I had the bad luck of posting what follows just prior to the actual launch, and was thusly ignored, lol. I'm reposting it here not to get attention like China, but because I sincerely want to see some feedback. Before I do repeat it, a few remarks. One, the space shuttle is a beautiful machine, but it belongs in a museum. Think about it--it's the only spacecraft to ever kill Americans in action (Apollo 1 was on the ground, a training test) and that should raise some red flags (no pun intended) that maybe we didn't design it right. Also, we ARE capable of getting in gear and winning the next space race, it's just that the leaders in charge of it are criminally near-sighted, as I said in this post:
On the one hand, I mostly agree with all of you that this may finally get those lazy you-know-whats at NASA off their sofas and back to work...Then I remember that we have a true nincompoop running NASA.
It's time we put ENGINEERS back in charge of NASA instead of appointing politicians and, more recently, a bean-counter as its administrator.
Case in point: On Sep 10, Congress cross-examined said bonehead about an intriguing idea that a Joe Ordinary engineer published in an op-ed which can be read here. It's breif, very well-versed and I definitely recommend reading it, but the ghist of it is instead of completely scrapping the shuttle (referred to as STS) and all of its infrastructure and personnel, that it is technologically and financially (read as cheaper) possible to take those people and task them to refitting existing shuttle hardware to go to Mars. Jobs are saved, progress is made, and all for cheap--irresistable, right?
Not to our resident killjoy administrator Sean O'Keefe. At the hearings, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) entered the full text of the op-ed into the Congressional Record, and then asked NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe what he thought of it. Mr. O'Keefe responded defending NASA's current approach, saying that the ideas in the op-ed represented "wrong headed thinking."
It would seem, ironically enough, that NASA is behaving the way we would expect a communist regime to--CYA tactics. We saw this same behavior prior to the Soviet Union's fall (cheer): shunning innovation and new ideas in a desperate bid for self-preservation.
To complete the irony, China is doing the opposite in their design for their spacecraft, going with the new school of thought in space travel: Using inexpensive off-the-shelf technology and using unconventional engineering and logistics. The former, make fun of it all you want, but the Soyuz is a tried and tested spacecraft. It beats spending billions on dollars of money wrenched from the hands of peasants to make a new bigger craft when a Soyuz is all you need for the job.
By the latter, I refer to this detachable portion obviously meant for space station construction. This sort of approach has been called for by several engineers recently, most notably Dr. Robert Zubrin, the author of the op-ed. A few years ago, he sent NASA his idea for a Mars mission involving sending a return vehicle to Mars FIRST and have it make propellant from the chemicals in the atmosphere, and have the crew arrive in a separate "hab" craft. At the conclusion of the mission, they ditch the craft and leave in the return vehicle. Repeat several times, then can hook those unused habs together and--PRESTO! Instant Martian base! And all for the same cost as the shuttle.
NASA didn't take too kindly to having someone challenge their plan, which involved huge orbital stations, orbiting shipyards, a lunar refueling base, and everything else logistically necessary to support it all. Price tag: $450 billion. It would seem though, that this sort of idea has found a new home with China, who are willing to adapt and accept new ideas like this.
I certainly do hope that this will start a new space race that will end with the US on top, but I have my doubts. It's sort of a shame, we have everything we need to make, say, a mission to Mars possible.
On the one hand, I mostly agree with all of you that this may finally get those lazy you-know-whats at NASA off their sofas and back to work...Then I remember that we have a true nincompoop running NASA.
It's time we put ENGINEERS back in charge of NASA instead of appointing politicians and, more recently, a bean-counter as its administrator.
Case in point: On Sep 10, Congress cross-examined said bonehead about an intriguing idea that a Joe Ordinary engineer published in an op-ed which can be read here. It's breif, very well-versed and I definitely recommend reading it, but the ghist of it is instead of completely scrapping the shuttle (referred to as STS) and all of its infrastructure and personnel, that it is technologically and financially (read as cheaper) possible to take those people and task them to refitting existing shuttle hardware to go to Mars. Jobs are saved, progress is made, and all for cheap--irresistable, right?
Not to our resident killjoy administrator Sean O'Keefe. At the hearings, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) entered the full text of the op-ed into the Congressional Record, and then asked NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe what he thought of it. Mr. O'Keefe responded defending NASA's current approach, saying that the ideas in the op-ed represented "wrong headed thinking."
It would seem, ironically enough, that NASA is behaving the way we would expect a communist regime to--CYA tactics. We saw this same behavior prior to the Soviet Union's fall (cheer): shunning innovation and new ideas in a desperate bid for self-preservation.
To complete the irony, China is doing the opposite in their design for their spacecraft, going with the new school of thought in space travel: Using inexpensive off-the-shelf technology and using unconventional engineering and logistics. The former, make fun of it all you want, but the Soyuz is a tried and tested spacecraft. It beats spending billions on dollars of money wrenched from the hands of peasants to make a new bigger craft when a Soyuz is all you need for the job.
By the latter, I refer to this detachable portion obviously meant for space station construction. This sort of approach has been called for by several engineers recently, most notably Dr. Robert Zubrin, the author of the op-ed. A few years ago, he sent NASA his idea for a Mars mission involving sending a return vehicle to Mars FIRST and have it make propellant from the chemicals in the atmosphere, and have the crew arrive in a separate "hab" craft. At the conclusion of the mission, they ditch the craft and leave in the return vehicle. Repeat several times, then can hook those unused habs together and--PRESTO! Instant Martian base! And all for the same cost as the shuttle.
NASA didn't take too kindly to having someone challenge their plan, which involved huge orbital stations, orbiting shipyards, a lunar refueling base, and everything else logistically necessary to support it all. Price tag: $450 billion. It would seem though, that this sort of idea has found a new home with China, who are willing to adapt and accept new ideas like this.
I certainly do hope that this will start a new space race that will end with the US on top, but I have my doubts. It's sort of a shame, we have everything we need to make, say, a mission to Mars possible.
--Our economy is recovering.
--We had the technology to do it (at least, if you take Zubrin's approach) back in the 80s, but political short-sightedness of the time kept us.
--This incident I mentioned, plus this Congressional hearing Thursday suggests that our COngress will back a renewed space program.
--Mission: SPACE, a new space themed ride at EPCOT just opened amidst much fanfare, and is receiving a lot of attention and popularity. Tourists are flocking in to experience the thrill of spaceflight, even if it is just a simulation. This coupled with statistics in a recent Popular Science special feature show that the public support is definitely there.
If you've read this far, thank you for tolerating my ranting. This is my first time posting on Slashdot, and I consider myself very passionate about our future in space. As we space nuts say, "Ad astra!"
Slashdot Mirror
On the one hand, I mostly agree with all of you that this may finally get those lazy you-know-whats at NASA off their sofas and back to work...Then I remember that we have a true nincompoop running NASA.
It's time we put ENGINEERS back in charge of NASA instead of appointing politicians and, more recently, a bean-counter as its administrator.
Case in point: On Sep 10, Congress cross-examined said bonehead about an intriguing idea that a Joe Ordinary engineer published in an op-ed which can be read here. It's breif, very well-versed and I definitely recommend reading it, but the ghist of it is instead of completely scrapping the shuttle (referred to as STS) and all of its infrastructure and personnel, that it is technologically and financially (read as cheaper) possible to take those people and task them to refitting existing shuttle hardware to go to Mars. Jobs are saved, progress is made, and all for cheap--irresistable, right?
Not to our resident killjoy administrator Sean O'Keefe. At the hearings, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) entered the full text of the op-ed into the Congressional Record, and then asked NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe what he thought of it. Mr. O'Keefe responded defending NASA's current approach, saying that the ideas in the op-ed represented "wrong headed thinking."
It would seem, ironically enough, that NASA is behaving the way we would expect a communist regime to--CYA tactics. We saw this same behavior prior to the Soviet Union's fall (cheer): shunning innovation and new ideas in a desperate bid for self-preservation. To complete the irony, China is doing the opposite in their design for their spacecraft, going with the new school of thought in space travel: Using inexpensive off-the-shelf technology and using unconventional engineering and logistics. The former, make fun of it all you want, but the Soyuz is a tried and tested spacecraft. It beats spending billions on dollars of money wrenched from the hands of peasants to make a new bigger craft when a Soyuz is all you need for the job.
By the latter, I refer to this detachable portion obviously meant for space station construction. This sort of approach has been called for by several engineers recently, most notably Dr. Robert Zubrin, the author of the op-ed. A few years ago, he sent NASA his idea for a Mars mission involving sending a return vehicle to Mars FIRST and have it make propellant from the chemicals in the atmosphere, and have the crew arrive in a separate "hab" craft. At the conclusion of the mission, they ditch the craft and leave in the return vehicle. Repeat several times, then can hook those unused habs together and--PRESTO! Instant Martian base! And all for the same cost as the shuttle.
NASA didn't take too kindly to having someone challenge their plan, which involved huge orbital stations, orbiting shipyards, a lunar refueling base, and everything else logistically necessary to support it all. Price tag: $450 billion. It would seem though, that this sort of idea has found a new home with China, who are willing to adapt and accept new ideas like this.
I certainly do hope that this will start a new space race that will end with the US on top, but I have my doubts. It's sort of a shame, we have everything we need to make, say, a mission to Mars possible.
It's time we put ENGINEERS back in charge of NASA instead of appointing politicians and, more recently, a bean-counter as its administrator.
Case in point: On Sep 10, Congress cross-examined said bonehead about an intriguing idea that a Joe Ordinary engineer published in an op-ed which can be read here. It's breif, very well-versed and I definitely recommend reading it, but the ghist of it is instead of completely scrapping the shuttle (referred to as STS) and all of its infrastructure and personnel, that it is technologically and financially (read as cheaper) possible to take those people and task them to refitting existing shuttle hardware to go to Mars. Jobs are saved, progress is made, and all for cheap--irresistable, right?Not to our resident killjoy administrator Sean O'Keefe. At the hearings, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) entered the full text of the op-ed into the Congressional Record, and then asked NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe what he thought of it. Mr. O'Keefe responded defending NASA's current approach, saying that the ideas in the op-ed represented "wrong headed thinking."
It would seem, ironically enough, that NASA is behaving the way we would expect a communist regime to--CYA tactics. We saw this same behavior prior to the Soviet Union's fall (cheer): shunning innovation and new ideas in a desperate bid for self-preservation.To complete the irony, China is doing the opposite in their design for their spacecraft, going with the new school of thought in space travel: Using inexpensive off-the-shelf technology and using unconventional engineering and logistics. The former, make fun of it all you want, but the Soyuz is a tried and tested spacecraft. It beats spending billions on dollars of money wrenched from the hands of peasants to make a new bigger craft when a Soyuz is all you need for the job.
By the latter, I refer to this detachable portion obviously meant for space station construction. This sort of approach has been called for by several engineers recently, most notably Dr. Robert Zubrin, the author of the op-ed. A few years ago, he sent NASA his idea for a Mars mission involving sending a return vehicle to Mars FIRST and have it make propellant from the chemicals in the atmosphere, and have the crew arrive in a separate "hab" craft. At the conclusion of the mission, they ditch the craft and leave in the return vehicle. Repeat several times, then can hook those unused habs together and--PRESTO! Instant Martian base! And all for the same cost as the shuttle.NASA didn't take too kindly to having someone challenge their plan, which involved huge orbital stations, orbiting shipyards, a lunar refueling base, and everything else logistically necessary to support it all. Price tag: $450 billion. It would seem though, that this sort of idea has found a new home with China, who are willing to adapt and accept new ideas like this.
I certainly do hope that this will start a new space race that will end with the US on top, but I have my doubts. It's sort of a shame, we have everything we need to make, say, a mission to Mars possible.--Our economy is recovering.
--We had the technology to do it (at least, if you take Zubrin's approach) back in the 80s, but political short-sightedness of the time kept us.--This incident I mentioned, plus this Congressional hearing Thursday suggests that our COngress will back a renewed space program.
--Mission: SPACE, a new space themed ride at EPCOT just opened amidst much fanfare, and is receiving a lot of attention and popularity. Tourists are flocking in to experience the thrill of spaceflight, even if it is just a simulation. This coupled with statistics in a recent Popular Science special feature show that the public support is definitely there.If you've read this far, thank you for tolerating my ranting. This is my first time posting on Slashdot, and I consider myself very passionate about our future in space. As we space nuts say, "Ad astra!"