Revision for space vision?

Jim McDade — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:53:04 GMT

The Direct proposal is a joke. I just watched Dircet presenter Steve Metshcan go down in flames before the panel. I realize that some will think my critique blow is "mean". It might be a bit mean, but it is also honest and it uses Metschans own words.

The Direct slide show presentation given by Direct leader Steve Metschan was technically unimpressive and the panel members immediately seized on the fruitcake quality of the Direct cult during the Q&A opportunity. Metschan immediately embarrassed himself. His laughably melodramatic "blood in the water" comment and the deranged conspiracy and persecution claims really exposed the lunacy that is the driving force behind this "Direct Team".

Metschan displayed particular fondness for the terms the terms ground truth, and anonymous (in various forms) as he painted a fantasy landscape of grand conspiracy, referring to "pressure" coming from the NASA "chain of command".

One panel member asked, "Who are you guys?" The question drew laughter and giggles from the other panel members. The panel member wanted to know if anybody other than Metschan was willing to be identified. Metschan nervously fumbled with his water bottle- screwing the cap back and forth- and literally set himself on fire by answering, "Well, when you find 'em, let me know, 'cause I don't know 'em all either. We're taking advantage of the new communications technology that became available- computers and the internet". Metschan's bumbling response about "new" internet technology was basically an admission that DirectLauncher.com is essentially a viral culture phenomena. Metschan told the panel that he could get them some names if they wanted them, but that the "anonymous part" is critical.

Metschan also made three requests during the public hearing in Washington today. Those requests reveal the paranoia and neuroses that motivate these clowns:

Three Direct requests for the Direct Team:

1- Ask the President to order NASA to stop further destruction of Shuttle infrastructure until Augustine panel makes recommendations.

2- Request that the panel interview engineers at working level about Ares I technical problems and Ares V cost problems. Conduct these interviews as "anonymously as possible" in order to determine the "ground truth" for themselves. We have certain knowledge that this "ground truth is being altered as it ascends the chain of command". There is "a significant amount of pressure being brought to bear to prevent any information brought to this commission that is counter to the current party line"

3- The commission should get a second, independent opinion on all critical issues or disagreements NASA may have with our plan...like the second-stage for example...from sources independent of the NASA chain of command."

The commission members were obviously not impressed by Metschan Direct concept and the closest thing to a compliment came when one member said that he was impressed by Steve's "boldness and enthusiasm".
It was the kind of left-handed compliment that one might offer to a "Big Foot" hunter or a fanatical UFO alien abduction enthusiast.

The value, credibility and appropriateness of his concept comparisons were also challenged. Metshcan also meandered when he was asked to quantify his safety number comparisons. I hope that this was the hurrah from Direct.

ther than fondling the water bottle when challenged, he picked up his copy and smartly plopped it down on the podium top as if he were straightening out the stack. That is an action that say, "I'm ready to go folks. Let me outta here now!"

Metschan reminded me of a typical high school football coach who struggles to teach an algebra class. Steve read from his script verbatim, with almost no color or improvisation. The stumbling and bumbling replies revealed either a lack of preparation or, more likely, an indefensible set of theories and propositions. Based on all of the bizarre arguments and claims put forth by Metschan & company, Direct is actually indefensible as an alternative, so what we saw today was exactly what many of us expected to see.

What we witnessed was not the failure of a frail individual. What we witnessed was the failure of an idea- a very faulty idea.

Revision for space vision?

Mike Elliott, Windsor, Ontario, Canada — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:09:18 GMT

Through it's space savvy NASA should be directed to support America with it's difficult economic and clean power challenges. Why not scrap the moon shot and concentrate on developing space mirrors that could be sent to strategic locals within outer space so as to light up all large cities at night? Think of the power savings! Also to protect these mirrors, an endeavor should be made to clean up all of the existing space junk floating around the earth. A simple solution may be found by the NASA engineers. The moon shot could be kept for the next generation unless a military situation should arise where America would have to immediately develop a moon base in concern of the country's national security.

Revision for space vision?

