Comments on: CAGW takes on the Air Force

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 03:25:31 +0000

As should the repeated failure to _reliably_ automate such apparently simple operations as docking two spacecraft in Earth orbit. If we can’t do it here, why do you think we can do it on the moon, let alone Mars?

Technolgy tends to improve as time goes on. In the old days, all railroad spikes were driven into the wooden ties by hand, but then technology got better and the steam drill ( actually what we would call a steam-powered hammer ) beat John Henry.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:49:06 +0000

The point with Apollo-17 is that large, diverse samples were obtained by intelligent collectors in in a known context in real-time. That has been achieved nowhere else, including on the moon. Sure, some of that can be automated, but is the cost _really_ less than sending a crew? Asif’s comparison of Apollos 11 and 12 with the cost and results of the Soviet Luna efforts suggests that the answer to this question, at the very least, is not a simple black-or-white no.

Nobody really knows, but the projected costs of automating the Hubble repair — unlike the moon, a relatively simple and well-understood object with known interfaces — should give robotics advocates pause. As should the repeated failure to _reliably_ automate such apparently simple operations as docking two spacecraft in Earth orbit. If we can’t do it here, why do you think we can do it on the moon, let alone Mars? We are spending huge sums failing to automate relatively simple tasks, when sending an astronaut may cost more up front but, once there, they can do the task quickly, reliably, easily, and repeatedly.

— Donald

By: Chris Mann

Chris Mann — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:36:35 +0000

“Maybe, if all you want to do is find out what the lunar dirt is made of. But if you want to use the lunar dirt to make something….”

….You’d use a teleoperated bobcat.

By: Cecil Trotter

Cecil Trotter — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:25:50 +0000

“The human explorers in your example did not realize what they had in hand — literally in gloved hand.
A robotic, remotely commanded explorer might have done as well or better at a lower cost.”

Maybe, if all you want to do is find out what the lunar dirt is made of. But if you want to use the lunar dirt to make something….

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:09:11 +0000

Only after the Apollo 17 mission when the absolute age of the samples could be measured was it realized that the DMD [Dark Mantle Deposit] was not as young as previously thought.

Doanld, I fail to see how that is an argument for manned lunar exploration instead of remotely commanded, umanned prospecting. Your example tends to demonstrate the limits of human poke-it-and-eyball-it methods. The human explorers in your example did not realize what they had in hand — literally in gloved hand.

A robotic, remotely commanded explorer might have done as well or better at a lower cost.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:55:05 +0000

On another topic, I just read an interesting passage demonstrating why automated missions, and particularly remote sensing, cannot be relied upon for accurate science. From NASA’s Apollo results site: Only after the Apollo 17 mission when the absolute age of the samples could be measured was it realized that the DMD [Dark Mantle Deposit] was not as young as previously thought. It turns out the DMDs are composed of very fine-grained volcanic beads and the unconsolidated nature of the deposit allows small impact craters to degrade very rapidly. This is why older DMDs can have fewer craters than other geologic units that are younger.

It pays to go and look. It double pays to get absolute age measurements.

— Donald

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:50:42 +0000

Robert: I don’t dispute that Mr. Musk was probably within his rights — and, in fact, I have a great deal of admoration for what he has accomplished. However, the net effect was to remove any near-term competition other than the Pegasus. Mr. Musk undoubtedly knew that was the likely outcome. Likewise, Mr. Musk has taken on a number of Air Force contracts that I do not believe were competatively awarded and probably amount to little more than hidden development subsidies.

In some ways, Kistler was a more interesting vehicle, and given a chance it may have done more to reduce costs than the relatively conventional rockets Mr. Musk is building. Whatever the rights and wrongs, we are now likely never to know.

— Donald

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:31:54 +0000

Explain that, please.

What’s to explain? It does not meet NASA’s own established criteria for man rating (which demonstrates the pointlessness of the phrase). As another poster pointed out, it has no abort capability for the first two minutes of flight, and very little immediately after SRB separation, until later in the trajectory.

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:07:25 +0000

First, Sam Hoffman is off the mark. The people who would like to drown the government in the bathtub are still very powerful in Washington. They are in a defensive stance only because they are succeeding. And obviously NASA is in that bathtub along with the rest.

Second, CAGW has a point. Both the United Space Alliance and the United Launch Alliance are the space-industrial complex at its worst. That the Air Force read the writing on the wall ahead of time doesn’t make it any better. Eisenhower’s famous warning is dead.

By: Robert Rowland

Robert Rowland — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:00:58 +0000

It seems to me that all Elon Musk and SpaceX are doing is asking for the opportunity to compete for government launch contracts. Here is a link to Musk's testimony to congress where he discusses his motives for challenging the NASA Kistler contract. The data sharing agreement was a 250 million dollar contract that was issued to Kistler without any competition for the contract.