Obama's Space Plan

[Kornman00]

Obama plans to see landing on Mars (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36563152/ns/technology_and_science-space/).


President Barack Obama predicted Thursday his new space exploration plans would lead American astronauts to Mars and back in his lifetime, a bold forecast relying on rockets and propulsion still to be imagined and built.

"I expect to be around to see it," he said of pioneering U.S. trips, first to an asteroid and then on to Mars. He spoke near the historic Kennedy Space Center launch pads that sent the first men to the moon, a blunt rejoinder to critics, including several former astronauts, who contend his planned changes will instead deal a staggering blow to the nation's manned space program.

"We want to leap into the future," not continue on the same path as before, Obama said as he sought to reassure NASA workers that America's space adventures would soar on despite the impending termination of space shuttle flights.


While I agree that Mars is something that should be a high target for us in the coming decades, the moon should be on the first order of buisness. I'm not sure what Bush's reasons or thoughts were, but the Moon should be used a staging area, creating a new ground for deep space missions.

Why? It'd be way cheaper for launches to start from the moon, not from Earth's surface which would require powerful boosters to escape Earth's gravity. While there are some pretty hefty con (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_dust#Harmful_effects_of_lunar_dust)s to setting the Moon as the sole base of operations it can still be a useful "middle man" for equipment and emergancy conditions.

In short: I'm not disagreeing totally with Mr. Obama's Mars plans, but I still think there should be considerations of how the Moon, our closest natural neighbor, can be used to our advantage for our future space missions.

Helpful references: Moon Colonizations Pros and Cons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_colony#Advantages_and_disadvantages).

[sleepy1212]

I'm interested to see what these private companies come up with.

[thehoodedsmack]

I'm interested to see what these private companies come up with.

As long as they're under strict regulation. Otherwise, private companies could be the worst organizations to be sending people into space.

[Kornman00]

That's def. one thing I liked about his new plans: giving civilian organizations the ability to develop means and measures for future space operations. If they don't fuck it up, it should pave a new way for future mission developments and make things not so gov't based (but still regulated in some forms). The pressure of not fucking up should be enough for these companies to do well.

[sleepy1212]

As long as they're under strict regulation. Otherwise, private companies could be the worst organizations to be sending people into space.

Do not worry comrade. The glory of the State will not be thrown into the hands of the mongrel profiteers. :gonk:

I was thinking the opposite, aside from safety.


That's def. one thing I liked about his new plans: giving civilian organizations the ability to develop means and measures for future space operations. If they don't fuck it up, it should pave a new way for future mission developments and make things not so gov't based (but still regulated in some forms). The pressure of not fucking up should be enough for these companies to do well.

Yes. There's so many possibilities that could come from this. different designs, different purposes, destinations. It's all very exciting.

[paladin]

Jxogl5C6ano

6:10

M.A.R.S mars Bitches

[Dwood]

earth to orbit travel should have been privatized ten years ago, gvt just wastes money. oh and we should have a moon base by now... obama is doing this to shut his space program critics up imho.

[Cojafoji]

A friend of mine who has worked at nasa said that since the pivotal point is fifteen years in the future, and because it will cost so much, the next president will axe it as soon as he hits office. So, don't get your hopes up.

[sdavis117]

Remember, we still have 7 years till the next president. No one knows what the next president will actually think about the program.

Edit: Also the ISS is a likely launching ground for a trip to mars, and since it is already there it would be the best option most likely.

[CN3089]

I'm more excited about the asteroid mission, wanna see ceres up close


e: although he said "near-earth" asteroid so it'll probably be one of those small quasi-satellites in orbital resonance with us~

[paladin]

Remember, we still have 7 years till the next president.


Hahahaha. I laugh at your optimism

[flibitijibibo]

Unless they can get a hipper, younger, more X-TREME republican candidate, I'd say that he's got 7 more years.

[paladin]

Or a more respected Democratic nominee. Have you seen Obama's polls lately, or the last 6 months.... More democrats are pissed at him then republicans

[sdavis117]

His poll numbers are on the mark with most previous presidents at this part of their first term.

[Rob Oplawar]

While I agree that Mars is something that should be a high target for us in the coming decades, the moon should be on the first order of buisness. I'm not sure what Bush's reasons or thoughts were, but the Moon should be used a staging area, creating a new ground for deep space missions.

Why? It'd be way cheaper for launches to start from the moon, not from Earth's surface which would require powerful boosters to escape Earth's gravity. While there are some pretty hefty con (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_dust#Harmful_effects_of_lunar_dust)s to setting the Moon as the sole base of operations it can still be a useful "middle man" for equipment and emergancy conditions.

In short: I'm not disagreeing totally with Mr. Obama's Mars plans, but I still think there should be considerations of how the Moon, our closest natural neighbor, can be used to our advantage for our future space missions.
The trouble is there's not much value on the moon. The most theoretically valuable thing it contains from a resource standpoint may or may not be helium 3, which might hypothetically one day be useful for fusion power. Even if that were the case, it would be obscenely expensive to get it from the moon to the earth.
As for using the moon as a launch point for rockets- either you have to get the rockets from the earth to the moon first, or you have to build them there (alternatively build the fuel there). That's a massive infrastructure that has to be built, and in the short term while it would be nice to look into it, it's not going to get us any closer to mars; it's just gonna be a massive money black hole.

Fun fact: if you plan your Mars lander right, it actually takes considerably less fuel to land on Mars than it does to land on the moon, and the reason can be summed up in one word: parachutes. Mars gives you an atmosphere you can use to bleed off all your velocity; on the moon you have to have enough fuel to go really fast and then slow all the way back down again.


earth to orbit travel should have been privatized ten years ago, gvt just wastes money. oh and we should have a moon base by now... obama is doing this to shut his space program critics up imho.
Well, space travel right now is still obscenely expensive. SpaceX is the most promising private leo option, and they've already spent billions.


A friend of mine who has worked at nasa said that since the pivotal point is fifteen years in the future, and because it will cost so much, the next president will axe it as soon as he hits office. So, don't get your hopes up.
Sadly, yes. The Apollo program was the high point of NASA's achievements and the only reason it worked was because we were in stiff competition with Russia and the entire country was riled up about it. People got extremely excited about Apollo, and we need to get the same excitement (and hence support) in order to go to Mars.


the ISS is a likely launching ground for a trip to mars, and since it is already there it would be the best option most likely.
Well, once again the trouble is infrastructure; ISS isn't really set up to refuel spacecraft in orbit and that's basically all the value it could offer as a launching ground.
The real value of the ISS is that it taught us how to assemble things in orbit and how to live in microgravity for months, even years at a time.


I'm more excited about the asteroid mission, wanna see ceres up close
Yes. The moon isn't actually a very good proving ground for a Mars mission, but a manned mission to an asteroid would give us invaluable training on extended human travel in deep space.



For the record, my Dad works on the Orion program- in fact, he's devoted the previous 5 years of his life to it. He refused to abandon ship while all his colleagues were running for the hills after Constellation was canceled. We all said he was silly for working for free on a program that was ending. He just kept pushing for changes in the structure of the program and the capsule- axe Ares, axe Altair for the time being, scale down the requirements on the capsule, build a coherent plan for sending the program to asteroids and let Mars follow- and just look how his diligence and devotion has paid off. He showed us. So much respect for my dad right now. :D

[ICEE]

Remember, we still have 7 years till the next president. No one knows what the next president will actually think about the program.

Edit: Also the ISS is a likely launching ground for a trip to mars, and since it is already there it would be the best option most likely.

We have 3 years until the next election. Obama may very well win again, but you can't throw all the chips on it at this point.

[paladin]

His poll numbers are on the mark with most previous presidents at this part of their first term.

Not really. He had one of the lowest 1st year approval ratings. and one of the biggest drop in history over the first year

[flibitijibibo]

Care to cite your sources?

[Roostervier]

Goes:
Date, source, approve, disapprove, no opinion, sample size

Bush Ratings of April the second year in office:
4/18-21/02 ABC/WP 78 20 2 1207
4/16-17/02 Fox/OpinDynamics 76 15 9 900
4/15-18/02 CBS 76 15 9 1119
4/10-11/02 Harris/Time/CNN 75 18 7 1003
4/9-14/02 TIPP/IBD/CSM 69 19 11 900
4/8-11/02 Gallup 75 20 5 1003
4/5-7/02 NBC/WSJ 74 20 6 1005
4/5-7/02 Gallup/CNN/USA 76 19 5 1009
4/2-3/02 Fox/OpinDynamics 79 13 8 900 RV
4/1-2/02 CBS 77 17 6 616

Obama Ratings April of second year:
4/9-11/10 CNN 51 47 2 1008
4/6-7/10 Fox/OpinDynamics 43 48 9 900 RV
4/5-8/10 GWU/Battleground 50 47 4 1000 LV
4/5-12/10 CBS/NYT 50 40 10 1580

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/presidential_approval.html



Just picked Bush because he was the last president and since everyone hates/hated him so much to give you reference for how successful a popular president is.

Made post code so the numbers stayed aligned correctly, easier to see.

[paladin]

Gallup overall Job aproval rating FEB 2009 - APRIL 2010
link (http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx)

Real Clear Politices
Link (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html)

1 year ago

According to Gallup’s April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969.

April 29th, 2009, Sweetness and Light Editorial (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-near-record-low-approval-rating)


President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.

December 8th, 2009, FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/)


The poll showed that 44 percent of registered voters approve of the job Obama is doing as president, while 47 percent disapprove.

February 8th, 2010, Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/08/obamas-approval-rating-hi_n_454136.html)


President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 46 percent, according to a new CBS News poll.

January 11th, 2010, CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6084818-503544.html)


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating

April 12th, 2010, Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll)


Americans have emerged from winter filled with discontent for President Obama, new polling data suggests.

April 12th, 2010, NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/12/2010-04-12_president_obamas_approval_rating_hits_an_alltim e_low_polling_data_suggests.html)


And, the most simplest source:
Link (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Obama+job+approval+rating)

Do I need to continue. It is clear Obama wasn't all he hyped up to be on his campaign trail and really has been a disappointment. Even George W. Bush had 60+ through his 3rd year.

E: Doesn't have Obama's, but use this to compare with the Gallup or Rasmussen: Link (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html)

E: A lol, look at Truman. Second circle. After the republicans gain senate control his approval rating spiked, then his Truman doctrine of death brought it right back down. And GWB should have taken a note from his dad. Their poll numbers are nearly identical over Iraq and Kuwait

E: Also, theres a reason for term limits. Look at everyones approval rating, the all are decreasing at a decreasing rate...

[sdavis117]

GWB does not count. 9/11 pushed his poll numbers to over 90%. He was an outlier in first year polls for Presidents.

[paladin]

Who gives a shit, his poll numbers didnt hit below 50 until 2004. Obama's did in the first 8 months.

[Dwood]

So a person doesnt count? wow. You can compare with all the other presidents either way.

[sdavis117]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

At this point in his presidency Reagan had an approval rating of 43%.

Obama's is at 49% at the moment.

[paladin]

Please show me where I or some else said he had the lowest? Also, Reagan start with only 57, Obama started with 68.

[sdavis117]

Please show me where I or some else said he had the lowest?


Not really. He had one of the lowest 1st year approval ratings.

Multi-quote feature, gotta love it.

[CN3089]

He said he had one of the lowest :eng101:

[Rob Oplawar]

Get this retarded debate out of this thread, kthx.

[paladin]

Multi-quote feature, gotta love it.

I'm going to give you chance to learn from your mistake before I point it out or comment on it.


He said he had one of the lowest :eng101:

thank you.


Get this retarded debate out of this thread, kthx.

I'm sorry.

It does have some relevancy due to the fact that the next president will, almost undoubted, axe this project. The time table, 3 or 7 years, was being debated.

[Timo]

Why? It'd be way cheaper for launches to start from the moon, not from Earth's surface which would require powerful boosters to escape Earth's gravity. While there are some pretty hefty con (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_dust#Harmful_effects_of_lunar_dust)s to setting the Moon as the sole base of operations it can still be a useful "middle man" for equipment and emergancy conditions.

Couldn't they use the ISS? I do agree that we should be looking at the Moon before Mars though.

[Kornman00]

Without making further station additions, I don't really see what use the ISS would be as Mars mission platform. If they added on, they could possibly construct the actual Mars spaceship at the ISS with multiple trips to and from Earth.


Cut the fucking shit about Obama and his ratings. This is about his SPACE PLAN. Consider yourselves lucky that I'm in a good mood this morning or some of you may have been seeing red instead.

[paladin]

Couldn't they use the ISS? I do agree that we should be looking at the Moon before Mars though.

Moon base or some sort of orbital platform to assemble deep space, such as mars, craft.


Consider yourselves lucky that I'm in a good mood this morning or some of you may have been seeing red instead.

I don't think any rules were broken :raise:

[Cojafoji]

I think the only real option for a long term sustained mission to mars would be to create a base on Phobos or Deimos. Their low gravity make it an easy receptacle for unmanned supply drops, as well as a larger main base that would provide prime access to Mars. There would have to be a great deal of remote control, and automation, but I think we could do it. That's not to say that we shouldn't continue looking for and breeding plants with greater CO2->O2 ratios, long term dietary supplements, increased ion propulsion mechanisms and a new type of long term space craft, built for decades in the vacuum. It's all possible. I just hope we can get a budget that sticks to itself.

[Rob Oplawar]

I think the only real option for a long term sustained mission to mars would be to create a base on Phobos or Deimos.
Once again, because of atmosphere, it's easier to just land on Mars. If you wanted to have a base for resupply, it would make more sense to put it in orbit around Mars, using aerobraking to bleed off speed from interplanetary travel.

It's pretty safe to say that without significant infrastructure, landing on any planetoid for the purpose of going to another has a hugely negative value.

[Malloy]

Space travel is pretty hilarious. The reason we have a skeletal structure is because of the factor of gravity... if humans spend like 50 years in a space shuttle to get to some far out planet... over time i swear humans will start being born into sacks of jelly :P Organ sack humanoids ftw.

[Rob Oplawar]

If it's a sack of jelly does it count as humanoid? :-P e: :P ee: :-p eee: how the fuck do you do that smiley on this forum??

[Cojafoji]

so just trucking out there, and sitting in a space station in Mars's orbit is safer to you than perhaps setting down on a low gravity asteroid? god damn man, that's like turning a thousand little kids with bb rifles loose and then attaching an inflated balloon to your ass. something is bound to go wrong, so why not just put it on SOLID ground? one that also provides a limited magnetosphere, minimal gravity, and a comfy type of layover station before mars. build base remotely, establish supply train, send people.

[Malloy]

If it's a sack of jelly does it count as humanoid? :-P e: :P ee: :-p eee: how the fuck do you do that smiley on this forum??

Blobanoid

[Rob Oplawar]

so just trucking out there, and sitting in a space station in Mars's orbit is safer to you than perhaps setting down on a low gravity asteroid? god damn man, that's like turning a thousand little kids with bb rifles loose and then attaching an inflated balloon to your ass. something is bound to go wrong, so why not just put it on SOLID ground? one that also provides a limited magnetosphere, minimal gravity, and a comfy type of layover station before mars. build base remotely, establish supply train, send people.
Depending on the way the moon you're on orbits, it doesn't inherently offer you any protection.
Moons orbit the planet too. The moon and the planet and all the spacecraft you have in orbit are all orbiting the sun together, and that's where the real danger to micrometeorites comes from. There are big dust clouds of debris around the sun, and planets' orbits intersect those, so periodically you'll get a meteor shower as the planet (and everything around it) plows through the debris cloud. Just because you're on a moon and not in orbit doesn't necessarily protect you. If you're lucky you'll be on the side of the moon facing away from the direction of motion, but if you look at the pattern of craters on a moon, it really doesn't matter where you are; you'll get hit eventually.

Of course, the odds of actually getting hit by something are extremely small- compared to the risk of landing on the moon, you're much better off just staying in orbit. Landing on an object without atmosphere is insanely difficult.

If we're talking extremely long term, in the hypothetical situation where you want to set up an inhabited base somewhere orbiting Mars (as opposed to on its surface), then you might make an argument for *burying* it on a moon (the construction of this base would be insanely expensive because of all the equipment you would have to ship from Earth to Mars) because if it's buried it offers the inhabitants protection from both radiation and meteorites. I can't see that benefit outweighing the cost any time in the next few centuries.

And of course, it still doesn't help you land on Mars (because that's what we're talking about, right?). What would the purpose of such a station be? Resupply? It takes more fuel to land on one of Mars's moons than it does to land on Mars. In fact, it takes more fuel (and more time) to just go into Mars orbit than it does to land on the planet.


E: The thing of landing on Mars is getting back. With our current technology humans cannot live on Mars for extended periods of time, because of solar radiation (in fact, the journey from Earth to Mars is long enough to present considerable difficulty). And besides they'll want to come back to their families.
You'd do it the way the Apollo mission did it: put one spacecraft (Apollo capsule and service module) in orbit around Mars (the moon) and give it enough fuel to get itself and its inhabitants back to Earth, and use a lander to bring the people to the surface and get them back up to orbit.

Given that... you're still better off taking that thing straight to orbit rather than trying to dock it with some resupply station, no matter if the station's in orbit or if it's on a moon. It takes fuel to rendezvous with stations, and more fuel to get away from them. If the station's purpose is to give fuel... how does the fuel get there? And how is it preserved? You have to take it there, or you have to manufacture it there (the latter again requires massive infrastructure). You're getting no net gain.


