Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I always wondered if the first restaraunt on the Moon would serve curry and tandori.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 4, 2003 12:16 PM

Who would want to live on the moon without a 7-Eleven?

Posted by Kevin McGehee at January 4, 2003 02:28 PM

I don't care if the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians and *fill in the blank* all have manned space programs, the more the merrier. It just irks my butt that NASA is still in the Operations business.

Posted by J S Allison at January 4, 2003 02:54 PM

Wouldn't it be the irony of ironies if true competition and advancement in Space came from outside the U.S., rather than from within. Maybe this is what it's gonna take to scrap NASA, and get a real honest-to-goodness working space policy out of our government. I.e., one that fosters competition amongst those in the industry that are strong enough to handle it, and throws to the scrap-heap those who can't.

Posted by Greg Hill at January 4, 2003 06:03 PM

I can see it now -- indescribably rich Americans are already doing space tourism on Russian flights, but the competition from India and elsewhere results in a fare war and an actual market opens up.

And then Pat Buchanan runs for President again bashing people for not "flying American."

Posted by Kevin McGehee at January 5, 2003 05:21 AM

Here's an item for the Superfluous People at NASA Dept.:

http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/profiles/munk.html

She's "Out of This World"

Michelle Munk Chosen as Lead Systems Engineer for Aerocapture

...

After 11 years at the Johnson Center, Munk took a position in the vehicle analysis branch at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. The branch, a sister organization to Munk's group at the Johnson Center, conducts systems and performance analysis for robotic missions. There, Munk served as coordinator of the aeroassist working group, a mechanism for keeping NASA's aeroassist specialists, located at NASA centers across the country, in regular contact with each other in order to share ideas on concept development and project opportunities.

...

Here's a radical proposal: why not put all of NASA's aeroassist specialists in one location, thereby obviating the need for an aeroassist working group which is "a mechanism for keeping NASA's aeroassist specialists, located at NASA centers across the country, in regular contact with each other in order to share ideas on concept development and project opportunities?"

Posted by David Davenport at January 5, 2003 10:35 AM

What do y'all think about this?

http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/news/istp.html

News Release
NASA HQ Press Reslease
President's Budget Amendment, 11/13/02

NASA Statement on the Integrated Space Transportation Plan

The Administration is preparing a change to its Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 budget to implement a new Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP) and ensure the International Space Station is properly financed and better positioned to achieve its scientific research priorities.

NASA believes it is important to move forward in a highly integrated way to assure access to and from the International Space Station and Low Earth Orbit. This change is part of a continuing effort to ensure programs and budgets, developed to carry out NASA's vision and mission, are responsible, credible,
and compelling.

The new direction reflects important changes to NASA's five-year budget plan, within the totals contained in the President's FY 2003 Budget. It is based on multiple studies, undertaken over the past few years, including the extensive work conducted under the Space Launch Initiative (SLI). The new plan will be sent to Congress soon.

SLI was designed to identify feasible options for future NASA space transportation. Having accomplished this objective, and using study results conducted in preparation for a 2003 System Requirements Review (SRR), NASA has selected a robust and flexible approach to meeting space transportation needs through the new ISTP.

ISTP consists of three major programs: Space Shuttle, Orbital Space Plane, and Next Generation Launch Technology. The new plan makes investments to extend Shuttle's operational life for continued safe operations. The Orbital Space Plane is designed to provide a crew transfer capability, as early as possible, to
ensure access to and from the International Space Station.

The Next Generation Launch Technology Program funds developments in areas such as propulsion, structures, and operations for the next generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV). The SLI will focus on the Orbital Space Plane and Next Generation Launch Technology, including third generation RLV efforts.

My suggestion is not to dvelop an OSP-Expendable Launch Vehicle system, and to reallocate the money therby saved to work on a Reusable Launch Vehicle for the OSP. I predict that NASA is currently underestimating the cost and scope of the hypothetical OSP on an ELV project.

The budget changes reflect a strategic decision to more tightly couple the Space Station, Space Shuttle, and SLI programs. Recently completed independent cost estimates and program reviews have determined that the Space Shuttle flight rate should be increased and steps should be taken to assure NASA's ability to achieve U.S. Core Complete, while meeting international commitments and providing a robust orbital research program. The proposed new plan reflects these changes.

Posted by David Davenport at January 5, 2003 10:38 AM

Typical. Hey, how about renaming one of the space shuttles "Albatross"?

Posted by James at January 5, 2003 08:13 PM

From the T-riffic NASAwatch.com site:

http://www.nasawatch.com

5 January 2003: JSC to Employees: Lose Weight; Improve Space Station

QUALITY SYSTEM MANAGEMENT REVIEW #18, H. Lawrence Dyer, Management Representative (Powerpoint)

"Metric Summary: Space Station payload customer satisfaction is less than desired due to conflicts with research priorities and available resources."

Editor's note: As you read this presentation you'll see how the author goes from citing this problem to charts that tell you if you are too fat - and then suggesting that the solution to less than satisfactory customer satisfaction might be for JSC employees to get more exercise.

...

4 January 2003: Chinese Space Effort Challenges Russia and U.S., NY Times

"Most details about China's space program are kept secret. But the Communist Party has also promoted it as evidence of rising technological prowess. Official media have begun to extol China's astronauts in a way reminiscent of enthusiasm for the Apollo missions in the 1960's."

Editor's note: gee, too bad we don't get this excited about our space program any more.

...

4 January 2003: India plans mission to moon by 2015, Times of India

"India plans to send a manned mission to the moon sometime between 2005 and 2015, a senior space research official said on Saturday."

4 January 2003: India, China promise moon at Bangalore Space Summit, Hindustan Times

"China, on the other hand, has bigger plans. Guo Baozhu, vice administrator of the Chinese National Space Academy told the 'Space Summit' that they are going ahead with its manned space mission and another project to explore the moon while unveiling its future programme, that would include an eight-satellite constellation for disaster monitoring, data relay satellites and a new satellite to broadcast directly to homes."

Posted by David Davenport at January 6, 2003 12:54 PM

I'm sure its just a coincidence that the multistage rockets required to get a man into orbit are nearly identical to the rockets required to get a nuclear payload into orbit.

Does anyone seriously think the Chinese have space pride? India perhaps, but still doubtful. This is a scramble to be a superpower similar to the cargo cults in the pacific. They thought they'd be a superpower if they got nukes, but that didn't really work out, so now they've decided that ICBMs are what's required.

Posted by Doubting Thomas at January 6, 2003 06:28 PM

There is no value to putting a nuclear payload into orbit. And they already have the capability to orbit payloads, and launch ICBMs.

Educate yourself, Thomas. Doubting is good, but not when it's based on ignorance.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 6, 2003 07:11 PM

I'm sorry I overdid the boldface type yesterday.

I didn't mean to start a boldface fad.

Posted by David Davenport at January 7, 2003 07:15 AM

[ There is no value to putting a nuclear payload into orbit. And they already have the capability to orbit payloads, and launch ICBMs.]

If I were advising the Chinese, I'd advise them to concentrate on submarines and on developing a cruise missile that can be launched while submerged, as well as a sub-launched ballistic missile.

Chinese ICBM's? Develop a solid-fueled model that can be launched from deep inland in China and still reach the US, thereby making American surface launched missile and Airborne Laser boost phase intercept concepts questionable.

Chinese militarization of space? Two priorities: develop an ASAT that can reach high as well as low Earth Orbit, and work on orbiting radar platforms that can detect and track surface ships.

Posted by David Davenport at January 7, 2003 07:27 AM

Rand, there is no value in putting humans into orbit either, if you can't bring them down again. Putting a package into orbit and then bringing it down again in a precise location anywhere on Earth is different from an ICBM how?

