Augustine commission/Ares alternatives

[Orbinaut Pete]

A few interesting articles regarding the Augustine Commission's work:

Major Shuttle and ISS extension drive taking place at the Augustine Commission:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/major-shuttle-and-iss-extension-drive-augustine-commission/


With Ares I delayed until 2017, let's fly the shuttle:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ne...-delayed-until-2017-lets-fly-the-shuttle.html


Augustine update: Return to moon unlikely before 2028
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ne...date-return-to-moon-unlikely-before-2028.html

A NASA budget analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of NASA or the committee, said American astronauts have a remote chance of returning to the moon by 2028, although another source close to the panel said 2035 was more likely.

 

[Moonwalker]

Less than ever is a manned mission to Mars going to happen within the first half of this century for sure. Manned space flight simply has become a real pain because todays decision maker are incapable sissies.

 

[Urwumpe]

Is also a problem with the politicians, who want to have Apollo 2.0 Deluxe for just 10% of the money they put into Apollo... Even if you could get to the moon and beyond for less than the 1.2 Trillion USD of the Apollo days, you won't get it for a bargain...

 

[Moonwalker]

Is also a problem with the politicians, who want to have Apollo 2.0 Deluxe for just 10% of the money they put into Apollo... Even if you could get to the moon and beyond for less than the 1.2 Trillion USD of the Apollo days, you won't get it for a bargain...

That's true. The whole thing is a ridiculous toing and froing. I bet: no moon and no mars for decades.

 

[Urwumpe]

That's true. The whole thing is a ridiculous toing and froing. I bet: no moon and no mars for decades.

Not if we let politicians decide which way to go to Moon, Mars and beyond is the best. Politicians don't know how and want quick results which they can market as their achievement (The victory has many parents, the defeat is an orphan). And they don't even pay the show, the tax payer does, with the politicians currently deciding on how to waste the money instead of investing it over a long-term for then producing real economic and political gains, instead of the current appraoch of using short-term singular shots at things, which are then thrown into a museum and the game started again.

*rant*

When thinking about economics, the projects which had been the biggest failures in the beginning, had turned out to be the economically best investments. Even the Shuttle has some benefits, Soyuz turned into a workhorse after being a epic failure first. And the ISS has also good chances... without the ISS, we would maybe never have come that far with the ATV that thinking about a manned european spacecraft is no longer just a distant fantasy.

 

[Usquanigo]

Augustine update: Return to moon unlikely before 2028
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ne...date-return-to-moon-unlikely-before-2028.html

While I really would love to see a return to manned space flight and pushing further out.... I'm a geek.

Outside of us, and pure, unadulterated scientific curiosity, what is the point of going back to the moon?

Don't misunderstand me, I think we need to get off this rock and start colonizing elsewhere. For one thing, this one can't support 6.5 billion comfortably (we desperately need to cut population here), and for another, we need to hedge our bets as a species and not have a single point of failure. And to that end, yes, we need to get back out there, and the moon is a seemingly logical next step as it's so close.

But..... that is long term stuff. And like Urwumpe said, politicians (and non-geeks) want instant results, with a real point/benefit, and low cost (or at least an ROI greater than 1). So how do we sell it to them? What do we tell them the immediate, short term benefits/goals are?

 

[Donamy]

We absolutely need the moon !! That's where to construct and supply the fuel, for the ones that go beyond. Plus the added benefit of supplying the Earth with much needed additional resources.

 

[Usquanigo]

We absolutely need the moon !! That's where to construct and supply the fuel, for the ones that go beyond. Plus the added benefit of supplying the Earth with much needed additional resources.

Would there really be a benefit to launching from the moon, rather than LEO? It seems like it should work, but depending on orbital parameters, would it be just as easy to go from LEO much of the time? (similar to how it's easier to go direct from Earth to the moon, rather than stopping at a space station first)

As for supplying the Earth with resources.... that's a BAD idea. From the moon anyway. It's already slipping away from us. Look at what strip mining does here on Earth. Now imagine the extreme virus-like harvesting man is capable of, on the little moon. It is vital to our survival here, dirtside. If we start to consume it, we will doom ourselves, and our amazing and rare planet.

 

[Urwumpe]

Outside of us, and pure, unadulterated scientific curiosity, what is the point of going back to the moon?

Well, of course you first have technological advancement - for achieving any goals on the moon you of course need to get there and get the tools there for doing something else. Deep Space Logistics is another factor which is not just solved by technology alone, but also requires operational experience (The "The right stuff" factor - you can't identify all future problems in the office, you need to fly to find them).

Then there is the lunar regolith. It has resources, which we know we want to mine. Not just for Helium 3, but also for not having to launch all stuff from Earth. Building a primary industry on the moon will be another key problem. We have not even solved all problems in mining on Earth and the moon will be one level harder. And after you mined it, you have to find out how to use it. We know you can make concrete like material out of it, but we don't know how to do that on the moon.

But..... that is long term stuff. And like Urwumpe said, politicians (and non-geeks) want instant results, with a real point/benefit, and low cost (or at least an ROI greater than 1). So how do we sell it to them? What do we tell them the immediate, short term benefits/goals are?

It is not about the real point of benefit. Many short term things have absolutely no point at all and are done for political reasons. Apollo is one example. It was a short term solution for going to the moon and was effectively useless if you had done it. You couldn't even have used it for doing long-term exploration on the moon. It was just a moon shot, no lunar highway.

If I wanted quick results and publicity stunts, I would ask somebody like Richard Branson, because he is not so stupid to get poor with such actions. If even Branson does not touch a PR stunt, you should think about it.

Also, that is not the point of taxes and government spending. You have time. If your taxes need to work for 30 years until they start to finance themselves and bring benefits beyond the initial investment, it is just perfect. Enterprises could not afford such long-term concepts as no bank or investor would finance such plans. It is too risky for them, while a whole country can easily distribute the risks and spread the investments. You can plan in completely different dimensions and time scales. That is also why it is extremely stupid to get advisors from the capitalist world into politics. Such people already fail to see more than 5 years ahead.

A highway is my favorite comparison for spaceflight planning: It takes a lot of money to build one, lots of money to keep it operational and still, after a few decades the investment could pay out in the form of taxes and make the whole country profit from it. But a company could never do more than maybe a small segment of a highway or a single bridge/tunnel with their time scales. If you are not making profits after 3 years, you have failed.

 

[Ark]

2028? It'll die a quiet death in Congress long before then. Nobody likes shelling out money for something that won't come to fruition until decades after they're out of office, especially with their constituencies clamoring for a handout.

 

[the.punk]

Won't they go to mars in 2035?

 

[Urwumpe]

Would there really be a benefit to launching from the moon, rather than LEO? It seems like it should work, but depending on orbital parameters, would it be just as easy to go from LEO much of the time? (similar to how it's easier to go direct from Earth to the moon, rather than stopping at a space station first)

Going to Mars is in term of maneuver budget, simpler than landing to the moon, but if you don't land on the moon and refuel in lunar orbit with fuel produced on the moon, you can launch much more payload to Mars.

 

[Usquanigo]

"you should think about it"? Easy there guy. No need for the attitude. Consider this a bit of devil's advocate. I know there is a benefit, and a reason, and I want to see it happen. But I'm also HERE (on this forum), which makes me a special case. The secretary down the hall doesn't give 2 craps about space and sees it as nothing but a waste of time and money that could be better spent here. It's her that you have to "sell" to. Thus the question....

It is not about the real point of benefit. Many short term things have absolutely no point at all and are done for political reasons. Apollo is one example. It was a short term solution for going to the moon and was effectively useless if you had done it. You couldn't even have used it for doing long-term exploration on the moon. It was just a moon shot, no lunar highway.

If I wanted quick results and publicity stunts, I would ask somebody like Richard Branson, because he is not so stupid to get poor with such actions. If even Branson does not touch a PR stunt, you should think about it.

Pride and competition are not "publicity stunts". Living in a clear box hung from a crane over London is a publicity stunt - beating the commies to the Moon had many real world benefits, among them, the technology created to get us there (as you referenced earlier), forcing them to spend money that they could afford to spend much less than we could, bringing the people of the nation together (in the turmoil of the 60s, anything that could bring the nation together was a good thing), and finally, winning hearts and minds of other nations and people against the soviet propoganda machine. Political? Absolutely, but with real benefits, and HARDLY a "publicity stunt".

Also, that is not the point of taxes and government spending. You have time. If your taxes need to work for 30 years until they start to finance themselves and bring benefits beyond the initial investment, it is just perfect. Enterprises could not afford such long-term concepts as no bank or investor would finance such plans. It is too risky for them, while a whole country can easily distribute the risks and spread the investments. You can plan in completely different dimensions and time scales. That is also why it is extremely stupid to get advisors from the capitalist world into politics. Such people already fail to see more than 5 years ahead.

A highway is my favorite comparison for spaceflight planning: It takes a lot of money to build one, lots of money to keep it operational and still, after a few decades the investment could pay out in the form of taxes and make the whole country profit from it. But a company could never do more than maybe a small segment of a highway or a single bridge/tunnel with their time scales. If you are not making profits after 3 years, you have failed.

How a highway would "pay for itself" is questionable (in terms of how the public sees/understands it). If the idea is to make it a turnpike (toll road), well, people are NOT going to be happy. The benefit will come from allowing trucking, and people to get to stores and jobs, which is a very real benefit, and yes, "paying for itself" in the long run. But people don't see it that way, and they quite frankly don't care. What matters to them, and why they are willing to pay for the highway, is that THEY can PERSONALLY benefit from it (by using it).

It's easy for them to see because they do it every day. And they hate to have clogged or damaged roads. Yet... they wouldn't have the patience or willingness to pay for, construction of roads of the quality of the Autobahns. Nevermind that it would be better for everyone (faster travel, faster shipping, smoother roads, just to name a few). It will be seen as taking too long and being too expensive and just not worth it.

If we can't convince them to pay for an Autobahn, how can we convince them to pay to go to the moon?

That's my point.

---------- Post added at 10:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 AM ----------

Going to Mars is in term of maneuver budget, simpler than landing to the moon, but if you don't land on the moon and refuel in lunar orbit with fuel produced on the moon, you can launch much more payload to Mars.

Interesting. That was not a case of devil's advocate, I just wasn't sure. It made a certain amount of "sense", but when it comes to this stuff, that's not always what is real. hehe

 

[Moonwalker]

we desperately need to cut population here

We need to get rid of political misperformance, religious oppression and wrongful distribution. We need to use the nature more intelligent, and third world countries need development. If we don't achieve all this on Earth, we also won't achieve this elsewhere. We would just export the problems and stupidity. Exporting huge parts of humankind into space is nothing than a pipe dream anyway, more than ever technologically. We don't even manage to send astronauts out of low earth orbit for more than half a century. That's how reality looks like, and is continuing to look like...

But the world population is not going to grow continuously anyway (this is simply impossible). It is going to grow up to about 9 billions until 2050, followed by a decrease if the current trends remain, which is quite likely. The problems have to be and will be solved on Earth anyway, and not in the paradise or space, far away from where our problems do exist.

 

[Urwumpe]

Bloodspray: As I see that you are trying to pick words for sounding artificially offended, let me bail out here. This won't contribute to the forum at all.

And what the people want is rarely what the people need. If you do politics by what the people want, you are done by giving them a comfortable lunch and a good . Why bother with the details like how to get the food on the table? Or the real experts challenge: Make sure that there will be food on the table everyday.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Urwumpe and Moonwalker both have been reading my mind (or I've been reading theirs, have I been getting your mail?).
I think no matter how hard one may try, they will never win over 20% of the population, while another 20% may agree whole-heartedly. It's that middle 60% whose hearts-and-minds that must be won over to the cause.
Sure Interstate roads are expensive to build (and maintain) and hardly anyone thinks about the return on investment. I live near Chattanooga, and have ofthen been amazed at the amount of interstate commerce just in the Chattanooga-Atlanta-Birmingham corridors.
Using polls and focus groups are fantastic ways of not getting anything done. I think the Government will never have enough backbone to go to Mars, and thinks it's too bad that my generation doesn't have anyone like Howard Huges to buck the system and do things on his own. Privitization looks like the way forward (to me at least).
I don't want to privatize NASA, but NASA shouldn't try to squash private competition either.
-end of rant, gotta go back to work-

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

The BBC have obviously just learned about this - it must be important now! :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8175749.stm

 

[Usquanigo]

Bloodspray: As I see that you are trying to pick words for sounding artificially offended, let me bail out here. This won't contribute to the forum at all.

And what the people want is rarely what the people need. If you do politics by what the people want, you are done by giving them a comfortable lunch and a good . Why bother with the details like how to get the food on the table? Or the real experts challenge: Make sure that there will be food on the table everyday.

Not at all. I am not trying to do be or sound offended, artificially or otherwise. Remember, this is a text only medium, and I don't know you at all.

That that end, let me say, I do not like to be offended, and I do not like to argue just for it's own sake (ie, flaming, trolling, etc), so I would not feign offense just to start something.

If was truly miffed by that, I would have given real attitude, but I did not. (though just as I don't know you, you don't know me, and you might have interpreted that as attitude when it was not inteded to be)

I simply wanted a discussion. It's a given that we all see going back and beyond as a good thing. But it's all long term. The people I work with don't care, or can't see (or maybe both) the benefits. Instead, they see bigger and more immediate problems.

But saying things like you did, kinda came off like a superior attitude, which was not pleasant, nor condusive to conversation. And I suppose it's understandable given that it could be seen as getting into a group of expert skiiers who accept you as one of them and then asking how you stop. (hard to think of a good example of asking a question seen as obvious) So maybe a reaction like that was natural. Perhaps it's all just a case of miscommunication. (afterall, words are only about 7% of total communication)

Anyway, I disagree with your (seemingly jaded?) view of people or "the public". I think (and it has been my experience) that people want good things. They want to improve, and to help, and of course to make their lives more comfortable. However, they are also easily duped by propaganda, especially BS peace-nik and environmental propaganda. But since the desire to help and be "better" is so strong, it's no surprise really.

People sure love their computers. They love lightweight materials that give them better gas mileage. They love their cell phones and TV. They love their instant "global villiage" world-wide communication. All things spawned, or improved, thanks to the space race. And the list is endless, but I'm at work and drawing a blank beyond that.

But here's the thing - it's all taken for granted. That secretary I mentioned, she drives a honda (unfortunately) that is mostly plastic and other lightweight materials. She has a cell phone, she watches TV every night and sees news from across the globe. And she still thinks space is a waste of time.

She's also old too, so I'm certain she was alive when the Eagle landed. But it doesn't take long to become accustomed to and jaded by something. Now that she has a cell phone and email, she could never live without it, nevermind that she spent most of her life without it.

But.... if you asked her back in the 60s, if she wanted to spend money on making pocket sized phones for everyone, or tried to describe email to her, I'd bet money that she would claim it to be a total waste of time with all the other "more important things" to focus on at the time.

But what happened when the nation was united? We did the seemingly impossible - went to the moon in an amazingly short time-frame, almost from scratch. So you DO need to sell the public on it, you can't just blow them off and decide to spend their tax money anyway.

And by extension, you need to sell the politicians who will write the checks, because they represent (theoretically) the public, and if they waste money on unpopular programs (wasting money is ok, it just has to be on something popular, even if it doesn't and CAN'T work (like universal healthcare)), then they will be voted out, so they won't do it.

Besides, it never hurts to talk about short term uses for things.

I still maintain that mining the moon is a BAD idea.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Buzz Aldrin letter to Washington Post: "The 'Vision for Space Exploration' is not visionary - it's time to boldly go once more": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/15/AR2009071502940.html

Harrison Schmitt letter to Washington Post: "The Moon is not a 'dead end' as Aldrin claims": www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072903369.html

 

[Urwumpe]

Anyway, I disagree with your (seemingly jaded?) view of people or "the public". I think (and it has been my experience) that people want good things. They want to improve, and to help, and of course to make their lives more comfortable.

You mistake a local optimum for a global optimum. What you think is good for you, does not mean that it is good when it is repeated 285 million times.

A solution for one individual problem of you, is likely not the same solution as if you have to solve the same problem for all citizens.

And be honest: Your optimal solution for all citizens will in the normal case attempt to give you most of the gains and least of the costs. Individuals are like that.

So, is my view really jaded as you claim? My view has the lowest idealism of both of us in it. I don't assume that people are all benevolent or altruist, I assume they are all just trying to get along as good as possible. If you can't get your optimal choice in a group, you will try to find the best possible solution which all people in the group can accept or at least tolerate. That is politics. Democracy is not the assumption, that the citizen knows best what his country wants, but that he knows best what he wants. He is not even expected to be resourceful.

The alternative would be the idea, that a single individual can have perfect enough insight and knowledge, that it can rule a whole country alone and do it well, deciding for all people what is best for them. We tried this in Europe in the past under many different trademarks, with varying results, which had been in general pretty disappointing. A crown is just a hat that lets the rain in.

However, they are also easily duped by propaganda, especially BS peace-nik and environmental propaganda. But since the desire to help and be "better" is so strong, it's no surprise really.

I doubt I need to comment that one....