Manifest Destiny in Outer Space

The Washington Times ^ | 7/2/03 | Robert Zubrin

[KevinDavis]

I think space is the best was for the future of humanity for these reasons:
1. Make sure ideals of humanity goes on i.e. The declration of Independece, the Bible, The Constitution still goes on.
2. It is time for us to leave the nest, there are a lot of neat things out there. 3. Earth will not be around, I hate to see the human race die off when Earth dies of..

Need I say more?

Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!

[Sam Cree]

Yeah, there is no doubt about it, the survival of humanity depends on the exploration and conquering of space.

[petuniasevan]

claimed Mars for dar al Islaam

Weird stuff. They can't walk the walk...

Another weird thing - The capital city of Egypt, Cairo: in Arabic, it's Al-Qahira...MARS!

See? They already HAVE a Mars!

[Frank_Discussion]

Energiya off the shelf? Never heard of that. I think they're about as off the shelf as our systems are. As far as Soyuz goes, their avaliablity is spotty, even when we are paying Russia to build them and SELL BACK to us.

We need to have our own manned ship, simpler than shuttle. But we control it's availability and the numbers in production. And we only have to pay for each one ONCE.

Shuttle-C would be pretty easy to implement as a cargo carrier, and it's been studied already. Sending up an unmanned shuttle is an intriguing idea, though. I hate thinking about spending launch mass on life support systems, crew space, and human-factors redundancy when it could carry another ton or two to orbit. But, it doesn't mean it wouldn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea, just expediency over efficiency. If it got the job done for the early flights, that sounds okay, as long as Shuttle-C or an equivilent were waiting in the wings.

[Frank_Discussion]

The only problem with exclusive robotic exploration of the cosmos is, well,

PEOPLE WANT TO GO TO MARS, THE MOON, THE SPACE STATION, SUBORBITAL FLIGHTS, THE ASTEROIDS, AND THE STARS!!!

Somtimes, the obvious solution stares you in the face. If we want to send people to Mars, then SEND PEOPLE TO MARS. There are many, any people who would volunteer. Make the government burden as small as possible, by making the venture pay. There are ways.

[Frank_Discussion]

"I like the idea of colonizing Mars, I just think the timing is wrong."

You have said nothing to support this opinion. The technology and manpower exists to do start the missions today, so the timing is just fine. The ease of doing it will only improve as we gain experience in what it takes to accomplish the goal.

We expanded this country without the aid of SUV's and Greyhound buses, a long time ago. Lewis and Clark crossed from coast to coast by carrying their canoes on their back from stream to stream, they didn't carry them by Helicopter.

The technology will improve, but it is suitable now.

[Frank_Discussion]

"...in the meantime design something really revolutionary, like a VASIMR engine."

Now, here, I'm starting to agree with you. Zubrin has always been hung up on his "No-Big-Ships" attitude, and would rather coast to Mars. He latched onto the idea in the 80's when VASIMR was not really working yet. The developmental engine at JSC works now, and that changes things.

VASIMR is an R&D project right now, but much of the needed Research is done, and serious Development needs to get into gear. With a proper focus, it could be ready in the next decade.

Of course, until then, the Zubrin booster launches sound fine by me.

[Physicist]

Energiya off the shelf? Never heard of that. I think they're about as off the shelf as our systems are.

Well, we don't a heavy lift system (too bad about the Saturn V). By "off the shelf", I mean that the system is designed and tested, and the means of production are in place. The inventory probably is zero at the moment, however.

As far as Soyuz goes, their avaliablity is spotty, even when we are paying Russia to build them and SELL BACK to us.

We need to have our own manned ship, simpler than shuttle. But we control it's availability and the numbers in production. And we only have to pay for each one ONCE.

Regardless of what we design and build, it is highly unlikely to be cheaper than Soyuz, even if we're paying twice. A Soyuz mission costs $20 million. What do you think is a realistic development cost, and a realistic mission cost? Perhaps the best solution is simply to buy the existing Russian designs and start building them here.

Sending up an unmanned shuttle is an intriguing idea, though. I hate thinking about spending launch mass on life support systems, crew space, and human-factors redundancy when it could carry another ton or two to orbit.

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of, "what can we get flying as soon as possible, as safely as possible". Thinking about it further, it might not be too expensive or time consuming simply to rip out all of the crew-related stuff, and use the cabin space for ISS supplies (saving a bunch of Progress shipments). The Shuttles undergo a rather extensive and expensive rebuild each mission, anyway.

[Frank_Discussion]

"Well, we don't a heavy lift system (too bad about the Saturn V)."

Scrapping the Saturn V's was a criminal act, IMHO. However, the shuttle system at 20 tons to LEO isn't too shabby, and fit the bill for early efforts. Shuttle-C could come on line pretty quickly, as long as somebody rode herd over the process and fired/demoted idiots in the way.

