well to get the mars we need to get to the moon again first. Plus runs to the moon gives us good way to test techolgogy for a trip to mars with a desent degree of safety.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Say Goodbye To The Hubble
- Thread starter Mr. Anderson
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Timelessblur said:
True, but recent statements W made lead me to believe the Moon missions are being done for their own sake i.e. a political statement. But you are right, whatever tech takes us to Mars will surely drop in on the Moon at some point.
Right now of course we can't even fix satellites so lets take things one step at a time.
Timelessblur said:
There is really no such thing as safety in Space Travel. If we send someone to the moon and something goes wrong they will be dead with Zero chance of rescue. Period.
Same thing with sending someone to Mars. Except It will be almost assuredly a One Way Ticket.
But knowing the risk I would say sign me up. I'd take the chance myself.
Lord Blackadder said:
I agree. A cold war style space race is a bit pointless now. NASA should be made more into a regulatory agency like the FAA.
Lord Blackadder said:
Best case? That Hubble, like the rest of the world, can hold out until George is out of office. It's the Whitehouse and the brownnosers at NASA that have condemned Hubble. Their thinking is like a lot of people in this country. If its used, throw it away and get something new. Never mind the fact that with servicing Hubble could have many more years of productive life in her. Most scientists, and to be fair a hell of a lot of countries, are pissed about this and rightly so.
MongoTheGeek said:Ever read Marooned Off Vesta?
Is that the one they used the water to make a steam rocket?
<OT>
We have Godwin's Law, so how about a new law called Bushwin's law? It could state: any topic, if discussed long enough, will eventually degenerate into an anti-Bush discussion.
</OT>
We have Godwin's Law, so how about a new law called Bushwin's law? It could state: any topic, if discussed long enough, will eventually degenerate into an anti-Bush discussion.
</OT>
~loserman~ said:
Can you say applo 13.
By it being safer you if something goes wrong their is a much great chance of getting back to earth safely. Plus it allow the equiment to be stress tested. It the factor of safe diffence is huge. Even if using the same equiment. minor bugs will show up that would be come big bugs if left alone for a few weeks in space but it comes back to earth in a short time and it can be fixed.
Why not blame Bush? since Bush is pushing his moon /mars agenda at the cost of throwing away Hubble we should put the blame were it belongs, Nasa meanwhile has become very good at chasing those $$$, how many times did govt redesign ISS??? Billions in paperwork, throwing away Hubble means little when they will be hard at work on more "new" paperwork. To boldly go where no one has gone before does not apply to Nasa the govt beauracratic paper generating machine. where are any of those X projects?X43?? billions wasted again but the Solution is to throw away Hubble. Govt waste at its grandness. Shuttles first mission should be to Hubble, then use it for ISS we still have 2 others plus we have lots of lifters. This we can stop at the ISS if something goes wrong is chickens... tail behind your legs space exploration if you can call endless loops exploration. We can do better then throwing away the worlds best scope.
We can do better then throwing away the worlds best scope.
The 28 year Voyager mission may also be cancelled. NASA is making plans for a Moon/Mars Bush initiative. I imagine that there is a cost versus usefulness decison that has to be made.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/04/05/voyagers_epic_journey_may_end/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/04/05/voyagers_epic_journey_may_end/
Thomas Veil said:
Wow, it sounds like just life to me. We are spoiled to think that space travel can be totally safe. If we are to live in space, on the moon, or travel to Mars - we have to get used the idea that people will die trying
Timelessblur said:
Well, we really don't need to get to the moon to get to Mars. The theory is that it will be cheaper and easier operating from a moon base.
I think given our technology, the use of unmanned "rovers" that could come back to earth makes much more sense. Personally, IMO GWB's desire for Mars was his attempt at being Kennedy-like at the point in time that he felt that people needed some goal to believe in.
I don't think the Shuttle should be retired if its replacement can't do what it can do. Just make the shuttle a repair vehicle for the space station and crap. While its replacement will go to the moon, mars, and just orbiting space experiments. We built 5 shuttles total. In 1986 we lost Challenger due to media pressure and human error. Then we went for 17 years without another problem. Then in 2003 we lost Columbia( the oldest of the shuttle fleet). That really couldn't be avoided. By the time the hole was discovered they were in space. They had only one option to save the crew and that was an emergency scrabble to ready Atlantis or Discovery and do a meet up and transfer the crew. But, they didn't prepare for that situation much. They didn't have enough fuel to get up to the station and dock( which all shuttles will now be required). So we have Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavour. Space flights are risky. I think the shuttle's safety record is great. I look foward to both replacements of the shuttle and Hubble.
I think NASA's going about this whole thing all wrong. What they SHOULD do (in my humble and only slightly uneducated opinion):
1. Can the shuttle. The damn things cost a FORTUNE to operate. Reusability is overrated. The Russians have been using Soyuz capsules forever and they are VERY safe, and SUPER cheap. And they don't reuse them.
2. Design a BDB (Big Dumb Booster -- I am stealing this term from sci-fi writer Stephen Baxter) based on the shuttle's booster and main engine. Rather than carry the weight of the shuttle into orbit, the BDB could carry a BIG payload and shoot it straight at the Moon or any other near-Earth target... such as the asteroids.
3. Design a one-way, manned Mars mission, with the goal of allowing the astronauts to take up residence on Mars permanently. Given the correct technology, there's no reason why humans couldn't set up shop on Mars and synthesize whatever they need from the available Martian materials. There are a TON of people who'd volunteer for a one-way, "we'll get you back if we can" mission.
4. The Moon is nice to visit, but crap otherwise. The asteroids should be our main target for exploration, since M-type asteroids contain billions of tons of metals and C-type asteroids contain billions of tons of water and organics, which can be used for life support and fuel (water + organics + energy = plastics, oxygen, and methane fuel).
1. Can the shuttle. The damn things cost a FORTUNE to operate. Reusability is overrated. The Russians have been using Soyuz capsules forever and they are VERY safe, and SUPER cheap. And they don't reuse them.
2. Design a BDB (Big Dumb Booster -- I am stealing this term from sci-fi writer Stephen Baxter) based on the shuttle's booster and main engine. Rather than carry the weight of the shuttle into orbit, the BDB could carry a BIG payload and shoot it straight at the Moon or any other near-Earth target... such as the asteroids.
3. Design a one-way, manned Mars mission, with the goal of allowing the astronauts to take up residence on Mars permanently. Given the correct technology, there's no reason why humans couldn't set up shop on Mars and synthesize whatever they need from the available Martian materials. There are a TON of people who'd volunteer for a one-way, "we'll get you back if we can" mission.
4. The Moon is nice to visit, but crap otherwise. The asteroids should be our main target for exploration, since M-type asteroids contain billions of tons of metals and C-type asteroids contain billions of tons of water and organics, which can be used for life support and fuel (water + organics + energy = plastics, oxygen, and methane fuel).
MongoTheGeek said:
You are right, but my fear is that the moon mission is not being planned as a stepping stone but as a political statement. I'm concerned that W is looking at it as a return to the "good 'ol days", rather than a practice run at planetary travel. I dunno about it being an ark though - no atmosphere, no chance for terraforming, too close to the place we'd be escaping from in the event of a huge disaster.
I'm agreed on Pegasus, but Titan 3 is on the way out AFAIK, in the same dilemma as the shuttle, though the timetable is longer.
The shuttle allowed humans to visually confirm satallites were working properly when lauched, or diagnose problems that grounbd control was having difficulty pinning down. Maybe not all that great, but useful. Plus every flight had the astronauts performing a great deal of basic research regarding living in space.
On the downside, the Shuttle was only "reusable" in a very limited sense. It would be like commuting to work, getting home and changing the engine on your car, repainting it, and overhauling every moving part. Reusable, yes, but not very efficient.
One system could potentially replace the your numbers 2 through 4, or at least 3 and 4. Being modular it could function as a heavy or super heavy lift vehicle using different types or numbers of rocket stages. A manned orbiter could be built resembling the lifting body concepts they've shown for years - it would be "reuasble" but much cheaper and more reliable because it would lack main engines (manuvering engines only), have no boosters attached and have no cargo bay. Instead it could be stacked atop a cargo stage, much like Apollo did with it's Crew+Lander+Service module. Alternately, the launch system could be cargo-only or orbiter-only as needs dictated. With some modification this system could accomlish a moon trip easily, replacing the cargo stage with an extra rocket and lunar lander.
The shuttle is too complex, but the multi-stage, multifunction rocket is a tried and true concept.
the reason so much of the shuttle needs to be replaces (namely the enginees) is because they are running around 97-99% of its max. Having less than a 5% safety margin is not much. Plus when you run that close to red line things break down fast. Plus the stress they are under are a lot close to the matericals limits of failure to some parts do go into permineatd deformation every lanch (oh good greif you can see my engineerin side right now.)
The shuttle really good because a majoirity of it is resusable and it is cheaper than lets say replacing the entier craft each lanch. The shuttle problem is it is a swiss army knife of space vechicals. It can do just about anything ask of it but it also cost more to lanch because of it. Every mission their is a lot on the shuttle that is not used.
As for the moon being an ark I dont think it can be an ark for the earth but it would be a good ark for space travel if somethign goes wrong once a moon base is built. I think one day we will have a colony on the moon and pretty cheap travel bettween the moon and earth. Chances are a colony will be their before their is one on mars simple because it is cheaper.
We can get humans to mars right now pretty easily. Problem is it cost a ton and their is only a 75% that they will live to make it their. not a good margin safty and Nasa refuses to do it if they dont get it a lot higher. nor would the public be willing to let them down if some one died on the trip their even if they statics where well put out in the media. THey need at least a 95% chance of success for them to be willing to send humans up there (more like 97-99%)
The shuttle really good because a majoirity of it is resusable and it is cheaper than lets say replacing the entier craft each lanch. The shuttle problem is it is a swiss army knife of space vechicals. It can do just about anything ask of it but it also cost more to lanch because of it. Every mission their is a lot on the shuttle that is not used.
As for the moon being an ark I dont think it can be an ark for the earth but it would be a good ark for space travel if somethign goes wrong once a moon base is built. I think one day we will have a colony on the moon and pretty cheap travel bettween the moon and earth. Chances are a colony will be their before their is one on mars simple because it is cheaper.
We can get humans to mars right now pretty easily. Problem is it cost a ton and their is only a 75% that they will live to make it their. not a good margin safty and Nasa refuses to do it if they dont get it a lot higher. nor would the public be willing to let them down if some one died on the trip their even if they statics where well put out in the media. THey need at least a 95% chance of success for them to be willing to send humans up there (more like 97-99%)
Timelessblur said:
The engines are a masterpiece of engineering. One of those things decades ahead of their time. I think they currently run above the original theoretical max due to some tweaking. The cryogenic pumps though are designed for 15 minutes(iirc) of operation, or just a bit more than it takes to reach orbit.
There are ways of improving this.
Timelessblur said:
Yes. The cargo bay often goes up half empty and it almost never comes down with anything in it.(maybe twice in 20 years)
Timelessblur said:
75% sounds high. I thought mars was about a 50-50 success ratio.
The tech is there to send someone to Mars. For a good description of Mars colonization read Red Mars.
Back would be hard because it takes almost as much fuel to lift off of Mars as it does off of Earth. If you just wanted to orbit for 6 months and come back its much easier.
Biggest problem at Nasa is Nasa. They are virus ridden and govt is the virus. They have had no focus in 30 years beyond a paper trail of projects and Shuttle's endless low orbits and its massive consumption of Nasa's budget. Time to move forward i agree but giving govt and this agency the endless supply of tax payer money means we the tax payer better bend over cause here it comes. They will find a way to make a penny cost a dollar.
Dont Hurt Me said:
As I said make it more regulatory. Have them hand out licenses to Richard Branson et al. Let them do Air Traffic Control over the Mojave Desert and above 100,000'.
MongoTheGeek said:75% sounds high. I thought mars was about a 50-50 success ratio.
The tech is there to send someone to Mars. For a good description of Mars colonization read Red Mars.
Back would be hard because it takes almost as much fuel to lift off of Mars as it does off of Earth. If you just wanted to orbit for 6 months and come back its much easier.
If I remeber right 50-50 was back when they went to the moon for the mars run. A large problem is having enough fuel to life off from mars and get back and for the crew not to want to kill eachother because they will be trap in a very confind space for about 3 months
Back to condemned Hubble. Given the commercial interest in space, I wonder if it doesn't make sense to put it up for sale. (AS IS condition of course). That way a consortium of business and/or researchers and/or countries could buy it, take over the maintenance and keep it in operation a while longer. It's not as if it has ceased to become useful, it just needs some regular maintenance.
In all likelihood, China would come as one of the main bidders, but I'm sure there are others who would also take interest.
In all likelihood, China would come as one of the main bidders, but I'm sure there are others who would also take interest.
Very good , this is what should be done if Nasa is just brain dead enough to throw it away. how about a Auction.? In fact as a citizen of the U.S. iam declaring ownership of the trash---- who wants to buy? Anything is better then throwing it away. Nasa throwing away their best stuff, iam suprised they had the sense to keep the mars mission goingdvdh said:
Agency lost in politics & spin.
Dont Hurt Me said:Very good , this is what should be done if Nasa is just brain dead enough to throw it away. how about a Auction.? In fact as a citizen of the U.S. iam declaring ownership of the trash---- who wants to buy? Anything is better then throwing it away. Nasa throwing away their best stuff, iam suprised they had the sense to keep the mars mission going
Hello Ebay . . . I'm not sure they have sold any spacecraft before.
Seriously, though, it should go to the highest bidder who meets the follow conditions:
1) repair and maintain until (say) 2015
2) will not attempt to transform it into a weapon in any way (not that it would be realistic thing to do. . . but there are some pretty crazy people out there with money)
3) provide 5% of it's viewing time to public institutions at no charge.