The one way I can see this working is the following scenario:
You put extremely high-efficiency, low-thrust engines on a giant station full of fuel. You send that to Mars on its own, and it takes at best a year and at worst a decade to get there. Later you send a spacecraft there with just enough fuel to arrive in orbit, and then it can refuel the lander to land on the surface, and refuel itself to return to Earth. You still have a net energy loss, but it might conceivably have a benefit for constructing the interplanetary manned spacecraft.
The trouble is risk: in-space refueling is a tricky maneuver, and if anything at all goes wrong, your astronauts die.
The ISS gets away with the risk because if anything goes wrong and it can't be refueled, the astronauts can simply fall back to the surface of the Earth. At Mars, if you don't have fuel, then you're going to die there.


Margins are extremely small in space travel because of the immense cost, and they will remain so for a long time. It's going to be a very long time, if ever, before it's cheap enough to put things into space to get a benefit from putting a base around Mars for the purpose of landing on Mars.

There are still other good scientific reasons to make bases in orbit around Mars and possibly even on one of Mars's moons, but once and for all, it does not help you to land on Mars, k?

[Malloy]

I'td be so boring on Mars, no McDonalds or skateparks or anything... omg skateboarding on a low grav planet = jizz

[bravo22]

a base on Phobos or Deimos.

Please don't, we don't want anyone opening up a portal to a hellish dimension and launching a demonic invasion of zombies, hell knights, cyberdemons, imps, etc. At least wait till someone invents a BFG 9000 beforehand.

lol jk, but I'm interested to see this project's progress, if we can get a man on Mars it would be one of the greatest scientific achievements ever. However I agree that the Moon should receive more attention for now because its low gravity could make things a lot easier. As for establishing a colony/base in outer space though, I don't find that particularly necessary due to the trouble and cost associated with having to ferry supplies (most importantly air) over.

[Rob Oplawar]

I agree that the Moon should receive more attention for now because its low gravity could make things a lot easier.
A lot easier for WHAT? I know I'm longposting, but seriously, is nobody reading what I'm saying?


supplies (most importantly air)
Air? No, just no. Air is cheap.

[paladin]

I don't find that particularly necessary due to the trouble and cost associated with having to ferry supplies (most importantly air) over. If theres water, ice, CO2, ect, air can be produced, srubbed and recycled. Air is probably one of more simpler resources needed for space colonization

[Cojafoji]

As for the base being buried, what did you think I meant? That they'd just dump a concrete building on the surface? Of course it's going to be underground.

As for being a dangerous landing on Phobos, it has an escape velocity of 40kph... Easy to get on, easy to get off :D You can ease the cost by shooting all large supplies into a low gravity moon like Phobos, than eventually sending them down to mars. Take a little shuttle from Phobos to Mars for day trips etc. It's just safer if you have a moon base with storage, shipping, communications etc.

Not to mention that these people are going to be in space for years (probably). It might help to think of Phobos as a home away from home. Just think of it as a giant hunting cabin.

[Rob Oplawar]

Ok, building a buried base would be... hard. Especially in an extremely low gravity environment.
Rendezvous between two man-made objects designed to dock with each other and each in a controlled, predictable position and orientation is hard enough.
Landing on any object, even a low gravity one, is an extremely risky proposition. In high gravity you have the problem of falling. In low gravity you have the problem of bouncing away. In some ways that makes it even harder. You have to control your descent onto the surface precisely so that you hit the ground within your acceleration tolerance without tipping over, and then you'd probably have to latch on to the surface somehow to prevent your normal movement from knocking you off your footing.
Lately we've gotten better and better at landing; precise controls can throttle engines with extremely low margin of error, laser rangefinders can make very detailed landing maps, and computers can make intelligent landing region decisions. It's still hard enough, with enough things that can go wrong, that people still consider just wrapping airbags around your lander and dropping it to land on Mars. And hoping you can latch onto an unknown surface is downright dangerous.
Make no mistake, landing on anything is difficult.

Beyond that, building a buried base of any kind means designing, building, and landing excavation equipment and then assembling a structure as complex as the ISS in an environment as hostile but possessing even more hazards than LEO. It may seem like I'm a naysayer, but that just isn't going to happen in our lifetimes.

And since we're still talking about wanting to land on Mars (I haven't heard anyone say anything different) I still stand by my case that landing on Phobos gets you nowhere closer to that goal. It doesn't help at all, unless the moon is actively contributing resources, and if that's the case, we'll have already landed on Mars.

[Dwood]

Landing on any low-gravity asteroid would be nothing but target practice for NASA. As for a Mars mission in our lifetimes, it would require a complete overhaul of not only the ISS but the Space Program and its shuttles- something that's contrary to what Obama's plans are. Especially when the existing ones have computers from the 1980s still on board instead of being updated with at least the latest computers of today. Few programs take up the full space provided by today's computers, and if they were to be updated they'd be even easier and cheaper to upgrade after the fact.

I would just as soon be having people on the moon, simply because it's our closest neighbor- we still have things we can learn about living in completely hostile environments-where help is only 3 days away- as well.

[Rob Oplawar]

The benefit of aiming for asteroids as a stepping stone on the way to Mars is that you can aim for an asteroid that is much closer than Mars but much further than the moon. It's the next logical step in racheting up our skill at long distance space travel for humans.

The ISS has nothing whatsoever to do with going to Mars. At best, it can be used as a staging area for astronauts and components as they assemble a Mars vehicle in orbit. The Space Shuttle has even less to do with going to Mars. The purpose of the Space Shuttle was to have a reusable spacecraft for flying frequent manned missions with large cargo. Ever since the Challenger disaster, the shuttle program hasn't been anywhere near the frequency of use that would make it worthwhile. If you want to go to Mars, you'll use standard launch vehicles like Atlas or Delta to put components into orbit, and then use whatever human LEO transport we have (possibly Soyuz or possibly Orion, depending) to bring people up there to put it together.

The existing shuttle architecture is extremely antiquated, but unfortunately you can't just plug new computers into it; it doesn't work that way. The shuttle is outdated, expensive, and dangerous, characteristics that are inherent to its design. It doesn't need an overhaul, it needs a replacement. That was the idea with Orion.

The sneaky thing Obama did with Orion was to classify it as an escape pod for now, so it can be launched on a non-man-rated rocket like Delta instead of having to build a brand new man-rated rocket (Ares). The thinking is that in the future we will have a man-rated rocket such as SpaceX's Falcon 9 or once again a Delta (the certification/redesign program will be expensive, but not as expensive as Ares).


Yes, the moon can still teach us things about putting men in hostile environments, but it's a completely different scenario than Mars. If the eventual goal is Mars, going to the moon doesn't help much. The analogy I've heard is that it's like preparing for an expedition to climb Everest by camping in the Sahara.

[Disaster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
I think this is something NASA should be interested in again. Would put good use to the USA's massive nuclear stockpile.


Nuclear fission pulse unit powered Orions could provide fast and economical interplanetary transportation with useful human crewed payloads of several thousand tonnes.
:o

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E3Lxx2VAYi8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E3Lxx2VAYi8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

This project would have succeed if the Partial Treaty Ban did not prevent it.

[Cojafoji]

I have the book project orion sitting on my nightstand. It's one HELL of a story.

[thehoodedsmack]

an Orion could reach Pluto and return to Earth inside of a year.

wat

[CN3089]

that's not that impressive



I think the maximum theoretical speed for an orion was about .03c


e: that was in the 1960s though

[Disaster]

A thermonuclear Orion space craft could, in theory, travel between 8-10% of the speed of light, which works out to roughly 18,600 miles per second (the speed of light is roughly 186,000 miles per second).
http://hubpages.com/hub/project-orion
.1C :o

We could reach Alpha Centauri in about 44 years.

[Cojafoji]

I'll take whatever the next step after the VF-200's are, rather than blowing up nuclear charges behind me and catching the wave...

[Rob Oplawar]

NASA's best idea for nuclear engines so far:
Big tank of hydrogen. Radioactive material.
Suspend the radioactive material in your exhaust nozzle and immediately pump hydrogen over it so it doesn't melt down. The hydrogen doesn't just flash vaporize, it flashes into a plasma and literally rockets out the other end.
Once you're out of hydrogen, ditch your rocket as quick as possible because without hydrogen to cool it it will immediately melt down.

[Kalub]

emergancy

[Kornman00]

Guys.

Yeah you guys. Lets get back on course. You know, adjust your trajectory back to Obama's Space Plan. Yes, eventually we'll be wanting to go super deep space, but for now, we're talking about the Moon vs Mars.

Thanks.

[paladin]

Moon > Mars

[Kornman00]

Cox; this is a debate section. At least provide some decent explanation as to why you consider Moon > Mars

Personally: Earth > *, :-3. But I want to see space

[ICEE]

I don't really understand why we're worrying about mars right now. if it were habitable, it might be more interesting, but right now it seems like getting to mars is something that would only make us say "gosh thats neat". We don't even have a space race to win.

[paladin]

Cox; this is a debate section. At least provide some decent explanation as to why you consider Moon > Mars

Personally: Earth > *, :-3. But I want to see space


Do I really need to list why the moon is superior?

Sure Mars has and would be a glorious milestone, but think realistically. Doesn't it make sense to create a lunar facility, orbital or stationed on the moon, before one or any human exploration of another, further , planet or thing. Once a lunar facility is established, one that can be used as a depot of all sorts (construction, fuel, barracks, ect), it would make a lot more sense then to push forward to further goals. Mars just seems WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAY more risky atm and unrealistic.

[Rob Oplawar]

Once again, I have to point out the same flaw in your reasoning that you seem to be stuck with.

In space, it's not a matter of turning off your engines and chilling for a while at a rest stop. You pay for every tiny bit of momentum you have, and space graciously allows you to keep it. Stopping anywhere at all has net negative value. Anywhere. It takes more fuel *total* to stop and refuel before continuing on your way, except in the scenario where the fuel is produced at the stop. And as nice as that would be, we're so ridiculously far away from that point that it's not part of the discussion.

There is still a lot to learn about the moon, and we are learning it from orbit and with robotic landers. There is little value in putting people there, for the moment. In the long long long term, it might be a productive source of resources, but for now, robots will do, since we've already been there.

There is a lot more to learn about and more importantly to learn from Mars. It looks like in the past Mars was much more Earth-like than we previously thought. We can learn a whole lot more about the formation of planets in the solar system, the lifecycle of Earth-like planets, and possibly even learn about the formation of life on planets (we still don't know for sure if there's even life on Mars right now as we speak). From a science perspective, we can get a lot more value and efficiency out of robotic landers and orbiters than by trying to send actual people there.

From an exploration perspective, however, it is the human condition to want to push the limits of our capabilities and push ourselves out further and further from home. Ideally it would be nice to push out the frontier while leaving folks behind at each stop to keep a presence there. Unfortunately, human space exploration is far too young for that. We would like to go back to the moon right now and keep people there. However, that in itself requires a lot of effort. We can't spread our resources so thin, and a task as difficult as sending humans to Mars will require our full attention.

Again, going to an asteroid is the logical step in advancing our frontier, and it has the added effect of training us for our long voyage to Mars. Going to the moon right now just isn't as beneficial.

[Mass]

I agree with what Rob is saying, and few of you seem to be understanding.

Space travel is not sea travel, and unless craft, fuel, and food are actually being produced at a space station or space colony, it does not make sense to launch them from there to go new places. Space exploration is difficult, meager, and exact at this stage in development, and consequently the straightest path of least resistance is always to be used. Likewise, for the moment, robot rovers and other probes make more sense than manned travel, because all a man does is consume things--he's locked in a suit where all he can do is see, and maybe feel gravity, both of which can easily be replicated with reasonably simple equipment.

I'm afraid I'm indifferent to the space plan itself. Personally, I think a scientifically useful plan needs MORE PROBING and new, nearly omnipotent space telescopes.

[paladin]

and unless craft, fuel, and food are actually being produced at a space station or space colony.

Thats what I meant............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............

[Kornman00]

While it may sound good to do such a thing, there are some cons to the idea of a moon colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_colony#Advantages_and_disadvantages). Most importantly is that blasted moon dust. Gets everywhere.

but, it'd be pretty nice still to get something going up there. Earth's backyard and all.

[Bodzilla]

@ Paladin
and how do you expect them to Produce fuel on a space station.
c'mon be serious.

I'm not having a dig at you but your misinterpreting them.
What your saying is basically this, "well we can just put a store on the ISS and they can get milk from it."
"but how does the milk get to the store?"
"well we fly to the store and drop it off."
"why bother going to the store in the first place then, it's a waste of time."

...
just replace Milk with Fuel.

see our point? you have to think about what rob said in terms of momentum in space. Unlike Driving a car or a boat it TAKES fuel to slow down because your momentum will last longer then your life time.

[=sw=warlord]

@ Paladin
and how do you expect them to Produce fuel on a space station.
c'mon be serious.


It's well known that water has been found on the moon (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8359744.stm) which happens to provide the 2 main chemicals used in rocket fuel so it's not as far fetched as you may think.

[sleepy1212]

What if they collected H3 like they did in the movie Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_%28film%29)?

[Rob Oplawar]

Like I said, infrastructure. You're talking about setting up a friggin fuel processing plant on the moon.
It's very difficult to find a picture online that shows what a rocket fuel processing plant looks like. The best I can find is this website: http://www.apfc.com/wec.php
Setting up such a factory on the moon or any other celestial body would entail launching probably hundreds of tons of tanks, pipes, and other equipment, and then assembling it all. It can't tap into the power grid, so it needs its own power plant. It can't use oxygen from the atmosphere so it needs extra supplies for that. It can't dump waste so it needs facilities for storing it. And it's incredibly complex, probably too complex to be maintained by machines, so it will need a manned presence, and all the infrastructure that entails.

This is not happening in our lifetime.

[Kalub]

emergancy


Just me pointin' out a typo. Thanks for the infraction. :) (Will continue to point out typos in the future.)



In other news, this thread is dumb.

[DarkHalo003]

As long as they're under strict regulation. Otherwise, private companies could be the worst organizations to be sending people into space.
THIS. It's the department of engineering and science that I'm glad the gov't has regulations for. Some things can be extremely hazardous for people and private companies would ignore this (and some still do) if the gov't does not impose regulations. I think that if we do get to Mars, it'll be when I'm 70.

[EX12693]

Nine words, and one that makes my point... Antimatter.

[paladin]

Like I said, infrastructure. You're talking about setting up a friggin fuel processing plant on the moon.
It's very difficult to find a picture online that shows what a rocket fuel processing plant looks like. The best I can find is this website: http://www.apfc.com/wec.php
Setting up such a factory on the moon or any other celestial body would entail launching probably hundreds of tons of tanks, pipes, and other equipment, and then assembling it all. It can't tap into the power grid, so it needs its own power plant. It can't use oxygen from the atmosphere so it needs extra supplies for that. It can't dump waste so it needs facilities for storing it. And it's incredibly complex, probably too complex to be maintained by machines, so it will need a manned presence, and all the infrastructure that entails.

This is not happening in our lifetime.


@ Paladin
and how do you expect them to Produce fuel on a space station.
c'mon be serious.

Space tethers... ie this (http://www.ascendantjustice.com/files/cocop/October202552/Aerial.jpg):O what a concept

[Cojafoji]

Anytime someone mentions orbital tethers, I get a massive hard on.

It's unfortunate that we lack the engineering skills to build such a structure D:

[paladin]

The concept is fairly simple...

http://priceoffreedom.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/space_elevator_structural_d.jpg

[Cojafoji]

I understand how it works...

I just don't think that we can do it.

[paladin]

We can and we will, eventually

[Cojafoji]

eventually
Keyword there!

[Kornman00]

The biggest thing with the Tether I'd worry about is security...goddamn who knows who will wave some missles around being fucking idiots ('sup N. Korean gov't) trying to threaten an attack on it. And where could it be placed to benefit the interested parties (read: countries)?

I'd support it, and hope it happens this century

[Dwood]

America or the UK would be the only places where I'd trust them to place a tether. Africa would be the best place.

[Cojafoji]

Eh, I'm checking out a diagram of plate tectonics, and it looks like the prime place to stash it would be eastern north america, or eastern europe/west asia. That's assuming that you want as little earth quakes as possible. Btw, how the fuck are we supposed to dump a large asteroid into a geosynchronous orbit? Head out to the asteroid belt and slap some engines on the sucker?

[Kornman00]

fuck it, tether the moon to it :-3

Well there IS that one asteroid that is likely to come around real close in 2030 (current calculations thus far)...Assuming it was used, it could possibly better than the moon as it probably wouldn't have the same moon dust material all over it. However a big issue would be how it affects tidal waves. That could REALLY fuck things up in the ocean depending on how massive the new satellite turns out to be.

[paladin]

Id say central United States..

[Kornman00]

How central? You run the risk of tornados in tornado vally. What about a desert? Since death valley gets very little rain storms over all (though flash flooding would still be an issue), I'd think it could be a candidate too.

[Dwood]

In death valley, when the flash floods hit, with all that weight in (basically) one area, I'd expect it to start doing some sinking. Especially over time.

[Choking Victim]

We call that magical phenomena erosion.

[Dwood]

We call that magical phenomena erosion.

Wrong term, this is sinking. I wasn't factoring blowing wind with sand in the air hitting the cables and breaking chunks away. :)

edit: Or even sand moving away from the building.

[ICEE]

Wouldn't the tether have to be deeply rooted in the ground anyways?

[Dwood]

Wouldn't the tether have to be deeply rooted in the ground anyways?

You have a point.

[paladin]

How central? You run the risk of tornados in tornado vally. What about a desert? Since death valley gets very little rain storms over all (though flash flooding would still be an issue), I'd think it could be a candidate too.

Good point. The east coast sounds better now

[Kornman00]

As long as it's not in the zone of possible land breaking hurricanes. Also, the recent winter storms should provide a good idea on where NOT to put it in terms of trying to avoid harsh extreme weather on the colder scale.

There probably isn't a one good spot on Earth that would be perfect for this kind of contraption. Even the north and south poles have their own types of storms that can last for weeks or even months don't they? This would probably be the largest site survey ever performed if it ever happens. Let's just hope they don't figure it to be in fucking Iraq, N. Korean or the like. Would be nice if it could be built in a place which has a low economy...could produce jobs and foreign travel (besides strictly business).

[sleepy1212]

Well there IS that one asteroid that is likely to come around real close in 2030 (current calculations thus far)...Assuming it was used, it could possibly better than the moon as it probably wouldn't have the same moon dust material all over it. However a big issue would be how it affects tidal waves. That could REALLY fuck things up in the ocean depending on how massive the new satellite turns out to be.

That thing is probably traveling at 30,000mph, how would we even catch it? I don't think we could realistically have a large object in orbit like that. supposing it were big enough to support the cable i think you're probably right, it would be massive enough (out of necessity) to influence tidal patterns, which are extremely sensitive (among other natural phenomena influenced by lunar gravity).

Maybe a fuel line running up the length could supply a rocket at the other end keeping it taut....that's a lot of fuel though. Maybe a space elevator is a bad idea.

[Disaster]

Earth's rotation would keep it taut. You just need some kind of weight on the other end ( some sort of Orbital platform { like halo}. Think about a Yo-yo, you spin around and it will stay taut until you stop spinning. No need for a rocket.

[Cojafoji]

Barring the insane engineering required to snag an asteroid, the tether would also have to have some kind of slack initiation module. So that if there were an earth quake, it could give itself some space to work with, instead of tugging on the taut line and bringing an asteroid crashing down onto us.

[ICEE]

What would be the implications of rooting it under the ocean? I imagine that ocean currents could effect it somewhat, but any disaster on the surface would have less effect than one ocurring at the base of the shaft. Maybe the water could make a decent shock absorber for trauma...

[Cojafoji]

Not sure if there is solid enough point. In the pacific you have the ring of fire, and in the atlantic you have the laurentian abyss in the north, and tectonic activity in the south. wait, wouldn't it have to be along the equator? if it is, the only place is mid or west africa.

[Dwood]

Remember at the base of the thing you still want it possible to get machines and people down there to be able to fix even the smallest problems.

[ICEE]

so we build an undersea elevator first. Elementary my dear watson.

[Cojafoji]

why not just dump it on the surface and burrow into bed rock. seems like a lot of extra effort to build a structure that needs to withstand enormous amounts of pressure as well.

[ICEE]

if its going to space, its going to have to meet those requirements anyways.

[Cojafoji]

to withstand enormous pressure? i mean if the space elevator you were proposing was absolutely huge, i guess so. It should only really be the size of two or three shuttles (bays).

[paladin]

How would you go about constructing it? From space down, from earth up? or a mix between the two...

[ICEE]

space down would mean we'd have to have somehow landed the asteroid in the desired orbit beforehand... How to go about doing that I couldn't even imagine

[Cojafoji]

It'd all have to start with a counter weight, but after that, I'd start construction on the surface of both at the same time.

[ICEE]

with calculation of the object's rotation. It will have to stop rotating at some point so we can actually connect them

[Cojafoji]

good point, i guess you'd have to start on the asteroid and dump the base wherever the tether comes down. though if you could get the asteroid there in the first place, you might be able to pinpoint/finetune its final geosynchronous orbit.

[ICEE]

It's not gmod's weld tool (god help us if it was). We have six degrees of freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom) to worry about. I imagine that it will never completely syncronize with the earth on any of them. I can't envision anything that would manage to stop it. The elevator is going to have to be pretty hefty to survive the rotations...

[Cojafoji]

point well taken, i can see now why it would require such durable building. an active rotation at the base would require a great of some sort of massive gyro system, or one fuck off huge (and lubricated) ball and socket joint.

[ICEE]

The ball and socket idea would be really cool, except that would mean the elevator would not take you directly to the object, but to the ball/socket on which the object is constrained (unless theres something I'm missing here). That would mean that getting to the object itself would need some other sort of transit... Wouldn't it be interesting if you could exit the elevator onto a small platform, from which the force of a jump would take you into the object's gravitational field?

It would be like super mario galaxy

[Rob Oplawar]

North America is pretty much out as a location for a space elevator- the base has to be near the equator. Otherwise, the tether would constantly be pulling the counterweight's orbit sideways. The best location I've heard for a tether is north of Australia amongst all those island nations (forgive me, I'm American; my knowledge of geography is terrible)- little tectonic activity, relatively calm weather, plus apparently Australian companies have lots of experience building off-shore oil platforms out there.

The reason we can't use the moon as a counterweight is because if you look down at the surface of the earth from the moon you'll see the earth spin around 27 times before you complete a single orbit. You need an object in orbit in such a way that it's directly over the same point on earth's surface at all times. In terms of "counterweight" this would mean putting it at an altitude slightly higher than geosynchronous. A stable orbit at that altitude would have an orbital period of slightly greater than one day, so by increasing the velocity at this altitude and tethering it to the surface the counterweight exerts a constant "upward" force on the tether, keeping it taut.
You'd have to have engines running on the counterweight at all times for orbital station-keeping. The earth isn't perfectly round, and the moon is running around constantly tugging you about, not to mention the constant force from the tether itself. Still, ion engines should be sufficient, I think.

As for using an asteroid as a counterweight, with ion engines and solar sails it might be possible to guide one into geosynchronous orbit given enough time.

[Dwood]

Yeah, to get it to slow down with solar sails and even ion engines the size of the asteroid itself would make any hope of it happening in at least 150 years from the time we landed on the asteroid. Not to mention that we only get sizeable asteroids around our planet every 40+ years.

So this means we would have to plan over 40 years in advance, and expect a long haul. The world just isn't able to cope with such lengths of time just to build something. Also, anything can happen in the 10+ (?) years it would take us to get to the asteroid belt, then pull back one which is good enough. By then the relations between us and the country we're working with could be completely different.

[Rob Oplawar]

expect a long haul
Pretty much that. This would be hands down the biggest, most complex, most expensive structure ever built by man. Nothing comes even close. There are structures out there that took decades to build- in Spain I visited a cathedral that's been under construction for more than a hundred years and still has another 30 to go. But that's a religious thing. I share your pessimism that the current state of international affairs makes construction of a space elevator any time soon, even if we had the technology and the money, unlikely.

[ICEE]

curse this ...mortality. Ruining dreams.

[Dwood]

Pretty much that. This would be hands down the biggest, most complex, most expensive structure ever built by man. Nothing comes even close. There are structures out there that took decades to build- in Spain I visited a cathedral that's been under construction for more than a hundred years and still has another 30 to go. But that's a religious thing. I share your pessimism that the current state of international affairs makes construction of a space elevator any time soon, even if we had the technology and the money, unlikely.

We just need a cloning machine, and we'll clone Carl Saganns after each clone dies, to keep every one motivated. :P

The REAL difference is that the Cathedral wasn't/isn't just a religious thing, it's more of a national/ethnic thing. Much easier to build in a place where everyone is from the same part of town as you are. For us to build a space elevator, Humanity would practically have to enter into one giant consortium that makes the U.N. look like an after school D & D club, which I'm sure we just aren't capable of without alien invaders uniting us.

[Kornman00]

I give it (world wide consortium) another 100 years (give or take 25) or after a threat like that of WW3 or something just as bad (like alien invaders coming to sap our lands)

[Cojafoji]

The ball and socket idea would be really cool, except that would mean the elevator would not take you directly to the object, but to the ball/socket on which the object is constrained (unless theres something I'm missing here). That would mean that getting to the object itself would need some other sort of transit... Wouldn't it be interesting if you could exit the elevator onto a small platform, from which the force of a jump would take you into the object's gravitational field?

It would be like super mario galaxy
Ok, I think we're going about this two different ways. I'm talking about constructing a permanent tether between the asteroid and the earth, and a sort of cable car (obviously more advanced: hydraulic maglev?) would ride up and down. Would yours lift up all the way into space like the one in the new star trek movie or?

[ICEE]

We're talking about the same thing foji. But if your connecting it by a giant ball and socket, your elevator/cablecar won't go all the way to the asteroid/object. why? because the point of the ball/socket design is to allow the object free rotation. any other construct that connects from the tether to the object will defeat the purpose of a ball and socket. Heres a crudely drawn diagram of what I was blathering about.
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z295/iron_clad_photo/diagram.png?t=1272664482

The tiny little man gets off the elevator onto the platform and jumps up, getting him just close enough to the object that its gravitational field takes over and pulls him to it. Mario galaxy.

This design might actually work aside from the part where you jump to the asteroid. Some other method of conveyance to it from the platform could work. Like a mancannon

[Cojafoji]

That's a fucking great diagram dude. I totally get what you're saying. I guess a ship or something else would be waiting there to dock with the cargo. maybe the cargo could be equipped with its own engine for ascent and descent? that way every load that goes up or down can just hop off the pad when it's at the top and bottom so that it doesn't waste time being emptied/reloaded.

[ICEE]

thanks, you should see some of my other diagrams.

[Warsaw]

Not entirely sure why you'd need a ball and socket. The cable will be free to rotate around at its bases anyways. Attaching it via a large hook will allow it the angular freedom while still allowing the coach to reach both ends, which would presumably be large structures in their own right surrounding the said ends.

[ICEE]

is the 'tether' a giant rope or is it like a tower? I envisioned it solid like a tower

[Warsaw]

It's so long that it has more properties of a rope than a tower. Though it actually would be closer to a very thick cable anyways, with a tower wrapping around at each end and extending only so far.

[Cojafoji]

i would imagine it as a cable, seeing as how you'll never be able to totally stabilize the counter weight. though the cable would have to be something like this. or probably bigger.
http://www.inetours.com/Pages/images/GGB/Cable_0199.jpg

[Rob Oplawar]

Current concepts tend to use a ribbon of carbon nanotubes or something similar. It would be wide and flat so that an elevator car could simply sandwich the ribbon between two wheels (or use some sort of maglev system) to pull itself up. The key is giving it the highest possible tensile strength to weight ratio. The less you have to add to the tether to allow objects to ascend it, the better.
Current carbon nanotubes that we can manufacture are still not strong enough to hold their own weight up in a ribbon that long. We're still waiting on advances in material science to make it possible. But I'm confident it will be possible someday.

[Warsaw]

I thought the desired mode of propulsion for a space elevator at this point was a set of lasers stationed planet-side.

[Rob Oplawar]

The lasers themselves don't provide propulsion, they provide energy. Instead of lugging batteries or some other power supply up in the car, you power it via a ground-based laser or microwave beam. The car still has to have its own propulsion system, probably electric motors.

[Warsaw]

Actually, lasers can provide propulsion, though either way it does reduce the mass of the cable car and tether since you don't need power lines.

For anyone interested in all things space-travel related, may I direct you here (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html) for a royal fuckton of useful information.