"A Soyuz mission costs $20 million..."

The Russians are masters of underquoting. It costs more than that, which is why they hold us hostage every 6 to 8 months on the ISS program, waiting for more money. As for a realistic cost - I'd have to look it up.

"...simply to buy the existing Russian designs and start
building them here."

This idea I like, since I view the Soyuz family of vehicles as pretty good technology.

"Thinking about it further, it might not be too expensive or time consuming simply to rip out all of the crew-related stuff, and use the cabin space for ISS supplies (saving a bunch of Progress shipments)."

Progress is hands-down cheaper for delivering ISS supplies. But for sending up Mars exploration craft the Shuttle is a good choice, even without a retrofit, assuming we wanted to go pretty much right now. But I'm of the opinion that developing a new heavy lifter in parallel with the Mars vehicles is doable, and smart.

[DannyTN]

"I like the idea of colonizing Mars, I just think the timing is wrong." "You have said nothing to support this opinion. "

The reason I think the timing is wrong, is that I think the funds are better spent on the other research at this time. If we have enough funds to fully fund the research on energy and physics and start the colonization program. Then by all means lets do so.

But if we have to slow one to do the other then I think the others are more important than the colonization for the moment.

[Physicist]

Progress is hands-down cheaper for delivering ISS supplies.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the Shuttle replace Progress. It costs a billion dollars just to send the Shuttle up and down. I was more thinking that since the Shuttle (unmanned) would be hauling ISS modules up there, anyway, the former crew compartment could be packed with supplies. That space could probably hold ten times what fits into a Progress ship (limited to 3000 kg or 6.6 cubic meters).

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Exactly. NASA is the problem. Giving them more money won't help. We need to re-think their role or eliminate them.

[Frank_Discussion]

I agree with you somewhat, except I see a different way, which is to spend what it takes to do whatever we need to do. But under a theory of Conservation of Cash, yes, defense is best.

Something to consider, though: The VASIMR propulsion I'm so hot about is a FUSION power system, and bolsters the search for Fusion power. Real spinoff technology from space development is hard to pin down and define most of the time, but this one is pretty straightforward.

[DannyTN]

"Real spinoff technology from space development is hard to pin down and define most of the time, but this one is pretty straightforward. "

It is hard to predict the spinoffs and the values created, but the space program has certainly generated tremendous value and knowledge in the past.

Perhaps even if we didn't fully fund the exploration now but at least set that as a goal. The planning process might lead us to additional technology development that we wouldn't have otherwise.

[Frank_Discussion]

Thanks for the clarification - I did indeed misunderstand you.

A billion to send up a Shuttle? That's an exaggeration of at least $300 million, IIRC. Still damn expensive, though, any way you look at it. It HAS to get cheaper than that!

Don't get me wrong, the NASA way is very expensive. But it is doable, and I think that doing it is a good idea at even the current price. Waiting isn't making it cheaper. As with the Moon, private enterprise will make the money work out, but the federal monies aren't as big a hit in the pocketbook for a government mission as the naysayers would scare us all into believing.

I'm reading "The Martian Race" by Gregory Benford right now, just as a coincidence. The scenario is interesting, and seems to be plausable. I suggest to the list that y'all read it.

[Frank_Discussion]

The problem with "planning" (espescially re: Mars) is that the fiefdoms will just keep sucking funding for more plans. Somebody needs to say "Go forth and build a Mars System. Now!"

O'Keefe is headed a least one step in the right direction with his next-gen propulsion initiative. He needs to have a vehicle developing to put the engine into, and on a parallel track.

[Physicist]

A billion to send up a Shuttle? That's an exaggeration of at least $300 million, IIRC.

It depends how you count it. There's a lot of NASA infrastructure devoted to the Shuttle that could simply be eliminated if the Shuttle stopped flying, but they don't count that towards the Shuttle cost.

[Frank_Discussion]

My last post got me to thinking. I think the problem most of the critical public has with the costs of NASA is not so much the magnitude of it, but that it costs so much money to do so very little. The public would be okay with spending more money by far, just so long as something keeps advancing.

[Frank_Discussion]

This is true, but a more varied stable of vehicles would exercise this infrastructure as well. I stand by my numbers and how I count them.

But it is rather sad commentary that the Shuttle is all we have at the moment.

[RadioAstronomer]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that the Shuttle replace Progress. It costs a billion dollars just to send the Shuttle up and down. I was more thinking that since the Shuttle (unmanned) would be hauling ISS modules up there, anyway, the former crew compartment could be packed with supplies. That space could probably hold ten times what fits into a Progress ship (limited to 3000 kg or 6.6 cubic meters).

I agree!

Big sigh! I lament the defunding of two major projects: The SSC and SSTO.