Nasa hasn't changed one bit

[denoir 0]

I really don't understand this NASA bashing. These guys do amazing things - they're the one that put a man on the moon for crying out loud!

Taking unnecessary risks? Unnecessary my ass. Exploring the unknown has always been and always will be dangerous. If anything they're being too careful. Compare the early space flight to early aviation. How many pilots got killed in various accidents before we perfected manned flight? We learned from the mistakes and built airworthy airplanes. If we had been paranoid about all things that could go wrong we never would have had commercial flights today. Taking risks helps us to see what really is dangerous and what is not. The cost associated with the space program is because they try to anticipate every contingency, likely or unlikely. And that creates a gigantic overhead of time and cost. The difference between normal flight and space flight is far smaller than for instance between flight and traveling by car. So it's certainly a step that we can bridge. We just must be willing to take more risks - just like we took in the early years of aviation.

NASA should be commercialized. Space flight should be on the open market. There are plenty of people willing to take risks, given the chance.

In 1961 the first manned space flight was made by Yuri Gagarin. Only eight years later Armstrong walked on the moon. That's amazing progress! And then it stopped. Why? Because there was no polical incentive to continue and the politicians controlled the money flow. Had it continued, who knows how far we would have gotten today?

So the answer is to privatize and let the good ole' market handle it. Look at computer development. You could have the same principles ruling manned space flight.

Now, about Mars. It's another example of the shortcomings of government agencies and national space organizations. What is the problem about Mars? As with everything in space travel: weight. The Space Shuttle launch vehicle can't carry enough for a mission to Mars. It's not the shuttle itself but the boosters that are a problem. Enter the Russians:

This is the Energia heavy lift launch vehicle. It can carry about 10 times as much as the most powerful NASA booster. It could carry over 30 tons to Mars orbit. So what's the problem? The Russians can't afford to shoulder an entire Mars expedition by themselves and NASA refuses to use foregin technology. So USA promptly decided that they will make a new generation of boosters that will be ready for deployment in about 15 years. And the tragic part is that the planned system will be considerably inferior to the Energia system.

Again the solution is to comercialize space flight. That way politics won't affect it as much and you'll get the best products at the lowest prices - regardless of who offers them. Today's situation is not NASAs fault, but the role they have been given by the politicians.

[Acecombat 0]

You guys ever heard of the Buran?

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/bburan17.jpg

Compare:

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/comparis.jpg

The BURAN orbiter is able to put up to 30 tons into Space and to return up to 20 tons of payload to the Earth.

The availability of a cargo compartment of impressive sizes on the vehicle permits to transport orbital station modules or large structures up to 17 m long and 4,5 m in diameter and not only 2-4 crew members but up to 6 passengers can be accommodated in a crew cabin.

Expendable space vehicles perform a ballistic or sliding descent in the atmosphere and parachute landing. The necessity to provide a space vehicle return from the Space and to bring it to the airdrome forced the designers to decide many complex problems.

The gliding descent from the orbit through dense layers of atmosphere has stipulated the necessity to use a principally new reusable thermal protection system designed to sustain 100 flights.

For the BURAN orbiter three kinds of thermal protection have been developed:

- "carbon-carbon" material with maximum operating temperature up to 1650 degrees C for the components with the highest thermal load -the fuselage nose and wing leading edge,

- ceramic tiles for parts heating up to 1250 degrees C,

- flexible material for surface parts with the temperature not higher than 379 degrees C.

All of them surpassed by strength the materials used in the USA Space Shuttle construction.

It looks quite a nice shuttle maybe NASA should initiate a joint project with them russians Is it possible or ego differences too much between them ?

Edited by RG: Two images were over 100KB.

[Acecombat 0]

Comparison of the physical dimensions of Buran Orbiter and Space Shuttle

Beautiful images showing the various stages of flight - with the booster and strap-on's, with booster and then the Buran in space

[Guest]

The money the US government actually gives NASA is insignificant, and nothing will benefit mankind more in the long run than continued space exploration.

Think outside the square you live in because once you've fucked up that square and it's resources are gone you'll have to know what is outside it.  

That is precisely the point....instead of spending money on working out how to run away from our problems we should spend money on fixing it. Lets keeping ******* this planet, because NASA will save us? Gimmie a break....

[red oct 2]

I really don't understand this NASA bashing. These guys do amazing things - they're the one that put a man on the moon for crying out loud!

Taking unnecessary risks? Unnecessary my ass. Exploring the unknown has always been and always will be dangerous. If anything they're being too careful. Compare the early space flight to early aviation. How many pilots got killed in various accidents before we perfected manned flight? We learned from the mistakes and built airworthy airplanes. If we had been paranoid about all things that could go wrong we never would have had commercial flights today. Taking risks helps us to see what really is dangerous and what is not. The cost associated with the space program is because they try to anticipate every contingency, likely or unlikely. And that creates a gigantic overhead of time and cost. The difference between normal flight and space flight is far smaller than for instance between flight and traveling by car. So it's certainly a step that we can bridge. We just must be willing to take more risks - just like we took in the early years of aviation.

NASA should be commercialized. Space flight should be on the open market. There are plenty of people willing to take risks, given the chance.

In 1961 the first manned space flight was made by Yuri Gagarin. Only eight years later Armstrong walked on the moon. That's amazing progress! And then it stopped. Why? Because there was no polical incentive to continue and the politicians controlled the money flow. Had it continued, who knows how far we would have gotten today?

So the answer is to privatize and let the good ole' market handle it. Look at computer development. You could have the same principles ruling manned space flight.

Now, about Mars. It's another example of the shortcomings of government agencies and national space organizations. What is the problem about Mars? As with everything in space travel: weight. The Space Shuttle launch vehicle can't carry enough for a mission to Mars. It's not the shuttle itself but the boosters that are a problem. Enter the Russians:

[im]http://www.buran.ru/images/gif/disc7.gif[/img]

This is the Energia heavy lift launch vehicle. It can carry about 10 times as much as the most powerful NASA booster. It could carry over 30 tons to Mars orbit. So what's the problem? The Russians can't afford to shoulder an entire Mars expedition by themselves and NASA refuses to use foregin technology. So USA promptly decided that they will make a new generation of boosters that will be ready for deployment in about 15 years. And the tragic part is that the planned system will be considerably inferior to the Energia system.

Again the solution is to comercialize space flight. That way politics won't affect it as much and you'll get the best products at the lowest prices - regardless of who offers them. Today's situation is not NASAs fault, but the role they have been given by the politicians.

nice to know somebody on this forum doesn't think nasa is a complete death trap. as for going commercial, that won't happen anytime soon because of liability reasons. what would happen if a really wealthy civilian were to go up in a shuttle launch and something were to happen? like a shuttle exploding, or if the passenger where to somehow die during flight. Nasa would be held accountable for this and probaly be sued big time so its very unlikely that the shuttle fleet will ever go comerical. we do however have another alternitive to look forward to:spaceship one

wired magazine had a long article about this project that i think is being developed by a private group. and they already have the prototype flying.

[ig]http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/New_Index/photos/images/800/cap_car%20800.jpg[/img] >100kb

this pic is really two aircraft, spacship one is located on the under belly of the larger aircraft called "white knight" which carries spaceship one to a hight altitude and then deploys it.

this is the deploying sequence where the two separate.

and here is spaceship one flying on its own.

[drewb99 0]

That group is going for the X-prize, whoever can make a spaseship that entirely reusable and can be launched twice in 2 weeks gets a big prize.

X-prize

[Commander-598 0]

Y'know Nasa might actually be going somewhere if they could put in more than three flights a year.

Quote[/b] ]What is the problem about Mars?

Distance and the lack of gravity. Its along way from here, and without gravity, muscles or is it bones(?) break down over time. Thats the reason why we replace crews on the ISS every few months. of course I believe this is remedied with constant rotation of a craft or section which creates gravity.

