Looks like a modest number of people are participating in this discussion and poll. Yes 57%, No 43%.
I haven't written a response to that over there, but why not here?
I say yes. After the big, dumb rocket discussion, I am convinced that large amounts of matter can be sent into orbit with consumables that would support life for some time. Not only that, but could be expanded over time for as anyone on Earth who wanted to do it. This would not result in a completely new world immediately, but it would, over time, result in enough matter to sustain a human colony of some size for an indefinite period of time.
How many launches of the big, dumb rocket? At 550 tons payload per launch, let's say that you were to do as many launches as the Space Shuttle, about 120. That would result in 550 times 120 tons of matter. This would result in about 66000 tons of matter, which is about the size of two World War II aircraft carriers. Actually, this is not terribly impressive after 120 launches, but the Space Shuttle has managed only a much smaller station, which definitely cannot support itself for long.
The WWII vintage USS Lexington could accomodate 2600 men. Now, it would be a lot different in space, but it could definitely handle a lot more crew than the space station does now. The configuration would be different of course. It's method of providing for itself would be different too. But something this large could become a base of operations for more significant forays into space. And these would not require so much support from Earth.
I can envision a system of these stations in space which could become trading outposts between the Earth and the rest of the solar system. They could produce goods that could be traded with Earth and vice versa. The system, once deployed, could sustain itself through its own activities.
I can't prove this, though. Let's run that one by some experts. I think that such a system could have a reasonable chance of being self supporting.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
This looks interesting
Fuel cells made by United Technology. This looks like an advertisement, though. It was in a Google search which was in an effort to find out if anyone in the world is utilizing the hydrogen from ammonia concept, and to see how many places in the world may be using fuel cells in transportation. It didn't look like very many.
LEO on the cheap
This is a pdf file I am reading right now. It says that launch costs do not have to be as high as they are. This is a 1993 paper, so one wonders why nothing was done about it. But given the fact that the government doesn't really intend to make anything cheaper, then it becomes understandable.
Note: I'll be updating this as I go along. I'm just getting started.
Also: here is the title page, which I hope will reassure readers that the author of this pdf is no amateur.
Update: 12:50pm
I have to mention that I begin reading this with a bias. I suspect that there is a lot of waste in the government, that the government does not want to economize; but the opposite, and that lower costs are not only possible, but necessary if space travel is to ever become economically feasible.
Update: 12: 55pm
Just finished first chapter. It is mostly about what, as opposed to how. Still looking for how to lower costs.
Update: 1:07 pm
Survey of existing launch systems. Next chapter, new systems ( from viewpoint of 1993)
Update: 1:24pm
Space plane is discussed. Of course, it never became a commercial vehicle, or much more than an experimental vehicle. Also, a modernized version of the Sea Dragon is discussed called SEALAR. It wasn't the Big Dumb Rocket idea, though. Actually, it was to be a small rocket. It got dropped by the Navy just before it could do a launch. Another idea that was discussed was the Taurus, which is still being developed, evidently. I have heard of it, but it doesn't appear to have been a big success. Three chapters in, doesn't look like there's anything here yet.
Update: 1:29
Will stop here for a little while. Be back later.
Update; 1:57 pm
It is getting more into the why of the high costs of launch. It confirms my suspicion that the US Government doesn't build these things for cost effectiveness. You couldn't have possibly designed a worse spacecraft for the purposes of economy than the Space Shuttle. It's is what I thought. No intention exists to economize.
Update: 2:26 pm
It is getting a bit thick here in the analysis dept. Basically what you need is a simple launch system. Also, you need to avoid re inventing the wheel. Launching high value cargo should go into one type of vehicle and low value cargo in another. (that's my opinion) I'm going to take a break here and resume later.
Update 3:45
I found a passage that is worth quoting, but not now. Basically, NASA has a bias against producing cheaper technology. The bias is opposite. That bias also extends to our culture. This makes sense to me. It can be summed up in the phrase, "you get what you pay for". The fallacy here is that if it is expensive, it must be better. But if it is too expensive, it isn't going to do anybody any good.
Update 4:45
I've seen enough to reach a conclusion. The culture has to change. More expensive does not equal better results. In fact, it may well be the thing that holds us back. Rockets are simple, but are made more complex, and more expensive than they have to be. The solution here may well be a big, dumb rocket to transport consumables, fuel, and low value freight. The more expensive freight and crew should be on more complex machines that are designed for safety. You can lose cheap cargo, but not crew, nor expensive machines.
Note: I'll be updating this as I go along. I'm just getting started.
Also: here is the title page, which I hope will reassure readers that the author of this pdf is no amateur.
 |
| Dunn space.com |
Update: 12:50pm
I have to mention that I begin reading this with a bias. I suspect that there is a lot of waste in the government, that the government does not want to economize; but the opposite, and that lower costs are not only possible, but necessary if space travel is to ever become economically feasible.
Update: 12: 55pm
Just finished first chapter. It is mostly about what, as opposed to how. Still looking for how to lower costs.
Update: 1:07 pm
Survey of existing launch systems. Next chapter, new systems ( from viewpoint of 1993)
Update: 1:24pm
Space plane is discussed. Of course, it never became a commercial vehicle, or much more than an experimental vehicle. Also, a modernized version of the Sea Dragon is discussed called SEALAR. It wasn't the Big Dumb Rocket idea, though. Actually, it was to be a small rocket. It got dropped by the Navy just before it could do a launch. Another idea that was discussed was the Taurus, which is still being developed, evidently. I have heard of it, but it doesn't appear to have been a big success. Three chapters in, doesn't look like there's anything here yet.
Update: 1:29
Will stop here for a little while. Be back later.
Update; 1:57 pm
It is getting more into the why of the high costs of launch. It confirms my suspicion that the US Government doesn't build these things for cost effectiveness. You couldn't have possibly designed a worse spacecraft for the purposes of economy than the Space Shuttle. It's is what I thought. No intention exists to economize.
Update: 2:26 pm
It is getting a bit thick here in the analysis dept. Basically what you need is a simple launch system. Also, you need to avoid re inventing the wheel. Launching high value cargo should go into one type of vehicle and low value cargo in another. (that's my opinion) I'm going to take a break here and resume later.
Update 3:45
I found a passage that is worth quoting, but not now. Basically, NASA has a bias against producing cheaper technology. The bias is opposite. That bias also extends to our culture. This makes sense to me. It can be summed up in the phrase, "you get what you pay for". The fallacy here is that if it is expensive, it must be better. But if it is too expensive, it isn't going to do anybody any good.
Update 4:45
I've seen enough to reach a conclusion. The culture has to change. More expensive does not equal better results. In fact, it may well be the thing that holds us back. Rockets are simple, but are made more complex, and more expensive than they have to be. The solution here may well be a big, dumb rocket to transport consumables, fuel, and low value freight. The more expensive freight and crew should be on more complex machines that are designed for safety. You can lose cheap cargo, but not crew, nor expensive machines.
Friday, April 8, 2011
I am listening to some Space Show shows once again
I've listened to two of them and trying to come up with a system that will allow me to review them quickly and easily. This explains the long lag between posts. I'm usually busy doing something even though it may appear that I am not.
The amount of information in this mp3 files is tremendous. It is a great resource and I recommend it highly- that is if you want to get out of the wilderness of our ignorance that is in our modern culture.
Update:
I've been through two of these programs and started in on a third. What I wrote above about it being a tremendous resource may not always be true. On this latest show I started on, he seemed to be getting into some quackery stuff about Gaia communication satellite proposal on the show which aired on Nov 1, last year. He began the show with a speech which closely adheres to what I often complain about here. To that, I felt very much in harmony and sympathy, but then he makes this huge mistake and starts to talk about this proposition which struck me as ludicrous.
I don't want to be negative, but that's the kind of thing that can hurt you. It may happen here too when you make just one tiny mistake of one kind or another and totally turn off an audience. ( I turned the show off. It may have been a good show, but this one thing bugged me enough to turn off the show.)
Anyway, I'm thinking about how to go forward with the blog now that I've obtained a DBA for it. It is now, legally a business, but not a corporation. He requested support for the Space Show and so I think I will try my best to support it as best I can.
Update:
I've listened to it again, and he did preface the remark with a note of skepticism. Yet, he treats it in such a way that it can be taken as respectable. That's the mistake. I realize that I am in the same company as this fellow that I am calling a quack. But I have always said that I am not a rocket scientist. My stuff is only ideas that probably won't work for whatever reason. I put them out there in the hopes that maybe something will work, it only needs to be tried. (By who? Me? But I can't. So, should I shut up?) How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?
I read this man's proposal. I bit, but I didn't taste anything but sizzle, no steak. Nothing to get your teeth into. By the way, on the Space Show, a rocket scientist named John debunked this idea. After listening to him, and reading this, I think John is more persuasive to me.
Update:
I am near the end of this show. Charles, who has called the show many times, and has criticized JP Aerospace, says flatly that the Airship to Orbit will not work. He believes he's overlooking some basic physics of the problem that he's working on. I have no dog in this hunt, but I do think he has some ideas that are worth exploring.
Update:
Kelly in Connecticut called. Can't ignore the physics. Looking for unobtainium
. Have to find a way to eliminate the "overhead". Every 29 out 30 dollars spent is overhead. A more efficient vehicle is not necessarily the answer. Not cheaper than an aircraft. Don't have economy of scale. ( my comment: May never have that). Looks like an economic problem, not a physics problem, based upon this discussion.
Tony emails note about the Sea Dragon rocket ( on my sidebar I checked into this, by the way. A real deal rocket proposal that never flew). Sea Dragon was talked about before on the Space Show ( I'd be interested in finding that show). Bill Sprague? I have to look that up.
After a really slow start, this was another good show. The callers saved this one.
Update:
He says he treats everyone with respect as a matter of policy. Nothing wrong with that, but this Steve fellow himself seems not to be properly respectful. ( in my humble opinion)
The amount of information in this mp3 files is tremendous. It is a great resource and I recommend it highly- that is if you want to get out of the wilderness of our ignorance that is in our modern culture.
Update:
I've been through two of these programs and started in on a third. What I wrote above about it being a tremendous resource may not always be true. On this latest show I started on, he seemed to be getting into some quackery stuff about Gaia communication satellite proposal on the show which aired on Nov 1, last year. He began the show with a speech which closely adheres to what I often complain about here. To that, I felt very much in harmony and sympathy, but then he makes this huge mistake and starts to talk about this proposition which struck me as ludicrous.
I don't want to be negative, but that's the kind of thing that can hurt you. It may happen here too when you make just one tiny mistake of one kind or another and totally turn off an audience. ( I turned the show off. It may have been a good show, but this one thing bugged me enough to turn off the show.)
Anyway, I'm thinking about how to go forward with the blog now that I've obtained a DBA for it. It is now, legally a business, but not a corporation. He requested support for the Space Show and so I think I will try my best to support it as best I can.
Update:
I've listened to it again, and he did preface the remark with a note of skepticism. Yet, he treats it in such a way that it can be taken as respectable. That's the mistake. I realize that I am in the same company as this fellow that I am calling a quack. But I have always said that I am not a rocket scientist. My stuff is only ideas that probably won't work for whatever reason. I put them out there in the hopes that maybe something will work, it only needs to be tried. (By who? Me? But I can't. So, should I shut up?) How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?
I read this man's proposal. I bit, but I didn't taste anything but sizzle, no steak. Nothing to get your teeth into. By the way, on the Space Show, a rocket scientist named John debunked this idea. After listening to him, and reading this, I think John is more persuasive to me.
Update:
I am near the end of this show. Charles, who has called the show many times, and has criticized JP Aerospace, says flatly that the Airship to Orbit will not work. He believes he's overlooking some basic physics of the problem that he's working on. I have no dog in this hunt, but I do think he has some ideas that are worth exploring.
Update:
Kelly in Connecticut called. Can't ignore the physics. Looking for unobtainium
. Have to find a way to eliminate the "overhead". Every 29 out 30 dollars spent is overhead. A more efficient vehicle is not necessarily the answer. Not cheaper than an aircraft. Don't have economy of scale. ( my comment: May never have that). Looks like an economic problem, not a physics problem, based upon this discussion.Tony emails note about the Sea Dragon rocket ( on my sidebar I checked into this, by the way. A real deal rocket proposal that never flew). Sea Dragon was talked about before on the Space Show ( I'd be interested in finding that show). Bill Sprague? I have to look that up.
After a really slow start, this was another good show. The callers saved this one.
Update:
He says he treats everyone with respect as a matter of policy. Nothing wrong with that, but this Steve fellow himself seems not to be properly respectful. ( in my humble opinion)
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Heavy dose of reality
Yesterday's Space Show wasn't liveblogged because I couldn't get it to work. It appears that the reason might have been that they were experimenting with video mode of delivering the show.
I have just listened to the recorded show and it was all about fuel depots. It is a tough problem. Like a lot of things, it is a lot easier said than done. I haven't studied the program, and I don't know that I will do that. It may be better to listen to it yourself, if interested.
Summary statement: 1) Depots warrant further investigation. Steep tech curves, though. Money for promising programs than he has heard about. 2) Promising, but lot of incremental demonstrators could answer a lot of questions- medium size steps needed. Need to get answers soon, should be taking steps now which aren't expensive now. 3) need a balance between concepts and doing something. Worry about tendency to make hardware too soon, precludes pathways that could be beneficial. 4) life science realities- don't know how biology fits into these other questions 5) delta v for plane changes are expensive; but attractiveness of depots are rising with respect to size of vehicle. Physics- no show stoppers, looks like economic problem. 6) Need alternatives, don't get into big rush. 7) Chemical propulsion too limiting- nuclear propulsion should be looked into.
I have just listened to the recorded show and it was all about fuel depots. It is a tough problem. Like a lot of things, it is a lot easier said than done. I haven't studied the program, and I don't know that I will do that. It may be better to listen to it yourself, if interested.
Summary statement: 1) Depots warrant further investigation. Steep tech curves, though. Money for promising programs than he has heard about. 2) Promising, but lot of incremental demonstrators could answer a lot of questions- medium size steps needed. Need to get answers soon, should be taking steps now which aren't expensive now. 3) need a balance between concepts and doing something. Worry about tendency to make hardware too soon, precludes pathways that could be beneficial. 4) life science realities- don't know how biology fits into these other questions 5) delta v for plane changes are expensive; but attractiveness of depots are rising with respect to size of vehicle. Physics- no show stoppers, looks like economic problem. 6) Need alternatives, don't get into big rush. 7) Chemical propulsion too limiting- nuclear propulsion should be looked into.
Nerva, revisited
I was just thinking of this yesterday. Brian Wang of NextBigFuture has this little nugget of a news item about nuclear powered spacecraft.
The Wikipedia entry the power capability of this thing was rather significant. This is a long discussion, so you may want to read the whole thing.
The Wikipedia entry the power capability of this thing was rather significant. This is a long discussion, so you may want to read the whole thing.
The NERVA rocket would also be a nuclear-powered upper stage for the Saturn rocket (the Saturn S-N), which would allow the upgraded Saturn to launch much larger payloads of up to 340,000 pounds to Low Earth Orbit.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Another idea that may be impractical
Is it possible, I wonder, that the Apollo lunar modules can be salvaged in any way? Could the rocket engines still have any use, and would it be worthwhile to attempt to salvage them? There were six landings, each with the lower descent stage remaining behind when the astronauts returned from the Moon. Just a thought I was having.
Checking out the Space Show today
I may live blog it on a casual basis. It is challenging to keep up with the program. If I am really interested in it, I will make the attempt. I am somewhat interested today.
Update:
Doing a little prep before the show. More information about today's guest. And about ARRL Teachers Institute on Wireless Technology . I think the acronym means National Association for Amateur Radio. Only that doesn't seem to match up. I guess we'll find out on the show.
The eham.net site looks interesting. Ham radio, (amateur radio)by the way. Well, that's all for now. Going to the top of the blog and will point down here for readers to look this stuff up, if needed.
Update:
Doing a little prep before the show. More information about today's guest. And about ARRL Teachers Institute on Wireless Technology . I think the acronym means National Association for Amateur Radio. Only that doesn't seem to match up. I guess we'll find out on the show.
The eham.net site looks interesting. Ham radio, (amateur radio)by the way. Well, that's all for now. Going to the top of the blog and will point down here for readers to look this stuff up, if needed.
Recycling the ET's revisited
What can you do with the shuttle derived external tanks, assuming that they will exist in the future? One thing to keep in mind is that when the shuttle's main engines quit firing, the external tank is 98 percent of orbital velocity.
It wouldn't take much more to get it up to orbital velocity. I suggest that in future missions, a way should be reserved to keep the ET's in orbit, as opposed to splashing them into the sea.
Once getting it up there, what do you do with it? I've gone over that in previous posts. Here's another idea, and hopefully, I can keep it real. Let's say that you attach a propulsion device that can gradually lift the ET out of Earth orbit, and place it in lunar orbit. Then, once in lunar orbit, send it to the surface at a predesignated spot and control crash it. Why? In order to obtain its materials for use on the lunar surface.
ET's weigh over 50,000 pounds. That's a lot of metal which won't have to be mined from the lunar surface and processed. It just needs to be melted down and recast into a useful product for use on the moon.
The Russians control crashed at least one of their lunar probes. I believe the technique involves using an explosion that will slow down the craft and allow it to land at speed which would not cause too much damage to the probe. Since the mission is to impart materials to the lunar surface, the condition of the tanks when they land is not that important. Only that they are salvageable for some purpose.
What propulsive device? Let's look at VASIMR. This program is nearly operational. Attach a VASIMR to an ET and send it to the moon. Then do a in situ salvaging operation on what's left.
If the VASIMR will be powerful enough to keep the ISS in orbit, it may well be powerful enough to do this job. It will take awhile, but it would be unmanned, so there's no big hurry.
It wouldn't take much more to get it up to orbital velocity. I suggest that in future missions, a way should be reserved to keep the ET's in orbit, as opposed to splashing them into the sea.
Once getting it up there, what do you do with it? I've gone over that in previous posts. Here's another idea, and hopefully, I can keep it real. Let's say that you attach a propulsion device that can gradually lift the ET out of Earth orbit, and place it in lunar orbit. Then, once in lunar orbit, send it to the surface at a predesignated spot and control crash it. Why? In order to obtain its materials for use on the lunar surface.
ET's weigh over 50,000 pounds. That's a lot of metal which won't have to be mined from the lunar surface and processed. It just needs to be melted down and recast into a useful product for use on the moon.
The Russians control crashed at least one of their lunar probes. I believe the technique involves using an explosion that will slow down the craft and allow it to land at speed which would not cause too much damage to the probe. Since the mission is to impart materials to the lunar surface, the condition of the tanks when they land is not that important. Only that they are salvageable for some purpose.
What propulsive device? Let's look at VASIMR. This program is nearly operational. Attach a VASIMR to an ET and send it to the moon. Then do a in situ salvaging operation on what's left.
If the VASIMR will be powerful enough to keep the ISS in orbit, it may well be powerful enough to do this job. It will take awhile, but it would be unmanned, so there's no big hurry.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Liveblogging the Space Show today
Paul Spudis will be on. I'd be interested to hear what he says about the moonbase proposal. The show will be on in less than two hours. Check back here at that time.
Update: About 20 minutes before the show. I was just now thinking about the Superhero series. The reason I was thinking of it was that my commenter here included a link to the site in which I saw something that he wrote that interested me and I downloaded it. Not to say much more here, other than I was reading a bit from the download while I was waiting for the show to begin. ( It's about storytelling.)
Update: Looks like the show is about to begin.
Intro beginning. Announcements: phone, email, podcast access to program, website has all current info, newsletter uploaded this evening, upcoming plans, future guests can be seen on website, shows are archived.
It is a nonprofit ( where I got the idea for this blog). Donations are tax deductible. Begin intro of Dr. Spudis. Effective articulation of going back to moon. Senior staff scientist, awards received and has a book out based upon his blog. Has a cd in the back of the book.
Corrects the URL into the Doctor. gave. Asks about book. Why in a book? Got requests and said it would be handy in a book. Traveling literature. Good thematic collection. A serious change in national space program. Formally collect those to keep a record.
Running commentary of lunar science. Running log of operations. Collection of mini essays. Like an op ed column. Half revolved around policy. Evolved in differently than what they anticipated.
Question: Clarify article about NASA meetings going to the moon, but going back to Moon cancelled. Are we going to Moon? We do we stand? Answer: Yes and No. Phenomenon: a large program get reoriented by big organization not everybody gets message. Get confusion called Brownian Motion. Got the project proposed changed, but Congress disagreed. ( Part of the confusion ) Only partly implemented Prez proposal. Of seven points, 3 mentioned lunar surface. No one knows what the mission is. Chaos. Also the budget situation in Congress. No budget for this year nor next year.
How do you plan for that, asks David. Ans. Don't. In reactive mode. In chaos. Good plan to destroy NASA he says.
Suggestion on how to move forward? Ans: Lack of leadership have chaos. Need to bring order out of chaos. A budget will emerge eventually. May be painful (new budget). Until then, all up in air. No comfort to offer, he says. Never seen it this bad.
Q: Are we really moving forward without timelines? A: Yes we do need them. NASA works better with a schedule. NASA is operational agency. Need realistic program. Cost overrun were supposed to be handled by scheduling.
Caller: John in Montana. Asks about competition from India, China will spur competition? How will to turn things around given lack of leadership, competence, vision and having everyone "diving into their own navel"?
Ans: Spur into action? Sputnik effect? But not so sure that it would make a difference. It will take something dramatic or negative to make that happen, hopes not.
Stop navel gazing? Will continue that, he says. Small groups will make things better. These people will emerge and move us forward. At some point, realize space is important to society and we need it. Practical reasons. Once that is realized, a more stable rational program emerges.
follow up: can it be reversed? Ans. Yes, it can. Need a critical mass. A rational reason to do this. Is possible to change it.
call in number 18666877223
Half of questions are aligned with these thoughts. Tries to convey enthusiasm for the science. But the edifice is crumbling too.
No shortage of publicity, but not driving it. Perplexing. Evidence stronger for return to Moon.
Alan in Seattle: do we need a commercial driver or is it still government. He says both. Doesn't have to be a conflict. Can make money and are important national interest. Knowledge base improving.
Carla asks focus should build heavy lift vehicle? Ans. argument on both sides of that. The language in bill was in bill. Congress concerned by retiring shuttle, they are worried losing capability we might need in future. Keep the infrastructure. Build around shuttle hardware.
Now a test of wills between NASA and Congress. Ugly battle.
Why does NASA oppose this? Pres is opposed.
My opinion: do both commercial and heavy lift on shuttle technology.
Shuttle sidemount a possible solution. Meets all requirements.
Policy from the top down.
caller: John in Atlanta. mixture of two influences 1) academics rely on unmanned probes 2) certain elements want commercial space Ans. fair comment, he says. Agrees about 1), but influence is less than that. Not powerful on 2) in agreement that commercial guys want to get a chance at the money. Don't help them build their vehicles.
Democrats not been manned program fans. A certain wing of party. Ans. Bipartisan support. Philosophical divide, not partisan.
Can't gut the program. What are the goals? Won't see Apollo funding. Need funding to move to get you to goal.
John in Montana: Other than LBJ has been fan of space? All Prez have supported space.
break
The nuts and bolts of government bores me, I have to admit. This discussion was getting tedious to me. I am more interested in the moonbase.
back now
Propellant depots. Ans. Not critical of heavy lift. Budget figures struck him on asteroid mission. Each architecture got only 1 mission to asteroid. Took too long and got so little for it. End point trivial to what it took to do it. ( criticism of president)
another comment was that we spend same amount of money but by end have capability. Better deal.
(Spudis): Never said propellant depot was dumb. Depends on what you are trying to do. One off program is dumb.
Like asteroid. ( YES!)
This discussion looks very bad for President Obama. ( my comment)
Discussion goes off on propellant depots and such. My mind is wandering back to the ET discussion that I wrote about on this blog a few months ago. Can save the shuttle derived system he was talking about, plus make it more cost effective.
Arc jets? Dennis Wingo mentioned. A lot of noise on the line.
David goes off on one his "rants". Says he has radically changed his views. Never in 10 year history have totally bullcrap been talked about. Equated as reality to build is ridiculous. Tired of powerpoints. Lack of knowledge and so forth. Says not doing any good to bombard us with nonsense. Get Real his says. He's really getting into it!!!
Spudis agrees with 3/4 of it, he says. Lot of people on internet. ( like me?) Don't consider myself an expert. I try to keep it real. Spudis, blames it on the lack of leadership in Washington. He thinks it will get worse.
break
Comment: The last thing I want to do is to harm the space program. If that was the result of what I am doing, I would shut everything down immediately. I want to keep everything real. That's the whole point.
back to show
Blogging the Moon
is the name of the book. 
Academic community feels that manned space program too costly, Spudis disagrees. Cold traps are colder than surface of Pluto. Cold traps keep water there forever. Areas near poles are in near perpetual light. Axis tilt is very low. Sun is always on horizon. Mapped out these areas. Perfect situation to occupy the Moon. Human presence on a sustainable basis is possible.
Vaporware problem. Bang on!!!!! I noticed this.
Spudis says exercising the imagination is a good thing. Daydreaming is a good thing not a bad thing. Only bad if allow to replace day to day living. "Don't be a wanker
!!!!"
Widget factories don't make flight hardware, he says.
Need to go to polar region to observe in place. Anyone can do this, says. Says he has already done it on the Indian mission.
Any missions to surface? Looks like no.
Moon v Mars. (NASA) Never thrilled about Moon.
Rate the optimism 10 perfect 0 worse than today in 5 years? Spudis at the 30 percent level. Nothing going to happen in couple years. Still going to be shell shock at NASA. Looks for indecision to be extended. Won't get back on track in couple years. May take next election. After that, resolution one way or another.
Future direction is emerging, he says. Spudis can be contacted through his website. Can't transcribe this stuff fast enough. Gives pearls of wisdom and closes the show.
Final notes on show: I think Spudis is right. I think Obama is mostly wrong, but I am in favor of commercial crew. I am in favor of sidemount, just use it for cargo. Try to reuse shuttle ET tanks. Don't use sidemount for crewed missions. Don't need to man rate it. Can use SpaceX for manrated hardware. Decide on that or another but decide soon. Agree with Spudis that we need to find out about what is on the Lunar pole regions. This seems like high priority to me.
Update: About 20 minutes before the show. I was just now thinking about the Superhero series. The reason I was thinking of it was that my commenter here included a link to the site in which I saw something that he wrote that interested me and I downloaded it. Not to say much more here, other than I was reading a bit from the download while I was waiting for the show to begin. ( It's about storytelling.)
Update: Looks like the show is about to begin.
Intro beginning. Announcements: phone, email, podcast access to program, website has all current info, newsletter uploaded this evening, upcoming plans, future guests can be seen on website, shows are archived.
It is a nonprofit ( where I got the idea for this blog). Donations are tax deductible. Begin intro of Dr. Spudis. Effective articulation of going back to moon. Senior staff scientist, awards received and has a book out based upon his blog. Has a cd in the back of the book.
Corrects the URL into the Doctor. gave. Asks about book. Why in a book? Got requests and said it would be handy in a book. Traveling literature. Good thematic collection. A serious change in national space program. Formally collect those to keep a record.
Running commentary of lunar science. Running log of operations. Collection of mini essays. Like an op ed column. Half revolved around policy. Evolved in differently than what they anticipated.
Question: Clarify article about NASA meetings going to the moon, but going back to Moon cancelled. Are we going to Moon? We do we stand? Answer: Yes and No. Phenomenon: a large program get reoriented by big organization not everybody gets message. Get confusion called Brownian Motion. Got the project proposed changed, but Congress disagreed. ( Part of the confusion ) Only partly implemented Prez proposal. Of seven points, 3 mentioned lunar surface. No one knows what the mission is. Chaos. Also the budget situation in Congress. No budget for this year nor next year.
How do you plan for that, asks David. Ans. Don't. In reactive mode. In chaos. Good plan to destroy NASA he says.
Suggestion on how to move forward? Ans: Lack of leadership have chaos. Need to bring order out of chaos. A budget will emerge eventually. May be painful (new budget). Until then, all up in air. No comfort to offer, he says. Never seen it this bad.
Q: Are we really moving forward without timelines? A: Yes we do need them. NASA works better with a schedule. NASA is operational agency. Need realistic program. Cost overrun were supposed to be handled by scheduling.
Caller: John in Montana. Asks about competition from India, China will spur competition? How will to turn things around given lack of leadership, competence, vision and having everyone "diving into their own navel"?
Ans: Spur into action? Sputnik effect? But not so sure that it would make a difference. It will take something dramatic or negative to make that happen, hopes not.
Stop navel gazing? Will continue that, he says. Small groups will make things better. These people will emerge and move us forward. At some point, realize space is important to society and we need it. Practical reasons. Once that is realized, a more stable rational program emerges.
follow up: can it be reversed? Ans. Yes, it can. Need a critical mass. A rational reason to do this. Is possible to change it.
call in number 18666877223
Half of questions are aligned with these thoughts. Tries to convey enthusiasm for the science. But the edifice is crumbling too.
No shortage of publicity, but not driving it. Perplexing. Evidence stronger for return to Moon.
Alan in Seattle: do we need a commercial driver or is it still government. He says both. Doesn't have to be a conflict. Can make money and are important national interest. Knowledge base improving.
Carla asks focus should build heavy lift vehicle? Ans. argument on both sides of that. The language in bill was in bill. Congress concerned by retiring shuttle, they are worried losing capability we might need in future. Keep the infrastructure. Build around shuttle hardware.
Now a test of wills between NASA and Congress. Ugly battle.
Why does NASA oppose this? Pres is opposed.
My opinion: do both commercial and heavy lift on shuttle technology.
Shuttle sidemount a possible solution. Meets all requirements.
Policy from the top down.
caller: John in Atlanta. mixture of two influences 1) academics rely on unmanned probes 2) certain elements want commercial space Ans. fair comment, he says. Agrees about 1), but influence is less than that. Not powerful on 2) in agreement that commercial guys want to get a chance at the money. Don't help them build their vehicles.
Democrats not been manned program fans. A certain wing of party. Ans. Bipartisan support. Philosophical divide, not partisan.
Can't gut the program. What are the goals? Won't see Apollo funding. Need funding to move to get you to goal.
John in Montana: Other than LBJ has been fan of space? All Prez have supported space.
break
The nuts and bolts of government bores me, I have to admit. This discussion was getting tedious to me. I am more interested in the moonbase.
back now
Propellant depots. Ans. Not critical of heavy lift. Budget figures struck him on asteroid mission. Each architecture got only 1 mission to asteroid. Took too long and got so little for it. End point trivial to what it took to do it. ( criticism of president)
another comment was that we spend same amount of money but by end have capability. Better deal.
(Spudis): Never said propellant depot was dumb. Depends on what you are trying to do. One off program is dumb.
Like asteroid. ( YES!)
This discussion looks very bad for President Obama. ( my comment)
Discussion goes off on propellant depots and such. My mind is wandering back to the ET discussion that I wrote about on this blog a few months ago. Can save the shuttle derived system he was talking about, plus make it more cost effective.
Arc jets? Dennis Wingo mentioned. A lot of noise on the line.
David goes off on one his "rants". Says he has radically changed his views. Never in 10 year history have totally bullcrap been talked about. Equated as reality to build is ridiculous. Tired of powerpoints. Lack of knowledge and so forth. Says not doing any good to bombard us with nonsense. Get Real his says. He's really getting into it!!!
Spudis agrees with 3/4 of it, he says. Lot of people on internet. ( like me?) Don't consider myself an expert. I try to keep it real. Spudis, blames it on the lack of leadership in Washington. He thinks it will get worse.
break
Comment: The last thing I want to do is to harm the space program. If that was the result of what I am doing, I would shut everything down immediately. I want to keep everything real. That's the whole point.
back to show
Blogging the Moon
is the name of the book. Academic community feels that manned space program too costly, Spudis disagrees. Cold traps are colder than surface of Pluto. Cold traps keep water there forever. Areas near poles are in near perpetual light. Axis tilt is very low. Sun is always on horizon. Mapped out these areas. Perfect situation to occupy the Moon. Human presence on a sustainable basis is possible.
Vaporware problem. Bang on!!!!! I noticed this.
Spudis says exercising the imagination is a good thing. Daydreaming is a good thing not a bad thing. Only bad if allow to replace day to day living. "Don't be a wanker
!!!!"Widget factories don't make flight hardware, he says.
Need to go to polar region to observe in place. Anyone can do this, says. Says he has already done it on the Indian mission.
Any missions to surface? Looks like no.
Moon v Mars. (NASA) Never thrilled about Moon.
Rate the optimism 10 perfect 0 worse than today in 5 years? Spudis at the 30 percent level. Nothing going to happen in couple years. Still going to be shell shock at NASA. Looks for indecision to be extended. Won't get back on track in couple years. May take next election. After that, resolution one way or another.
Future direction is emerging, he says. Spudis can be contacted through his website. Can't transcribe this stuff fast enough. Gives pearls of wisdom and closes the show.
Final notes on show: I think Spudis is right. I think Obama is mostly wrong, but I am in favor of commercial crew. I am in favor of sidemount, just use it for cargo. Try to reuse shuttle ET tanks. Don't use sidemount for crewed missions. Don't need to man rate it. Can use SpaceX for manrated hardware. Decide on that or another but decide soon. Agree with Spudis that we need to find out about what is on the Lunar pole regions. This seems like high priority to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)