Slashdot Mirror
NASA Rolls Out Space Exploration Roadmap
MarkWhittington writes "NASA and the space agencies of a variety of countries, including members of the European Union, Canada, Japan, Russia, India, the Ukraine, and South Korea, have rolled out the latest version of a space exploration roadmap (PDF). NASA and its partners have created two scenarios, called 'Asteroid Next' and 'Moon Next.' This represents the continuing argument over which destination astronaut explorers should go to first. Should it be an Earth approaching asteroid, as President Obama insists? Or should it be the moon, as many people in Congress, NASA, and NASA's partner agencies suggest? In any event, all roads lead to Mars in the current plan. Both visits to an asteroid and to the moon are considered practice runs for what will be needed to go to Mars."
called 'Asteroid NeXT' and 'Moon NeXT".
NASA needs guaranteed funding and a minimum of Congressional oversight.
How about we go to an asteroid that's landing on the moon?
The first sentence of TFA says this is a plan for "coordinated human and robotic exploration." The summary makes it sound like this is a plan for manned exploration only.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
It's interesting that NASA doesn't mention the GLXP at all in there, not even in passing (or so shows my very fast scan of the document). That contrasts quite a bit with the fact that they generated the NASA Heritage Site rules and what they briefed and said to the GLXP teams in July.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
The rovers were a success. Now it is time to test our ability to create a long term orbital platform. I'm for the asteroid. China has shown an interest in going to the moon. Let them perform those experiments.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Somehow the idea of international cooperation seems to make sense in the modern era. Although we Americans rightly take pride in the Apollo program, the space race was really a product of the Cold War. It ruled out multilateral efforts because the whole point was a race to beat the Russians. That doesn't make sense today; nation-states don't have the same kind of rivalries. The spirit of "advancement of human civilization" I associate with space exploration does seem more fitting as an international enterprise. It gives me a warm fuzzy.
That said, the reality of international undertakings tends to fall short of what I consider ideal.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Roadmap? Why not a starchart?
Don't want to know how much that shiny PDF document cost. A billion? Two billion?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
- douglas quaid
1. Adopt a plan
2. Spend a ton of money
3. Abandon achievements and the plan.
4. Repeat.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Let me be the first one in this thread to advocate for THE CASE FOR MARS by Robert Zubrin. They should skip the asteroid and the moon, and start sending robotic missions to Mars today. When the robots have manufactured a liveable environment (e.g. caves or lava tubes) and enough fuel for an emergency return trip, then you send the astronauts.
The two routes are presented as exclusive, and only differ in the order of the targets. I say there's a third route: Moon, Mars+Asteroid, Beyond.
Landing on an asteroid is orders of magnitude more difficult than on the Moon or a planet: chances are a lot greater that you'll miss, and there's not a lot of possibilities for in-situ resource utilization, while return windows are possibly few and far between.
It would be safer and more profitable to go to an asteroid at the same time we're building presence on Mars. Hell, Mars has two asteroids for moons, perfect practice ground. The way I see this would be a hybrid of the two scenarios outlined: we deploy a deep space habitat, set up a permanently crewed base on the Moon as a 'pit stop', then take advantage of the lower gravity to launch towards Mars, and later, still from the Moon, towards an interesting asteroid. The first asteroid mission could even be the deployment of a thruster to send the asteroid into a more accessible and safer orbit as a starting point.
This would allow us the most time to test new technologies before plunging into the most dangerous missions during the exploration phase, then to leverage those technologies in the exploitation phase that inevitably (and rightly) follows.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
The boss usually gets to express his opinion.
Okay, but we'll have to go at night, when it's cooler.
I was eight years old when Neil Armstrong set boots on the Moon; I should have lived to see a thriving colony on Mars! I'm not dead yet, but these sickening roadmaps make it obvious that the chance of me living long enough to see ANY offworld colony is pretty slim. What the fuck happened?
I share Neil Armstrong's frustration, but I don't blame NASA; NASA isn't the problem. The problem is that the species is dominated by short-sighted, ignorant, isolationist fools... and that foolish majority is not only allowed to choose our leadership but is also the pool from which that leadership is chosen. WE collectively are the problem.
We've used NASA as a political football in a decades-long game of tug-of-war; how would you like to administer or work in an agency whose funding and priorities get temptingly dangled close enough to nibble one year but then yanked far out of reach the next, at the whim of Congressional purseholders beholden to public attitudes and corporate shareholders? NASA has been suffering from manic depression for decades because of it.
Neil needs to place the blame squarely where it belongs. How many more generations of visionaries will have their hopes and dreams crushed under the weight of an ignorant mob of billions?
China isn't stupid enough to waste money on such a boondoggle. Only we are.
... you're on the road to becoming part of the problem in your country.
The "American" problems which you so accurately point to are in no small part due to idealists turning into lobbyists.
Anybody can lobby, and, unfortunately, it's addictive.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
When you go to the government for funding, you don't want to admit you have options.
That is, unless you really don't need the funding.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Rather than make pie in the sky plans for moon missions or asteroid missions, how about a good, solid foundation of getting people the first 100 miles. Plan for that. Achieve that goal and THEN see about trying to get further out, based on an actual, sensible reason for going.
Every journey starts with a first step.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The Russians have as many problems with the heavy lift as the Americans do. (Check the news recently?) They just have less problems with insurance companies.
Not sure why the Canadians should be seen as better than the Japanese at robotics. But robotics has a significantly wider field of application than heavy lift. (Not disjoint, even?) And even if the Japanese are better at some kinds of robotics and the Canadians are better at some kinds of robotics, cooperation does not mean just turning all of job X over to some other guy.
We're all in this mess together. The only good reason for space exploration is to give us more areas to keep pioneering in, to keep us from turning all of our technology over to making the next bigger and faster game console.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
The reason is that private space wants to go to the moon. We should take advantage of this. The X-prizes, and COTS approach is paying off with equipment being developed. Even the sub-orbitals, such as blue origin, will be interesting in that their equipment with some mods and MINIMAL amounts of ground set-up, will be capable of working on/off the moon. Basically, the moon is a good step for private space along with gov. help. But when going beyond the moon, that is where NASA should focus. Sending a small crew to an asteroid is a good first step to Mars. Well, that is the kind of things that private space will NOT do. Likewise, having NASA and others work on tugs esp. nuclear engines such as NERVA, makes good sense.
Private space is planning on being on the moon by 2020.
So, lets do both the moon and an asteroid.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sustaining the long haul with the Apollo was seen as too expensive.
It hasn't gotten less expensive, we have just become more willing to spend money. (Setting aside the question of whether we have the money to spend. Except, if we were willing to spend money on those big toys, why weren't we spending money fighting poverty? and there were too many people who couldn't see that space exploration was one essential part of the overall approach to fighting poverty.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
The president is not supposed to be anybody's boss.
Well, except for the executive branch of the government, subject to restrictions set by the Constitution and Congress.
About the only group he is the boss of is his cabinet, and not really even that.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
You can go first.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
While I agree with you that Battlestar Galactica (sp?), Star Wars, et. al. are just cowboy movies shifted to space, and not realistic goals for our future as a race, I disagree with your assessment of the space program. As someone else pointed out already, the space program is a good place to sharpen the tools we call our technology.
Tools are usefull things, and keeping them in good working condition is important.
Promoting the worship of technology is bad, whether through space fantasy or game machines, but until we can teach the majority of people what true religion is, we can of have to let them get by on what they can believe in.
And, either way, space exploration is (or can be) a valid way to refine and add to our technological toolset.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
We still don't have enough experience getting people through space in healthy condition. That's why we work on getting back to the moon.
That and all the science that remains to be done on the moon.
Also, while the environment-related tech for the moon and for Mars will be drastically different, learning how to deal with the moon's environment will only help learning how to deal with the environment on Mars. Seeing any of these options as mutually exclusive is missing the entire point of space exploration.
Panic programs to get us (back or otherwise) to X in Y time are not a particularly good idea, however.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
NASA is full of bureaucratic morons trying to justify their fat government pay checks. unless they want to continue their slide in credibility and funding, they had better sort their shit out and get a clue.
How about for a first priority: MAKE ACCESS TO LOW EARTH ORBIT CHEAPER, SAFER, MORE RELIABLE AND MORE REGULAR
NASA can make whatever plans they want, but the cold war is over, Kennedy is dead, and they will never have the budget to go to the moon the same way again. Period.
They haven't even got an operational space shuttle any more for crap sake.
The only thing this useless waste of paper might achieve is offering some ideas to the Russians.
Hint to NASA morons: Voters don't give a shit about where astronauts go next if there is no immediate tangible benefit for them. It isn't greed, its just common sense. NASA is squandering millions in hard-earned tax payer dollars, and for what?
One apon a time NASA was doing great things and paving the way for technological progress. The people who could be making the difference are being drowned out by political and ommercial interests.
I predict that either the Russians will take the moon, or western society will eventually wake up and revolt to end the scurge of corrupttion and greed that is our capitalist economy. No I'm not advocating communism as the answer, rather what (in Australia) is called "non-trading cooperatives"
http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA256EB5000644CE/page/Business+names-Co-operatives
If I had to bet, I'd go with the Russians
A VASIMR type plasma rocket can haul back 20x it's fuel weight in from a nearby asteroid. Since part of most rocks is Oxygen, you can extract that and use it for fuel for later trips, and keep hauling back more asteroid chunks. What do you do with all that asteroid stuff in Earth Orbit? Any metals can go to building living quarters and machines. Any carbon can be used to create space elevator cable. Some oxygen is good for breathing, some for fuel, and some to make water with. You still need to bring the Hydrogen from Earth, but that's only 11% by weight.
This approach does two things. The partial space elevator makes it easier to bring stuff up from Earth. The ability to bring back and use materials from asteroids cuts the percentage of stuff you need to bring from Earth. Those multiply together. For example, if launch costs are reduced to 20% of what they were before, and you can supply 80% of your materials from asteroids, then combined your cost to get something done is reduced by 25 times.
How many people have made that "walk to the corner drugstore"?
You're assuming we have a lot more experience in space than we have. Meaningful human activity on Mars is just not going to happen until we have a lot more experience in space.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Does anyone else find it sad that NASA+NORAD+whoever can detect a small missile launch on the other side of the world in minutes, but can't predict when or where a satellite THEY PUT UP THERE THEMSELVES will land or even IF it has landed already?!?
Why is it always the Ukraine, it's not like there are multiple Ukraines. Is anyone familiar with any other countries that get a the? And how did the the even come about as common usage when referring to Ukraine?
Buddy was right when he said it was important to avoid gravity wells. Once you're out, why the hell go back down? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Frontier:_Human_Colonies_in_Space/ Ask Gerard O'Neill. He provides methods of access, a reason for going and a means of staying there once you arrive. Works for me.
In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
He's boss of the entire executive branch. Whether you like Obama or not doesn't diminish his authority.