|
Author
|
Topic: Review of US Human Space Flight (Augustine)
|
Playalinda
Member Posts: 152
From: Peoria, AZ, USA
Registered: Oct 2009
|
posted 10-29-2009 05:43 PM
  
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Having now stood within a hundred feet of Ares I-X as it rolled to the pad, and having seen it glow in the pad's Xenon lights, and then watching it soar just yesterday, I can think of no other word for the Ares design than majestic.
Robert, From your point of view it certainly looks majestic and I agree with you 100%. It's for sure a different sight standing directly in front Ares or seeing it on my HDTV but I think we missed going back to the drawing boards and develop a new concept for a totally new liquid propulsion first stage that is not as tall like the SRB. It's possible to have a first stage liquid engine, perhaps a cluster of rocket nozzles like Apollo Saturn V with the same or even more power than one modified Shuttle booster. This would also solve the problem of the very heavy Orion space capsule. I still say to give up the Shuttle will be the same mistake like it was to end Apollo. Do I understand correctly that NASA cannot build another Apollo Saturn V because of the fact that the technology know how has been lost? So will the same happen to the Shuttle technology in the decades to come? Now that NASA finally seems to understand the very complex Space Shuttle systems and knows for instance that a piece of falling foam during ascent can break the leading wing edge. It took two catastrophes to make NASA aware that human build spaceliners much faster than a bullet is to be taken very seriously. Fourteen astronauts died because of a non-perfect spacecraft. Enough is enough! Let's build a spaceliner with escape system that sits on top of the liquid propulsion system and is able to touchdown like an airliner and we can say we finally make real progress. Imagine airline passengers would arrive at an airport in capsules. Unthinkable! |
Mr Meek
Member Posts: 353
From: Chattanooga, TN
Registered: Dec 2007
|
posted 10-29-2009 05:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Having now stood within a hundred feet of Ares I-X as it rolled to the pad, and having seen it glow in the pad's Xenon lights, and then watching it soar just yesterday, I can think of no other word for the Ares design than majestic.
Agreed. It truly is a beautiful vehicle, and Ares I-X was a singular opportunity to view the design in, arguably, its most elegant configuration. Regarding Playalinda's view of this being a step backwards, I respectfully disagree. Though perhaps this would be best for another thread, I will simply say that a capsule design is, in my opinion, a simpler means of crew transport, when crew transport is your primary goal. To use the old cliche, it is the right tool for the right job. Furthermore, the purpose of Ares I-X was not to be a full prototype of the Ares I rocket. Rather, it was intended to demonstrate that a rocket with very similar physical characteristics could fly. From that, NASA sought to validate their computer models by flying what amounted to a full-sized wind tunnel test model, instrumented to match the computer simulated Ares. If anything, the entire I-X project was an exercise in intra-,inter-, and extra-agency cooperation to gain insight into how to better conduct the business of spaceflight. To me, that sounds like progress. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2009 06:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Playalinda:
Do I understand correctly that NASA cannot build another Apollo Saturn V because of the fact that the technology know how has been lost?
NASA is, until directed otherwise, working towards building a more capable Saturn V -- the Ares V, which will be able to carry more payload to low Earth orbit and boost more mass to lunar orbit, as well as other destinations within the inner solar system.But as to your other points, neither Challenger or Columbia were lost because we didn't understand the dangers. The flight rules existed and were waived. The most pressing changes needed and implemented were in the way the program was managed, not how the technology was applied. If safety is your primary concern, than Ares should be your vehicle of choice. The shuttle's solid rocket motors have the highest rated flight record among all rockets. You seem to equate progress arbitrarily, with no consideration for the mission. Wings are unneeded mass on missions destined for locations beyond Earth orbit, and liquid fuel engines are no more advanced than solids, just more complicated. Real progress is where the vehicle will take us, not necessarily how we get there. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 10-29-2009 06:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I would urge you do so then, as it really addresses your questions well.
Point taken, Robert. I assume I can order a copy from Amazon. It's clearly a publication I should have on my bookshelves.As for Ares and the potential rivals, I view with the most extreme skepticism the predictions from commercial companies. It is self-serving for them to predict that they will be able to put crews in orbit earlier than a properly funded Ares 1. To put it another way, they would say that, wouldn't they? "Trust me, I'm a commercial outfit and have nothing to gain from saying I can beat NASA into orbit." Oh, come on! |
dtemple
Member Posts: 766
From: Longview, Texas, USA
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 10-29-2009 06:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Playalinda:
Do I understand correctly that NASA cannot build another Apollo Saturn V because of the fact that the technology know how has been lost? So will the same happen to the Shuttle technology in the decades to come?
The tooling was destroyed per orders of our "far-seeing" federal government. Namely, the late Sen. William Proxmier, placed a provision in the bill which resulted in the cancellation of the Apollo program to have the tooling destroyed so Apollo could not be revived in the future. Today's technology could be used to build a much-improved Saturn V, but perhaps that would be more expensive than the Ares rockets. I wish someone would suddenly uncover the equipment used for the construction of Saturn stages with the explanation that through some "snafu" the tooling was not destroyed as intended. I wonder how such a discovery would effect NASA's planning. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-29-2009 06:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
I assume I can order a copy from Amazon. It's clearly a publication I should have on my bookshelves.
The report is only available as a PDF download. |
Playalinda
Member Posts: 152
From: Peoria, AZ, USA
Registered: Oct 2009
|
posted 10-29-2009 09:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Wings are unneeded mass on missions destined for locations beyond Earth orbit, and liquid fuel engines are no more advanced than solids, just more complicated.
All I can say is that Shuttle wings give the crew some more ability to get to a pinpoint runway landing. A capsule can't easily be brought down to a certain bulls-eye target. Also another problem is when the drag chutes don't deploy before the splashland touchdown the crew has got a problem. Not a nice option but this really happened to a cosmonaut. The Russians don't use solids. Wonder why? Solid rockets cannot be controlled like for instance Space Shuttle Main Engines. SSME can throttle back when going through the dense atmosphere. Also I don't talk about a Shuttle going beyond Earth orbit then indeed it is unneeded mass. A modern spaceliner is just more advanced than any capsule design especially when the spacecraft is even more sophisticated than the current one as I described before. NASA can do better than Ares and Orion. It is just about the money as always. No big budget no big dreams. Really sad. Even that I don't like the concept of Ares, Orion, etc. I hope the program will not be canceled because the agency invested already too much time and money and we need access to space no matter what. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 10-29-2009 10:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
If safety is your primary concern, than Ares should be your vehicle of choice. The shuttle's solid rocket motors have the highest rated flight record among all rockets.
The safety record is not a fair corollary because the application is significantly different on Ares 1 (for a variety of reasons previously addressed in separate threads). |
JFS61
Member Posts: 101
From: Bryan, Texas USA
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 10-30-2009 12:43 AM
I personally prefer the Jupiter/Direct concept better, especially after the Orion had to be compromised in order to make it work with the Ares system. That being said, however, anything that gives us a manned spaceflight capability, no matter how flawed, is better than nothing. We simply cannot afford to have another gap in our manned spaceflight programs as we did after the end of the Saturn program, as it just might mean the end of NASA as any kind of meaningful player in the future space game. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 10-30-2009 02:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The report is only available as a PDF download.
Aside from the message I get when I click on your link ("This file is permanently damaged and cannot be restored" [???]) I really don't want to read the Augustine Report from my computer screen. It obviously must be available in printed form: I saw pictures of huge piles of reports with a cover showing Earth, Moon and Mars. Surely the public (even foreigners) can buy a copy somewhere? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2009 02:23 PM
The PDF link works just fine here (tested again today); printed copies were only distributed to those in attendance at the press conference announcing its release. A high quality PDF is available for self-printing. |
tfrielin
Member Posts: 162
From: Athens, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 10-30-2009 02:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I'm not surprised at the media coverage. They are never very enthusiastic about space to begin with and perhaps the White House press gets the sense that the administration is going to use the Augustine Commission as a way to minimize NASA even further. Never trust a President with the space program, they don't have the guts to shut it down but they wouldn't mind if it faded awy.
