Which Way NASA?

[webfarmer]

My guess is that he'll pull the plug on the increasingly unsafe geezerware.

Obama's NASA Dilemma - Technology Review - 20 Nov 08

"When president-elect Barack Obama takes office in January, he will be faced with a rare situation. Within his first 100 days, he will have to decide the fate of America's space program.

While other presidents have had the luxury of putting off major decisions on NASA, the Obama administration has a deadline. By April 30, 2009, the new president must decide whether to shut down the Space Shuttle program--currently the United States' only way to get humans into space and to service the International Space Station (ISS)--or extend the program at no small cost. While the current administration has signed an authorization bill to keep the Space Shuttle flying until the end of 2010, the legislation only prevents NASA management from mothballing Shuttle-related programs until the end of April 2009.

Delaying the choice any further would be expensive, experts say, since resurrecting shut-down production lines and purchasing phase-out parts would dramatically increase costs."

Comments

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the pointer to that article.

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Michael, I was thinking of you in particular when I posted it. I'm glad you found it of interest.

[markmc03.livejournal.com]

I don't think the US can give up the race that easily. China, India, even Japan, are reaching out beyond the confines of this planet. Since the theoretical answer to future resource exploitation is in the asteroid belt, the sooner we solve the problems of safe space travel, the better.

Besides, how else will we ever get the Federation? It supposed to be based in San Francisco.

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Let them have it. We already have Tang and should know all we need to know about the economies of growing crystals in conditions of weightlessness. :)

Since FTL speed travel is theoretically impossible, I'm not too concerned about the Federation coming to fruition anytime soon. I'm much more concerned about the thousands of kids dying each day by preventable causes.

Manned space flight is a hobby we can't afford right now. Heck, we couldn't afford it when LBJ did it. I'm with James Van Allen and his support for unmanned projects on this one. The little Mars rovers are showing that plenty of good research can be done that way and at a fraction of the cost.

If we are worried about killer meteorites, we can, for a lot less money, build several cavern cities each with their own nuclear power plant and related support systems than doing the same on Mars.

Heinlein wrote fiction. :)

[markmc03.livejournal.com]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Dennis.

I truly think our only hope of salvation is through space exploration. If we don't, it won't matter if we cure every known disease because we are outgrowing this planet. For sheer resources alone, we need to look to the asteroids.

Killer meteorites are on the same level as Magnitude 9.0 earthquakes and supervolcanoe eruptions. Global warming will kill us off in any event. It is inevitable that we look beyond our planet. And the sooner, in my humble opinion, the better.

I'm surprised that you wouldn't be an enthusiastic supporter. It is definitely more than a hobby.

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Disagreeing works for me. I know it's not a particularly popular point of view especially around my SF friends.

The global population is supposed to peak at mid-century and then go into decline. That peak may be hastened some if more women are empowered in the developing world. It won't just go on forever.

As resources decline and/or become more expensive, the usage patterns of them change. It's a dynamic situation, not a static one. That's why Lovin's energy numbers are a lot closer to reality than those of the energy planners of the 1970s who just took out their rulers to figure out the future. And why we didn't need massive numbers of nukes. (This should sound familiar today too.)

Even in the worst global warming scenarios, you still end up with a planet that's way more hospitable than the local alternatives. And there's no MASSIVE transportation cost. "Can't swim? Hell, the fall will probably kill you!" - Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman)

The more we focus on the main game at hand (global warming, efficient resource use, supporting womenfolk in developing countries) the better. We don't have the time nor resources to do otherwise.

SF writer Charlie Stross (no Luddite) also got into the technical details of space colonization. I didn't check his numbers but they don't look so hot. He got a lot of static for his comments too. :)

Charlies Diary: The High Frontier, Redux
http://tinyurl.com/yt6275

Consider the amount of power required for just one dinky space shuttle flight. Then start scaling up. They better buy a lot of green tags before takeoff. Maybe THAT would save us in the global warming area. :)

Power of a Space Shuttle
http://tinyurl.com/62f6xu

"The overall power of a space shuttle at takeoff is about 12 GW or 12 billion watts of power. That is about 16 million horsepower!"

http://tinyurl.com/6hs4w4

"Total net summer generating capacity in the United States as of January 1, 2007 was 986 gigawatts (GW),"

986/12 = 82 shuttles per United States. Granted this isn't the energy used but it does give a general idea of what's required if we go that direction. Stross covers some of the alternatives (space elevators, etc.).

[markmc03.livejournal.com]

I'm still holding out for the space elevator.

I wasn't thinking of space colonization though I can see the creation of cities on the moon. I have a dream of looking up to see a dot of lights on the surface of a new moon. We are far removed from transporting people en masse to any other planetary body.

I was thinking more of the resource extraction, and thinking of Arthur C. Clarke's vision of letting the Earth recover while we get everything we need from the asteroids.

But it would only work if we had the space elevator.

As for global warming, James Lovelock seems to be firm in his conviction that the earth population will be reduced to two or three hundred million clustered around the poles. Civilization will be lost, but I can see pockets of technologically advanced wealthy enclaves.

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Oh, I certainly understand the appeal of all this stuff. I was a Sputnik kid in the US of A. Science and space travel are almost part of my genetic code. I have a scientific and advanced engineering degree.

But that's why it's hard to be too romantic about it. The numbers are important and the numbers aren't good. The same is true for nuclear power as you've probably noticed lately. That's another Heinlein era technology that people ooed and aahed over in those days. Heck even guys like Lovelock are still doing it.

When things start getting religious and not based on numbers, I get worried. That's true on going to war as it is on going into a certain technology.

I'd bet you recycling waste dumps would be more cost effective for resource extraction than going to mine asteroids. By quite a bit too. We have HUGE steps to still make in recycling. Why not put the money there than into some speculative fiction adventure?

My main point is that this kind of wishful thinking can keep us from doing things that can be done and can be effective in the near term. Following that path has serious dangers and we shouldn't be doing it just to exercise a romantic whim if that's all it is.

I think Lovelock is right about how global warming is more important than it's certainly being prioritized. Hopefully with Obama in, that problem can still be turned around. Obama is a romantic guy but one who also believes in the power of the pragmatic. Of looking at the numbers.

That's why I'm so encouraged by his energy policies to date. We'll see if he implements them as the were framed in the campaign or finds it necessary to yield to the political power that Areva is systematically building in various parts of the US and not only through their lobbyists.

Here's what our energy priorities should be:

1. Conservation and efficiency
2. Renewables
3. Cogeneration
4. Decommissioning baseload fossil plants as fast as possible.
5. Decommissioning nuclear plants as soon as practically possible.

Our priorities have been just the opposite of that. Let's hope we can get the big ship turned before it's too late. If that means some otherwise attractive activities need to be put to the side. So be it.

Lovelock

[markmc03.livejournal.com]

To be fair, he favours nuclear energy because he feels the consequences of global warming outweigh the potential risks presented by nuclear power.

I'm just pessimistic about our chances period.

Re: Lovelock

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Mark, I think I'm being fair. There's only so much money to go around and only so much time to turn the ship. Those are the two main problems with global warming. That makes nuclear plants which cost oodles (McCain's "modest" suggestion would be $315 billion), can't be made in mass quantities (shortages in proper steel and personnel), take a long time to build (10 years in the States) takes these things off the list of things to do if one is really serious about global warming.

Lovelock simply doesn't know what the hell he's talking about in this area. He should stick to atmospheric science where he does know what he's talking about.

I'm pessimistic too but I'm not ready to start taking the experimental treatments when the standard and proven ones haven't been properly implemented.

Re: Lovelock

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the broken syntax on that one. The dangers of editing and not re-reading. I think you get the drift.