Michael M, Kent oh — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:50:03 GMT

"The moon shot could be kept for the next generation unless a military situation should arise where America would have to immediately develop a moon base in concern of the country's national security. "

I believe it is highly unlikely that such a situation would arise,so certainly that's not a reason to go to the moon. It should be noted however,that such a situation DID occur,it simply would not be feasible to start from zero and expect to get such capability within a reasonable time as you suggest.
I suggest however that developing such advanced capabilities have historically led to a better life for Americans. Do you like your DirectTV? Do you like your GPS with turn by turn directions? I don't think we would have those right now without the government spending on space that we did starting back in the 50s. Think about it,countries that did NOT spend on that kind of infrastructure don't have that technology,they have to use ours. Even the Russians,who unquestionably have the scientific and technological expertise do not bring the benefits of these technologies to their people,because they didn't have or didn't allocate the money to fully develop them.
It is true that we don't NEED GPS,and we don't NEED DirectTV. Its also true that we could live in mud huts. (actually,you would be surprised at the sophistication of mud and straw structures that can be built)If we had access to decent food and decent medical care,we would have a reasonable quality of life in our mud huts.
Still,I like my DirectTV,and I like my cell phone with its built in GPS,that can navigate me right to my destination giving me turn by turn directions.I like all the other things that we got from space spending too.
It should be noted that research does not work by someone sitting down and saying "I'm going to make a discovery today" If you want all these amazing technologies you have to fund basic research some of which seemingly useless and only of interest from a theoretical perspective.(who cares that a clock in orbit differs by a few picoseconds compared to one the ground.When Einstein figured out theoreticaly that it SHOULD happen,it was doubted that it could ever be tested.Today,its critical to take that into account in the design of the software that runs the GPS system) Think of that body of basic research as the tool box that other researchers can use. Other researchers add to that,develop things further or occasionally think "Wow,you could take that,and make something really useful out of it,like a using an orbiting satellite to relay radio signals,or using image processing algorithms in real time to enhance the images from a digital camera.Sometimes someone has a great idea,and other times an engineer or scientist is asked to solve a problem,and thinks "Didn't I read about someone who did something that might work well a few years ago" He then takes that basic research and develops it into an actual device or technology to solve a problem.
Personally,I want to live in a world with space flights and flying cars,commercial trips to mars and vacations on the moon. While it may not come in my life,those are the kinds of things I would like to see. More importantly though,i want all the amazing discoveries we have yet to even conceive The ones my great great great grandchildren will look back on and wonder how we lived without. (who would have known that a fault tolerant data network experiment,funded by the defense department,would turn into something like the internet) Unless we do the basic ground work now,we wont have any of these technologies in the future.

Revision for space vision?

Fred, La Crosse, WI — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:00:34 GMT

Why not buy Russian rockets? They're cheap, they're reliable, and they're here now. Why reinvent the wheel for the thousandth time? We'll add on 101 requirements to this thing...that'll drive up costs and make Ares as unreliable and expensive as the shuttle it is replacing.

The Russians have figured out how to do it. So, let's swallow our pride and go with what already works.

Revision for space vision?

Jason F — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:20:10 GMT

When you take away manned spaceflight - you take away the peaceful challenge to "boldly go...."
Why have other countries recenlty pointed towards the moon? What payoffs will this bring?
Challenges are what makes us better in everything we do. Faster internet speeds. Better technology. Without these challenges - we would have no pursuit of perfection. It's really quite simple.

And, no - any truthful sceientist will tell you we cannot control the weather. How many "sophisticated" computer simulated 3-day forecasts will you rely on before you play golf? Get over yourself - it's not going to happen.

We need challenges. When and if we ever lose sight of this - we are destined for the same fate as those before us....funny how Histroy is never wrong. It's that simple.

Revision for space vision?

Paul Boerger Mt. Shasta, CA — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:53:19 GMT

Until NASA can come up with an honest budget process, realistic cost estimates based on either current or to be developed technologies, all project development should stop. NASA is currently incapable of delivering honest cost estimates.

Revision for space vision?