I have to agree with your observation here -- the Obama Administration's disinterst in NASA is obvious. If ever there was a "shovel-ready" program to spend a few billions of stimulus money on, it was the Constellation Program. But, no, instead they decide to stall and study it to death with the Augustine Commission. That has bought them a full year -- AW&ST this week says the Administration will not even get around to addressing the Commission's report until December at the earliest. In the meantime, NASA will just mark time and when it becomes obvious Obama just sees NASA as an inconvenience he just wants to fade away, NASA workers will leave in droves. End of NASA? No, not totally, but end of US manned spaceflight program? Definitely. |
E2M Lem Man
Member Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 10-30-2009 02:40 PM
As I work here with many retirees that had a lot to do with Apollo and shuttle design, I can tell you what they have been thinking up to now about Constellation and Ares rockets.Many have never gotten over how Apollo was cancelled and then destroyed. They put their lives into that and then shuttle. Most of the retirees aren't happy to see the orbiters retired either, as they believe that the 60 by 15 foot payload bay will be needed for future operations in space. They feel that Orion vindicates that Apollo is and was a good vehicle and we need Orion. The downside - the handwriting was on the wall when NASA started looking for smaller astronauts, and then smaller medical kits and supplies, then downsizing the crew number. The Saturn V was designed for growth, as the addition of the center F-1 at the base of the first stage shows. Ares I has very little growth potential - we know from 30 years of Shuttle operations. The I-X mission was needed and others like this to get more baseline data - BUT the Ares I is not the best vehicle for thie program. A newer, more flexible vehicle is needed. Not side mounted crew and cargo vehicles (a.k.a. Shuttle C), but something along the line of an Ares II design - like the Ares IV, V, or the Jupiter-Direct designs, so Orion is not compromised any more. The launcher needs to have growth potential if it is to boost Orion to the asteroids or to be part of the Mars vehicle fleet. In the late 1960's people knew that astronauts needed more than just a command module to live in for long flights to asteroids and Mars, kust look at the "Lunar Exploration Scrapbook" (By R. Godwin at Apogee Press). Provisions were made for radiation shelters within science and exercise special mission modules. How is an Ares I going to carry more, if the astronauts have to make special provisions for a single toothbrush? We applaud the Ares I-X team. They showed that there are still steely eyed missile people out there - let's turn them loose on a better, more flexible crewed launch vehicle. |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1366
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 10-30-2009 02:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Aside from the message I get when I click on your link ("This file is permanently damaged and cannot be restored" [???])
The PDF link worked fine for me. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 10-30-2009 03:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by tfrielin:
I have to agree with your observation here -- the Obama Administration's disinterst in NASA is obvious.
How does that differ from the past seven administrations? The way I see it, the last president that was truly supportive of NASA was Johnson (because he had the job of fulfilling Kennedy's goal). Sure, some presidents spoke highly of NASA and promised big things for the future, but it was rare when they actually delivered on any of those promises. The way I see it, the Augustine Commission provided a good chance to assess the future possibilities before committing (or not committing) to certain goals. Instead of setting out on a non-sustainable course and dooming oneself to coming up short, it makes sense to assess the best path to achieve a chosen goal. If anything, the Augustine commission report may end up being Obama's best tool for getting more money for NASA. Regardless, I'd prefer to see how it all plays out before I declare NASA dead. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2009 03:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
The launcher needs to have growth potential if it is to boost Orion to the asteroids or to be part of the Mars vehicle fleet.
Or, like the Saturn IB and Saturn V relationship, one vehicle can launch the crew to Earth orbit and the other handle the heavy lifting of the cargo, including the Earth departure stage. Ares I has one purpose: loft Orion with its crew to Earth orbit. From there, Orion can rendezvous with the space station, or with any number of payloads launched by Ares V -- including a lander for lunar missions or a larger transfer craft for Mars. Of course, Ares V can also be man-rated for deep space missions, but it would be overkill for launching astronauts to the space station or other Earth-orbit missions (hence the Augustine committee's interest in commercial crewed LEO solutions). |
tfrielin
Member Posts: 162
From: Athens, GA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 10-30-2009 05:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
How does that differ from the past seven administrations?
