WaPo: SpaceX Dragon Rockets Toward Space Station, Opens New Era Of Spaceflight (Update: Successful Splashdown)

[Larry]

I would say I see two goals that I think are both inspiring and within grasp.

IMO, The Next Big Mission needs to both be a real challenge, ("We chose to go to the Moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard."), and which will have "bootstrap" possibilities: Things that will be useful for The Mission After The Next Mission.

I see two things that I think fit that bill:

1) What I think of as a permanent space station. One that has the ability to assist in getting to other places. One that's more self-sufficient. (I'd like to see at least experiments in growing their own crops.) One where people can stay longer. (Which means some kind of spin gravity.) One equipped with EVA suits and remote craft and things, so that it can function as a garage or a repair and construction center. And can service other things that are in orbit.

(Maybe the existing station can have these capabilities added, I have no idea.)

2) A permanent base on the Moon. Again, with the ability to harvest materials from the lunar surface. To do ground-level explorations of large areas. Again, I would think that the ability to grow their own food would be a really big plus.

----------

The really catchy thing is: Both of these missions become easier to do, if the other one exists. And both of them become a lot more useful, if the other exists.

It's tough to decide which to do first. Because they really constitute a symbiotic pair.

(Therefore, we should obviously do both.)

Has anybody really done any work on technologies whereby a space-based community (orbital or lunar) could grow their own food? I assume it would take humongous areas of "cropland" to support one person. But OTOH, doesn't that just about HAVE to be cheaper that paying the shipping costs of shipping MRE's?

Huge initial expense, but low marginal costs.

----------

Also on the topic:

Anybody feel like recommending a book about the space station? I have to confess that I'm massively ignorant about the thing, and I'd really like to at least reduce that a bit.

[Corcaigh]

As mjah said, there are many technological hurdles that need to be overcome before we spend tens of billions on more manned space flight just to be temporary tourists.

There is some interesting research going on in labs about technology to terraform Mars surface so that humans could live there long term.

http://media.egu2012.eu/media/filer_public/2012/04/05/10_solarsystem_devera.pdf

[Koolblue13]

http://www.fastcompany.com/1837966/mustafas-space-drive-an-egyptian-students-quantum-physics-invention

19-year-old Egyptian physics student Aisha Mustafa is someone we may see again in the media in the future because though young she's patented a new type of propulsion system for spacecraft that makes use of an obscure, and only recently experimentally proven, quantum physics effect.

[Corcaigh]

Anybody feel like recommending a book about the space station?

The NASA site has a lot of great info: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html

---------- Post added May-22nd-2012 at 11:36 AM ----------

http://www.fastcompany.com/1837966/mustafas-space-drive-an-egyptian-students-quantum-physics-invention

19-year-old Egyptian physics student Aisha Mustafa is someone we may see again in the media in the future because though young she's patented a new type of propulsion system for spacecraft that makes use of an obscure, and only recently experimentally proven, quantum physics effect.

I'm not sure what's new here as it is the usual vacuous level of writing of Fast Company. NASA had a program looking at different propulsion systems including one based on the Casimir effect.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/1997-J_AIAA_SpaceDr.pdf

[TheLongshot]

Oh I could agree with that, but like you said...where is the vision? What are we pointing at now? It seems like the hand off to privateers has been accomplished but they forgot the 2nd part.

The way politics are right now, there won't be a 2nd part, or at least not one funded by Congress.

[grhqofb5]

About the same way that modern sea captains do today.

Ship does down, so does the cargo. Cargo goes down, so does the company. Company goes down, stock is worthless. The motivation should be obvious. Love how capitalism works.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ship does down, so does the cargo. Cargo goes down, so does the company. Company goes down, stock is worthless. The motivation should be obvious. Love how capitalism works.

But that's not capitalism, capitalism goes like this...."Ship goes down, so does cargo, captain loses his job." The captain's interest in the company and value of stocks are only in his interest insofar as their well being provides him with a job.

“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” ~Adam Smith

[grhqofb5]

But that's not capitalism, capitalism goes like this...."Ship goes down, so does cargo, captain loses his job." The captain's interest in the company and value of stocks are only in his interest insofar as their well being provides him with a job.

Eh... I'd say losing one's job is a pretty big motivator. So are performance incentives if you're engineering the Rocket. Of course, it you work for the government you basically can't lose your job.

Long live capitalism.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Eh... I'd say losing one's job is a pretty big motivator. So are performance incentives if you're engineering the Rocket.

Right, but those weren't part of your original statement, that's all I'm saying, you focused on the good of the company and share value, not the self interest of the captain.

Long live capitalism.

May she die gloriously when all things are new.

But hey, back to space talk!

[endzone_dave]

Eh... I'd say losing one's job is a pretty big motivator. So are performance incentives if you're engineering the Rocket. Of course, it you work for the government you basically can't lose your job.

Long live capitalism.

You think there never has been a case where a commercial spacecraft failed to work because corners were cut?

[Larry]

Space. The topic of the thread.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Space. The topic of the thread.

How do you get to space? $$$$ :pfft:

[grhqofb5]

Right, but those weren't part of your original statement, that's all I'm saying, you focused on the good of the company and share value, not the self interest of the captain.

May she die gloriously when all things are new.

But hey, back to space talk!

The CEO (who is presumably NOT a shareholder) who hires the captain will lose his job as well. Chain of command. **** flows downhill. Responsibility flows up.

Capitalism will never die. It is the human default setting. Like a computer, when it comes out of the box, it is a capitalist. It does what it's suppposed to, its fast, works quickly, its clean, and its efficient. The 5 year old computer is a marxist. It is slow, infected with disease, has hair and apple juice all over the keyboard, goes to sleep when it wants to, refuses to work at inconvenient times. Also obsolete. Wipe the hard drive clean, re-install the operating system, and get a new keyboard and monitor and its a capitalist again.

The only thing that will die are grandiose marxist ideals.

[Larry]

Walt Disney World posted this picture on their Facebook page, with the following caption:

We just had to share this 'out of this world' shot! The photo, taken early this morning in front of Mission: SPACE at Epcot by Disney photographer Matt Stroshane, perfectly captures the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launching from Cape Canaveral. Incredible, right?

And get your bleepin' political sloganeering someplace else!

[AsburySkinsFan]

Awesome picture!!! It took me a minute to see what was different about it.

[mjah]

You think there never has been a case where a commercial spacecraft failed to work because corners were cut?

I can think of one. I can also think of a case where a NASA spacecraft failed to work because corners were cut.

:whoknows:

Back to SpaceX, here is the current schedule for this mission according to their website:

• May 22/Launch Day: SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket launches a Dragon spacecraft into orbit from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.
  

• 
  May 23: Dragon orbits Earth as it travels toward the International Space Station.
  

• 
  May 24: Dragon’s sensors and flight systems are subjected to a series of complicated tests to determine if the vehicle is ready to berth with the space station; these tests include maneuvers and systems checks in which the vehicle comes within 1.5 miles of the station.
  

• 
  May 25: NASA decides if Dragon is allowed to attempt berthing with the station. If so, Dragon approaches. It is captured by station’s robotic arm and attached to the station, a feat that requires extreme precision.
  

• 
  May 25 - 31: Astronauts open Dragon’s hatch, unload supplies and fill Dragon with return cargo.
  

• 
  May 31: After approximately two weeks, Dragon is detached from the station and returns to Earth, landing in the Pacific, hundreds of miles west of Southern California.
  

[grhqofb5]

You think there never has been a case where a commercial spacecraft failed to work because corners were cut?

By commercial I assume you mean "for profit?" If that's the case, no.

If you're referring to "commercial" as being "privately contracted," then yes. The ultimate responsibility is on the project owner (NASA) and its engineers to ensure that its contractor and subcontractors are performing their work in compliance with the plans and specifications.

In the private sector, the owner is the stockholders. Stockholders elect a board of directors, who then hire a President, CEO, or whatever title they want to give him.

Long live capitalism.

[Larry]

Sigh.

:effinpolitics:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Larry's right fellas, give it up and talk space or start a new thread.

[PeterMP]

Oh I could agree with that, but like you said...where is the vision? What are we pointing at now? It seems like the hand off to privateers has been accomplished but they forgot the 2nd part.

I wouldn't blame NASA for lack of vision. I've seen different people from NASA talk. I once saw somebody that was part of the rover mission to Mars talk (which everybody essentially considers a roar success). He was pretty blunt.

18 months into the first mission, they'd have been happy to launch another pair of rovers. They'd have been happy if they'd roled 200 of them out of a factory somewhere and sent them up in pairs every 18 months.

And then used them to "map" different regions of Mars. There wasn't funding to carry out such a project.

The fact of the matter is the "vision" for NASA has always come from a political/military side. Nixon was given the choice of spending how much money over the next how many years to create a re-usable near space vehicle (the Space Shuttle) or going to Mars (and a larger space station than SkyLab as another possibility).

He selected the Space Shuttle because the vision at that time was a grand world war based on technology and satelites where the control of near space was important in the war, and therefore the military (especially the Air Force) would and could be involved in terms of planning, budgets, and giving it purpose.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm

If NASA doesn't have a vision, it is because the politicians having really figured out a vision for it (other than as a means to help with national security).

In the end, that's our fault. How many people have ever contacted a politician and told them that an important component of their vote will be based on how well they articulate a vision for NASA?

You want NASA to have a vision, than start organizing people to vote based on whether the politician has a real vision for NASA.

[Larry]

Now, I do know that there used to be a whole lot of "space political organizations", back in the 70s-80s. I was involved in some of the discussions of some of them. (Meaning, I was at the table when other space fans talked about various ideas. I'm not in any way involved in the organization, or even ta member, of any of the organizations.)

But my impression of them at the time was that the problem was that there were 3-4 of them. And that they spent a lot of their time arguing with each other.

The folks who wanted to build O'Neil's colonies saw a mission to Mars as competition for their pet project. And vice versa. The folks with a big plan for NASA were attacked by the people who wanted to claim that private enterprise would do it better.

I've heard this political phenomena referred to as "the perfect becomes the enemy of the good".

You see it here. People propose going back to the Moon, and others will point out that fusion-powered rockets might be invented any day, now. Or maybe the Space Elevator will make rockets obsolete. So we should just wait.

[The Caretaker]

This planet's surface layer will become inhabitable in about 1 billion years due to the Sun's life cycle. Better start digging or advancing that space program Not to mention the bountiful resources that resides in our planetary neighborhood that could solve our energy issues indefinately. But no, spending must go towards fighting over the last bits of fossil fuels left on our planet...

[Larry]

This planet's surface layer will become inhabitable in about 1 billion years due to the Sun's life cycle. Better start digging or advancing that space program Not to mention the bountiful resources that resides in our planetary neighborhood that could solve our energy issues indefinately. But no, spending must go towards fighting over the last bits of fossil fuels left on our planet...

Decades ago, I was a government contractor, working at the Navy Annex.

A "temporary", WW2 building, built across the street from the Pentagon. Among other things, it houses the offices of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, in a move which I'm certain was designed to remind them uppity jarheads that they are a subordinate branch of the service. "Oh, gee. There just isn't

room

in the Pentagon for you to have an office there."

When I worked there, we used to tell new employees "come down Colombia Pike. And when you come over the hill, and you see the Pentagon? We're the beige building on the left that looks like a prison."

Among other things, the building was surrounded by a chain link fence, with barbed wire on the top, that pointed

in

.

Our conference room had a cartoon on the wall. The picture showed several cave men, squatting around a fire pit, with the skeleton of some animal.

"This meeting has been called in order to discuss the meat. It has been pointed out that there is no more meat. Motion has been made that we fight over the bones."

[AsburySkinsFan]

Looks like we're not the only one's who are sad about the state of NASA.

Neil Armstrong Breaks Moon Silence

The first man to step on the moon is famously private and has rarely spoken about his world-shaking moonwalk—until now. Neil Armstrong gave a rare interview to an accountants' group in Australia, saying he believed his moon mission only had a 50 percent chance of landing safely. Armstrong added that NASA’s reduced budget and ambitions are “sad” because it was one of the most successful programs in history and inspired young adventurers.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2012/05/24/neil-armstrong-breaks-moon-silence.html

[mjah]

If you want to see the future of the American space effort, take a look at this video of SpaceX employees standing outside of SpaceX mission control by the hundreds during this most recent Falcon launch.

Oh -- and check out their average apparent age. I wonder how that compares with the same metric at NASA, and what it portends for a long, successful, and stable new era of space transportation.

These folks are young, incredibly committed, and evidently brilliant -- judging by the current location of their spacecraft.

And NASA is very smart to be kick-starting this whole thing.