Slashdot Mirror
Cool NASA Tech That Will Never See Space
coondoggie writes to tell us that with the "new and improved" NASA budget on the way it looks like many of the cool projects NASA has in the works will never see the light of day, let alone space. The biggest cut looks to be the Ares heavy lift rocket but other cuts include a new composite spacecraft, deep space network, inflatable lunar habitat, and an electric moon-buggie.
reflecting on how this kind of tragedy can happen, and how it relates to our very rational, ends-oriented world, should read Horkheimer and Adorno's (in)famous Dialectic of Enlightenment and its much heralded account of how the very nature of rational Enlightenment thinking carries the danger that we'll fail to enter into "a truly human state" as a world, instead descending into "a new age of barbarism" marked by things like anti-intellectual mass culture, multiplying high-tech wars, short-sighted exploitation, and other modern ills that appear to destroy society and the planet.
It was written back during the Nazi+Emerging Cold War era, but it remains as relevant a warning today as ever.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The inflatable structures are able to handle projectiles better than the stiff walled structures since they have some give to them and can disperse the energy across a larger area. The fact that they pack well is just bonus.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
The shuttle is retiring. There's no stopping that. No more external fuel tanks are being manufactured, the rest of the parts chain is shutting down. When the shuttle is gone, America loses manned access to space. And it appears we can't even manage to cobble together a bloody capsule to put atop a normal rocket. This leaves only Russia with manned space capabilities. (I don't know if the Chinese really have anything they'd consider flight-worthy right now.) The Indians and Japanese have their own programs but I don't see much happening in the near future.
The Constellation program sounded like a real soup sandwich. Canceling it would be a good thing if it paved the way for something done right. But that's not happening. Every shuttle successor program we've ever looked at has ended in cancellation. Obviously, we have the technology to get into space but it looks like we don't have the organizational ability to make that sort of thing happen.
You don't have to be much of a science fiction fan to appreciate the opportunities created by a serious presence in space. Even if we teleoperated everything from the ground, orbital power is a winner. Asteroid mining to prevent the destruction of our own environment down here is a winner. And human history has proven time and time again that opportunities can be opened up by endeavors and scientific discovery that we couldn't even begin to imagine at the outset.
There's so much more we should be doing up there. The shuttle was just farting around in LEO. We should end it to do something better, not end it to abandon a manned presence in space. If we're not going to move forward up there, other nations will. And we will have ceded the high frontier.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Are you sure that if it wasn't for NASA, we wouldn't ever have visited Earth?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Time to give them loan guaranties just like the nuke plants. http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/31/1327238/Obama-Budget-To-Triple-Nuclear-Power-Loan-Guarantees
If I made more money, I'd probably have a set of new golf clubs on my wish list for this spring. As it is, I don't have an unlimited budget, and there are other priorities which are higher, such as food, healthcare, and DirecTV. I mention that last one intentionally, by the way.
You see I could do without DirecTV and save myself enough to get a new set of golf clubs every year. Thing is my wife an daughter really like the programming. They don't begrudge me my greens fees or my high power rocket purchases. Each of us gets something from the family budget, though perhaps not all we want. We simply don't have the unlimited funds for that.
It's interesting what happens when you must have a balanced budget - certain choices have to be made.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Unfortunately it is the whole country that loses in this case. I can remember well the day that Al Gore announced the shuttle replacement. The two finalists were a craft that had already been built and flight tested and another that existed as a powerpoint presentation that relied on technology that is still not feasible. The finalists that actually had built and tested their craft were passed over so that Bill and Al could provide a big fat payday to their wing nut allies in California.
This from the party that always cries about Republicans some how manipulating science for their own nefarious purposes.
it's all speculation until someone reads the budget and the new policy is announced. Now that that's out of the way...
Heavy Lift: There's an understanding that we need heavy lift. It looks like a 200mT launcher is out of the question for now; but, we have plenty of experience, thanks to the ISS, in assembline large structures in space. So, the question becomes what form does an HLV take: A Shuttle Derived (Jupiter) derivative or an amped up Atlas / Delta derivative? Either could ultimately reach the 100-150mT range. The Shuttle Derived gets there faster using existing tooling.
Composite launch vehicle: Let's assume, for argument sake, that ULA is one of the suppliers of the "taxi" service. Lockheed, who is one of the two ULA parent companies, and who supplies the Atlas 5 launch vehicle, is building the Orion CEV for NASA. If ULA does supply the launch vehicle, what crew vehicle do you suppose they'll use? Perhaps the one they already have the tooling for? The one that's already a NASA approved design? I think so.
Inflatable structures: That technology was sold by NASA to Bigelow Aerospace, who then developed it further and did some limited testing in space LEO. NASA was going to incorporate Bigelow's work into their habitats. If NASA drops it, for now, Bigelow appears to have plans to continue the work. They've booked a Falcon 9 flight for 2014.
Lunar descent engine: What made that engine interesting was the use of LNG/LOX as a fuel. It worked. Well. That's likely to find further use down the line; but, I can't speculate where.
The lunar specific stuff is toast.
and the Germans weren't the first to put an object in space, that was in fact the Soviets
I think he was referring to the V2.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The German V-2 was capable of reaching space in a vertical launch with a light payload. Whether any ever did or not is not clear. The many thousands that were launched were generally not vertically launched.
People often forget that there are other history books being written in other languages and in other countries, and they emphasize slightly different achievements.
In North America, you've got to be a history or space buff to know this stuff. Or a commie!
"Space race" undoubtedly played a large part, but it doesn't lessen the point that not only NASA was responsible for major progress. Besides, I like to think it wasn't merely about state level competition - after all there was valuable science being made on both sides, and the first breakthroughs relied on many years of progress being made before the race proper. With later ones also building on that early progress obviously.
Plus...who knows, we might see another race at some point. China gears up, Russia is in many ways more distant to them than US for a long time, India and Japan don't want to be left behind, Europe has a will to rely less on others, private companies see a place for themselves...we'll be good.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Through all the brouhaha, the doubletalk about missing blueprints and the expense of reviving older tech, it would have been far inexpensive to bring back a tried and trusted heavy lifter: The Saturn V. The Block 90 series was all set to loft the heaviest payloads to date, even the Ariane V would be hard pressed to match it.
I would have loved to see the V fly with upgraded hardware and avionics. The instrument ring would have been deleted in place for a more compact INS module. The inner structure rebuilt with improved metals and engineering. The engines... Well, hell, how can you improve on a already perfect set of man-made earthquake makers? I can see a V lofting not one, but TWO full sized ISS modules with them stuffed to the gills with parts and supplies.
Now we're stuck with a kiwi, not even classed a hangar queen.
Talk about an embarrassment.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
True, but highly misleading. You're comparing a high speed impact of an unmanned object (Luna 2), with a soft landing of a manned ship that later took off and returned to Earth (Apollo 11).
That the Russians were ahead of the USA in space exploration in the late 50's and early 60's is a matter of historical record. Luna 2 predated the USA's Ranger 4 impact by ~3 years. The USA made great strides to catch up and both countries first soft-landed a ship in 1966, (Luna 13 / Surveyor 1).
In the history of the world, only 12 humans have ever walked on the moon and all were Americans.
Hm, then I guess he wants to be remembered as having done something big for humanity? Just like...a lot of obscenelly rich man who acquired their wealth in not exactly "honorable" way.
Seems to be working, I was aware pretty much only of his Aeospace enterprise. And as long as it will really end up "big"...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Like, I've pretty much had it up to here with this myth of "private industry" as the salvation of everything. Banks were private industry, and they screwed the pooch not once, but three times in the last 30 years, to the tune of multiple national, no, worldwide economic meltdowns, hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts, and for what? So we can have the pleasure of driving ourselves into the ground with more debt?
By contrast, NASA put a man on the moon.
I'm going NASA over private industry, any day of the week.
This is my sig.
First, you shouldn't have (intentionally) crushed your daughter's dreams like that.
All I did was tell her the truth: "They're cancelling Ares". She broke down on just that because she's smart enough to understand the implications.
Second, if you'd bothered to have done some reading, you'd find Obama's administration appears to be choosing the Flexible Path to Mars plan, recommended by the Augustine Commission. They're just killing Constellation because the money required to complete the program does not exist.
I have done my reading ( http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420994main_2011_Budget_Administrator_Remarks.pdf [PDF]) . In Charlie Bolden's speech today on the budget, they didn't announce any program to replace Constellation, flexible path or otherwise.
Yes, they're going to spend $3 billion over five years on heavy lift R&D, but there's no overall program to direct that research. All Bolden said was that funding was directed towards "the clear goal of taking us farther and faster into space". He didn't say where or when.
It is my belief that without a Kennedy-like mandate, that R&D funding will be spent all over the place and, once it's spent, we won't be any closer to human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
They used the Augustine Commission to kill off Constellation, but they didn't pick one of the alternatives or suggest something new. If all they're doing is R&D, it'll be easy for Congress to go after that funding later to pay for some pet project.
The only good news is the extension of the ISS until 2020. But other than that, meh...
The bottom line is we have no long-term strategy for human exploration beyond LEO. Unless you call some paltry R&D and "hope" that commercial industry picks up the slack a strategy.
I void warranties.
you make 2 assumptions which I believe are false:
1) the technology developed by constellation would have been applicable for the average person. It wouldn't; no more anyway than Saturn V was. Constellation was a dead end.
2) It would take decades to develop technology of equivalent technology. Nope the problems of getting into space are mainly materials science and economic. If she wants to get into space, then campaign to get Supersonic/Hypersonic Transport back on the table. Unless of course you're willing to go nuclear, then things get much simpler and far cheaper. Either way Constellation would have taken effort away from making space affordable and would have propogated the idea that space must be very expensive and be late and suffer massive overruns. Killing constellation may very well be her only chance to get into space.
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Wait, so it's Obama's fault that you're a bad parent? First, there is still a NASA and a space program.
Yes, but not a "human exploration" space program. Or one that she can look at and potentially be a part of.
Second, help the kid find some other interests. We live in a world of almost an infinite number of things to study, to learn, and to do. Help your kid broaden her horizons a little bit.
I have. She's coding in Python and building robots with her Lego Mindstorms kit. The dream that was fueling that desire to learn? Going to space.
When I was a kid, I had the same dream. Go to space. I had the shuttle program to look at and say "I could be a part of that". I studied hard, and ended up a computer engineer. I didn't go into space, but I did well.
Now, there's nothing to point at and say "Hey, you could do that" that inspires her as a kid. I can tell her all about software engineering, or genetic engineering, or energy research. But none of that's as cool as "going to space". She'll still end up OK because she's smart, but I don't think she'll apply herself as well as if she had a loftier goal. And there's no amount of "parenting" that will change that.
I void warranties.
Short version: NASA wanted a project they could milk instead of something that worked with off the shelf parts. Bill and Al wanted to reward a blue state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_Graham
The sad thing is that if the US would just finish projects and hold contractors accountable we wouldn't be in the situation we are in with virtually no launch capacity and nothing in the works to build a space program around. The shuttle replacement programs is the poster child for what is wrong with NASA. Billions and years spent with no tangible results, poorly planned, poorly managed and killed with the wave of a pen.
We should replace NASA with multi-year X-Prizes. Take whatever money is supposed to go to the bureaucrats and careerists and give it to the people who have an actual passion for the work involved.
You forgot about the Chineese who invented rocket propulsion :>
Coding etudes
At the risk of stating the obvious: Maybe private industry will build buggies that can drive on the moon, and infalatable places for people to stay on the moon? Just because public sector is grounded (Earthed?) for now doesn't mean private companies are.
Sure, maybe they can charter voyages to Alpha Centauri while they're at it.
Honestly, what is private industry going to do with these things on the moon? You have to send people there somehow, and 1) no private company has anything near the capability of sending humans to the moon, and 2) no one except maybe Bill Gates could afford a trip to the moon as a sight-seer.
There's only a small number of people who can afford a trip to LEO. Going to the moon would cost far, far more. There's no market for this, and for private industry to have a use for something, there has to be a market for it.