What are your views on the future of Space Exploration

[mheslep]

One of the primary goals of the Shuttle program was to make spaceflight cheaper.

Yes

Unfortunately, the Shuttle program became a typical government-run over-specified and under-funded behemoth that had to not only take people but cargo ...

Yes, exactly.

As for humans versus robots, why send robots if humans will never follow? Those robots aren't doing any more to fix the problems here on Earth. They aren't even advancing science by all that much compared to their price tag. How many geology grad students could be sent out into the fields here on Earth for the 400 million dollar cost of the two year delay in the Mars Science Laboratory program? How many could be sent out into the field for the 2.3 billion dollar total cost of that program?

How many grad students for a manned mission 100X that cost? Seems to me that while productivity of the remote missions may be comparatively low, the high point discoveries have no alternative with any number of ground based researchers - Hubble, the Gamma Ray Burst discoveries, etc.

Those robotic precursor missions are just that -- robotic precursors. They exist primarily as a path finder for the human missions to follow. The rather limited science that they do conduct is a secondary benefit.

Can that argument apply to any mission besides the Mars bots? No humans are going to follow remote missions onto the surface of Eros (NEAR), Venus (Magellan), Jupiter (Gallileo), etc.

 

[D H]

How many grad students for a manned mission 100X that cost?

Non sequitur. Science is not the sole reason NASA exists. The motivation for human space flight is exploration. (After politics of course. Politics is a very powerful motivator -- particularly when politicians are the ones who fund NASA.)

NASA would not fare very well if science was its sole reason for being. Space flight, whether human or robotic, is a very expensive endeavor. NASA loses to Earth-based science in terms of scientific return on investment.

In terms of technological return on investment, human space flight might well come out on top. Most of NASA's spinoffs are from the NASA's human side rather than robotics. In terms of political return on investment, human space flight is a huge win.

Can that argument apply to any mission besides the Mars bots? No humans are going to follow remote missions onto the surface of Eros (NEAR), Venus (Magellan), Jupiter (Gallileo), etc.

Exactly. That is precisely why most of NASA's planetary budget goes to Mars.

 

[BlackHoleInOn]

i wouldn't hold my breath on the wormhole thing...

Why not, the wormhole bends the spacetime fabric so much, that it might touch something at the other side..
Imagine this: it freezes time the moment it exists (light can't escape, so time =0) so you can theoreticly go back in space and time the moment the black hole formed, and that might well be near Big Bang time..

 

[TeeAOng]

I think that our prospects for space exploration could be better if we had a better consolidation of money and brain power. We (as in the US) with the help of most of the brightest minds in history (and the world) we designed and implemented Nuclear power (and weapons) in less than 10 years. If we had a better consolidation of our resources, many of the issues listed above MAY be solved. With that said, if we were able to solve the issues with space/intersolar exploration we may improve the standard of living for all mankind. For instance if we solved the problem of growing food with fewer photons, we could lengthen growing seasons to reduce worldwide food shortages. We could go on about the benefits...but I digress.

 

[Gannet]

You underestimate the cost of such missions.
You clearly have never searched for such information, nor put much real thought into it yourself. google it ( types "manned vs." into google and it'll fill in the rest). You will find that even most learned people who argue in favor of manned spaceflight concede that unmanned is better for science. I think the Mars rovers would disagree with you. Visit their website and see how they do it. Consider that if a rover can do even 1% of what a human can do in a day (all of it pre-planned the day before), the fact that you don't need to feed it or supply it with oxygen means overall the robot will do about the same amount of exploration as the human. Then multiply that by the fact that for the price of a manned mission, you could send thousands of robots.

Obvious non-sequitur. The goals of science and vacations/sports are nothing alike.

I just happen to have spent 40 years of my career designing both manned and unmanned vehicles (back when they were called remotely piloted vehicles) for both military and civilian aerospace and undersea applications.

It is obvious that unmanned vehicles are a lot cheaper then a manned vehicle; however, you get what you pay for. For example

robotic machines will only do what they are programmed to do; they are not programmed to detect weirdness: the unimaginable, the unknown, the strange non-carbon life that we may have encountered on Mars, for example with the two Viking vehicles, in 1976. Each carried equipment for sampling the Martian soil and miniature chemistry laboratories to test the samples for signs of life.The results these automated labs radioed back to Earth were enigmatic: the chemical reactions from the Martian soil were strange, unlike anything seen on Earth. But they were also unlike any reactions that living organisms would produce.

