Proud and sad to be an American today!

[Anthony]

The shuttle has outlived its usefulness. It was a low orbit vehicle. Next is something that will go to infinity and beyond!

Well we're paying the Russians several million dollars per flight on Soyuz to get to the space station for the next, Oh maybe 5 or more years. Maybe we should have let it outlive its usefullness a little later?

 

[MBDiagMan]

I always wondered:

Why did Enterprise have blinking lights? Like someone was going to avoid a collision that way?

I'm sure that they were quite useful when doing touch and go's!

 

[Anthony]

Why would you want to speak to the Romulans?

Well for one thing they have that good Ale.

 

[Piloto]

Sounds about right. Going to ~100 Hz might improve things quite a bit, though.

That high wattage output doesn't have to be continuous. Consider a charged capacitor that is suddenly shorted through a wire - the power output can be very high. For example, Sandia Labs can generate x-ray pulses of over 200 trillion watts. With modest generators they could send a morse code message using x-rays at reasonable speeds.

I think your premise of continuous output has lead you astray.

Glad to hear someone familiar with the subject. The problem with short pulses is they are not long enough to integrate at the receiver to bring it above the noise floor. To receive anything this weak we are talking of 1Hz bandwidth with integration periods of at least 10 seconds or more.

And even if we use 100db antenna gain the beamwidth would be so narrow that not only we have to point at the sky in very small increments but also tune in 1Hz increments with long time integration periods. And that's assuming the alien is transmitting continuosly with their narrow beam antennas pointing toward us. Even if the alien planet is identical to ours and they were pointing in our direction its rotation and axis may not coincide to ours when we point our antenna. Keep in mind also that we have limited view of the polar sky but the alien planet may have an equatorial view of us. Maybe we have to look in depth at ET rig to see how he did it.

José

 

[John Baker]

More than a few years back, Stephen Hawkings made the claim that having a habitable planet such as our earth is not to be seriously considered as the only place humans can survive. If we decide that it is, then it is a guarantee that our species will eventually become extinct.

All it would take is one large catastrophic event, such as a wayward meteor, a nuclear war, or even something as small as a virus to bring us to our end.

As it is now, our species has all of its eggs in one basket. Unless we populate other parts of our galaxy or solar system, our existence is extremely limited.

We are at the infinitesimal stage of space exploration, but for our own survival, we must pursue it like it is the most important thing we will ever do, because for our species, it is.

-John

 

[Bob Noel]

More than a few years back, Stephen Hawkings made the claim that having a habitable planet such as our earth is not to be seriously considered as the only place humans can survive. If we decide that it is, then it is a guarantee that our species will eventually become extinct.

All it would take is one large catastrophic event, such as a wayward meteor, a nuclear war, or even something as small as a virus to bring us to our end.

As it is now, our species has all of its eggs in one basket. Unless we populate other parts of our galaxy or solar system, our existence is extremely limited.

We are at the infinitesimal stage of space exploration, but for our own survival, we must pursue it like it is the most important thing we will ever do, because for our species, it is.

-John

Without the dream of exploration, our species might as well become extinct.

 

[Piloto]

More than a few years back, Stephen Hawkings made the claim that having a habitable planet such as our earth is not to be seriously considered as the only place humans can survive. If we decide that it is, then it is a guarantee that our species will eventually become extinct.

All it would take is one large catastrophic event, such as a wayward meteor, a nuclear war, or even something as small as a virus to bring us to our end.

As it is now, our species has all of its eggs in one basket. Unless we populate other parts of our galaxy or solar system, our existence is extremely limited.

We are at the infinitesimal stage of space exploration, but for our own survival, we must pursue it like it is the most important thing we will ever do, because for our species, it is.

-John

John I think we are pretty well atached to this planet (literally). Even astronauts at the ISS can not survive without supplies from Earth. Trying to populate other planets in our solar system is very much like a fish trying to live on land. Mankind is in a very close simbiotic relationship with this planet, the Sun and the Moon. Outside this environment is like a fish out of water, it may survive but not for a lifespan. The demise of mankind will likely be the result of running out of natural resources as it happened to other civilizations and species on Earth. Enjoy life now we may be living at the best times.

José

 

[zaitcev]

Well we're paying the Russians several million dollars per flight on Soyuz to get to the space station for the next, Oh maybe 5 or more years. Maybe we should have let it outlive its usefullness a little later?

First, we pay $55 million per set, not several. But what's one order of magnitude between friends when Shuttle was blowing a billion per lunch, right.

There was a gap between Apollo and Shuttle, too.

And the gap was caused by Shuttle merely existing. As long as Shuttle operated as the only, national piloted vehicle, there was no hope for any progress in space transport.

 

[zaitcev]

More than a few years back, Stephen Hawkings made the claim that having a habitable planet such as our earth is not to be seriously considered as the only place humans can survive. If we decide that it is, then it is a guarantee that our species will eventually become extinct.

I think it was O'Neil who said it.

 

[wsuffa]

"Open the pod bay door, Hal."

 

[flhrci]

I always wondered:

Why did Enterprise have blinking lights? Like someone was going to avoid a collision that way?

FARs, there will always be FARs! Big Brother goes with you everywhere!

David

 

[Jay Honeck]

I see it differently. Our generation built Falcon 9 and Dragon, which - potentially - can take anyone to space. Their generation built Shuttle, which NEVER was going to take anyone to space, except for a handful of government employees. They peed away 30 years during which we could be making meaningful progress in space. It is down to our generation to fix that.

I love your optimism, but I fear it won't work out that way.

As Apollo proved, space exploration requires a massive, national effort. Start-ups will soon be able to get us into low earth orbit cheaply and reliably -- although just think of the litigation when someone gets hurt! -- but the exploration of the solar system and beyond is going to take an all-out effort that our society can no longer afford.

Thankfully, just as America declined, along came the Chinese, flush with our money and full of forward-thinking, bright people. They're a decade or two behind, but they will quickly close that gap. We can only hope that they serve mankind well.

 

[heilmanbw]

How I felt about the program ending.

 

[Gmaper]

I love your optimism, but I fear it won't work out that way.

As Apollo proved, space exploration requires a massive, national effort. Start-ups will soon be able to get us into low earth orbit cheaply and reliably -- although just think of the litigation when someone gets hurt! -- but the exploration of the solar system and beyond is going to take an all-out effort that our society can no longer afford.

Thankfully, just as America declined, along came the Chinese, flush with our money and full of forward-thinking, bright people. They're a decade or two behind, but they will quickly close that gap. We can only hope that they serve mankind well.

Very well said, Jay. I believe that the days of America doing something really expensive like the space program is past. We have difficulty even paying for relatively cheap wars.

 

[Ghery]

And even if we use 100db antenna gain the beamwidth would be so narrow that not only we have to point at the sky in very small increments but also tune in 1Hz increments with long time integration periods. And that's assuming the alien is transmitting continuosly with their narrow beam antennas pointing toward us. Even if the alien planet is identical to ours and they were pointing in our direction its rotation and axis may not coincide to ours when we point our antenna. Keep in mind also that we have limited view of the polar sky but the alien planet may have an equatorial view of us. Maybe we have to look in depth at ET rig to see how he did it.

José

That's going to take a BIG antenna. Arecibo has 70 dB gain, and the main dish is 1000 feet across. Been there, and that plaform is way up there.

 

[steingar]

As Apollo proved, space exploration requires a massive, national effort.

Burt Rutan proved you don't.

Start-ups will soon be able to get us into low earth orbit cheaply and reliably -- although just think of the litigation when someone gets hurt! -- but the exploration of the solar system and beyond is going to take an all-out effort that our society can no longer afford.

We could never afford it. The whole space race was an artifact of the cold war, though it beat the heck out of lobbing nuclear missiles at each other. Sustainable development depends on a commercially viable reason to go out there, crystal growth, space tourism, whatever. Without the commercial viability we aren't going anywhere.

Thankfully, just as America declined, along came the Chinese, flush with our money and full of forward-thinking, bright people. They're a decade or two behind, but they will quickly close that gap. We can only hope that they serve mankind well.

Yeah, I'm worried about the Chinese, they're repeating what we did a half century ago, and they're suing cutting edge 1970's technology!

 

[denverpilot]

Burt Rutan proved you don't.

Hmm. A billionaire benefactor, the Ansari X-Prize money, and "retiring" right before the whole thing started the growth phase that will make it a break-even project at best?

It's a millionaire joyride club. It'll be shut down after they finish taking their list of millionaires sub-orbital and they deplete the small but very wealthy market.

I'm not sure sub-orbital joyrides are exactly a replacement or proof that a manned orbital and manned moon program will ever be commercially viable.

Not saying it isn't cool as heck. But the argument is weak.

 

[steingar]

Hmm. A billionaire benefactor, the Ansari X-Prize money, and "retiring" right before the whole thing started the growth phase that will make it a break-even project at best?

To achieve the same thing NASA spent billions.

It's a millionaire joyride club. It'll be shut down after they finish taking their list of millionaires sub-orbital and they deplete the small but very wealthy market.

NASA was never anything but a military aviator joyride. Not so different, really.

I'm not sure sub-orbital joyrides are exactly a replacement or proof that a manned orbital and manned moon program will ever be commercially viable.

If they aren't, what will be? Remember, even if the Moon was made of pure gold, it wouldn't be commercially viable to mine it there with todays technology. And if space travel isn't commercially viable, we probably aren't going. Heck, even Columbus was trying to round the world to make a buck.

 

[denverpilot]

NASA was never anything but a military aviator joyride. Not so different, really.

Hmm. They took along a number of scientists. Killed a schoolteacher too. So not 100% accurate for Shuttle. Or Station. True in preceding programs.

If they aren't, what will be? Remember, even if the Moon was made of pure gold, it wouldn't be commercially viable to mine it there with todays technology. And if space travel isn't commercially viable, we probably aren't going. Heck, even Columbus was trying to round the world to make a buck.

True. We agree then. When the millionaire joyride bucks dry up, Virgin Galactic will be history.

SpaceX might survive if they are handed enough government pork launches. They already pay next to nothing for their Kwajalein launch facility we stole from the natives so we could test nuclear bombs and missiles. Someone has an Army buddy.

Or as the muppets would say...

"Pigs... In... Spaaaaaaace!"

Again. Cool company, but it's ALL subsidized. NASA, VG, SpaceX. Doesn't really matter. None are ever commercially viable, which is what you were saying "Rutan proved". Rutan has proved he's a great designer and can build damn near anything ... with someone else's money backing him. Definitely an impressive human achievement. But not proof of fiscal viability.

VG is holding big open houses and hiring. It'll be a good ride for some for a few years. Maybe ten. SpaceX has been hiring on and off for a while too. Someone might make a career of that place.

 

[matthammer]

Regarding the enterprise and warp speed, it's based on the theory of creating a field which encases the ship like a bubble which compresses space in front of the field and expands it behind her. The enterprise itself is moving at sub-light speeds in "local" space-time contained by the bubble; the bubble is moving at warp speeds -- sorta like riding in a vomit comet. This is why they don't age (time dilation) and why the warp-engine's nacelles don't tear from the hull: they aren't moving that fast in "normal" space.

A simplified version of the theory, but I'm trying to keep my post to less than 10k words.

This is what I do in my spare time.

Like an Alcubierre drive? I'd like to hear the Star Trek explanation for how they managed to produce that much energy.

I think the shuttle program was dated and needed to be retired. I'm not happy, however, that we've retired it without having a suitable replacement in the works. Manned space flight is important, both because of the potential for scientific advancement, and because it contributes greatly to our sense of national pride. That might seem silly, but just look at what landing astronauts on the moon did for the country (heck, for the world). I do agree, though, that for now, the greatest advancements are more likely to come from robotic exploration of the solar system. But I think robotic spacecraft should be considered primarily as a stepping stone to more extensive manned exploration of space.

 

[heilmanbw]

I think the shuttle program was dated and needed to be retired. I'm not happy, however, that we've retired it without having a suitable replacement in the works. Manned space flight is important, both because of the potential for scientific advancement, and because it contributes greatly to our sense of national pride. That might seem silly, but just look at what landing astronauts on the moon did for the country (heck, for the world). I do agree, though, that for now, the greatest advancements are more likely to come from robotic exploration of the solar system. But I think robotic spacecraft should be considered primarily as a stepping stone to more extensive manned exploration of space.

I agree we had never, up to this point, retired a vehicle without a replacement online. The government went way too early with the ax. I think a lot of it has to do with politics. It gave the government a sense of doing something about spending. Sadly we now rely on someone with who our relationship is tenuous at best. I don't want to sound political here but I think it had a lot to do with the person residing 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. kowtowing to his political donors kind of like Keystone XL, but that is something for a different thread.

One of the greatest pleasures I ever had was meeting and interviewing Thomas Stafford for my high school senior term paper. We all had to choose a famous Oklahoman and he was who I picked. Nobody had a clue to who he was except me I think. Hearing some of his stories and insight on the Gemini and Apollo programs was awe inspiring to say the least. It really made me want to go to work in the space industry. Sadly that is still a dream I have yet to fulfill.

 

[John Baker]

I think it was O'Neil who said it.

I had read where it was Hawkings who initially came up with that, however, does it matter? The real point is that all of our species should have one main common goal, and that is unassing this planet, along with colonizing others as soon as possible.

Like I said, we are at the infinitesimal stage of space exploration. To assume that it is impossible to travel to other solar systems, or even other galaxies, is much the same as when learned men and scientists at one time made the claim, and were able to prove mathematically, that man would never fly commercially.

-John

 

[Piloto]

That's going to take a BIG antenna. Arecibo has 70 dB gain, and the main dish is 1000 feet across. Been there, and that plaform is way up there.

Arecibo dish is miniscule when compared to the SETI task. We are talking of antenna dishes the size of the Moon. One problem Arecibo had was the interference and noise level created by different sources on Earth that reduces the possibilty of listening to very fainth signals at lower frequencies (less path loss). One option that had been tossed around is an Arecibo like radio telescope on the dark side of the Moon. The Moon would shield the Earth radio signals and Solar noise acivity (for 14 days). The dark side of the Moon offers a much quieter environment than anything in orbit, thus allowing to receive much weaker signals across a much wider spectrum (from 1MHz to X-rays). Eventually as space exploration continuos we would need to build large radio telescopes on the Moon dark side.

José

 

[zaitcev]

As Apollo proved, space exploration requires a massive, national effort.

With all due respect, Apollo proved no such thing. Apollo's motto was "waste everything except time", and waste they did. It's a culture thing. When Kistler hired Apollo retreads, they wasted $800 million on K-1, which was "75% complete by weight" by the time they were through.

Government is going to have a role, definitely, but hopefuly the role of an enabler, like they did with Air Mail contracts in 1920s.

 

[steingar]

Like an Alcubierre drive? I'd like to hear the Star Trek explanation for how they managed to produce that much energy.

Dilithium.

 

[Piloto]

The main problem of current space vehicles is that all of them uses rocket propulsion. This requires massive amounts of propellant thus increasing the weight of the vehicle. A nuclear powered rocket may have large amounts of energy for many years but without propellant it goes no where. 80% of the Saturn V weight was on the propellant/fuel mass. For space travel to be practical we would need to develop a propulsion system that directly converts power into a propulsive force without propellant. This would reduce substantially not only the weight of the vehicle but the amount of power required. And it will substantially increase the vehicle maneuvering range.

There is no physics law that exclude propellantless propulsion it is just that we have not found the right propeller configuration to couple a power source to the space medium just like a plane propeller couples an engine to the air medium.

José

 

[Jay Honeck]

With all due respect, Apollo proved no such thing. Apollo's motto was "waste everything except time", and waste they did. It's a culture thing. When Kistler hired Apollo retreads, they wasted $800 million on K-1, which was "75% complete by weight" by the time they were through.

Government is going to have a role, definitely, but hopefuly the role of an enabler, like they did with Air Mail contracts in 1920s.

Oh, private industry will be launching satellites -- and, perhaps, humans -- into low earth orbit. That's a given.

But that's like kayaking in the backwaters versus heading out to sea. Space exploration -- going to other worlds -- will be left to robots, until the Chinese are up to speed.

For those who say that this is all well and good, that robots can do the job more cost effectively, I say: "How excited are you about drones?" When a Predator was parked at OSH last year, it was virtually ignored -- while people struggled to get a glimpse at the F22 or any of a dozen other manned aircraft.

Why is that?

I say it's because humans instinctively feel the need to explore their world physically, not just by remote control. We ignore drones on the ramp because they are dull, and don't carry a human into the air. Sure, they get us pretty pictures -- but they don't TAKE US THERE.

Sadly, America can no longer afford a manned space program -- but the Chinese can, and will...someday.

 

[Jay Honeck]

The main problem of current space vehicles is that all of them uses rocket propulsion. This requires massive amounts of propellant thus increasing the weight of the vehicle. A nuclear powered rocket may have large amounts of energy for many years but without propellant it goes no where. 80% of the Saturn V weight was on the propellant/fuel mass. For space travel to be practical we would need to develop a propulsion system that directly converts power into a propulsive force without propellant. This would reduce substantially not only the weight of the vehicle but the amount of power required. And it will substantially increase the vehicle maneuvering range.

There is no physics law that exclude propellantless propulsion it is just that we have not found the right propeller configuration to couple a power source to the space medium just like a plane propeller couples an engine to the air medium.

José

The original mission for the space station was to build vehicles for interplanetary exploration. Vehicles built in space would not have to escape from the Earth's surface, and could thus be built more cheaply.

Inexplicably, we built the space station in an orbit that is apparently too low to meet this mission. Perhaps someone who is better versed in space history can explain this issue?

 

[zaitcev]

Inexplicably, we built the space station in an orbit that is apparently too low to meet this mission. Perhaps someone who is better versed in space history can explain this issue?

It's a bit of a blanket statement. Indeed ISS is not in an optimal orbit for beyond-LEO staging. Both altitude and inclination are somewhat disadvantageous. The optimal orbit would be an equatorial orbit, which guarantees you a window for launch in Ecliptic plane every hour, from where you change the targeting with bit of planning of burn timing and duration. Altitude is a bit of a problem because the residual atmosphere exerts drag.

The orbit was selected to accommodate both Shuttle and Russians. For Soyuz (with crew) and Proton (with larger components) to reach the station, it has to be in the 51.6 deg orbit or higher (at a greater inclination). But Shuttle can only fly to a limited altitude, especially when loaded with heavy station pieces.

Note that limiting the altitude so the station orbits under Van Allen belts simplifies the radiation protection enormously, so it would make sense even if Shuttle were better suitable for delivery to higher orbits.

With all that said, the ISS orbit is not a total loss for staging. Russians fly probes to the Moon from a 51.6 parking orbit. It only necessitates additional maneuvering, such as waiting a couple of days for suitable phasing after undocking from ISS. Not a big penalty for a trip that takes months, IMHO.

Going further, I am a bit believer in co-orbiting in the same plane with ISS. Russians have demonstrated its utility by undocking a Soyuz from Salyut-6 and docking it to Mir. Look at it this way: what if a lifeboat design on Titanic was specified not to keep passengers alive for a day or two, but take them all the way back to Sothhampton? But this is what the current lifeboat situation is on the ISS: the lifeboat has to be a full-blown spaceship that can descend through the atmosphere and land on Earth. Aside from safety, other advantages of co-orbiting are having free-fliers for scientific experiments that are impossible at ISS, because they require a better microgravity, or ability to share communications and other resources (e.g. no need for expensive Luch and TDRS satellites), split administrative control, and so on.

Because of these advantages, I am pretty sure that we're stuck with the 51.6 orbit for many years, and we'll need to learn to use it for expedition staging.

 

[fgcason]

The original mission for the space station was to build vehicles for interplanetary exploration. Vehicles built in space would not have to escape from the Earth's surface, and could thus be built more cheaply.

Inexplicably, we built the space station in an orbit that is apparently too low to meet this mission. Perhaps someone who is better versed in space history can explain this issue?

That was the plan for space stations in the 1960's when NASA was thinking about actually doing things. I doubt the ISS was intended for anything like that unless "it magically happens that someone will now fund manned spaceflight beyond low earth orbit" at which time they'd have to do a whole bunch more to it to support long range vehicles.

Wasn't the original plan for the ISS to be end of mission in 2012 or 2015? Build for a decade or longer, when complete use it for a couple years then toss it in the ocean. Imagine building a house, moving in and when the lawn finally turns green, bulldoze the entire place to the ground...same thing.


Anyone remember spacestation Fred from the 1980's?

 

[Datadriver]

Space belongs to China now

 

[Jay Honeck]

It's a bit of a blanket statement. Indeed ISS is not in an optimal orbit for beyond-LEO staging. Both altitude and inclination are somewhat disadvantageous. The optimal orbit would be an equatorial orbit, which guarantees you a window for launch in Ecliptic plane every hour, from where you change the targeting with bit of planning of burn timing and duration. Altitude is a bit of a problem because the residual atmosphere exerts drag.

The orbit was selected to accommodate both Shuttle and Russians. For Soyuz (with crew) and Proton (with larger components) to reach the station, it has to be in the 51.6 deg orbit or higher (at a greater inclination). But Shuttle can only fly to a limited altitude, especially when loaded with heavy station pieces.

Note that limiting the altitude so the station orbits under Van Allen belts simplifies the radiation protection enormously, so it would make sense even if Shuttle were better suitable for delivery to higher orbits.

With all that said, the ISS orbit is not a total loss for staging. Russians fly probes to the Moon from a 51.6 parking orbit. It only necessitates additional maneuvering, such as waiting a couple of days for suitable phasing after undocking from ISS. Not a big penalty for a trip that takes months, IMHO.

Going further, I am a bit believer in co-orbiting in the same plane with ISS. Russians have demonstrated its utility by undocking a Soyuz from Salyut-6 and docking it to Mir. Look at it this way: what if a lifeboat design on Titanic was specified not to keep passengers alive for a day or two, but take them all the way back to Sothhampton? But this is what the current lifeboat situation is on the ISS: the lifeboat has to be a full-blown spaceship that can descend through the atmosphere and land on Earth. Aside from safety, other advantages of co-orbiting are having free-fliers for scientific experiments that are impossible at ISS, because they require a better microgravity, or ability to share communications and other resources (e.g. no need for expensive Luch and TDRS satellites), split administrative control, and so on.

Because of these advantages, I am pretty sure that we're stuck with the 51.6 orbit for many years, and we'll need to learn to use it for expedition staging.

Thanks for that, Pete. I'm glad to hear that the ISS is still usable as a launch platform -- since flying a manned mission to Mars from there seems much more doable than one that originates on earth.

Yet, strangely, even the most recent plans for a Mars mission depend on an Earth departure, with all the problems that carries. Why is that?

 

[Henning]

Unlike Star Trek where there are class M planets everywhere in the Galaxy the reality is completely different. First the distances involved even for Mars are too great for safe manned missions. The rewards or benefits of manned exploration is less than those of robotic missions. A robotic mission is much less expensive and less risky since there is no need for a return trip neither the loss of human life. A robot on Mars can stay for years doing exploration while an astronaut is limited to the amount of food and pysicological/physiological needs. And that is assuming he does not get sick.

Except for Earth there is no other place in our solar system where a human can stand without a pressure suit. And only a few that can stand with an astronaut suit. Not even the Moon which is at the same distance from the Sun as Earth can sustain any kind of life. Even our own planet was only habitable on the last 100 million years out of 4,000 million years old.

The closest solar system is only a mere 4 light years away when compared to 50,000 light years to the center of our galaxy or 4 million light years to the closest galaxy. And even if you had a starship where would you go?

And if we are looking for alien intelligent life you are better of looking south of the border than up in the sky.

José

That's pretty much the long and short of it. 'Spaceflight' has reached where it can go really. In order for interstellar travel we'll need a breakthrough in 'dark matter/energy' and the control of gravity so we can warp spacetime to connect where we want.

 

[gcd89]

IIRC, Galileo did that originally. I could be wrong though but that's one that comes to mind.

And Erasthones did it before him.

The whole "people though the Earth was flat" thing is bull****.

 

[gcd89]

Space belongs to China now

In what capacity? Looking at something and going "it would be cool to be there" doesn't mean you own it.

 

[Henning]

Well we're paying the Russians several million dollars per flight on Soyuz to get to the space station for the next, Oh maybe 5 or more years. Maybe we should have let it outlive its usefullness a little later?

Are you kidding??? That's a freaking BARGAIN! What we need is for Branson to finally come through with his hype and BS and pony up commercial service to the ISS. Heck, I would love one meeting with the man.

 

[Jay Honeck]

In what capacity? Looking at something and going "it would be cool to be there" doesn't mean you own it.

They have all the money.

And THAT (above all else) is what it takes to fly. But then, you already know that...

 

[silver-eagle]

Sounds like James Cameron, two of the Google triplets, and Peter Diamadis were reading our discussion about space exploration. Find an asteroid, mine its resources, make buckets of money.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...n-to-hunt-for-natural-resources-on-asteroids/

 

[Jay Honeck]

We had a guest at the hotel this weekend who lives in Houston, within walking distance of the Johnson Space Center. GA connection: He's a (lapsed) private pilot and aeronautical engineer (retired) who worked on the Citation jet.

He told me the area has been devastated by the loss of the manned space program. Laid off engineers have left in droves, to seek work on more mundane things. The hard core corps of experienced space workers are being scattered to the winds.

He's lived through this before. When he was a student, the highest-paid engineering jobs were in aeronautical engineering, and he dreamed of working on the space program. Just months before he graduated, the United States cancelled the SST (Supersonic Transport) program, the Apollo program was defunded (and the follow-on missions cancelled), and he ended up going to work for Cessna -- after a stint in Viet Nam.

An aside. He had received his orders to Pensacola to train as a Naval aviator, when word came that he was rejected due to hay fever. The moving truck was on the way to Florida when he received the telegram -- the only real telegram he's ever received. He fought it all the way up the ladder, and even tried to transfer to the Air Force, but ended up being the maintenance officer on several carriers, watching others do the flying.

He is STILL ****ed about it.

Bottom line: Once the core talent of NASA is scattered, it will be extremely difficult to reassemble. As we can now no longer go to the moon, soon we will be unable to build another shuttle, simply through intellectual decay inside NASA.

It's so sad. Fifty years of effort, gone.

 

[zaitcev]

What we need is for Branson to finally come through with his hype and BS and pony up commercial service to the ISS.

Did you just confuse Sir Richard Branson and Elon Musk? It's Elon who's innaugurating the commercial cargo service to ISS at the end of this month, and promises to open commercial passenger service in 3 years.