What will this mean to Las Vegas

Quote: Nareed

There was a return on the investment???? I mean beyond helping the Soviets go broke trying to copy the Shuttle.

Seriously, the lesson is "I will not base a multi-decade space program on an experimental design."

I think we did OK on the Shuttle, all things considered. We did far, far better on the moonshot program, but the space program in nothing but a big net winner. NASA is much about "pure" research. During the 1980s there started to be discussion that we needed to do more "applied" research. But I think much is lost when you stop trying to discover for discovery sake.

Sports gambling at Vegas doesn't make the casinos much money. It's just an added feature at the casino. Over 12 months ending May 2010, Nevada grossed $147.2 million on total gaming win of $10.4 billion or about 1.4 percent. So adding sports books in California will be meaningless, both for California and Vegas.

Quote: Nareed

There was a return on the investment???? I mean beyond helping the Soviets go broke trying to copy the Shuttle.

There was also the Hubble telescope. I'm sure there were other things accomplished, but I'm not a good one to question about it. Bankrupting the Soviets in the arms race I think was a good use of money, but the program went on for decades after that. What I hope we've learned is that there isn't much need to put humans in space. For the tourists who want to go there, great, that should provide lots of jobs in space tourism. Better the tourists pay for it than the taxpayers.

Quote: Wizard

There was also the Hubble telescope.

Sure. Just remember it came within some lenses, two solar panels and a plumbing fixture of being worse than useless. Given it wasn't useless, the story of how the subcontractor meticulously ground the primary mirror to exactly the wrong specificatiosn can be very funny.

But the Hubble, along with many other useful satellites, could have been launched by a cheaper unmanned, disposable rocket just as easily.

I'll grant you the Shuttle did serve as a repair plattform, which saved Hubble, Solar Max and other very expensive hardware (which would otherwise have become expensive hazzards to navigation). It also did a good job retrieving a few defective satellites (at elast two comsats I know of). But as a launch system it was an expensive embrassament.

Remember in the late 70s and early 80s NASA promised two shuttle launches per month at least? It would be cheaper than previous systems because it was reusable and all that? I didn't know it then, but they were a) being unjustifiably optimistic about what was, after all, an experimental launch system and b) outright lying about costs.

Quote:

Bankrupting the Soviets in the arms race I think was a good use of money, but the program went on for decades after that.

I was joking about that. The Soviets did develop their shuttle, a very similar system called Buran, and they even did one test flight. But that was a relatively minor matter. For one thing, they did more to bankrupt themselves building deffective space stations, then trying to keep them operating far longer than their designs allowed. Also trying to keep up with America's high-tech arsenal.

Quote:

What I hope we've learned is that there isn't much need to put humans in space. For the tourists who want to go there, great, that should provide lots of jobs in space tourism. Better the tourists pay for it than the taxpayers.

Quite the contrary. What we learned is there's little role for humans in low-Earth orbit. We also learned the folly of spending money in space rather than investing it. And lastly we learned governments just are not and cannot be serious pionneers.

The large stumbling block for things like space-based mannufacturing, missions to Mars and beyond, is the cost of launching people and materiel from Earth. So long as all resources used in space originate on Earth, it will be too expensive to do much beyond what we've already got in low Earth orbit (chich happens to be a lot).

What you want are resources located in cheaper places from which to launch. We have one such place just 300,000 kilomerters from here: the Moon.

Simply look at the Saturn IB launcher or a Soyuz rocket. That's what you need in roder to place 2 or 3 people in orbit around the Earth. If you want them to go as far as the Moon, you need something like a Saturn V.

Now look at the Apollo command and service module, plus the lunar lander. That's what you need to boost two people into lunar orbit and get three people from the Moon to the Earth.

Of course building industries in the Moon will be outrageously expensive. But once in place they'll save an awful lot of money down the road. NASA had a good start with the Apollo program, and plans to expand once some preliminary exploration happened. But a government agency not handing out goodies has to be popular or it looses its mission. So fine, we showed up the Soviets, now burn those blueprints, smash those tools and transfer more money to milk subsidies.

That's why I'm hopeful that private enterprise is now getting into the space business (something the likes of Boeing, Rockwell and others migth have done on their own earlier, but chose to suck at NASA's teat instead). A for-profit company won't spend billions to land a few show missions and then abandon the Moon altogether.

Quote: Nareed

Quite the contrary. What we learned is there's little role for humans in low-Earth orbit. We also learned the folly of spending money in space rather than investing it. And lastly we learned governments just are not and cannot be serious pionneers.

I wouldn't say that at all. Look at the exploration of the world. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. But it took 100 years to really start settling the New World. And that was just the start. But there were also explorers before Columbus. It was many baby steps.

Space Exploration must be looked at like pure research--low initial return on investment but loads of potential. We don't know what we will find, but we do know low-orbit must be mastered before the moon can be settled. NASA is a very, very small part of the Federal Budget yet it returns more than anything dollar for dollar.

Quote: Nareed

I'll grant you the Shuttle did serve as a repair plattform, which saved Hubble, Solar Max and other very expensive hardware (which would otherwise have become expensive hazzards to navigation). It also did a good job retrieving a few defective satellites (at elast two comsats I know of). But as a launch system it was an expensive embrassament.

Remember in the late 70s and early 80s NASA promised two shuttle launches per month at least? It would be cheaper than previous systems because it was reusable and all that? I didn't know it then, but they were a) being unjustifiably optimistic about what was, after all, an experimental launch system and b) outright lying about costs.

A large portion of the shuttle's cost problems stem from the USAF's requirements during the design phase. Had NASA been able to build a reusable platform for reaching orbit it would have been much cheaper. Unfortunately what they had to build was a launch vehicle capable of delivering and retriving the largest payloads of the day to and from both equatorial and polar orbits, launchable from high latitudes, and with a 1,500 mile cross-range landing capability.

It would be unfair to compare it to cheaper launch systems which can not launch from Vandenberg, rendezvous with friendly or hostile spy satellites in polar orbits, and return them to Earth.

Quote:

A large portion of the shuttle's cost problems stem from the USAF's requirements during the design phase

As a matter of fact, missions into space have, and would likely always have some national security interests -- so it's unlikely the government is going to stay uninvolved to any great extent anyway. Private industry could have developed more independently, but the government wouldn't have been far away or likely idle anyway.

They sometimes mention scant details of black projects in the news of shuttle flights.

Quote: AZDuffman

We don't know what we will find, but we do know low-orbit must be mastered before the moon can be settled. NASA is a very, very small part of the Federal Budget yet it returns more than anything dollar for dollar.

It's about cost and convenience. Materials from the Moon would be cheaper to send anywhere else in the Solar system, including low-Earth orbit.

In order to orbit the Earth, you need a speed of about 11 km/s realtive to the surface of the Earth. That's why you need monstrous rockets which are over 90% fuel and oxidizer by weight. The Moon has a lower escape velocity and lacks an atmosphere. You could launch cargo, and conceivably poeple, into space using a maglev track and a ramp. No fuel at all, just electricity generated by solar cells. BTW solar energy works great on the Moon, where you have the Sun in the sky unobstrocted for two weeks straight.

So whatever you want to do in space, be it frolick forever in low Earth orbit or settle the solar system, you start at the Moon.

Take this analogy. Suppose explorers in the 16th century would not move into the new continent until they mastered a strip 100 yards wide along the beach, getting occasional supplies from Europe.

Quote: rxwine

As a matter of fact, missions into space have, and would likely always have some national security interests -- so it's unlikely the government is going to stay uninvolved to any great extent anyway.

Indeed. In fact America's first satellite, Explorer 1 was launched by the US Army, after a failed attempt by the US Navy's Vanguard.

Trouble is what the military needs isn't always what civilians need. The shuttle's designed was largely determined by the needs of the Air Force and to a lesser extent the other services. In fact, there was a shuttle launch pad built at Vandenberg AFB for polar-orbit military shuttle flights. No shuttles ever launched from there, but the Air Force does use throw-away rockets there to launch satellites.

So having one program to serve both purposes was, at the very least, a gigantic folly, especially given how little the military actually used the shuttle. Imagine if all commercial aircraft were built to the same specs as the C-117 transport, complete with a ramp door.

Quote:

Private industry could have developed more independently, but the government wouldn't have been far away or likely idle anyway.

Sure. In fact the government should keep at it, for military purposes. The ariforce tested a kind of spaceplane earlier this year (I want to say XB-47, but I'm not sure). It's a kind of unmanned, down-sized shuttle launched atop a conventional booster.

But leave the civilian program, such as it is, to private enterprise.

You won't see SpaceX, T-space, SpaceDev, Bigelow Aerospace, Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, etc etc invest billions of dollars into putting on a few show missions to the Moon and then abandon the whole project.

NASA's program can best be summed up by a very cynical quote from Larry Niven: "We can put a man on the Moon, but we can't put a man on the Moon." (those of you who remember the 70s will understand it better).