Posted on 07/25/2011 4:26:50 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
He wants the rest of the county to join the slide into the third world that Detroit, Atlanta, LA, and other cities are on.
The plans for U.S. human space exploration have been trashed with no reasonable replacement planed. It's over for us, for now. We have higher Marxist priorities.
It is not necessarily as bad as all that, although we are in agreement about the Marxist nature of the Obama Administration.
I was a member of a lobbyist group which testified before the Aeronautics and Space Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives when the proposed budget to establish an STS (Space Shuttle Transportation System) came under consideration in Congress almost forty years ago. We understood at the time that STS was intended to be a government funded and operated heavy-lift transportation system into low Earth orbit. It was intended from the outset to provide a low Earth orbit base and transit station for a more sustained return to the Moon and the rest of the Solar System. Unfortunately, the Carter Administration downgraded the scope of the program, and it never fulfilled our hopes and intentions, as its costs and utility were compromised and downgraded.
Nonetheless, we never expected the STS to be the ultimate answer for our space transportation systems. It was conceived from the very beginning to be an early first step meant to lead into the development of cost and performance competitive commercial spacecraft and space transportation systems. Throughout history, government expenditures and attendant fiscal wastes have often been the first adoption of the technologies needed to open a new frontier, after which free market commercial development has superseded the initial and costly government experimentation and explorations. It is unfortunate that it has taken decades longer than we had hoped for the commercial aerospace systems to become viable.
While I am not happy with the Obama Administration's handling of the space program and the termination of STS before a commercial replacement was in operation, manned and unmanned, there is much good news beyond the bad news. The loss of the STS services can spur the adoption of replacement commercial systems costing far less than STS and Soyuz, and may offer much greater performance than the STS in not too many years. It depends in great part the extent to which the U.S. Government interferes with these commercial spacecraft and funding of their operations.
You can currently book suborbital flights into space occurring as early as 2014. Flights to the ISS (International Space Station) may not be too far beyond. Commercial flights to the Moon or an asteroidal space station remains to be seen.
Near Earth Object Program, Orbital Diagrams http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/
A permanent station on the Moon will ultimately require a low Earth orbit transit station. The ISS (International Space Station) represents an experimental first step towards such a transit station in low Earth orbit. Unfortunately, however, the low Earth orbit space station is too far into the Earth's gravity well for certain types of activities required for permanent operations on the Moon.
Another space station is needed at Earth's Lagrangian point to take advantage of using railguns and similar transportation systems for the transport of certain cargoes and passengers to and from the Moon. A space station at the Lagrangian point will be outside the Earth's gravity well and outside the Earth's protective Van Allen belts. Using an asteroid for the space station at the Lagrangian point would be an ideal solution for a transit station with shielding from radiation and micrometeorites. It would also have the benefit of serving as an ideal transit station for all travel to destinations in the outer and inner Solar System. It would also serve as an outstanding launch site for unmanned missions, using resources delivered from the Moon transported by rail gun.
_________________________________________________________
But you can't play golf on an asteroid, so what's the point in going?
The ISS has been a pretty big disappointment and we cannot even get to the ISS anymore because we lack a functional space program.
The reason we currently lack a meaningful and functional Space Program is because NASA has squandered it's assets over the last 25 years or so pursuing pointless, asinine missions like this ridiculous Obama inspired Asteroid Hunt. I bet he got the idea from Sheila Jackson Lee, or perhaps the real goal is to rendezvous with Screwy Louie Farrakhan's Mother Ship so we can get on with the eradication of the white devils
We are at the point where our space programs are so deteriorated we would have a hard time putting the 30+ year old Space Shuttle, much less doing anything novel or hard.
Heck, I was there when Boeing liquidated the assets of the Shuttle production facility in the 90’s as part of the Clinton Administration's Jihad against the Aerospace Military-Industrial Complex that created the Shuttle and many other technological advancements that we now take for granted but can't even recreate. We need a space program and flight vehicle that actually does something of practical value, which the shuttle did very well at an astronomical cost per flight.
First priority would be practical reusable single stage to orbit and reentry flight vehicle. Rutan and Company seem to have made remarkable progress on towards this goal with minimal private funding levels which are small fraction of the cost NASA's Muslim Outreach Program (seriously).
If you can't get up there and get back, then you can't do jack. Even if you can get up there and back but can't afford to take the trip then you can't do jack either.
