available (mine being quite big for it to be useful in this case...). Even if I'm on the ground during launch.

You know you will going to die, right? Ultimately the only thing that might slightly matter is what you have done for humanity.

Re:We could start now

[sznupi]

There aren't any big plans or visions anymore.

I don't think there ever were. Certainly not as far future of humanity goes, and as far as significant enough portion of humanity existing at the time is concerned.

What's new

[morgauxo]

Haven't we been on the flexible path? So flexible they were able to bend it right back around upon itself making circles around the Earth...

A key assumption of the Flexible Path option

[khallow]

The Augustine committee assumed with the Flexible Path option, that the NASA budget would not expand significantly. As a result, this plan is designed to do useful and daring things without requiring that everything gets developed at once. Staggered development of technologies is a notable property of this option. However, it does require that NASA will get somewhere around $3 billion more per year to support manned space flight development including a Saturn V-class heavy lift launch vehicle, fly supporting unmanned space missions, and pay for the missions described in the report.

It is intended to be a stepping stone to some more advanced exploration scheme, but neither Mars nor Lunar exploration is required as part of the program.

Some proposals mentioned in the Slashdot article simply cannot be afforded on even that enlarged budget (for example, the space telescope construction mission). At this point, many of these proposals are merely a theoretical study of what sorts of missions are possible with the infrastructure and tools proposed by the option plan rather than serious plans.

Finally, it's worth noting that there's a good chance even the relatively low funding needs of the Flexible Path option will not be supplied by Congress. At that point, I don't know what will happen. As far as I know, the Augustine committee simply could not generate a useful manned space plan with the budget manned space flight currently gets. My view is that the dependence on a heavy lift vehicle is the reason why. Eschewing heavy lift should be possible, but that does generate a new set of problems and technologies which NASA has yet to explore (propellant depots and orbital assembly of spacecraft in particular).

Re:A key assumption of the Flexible Path option

[FleaPlus]

However, it does require that NASA will get somewhere around $3 billion more per year to support manned space flight development including a Saturn V-class heavy lift launch vehicle, fly supporting unmanned space missions, and pay for the missions described in the report. ... Finally, it's worth noting that there's a good chance even the relatively low funding needs of the Flexible Path option will not be supplied by Congress. At that point, I don't know what will happen. As far as I know, the Augustine committee simply could not generate a useful manned space plan with the budget manned space flight currently gets.

There's a few possibilities for what NASA can do if there's no budget increase:
* If I recall correctly, the Augustine Committee couldn't make any assumptions about international cooperation, as this is more of a political question. If there is international cooperation (i.e. parts of the project handled and paid for by other countries), and it's not done in a totally mangled fashion like the ISS (wishful thinking, perhaps), this could substantially reduce the cost to the US. I suspect Obama would also want to capitalize on the international cooperation aspect as well.
* I recall hearing that the Augustine Committee had added on 50% or so to the estimated cost of DIRECT/SDLV-inline to account for typical NASA programmatic bloating, and the DIRECT folks were rather peeved because they had actually already added in that factor. It's possible that in reality the cost of a DIRECT-style architecture will be cheaper than the Augustine Committee estimated.
* There's also the no-HLV option, or perhaps splitting the cost with the DOD of funding development of EELV Phase 2.
* The $3 billion included $1 billion for general technology development, which could potentially be trimmed (dangerous, though, especially if that tech development helps lower future costs)
* We're in an economic recession, so support for expanding NASA's budget is low. However, one benefit of Flexible Path (esp. commercial-based Flexible Path) is that it can easily be scaled/sped up if budget support is there once the recession ends.
* As you mentioned, technology like propellant depots and VASIMR are potentially huge game-changers

Re:You're kidding.

[JackieBrown]

The post I **responded** to specified USA.

Re:You're kidding.

[khallow]

I guess that depends on what you think terrorism is. Were the notorious dictators of the 20th Century, terrorists at the time that they killed most of their victims? If they were, then a Tunguska event would kill something like two orders of magnitude less people even if it burst over a populated city of the time in 1908.

Experience bullshit...

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA needs to grow some balls and stop wasting the budget on gaining "experience"... We've spent the last 30 years in earth orbit pissing around with small scale experiments, sending robots to mars and other planets. We know enough to have a go at engineering a solution. Surely there would be plenty of astronauts willing to take the risk rather than waiting 30 years and watching NASA blow the budget on a "flexible plan".

Not again. Think, man!

[wonkavader]

A. I'm all for setting up colonies everywhere.

B. It's cheap, compared to expenses we have on Earth right now.

But

C. Overpopulation causing rain forest depletion is a great way of ending an argument so that nothing happens, but it's crap. The problem is that people are stupid -- no, not just Americans, everyone. They think in the short term. They don't get much education. They keep cultural tendencies that don't benefit them. The Malagasy people believe that every family should have 10 children. This is what's destroying Madagascar. I know, I've been there, I've talked to people. 10 children is the target. What's the reason for this? It's necessary to have many children in a poor society to protect the parents. It's not infant mortality (though that factors into it) it's that adults cannot make enough to live well without more workers under their control. The same thinking devalues girls (even though girls currently tend to make a little more money in a lifetime) in Asia since parents feel they need a son to take care of them when they're too old to work.

So what's the cure for this? Social safety nets, health care, propaganda and birth control. Economic incentives for not having more than 2 children. This would be cheap, compared to supporting all those kids. It would be paid for by the rich nations because we want that rainforest (or those lemurs) preserved. It's VERY, VERY CHEAP, and it benefits everyone.

D. We could never keep up with the population being born to send all the excess to Mars. If you sent a billion people to Mars, you need to send another billion in less than a decade just to keep the benefit. So you need C whether you have colonies or not.

cant even get people into orbit after 2010

[peter303]

The successor NASA manned programs are underfunded and behind schedule. Its optimistic that NASA will be able to put people into Earth orbit by 2020.

Re:You're kidding.

[khallow]

Another "spinoffs" myth. NASA has some effect as an early adopter of consider non-aerospace related technologies, but as I see it, it's real effect has been in the creation of the commercial satellite industry (which incidentally, it had to be pried out of after it created the market). That's something like almost $20 billion per year. NASA also is a significant developer of aeronautics technologies. Finally, it has considerable aerospace research that has reduced the cost of development for many businesses. SpaceX and Scaled Composites would be required to spend more in development costs, if it weren't for prior NASA-sponsored development. NASA also demonstrated RLV technologies and orbital assembly techniques (what I consider the meager output of hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures).

It's done some useful stuff, but at what I consider extravagant cost. Spinoffs are one of a number of touchie feelie intangibles (inspiration to young people, national prestige, international cooperation, space science) that are used to rationalize spending money without consequence.

Re:You're kidding.

[Mattskimo]

I was referring to acts of terrorism not officialy sponsored by any given state.

Re:You're kidding.

[Antony-Kyre]

But to me, it seems fear driven. I wish I could find this quote from many years back. But, I think it was regarding communism, terrorism, then asteroid impacts.

Someone mentioned $1 billion per year. Well, let's see if that jumps multiple times-fold in the coming years.

A JOURNEY OF A MILLION MILES BEGINS WITH ...

[whyfreakout]

For those of you who haven’t read the article yet, it essentially continues the endless speculation on the “new” US space policy and suggests the possibility of using the “Flexible Path” concept introduced by the Augustine commission as a spring board to future human exploration missions to Mars. These types of articles have been about as abundant as up-and-coming-stars/waitresses in Hollywood ever since President Obama took office, and I’m just about sick of them thank you very much.

Since the election of the new administration, we’ve had a much discussed transition team unable to maintain a professional dialog (anybody remember the “library spat” between Griffin and Garver?), a million dollar Augustine committee with insufficient political backbone to actually issue any clear directions, and a new NASA administrator whose only public visibility is when he makes appearances at local high schools.

Meanwhile, the rest of NASA seems engaged in a game of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for a better view and never mind the iceberg ahead for the last 30 years: why is it that every “new” space architecture touted by one mastermind or another ignores the problem of lowering the cost of space access? The history of US human launch vehicle development since the Shuttle is so pathetic that it now leaves us bemoaning the day when a 30 year old system will be decommissioned leaving us with what, the brilliant new strategy of private industry providing human space access? We’ve been there before, it was called Orbital Space Plane – and it didn’t work then either.