Michael G. Gallagher, Seoul, South Korea — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:18:29 GMT

Kill Ares and Constellation. Give half the money to the COTS people, including $$$ for Space X's Dragon capsule, and then take the other half the money and go the old NACA route to begin the development of some really advanced and reliable space technology.

Revision for space vision?

Michael Van de Bogert, Milwaukee, Wisconsin — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:04:07 GMT

$35 billion is all they need??? I mean that's a drop in the bucket. Throughout the decades NASA has proven that technology it develops eventually finds it's way to consumers and sometime creates entire industries. I think NASA is the one government department that deserves all the money they need. NASA employs highly skilled workers all over the country that are currently developing the technology that tomorrows consumer will buy, including tech that could help the country go green. Our future as a country and a species will hinge on our ability to exploit space, the moon, and mars... This is something NASA must continue to take on. I wish there was a special line item on my taxes that I could give more money to NASA if I knew it would directly benefit NASA...

Revision for space vision?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:23:44 GMT

"Through it's space savvy NASA should be directed to support America with it's difficult economic and clean power challenges."

Why NASA? What part of National AERONAUTICS ans SPACE Administration isn't clear? Put such a thing in the Department of Energy, where it belongs.

"Why not scrap the moon shot and concentrate on developing space mirrors that could be sent to strategic locals within outer space so as to light up all large cities at night?"

Aside from orbital mechanics impracticality (name these 'strategic locales,' please), everyone from ecologists to astronomers will have a field day with that one. How many sats for how many cities? Will each city pay for its own? Where will the launch capacity for this come from? Straightforward things like more efficient street lights and reflectors that help keep the light down here, and not above the horizon into space, would go much farther.

"...an endeavor should be made to clean up all of the existing space junk floating around the earth."

'Space junk' is a broad term that encompasses objects ranging from large, dead but intact satellites, down to flecks of paint from...anything. (one of those once damaged a window on shuttle Challenger). This material is in *many* different orbital altitudes and inclinations. And it belongs to many different nations (what would Russia have thought of the US 'cleaning up' [read: 'capturing'] its defunct *military* satellite, before the Iridium collision?) There is no practical way to chase all this stuff down. No existing or near-term spacecraft to even try to do it with.

"A simple solution may be found by the NASA engineers."

Sometimes there IS no simple solution.

"The moon shot could be kept for the next generation unless a military situation should arise where America would have to immediately develop a moon base in concern of the country's national security."

While I'm not under the illusion that somehow 'space' can be kept peaceful and clean of any weapons or conflict (and there are military *assets* in space that are not themselves *weapons,*), hopefully human expansion into space *won't* have to be purely in response to a military requirement...

Revision for space vision?

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:32:41 GMT

I would hope that we could get something back on the moon within the next 10 years or so. I would also set a goal to have Mars and other possible coloization locations fully mapped and noted many possible sites for bases by 2035 or sooner. I would like Mars and other locations to have a set of satelites in orbit so that there can be a GPS kind of system available when colonists arrive to start the first manned scientific studies.

Revision for space vision?

Kirk, Traverse City, MI — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:52:34 GMT

Whether Constellation or some other form of human space flight hardware is decided upon, the idea of maintaining some form of human space flight requires serious funding, and that committment must be made first. I seriously doubt that most Americans would be willing to let our human space flight capabilities die and allow other countries like Russia and China take the lead. But it would also be a shame to sacrifice the un-manned programs that have a much greater return when it comes to advancing our knowledge and understanding of the universe. I would personnally love to spend this money on both programs and sacrifice things like defense spending.

Revision for space vision?

Frank Klepeiss — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:13:40 GMT

Nearly a half century ago we allegedly landed men on the surface of the moon and we have never gone back since than. Do you really beleive we are going to be travelling through space and colonizing distant planets. We can't even rebuild the city of New Orleans. God Bless America!

Revision for space vision?

D.J., Huntsville, AL — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:44:22 GMT

America needs to focus government-run manned spaceflight to avenues beyond low-earth orbit. I'm all about access to Low Earth Orbit and the International Space Station, but if you want to get the public excited about space exploration, greater goals and destinations need to be pursued. Return to the Moon ASAP, but do not stop there. Leverage the technology and experience from the Moon return (and ISS habitation) to sending the first human mission to a Near Earth Asteroid. President Obama should make the bold statement of not only going back to the Moon, but set a Near Earth Asteroid mission as a goal as well and articulate a vision for going to Mars with a sustainable architecture. For this, we WILL need heavy lift. Whether or not the crew launches on an Ares I or an EELV or something else, an Ares V class vehicle is needed for any mission beyond LEO.

Revision for space vision?

mrsizer, Denver, CO — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:01:37 GMT

One big difference: We should not even try to rebuild New Orleans; what's the point? There are plenty of other places to build cities that are above sea level.

If we don't get off this planet, we're doomed. That's a good argument to start trying.

I don't see the point in NASA working on rockets, though. It's sort of like spending government R&D dollars on better internal combustion engines; they are a known technology that can be done by the private sector. (Of course, our government IS spending money on entire auto companies, but that's a different issue.)

NASA should be working on experimental stuff that the private sector will not touch. Space elevators, ion engines, safe and reliable nuclear propulsion for use once in space (as opposed to getting to orbit), that sort of thing.

Revision for space vision?

Joshua — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:35:15 GMT

@Jim McDade

You should focus more on what was actually said than the style of the presentation. The Direct team has some excellent ideas and their plan is much better than the unworkable architecture NASA has come up with.
I think they'll get another hearing because what they said was technically sound. As for the 'conspiracy' stuff: Apparently you've never educated yourself about NASA's past management blunders, intimidation tactics, not-invented-here-syndrome etc. You have no idea what you're talking about. The Direct team's worries are more than justified.

Revision for space vision?

John Hunt — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:46:21 GMT

The motivation for manned space flight should be to establish a self-sustaining lunar outpost as an insurance against the possibility of human extinction from self-replicating technology. This motivation would be at the level of what drove us during the Cold War and it would be inherently international in nature. Save exploration, mining He-3, and Mars for later. Save humanity first!

Revision for space vision?

John, San Diego, CA — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:46:48 GMT

I hope some people realize that the Direct presentation that was shown to the public wasn't the same one that the Augustine Commission received. A full list of specs etc were given to them before hand. The commission receives the "technical presenation". WE don't. If you'd like to see open debate about the directlauncher visit the nasaspaceflight.com forums.

Perhaps they didn't seem at home presenting, but that's probably because Steve had never been on national TV before.

The reason why they didn't give a specific presentation of the launch vehicle parts and such was because a. the commssion already HAS a copy and b. they would rather talk about what Direct enables rather than the choice of specific rocket engines.

I think it's reasonable to say that the 20 min presentations + questions won't be the only contact that the commission has with the presenters. You may notice that the time change from 30 to 20 minutes screwed up many presentations. Elon Musk breezed through many slides without talking about them simply due to lack of time.

As to the "who ARE you guys" response, that was by far the weakest, though a list of personel positions and numbers is already being submitted to answer that concern. I don't think they will add names to it, unless the engineers on the project are willing to stick their necks out.

Revision for space vision?

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:39:59 GMT

"The motivation for manned space flight should be to establish a self-sustaining lunar outpost as an insurance against the possibility of human extinction from self-replicating technology."

I see your point, but you want something more than an 'outpost' for that, genetic diversity reasons and all...

I do believe in the concept of getting all of humanity's eggs out of one basket, but when trying to sell other people on the value of space activity, I almost never use that argument. If you're not already a 'space cadet,' the response is likely to be something like;

"Instead of trying to RUN from our problems, we should use 'all that money'(tm) to fix them first!"

So, I emphasize commercial activities in space. Making money. Ultimately, large numbers of people will live in various places around the solar system for many of the historical reasons for colonization and the problem will take care of itself.

When the first Europeans came to the Americas, they didn't do it with the intention of being a repository of Western Civilization in case something happened to Europe...but it worked out that way, anyway. We are that, without planning to be.

And actually, 'self-replicating technology' (well controlled, of course) will greatly *enhance* spaceflight capability...

"...This motivation would be at the level of what drove us during the Cold War and it would be inherently international in nature."

See above. And there would also be the problem of 'internationally' deciding who gets to live in this outpost and what will they be doing on the Moon *while* waiting for a catastrophe that may not come?

"Save exploration, mining He-3, and Mars for later. Save humanity first!"

Just as self-replication risks won't matter until the technology exists, He3 won't matter until commercial fusion reactors exist. If Lunar mining is commercially viable and a large enough enterprise, it'll be as 'international' as any similar business on Earth is, again, without trying...

And exploration will (among many other things, of course) open up other places to live, against events that may endanger Earth *and* Moon.

Revision for space vision?

John, San Diego, CA — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:59:14 GMT

Well i think that if the U.S. were to build a moon base, it shuld start pretty soon. I dont trust those North Koreans and really hope that they do not infact send a nuclear missle to North America. How dumb could they be, do they not realize that begining a nuclear war could completely destroy they world...even them. Although it would be pretty cool if everything turened out to be like fallout 3:P

Revision for space vision?

Louis R. Archuleta — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:49:21 GMT

I sent the Human Space Flight Plans Committee an idea to re-use the the space shuttle to create a lunar shuttle system to move people and large amounts of cargo to lunar orbit. The current Constellation plan is equivalent to moving four people and a half a semi-truckload of material to the moon inwhat will be likely ten to twelve years from now. Using an orbiter-based lunar shuttle is like sending a small freighter to the moon along with four crew and ten or tweleve passengers, try taking a lunar lander and enough fuel for several landings before returning to earth orbit. This requires removing the wings, landing gear, flight controls and launhing it into earth orbit. Then you add an external thrust framework, main engine modules (for easy replacement),a modified external tank (to easily attach and dismount to the thrust frame)and most importantly, a ten foot thick ice shield to protect against solar flares and cosmic rays. This is done with existing hardware with some modifications, and provides so much more carrying capacity at far less cost than Constellation.
I learned my shuttle facts from designing and building part of the space shuttle ground support systems at Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Complex Six for a military based shuttle in the 1980's. Since the orbiters were designed to fly 100 launches and landings there is life in the old birds yet, and we should use that to mankinds benefit.

Revision for space vision?

John, San Diego, CA — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:55:22 GMT

The above post about fallout 3 was not made by me, but either by a different John from San Diego or someone being a jerk. I hate it when people randomly change the direction of where the conversation should be. We shoudn't be talking about North Korea, but about Human Space Flight.

Revision for space vision?

Steve, LA — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:37:16 GMT

After reading all the comments (mostly negative) on the space program, the moon landing, the goal of space exploration, and the lack of apparent appreciation of NASA by the Obama administration, I have to come realize that we are no longer a country of adventurers and dreamers, but of crooked bankers, useless lawyers, and corrupt politicians.

Revision for space vision?

Michael A, San Diego, CA — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:52:44 GMT

I like the idea of putting all lunar habitats in the same general area -- even habitats from different countries. This would get you on the way towards building a city. We need to live off of lunar resources so we don't have to launch so much stuff from Earth. The first thing would be radiation shielding from dirt, then solar cells, then any kind of metal (iron, aluminum, titanium, copper, etc.).

I like the idea of subsidizing tourism to the moon. For one thing, it would give NASA a goal as opposed to just dropping habitats in random locations. In the short run, manned space flight is not profitable -- it takes government money to make it work.

In order to build a town, you need to get a large number of people up there. If you can send 100 people for the cost of sending 50, you get closer to having a town. Once tourism gets going well, it gives NASA an exit strategy from the moon (other than the exit strategy we used last time -- just don't go there).

Revision for space vision?

Jerry Baustian — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:26:58 GMT

The government typically describes as "investments" things which have no future value but are purely current consumption. However, infrastructure keeps paying for itself for decades or even longer. For example, the Cumberland Road from the Potomac River to the Ohio River cost about $6000 a mile for a 600-mile road in the early 1800s; we still benefit from that original investment, as the same route was improved over the centuries. And we probably benefit each year by more than the total original price tag.

It is not easy to put a price tag on the benefits we've received -- and will continue to receive for the next several hundred years -- from the investments made in the space program(s). We don't want to waste money, just spend whatever it takes in the most efficient manner possible.

The problem is, and will be, the huge bureaucracy that already exists. It is difficult to reorganize and redirect that bureaucracy into different directions.

Revision for space vision?

Pete Jones — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:11:21 GMT

Leaping all the way to the Moon or Mars? Why don't we just solve the energy/global warming problems first by making a SPS and giving humanity enough clean power to build freely here and in space. Then build space factories to create huge orbiting colonies around Mars?

Revision for space vision?

JRC903 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:49:45 GMT

The Apollo program was obviously a great achievement for its time. And, If money was no object, I would wholeheartedly support the return mission. However, the absurdity of being in the position we now find ourselves with regard to the ISS and the Russians demands we 'again" learn to walk(orbit) before we run(planets etc). How many more times are we going to spend money and lives developing a unique capacity only to ditch it and head in the opposite direction every time we run into a brick wall--i.e. the shuttle's problems. In my opinion, for right now at least, we need (quick turnaround) near earth capability (NEC) far more then we need the ability to go back to the moon. By NEC, I mean we need at least some of the flexibility afforded by the space shuttle. Obviously, we do not need the ability to glide back to earth in that fashion--but we need the ability to lift large objects toward rendezvous points, and do repair work---similar to what we saw on STS-125. I don't blame NASA for ending up on course they are currently on--in this world, it is not the brain trust that runs things.. quite the opposite actually. It is Congress that has failed for decades to prove "pay me now, or pay me later" was just plain false. Clearly, myopic politicians are largely blame for the country ending up asking the Russians for a ride. But someone in NASA should have seen this coming also.. [...] I hope before my life is over,, this country will develop a clear idea about what it really is we want to do in outer space. And stick by it--- like it was actually important in the first place.

Revision for space vision?

Dennis Rowley — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:44:15 GMT

My take on this is to use existing technology as much as possible, BUT do something new. I still use the term Shuttle-C but I think it's now call SDLV or something. Anyway, use SDLV flights to build a craft that ferries astronauts and lunar landers from ISS to lunar orbit, then returns to ISS (this stays permanently in space). ISS is a platform where things can be assembled (as it was), with the versatile Canadian robot arm. Some sort of truss to hold the new vehicle would need to be made and attached to the outside of ISS. It would not take many construction flights to assemble this lunar-ISS ferry. Use SDLVs to bring up lunar landers to ISS and attach to the ferry for lunar delivery. Use smaller vehicles to bring lunar crews up and whichever vehicle makes sense to fuel the ferry and/or lander. (?Falcon, ?Delta, who knows). The astronauts would come up in whatever Orion-like vehicle is built and dock with the lunar ferry, check it and the lander out and then head out. The "Orion" is also attached to and remains at the ISS for crews to deorbit and return to Earth after the lunar mission. Thanks

Revision for space vision?

Roger G, Los Angeles CA — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:10:12 GMT

Unfortunately, the ISS is not "on the way" to
the Moon, just as it was not available as a possible "safe habor" for the recent Shuttle mission to service the Hubble telescope.

The high inclination of the ISS's orbit would require a very large expenditure of energy for a Moon-bound spacecraft to compensate for on its departure - too large for practical missions. Likewise, the ISS is not available to a ship returning from the Moon, both due to its inclination, and to the high speeds achieved by ships coming into Earth's gravitational well.

Similarly, neither the ISS nor the Moon are helpful for missions traveling to or from Mars. These are the challenges of "rocket science".

Unfortunately, space travel depends on large changes in velocity and direction, which are generally very costly in terms of energy, and therefor money.

Revision for space vision?

Lantz, Houston, TX — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:56:51 GMT

Why can't we ask Russia to use their newly acquired French Guiana facility, then reboost to a better plane. The performance hit of 52deg is hurting most new ISS Visiting Vehicle development for no reason other than Russian convenience