James Cameron the latest to back Obama's new Space plan

[Urwumpe]

What about satellite inspection or sabotage? Or component retrieval on the enemy spacecraft? Can a probe do this?

Satellite inspection is senseless since you can produce highly accurate radar images of satellites from the ground. Sabotage is useless, since you can more easily just destroy the satellite if needed. You can't mess with a satellite unseen.

 

[JamesG]

What about satellite inspection or sabotage? Or component retrieval on the enemy spacecraft? Can a probe do this?

If automated and remote docking is possible, so is close up inspection and "nurfing". Its more easy and practical to swipe the entire spacecraft with a clam shell re-entry vehicle than to try to dismantle and inspect it in orbit/vaccum.

There is a very real probablility that most spy satilites had/have proximity and tamper self destruct charges*. Robotic, this is just an annoying risk. Manned, its a show stopper.

* = This will make "harvesting" old orbital junk very dangerous when we get around to it. You never know if the dead object you are matching orbits with is going to contain some unplesant suprise either intentional (self destruct charges) or other wise (volitile tanks and batteries etc.).

 

[Star Voyager]

Well, it all depends on how you look at it.

 

[Urwumpe]

There is a very real probablility that most spy satilites had/have proximity and tamper self destruct charges*. Robotic, this is just an annoying risk. Manned, its a show stopper.

They at least have solid rocket motors for quick orbit changes to dodge inspections. No radar for detecting ASATs though.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Well, it all depends on how you look at it.

Indeed. Space fighters and other military uses of manned spacecraft will become a possibility when (1) time and cost of training people and sending them to space becomes less than time and cost of designing and building another robotic thing tailored for a particular task, and (2) human life becomes expendable in public view (which happens at wartime or extreme tensions between space-capable nations).

Not an extremely shining image of a future, if you ask me. Sort of confirmation that there's a Price of Admiralty.

 

[JamesG]

He did serve on the NASA Advisory Council for a few years (under O'Keefe's reign) so I suspect he is no fool.

Errrr.... Given that NASA has been guided about as well as the Exxon Valdez thats not really a ringing distinction.

 

[T.Neo]

What about satellite inspection or sabotage? Or component retrieval on the enemy spacecraft? Can a probe do this?

Don't waste your time with inspection or component retrieval on orbit. However it should be somewhat easy to get a robotic craft in the range of a spray of paint...

As JamesG said, if you really want to inspect it, you could do an automated clamshell reentry instead.

Space fighters

Are you kidding me? What is the use of a space fighter?

 

[JamesG]

<sarcasm>

To fight other space fighters. Haven't you seen Star Wars? Duh.

</sarcasm>

 

[T.Neo]

 

[SiberianTiger]

Are you kidding me? What is the use of a space fighter?

To kill space targets.

 

[RisingFury]

James Cameron, on the other hand, doesn't have any qualifications or experience at all.

Yea, neither do half the people on this forum. That doesn't stop them from running their mouth...

 

[T.Neo]

To kill space targets.

That is what ASATs are for.

Yea, neither do half the people on this forum. That doesn't stop them from running their mouth...

Only half?

Btw, it is a forum. I can have a qualification in lightbulb manufacturing plants and still have an opinion on the space program.

 

[Urwumpe]

Errrr.... Given that NASA has been guided about as well as the Exxon Valdez thats not really a ringing distinction.

Given that the rather short O'Keefe era had been rather successful in the NASA history (2001-2005), you are using a wrong comparison.

He saw a 5 billion USD cost over run in the ISS program eliminated in his era, as well as the MERs. He just had the bad luck of being administrator during STS-107, which ruins his otherwise very good performance since 2001.

 

[anemazoso]

There is a fundamental problem with Obama's plan and it's not about the engineers or the concept of private enterprise at all (which are the reasons Aldrin, Cameron and others endorse it), but the status of the private industry at present, which is not going to change for the foreseeable future.
Private enterprise is about money, of course, but today is about money now, and safe money. Low risk, quick profits, end of line. We're not in the '60s, '70s or '80s anymore. In the current climate, the computer revolution of the late '70s-early '80s would have never happened, just check out where Apple is now. Back in 1977 their product was the Apple ][: revolutionary, open, reasonably priced, something to tinker with and develop. Now it's the iPad: more of the same, locked, overprices, something to use as Steve Jobs wants you to use it and if you want to develop, you've got to pay. Had this philosophy been prevalent in 1977, they wouldn't have had the success they had because third party accessories and software that helped sell ][s wouldn't have ever existed.

The private sector is about immediate profits and reduced risks, and space stuff promises neither. If SpaceX can make money by simply launching satellites, that's where they'll stay. If any other company can make money by low-cost, unmanned stuff that's what they'll do. It's not in the hands of talented engineers or the rare visionary entrepreneurs, but in those of shareholders.

Unless the US Government intends to pursue the same method used in military contracts, that's not going to change and since NASA will not get the budget the DoD has, the writing is pretty much on the wall. Who's willing to design and build spacecraft if there's not a big, meaty contract there for the taking?

Maybe they should simply leave manned spaceflight to the USAF. They have the resources and the experience to deal with this kind of stuff, and the DoD budget to back them up.

I think you are wrong and let me tell you why...

First, personal communication and the computing sector of the economy does not speak for or represent other parts of the economy, where is you proof for that claim. Second, businesses are guided by markets as I'm sure you are aware so if there is demand and industry has the capacity then then it will provide the supply. Right now that is what the plan wants to do, create demand for commercial vehicles. In addition to NASA there is also Bigelow Aerospace which has two (2) inflatable modules in orbit as we speak. He is also creating demand because he intends to build destinations in LEO for both the private sector and foreign governments that can't afford the "old way" of doing things. Once those markets are established there is room to grow on the margins threw private individuals demand for space tourism.

Forget about the military. The way NASA has procured hardware in the past is exactly like the military use to in the 40's-50's. The military would design and industry would build what they designed, then the military would test in partnership with industry. The military gave that up for a more cost effective approach, they would set out requirements and industry would build hardware to meet those requirements and get paid on a cost plus basis meaning whatever they spent they get paid a guaranteed % over the cost. Over time industry has realized they can take advantage of the government by delaying and raising production costs in order to make more profit. Which in effect is an incentive to go over budget and beyond deadline.

This new model that NASA would pursue, which the military has moved to as well for smaller programs is simply that government names a price and sets requirements and industry tried to do that within that price and make some profit from whats left over in that set price. That is the way construction contractors make money, they bid a certain amount for a job and try to build for under that price to collect profit.

As of right now industry says they can supply that demand and I think they deserve a chance.

 

[Ghostrider]

I think you are wrong and let me tell you why...

First, personal communication and the computing sector of the economy does not speak for or represent other parts of the economy, where is you proof for that claim.

Proof? All around me. Transports got privatized, service became awful, prices went through the roof. And I'm not talking about just the railways.

Private healthcare? Fine in theory, but in practice without strong regulation it's abuseland, with medical personnel being strongarmed into reducing the costs of medical care so that it falls below the minimum franchise, making the insured party pay for all the costs, while still having to pay for insurance. Gotta make a profit, ya know.

Second, businesses are guided by markets as I'm sure you are aware so if there is demand and industry has the capacity then then it will provide the supply.

Where is the demand for manned spaceflight? Especially beyond LEO? As I said, profits are to be made now, not in 10 years. Where are those LEO destinations? I'll believe in those markets when I see them.

Space tourism cannot sustain a whole industry, especially since once the novelty will have worn off and people will have realized how not Star Wars-y is up there, the demand will fall. Oh, we may see a lot of suborbital which is fast, cheap and safer. But suborbital is useful, as far as manned spaceflight is concerned, about as much as a rain of lemonade.

Over time industry has realized they can take advantage of the government by delaying and raising production costs in order to make more profit. Which in effect is an incentive to go over budget and beyond deadline.

Which is the way all enterprises will go if given half a chance. I cannot blame them, everyone is out to make a buck. That's why you need to keep tabs on them.

I think they deserve a chance.

Given human nature, I'm not optimist at all. Had there been any real money into it, they would have gone a long time ago.

 

[anemazoso]

@ Ghostrider

You cannot paint every industry sector with a broad brush. While some things work well as government run others do not. I am in favor of a public health care system as health care is to important and should be accessible by all.

As for demand, I think I point out the demand...NASA! NASA is creating demand by soliciting private industry to provide crew/cargo service as well as Bigelow Aerospace. That is two pretty solid sources of demand.

Beyond LEO? Look originally I loved the VSE and Constellation. But then it was striped of all the important things like ISRU and other enabling technologies without which was reduced to some $100 billion dollar stunt. By allowing private industry to handle LEO it allows NASA to do what they should be doing, technology research, not building 40 year old technology. NASA should not be used a s jobs program it should be used as an ideas program.

Also as far as quick profit goes, what you say is generally true, that's why it has taken privately held companies to get anywhere such as SpaceX and Bigelow.

 

[Hielor]

Are you kidding me? What is the use of a space fighter?

From http://www.rocketpunk-observatory.com/spaceguideS-Z.htm :
1) To destroy gargantuan battle stations, which are vulnerable only to attack by Space Fighters.
2) To give prominent roles to young males in their early twenties, so they can display their swagger, coolness, and fast moves on any attractive female of an interbreedable species.

These are enough to justify it, i think.

 

[T.Neo]

These are enough to justify it, i think.

:rofl:

And only females? What about hermaphroditic species?

 

[Keatah]

I am *still* of the opinion that man doesn't belong in space till we can build craft like in star wars and star trek. Till we can do that I would suggest going full force with unmanned probes and satellites and rovers and such.. These are more capable, longer lived, more durable, can go further distances, more cost-effective dollar for dollar and pound for pound, disposable, versatile, low-maintenance. and to top it off, they get better every year.

 

[anemazoso]

I am *still* of the opinion that man doesn't belong in space till we can build craft like in star wars and star trek.

That is fiction and always will be.