The US Space Program

[Coito ergo sum]

And, so the die is cast....

The signing makes official a NASA authorization act that scraps the space agency's previous moon-oriented goal and paves the way for a mannedmission to an asteroidby 2025. A manned mission to Mars is envisioned for some time in the 2030s.

To get men to an asteroid by 2025 is an ambitious program. If we're going to do it, let's friggin' do it. Go, NASA! Git 'er dun!

I haven't heard any really good explanation as to why we need to send men to an asteroid. For what purpose that can't also be achieved by robotics?

If I had my 'druthers, I would say get us to the Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2030. But, they want an asteroid and then Mars. O.k., if they're serious - if they really want to do it, then I'll fall in behind them. Heck, I don't think they've allocated enough money for it - I'd say take some more dough and raise NASA's budget to $25 billion annually. It's that important.

If we do get men walking on an asteroid by 2025, then that will be the greatest achievement in the history of mankind, followed by an even greater achievement of men walking on Mars. I only hope I am alive to see them happen.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I would support a manned mission to an asteroid on two conditions. Paris Hilton goes, and it's one way.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why an asteroid:

"A human mission to a near Earth asteroid would be scientifically worthwhile," said Chris McKay, deputy scientist in the Constellation science office at the NASA Johnson Space Center. "It could be part of an overall program of understanding these objects. Also, it would be useful, instrumentally, in terms of understanding the threat they pose to the Earth."

Stationed at NASA's Ames Research Center located in California's Silicon Valley, McKay told SPACE.com that work is underway to evaluate the science enabled by sending crews to asteroids, and to judge how best to assure safe and efficient exploration.

Asteroids are relics from early solar system formation, McKay pointed out. "Then there's the whole, what I call the 'Bruce Willis factor'...the star in the movie Armageddon...and the ability to send significant assets to an asteroid."

"There's a lot of public resonance with this notion that NASA ought to be doing something about killer asteroids...to be able to send serious equipment to an asteroid," McKay observed. "The public wants us to have mastered the problem of dealing with asteroids. So being able to have astronauts go out there and sort of poke one with a stick would be scientifically valuable as well as demonstrate human capabilities," he said.

McKay emphasized that it's premature to send off a piloted mission to an asteroid to do countermeasure activities. "There could be testing of various approaches. But we don't know enough about asteroids right now to know the best strategy for mitigation," he said.

Forward looking reasons

"It's a terrific mission if we can do it...and if it programmatically makes sense," said Former Apollo astronaut, Russell Schweickart, Chairman of the B612 Foundation, a group with the goal of significantly altering the orbit of an asteroid, in a controlled manner, by 2015.

Schweickart said that there are a number of "forward looking reasons" to put asteroids on NASA's lofty Moon, Mars and beyond agenda.

The value of asteroids for on-the-spot resources, for one, was noted by Schweickart. Secondly, validating command and control skills in piloting up to an asteroid would be beneficial, he said.

Furthermore, a human venture to a space rock may well accelerate precursor robotic surveys of asteroids, Schweickart observed. "Early unmanned visits to asteroids...it's the same pattern as we did with the Moon and we're doing right now with Mars. It's all pretty logical," he told SPACE.com.

Public awareness regarding asteroids, via a human exploration initiative, would be helpful, Schweickart said. It's an opportunity for the public to be educated in reality, not in terms of Hollywood's version of asteroid-busting as seen in the movie, Armageddon.

http://www.space.com/news/061116_asteroid_nasa.html

O.k....I will defer to the experts.... http://scienceray.com/technology/manned ... e-by-2025/

[Coito ergo sum]

Lots of water on the Moon!

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water- ... d=11939079

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Lots of water on the Moon!

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water- ... d=11939079

But the space aliens control the water rights there. I can't water my flocks as long as the (human) cattle barons keep them gunslingers between me and the water!

[Coito ergo sum]

Sounds a bit overly ambitious, but if they're going to do it, let's do it! http://www.universetoday.com/76195/nasa ... -starship/

Drop $50 billion into that program and let's get it rolling!

The Director of NASA’s Ames Center, Pete Worden has announced an initiative to move space flight to the next level. This plan, dubbed the “Hundred Year Starship,” has received $100,000 from NASA and $ 1 million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He made his announcement on Oct. 16. Worden is also hoping to include wealthy investors in the project. NASA has yet to provide any official details on the project.

Worden also has expressed his belief that the space agency was now directed toward settling other planets. However, given the fact that the agency has been redirected toward supporting commercial space firms, how this will be achieved has yet to be detailed. Details that have been given have been vague and in some cases contradictory.

The Ames Director went on to expound how these efforts will seek to emulate the fictional starships seen on the television show Star Trek. He stated that the public could expect to see the first prototype of a new propulsion system within the next few years. Given that NASA’s FY 2011 Budget has had to be revised and has yet to go through Appropriations, this time estimate may be overly-optimistic.

One of the ideas being proposed is a microwave thermal propulsion system. This form of propulsion would eliminate the massive amount of fuel required to send crafts into orbit. The power would be “beamed” to the space craft. Either a laser or microwave emitter would heat the propellant, thus sending the vehicle aloft. This technology has been around for some time, but has yet to be actually applied in a real-world vehicle.

The project is run by Dr. Kevin L.G. Parkin who described it in his PhD thesis and invented the equipment used. Along with him are David Murakami and Creon Levit. One of the previous workers on the program went on to found his own company in the hopes of commercializing the technology used.

For Worden, the first locations that man should visit utilizing this revolutionary technology would not be the moon or even Mars. Rather he suggests that we should visit the red planet’s moons, Phobos and Deimos. Worden believes that astronauts can be sent to Mars by 2030 for around $10 billion – but only one way. The strategy appears to resemble the ‘Faster-Better-Cheaper’ craze promoted by then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin during the 1990s.

DARPA is a branch of the U.S. Department of Defense whose purview is the development of new technology to be used by the U.S. military. Some previous efforts that the agency has undertaken include the first hypertext system, as well as other computer-related developments that are used everyday. DARPA has worked on space-related projects before, working on light-weight satellites (LIGHTSAT), the X-37 space plane, the FALCON Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) and a number of other programs.

[klr]

Sounds a bit overly ambitious, but if they're going to do it, let's do it! http://www.universetoday.com/76195/nasa ... -starship/

Drop $50 billion into that program and let's get it rolling!

The Director of NASA’s Ames Center, Pete Worden has announced an initiative to move space flight to the next level. This plan, dubbed the “Hundred Year Starship,” has received $100,000 from NASA and $ 1 million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He made his announcement on Oct. 16. Worden is also hoping to include wealthy investors in the project. NASA has yet to provide any official details on the project.

Worden also has expressed his belief that the space agency was now directed toward settling other planets. However, given the fact that the agency has been redirected toward supporting commercial space firms, how this will be achieved has yet to be detailed. Details that have been given have been vague and in some cases contradictory.

The Ames Director went on to expound how these efforts will seek to emulate the fictional starships seen on the television show Star Trek. He stated that the public could expect to see the first prototype of a new propulsion system within the next few years. Given that NASA’s FY 2011 Budget has had to be revised and has yet to go through Appropriations, this time estimate may be overly-optimistic.

One of the ideas being proposed is a microwave thermal propulsion system. This form of propulsion would eliminate the massive amount of fuel required to send crafts into orbit. The power would be “beamed” to the space craft. Either a laser or microwave emitter would heat the propellant, thus sending the vehicle aloft. This technology has been around for some time, but has yet to be actually applied in a real-world vehicle.

The project is run by Dr. Kevin L.G. Parkin who described it in his PhD thesis and invented the equipment used. Along with him are David Murakami and Creon Levit. One of the previous workers on the program went on to found his own company in the hopes of commercializing the technology used.

For Worden, the first locations that man should visit utilizing this revolutionary technology would not be the moon or even Mars. Rather he suggests that we should visit the red planet’s moons, Phobos and Deimos. Worden believes that astronauts can be sent to Mars by 2030 for around $10 billion – but only one way. The strategy appears to resemble the ‘Faster-Better-Cheaper’ craze promoted by then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin during the 1990s.

DARPA is a branch of the U.S. Department of Defense whose purview is the development of new technology to be used by the U.S. military. Some previous efforts that the agency has undertaken include the first hypertext system, as well as other computer-related developments that are used everyday. DARPA has worked on space-related projects before, working on light-weight satellites (LIGHTSAT), the X-37 space plane, the FALCON Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) and a number of other programs.

Yup, sending them one-way is certainly cheaper ...

[GreyICE]

There really does have to be some serious upgrades in the Space Program.

The Shuttle was an impressive piece of technology in some ways, but it's the equivalent of solving problems by beating them into submission. Launching by just burning enough fuel to overcome earth's gravity? Landing by being a guided brick? It's as inelegant as it comes.

We need to move the technology forward. Ground based launch systems would be excellent for moving satellites into orbit, and a good step forward. Once you can launch things one way, you can launch a 1 way launch system to Mars, assemble it by robot, and presto, 2 way system. Easier from Mars or the Moon too, they're nicer gravity wells.

[Meekychuppet]

Obama wants to put a man on an asteroid by 2025.

If the USA lands on Mars I will be amazed. China or India are the players now.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Obama wants to put a man on an asteroid by 2025.

If the USA lands on Mars I will be amazed. China or India are the players now.

And if ever there were two countries riper for some serious "social action via rifles" I haven't seen them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama wants to put a man on an asteroid by 2025.

If the USA lands on Mars I will be amazed. China or India are the players now.

And if ever there were two countries riper for some serious "social action via rifles" I haven't seen them.

China and India have the potential to become players, but neither has actually accomplished anything above jack or squat in the area of the space program.

I'll believe the "man on an asteroid" thing when someone announces that an actual program has started.

We are half-way through the Constellation program to get us back to the moon. We should finish it, and go to Mars after that by the mid 2030's.

As it happens, we're cancelling constellation, and the earliest they're talking about going to Mars is the 2030's anyway, with that weird "one way mission to Mars" thing we're they'll be looking for volunteers to go to Mars and die there. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... rever.html I doubt that's going anywhere - Constellation was supposedly too expensive, so we're going to try to create a permanent place on Mars where humans will live the rest of their lives?

Don't get me wrong - I am all for a manned mission to an asteroid. If it was announced as an actual budgeted NASA program, I would stand up and applaud, and whatever amount of money they'd want to give to NASA, I'd happily vote to double it. I hope they announce it soon, though.

As it happens, though, I have to say that a more reasonable step seems to be to go back to the Moon first, and set up a base of sorts at Clavius crater, as has been the intent for the last several years. The Moon is only several days travel away. An asteroid would take months of space time. Surely we need more than 5 or 6 trips to the moon 40 +/- years ago to get our "space legs" for a journey of several months?

I mean - you know that if there's an accident on the way to an asteroid, Captain Hindsight will fly to the rescue and tell NASA and the administration that they were foolhardy and should have taken the the first step of going back to the moon and getting some practice in before flying off for months at a time.

Well - I hope they do something, that's for sure.

[GreyICE]

The US is taking the long view of the space program. The long view is simply this: the shuttle program got us there. It taught us a lot. And it's not a sustainable way to travel to space.

Right now, we need a long-term method of doing space flights on a reasonable budget in a way that doesn't waste resources. Otherwise, it's never long term viable.

China can bootleg on 1970s technology all they want. Believe me, we didn't lose anything because of 40 years, we could go to the moon again in a year. But without a long-term way to go to the moon frequently and reliably with low risk and as minimal cost as we can, it's pointless.

[Coito ergo sum]

The US is taking the long view of the space program. The long view is simply this: the shuttle program got us there. It taught us a lot. And it's not a sustainable way to travel to space.

Right now, we need a long-term method of doing space flights on a reasonable budget in a way that doesn't waste resources. Otherwise, it's never long term viable.

China can bootleg on 1970s technology all they want. Believe me, we didn't lose anything because of 40 years, we could go to the moon again in a year. But without a long-term way to go to the moon frequently and reliably with low risk and as minimal cost as we can, it's pointless.

Nobody ever thought the space shuttle was a sustainable way to travel to space beyond lower Earth orbit. It's not designed to go to the moon or Mars or asteroids, and never was intended for that purpose.

You overstate our capabilities when you say that we could go to the moon again in a year. If we could, we would. Bush wanted to go to the moon, and had we had images of Americans walking on the moon again in 2008, with President Bush having been the impetus for it, and a renewed American sense of pride that came along with it, he would have had nothing but a public relations boon from it.

You do, interestingly, point out that "without a long-term way to go to the moon frequently and reliably with low risk at minimal cost" - I agree 100%.

However, the US is not now proposing a plan to go to the moon at all, let alone reliably with low risk and at minimal cost. If that were the goal, we could set the goal and do it. We had a moon program which only bore superficial resemblance to the 1970s technology. It was a capsule, orbiter and LEM system for sure, but the technology in it would be 21st century tech. All new rockets and all new systems.

There is no lower cost or higher reliability option being put on the table.

Again - if I see a concrete proposal from Obama's NASA for actually doing something, as opposed speeches about what we'd like to do, I will be four-square 100% behind it, and want it fully funded. But, so far, we have a pie-in-the-sky suggestion from NASA Marshall guys about a one-way 100 year starship, and words-without-a-program about flying on a several months trip to an asteroid. It's now over six (6)months since Obama said he wants to send guys to an asteroid and later to Mars. I'd like to see the actual program announced before I believe it. Until then, it sounds too much like a way to avoid criticism for canceling Constellation - it sounds too pat - "Yes, we are canceling constellation, but that' sonly because we want to do bigger and better things...." Then the news reporters go "oh, ok, he's not really canceling anything - he's just making it bigger and better." But, nobody follows up and asks, "where's the plan? When are we starting work on it?"

[Meekychuppet]

Right now Constellation is off the table. No funding. It might be resurrected. As for saying China and India are nowhere, well, so was USA before the Moon landings so forgive me if I don't take that on board.

[Coito ergo sum]

Right now Constellation is off the table. No funding. It might be resurrected. As for saying China and India are nowhere, well, so was USA before the Moon landings so forgive me if I don't take that on board.

We were about 1/2 way through Constellation. Ought to finish it. The funding is available: stimulus funds.

China and India haven't done anything of consequence in the space program yet. I never said they wouldn't or couldn't. They just haven't. The US still sends men up and down all the time, we are instrumental with the space station, we send piles of satellites up, we create most of the research telescopes, and we've done monumental things recently on Mars, on the Moon, visited asteroids, comets, etc. To suggest that the US is done, and China and India are the stars is simply not PRESENTLY accurate. It's certainly a turning point, though. The US can either fire up the program, or not. If we don't, the there is a definite possibility that we will lose ground to and eventually be overtaken by China and India.

However, we do have the ability and the money to finish Constellation. It's only a question of the will to do it. We also have the ability and the money to go to an asteroid and to Mars. It's just a question of having the will to do it.

The problem is the American people - both left and right - by and large don't support the space program.