Discussion On Russian/US space relations

[Moonwalker]

Ok then, but why do we want to go to Mars? What's the purpose of going?

At the moment your argument seems to be to go there for the sake of it. That's piontless.

I'd say for the same reason we went to the Moon. To learn and understand more about the Earth and our Solar System (yes, politically Apollo was about beating the Russians, but for NASA people and scientists/engineers it was way more than that). We won't learn something new by just staying in LEO for decades I think.

But of course I could also start asking what's the prupose of going into space at all and trying to gain knowledge? The answer is very simple: just because we want to do so and we decide to do so. No more, no less. It's just human inquisitiveness. No matter if it's about the ISS or Apollo/Orion. My inquisitiveness goes to manned Moon and Mars missions. I strongly believe that NASA is on the most proper way concerning manned space exploration than any other space agency. At least they have a straight vision and way they're going at the moment. And they've done most interesting, dangerous and complex manned missions almost sucessfully in history.

I can't wait for the period past 2015. ISS hopefully will be gone while Orion takes place in LMO

 

[Urwumpe]

OK, so what makes you think, you can do more science with Orion?

Remember: The Vikings already reached newfoundland in about 1100 AD, but you don't read about their exploits much in the history books. Why? Because their own infrastructure collapsed early. They did not plan to go there, they just went for new places to settle, and so, they did not care about having solid outposts on their way.

Constellation has many similarities with the failure of the vikings. The program does not plan a infrastructure, which can be used for later missions - it is already at it's limit with the lunar landing, will need further growth of the rocket for even establishing a lunar outpost and the budget does not even dare to say, how to supply such a base. Between a few flags and footprints and the lunar science outpost, you have the bubble "Something magical happens here". How should NASA afford launching more material to the lunar outpost, when their own lunar landing concept already needs two heavy rocket launches. Not rockets for the everyday business of Earth orbit - special designed heavy rockets. Increasing the launch rates for a lunar base will become very expensive with the current NASA plan, unless something magical happens.

That's not how you do science - that's how you do a big show. For science you want just one thing: Launch as many scientific payloads and scientists to the places as you can justify for the costs. Such a program as constellation will be always on the edge for getting terminated by costing too much until it returns something useful.

You need to develop in many fast small steps, if you want to ensure a constant high funding. Be able to react to new developments, and don't fall too deep, when something goes wrong (which is allowed to happen in science). If the first constellation landings don't deliver much more scientific results as a unmanned rover, or worse, no new results, the program will get terminated to the last point that worked.

That will be very likely LEO - at very high costs again. Go directly back to the start.

And don't think SpaceX & Co will make LEO access cheaper from their own in the mean time. Who does not learn from the errors of the past is bound to repeat them.

I hope we will get a follow-on station to the ISS soon. It is only about a decade until the ISS retires and we still have no clue on what to do next in LEO. I would prefer, we finally work on developing robust technologies. Have a standard system for space station modules and space station vehicles, which is open for all nations and companies. Build one or many hubs in LEO and transport bulk material to outer space from there, having at least one launch per week.

 

[Chipstone306]

What about the Russians scientific interests in the ISS? Does anyone here believe that Russia will give up their research interests quickly if relations sour anymore than they already have? We all know they could not really just disconnect their modules.....

 

[ar81]

I think more than 3 decades offered enough time to gain experience by using Skylab and a potential possible lunar outpost.

A station around moon would not last for too long before it crashes due to non spherical gravity.

Also, I have been doing research on waste treatment. There is a lot of technology, but humans do not have the habit or even the culture of living with clean processes. Without clean processes a biosphere/life support will not last for too long. And biospheres could be easily unstable if you do not handle them properly. There is still a lot to research before sending people to other planets.

 

[n122vu]

I don't think so. What SpaceX does / is going to do NASA already did a half century ago. Virgin Galactic is going to bring fun to some space tourists in short suborbital flights. Neither SpaceX nor Virgin Galactic has any experiences and resources required for Constellation and manned space flight exploration.

I'm not saying anything SpaceX or Virgin Galactic are doing now have any value to NASA. I am saying they could have the experiences and resources NASA needs to lean on if they collaborated more closely. More specifically, my point is this: Remember, in times of war (WWII for example) civilian factories often get converted to manufacture military hardware. Why not during peactime prepare any civilian spaceflight company that has the investment capital and knowledge to be a resource if/when we need them to step up and help?

That being said, to answer Chipstone's question, I don't think Russia will simply abandon their interests in the ISS if relations deteriorate. I think to do so would be a loss of face and would make for politically uncomfortable situations I think if relations were later mended.

It's hard to say what they would do, but I think this is something they wouldn't do.


-----Posted Added-----

A station around moon would not last for too long before it crashes due to non spherical gravity.

Also, I have been doing research on waste treatment. There is a lot of technology, but humans do not have the habit or even the culture of living with clean processes. Without clean processes a biosphere/life support will not last for too long. And biospheres could be easily unstable if you do not handle them properly. There is still a lot to research before sending people to other planets.

ar81 makes a very good point here. Astronauts live well in a closed, clean environment because they are trained to and also because they do so in small numbers. Start adding numbers, especially if some of them are "civilians," and the processes start to break down. The ISS crew size is going to double when it nears completion. This will provide valuable insight and research into the matter to see how the crew interact with each other and their close environment over extended periods. Very important research if we plan to colonize Moon or Mars. Research that would be threatened if US/Russia relations deteriorate further and Russia does decide to pull out of ISS temporarily, as the crew numbers are based on Russian participation and also the experiments Russia plans to carry out aboard ISS would likely be abandoned.

 

[ar81]

Bring a civilian from a country that does not consider spitting on the floor like a disrespect, another from a country where they throw garbage to the floor, another civilian from a country where eating worms is acceptable, and another from a country where one hand is for clean tasks and the other for dirty ones, and another from a developed country where people spend lots of water for everything... you have the perfect scenario for interference of microorganisms that could harm health and depletion of supplies within a closed biosphere.

If you add a person with compulsion to eat, a veteran who suffers PSTD, or a person from a country that had suffered starvation, you could see stolen food or damage to property in space... in a closed biosphere that insignificant misbehavior could kill everyone.

 

[Moonwalker]

A few points here go beyond the Constellation Program and what reality offers at the moment. Nobody is seriously planning to colonize the Moon or Mars. NASA is going to build a spacecraft which can be used to tranport crews to Moon and Mars in future. No more, no less. There is no need for biospheres to send small crews to the Moon and later to Mars. There are also no plans for an orbital lunar outpost as far as I know. Constellation is going to include a possible small outpost on the lunar "surface" to stay there "for a while" and to prepare future missions to Mars. A possible steady outpost on Mars is something which might be discussed in about 50 years but rather likely beyond. Before we can do such things we need to go there at first. That's what Constellation/NASA is aiming for finally.

OK, so what makes you think, you can do more science with Orion?

Nothing. I don't think and don't say so

The important thing for scientific work on the lunar surface will be the new lunar lander LSAM. It will offer a lot more space like the Apollo LM, including an airlock and an ISS-like toilet. It certainly will offer more scientific capabilities as the Apollo LM (not to mention the new flexible space suits which offer a 10km walk on Earth without problems). But the Moon however just is an intermediate target on the way to Mars.

Of course people don't have to agree to what NASA does or is planning. It's their vision, their program and their way. But I think it's the most proper way if we really want to go to the Mars some day. LEO operations without any options to do anything beyond LEO never will bring us anywhere near Moon or Mars in my point of view. It's just propaganda.

And don't think SpaceX & Co will make LEO access cheaper from their own in the mean time. Who does not learn from the errors of the past is bound to repeat them.

I don't even think that SpaceX & Co make it into LEO anytime before NASA already "was" on the Moon again...

 

[GregBurch]

Of course people don't have to agree to what NASA does or is planning. It's their vision, their program and their way. But I think it's the most proper way if we really want to go to the Mars some day. LEO operations without any options to do anything beyond LEO never will bring us anywhere near Moon or Mars in my point of view. It's just propaganda.

Just reading through this thread (and many others where the same points have been made -- over and over) you'd have to acknowledge that there is a LOT of opposition to what NASA is doing with Ares/Orion. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of opinion expressed by those outside of NASA, but who are knowledgeable about space policy and technology has turned strongly against it.

The simple fact is that it's NOT "their" vision -- I'm paying for it. "It" -- the public space endeavor -- is very expensive, but it has almost no deep and knowledgeable support among the vast majority of people who are actually writing the checks for it. And among the tiny minority of citizens who DO have knowledge and who DO support the space endeavor, NASA's current program is deeply unpopular. Doesn't sound like sound "democratic politics" to me ...

I don't even think that SpaceX & Co make it into LEO anytime before NASA already "was" on the Moon again...

Well, I wish like hell I could say something really cutting here. Unfortunately, the last F1 launch hobbled my high horse. So I will swallow the cutting comment, grit my teeth and hope the day will come when I can say "I told you so ..."

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, I think it doesn't really matter if people outside of NASA are strongly against the way NASA plans to do manned space flight in future.

Of course people partly pay for the manned space flight program. But I think it's not the job of taxpayer to decide what NASA has to do in future and "how". By the way: you also pay for war and lots of other dirty things...

Anyway, the majority of people all over the world don't even care about space flight on the whole. I think it's anywhere near 95% or even more. As I often say manned space flight actually doesn't really matter. It's just a matter of interests and human inquisitiveness for those who are interested in. I'm rather inquisitive on manned Moon and Mars missions. Others are not. But that's not even NASA's problem. They don't have to deal with our opinions, luckily when I look into this forum partly...

 

[GregBurch]

Well, I think it doesn't really matter if people outside of NASA are strongly against the way NASA plans to do manned space flight in future.

Of course people partly pay for the manned space flight program. But I think it's not the job of taxpayer to decide what NASA has to do in future and "how". By the way: you also pay for war and lots of other dirty things...

I have to say that I never cease to be amazed by the things you write. You're saying NASA should have a blank check and that the citizens of the United States, who pay that check, should have no say in how the money is spent?

You're really saying that?

 

[Andy44]

Well, I think it doesn't really matter if people outside of NASA are strongly against the way NASA plans to do manned space flight in future.

Of course people partly pay for the manned space flight program. But I think it's not the job of taxpayer to decide what NASA has to do in future and "how". By the way: you also pay for war and lots of other dirty things...

Anyway, the majority of people all over the world don't even care about space flight on the whole. I think it's anywhere near 95% or even more. As I often say manned space flight actually doesn't really matter.

Wow. So you think that people who do not think manned spaceflight is important should just shut up and fork over the cash for it. I feel like I'm in a session with Dr. Sbaitso.

 

[legios]

Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, had a great point about colonizing Mars.

He said, "Do you know that Antarctica is balmier and wetter than the surface of Mars? Yet I don't see people lining up to build condos in Antarctica".

It really gave me, a die-hard proponent of manned spaceflight, some perspective.

 

[Andy44]

Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist, had a great point about colonizing Mars.

He said, "Do you know that Antarctica is balmier and wetter than the surface of Mars? Yet I don't see people lining up to build condos in Antarctica".

It really gave me, a die-hard proponent of manned spaceflight, some perspective.

I said the exact same thing many years ago. You cannot argue that we are so short of land area on Earth that we need to colonize Mars when Antarctica exists. It has water, food (penguins taste like chicken, right?) and best of all: you can breath the air. It's also close enough for a C-130 hop.

But there are other arguments for off-planet settlement; Carl Sagan and others have stated that it's a good insurance policy to be a 2-planet species, for instance.

In any case, settlement is orders of magnitude greater a task than the occasional science expedition, or even a small outpost.

 

[tl8]

In any case, settlement is orders of magnitude greater a task than the occasional science expedition, or even a small outpost.

Is that where Britain screwed up...

 

[Andy44]

Britain's more successful colonies were ultimately not government-funded; they relied on settlers who had their own reasons for going and who had a personal stake in becoming self-sufficent. Colonies that relied on continued supply from overseas failed, like Roanoke.

 

[Moonwalker]

I have to say that I never cease to be amazed by the things you write. You're saying NASA should have a blank check and that the citizens of the United States, who pay that check, should have no say in how the money is spent?

You're really saying that?

I say it's not the job of a space agency to listen to each voice and opinion outside the business. I wonder what would happen if every single citizen (USA, Europe...) would have to decide how to do manned space flight...

 

[Urwumpe]

I say it's not the job of a space agency to listen to each voice and opinion outside the business. I wonder what would happen if every single citizen (USA, Europe...) would have to decide how to do manned space flight...

It is not about the how - it is about the goals. That's what citizens actually decide. of course, filtered over many layers of politics.

But management it is also about control: Who controls NASA? If not the citizens who pay NASA?

 

[Moonwalker]

Wow. So you think that people who do not think manned spaceflight is important should just shut up and fork over the cash for it.

I say NASA's work does not depend on every single persons opinion luckily.


-----Posted Added-----

Who controls NASA? If not the citizens who pay NASA?

The government because NASA is a governmental agency?

Who does and controls war and exploitation if not the citizens who pay for too?

 

[simonpro]

So even though the majority of citizens don't support Ares, the majority of scientists don't support ares and the majority of nasa employees don't support ares you still think it should go ahead?


*I can't remember what NASa are calling their new lunar plan this week, so I'm calling it ares. This may be wrong. Sue me

 

[Moonwalker]

So even though the majority of citizens don't support Ares, the majority of scientists don't support ares and the majority of nasa employees don't support ares you still think it should go ahead?

Most citizens around the globe don't even care about space flight. So why should we continue at all?

Also, which majority of scientists and nasa employees don't support ares? It just sounds like propaganda.