- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 15,005
- Reaction score
- 1,379
Posted by a friend on Facebook, and worthy of reposting here
[YOUTUBE]CbIZU8cQWXc[/YOUTUBE]
-Kevin
[YOUTUBE]CbIZU8cQWXc[/YOUTUBE]
-Kevin
I sure do miss the "good ol days" of the Cold War. Growing up with the competition btwn USA/USSR in everything from Space,Defense, even Hockey seems now not all that fearful as then.(a worthy opponent?) Even with all the Spy vs Spy,Nuke M.A.D. "Red Scare" stuff going on...I believe ther was tremendous RESPECT on both sides...
Something really missing in "Hot" "Military Conflicts"nowdays.
Generally speaking, it was on the mark.
But that was when we, as a nation, feared Soviet expansion and it's attending political ideology.
Can someone make the case that the fear "then" is the fear "now"? Also, the modernity movement ("The Jetsons") is passé. We are in a post-modern culture and it's very hard to "Make the Case for Space", with all of the competing mouths trying to feed at the Public Trough.
Greg
What's very impressive to me is that this was totally ex tempore; the audio is clipped from NdG's live interview with Jon Stewart. It's definitely not bad for an elevator pitch.Very nice piece... somewhat simplistic, but nice... agree with most of it.
What's very impressive to me is that this was totally ex tempore; the audio is clipped from NdG's live interview with Jon Stewart. It's definitely not bad for an elevator pitch.
Seriously folks; what was the last big technological development that occurred in manned space flight?
To my mind it was being able to build a 60s 70s mainframe computer in a laptop.
That reduction in volume and mass was probably the biggest reason some of the current crop of competitive manned space vehicles are possible.
Have we really reduced the weight of the materials spacecraft are constructed from significantly since the 70s 80s?
Have we increased the thrust/weight ratio of the motors significantly? (Total Impulse?)
This is incorrect... nobody is seriously contemplating flying a "lead" shelter. The two main radiation hazards in space are 1) solar particle events, like coronal mass ejections (CME's) and 2) galactic cosmic radiation, mostly consisting of heavy ions traveling near the speed of light from supernovas. Solar particle radiation is easier to protect against... since it's coming from the direction of the sun, putting the propellant tanks and stage or other vehicle structures between you and the sun, and staying in their shadow, provides excellent protection. Water is also an excellent shielding material, so having a "shelter" surrounded by the water storage (fresh and/or waste) for the mission would also be a viable design method for shielding. Cosmic radiation is harder to shield against, because it comes more or less equally from ALL directions, so pointing the spacecraft a certain way to "hide in it's shadow" does no good. It's been discovered, however, that using a layer of long-chain polymer plastics (like polyethylene) actually provides pretty decent shielding... in fact it's the main way that will be used to shield against this radiation for the foreseeable future. Of course water or other shielding methods are also helpful, but less practical due to needing to to enclose the entire spacecraft. The worst material is aluminum or metallic structures-- the incoming high-energy particles collide with the atoms/molecules in the alloys and release a shower of secondary radiation particles at high energies. Simply lining the spacecraft with layers of polyethylene linings should help considerably though.Have we developed some means to protect astronauts from cosmic rays or solar radiation without shoving them in a Storm cellar lined with lead?
How about a constant thrust engine that could get people to Mars in days instead of months or even a year or more?
All the companies competing for a manned space launch vehicle/capsule are pretty much juggling decimal points. Trying to get the lightest possible vehicle that, juuuust doesnt, fly-apart during lift-off or recovery because it was too fragile. Its not as if any of them have something really new and outstanding to offer.
Personally I dont believe that until we can put tons into space at the price we are today putting pounds into space; were not going to get very far beyond LEO and un-manned probes.
We need as big a breakthrough in spaceflight technology as the diesel-electric locomotive was over the steam loco or the screw propeller was over the ore.
Begin rant.
IMO the 50s and 60s represent the golden age of the US. We had just come out of WW II and were enjoying a great period of technology development and payback, education and pent up consumer demand. We were paying down the great national debt due to the war (getting financially stable), we were educating the 10,000,000 vets who fought the war (paying forward to keep the future bright), we were rebuilding Europe and Japan (creating future markets), and providing inexpensive housing for the population (the second biggest veterans benefit). As the successfully, newly educated twenty something folks got out of school and got jobs, they used their confidence and talent to develop technology. The consumer never had it better, and there was little inflation, and middle class pay growth was strong.
Yes, there was a cold war, but IMO the space race dominated the 60s. We invested 2.5 to over 5% of the budget each year in the 60s to go to the moon. And we returned that investment 10-fold. The money the government spent for space created good paying science and engineering jobs, but that's not all. These folks purchased home, cars, consumer good and more education for their families, creating even more jobs. New towns, shopping centers, schools popped up all over the country. The auto industry boomed as did the major appliance and electronics industry.
Most families bought a second car, clothes washer and dryers, color TV, freezers, and went away on vacations. Food was never better, more abundant or cheaper. Times were very, very good.
What happened?
Failure of the government to pay for what was spent in Vietnam and corporate and consumer greed. Government made a good case for the Space Race, but did a very poor job justifying Vietnam. They didn't want to raise taxes to fund the war, unlike all previous wars, so they robbed the trust funds and did not sell bonds to insure repayment of the debt, as was done in all previous wars. Coupled to that the larger corporations decided to take more cash out of their coffers to bolster stock prices instead of reinvesting into their corporate R&D to continue product improvements. Labor wanted more pay for less productivity, which ultimately destroyed the steel industry and and put many heavy industries into the second tier of producers.
The 70s were the unmaking of the 60s. The government had eaten up two decades of reserves, and cut NASA and education budgets, damaging our position as premier world manufacturing economy and the leader in technology. Big corporations cut R&D in favor of dividends. Just look a the auto industry. In the 60s they developed the "modern cars", but in the 70s they took a step back wards, not willing to invest in new technology to make cleaner, more efficient engines. They simply added stuff on to 60s designs, making cars that got poorer mileage, and didn't run well. The Japanese and Europeans developed the 70s auto technologies and by the 80s made the better cars.
We borrowed throughout the 70s in an attempt to maintain the golden years. The interest rate quadrupled over the decade, topping out around 20% in 1980-81. In the early 80s the real estate market nosedived, unemployment soared, no one wanted American products. Reagan imposed a number of draconian measures to curb inflation, and raised taxes. The interest rated dropped, but the government continued to spend money it didn't have, and still does, and dropped most industry oversight. Huge concessions were made to business, but little was done to foster R&D, so the corporate coffers continues to be emptied, which has lead to 30 years of government interventions to save banks and manufacturing industries, but until recently just gave the money away to the management that wrecked the business. The only exception has been when the government bailed out the auto industry, they demanded equity and dumped the old management and now that the industry has turned around and created jobs, the government has realize a tidy profit. One of the few bright spots in recent government interventions.
In general, starting in the 70s we have stopped paying forward, replacing future gains for instant gratification. We spend today, living pay check to pay check, and this includes the government. In reality, government spending made the 50s and 60s the golden years, but back then the government knew they had to raise money in order to spend money. This concept was forgotten in the 70s and for the most part persists today. The space race had a 10 year plan, today we're lucky if government looks beyond the next election.
I just heard one of the most ridiculous political statements on the noon news, saying that certain tax exemption cost the MA government billions. What? The legislature's expenditures cost us, the taxpayers money. These idiots we elect have it all wrong. It' not their money, or the government's money, it our money. They are the problem, spending money we have not given them to spend. They continue to spend money on programs that aren't needed such as new buildings and highways, or mismanaged like mandated private insurance health care, but won't spend money on programs desperately needed like infrastructure repair, or single payer health care.
SpaceX is a good example of government funded private industry building a space bus to get to the ISS and LEO. Much more is needed to go backt to the moon or to Mars. There is no logical why we have to build spacecraft the way we do today. We can assemble very large spacecraft in LEO instead or on the ground if we build a Saturn 5 type heavy lift vehicle. Toddy this can be built using COTS parts, and the spacecraft can be built using the shuttle external tank design. Both are cheap and fast track ways back to the moon and Mars. It will take an Apollo level effort and take a decade, not 5 years or 2 or 3 decades. Let's see if SpaceX or someonelse step up and proposes it.
end rant
Bob
I realize that unless we can eliminate or seriously reduce inertia, which at this point is more in the lines of magic than science, well still have to accelerated halfway then turn and decelerate the rest.
But if an engine could be built that allowed for even a half G constant thrust; Mars becomes only days or at most a couple of weeks away. And so does the asteroid belt.
Of course these types of engines only work in space and the really big problem is getting stuff from Earth into space in the first place.
This is where we need that big breakthrough. We have to be able to get away from having to juggle those decimal places. We need to get to the point where if asked to launch a Battleship into orbit the question isnt Are you out of your frigging mind? the question is When and how many?
In the late 1930s EMD unveiled the first reliable and practical do-everything diesel electric locomotive the FT. Others followed and by the late 40s early 50s American railroads were sending nearly new steam locomotives to the breakers because the cost savings and efficiency of the diesel electric locomotive was so far beyond that of the steamer it was cost effective for the RRs to scrap locomotives that werent even paid-off yet.
It is easy to argue that had not the DE locomotive arrived to replace the steamer, todays economy, productivity and quality of life wouldnt begin to be possible in fact we would have never attained anything close to what we have today.
This is the kind of technological breakthrough we need in spaceflight. Todays spacecraft technology is the equivalent of the steam locomotive maybe the equally of the horse drawn wagon. We need a diesel electric locomotive to replace it.
I agree with BobK's assessment. The U.S has atrofied into a huge bulk of nothing! The U.S. has peaked in it's greatness and is in the beginning of it's decline. I don't belive we will recover, we don't seem to learn from our mistakes! Those dooomed....!
The last big breakthrough in locomotive technology was the advent of AC Traction and the use of distributed power; both game changers in the industry but now going on 20/30 years old.Sounds good, and you make a relevant point about transportation industry (regarding rail, though I'm not sure how much the allegory holds when lined up with spaceflight). The question is, "How"... where are these "cutting edge" technologies coming from. Sorta sounds awfully 'Star Trek' to me. In the 50's and 60's, all things seemed possible-- space was the new "high frontier" and we were just at the beginning of most of these things (heck even your F unit locos were only a couple decades old or so, and rapid progress in more power and efficiency was being realized with every new model of locomotive that came out. (Yeah, I'm a railfan too). Sheer size and pulling power and efficiency (fuel per ton/mile) was rapidly increasing, because it was mostly the "low hanging fruit" that was being implemented-- the relatively easy incremental upgrades in design and materials that was being discovered, implemented, and finding it's way into practical use. Things have long since plateaued. Oh, sure, power and efficiency per unit weight is still improving slowly, but not at the rates that it was "back then". The technology has matured and reached the point where all the 'low hanging fruit' has been picked-- and no major "technology breakthroughs" appear forthcoming. Barring such a breakthrough, locomotives built 20 years from now are very likely to look more similar to ones built today than the ones built 20 years ago when there was still low hanging fruit left to pick. Make sense??
In the same way, rocket and space development have "plateaued" and reached the top of the bell curve. The physics haven't changed, the rocket equation hasn't changed, and the solutions to the problems haven't changed (chemical powered propulsion). There has been progress in materials science, incorporating new lighter and stronger alloys and materials into designs, improvements in propulsion efficiency and refinement of designs, massive improvement in the weight, size, power, and efficiency of electronics and power supplies, refinement of supporting hardware design, but no new fundamental "breakthroughs" that are really changing things massively. Nor are any particularly likely for the foreseeable future...
