Faster, NASA, Faster
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Don't even get me started on the nightmare element "reality TV" would bring to it.
Hosted by William Shatner.
Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people lost their lives trying to sail across the oceans to discover new lands, but the world as we know it could not exist without their sacrifice. Space is a frontier. Frontiers are dangerous. Trying to make them safe requires either a short period of intensely dangerous activity or a very long period of less dangerous activity. But space is too important to be taken slowly.
Personally, if NASA told me I could be an astronaut but there was a 30% chance I would die, I would still do it. And I am sure there are thousands more out there like me.
Additionally, what NASA should be doing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dumb_booster
NASA isn't at the moment. I'm not sure any nation is willing to accept high enough failure rates in their space programs to fly by the seat of their pants.
Increasing launching is maybe a start, but until the space program tolerates more failure true innovation might be tricky. High risk high reward work loses in that environment, no matter the lipservice paid towards that work in overviews.
Contrast this to the kind of extreme conservatism needed to operate manned missions, where every mission-critical system needs to be massively overengineered and multiply redundant.
Even then, I would argue that NASA's strength is more in finding solutions to extremely constraining problems (i.e. all their big saves) more than it is to finding solutions when nothing's the limit. Though it's not my field and what they do is pretty amazing, so really this is all just coming from me and my armchair here.
I don't really believe you that the missions have been at all tolerant of risk. I see very very little to back that up.
Look at how much of a stink got raised when units were converted wrong and we lost one probe. Do you really think NASA's a risk embracing kind of place?
IIRC the current reaction that particular issue is all schematics involving every single component must be in US units. Sure sounds like a fast and loose environment to me!
Using aerobraking shells, landing on Mars with bouncy pillows, catching a returning solar wind probe with a helicopter, shielding a probe within 10 solar radii of the sun... NASA projects are daring in their design even if they are (quite properly) conservative in execution.
Needed? By whom and why?
It's not the test subjects.
From what I learned on my recent trip to Kennedy Space Center, the Space shuttle program is actually incredibly risky compared to other and past rocket designs. It's got solid rocket boosters that once lit, cannot be turned off. It's got no abort sequence until those SRBs are finished firing. Hell, the rocket itself is asymmetrical and rocks back and forth before liftoff.
Contrast all this with the Soyuz and our very own Saturn V designs. Saturn V I believe had 100% mission success during all our trips to the moon. It's liquid engines could be shutoff almost instantaneously during an abort sequence AND it had a blasting cap on top that would fire if the crew needed to abort during launch. Oh and the rocket did all this while being something like 95% efficient.
Why NASA abandoned this program is beyond me.
The fact failing integration tests ruins a million-dollar piece of machinery and not infrequently kills a dozen people also doesn't help much.
What NASA does is the impossible, bordering the very difficult. What we see is the artifacts that fall outside the impossible space.
There is no way that firing an elaborate terrarium full of large primates into space is ever going to be cheap, and there is no scientific basis for continuing to do it (other than the circular justification of learning more about how space affects the people we fire into it).
Instead.. the moon is analogous to the inhabitable rocky island just off the coast, just past the horizon.
Getting there was relatively easy. Vikings did it. It took a decade.
No, going several orders of magnitude further, several centuries later, that's the New World.
But nobody would've ever gotten there if they first hadn't made it to the inhabitable rock 20 miles off the coast.
The comparison is implicit and my statement was a generalization; that spacefaring means traveling and colonizing the moon and beyond.
> Instead.. the moon is analogous to the inhabitable rocky island just off the coast, just past the horizon.
This is exactly the analogy I was rejecting in my comment. The moon and space are inhospitable. Even the astronauts who went to the moon and back were lucky they weren't fried by radiation. They were getting dosed the whole way and avoided a solar flare or radiation flux that would have killed them out right. Not to mention the deleterious effects of long term zero-G on biological systems. For the Vikings it was "relatively" easy to get there by orders of magnitude and no need to bring air, food and water to their destination and total dependence on complex support systems.
I'm not trying to quash your dreams and I am as big a fan of the early explorers as the next guy but living in space is totally impractical at this point. I wouldn't rule out venturing out in space some day but that is probably 100's of years away, if ever.
The only thing on your list they didn't have to worry about was bringing along oxygen. Food? Water? Life support systems? Check. Check Check.
The only difference is that early sea explorers were able to realize economic benefits incrementally. With space flight, the possibility of incremental economic viability is murky at best, and almost certainly improbable.
But you honestly strike me as somebody who hasn't grown up on a coast. The ocean is a dangerous, dangerous place. So much so that even now we haven't come close to mastering it.
Today, we're the 8th century vikings. Not the 14th. But there'd never have been 14th century vikings without the icremental achievements along the way...
If I am, so what? That is completely irrelevant to the point that space is inhospitable to human life and drastically different than setting sail to risky and unknown, far-away destinations on the earth. Nobody is going to get space-ship wrecked on an asteroid. They would be dead.
"The only difference is that early sea explorers were able to realize economic benefits incrementally."
That is far from the "only" difference and this statement is delusional if you actually believe it. I think that you've been reading too much science fiction.
One should only say something like that with some physical principle as its basis, otherwise, it's just pointy-haired boss flying by the seat of one's pants.
Some prominent physicist once published a "proof" of the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight in the New York Times. (One which treated atoms as billiard balls and ignored fluid dynamics.) I think it was Kant who once gave "the chemical composition of the stars" as an example of something we'd never know. Two very smart gentlemen who had good sounding arguments, but a mistaken physical basis. From this thread, I haven't any idea about your acumen nor the basis of your argument.
I think if someone told a subject of Queen Elizabeth, that someday teenagers could idly write a screed, to be read by ten-thousands or millions of others, and effectively pay only a pittance to do so, they'd be dismissed as a lunatic.
EDIT: energy to get a spacecraft to orbit? It's comparable to sending a 747 over the Atlantic.
Your 747 argument is specious. The energy in a stick of firewood is comparable to that in an equivalent mass of dynamite. I invite you to set both on fire and report back on the difference.
Color me impressed!
Really the hurdle for rocketry to LEO has to do with the horrendous increase of reaction mass in the rocket equation. With the enthalpies available from chemical reactions, the required delta-V for earth is just on the cusp of impractical, requiring mass-fractions just at the edge of our practical fabrication technologies.
But we are not inherently limited by the energies of chemical bonds or by the rocket equation.
[citation needed] I have not done the math, but I find this quite improbable.
The space shuttle has two SRBs with one million pounds of solid propellant each plus more than 500,000 gallons of super-cold liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl...
The 747-8I has 64,225 U.S. gallons of jet fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications
According to http://www.convertunits.com/from/gallon+%5BU.S.%5D+of+naphth..., one gallon of jet fuel contains 133.92e6J, so a full fuel load on the biggest 747 is 8.6e12J.
According to somebody google found, the energy to get the shuttle into orbit is 1.17E11J, but that is just the potential and kinetic energy, neglecting the losses due to air resistance, etc. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=229835
Thanks. I remembered that from a Robert Zubrin book.
In particular, two million pounds of SRB propellant plus more than 500,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen is not comparable to 64,225 U.S. gallons of jet fuel.
In particular, two million pounds of SRB propellant plus more than 500,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen is not comparable to 64,225 U.S. gallons of jet fuel.
In particular, you are acting as if the fundamental problem is represented by the Shuttle. That's just one particular configuration of one possible solution. What you're doing would be like someone from the early 1900's showing the in-feasibility of the performance envelope of a 747 by quoting the stats of a Curtiss biplane.
Abandon the idea that you have to use chemical propulsion, or that you have to carry your own power, or even your own reaction mass, and you get fantastic improvement.
Here's what you get when you only keep doing the 3rd thing:
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar0...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Skylon
(Altho' arguably ESA or even the British MoD ought to be, whatever anyone else thinks)
As in a lot of government projects, there's an incentive to bill expensively for things regarded as esoteric, hence a desire to keep things esoteric.
My friend also told me about one control, which was something like a 10-key keypad, a commit button, and a nixie readout. It dated from Apollo. You'd send commands by dialing in alphanumeric codes. What was it like when they "updated" it to run on workstations? It was a 10-key keypad with a few other buttons, with an alphanumeric entry field.
I don't necessarily want VCs running NASA. But it's for sure that there's some ossification in that government organization. Maybe it's time for private enterprise to step in?
A company that iterates a lot, and deploys a lot, gets good at iterating and deploying. An organization that preps, launches, and retrieves spaceships a lot gets good at that too.
More effort on proving the null hypothesis is suggested.
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/mercury-unmanned...
We can see who innovates faster.
One is competitive attrition, the other is rapid iteration. The attrition factor should be obvious, you have a large number of companies vying for success, and only the top few are even moderately successful.
There would have to be a large enough margin that it doesn't cost NASA much to fail horribly on quite a few of its projects.
Iteration is good because if you iterate rapidly enough, you are allowed a larger margin of error, because any errors in your previous version will be fixed relatively quickly in the next version.
But here's the unfortunately reality: Sending anything into space is horrendously expensive. It is not like programming where releasing and distributing a patch is a tiny part of the overall cost of the program.
When you screw up with a space ship, bad things happen (shit falls out of the sky, there is pollution to clean up), it costs money into the millions, and you have to fill out a TON of paperwork.
Its not like a major error in a rocket you are launching can just be 'pulled from the website' after the rocket has exploded.
Even if you /do/ go with cheap unmanned probes, you still have the massive pr disincentive of potentially failing every day for a month, and losing tons of money.
NASA would become a joke.
The author does deal with the concern:
"I recognize that NASA cannot push a system to launch more frequently than it is capable of, because this could mean overrunning the budget or, worse, cutting corners on safety. Instead, future systems should be designed so that they can be rapidly prepared for launching by small teams.
This would not only increase NASA’s ability to send up innovative payloads but also make launching systems more reliable. After all, the more a rocket is flown, the better it can be understood and the safer it becomes. Frequent launchings would also reduce costs per flight in the long run."