The closing of an era

[Grok]

Dragon Hunter

I became a fan of space exploration during the 1960s. What I am posting is disappointing but seems inevitable.

For their time (1920s), the Central Asiatic Expeditions were major undertakings. Led by Roy Chapman Andrews, they were very fruitful. The expeditions found a gold mine of fossils in Mongolia - dinosaurs and prehistoric mammals.

Follow up expeditions were planned. But the money disappeared. The Great Depression had arrived.

Roy Chapman Andrews had enough prestige to secure a job as a museum curator.

Today''s "Great Recession" has been compared to the Long Depression of the nineteenth century. But the salient point is eonomic distress. So far as I can discern, there is no particular reason to think that conditions will not become harsher. Think of cities laying off police, and city parks being over run by weeds. More and more people living in shanty towns, like the Hoovervilles of the '30s. And what happens to the currency? Compare a deflationary depression to an inflationary depression - during the Great Depression Germany experienced hyper inflation.

During the space race of the 1960s, the U.S.A. was still in the boom period that began after World War II.

I predict that in the years ahead space exploration will virtually hault. Military satellites will still be launched, but money for space science will disappear. I anticipate a revived space program having to wait for a return to prosperity - all too many years in the future.

[DALederle]

Has anybody else, besides me, read Robert A. Heinlein! In several of his various novels he predicts this set of events.
Don't get me wrong, he was not TRYING to predict things, like Edgar Cayce etc. It was written of in his "Future History" series. He even mentions the dangers of cigarerette smoking in his novels. But he did predict several times a halt to space exploration and the effect that would have on our nation and/or the world.
If it helps any, Heinlein saw private exploration and funding as the way for space travel and research to move foreward. If there's a way to make a profit some one will jump on board and take up the challenge.
Of course he also wrote about moving roads. Men from mars. And an assortment of other things. Mostly fun stuff but some very serious. Essays on our human condition and how we screw things up. Two books I reccomend most highly are The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Stranger In A Strange Land. But Have Space Suit, Will Travel is fun too. Any of his books you can't go wrong with.
Anyway, he predicted this and gave it a length of 40-100 years until it all resumes again.
I won't be here to see that. But, maybe, with the miracle of modern medicine, some of our younger members will.
Hey! Pythos, in the year 2125 put up a post remembering me and what I'm writing now! Tell everyone wether I got it write or wrong.

Dennis A. Lederle
Live Long and Perspire!

[Big and Bashful]

Yep, I have read RAH. Stranger in a Strange Land is excellent, most of his books are an excellent read.

[Uncle Al]

I have yet to find one that I didn't like
RAH is/was one of the BEST

Uncle Al
(Who's RAH collection is primarily in paperback.)

[Grok]

I read the RAH books mentioned, and a number of his "juveniles."

By the way, is has been suggested that Roy Chapman Andrews was the inspiration for the character Indiana Jones. Andrews was both explorer and adventurer.

[Since1982]

I'm a long time Robert E. Howard fan. I read his books for most of my life including all the Conan the Barbarian series' too. I bought all the paperbacks and still have some from the 50's that are actually worth some $$ as collectables.

[DALederle]

RAH firmly beleived that private enterprize would one day go out into space. That it was individuals that would make the difference in our exploration, more then any single government.
I don't know, yet, how right this will turn out to be.
I did hear some astronauts talking about the "space planes" private companies were testing. They felt that the private companies were only doing the same research that NASA had done in the early 1960s. That it was one big leap back.
Which is too bad.
But RAH proposed catapaults to launch space vehicles with and save on the great cost of lift offs. Maybe that would work too?
It's just a pity that our government, over the last decade, has moved so far away from our long term space program.
Let's face a simple fact. No matter who you vote for, the politicians want to use every dime they can squeeze out of us to buy votes with. It's the only thing they know how to do today. Run for office and get re-elected. Once they've won they have no clue about how to govern. And I'm not sure I trust any of them enough to do that when they actually try.
From the greatness of the 1960s to now. What a pity!

