The key words in chrismb's first reply are "something worthwhile". As if human space flight isn't worthwhile. The burden isn't on GIT but on Chrismb. GIT simply asked what the next generation of HSF would be like, not what would lead to it, or what its prerequisites are or should be. You can have HSF before or after all the little children of the world have their cake and eat it too, regardless. GIT wasn't wrong to interpret that post that way, because of those key words.
Next, can you really say with a straight face that HSF (or its precursors) expenses are excessive relative to the needs of and expenses for starving children (etc)? Governmental wastefulness in social programs probably out-proportions all of Space Flight's expenses.
The question there is what proportion should USF/HSF have relative to the rest of the budget. Or what justifies nixing it entirely.
If we forever had starving children and deadbeat population fractions, but had colonized a couple of places off-world, Ceteris Paribus, we'd already be better off than if we'd stopped all space development to funnel those funds into social issues. This isn't a philosophical argument but a realistic one - what would actually happen in practice. There's always going to be deadbeats, malcontents, Luddites, etc. There's effectively (effectively unless something major happens, e.g. life extension succeeds within our lifetime) always going to be governmental frick ups and public apathy. The money that goes into USF/HSF isn't going to solve that.
The expense will always be toward the same thing, eventual permanent human presence in outer space, regardless whether we get there thru robotic precursors or manned all the way, or some combination of both. Why towards that? Because in the long run the resources of the solar system dwarf those of only this planet. Because the arbitrary "rightness" of altruism is just as fundamental as that of exploring and pioneering new frontiers. Both motivate people to do great things for technological progress. Which is the only way we'll trend towards utopia. People (meaning world population) will never be satisfied so long as they have to bear the burden of working to keep others alive. So long as that bondage in labor remains, instead of e.g. everyone having their Mr Fusion and Replicators, instead of everyone being self-sufficient.
Utopic notions but nevertheless where the trend points to.
The Next Generation of Human Spaceflight
So now we descend into pedantics - which seem to follow GIT everywhere!Betruger wrote:The key words in chrismb's first reply are "something worthwhile". As if human space flight isn't worthwhile.
It was GIT who said we should discuss "something worthwhile" rather than waste time discussing something that, by inference, is not worthwhile.
You've turned that on its head by saying that if it is something that can be done then in some way it is progress and is therefore worthwhile. Which means GITs original prospectus - that there are some things worthwhile and others that are not - appears flawed.
My point was quite serious: if you don't know why you are doing something, then you screw it up. You get a) mission creep, b) you don't know when you've finished, c) designers are forced to design for every eventuality which leads to c.i) big budgets, c.ii) compromised and inefficient specifications to achieve any one given objective.
I mean..... do I really need to give any recent examples!!!!....
And, no, I don't think human space flight in itself can be said to be worthwhile. The anticipation of something worthwhile emanating from that activity is reasonable, but not a given. Just state the mission options, and we can examine those to see if they are worthwhile.
What pedantics? If you don't know what you're debating, you screw it up. Where in the OP does GIT specify discussion of "something worthwhile"? The OP doesn't even specify or argue what precedes the next gen of HSF, it only asks what that next gen will look like. Hell, it doesn't even require an ethical justification. A perfectly valid answer could predict what NGHSF will most likely look like even if it's ethically unjustifiable or not worthwhile (to whatever degree, and whether in principle or practically). All those platonic nit picks get washed down in the torrent of history, of sheer demographic impulse, regardless if that torrent's muddy and mindless. If we're taking bets, "perfect world" predictions won't win.
I'm not turning anything on its head. What's written in my post is meant as it reads, taken at face value.
1) USF/HSF isn't the cause of those people problems.
2) Undressing SF to dress those people problems won't solve those problems. Even if it was the cause of those problems, whether or not you had an HSF program (or USF precursor) as the US does would make no difference.
3) It is in fact totally arbitrary, a human arbitrary, that healthy little kids in backwater countries and human exploration of outer space (now the only remaining frontier, arguably aside from deep seas) both draw on fundamental drives. The purely clinical argument of whether it's ethically correct or not is a separate thing, but there the fact is that gutting SF does not solve those social/economical/etc problems. Therefore it's not a solution. The platonics of an argument don't matter if they don't produce working solutions. Again tilting at windmills for no good pragmatic reason.
I frankly (again not pedantics, this is exactly what I see it boils down to) can't see how human space flight isn't worthwhile. HSF isn't the cause of billions in poverty.
This isn't a two-wrongs-make-right argument saying that because monster social programs aren't efficient nor justified, then doing HSF is OK. It's an argument that it's ethically reasonable to fund SF because the financial solution to "potable water" problems is in good govt management of social spending. In healthy public culture (incl people employed by govt).
What I'd suggest is something that goes against what I think is the real problem with HSF: government mismanagement; jobs trumping sound space development policies. E.G. I'd suggest cheap but effective and sustainable space technology first of all, instead of monolithic rocket programs. Solid progress on the requirements for financially efficient and sustainable HSF: ISRU, closed loop life support, etc. Robotic can probably rule these precursor projects, but HSF is still the ultimate objective.
Again, all justified because we have to get off this planet sooner or later. And the sooner the better. Dino killer rocks and human wars on their own are reason enough. And the more primal motivations aren't at all negligible IMO. The Overview Effect's maybe the best example. It upsets the whole perspective that there's nothing worthwhile in being up there... That Effect is exactly the kind of thing that dissolves the kind of attitude that causes all those people problems.
As it is, I'm convinced that people being stuck down here massed on top of each other is a major stigma. I predict that history will show it's a massively underrated illness.
... Of course if colonizing space in such a way that people once again live like stacked sardines trapped at the bottom of gravity wells, then the "perspective" problem was reproduced. But at least the redundancy (extinction of one biosphere) problem would be solved.
I'm not turning anything on its head. What's written in my post is meant as it reads, taken at face value.
1) USF/HSF isn't the cause of those people problems.
2) Undressing SF to dress those people problems won't solve those problems. Even if it was the cause of those problems, whether or not you had an HSF program (or USF precursor) as the US does would make no difference.
3) It is in fact totally arbitrary, a human arbitrary, that healthy little kids in backwater countries and human exploration of outer space (now the only remaining frontier, arguably aside from deep seas) both draw on fundamental drives. The purely clinical argument of whether it's ethically correct or not is a separate thing, but there the fact is that gutting SF does not solve those social/economical/etc problems. Therefore it's not a solution. The platonics of an argument don't matter if they don't produce working solutions. Again tilting at windmills for no good pragmatic reason.
I frankly (again not pedantics, this is exactly what I see it boils down to) can't see how human space flight isn't worthwhile. HSF isn't the cause of billions in poverty.
Of what, a good cause that's badly implemented?(insert ten question marks) Do all of the USA's (and btw I'm not sure any other country can really make good debate on this topic) social programs have good reasons for existence, as they are? There's loads of lard in there and that proportion of money could do something about those people problems. If public will was behind it.I mean..... do I really need to give any recent examples!!!!....
This isn't a two-wrongs-make-right argument saying that because monster social programs aren't efficient nor justified, then doing HSF is OK. It's an argument that it's ethically reasonable to fund SF because the financial solution to "potable water" problems is in good govt management of social spending. In healthy public culture (incl people employed by govt).
So which is it? Why ask for those if HSF isn't worthwhile? So you're arguing financial feasibility after all, not HSF in principle. That's what I said already: HSF expense isn't the cause nor the solution for those people problems, not today nor for the foreseeable future.Just state the mission options
What I'd suggest is something that goes against what I think is the real problem with HSF: government mismanagement; jobs trumping sound space development policies. E.G. I'd suggest cheap but effective and sustainable space technology first of all, instead of monolithic rocket programs. Solid progress on the requirements for financially efficient and sustainable HSF: ISRU, closed loop life support, etc. Robotic can probably rule these precursor projects, but HSF is still the ultimate objective.
Again, all justified because we have to get off this planet sooner or later. And the sooner the better. Dino killer rocks and human wars on their own are reason enough. And the more primal motivations aren't at all negligible IMO. The Overview Effect's maybe the best example. It upsets the whole perspective that there's nothing worthwhile in being up there... That Effect is exactly the kind of thing that dissolves the kind of attitude that causes all those people problems.
As it is, I'm convinced that people being stuck down here massed on top of each other is a major stigma. I predict that history will show it's a massively underrated illness.
... Of course if colonizing space in such a way that people once again live like stacked sardines trapped at the bottom of gravity wells, then the "perspective" problem was reproduced. But at least the redundancy (extinction of one biosphere) problem would be solved.
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
For what it's worth, I'm not especially happy about being referred to as a "GIT".
This thread was intended to endorse the best parts of all of us. There are lots of good, strong, clear thinkers here. We're frustrated because the info we'd become accustomed to concerning the Poly, just isn't coming.
What I'd hoped with this thread was, that we'd find a common purpose. It's true the future is open with regards HSF. Is there no one here who wants their voice to be heard about what the future might entail?
TRITON has specs of thus and such thrust. Certain capabilities. . .I just think it's worthwhile to see what the peeps here think can be accomplished given something like a TRITON thruster in the next few years.
We could be exploring our planetary system, but not if what we really want is to argue, fight, scold, disparage, annoy, act like children.
All you really need to know, you learned in Kindergarden. Be nice. Share. Don't bite. Given this, what can we make of the tens of billions that will be spent in the next decade on HSF?
Are there no takers? People who want a better future?
This thread was intended to endorse the best parts of all of us. There are lots of good, strong, clear thinkers here. We're frustrated because the info we'd become accustomed to concerning the Poly, just isn't coming.
What I'd hoped with this thread was, that we'd find a common purpose. It's true the future is open with regards HSF. Is there no one here who wants their voice to be heard about what the future might entail?
TRITON has specs of thus and such thrust. Certain capabilities. . .I just think it's worthwhile to see what the peeps here think can be accomplished given something like a TRITON thruster in the next few years.
We could be exploring our planetary system, but not if what we really want is to argue, fight, scold, disparage, annoy, act like children.
All you really need to know, you learned in Kindergarden. Be nice. Share. Don't bite. Given this, what can we make of the tens of billions that will be spent in the next decade on HSF?
Are there no takers? People who want a better future?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
GIThruster: I've had a look at the TRITON and I think it's an excellent update to the NERVA from the Fifties and Sixties (I think).
WRT to my original posts, I assumed the Bussard was available as an option, but subsequent posts point out it probably isn't. Egg on my face.
So...I think the Titan mission is still a go with the TRITON, but I think the mission is too ambitious for the next generation. I think the next generation should be all about Heavy Lift. The best method to achieve Heavy Lift is a real X-Prize (I'm stealing this idea from Jerry Pournelle).
A real X-Prize reads something like this: 'The first entity to achieve a certain objective receives the prize. Good luck.' The point of such prizes is not to merely achieve a one-off result but to demonstrate such a thing can be done and build the capacity to do it again, we hope repeatably.
Some entrepreneurs have already shattered their SSTO lances against the shields of unobtainium and chemical propellants such that there are few projects currently working toward SSTO as a method of reducing cost/Kg to orbit.
We need an X-Prize aimed at reducing cost/Kg to orbit. The missions, we can imagine all the missions we like given reduced costs. Outposts? Same thing.
Paying for it all. Now there's the rub. I say, God bless the Ansari family for hosting the past and current rounds of X-Prize. I haven't looked, but there may be an X-Prize for what I proposed above.
So, I think we could build a decent HL booster using pieces of TRITON. I don't think we need the Brayton cycle power generation for HL applications (save some mass) but we probably will need to cool the reactor while the reactor transitions to lower rates between thrust. Also, I think we need to ensure safe abort modes for the reactor(s), not necessarily for the entire vehicle.
WRT to my original posts, I assumed the Bussard was available as an option, but subsequent posts point out it probably isn't. Egg on my face.
So...I think the Titan mission is still a go with the TRITON, but I think the mission is too ambitious for the next generation. I think the next generation should be all about Heavy Lift. The best method to achieve Heavy Lift is a real X-Prize (I'm stealing this idea from Jerry Pournelle).
A real X-Prize reads something like this: 'The first entity to achieve a certain objective receives the prize. Good luck.' The point of such prizes is not to merely achieve a one-off result but to demonstrate such a thing can be done and build the capacity to do it again, we hope repeatably.
Some entrepreneurs have already shattered their SSTO lances against the shields of unobtainium and chemical propellants such that there are few projects currently working toward SSTO as a method of reducing cost/Kg to orbit.
We need an X-Prize aimed at reducing cost/Kg to orbit. The missions, we can imagine all the missions we like given reduced costs. Outposts? Same thing.
Paying for it all. Now there's the rub. I say, God bless the Ansari family for hosting the past and current rounds of X-Prize. I haven't looked, but there may be an X-Prize for what I proposed above.
So, I think we could build a decent HL booster using pieces of TRITON. I don't think we need the Brayton cycle power generation for HL applications (save some mass) but we probably will need to cool the reactor while the reactor transitions to lower rates between thrust. Also, I think we need to ensure safe abort modes for the reactor(s), not necessarily for the entire vehicle.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence
R. Peters
R. Peters
Correction noted.-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
If you're going to use chemicals for launch, you probably can't do better than SpaceX. Their entire rocket is cutting edge and it's scalable to very heavy lifts. They say they will be reusing the second stage too, which would be very surprising to me to see. They plan to launch for about 1/10 the competition, IIRC ($40 million/Falcon 9 is it?) and if we're lucky, NASA isn't going to build a new rocket. They don't need one. It's cheaper to use Falcons, Atlas, Titan. . .if they had to pay to man rate those it would still cost far less than building a new rocket.rjaypeters wrote:GIThruster: I've had a look at the TRITON and I think it's an excellent update to the NERVA from the Fifties and Sixties (I think).
WRT to my original posts, I assumed the Bussard was available as an option, but subsequent posts point out it probably isn't. Egg on my face.
So...I think the Titan mission is still a go with the TRITON, but I think the mission is too ambitious for the next generation. I think the next generation should be all about Heavy Lift. The best method to achieve Heavy Lift is a real X-Prize (I'm stealing this idea from Jerry Pournelle).
A real X-Prize reads something like this: 'The first entity to achieve a certain objective receives the prize. Good luck.' The point of such prizes is not to merely achieve a one-off result but to demonstrate such a thing can be done and build the capacity to do it again, we hope repeatably.
Some entrepreneurs have already shattered their SSTO lances against the shields of unobtainium and chemical propellants such that there are few projects currently working toward SSTO as a method of reducing cost/Kg to orbit.
We need an X-Prize aimed at reducing cost/Kg to orbit. The missions, we can imagine all the missions we like given reduced costs. Outposts? Same thing.
Paying for it all. Now there's the rub. I say, God bless the Ansari family for hosting the past and current rounds of X-Prize. I haven't looked, but there may be an X-Prize for what I proposed above.
So, I think we could build a decent HL booster using pieces of TRITON. I don't think we need the Brayton cycle power generation for HL applications (save some mass) but we probably will need to cool the reactor while the reactor transitions to lower rates between thrust. Also, I think we need to ensure safe abort modes for the reactor(s), not necessarily for the entire vehicle.
This is why I'm suggesting the way forward is to build the TRITON. Just seems anything less is Apollo on steroids. There isn't much more we can do with chemical rockets on the budget we have. Certainly, no one is going to fund a mission to Mars with the expenses they'd incur.
I'm not an engineer but IIUC, a TRITON would enable a fully reusable SSTO heavy lift craft. What I don't know is whether it can be made with such low loading that it doesn't need the expensive to maintain tiles like Shuttle has. That would be a huge mistake to make again. For launch costs to be kept down, the craft needs to be able to be turned around and relaunched in a matter of hours, like an airliner (and like what Venturestar was supposed to be); and it needs to be able to operate with almost no ground infrastructure, including an enormous Mission Control. These kinds of changes are the only things that can drive costs down significantly lower than what we'll be paying for SpaceX launches.
Just saying, if we invest a billion dollars in a TRITON thruster, it looks to me we then have a way forward for a handful of next gen craft. Think of a Venturestar with TRITON thrusters, enabling very large exploration craft to range all over our planetary system. The only thing stopping this from happening is a next gen thruster.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
GIThruster: Except for one caveat, I agree completely! And one must admit, only one caveat is pretty good for this forum!
Caveat: I don't think sending Venturestar-Style Craft (VSC) wandering the solar system in their best use.
We must build expensive aerodynamic, TPS, safety, etc. systems into the crew-rated VSC which we should keep close to earth lifting mass out of the gravity well (I'm still thinking about not crew-rating the VSC or building a simpler version).
Those lifted masses should include the specialized robotic craft for exploration (for survey before we send people) and specialized space-based craft for tugs and Spaceguard missions.
BTW, did you see we had two close-approach visitors today:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/08/earth. ... l?hpt=Sbin
Caveat: I don't think sending Venturestar-Style Craft (VSC) wandering the solar system in their best use.
We must build expensive aerodynamic, TPS, safety, etc. systems into the crew-rated VSC which we should keep close to earth lifting mass out of the gravity well (I'm still thinking about not crew-rating the VSC or building a simpler version).
Those lifted masses should include the specialized robotic craft for exploration (for survey before we send people) and specialized space-based craft for tugs and Spaceguard missions.
BTW, did you see we had two close-approach visitors today:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/08/earth. ... l?hpt=Sbin
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence
R. Peters
R. Peters
Betruger wrote:What pedantics? If you don't know what you're debating, you screw it up. Where in the OP does GIT specify discussion of "something worthwhile"?
OK, so it is not in this thread. But, there again, how did GIT address the topic of the thread where he posted that?GIThruster wrote:I've got an idea. . .how about Chris and i, and Aero and icarus and Kiteman and anyone else interested, all find something worthwhile to argue over? We're not gonna find much about the Poly to argue, but this country is going to have a new human spaceflight program in a few years and no one knows what it will look like. How about, if we're gonna burn the brain oil, we use it for something useful?
If GIT's post was relevant to that topic, then mine is relevant to this one. Or are you one of those 'double standards' kinda people.
Let us, then, for the sake of argument, hold it as 'a fundamental fact' that human space flight is worthwhile.
Which mission is more worthwhile? There are not umlimited funds. Whatever missions can be chosen with the limited funds in the name of human space flight will have a degree of worthwhile-ness. Which missions are more worthwhile?
What are the measures of outcome that will be used in assessing whether this human space flight was successful? How far, how long, how many people, how much private funding, how many xxx...? What are the measures of performance here, for a space flight mission?
Which mission is more worthwhile? There are not umlimited funds. Whatever missions can be chosen with the limited funds in the name of human space flight will have a degree of worthwhile-ness. Which missions are more worthwhile?
What are the measures of outcome that will be used in assessing whether this human space flight was successful? How far, how long, how many people, how much private funding, how many xxx...? What are the measures of performance here, for a space flight mission?
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
I wasn't being clear. I think a TRITON thruster can enable both a Venturestar type launch vehicle and an interplanetary explorer vehicle. You're right. There's no reason to send craft like a Venturestar anywhere other than LEO.rjaypeters wrote:Caveat: I don't think sending Venturestar-Style Craft (VSC) wandering the solar system in their best use.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Certainly that's a worthwhile approach to take, a goal oriented approach to future design. I would not take it too far. IMHO, we want to explore our entire planetary system. To enable that you need a flexible and robust system that is inexpensive to operate. Shuttle was this kind of flexible, placing crew and cargo together (which is generally the most expensive way to launch) but the trouble with Shuttle was that it was so flippin' EXPENSIVE.chrismb wrote:Let us, then, for the sake of argument, hold it as 'a fundamental fact' that human space flight is worthwhile.
Which mission is more worthwhile? There are not umlimited funds. Whatever missions can be chosen with the limited funds in the name of human space flight will have a degree of worthwhile-ness. Which missions are more worthwhile?
What are the measures of outcome that will be used in assessing whether this human space flight was successful? How far, how long, how many people, how much private funding, how many xxx...? What are the measures of performance here, for a space flight mission?
IMHO, what we need is a robust, flexible exploration system that over the decades will be fantastically cheap compared to what we've seen to date, and the only way to get there from here is to move past chemical rockets.
Note also, I am not proposing bases, colonies or any of that. That only comes AFTER we have explored. We don't have any reasons to build expensive to maintain bases, until we find things out there that can make an economic case for more then exploration.
Last edited by GIThruster on Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
-
rjaypeters
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
- Location: Summerville SC, USA
Addendum:
I also respect the potential of ground-based laser arrays for launching smaller masses. The tie-in with this forum is the efficient power Bussards will be able to achieve (I fervently hope) and make available for other uses (water desalination, etc.) when not launching payloads to LEO.
Also, humanity is getting better at all the other technologies necessary for laser array launches: lasers, optics, tracking systems, atmospheric transmission, high strength-to-weight structures.
If we don't get Bussard power soon, we can still build laser launching arrays, but power them with fission, which we are going to need soon anyway, IMO.
I also respect the potential of ground-based laser arrays for launching smaller masses. The tie-in with this forum is the efficient power Bussards will be able to achieve (I fervently hope) and make available for other uses (water desalination, etc.) when not launching payloads to LEO.
Also, humanity is getting better at all the other technologies necessary for laser array launches: lasers, optics, tracking systems, atmospheric transmission, high strength-to-weight structures.
If we don't get Bussard power soon, we can still build laser launching arrays, but power them with fission, which we are going to need soon anyway, IMO.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence
R. Peters
R. Peters
-
GIThruster
- Posts: 4686
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Ground based laser lift is a trillion dollar project that cannot ever pay for itself. Remember, to put stuff in LEO, you don't need to just lift it up, you need to accelerate it to 26,000 MPH horizontally. That means you need many launch lasers just to loft stuff to a single orbit--something the laser lift folk never mention if they can avoid it. This is never gonna happen, IMHO.rjaypeters wrote:Addendum:
I also respect the potential of ground-based laser arrays for launching smaller masses. The tie-in with this forum is the efficient power Bussards will be able to achieve (I fervently hope) and make available for other uses (water desalination, etc.) when not launching payloads to LEO.
Also, humanity is getting better at all the other technologies necessary for laser array launches: lasers, optics, tracking systems, atmospheric transmission, high strength-to-weight structures.
If we don't get Bussard power soon, we can still build laser launching arrays, but power them with fission, which we are going to need soon anyway, IMO.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis