The Future of NASA

(Update: I accidentally posted this with comments turned off, slip o'the'blogger, not intentional. I've republished with comments turned on. Blame it on the leftover 'nog!)

The latest -- and final -- chunk of that epic New York Times space series by John Schwartz is out today. It's the last big feature the paper's longtime space/science reporter will write about NASA before he becomes the Times' national legal correspondent. Congrats, John, but I suspect the rocket booster set is weeping tears of Tang at the news of your departure. Anyway, snip:

NASA has named the rocket Ares I, as in the god of war – and its life has been a battle from the start.
Ares I is part of a new system of spacecraft being designed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to replace the nation’s aging space shuttles. The Ares I and its Orion capsule, along with a companion heavy-lift rocket known as the Ares V, are meant for travel to the Moon and beyond.

Technical troubles have dogged the design process for the Ares I, the first of the rockets scheduled to be built, with attendant delays and growing costs. And in an age of always-on communication, instant messages and blogs, internal debate that once might have been part of a cloistered process has spilled into public view.

Some critics say there are profound problems with the design that render the Ares I dead on arrival, while other observers argue that technical complications crop up in any spacecraft development program of this scope. The issues have become a focus of the members of the presidential transition team dealing with NASA, and the space program could undergo a transformation after Barack Obama takes office.

The Fight Over NASA’s Future (NYT), and here's a related Times slideshow from which the image above was ganked. Description:

In this artist's concept illustration, the first and second stages of the Ares V heavy-lift vehicle separate after launching. The image evokes earlier photographs and film from the days of the Apollo program. Photo: John Frassanito and Associates/NASA

Another must-read piece from Schwartz, which explores the case of SpaceX founder and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk: With U.S. Help, Private Space Companies Press Their Case: Why Not Us?

Previously:

Boing Boing editor/partner and tech culture journalist Xeni Jardin hosts and produces Boing Boing's in-flight TV channel on Virgin America airlines (#10 on the dial), and writes about living with breast cancer. Diagnosed in 2011. @xeni on Twitter. email: xeni@boingboing.net.

MORE: Maverick Spirit • Science • Space

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

disambiguated

What’s maddening is that nobody involved in this debate seems to realize that:

1. We solved stack resonance and pogoing issues in the 1960s vis-a-vis the Saturn V.

2. We can simply dust off the Apollo 18-20 J-series mission plans and the Apollo X/ALSS/AES/LESA studies, and execute them.

3. All we need to actually get back to the Moon is a Saturn V stack updated with newer materials and automation technologies; same for Apollo CSM/SM/LEM.

4. SRBs are insanely dangerous for several reasons, and should not be man-rated beyond the poorly-designed Shuttle stack.

We knew all this more than 40 years ago (we ignored the SRB issue, which was raised during the initial Shuttle studies performed back then, which led directly to Challenger); how can these people be so ignorant?!

If the Obama Administration want to do something bold and visionary, they’ll scrap all this Ares/Constellation nonsense and announce that we’re re-starting Apollo, and that the next manned mission to the Moon will be . . . Apollo 18.
zuzu

The Ares I and its Orion capsule, along with a companion heavy-lift rocket known as the Ares V, are meant for travel to the Moon and beyond.

Too bad NASA won’t / can’t resurrect the original Project Orion.

The Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 is generally acknowledged to have ended the project.
Takuan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7800721.stm
kellythewriter

I’m totally excited about the Constellation program. I first heard of it a couple of years ago and it sounds like it would definitely be a major leap forward in space exploration.
The Apollo program was designed to go only to the moon and only for short trips to find out more about what is there. Recon essentially. The Saturn V rocket wasn’t designed to be able to go further than the moon and back.
The aim of the Constellation program is to set up a base on the moon as a jumping off point for manned missions to Mars. They also have this plan about using resources on the moon for alternative fuel (only for space travel as far as I know).
It’s no secret that the Earth (or at least many parts of it) is quickly reaching its carrying capacity and it’s about time we seek to colonize other celestial bodies.
pauldrye

We should probably finish inventing first generation fusion power before relying on the second-generation fuel.

I understand it’s only twenty years away, after all. And has been since the 1960s.
Takuan

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2008-12/machine-might-save-world
Xeni Jardin

@Zuzu, oooh, some previous BB posts related to Project Orion:

Project Orion: more classified, unpublished space nuke docs …

Boing Boing Boing podcast 5: George Dyson and space nukes – Boing …

Lockheed wins $4B NASA deal for “Apollo on steroids,” Orion …
disambiguated

KellytheWriter@3, we can do just about all that with updated Saturns.

I’ll guarantee you that the ‘Constellation’ boondoggle never flies (it’s intended as a jobs program for contractors, nothing more); and even if it does, it’ll end up killing someone in short order.

Look at the NASA .pdf I linked to in my initial post. We figured out how to do everything you’re talking about in the 1950s and 1960s (ever heard of the ‘von Braun plan’?), including a Venus fly-by and even a Mars fly-by using Saturns, for example.
absimiliard

Didn’t we have to scrap the Saturn V plans as part of some agreement w. Russia leaving us, and anyone else, incapable of building any new Saturn rockets?

Or am I quoting an urban legend? (snopes isn’t useful on this)

-abs just isn’t sure, he’s sure he’s heard multiple times the plans were destroyed but he’s also read they still exist on a single micro-film down in Houston, if anyone knows the truth of it he’d appreciate being set straight
Anonymous

What I’m curious about: Why “Ares”? Why is an scientific/exploration program (presumably) named after a god of war? Seriously. What was who thinking?
Takuan

the original space program was all about PR and politics. The real reason it cost so much was they didn’t want the propaganda disaster of fatal flights, hence the budget overkill.

Turn getting to the moon over to private profit. Many will die (like any REALLY big construction project), but it will happen. And by private profit, I mean what they do ON the moon, not on getting-there pork barreling.
FoetusNail

I agree restarting an updated Saturn would be a better idea than using SRB’s, but the documentation that is missing is not just the plans. This will still not be a simple task. Just reverse engineering the lawn ornaments or working from the old DOC’s still leaves out huge amounts of information. The drawings are only a tiny bit of the story.

The original program was so fast and furious that the reasoning behind what they were doing, i.e. why they did what they did and made the changes they made from one step to the next on individual parts or systems does not exist. In other words even with the original DWG’s and redlined packages the reasons for the engineering changes are gone.

Having built what amount to paperweights compared to a Saturn V stack, I can tell you from experience that building a machine from an old package is not as easy as submitting DWG’s to manufacturing, especially when it is necessary to modify or update an old design. It could take anyone working today years to regain the knowledge base necessary to understand that system and the reasoning behind its design. You would need thousands of engineers who understand almost everything the best Apollo engineers understood before you could even start to update their final design.

Over 400,000 people worked on that project. Every retired guy they could find would need to be called in to see if they could remember not just what they did, but why they did it the way they did.

After saying all of this, I still in principle agree with Disambiguated, it’s just that from my tiny and limited experience building machinery it will not be quite as easy to do as he suggests. That doesn’t mean it is not a good idea, it just means this is (massive understatement warning) one seriously complex system with little or no documentation to explain the why they designed and drew what they flew.

When you stand next to a complete static display it is truly awe inspiring. Only a very few people alive today have the knowledge base to begin to understand and appreciate their accomplishment. I watched Saturn V’s from a distance and they make a shuttle launch look like bottle rockets. That being said, I highly recommend an up close and personal viewing of a Shuttle night launch. It is like the sun rising, followed by an earthquake.
TiltedKilt

The Apollo program was designed b>to go only to the moon and only for short trips to find out more about what is there. Recon essentially. The Saturn V rocket wasn’t designed to be able to go further than the moon and back.

The aim of the Constellation program is to set up a base on the moon as a jumping off point for manned missions to Mars.

I think you answered yourself.

