Re: Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars - Henry Spencer


"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d539e$49257bd5$927a2cda$24700@xxxxxxxxxxx

"jonathan" <Home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vD4Vk.71193$vX2.62533@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ed34f$4924196b$927a2cda$7604@xxxxxxxxxxx
Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars

Henry Spencer, computer programmer, spacecraft engineer and amateur space
historian (Illustration: NASA)

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/11/why-nasa-should-focus-on-the-m.html



As much as I respect Henry's opinion, this is just a recommendation
to try to make a lemon out of lemonade. Not to mention that the
public will see right through the change in goals, and might/will
resent the repackaging.

I disagree. In today's world of tight budgets, concentrating on the Moon
seems perfectly rational. A lot of the "justification" for Ares V is that
NASA will "need" a huge launch vehicle for Mars missions. Eliminate that
requirement and Ares I and Ares V can be canned immediately, saving NASA
billions of dollars in development costs and, hopefully, shortening the time
needed to field the Orion capsule and close down the shuttle program.



And repeat the primary mistake of Apollo? The Vision doesn't require
any breakthrough in cost to orbit. Just like Apollo. A goal like Space
Solar Power would require as a very first step such a breakthrough.
And once that has been accomplished....anything...we wish to do
in space becomes practical. Whether it's SSP, colonies or missile
defense, the public then has options. Until then nothing....worthwhile...
is very practical in space, so every space goal will be a tough sell.
And half-assed.




There's a very simple and direct relationship Henry fails to see
regarding a 'goal' and the likelihood of success. The smaller
and more defined the goal, the less appealing and narrow
will be the public support.

The "support" for NASA has been lukewarm, at best, after Apollo 11. This
isn't going to change.


Sure it can, the public will support anyone that offers solutions to their
greatest needs. And in /proportion/ to the benefit to the ...public.

NASA has to give the public and Congress a reason for support. The current goal
only provides visions of ..gold-plated safaris.. for the privileged few. Not
unlike
the current image our auto makers provided, by arriving in private jets to beg
for a public bailout. And now NASA wants a $800 billion for a moon base
for six???

NASA needs to stop sitting around waiting for the self-serving and powerful
to tell it what to do, and start competing for itself with better ideas.
Ideas that ring with the public.

The CIA just today released it's 'future' view and concluded it's rather
bleak due to two primary things, a shortage of future resources, primarily
energy, amidst a quickly growing population. And global warming.

No one, or idea, has yet stepped up and taken the lead on those issues.
Obama's central promise is energy independence in ten years
but he didn't say how. And no one feels global warming is under
control at all either. All kinds of talk, but no /rallying point/ for
a solution to either.

NASA has a golden opportunity to become a 'White Knight' and
offer inspiring ideas and rally a public /and/ the scientific community
that is increasingly demanding action.

NASA needs a new Goal, the world need a new Hero.

It's a rare alignment of the stars so to speak.
It's what Science is supposed to do, come to the
rescue.

It's all there. An opportunity for the public and the scientific community
to rally around a common goal. A magnificent goal, where the entire world
would stand in awe at it's scope.

Science, in the recent past, has been as much a vehicle for our own
destruction as savior. But now, like never before, the world needs
SCIENCE to rally itself and come to the rescue.

NASA is our nation's scientific high-ground.
Only NASA can do this.




Scaling back NASA's goals to be in line with the funding they're likely to get
is a very rational thing to do.

Which means the grander and more ambitious goal tends to
gather the greatest support, and with it the better chance of
success.

Which is why we have a superconducting super collider in Texas... no wait,
that was cancelled due to cost overruns.


Even the physicists involved admitted colliders offer
the public little in return for the foreseeable future.
The purer the research, the farther away are any tangible
returns to the public. That makes the SSC and such an example
of a research luxury, and the first to go. The Euros are
idiots for building their build collider. What a waste of
money and effort. The world is burning and the grand science
of the day is being wasted on colliders and colonies.

Much like the Vision. No discernible public benefits for the
foreseeable future.

Give the public a reason to care! Like a common solution for fossil fuels and
climate change! Instead they're given reasons to become cynical
with a wasteful make-work program.



How about Star Wars Missile Defense... no wait, that's been dramatically
scaled back and hasn't even resulted in a system that's deployed, despite
decades of funding.


I wouldn't agree with that view at all. We have very large military ambitions
with missile defense and the technology it's producing.
In particular in directed energy weapons. The Russians are mad about
our proposed shield in Europe not just for internal politics.
But also because we're moving ahead so fast in some of these
areas they can't hope to compete.

http://www.kirtland.af.mil/afrl_de/factsheets/index.asp

It won't be long before C-130's become laser platforms.
Or constellations of laser relays in orbit allowing in
their own words ....." to precisely project these directed
energies at the speed of light anywhere, any time and
with graduated intensity."
http://www.kirtland.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070404-035.pdf


All those radar's we have around the world could soon become
microwave weapons. Our military seems to think someone else will
have these kinds of weapons soon, as they shielded their new
microwave research facility from space based energy
weapons.
http://www.kirtland.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070404-036.pdf




The fact is that sometimes ambitious programs DO get scaled back to more
realistic goals. The alternative might be outright cancellation, which few
people want.






We have to face a simple fact of our current reality.

It is MARS and only MARS that can inspire the needed
public support. Unfortunately with the current technology
Mars is so far off into the future that those paying for it
won't be around to see it completed.

This is somewhat true, which is why NASA's approach is all wrong. Rather than
developing truly spacefairing technologies like in orbit refueling and reuse
of things like the EDS, they've gone back to a disposable architecture
resembling Apollo. This is counter-productive in the long run.


And a result of starting with a poor goal, then constantly scaling back
to keep it alive. A properly designed goal would gain momentum
and support over time. As a properly designed goal would be one
that self organizes. And then has all the properties of any complex
adaptive system. It takes on a life of its own, adapts and evolves
to find the best practical solution to any given problem...what life does.

Which is a system that can't fail to succeed, even if the final product
is something entirely different from initially imagined. The system
will go where it should, not where it's told at the start.
That's the difference between man-made and natural.
Between just another govt program and changing the world.



Eliminate the tens of billions of dollars in funding needed for Ares I and
Ares V and you can invest a few billion on developing LEO fuel depots. That
would be a truly enabling technology for Mars missions, since it would mean
NASA could purchase fuel (delivered to the depot) from the lowest bidder,
rather than relying on their own, infrequently flown, high infrastructure
cost, Ares V.

Which means we're just /not ready/ for Mars yet.

Which is why the entire architecture needs a rethink. Why develop Ares V now
if Mars missions won't likely happen until decades after Ares V starts flying?
Why not leapfrog expendable launch vehicle technology with technologies like
in orbit refueling?

Griffin's plans have truly been short sighted and are crippling the manned
space program.


I tend to blame the White House. I think Bush let Lockheed and the military
write their own tickets with the Vision.

I just think the breakthroughs in low cost to orbit and the things you mentioned
are huge projects which would require equally large justifications.
Until that happens colonizing will remain pipe-dreams.

The only logical choice is to find a way to connect the largest global problems
with low cost to orbit. Once you've done that, maximized the problem and
potential effect, a self organized system should emerge. Where the final product
could be just about anything. It'll evolve towards the best answer(s).

The goal should be to find the cheapest and fastest way to solve
global warming and our energy future. Not the cheapest and
fastest way of putting a colony on Mars or the Moon.

Or, to solve our energy future before global warming becomes
irreversible.

As in... 'putting a man on the moon before the decade is out'.

Both have the abstract qualities of finding a world-saving breakthrough
by a quickly approaching date. When both are optimized, and
connected, a self organizing system should emerge.

This is the structure needed to create a complex adaptive system.
A system which can't fail to find the best solutions, just as
any living system tends to do.

We need to direct this 'power of nature', self organization, towards
our impending 'natural' disasters of fossil fuels and climate change.

Like NASA and Space Solar Power, they're made for each other.



Jeff
--
beb - To paraphrase Stephen Colbert, reality has an anti-Ares I bias.






.

Quantcast