We don't need another pointless pie in the sky mission for NASA to turn into a money pit and squander our progress in space for another generation.
What is the point of doing that other than as a stunt?
What is the point of doing that other than as a stunt?
Yup. NASA died the day they canceled Apollo. Argue all you want about the merits of a manned asteroid mission. It ain't gonna happen.
They almost canceled Dawn! In fact they did, but they brought it back. This is forty years after Apollo, mind you.
Yes that would put some radioactivity into the atmosphere but it only needs launching once. Orion would be big enough to move any asteroid that would threaten Earth. The big ones, like the one 9 miles wide by 31 miles long, would be moved slower than a smaller one. Once launched, Orion can be parked in geosync orbit when not in use.
The uses of an Orion are not limited to saving Earth. A platform to start a space elevator from. Retrieve satellites. Just a general purpose tug. Think real BIG!
You can still play electronic golf inside the small asteroid. Inside Ceres, however, you could play on a full size golf course with trees, sand traps, and lake hazards under what appears to be a limitless blue sky with perfect weather. The game would become more interesting with the need to account for a mean hook resulting from Coriolis forces. It would be more fun, however, flying with or without wings on your arms in the central weightless chamber filled with an Earthlike atmosphere. Think aerial rugby and other games.
The ISS has been a pretty big disappointment and we cannot even get to the ISS anymore because we lack a functional space program.
The SST program was compromised before it even came off of the drawing board. There were three concepts under consideration when we lobbied for funding of the SST. The third and supposedly least expensive and least risk concept was the one adopted, with one expendable main booster stage, two recoverable SRB boosters, and the manned orbiter spacecraft. The second concept under sonsideration was a manned orbiter spacecraft and an unmanned main tank to be remotely piloted to a recovery landing at a spaceport. The first and most expensive concept was to have the the manned orbiter spacecraft and a manned main tank or booster to be flown and recovered at a spaceport.
The Air Force was supposed to have its own space shuttle fleet and launch some of its missions from a Space Shuttle launch pad at Vandenberg AFB, California. Like so many other aspects of the program and the military budgets, the Carter Administration killed it.
The whole program was compromised by refusals to deal with design issues like the problems with the O-rings and the heat tiles. There were others not so well known, which was the topic of conversation among the contractors in 1978-1981. One of the engineers responsible for the Vandenberg launches remarked to me about his concern for a disaster at Vandenberg if some design flaws were not rectified. The shutdown of the Air Force Shuttle program ended those specific concerns.
Alternatives to the Space Shuttle and follow-on RLV (Reusable Launch Vehicles) concepts and prototypes have been around since before the end of the Apollo program, the landing on the Moon on 20 July 1969, and the appropriation's for the STS Space Shuttle. There are a number of current designs which can be flying as soon as 2014 given funding and operational success. What was and is lacking is the will, money, and the freedom to act.
The reason we currently lack a meaningful and functional Space Program is because NASA has squandered it's assets over the last 25 years or so pursuing pointless, asinine missions like this ridiculous Obama inspired Asteroid Hunt. I bet he got the idea from Sheila Jackson Lee, or perhaps the real goal is to rendezvous with Screwy Louie Farrakhan's Mother Ship so we can get on with the eradication of the white devils
The reason "we currently lack a meaningful and functional Space Program" is because the Democrat controlled Congress and/or Presidents keep obstructing and defunding development of RLV and other manned spacecraft programs.
We are at the point where our space programs are so deteriorated we would have a hard time putting the 30+ year old Space Shuttle, much less doing anything novel or hard.
Although NASA is certainly not what it used to be and is challenged in many ways from budget to competency in certain respects, the commercial space programs are absolutely blossoming. If they had received sufficient funding and attention decades earlier, they would already be in a position to replace the Space Shuttle. Now, they can still do it in the next few years to decade, if the government doesn't do something to obstruct them.
Heck, I was there when Boeing liquidated the assets of the Shuttle production facility in the 90’s as part of the Clinton Administration's Jihad against the Aerospace Military-Industrial Complex that created the Shuttle and many other technological advancements that we now take for granted but can't even recreate. We need a space program and flight vehicle that actually does something of practical value, which the shuttle did very well at an astronomical cost per flight.
The good news is the way in which the commercial RLV systems will soon be in a position to outperform the STS, Soyuz, and other current conventional launch and spacecraft systems for a fraction of the cost with their revolutionary new engine and airframe designs.
