4 ms·

A base at L2 is interesting. However, I have a fundamental problem with these plans: timeframe. JFK's moon speech was so memorable, and the policy it implemente

by cryptoz 14y ago

A base at L2 is interesting. However, I have a fundamental problem with these plans: timeframe. JFK's moon speech was so memorable, and the policy it implemented so successful because it was aimed to be done while JFK was still in office (well, pretty close). Obama and NASA targeting a Mars landing by the time Obama is nearly dying of old age...well, it's not inspiring. It's also not likely to stay on track for so many decades. "By the decade is out" -> "When I'm 78 and elderly" I am also nervous about the continued approach of establishing bases to "learn more about supporting humans in deep space". The ISS did this for not-deep space, and it trapped us in. It was so expensive that it prevented further exploration. I would suggest that we should not establish small expensive bases to learn more. Unless the bases are intended to become permanent colonies, which I think would be an excellent move. I realize this starts to sound expensive, but start with a small but expandable design. Like scaling a web start up.

debacle 14y ago
Could you do a moonrace in today's America? Would it work? Would we win?
- cryptoz 14y ago
  Sure. SpaceX or China would win. NASA or ESA would follow about a decade later.
- mburns 14y ago
  http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ We are in a moon race. Multiple nations and multiple companies are working to get us to the moon right now.
keeperofdakeys 14y ago
There are plenty of zero-gravity experiments that have been held in the ISS. I think at least the first base is worth it, just to learn more about the conditions of space. We still face one fundamental problem with space travel though, cosmic radiation.
- cryptoz 14y ago
  The "first base" wasn't ISS in the 21st century, it was Skylab in the 1970s. But I do agree that the ISS, overall, is a good thing.
arscan 14y ago
Its a little harder than simply setting a loftier goal and telling NASA to accomplish it in a shorter timeframe. I assume there was a certain amount of engineering due diligence done to come up with those dates. Have you ever had a manager (who doesn't understand the engineering issues) tell you to deliver 2x the product in 1/2 the time because that's what the customer wants? How does that typically turn out? Now, you could argue that the current acquisition system that supports NASA is completely broken, and it could be possible to do this in a much better way (truly faster-better-cheaper). I think SpaceX is starting to prove that. And you could also argue that NASA needs to take more risks when it comes to manned missions, which would make things a lot cheaper and easier. But simply thinking that cutting the timeline in half will fix the problem is naive. I'm with you on the ISS though. I love the thing, but can't help but think the money could have been better spent... especially since its so unclear exactly what we are learning up there.
- apendleton 14y ago
  Risk aversion seems to be the killer in terms of timeframe. Burt Rutan famously remarked a few years ago that if we're not killing people, we're not pushing hard enough; the test pilots that made up the early core of NASA astronauts knew it was high-risk and were okay with it, which is why we got to the moon in less than a decade (and yes, people died along the way). Modern-era NASA is just so terrified of bad PR that they won't decide on a strategy for tying their own shoes without spending a decade ensuring that nobody will inadvertently strangle themselves with the laces.
  - arscan 14y ago
    It makes sense for NASA to avoid anything that would significantly decrease the public's opinion of them (as that would eventually lead to funding cuts). But I don't think their assumption that the death of astronauts/pilots would negatively affect their image. Lets say Curiosity crashed into mars... that would be a HUGE problem for NASA (3 billion dollars wasted, people would say). But if a couple of astronauts died on the way to Mars... I think that would only strengthen the resolve of the American public. No politician would go on record saying their life was wasted. Instead, their death would be framed as heroic (rightfully so), and I think there would be a push to try again, and to try harder. Given that logic, what NASA views as risk mitigation (send a robot to mars instead of a person, so we can get better at it before risking lives), is really is a very risky strategy from their organization's perspective. There is probably data out there that backs/disproves my general logic here (sentiment of nasa after astronaut's deaths, vs after loss of robots). I'd love to see it.
jccooper 14y ago
Details are scant, but I don't think they're talking of a station at L2. Looks more like a plan to stick an Orion there for a little while. It links to http://www.space.com/14518-nasa-moon-deep-space-station-astronauts.html http://www.space.com/14518-nasa-moon-deep-space-station-astr... which mentions an Orion mission to EML2. The SLS might theoretically be able to put station components at EML2; an ISS or MIR major module is about 20,000kg, almost exactly the same as a full Orion stack. The cost of supplying such a thing, however, would be horrendous if it is even possible. The payload of a given launcher to geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) is usually about a third of that to low Earth orbit (LEO). Surprisingly, EML2 is actually easier to get to than GEO, but not by a lot. Anyway, you need a lot more rocket to get a given mass there than the ISS. Looks to me that the Dragon wet mass is greater than or about the same as the Falcon 9 payload to GEO. So, no cargo, if it's even possible. Soyuz is probably in the same category, or worse. So all existing supply systems would be able to deliver almost nothing to an EML2 station, if they could get there at all. The (still largely theoretical) Orion + SLS would be your only (and very expensive) vehicle. Of course, a Dragon on a (less theoretical, but still unflown) Falcon 9 Heavy would have about the same cargo to GEO as the regular Falcon 9 to LEO, so it would be an option; it would cost 2-3 times as much for launcher than to the ISS. Getting the Dragon back to Earth would require extra fuel, however, which would cut into its cargo capacity, but if you just leave it there you could increase capacity by leaving off all the re-entry stuff. But if you can get a Dragon there, what's the point of the Orion? So probably Dragon wouldn't be allowed. "Not rated for deep space" or something. Anyway, you're still going to be sending Orions there regularly, on $1B SLS boosters. And there's basically nothing to do there that can't be done at the ISS other than pretend to go somewhere else beyond LEO--so you might as well stay in the Orion. Thus, no space station, and no need for one.

by cryptoz 14y ago

debacle 14y ago

Could you do a moonrace in today's America? Would it work? Would we win?

cryptoz 14y ago
Sure. SpaceX or China would win. NASA or ESA would follow about a decade later.
mburns 14y ago
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ We are in a moon race. Multiple nations and multiple companies are working to get us to the moon right now.

keeperofdakeys 14y ago

There are plenty of zero-gravity experiments that have been held in the ISS. I think at least the first base is worth it, just to learn more about the conditions of space. We still face one fundamental problem with space travel though, cosmic radiation.

cryptoz 14y ago
The "first base" wasn't ISS in the 21st century, it was Skylab in the 1970s. But I do agree that the ISS, overall, is a good thing.

arscan 14y ago

Its a little harder than simply setting a loftier goal and telling NASA to accomplish it in a shorter timeframe. I assume there was a certain amount of engineering due diligence done to come up with those dates. Have you ever had a manager (who doesn't understand the engineering issues) tell you to deliver 2x the product in 1/2 the time because that's what the customer wants? How does that typically turn out? Now, you could argue that the current acquisition system that supports NASA is completely broken, and it could be possible to do this in a much better way (truly faster-better-cheaper). I think SpaceX is starting to prove that. And you could also argue that NASA needs to take more risks when it comes to manned missions, which would make things a lot cheaper and easier. But simply thinking that cutting the timeline in half will fix the problem is naive. I'm with you on the ISS though. I love the thing, but can't help but think the money could have been better spent... especially since its so unclear exactly what we are learning up there.

apendleton 14y ago
Risk aversion seems to be the killer in terms of timeframe. Burt Rutan famously remarked a few years ago that if we're not killing people, we're not pushing hard enough; the test pilots that made up the early core of NASA astronauts knew it was high-risk and were okay with it, which is why we got to the moon in less than a decade (and yes, people died along the way). Modern-era NASA is just so terrified of bad PR that they won't decide on a strategy for tying their own shoes without spending a decade ensuring that nobody will inadvertently strangle themselves with the laces.
- arscan 14y ago
  It makes sense for NASA to avoid anything that would significantly decrease the public's opinion of them (as that would eventually lead to funding cuts). But I don't think their assumption that the death of astronauts/pilots would negatively affect their image. Lets say Curiosity crashed into mars... that would be a HUGE problem for NASA (3 billion dollars wasted, people would say). But if a couple of astronauts died on the way to Mars... I think that would only strengthen the resolve of the American public. No politician would go on record saying their life was wasted. Instead, their death would be framed as heroic (rightfully so), and I think there would be a push to try again, and to try harder. Given that logic, what NASA views as risk mitigation (send a robot to mars instead of a person, so we can get better at it before risking lives), is really is a very risky strategy from their organization's perspective. There is probably data out there that backs/disproves my general logic here (sentiment of nasa after astronaut's deaths, vs after loss of robots). I'd love to see it.

jccooper 14y ago

Details are scant, but I don't think they're talking of a station at L2. Looks more like a plan to stick an Orion there for a little while. It links to http://www.space.com/14518-nasa-moon-deep-space-station-astronauts.html http://www.space.com/14518-nasa-moon-deep-space-station-astr... which mentions an Orion mission to EML2. The SLS might theoretically be able to put station components at EML2; an ISS or MIR major module is about 20,000kg, almost exactly the same as a full Orion stack. The cost of supplying such a thing, however, would be horrendous if it is even possible. The payload of a given launcher to geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) is usually about a third of that to low Earth orbit (LEO). Surprisingly, EML2 is actually easier to get to than GEO, but not by a lot. Anyway, you need a lot more rocket to get a given mass there than the ISS. Looks to me that the Dragon wet mass is greater than or about the same as the Falcon 9 payload to GEO. So, no cargo, if it's even possible. Soyuz is probably in the same category, or worse. So all existing supply systems would be able to deliver almost nothing to an EML2 station, if they could get there at all. The (still largely theoretical) Orion + SLS would be your only (and very expensive) vehicle. Of course, a Dragon on a (less theoretical, but still unflown) Falcon 9 Heavy would have about the same cargo to GEO as the regular Falcon 9 to LEO, so it would be an option; it would cost 2-3 times as much for launcher than to the ISS. Getting the Dragon back to Earth would require extra fuel, however, which would cut into its cargo capacity, but if you just leave it there you could increase capacity by leaving off all the re-entry stuff. But if you can get a Dragon there, what's the point of the Orion? So probably Dragon wouldn't be allowed. "Not rated for deep space" or something. Anyway, you're still going to be sending Orions there regularly, on $1B SLS boosters. And there's basically nothing to do there that can't be done at the ISS other than pretend to go somewhere else beyond LEO--so you might as well stay in the Orion. Thus, no space station, and no need for one.