6 ms·

I wish that NASA's plan were wise and thoughtful... but it isn't. NASA has created a plan which supports the continuation of all projects currently running and

by nickff 11y ago

I wish that NASA's plan were wise and thoughtful... but it isn't. NASA has created a plan which supports the continuation of all projects currently running and in development as part of the 'path to Mars'. While this may be a good jobs or aerospace stimulus spending program, these projects are not critical to getting to Mars. If NASA were serious about going to Mars as soon as possible, they would cancel the Space Launch System (SLS), and spend the money on in-orbit low-gravity research, ion thruster research, and SpaceX/Blue Origin/Orbital Sciences/ULA super-heavy lift capabilities. If they did this, NASA could send astronauts to Mars in 2024. As things stand, SLS is too expensive and slow a program to survive changes of administrations (i.e. presidential elections), like its predecessors, SLS and its descendants will go into cost/scope death spirals and get cancelled/restarted. In short, if NASA really wanted to go to Mars, they'd focus on going to Mars. If you're interested in the subject, I suggest you watch "The Mars Underground", as it is a good primer on the recent history of Mars exploration ideas/initiatives.[1] [1] http://documentarystorm.com/the-mars-underground/ http://documentarystorm.com/the-mars-underground/

mzs 11y ago
It's more Congress that wants SLS to continue than NASA.
- nickff 11y ago
  I agree with you that SLS A.K.A. Senate Launch System is more of a congressional program than a NASA program, but neither NASA nor the executive branch have been vocal in opposing it, and the rest of the 'path to Mars' (as proposed by NASA) is even more wasteful than SLS.
  - mzs 11y ago
    NASA has been pretty vocally against since 2010 or so, here's an example: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/28/bolden-and-house-committee-clash-over-nasa-priorities/ http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/28/bolden-and-house-com... You have to understand that NASA is a big place and they have a public communications aspect with people who's job it is to spread word about what they are doing no matter if it's what they want to be doing or not, so rthat's why you see so much in support. The best way to tell if it is fluff or real is to look for vague ideas instead of hard timelines.
    - nickff 11y ago
      I agree with you that there is are a wide variety of ideas about SLS and Orion in NASA, but the official policy (and the basis for this thread) is that SLS will take NASA to Mars. In the article you cited, Bolden is saying that he needs commercial crew to be fully funded to enable research on the ISS, which will allow for the use of SLS on trips to Mars. From the article: >Bolden said that without the ISS, he would recommend that SLS and Orion be cancelled. SLS and Orion are useless and should be cancelled without respect to what happens with the commercial crew program. SLS or derivatives thereof will not allow for the expoloration or colonization of Mars, the system is already in a cost/scope death spiral, and even if it is completed, it will be too expensive and too unreliable to be used for its intended purpose. If NASA really wanted to go to Mars, they would propose cancelling SLS, and spending the money on Blue Origin, SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences (and possibly Skylon). BO, SX and OS super-heavy launch systems could be developed for a combined cost lower than SLS', they will have lower specific cost to orbit ($/kg) and they do not have the problems which NASA has with cost and schedule overruns. They could even fund two of the super-heavy launch systems, and use the extra money for launches to do induced low-gravity research, and high-efficiency propulsion research (amongst other things).
eunoia 11y ago
Honest question, why do you feel a different super-heavy lift system would be more achievable than the SLS?
- nickff 11y ago
  NASA hasn't developed a new rocket since the space shuttle, so they simply have no relevant experience. In addition, SpaceX, ULA, and Orbital Sciences have demonstrated an ability to develop space systems much more quickly and reliably than NASA, which usually has cost/scope death spirals, largely due to slow schedules, bureacracy and lack of impetus to move forward. In addition, NASA develops launch systems for a single customer, whereas all the others are trying to develop systems which can be used for a wide variety of customers, meaning that they can amortize development over more launches, as well as offering the opportunity to improve design and manufacturing reliability and cost issues. SLS is only the latest in a series of system designs which have been cancelled/drastically redesigned.[1] Even if SLS were completed (at over 10 times the cost of any other alternative), it is scheduled for less than one launch per year, which means that it will never demonstrate reliability or achieve economy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
strlen 11y ago
Agree with leaving the launch system to commercial partners (SpaceX, etc...), but why the need for further ion thruster research as a pre-requisite for a manned Mars mission? Wouldn't a chemical thruster and a Hohmann transfer suffice, at least for the initial few trips?
- nickff 11y ago
  You're right that ion thruster research is not necessary to enable trips to Mars, but it would make sense to try to reduce time in transit and requirements for launch mass, as well as enable more frequent trips to Mars. Ion (or EM drive) propulsion research could (reasonably) be regarded as tangential, but I would see it as forward progress which will help us to reach and explore Mars. Failure to perfect high-efficiency propulsion should not be a barrier to Mars travel, but use of these systems would definitely be helpful.
jules 11y ago
Why should we want to go to Mars at this point in time? Given the choice of putting billions into going to Mars or doing something else, why should we go to Mars? It seems to me that there are far better places to put this money.
- nickff 11y ago
  This entire thread is based on the premise that sending humans to Mars is desirable, and we are discussing how best to get there. The purpose of my comment was to address how NASA should spend its money, not whether it should have the money in the first place. If you would like to discuss de-funding human spaceflight and/or NASA, I think there are points for and against both, and would be interested to read your thoughts on the matter.
  - jules 11y ago
    I understand, it's just that your comment made me doubt whether going to Mars is a good idea at all :) Why I thought that going to Mars might not be a great idea (yet): NASA's budget is about 17 billion so lets guesstimate that going to Mars will cost 100 billion. It's probably a lot more to establish a colony, let alone a self sufficient colony. What is the benefit of having a colony on Mars? We aren't lacking space on Earth; it would be a lot easier to colonize the Saharan desert than to colonize Mars. Instead that money could go to scientific research (e.g. renewable energy generation, medical research, AI research, robotics research), or to some other cause. Wouldn't that be of much greater benefit to humanity? If you're looking purely at space exploration it also seems to me that there are better ways to spend that money than to put humans on Mars. For the same money we could probably put a whole bunch of telescopes in space and send several probes/rovers to asteroids/planets/moons. Even if the ultimate goal is to establish a colony on Mars, it might be a better strategy to build it with robots than with humans...?
    - kvz 11y ago
      I recommend reading the last waitbutwhy post. Also available in audio, which is nice to digest the material if you're doing a few hours of less inspirational work

by nickff 11y ago

mzs 11y ago

It's more Congress that wants SLS to continue than NASA.

nickff 11y ago
I agree with you that SLS A.K.A. Senate Launch System is more of a congressional program than a NASA program, but neither NASA nor the executive branch have been vocal in opposing it, and the rest of the 'path to Mars' (as proposed by NASA) is even more wasteful than SLS.
- mzs 11y ago
  NASA has been pretty vocally against since 2010 or so, here's an example: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/28/bolden-and-house-committee-clash-over-nasa-priorities/ http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/03/28/bolden-and-house-com... You have to understand that NASA is a big place and they have a public communications aspect with people who's job it is to spread word about what they are doing no matter if it's what they want to be doing or not, so rthat's why you see so much in support. The best way to tell if it is fluff or real is to look for vague ideas instead of hard timelines.
  - nickff 11y ago
    I agree with you that there is are a wide variety of ideas about SLS and Orion in NASA, but the official policy (and the basis for this thread) is that SLS will take NASA to Mars. In the article you cited, Bolden is saying that he needs commercial crew to be fully funded to enable research on the ISS, which will allow for the use of SLS on trips to Mars. From the article: >Bolden said that without the ISS, he would recommend that SLS and Orion be cancelled. SLS and Orion are useless and should be cancelled without respect to what happens with the commercial crew program. SLS or derivatives thereof will not allow for the expoloration or colonization of Mars, the system is already in a cost/scope death spiral, and even if it is completed, it will be too expensive and too unreliable to be used for its intended purpose. If NASA really wanted to go to Mars, they would propose cancelling SLS, and spending the money on Blue Origin, SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences (and possibly Skylon). BO, SX and OS super-heavy launch systems could be developed for a combined cost lower than SLS', they will have lower specific cost to orbit ($/kg) and they do not have the problems which NASA has with cost and schedule overruns. They could even fund two of the super-heavy launch systems, and use the extra money for launches to do induced low-gravity research, and high-efficiency propulsion research (amongst other things).

eunoia 11y ago

Honest question, why do you feel a different super-heavy lift system would be more achievable than the SLS?

nickff 11y ago
NASA hasn't developed a new rocket since the space shuttle, so they simply have no relevant experience. In addition, SpaceX, ULA, and Orbital Sciences have demonstrated an ability to develop space systems much more quickly and reliably than NASA, which usually has cost/scope death spirals, largely due to slow schedules, bureacracy and lack of impetus to move forward. In addition, NASA develops launch systems for a single customer, whereas all the others are trying to develop systems which can be used for a wide variety of customers, meaning that they can amortize development over more launches, as well as offering the opportunity to improve design and manufacturing reliability and cost issues. SLS is only the latest in a series of system designs which have been cancelled/drastically redesigned.[1] Even if SLS were completed (at over 10 times the cost of any other alternative), it is scheduled for less than one launch per year, which means that it will never demonstrate reliability or achieve economy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

strlen 11y ago

Agree with leaving the launch system to commercial partners (SpaceX, etc...), but why the need for further ion thruster research as a pre-requisite for a manned Mars mission? Wouldn't a chemical thruster and a Hohmann transfer suffice, at least for the initial few trips?

nickff 11y ago
You're right that ion thruster research is not necessary to enable trips to Mars, but it would make sense to try to reduce time in transit and requirements for launch mass, as well as enable more frequent trips to Mars. Ion (or EM drive) propulsion research could (reasonably) be regarded as tangential, but I would see it as forward progress which will help us to reach and explore Mars. Failure to perfect high-efficiency propulsion should not be a barrier to Mars travel, but use of these systems would definitely be helpful.

jules 11y ago

Why should we want to go to Mars at this point in time? Given the choice of putting billions into going to Mars or doing something else, why should we go to Mars? It seems to me that there are far better places to put this money.

nickff 11y ago
This entire thread is based on the premise that sending humans to Mars is desirable, and we are discussing how best to get there. The purpose of my comment was to address how NASA should spend its money, not whether it should have the money in the first place. If you would like to discuss de-funding human spaceflight and/or NASA, I think there are points for and against both, and would be interested to read your thoughts on the matter.
- jules 11y ago
  I understand, it's just that your comment made me doubt whether going to Mars is a good idea at all :) Why I thought that going to Mars might not be a great idea (yet): NASA's budget is about 17 billion so lets guesstimate that going to Mars will cost 100 billion. It's probably a lot more to establish a colony, let alone a self sufficient colony. What is the benefit of having a colony on Mars? We aren't lacking space on Earth; it would be a lot easier to colonize the Saharan desert than to colonize Mars. Instead that money could go to scientific research (e.g. renewable energy generation, medical research, AI research, robotics research), or to some other cause. Wouldn't that be of much greater benefit to humanity? If you're looking purely at space exploration it also seems to me that there are better ways to spend that money than to put humans on Mars. For the same money we could probably put a whole bunch of telescopes in space and send several probes/rovers to asteroids/planets/moons. Even if the ultimate goal is to establish a colony on Mars, it might be a better strategy to build it with robots than with humans...?
  - kvz 11y ago
    I recommend reading the last waitbutwhy post. Also available in audio, which is nice to digest the material if you're doing a few hours of less inspirational work