Now THAT'S Space Exploration!
Posted on 09/07/2003 8:23:14 AM PDT by mikegi
NASA has seen the future, and it is the space capsule. Seven months after the Columbia debacle the agency is giving serious consideration to bringing back a new version of the Apollo capsule, the expendable spacecraft that served the U.S. space program during its glory days in the 1960s through the mid-1970s. Supporters say they are not retreating into the past so much as waking up, at last, to the dangers of attempting spaceflight with winged shuttles, a notion given ample support by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report released last week. Boosters on Capital Hill, in the aerospace industry and even inside the astronaut corps point out the capsule has is a more versatile design: it is modular and can be outfitted to the specific needs of any mission. And unlike the shuttle, it can venture beyond low Earth orbit, which means the U.S. could once again send astronauts to the moon.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
That was the problem. EXPLORATION should have been the mission, not science.
We will if we choose to. There is no one but us. There is no time like now. Every few weeks I pull out the MP3 of the FILK song, Fire In The Sky, that I linked to in an earlier post. This is the one that Buzz Aldrin tried to read the lyrics to on air after Columbia and broke down in tears. I get choked up and a bit teary myself when I hear it. Then I say "Damn it, we're going back!"
I will do what I can, when I can, where I can, to push us on, up and out.
Balderdash! There are no physical stresses that an appropriately-designed spacecraft can't accomodate. Hell, even WALT DISNEY knew what was necessary back in the 1950's.
Naah... What we need is a big long ramp!!!
(Then we could get all the leftie-Lie-beral bicycle fruitcakes to ride up it and vanish off the planet...)
No problem. Any other requests?
Let me get this straight: NASA can't figure out how to do something in a timely manner, therefore,, let's skip it and go back to last century's proven technology?
I'm not saying the capsule is such a bad idea. I'm just very sad that, once again, NASA shows the creativity, drive and imagaination that bureaucrats the world over are famous for.
Or a REALLY BIG RUBBER BAND!
I don't think anyone is proposing stamping out carbon copies of Apollo capsules, only that the basic design is sound. Why is it that we haul all of the weight associated with the Shuttle (wings, tail, main engines/massive fuel tank) when all of that is just dead weight. With the old fashioned one-use systems most of the fuel is used to push payload into orbit, not wasted on moving unnecessary parts up into space just so we can bring them back again. It would be like loading up your car, then hitching up a trailer full of spare parts...getting to your destination, unloading the cargo, then putting all the spare parts onto your car and driving home. Doesn't make sense really.
In the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo systems the only thing brought home was the bare essential crew compartment. Everything else was either used up, burned up, or left behind.
Now THAT'S Space Exploration!
Real Americans with really big ones!
The basic idea behind the shuttle was that this approach is teribly wasteful - because it is.
The shuttle is also wasteful, in different ways. The technology hasn't progressed to take advantage of a re-useable system. They still treat every launch like a one-time, special event.
That the shuttle has failed to meet its promise doesn't mean reusable vehicles are a bad idea. It can just as easily be used as an indictment of the NASA way of doing things.
But again, I'm not necessarily against a capsule. I'm just not impressed by the thinking that came up with the idea. It sounds more like "Let's do what we know NASA is (or used to be) good at" rather than, "We need fresh new ideas to jump-start this failing space program."
Is it truly more cost effective to reuse the SRBs from the shuttle, combined with the cost of inspection and refurbishment of each shuttle, plus the cost of a new external fuel tank (the only portion that does not get reused)?
How much usefull payload could the two shuttle SRB's lift if they weren't hauling the external fuel tank, the wings, tail, landing gear, and other parts of the shuttle that are used only for a very small portion of the entire mission?
What if we strapped a couple of reusable SRBs onto the side of a single, one-time-use cargo pod, with reusable crew compartment on top, and used that to haul stuff into space. After all, just as in modern aircraft, the "people pod" makes up a disproportinate amount of weight, compared to it's volume, and the greatest amount of technology and complexity of a spacecraft revolves around keeping the carbon based lifeforms alive.
Maybe both would be good? I don't see why it has to be an either/or situation. Use unmanned missions where required or practical, and keep the manned misions going where feasible and best suited. Lets face it, the outer planets are a ways off yet in terms of manned flight, so there's nothing wrong with sending some unmanned birds out there for a look. I am involved with the JIMO effort now (Project Prometheus) and that has some real juice to it.
Long term, I agree, people are going to have to go there, at least for places where it makes sense to go. The opening up of new frontiers for exploration and development has been a common thread throughout human history. Its just a logical extension to off-world travel.
Both are good and desireable. Send a robotic probe first. If the results look promising, THEN send a human crew. It is the nature of humans to explore and colonize. The entire history of human evolution has been driven by the need to "see what's out there". It's why the first humans left their small communities and hiked over the nearby mountains, and why Columbus sailed over the horizon, and why Americans went west, and why we'll someday go to Mars...and beyond.
Technology will eventually overcome our design limits. When the first trains blasted along at a blistering 20 mph people predicted the speed would kill us all. Chuck Yeager proved in 1947 that we wouldn't all compress into piles of jellied mush at Mach 1, and Gargarin proved that our eyeballs wouldn't explode in zero G. I'm quite certain that we will be able to endure long space flights, and then someone will find a way to shorten those flights. (Can you imagine the disbelief on your great-great-grandfathers face if you could have told him in the 19th century that you would one day FLY from New York to California in a matter of HOURS! He would have had you committed to an asylum.)
For that, you're looking at something with a lot more kick than today's propulsion systems, to get there in any reasonable time. Chemical rockets don't have the oomph and gravity slingshots take forever and a day. So, say hello again to nuclear propulsion, which is just what JIMO/Prometheus is looking at.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.