Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
The Moon and Mars can wait?
Stingray
Elite Ranger
in Zocalo v2.0
[URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/nasa-panel-argues-for-flexible-path-mission-to-asteroids.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss"]An interesting article about NASA's future in space.[/URL]
Psst... the Shadows are already here... :alien:
Psst... the Shadows are already here... :alien:
Comments
By accident member magazine of Finland's main astronomical associations had just article about all manned space vehicles which didn't materialize for some reason or other.
Already space shuttle turned out to lot harder and more expensive to maintain and operate because insufficient development funding caused major compromises to original goals.
And because of it not fulfilling original goals there have been many plans for building successor which have always fallen apart because of insufficient funding...
Neither did Russian/Soviet Union get their shuttle farther than prototype/testing and they're still using 50 years old capsules.
If "fathers" of space programs knew it they would be indeed sad about current state of space exploration.
Russia's latest shuttle getting shot down was a real shame. They had done some good design work on creating a proper space tug.
Leonardo Da Vinci never saw a real flying helicopter... imagine that. :D
Who knows, there probably was a schooner by that name...
But orbital flights are entirely different thing because of need for lot more energy for getting up there and then getting rid of that energy without ship burning up (or exploding or something equally nice) when descending into atmosphere.
We'd still be using mechanical computers if they were built by NASA. :D
"Left Pocket Protector? Check! L2B2? Check! Air Freshener? Check!"
I mean, WTF? :D
There are just too many technocrats sitting in those control rooms. I'm all for redundancy, but I'm sure this is going too far. I know the Shuttle performed admirably at keeping 30,000 engineers employed, but still.
One of the best proposals in the report was that private companies handle ferry duties to ISS. I suspect that doing so would be a watershed moment in space travel.
Jake
I completely agree with the report's finding that NASA should leave the surface-to-LEO to companies now. It's well-proven technology, we know we can do it. NASA should focus on the things we aren't so good at, like living in space for long periods and travelling a long way. Those are the things that a company won't attempt because there's no return.
Do those slip-ups include Challenger and Columbia? Because those would explain the close scrutiny of those signing off the budgets.
[QUOTE]There's not enough acceptance of risk.[/QUOTE]
I could imagine that those working in the industry would disagree. They have to live with risk and deal with it on a daily basis. The problem is that mistakes are often costly and/or disastrous. Putting satellites into wrong orbits or sending probes crashing into planets isn't without consequences.
What they don't seem to try hard enough is to reduce the cost of putting payloads into orbit. This fact alone is slowing down the entire space effort to a snail's pace. Just by looking at the Ares rocket, you can see that it benefits from optimization. The subcontractors probably are feeling the economic crisis pinch.
So it is nice to see the private sector finally taking matters into its own hands.
Not what I meant. I meant that there are plenty of people who control the money who think it should go elsewhere, and wait for any excuse to do so. Any country's space program suffers the same thing.
[quote]I could imagine that those working in the industry would disagree. They have to live with risk and deal with it on a daily basis. The problem is that mistakes are often costly and/or disastrous. Putting satellites into wrong orbits or sending probes crashing into planets isn't without consequences.[/quote]
Those in the industry would probably agree with what I actually said. They themselves are aware of, accept and attempt to manage risk. Those in power who provide the money (e.g. senators) are too risk-adverse.
[quote]What they don't seem to try hard enough is to reduce the cost of putting payloads into orbit. This fact alone is slowing down the entire space effort to a snail's pace. Just by looking at the Ares rocket, you can see that it benefits from optimization. The subcontractors probably are feeling the economic crisis pinch.[/QUOTE]
NASA doesn't have the freedom to make intelligent decisions to reduce costs. Half the senators involved want a chunk of in their state, which means that bits are done all over the place to satisfy as many people as possible when it's time to vote on the next budget.
NASA is held back by politics in both safety and optimisation of programs. These are things private enterprise doesn't have to deal with... but just wait until the first fatal accident, and watch the investigations take off.