SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In recent months, the executive secretary of the National Space Council, Scott Pace, has worked assiduously behind the scenes to develop a formal space policy for the Trump administration. In a rare interview, published Monday in Scientific American, Pace elaborated on some of the policy decisions he has been helping to make.
In the interview, Pace explained why the Trump administration has chosen to focus on the Moon first for human exploration while relegating Mars to becoming a "horizon goal," effectively putting human missions to the Red Planet decades into the future. Mars was too ambitious, Pace said, and such a goal would have precluded meaningful involvement from the burgeoning US commercial sector as well as international partners. Specific plans for how NASA will return to the Moon should become more concrete within the next year, he added.
In response to a question about privately developed, heavy-lift boosters, the executive secretary also reiterated his skepticism that such "commercial" rockets developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX could compete with the government's Space Launch System rocket, which is likely to make its maiden flight in 2020. "Heavy-lift rockets are strategic national assets, like aircraft carriers," Pace said. "There are some people who have talked about buying heavy-lift as a service as opposed to owning and operating, in which case the government would, of course, have to continue to own the intellectual properties so it wasn't hostage to any one contractor. One could imagine this but, in general, building a heavy-lift rocket is no more 'commercial' than building an aircraft carrier with private contractors would be."
I thought flying non-reusable pork rockets was about the money, not strategy. SpaceX is set to launch Falcon Heavy for the first time no earlier than December 29. It will have over 90% of the low Earth orbit capacity as the initial version of the SLS (63.8 metric tons vs. 70).
Previously: Maiden Flight of the Space Launch System Delayed to 2019
First SLS Mission Will be Unmanned
Commercial Space Companies Want More Money From NASA
U.S. Air Force Will Eventually Launch Using SpaceX's Reused Rockets
(Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:20PM (12 children)
Mars is too ambitious?
It will always be too ambitious if you never make a start.
The "start" should be learning how to get to Mars and back reliably using (initially) un-crewed vehicles.
The first few should deliver parts for a space station to orbit Mars, and some vehicles to go from the Mars space station to the surface.
The first few of those should be one-way with a soft landing to provide basic shelters/stores on the surface.
Next, a few launches from the surface back up to the Mars space station should be tried out.
More modules/components should be coming from Earth all the time to add to the Mars space station, more landing vehicles, fuel supplies etc.
At least one of the test launches from the Mars surface should bring samples which can be sent back to Earth on one of the return flights.
When the infrastructure looks reasonably reliable, some people should go, land on Mars, explore for a bit and come home to Earth.
Obviously, this will take decades. The technology will have to be developed and refined. It will be expensive, but spread over decades, it might make it feasible.
I'd like the Human Race's first visit to Mars be a peaceful, dignified, safe, scientific exploration mission, not a crazy one-way suicide "colonisation" mission as envisaged by the Great Profit Musk.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:56PM (1 child)
We live in a Post-Dignity world. A Musky sex cult colony would be a great way to populate Mars. #DieOnMars.
From what I can tell, NASA has not committed to landing on Mars in the 2030s [soylentnews.org]. A Martian space station in the 2030s: possible but not certain yet. Boots on the ground? Not unless the plans change, which they could if China tries to take the lead (Russia's space program has had some failures lately and China has more money to blow and lots of superpower ambition).
So when you have Musky talking about a 2020s landing (sure, the date will slip, but whatever), and advertising payload-to-Mars on its site [spacex.com], it's looking like he could succeed and beat NASA to Mars. The reusable rockets alone are going to do so much for SpaceX. Can they make a human-rated craft and a successor to Falcon Heavy before 2030? We'll see. The next couple of years should give us a better picture of the company's chances; SpaceX will be launching Falcon Heavy, and has promised to send two human customers on a Moon orbit (REAL SPACE TOURISM).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday November 09 2017, @12:11AM
I miss Musky Troll.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @10:15PM
Of those Mars surface missions you mention. I would estimate that a first priority is to land where there is definitely water. (Or find it if that location is unknown.)
Then erecting solar panels is more important than shelters. Considering robotic missions need less shelter.
Once you have water and plenty of energy, produce fuel on the surface of mars to prove that 19th century chemistry still works.
Produce and accumulate fuel to be used for a return to earth. During this time erect shelters for humans. In the meantime, an empty earth return vehicle should be fueled. At this point, you have a good scenario for humans to arrive, have shelter, power, water, and a return to earth.
But it all starts with a lot of robotics.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by arslan on Wednesday November 08 2017, @10:38PM (2 children)
Going to the moon first and later Mars isn't a valid start to ultimately getting to Mars? It is just a different approach.
Having a base it the moon also allows other activities than a hopping point to Mars. The moon itself have lots to be discovered (and ahem exploited), we can target other terrestrial objects, etc. All can potentially be done as different initiatives in parallel to getting to Mars.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 08 2017, @10:46PM
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the Moon-then-Mars approach. Reaching Mars with a tiny crew is not a matter of life and death for our country. Letting SpaceX or China get there first is not a death blow. Waiting and delaying will allow us to work out the details of better propulsion systems, better shielding, and could allow the use of a cheaper rocket than the SLS. However, due to NASA's budget constraints, a Moon-first approach will definitely delay the "Journey to Mars" (and only a Mars orbit or space station is in the works at this time). So if your goal is to get to Mars as fast as humanly possible (see Buzz Aldrin [soylentnews.org]), you would not see the need for a lunar space station or base.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:36PM
I agree with you.
However, there is a very good reason our politicians are all of a sudden interested in going back to the moon. Even though we lost interest decades ago.
Other nations are going there even if we are not. We need to get there and stake our claim! America First. All you other non-white heathens take what's left. I think that is the real motive, even if not stated.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @12:31AM (3 children)
Then we're never going to get there.
The simple, unfortunate fact of the matter is that space is basically an infinite ocean of certain death for squishy critters such as ourselves, evolved only to a relatively constrained environment. Short of filling it with some sort of acid or antimatter or outright setting it on fire (however one could manage that), it's hard to think of an environment better suited to killing us. Plus, the long-term health problems that current astronauts often have, even in our well-developed, relatively safe ships, illustrate just how little we know about how this whole thing works, in terms of not only space, but our bodies and even our equipment and technology. The radiation alone is a terrible risk, and many other physiological systems suffer, e.g. the heart and eyes. All of that is in low-Earth orbit where people can be evacuated back if there is an emergency, on the assumption that we know enough to do anything to help them in the first place (and considering the aforementioned health problems popping up, I don't think we're anywhere near there yet).
And we as a society are hyper-sensitive to space related deaths. To chart the planet people went on voyages that lasted multiple years and a large part of the crew was almost expected to die of simple problems, assuming the ship was ever heard from again. In the 1980s, 7 people got blown to bits and we stopped all manned space exploration for years, with a repeat performance in the 2000s. And most, if not all, of those people knew full well that every time they heard that countdown reach zero that their demise might be coming in seconds. These were people who fought and studied and clawed tooth and nail for one of those seats on what they fully well knew could well be the world's most expensive coffin. One could say that this was something of an exception for Challenger, at least in some cases, given how deluded the PR was as to how "safe" the space shuttle was, but considering one of the four abort modes developed for the shuttle was basically considered Russian Roulette with all loaded chambers, and John Young himself refused to fly that abort mode to test it out, that should give you an indication of how dangerous they all knew it to be.
If we are going to get anywhere with space exploration, people are going to die. A lot of people. And if we don't get over this grim, but inescapable, fact, then we're going to go extinct long before we make it to another planet, let alone another star. Vaguely gesturing towards our "vast technological progress," as some might want to rely on (which is actually grimly reminiscent of the hallucinations that Mars One relies on, when you think about it) only brings to mind such projects as the Titanic, purported to be an unsinkable ship.
It is possible that one day space travel will be as clean, quick, and safe as in many works of science fiction. That day is not today and will almost certainly not be within any of our lifetimes. But that day will be never if we are so afraid to take risks that we turn away droves of volunteers. And space exploration by robots, while still capable of some practical tasks (e.g. mining), is of far less value when trying to determine how to survive long-term in this relatively hostile universe. The Earth won't remain inhabitable forever, even if humans manage to continue to survive and maintain technology on Earth for many thousands of years to come.
As a final note, while I am advocating taking risks in space, I think that it's probably best to work more on the Moon than Mars at this point. Considering the horrid technical problems there are with setting up a long-term manned presence on the Moon, and it's only a few days away, Mars really would be a suicide trip at this point, and AFAIK there have been quite a few high-level engineers that are quite pessimistic of an attempt with our current technology. While we need to accept that there are going to be a lot of casualties in space exploration, considering just how grim the situation is with current technology, it's foolhardy to try at this point. Realistic acceptance of high, even extreme, levels of risk is different than actually throwing lives and billions upon billions of dollars into the toilet.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday November 09 2017, @01:07AM (1 child)
Some points:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday November 09 2017, @05:33AM
A couple of points,
My understanding is that the Moon is missing some vital elements needed for life and therefore colonies with no need for resupply are basically impossible. Looking quickly, I see that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Moon#Elemental_composition [wikipedia.org] mentions that carbon and nitrogen are almost non-existant with only deposits from the solar wind. Be pretty hard to have a self supporting colony without carbon and nitrogen. Pretty sure there are other elements that we need that are in short supply on the Moon.
Don't forget the long nights, something like 330 hours of dark. Possibly the poles could be a workaround but the poles look very rugged. I'd assume that flat areas will be needed for space ports. The need for large fairly flat areas for landing multiple space craft will also be an issue with all colonies including on Mars. Those lava tubes may not be in the most accessible locations.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday November 09 2017, @09:23PM
Not necessarily.
Correct. We need to gradually improve our technology, and the way to do that is to use it for real missions. Automation is pretty advanced these days. There's no reason to put people in harm's way before the major problems have been ironed out. What is important is to start testing with human-rated gear from the outset, not as an afterthought in 30 years time...
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 09 2017, @12:58AM
Well I'd be happy with either.
Too bad we're gonna get neither.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:10AM
We do that just fine with robots already.
For any given period of intended work, you will get much more out of rovers than any human, and the smarter you make them an the larger their numbers the more work they can do. for less money.
SLS can deliver a lot of robots. So can any of the others.
But nobody has gotten anything off of mars yet.
Wings are useless, so landing is probably going to be some form of rocket slam.
And relaunch is going to be a LOT harder than on the moon.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.