Changing NASA's course?

Jason F. Houston, Texas — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:45:42 GMT

We should invite the Chinese onto the ISS. Our ISS enables us to break the Earthly barriers we've succomed to over the years.
Every Nation on Earth should participate in our next quest to finally colonize the cosmos. It's the only way of doing it.

Changing NASA's course?

David, Phoenix — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:40:34 GMT

i think its time we renew our effort in space exploration.. for too long have i sat and seen wasted money not be spent on the worlds greatest space power NASA.. its time we put money back into those proagrams as well as education to stir up the younger generation... we must lead the world in the 21st century at space exploration

Changing NASA's course?

Eric, Salinas, CA — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:51:52 GMT

Great article Alan! NASA must be given the money it needs to keep the shuttle flying until the new Ares rocket system is ready to go. It would be an excellent investment to ensure that the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer makes it to the station as it will be important work investigating the beginnings of the universe.

What really ticks me off is how "Tyrant" Bush got all arrogant and ignorant with his new space race. He wanted to beat the Chinese back to the moon just for bragging rights and to thumb our noses at them. So childish!

We need to stop this going alone nonsense and start working far more cooperatively with many nations, including Russia and China, to do cooperative space exploration. That would spread the large cost over many nations and would allow us to do more collectively. I hope that Obama trashes this bushwhacker faux space race nonsense and goes after working with many other nations to help develop and manufacture Ares.

Changing NASA's course?

steve smyth — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:09:41 GMT

If it wasn't against the rules to leave Earth without NASA's permission, maybe there would be more participation/interest.
Speculating on their intentions is about as valid as believing you can beat the lottery.
Picture a backroom NASA meeting..."It's ours...we've Administered Space since day one...we'll do as we see fit...and everyone will play along...PERIOD!"

Changing NASA's course?

Dave, Birmingham, AL — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:02:10 GMT

Lets hope the politics can be taken out of space exploration. Its stunted growth these past 40 years is directly attributed to political policy. Energy advances, too. I'm ready for the space age!

Changing NASA's course?

Doug Hart — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:23:05 GMT

If all the interested countries, US,Russia, China, India, and EU actually planned and executed a mission together it might be better and bigger than anything any country has done separately. Of course, it may take some time to get well coordinated, but the potential is incredible. And returning to the moon would be a great first step to anywhere else.

Changing NASA's course?

Dave Murrow, Denver, CO — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:44:54 GMT

A Bird in the Hand is Worth Two in the Bush

NASA has achieved remarkable success with both the International Space Station and the science program. As we prepare for transition out of the Shuttle era, and have the opportunity for many historic changes in Washington, we should remember a key lesson from Hubble, Cassini, and the Mars Rovers: Existing assets are worth their weight in gold, and maintaining their utility is very cost effective for NASA.

This certainly applies to the ISS. No matter where you were on any of the station debates, the ISS is a national and an international asset. The ability to service spacecraft and study long human duration in space will be improved by our continued use of the ISS. Should the US develop an autonomous cargo vehicle, our national ability to be on the cutting edge of robotic spacecraft will flourish. The maintenance of infrastructure in space will be valuable in creating viable plans for whatever or whenever the next step in human presence is taken.

For all of these reasons, and more, NASA should keep focus on maximizing use of our existing assets as well as engage in vigorous debate on the next steps beyond the Station. No indulging in jokes about 'going around in circles' to justify reallocation of resources towards the 'next big thing'.

Of course, the same logic should be applied to the science programs we enjoy. The Mars Science Laboratory will be ready for launch next year, the result of sticking to a well thought out and long term exploration strategy. The Explorers, Discovery, New Frontiers, and Mars Scouts programs are also very successful in cost-effectively exploring a variety of science targets. In this case, the 'existing assets' are the excellent scientific and program planning that have made for a stable launch rate and science return.

Regarding the future of the human program, the Constellation program is moving along with its twin goals of replacing our human spaceflight capability and redeveloping NASA's design infrastructure. The incubation of commercial space involvement has also been aided by possible resupply missions. While not as rapid as some would hope, Constellation is clearly staying true to Mr. Griffin's 'pay as you go' financial stewardship.

As we all experience the transition from a Bush to an Obama White House, we should recall that Mr. Obama's call for change does not have to apply equally across the government. NASA, like all organizations, clearly can use some improvement. In our excitement to improve, we should not lose the momentum built up with our recent successes.

Changing NASA's course?

John Doe, SLC, UT — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:47:27 GMT

How about NASA starts on an alternative energy solution during the Obama admin. If they succeed, they can go back to space exploration or work for the new energy company, but no space travel until alternative energy is established.

Changing NASA's course?

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:26:24 GMT

That HD TV video is stunning.

You still have to wonder what benefit sending more humans to the moon really means. I hope that someday
they will build a large radio telescope on the far side away from radio noise of earth.

Changing NASA's course?

Don Nelson, Alvin Texas — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:48:01 GMT

The next NASA administrator must make space transportation cost and new technology their primary strategic plan issue. We believe we have that future space plan on our website.

Changing NASA's course?

Darnell Clayton, USA — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:25:50 GMT

Skip the moon, and watch the American space program evaporate (especially in this economy).

The moon is visible to just about everyone right now, and despite that apparent fact NASA is having a hard time convincing people to go there because of the cost.

Trying to convince people that Mars is somehow relevant (which they can barely see in the sky as a red dot) and you are going to get a backlash (not to mention cuts to NASA).

Focus on the Moon (or even use it as a baby step), but skip it and we will all be congratulating China for landing a taikonaut (Chinese astronaut) on the Moon.

Changing NASA's course?

Steve Real — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 04:00:25 GMT

I like the idea of sending astronomy projects into deep space for a better picture.
But hey?
Let's face the politikal facts here... If the Barack Obama Administration was politikal about it? He'd go for the moon and put the first African American woman on the moon within the two terms of his Presidency. Can you see the excitement that would create across this globe ! It would be crazy with it! Now that's what I'd call a real politikal coup. Good Luck fellas

Changing NASA's course?

john holland , new york , new york — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:56:20 GMT

I have no problems with space travel what so ever except for that fact that all the laws and ethics of earth must apply to space ... you know my feelings on certain technology alan so you know i don't think unrestricted space travel is a good idea all the scifi movies provide more than enough proof that a corporation or "morally bankrupt" scientist could use it as place to conduct unethical business or experiments without any oversight. Most space movies show a lack of oversight into certain technology and business practices to why the future is so crummy in their universe. On top of that the minute people start talking about people colonizing planets that don't answer to earth *in other words their own governments* people will see it as a waste of money as space travel is supposed to help earth not create another planet of humans that only helps itself. So if you want to attract support for space travel don't mention making new governments. But once we do finally get to point where colony's earn the right to have their own government we should have something like the united federation of planets from star trek. Spread democracy, morals and ethics through the universe before you spread mankind. Please let me know what you think of this Mr Boyle. Because i see too many people touting new technology without any idea of what the downside could be. Heck for all we know we may end up in a war with one of our former colonies for control of space.

[ALAN ADDS: John, this sounds like a very deep subject to ponder.... The general rule is that technology alone does not make people more moral, whether you're talking about a gun, a rocket or the Internet. I could see an interesting science-fiction tale that could be spun along the theme of "when spaceflight is outlawed, only outlaws will be spacefliers," or along the theme of, for example, al-Qaida with a space program. In fact, I suppose the U.S. is starting down that road with the limits on sale and storage of rocketry supplies:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/003771.html

[I guess the bottom line for me is that this issue of good, evil and space technology is certainly something to think about ... we're not at the point yet where we have to worry about bad guys in space, but someday we will be.]

Changing NASA's course?

will — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:03:20 GMT

explorative colonization needs resources close to begin the trail of celestrial human colonies,,or not,,,does space begin at the finish line? thus deductively swift success is levered by earth made parts. 1.an airstrip/launchpad 2.solar flair alarm bunkers 3.periodic lunar table ....4.Mars etc.. or shall we die when earth expires?

Changing NASA's course?

Richard Ellis, Mar del Plata . Argentina — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:08:42 GMT

If we are to return to the moon it should be to erect a "log cabin" for returning explorers, any one shot voyages to the moon would be pointless.
These 'bases' should be tinkertoy style with an endless expansion capabilities. From there we can make the "jump" to Mars.

Changing NASA's course?

Dr.Becker spokane wa — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:47:11 GMT

i agree that space exploration is important. we should use the moon as a training facility to test equipment and people for the ultimate goal of landing on mars.

Changing NASA's course?

San Antonio — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:00:40 GMT

NASA needs to incoorporate the "feather" techique into furthering the ablility to do more missions closer to home and with lower cost.

Changing NASA's course?

Aaron, Phoenix — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:41:46 GMT

NASA has long been a financial drain on America. Space exploration is a luxery item that our nation can not afford in this economic time. The money spent on most of NASA programs would be better invested in programs to improve America's education, poverty, disease prevention/cures, military ect. When we are unable to manage our own planet much less our nation it appears monitarliy irrisponsible to explore distant planets that we have no intentions of moving to any time soon.

Changing NASA's course?

Dan, Earth (You wonna know more, you must be an internet rapist) — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:01:43 GMT

Good article. Bush, as usual, screwed up the space program. What the hell are we gonna do after they retire the space shuttle. Some of the things it does are a necessity. It's definetly less costly and complex than rocket launches. Even when we have the Orion, how are we gonna do important stuff like maintain the hubble, keep our stake in the ISS, refuel the station, and (something like this actually can work, its not just a movie) prevent an asteroid from demolishing our planet?! If we really wonna go to the moon again, to claim the Helium or just for kicks or a Red Moon Scare, that's great but the shuttle could be modified to carry drop capsules with people and equipment to set up the moon base. We don't need Bush's wasteful, (funny how Conservatives actually spend big on pointless things anyway) crippling, and pointless space program that destroys our chances of some unity with other industrial nations.

Changing NASA's course?

JJL, Colorado — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:38:06 GMT

The bare facts are we spend nothing on space exploration, as a percentage of GDP or the Budget. If we spent 10% of the money that is being piddled away on "rescuing the economy", we would have more engineers, skilled and unskilled laborers working on the moon projects in tandem, rather than the moronic way NASA is doing it now. We would have the cash to get the ISS done quickly and the next efforts well on their way before the next election.

But, we would rather spend a few billion paying people not to work, rather than putting them to work. The only thing I hope is Pres Obama ends NASA's, the FAA's and the Military's monopoly/choke hold on space flight.

Changing NASA's course?

JJL, Colorado — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:05:01 GMT

Here is what I would love to do. I would retrofit the remaining shuttles with shielding, large storage for water and food, recyling capabilities, and design them for 2 people. I would get volunteer explorer crews with the understanding that this may be a one way trip. I would load the shuttle with data relays and scientific equipment and send the shuttles off in different directions, out of the solar system. One up, one down, one out. With this being done, the mission is to observe, report back and deposit relay beacons at various points during the trip, like the Earth-Moon L2, L4 and L5, plus whatever scientific defense sensors we would need as well, such as solar flare and meteor early warning detectors. I would do this in a heartbeat.

Maybe even retrofit one to land on Mars. I am sure it could be done.

Changing NASA's course?

George King, W.Monroe, La. — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 13:46:23 GMT

Time to go OUT THERE. We seem to have unlimited money supply now, thanks to wall street, unlimited fuel supply, thanks to OPEC, and unlimited high tech engineering, thanks to GM, FORD, and CHRYSLER. Now would be the time to "Go Where No Man Has Ever Gone Before.

Changing NASA's course?

Robert Barton Beaverton, OR — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:02:21 GMT

I feel we should concentrate our efforts on a permanent settlement on Mars. Mars is the future, much more so than the Moon. However we should use the Moon to learn how to live on Mars first.

Changing NASA's course?

Grammar Man — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:09:56 GMT

I'ts Political.

Changing NASA's course?

Ramael — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:58:20 GMT

How about the private sector establish a presence on the moon while NASA gets a human to Mars?

Changing NASA's course?

mike west denver colorado — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:06:48 GMT

Skip the rest of the world. We should do it our selfs.

Changing NASA's course?

Isamu — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:44:55 GMT

John Doe part of the Moon mission is just that. The Moon could be a valuable source of Helium 3 to be used in fusion power generation.

Changing NASA's course?

Ed Evalt — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:57:24 GMT

Face it if an astroid comet or major eruptions don't get us we will get one another because of the lack of resources. Space is humanities only hope of an extended future. The idea of a world at peace is our only chance of getting off it.

Changing NASA's course?

George Phelps, League City, Texas — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 17:16:51 GMT

It's a "no-brainer" to me. We should get back to the Moon ASAP, build a habitat there, and a launch pad or two, then launch missions to Mars from the Moon. We should also deploy a space telescope on the Moon to view the universe without the cataract effect of the Earth's atmosphere. The Hubble has doen that for us, but with a "telescope" on the Moon, we would more readily have repair access to it.

Bottom line; Earth to Moon, Moon to Mars, living quarters on the Moon!

George Phelps
League City, Texas

Changing NASA's course?

a p garcia — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:20:24 GMT

It would be nice if politics were gotten out of (science-space)-first. The ISS is a mixture of politics, buracratics and about 1/100 science. It would be nice if it could be moved to a more advantagous orbit. Let NASA buy the soviet design of "Klipper" and improve it, like was done in the AV-8B.

Changing NASA's course?

Lee — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:23:34 GMT

I was at Kennedy Space Center last Feb. for a shuttle launch. There is no doubt that we need to increase the US space exploration effort. To see the launch and realize that the US had the resources and manpower to pull this off is awe inspiring.

Changing NASA's course?

S. French — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 19:50:08 GMT

Changing NASA's course?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:26:24 GMT

Jason:

"We should invite the Chinese onto the ISS. Our ISS enables us to break the Earthly barriers we've succomed to over the years."

What does China have to contribute, other than the (reasonably presumed, but not yet proven) ability to reach ISS?

Eric:

"We need to stop this going alone nonsense and start working far more cooperatively with many nations, including Russia and China, to do cooperative space exploration. That would spread the large cost over many nations and would allow us to do more collectively"

But would it be one bit more efficient? Spreading the cost does not necessarily mean lower cost in the end.

Steve:

"If it wasn't against the rules to leave Earth without NASA's permission, maybe there would be more participation/interest."

And where's that written? You got a launcher, you need to talk to the FAA, not NASA.

John:

"How about NASA starts on an alternative energy solution during the Obama admin."

What does the acronym 'NASA' stand for? How about putting such a thing under the Department of Energy, where it belongs, except (and only) to the extent that there might be a space-based element to such a solution. And maybe not even then...

Thomas: You just named one of many.

Don:

"The next NASA administrator must make space transportation cost and new technology their primary strategic plan issue."

In my humble opinion, you hit the nail right on the head. Without this, anything we try to on the Moon will be as economically unsustainable as Apollo.

Steve Real:

"Let's face the politikal facts here... If the Barack Obama Administration was politikal about it? He'd go for the moon and put the first African American woman on the moon within the two terms of his Presidency. Can you see the excitement that would create across this globe ! It would be crazy with it! Now that's what I'd call a real politikal coup."

That would be nice, now mind you (and I say this as both a lifelong space buff, and a person of color), but I'm not under any illusion that it would have headline value for more than two weeks and an appearance on Oprah...

And the woman in question had better have outstanding credentials, or some people *will* claim she was sent *only* for political purposes.

Changing NASA's course?

Carl Daytona Beach — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:39:43 GMT

If the Chinese colonize the moon first, by the time we get there again we can order Chinese takeout. Doesn't get much better than that!!

Changing NASA's course?

Ernst Wilson, Elizabeth City, North Carolina — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:29:46 GMT

I will not encourage any course changes in America's space vision; on the contrary, it should envision to enlarge it and maintain a softly aggressive mode towards strengthening the commitment to innovations already initiated. Lori Garver and Roderic Young are very well equipped and positioned to assist the new administration in embracing the posture that the Future of future space exploration could only be based on future PROGRESSIVE space policy.

ernst wilson

Changing NASA's course?

Captain Carl, Missoula, Montana — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:04:04 GMT

Despite the pros and cons of our space program, we must remember that humankind's destiny is in space. We are just starting our baby steps into the next epoch of our shared history. Our children's children's children will wonder why we weren't on Mars sooner.

Changing NASA's course?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:45:33 GMT

"It's a "no-brainer" to me. We should get back to the Moon ASAP, build a habitat there, and a launch pad or two, then launch missions to Mars from the Moon."

The Moon most certainly does have exploration and development value in its own right, and many life-support and other technologies developed to do that can be applied to Mars...but it's of no value as a staging area for Mars missions. The material to build the ships must come from Earth, as will the crews and propellant. Why go down into that gravity well, only to have to climb out again?

Earth orbital assembly is perfectly adequate for this.

Changing NASA's course?

Michael, Spokane Washington — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:14:09 GMT

JJL, I was thinking about doing the exact same thing. My only dream is to escape this world and for a brief moment to look back on the world and realize that I won't be going back. I have become so disillusioned by the base behavior of people around the world and their adherence to outdated political mandate, to the point where I sometimes can't find the will to get out of bed in the morning. It bothers me that we have lost our sense of 'vision' for the future. What happened to the pioneering spirit which has always been the heritage of the American people and indeed, all humanity? We, as a race, are in desperate need of unification and the pursuit of those glistening objects lying just beyond our reach are as good a place as any to begin that unification. I believe in the indomitable human spirit and the will to overcome all obstacles despite insurmountable odds which have been beaten into us, saying "you can't, you won't, and do you really think it matters."
It matters to me to see the people of this world reach for something better. If we all have something to believe in...then there is nothing that can stop us.

Changing NASA's course?

Marcus Lukens — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 05:58:34 GMT

NASA is just like any other government agency: poorly managed, woefully underfunded, and controlled by egotistical maniacs. It's time the major players in space exploration pool not only their resources and funding, but also their scientists and engineers. I don't know if the UN would be the proper organization to handle such a cooperative effort, but something along the lines of international cooperation must be started, and started soon. Or all these countries will be wasting money trying to do all the space exploration themselves. Selfishness is not going to help us make strides in space exploration.

Changing NASA's course?

Thomas Behman, Pensacola, FL — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:02:21 GMT

We need to return to the moon. We haven't sent humans out of Earth orbit since December 1972. If we don't send astronauts to explore the Moon and Mars, some other country will. Not that this effects the article, but Harrison Schmitt was not the last man on the moon, he was the second to last. In December of 1972, Apollo 17 commander Capt. Eugene Cernan was the last man to walk on the moon in the Valley of Taurus-Littrow.

Changing NASA's course?

Lynn Jokela, Lake Havasu City, Az — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:06:23 GMT

It is extremely important to keep NASA going in our opinion. Expensive, yes, but so is the war in Iraq. Let us keep learning about outer space....we owe that to future generations.

Changing NASA's course?

Derek Vance West Palm Beach Florida — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:36:36 GMT

The United States presence in space and its work there is not a "what if" question. I am certain that many people either feel that the space programs are a waste of resources or that we should take a "wait and see" approach. Much of the medical technology, communications technology and so many other that are vital to all of us are tied up in its survival. Not to mention that if there ever was someone to save our butts from an impact from space, they are all we have.
It is up to not only our Government to educate people about space exploration and its importance but also our news media. Main line media does not report to Americans about all the things that the Space program has brought to us (including the computer you are using right now and the technology of internet applications)on a regular and consistant basis. But you can rely on all of them to jump right in when it comes to talking about the failures and the drama when there are set backs. Space exploration will cost money and life, that always has been and always will be the cost of progress.
There now are those who blame G.Bush for the current problems. He did not cause the loss of 2 shuttles. 1 was because NASA caved in to pressure and the unblinking eye of the camera and did not listen to the "brains" they listened to the "Suites". The other was from not fixing a problem that was known about and ignored when Clinton was still in office.
I am no Bush fan, but to all you who beleive he is responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong in this Country are only allowing those who are responsible to go about their task of dismantling NASA and anything else their agenda calls for. The national media is looking for issues to sell a paper or be the next "Big Story" of the week, not for a story that may inspire a young man or woman to get good math grades so they can also go into space. Set backs in our space exploration give the drama pushers a topic to go on and on about seeking someone to blame. NASA is a governmental agency, that means it belong to "YOU" dont support those who would sell it out for a lousy headline. It has taken 9 U.S. Presidents to get where we are, the newest one either will be apart of that great human exploration by pressing forward or he will be the "ONE" that will put us 8 years behind by the time he is gone. He is "YOUR" president and is there to listen to "YOU" not ABC, NBC, FOX, Washington Post, NY Post or any of the other bottom feeders of our nation. If you beleive this Country needs to not only be in space, but lead the way, it is up to you to not except anything less.

Changing NASA's course?

Dan Richmond Hts, OH — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:51:54 GMT

The more countries you include and co-operate with in space exploration, the more diluted the end result will be. It is all about politics and cooperating in space does not eliminate these differences. What do you think would happen with the inclusion of China in a space venture? Their political ends must be acknowledged and met, of course. More countries means more needless debate about where we go and who does what. NASA has always had a brilliant vision in these matters and no one has "done" space better. Let NASA set the goals and agenda and whoever wants to join in the rewards may particapate with money, technology development and personnel. Otherwise, we must go it alone. Someone has to lead the charge and I for one am not willing to cede that leadership to some multi-national, supposedly bi-partisan panel. NASA or nothing!

Changing NASA's course?

Gavin Greenwalt, Seattle, Wash. — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:31:19 GMT

If we want to pretend we're sending people to Mars. Why not just send them to antartica? Or Utah?

The challenges of Mars are going to be very different from the challenges of the Moon.

Seems much cheaper to simulate a rocket ride.

Also this should be an area of research in case of a mass extinction event.

There are very very very very few mass extinction scenarios in which Antartica is less safe than Mars. And compared to Mars Antartica is far more hospitable thanks to an abundance of Oxygen and Water.

Self sustaining colonies on earth under strict 'rules of conduct' would be better uses of our resources than a moon colony.

Changing NASA's course?

Christopher, Orlando Florida — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:53:15 GMT

With all the "red tape" involved...
By the time we get back to the moon, Virgin Galactic (and similar private entrepreneur type ventures) will already have a Marriott and a Starbucks there!

Changing NASA's course?

Raoul Lannoy Antwerp, Belgium — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:44:51 GMT

The Moon is far more relevant to humans! Every time we organize a star party for the public, we take into account the presence of then Moon in the sky.
Only from the Moon does the Earth appear as it truly is: a fragile planet.
The Moon is only 3 days away and the shortest back and forth trip would take 1 week.
The Moon has a surface as large as Africa that can be explored by pressurized wheeled mobile vehicles. Every day another landscape to show to us, with perhaps once in a while a short trip to farside or the nightside.
Mars with humans is too far in the future for us to enjoy in our lifetime. Not necesseraly so with Humans on the Moon.

Changing NASA's course?

LudditeTechie — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:18:28 GMT

Jesus H. Christ on crutch! Far too many Star Trek fans on this thread. The future of mankind is in space? Earth is the ONLY home of mankind. Let's get outselves together here. Freedom and democracy on other planets? How about helping the majority of Earth's people have some freedom and democracy that they do not have now? Advanced technology to get to Mars and beyond? How about some advanced technology to solve the energy crisis before the entire financial and business infrastructure collapses into a heap and mass starvation bcome the fate of man?

Letting India and China take the lead in space? My God, life and even politics is a little more complicated than a pissing contest! How about we take a longer view and work on our problems here on earth for the duration of the 21st Century? Imagine the technology that will be in place in 2099! Then think about manned space exploration as a knowlege seeking activity, because it will never be anything more than a basic science activity. Colonizing the moon or even Mars is like teaching a dog to sing. Nice trick, but an oddity of no real value at all. No one is going to live on a planet in another solar system and you are not going to date a supermodel either. Grow up.

Changing NASA's course?

Tim E, St. Louis, MO — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:46:51 GMT

NASA as lead for anything other then space exploration is bad in my mind. Have the military operate outside of the country with out a barrel of oil by 2015. That would find very pratical solutions in a very quick way. We need to get back to a very basic problem. FIND SOMETHING TO GET US OFF EARTH WITHOUT A ROCKET. That would be HUGE and move us to some serious possibilties

Changing NASA's course?

Phillip, Los Angeles CA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:45:47 GMT

You need to learn to walk before you can run. Space is a very unforgiving. You have to bring your own food, water, food. One mistake can kill you.

The moon is 3 days away, Mars is nearly a year away. There is no Walmart out there that you can go for spare parts. We have not even got life systems to last as long as we need them if we are going to Mars. Even ISS, every couple of months--supplies are sent to it. That will not be possible when going to Mars. Mars for today is a step to far.

If you want Mars--plan for it.

Even the moon under the current plan is way too expensive. People have really short memories. Remember what happened to Apollo--it was so expensive it was canceled. If we keep this up--Apollo 2 will be cancelled. Trying to build---not 1 but 2 new launch vicheals is not the way to go. I do not know about you, but myself--if I need to new vicheal and I need to deliver 100 tons to the moon--I do not buy a 90 ton van and 10 vicheal. I just don't that kind of money--and that does not even include the maintaiance that is included in having 2 differant vicheals. If I brought two 50/60 ton vicheals--I should save money there. Also I can use the same parts to service the vicheal. Sorry--but Ares 1/v combo needs to go! We cannot afford it. Griffen said himself--the biggest mistake that we made was cancelling the Saturn program and not building more of them. Here we are in 2008, and we are about to make the same mistake. The american public needs one vicheal that can serve it well for next 20/30 years. The Direct roadmap offers a better choice--less expensive, more options of growth than the Ares roadmap.

You only have to look at this summer to see this is true. What happened to the SUV? No-one is buying them. Why too expensive to run. :-( Ares I/V is too expensive to run. If we get 1 Apollo landing a year at the expense of the whole NASA budget--it will be shutdown! The Direct vicheal is alot more cheaper to run and maintain. If the vicheal is cheaper to run and you have the same budget--you can run more missions. If you can run more missions--it is easier to get public and political support to plan for other things such as MARS.

Changing NASA's course?

Tommy whose opinions never seem to get posted — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:20:39 GMT

Orion will be a great program. The design is revolutionary. But the shuttles are approaching thirty years old (with the exception of Endeavour) and they need to be retired as soon as possible, preferably before another crew is killed. They should stick to the plan to use them until 2010 (very carefully), but not beyond that.

Changing NASA's course?

Dean B, Tampa, FL — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:40:06 GMT

I'm stunned by the number of people suggesting an open ended entension of Shuttle use. Those machine are older than the average collage student and were never built to fly this long. How many do they need to blow up for you to get the idea. It's too costly to retrofit and even if they did the Shuttle dose not have the capabilities to do whats needed in the next step of space exploration, which is the moon or Mars.
The Shuttle is not a realistic option.

Changing NASA's course?

Michael West — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:51:11 GMT

It is rather naive to think that space will be conquered by a world collaboration. Heinlein's vision from the 50's is more accurate and realistic than what the Planetary Society is proposing.

GO USA. We need to double or triple the budget for NASA and NASA needs to work with private US companies to improve and lower the cost of space exploration.

If you think the cold war was scary just think what it will be like when India, China or even Pakistan put Nukes in orbit.

Changing NASA's course?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:04:06 GMT

Dan, Earth signed (11/15, 0401), “(You wonna know more, you must be an internet rapist)” Anonymity on the Internet is how child pornography and predation thrive.

George Phelps wrote (11/15, 1216), “…on the Moon, we would more readily have repair access to it.” Others seem to agree that the moon should be a staging area for Mars shots. We have greater access to orbiting satellites (ISS) without the additional fuel expenditure and landing hazards. A lunar base would be wise as a proving ground because we are more able to mount a rescue mission to the moon than to Mars. But I wouldn’t worry about setting up a station on the moon until we work out the problems with one on Earth. I haven’t checked on things for a while, but when I last checked the BioSphere experiments were not overwhelming successes. Make it work here, make it work on the moon, then take it to Mars. Then we can start considering things farther from the “Goldilocks Zone.”

Changing NASA's course?

steven cherrone-bremerton, washington — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:25:36 GMT

in all the years in observing the "space race" it has been shown quite blatently, that working together on the space gains works better.we have a joint space station, why not a joint program to set an appropriat fixed base on the moon for say,repairs,adjustment to environment of space and research facilities for al nations and parties invoved.
as there is saftey in a planet based operations center,more that an in flight one.it makes good sence to create a base of operations thats less likely to be damaged or destroyed in orbit. pluss the moon can be used as a supply depot for needed supplies for a mars team.

Changing NASA's course?

Richard M., Baghdad, Iraq — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:50:08 GMT

Personally, I don't care if we go to the Moon or Mars first or build another two, three or four space stations. But when we do there, let's do it with overwhelming numbers of space craft and personnel. That means getting all the developed/developing nations that have space exploration plans to work together to figure out the technical problems and then send a large number of craft and people all at once to the destination. For example, if we decide to go to Mars, let's collectively figure out the best craft to make the journey, launch as many as a dozen of them with full crews, land multiple parties on the surface, establish multiple outposts, set up supply lines, have a big celebration party, etc., etc. The current approach is to launch one craft with a small crew and hold our breath and hope nothing goes wrong, as happened to Apollo 13. Had there been another two or three or four craft accompanying them, their mission could still have happened, even if the Apollo 13 craft was not able to finish its mission.

As we all know, something will go wrong. That’s unavoidable. But with a number of other ships and people in a small fleet, there is a better chance of rescue when the unavoidable happens. There is also a much better chance at success.

Changing NASA's course?

John Collinson, Calgary, Alberta — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:05:06 GMT

The space shuttle is a death trap. NASA knows this. It isn't just about the money, they know this. How many more times are you willing to put 7 astronauts lives in extreme peril, just for international fame???

Keep the constellation program rolling along and get us to the moon before the Indians do it first.

Changing NASA's course?

John, USA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:09:40 GMT

Let's get the black budget space ships at Area 51 uncovered. Use those ships for space flight. Bet they go faster and get better MPG than NASA aging fleet of junk.

Changing NASA's course?

Mike Puckett, Charleston, WV — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:16:28 GMT

Welfare has long been a financial drain on America. Wealth transfer is a luxury item that our nation can not afford in this economic time. The money spent on most of the wasteful social programs would be better invested in programs to improve America's position in space. We are unable to manage our own lives much less others. It appears monitarily irresponsible to squander money on wealth-destroying social programs that have no chance of working any time soon.

Changing NASA's course?

Lawrence, Naperville, IL — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:35:12 GMT

John Holland: regarding going to war with our former colonies in space: Arthur C. Clarke wrote an excellent novel based on this theme called "Earthlight." My engineering and "rocket science" acquaintances and friends (I was lazy and diddn't finish college) tell me that the shuttle was a big stretch beyond materials science of its time, and even today asking a craft to do all that it does safely is somewhat beyond us. Probably we will one day have the materials science, but for earth orbit we'll eventually have Clarke's "space elevators" anchored by nanotech metals, in thin strands thousands of miles long from orbit to earth. Short term, the new Aries, et al look good, and I agree the only really sensibel way to push onward in the solar system is through an international program.
To those who think this all a collossal waste of money till we solve poverty, etc: As Lincoln allude to, there are the seprate issues of short-term emergencies ("the farmhouse is on fire") and long-term projects ("you have to plant your crops for the coming year."). No advanced, educated, technical society should abandon long-term goals--which also improve the quality of life for everyone as a by-product. What was true at the close of Apollo (while we were still fighting in Vietnam) is still true today: if we took what is spent on useless and unnecessary war-making, and dedicated it to space exploration, we could could advance toward the stars and have enough left over to better house and educate those now lacking.

Changing NASA's course?

David Midtown Michigan — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:35:57 GMT

The ISS has been the billion dollar boondoggle in space from the start and will likely suffer the same fate as skylab did come the peak of the 24th solar cycle sometime around 2012. The mission to return to the moon only makes sense if it's prime focus is to extract Helium-3 for fusion based power plants. The Indians and the Chinese are interested in the moon for this very reason, and know that the folks who perfect Helium-3 recovery and something like inertial electrostatic confined fusion will be in the drivers seat for economic dominance on Earth and as a fast transit mover to Mars. Helium-3 can be extracted from lunar regolith using automated landers, mining vehicles and return craft. The NASA of old was an effective tool at showcasing American technological prowess and economic success versus the Soviets. The new reality is the US is not only broke, it's so far in depth to the very folks who want to see us reduced to the Finland of North America as to make the Mars mission and the ISS vanity missions for a nation in deep trouble. Change the mission of NASA to be part of the energy solution. Otherwise maybe it is time for NASA to go the way of Packard and Studebaker, and that is to fine museums across America.

Changing NASA's course?

D, Aurora, Colorado — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:51:14 GMT

Don't worry Michael, it may not be you, it may not be my son, but someday, some human is going to be looking at Earth the way you want to.

and they will..."Go Boldy, where no one has gone before."

Changing NASA's course?

ALINA, TUCSON AZ — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:09:49 GMT

JUST THOUGHT I WOULD MENTION THAT SCHMITT WAS NOT THE LAST MAN ON THE MOON, IT WAS GENE CERNAN.

Changing NASA's course?

kenneth g. phoenix,az — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:59:32 GMT

it's a sad day when usamericans take the backseat to any space effort of other nations. pew. stinking kitties are running things now. what's happened to us?
we failed at skylab. we let a perfect op to fall away.
the shuttle has been a total and complete waste of time and money.the lives that were sacrificed for nothing is criminal. if nasa were aig we'd be sending people to the stars by now with that total waste of money. just think of where we'd be if there was some foresight at nasa and washington. only some thought.
any thought would do.

Changing NASA's course?

Chet H. Riverside County, CA — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:11:56 GMT

NASA has wasted billions of dollars on publicity stunts and sometimes let real science and exploration be pushed to the back burner. Can we trust the same bunch to make decisions about what's important for the future.

For a start, we need a truly reusable space vehicle. I would envision a goal of a possible turnaround time of a few days instead of several months.

I would like to see a goal of a series of trips to Mars. Send robots and unmanned ships to deliver shelters and supplies before sending personnel on what should be a several month stay.

Changing NASA's course?

Justin — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:20:42 GMT

Just wanted to clear up an error. The last man to step foot on the moon was actually Gene Cernan not Jack Schmidt. Jack Schmidt came out of the LM last; however, mission protocols are clear that when the mission came to an end LMP(Lunar Module Pilot) enters the LM first with the Commander following. In the case of Apollo 17 Jack Schmidt was the LMP and Gene Cernan was the Commander. Therefore, as the two men left the moon to rendezvous with Ron Evans in the CM(Command Module), Gene Cernan entered the Lm last. This means that he was the last man to set moon on the moon.

Changing NASA's course?

Ed McDaniel, Pittsfield, Massachusetts — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:24:44 GMT

The poeple who colonize the moon and then Mars should not be from the USA, China, Russia or India. They should be from the Planet Earth. Together we can do so much more that seperately. A global space program could unite the people of our planet to a common goal which would benefit us all.

Changing NASA's course?

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 04:19:14 GMT

The pivotal question about the exploration of space is not how much money it will take, or the reliability of equipment, or which nation will win the race. No, it is not so simple.

It is this: Does mankind have enough time left to us to find a solution to the imminent destruction of this planet? Can we avoid the fouling of our own nest, preventing the first primitive flight to the ultimate freedom for which our very nature yearns?

We must ensure that the Earth we leave is worth coming home to afterward.

Changing NASA's course?

Anon — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:20:48 GMT

Seems to me what happened to the US space program was that we made it to the moon then we let others catch up to the point now that we are behind in the space race once again.

To sum it up, I feel our space program ended up like this. "It's one small step for man. One giant leap for man kind. Oops I fell on my butt after that leap and can't get up anymore."

Changing NASA's course?

Martin J Smith, UK — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:05:20 GMT

No to all of that. Yes to a hugely trimmed-down NASA becoming a consultancy with facilities for private space companies. Let the commercial exploitation of space begin. You know America will win this way. I'm not even American.
I'm rather tired of seeing money being wasted by unimaginative bureaucrats. I don't pay US taxes but it still irks me. So why doesn't it annoy US taxpayers?

Changing NASA's course?

Paul F. Dietz — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:51:51 GMT

The moon is not going to be a feasible source of 3He for fusion reactors. We don't have economical fusion reactors for burning even DT, and that's 50 times more reactive than D-3He. Moreover, at an average concentration of about 10 ppb in the regolith, extracting 3He would require enormous infrastructure on the moon that would render it too costly with foreseeable technology, even if the reactors were free.

Space travel is an enterprise where dreams have morphed into delusions, I'm afraid. NASA is basically a parasite feeding on these delusions.

Changing NASA's course?

Nelson Rubio, Pembroke Pines, Fl. — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:20:52 GMT

I'm surprised there haven't been talks about rights to the land on the Moon. With everybody now wanting to land there artefacts, vehicles of any kind even human missions the issue of "restricted" areas hasn't come up yet not that I know of. It won't be long before we see all of these nations in the space race discussing the subject and may be mapping the Moon and auction it or simply create possession of large areas of it. Or it culd be like history taught us it happened here in the USA some time ago: First come takes possession.
Perhaps the next boom of the real state is on the Moon.

Changing NASA's course?

Beauregard Gustavson, Kaysville, UT. — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:13:50 GMT

Don't forget the risk! The Shuttle and it's technology is old. There is a real risk for the crew. After seeing a couple of them lost, maybe we're asking too much.

Additionally, concerning multi-national space programs, The ISS works to an extent. China, North Korea and others have spent decades stealing technologies developed by the US and our close allies. These stolen technologies have been used to boost their missile and atomic weapon research programs.

I support a global space program, but have reservations about handing out "free lunch" cards for technologies developed and paid for here at home. I understand it can work both ways, but the U.S. never seems to benefit from these partnerships well. For example, we learned a great deal from the Russians on long term space flight in our partnership, was it worth the cost?

Changing NASA's course?

Keith, Whittier, CA — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:00:45 GMT

The problem is the significant failure to understand that space exploration is always linked with security issues. The moon remains the ultimate high ground and that consideration must be paramount. We must focus on the moon lest some other power decides to put a missle base on the moon someday.

Changing NASA's course?

dirk alan, toledo ohio — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:03:32 GMT

place a nuke engine on mars moon deimos. slow it down a bit to mars sync orbit. park it over predetermined spot. you now have a spaceport,comsat,fuel dump.easy on easy off - more like dock undock. lots of yummy materials too. now lower a cable to mars. elevator provides ride for people and materials on the scale needed to do stuff properly instead of just barely. from lower end of cable we radiate out across the planet. bobs your uncle. deimos is de most.

Changing NASA's course?

Jim Houdeshell, Dayton, Ohio — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:05:18 GMT

The benefits of a aggressive space program focused on developing a permanent base on the moon, go beyond the expansion of knowledge of the universe. I remember when I was 11 the first sputnik was launched. I think it contributed to my interest in science and ultimately I became a Professional Engineer and a college professor. An exciting space program can generate an whole new generation of scientists and engineers.
jjh

Changing NASA's course?

Josh Reiter — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:59:42 GMT

Wow, no wonder our space policy is so FUBAR as displayed by the majority of comments here being so far of base.

The Shuttle represents probably the worse way to economically move equipment and crews into orbit. Shuttle exists purely as a pork project to funnel congressional dollars into districts that support NASA and NASA contractors. The Shuttle costs a ridiculous 1 billion dollars to just launch one time. We have the technology and the now how to build launch vehicles that would be safe and robust at 1/5 the cost of a single Shuttle launch. The Shuttle has a pitifully low flight rate and even then still manages to kill it's crew 20% of the time. If an airline had that track record it would have been grounded long ago.

The Vision for Space Exploration as outlined by President Bush represents a noble and worthwhile goal. He set some relatively loose guidelines as to the direction of U.S. manned space flight and then set Mike Griffin off to accomplish these tasks. The problems we face are really the result of Mike Griffins decision making. If Bush is to be criticized for anything it is how he has remained so hands off despite his appointments bad decisions. As long as one of his appointments shows loyalty he doesn't really care how effective they really are. The length of the gap and the costs associated with Ares are the direct result of Griffins insistence on sticking with "Apollo on Steroids". This isn't sustainable, and it is not going to make routine and afford access to space a reality.

Cooperation with International partners in the past has done nothing but show us that it actually increases the overall costs of a space program, introduces unnecessary delays into a project's development, and creates additional complications in the face of future political tensions (like when Russia invades another country). So, the idea that international cooperation is an effective resource for our space-faring needs is ridiculous. It merely just serves at giving us all a Kum-ba-ya moment when people of different cultures hold hands for 5 seconds at 22,000 miles an hour. This is no better than a flags and footprint moment on the Moon.

We should not focus on the destination for our space efforts. We need to focus on the space access infrastructure. If NASA should do any one thing in the immediate future they should build and loft a fuel depot into orbit. Private launch companies could then be contracted to lift propellant to the fuel depot. The economic principle of amortization of costs will take over and begin to drive down the costs of launch. The more you fly the cheaper it gets. The more fuel you have in orbit the more your launch weight margins can be allocated to actual hardware instead of fuel volume. The more hardware you get to orbit the more people you need to get up their to orbital assembly. Once you've mastered orbital assembly you can then assemble adequate vehicles for exploration of the Moon, Asteroids, and Mars. The ISS doesn't count since it is the wrong orbit launch anything beyond Earth orbit.

Changing NASA's course?

Space Nut, Sterling Va. — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:23:09 GMT

I think we need to look at space travel like the early Spanish explorers. There needs to be a payback. NASA has shown for years the return on the dollar but it does not capture the average American's intrest. Start a gold rush, and within a few years there will be a dozen options. The India probe is exactly what is needed. Helium 3 may be the gold that lights the fire. Water is the "gold" for fuel and human existance, but Helium 3 could cause the rush if the quantities are sufficent.
If we dont go for the Moon, I predict we will fail to be a Superpower within the next 50 years and those that do will be the big guy's on the block.

Changing NASA's course?

TheMovement, North Dakota, US — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:23:41 GMT

I think the collective brain power being used to explore space should be diverted to problems here on earth. If all these minds together can not create a vehicle that runs on tap water and still runs powerful then they don't have any business working towards space exploration. Earth quake proff buildings, then just give the designes to china, don't sell them, it's simply the right thing to do. Cheap housing materials that are still strong, even fire proof, so those califonia homes wouldn't have burned. Even flood proof so all those hearts in Lousiana would still beat. We have so much to do here and now, it's not that I don't want to go to space, it would be glorious. I'm just not arrogant or self centered. Space will always be here, but if we destroy our planet, we'll never get there. 20 yrs seems long from selfish point of view, but it is no sacrifice when you think about what could be accomplished if the scientificic community hired body gaurds to protect them from politicians and simply started to solve problems and post the results on You-Tube and actually go around to universities and saying, "hey, we have a car that can go 100 miles to the gallon, but exxon wanted to patent."

Changing NASA's course?

OneVoice, Frederick MD — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:01:18 GMT

A Lunar base is the most logical "next step". With its close proximity to Earth, lower launch\landing fuel requirements and abundant raw materials, it would be just plain dumb to pass it up. We need to learn how to live outside of earth's orbit. How do we protect ourselves from radiation and micrometeors outside of Earth's shield? How do you find, mine and process raw materials in a barren hostile environment? How do you manufacture fuel, air, replacement parts and new machinery on a foreign, lifeless world. We need to learn these things before going on multi-year journeys.

There is also the very real opportunity to use the moon to supply energy to Earth. A permanent colony on the moon can collect solar energy and beam it's excess back to earth based receivers. Not only should a number of governments be interested in this, but there should also be corporate interest as well.

Changing NASA's course?

Eraxmuz B. Dragen — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:23:30 GMT

The fundamental problem is and has always been the lack of an appropriate longterm vision / goals. When President Kennedy set the goal of "landing a man on the moon...and returning them safely to the Earth", the nation rallied and accomplished the feat. But, what then? We had a perfectly good vehicle, trained and experienced crews, a costly and highly specialized infrastructure - that was abandoned, wasted.
If we go back to the moon, or to Mars, or the 'belts and beyond...what are we going for? What is the long term goal...because, we've demonstrated that if we choose to go there, we will. It is without question that the effort we make will be repaid by unexpected benefits and advances in every area of human endeavor.
The "space program" only makes sense (imho) if our goal is to forever step beyond the confines of the Earth and to take full advantage of the riches (in both material and scientific terms) that are circling above us - now,out of reach - by whatever means necessary. Each step; station, LaGrange point transfer, moon telescopes (and mining, and manufacturing), Mars and beyond, will bring us the capabilities to accomplish the next.
Maybe it will take 25 years or longer but without a vision that transcends political whim, we will never even start.
We've seen what 8 years of "visionless" leadership can bring...I think the word is "chaos".

Changing NASA's course?

Ed S, Chicago IL — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:27:44 GMT

We should quit wasting the tax payers money. What is the point of going to the moon. As far as Im concerned the Chinese can have it.

Changing NASA's course?

Josh, Missouri — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:41:25 GMT

Here's a thought:
In the last century there were two things that pushed technology ahead farther and faster than any others:

1)Wars. BIG ones, little ones, the next one, Cold ones, Hot ones, etc.

2)Space Exploration.

Care to pick one to fund?

- This is the correct response to any argument against the space program. For the Moon vs. Mars issue, it's simple math, and a Mars mission launch from the moon is many times more fuel efficient than a Mars mission launch from earth itself.

There are still many things we need to learn about extended space duration flights. Setting a base on the moon and having astronauts live there for a year or two is a GREAT way to learn. That way when we send astronauts on their 3-5 year trip to Mars, they'll have some idea of what to expect.

The underlying issue here is safety. The Apollo shuttles had skin as thin as aluminum foil protecting the astronauts from the rigors of space. It was simply not safe at all. It was the difference between night and day, or the difference between a qualified fighter jet pilot and a Cessna-trained citizen both attempting to fly a space shuttle. That fighter jet pilot is going to be A LOT safer because he has more experience with the way high-speed maneuvering is handled, and in general is a lot smarter.

My personal ideas for how NASA should operate in the future though:
Overhaul the entire association, assessing each job's importance. Expand it to be a coalition of sorts. Private sectors from America should be allowed to work directly with or in tandem with NASA, to cut costs and increase creativity.
From there, set plans to build:
Base on moon
Training and experiments in the moon base, to assess issues expected on a long term mission to Mars.
Mission from moon to Mars.

A separate branch of NASA should focus on working with the CERN laboratory in Geneva to attempt to perfect fusion generators. Not only will this revolutionize energy production on a global scale, it will pave the way to more powerful Ion drives or even direct fusion propulsion for spacecraft.

The plan would be to ultimately propel us back into a future technology driven economy.

Changing NASA's course?

Robert Sugg, Tampa, FL — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:07:42 GMT

What is wrong with The Planetary Society, of which I am a member (but not for long, I'm sure)? The VERY NEXT national space policy goal should center on Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP), which prioritzes the moon over Mars and all other human exploration beyond the earth-moon system. We need to make our earth-moon neighborhood work first for human benefit. Cheap space access technologies that are required desparately to do much of anything at all in space will demonstrate their best ROI by FIRST serving a robust satellite solar power program. The cis-lunar manufacturing infrastructure that's proposed for building the satellites using 99% lunar materials is ONE AND THE SAME for building rotating human habitats in free space and for building ambitious ships of interplanetary scientific exploration. You DO NOT go to Mars first in an earth-launched Apollo-style craft of tiny architecture and limited scientific return and foresake the moon to do it. You USE THE MOON'S RESOURCES DIRECTLY to build large well-equipped ships which will be a by-product of a working satellite solar power industry. Space-Based Solar Power creates millions of jobs on the ground and in space. A single solar power satellite in geo orbit will cleanly deliver to the power grid an output equivalent to 10 nuclear fission plants. SBSP will end our dependence on foreign oil, to say the least. SBSP, invented in the US 40 years ago by Dr. Peter Glaser, has been reviewed favorably by NASA, DOE, and DOD, and it singlehandedly integrates missions in these Departments and addresses our most pressing policymaking needs: Energy Independence, Space Advancement, National Security, Economic Growth, Scientific and Technological Prestige, Environmental Preservation, and Education. Mars addresses NONE of these needs, and the planet's distance, gravity well, and harsh conditions do not lend themselves to compete up front with the late Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill's free-floating habitats, which will far better serve Humankind's advance into the solar system. Dr. O'Neill's "ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR US NATIONAL SPACE PROGRAM" is available on the Space Studies Institute's website: www.ssi.org. It is a bold and rational vision that all Americans and partners can get behind and it's right for this time. The Planetary Society's November 13 release, "Beyond the Moon: A New Roadmap for Human Space Exploration in the 21st Century", which shamefully proposes to leapfrog the moon in favor of a short-sighted and elitist "flags & footprints" Mars misadventure of little serious return, is NOT the right path.

Changing NASA's course?

Bill Mills, Norman, OK — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:34:40 GMT

Here is an idea for a quick interplanatary space ship. Retire 2 shuttles to an area around the ISS. Then we will have our first ship building site in outerspace. Merge them together into a single ship, retrofit the engines for ion propulsion (or micro nuclear pellet propulsion) and we are ready to go to the moon. Lower the habitate parts using a cable from the cargo holds of the new melded shuttle.
We would not have haul spaceship parts up to space and two shuttles joined at the wheel bays would provide room for 14 people and two storage bays. They are already space ready and good to go.

Changing NASA's course?

E.P. Grondine, Kempton, IL — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:33:43 GMT

Hi Allan -

The paradigm shift is coming, whether the US leads or follows. Few people still understand that we are already in space, all of us, passengers on spaceship Earth. And in the last six million years we nearly went the way of the dinosaurs several times. Then you have smaller impacts: around about 10,900 BCE roughly 95% of the people living in North America died due to impact.

Administrator Griffin ignored the Congress's explicit instructions to him to come up with a plan for dealing with this hazard, and that was our Senators and Representatives, Democrat and Republican.

Further, IMO, Griffin's abilities as a General Designer are pretty poor. John Pike once told me you don't make a rocket's second stage larger than it's first, and d*** if Griffin didn't do that with Ares 1. It's a dog, every bit as bad as the VSE architecture, another engineering design he worked on.

So what should NASA do? Ditch Ares 1, go with Direct. Extend the shuttles a bit. Let's not loose those skills and technologies, and let's at least get a good medium heavy launcher for the next generation of sats.

Use 3 man capsules with the EELVs and Falcon 9 for ISS, man rating (and improving) our commercial launchers, and making them cheaper to use.

Focus on man tended asteroid and comet detection systems on the Moon (CAPS), not simply flags and footsteps, and use a fuel transfer station in lunar orbit so we can share the costs of this with other nations.

Once this is done, we'll know what other purposes we can use the Moon for next, whether its 3He for fusion, SETI, or fuel production for the next steps.

For Mars, in the meantime focus on long range rovers so we can find out whether or not we face a back contamination problem.

Drop the legislative restrictions on SETI studies and engineering studies of manned Mars systems. Just a couple million clearly limited for each area.

Reduce insurance barriers and research safety improvements to support general aviation.

Research fuel efficiency and possibly alternative fuels for our airline industry.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

Changing NASA's course?

Louis Archuleta — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:38:02 GMT

I am opposed to retiring the space shuttle for the simple reason it can perform another critcal task, ie, the return to the moon by humans.
The Orbiter is a proven space craft that can be reconfigured to act as a Lunar Transfer Shuttle. Remove the wings, landing gear and tail plus the other Avionic gear and you have the perfect vehicle to travel between the earth and the moon. The orbiters are designed for 100 launches and landings, which are the most stressful on the frame, but much gentler launches from orbit will extend the useful lifetime of the vehicle for hundreds of trips to and from the moon. Base it on the ISS, launch External tanks fueled and attach to the LTV, send up a crew and go to the moon. For shielding cover the crew areas with borated water ice and a thin aluminum shield and be able to protect the crew much easier than the stupid capsule being touted by NASA as THE way back to the moon. Why waste such a beautiful vehicle when its useful days are far from over?

Changing NASA's course?

cmac — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:07:34 GMT

If we can't develop a permanent presence on the moon, then what is the point of going to Mars other than for a "flag and footprints" photo op? The technology developed for a long-term lunar presence is the dividend that makes Mars possible. Any meaningful stay on Mars will require Astronauts to stay there a minimum of 6-9 months. That's technology we have never developed before. The moon is 3 days away, Mars is 9 months away! With all due respect to the Planetary Society, they are not experts, they are a bunch of space enthusiasts that read too much sci-fi.

Changing NASA's course?

Ted, Sacramento — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:58:16 GMT

So mars is made of solid Gold. Whoopie! Now what? Try getting it back. What good is all this when our home planet is in such trouble? HELLO

Changing NASA's course?

Jean Langford M., Durango, Colorado — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:25:43 GMT

Anti Matter drive is practical...and on the Horizon...(History Channel/Universe), also Ion drive (for deep space)....Science fiction...Nope!...It's already here and proto types (ion drive is already used: Astroid intercept 2002). The Moon, Mars and beyoud will give use a sanctuary for human kind (in case we get entirely stupid: Nuclear War or other unforseen events such as a Astroid strike ie: Goodbye Dinasors {sp}). It will give use new industry out there not here...new power discoveries...a chance to expand into the universe and beyond....It dosen't matter who is first anymore....It matters that we "GO." Money?...what is that? If we can find two or three more Earths to colonize, AND DO IT RIGHT....HAVING LEARNED FROM OUR "MISTAKES." New undiscovered minerals that could change the way we build, New Fuels that will power our machines....new technology that will save lives and feed our starving masses....It is mankind that counts and saving "All" species from demise....Any other considerations no matter the obstical is infinitely small next to the benifits that will come...and the security it will bring....A common goal that mankind must grasp and proceed with....no matter the cost...in money or in lives...The "End" will justify the "Means." It must. The Earths resources ARE FINITE...It will not continue to give it's abundance to us...We ARE destoying her....eating her up....We will fight WARS over the dwindling supplies...Our standard of living will fall...subside....untill we are at the begining of the end....We MUST go to the stars...the planets...the astroid belt....and harvest the universe...to SURVIVE....Jean Langford M.

Changing NASA's course?

Raymond Allen Caton — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:48:37 GMT

After all the talk good or bad about the future of space or space programs we have to take the most sound space program choice if we are to survive as a
species. The every growing human population makes that chioce for us. The earth will not be able to
sustain that much humam life in decades to come. We are all ready getting major signs from energy to food and last living space. Colonizing the solar system is the next step for all of earth's people.So infighting on this level needs to stop or we will be extinct.

Changing NASA's course?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:57:35 GMT

Marcus Lukens said (11/16, 0058), “I don't know if the UN would be the proper organization to handle such a cooperative effort …” I’m sure it’s not. Something more like CERN with a scientific instead of political purpose stands a better chance of productivity. And a planet wide cooperative effort might be effective and might soothe some political woes along the way. In any event, I can only see trouble if there’s some space race to stick our pin in some planet(oid) before they do, then they don’t recognize our ownership just because we were there first, … Your thinking is spot on.

Right below Dan Richmond disagrees, but because of politics. Again CERN, based on science, as a model.

Dean B wrote (11/16, 1140), “Those machine [space shuttles] are older than the average collage student and were never built to fly this long. How many do they need to blow up for you to get the idea.” How many have blown up because of advanced age? We know they had design flaws, we’ve fixed some of them. We’ve had problems with people, those won’t go away just because we have a new vehicle. The design flaw fixes will, but not the people problems. True enough, the shuttle doesn’t have the capabilities for that next step. We’re not ready to take that step. I wouldn’t buy snow skis for a newborn. I wouldn’t buy a vehicle to take us to Mars. The shuttle works for the missions we’re ready for now, and the direction we need to move in.

Martin J Smith wrote (11/17, 0805), “I don't pay US taxes but it still irks me. So why doesn't it annoy US taxpayers?” It annoys the crap out of us. But the people responsible are the ones we voted in. Remember, we’re slipping in education.

Beauregard Gustavson wrote (11/17, 1013), “For example, we learned a great deal from the Russians on long term space flight in our partnership, was it worth the cost?” Depends on what we do with it.

“TheMovement” (11/17, 1223) China has engineers, what they need is building code enforcement. How many burning California homes had roof sprinklers? How many burning California homes were built in fire prone areas without using fireproofing techniques and materials available now? Those hearts in LA would still be beating if they didn’t live where a failed levy would kill them. I’m not trying to be cold, but levies have failed before, resulting in flooding, and will fail again, resulting in flooding. The way to avoid the flood isn’t new materials, it’s a different location. We don’t need to divert our engineers because people won’t engage in critical thinking when it pertains to their own good.

Changing NASA's course?

Larry Eustacy, Ames Iowa — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:29:04 GMT

I'm sure the astronauts on the ISS would like some Chinese food delivered

Changing NASA's course?

Austin, San Antonio, TX — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:40:20 GMT

"What really ticks me off is how "Tyrant" Bush got all arrogant and ignorant with his new space race. He wanted to beat the Chinese back to the moon just for bragging rights and to thumb our noses at them. So childish!"

I think that you should study history, Sir. This is philosophy that got the U.S. on the moon the first time. The lack of competition is partly responsible for the lack of progress. Once America won the space race it moved on to defeating the USSR in other areas, like hockey.

Changing NASA's course?

Ross Collicutt, Summerside, PE, Canada — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:37:48 GMT

I would wonder where the human race would be today if 40-50 years ago the space race was ended and an international effort was mounted. A kind of world-wide Manhatten Project for the good of the world. I wonder where we will be in 40 years if it would be done today? But, due to idiocy, testosterone, and short-sightedness. It's not likely to happen, is it?

Changing NASA's course?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:54:37 GMT

Steven:

"in all the years in observing the "space race" it has been shown quite blatently, that working together on the space gains works better.we have a joint space station, why not a joint program to set an appropriat fixed base on the moon for say,repairs,adjustment to environment of space and research facilities for al nations and parties invoved.

Jus how do you know that it's 'better' than a single-nation space station/Moon base of the same scale?

"pluss the moon can be used as a supply depot for needed supplies for a mars team."

How is the Moon, a location just as distant from Mars as Earth is, and subject to much the same launch windows, of any special benefit to Mars re-supply?

David:

"The mission to return to the moon only makes sense if it's prime focus is to extract Helium-3 for fusion based power plants."

How can that possibly be, when we don't have commercial fusion reactors yet, and n clear idea of when we will? Other than the small amount needed for research devices, who is going to buy it?

Josh:

"The Shuttle represents probably the worse way to economically move equipment and crews into orbit."

Surely you aren't suggesting that going back to ballistic capsules launched on expendables is a step forward?

Chet:

"For a start, we need a truly reusable space vehicle. I would envision a goal of a possible turnaround time of a few days instead of several months."

You sir, however, are absolutely correct. The Shuttle is not bad because it's a (mostly) RLV, it's only a poor implementation of a good idea.

Josh:

"A separate branch of NASA should focus on working with the CERN laboratory in Geneva to attempt to perfect fusion generators. Not only will this revolutionize energy production on a global scale, it will pave the way to more powerful Ion drives or even direct fusion propulsion for spacecraft."

When CERN demonstrates a self-sustaining fusion reactor, *then* NASA (remember, it's an aeronautics and space agency) could take some interest. Not before. Just as the old NERVA program was carried out well after basic fission reactor technology was demonstrated. Not before.

The other Josh:

"We should not focus on the destination for our space efforts. We need to focus on the space access infrastructure. If NASA should do any one thing in the immediate future they should build and loft a fuel depot into orbit. Private launch companies could then be contracted to lift propellant to the fuel depot. The economic principle of amortization of costs will take over and begin to drive down the costs of launch. The more you fly the cheaper it gets. The more fuel you have in orbit the more your launch weight margins can be allocated to actual hardware instead of fuel volume. The more hardware you get to orbit the more people you need to get up their to orbital assembly. Once you've mastered orbital assembly you can then assemble adequate vehicles for exploration of the Moon, Asteroids, and Mars. The ISS doesn't count since it is the wrong orbit launch anything beyond Earth orbit."

You, too, are absolutely correct.

Louis:

"The Orbiter is a proven space craft that can be reconfigured to act as a Lunar Transfer Shuttle. Remove the wings, landing gear and tail plus the other Avionic gear and you have the perfect vehicle to travel between the earth and the moon."

You've taken a known quantity and radically changed it into something that has to be 'proven' all over again. It would make more sense to base an LTV on space station modules, than to do that.

Jean:

"Anti Matter drive is practical...and on the Horizon..."

Antimatter's fine...if you know haow to produce it in signifigant quantites, economically. We can say something about how we might (read some of the works of the late Robert Forward), but it's like fusion in that we don't have it now, or soon.

Ross:

"I would wonder where the human race would be today if 40-50 years ago the space race was ended and an international effort was mounted. A kind of world-wide Manhatten Project for the good of the world. I wonder where we will be in 40 years if it would be done today? But, due to idiocy, testosterone, and short-sightedness. It's not likely to happen, is it?"

Nor should it. Unless you like herding cats. If you think politics plays too much of a role now, just try to get everyone together and agreeing on policy and engineering on a scale like that.

Some degree of competition is a good thing, espically if you want results in something less than geologic time....

Changing NASA's course?

D. Millinoff, Windsor, ON Canada — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:05:27 GMT

I think back to the excitement of the missions to the moon. These events have great impact on young minds. Forget the moon right now. It's time to aim for Mars and deep space. Let's generate that needed excitement back into the space program.

Changing NASA's course?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:34:59 GMT

Frank Glover wrote (11/18, 1754), "If you think politics plays too much of a role now, just try to get everyone together and agreeing on policy and engineering on a scale like that.

Some degree of competition is a good thing, espically if you want results in something less than geologic time.... "

Politics is only such a problem when governments are in it. I don't know that scientists are all that political. Same(ish) with the competition. It motivates governments to provide their science teams with the resources they need. I think once it gets to the teams they'll take it as far as they can for the satisfaction of doing it. Accomplishing the thing is a much better reward than winning. The best case, imo, is a multinational board of directors who are motivated by the science and couldn't give a rip about what each of their governments' want (they're paid by the project, not their government) and each nation pays in to support the great effort or pays more for their own pos program. If we could spend $X to be part of a solar system wide program or $2X for our own NEO program where do you think our money would go?

Changing NASA's course?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:04 GMT

"Orion will be a great program. The design is revolutionary."

Um, what's 'revolutionary' about people in ballistic capsules on expendable launchers? Even its supporters have described it as 'Apollo on steroids.'

Show me an RLV (even a small one) that can go to orbit daily (or more), with not much more effort to turnaround between flights as a commercial aircraft...

Show me an Earth orbit to Lunar and/or Mars orbit ship using some form of nuclear-thermal and/or nuclear-electric propulsion, that can also make the trip again at the next launch window, after Earth orbital refueling and servicing...

...And *then* I will show you 'revolutiuonary.'

Or maybe what a good spaceship simply ought to be.

Changing NASA's course?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:00:47 GMT

Some degree of competition is a good thing, espically if you want results in something less than geologic time.... "

"Politics is only such a problem when governments are in it."

AS long as space flight has to be mostly government supported, there will be politics and policy issues. The stem cell research issue is perhaps the biggest example.

"I don't know that scientists are all that political."

Why not? They're as human as anyone else. And again, if their area of study has political implications, they'll almost have to be.

"Same(ish) with the competition. It motivates governments to provide their science teams with the resources they need. I think once it gets to the teams they'll take it as far as they can for the satisfaction of doing it. Accomplishing the thing is a much better reward than winning."

Not always. Even scientists like to accomplish whatever it is *first.* The race (and it was) among some researchers to determine the structure of DNA, and identify the AIDS virus are some examples. Particle physicists (or at least their teams) want very much to be the first to demonstrate the existence of an unknown particle that a theory predicts.

And sometimes it extends outside of ethical behavior into outright scientific fraud, as that recent Korean geneticist seems to have done.

The restraing factor is that scientists can destroy their careers if they destroy their reputations.

"The best case, imo, is a multinational board of directors who are motivated by the science and couldn't give a rip about what each of their governments' want (they're paid by the project, not their government)"

Which really doesn't change what I said. It still may not change their personal wish to succeed in such a way as to bring status and glory to their particular governments and/or themselves.

"...and each nation pays in to support the great effort or pays more for their own pos program. If we could spend $X to be part of a solar system wide program or $2X for our own NEO program where do you think our money would go?"

Would it be spent as efficently? ISS went through too many design cycles by itself, greatly increasing its cost beyond the originally estimated $8 billion US. I don't see a massive international program as being any better. Diffferent nations will have different engineering philosophies and capabilites (this is why, for example, Apollo and Soyuz don't look alike). Britain and France almost couldn't stay together to develop Concorde. The more equal-voice 'partners' in the decision process, the slower and less efficent it will tend to be. And the more it will tend toward becoming the very self-perpetuating bureaucracy we want to avoid.

Changing NASA's course?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:53:15 GMT

Frank,
True enough. I do think it's an altogether different type of competition. And I think most of the competition you're talking about is based on governments being involved. I'm talking about governments enabling a scientific team by writing a check and then backing off. Also just the one team, more or less. Particle physics pits lab against lab. What I'm talking about would be more like one lab. You can still see some competition, but not the space race. And how many design cycles would ISS have gone through without bureaucrats? Can't argue against the lone crusader trying to make a name, I also can't say that will exist less because the world has eight different programs. And 90% of what those those eight do is the same, just done and paid for eight different times. In that respect yes, I do think it would be more cost effective. But your points are well taken. Maybe I just hope people would be better than experience dictates. Not my usual MO.

Changing NASA's course?

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 19:58:48 GMT

I have 'sounded off' on this before, but here's a short version:
1. The space station is a useless oerbiting mony pit. Its only meaningful purpose so far has been to serve as a tourist destination for plutocrats, and to give the shuttle and astronauts a purpose to exist (ie. to 'repair and remodel' the ISS). Any science that might ever be done there would be easier and cheaper to do some other way.
2. The shuttle has never even close to lived up to its billing of being a safe, cheap, reusable way into space.
3. NASA needs a fundamental rethink of its whole philosophy:
a. Astronauts as explorers is an obsolete and discredited idea; NASA needs to abandon it and start thinking of them as colonists. Remotes (like the Mars rovers) have proven FAR more efficient and cost effective at exploration.
b. Rockets are NEVER going to boost large numbers of colonists off of Earth. They are just too inefficient, expensive and dangerous. SOME other way must be pursued, and THAT is where the Human Spaceflight $$ should be spent, not bilions of $$ just getting a handful of people into LEO to bang golf balls and lose $100K toolkits off the ISS.
4. As a member of the Planetary Society, this idea of a hail-mary shot straight to Mars is a huge area where I disagree totally with the leadership of TPS. For several reasons this plan is half-baked and dangerous. It isn't going to get funded anytime soon, and if it were it would halt many much more worthy and productive efforts. However, TPS does enough other good work that I intend to remain a member.
5. Harry Schmitt may be a moonwalker and was once a scientist, but he has some pretty kooky thoughts that few scientists agree with; making tracks on the moon is no guarantee against flakiness. TPS shoud simply accept his resignation and move on.

Changing NASA's course?

Bill, Rogers, AR — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:41:00 GMT

Aaron in Phoenix, how can NASA be a drain on our economy when it receives less than 1% of the annual budget? The stupid bailouts are a drain on our economy. Dan on Earth, rockets are a lot safer, cheaper, and not as complex as the shuttle. That is why the shuttle is called the most complex vehicle ever built. The new rockets are modeled after the Apollo missions with more reusable parts taken from the shuttle.

I'm sick of people blaming Bush for the new NASA vision and gap between new programs. I'm am no fan of Bush but he gave them a vision NASA has lacked for forty years. The ISS has conducted many interesting experiments and studied human longevity in space. This is all necessary, but the ISS has many problems and all of the components may not even make it up to the station. We need to go back to simple and larger rockets for travel to the Moon and Mars because they have proven themselves reliable.

Also, the US should work with other nations to reduce cost of space flight and construction. There has to be some restriction on spaceflight though because if people start losing debris off spacecraft, it poses a threat to the station and future missions flying into the heavens.

Changing NASA's course?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:44:45 GMT

"a. Astronauts as explorers is an obsolete and discredited idea; NASA needs to abandon it and start thinking of them as colonists."

Not everyone who goes into space needs or even *wants* to be a colonist, any more than those who came to the Americas from Europe. But unlike the Shuttle (which indeed has not lived up to its billing), the people of that era did have proven, familiar technology for crossing oceans.

When we finally have that for near and deep space, humans will be more 'useful' than you seem willing to consider. (and as long as we don't have general AI, and communications is limited to the speed of light, there will always be limits to what machines can do)

"Remotes (like the Mars rovers) have proven FAR more efficient and cost effective at exploration.

See above.

b. Rockets are NEVER going to boost large numbers of colonists off of Earth. They are just too inefficient, expensive and dangerous. SOME other way must be pursued, and THAT is where the Human Spaceflight $$ should be spent, not bilions of $$ just getting a handful of people into LEO to bang golf balls and lose $100K toolkits off the ISS.?

So, the means of propulsion had something to do with all that, and all the less headline-worthy things done on ISS?

Rockets (of whatever kind you can list, not just chemical ones) are the only way to move through vacuum. Anything else means physics we don't yet know. How do you spend money to create what may not even be possible?

And don't bring up the cult of the Space Elevator. (for various reasons, I believe they're possible but not as practical as assumed) Even if they do get you to geostationary orbit almost free, the rest of the solar system's still a long way off...

Changing NASA's course?

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:45:27 GMT

I *will* indeed bring up the idea of a space elevator, though there are several other possibilites as well. The SCIENTIFIC problems associated with such a construction have largely been overcome, or will be before too much longer. Not only are such ideas NOT a cut, they are in fact quite realizable. Some are now just engineering problems, not scientific ones. It is easy to scoff at things one doesn't understand as pie-in-the-sky, but such ideas are also how the paradygm shifting things get done. If one simply listens to scoffers, there is no airplane, there is no theory of relativity, etc. etc. etc.

If the goal is ultimately to get significant numbers of people onto other planets to live (and I see this as the ONLY justification for human space flight) then rockets are clearly a dead end for getting off the Earth. at roughly $100 million per LEO astronaut, they are *without a doubt* FAR below the cost effectiveness of remotes and robots, speed of light notwithstanding. In addition, the amount of actual human input even to the space shuttle is already minimal; 99% of what it does is automatic as it stands. The thing COULD be flown without anybody on board (and would have much better performance that way, and risk no lives).

In space, there are also other alternatives to chemical rockets, or even ANY kind of rocket. One just needs a ittle imagination and a thorough education in physics.

Changing NASA's course?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:35:36 GMT

I've read a lot of Frank's comments. Sometimes his opinions differ from mine but I've always found them to be informed opinions. Your pie in the sky comment was unwarranted and reads like you got your feelings hurt because someone disagreed with you. I had a similar experience when I was four. I'm all for pursuing the space elevator, but at this point it is a pie in the sky idea. We don't have the materials. We have some hope of developing them but it's pretty far fetched. There's only so much strength you can get in a chemical bond. Bringing the space elevator to fruition will likely, imo, involve a whole new process for materials production that involves stripping valence electrons and forcing molecular bonding through electron sharing in -4 ions or more. It's totally science fiction. I have no idea how it would work, if it would work. We certainly don't see it in nature. There are physical limits to standard chemistry - standard chemical bonding. Within those limits it's impossible to produce a material strong and light enough to work, period. It's the old bridge building problem. Double the size of your components and the bridge is stronger but it's heavier too. Eventually it's enormously strong but it weighs so much it's too weak to support itself. Not that I have my nose burried in those circles, but I haven't heard of any research into materials development that shows promise. I'd love to. But right now the space elevator is a unicorn. That's a fairy tale.
I'm all for throwing insults where they're due. Enough of mine appear as bracketed ellipses. But let's only throw them where they belong.

[ALAN ADDS: With me it's very much a judgment call where those bracketed ellipses go, and I know I'm not getting it perfectly right. I'd prefer that people not say "So-and-so is an idiot" (although as longtime readers know, saying "Boyle's an idiot" is perfectly OK). Best way to get around that is to say, "The idea that such-and-such is the case is idiotic."]

Changing NASA's course?

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:40:34 GMT

"Your pie in the sky comment was unwarranted" Huh? In fact the strength of materials problem is close to being overcome. Tiny amounts of carbon 'nanotube' material have already been made that could very nearly do the job. If/when they could be 'grown' as a continuous fiber, that would do it.

As for your comparison of me to a 4 year old, I am not going to bother to respond to it. I'm surprised it didn't get edited.

Changing NASA's course?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:22:41 GMT

JC,
Because of limited p-bonding between the layers in multi-walled nanotubes the strength to weight tradeoff is not advantageous. The stress would be held in the outer tube and once it snaps it would just shear off of the next inner tube. This would possibly, depending on how the tubes were attached at the ends, leave that next inner tube holding the stress, but you would have to add the stress of the additional load caused by the loose outer tube. This leaves single-walled nanotubes as the best hope for use in a space elevator scenario. In any given cross section there is still little p-bonding between the threads, and this would be of great importance to it’s load bearing capacity if it were spun like worsted wool. While the individual nanotubes would have a strength of 200-250 times that of steel those strong pieces would pull apart from each other. The equivalent, for illustrative purpose, is two steel beams glued together. The strength of the glue comes into question. To avoid that in steel we connect the pieces by welding, making one long beam, or making a chain, with small pieces configured so that the weakest part is still steel. By creating open ended tubes, or excising the closed end of a long tube it should be possible to manipulate the tubes into a chain link configuration and make a chain of tubes of indefinite length. The weak part of this chain would be the nanotube at 200-250 times the strength of steel. One long tube could be produced by welding smaller tubes together, but the best case would be producing a single tube of indefinite length. Let us consider only the best case. The strength of this single tube would be 200-250 times that of steel. Either way, chain or long tube, the tensile strength of a single tube cross section is the same. In the chain you might think the strength would be doubled because of the two “arms” of the link, but that additional strength is more than made up for by a second long tube, in less total volume and without the shear strength concerns at the bite. There is also a concern of amplified tensile stress at the bite, such that a load that both “arms” of the link could handle would be too much for the single tube at the bite. For these reasons the single long tube is the best bet. These bundled together would enjoy an additional bit of strength caused by the minimal p-bonding, which would effectively only move us closer to the high end of estimated strength EVEN POSSIBLE using carbon nanotubes. I’ll give you all of 250 times the strength by weight of our strongest steel. I think I’m being generous at that. Now start with ideal conditions. At the bottom there may be slack lying on the ground. That being the case the stress at a point you could put your had on would be minimal, almost 0. As you go up the stress is due to the weight of the cable hanging below, pulled down by gravity, and increases as you go. There is an additional stress caused by the centrifugal force on the counterweight and station. At some point you hit a maximum stress level. I think maximum stress, under ideal conditions, would be obtained with a load just starting to climb due to the added weight. That maximum stress varies depending on how big a nanotube rope you use, how much counterweight, how high it is, how much load is on the “elevator car,” speed of the car, etc. Play around with numbers to find what is acceptable to you. If you find something that has, what you consider to be, an acceptable safety margin then add in wind. Wind is the killer. You have to have a lot of counterweight to negate the effect of wind. Too little counterweight and a light breeze slowly pull the whole thing down. Carbon nanotubes are not strong enough to make a space elevator work. It’s not something that can be fixed by changing production technique. It is fundamentally limited by the strength of the molecular bonding. It’s trying to build a skyscraper using apple wedges. I don’t care what ingenious way you come up with to connect the apple wedges, they’re too weak. Carbon nanotubes will revolutionize our lives. They will find application in many segments. They will not make a space elevator.

Changing NASA's course?

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:38:47 GMT

JC,
As for the comment: Mine was no worse than yours. You didn't say Frank is too stupid to understand, I didn't say you were like a four year old. Alan has some well defined rules, and both comments are within his bounds.
That being said. It was a cheap shot. I'm sorry. Please accept my apology. I was coming off caffeine, my personal addiction, and was a bit more irritable and less tolerant than normal. You may realize I'm normally irritable and kind of intolerant.

Changing NASA's course?

darrin hobbs,los banos, ca — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:42:07 GMT

You must walk before you can run, to the moon first.

Changing NASA's course?

phud55 — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:33:31 GMT

Some of you people talk about how expensive NASA is. Do you realize they only get 6tenths of one percent of the national budget? Do you really think that piddling amount will cure all our problems? Get real.Studies have shown that for every 1$ spent on space,7$ is returned in spinoffs in technology. We cant afford to not fund NASA.