Well, let's just review the role of Presidential leadership re NASA's future::You like to think LBJ was a big NASA supporter -- and he was initially when he could score political points off it post-Sputink. But by 1968, as President, he shut down the Saturn V and 1B production lines, thus dooming Apollo to an early demise. Nixon? Acquiesced in Apollo's demise (there was still time to reverse the LBJ Saturn shutdown) but chose not to. But to his credit, gave the manned spaceflight program a new lease on life by approving the Shuttle in January, 1972. Carter? Nada. Zip But at least let the shuttle development continue. Reagan -- approved the space station in January 1984. NASA bolixed it up for years, but that was not a failure of Presidential leadership. Bush the Elder -- just kept shuttle and troubled space station to continue. Status quo = Good in this time frame. Clinton? NASA adrift again (see Carter Administration) space station misses cancellation by one vote at one point with no input or support from the White House until The Clinton White House figured out a foreign policy angle by inviting the Russians in. Finally, space station looks like it may actually fly. Bush the Younger -- Space station in hand and happy with status quo (again) but seizes on Columbia disaster to make a decision to retire the now perceived as dangerous shuttle and give NASA back an exploration initiative -- Constellation. Obama -- freezes the Bush Constellation initiative for more "study". And more delayed decisions. Result: Th Augustine Commission is only a prop for the Administration to play out the clock -- it has no interest in NASA (is it reluctant to spend money -- hell NO! Just not on NASA) It will decimate NASA by delay. And suffer no political consequences as a result A sweet deal in Washington terms. I yield the balance of my time to the dissenters... |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1121
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 11-01-2009 06:12 PM
The U.S. space community is deeply divided as to which path NASA should follow in light of the Augustine Commission report.An unscientific on-line poll by NASA Watch showed 45% for Moon First (the current plan), 44% for the Flexible Path, and 10% for Mars First. My personal preference is for the Flexible Path which would possibly include flights around the Moon, to the Lagrange Points, to a near Earth object, and to a moon of Mars. There would be no landings so the expense of a lander would be deferred. This would be the least expensive way of expanding out of low Earth orbit. The destinations are more exciting than doing "Apollo on steroids" (an unfortunate phrase). Whatever the path, none of this will happen anytime soon unless NASA gets more funding beyond that needed to finish the shuttle program and extend the life of ISS to 2020. |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 11-01-2009 07:40 PM
If there are no landings, there is no point of sending people. If you don't send people, you will never get the support of the people. You may as well stay home, and wait for the next celestial reset. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-01-2009 07:55 PM
You do not need a lander to send people to the surface of the asteroids. An EVA suit coupled with a more robust SAFER-type unit would likely suffice. Phobos and Deimos have almost no discernible gravity, so a similar approach may be possible. Orion, as currently designed, only supports contingency spacewalks but an EVA-capable version has been a possibility since the start of its development. As I understand it, the Lagrange point missions are envisioned in support of establishing a fuel depot, essentially an assembly task similar (but less complex) than what we do currently at the space station and Hubble. The flexible path also allows for the later addition of a lander for moon landings. That said, I personally favor the "Moon first" approach as I believe the alternative is adopting a "been there, done that" mindset that will ultimately lead us down the same finite road as Apollo. If we keep teaching the public that the only worthwhile destinations are those we haven't been to before, they will never be satisfied by a long-term exploration program centered around a single goal or destination. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 11-01-2009 11:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Meek:
Agreed. It truly is a beautiful vehicle, and Ares I-X was a singular opportunity to view the design in, arguably, its most elegant configuration.
Yuck.  Ares, the uggliest-looking rocket I can think of. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 11-06-2009 04:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
That said, I personally favor the "Moon first" approach as I believe the alternative is adopting a "been there, done that" mindset that will ultimately lead us down the same finite road as Apollo...
I agree. The Moon will be exciting again if we actually build something there and more people have a chance to go, either in person or through virtual presence (e.g., 3-D/HD immersive technology). The problem with the "flexible path" option, it seems to me, is that we'll fail to follow through on making any use of the various destinations, and once they've been ticked off the list we'll simply go on to the next one. A never-ending series of pointless "firsts" and missed opportunities. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-07-2009 03:35 AM
"Moon first" is the fastest way to make the human spaceflight irrelevant to the general public. I think that when Vigrin Galactic begins its first sub-orbital flights, people will want to know will lunar tourism follow? But the answer will be the same as before and the monopoly will be for government astronauts and esoteric science. It's difficult enough to justify the ISS to taxpayers without justifying the expense of a lunar outpost purely for astronomy or geology. If it's for permanent colonisation and settlement then fair enough. But if not, let robots probe the Moon and send our astronauts to Near Earth Objects or to Mars. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-07-2009 05:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
"Moon first" is the fastest way to make the human spaceflight irrelevant to the general public.
I disagree; I believe that given the relatively brief communication delays and the advancements in telepresence, that a modern series of lunar expeditions could engage the public in ways that Apollo never could, virtually bringing them along for the journey and allowing direct interaction with the astronauts on the surface. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-07-2009 07:55 AM
I was initially in favour of a return to the Moon, but as the years have passed and timelines became unrealistic a new destination is paramount. The threat of NEOs is no longer the realm of movies. Plus, astronauts venturing toward and even landing on one of these mountain-sized rocks hundreds of thousands of miles away is what human space exploration is all about. At least to me. Polls also suggest the Moon is not as inspiring as it once was. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 11-07-2009 03:18 PM
And what will the public see when we start visiting the Lagrangian points? Empty space. How inspiring will that be? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 11-07-2009 11:54 PM
Visiting an empty space... hmmmm... funny! But you're absolutely right, though. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-08-2009 03:10 AM
I think the Moon is old hat and you think a journey to "empty space" will uninspire. So how about Mars? Ah, but Augustine and NASA administrator Bolden have ruled that out already. Essentially, there is nothing planned till after 2020 - should the ISS get an extension. That's 11 more years of LEO piloted missions. In that case, the Shuttle programme should continue and Soyuz seats be made available for additional "space tourists". |
AstronautBrian
Member Posts: 310
From: Louisiana
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 11-08-2009 07:31 AM
As someone who was born seven years after Apollo 17, I for one would find a return to the Moon very exciting. Then again, because I am already interested in space, I guess I don't represent the norm. As stated above, going to the Moon now won't be the same as it was in the Apollo days. It will be more engaging, interactive, and "real." If we jump all of the way to Mars now, I'm afraid that it will be a handful of landing missions and that's it. We have used Mir and ISS to learn about long-duration spaceflight, now we need to use the Moon to learn about living and working on another world for long periods of time. The Moon is our proving ground. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-08-2009 09:45 AM
Mars missions would only be "a handful" if NASA has its way. I recommend every cS member read the testimony of Dr. Robert Zubrin before the Augustine Panel. It was an impassioned and rational case for Mars. Sadly, the members of the panel (including two former astronauts) were as dismissive as Dr Robert Park would probably have been. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-08-2009 10:26 AM
I've known Bob (Zubrin) for years, have served on the National Space Society board with him, and while certainly passionate, his outright dismissal of anything but Mars has done (perhaps irreparable) harm to his cause. I don't fault him and the Mars Society for pushing for the red planet, but his chosen approach, is in my opinion, unfortunate. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 11-08-2009 12:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AstronautBrian:
...As stated above, going to the Moon now won't be the same as it was in the Apollo days. It will be more engaging, interactive, and "real."
I think that's the key to revitalizing interest in the space program. Make it "real" for the common man. Like most on this board, I'm all for the science and exploration of space travel, but that alone isn't engaging enough for the ordinary viewer. NASA needs creative PR people that can make the experience of space travel real and dramatic. Cable channels can make truck driving in Alaska look exciting, why can't NASA take a page from that book and make you feel you're a part of the team on the Moon? I think they're missing a sure thing on the ISS as it is. If people will watch an hour-long weekly “reality” show about people chasing pretend ghosts on the SyFy Channel, or truck drivers wending their way over frozen ponds on Ice Road Trucker, why can’t something similar be done about the astronauts and cosmonauts on the ISS? I’m not too fond of so-called “reality” TV shows, but surely a talented creative team could edit together something interesting out of a week of activities and crew interactions on the ISS. It could be like The Real World or Big Brother without the personal humiliation and back stabbing.
|
mikepf
Member Posts: 448
From: San Jose, California, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 11-08-2009 03:07 PM
I think the days of getting any long-term public support with gee whiz space photo ops and planting the flag are long over. The best criteria for the next step should be return on the investment. What practical payback would there be for flying around the moon or Mars? What would be the payback for Martian or lunar landings and extended visits? If the public and our leadership can be made to see that there is a real possibility of gaining solid and practical results from any of these plans, support and funding will be a whole lot easier to obtain and maintain. I don't think that this question has been adequately explored or answered. Solid goals and objectives should determine what path to take. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 11-09-2009 03:10 AM
Would any ISS astronaut/cosmonaut/spaceflight participant seriously want to be the subject of a TV reality show? Documentary perhaps, but I doubt they would wish to relinquish their privacy for the purposes of prime-time entertainment. It might be a better idea to have an internationally-renowned celebrity as a member of a visiting crew (for eg. Beyonce Knowles) if only to highlight the goals of the ISS project. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 11-09-2009 12:58 PM
NASA TV already broadcasts the crew of the ISS and visiting astronauts/cosmonauts doing routine work, they just fail to make it interesting enough for anyone to want to see it. I'm not advocating that the coverage be any more intrusive than it already is, just that it be packaged by someone who knows how to make it appeal to viewers. Throw in narrative, interviews with participants about what they're doing, comments and interaction between crew members around the dinner table or at day's end, clips from family and support personnel on the ground. Anything to put a human face on what's going on and give the viewer a chance to feel like they're participating in the adventure. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 11-09-2009 05:57 PM
Buzz Aldrin on Why we need better rockets. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-09-2009 06:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The report is only available as a PDF download.
The committee has posted the following: A limited number of printed copies of the Final report are available at the NASA Headquarters Library at 300 E St SW, Washington DC 20024-3210 The printed copies are free for pick-up; there is no word yet if they will fulfill shipping requests. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 11-09-2009 07:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Buzz Aldrin on Why we need better rockets.
From Buzz: Turns out the solid booster was - literally - bought from the Space Shuttle program, since a five-segment booster being designed for Ares wasn't ready. So they put a fake can on top of the four-segmented motor to look like the real thing. Since the real Ares' upper stage rocket engine, called the J-2X wasn't ready either, they mounted a fake upper stage. No Orion capsule was ready, so - you guessed it - they mounted a fake capsule with a real-looking but fake escape rocket that wouldn't have worked if the booster had failed It surprises me that a self-described "rocket scientist" would dismiss the validity of what Ares I-X was... a full scale wind tunnel model used to confirm the computer models and the overall soundness of the design. Same as the shuttle ALT program and numerous unmanned Saturn test flights, most of which were not in the final manned configuration. Technical problems, the kind that follow every new rocket's development, have haunted the Ares like leftovers from Halloween. The rocket as currently designed shakes so much during launch that shock absorbers are needed beneath its capsule payload. Right now, we don't know what the level of vibration was on Ares. Again, that's one of the many reasons for the test flight. I confess I have a design in mind that I and my team have worked on for years. It's called Aquila, and it is a true offspring of the Space Shuttle. It makes maximum use of the existing Shuttle infrastructure -- unlike the real Ares -- and Shuttle boosters, engines and the side-mounted design where today the winged orbiter rides into space. Ah-ha! Dr. Aldrin has the answer, if only NASA would listen to him! (Surprised?)This is far from the first time a perceived "Hail Mary" has been thrown by NASA or other agencies. Some had the desired effect, like STS-88's Unity node payload, long before Russia's FGB was ready... clearly done to show "visual progress." Some did not, as was the case with the Air Force's test flight of the MOL launch vehicle. Even this demonstration could not undo the dissent against that program. It was cancelled shortly thereafter. What effect I-X has on the Ares program remains to be seen, but clearly Buzz was right on one point... there is a lot of politics involved. Each camp has it's own solution and it's own troughs to fill if selected as the best option. Much of this is not about how best to leave the planet, but how best to reap the earthly benefits of doing so. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 11-10-2009 10:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
I think that's the key to revitalizing interest in the space program. Make it "real" for the common man. Like most on this board, I'm all for the science and exploration of space travel, but that alone isn't engaging enough for the ordinary viewer.
Perhaps the bigger question we should be asking is whether we should be making sure that space travel is "entertainment" to the average person. Is that really what the space program is all about? So far in this discussion, it seems like the entertainment factor is rated more highly than the scientific factor, with certain destinations being deemed "boring" or "old hat" compared to other destinations. I support returning to the moon because a whole lot of science still remains to be done there...and it's something we can accomplish in the relatively near future. Just like Skylab didn't end out need for space stations, Apollo didn't end our need to explore the moon. If you want to make the moon seem more interesting, bring some IMAX cameras to the lunar surface and give people a sense of what it is actually like to be there. But don't forsake real science in the process. In the meantime, continue sending bigger and better rovers to Mars, hunting down sufficiently compelling locations that will eventually be worth the risk (and expense) of sending a manned mission(s) to explore in greater detail. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-10-2009 10:57 AM
On the subject of entertainment and more broadly, public support and polls (a topic raised several times within this thread), former NASA Chief Historian and Smithsonian curator Roger Launius today shared a slide today as part of the Apollo Virtual Conference that illustrates public support for going to the Moon over the course of four decades:
Credit: Roger Launius/SmithsonianLaunius noted that the data was gathered from public opinion polls that followed closely a similar set of questions. As the chart shows, it wasn't necessary for the public to be supportive of going to the Moon for astronauts to go there... |
Topic Closed
advertisement