Question for spaceflight geeks...

[sstearns2]

"The Apollo program had a surprising lack of redundancy, even by shuttle standards. The part that gives me chills was the fact that the SM's single engine was all the astronauts had to enter and leave lunar orbit, and to re-enter Earth orbit. It had to start every time, or they really would have gone 'from here to eternity'. There were also big risks taken with all the docking and undocking between the CM and LM. They were all maneuvers that had to be successful."

A single engine is the safest way to space. The failure of any one engine leads to an abort or worse the vast majority of the time in space flight. Asymmetric thrust from a main engine failure is impossible to control in space.



"The rumors of Bush calling for a return to the Moon are incredibly exciting."

Why? What's so interesting about the surface of the moon? There is an enormous amount of real science that is going unfunded in order to pay for manned space flight. The super conducting super collider is a great example. It is rotting away in Texas half completed as Congress cut the funding to pay for the space shuttle. The SCSC would take us to the next level of particle physics research for less than the cost of one shuttle launch, not the whole mission, just the launch.


" We've rested on our laurels far too long, and we need to start acting like Americans again."

How have we been resting on our laurels??? What you're saying is that if we don't risk the lives of human beings then it’s not worthwhile.


"Any new push into space will require replacing the shuttles, though. They are mid-'70s technology, they are getting harder and more expensive to maintain, and there are only three of them. We need to build something new"

Yes, we absolutely need to get rid of the shuttle. It's return on investment is horrible and it's safety record is worse. What we need to do is get over the idea of sending humans to space. Humans are very heavy, difficult to maintain in space, have little utility and you have to bring them back. Imagine if we just sent a rocket full of mars rovers to the moon and had them analyze the rocks and whatnot up there and send us the data. We could use the latest microelectronics and technology because it wouldn't have to be qualified for manned space flight and we wouldn't have to worry about bringing any of it back and we wouldn't have to worry about killing anyone.


We need to realize the difference between science and spectacle.

Scott

 

[EagleRJ]

"
A single engine is the safest way to space. The failure of any one engine leads to an abort or worse the vast majority of the time in space flight. Asymmetric thrust from a main engine failure is impossible to control in space.

How is a single engine the safest way? The shuttle has abort scenarios for the loss of one or two main engines, and in some cases, it can still make it to orbit. The reliability of rocket engines is nowhere near what would be required to rely on just one, especially with hypergolics. Maybe with the introduction of aerospikes or another technology. Right now, we're better off having the redundancy of multiple engines.

"The rumors of Bush calling for a return to the Moon are incredibly exciting."

Why? What's so interesting about the surface of the moon? There is an enormous amount of real science that is going unfunded in order to pay for manned space flight. The super conducting super collider is a great example. It is rotting away in Texas half completed as Congress cut the funding to pay for the space shuttle. The SCSC would take us to the next level of particle physics research for less than the cost of one shuttle launch, not the whole mission, just the launch. [/B]

Agreed that projects like the SCSC would help us understand our universe better. It's not like going back to the moon would be wasted money though. How many everyday products were initally developed for the Apollo program? The moon still has plenty of mysteries, and may hold plenty of resources, like Helium3, which may be the key to developing fusion power. It's a logical stepping stone to further exploration, too. We still need to develop our life support systems and other expertise before we can go further.

" We've rested on our laurels far too long, and we need to start acting like Americans again."

How have we been resting on our laurels??? What you're saying is that if we don't risk the lives of human beings then it’s not worthwhile. [/B]

Our last accomplishment in space was the introduction of the Space Shuttle in 1981. The ISS is a needed step, but right now, it's all we can do to keep it supplied with rickety Russian launch vehicles until we can restore our own launch capability. We need much more support for it to perform its intended science functions.
Risk goes with any venture other than sitting watching TV. We accept, and try to minimize, the risk that goes along with intercontinental air travel, don't we?

"Any new push into space will require replacing the shuttles, though. They are mid-'70s technology, they are getting harder and more expensive to maintain, and there are only three of them. We need to build something new"

Yes, we absolutely need to get rid of the shuttle. It's return on investment is horrible and it's safety record is worse. What we need to do is get over the idea of sending humans to space. Humans are very heavy, difficult to maintain in space, have little utility and you have to bring them back. Imagine if we just sent a rocket full of mars rovers to the moon and had them analyze the rocks and whatnot up there and send us the data. We could use the latest microelectronics and technology because it wouldn't have to be qualified for manned space flight and we wouldn't have to worry about bringing any of it back and we wouldn't have to worry about killing anyone. [/B]

True, robotic probes definitely have their place, and are very useful for quick, reletively cheap exploration, but what's the point, if they're not clearing the way for human explorers? Overpopulation and diminishing natural resources demand that we either reduce our numbers, or expand off of this planet. I personally vote for the latter- we're explorers by nature.

We need to realize the difference between science and spectacle.

Scott [/B]

What if science also happens to be spectacle?

 

[sstearns2]

How is a single engine the safest way? The shuttle has abort scenarios for the loss of one or two main engines, and in some cases, it can still make it to orbit. The reliability of rocket engines is nowhere near what would be required to rely on just one, especially with hypergolics. Maybe with the introduction of aerospikes or another technology. Right now, we're better off having the redundancy of multiple engines.

It makes sense to have the minimum number of engines if the failure of any engine results in the failure of the mission. The vast majority of the time an engine failure will result in an abort or worse.

Agreed that projects like the SCSC would help us understand our universe better. It's not like going back to the moon would be wasted money though. How many everyday products were initially developed for the Apollo program? The moon still has plenty of mysteries, and may hold plenty of resources, like Helium3, which may be the key to developing fusion power. It's a logical stepping stone to further exploration, too. We still need to develop our life support systems and other expertise before we can go further.

The amount of real science done on a shuttle mission would pale in comparison to the science done by the many projects that could be funded by one shuttle mission. A shuttle mission is $5-700 million in direct costs, sometimes more.

I agree that the moon does have mysteries that would be interesting to solve, but they could be solved just as well, perhaps better, without sending human beings there.

Our last accomplishment in space was the introduction of the Space Shuttle in 1981. The ISS is a needed step, but right now, it's all we can do to keep it supplied with rickety Russian launch vehicles until we can restore our own launch capability. We need much more support for it to perform its intended science functions.
Risk goes with any venture other than sitting watching TV. We accept, and try to minimize, the risk that goes along with intercontinental air travel, don't we?

Since 1981?? Chandra, SOHO, Cassini, Hubble Telescope, Galileo, numerous Mars missions... Do I need to go on? Any one of these programs has produced considerably more useful scientific data than the shuttle or ISS has without risking human lives and at a reasonable cost. For that matter, exactly what science has been done on the ISS? Of that science what of it needed human intervention?

During the search for Columbia wreckage they found a worm experiment in which the worms were still living. Everyone was fascinated and amazed, but no one asked why we were spending billions of dollars and risking these people lives to do worm experiments!?!

The Russians actually make some of the best rockets in the world.

True, robotic probes definitely have their place, and are very useful for quick, relatively cheap exploration, but what's the point, if they're not clearing the way for human explorers? Overpopulation and diminishing natural resources demand that we either reduce our numbers, or expand off of this planet. I personally vote for the latter- we're explorers by nature.

Overpopulation and limited natural resources are major problems that are largely ignored. It needs serious attention if the human race is to maintain its vitality beyond the next 100 years or so. But, the idea that a significant percentage of the population will ever leave this planet is absurd.

Robotic probes are capable of much more useful exploration and examination per pound or per dollar than human beings. Human beings are not very efficient at gathering data, but they are excellent at interpreting data and figuring out why….

What if science also happens to be spectacle?

In some cases it is, in the case of manned space flight it is generally not.

Thanks for the reply.

Scott

 

[Typhoon1244]

There is an enormous amount of real science that is going unfunded in order to pay for manned space flight. The super conducting super collider is a great example. It is rotting away in Texas half completed as Congress cut the funding to pay for the space shuttle. The SCSC would take us to the next level of particle physics research for less than the cost of one shuttle launch, not the whole mission, just the launch.

Although I'm a big fan of the space program, sstearns2 is right about the super collider. Going to the moon will lead us to Mars. The super collider could conceivably lead to hyperlight travel, among other things.

I grant you, we're a long way away from laying the keel for the NCC-1701, but the SCSC is the first step in that direction.

My astronomy professor at U. Tenn., Dr. Paul Handler, was one of the project managers for the SCSC. He was absolutely crushed when their funding was transferred to the I.S.S. [sarcasm]And of course, it's been a huge success![/sarcasm]

 

[EagleRJ]

I'm all for subatomic particle research, and I hope they eventually build the SCSC, but I don't think that will help us with rapid space travel. It will help us understand our universe better though, and may lead to breakthroughs in other areas, most importantly- fusion power.

Right now, we don't have the technology to go to Mars. Going back to the moon and expanding our space presence will help us with that. One of the primary problems is our propulsion technology is still archaic. Even with regenerative life-support systems and a large vehicle built in orbit, chemical rockets just don't have the performance for a Mars mission.
NASA has a project they are calling Prometheus that will develop nuclear rocket engines. I'm sure the idea will drive the environmentalists wild, but the technology will bring Mars within reach, and will make much farther robotic exploration possible.

Not to hijack the thread, but I doubt if super-light speed will ever be developed. It is impossible, if you believe Albert Einstein. What's more likely is finding a way to use wormholes to fold space, effectively moving your destination right next to you so you can just step through the hole. That's all probably 500+ years away though. Mars can be reached in a couple of decades.

 

[sstearns2]

Right now, we don't have the technology to go to Mars.

We've been to mars several times now, we just havn't sent humans there.

Scott

 

[ShawnC]

Not to hijack the thread, but I doubt if super-light speed will ever be developed. It is impossible, if you believe Albert Einstein. What's more likely is finding a way to use wormholes to fold space, effectively moving your destination right next to you so you can just step through the hole. That's all probably 500+ years away though. Mars can be reached in a couple of decades.

There are alot of scientists that said the same thing about the sound barrier. Only time will tell.