...that most scientists examining the Viking results, reluctantly concluded that was lifeless: "But the fact is that the landers were equipped only to detect signs of Earth-type life. The chemical reactions observed could have been the results of Martian life.

The above quotes were taken from http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/robotic-missions-are-much-cheaper-and-may-provide-more-scientific--information-but-they-dont-catch-the-public-imagination-in.html"

My opinion is that the unmanned precursor surveys should be designed for round trip and bring back samples for testing here on Earth. Because we didn't bring back samples from Mars, we could have found out 34 years ago whether there were non-carbon lifeforms in the universe which would have been major human event.

Furthermore, we should continue doing the research and development required for human exploration of the Moon, asteroids, Mars, etc. If not, we may find our entire future, "unmanned"

 

[litotes]

the stars are not for us

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I just saw this news report on Fox News, and I have to say this has me a bit worried...

I personally have been applying for jobs related to the constellation program, but with the budget in peril they have all been put on hold. With the retirement of the space shuttle coming up and no successor ready for flight, it seems to me that we are in danger of losing a significant portion of our industry experts in human spaceflight, as well as the technology knowledge they bring to the table.

NASA Chief to Senators: We're Going to Mars

NASA chief Charles Bolden told senators Wednesday that sending astronauts to Mars is still the ultimate goal for U.S. human spaceflight, as he defended the agency's new space plan against criticism in a heated budget hearing.

...

But NASA will likely not have the technology to send astronauts to Mars for at least the next 10 years, he said.

"There are too many capabilities that we don't have in our kit bag," Bolden said.

That's where the NASA's 2011 budget request comes in, Bolden said. It sets the stage for future manned spaceflights to the moon, asteroids and Mars, by focusing on the technologies needed to explore beyond low-Earth orbit faster, he added.

But Bolden's comments were met with criticism and, at times, open hostility from some committee members and experts because the new budget request effectively canceled NASA's Constellation program, which was building new rockets and spaceships capable of returning astronauts to the moon.

Without a successor to the space shuttle, NASA will lose talented engineers from layoffs and attrition, which poses a threat to the United States' prowess in human spaceflight, former shuttle commander Robert "Hoot" Gibson told the committee as part of a later hearing with a panel of space experts.

"With the retirement of the space shuttle later this year, and if the administration's proposal is followed, the United States will no longer be a space-faring nation," said Gibson, who flew on five shuttle missions before retiring from spaceflight in 1996.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/25/nasa-chief-to-senators-lets-go-to-mars/?test=latestnews

"The United States will no longer be a space-faring nation" just leaves a bad taste in my mouth

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm not sure I'd go that far... I do think it is always a good idea to take a hard look at the budget to make sure isn't being wasted for a loser project; but completely cutting out manned spaceflight altogether seems like a real loser to me.

 

[Gannet]

What worries me, is that China, Russia, and even Iran are now talking about human spaceflight to the moon.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_14384510"

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6886171.html"

http://www.physorg.com/news184394537.html"

I am betting on the Chinese being the next visitors to the Moon and possibly Mars. They have the money because they make wealth and not just redistribute existing wealth, and we are in debt to them, and possibly our next superpower superior.

Stop the world, I want to get off

 

[Mech_Engineer]

As irrational as it is, it makes me sad that we are probably going to be passed as the dominant space-faring country due to our government's poor budgeting skills. If we actually passed a balanced budget and looked as critically at other government programs (ahem, medicare, welfare, fannie mae, GM, ...) as we do NASA, we could have hundreds of billions available for space...

 

[mheslep]

As irrational as it is, it makes me sad that we are probably going to be passed as the dominant space-faring country due to our government's poor budgeting skills...

Doubt it. Fifty years ago the Soviets were supposed to dominate. Twenty Five years ago it was going to be the Japanese. Now it is the Chinese. Good luck to them. They'll need it.

 

[Gannet]

I recently saw on NatGeo the show "Five Years on Mars" it was produced back in 2008. It was about the Unmanned Martian Rovers Spirit and Opportunity.

In one scene the mission controllers were discussing how Opportunity was moving from one Crater to another which was approximately 50 kilometer and it took like 200 martian solar days. There is an approximate 20 minutes delay which the mission controller thought Opportunity moved like 50 meters when they actually found out they were digging the Rover wheels to its hub in a sand dune.