Dennis A. Lederle
Live Long and Grow Old!

[kingfish]

It is amazing the technology that has come out of the past 50 years of space exploration.

The whole situation reeks like last week's diapers.

I also don't think that NASA is dead yet, just "on life support" until the time we see a more forward looking administration.

This current one has been thinking far too much about image and the immediate short term to be able to see what has (or would continue) to come out of of the space program. If not for people like Neil Armstrong (and others), Obama would have change NASA's mission to that of propagandist, cheering about the technological benefit(s) that the Arabic numbering system have given us.

As our forth step into space (Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo being the first three), the shuttle made good strides toward making it safer, more reliable, and cost effective to get people and gear into and out of orbit.
It is time for our own "HOPE AND CHANGE". Hope for a fifth step back into the technology race, with the next change of our leader.
I think Reagan's "Star Wars" program did more for our economy than Obama's "Economic Stimulus" program(s).

I did hear some astronauts talking about the "space planes" private companies were testing. They felt that the private companies were only doing the same research that NASA had done in the early 1960s. That it was one big leap back.
Which is too bad.

In the movie "The Right Stuff" there was a side plot involving just those space planes. It was Chuck Yaeger's stuff involving the x-plane programs out at Edwards AFB. They were doing solid incremental steps taking us out of the envelope and back. It was the slow and steady pace, so to speak. The only thing that I think would beat it for cost effectiveness (if not reliability) would be Jules Verne's space gun concept.

[Milfmog]

In the movie "The Right Stuff" there was a side plot involving just those space planes. It was Chuck Yaeger's stuff involving the x-plane programs out at Edwards AFB. They were doing solid incremental steps taking us out of the envelope and back. It was the slow and steady pace, so to speak. The only thing that I think would beat it for cost effectiveness (if not reliability) would be Jules Verne's space gun concept.

...Or perhaps Arthur C Clarkes Space Elevators (If you are not familiar with that concept have a look at this link).

Have fun,


Ian.

[crfriend]

The "X-plane" program did one whole lot in gaining understanding of the earth/space boundary layer, and provided a wealth of information on high-speed piloted aircraft -- and spacecraft -- that is still being mined today. Even the "carry the ship aloft using another aircraft" is in use by Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic with the successful proof-of-concept Spaceship One/White Knight design and is being further developed for Space Ship 2 and its "launch assistance transport". The big differences are in manufacturing technique and materials science that wasn't around in the X-15 days. But the "carry it up and launch from there" doesn't scale terribly well for large-mass objects; it works just fine for people, but you're not going to put something the size of the Cassini probe (for example) into any sort of orbit that way. (More on that later.)

Constructs like guns and catapults just might work in low-gravity environments without atmospheres but are impractical given Earth's gravitational pull and its nice thick atmosphere that allows us lot to breathe. Guns and catapults share the same flaw -- once the propulsive event is over, it's over. That means that you need to impart sufficient velocity to the object being accelerated to get it to orbital or escape velocity plus the inevitable frictional loss from the atmosphere, and you need to do it in a very short period of time (comparatively speaking). The net result of anybody trying to ride a modified shell, as was used in Verne's Voyage to the Moon would result in the inhabitants being reduced to a very thin smear of protoplasmic jelly at the backend of the vehicle.

Which brings us to rockets -- in a way, continually-firing guns that produce a thrust by virtue of escaping gas. Using basic Newtonian physics, these things allow us to "smooth out" the otherwise very hard "jolt" of being shot from a fixed gun; instead we point the gun the other way, strap it on, and light it off. If we got all the numbers to line up properly, it won't explode, won't turn us into paste from the acceleration, and gently get us up to the required velocities and altitudes. All that's left is the matter of life support and getting it to go where we want it to go. There have been a host of folks involved in this: Tsiolkovsky, von Braun, Korolev, and Goddard (a local boy for me) just to name a few.

So, in the near term, I suspect we'll see hybrid solutions -- humans being put in LEO by creations that'll likely superficially resemble the X-15 in concept (but with radically better manufacturing and materials), and the "heavy lifting" of large-mass objects (probes, long-haul habitable spacecraft, and station components) done by expendable rockets. For those who studied how the Apollo flights were considered, this will sound a lot like "Earth Orbit Rendezvous" -- for that's what it is, only with a more modern spin on it.

The "space elevator" is an interesting concept, but has some problems of its own, not least of which would be the need to retain reaction-drive to initiate orbit after "climbing the wire". (Unless the "last stop" was the top of the cable, but it'd get mighty crowded up there after more than a few climbs.)

I'll not live to see whether the "space elevator" concept works or not; materials science hasn't come up with something capable of resisting the load or of being capable of being manufactured. Hybrid missions, however, I believe I will see happen within my lifetime.

So, while I will be wearing trousers on the 20th for Atlantis' return, it'll be back to skirts after that and I'll keep an eye out on what's happening; however, that eye will likely be on the robots out in far-flung corners of the Solar System. They still have much joy and inspiration to offer.

[floatingmetal]

Those who can may like to listen to BBC Radio 4's The Long View, http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006s7d6, which compares the Shuttle to the 1872 British oceanographic survey HMS Challenger. The very boat after which the shuttle, Challenger, was named.

[crfriend]

Well, that's it -- the end. At 09:58:23 UTC Shuttle Atlantis' wheels stopped on the runway at the Kennedy Space Center on Cape Canaveral, Florida. This brings to a close fifty years of human spaceflight by my country -- something likely never to happen again, at least in my lifetime. The future now belongs to the Russians, the Chinese, and possibly the Indians; the culture that flew men to the moon 40 years ago no longer has the guts, the skill, nor the money to make a go of it in the frontier above.

NASA are very busy congratulating themselves on this at the moment, and not without good reason -- it's been a wonderful ride, if sometimes bittersweet. It's been full of challenge, brimmed with inspiration, and swelled our knowledge of many things immensely. But it's over. As in dead. The "will to go" has gone. It was rather interesting watching the footage from the control room; I wonder how all those folks will use the skills they so carefully honed over these many years -- and how it will help them find new employment in the midst of a depression. One thing's for certain: this will wreck the already rotten economy of Florida's "Space Coast", and likely put a big dent in Houston's although with the current price of oil they can ride it out.

[Since1982]

nor the money to make a go of it in the frontier above.

Maybe they can use some of that money to pay the Social Security money back to the retirees that have been putting it in their entire working lives, since Obama is talking about withholding SS payments paid in from them. I never heard of such a thing. It's OUR money, we paid it into the social security fund so they could use it until we got to retirement age. I wonder which bank CEO suggested that to him. He was so "for the people" until he got in, now he's just another money hungry President like Dubya was.

[Kirbstone]

I subscribe to our monthly Astronomy & Space mag., and in the May issue there appeared this pic. and commentary. Totally unique and never to be repeated, and I thought I would submit it here.

Sunspot ISS conjunction.jpg

There were seven astronauts aboard Discovery and several more in the ISS. If any pic. was designed to show just how insignificant we are, here's one.

I too lament the passing for the time being of the glory days at Nasa, but it is glaringly obvious why, and there are rather a lot of more pressing domestic matters just now to spend public money on.

Tom K.

[Sylvain]

RAH firmly beleived that private enterprize would one day go out into space. That it was individuals that would make the difference in our exploration, more then any single government.

A private enterprise is no more an individual than a government is.

The "space elevator" is an interesting concept, but has some problems of its own, not least of which would be the need to retain reaction-drive to initiate orbit after "climbing the wire". (Unless the "last stop" was the top of the cable, but it'd get mighty crowded up there after more than a few climbs.)

A real space elevator, going up to the geosynchronous orbit, has a major flaw: it will expose the users to a high level of radiations during too long a time. Something like a launch loop or a space cable would be less dangerous and less expensive.