Battle royal over politically correct NASA or technical explorer NASA

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Battle royal over politically correct NASA or technical explorer NASA

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

More on PC-NASA vs Technical Explorer-NASA;

"The subcommittee's hearing Wednesday discussed Congress's roles in crafting NASA's human spaceflight policy.

Thomas Young, a respected former aerospace executive, said commercial companies will not be ready to take over human space transportation in the near future.

"I believe we are a long way from having a commercial industry capable of satisfying human space transportation needs," Young said in prepared testimony. "In my view, this is a risk too high and not a responsible course. The commercial crew option should not be approved."

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1003/24congress/

I figured more voices would surface that view NASA's transformation to be highly controversial. I think it's correct to view the abrupt change with healthy skepticism.

Under the current economic climate the object is to keep the space agency engaged keeping work under way on Constellation and avoid hasty decisions that NASA would otherwise regret later such as a nasty fail that further compromises the agency, industries and international partners involved.
Re start constellation immediately shuttle should stand in as a launch system till constellation-orion fills in to ISS for now. NASA can later move to other HSF beyond LEO programs later with commercial space playing a role.

For now commercial space should demonstrate quickly to the public it can at least deliver a pizza on the moon type stuff.

On the space R&D side (apart from aeronautical duties) monies should be available for planetary precursor missions , employment apprenticeship programs and power and propulsion R&D (nuclear space technology). Thus keeping NASA space achievements simple and doable till the economic funk is over by that time commercial space will have matured to a level where they can make real space commerce impact.

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Friday 26th of March 2010 01:22:04 AM

John · Senior Member

We are in quite a problem here. Given the very tight budget situation the country is faced with some hard choices. Don't forget that the Shuttle shutdown was already underway in the previous administration. They had already accepted a gap from the end of 2010 until 2015 in our space program and the resulting reliance on the Russians. So without an increase in the NASA budget it is doubtful that we can extend the Shuttle and develop Constellation simultaneously.

So we are basically asking a Democrat Congress to completely reject the administrations policy and go with the previous administration's. I'd vote for the plan but I doubt Congress will.

Spacepolitics.com quotes Bolden as saying, "One interesting comment by NASA administrator Charles Bolden that got lost in the broader debate was his comments about developing a common crew module that could be launched on multiple vehicles, rather than have each potential commercial crew provider develop their own spacecraft."

Could this be a save Orion effort/concesson? Then the commercial competition is just for the rocket. The ULA could launch the Orion. Given this plan we could afford Shuttle extension within the budget. Furthermore, this path would suggest DIRECT or a Shuttle C type of HLV to replace the Shuttle after the Orion/EELV is flying.

GoogleNaut · Guru

An Orion CEV usable on many launchers has been one of the things I've said all along. The idea is to increase the probability of access to space even if a particular launcher fails and is out of commission for a year or two for design reviews...

I've also been an advocate of mounting one of these things on an uprated missile or dedicated solid propellant launch vehicle and storing a few in silos for emergency "Launch On Need" missions to rescue stranded space shuttle crews or space station crews, or with the proper docking adapters even Chinese or Russian crews. Such a vehicle need not even be man rated, because the CEV would be launched without a crew, only emergency supplies...

No launch abort tower needed, which automatically saves about 12,000 kg of up mass.

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

I think if we are going to be serious about going back to the moon we are going to have to develop a helium 3 mining capability. Helium 3 is the only nuclear fusion power that avoids nuetron bombardment of the container vessel which can be radioactive, destructive and costly. However this is not a problem with helium 3 because only free protons are released after the nuclear reaction. The fact that significant supplies of helium 3 are only found on the Moon should not be insurmountable given that the value of this element is 3 billion dollars a ton which is worth 100 times more than gold which is only 30 million dollars a ton.

The problem is that NASA refuses to develop helium 3 mining technology stating that nuclear fusion technology has never been demonstrated. And there is not any significant helium 3 fusion research funding because the only source of helium 3 is on the moon. However if this hurdle can be overcome I think this can solve a lot of our energy problems.

G R L Cowan · Veteran Member

D+D --50 percent--> 3-He + p

GoogleNaut · Guru

The trouble with Helium-3 mining is that it is really putting the cart before the horse: we have not yet demonstrated controlled fusion (only 'uncontrolled fusion' in nuclear weapons!) in a prototype production reactor with deuterium and tritium--the easiest and most powerful fusion reaction there is. The burn temperatures required for He3/D fusion are substantially higher because of the greater Coulomb repulsion. Besides, He3 is easily produceable on Earth: it is a natural decay product of Tritium.

Also, He3 is a nuclear damper as far as nuclear weapons are concerned--this is one reason why modern nuclear bombs using Tritium boosting must be refurbished every 5-10 years or so.

Food for Thought.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

@John,
We are in quite a problem here. Given the very tight budget situation the country is faced with some hard choices. Don't forget that the Shuttle shutdown was already underway in the previous administration. They had already accepted a gap from the end of 2010 until 2015 in our space program and the resulting reliance on the Russians. So without an increase in the NASA budget it is doubtful that we can extend the Shuttle and develop Constellation simultaneously.

So we are basically asking a Democrat Congress to completely reject the administrations policy and go with the previous administration's. I'd vote for the plan but I doubt Congress will.

I would agree but let me add gov't/NASA budgetary (small portion of U.S. budget) problems also stem for massive military expenditures and the need politically to funnel some civil space efforts monies toward military so as not to appear soft on military support.

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 on Sunday 28th of March 2010 01:44:03 AM

androbot2084 · Veteran Member

Either way we are putting the cart before the horse. If we propose an infrastructure for helium 3 mining on the Moon it will be argued that it would be a waste of money without a working Helium 3 power plant. If we propose research and development of a commercial Helium 3 reactor it will be argued that it will be a waste of money because NASA no longer mandates a return to the moon. If we do nothing other than pursue our existing technologies we risk the environmentalists vetoing every move we make. With helium 3 there is no objection that the environmentalist can raise other than making a claim that electricity itself is radioactive or that high technology solutions not the answer and if that is the case then how dare an environmentalist use a computer.

Bill Gates thinks he has beaten the environmentalists because he is using the environmental principle of recycling the nuclear waste. But Bill Gates will find out that breeder reactor technology is nothing new and the environmentalists banned the technology over 30 years ago and probably will make no exception for Bill Gates

John · Senior Member

If we do nothing other than pursue our existing technologies we risk the environmentalists vetoing every move we make.

Defeating the environmentalists is probably the correct answer here. Ultimately when the lights dim people will turn on them. So far they have just cost a little money and have done good on smog and chemical waste dumps, etc. But just like the ACLU, labor unions, MADD, NAACP, etc. once their legitimate objectives have been met they don't go away but just keep getting more radical.

He3 is easily produceable on Earth: it is a natural decay product of Tritium.

Yes, but why do that? What ever process generates the neutrons will provide more energy than the He3 produced by the He-3/D fusion reaction. This was one idea I had for my fusion rocket idea back in my early days on this site, i.e. breed tritium and let it "ferment" for several years! But here I wanted most of my energy in charged particles that could be direct into thrust.

Anyway, He-3 fusion is clearly second generation fusion. First generation fusion when and if it become workable will use tritium breed from lithium. The seed fuel will have to come from fission reactors (or some really expensive processes the DoE are plan to support the weapons stockpile). Also, don't give up hope on He-3 there is also a controversial approach to fusion developed by Dr. Robert Buzzard call ploywell.

The key point on this thread is that U.S. manned space itself is now in the lurch. It's going to be a while before there will be any moon missions with this isn't turned around.

-- Edited by John on Sunday 28th of March 2010 04:47:40 AM

GoogleNaut · Guru

US HSF is spiralling down to nothing. Once our launch capacity goes to zero--I'm guessing the price of Soyuz rides will go up--way up--(they've already risen sharply the last few years, like everything else.) I'm sure the Chinese probably wouldn't mind some extra cash...

It's one of those nightmare-like, slow motion train wrecks that has me in a Van Goh: "The Scream"--like state: "Nooooooooo!"

;)

Honestly I don't know what else to do--there have been suggestions of letter writing campaigns. I think this is a good start.

Now would be the time for some really fantastic, scifi-like game changing technologies.

Make space transport to LEO so cheap as to be impossible to resist. I don't see this happening, yet.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

So environmentalists selling clean environment at the expense of people living in darkness.

Is this the future ??

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Check out Savespace:

see link: http://www.savespace.us/default.aspx

CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA. -- Anyone need a $500 million, 355-foot steel tower for launching rockets into space?

There's one available at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. Brand new, never been used.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/27/AR2010032702810.html?referrer=reddit