Also, there was a six week long dust storm (I believe they were talking Earth weeks) that they couldn't move because they were only getting one percent of the solar power the rover required. Also, during the Martian Winter the rover must find a hill such that it solar panel is facing and tilted toward the Sun and then it hibernates until Spring.

Based on this show, it is my opinion that unmanned rovers in the future should consider dual power sources such as Solar and Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs).

I would recommend seeing this show, if NatGeo re-airs it.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Based on this show, it is my opinion that unmanned rovers in the future should consider dual power sources such as Solar and Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs).

NASA/JPL is way ahead of you, the new Mars Science Laboratory rover scheduled to be launched in September 2011 will be completely powered by an RTG. The MMRTG will put out 125 watts of power at the start of mission, dropping to 100 watts after 14 years. Because the MSL will be operating at much higher latitudes than Spirit and Opportunity, solar panels were not a viable option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Power_source

Overall the RTG on the MSL rover will generate about 4 times the energy per day of the solar panels on one of the MER's, and will be able to operate at night and during the winter.

 

[Gannet]

NASA/JPL is way ahead of you, the new Mars Science Laboratory rover scheduled to be launched in September 2011 will be completely powered by an RTG. The MMRTG will put out 125 watts of power at the start of mission, dropping to 100 watts after 14 years. Because the MSL will be operating at much higher latitudes than Spirit and Opportunity, solar panels were not a viable option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Power_source

Overall the RTG on the MSL rover will generate about 4 times the energy per day of the solar panels on one of the MER's, and will be able to operate at night and during the winter.

Thanks, I did not know that.

Based on

The MSL will be powered by radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs), as used by the successful Mars landers Viking 1 and Viking 2 in 1976

from the link you provided, I wonder why they didn't go with RTGs on Spirit and Opportunity?

 

[aquitaine]

What we really need to do is develop a low cost launch system. Getting launch costs down to less than $500 per kilo would be revolutionize the space industry, and effectively open it up to industrialization. We should have done this decades ago, but we didn't because feeding the black hole that is our military was considered to be more important. If we had started such development all the way back in the 70's or 80's, we would have it by now. Space has to be industrliazed and commercialized if we are to be able to establish a permanent Terran prescence in space, and ever have a chance of getting off this rock.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Based on from the link you provided, I wonder why they didn't go with RTGs on Spirit and Opportunity?

Probably because of price of development and the rovers' projected mission length. They aren't using the EXACT same RTG's as in Viking, but they are using a new RTG developed by Boeing that is similar in function at least.

 

[slide_Rules]

Probably because of price of development and the rovers' projected mission length. They aren't using the EXACT same RTG's as in Viking, but they are using a new RTG developed by Boeing that is similar in function at least.

Is it feasible to put a small fission unit on a rover? A small fission unit (using a Brayton Cycle ?) with an output of ~25kWe (?) would open up a lot of potential experiments and uses.

Test one on the moon. With the lack of meaningful comm delay, it could cruise at 1 kph and cover a great deal of interesting territory.

 

[JerryClower]

Question : What are your views on future space exploration?

Answer : To be honest, I think space exploration is a very stupid and dumb investment. There are many other problems in the world than what is in space. What are we going to find that is so important? There is no life out there, and even if there was, we shouldn't be trying to connect with it. It is not as important as many people think, there are plenty of other problems that should be set at a much higher level priority instead of space exploration. People spend way too much money on it anyhow.

 

[MotoH]

You have fun back on Earth jerry, whilst I am enjoying my rocket ship and making love to sweet aliens.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Is it feasible to put a small fission unit on a rover? A small fission unit (using a Brayton Cycle ?) with an output of ~25kWe (?) would open up a lot of potential experiments and uses.

While it might be theoretically possible/feasible, I don't think I would consider it practical at this point. It would have to be a pretty huge rover to require 25kW of power (the MSL is about the size of a Volkswagen and only uses 125W).

To be honest, I think space exploration is a very stupid and dumb investment. There are many other problems in the world than what is in space. What are we going to find that is so important? There is no life out there, and even if there was, we shouldn't be trying to connect with it. It is not as important as many people think, there are plenty of other problems that should be set at a much higher level priority instead of space exploration. People spend way too much money on it anyhow.