First priority would be practical reusable single stage to orbit and reentry flight vehicle. Rutan and Company seem to have made remarkable progress on towards this goal with minimal private funding levels which are small fraction of the cost NASA's Muslim Outreach Program (seriously).
If you can't get up there and get back, then you can't do jack. Even if you can get up there and back but can't afford to take the trip then you can't do jack either.
We don't need another pointless pie in the sky mission for NASA to turn into a money pit and squander our progress in space for another generation.
That would be true if a mission going to an asteroid really was pointless, but it is not necessarily pointless at all. A manned mission to an asteroid is absolutely necessary for anyone looking to establish a permanent presence beyond the Earth. A presence on the Moon is also necessary and a very important piece of the whole human presence in the Solar System. However, a presence on the Moon by itself is insufficient to maintain a human habitation beyond the Earth's environment. The asteroids are the least costly and most productive sources of resources for human needs. They can provide everything from air, water, and shelter to interplanetary and interstellar transportation. Inhabitants of the Moon are ultimately destined to extinction, while inhabitants of the asteroids can conceivably escape extinction so long as they can avoid self-destruction, disease, and supernovae. In the short term, manned missions can evaluate the technologies needed to exploit them and use sampling to learn more from their chemistry and radiotides about the earliest origins of the Solar System and the Earth.
Ultimately, it is a required step which must be learned for the survival of the human species, for anyone who cares about it. The Earth is a cradle for humanity, but humanity must either leave the cradle or die and become extinct when the conditions in the cradle inevitably become too inhospitable for continued survival.
The level of human population, economic, and technological development required to establish self-sustaining communities of humans beyond the Earth are so great, it may not be possible to reproduce those conditions again in the event a great catastrophe were to result in another great Dark Ages. The easily recovered resources have already been depleted, and the next global civilization may or may not be able to mount the effort required to sustain an effort to establish colonies beyond the Earth. If so, then the present global civilization may be the only opportunity for the human species to preserve itself from eventual early extinction by maintaining self-sustaining colonies in the outer Solar System and beyond.
Learning how to use asteroids as a natural resource, shelter, and transportation system is a required skill for survival.
Thanks for the reply. You've added some important details.
You are more optimistic than I am about commercial development of space travel. I look back at history, during the 1400s - 1700s and see similar national exploration and private investment in the 'New World'. I also see significant differences. The nationally financed exploration of the 'New world' demonstrated that there could be a reasonable return on investment. So far, that's not true with space travel. Until someone demonstrates that space travel is profitable, we are still in the national exploration phase. Except, the U.S. has stopped participating in the maned space flight part of the national exploration phase.
We have more important things to spend our wealth on, like a socialist welfare state.
Learning how to avoid and deal with asteroids, comets, etc. may be a more important survival skill. Man developing a system to protect Earth from asteroids and comets strikes may be the best justification for continued investment in space travel. But, we can leave that task to the Chinese. They are demonstrating that they are more responsible than we are.
Given their track record with environmental pollution, rare earth toxic wastes, and exploitation of human resources, I cannot have much confidence in their restraint to avoid dropping a rock on someone's head and denying responsibility. The Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations were concerned about who had the High Ground, which sparked the race to the Moon and more than a few science fiction stories. Look who just conceded the High Ground after all of that expense and effort.
Again, we can look to the history of ‘The Old World’. The British Empire was built with knowledge gained from exploration and education. The British Empire ‘conceded the High Ground’ and embraced socialism. Look where it is today. On our current course, that’s where we are headed.
The King and his court came to be regarded as a plague on the nobility, because the Royal debts caused the King's personal properties to be repossessed. Having little means with which to entertain the court and dependents, the King took his court on the road to the homes of the nobles. The nobles were obligated to shelter and feed the King and his court.
The sad thing is just how little money is needed to sustain a full blown space program, manned and unmanned. If even one in one thousand Americans spent as much on the space program as they spend each year on trivial magazine and cable television subscriptions, you could have a greater space program than we have ever seen before. The economic and technological benefits resulting from that in the decades to come are incalculable in their immensity.
The problem is there are so few Americans who understand what space really is, much less what space exploration and development do for all life on Earth. Even among those who are knowledgeable enough to understand space exploration, there are so many who are philosophically and/or theologically opposed and fatalistic about the future of humanity. It sometimes seems like discussing the subject with a post-turtle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.