Ben Bova: Moon and Mars mission won't sidetrack scientists

Naples News ^ | 03/26/06 | Ben Bova

[KevinDavis]

As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà vu all over again."

The president has put into action a program to place Americans on the moon within the next decade or so. NASA is gearing up to that job, and then (if all goes well) to send human explorers to Mars.

And many of the nation's leading space scientists are howling bloody murder.

This is nothing new. When President John Kennedy started the Apollo program, almost every segment of the nation strongly favored the idea of landing Americans on the moon. Except for much of the scientific community.

[KevinDavis]

[King Prout]

the original moonshot did kill -through defunding- a large number of promising long-term projects and advanced propulsion R&D programs. It also wound up infecting the American idea of a space program with the notion of "one big project at a time" rather than diverse and decentralized R&D

[KevinDavis]

That is true..

[RightWhale]

It also wound up infecting the American idea of a space program with the notion of "one big project at a time"

America has always been the big project capital of the world.

[quesera]

I'd like to be one of the first to know when the warp drive is tested by NASA. Please put me on the list. :)

[af_vet_rr]

the original moonshot did kill -through defunding- a large number of promising long-term projects and advanced propulsion R&D programs. It also wound up infecting the American idea of a space program with the notion of "one big project at a time" rather than diverse and decentralized R&D

The Space Shuttle furthered that - if you went back and looked at what the original concept for the Shuttle was, it's shocking. Originally we were going to leave the heavy lifting to the rockets like the Saturn program, while building a smaller Earth-To-Orbit vehicle that was flown into and out of space for people.

Instead we get a jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none that is not efficient for putting cargo in orbit (due to the long preparation needed between launches) and is not useful in emergencies or in rapid-deployment situations.

Of course, that wasn't NASA's fault, that was Congress and WH thinking that they knew best how to build a spacecraft.

It just blows my mind at how many launches we could have had, had we kept the Saturns around - 30 years worth of better materials, smaller computers, better engines, better fuels, had the Saturn continued to be updated, it would an incredible vehicle. It's taken us decades to realize that and start going back to seperating crew and heavy launch duties.

[King Prout]

agreed

[KevinDavis]

Yet some people will blame NASA. I agree with you about us continuing with the Saturn 5.

[anymouse]

America has always been the big project capital of the world.

Actually not any more. China, UAE, Malaysia, Brazil, Norway, Switzerland have overtaken the US for big projects lately. Usually socialist and/or dictatorial countries can force grand projects upon their citizens without the inconvenience of convincing them that it is worth the cost. The times of the big US projects where times where we were dangerously close to having socialist and/or dictatorial Administrations.

[RightWhale]

The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline will be the biggest American project ever.

[af_vet_rr]

Yet some people will blame NASA. I agree with you about us continuing with the Saturn 5.

I kinda wonder if comes down to pork. If we had kept on with the Saturn 5 and developed a small Earth-To-Orbit craft that was truly a "shuttle" - carrying people and small cargo loads (say food or water or replacement instruments) in and out of space, what you would end up with is two simple and distinct spacecraft.

I always wondered if maybe the Saturn V was cancelled so quickly because it would have been embarassing if it was cheaper to keep using Saturn Vs than to use the Space Shuttle program (over time the costs on the Saturns would have dropped dramatically once economies of scale came into place).

A fairly long article about the Shuttle development (you get an idea of what could have been):
Space Shuttle Blues

The mighty Apollo Saturn V moon rocket had been originally designed to serve all US space needs to the end of the twentieth century. The German and American rocket team led by Dr. Wernher von Braun at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight center in Huntsville had conceived and managed the Saturn program from it’s inception. The Saturn had a remarkable 100% success rate through all of the unmanned and manned missions that it flew. Saturn was exemplary of what unfettered science and engineering could achieve. The Marshall engineers were essentially given a blank check to spend on the Saturn program.

The Apollo Saturn came with a Launch Escape System that was designed to separate the astronaut crew cabin from the huge rocket in the event of a cataclysmic explosion or malfunction. A parachute system would then assure a soft landing for the astronauts in the event of a launch emergency. That safety system never had to be used.

Safe completion of the mission was built into the Apollo Saturn program. The Apollo Saturn launches and missions were divided up into a series of so-called “modes”. Each mode offered a distinct method for safely delivering the crew in the event of an emergency or failure. The modes gave Saturn versatility and robustness from the crew safety point of view. These modes extended beyond the launch booster. The use of the Lunar Module as a “lifeboat” during the “successful failure” of Apollo 13 is illustrative of the Apollo program’s emphasis on “crew survivability”.

Unfortunately, incredibly severe budget constraints followed by lots of political interference led to NASA being stuck with having to go with the Air Force, which led to..

America’s space agency turned to the United States Air Force for help in selling the shuttle concept to the White House and Congress. The shuttle would be touted as a solution for both civilian and military space needs. The planned shuttle would actually “make money” for NASA by delivering commercial satellites to orbit. Various planners working on proposed commercial and scientific space ventures were informed that their satellites, space telescopes and other experiments would have to be designed for compatibility with the shuttle cargo bay. It was optimistically anticipated that the space shuttle would render the “expendable” launch vehicle hopelessly obsolete.

Essentially, NASA and the USAF had conflicting missions and objectives that made for an unhealthy alliance. The result of their “collaboration” was ultimately bad for both institutions. NASA is largely civilian science entity. The Air Force is an arm of the military with a very tightly defined role. The Air Force needed to dictate major shuttle design characteristics and stipulate performance capabilities. In the end, there simply wasn’t enough money in the final shuttle budget to meet the Air Force requirements and keep true to the original NASA vision of a safe and efficient design. The expensive military shuttle requirements effectively cast aside NASA’s traditionally stringent crew safety requirements and ignored the lower-cost of space access goal in the original program concept. NASA was never able to recover as much as half of the costs of a shuttle mission from its commercial shuttle launch operations before Challenger finally knocked the shuttle out of the commercial space business.

[Tench_Coxe]

"the original moonshot did kill -through defunding- a large number of promising long-term projects and advanced propulsion R&D programs. It also wound up infecting the American idea of a space program with the notion of "one big project at a time" rather than diverse and decentralized R&D"

I think the bigger problem is average folks ask, " What is the purpose?". If nothing else, the moonshot did focus on a goal, a time period in which to accomplishment, and backing for the resources to do it.
General R&D is fine, in fact, can produce some good foundations for future applied technology. But the problem is that, IMHO, there is a lack of focus in the eyes of the public.
We don't have a Sputnik or a Yuri Gagarin to beat the attention of the public with a 2x4. A compelling ( and convincing ) vision is what is required. Personally I question the moon mission or manned mission to Mars. 'General advancement of knowledge', while admirable, is not enough to convince someone to open up their pocketbook.

[King Prout]

Profit.
UNASSAILABLE Military advantage.
Planetary defense against stray rocks.
perhaps power generation, though I really don't buy into the feasibility of microwave power transmission from orbit to surface.

[Tench_Coxe]

"Profit.
UNASSAILABLE Military advantage.
Planetary defense against stray rocks.
perhaps power generation, though I really don't buy into the feasibility of microwave power transmission from orbit to surface."

Profit motive would be the first step. Aside from governments, large corporations ( or consortiums ) would probably direct some resource, but only if they were given some guarantee of reaping the benefits of an investment.
If there were another moon mission, I would tie in a certain amount of surveying or sampling to determine if there is sufficient resources ( rare earths, certain metals, etc. ) and relay that information to the private sector. That MAY spur interest, and possibility ( think homesteading or claim staking ). In this case, UN treaty be da**ed.

[King Prout]

pft. screw the UN. if they complain, drop a rock on 'em.