Link
A group of 50 space-exploration experts will head to Stanford University next month hoping to salvage plans for manned missions that seem headed for the scrap heap due to a lack of funds in the national budget for space.
Order of Kilopi
Link
A group of 50 space-exploration experts will head to Stanford University next month hoping to salvage plans for manned missions that seem headed for the scrap heap due to a lack of funds in the national budget for space.
Order of Kilopi
It's good that somebody is looking into it, but as the article points out, its mostly a political and funding issue, that scientists will have a hard time dealing with.Originally Posted by Argos
And who is hosting this? It says invitation only, but by who, and by what premise, and are there any preliminary paths of discussion?
And; by what criteria are they saying that NASA is off track? (I know most of us agree, but for a group like this, I think mention should be made)
Administrator
Even if the manned missions get postponed for a while, I think it is still worth staying on schedule with development of the Ares I and Ares V rockets. They will have some good unmanned uses.
Forming opinions as we speak
Order of Kilopi
From the article:
Aviation Week: NASA May Abandon Moon Under Revised Exploration VisionThe funding falls well short of being enough to explore Mars by 2030, said Louis Friedman, the executive director for The Planetary Society, a pro-exploration group and co-sponsor of the Stanford workshop.
SpaceflightNow/Aviation Week:Some of the most influential leaders of the space community are quietly working to offer the next U.S. president an alternative to President Bush’s “vision for space exploration”—one that would delete a lunar base and move instead toward manned missions to asteroids along with a renewed emphasis on Earth environmental spacecraft.
Top U.S. planetary scientists, several astronauts and former NASA division directors will meet privately at Stanford University on Feb. 12-13 to define these sweeping changes to the NASA/Bush administration Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).
Vocal opponents of the lunar base plan have two basic criticisms. First, says Friedman, the mission hasn’t sparked enthusiasm. “The weak point in the program now is the lack of public resonance that the lunar base has,” Friedman says. “It’s much like the space station was after Reagan announced it. Interest waned until a political purpose presented itself: Clinton bringing the Russians in.” The second criticism is that a lunar base may not be practical. For instance, such an installation would require a lunar supply of water ice; probes have suggested the presence of water, but have not proven it. Friedman and others also argue that the moon is too close to the Earth to provide a good practice run for a Mars mission.
Order of Kilopi
I don't know who to support in this case...
It's like choosing between Star Wars and Spider-Man.
Psycological stress!
I need to lie down for a bit...
Order of Kilopi
Mike Griffin and The Planetary Society have disagreed with the tone and content of the the AW&ST story.
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/200...eroid-mission/
Order of Kilopi
Yay!Mike Griffin and The Planetary Society have disagreed with the tone and content of the the AW&ST story.
No more psychological stress!
I don't have to choose between the two!
Order of Kilopi
Thanks, I missed the "co-sponsor" part of the statement. There were enough quotes and credits in the article that that specific one got lost.
Well, that's a completely misleading title (IMO). NASA may do lots of things, but so far there has been nothing said about what NASA is doing in consideration of this investigation, or that they are in control of the major funding issues that are arising. I would agree with "NASA may be forced to..." .
In fact, the NASA quote indicates the exact opposite.
So far, I will reserve judgement until I hear what they say. It just sounds like a lot of disgruntled scientists for now. It's going to take some convincing arguments, and allies to be able to make a dent in the political arena.
Order of Kilopi
Agreed. I have a little article on my take on the Stanford Group.
************************************************** *******
NASA's Current Exploration Vision: Greener Than You Think
The January 21, 2008 issue of the fine trade publication AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY has an article on a group of individuals attacking Mike Griffin and his Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).
This group of individuals (that I will call the Stanford Group) claim to want "'green' missions to Planet Earth" to quote page 24 of the above described article.
An alternative vision that is more eco-friendly.
But is it?
Hardly, since the group is largely made up of planetary scientists who, so far as I remember
didn't raise any objections at all to the smoky contrails of the cheapo Delta IIs belching kerosene
into the atmosphere, even as their small solids (not having rugged steel construction of SRBs)
are capable of exploding as seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnkEOKR1BE
So much for the laughable idea of planetary scientists being "Green,"
Mike Griffin wants Delta II phased out in favor of the ARES I and ARES V launch vehicles
which use no hydrocarbons as a liquid propellant. Atlas V (unlike the Ares V), uses even
more kerosene than Delta II, and has become a favorite of the planetary science community.
Delta II is to be replaced by the hydrogen burning Delta IV, which uses the same engines ARES V does.
Yet Delta IV isn't all that green either. Delta IV will throw away far more of the clean, hydrogen burning RS-68 engines than will ARES V.
You would have to launch six Delta IV 'heavies' expending 18 cores, eighteen RS-68 engines and six upper stages (without engine out) just to orbit the same payload a single Ares V can.
Ares V uses liquid hydrogen more effectively, helps in the demand for a hydrogen economy. It has engine out capability, and a cheaper price per pound.
Six times the payload at 1/6th the engine cost.
I call that a greener option than littering the Atlantic with Delta IV husks all over.
Aren't we supposed to be less of a throw-away society?
Also, Ares V will be build in Louisiana, helping our best and brightest there recover from Hurricane Katrina, where The Delta IV and Atlas are being made in a Red State that already has enough jobs.
One alternative to the Ares V is something called the DIRECT launch vehicle. It is similar to but smaller than Ares V. But its inventor forgets that the same people who would oppose Ares also opposed a similar vehicle called MAGNUM by the way. MAGNUM, like DIRECT (and the larger ARES V), was a shuttle-derived vehicle which was also to use only clean hydrogen and oxygen.
And yet it was canceled while the Delta II--dirty secret of the automated probe crowd---continued to fly bomb disposal robots to Mars, like those were green missions that help with Earth observation.
Wes Huntress, a planetary scientist, is quoted as saying that there was little left of the 2004 VSE "except the real need to retire the space shuttle." Yet this was the same man who opposed the shuttle replacement known as OSP (Orbital Space Plane) which became the CEV concept Griffin supports.
Huntress and others managed to convince then-Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Ranking Democrat Ralph M. Hall to nix the erstwhile shuttle replacement.
It is true that top-mount mini-spaceplanes (atop anything smaller or less rugged than DIRECT) are problematic, any shuttle replacement demands that spaceflight architecture and engineering have to come first--which is Griffin's point all along.
Many shuttle replacements have been proposed over the years: DC-X, Venture-Star/X-33, etc.
And yet we have had automated probe, after probe after probe--many launched by the same kerosene belching Delta II.
Heavy Lift launch vehicles like the clean Ares V can always be used for asteroid missions in the future. The Delta II launched Deep Impact mission hardly budged the comet it struck. The best we can hope for in the way of an asteroid mission now is for the Air Force to place a nuclear bomb atop the Delta II and hope for the best.
Ares V is large enough to allow for substantial non-nuclear asteroid deflection missions, using simple tugs that have not used up all their deflection fuel in simply making the trip.
I therefore do not find the Stanford Groups claim to support manned asteroid missions (as an alternative to VSE) to be in any way credible at all.
I think this is bait-and-switch, used to try to splinter manned spaceflight support away from NASA Chief Administrator Mike Griffin so they can kill off Ares or any new launch vehicle development---returning us to the days when Dan Goldin spoiled academics by giving certain cliques a Delta II launch every other year, if not every other week.
Even if the X-33/VentureStar concepts actually were viable, my guess is that the likes of Huntress and his ilk would STILL be opposed to moneys going to such LV development.
As soon as Ares is killed, and someone to their liking is made NASA Chief, I expect them to go back on their word and nix any talk about manned asteroid missions (and DIRECT) just as they attack VSE (and Ares) now.
Many would have you believe that Mike Griffin is an enemy of science. This is a lie. He restored science funding cancelled by Sean O'Keefe, who wanted to destroy Hubble by disguising an EELV launched de-orbit package under the aegis of an automated servicing mission. Another bait and switch.
Engineers are the ones under the gun here. Let me give you an example.
Wes Huntress is first and foremost a planetary scientist. Robert Farquhar is a payload man. Bill Eoff on the other hand was a supporter of Magnum, a sub-Ares V (DIRECT) class rocket.
He didn't get a lot of love from then-NASA Chief Goldin. I once managed to call in on the early morning C-SPAN program with Goldinas a guest, where I called for a shuttle derived vehicle--and this man (with no engineering background) said that we needed to leave the design of spacecraft "to the experts."
Experts (like the Magnum supporters), were ignored as planetary scientists got probe, after probe, after probe.
But Griffin (who is an aerospace engineer--and has literally written a book on spacecraft design) understands that Spaceflight is more important than one or another planetary scientist's pet legacy project. He understands that you need shipbuilding skills first--oceanography can always come later. Just as a wise father doesn't hand lollypops out to spoiled children all day long, but has them save their appetite for a truly filling meal at the end of the day.
But his critics don't have the maturity to understand this position.
Lou Friedman is one of the harshest critics of Griffin. Yet it was Lou's group of ingrates (The Planetary Society that Wes Huntress is also a member of) that foolishly launched one craft atop a
rattletrap Volna SRBM--then repeated their mistake!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volna
Too many scientists, not enough engineers.
The Stanford Group doesn't care about forwarding spaceflight capabilities, just their little fiefdoms.
On page 27 of the Jan 21, 2008 issue of Aviation Week, it says that the asteroid visit "would use much of the same CEV Ares I and Ares V heavy lift booster infrastructure," but that is the very
infrastructure VSE's enemies want axed! And they expect us to believe them?
This is nothing but a turf war with many in the anti-human spaceflight crowd turning their common foes against each other--a bait-and-switch.
I know many don't always agree with Mike--and I respect that.
Just remember this:
The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. Just ask Bill Eoff.
I for one don't expect anything of the "invitation only" Stanford Workshop--other than a pack of lies, and a big fight.
There, I said it.
Order of Kilopi
Mike Griffin wants Delta II phased out in favor of the ARES I and ARES V launch vehicles which use no hydrocarbons as a liquid propellant. Atlas V (unlike the Ares V), uses even more kerosene than Delta II, and has become a favorite of the planetary science community.
This raises red flags with me. Back in the late 1970s, NASA tried to take over the commercial space launch market with the Shuttle. Never mind that the Shuttle was very heavily subsidized by tax dollars. That practice didn't end until after the Challenger accident. It sounds like Griffin wants to revive that horribly inefficient practice.
The Ares I and V may use LH/LOX for liquid propellants but those big SRBs almost certainly throw a lot more pollution than a Delta II. The Delta II is the most space booster in the US inventory. It's payload capacity is in the small to medium range, somewhat below the smallest Delta IV payload IIRC.
There is still a lot of doubt that the Ares I is even necessary. I've read their arguments as to why an EELV couldn't be used to launch the Orion capsule and found it unconvincing. It appears NASA is basically paying billions to redevelop a capability that already exists.
Order of Kilopi
I'd just like to point out that for a tiny fraction of the cost of any space launch you could afford to build enough low CO2 emission generating capacity to more than compensate for CO2 released during the launch. I'm all for cutting CO2 emissions, but it might be a lot easier to start with replacing big heavy, old, inefficient, 100,000 ton coal burning plants than trying to cut the emissions of space rockets. To do otherwise doesn't make economic sense.
Established Member
The "green" aspect of the missions in the AW&ST article was an increased emphasis on unmanned earth observation satellites. The article was NOT discussing environmental impact of boosters.
At current flight rates, booster environmental impact is insignificant next to global hydrocarbon consumption. E.g, global oil consumption is 30 billion barrels per year, and coal consumption is 6.5 billion short tons per year. Global coal consumption is expected to DOUBLE by 2030: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html, so there are much bigger fish to fry than the comparatively tiny environmental impact of boosters.
Order of Kilopi
Building it in Louisiana to create jobs sounds like a good idea. After all...
"It was not so much Egypt that built up the pyramids as the pyramids that built up Egypt." -Dr. Zahi Hawass.
Order of Kilopi
Locating projects on the basis of attempting to reduce local unemployment is a noble goal, but likely to introduce inefficiencies into the process which can result in increased total costs. It would probably be more efficient to leave the location of manufactureing projects up to transparent open competition and help reduce unemployment in Louisiana through seperate means. Chances are this will achieve both goals at lower total cost. This does not mean Louisiana can't build them, the companies there will just have to compete for the contracts along with everyone else.Building it in Louisiana to create jobs sounds like a good idea. After all...
"It was not so much Egypt that built up the pyramids as the pyramids that built up Egypt." -Dr. Zahi Hawass.
Order of Kilopi
Planetary Society Press Release:
Space Experts Say: Restore funding and enhance international outreach to put humans on Mars while sustaining NASA's science mission
Stanford School of Engineering press release:"This workshop achieved a consensus that NASA's resources have not been commensurate with its mandated missions of exploration and science," said G. Scott Hubbard, former director of NASA's Ames Research Laboratory and a consulting professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford.
"The next administration should make the human spaceflight goal an international venture focused on Mars -- both to bring in more public support and to sustain the program politically," added Louis Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society.
Space Experts Say: Restore Funding and Enhance International Outreach to Put Humans on Mars While Sustaining NASA’s Science Mission
Same thing.
Edit: Also reported in Universe Today, BAUT topic: Space Program At Risk, Panel Says -- just in case discussion takes off there.
Last edited by 01101001; 2008-Feb-19 at 07:26 PM.
Order of Kilopi
Does anybody here think they may have reached a different opinion?
Order of Kilopi
What do you mean, may have? May have, if they thought harder about it? May have reached a different opinion than reported? May have reached a different opinion if they looked at different facts? May have if they ignored self interest? May have if they ignored global interest?
Edit: Or may we have reached a different opinion? I guess I must first ask: what they?
Order of Kilopi
I think that's one of the biggest parts. But; yes, there's a chance they could have come up with another opinion, but would they really put it out in a press release?
Established Member
there are many aerospace contratists that are looking for some fresh money after the cuts on the defene budget
a mission to mars suits perfectly
and there are many romantic fools that believe a mars mission is important now or in 100 years
all them also suits perfectly
Administrator
I'm one of those "fools". I suspect there are others here.
Established Member
I'm a "fool" too then. Not only are they (the fools) here, but they are everywhere. Maybe it is foolish to go to Mars (not what I'm saying) in the next 100 years, but it's gonna happen. So then by zerocold's standards most countries trying to get to Mars first will be foolish or maybe it's the other way around???
Order of Kilopi
Count me among the "fools".
Jon
Established Member
ok "fools" calm down hahaha
i dont think will happen, at least not in the next 100 years, there are dreams and dreams, like all the fantasies of the space conquest in the 50s and 60s, just didnt happen, will not happen
now, the real reason of all this mars/moon campaign is that many aerospace companies have lost military contrats , thats the reason why bush wanted to promote all that crap, to help his friends on lockheed and rockwell
Administrator
Some of the space fantasies of the 50s and 60s came true: men orbited the Earth and landed on the Moon.
As for the aerospace companies... first, do you have any proof of this? Second, you might want to be careful, politics and evenly mildly bad language are forbidden on this board. You might want to review the rules.
Order of Kilopi
Those dreams and fantasies laid the foundation of the space age so far.
In the same way our dreams and fantasies are laying the foundation of missions to come, be they 10 or 100 years in future.
Jon
Order of Kilopi
Certified fool here.
Established Member
"Those dreams and fantasies laid the foundation of the space age so far."
no that wasnt the foundation of the space age.. you romantic dreamer...the forge was the research on better ways to kill people...
"As for the aerospace companies... first, do you have any proof of this?"
but thats the plain true! aerospace companies have sufferer on cuts of ther advanced jets and sistems, where do you think they want to recover their expected profits? any broker on wall street knows that hehe
Order of Kilopi
The romantic dreamers developed the concepts (including the destructive ones) long before the military were remotely interested. Many of the same "romantic dreamers" were involved in the hand in hand development of both military and and civil space technology.
Jon
Administrator
You restating your claims is nothing like proof. How about quoting 2007 profits or losses for the companies you mentioned or showing what programs have been cut?
Order of Kilopi
"When the Wright Brothers made their famous flight, you would have been right there saying 'It'll never get up, it'll never get up.' And as they soared by overhead, you'd be saying, 'It'll never come down, it'll never come down!'"
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote