Administrator Griffin Makes The Right Choices
In a presentation to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, Administrator Griffin laid out NASA's plans for implementing the President's Vision for Space Exploration. Although the President's vision is inspiring, and will have far reaching effects on our country, its economy, and the future of space exploration, the lack of additional funding left many questioning if it was all just election year politics.…
Article comments
26 - Victor Plenty
By the way, 5 meg shouldn't take too long to download, even on dialup. I'm on dialup and just this morning I downloaded an 11 meg movie trailer file, in the background as I browsed here and elsewhere. It took less than an hour to finish.
27 - Bennett
I don't care WHO colonizes the Moon or Mars, so long as there is a serious program to do as you say, found a permanent base off-Earth. It would be just as inspiring to watch videos of colonists from China or Russia. The flag patch on the sleeve is irrelevant, to me anyway.
It will be a proud moment for humanity when we finally leave the cradle of our planet and establish a viable permanent settlement on another globe.
28 - Victor Plenty
I share your view, Bennett. Any permanent human presence no longer wholly dependent on just this one planet would vastly increase the chances of our long term survival as a species. To me, that is the most significant goal of all space exploration.
Of course, any nation that establishes a solid presence in space will not take long to benefit from a tremendously expanded resource base. Access to the minerals in the asteroid belt and the other vast wealth of the solar system can become a significant advantage, especially for a populous nation like China or India. Thus, people who have a nationalistic desire to make sure their own country is among the first to get out there are not entirely wrong in their way of thinking.
If such priorities can be made to serve the benefit of all humanity, by driving nationalists' energies to exploration instead of war, I see that as a good side benefit of space exploration.
29 - Eric Berlin
There's a great novel, written in the 80s (or perhaps late 70s) that talks about this possible near-future, harnassing the asteroid belt and the political scramble and so forth.
I'm sure there's lots of them, but the one I mention is called Privateers, by Ben Bova.
30 - Victor Plenty
I've read a few of Bova's works, but not that one. I'll have to check it out.
Not right away, though. I'm still busy with Stephenson's Baroque Cycle at the moment.
Some good nonfiction looks at the resources to be found in space include Entering Space by Robert Zubrin, and Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis.
31 - Eric Berlin
Bova's Orion series was a favorite of mine as a kid as well.
I've heard so much about Stephenson over the months at BC that I simply must check him out at some point.
32 - gonzo marx
Baroque cycle is awesome..just finished onfusion..should pick up the third one this week..
Privateers is a fine novel, and does touch a lot of this..
as any Reader of my own mad ranting knows , i am much the Heinlein fan...since he was a mechanical engineer, mathemetician(he wrote the Britannica entry for Dirac, among other works) and all around heavyweight thinker..i do tend to go with his View on how this can come about...hence my earlier diatribes on this Thread...
after all, when Apollo 13 had it's problems and they needed a way to get back without enough fuel..it was Heinlein's "S" curve orbit that provided the answer...since he had written the same scenario..and worked out the proper trajectory and thrust factors many years earlier...
so my most Profound apologies to any i might have horked off by my staunch rants..i never meant to offend...i was merely attempting to show that all these problems had been worked out up to 50 years ago...from the financial, the political to the technology...
he proved it could be done THEN...with only the tech that was available at the time..(see Rocket Ship Galileo, even current experts in the field at NASA and MIT still say it would work)
hope that helps...
Excelsior!
33 - Eric Berlin
Which Heinlein novel(s) would you say best capture the spirit of humanity moving into the cosmos, Gonzo?
34 - gonzo marx
oh my stars and garters...that is a loaded Question...
the Man who sold the Moon is a book containing the various short stories of Delos D. Harriman, and his getting a lunar colony set up...starting with the efforts for the first launch, done as a commercial venture...by the time it ends, there is a thriving colony...and he is the richest man in history...closely followed by those that helped back him...
his Idealism...the Dream he followed...that might best sum it up..
others..
Rocket Ship Galileo
Time for the Stars
Space Cadet (i know..but this was written long before the idiom hit the culture)
the Green Hills of Earth
those deal with the exploration and the Dream in many ways...all from a very human perspective of the Protagonist actually involved in exploration...
there's more than 20 more that deal with being IN space..or on a colony, or such where the concept of space travel is an accepted Postulate of the Story...these show a deeper understanding...and help the reader to "feel" what such societies would/could be like...
and i could rant on this topic all night..
but you get the idea..
Excelsior!
35 - Eric Berlin
Very cool, Gonzo, thanks.
36 - gonzo marx
hey..more than happy to be of service..
>bows, hand over fist<
Excelsior!
37 - Victor Plenty
Heinlein was smart, but too fixated on the moon, like many other smart people of his era.
Most of the fixation on the moon as a supposedly good place to build settlements dates back to before we had any samples of the materials to be found there. Now that we have a better idea of just how barren the moon is, only mental habit persuades people to think it a good place for any activities like mining.
Take water, for example. The vast majority of the moon's surface is dry as a bone. Actually it makes a bone look wet. If you were on the moon and you had some condrete, you'd look at it as a rich source of water. If there is any usable water at all on the moon, it exists only in a few deposits of ice in shadowed craters near the poles.
Mars is nowhere near as wet as our home planet, of course, but water is much more readily available there than it will ever be on the moon.
38 - gonzo marx
Victor sez..
*einlein was smart, but too fixated on the moon, like many other smart people of his era.*
more than 60 novels..a lot more short stories..essays and lectures..
very small percentage dealt with the Moon
as for the water bit..you are quite correct, and i totally agree..Mars is a much better bet
but i never said there was a need for a lunar colony ...merely that a space station at L5 for a staging point to construct and laucnh a Mars craft makes more sense fiscally and politically than attempting a zero gee orbit from earth's surface..
that point is arguable..i agree...and i have no problem with your position there, merely stating my own
nuff said?
Excelsior!
39 - Victor Plenty
I'd like to tell you whether or not what I advocate is "a zero gee orbit from earth's surface" but first I must request that you elaborate a bit more on what exactly that means.
As for Heinlein being fixated on the moon, of course I'm not talking about the percentage of his work devoted to directly talking about the moon. I'm simply saying he assumed the moon to be the logical next step for human settlement. Many people did back then, but that was before we had any good information on the moon's resources.
Building spacecraft in orbit or on the moon is hugely more expensive than building them on Earth, and unnecessary when launching directly from Earth to Mars is well within the capacity of current technology.
40 - gonzo marx
the orbit i described is when you escape planetary gravity, then aim at where you want to go...accelerate and coast, at the proper time..rotate and accelerate to stop where you want
if you are launching from the earth's surface..that is the type of orbit you will have to shape..the inverse square law limits the amount of reaction mass/fuel you can carry
launching from orbit removes this limitation as well as not requiring the staging and fuel to lift from inside the earth's gravity well...you know ..those minutes of 7 gee acceleration that is the lions share of the cost
that is why it is more economically feasible to build and launch from orbit, the same amount of fuel can be used for a fractional constant boost acceleration orbit...cutting down the time required, thus the resources need for the trip..leaving more payload for the actual Mars landing and surface mission...
i hope that helps clarify..
Excelsior!
41 - Victor Plenty
Launching from orbit still requires fuel lifted out of Earth's gravity well up to the orbital platform, which adds huge amounts of launch costs to the total expense of any such Mars mission.
A better alternative is to acquire the fuel for the return trip on Mars. This frees up more payload capacity on the outgoing trip for the astronauts and their supplies. They can even still use a free-return trajectory, like the one that saved the crew of Apollo 13, to have Mars slingshot them back to Earth in case anything goes wrong.
The machinery for manufacturing rocket fuel from the Martian atmosphere is based on technology perfected in the nineteenth century, and has already been tested in air just as thin as the air of Mars.
With this mission plan, before the astronauts ever leave Earth, there will already be a return vehicle sitting on the surface of Mars, fully fueled and ready to bring them home at the end of their mission. This is why they will have the supplies to stay on the surface of Mars for well over a full Earth year, instead of just a week or two as proposed earlier in this discussion.
42 - gonzo marx
one Trick you missed, Victor..
the fuel used can easily be hydrogen, which does NOT have to be lifted...but can be gathered from orbit...it IS the most abundant element in the universe as far as we know..and there is quite the bit hanging around in the outer atmosphere
as for utilizing ANYTHING on Mars ...well..i woudl think you would want a much better survey before you drop folks there with no guaranteed return ticket
but i easily agree that most everything they need SHOULD already be there, if they have the means to gather and refine it when they land
Excelsior!
43 - Duane
Bush's so-called vision has caused a disastrous upheaval in the astronomy and astrophysics community. I know that most Americans don't give a damn about Hubble, Cassini, Chandra, Spitzer, Swift, and many other missions that actually lead to exciting science. I know that having astronauts attaching widgets to useless pieces of orbiting space junk, like the space station, is supposed to capture our imagination. But I wonder why Bush's "vision" (which, of course, NASA must adhere to, like it or not) so blatantly ignores the Decadal Survey of Astronomy and Astrophysics. In the past, the recommendations of this panel, which provides a national consensus of scientists, have been followed closely by NASA, without interference from silly visions coming out of Washington. Bush's vision is sacrificing actual scientific exploration in favor of wasteful, and generally useless, manned missions.
44 - Eric Berlin
These debates remind me very much of those discussed in James Michener's Space, which I read when I was 12 or 13.
Launching missions from Earth, low Earth orbit, the moon, etc. Manned vs. unmanned... it's fascinating stuff.
Let's hope we all live to see an age where our problems on the ground become small enough where enormous time and resources can be used to explore and reach out into the cosmos.
45 - Bennett
"I know that most Americans don't give a damn about Hubble, Cassini, Chandra, Spitzer, Swift, and many other missions that actually lead to exciting science."
I dispute this Duane, but you do make good points about the sad impact of budgetary constraints on some of the projects that will be slowed or postponed for a few years.
"useless pieces of orbiting space junk, like the space station"
This too I dispute. Having a platform to conduct zero-G science experiments is the pursuit of knowledge, and as gonzo noted above, research ALWAYS pays dividends.
Moving forward NOW is important, the Earth does not have unlimited resources, and the sooner we can tap into the great wealth that exists beyond our gravitational field, the soon we can reduce the planet killing industry that is responsible for the deaths of thousands of folks every year.
A common statement of those who see no value in the space program is "We should spend the money here on Earth before we spend it to get into space." This is a shallow and obtuse argument. Lewis and Clark would still be in Kentucky if Americans demanded that the East Coast be trouble free, before looking to expand westward.
Thanks for the post. All I ask is that you try to see the positive effect Hubble has had on all of humanity before you declare that "Americans don't give a damn."
We do.
46 - SFC SKI
Good points, Bennett.
47 - Duane
Bennett,
The fact that you might be excited about the results of unmanned space exploration does not provide sufficient grounds to dispute my statement that most Americans do not care.
Sorry to sound so cynical about comments like
Having a platform to conduct zero-G science experiments is the pursuit of knowledge, and as gonzo noted above, research ALWAYS pays dividends,
but my take on this is as follows:
Q: Why do we need a space station?
A: So we can study the long-term effects of zero-gee on human physiology.
Q: Why is that important?
A: Because we need humans in orbit to build and repair orbiting craft like the space station.
It's circular. There is no good reason to have humans in orbit other than "it's like gee whiz, ain't it cool?" And there is even less reason to go to the Moon (remember, we did that already!), and even less reason to go to Mars. I have heard all about zero-gee experiments in materials science, etc. Can you provide some examples of how the billions of dollars of Space Shuttle and Space Station investment has paid off?
A common statement of those who see no value in the space program is "We should spend the money here on Earth before we spend it to get into space."
True enough. You realize, of course, that I did not make that statement.
All I ask is that you try to see the positive effect Hubble has had on all of humanity before you declare that "Americans don't give a damn."
Huh? You're taking the point I was trying to make -- that unmanned space exploration has actual value, and not just Hubble with its pretty pictures -- and using it as if it was your point. I'm asking you to try to see the positive effect that unmanned exploration has had on all of humanity, and then to acknowledge that, by comparison, manned space flight is a disaster. It's a zero-sum game.
48 - Tom Johnson
Duane, your comment reveals an embarassing amount of ignorance about the benefits of the space program. The lack of gravity that space flight provides is crucial to the development of some crystal structures that would ordinarily never form under the stress of gravity, allowing scientists to create and study things that eventually make their way into medical treatment and even everyday life. Not to mention that without the space program we wouldn't have such commonplace things as Velcro, or advanced plastics, and a million other things that you take for granted every day. Are you embarassed yet? You should be. You owe it to yourself to read up on what the space program does for YOU here, if only to prevent those of us who actually have been paying attention to the space from having to listen to your ignorant complaints.
49 - Bennett
People younger than forty don't know what life was like in the 70s. Nothing was computerized, nothing was digital, cassettes were high tech, you only saw movies in theaters, timing lights were part of every mechanics toolbox, drive up banking was new wave, no cell phones or GPS, and broadcast television was IT.
If you got sick, it was either x-ray diagnosis or exploratory surgery. The field of medicine is unrecognizable compared to what was available when I was a kid.
So many changes in the last 30 years that can ALL be linked back to the miniaturization developed for the Apollo Program (we needed a ballistic computer small enough to fit into a space capsule).
This is a pitifully partial list of what comes from investing money in the Space Program. Not to mention TRILLIONS of dollars of new industry for the USA, the internet, the very computer you are using to claim that manned space exploration is unnecessary, and a higher standard of living for the entire world.
Good deal, eh?
50 - JR
You guys are overselling the manned space program, and you're going to get burned when some cost-cutting senator comes along and debunks all your hype.
Much of the technological progress you are attributing to the Apollo program can just as easily be credited to the Department of Defense, e.g. the internet.
51 - gonzo marx
ok..yes, the 'net is the descendant of ARPA net, designed by the military and colleges with DoD funding..
can you possibly deny that the COMPUTER you are typing on is NOT a product of NASA research?...remember...in the 60's you could walk insdie part of the computer, set up sub-routines with punchcards...used a reel to reel tape for a drive...
the transistor and the IC chip are products of NASA research...so many advances in medical tchnology come form there as well..
think about it everytime you use your cel phone, see a GPS, or a digital dish for TV reception...
on and on...
am at lunch at work..i will try and get back to this at home this evening..
but there was a good point above..
if you are young enough to have ALWAYS had CD's, cable tv..remote controls and so on..
then you really need to look at near History in the eyes of cultural anthropology and technology to even begin to understand...
film at 11
Excelsior!
52 - Bennett
Yeah JR, you're right. DOD spending usually leads to trickle down technology. Kevlar undies fer example.
53 - Victor Plenty
Gonzo, it seems you misunderstood what I was saying about the most efficient way for Mars explorers to return to Earth.
I never said they should land first with no way to get home, then hope to be able to manufacture fuel for the return trip. I said the exact opposite of that!
The return vehicle will land on Mars without any crew. Its automated systems will then manufacture fuel from the atmosphere. After all the fuel needed for the return trip has successfully been synthesized, and only then, would the crew be launched from Earth.
It might be possible to gather hydrogen from the upper atmosphere of Earth and make it into rocket fuel, as you advocate, but has this ever been done? Has it even been tested in a lab? Laboratory tests have already shown fuel can be synthesized from the atmosphere of Mars.
54 - richard
Even better news:
NASA will delay two ambitious missions to search for extrasolar planets in order to fund a shuttle mission to upgrade the Hubble Space Telescope, agency chief Mike Griffin told a US Senate subcommittee on Thursday
55 - Bennett
This is sad news. When I reported this story, it was clear that moving the replacement shuttle onto the front burner would cause other programs to be delayed or cancelled.
But I stand by my opinion that Mike Griffin is doing the right thing. I think the worry of anyone who wants to see NASA get back into space beyond low Earth orbit, is that we retire the shuttle and then funding for NASA is cut to help balance the budget.
What a mockery that would be, to abdicate space exploration to the rest of the world because we can't stop our lawmakers from dealing out pork after pork after pork, and then we drop NASA to pay for it.
Hubble is a National Treasure at this point. It is still producing vast amounts of data, and can continue to do so for years to come. To balance the discoveries yet to take place with Hubble, against new projects such as you mention is a hard call.
Mike Griffin is qualified to make the call, and that's why he's in charge right now.
56 - SFC SKI
The DOD has produced some amzing technology that has civilian uses, but so has the space program, and the DOD has probably used the space program for even more research and development. By cutting out the space program, we are tying one hand behind our backs in R & D.
57 - Bennett
No doubt SFC SKI, I knew I'd hear from you the second I posted my lame attempt at humor. Doh!
I like your analogy. R&D always pays.
58 - SFC SKI
I am all for humor, and considering I jsut found a place that imports real German beer, I am about to be in a much better humor. Tampa traffic always puts me on edge forthe first hour after I get home. Prost!
(wonder how zero-grav beer would taste?)
59 - Temple Stark
Great report. Sorry if someone mentioned it above but the CEV sucks as a name. That is snore-inspiring not inspiring.
60 - Duane
Thanks for the link Tom Johnson. I was especially impressed by the Personalized Beauty Makeover from Mars, the revolutionary improvements in the field of Golfball Aerodynamics, and the Robotic Mother Pig. National Lampoon couldn't have written a funnier website. Thanks for the laughs. Yes, let's go to Mars! Maybe they will come up with a laser-guided toothbrush. It's worth it!
But seriously, Tom, everyone is aware of the incidental "spin-off" aspect of the space program. NASA is careful to point this out regularly in their interest to be accountable to the taxpayers. NASA staff, of course, just wish they could do their work without having to pander to the masses with nonsense about how the space program is helping us reduce our electrical bills.
It's also worth pointing out to you, Tom, that I was specifically drawing a distinction between the manned space program and the unmanned space program, as anyone who had read my posts could see. Interestingly enough, most of the spin-offs and tangible benefits of the space program involve unmanned missions, such as Landsat. And (now, pay attention to this next part, Tom), almost all scientific results have come from unmanned missions. Why is that? Because the presence of moving humans makes most experiments impossible. Should I remind you of the exorbitant costs attached to the human presence? For example, the fact that the Hubble Space Telescope was forced to be Shuttle deployable lead to a cost overrun of a factor of seven. We could have flown seven Hubble-class observatories for the same cost, so no need to remind me that astronauts serviced the Shuttle on orbit.
The sad fact is that Bush's policy is gutting the good part of NASA, the unmanned mission program. And I'm fully aware of what the unmanned space program has done for me and the world. That's why, as you say, I'm complaining.
61 - Victor Plenty
To a certain extend I must agree with Duane. Arguments based on "technology transfer" or "technology spin-off" do not hold up to scrutiny very well, which makes them weak supports for sending humans into space. If it's Teflon and Velcro we really want, we can funnel our money into such research directly, without all that tedious mucking about in space.
Later on this can and should change, when we start to mine asteroids and bring back large quantities of helium-3 from the gas giant planets. But by that point the benefits of a human presence in space would be so obvious, there would no longer be any need for a "technology transfer" line of argument.
The strongest and most justifiable goal for sending human crews into space is to establish permanent, self-supporting settlements. Any lesser goal is not worth the risk and expense of sending humans, and is better suited to robotic spacecraft.
62 - Bennett
"Any lesser goal is not worth the risk and expense of sending humans, and is better suited to robotic spacecraft."
The risk is not a factor. When we sacrifice 1,500 Americans to "liberate Iraq" the likelyhood that we will eventually lose a few dozen astronauts or colonists, in order to expand the frontiers of humanity, is a rediculously small price to pay.
Highly educated men and women are lining up to take this risk.
All the studies and cost estimates for ISS, a Lunar Colony, a Mars Colony and the other feasible projects noted in this thread lack one element. They don't ask the question "What's the cost to our country and humanity if we do nothing at all?"
63 - Victor Plenty
Yes, expanding the frontiers of humanity is worth it. No argument from me there.
All I'm saying is, frontiers are the edges of the places where people live. Not just places where they go for a brief time, gather some data, and then scoot back home again.
When all we want from space is scientific data, we can send robots to gather the data. When we are ready to make new homes for human beings, that is when it is time to send humans.
64 - Bennett
That's a given.
If the path to the Mars is through a successful Lunal Colony, even if it's just to satisfy short sighted beaurocrats, we ultimately achieve what we both believe in.
BTW Victor, the plasma acceleration timetable with a 12 day stay at Mars was showing how the system could resupply, or deliver new scientists, within the window of closest approach. There and back without the months long wait for realignment.
Thought I should clear that up.
Cheers!
65 - Victor Plenty
Yes, we both share the same ultimate goal, Bennett, which is to see at least part of the human species leave our cradle and continue our journey toward the stars. In terms of general principle, I certainly have nothing against research into better propulsion technologies, nor do I particularly oppose bases on the moon or in Earth orbit.
What I oppose is waiting for all those other things to get done before we begin pioneering Mars, for the same reasons I oppose waiting until Earth is a paradise with no more major problems before we begin pioneering Mars.
If our technological civilization has enough spare resources to afford a multibillion dollar cosmetics industry, a multibillion dollar pet food industry, and several multibillion dollar entertainment industries, we damn sure have enough to expand the frontiers of human civilization beyond this planet. So there is no reason for us to go on keeping all our eggs in one basket.
At this time, the most hospitable place for human life in this solar system, other than Earth, is Mars. That is why I favor settling humans on the red planet as soon as possible, and it is possible with the technology we already possess.