Well I personally think your views are naive and don't take into account the fundamental science and technological advancements achieved in space exploration. The amount of money spent on space pales in comparison to many other government programs- NASA's proposed 2010 budget is $18.7 billion, only 0.57% of the total federal budget (that percentage has been steadily decreasing since 1989- it's highest year was 1966 at 5.5%). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

For comparison, the DOD's 2010 budget is slated to be around $663 billion, more than 20% of the total federal budget. If you think the government is spending too much money somewhere, why not look there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid took up a staggering $1,354 billion ($1.3 trillion) in 2009, 39% of the total federal budget. NASA's budget is only 1.3% of that; I'm willing to bet that a good hard fiscal look at those 2 monstrosities could come up with WAY more than 1.3% in beauracratic waste and fraudulent claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Budget

Basically, I think NASA has pretty good bang for its buck (especially considering its notoriety and public visibility), compared to some of the real money pits in the federal government. If I had the choice, I would much prefer to forego taxes on SS/medicare and put it towards NASA instead, but that's me personally I guess.

 

[mheslep]

[...]
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid took up a staggering $1,354 billion ($1.3 trillion) in 2009, 39% of the total federal budget. NASA's budget is only 1.3% of that; [...]

Category error. SS/M&M, even if they're inefficient and ill-conceived (and I say they are), directly pay out to the entire population of 300 million sooner or later. The space program directly benefits a few, and the indirect benefits argument is complicated to make.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Category error. SS/M&M, even if they're inefficient and ill-conceived (and I say they are), directly pay out to the entire population of 300 million sooner or later. The space program directly benefits a few, and the indirect benefits argument is complicated to make.

I'm not collecting Social Security (and don't expect that I will be able to when I retire a long time from now). In 2009, 51 million Americans collected Social Security (not 300 million, although around 140 million were forced to contribute). How you define "direcly benefits" is a difficult thing to measure as well... there are more ways to benefit than just through receiving money. There are a lot of programs the federal government funds that don't "directly benefit" the majority of the population (and they are far larger than NASA).

The point is, NASA's budget is a drop in the budget compared to some of the (what I would consider wasteful) spending occurring in the federal government. Even if NASA was shut down tomorrow, where do you think that money would go? Would it be used to "directly benefit" the population? How do you even decide what "directly benefit" means?

 

[slide_Rules]

While it might be theoretically possible/feasible, I don't think I would consider it practical at this point. It would have to be a pretty huge rover to require 25kW of power (the MSL is about the size of a Volkswagen and only uses 125W).

A huge rover??

25kW = ~ 33 horsepower. That's less power than the smallest of cars.

There are practical tools (from drilling to transmitting) that could be vastly improved with 100 times the power that fission provides.

I guess the real problem is this: Can small fission plant of 25kWe fit into the footprint of a large car?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

A huge rover??

25kW = ~ 33 horsepower. That's less power than the smallest of cars.

There are practical tools (from drilling to transmitting) that could be vastly improved with 100 times the power that fission provides.

Maybe it sounds like a small amount of power for a car, but that would be about an order of magnitude more power than any interplanetary space probe ever made... As I said, the MSL only needs 125W to power everything it has. You might need the kind of power you're talking about if they were doing core sample drilling or major sample collection; but the kind of scientific instruments used so far just don't need a lot of power (in fact efficient power consumption is a major design driver).

I guess the real problem is this: Can small fission plant of 25kWe fit into the footprint of a large car?

It's possible I think, although it would be quite expensive. It might be simpler to use several RTG's, although when the full 25kw was not being used you would have to dissipate quite a lot of heat since an RTG cannot be throttled...

 

[mheslep]

I'm not collecting Social Security (and don't expect that I will be able to when I retire a long time from now). In 2009, 51 million Americans collected Social Security (not 300 million, although around 140 million were forced to contribute).

Sure, but at least so far, nearly every individual eventually moves through that retirement window gets their money back.

How you define "directly benefits" is a difficult thing to measure as well... there are more ways to benefit than just through receiving money. There are a lot of programs the federal government funds that don't "directly benefit" the majority of the population (and they are far larger than NASA).

There you go. Compare to those indirect programs, not SS/M&M.

Would it be used to "directly benefit" the population? How do you even decide what "directly benefit" means?

Directly in this case means they directly get back what they put it, minus the govt losses. Indirect returns would be when the cash is returned in some other form, and collectively, such as park, road, etc, i.e. indirect.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Social Security is a topic for another thread. Suffice to say the previous poster stated that he thought NASA is a waste of money, I tried to put it in perspective in terms of the total federal budget and what much larger sums of money are spent on.

I do stand by my statement that NASA's budget is money well spent compared to many other government programs.