Reenergizing the human space effort. (1 Viewer)

[Max Leung]

Phillip, according to Velcro's website, velcro was patented in 1951 in Switzerland. Absolutely has nothing to do with the space program! http://www.velcro.com/kidzone.html
It's just another myth.
(Wait a minute, am I the only practicing skeptic in this thread? )

 

[Graham Perks]

Planting a footprint. I don't think anyone would spend the money for this and there has to be more reason than "just to go". Just through gaining the ability to get there, we would learn a tremendous amount. Doing unmanned probes is a big step along the way. Longer-term, we want to go and *to stay*.

It's your basic defense argument. Who would America rather have colonizing the moon? A bunch of Americans? Or a bunch of Chinese? Who would China rather have up there? I know that if China lands men on the moon, America will surely get re-interested in the idea. The space race will be started up again. Control of space is vital to America's defense.

Who knows what technological advances will be made on the way? We don't know what - but we know they'll be made.

 

[Pascal A]

Regarding the Russians using a pencil, I realize that it was a joke and an oversimplification, but I did want to point out that onboard contamination can be a serious problem, especially on long duration flights. The concept of using a specialized pen and cleanroom, non-shedding paper, is to mitigate the amount of contamination introduced to the payload environment (or even the filter system for recycled air). Pencil lead sheds graphite, which can easily ruin optics or protein crystal growth experiments (often found in the orbiter middeck). It may be the cheaper way to go, but it's not always the appropriate thing to do.

 

[Max Leung]

I agree with you Graham...what we learn along the way is more important than the bragging rights. Unfortunately, bragging rights is what most people would focus on.
Pascal, good point about the pencil particulates. However, that zero-g pen had better not explode if there is a dip in cabin pressure...ink globules would be infinitely worse than a thousandth of a gram of graphite.
"Mission control...uh...my pen exploded and Bill accidently breathed some of the ink in. Please advise."

(Actually, now that I think about it, a pencil probably sheds less particles than a human astronaut would shed skin in a single day. And skin would float just like anything else. Something to ponder...)

 

[Jack Briggs]

Max, the International Space Station planners no doubt have been pondering that issue! But, of course, right now they're a bit concerned with that little oxygen-regenerator "challenge" they're facing.

 

[Mary M S]

Very nice post Brad. Out of my league in this discussion, but I find it interesting that spin offs are relegated to simply a necessary political evil to drum up money, or as entirely non critical novelties on earth (space pens). Admittedly I don’t see a plethora of advancements used everyday where credit to any space related science is acknowledged by the general populace. But, if you have need of heart monitoring or surgery, you will be benefited whether you are aware or not.

The big picture, in our advances in any Branch of Knowledge, has most often incorporated tiny building blocks, miniscule units of invention or understanding developed by diverse and unrelated branches of science over years. Periodically one scientist gathers these unrelated pieces to exploit a major leap in technological advances. Its why you find a major invention appearing in the same year developed by 2 scientists unaware of each other, from unrelated cultures in centuries past when global communication was not available. The collective knowledge of mankind had advanced so that enough pieces of the puzzle made the time ‘ripe’ for discovery. Space programs will advance this collective pot.

Sometimes the process is something that used to be termed ‘messy science’ or serendipitous science.

Personally, I am a firm supporter of space programs for no other reason than my basest emotions, which want to know, to explore, to experience, to see what there is to see, - over the next hill.

If I had been alive long before Columbus, who was monetarily challenged to find a better route to bring home spices, I would have been hopping aboard the ship whose captain just wanted to sail out to see when deep blue ended. Whilst my mother stood on shore crying that the sea beasties would get me and my ship would fall off the ‘table’. (She’s the stay at home type) Since she is also the type that needs a concrete reason to do anything, I’d most definitely have to return bearing coconuts.

I would like to thank; NASA affiliated and connected for taking the time to post. I would be interested in hearing what your current scientific and/or philosophical hopes for the future of our space program would be.

And whether there is ‘in house’ discussions for the best ways to ‘reenergize’ America’s backing?

PS, to Brian, - The think tank beginnings of Velcro as I always understood it is an excellent example of serendipitous science. A Swiss engineer Georges de Mestral, after being irritated by the burrs he picked up on his clothing one too many times, bothered to really ‘look’ at one and decipher why they clung in this infuriating manner. He saw the millions of little hooks and the rest is history.

 

[Max Leung]

Ice reservoirs found on Mars.
Opening paragraphs:

Water-ice has been found in vast quantities just below the surface across great swathes of the planet Mars.
Ice shows up blue on the gamma-ray spectrometer
The finding by the American space agency (Nasa) is undoubtedly one of the most important made about the Red Planet.
It solves one of its deepest mysteries, points the way for manned exploration and reignites the question of whether life may exist on the planet.
Insiders suggest that, partly as a result of this finding, Nasa may now commit itself to a manned landing within 20 years.
...
The US space agency will make the dramatic announcement about the water-ice next Thursday. And full disclosure of the findings will come in the journal Science later that day.

BTW, nice post Mary.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Well ,having just watched Flight to Mars, I wouldn't be sending a manned mission just yet. Those Martians are sneaky bastards. It was cool to see how they got around the gravity issue during flight though, those gyros are a marvelous thing. I'd hat if if there was as much space traffic as there is down here, it would be bad with all the smoke for the engines, but only at the top of the universe.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I'm in the midst of checking around on the Internet about this.

Thank you, Max, for having put a big smile on my face as I lurk about the boards.

Absolutely wonderful news.

The thinking had been leaning that way. Turns out to have been well-positioned!

 

[Cees Alons]

I went to this thread, because I read the story about the ice on Mars - only to find you people had made the mental link too already.
However... if Mars was not yet infected by earthly bacteriae (or some things else) from the probes we sent until now, once the first human investigator has set foot on the planet, every next finding of micro-life forms will be almost meaningless.
I'm of course not saying that that is a good reason not to send a human mission...
Cees

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Mars mission in the next 20 years.........

Uh oh Jack, better post something positive about 2001 for me to rag on, or else the whole thing may jinx

 

[Jack Briggs]

Cees: You are infinitely more qualified to comment on microbiology than I, but I assure you that all NASA spacecraft to have reached the surface of Mars--Vikings 1 and 2, as well as Mars Pathfinder--were assembled in the strictest of cleanroom environments. The Soviet Mars 1 lander which reached the surface of the Red Planet in November 1971 is a less-certain proposition. But surely it cannot have been a planet-wide contaminant--even when windborn dust is taken into account. We would be examining, anyway, subsurface materials. If microbes are discovered, then we will have answered the most important question facing our species.

As for a manned landing:

It is not NASA's decision to make.

This decision comes solely from the White House. Then it must be approved by Congress. When funding is authorized, NASA gets to go to Mars.

Look, NASA would have delivered astronauts to the Martian surface in the mid-1980s had it received the green light from Washington.

It puzzles me why people blame NASA for not coming up with grand, bold programs that capture the public's imagination. It's not NASA's fault. The visionaries are very much present in the space agency. Only their voices are silenced by a largely apathetic Congress and an almost antipathetic administration.

NASA wants to return to the Moon and send people to Mars more than anything. The agency needs some money in order to do that.

The Dream is alive, but is the will?

 

[Max Leung]

Ironic if China makes it to Mars first. Nationalism shouldn't be the only impetus that takes us to Mars, dammit. Oh well. People are people.

I agree, it is unlikely that microbes from previous probes would have any chance of gaining a foothold on Mars. You'd likely need to wait many millenia before any that made it past the cleanroom procedures would be even remotely detectable.

 

[Danny R]

For those of you that only get "aroused" by manned missions, then I'm curious about what the appeal is for you.

Flexibility in the mission for one thing. How many times has a mechanical part failed on space missions, and a human was needed to go out there and fix it? Take for example the various Mars probes? Just think how much more data might be possible if a human were there with a shovel and able to get down farther than those tiny probes were capable of? If you are heavy lifting machinery that can accomplish that task, you might as well put a human along to make certain it functions appropriately.

From the velcro site:1967: In addition to woven hook, the company begins to make a molded plastic hook product because certain customers want to use a molded hook instead of a woven hook.

Those "certain customers" were NASA, and it is the molded plastic variety of velcro that took off. So no, its not a myth.

 

[Julie K]

Take for example the various Mars probes? Just think how much more data might be possible if a human

A human mission would not spend the time in orbit that the various Mars orbiters have. (And remember, it was Odyssey that found the water ice. It found it relatively quickly, but it was originally thought it would take much more time.) A human mission would not spend 6 years on the surface like Viking. A human mission would not spend years in orbit mapping the surface to small detail.

We are a long way from designing something safe enough for a human mission to spend years orbiting Jupiter and bathing in the radiation field. And we certainly aren't going to send humans on one way flybys of the outer planets. Nor are we going to orbit them around Venus and then dump them into the atmosphere. Nor land them on an asteroid with no plans to get them off it.

The last thing I want is for anyone to think I'm against manned missions. I am not. However, unmanned missions are extremely important in furthering our knowledge, not only in pure science but also in learning how to get people out there and back.

I just want a little respect for unmanned missions.

Anyway, this water ice news is fantastic.

 

[Danny R]

A human mission would not spend the time in orbit that the various Mars orbiters have.
I'm not saying that satellites don't have their place. Obviously we don't put a DirecTV guy up there at 110 to bounce back our TV signals. And yes, one way or dangerous trips certainly should be unmanned.
However unmanned missions are usually tooled for only a handful of missions. I just think we should be thinking much bigger than that, and send a manned team, with a complete laboratory to Mars with the intent that they stay put for a year or more at a time.

 

[Julie K]

Danny,

Unmanned missions do a lot more science than you think.

However, the two can and should be complimentary. Unmanned missions, both orbiters and landers, are crucial in any sort of landing site selection of a manned mission. This goes for both safety and science considerations. I would also speculate that, even with a drop dead get-a-man-to-Mars in 20 years effort, there will be a few landers sent just to perform various experiments prior to the human landing. These experiments may well include trying to extract any water ice and use in fuels. Any missions that stay a year or more (which would certianly not be the first or even second missions) will rely heavily on experience gained from unmanned landers.

 

[Ron-P]

HERE is a link to an article on the front page of todays OC Register titled "New Signs of Mars Water". Looks interesting. The online article is not as in-depth as the actual paper, but I have not had the time to read it all yet.
Peace Out~

 

[Jack Briggs]

I just want a little respect for unmanned missions.

You're certainly getting it from my end. I think one the greatest human achievements of all time is the so-called Mariner-class unmanned deep space probe, of which the Cassini is the final act. These spacecraft/science platforms have opened up the Solar System to us--from Mariner 2's encounter with Venus and Mariner 4's first images of a crater-strewn Mars to the paradigm-shifting outer-Solar System discoveries of the twin Voyager probes, the high-profile, big-bucks Mariner-class vehicles have rewritten the astronomy textbooks.

It is also correct to note that unmanned probes are complementary to a manned exploration effort. Project Apollo would not have been the success it was had it not been for the Lunar Surveyor landers and the Lunar Orbiter mapping missions.

Our robot surrogates are indispensable to our efforts at exploring and colonizing the Solar System. And they do incredible science in the process.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Basically we need someone to say. "We're going to Mars" Perhaps the CIA can work up a 2010 type situation where the Chinese threaten to go to Mars?
Question: I don't remember if I've asked this before, but wouldn't it THEORETICALLY be possible to build an Apollo CSM, throw it in the payload bay of the shuttle, launch a smaller rocket with the lander/booster and go to the moon cheaper than building a Saturn 5 and retooling the launch pads?
The ISS could serve as a staging ground, as I'm sure it will for the eventual Mars mission