Currently a handful of Chinese missiles can target the western US with standard ballistic trajectories. They would like to be able to target anywhere in the world.The same science that can get those men into space and back down again can get that nuclear payload into space and back down again.

Posted by Doubting Thomas at January 7, 2003 10:48 AM

My point is, just because our ICBMs don't actually achieve orbit doesn't mean they couldn't work that way. And larger rockets to lift heavier payloads would most likely improve the range of standard ballistic missiles. Better guidence systems required to bring the fellas home alive would help bring a missile to the correct target.

Is it a coincidence that the US had no ICBMs when we shot Shepard and Grissom up in Redstone rockets but had ICBMs not long after as the space program increased our rocket technology?

Posted by Doubting Thomas at January 7, 2003 11:01 AM

It can't be done on demand. At any point in time, an orbital weapon can only be brought down in a limited region. ICBMs are much more responsive. That's why we have ICBMs and not orbital weapons. Much analysis went into this in the sixties, and orbital weapons for use against targets on earth have never made any sense.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 7, 2003 11:12 AM

Is it a coincidence that the US had no ICBMs when we shot Shepard and Grissom up in Redstone rockets but had ICBMs not long after as the space program increased our rocket technology?

It's not only not a coincidence, it's not even true. You're confusing cause and effect. The Atlas and Titans that launched our first astronauts into orbit were derived from Atlas and Titan ICBMs (that had been fielded several years prior), not the other way around. For Atlas, try here.

The first Atlas A flight took place on June 11, 1957. The first operational missile, the Atlas D, was the basis for launching the Mercury manned spacecraft into orbit. By use of Agena and Centaur upper stages, the Atlas became the medium-lift workhorse of American manned, planetary, and geosynchronous-orbit space programs. Stretched several times, the latest version, the Atlas IIAR, will finally dispense with the booster engine stage in place of two Russian-design rocket engines. Although never copied by other designers, the inflated steel tank approach of the Atlas still gives it the lowest empty weight ratio ever achieved without any reliability penalty.

I repeat, go look up the actual history, before "doubting," Thomas. Otherwise, you just look foolish, with an ideological axe to grind. Google is your friend.

China and India already have orbital capability, and they already have the capability to build ICBMs if they choose to do so. Putting men into space does nothing to enhance that ability (any more than it did for us).

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 7, 2003 11:19 AM

[ China and India already have orbital capability, and they already have the capability to build ICBMs if they choose to do so. Putting men into space does nothing to enhance that ability (any more than it did for us). ]

But putting men into orbit will be a big boost -- pun on "boost," get it -- for Chinese and Indian international prestige and domestic self-esteem.

You techno-nerds out there shouldn't discount intangible goods such as prestige just because they're hard to quantify. Techheads who fail to understand intangibles fail to understand life.

Posted by at January 7, 2003 05:21 PM

The important point is that a new international space race is our best hope for revitalizing the American space program.

Posted by David Davenport at January 7, 2003 05:23 PM

The important point is that a new international space race is our best hope for revitalizing the American space program.

I disagree on two grounds.

First, I don't believe that the "American space program" is worthy of revitalizing, if by that you mean a return to the nostalgia of the sixties, in which we had a socialist space program to beat theirs.

Second, if you share my definition of "American space program" which is an American space sector that actually opens up space using private enterprise, international competition may be just as counterproductive as it was the first time, in that we may overreact by reinvigorating our socialist space program, and continue to exclude the American people.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 7, 2003 07:35 PM

Your link doesn't work, but a google search proved your point anyway. I stand corrected. The close correlation of the dates led me to jump to conclusions I shouldn't have.

Posted by Doubting Thomas at January 7, 2003 08:23 PM

Thomas--

Sorry about the link problem, and thanks for letting me know. Amazing how just one misplaced letter can screw up an HTML tag.

Glad that you've gotten up to speed on the issue. That's one of the purposes of this site--to educate, and get people to argue these (in my opinion, vital) issues from a basis of knowledge.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 7, 2003 08:53 PM

Post a comment