The truth of the matter is that Earth-To orbit is hard, and the development of a truly innovative launch vehicle is an expensive and long-term effort. Unfortunately, the US government’s space investment policies have been about as long-lived as a common house-fly. After Shuttle there was National Aerospace Plane (NASP), after NASP there was 2nd Gen RLV, then there was VentureStar, Orbital Space Plane, Space Launch Initiative, Next Generation Launch Technologies, Constellation, and the most recent slated for the chopping block the Ares I & V launch family. Every program was shorter in duration than its predecessor, and each one was at a lower TRL than the previous one when it got canceled. When it comes to launch vehicle development, the only NASA solution to any kind of problem (technical or cost/schedule) seems to be to reset the clock and start over.

The current state of affairs is so discouraging, that even stalwart advocates of US human spaceflight programs have now resigned themselves to acting blasé towards the efforts by other nations – since the US can’t compete anymore, we talk of taking on a “mentoring” role, giving other nations an imperial pad on the back when they make it to their next space program milestones. We’ve been there a long time ago, good for you to catch up ? All the while the US celebrates its own most recent – highly dramatic - space accomplishments: we can now get Twitter feeds from our ISS astronauts so the world is immediately informed the next time s/he uses the urine collection device! Sign me up - not. Maybe it’s not all that surprising that this should be the flavor of US space accomplishments going forward, since marketing is about the only industry where this country still is a global leader. Let me do some marketing of my own then and apply some of the cutting edge tools of the trade: “it’s not how you feel about the product, but how the product makes you feel about yourself”. Well I don’t know how you feel about the US human space program these days, but I’m getting to the point where I’m embarrassed to tell people that I toiled in it for the last 15 years, with exactly zero to show for it.

Maybe President Obama will surprise us all and take the leash of Charlie Bolden so he can actually exercise some of his leadershi

Flexible Path Already Incorrectly Prioritized.

[JohnFornaro]

The Flexible Path option would be an excellent example of a pay-go approach to exploring the inner solar system. In theory, it could be able to accomodate different missions based on the value of the scientific discoveries as the program progresses, and our evolving technical abilities. However, the fact that it has no specific goal, opens the Flexible Path to political manipulation which will probably adversely affect its execution. In other words, it seems to be too flexible to ensure success in its endeavors, given the liklihood of the American political system to tinker with programs as vaguely expressed as the Flexible Path.

Although the economy is currently in a trough, an optimistic long term prediction would envision a return to healthy economic growth. In any case, the cost of a space program must be budgeted and the current costs and benefits of that program must be funded by Congress. The current situation clearly forces the prioritization of space program missions. It is crucial that the Flexible Path propose initial missions which are prioritized on cost and time to implement.

There are many possible missions which could be encompassed in the Flexible Path, including the visit to Phobos, which is discussed briefly in the linked article. A cursory examination of that portion of the article, by an interested voter, would reveal at least two fundamental, common sense flaws in the suggestion of this particular mission. These flaws are fatal in the sense that they prove that this particular mission should have a priority much later than a less ambitious Flexible Path mission of a lunar return mission, to pick but one example.

The first flaw is scientific in nature. While Phobos is a "large, dramatic world", per the article, the Moon is larger, more dramatic, and much closer. The terms "large" and "dramatic" are emotionally laden marketing terms and distinctly unscientific reasons to embark on such a mission. The term "closer" is a scientific fact, readily verified, and intrinsically linked with the cost of either mission. The second flaw is also scientific. The article suggests that the "mystery of the origin of Phobos can be resolved". If that is indeed true, then a similar lunar mission could resolve, to the same accuracy, the currently unsolved mystery of the Moon's origin.

Other flaws in that particular Phobos mission pertain to the ease of returning samples, the establishment of the initial inventory of water on either Mars or Phobos, the suggestion that material color is a sufficient criteria for collection, the implication that rover operation would be easier there than closer to Earth, and the further implication that a Phobos mission could demonstrate solutions to these problems that other missions could not.

These types of arguments will be used to prioritize other Flexible Path missions as well, but they are clearly incomplete and do not seem to pass a simple analysis for ranking on a rational basis. The major obstacles to such an ambitious mission as a Phobos visit, cost and time, are given short shrift in the article, and seem to exemplify serious problems in the early determination of the Flexible Path itself.

In contrast to the Phobos mission, for example, many people argue that any lunar mission is futile, based solely on the idea that we have been there and have done that. This particular argument can only be interpreted that human space missions are only a game to be won or lost one time, and one time only. Having won the game, one can study science at that location no longer by this immature and incomplete analysis. With respect to human spaceflight, the "been there, done that" argument is always false, and should be rejected by the voter and the scientific community every time it is brought up.

The larger issue, no matter one's preferred mission, is the question: What is the purpose of human space flight? Today, there is no shared, common sense of what this purpose should be. Part of this purpose is surely the expansion of human

Re:You're kidding.

[Stregano]

One of 3 things:
1.) You are my new best friend
2.) You motivated me to be an astronaut
3.) mod parent up

Take your pick (I am hoping you pick 1)

I agree that we need to start looking towards the stars. There is an entire galaxy out there just waiting for us. If we all stop and complain about tax dollars, before we know it, that will extend to items such as: "well our tax dollars are not paying for xxxx since we are paying for this other stuff".

Of course we are still in our infancy for space travel as we have only made it to the planet next to us, and did it with a robot. How are we going to extend this? We have to bite our bottom lip, everybody pitch in some money, and accept that in this day and age on Earth, nothing will just "collectively" happen without some type of currency getting handed back and forth. This is not a bad thing, as if it gets us to where we need to go, than so be it. I can accept that more money is getting taken out of my paycheck to know that it is going to better serve mankind through expanding our future.

We are outgrowing this planet if you could not tell from over population and pollution. It is starting to be time for humans to expand. Right now all we know is that the only life in this star system is on Earth, which gives us lots of room to expand. Sure, there is going to be lots of science involved, but we are getting closer and closer to that moment every single day.

Re:You're kidding.

[MJMullinII]

One of 3 things:

1.) You are my new best friend

2.) You motivated me to be an astronaut

3.) mod parent up

Take your pick (I am hoping you pick 1)

I agree that we need to start looking towards the stars. There is an entire galaxy out there just waiting for us. If we all stop and complain about tax dollars, before we know it, that will extend to items such as: "well our tax dollars are not paying for xxxx since we are paying for this other stuff".

Of course we are still in our infancy for space travel as we have only made it to the planet next to us, and did it with a robot. How are we going to extend this? We have to bite our bottom lip, everybody pitch in some money, and accept that in this day and age on Earth, nothing will just "collectively" happen without some type of currency getting handed back and forth. This is not a bad thing, as if it gets us to where we need to go, than so be it. I can accept that more money is getting taken out of my paycheck to know that it is going to better serve mankind through expanding our future.

We are outgrowing this planet if you could not tell from over population and pollution. It is starting to be time for humans to expand. Right now all we know is that the only life in this star system is on Earth, which gives us lots of room to expand. Sure, there is going to be lots of science involved, but we are getting closer and closer to that moment every single day.

We don't even have to look at the Galaxy as a whole, just grabbing a few of the "Near Earth Asteroids" for mining purposes would pretty much remove much of the reason for mining minerals like Iron, Platinum and Copper on Earth. While we're not running out of those things, it's a messy proposition getting to them a lot of the time.

The same could be said for energy, for that matter. A large investment in Solar Power Satellite technology could remove most of the need for things like Coal and Nuclear (which, being a strong support of Nuclear, I will admit that I like SPS technology better).

I cannot provide a link for what I'm about to say (because I can't remember :)), but I remember reading somewhere that as things stand right now (with most people not having the United States' standard of living), the Planet can support something like 8 - 9 Billion people. Our Solar System alone (not counting any "Star Trek" like adventures outside the Solar System :)) can support several TRILLION people in at least the level of living currently enjoyed by the United States (not counting the hopeful increases in living in the future).

All it takes is a little initiative, which I think NASA is perfectly centered to provide, should they decide too (I'm thinking about the type of Private - Public Partnerships that built things like Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, etc. -- paid for by public money built by private contractors )

Re:translation...

[JackieBrown]

I guess whoever marked my post as overrated (when it was never rated) will hate the follow up article
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/25/2029220