History teaches that when big operations falter, small upstarts often rise to the challenge. In the case of NASA, the process may already be at work, and the upstarts are emerging: SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic. Out in the wilds of Las Cruces, New Mexico is building a spaceport. In fact, says Russell Saunders, Jr., the time has come to consider contingency plans. ‘Saunders’ is a pseudonym for a space scientist who works for a major aerospace organization. His essay appeared this afternoon on the NASA Watch site.
Saunders believes NASA is fixated on an iconography that’s half a century old, referring back to the spectacular space series that ran in Collier’s magazine in the early 1950’s. These were glorous, von Braunian visions of enormous rockets and flotillas of spacecraft pushing outward to Mars, but they’re an uncomfortable fit with today’s realities. Here’s what Saunders is talking about:
Imagine what the artists and pioneers behind the Colliers vision might have done with our current situation; knowing the ease and effectiveness of robotic exploration, the potential for citizen joyrides into space, the shift from cold war to global economics, the societal impact of seeing our Pale Blue Dot from space, the interconnectedness across the world via the Internet, the revelation that an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs, and the implications of global warming.
And now he gets into the telling specifics:
For example, picture a future where you can tune into live video and sound from rovers on Mars; the Saturn moon Titan; or swimming in the oceans of the Jovian moon Europa. Imagine taking your turn at driving a lunar rover, remotely. Imagine booking a one-nighter in an orbiting hotel. Imagine the security from knowing that your home planet is under constant watch to protect its environment and to deflect incoming asteroids. There is plenty of good stuff from which to cast new, inspiring, and productive visions.
Image: Wernher von Braun’s article in the March 22, 1952 issue of Colliers, which kicked off a series of articles on the conquest of space. A lunar expedition followed by a landing on Mars was outlined along with impressive images of hardware developed at every stage along the way. But is this centralized vision a good match for today?
Be sure to read this. It’s an inside view of a tectonic shift occurring within the space industry as witnessed by an accomplished professional who has a clear-eyed view of where this is going. The creation of a new vision is never easy, but we need one to move us firmly into the digital, entrepreneurial era of space exploration. Part of that means recapturing the fascination of a public that once cheered every scrap of news from our early space missions. Saunders thinks this can be done and so do I.
I think there is no doubt about the fact that a shift has occurred within the industry. Itis even more surprising to find that the small venture companies are taking advantage of the capabilities of the larger companies to pursue their own agendas from earth into space.
While I applaud the grand goals of the vision and all that it encompasses, I think the NASA leadership, although well intentioned yet guided by Congressional interests, are resisting the wrong crowd – the community and its ideas at large. I believe that it is widely agreed in the space community that NASA is missing the mark and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is often the specifics on how to do a thing that and those private agendas that divide the community at large. NASA and the space community want the same thing yet I feel that we are far apart on the question of how to carry this vision out. However, it is plainly obvious that NASA is not in focus with the true vision.
I would like to see more action and progress with less paper between the do’ers and the goal. If I were in a position to do so I certainly would help.
Joseph
While “Russell” makes some good points about the inertia of NASA as an old institution, he doesn’t give them enough credit for what they are doing. It is easy to compare the (at today’s technology level) relatively easy job of creating a small liquid fueled launcher like the Falcon I, it is another to create a system for transportation to and exploitation of the Moon.
Small commercial companies like SpaceX or Blue Origin have the luxury of small, simple, short range goals. NASA is saddled with the expectation to fulfill grand long-term national endeavors (no pun intended). Commercial companies also get to cherry pick their markets.
I agree in some respects to your second paragraph when you refer to the differences of goals in comparing NASA to small space companies. Indeed, their reason for existence is different. However, NASA is certainly in a position to move in a direction to allow commercial entities to take a more prominent role in the Vision. Certainly for the small companies NASA would not be their only sole custom but it could be one of them. To me it seems that their should be more of a cooperative atmosphere within NASA to have these new and old, small and large commercial entities take on the role of support and NASA is the leader with reasonable requirements and objectives. For example, the transfer of TransHab tech from NASA to Bigelow Aerospace and Bigelow cooperating with Lockheed for man rating the Atlas. And here is where NASA could leverage outside technology application with its own internal research capabilities.
2 cents…
I think a (new?) vision that would speak to the public imagination should be clear, focussed and imaginative; I would suggest a two-pronged approach:
– one focus on the exploration and colonization of Mars (for practicing terraforming);
– the other focus on the discovery and description of exoplanets, in particular (habitable) terrestrial ones.
And more involvement of private capital (rich people!).
SIM should have been (almost) launched already and TPF should have been well underway. Complete lack of vision that TPF has now been postponed (indefinitely?).
An easy first step that we can all participate in is to create the new vision. By this I mean to create the stories, artwork, and animation to show the future how we would like it to be and that is based on what we can actually afford. This sets the theme that the public and our befuddled politicians can pick up on – provided it hits a chord with them. If it does not hit a chord, then we’ve missed the mark, and we need to start again.
Taking these words from Saunders: “Imagine what the artists and pioneers behind the Colliers vision might have done with our current situation; knowing the ease and effectiveness of robotic exploration, the potential for citizen joyrides into space, the shift from cold war to global economics, the societal impact of seeing our Pale Blue Dot from space, the interconnectedness across the world via the Internet, the revelation that an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs, and the implications of global warming.”
Each of you can contribute pieces based on what you know best. Then, with enough pieces, a total picture can be assembled. Then this composite vision can be spread wide and set the seeds for its implementation. Many details are already being implementation, in particular the joy ride market.
What is missing is having a picture of a future full of robotic space exploration, absent of astronauts, that is exciting, affordable, and benefits humanity.
Personally, I’m leading the interstellar portion, specifically setting the groundwork for the research needed to allow humanity to travel to other habitable planets. And for those that can’t wait to contribute to that cause, send your tax deductible checks to:
Tau Zero Foundation
PO Box 26027
Fairview Park, OH 44126
(I hope Paul allows me this shameless plug)
I don’t think that robotic missions will ever capture people’s imagination. By putting people onto other worlds, it shows that everyone could go there. If we only ever send robots, nobody will think they’ll ever have a chance to walk on the moon or Mars. Only robots do that. And because it’s only robots, only nerds care about that stuff.
One of the great things about the space race was the personalities of the astronauts. They were rock stars and national heroes. Granted, they mostly did what the folks in ground control told them to do, but they were figureheads. We won’t be able to bring rovers back from Mars and throw ticker tape parades for them, nor would we want to.
Besides, we’re going to have to get off of this rock eventually.
When robot explorers have AI they may indeed develop their
own personalities. It will be interesting to see if they want a
ticker tape parade and if humans will be invited to it. :^)
As for people not being so attached to machine explorers –
have you seen how children have reacted to the Mars rovers?
The sense that robotic probes would remain insufficient for the task of exploration persisted well into the 70’s. At the time of Viking, when the pixels were streamed back to earth with agonizing slowness, no one imagined that in just a few decades it would be possible to beam gigs of data back from robotic craft and landers. Even then, there was still a belief that if you wanted to do real exploration, you’d have to send people.
Since then we’ve learned a lot more about what a deadly radioactive hellhole the solar system is outside the little protective bubble of our magnetosphere. I’d love to see robots as the forerunners of an eventual wave of human explorers, but the idea of sending humans to Mars who’ll be dying of cancer on the return voyage seems a rather high price to pay to satisfy our longings for an outmoded vision of spaceflight that all the nations of the earth couldn’t afford in any case.
Until we can get the cost-to-orbit WAY down with a space elevator, and develop technologies that shield astronauts from radiation, robots are going to be it for at least several more decades.
Building a Better NASA Workforce: Meeting the Workforce Needs for the National Vision for Space Exploration
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11916.html
Robotics seems likely to continue to improve faster than manned space infrastructure. Naively projecting this off into the future leads to the same conclusion Vinge reached: “Once, galactic empires might have seemed a Post-Human domain. Now, sadly, even interplanetary ones are.”
http://accelerating.org/articles/comingtechsingularity.html
icelander : yes i agree 100% people should explore space! robotics naturally can come along as a tool and i am sure a fine one at that but people want to see people in space,period. count me among their number.come to think of it why was the character “mr data” from star trek so likeable and popular in the first place? … because he was so “human”!!! therefore in my opinion…we NEED more shuttles,new ones.with those we should build space craft in orbit.we could then use those to explore the solar system.this would be much better than nasa’s current idea to continue along with the old ways of doing things like apollo on steroids.the ships i envision would be more like real ships which would stay in commission for long periods,not just as i implied above,one shot deals.they could carry on them the ability to land where they wished rather in the manner of star treks shuttlecraft or even of the manned pods carried by the spacecraft discovery in the movie “2001” ! as to propulsion – probably fission first,followed by fusion and matter anti matter later.but by that time maybe it would be time to think about the first star ship.i figure places where it is not readily possible to land,places like jupiter…a close fly by at the very least would be possible.the above mentioned robotic probes could be launched into the atmosphere with great percision…and at close range.i figure that if we could embrace this philosophy and get excited about it it would be a major boone to space flight visavie the exploration of our solar system and the stars as marc millis discussed above! well i guess thats all for now,i sure hope to hear from every body! this,for me is one of those “don’t get me started “subjects!very respectfully to all your friend george ps i can be e mailed at udt109@aol.com if you wish! thanks again,g
George, there’s definitely reason to hope that human spaceflight can one day become practical. For example, see the story on this site about magnetic deflector shields proposed to protect astronauts on long journeys. I definitely think that there will be a place for people in space, but I think that day is many many decades away still. Plus, we shouldn’t think that there’s no progress being made – much of the work going on aboard the ISS for example, is being conducted in hopes of resolving some of the more difficult long term questions of working and living beyond the earth. Personally, I think NASA gets too little credit for the excellent work they continue to do, even if we are living in a somewhat hostile funding climate. And don’t forget: we ARE going back to the moon, so that’s a start.
Without disagreeing about the direction of the “Vision,” I find Saunders’ essay disturbing and objectionable on many levels. As Kevin notes, the author glibly compares what is relative child’s play–flight tests of small, unmanned hardware–to the most technically challenging effort in human history, Project Apollo. While SpaceX, Blue Origin, and other entrepreneurial firms have indeed made significant strides at remarkably low cost, not one of them has articulated how their business plans will scale up to Lunar exploration and development, nor (if I’m not mistaken) has any officially committed to trying. The author fails to recognize that entrepreneurial space is nowhere near competing with the Vision, but is a vastly smaller, much less ambitious, and niche-specific ecosystem slowly developing in the lower parts of the high frontier. Hence, the dilemma is not only false, but far out of proportion, and leaves as an open question what, if anything, will fill the void left by the Vision’s seemingly inevitable failure.
We all recognize the contributions of robotic exploration, and the benefits of Earth-centric missions with a narrow, immediate focus, but they are not a replacement for a rigorous program of human expansion. If budget cuts reduce NASA to those activities exclusively, it will simply amount to retreat from and abandonment of “the hard things,” with nobody else stepping up to the plate on any meaningful time scale. Any future where our endeavors are limited to commercial incrementalism in low orbit, asteroid defense, and telerobotic entertainment is a bleak and probably futile one.
Moreover, I find the author’s characterization of the Colliers visions as “obsolete” subtly flawed and wrongheaded. After decades of false promises, canceled hopes, and vaporware, I should find it surprising if the public became inspired by a grandiose announcement with no serious budgetary commitment in evidence. But who is to say how people would feel if they actually believed that we were “going back to stay,” let alone if they were watching humans set foot on the Moon in high-definition live TV? Public and commercial involvement are not mutually exclusive to von Braun’s visions, and in fact they can only make significant progress together. Knowingly or not, the essay’s perspective is jaundiced, defeatist, and lacking the audacity that the space endeavor inherently requires to achieve anything.
To say that NASA has failed to adequately achieve its mission is true; that the Vision will fail to change that, likely; but to say that the mission itself is no longer relevant flirts with the absurd for obvious reasons. So, the fact that the mission is being ill-served means we must continuously look for alternatives while trying to improve what already exists, not simply throw up our hands and heap all our hopes on commerce. If Congress isn’t funding the mission adequately, fight for the needed funding; if NASA isn’t doing what it should to work with the private sector, do what we can to change that; if the private sector isn’t being ambitious enough, look at what we can do to get the Billionaire Boys Club to spend more money and get there faster. I understand the author’s frustration, but his desolate, mildly contemptuous attitude toward earlier ambitions is unwarranted and, ironically, retrograde.
NASA has accomplished much. Those dollars spent have revealed even more questions about our universe and how we, as a species, go there for ourselves.
Let’s face it, NASA has too little money to do what it has been tasked to do. Alan Stern gave apt comments and good suggestions on how to begin change without killing programs. Tighter constraints on meeting deadlines and reviews. Choosing PI’s with adequate experience to run a program to send a probe into outer space. Unfortunately, this is only in one area within NASA. ESAS does not seem to leave room for schedule slips and development issues. As has been said many times, remove the development costs for the ‘Stick’ and its new upperstage freeing monies to focus on the delivery vehicle to space, development for a lander, etc. There are even commercial options going to fly within a few years or already in orbit being tested. Does ESAS plan for that? Why must NASA have its own rocket system? More importantly, is the ESAS system sustainable over the long term? Could NASA really utilize current assets to their fullest?
NASA is at its best when it performs research and development and transfer those same technologies to the private sector. RLV technologies would be a perfect fit for NASA to research. Not building and operating a vehicle but doing some of the basic work to really prove out a sustainable system or even a small portion of that system. Examples like this take forward thinking from not only NASA leadership but the politicians and the public as well. BPP and NIAC were exceptionally forward looking and I commend Marc for his ability to view the future, paint a picture and taking action. Kudos! I am sure their are others out in the community, industry, NASA general public, and, yes, even the career politicians.
thank you chris,i am glad we are going back to the moon,however all i mean is that maybe an instant replay of apollo might not have been the best plan!the big mistake in the first place was abandoning the moon after we had already been there! what we should do now is gain a permanent foot hold there in order to move on to mars etc. ! the point being to begin a presence in the solar system that can then develop into a presence in the galaxy!! i know that sounds grandiose but the first steps are – moon mars solar system kuiper belt oort cloud…first starship to another star. now don’t get me wrong all that is going to “take a little time” but we must imho begin! exciting times my friend! all the best,george
Whether you’re a supporter of the Vision (Humans on Moon, etc) or not, one thing is clear. The mismatch between funding and ambitions is hurting us all. The Saunder’s essay could just as easily provoke the sanity check needed to fully fund the Vision (and in the words of Kennedy; “all those other things”), or to chart an *affordable* course for the future.
Glad to see such healthy thought exchanges here.
marc, i know our ideas here may easily take a long time to come to fruition but it will be time well spent.i only hope against hope that our thought exchanges here will be of at least some value toward that end ! respectfully george
I do not think we can bust open access to space without first breaking the cost barrier. I think chemical propulsion (even clever and more entrepreneurial chemical propulsion such as what the entrepreneurs are trying) will be the way. Although I hope I am wrong and they can succeed in increasing the volume of activity and creatively lowering costs. Maybe using tethers and magbeams to help provide cheap boost to orbit could help.
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/05/lasers-and-magnetic-launch-for-cheap.html
I think the laser array launching and magnetic launch systems have the potential to really change things and they can be developed affordably. Inflating large structures (magnetically or with gas) or just having many operate collectively (magnetically, photonically or with formation flying) seems like something that can operated without adding a lot of costs.
By using mostly robotics and near zero-construction methods the infrastructure in space can be setup to generate lots of energy to enable more infrastructure. After things are built up then more and more people can be sent for colonization.
Although the sub-orbital flights and shorts trips for temporary voyeurs and short thrill market could be substantial and hopefully one that can be fully developed to enable more space industry.
The vision that I want to see is $10/kg into space and launch volumes of megatons.
Instead of $14-16 billion per year on the current limited NASA efforts. Build the non-chemical infrastructure over the next 10 years.
Gigawatts on the ground dedicated to launches. Situate near a nuclear reactor or large dam (much like Google is building server farms near cheap power)
Powering laser arrays. Mass produce the arrays.
Launch magnetically inflating structures for space solar power. Whatever, size can be launched and then have them hold formation to direct lots of power to localed power collection on the ground.
Scale up to build more power as fast as possible for the space program and for power needs on earth. Also, launch other infrastructure.
brian i think you are 100% correct the cost barrier is indeed the “biggie” no matter how you look at it! once that is figured out nicely i am sure we will then see some real progress in space…and fast! respectfully,george
Someone needs to find diamonds or gold on the moon (and beyond). Then everyone will want to be there.
@Eric: or even better: Helium-3, for nuclear fusion.
As soon as we (= humankind) really master the art of nuclear fusion, and then the ‘next generation’ of it, deuterium-He3 fusion, space travel will become a matter of course, to get He-3 from the moon, or even better, Saturn and Uranus. Then, I believe, laser driven stellar probes (probably launched from the moon) will also become feasible.
So, imho, much, if not most, of the future of ‘serious’ space travel and exploration depends on the mastering of nuclear fusion.
eric diamonds or gold aaaay!? i can just see a miner in a space suit,panning for gold on the moon! as a robot mule stands nearby! ? lol thanks…and…yes you are probably right!! and ronald – i am sure your opinion about the importance of fusion is not far off! i understand that right now dr bussard is doing some promising work in that area under the umbrella of us navy funding! i sure wish him the best in that !! thank you my friends i appreciate hearing your opinions. george
Gold and diamonds may be valuable on Earth, but as for being
in space, the expense to find, mine, and transport them will far
outweigh any company’s desire for them.
Places like the planetoids do contain many valuable mineral
resources, but their value lies in helping create a permanent
space infrastructure, not in trying to haul them back to Earth.
You have to think bigger than a few shiny gems.
Electrostatic Climber for Space Elevator and Launcher
Authors: A. Bolonkin
(Submitted on 14 May 2007)
Abstract: Author details research on the new, very prospective, electrostatic Space Elevator climber based on a new electrostatic linear engine previously offered at the 42nd Joint Propulsion Conference (AIAA-2006-5229) and published in AEAT, Vol.78, No.6, 2006, pp. 502-508. The electrostatic climber discussed can have any speed (and braking), the energy for climber movement is delivered by a lightweight high-voltage line into a Space Elevator-holding cable from Earth electric generator. This electric line also can be used for delivery electric energy to a Geosynchronous Space Station. At present, the best solution of the climber problem (announced by NASA as one important awarding problem of Space Elevator) is problematic.
Author also shows the linear electrostatic engine may be used as realistic power space launcher at the present time. Two projects illustrate these new devices.
Key words: Space elevator, Electrostatic climber for space elevator, Electrostatic space launcher, Electrostatic accelerator.
This work is presented as paper AIAA-2007-5838 for 43 Joint Propulsion Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, 9-11 July, 2007,
Comments:
12 pages, 2 figures, 1 table
Subjects:
General Physics (physics.gen-ph); Space Physics (physics.space-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:0705.1943v1 [physics.gen-ph]
Submission history
From: Alexander Bolonkin [view email]
[v1] Mon, 14 May 2007 13:37:13 GMT (327kb)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1943
Is a space elevator worth its weight in diamonds?
—
Recent proposals for space elevators have been based on
ribbons made of carbon nanotube materials that don’t yet
exist. Sam Dinkin explores an alternative using existing
synthetic diamonds that could be technically and financially
viable.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/916/1