Personally, for proper exploration, we'd need something bigger than a standard Space Shuttle and much better engines. We already have Ion Engines, which are much much faster than what the shuttle carries, although it would be hard to get off the ground with just Ion engines.

Thats where we start building them in space. All we need for that is a shuttle capable of getting more than one piece in orbit a year, and people who don't take a decade to build it unlike how were doing with the ISS which is scheduled to be completed some years from now.

So who wants to start designing the world's first Orbital Shipyard?

[red oct 2]

Distance and the lack of gravity. Its along way from here, and without gravity, muscles or is it bones(?)

thats not as big a problem as it may sound, the international space station has exersise equipment that the crew frequently use althought i heard on the news that they broke, go figure.

[Acecombat 0]

Exercise doesnt helps much in building bone mass , i was reading a National Geographic mag it stated that long terms in space can often lead to arthritis even as the bone mass falls down and the bone weaks and vulnerable to fracture , but they were searching for an alternative to building up bone mass by some method though i forgot what it was...

[red oct 2]

most of the crew on board that space station stay up there 6 months at a time. what defines long term?

edit: found a rather interested page that answers some of the questions and coments on this thread http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/astravel.html

[USSoldier11B 0]

Well, it takes 2 years to get to Mars using conventional chemically propelled craft so....4 years of transit time total plus however long they stay on the planet. That's a very long time to be in space.

[red oct 2]

not quite, if you were to launch a ship to mars when its closest to the earth, it would take 200-250 days. but than getting back may be a problem

[USSoldier11B 0]

Indeed you are correct, my mistake. That projection is an old one given that Pathfinder made the trip in under a year. Also given that the vehicle is enroute when Mars is in opposition (closest to the Earth). I did a little reading on Ion propulsion and it looks like over time the speed of the mass being propelled would eventually become nearly equal to the speed of the exhaust which currently runs at about 100,000 km/h. However the change in velocity is about 12,000 km per year given continuos thrust so it takes an awefully long time to reach a relatively high speed. The problem lies in the fact that it requires tremendous voltages to produce this form of propulsion and it would require even higher ones to increase acceleration by 1/2 or more.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]they were searching for an alternative to building up bone mass by some method though i forgot what it was...

Wouldn't have happened to be a craft that spins and by using centripedal force, creates an artificial gravity closly matching earth's, (which closely emulates mars)?

I saw this once, probably a National Geographic or Discovery Channel special on the Cosmonaut who spent the longest time in space, but his physical condition deteriated despite vigorous daily exercise.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.nbc4.tv/technology/2612092/detail.html

hopefully they got their acts together.

Quote[/b] ]Scientists Correct Problem In Mars-Bound Rover Instrument

Rovers Expected To Land On Red Planet In January

PASADENA, Calif. -- Scientists have devised a way of working around a problem that has affected an instrument aboard one of the two NASA rovers en route to Mars, the space agency said Tuesday.

The fix should keep the problem from hindering the instrument's ability to detect the presence of iron-bearing minerals in the rocks and soil on the Martian surface, as well as their relative abundance, scientists said.

They hope the instrument will help solve the riddle of whether Mars was ever a warmer, wetter place capable of sustaining life.

An in-flight checkup three months ago showed that a drive system within the instrument on one of the rovers was partially restricted in its motion. The system rapidly vibrates back and forth two pellets of radioactive cobalt-57 required to make the instrument's mineralogical analyses.

The corrective countermeasures include using a higher frequency of back-and-forth motion to compensate for the apparent problem, scientists said.

The intense vibration of the launch likely shook the instrument, called a Mossbauer spectrometer, slightly out of position, scientists said.

Scientists fear the rough landing that awaits the $800 million pair of rovers may further damage the robots' instruments.

The first rover, Spirit, is expected to make a Jan. 3 landing on Mars, followed by the second, Opportunity, on Jan. 24.

if you are wondering why the news is from Pasadena, Jet Propulsion Labatory is located near it. JPL is actually in another city, but Pasadena gets honor of being named as the city...

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]they were searching for an alternative to building up bone mass by some method though i forgot what it was...  

Wouldn't have happened to be a craft that spins and by using centripedal force, creates an artificial gravity closly matching earth's, (which closely emulates mars)?

I saw this once, probably a National Geographic or Discovery Channel special on the Cosmonaut who spent the longest time in space, but his physical condition deteriated despite vigorous daily exercise.

No it wasnt anything related to faking gravity or earth like non-gravity , it was something different i cant put my hand on it atm though.

It had something like growing bone artificially i think ... via some new technique ... it also helped injured crews by replacing cells quickly or something along those lines , i'll try and search for it at Natl Geos website.

[denoir 0]

Found this article quite interesting.

Quote[/b] ]

U.S., Russian cultures clash in orbit

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (AP) -- It was just four high-energy batteries, the kind that are found in a lot of military equipment such as walkie-talkie sets and night vision equipment. Similar batteries already were being used on the international space station.

But when NASA officials discovered last year that Russian space officials were allowing the four batteries on-board the space station without the proper testing, they objected strenuously. The batteries could be toxic and had a small potential to explode. The Russians went ahead anyway.

Nothing ever happened. But the friction caused by the batteries underscores the divide between the now hyper-safety-conscious Americans and what the Russians describe as their "more flexible" approach.

It's a different philosophy, explains Shirley McCarty, former head of NASA's safety advisory board: In the U.S. program you must prove it is safe. The Russian approach is "prove it's not safe."

After the Columbia space shuttle disaster, safety is getting even more attention by the U.S. space program.

Tensions over the two countries' approaches are being played out in Houston and Moscow as both programs debate whether to allow a spacewalk by the current space station crew of just two men -- astronaut Michael Foale and cosmonaut Alexander Kaleri. A spacewalk would leave the space station temporarily empty. Previous spacewalks at the international space station have depended on a third crew member inside.

Russians comfortable with risk

The Russians, however, are comfortable with the risk and carried out spacewalks on their Mir space station with just a two-man crew. They are pushing for a spacewalk in late February to do minor work involving payloads and preparatory work for a new type of cargo ship.

The Russians consider themselves less rigid and more inventive than the Americans, who tend to follow every letter in the technical manuals, said Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesman for the Russian Space Agency.

"Here in Russia, we are more flexible in our approach to technical problems," Gorbunov said. "The Americans are more conservative in dealing with technical problems, but this isn't a fault."

It may not be a fault, but the different approaches contribute to communications problems that could lead to dangerous situations, NASA's safety advisory board warned in a report last year.

"They share safety concerns," Michael Suffredini, the station's operations and integration manager for NASA, said last week of the Russians. "Sometimes we have a different view."

Jerry Linenger, a former astronaut who lived aboard Russia's Mir in 1997, said there has to be a "happy medium" between the two approaches.

"The Russians are probably on one side of the balance, and the Americans are probably too much on the other side," Linenger said.

During Linenger's stay on Mir, the Russian space station suffered the most severe fire ever aboard an orbiting spacecraft, a near collision with a cargo ship, failures of onboard systems including an oxygen generator, loss of electrical power and an uncontrolled tumble through space.

The current space station crew also is experienced with close calls. Foale was on Mir when it collided with a cargo ship. Kaleri was on Mir along with Linenger when the fire broke out.

Cultural and economic differences

The differences between the Russian and U.S. approaches to safety are as much from cultural as economic factors, said Linenger.

Russian industry, for instance, doesn't have the commitment to worker safety that the United States has adopted in recent decades through agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In addition, workers in the Russian space program haven't shaken off the Soviet-era habit of following orders without question, Linenger said.

"The Russians don't want to lose a cosmonaut any more than we want to lose an astronaut," he said, but suggested that perhaps they were "less used to protecting the worker ... They're probably more willing to overlook a lot of things that we're not."

