[FPSPACE] Fear and loathing on the launchpad

Tue Apr 28 11:39:44 EDT 2009

Geert:

This one is instructive, too; alternate history can be a useful exercise.

http://portreeland.blogspot.com/2009/04/alternate-history-of-space-age.html

Orion could be Apollo reborn (never mind "on steroids"), provided it's done right, making much of the alternate history stuff possible.

David S. F. Portree

dsfportree at hotmail.com
dportree at usgs.gov

http://robotexplorers.blogspot.com/
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/
http://portreeland.blogspot.com/

http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/About/People/DavidPortree/

From: dsfportree at hotmail.com
To: geert at navtools.nl; fpspace at friends-partners.org
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:31:01 -0600
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] Fear and loathing on the launchpad

Geert:

Personally, I'm not ready to give up on piloted spaceflight. I don't want to give the impression that I am. It has immense potential. The trouble, as you say, is its cost. I don't think that there's any cure for that. So, the best we can hope for is what we've seen for the last few decades; incremental progress and experience building. I'm not sure that tough decisions are necessary; benign neglect would be OK.

Orion could be good for a lot of different kinds of missions, since it's not a highly specialized vehicle like the Space Shuttle. Assuming that we can get it built properly - a big challenge - then it can be our foot in the door to much that's exciting. 

I've written some little essays on related subjects that might be of interest:

http://portreeland.blogspot.com/2009/01/moon-and-future-of-nasa.html
http://portreeland.blogspot.com/2008/12/future-apollo-8.html
http://portreeland.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-had-better-drop-analogies.html

I apologize in advance for the grotesque color scheme of these posts; my daughter picked it out. Being six years of age, her color sense lacks subtlety.

David S. F. Portree

dsfportree at hotmail.com
dportree at usgs.gov

http://robotexplorers.blogspot.com/
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/
http://portreeland.blogspot.com/

http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/About/People/DavidPortree/

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:11:53 +0000
From: geert at navtools.nl
To: FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] Fear and loathing on the launchpad

I think the big underlying question is whether piloted spaceflight really has a valuable function today. Technology is going very fast, there are a lot of unmanned project proposals which could potentially give a lot of science (and PR) returns, MSR is one of them, and at a fraction of the cost of piloted space missions. If a piloted moon mission is already too expensive, a piloted mars mission is out of the question and that leaves us which rather meager remaining options for piloted missions. If the choice should be between MSR or 'another mission to ISS', which would it be?

If we tread ISS as a 'laboratory outpost', something similar to the polar stations, then ferrying crews and provisions etc to/from ISS might be seen as just a commercial opportunity and not necessarily a task for NASA. I think 'building ISS' is a great technological task and definitely in the field of NASA, but 'servicing ISS', once it is fully functional, is not necessarily the future for NASA and I don't think that's the road ahead. In the end ISS will need to 'prove its worth', meaning it will need to justify its function as a space outpost with regards to science results, etc, otherwise it is just wasting money which could be spend better on unmanned missions. And if ISS is deemed valuable enough to continue, then ferrying crews and provisions to/from the station should just be open to the commercial market, I think it is a bad thing to tie NASA to the ISS as the only rationale for piloted spaceflight.

If we disregard 'national PR' missions (the 'moonrace', which can only result in terrible expensive short term projects without any long term prospects) then in the end I think 'colonisation' is the only purpose which really requires piloted spaceflight. It would require a very, very, bold move to make 'colonisation' the mission objective, but if this isn't done piloted spaceflight will remain without a true rational and, in the end, a waste of money and resources. If you talk about science almost anything can be done easier and cheaper with unmanned probes and nothing is so terrible important that it justifies a piloted mission.

In my opinion the Ares 1 thing is a disaster waiting to happen, Altair and Ares V  are a dream which will never be build, and Orion is way too heavy and complicated if it is only used as a ferry to ISS. On the other hand, Falcon 9 and Dragon is just as much unproven technology and it would be a big gamble whether they can complete that in time and fly safely on a large enough scale, it might be the correct way forward but they still have a long way to go and there might be many obstacles on the road.

As to what will happen in my opinion: Ares 1 and Orion will be build, too much is invested in them already, but as ISS will be the only place to go to for them it is only a matter of time before cost comparissons are drawn between the various craft then servicing ISS and that will probably seal the fate of Orion quite soon, and then, once again, the question regarding the true purpose of piloted spaceflight will be raised. Whoever is going to lead NASA has some tough decisions ahead.

Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_more_042009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20090428/acf5c3ee/attachment.html 