The point I'm making is, that basically there is NOTHING to be gained by "further study"... this stuff has been studied to DEATH over the last 40-50 years. Studies on how to go to Mars and elsewhere have been done since the 50's and 60's, and all through the 70's, 80's, 90's, and early 00's. Nothing fundamentally new has been discovered, proposed, or elaborated. A few new innovative combinations have been proposed, such as Zubrin's "Mars Direct" proposal of the 90's, but nothing fundamentally DIFFERENT or groundbreaking from the early proposals.
R&D is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, but hardly exclusive with practical experience and gradual improvement. AFter all, you have to know what works well and what doesn't before you can REALLY know where the best next step is. Like Edison after hundreds of failed experiments to create incandescent bulbs, he said "I didn't fail, I just discovered hundreds of ways NOT to make a light bulb!" We have the benefit of 50 years or more of experience and improvements, so it shouldn't take HUNDREDS of failed attempts to come up with practical solutions and improvements, but without ANY attempts it's reduced merely to a mental exercise.
The space program operates inextricably linked to politics, and operates in a swirl of "buzzwords". "Game changing R&D" is one of these 'buzzwords'... in short, the TRUE definition of it is "not doing anything while waiting for this to be someone else's problem, without the political fallout of cancelling it outright with no replacement in sight". TRUE R&D IS important, but this "proposal" is just the buzzword type...
Later! OL JR
Here's a good summary of the US problem in aerospace and what the future holds.
Neil deGrasse Tysonthe acclaimed astrophysicist, writer, and director of the Hayden Planetariumlays out what it will take for America to remain the leading superpower in space.

There's an economic world war that is as much a threat to the US as previous military wars or the Cold War. The White House and more than half the US Congress are acting like UK's Chamberlain before WWII.
Here's a good summary of the US problem in aerospace and what the future holds.
Neil deGrasse Tysonthe acclaimed astrophysicist, writer, and director of the Hayden Planetariumlays out what it will take for America to remain the leading superpower in space.

There's an economic world war that is as much a threat to the US as previous military wars or the Cold War. The White House and more than half the US Congress are acting like UK's Chamberlain before WWII.
Neil deGrasse Tyson said:If I were the pope of Congress, I would deliver an edict to double NASAs budget. That would take it to around $40 billion.
I see only 2 possible breakthroughs, a more concentrated energy source - some kind of nuclear but keeping it clean??? The second is a space elevator, the breakthrough would be in materials. As long as we are using chemical rockets, space access will be expensive and dangerous.In the same way, rocket and space development have "plateaued" and reached the top of the bell curve. The physics haven't changed, the rocket equation hasn't changed, and the solutions to the problems haven't changed (chemical powered propulsion).
I see only 2 possible breakthroughs, a more concentrated energy source - some kind of nuclear but keeping it clean??? The second is a space elevator, the breakthrough would be in materials. As long as we are using chemical rockets, space access will be expensive and dangerous.
You said the "N" word... (not the other one)
If the greenies are scared out of their wits by a few pounds of plutonium inside triple layered super-protected housings with no moving parts, only creating decay heat to drive thermocouples (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators, or RTG's) they would absolutely LOSE THEIR MIND over a "functional" nuclear rocket engine operating in the Earth's atmosphere on an actually flying launch vehicle!
If the word "NUCLEAR" is in it, it's taboo...
Besides, nobody even wants to spring for producing more plutonium for the RTG's, let alone actually do the research for a functional nuclear engine operating beyond Earth orbit... "in the atmosphere" is about as close to a non-starter as you can get...
To lift a page from Star Trek... maybe if you developed fusion Impulse drive...
Later! OL JR
Enter your email address to join: