Link

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

It's good that somebody is looking into it, but as the article points out, its mostly a political and funding issue, that scientists will have a hard time dealing with.

And who is hosting this? It says invitation only, but by who, and by what premise, and are there any preliminary paths of discussion?

And; by what criteria are they saying that NASA is off track? (I know most of us agree, but for a group like this, I think mention should be made)

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Even if the manned missions get postponed for a while, I think it is still worth staying on schedule with development of the Ares I and Ares V rockets. They will have some good unmanned uses.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

From the article:

Aviation Week: NASA May Abandon Moon Under Revised Exploration Vision

SpaceflightNow/Aviation Week:

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I don't know who to support in this case...
It's like choosing between Star Wars and Spider-Man.
Psycological stress!

I need to lie down for a bit...

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

Mike Griffin and The Planetary Society have disagreed with the tone and content of the the AW&ST story.

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/200...eroid-mission/

Yay!
No more psychological stress!
I don't have to choose between the two!

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

Thanks, I missed the "co-sponsor" part of the statement. There were enough quotes and credits in the article that that specific one got lost.
Well, that's a completely misleading title (IMO). NASA may do lots of things, but so far there has been nothing said about what NASA is doing in consideration of this investigation, or that they are in control of the major funding issues that are arising. I would agree with "NASA may be forced to..." .
In fact, the NASA quote indicates the exact opposite.


So far, I will reserve judgement until I hear what they say. It just sounds like a lot of disgruntled scientists for now. It's going to take some convincing arguments, and allies to be able to make a dent in the political arena.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Agreed. I have a little article on my take on the Stanford Group.

************************************************** *******

NASA's Current Exploration Vision: Greener Than You Think

The January 21, 2008 issue of the fine trade publication AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY has an article on a group of individuals attacking Mike Griffin and his Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).

This group of individuals (that I will call the Stanford Group) claim to want "'green' missions to Planet Earth" to quote page 24 of the above described article.

An alternative vision that is more eco-friendly.

But is it?

Hardly, since the group is largely made up of planetary scientists who, so far as I remember
didn't raise any objections at all to the smoky contrails of the cheapo Delta IIs belching kerosene
into the atmosphere, even as their small solids (not having rugged steel construction of SRBs)
are capable of exploding as seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDnkEOKR1BE

So much for the laughable idea of planetary scientists being "Green,"

Mike Griffin wants Delta II phased out in favor of the ARES I and ARES V launch vehicles
which use no hydrocarbons as a liquid propellant. Atlas V (unlike the Ares V), uses even
more kerosene than Delta II, and has become a favorite of the planetary science community.

Delta II is to be replaced by the hydrogen burning Delta IV, which uses the same engines ARES V does.

Yet Delta IV isn't all that green either. Delta IV will throw away far more of the clean, hydrogen burning RS-68 engines than will ARES V.

You would have to launch six Delta IV 'heavies' expending 18 cores, eighteen RS-68 engines and six upper stages (without engine out) just to orbit the same payload a single Ares V can.

Ares V uses liquid hydrogen more effectively, helps in the demand for a hydrogen economy. It has engine out capability, and a cheaper price per pound.

Six times the payload at 1/6th the engine cost.

I call that a greener option than littering the Atlantic with Delta IV husks all over.

Aren't we supposed to be less of a throw-away society?

Also, Ares V will be build in Louisiana, helping our best and brightest there recover from Hurricane Katrina, where The Delta IV and Atlas are being made in a Red State that already has enough jobs.


One alternative to the Ares V is something called the DIRECT launch vehicle. It is similar to but smaller than Ares V. But its inventor forgets that the same people who would oppose Ares also opposed a similar vehicle called MAGNUM by the way. MAGNUM, like DIRECT (and the larger ARES V), was a shuttle-derived vehicle which was also to use only clean hydrogen and oxygen.

And yet it was canceled while the Delta II--dirty secret of the automated probe crowd---continued to fly bomb disposal robots to Mars, like those were green missions that help with Earth observation.

Wes Huntress, a planetary scientist, is quoted as saying that there was little left of the 2004 VSE "except the real need to retire the space shuttle." Yet this was the same man who opposed the shuttle replacement known as OSP (Orbital Space Plane) which became the CEV concept Griffin supports.

Huntress and others managed to convince then-Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Ranking Democrat Ralph M. Hall to nix the erstwhile shuttle replacement.

It is true that top-mount mini-spaceplanes (atop anything smaller or less rugged than DIRECT) are problematic, any shuttle replacement demands that spaceflight architecture and engineering have to come first--which is Griffin's point all along.

Many shuttle replacements have been proposed over the years: DC-X, Venture-Star/X-33, etc.
And yet we have had automated probe, after probe after probe--many launched by the same kerosene belching Delta II.

Heavy Lift launch vehicles like the clean Ares V can always be used for asteroid missions in the future. The Delta II launched Deep Impact mission hardly budged the comet it struck. The best we can hope for in the way of an asteroid mission now is for the Air Force to place a nuclear bomb atop the Delta II and hope for the best.

Ares V is large enough to allow for substantial non-nuclear asteroid deflection missions, using simple tugs that have not used up all their deflection fuel in simply making the trip.


I therefore do not find the Stanford Groups claim to support manned asteroid missions (as an alternative to VSE) to be in any way credible at all.

I think this is bait-and-switch, used to try to splinter manned spaceflight support away from NASA Chief Administrator Mike Griffin so they can kill off Ares or any new launch vehicle development---returning us to the days when Dan Goldin spoiled academics by giving certain cliques a Delta II launch every other year, if not every other week.

Even if the X-33/VentureStar concepts actually were viable, my guess is that the likes of Huntress and his ilk would STILL be opposed to moneys going to such LV development.

As soon as Ares is killed, and someone to their liking is made NASA Chief, I expect them to go back on their word and nix any talk about manned asteroid missions (and DIRECT) just as they attack VSE (and Ares) now.

Many would have you believe that Mike Griffin is an enemy of science. This is a lie. He restored science funding cancelled by Sean O'Keefe, who wanted to destroy Hubble by disguising an EELV launched de-orbit package under the aegis of an automated servicing mission. Another bait and switch.

Engineers are the ones under the gun here. Let me give you an example.

Wes Huntress is first and foremost a planetary scientist. Robert Farquhar is a payload man. Bill Eoff on the other hand was a supporter of Magnum, a sub-Ares V (DIRECT) class rocket.

He didn't get a lot of love from then-NASA Chief Goldin. I once managed to call in on the early morning C-SPAN program with Goldinas a guest, where I called for a shuttle derived vehicle--and this man (with no engineering background) said that we needed to leave the design of spacecraft "to the experts."

Experts (like the Magnum supporters), were ignored as planetary scientists got probe, after probe, after probe.

But Griffin (who is an aerospace engineer--and has literally written a book on spacecraft design) understands that Spaceflight is more important than one or another planetary scientist's pet legacy project. He understands that you need shipbuilding skills first--oceanography can always come later. Just as a wise father doesn't hand lollypops out to spoiled children all day long, but has them save their appetite for a truly filling meal at the end of the day.

But his critics don't have the maturity to understand this position.

Lou Friedman is one of the harshest critics of Griffin. Yet it was Lou's group of ingrates (The Planetary Society that Wes Huntress is also a member of) that foolishly launched one craft atop a
rattletrap Volna SRBM--then repeated their mistake!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volna

Too many scientists, not enough engineers.

The Stanford Group doesn't care about forwarding spaceflight capabilities, just their little fiefdoms.

On page 27 of the Jan 21, 2008 issue of Aviation Week, it says that the asteroid visit "would use much of the same CEV Ares I and Ares V heavy lift booster infrastructure," but that is the very
infrastructure VSE's enemies want axed! And they expect us to believe them?

This is nothing but a turf war with many in the anti-human spaceflight crowd turning their common foes against each other--a bait-and-switch.

I know many don't always agree with Mike--and I respect that.

Just remember this:

The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. Just ask Bill Eoff.

I for one don't expect anything of the "invitation only" Stanford Workshop--other than a pack of lies, and a big fight.

There, I said it.

Mike Griffin wants Delta II phased out in favor of the ARES I and ARES V launch vehicles which use no hydrocarbons as a liquid propellant. Atlas V (unlike the Ares V), uses even more kerosene than Delta II, and has become a favorite of the planetary science community.

This raises red flags with me. Back in the late 1970s, NASA tried to take over the commercial space launch market with the Shuttle. Never mind that the Shuttle was very heavily subsidized by tax dollars. That practice didn't end until after the Challenger accident. It sounds like Griffin wants to revive that horribly inefficient practice.

The Ares I and V may use LH/LOX for liquid propellants but those big SRBs almost certainly throw a lot more pollution than a Delta II. The Delta II is the most space booster in the US inventory. It's payload capacity is in the small to medium range, somewhat below the smallest Delta IV payload IIRC.

There is still a lot of doubt that the Ares I is even necessary. I've read their arguments as to why an EELV couldn't be used to launch the Orion capsule and found it unconvincing. It appears NASA is basically paying billions to redevelop a capability that already exists.

I'd just like to point out that for a tiny fraction of the cost of any space launch you could afford to build enough low CO2 emission generating capacity to more than compensate for CO2 released during the launch. I'm all for cutting CO2 emissions, but it might be a lot easier to start with replacing big heavy, old, inefficient, 100,000 ton coal burning plants than trying to cut the emissions of space rockets. To do otherwise doesn't make economic sense.

The "green" aspect of the missions in the AW&ST article was an increased emphasis on unmanned earth observation satellites. The article was NOT discussing environmental impact of boosters.

At current flight rates, booster environmental impact is insignificant next to global hydrocarbon consumption. E.g, global oil consumption is 30 billion barrels per year, and coal consumption is 6.5 billion short tons per year. Global coal consumption is expected to DOUBLE by 2030: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html, so there are much bigger fish to fry than the comparatively tiny environmental impact of boosters.

Building it in Louisiana to create jobs sounds like a good idea. After all...
"It was not so much Egypt that built up the pyramids as the pyramids that built up Egypt." -Dr. Zahi Hawass.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

Locating projects on the basis of attempting to reduce local unemployment is a noble goal, but likely to introduce inefficiencies into the process which can result in increased total costs. It would probably be more efficient to leave the location of manufactureing projects up to transparent open competition and help reduce unemployment in Louisiana through seperate means. Chances are this will achieve both goals at lower total cost. This does not mean Louisiana can't build them, the companies there will just have to compete for the contracts along with everyone else.

Planetary Society Press Release:
Space Experts Say: Restore funding and enhance international outreach to put humans on Mars while sustaining NASA's science mission

Stanford School of Engineering press release:
Space Experts Say: Restore Funding and Enhance International Outreach to Put Humans on Mars While Sustaining NASA’s Science Mission

Same thing.

Edit: Also reported in Universe Today, BAUT topic: Space Program At Risk, Panel Says -- just in case discussion takes off there.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Does anybody here think they may have reached a different opinion?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

What do you mean, may have? May have, if they thought harder about it? May have reached a different opinion than reported? May have reached a different opinion if they looked at different facts? May have if they ignored self interest? May have if they ignored global interest?

Edit: Or may we have reached a different opinion? I guess I must first ask: what they?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I think that's one of the biggest parts. But; yes, there's a chance they could have come up with another opinion, but would they really put it out in a press release?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

there are many aerospace contratists that are looking for some fresh money after the cuts on the defene budget

a mission to mars suits perfectly

and there are many romantic fools that believe a mars mission is important now or in 100 years

all them also suits perfectly

I'm one of those "fools". I suspect there are others here.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

I'm a "fool" too then. Not only are they (the fools) here, but they are everywhere. Maybe it is foolish to go to Mars (not what I'm saying) in the next 100 years, but it's gonna happen. So then by zerocold's standards most countries trying to get to Mars first will be foolish or maybe it's the other way around???

__________________
_
Show me the money
_

Count me among the "fools".

Jon

ok "fools" calm down hahaha

i dont think will happen, at least not in the next 100 years, there are dreams and dreams, like all the fantasies of the space conquest in the 50s and 60s, just didnt happen, will not happen

now, the real reason of all this mars/moon campaign is that many aerospace companies have lost military contrats , thats the reason why bush wanted to promote all that crap, to help his friends on lockheed and rockwell

Some of the space fantasies of the 50s and 60s came true: men orbited the Earth and landed on the Moon.

As for the aerospace companies... first, do you have any proof of this? Second, you might want to be careful, politics and evenly mildly bad language are forbidden on this board. You might want to review the rules.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Those dreams and fantasies laid the foundation of the space age so far.

In the same way our dreams and fantasies are laying the foundation of missions to come, be they 10 or 100 years in future.

Jon

Certified fool here.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

"Those dreams and fantasies laid the foundation of the space age so far."

no that wasnt the foundation of the space age.. you romantic dreamer...the forge was the research on better ways to kill people...

"As for the aerospace companies... first, do you have any proof of this?"

but thats the plain true! aerospace companies have sufferer on cuts of ther advanced jets and sistems, where do you think they want to recover their expected profits? any broker on wall street knows that hehe

The romantic dreamers developed the concepts (including the destructive ones) long before the military were remotely interested. Many of the same "romantic dreamers" were involved in the hand in hand development of both military and and civil space technology.

Jon

You restating your claims is nothing like proof. How about quoting 2007 profits or losses for the companies you mentioned or showing what programs have been cut?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

"When the Wright Brothers made their famous flight, you would have been right there saying 'It'll never get up, it'll never get up.' And as they soared by overhead, you'd be saying, 'It'll never come down, it'll never come down!'"

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort