Space Race
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8640
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
Space Race
Just a paper I wrote for my history class. Uploaded here because philippe wanted to read it, y'all can take some stabs at me for it too.
- Attachments
-
- spacerace.zip
- (295.16 KiB) Downloaded 246 times
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Not really criticism: I disagree somewhat with the ultimate conclusion as I don't think either sides efforts were in vain, but that depends on point of view. The paper is a good summary of what is officially known/uncontested at this point in time.
Personally I find it interesting to compare the non-material strategies of the two systems in respect to the space race; the differing levels of secrecy/public acknowledgement etc.. Afaik it's generally accepted that although the Soviets and Americans both had plenty of firsts and achievements the US still won out on the public relations front by having more openness surrounding their programs (purely public relations). The Soviets (or at least some) recognized the need to increase their public relations and did increase it gradually but were constantly hindered by the system they operated within and specific decisions were taken that although logical ended up being counterproductive (grounding Gagarin etc.). In the US people like Walt Disney and Werner Von Braun played roles additional to Kennedy and similar that had no real comparison in the USSR. Just saying this explains why most think the US won (and then again there's the big point about surviving the "fight" of course).
The next is clearly out of scope in relation to the paper but I would like to add that although bits and pieces of classified USSR material has become available since its collapse (like the militarized and armed Soviet mini-station plans & mockups (at least)) the same kind of involuntary/historic disclosure situation does not apply to the US side even though there is the occasional rumor... NTO's & NRO minishuttles etc., and what happened to the USAF lunar base plans? The ones that as far as known have been consistently ahead of NASA? Did any other agency pick up the baton on those? Perhaps we'll know in a century and perhaps none of those things are anything but red herrings but there's likely to be "something" (just as has turned out to be the case with USSR)
Personally I find it interesting to compare the non-material strategies of the two systems in respect to the space race; the differing levels of secrecy/public acknowledgement etc.. Afaik it's generally accepted that although the Soviets and Americans both had plenty of firsts and achievements the US still won out on the public relations front by having more openness surrounding their programs (purely public relations). The Soviets (or at least some) recognized the need to increase their public relations and did increase it gradually but were constantly hindered by the system they operated within and specific decisions were taken that although logical ended up being counterproductive (grounding Gagarin etc.). In the US people like Walt Disney and Werner Von Braun played roles additional to Kennedy and similar that had no real comparison in the USSR. Just saying this explains why most think the US won (and then again there's the big point about surviving the "fight" of course).
The next is clearly out of scope in relation to the paper but I would like to add that although bits and pieces of classified USSR material has become available since its collapse (like the militarized and armed Soviet mini-station plans & mockups (at least)) the same kind of involuntary/historic disclosure situation does not apply to the US side even though there is the occasional rumor... NTO's & NRO minishuttles etc., and what happened to the USAF lunar base plans? The ones that as far as known have been consistently ahead of NASA? Did any other agency pick up the baton on those? Perhaps we'll know in a century and perhaps none of those things are anything but red herrings but there's likely to be "something" (just as has turned out to be the case with USSR)
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8640
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
Well, it seems to me, subjectively anyway, that there is a growing movement in the US that wants to interpret the space race as a win for the Soviets, and their basis for the conclusion is that the Soviets had more total firsts, and that using the moon landings as a meterstick is just a sucker punch. I object to that interpretation primarily because in a race, it doesn't matter who reaches each milestone first, it only matters who finishes first.
There are several other interpretations I can make off the top of my head. The Soviets won because of their space station programs, the US had no comparable program after skylab, and now the focus is on the ISS--a space station. Or, the US won because it did, in fact, develop superior satellite and reusable orbiter technology to the Soviets. Or, the Soviets won because they built better rockets than the US, which translated into bigger, faster rockets in their ICBM program. And on and on and on.
THe problem with using firsts as the victory condition is that you have to draw the line somewhere and say "These firsts are frivolous point-getters, not actual achievements". For cultural superiority, I'd have to say the Soviets having the first woman in space counts. But having the first teacher in space (the Challenger mission that blew up) wouldn't count, unless that teacher went on to start a school in space and actually hold classes. Only a line drawn very shallow into the list can say the Soviets won, because the US did, in fact, catch up in the mid-60s, as my paper presents.
The interpretation I wound up taking was based on an aggregation of the two nations' stated goals in the space race, where all of the goals were intended to be achieved first. That aggregation gave me a way to tally up the scores, but neither nation achieved all of their goals. Still, I think it's too early to say the efforts were in vain. The space race contributed its part to the economic problems that played a large part in the fall of communism and the end of the cold war. The space programs themselves (and the missile programs they were linked with) developed lots of useful and important technology. The so-called information revolution of the 90s was a direct result of technology developed during the cold war in the pursuit of the arms race and the space race. So, whether the paper makes it clear or not (it probably doesn't), my own conclusions about the winner or lack thereof of the space race isn't meant to say the efforts were in vain.
As for the US moonbase, I'm speculating now. The martian mission was axed because Nixon didn't think the Soviets could do anything like that, same with the lunar settlement. This was early 70s when this happened. The space shuttle started development in the 70s, and its funding was seriously cut. Basically, the feds were willing to cut NASA back to its pre-space race setup because they didn't think the Soviets would ever catch up with us, now. And it was true to some extent, the Soviets didn't catch up, but they also didn't go in the same direction anyway. So NASA needed funding for the shuttle, and they got it from the USAF. The specs the USAF turned in wound up stripping the shuttle of what it was intended to do, for the most part, and turning it into the hunk of junk it is now, but without the air force, the shuttle wouldn't have been built. The USAF was concerned about spy satellites, early launch detection systems, and the like. Reagan, when he showed up on the scene, was interested in the shuttle as a launch platform for SDI. In fact, had I decided to write my paper on the rest of the race, I would have had to compare the shuttle and SDI to the Soviet Mir program, but whether the race continued is arguable. Anyway, the shuttle was originally intended to be able to carry a moon-bound mission, but after the USAF got its hands on it, that was one of the first things to go. NASA hung all their future hopes on the shuttle, and even managed to work the shuttle into a "make launches cheap and we can go back to the moon any time we want". That didn't happen, of course.
So, I'm speculating that the US didn't really think the Soviets *could* build a moonbase and were probably quite surprised to find out that the Salyut and later Mir programs were intended to result in the moonbase being built. But in the 80s, the Soviets had to keep cutting back the space program in favor of missile research instead, and were suffering some economic problems that pretty much gutted their space program, leaving them with Soyuz and Mir and little else. I remember the contest in the 80s being about who could stay in space the longest, and the Soviets won because of Mir--the US couldn't keep a shuttle up that long. So anyway, the USAF probably axed the moonbase idea (which was likely only ever a half-baked thing anyway) when they realized the Soviets were just plain incapable of building their own, so there was no need to be first at that.
You also have to keep in mind that both sides did a lot of mockups and studies and stuff that were probably intended to throw up a smokescreen on what they were actually doing. If the US could convince the Soviets that they were seriously looking at building 4 things, in light of the competition the Soviets would have to dedicate resources to build those 4 things first, and also build the 4 things they *want* to build. Then the US could focus on just building the 1 thing they care about, do it quickly, and claim a first. Both sides were probably trying to use this tactic, hence the large number of mockups and prototypes for projects that never went any further on both sides.
Finally, I think the fall of the Soviet Union was probably what ultimately turned government-sponsored space travel into the mess it is now. Without the communists to race, the US could do whatever it wanted and claim dominance in space, even with the Russians still participating. Then Clinton and his International Space Station (ok, maybe it was Bush, I distinctly remember hearing Bush talk about it in a campaign speech at some point) pretty much killed other efforts. Its important for what it is politically and socially, but its marked lack of success doesn't exactly motivate the participants to do anything else. Face it, the Russian space program is threatened by bankruptcy, and the US space program is suffering from two shuttle disasters that were hung on management, with no sign of anything changing. Bush's grandiose dreams aren't helping, either. NASA's doing the same crap they've always done with the CEV (or whatever that silly acronym is) and looks like their poised to turn out another high-dollar system whose only purpose is to bring more money to rednecks in Texas, and Bush gets to lay this monster on his successor. Just wonderful.
(The space industry has some power in Texas that you don't really want to ignore, in fact, and there's no doubt that Bush's talk about going to Mars was about political support in Texas and Florida, probably California too, and had nothing to do with the "geek vote", as many geeks seemed to say at the time)
There are several other interpretations I can make off the top of my head. The Soviets won because of their space station programs, the US had no comparable program after skylab, and now the focus is on the ISS--a space station. Or, the US won because it did, in fact, develop superior satellite and reusable orbiter technology to the Soviets. Or, the Soviets won because they built better rockets than the US, which translated into bigger, faster rockets in their ICBM program. And on and on and on.
THe problem with using firsts as the victory condition is that you have to draw the line somewhere and say "These firsts are frivolous point-getters, not actual achievements". For cultural superiority, I'd have to say the Soviets having the first woman in space counts. But having the first teacher in space (the Challenger mission that blew up) wouldn't count, unless that teacher went on to start a school in space and actually hold classes. Only a line drawn very shallow into the list can say the Soviets won, because the US did, in fact, catch up in the mid-60s, as my paper presents.
The interpretation I wound up taking was based on an aggregation of the two nations' stated goals in the space race, where all of the goals were intended to be achieved first. That aggregation gave me a way to tally up the scores, but neither nation achieved all of their goals. Still, I think it's too early to say the efforts were in vain. The space race contributed its part to the economic problems that played a large part in the fall of communism and the end of the cold war. The space programs themselves (and the missile programs they were linked with) developed lots of useful and important technology. The so-called information revolution of the 90s was a direct result of technology developed during the cold war in the pursuit of the arms race and the space race. So, whether the paper makes it clear or not (it probably doesn't), my own conclusions about the winner or lack thereof of the space race isn't meant to say the efforts were in vain.
As for the US moonbase, I'm speculating now. The martian mission was axed because Nixon didn't think the Soviets could do anything like that, same with the lunar settlement. This was early 70s when this happened. The space shuttle started development in the 70s, and its funding was seriously cut. Basically, the feds were willing to cut NASA back to its pre-space race setup because they didn't think the Soviets would ever catch up with us, now. And it was true to some extent, the Soviets didn't catch up, but they also didn't go in the same direction anyway. So NASA needed funding for the shuttle, and they got it from the USAF. The specs the USAF turned in wound up stripping the shuttle of what it was intended to do, for the most part, and turning it into the hunk of junk it is now, but without the air force, the shuttle wouldn't have been built. The USAF was concerned about spy satellites, early launch detection systems, and the like. Reagan, when he showed up on the scene, was interested in the shuttle as a launch platform for SDI. In fact, had I decided to write my paper on the rest of the race, I would have had to compare the shuttle and SDI to the Soviet Mir program, but whether the race continued is arguable. Anyway, the shuttle was originally intended to be able to carry a moon-bound mission, but after the USAF got its hands on it, that was one of the first things to go. NASA hung all their future hopes on the shuttle, and even managed to work the shuttle into a "make launches cheap and we can go back to the moon any time we want". That didn't happen, of course.
So, I'm speculating that the US didn't really think the Soviets *could* build a moonbase and were probably quite surprised to find out that the Salyut and later Mir programs were intended to result in the moonbase being built. But in the 80s, the Soviets had to keep cutting back the space program in favor of missile research instead, and were suffering some economic problems that pretty much gutted their space program, leaving them with Soyuz and Mir and little else. I remember the contest in the 80s being about who could stay in space the longest, and the Soviets won because of Mir--the US couldn't keep a shuttle up that long. So anyway, the USAF probably axed the moonbase idea (which was likely only ever a half-baked thing anyway) when they realized the Soviets were just plain incapable of building their own, so there was no need to be first at that.
You also have to keep in mind that both sides did a lot of mockups and studies and stuff that were probably intended to throw up a smokescreen on what they were actually doing. If the US could convince the Soviets that they were seriously looking at building 4 things, in light of the competition the Soviets would have to dedicate resources to build those 4 things first, and also build the 4 things they *want* to build. Then the US could focus on just building the 1 thing they care about, do it quickly, and claim a first. Both sides were probably trying to use this tactic, hence the large number of mockups and prototypes for projects that never went any further on both sides.
Finally, I think the fall of the Soviet Union was probably what ultimately turned government-sponsored space travel into the mess it is now. Without the communists to race, the US could do whatever it wanted and claim dominance in space, even with the Russians still participating. Then Clinton and his International Space Station (ok, maybe it was Bush, I distinctly remember hearing Bush talk about it in a campaign speech at some point) pretty much killed other efforts. Its important for what it is politically and socially, but its marked lack of success doesn't exactly motivate the participants to do anything else. Face it, the Russian space program is threatened by bankruptcy, and the US space program is suffering from two shuttle disasters that were hung on management, with no sign of anything changing. Bush's grandiose dreams aren't helping, either. NASA's doing the same crap they've always done with the CEV (or whatever that silly acronym is) and looks like their poised to turn out another high-dollar system whose only purpose is to bring more money to rednecks in Texas, and Bush gets to lay this monster on his successor. Just wonderful.
(The space industry has some power in Texas that you don't really want to ignore, in fact, and there's no doubt that Bush's talk about going to Mars was about political support in Texas and Florida, probably California too, and had nothing to do with the "geek vote", as many geeks seemed to say at the time)
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Sorry if this gets longwinded, haven't discussed space in a while
"I object to that interpretation primarily because in a race, it doesn't matter who reaches each milestone first, it only matters who finishes first.". Well put and I would say that since both 1. one of the participants "died", and 2. the surviving participant did not reach all goals (afawk) it can at best be said that the US won by walkover - however imo at this point the analogy of a race has broken down and is probably not fit for anything but as a historical name. Oh and I scoff at those who want to redefine this or that as a victory because they like this or that, those are just revisionists. Now if they actually feel they have opinons/views based on factual matters that give the same result that's a-ok but I suspect that's not the case for them (i.e. I care about them having integrity).
I do disagree on some things and some stuff I just have to say (opinonated and open for discussion of course):
1. USSR ICBMs usually aren't said to have been superior, quite contrary, but that position can be changed by putting emphasis on different aspects of course - but in general no. However Soviet engine technology is good and sometimes better or at least many would argue so (just like the N1 engine you briefly touched upon in the paper and which has been aquired/bought by a US company) but the overall flightworthyness of USSR ICBMs is thought to be fairly dismal with pretty severe lack of presicion, so much so that they absolutely depended on having larger warheads to be reasonably sure to hit what they aimed for (and even then...). This was speculated upon long before the end of the cold war and later on the opinion is usually that even those speculations overrated the USSR ICBMs. One example of this is a Soviet nuclear scenario plan... I guess I should find a link for that... ok an illustrative quote as well as a link; "Warsaw Pact nuclear strikes, using giant warheads to compensate for their relative lack of precision." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ortal.html
2. Nixon wasn't the kind of person that got space as a vision, surprisingly few politicians are and that's a big explanation for much of NASA's woes (not that NASA itself doesn't have plenty of problems of their own making). The entire history of the shuttle is an example of lack of political will which forced the "compromises" to be chosen. And as a complete opposite almost the entire history of the ISS is an example of political will to use "space" for geopolitical purposes (doing so has always been popular because the members of congress and senate manage to "get" that).
3. http://www.astronautix.com/ has fairly good info on plans and details as well as real craft concerning the Apollo program including suggestions that weren't put to use, civilian and military lunar bases as well as rockets etc.. What was eventually chosen and used in the Apollo program wasn't neccessarily the easiest or most cost-effective option. Also in case you're unfamiliar with t/space's lunar plans you should pay their site a visit: http://www.transformspace.com/ (not surprisingly Burt Rutan is involved).
Now I don't think the USAF would in any way be involved in actually having a clandestine moonbase if such exists (nor does anyone else I know of), nor would congress or senate - however $50000 toilets and $10000 hammers would (and just as NRO took on significance after the existence of the puzzle palace became fairly well known an as of yet unnamed branch is taking on significance as we speak since the NRO is getting the same kind of exposure as NSA did 10-20 years ago). It might even be budget-less as the rumored flight-launched (shuttle transport style not SS1 style "afaik") mini-orbiters that is now said to have been decomissioned was "on loan" from another agency.
There are uses for such a thing, some more speculative than others and many of those uses have nothing to do with cis-lunar space. However the rumors I mentioned don't really address that. Anyway that is all that it is; rumors, the point however is that it is not unachievable nor hard really. Combine that with "extremely useful" and it isn't too unlikely that it might (have) exist(ed). Btw some of the smaller X-prize contestants are targeting some of the same military uses as a launch-flexible mini-orbiter would have provided.
4. In reply to your "mockup & plans" paragraph; yeah I agree, just don't forget that ownership works the same in space as anywhere else: if one cannot use force to maintain it if required then one doesn't have it.
5. Bush Sr. & Jr. both see space as a vision and are rare in doing so since most politicians decidedly aren't space (as a vision) friendly. Bush Sr., Clinton, & Bush Jr. all see the value of ISS as a geopolitical tool as will the next president and likely also the next one thereafter. And the same applies to members of congress and senate as funding of the ISS isn't really a space topic but a security/geopolitical one. Reagan saw the military implications of space clearer than most at that time and that legacy was passed on to the rest of them (all later presidents, relevant house committees etc.), just about everything of Reagans thoughts on space as a military arena has by now been codified into the US armed forces and implemented although the technologies and possibilities as translated directly into practical military programs have been revised heavily (which is only good, but it's still all there including SDI which is in the final stages with the completion of ABL http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... index.html). And ABL works and is practical while satellite-borne or redirected lasers aren't. As for other parts of a missile shield the jury is still out (I've read tons of naysayers in Scientific American and other places but they always seem to be more political than scientific so I'm not too impressed by them).
Btw the ISS project was named Space Station Freedom (or Alpha) during the cold war. When it was renamed ISS it had largely stopped being about space altogether. Yes the two are not exactly the same but the ISS is more or less just a continuation of the SSF/A plans under a new name.
6. CEV issues; it will likely degrade into the usual pork-fest if Lockheed et al. get their say but NASA is keeping the door unlocked for t/space. The CEV's in themselves aren't the problem, the idea isn't the problem, it all hinges on the implementation and even Lockheed et al.'s implementation can work well (it will just be a lot more expensive in comparison to the hyper-efficiency, safety, and low costs of t/space). I'm highly dubious of the use of solid-fuel rockets in Lockheeds plans but that might simply be me parroting Von Brauns concerns in the past.
7. On Bush's (not just Jr. actually, Sr. wanted much the same) space vision: a lot of crap is floating around the internet as well as in the press in regard to this. I have some excellent links to relevant Ad Astra articles freely available but the links are on my main computer (not yet fixed) so I think I'll postpone digging them up until later. Really good stuff so remind me in a month if I've forgotten Anyway as always anything suggested by the president depends on congress and the senate; they're the ones sitting on the money pile.
In some ways I don't care/worry too much about NASA (although they have been shaping up some) or the proposed schedule for manned missions; Bigelow Aerospace http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/index.htm, t/Space, Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and others that actually spend lots of money and do stuff - all of those are more interesting
Sorry for mentioning lots of stuff you probably already know and getting off-topic
"I object to that interpretation primarily because in a race, it doesn't matter who reaches each milestone first, it only matters who finishes first.". Well put and I would say that since both 1. one of the participants "died", and 2. the surviving participant did not reach all goals (afawk) it can at best be said that the US won by walkover - however imo at this point the analogy of a race has broken down and is probably not fit for anything but as a historical name. Oh and I scoff at those who want to redefine this or that as a victory because they like this or that, those are just revisionists. Now if they actually feel they have opinons/views based on factual matters that give the same result that's a-ok but I suspect that's not the case for them (i.e. I care about them having integrity).
I do disagree on some things and some stuff I just have to say (opinonated and open for discussion of course):
1. USSR ICBMs usually aren't said to have been superior, quite contrary, but that position can be changed by putting emphasis on different aspects of course - but in general no. However Soviet engine technology is good and sometimes better or at least many would argue so (just like the N1 engine you briefly touched upon in the paper and which has been aquired/bought by a US company) but the overall flightworthyness of USSR ICBMs is thought to be fairly dismal with pretty severe lack of presicion, so much so that they absolutely depended on having larger warheads to be reasonably sure to hit what they aimed for (and even then...). This was speculated upon long before the end of the cold war and later on the opinion is usually that even those speculations overrated the USSR ICBMs. One example of this is a Soviet nuclear scenario plan... I guess I should find a link for that... ok an illustrative quote as well as a link; "Warsaw Pact nuclear strikes, using giant warheads to compensate for their relative lack of precision." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ortal.html
2. Nixon wasn't the kind of person that got space as a vision, surprisingly few politicians are and that's a big explanation for much of NASA's woes (not that NASA itself doesn't have plenty of problems of their own making). The entire history of the shuttle is an example of lack of political will which forced the "compromises" to be chosen. And as a complete opposite almost the entire history of the ISS is an example of political will to use "space" for geopolitical purposes (doing so has always been popular because the members of congress and senate manage to "get" that).
3. http://www.astronautix.com/ has fairly good info on plans and details as well as real craft concerning the Apollo program including suggestions that weren't put to use, civilian and military lunar bases as well as rockets etc.. What was eventually chosen and used in the Apollo program wasn't neccessarily the easiest or most cost-effective option. Also in case you're unfamiliar with t/space's lunar plans you should pay their site a visit: http://www.transformspace.com/ (not surprisingly Burt Rutan is involved).
Now I don't think the USAF would in any way be involved in actually having a clandestine moonbase if such exists (nor does anyone else I know of), nor would congress or senate - however $50000 toilets and $10000 hammers would
(and just as NRO took on significance after the existence of the puzzle palace became fairly well known an as of yet unnamed branch is taking on significance as we speak since the NRO is getting the same kind of exposure as NSA did 10-20 years ago). It might even be budget-less as the rumored flight-launched (shuttle transport style not SS1 style "afaik") mini-orbiters that is now said to have been decomissioned was "on loan" from another agency.There are uses for such a thing, some more speculative than others and many of those uses have nothing to do with cis-lunar space. However the rumors I mentioned don't really address that. Anyway that is all that it is; rumors, the point however is that it is not unachievable nor hard really. Combine that with "extremely useful" and it isn't too unlikely that it might (have) exist(ed). Btw some of the smaller X-prize contestants are targeting some of the same military uses as a launch-flexible mini-orbiter would have provided.
4. In reply to your "mockup & plans" paragraph; yeah I agree, just don't forget that ownership works the same in space as anywhere else: if one cannot use force to maintain it if required then one doesn't have it.
5. Bush Sr. & Jr. both see space as a vision and are rare in doing so since most politicians decidedly aren't space (as a vision) friendly. Bush Sr., Clinton, & Bush Jr. all see the value of ISS as a geopolitical tool as will the next president and likely also the next one thereafter. And the same applies to members of congress and senate as funding of the ISS isn't really a space topic but a security/geopolitical one. Reagan saw the military implications of space clearer than most at that time and that legacy was passed on to the rest of them (all later presidents, relevant house committees etc.), just about everything of Reagans thoughts on space as a military arena has by now been codified into the US armed forces and implemented although the technologies and possibilities as translated directly into practical military programs have been revised heavily (which is only good, but it's still all there including SDI which is in the final stages with the completion of ABL http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... index.html). And ABL works and is practical while satellite-borne or redirected lasers aren't. As for other parts of a missile shield the jury is still out (I've read tons of naysayers in Scientific American and other places but they always seem to be more political than scientific so I'm not too impressed by them).
Btw the ISS project was named Space Station Freedom (or Alpha) during the cold war. When it was renamed ISS it had largely stopped being about space altogether. Yes the two are not exactly the same but the ISS is more or less just a continuation of the SSF/A plans under a new name.
6. CEV issues; it will likely degrade into the usual pork-fest if Lockheed et al. get their say but NASA is keeping the door unlocked for t/space. The CEV's in themselves aren't the problem, the idea isn't the problem, it all hinges on the implementation and even Lockheed et al.'s implementation can work well (it will just be a lot more expensive in comparison to the hyper-efficiency, safety, and low costs of t/space). I'm highly dubious of the use of solid-fuel rockets in Lockheeds plans but that might simply be me parroting Von Brauns concerns in the past.
7. On Bush's (not just Jr. actually, Sr. wanted much the same) space vision: a lot of crap is floating around the internet as well as in the press in regard to this. I have some excellent links to relevant Ad Astra articles freely available but the links are on my main computer (not yet fixed) so I think I'll postpone digging them up until later. Really good stuff so remind me in a month if I've forgotten
Anyway as always anything suggested by the president depends on congress and the senate; they're the ones sitting on the money pile.In some ways I don't care/worry too much about NASA (although they have been shaping up some) or the proposed schedule for manned missions; Bigelow Aerospace http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/index.htm, t/Space, Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and others that actually spend lots of money and do stuff - all of those are more interesting
Sorry for mentioning lots of stuff you probably already know and getting off-topic
-
Lucifer
- Project Developer
- Posts: 8640
- Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
- Location: Republic of Texas
- Contact:
Heh, encyclopedia astronautica was my main source for information on the Soviet space program in my paper. They're also my source for the criticisms leveled at the CEV project, there's a good article there discussing it, and it's well-sourced itself.
I didn't mean to imply Soviet ICBMs were better on the whole, just the rockets themselves were. The limitation they worked under (for some reason) was that they built one big warhead for the missile, which required a larger rocket, and as SDI was getting ramped up, they needed it to be faster too. But still just one warhead. The US built cluster warheads, where instead of putting one big warhead, they crammed more like 6 or 8 (or however many it was) into the space of the warhead, and some distance from the target they would deploy and disperse. That meant they didn't have to build bigger bombs, they could still target the same or more area with less ordnance, which translated to less weight to move on the missile, which ultimately means less reaction mass and smaller engines needed to move the payload. Of course, while we can say "looks like the Americans built better missiles", we should say "thank <your favorite deity> we never really found out whose was better".
I'm not particularly convinced any of the presidents we've had have been interested in space. JFK and LBJ both came right out and said they didn't care about space, they cared about beating the Soviets. Nixon focused on foreign policy and warming the cold war a bit, and probably that influence led to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. Reagan was interested in space for military purposes, and I remember in the 80s watching several presentations on orbital fighters based on the space shuttle. Of course there was also SDI. I say you're underestimating the power of the space lobby in Texas. Bush's (both) power base is in Texas, and part of that power base is the space lobby. It's not all of it, but it's an important part of it. That goes back to both JFK and LBJ. LBJ wanted to make sure that no matter what else happened in the space race, it resulted in jobs in Texas. It's no coincidence that much of NASA is based in Texas. LBJ is a Texan, after all. It's also interesting to note that Texans, for the most part, don't object to federal spending on space programs. And why should they? It means more jobs in Texas. I'll concede the possibility that both Bushes have real visions about space, but I'm skeptical. Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is that the space lobby is part of their power base.
I didn't know about transformspace, thanks for the link. They dont' have job postings on their website, but I'll put them on my list of people to query in 4 years.
Yeah, Space Station Freedom was the US's space station that was intended to compete with Mir. I'll admit I'm not entirely sure if it was built first as Freedom and then turned into ISS, or if it was mocked up and engineered as Freedom but launched as ISS. In any case, I do remember thinking in the early/mid 90s that we'd have been better off keeping it to ourselves and building ISS from scratch, while also building Freedom. But I'd like to be putting much more money in orbit than most, I'm sure.
My wife and I were just talking the other day, one of her uncles (step-uncle? whatever) thinks I should go work for NASA when I finish my degree. See? We're all Texans here... I pointed out to her that the position we're talking about is an engineering position, and it was the engineers that were overruled by management when Challenger launched. They had similar objections over the fuel tanks, but it wasn't as pronounced for Columbia; they couldn't just say "if you launch this shuttle, it's not coming back", it was a different problem. Does she really think I'm going to lay back and take it when management tells me they're going to kill the astronauts?
They're also my source for the criticisms leveled at the CEV project, there's a good article there discussing it, and it's well-sourced itself.I didn't mean to imply Soviet ICBMs were better on the whole, just the rockets themselves were. The limitation they worked under (for some reason) was that they built one big warhead for the missile, which required a larger rocket, and as SDI was getting ramped up, they needed it to be faster too. But still just one warhead. The US built cluster warheads, where instead of putting one big warhead, they crammed more like 6 or 8 (or however many it was) into the space of the warhead, and some distance from the target they would deploy and disperse. That meant they didn't have to build bigger bombs, they could still target the same or more area with less ordnance, which translated to less weight to move on the missile, which ultimately means less reaction mass and smaller engines needed to move the payload. Of course, while we can say "looks like the Americans built better missiles", we should say "thank <your favorite deity> we never really found out whose was better".
I'm not particularly convinced any of the presidents we've had have been interested in space. JFK and LBJ both came right out and said they didn't care about space, they cared about beating the Soviets. Nixon focused on foreign policy and warming the cold war a bit, and probably that influence led to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. Reagan was interested in space for military purposes, and I remember in the 80s watching several presentations on orbital fighters based on the space shuttle. Of course there was also SDI. I say you're underestimating the power of the space lobby in Texas. Bush's (both) power base is in Texas, and part of that power base is the space lobby. It's not all of it, but it's an important part of it. That goes back to both JFK and LBJ. LBJ wanted to make sure that no matter what else happened in the space race, it resulted in jobs in Texas. It's no coincidence that much of NASA is based in Texas. LBJ is a Texan, after all. It's also interesting to note that Texans, for the most part, don't object to federal spending on space programs.
And why should they? It means more jobs in Texas. I'll concede the possibility that both Bushes have real visions about space, but I'm skeptical. Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is that the space lobby is part of their power base.I didn't know about transformspace, thanks for the link.
They dont' have job postings on their website, but I'll put them on my list of people to query in 4 years. Yeah, Space Station Freedom was the US's space station that was intended to compete with Mir. I'll admit I'm not entirely sure if it was built first as Freedom and then turned into ISS, or if it was mocked up and engineered as Freedom but launched as ISS. In any case, I do remember thinking in the early/mid 90s that we'd have been better off keeping it to ourselves and building ISS from scratch, while also building Freedom. But I'd like to be putting much more money in orbit than most, I'm sure.
My wife and I were just talking the other day, one of her uncles (step-uncle? whatever) thinks I should go work for NASA when I finish my degree. See? We're all Texans here... I pointed out to her that the position we're talking about is an engineering position, and it was the engineers that were overruled by management when Challenger launched. They had similar objections over the fuel tanks, but it wasn't as pronounced for Columbia; they couldn't just say "if you launch this shuttle, it's not coming back", it was a different problem. Does she really think I'm going to lay back and take it when management tells me they're going to kill the astronauts?
Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden
Glad at least some of the stuff I wrote was of use; t/space is very interesting imo. Both the concepts and plans as well as what they've achieved so far. It might not be Rutan's touch but it sure has the same "aroma". Iirc the reuse of the reentry capsule design (can't remember the name of the classic it's based on... "c" something?) with modern materials does heavily involve Rutan. Resue might be the wrong word since it's the aerodynamic properties and the idea of a selforienting weightdistribution that is used.
I hope I don't come across as nitpicking but here it comes
Didn't know about LBJs pork-fest but it doesn't surprise me (he's probably the US president I like the least, even clearly beating the Kennedys). Anyway I wouldn't really call it the space-lobby so much as the aeronautics-lobby. The real space-lobby is imo the one we've seen slowly being organised the past five years rather than the aeronautical mastodonts that only want government handouts rather than going about developing/creating a new industry. I do think that Bush Sr./Jr. really has seen space as a vision but such will always be personal opinon of course.
Occams razor is often severely mangled by inappropriate use (can't help myself pointing that out) but your point is still valid - sure it might mostly be about pork. The motivation isn't too important to me as long as the effect is what I want: to keep/start working at human spaceflight and expansion into space. I'm actually not one of those who see the ISS as exclusively a political device (even though it is that as well and to good effect imo) but in addition my opinon is that to actually speed up and get anywhere we've got to aim for and try harder stuff (at least a semi-permanent "arctic style" outpost on the moon). I don't think we'll learn the neccesary stuff for those kinds of environments until we go there (we need more knowledge on stuff like moonquakes, day/night-boundary electric potential "storms", shielding etc. so yeah it will be demanding).
Freedom were only plans afaik but those plans are/were the basis for the ISS. I'm not sure if there would be any point in doing both a SSF & ISS but in any case I agree on putting money into orbit and beyond: it's investement not expenditure (well at least for humanity in general & the private sector).
I like encyclopedia astronautica but (and perhaps it's just bad luck in what I've happened to read) I don't much care for the blog part as I disagree on too much of the opinons/reasoning. Anyway the Ad Astra links I mentioned and which I'll post later provide a more reasonable view imo (not that the two need to be contradictory, just different).
Yeah I absolutely agree: don't go NASA (even if Griffin manages to speed up change -- he's doing pretty good so far), you want someone like Rutan or Bigelow (BA has the potential to become immensly big, might even be the seed for a future "company nation") or even Carmac (if he hires; afaik the Armadillo crew does just about everything as volunteers). There's a bloom of small space companies in your part of the world so you'll hopefully get a nice job.
My illness makes me proofread and change my replies too much so I'm just going to submit this now even if there might be lack of clarity and mistakes
I hope I don't come across as nitpicking but here it comes
Didn't know about LBJs pork-fest but it doesn't surprise me (he's probably the US president I like the least, even clearly beating the Kennedys). Anyway I wouldn't really call it the space-lobby so much as the aeronautics-lobby. The real space-lobby is imo the one we've seen slowly being organised the past five years rather than the aeronautical mastodonts that only want government handouts rather than going about developing/creating a new industry. I do think that Bush Sr./Jr. really has seen space as a vision but such will always be personal opinon of course.
Occams razor is often severely mangled by inappropriate use (can't help myself pointing that out) but your point is still valid - sure it might mostly be about pork. The motivation isn't too important to me as long as the effect is what I want: to keep/start working at human spaceflight and expansion into space. I'm actually not one of those who see the ISS as exclusively a political device (even though it is that as well and to good effect imo) but in addition my opinon is that to actually speed up and get anywhere we've got to aim for and try harder stuff (at least a semi-permanent "arctic style" outpost on the moon). I don't think we'll learn the neccesary stuff for those kinds of environments until we go there (we need more knowledge on stuff like moonquakes, day/night-boundary electric potential "storms", shielding etc. so yeah it will be demanding).
Freedom were only plans afaik but those plans are/were the basis for the ISS. I'm not sure if there would be any point in doing both a SSF & ISS but in any case I agree on putting money into orbit and beyond: it's investement not expenditure
(well at least for humanity in general & the private sector).I like encyclopedia astronautica but (and perhaps it's just bad luck in what I've happened to read) I don't much care for the blog part as I disagree on too much of the opinons/reasoning. Anyway the Ad Astra links I mentioned and which I'll post later provide a more reasonable view imo (not that the two need to be contradictory, just different).
Yeah I absolutely agree: don't go NASA (even if Griffin manages to speed up change -- he's doing pretty good so far), you want someone like Rutan or Bigelow (BA has the potential to become immensly big, might even be the seed for a future "company nation") or even Carmac (if he hires; afaik the Armadillo crew does just about everything as volunteers). There's a bloom of small space companies in your part of the world so you'll hopefully get a nice job.
My illness makes me proofread and change my replies too much so I'm just going to submit this now even if there might be lack of clarity and mistakes