The US Space Program

[terpkristin]

I listened to this week's TWiT and at the end, I heard Leo and Tom's opinions on NASA's new direction. I figure that a bunch of sci-fi nerds, like we all are, probably have some opinions on this, was kind of wondering what the "common" nerd felt.

Full disclosure, I work for a company that designs and builds satellites. My company is also involved in NASA programs. I will post my feelings, too, but my feelings in no way represent what my company thinks, just my personal ruminations.

[Christian]

I haven't listened to the entire podcast yet, so I can't comment on the discussion, however I can say that I think our space program lacks the startup mentality it had in the 60's. It seems to have bled dry by contractors and bureaucracy. It's amazing to think how much was accomplished in the 60's, and how relatively quickly we put people on the moon compared to what we're capable of today (with far more sophisticated technology).

I think we lack collective will when it comes to space, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Alex]

This is a loaded question, like almost anything nowadays in US politics and economy?

I have not seen the usefulness of any manned space mission since the Apollo program ended. Actually since the Cold War was over.

"Too expensive, no clear missions, alibi arguments on the pro side, no scientific purpose..." would be on my talking points list.

For the same price you can accomplish far more scientific missions.

There's "rational" and then there's the Carl Sagan faction of dreamers. I used to be the latter. But science and reasoning got in the way. It's called growing up? ;)

[George]

I think that the call to develop capability for landing humans on near-earth asteroids is far more compelling than going to Mars in a number of ways.

I heard Jerry Pournelle's views on privatization of space on pretty much a weekly basis for several years, and as much as I may disagree with Jerry about a number of things, I think that he's got it mostly right in that area. NASA needs to be working on new technology and cutting edge science that's more pure research than immediately profitable, then licensing the tech to private companies who can make use of it. Result? Everybody wins. NASA generates some of it's own monies while sticking to the R&D that it was once so good at (and can be again if it doesn't have to run a glorified taxi service).

[terpkristin]

I'm still at work (and have my thoughts posted on Facebook, so will have to wait to go home to grab what I've already written). However, one thing I've noticed is that it's GENERALLY the older people who think we should be going back to the Moon ("re-capture the glory days," etc), and the younger generation that is OK with not going to the Moon. The long and short of my thoughts is that there is no value-add to sending humans to the Moon right now.
We have technologies that need to be developed to get us to Mars, and the Moon won't help us there. In the spirit of exploration, robots can do a large part of the data collection significantly less expensively than humans can. I don't think that the Moon isn't viable in the near future, but we have our homework to do on the ground before spending the $ to do it in space. And right now, without a clear goal for going to the Moon, there isn't much of a reason to go. But that said, I'll post my detailed thoughts later tonight or tomorrow. I was so eloquent on my post on Facebook, it seems a shame to lose it.

[terpkristin]

Ok, now for my bigger response...
To try to put it succinctly, I agreed with his cancellation of Constellation and moving manned LEO spaceflight to the private sector. I never saw a real purpose in us going back to the Moon. Robots can be sent to do science on the Moon, on Mars, and other planets, and "smart satellites" can orbit other planets and planetary bodies, at significantly lower cost than sending humans into space--and, in many respects, they can do it better, since they don't get tired or need food, etc.

I understand that there needs to be a manned presence in space, in large part to keep people interested so that the already meager funding for NASA can keep coming, but in the near-term, there isn't much benefit to going to the Moon, and we don't have the technology to get us to Mars. To boot, the Constellation program was fairly unfocused without targeted goals, which allowed us to spin our wheels and not focus on the required technological advances.

In order to get to Mars, we need a few things:
1) an energy source, both for propulsion and electricity. Right now, the propulsion sources we have will make it take a very long time to get to Mars. Electricity we can probably do, though the robustness might need investigation (and/or get people comfortable with nuclear energy).
2) a way to produce food in space and make and recycle water. I did an internship at Kennedy Space Center 12 years ago, where this was being investigated. We've come a long way, but we have a long way to go, too. The bonus of research into this is that it will help here on Earth, too, especially in third world nations where water in particular is scarce. But there's almost no way to carry enough food and water for a crewed mission to Mars, so we'll need to produce it. (Note, this is part of why manned flight is so expensive compared to unmanned. In addition to the premium per kg for human payload, you have to send more mass in terms of water and food and be able to accommodate waste storage, all of which adds up)
3) a mechanism to deal with some of the dangers of space travel, including bone density and muscle loss, as well as radiation exposure. These might be surmountable, and if we get better propulsion, maybe we'll be able to make the craft heavier and add more shielding, so maybe some of the problems will go away (radiation in particular).

But, think about how often otherwise healthy people get sick. What if a crew member came down with appendicitis? How often to seemingly healthy people drop dead from a heart attack? What if someone gets cancer? Appendicitis is very easily treated here on land, but what about in microgravity? And, what happens when/if someone dies? Sure, the people that volunteer for the mission understand the risk, but can you imagine the public relations nightmare? And the psychological damage it can impart on a crew? That is, of course, assuming that you can find a crew that works well together, psychologically speaking, for a period of years.

In short, I don't really see a hurry to send humans to the Moon or to Mars. I love the Space Station, but it's under-utilized and under-staffed. And, sadly, a good portion of the time, the staff is dealing with fixing issues instead of doing real science that might help us find answers to 1 and 2, and maybe even 3.

I highly endorse robots in space. I also endorse further exploration with satellites, and I think I would still endorse said satellites if I didn't work for a company that makes them. Sure, they're not humans, and there are advantages humans have over robots, but they offer a lot of advantages and the ability to study even more remote locations than Mars. Unmanned missions are kg for kg less expensive and more efficient than humans.

Let private industry deal with getting people (including tourists) to space, at least to LEO (low earth orbit). Getting private industry involved will help develop less expensive technologies for human spaceflight, which is a win all around.

One more thought. I didn't get interested in science and space because of the space program. My parents (both with science backgrounds, though neither in space or physics) undoubtedly paid a role in my interest in science, but I think there was a more important factor.

I had some phenomenal science teachers growing up. I think if we (as a nation and society) really wanted to encourage kids to get into math and science, we should be focusing on encouraging people to become elementary and middle school teachers, and encourage them to get the sparks flying. We should also be encouraging those that can to be high school teachers, to really bring home some of the cool stuff science can offer.

So that's what we need. Just like Book-It when I was in elementary school got more kids interested in reading, we need a way to encourage kids to explore math and science. Just my 2 cents, of course.

[Sean]

NASA is just the fraction of the military-industrial complex with the best PR. Given the ever-increasing disaster that is the federal budget, NASA is certainly a good place to start cutting back. Leave space to free enterprise, and let NASA make do with space telescopes.

The Apollo program was a complete disaster. Instead of doing things in proper order -- build a space station; get practice in space; use the station as a jumping-off point to the moon; build moon base; get practice living on an alien world; use moon as jumping-off point to Mars -- we did it the American way -- brute-force our way to the moon, declare victory, and lose interest. The whole thing was a pork-barrel project for the Gulf Coast, not a serious scientific project.

[Dan]

Hi all, I just felt another side to this argument was needed. Clearly there are varying ideas of what to do with NASA and the space program, and the most vocal people are usually the ones that want it to go away because of the current state of the economy. The truth is that astronauts are doing some of the most important jobs in human history and many americans would just assume be rid of them! I would like the economy to see a quicker recovery as well, but eliminating space research and manned spaceflight is not the answer.

Let's talk fundamentals and why the space program is important. The problem here is that space research does not typically make money, so no business is going to fund such projects, so it falls onto a government to do so if the knowledge is to be shared with the rest of the world. If the richest country in the world (the U.S.) does not fund projects in space, then who will? Knowledge has always allowed the human race to survive, and the biggest threats to this planet are the major earth-changing catastrophes (external objects impacting the earth, major eruptions, or earthquakes, nukes). Space missions enable us to understand the solar system, galaxy, universe, not to mention our planet and ourselves(!) better. The Hubble Space Telescope has revealed to humanity things we couldn't even dream of.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discover...

Without manned space missions, the HST's blurry images would have set us back decades and would have killed space-based astronomy back in 1990.

Check out this list though if you have doubts about the world benefitting from NASA research.

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

@terpkristin: I liked what you said about a few of the big hurdles we need to jump over to get to Mars, but I think the only way to surmount those obstacles is to have a mission to Mars in the first place. Without a driving force, some of these thing just won't get done. (Disclaimer: I currently work in COMMERCIAL space and can tell you that the private sector is not going to get the important stuff answered since business is ALL about making money. Maybe there's an unknown market for selling X-Ray imagery?)

I think if the international space community puts a smart budget together, a manned Mars mission can be done and it will revitalize the economy many times over the cost of getting us there, since we will continue to innovate with a singular goal in mind. Cutting back or canceling missions is incredibly short-sighted that will only hurt the later generations.

NASA (and the rest of our government) may need a good scrub though. We need a legion of Bobs from Office Space to analyze the efficiency of the U.S. government to get us out of the spending mess we're in.

[Kris]

I can't add much to what has already been said I just want some one or some organization to keep sending people up into to space. I am agnostic on who does it I just can't abide the people who think we have to stop it all and just focus on things in the gravity well. To short-sighted for me.