Progress on NASA's Constellation - In Photos

[TD_washingtonredskins]

He said worldwide.

But if we stopped exploring until we solved all of our own major problems, we'd never go anywhere.

For the record, I think Mars is too expensive right now. We should have gone to Mars a few times instead of beating up on Iraq.

Whoops...I apologize for missing that.

I agree with your point...if you wait for everything else to be perfect prior to doing this type of research, you'd never do it. Hell, we'd have never gone to the moon 40 years ago.

[Larry]

I agree with your point...if you wait for everything else to be perfect prior to doing this type of research, you'd never do it. Hell, we'd have never gone to the moon 40 years ago.

And the New World would still be full of Indians.

[HighOnHendrix]

He said worldwide.

But if we stopped exploring until we solved all of our own major problems, we'd never go anywhere.

For the record, I think Mars is too expensive right now. We should have gone to Mars a few times instead of beating up on Iraq.

Absolutely right. Not only would we never go anywhere, the spin-off technology that comes out of space programs is invaluable. Sort of how racing technology benefits street cars in the long run.

And also for the record, if it hadn't been Iraq it would have been Iran or N. Korea.

[Disco Dave]

Cool stuff. I was worried about not having the shuttle and now after seeing those pictures I'm not as worried.

[HighOnHendrix]

Governments are always the first in exploration. Who do you think sponsored Hsuan-tsang, Christopher Columbus, Vasco de Balboa, or Ferdinand Magellan.... Governments!!! Private enterprise comes second. Like the "Virginia Company of London" who founded Jamestown. Or the Plymouth company, or the East Indian Trade company.

I think what he was trying to say was that if private enterprise had the resources that were thrown at NASA since its formation that those private companies would have accomplished more and in less time.

[HighOnHendrix]

Well the Democrats (Kennedy) were originally the ones who set the goal of going to the moon and LBJ was probable NASA's biggest cheerleader. ( no coincidence Texas got a lot of the NASA dollars ).

Yeah, that's why I narrowed it to the last 40 years. After those two, Dems have been mostly opposed to expanded funded to NASA.

I think what really crushed NASA was the Shuttle. When they first proposed it it was supposed to cut costs by an order of magnitude and make all future space flights more affordable. It was going to do this by re-use. When the Shuttle actually became operational it turned out it cost an order of magnitude more to operate it than to shoot off one use rockets like the Atlas or Saturns. The huge expense of the shuttle fleet is what has kept NASA's manned missions flying in circles for the last three decades.

The development costs of the shuttle were high as well.

[Larry]

I think what he was trying to say was that if private enterprise had the resources that were thrown at NASA since its formation that those private companies would have accomplished more and in less time.

And it's an interesting philosophical exercise.

"Course, one minor monkey in the wrench is the fact that a lot of what NASA does is to throw money at . . . private companies.

[HighOnHendrix]

And it's an interesting philosophical exercise.

"Course, one minor monkey in the wrench is the fact that a lot of what NASA does is to throw money at . . . private companies.

I'll give you that. I remember one such story I saw on a TV documentary about the Apollo program. They contracted Whirlpool (if I remember right) to develop a device to eliminate the astronauts' fecal matter (you know, poop) from the spacecraft. You know what they came up with after like a year and spending a whole lot of money? A plastic bag. There was a hole for them to crap in, then they would drop in a special tablet, seal it up and knead it until the turd was smashed into goo. I think they put it in a box to bring back; can't remember for sure, maybe they threw it out an airlock.

The over-riding factor for me is the tendency of government bureaucracies to throw that money at the wrong companies for the wrong reasons or to stipulate that said company builds something in an asinine manner, etc.

[Larry]

I'll give you that. I remember one such story I saw on a TV documentary about the Apollo program. They contracted Whirlpool (if I remember right) to develop a device to eliminate the astronauts' fecal matter (you know, poop) from the spacecraft. You know what they came up with after like a year and spending a whole lot of money? A plastic bag. There was a hole for them to crap in, then they would drop in a special tablet, seal it up and knead it until the turd was smashed into goo. I think they put it in a box to bring back; can't remember for sure, maybe they threw it out an airlock.

The over-riding factor for me is the tendency of government bureaucracies to throw that money at the wrong companies for the wrong reasons or to stipulate that said company builds something in an asinine manner, etc.

Actually, I believe that the shuttle is the first spacecraft where the astronauts didn't bring their poop back.

(And no doubt there were people who got paid to analyze it, too.)

(As to the shuttle's manner for dealing with fecal matter, I'll simply say that, yes, it does involve the fecal material striking a rotating air-circulatory device.)

[Mad Mike]

Private companies don't like spending money without a promise of return. They would NEVER do exploration for the sake of exploration.

As someone said, private companies already have a stake in space exploration as the supporting industries for NASA. But the structure needs to stay pretty much as it is with NASA staying focused on the big, long term picture.

[HighOnHendrix]

Private companies don't like spending money without a promise of return. They would NEVER do exploration for the sake of exploration.

As someone said, private companies already have a stake in space exploration as the supporting industries for NASA. But the structure needs to stay pretty much as it is with NASA staying focused on the big, long term picture.

Actually, that's the real problem. The picture changes every couple of years based on the politics that are going on. There is no big, long-term picture for NASA. They should work more closely with Robert Zubrin. He seems to know his ****.

[JMS]

This is not true. Every launch system in use today, military or civilian, owes a great technological debt to the Apollo program. But to call any of the military's rockets "an updated Saturn IV" is provably false. Saturn production was permanently shuttered in the 1970s.

Here is a listing of all heavy lift systems in use today.

Actually not so much. The Saturns were the largest most capable rockets the US ever produced and the Pentagon has continued to keep them in production just like the older Atlases, and Delta rockets. It's no coincidence than all of the five major companies which originally contributed to the Saturn V program are now owned by Boeing, and that Boeing is one of the champions of killing off the Ares...

[JMS]

The economy is in the crapper. unemployment is on the rise. world-wide, 1 in 5 people still go to bed hungry every night.

sure, it would be exciting and fascinating to see man go to mars in our lifetime. im a huge sci-fi geek and fully appreciate the "coolness" of such an accomplishment. but when people are starving and dying of preventable disease, how can you possibly say that going to mars is a worthy goal?

I think the issue really is about technology and do we want to be left behind. Consider the technological advantage which the country gained from the original space programs. It basically set us up in radar, advanced aveonics, advanced communicaitons and many other technologies. Do you really want China, Russia, India, and Japan pioneering the technology to go to mars and using that to propell them passed us, for the next five decades? Knowing we spend hundreds ( 600 billion ) on defense; and knowing NASA's budget for a return to the moon is about 3% of that defense budget? 20 billion a year.

Of coarse what is really fueling this space race is the He(3) deposits. We brought back like half a ton of moon rocks from the Apollo mission. After we were done looking them over we handed them out to the international community to check out. Some international scientist discovered that the moon rocks we brought back were heavy with concentrated deposits of He(3). He(3) is supposed to be the fission fuel of the 21st century. two tons is supposed to be enough to run the entire countries needs for a year. That's why everybody is going back to the moon, ENERGY!!! Raise the flag so they won't be left out..

Course our flag is already there, but if we are going ot exploit this potentially new resource we have to have the capability to mine it, refine it, and transport it back here. No joke. China's chief in charge of their space program stated He(3) as one of their primary reasons for going to the moon and setting up a permanent base. Overnight Japan, India, Russia, and the US all announced plans to join them.

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

[talk show host]

I'm not really disputing your point, but where have you read that 20% of our nation is going hungry??

i wasnt speaking of just the US, thats worldwide.

[talk show host]

Whoops...I apologize for missing that.

I agree with your point...if you wait for everything else to be perfect prior to doing this type of research, you'd never do it. Hell, we'd have never gone to the moon 40 years ago.

and so what? why is it "important" to go to mars? why was it "important" to go to the moon? Every year, 15 million CHILDREN die of malnutrition. How can a moral human being justify spending billions on "research" and "exploration" at the cost of millions of lives? when you take a step back, and you look at the big picture, its really sickening when we consider the "priorities" set by the people making decisions.

[Larry]

Actually not so much. The Saturns were the largest most capable rockets the US ever produced and the Pentagon has continued to keep them in production just like the older Atlases, and Delta rockets. It's no coincidence than all of the five major companies which originally contributed to the Saturn V program are now owned by Boeing, and that Boeing is one of the champions of killing off the Ares...

You keep making that claim.

Please, tell us, for example, where these Saturns, that are still being produced, are launching from?

[talk show host]

I think the issue really is about technology and do we want to be left behind. Consider the technological advantage which the country gained from the original space programs. It basically set us up in radar, advanced aveonics, advanced communicaitons and many other technologies. Do you really want China, Russia, India, and Japan pioneering the technology to go to mars and using that to propell them passed us, for the next five decades? Knowing we spend hundreds ( 600 billion ) on defense; and knowing NASA's budget for a return to the moon is about 3% of that defense budget? 20 billion a year.

Of coarse what is really fueling this space race is the He(3) deposits. We brought back like half a ton of moon rocks from the Apollo mission. After we were done looking them over we handed them out to the international community to check out. Some international scientist discovered that the moon rocks we brought back were heavy with concentrated deposits of He(3). He(3) is supposed to be the fission fuel of the 21st century. two tons is supposed to be enough to run the entire countries needs for a year. That's why everybody is going back to the moon, ENERGY!!! Raise the flag so they won't be left out..

Course our flag is already there, but if we are going ot exploit this potentially new resource we have to have the capability to mine it, refine it, and transport it back here. No joke. China's chief in charge of their space program stated He(3) as one of their primary reasons for going to the moon and setting up a permanent base. Overnight Japan, India, Russia, and the US all announced plans to join them.

http://www.asi.org/adb/02/09/he3-intro.html

He(3) is a practicle application of setting up a base of some kind on the moon, but we don't even have the technology yet for fusion to be practical or cost-effective.... aside from that, there are plenty of safe, clean, non-fusion energy alternatives that dont require going to the moon. but even if the moon were a practical goal, mars is not.

interestingly, NASA rejected plans by other countries for joint endeavour for a return to the moon that would dramatically reduce cost for all parties involved.... just like the initial space race, its just a big propoganda machine. scientific advancement, furthering of knowledge, etc are not the motivators here.

[Larry]

BTW, as to the original topic:

I'm really impressed with how much they've done so far.

Frankly, I'll admit. When I read about W's proposals, what I saw was "we'll spend a little money 'studying' things until I leave office, then after I'm gone, somebody else can cough up the big money to actually build the thing, but I want the credit."

I really didn't expect them to be doing things like actually launching things anywhere near this soon.

I still have some priority differences with his plan. (I'm probably one of the biggest space freaks on this board, and I think going to Mars is a waste of time and money. IMO, permanent facilities on the Moon and in orbit, sufficient to support further space missions down the road, is both more useful and more do-able.)

But props for the progress.

[JMS]

and so what? why is it "important" to go to mars? why was it "important" to go to the moon?

Yeah, who needs cell phones. What impact have micro computers made on our economy? Satellites? Who in the world is ever going to use Satellites for navigation systems, radio broadcasts or TV broadcasts. Hell ever heard of the transistor? What's so freaking great about the transistor, vacuum tubes were getting the job done!!!

Just in a handful of technologies I can think of off the top of my head likely twenty million people are employed globally, and our way of life has been totally changed on this planet by all which had their origins in the early space programs..

Every year, 15 million CHILDREN die of malnutrition. How can a moral human being justify spending billions on "research" and "exploration" at the cost of millions of lives? when you take a step back, and you look at the big picture, its really sickening when we consider the "priorities" set by the people making decisions.

That is an argument to stop all research and activity not directly associated with agriculture, transport, and distribution. It's not a very well thought out argument. Fact is the budget for research is miniscule compared to the scope of the issues you want our country to address. Fact is we aren't the worlds policeman, nor should we be and a lot of the problems you seem to want us to take responsibility for are directly caused by fights having little to do with us.

[JMS]

You keep making that claim.

Please, tell us, for example, where these Saturns, that are still being produced, are launching from?

The military budget for space is larger than NASA's. I don't know if they publish where they launch their rockets from. I've personally attended a few NASA launches, but have never attended a military launch. My basis for the claim the military has re-developed a Saturn IV capability is from a Washington post article I read a while back. Hard Copy. I couldn't find it online, maybe I'm misremembering.

But you figure the Orion lunar orbitor is at least as large as the one used for Apolo. You can't use an Atlas or a delta rocket to float one of those birds, It's just too big.

Atlas, Designed in the 1950's for use as an ICBM. Largest the Atlas V 505 payload 20,050 Kg or (44,203 lbs)

Delta, Originally designed in the early 1960's. New updated version Delta IV has a payload of 23,000 kg (50,000 lbs.)

Saturn IV, largest most capable rocket ever deployed. could lift a payload of 41,000 kg into lunar orbit (90, 389 lbs ). or 260,000 lbs to low earth orbit.

The Saturn IV, were Specifically designed for the Apollo moon missions, also used for SKY Lab. The Atlas and Delta's just aren't big enough to get a lunar lander into space.

[Larry]

The military budget for space is larger than NASA's. I don't know if they publish where they launch their rockets from.

Most of them, they launch from Cape Canaveral.

That's where all the launch pads are.

I do seem to recall that they also have some launch capabilities at Edwards.

But a Saturn can't be delivered by anything smaller than a barge.

And there's a reason why the VAB was built. It's because they needed a building that big so they could assemble the Saturns.

The tractor they use is the largest land vehicle ever built. It's the only vehicle ever build that's capable of moving a Saturn stack, from the only building in the world that (used to be) capable of building them, to the only launch pad that (used to be) capable of launching them. It travels on the only road in the world that it can drive on.

Do you really want to try to claim that the military was duplicated all of the completely unique infrastructure that's required to support Saturn rockets, at a secret location (which also has the ability to build said Saturns, on-site)?

[Popeman38]

and so what? why is it "important" to go to mars? why was it "important" to go to the moon? Every year, 15 million CHILDREN die of malnutrition. How can a moral human being justify spending billions on "research" and "exploration" at the cost of millions of lives? when you take a step back, and you look at the big picture, its really sickening when we consider the "priorities" set by the people making decisions.

How many American children die of malnutrition? Expecting the American govt to cease any "unnecessary" spending (as defined by?) and attempt to cure all that ills the world only accomplishes one thing: the destruction of America. Then more children die from malnutrition around the world when we are no longer a super-power. As much as we get clubbed for being greedy, take away the int'l aid from the US (govt and private), and you will see a marked increase in poverty levels around the globe.

[HighOnHendrix]

and so what? why is it "important" to go to mars? why was it "important" to go to the moon? Every year, 15 million CHILDREN die of malnutrition. How can a moral human being justify spending billions on "research" and "exploration" at the cost of millions of lives? when you take a step back, and you look at the big picture, its really sickening when we consider the "priorities" set by the people making decisions.

Ever watch Star Trek? In that fictional future, no one on earth goes hungry. You know why? Because of technology. Space exploration is a jump-start for developing new technologies and improving the existing ones. New materials are invented, new ways of doing things, etc. Then alternative civilian uses are found for those materials and processes.

Also, many of the people who are starving around the world are in that position because of their governments. The are more than a few countries that routinely refuse the humanitarian aid the U.S. tries to provide and many more that pretend to accept it but actually hijack it and divert it to their military and leave their own people to starve. The only way to change this behavior is to go G.W. Bush on their asses; I'm predicting you're against that. In NO WAY is NASA, the ESA, or any other space program stopping people from eating or living a better life. On the contrary, in the long run they will enrich all our lives.

[Zguy28]

Most of them, they launch from Cape Canaveral.

That's where all the launch pads are.

I do seem to recall that they also have some launch capabilities at Edwards.

But a Saturn can't be delivered by anything smaller than a barge.

And there's a reason why the VAB was built. It's because they needed a building that big so they could assemble the Saturns.

The tractor they use is the largest land vehicle ever built. It's the only vehicle ever build that's capable of moving a Saturn stack, from the only building in the world that (used to be) capable of building them, to the only launch pad that (used to be) capable of launching them. It travels on the only road in the world that it can drive on.

Do you really want to try to claim that the military was duplicated all of the completely unique infrastructure that's required to support Saturn rockets, at a secret location (which also has the ability to build said Saturns, on-site)?

There is also a spaceport on the Eastern Shore of MD/VA near Chicateague Island, but I think its strictly commercial. I saw a rocket launch from all the way over in Southern Maryland one Saturday morning. I thought we were getting nuked by the Chinese or something.

As far as Saturn V goes, I seriously doubt the military is still using those. You'd know it if they were, considering its kind of hard to hide that thing blasting off.

[Larry]

I was also going to point out that there's a reason why we launch from Cape Canaveral.

Because the Earth rotates towards the East, objects "standing still" on the Earth actually have an eastward velocity. This velocity is over 1,000 MPH if you're at the equator (yes, the equator is "moving" at well over Mach 1), and decreases the further North you go. (The poles, obviously, aren't moving at all.)

This means that when the Space Shuttle lifts off, it's already moving towards the East at several hundred MPH, without burning any fuel at all.

Result: It's to your great advantage to launch towards the East, and from as close to the equator as possible.

We chose Florida over locations like Nevada, because we wanted the launched to be over water, for safety.