The Falcon/Dragon design is far superior to the Ares setup. SpaceX evaluated the hazards of a launch and designed their system accordingly: a single stage separation to orbit, redundant engines and a semi-rigid fuel tank system.

Hell, any stack design with strap-on stages is superior to what we are currently using.

As for SSTO, there are actually a couple of existing vehicles which can achieve this, but there isn’t any good argument for it (see the Wikipedia article ‘SSTO’ for details).
disambiguated

Absmiliard@6, it’s an urban legend.

Yes, some of the plans were lost through criminal negligence. However, we have *actual flight articles* in museums and laid out as lawn ornaments (a crying shame) which can be studied; what man has done, man can aspire to do.

Remember, we got to the Moon in Apollo using slide-rules and incredibly primitive electronic calculators which barely met the definition of ‘computer’.

Here’s a link to just a few of the studies which were done of follow-on missions. Here are links to Apollo X, ALSS, AES, and LESA.

Stephen Baxter’s Voyage is an interesting alternate history based upon some of these mission plans (although he’s way too hard on the Germans, IMHO).
TiltedKilt

takuanwhat about the diamonds lying around on the surface?

Delos David Harriman is already on it.
OM

…John’s an old Deadly Texan colleague from when we both worked on that college rag in the mid-80′s, and we reconnected briefly during Columbia after I’d put the Columbia Loss FAQ online. Unlike a lot of today’s journalists, John’s kept a fair balance between praise and criticism of the Space Program and its various directions, and doled out both where it was clearly due. Seeing him move over to a new position is a great move for him, but for us space enthusiasts it’s somewhat of a sad, selfish moment. It’s actually a feeling that echos that felt by myself when Unca Walter Cronkite quit covering the various launches after he “retired” from See-BS. NASA needs all the promotional and constructive support it can get, especially with idiots advising Obama to gut the program(*), just like they did when that retarded peanut farmer was stinking up the White House in the 70′s. John’s articles on space will be missed!

(*) If JFK were alive today, he’d be gutting *them* for their stupidity. Take all of NASA’s budget and turn it over to education, and all it will do is cover about 10% of the administrative costs, and most of that will go to admins plushing out their offices. Not one red cent will go to the kids, and you can bank on that one!
disambiguated

Takuan@7 – totally agree with you, if NASA would get out of the way and put up a $10B-$20B X-Prize for the first organization to put 30 men on the Moon for one year and one day, and return them safely to Earth. A bit of a jump-start to get SSTO and the like going, some serious deregulation, and the He3 miners will be there in droves
zuzu

Turn getting to the moon over to private profit. Many will die (like any REALLY big construction project), but it will happen. And by private profit, I mean what they do ON the moon, not on getting-there pork barreling.

Just finished watching Outland, eh? ;)
lawyer

Call me paranoid, but when the aliens detect our Ares I spacecraft and piece together that Ares is the Greek god of war, we’re going to be in a world of hurt. What were they thinking?

Hermes, maybe? Hephaestus? Anything but Ares or Mars.
Takuan

(I just want the drug concession)
absimiliard

Wow Zuzu, I’d forgotten that film for a long time….

I love Outland.

-abs is constantly amazed at how much genre stuff he’s forgotten until someone mentions it in conversation and he suddenly recalls it, probably goes with getting older
Mojave

You guys have got to check out this video….IR night vision goggles of triangle craft in the night skies over Fremont, California on Dec. 5.2008

Weird.
zuzu

Obama to gut the program(*), just like they did when that retarded peanut farmer was stinking up the White House in the 70′s.

Carter appointed Volcker to choke out inflation, ran the smallest Federal government since WW2, while still creating the Departments of Education and Energy (the important factors for a modern nation’s knowledge economy).

Popular history seems to hate Carter because he was small government. He didn’t pander with bread and circuses, and instead got the economy back on track — which Reagan took credit for.

I can only hope Obama has the integrity to be another Carter.

(With bailouts for Wall Street and the auto industry, and the Fed setting the interest rate at 0.5%, it seems quite the opposite so far; though he hasn’t actually taken office yet.)
monopole

kellythewriter @3:
Using the Moon as a jumping off point for outward missions including Mars is the worst aspect of the current plan. The Moon is a relatively deep gravity well, thus landing and taking off will consume inordinate amounts of fuel.

Unless you can synthesize a lot of fuel or material on the moon (presently pretty dubious), the ISS would be better.

Frankly, I’d love to see a real space plan but the present doesn’t pass the laugh test.

disambiguated:
Dead on
rAMPANTiDIOCY

I feel dumb.
Mojave

Google….”Non-terrestrial Officers”
Takuan

what’s current about helium 3?
zuzu

Helium-3 (He-3) is a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium with two protons and one neutron, rare on Earth, sought for use in nuclear fusion research. The abundance of helium-3 is thought to be greater on the Moon (embedded in the upper layer of regolith by the solar wind over billions of years) and the solar system’s gas giants (left over from the original solar nebula), though still low in quantity (28 ppm of lunar regolith is helium-4 and 0.01 ppm is helium-3). It is proposed to be used as a second-generation fusion power source.

The Artemis Project: Private Enterprise on the Moon
zuzu

Wired: Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel
Anonymous

Disclosure: My family has been pretty deep into the space biz. My father owns a few pieces of Saturn V hardware among the mementos scattered about the house, and my brother-in-law works Hubble. I myself was involved before Challenger (although honestly nearly all of my work was on delivery systems for thermonuclear weapons).

The moon is a bad place for a base, except from a military perspective. The resources aren’t worth the complexity of landing and lifting off from there. Lagrange points are far better (except for planet-side military purposes, of course).

Ares and Orion are bad names for space programs, except for military ones. Both Orion (the Hunter) and Ares (God of War) have been used already. If you haven’t heard of Ares before, it was a proposed SSTO/ICBM Russian-style dual-use vehicle. Development was discontinued in favor of the minuteman ICBM and Delta (I think?); the similarly named Aries is a Minuteman variant. The only reason to re-use those two names is if one has a pinheaded fascination with the militarization of space. Which, incidentally, has already been handled – you’d be a fool to believe there are no orbiting H-bombs at this point, given all the enormous payloads Reagan sent up that were “DOD classified” and had no specifications other than weight and shuttle bay volume.

I have never heard that any Saturn V plans are missing. I know that Thiokol, Grumman, MacDac, and Rockwell don’t generally throw plans away or lose them, though. I used to have plans for the Saturn L5 engines somewhere but I doubt I could find them today.

Nuclear-bomb-powered spacecraft are a bad idea because you have to set up facilities for mass production of nuclear bombs, and we’ve already got too many of those at this point.

Sorry to spout and run, but I have limited time today… Happy New Year everybody!

–Charlie
Takuan

what about the diamonds lying around on the surface?
Takuan

“1 kg of helium-3 burned with 0.67 kg of deuterium gives us about 19 megawatt-years of energy output.”

mmm, I get moist just reading those words…
SeamusAndrewMurphy

How about another way to think of NASA: Keynsian pump prime.

That’s not a criticism.

WWII was the employment mobilizer that finally ended the Great Depression. The Space Program was the driver of the technology revolution and we can thank its offshoots for the boom era of the 80′s-90′s. What we seriously need for the next twenty years is another employment mobilizer. I don’t think it will be NASA. I do think it will be electricity generated by other means. To my mind, that means post 2008: Space equals waste. NASA won’t go away, but it should not be a major recipient of the public dime. The guided effort that was the Space Race should now go to the Energy Race (or some catchy B.S. moniker).

Sorry to all Sci-Fi lovers and space enthusiasts, but the space program was a propaganda and dynamic economic program. Just what’s called for in late 2008 and beyond. Just like we wouldn’t mobilize for another world war, we shouldn’t repeat the Space Program, even updated. We should look to the next big issue. It ain’t European Fascism and it ain’t Communist expansion into space.

It does seem to be oil depletion and global climate.
arkizzle

Outland was on UK tv over the holiday. yay :)
Takuan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=will-man-return-to-moon