The limited budget of the Russian space program also contributes to how it approaches safety, Linenger said. The cash-strapped space agency, after all, has allowed U.S. millionaire Dennis Tito and South African Mark Shuttleworth to pay for the privilege of being space tourists on the station despite the initial objections of NASA officials.

Most recently, the Russian space program disclosed that government funds allocated for building crew capsules and supply ships for the space station are only about half of what's needed.

"When you have a limited budget like they did when I was there, you can't afford to go to option B," Linenger said. "Maybe we misinterpret that they're cavalier about things when they have no options."

Linenger noted that NASA recently decided to send the current crew to the space station despite concerns from a NASA physician and scientist that exercise equipment and some water and air monitoring devices weren't working properly.

"When you're between a rock and a hard place, I'm not sure we would act any differently," he said.

Ed Lu, who returned from the space station last month after a six-month stay, said any differences in approaches to safety aren't noticeable.

"It's really one big program right now," he said during an interview from space before his return. "You can't really separate the organizations too much anymore."

But members of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel felt otherwise. They resigned en masse in September after being described as ineffective in a report by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Before resigning, members cited two other recent incidents in which miscommunication between the Russians and Americans on the ground had caused problems with how the space station was positioned.

"It just seems all the required operating procedures, the ground rules aboard the station, really hadn't been completely planned out between the various international partners," said Robert Schaufele, a former member of the safety panel and a professor of aircraft design at California State University.

But the two programs have learned from past problems, and new procedures have been put in place, said Bill Gerstenmaier, the space station's program manager for NASA.

Since the batteries incident, complaints or concerns can be taken up the command chain more quickly, said Arthur Zygielbaum, a former safety advisory board member.

And in recent years, eight NASA specialists have worked in Russia while 10 Russian specialists have worked with NASA in Houston to smooth out potential communication issues, said Joel Montalbano, lead flight director for the current space station mission.

With this communications foundation, Montalbano said, "we can work better and stronger."

The interesting part is that the Russians actually have a better saftey record than NASA. I believe what they're saying in the article about the different attitudes. I also believe that NASA is perhaps too focused on predicting all the little things that could go wrong that they don't see the forrest for all the trees, so to say. While the Russians have a more lax attitude it allows them at the same time to improvise much better should an emergency occur.

Also I think that NASA has to reconcilliate itself with the fact that space travel is dangerous. It's still very experimental and there are always risks. Trying to prevent everything just paralyses you. Until all that technology has been tested a million times, shit will happen. Take a look at the early days of aviation. Had they been as careful as NASA is, we would not be having commercial fligths today.

[Harnu 0]

I'm kind of hoping this sparks another space race.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Yeah, just what we need....and people think the war in Iraq is a waste....

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

A space race would be far less of a waste of money than Iraq was, IMO

[EiZei 0]

Yeah, why fly to mars when you can bomb some 3rd world nations.

[ralphwiggum 6]

please stay on topic, and be aware of consequence of your postings.

[theavonlady 2]

please stay on topic, and be aware of consequence of your postings.

I don't think anybody's gonna start bombing 3rd world countries just because EiZei suggested it here.

Space race? And the loser is.....................

Quote[/b] ]EU Research Chief Wants European Astronaut Launch

By David Milliken

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The EU Commissioner in charge of space research said on Tuesday he wanted the bloc to launch astronauts into orbit, but limited EU resources mean such dreams will likely remain firmly on the launch pad.

[Stag 0]

I don't think anybody's gonna start bombing 3rd world countries just because EiZei suggested it here.  

Space race? And the loser is.....................

Quote[/b] ]EU Research Chief Wants European Astronaut Launch

By David Milliken

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The EU Commissioner in charge of space research said on Tuesday he wanted the bloc to launch astronauts into orbit, but limited EU resources mean such dreams will likely remain firmly on the launch pad.

Hmmmmm...

:startslookingatsatteliteimageryofzairewhilecheckingthepriceofatornadoandfullbombload: