What are your views on the future of Space Exploration

[Mech_Engineer]

Based on from the link you provided, I wonder why they didn't go with RTGs on Spirit and Opportunity?

Probably because of price of development and the rovers' projected mission length. They aren't using the EXACT same RTG's as in Viking, but they are using a new RTG developed by Boeing that is similar in function at least.

 

[slide_Rules]

Probably because of price of development and the rovers' projected mission length. They aren't using the EXACT same RTG's as in Viking, but they are using a new RTG developed by Boeing that is similar in function at least.

Is it feasible to put a small fission unit on a rover? A small fission unit (using a Brayton Cycle ?) with an output of ~25kWe (?) would open up a lot of potential experiments and uses.

Test one on the moon. With the lack of meaningful comm delay, it could cruise at 1 kph and cover a great deal of interesting territory.

 

[JerryClower]

Question : What are your views on future space exploration?

Answer : To be honest, I think space exploration is a very stupid and dumb investment. There are many other problems in the world than what is in space. What are we going to find that is so important? There is no life out there, and even if there was, we shouldn't be trying to connect with it. It is not as important as many people think, there are plenty of other problems that should be set at a much higher level priority instead of space exploration. People spend way too much money on it anyhow.

 

[MotoH]

You have fun back on Earth jerry, whilst I am enjoying my rocket ship and making love to sweet aliens.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Is it feasible to put a small fission unit on a rover? A small fission unit (using a Brayton Cycle ?) with an output of ~25kWe (?) would open up a lot of potential experiments and uses.

While it might be theoretically possible/feasible, I don't think I would consider it practical at this point. It would have to be a pretty huge rover to require 25kW of power (the MSL is about the size of a Volkswagen and only uses 125W).

To be honest, I think space exploration is a very stupid and dumb investment. There are many other problems in the world than what is in space. What are we going to find that is so important? There is no life out there, and even if there was, we shouldn't be trying to connect with it. It is not as important as many people think, there are plenty of other problems that should be set at a much higher level priority instead of space exploration. People spend way too much money on it anyhow.

Well I personally think your views are naive and don't take into account the fundamental science and technological advancements achieved in space exploration. The amount of money spent on space pales in comparison to many other government programs- NASA's proposed 2010 budget is $18.7 billion, only 0.57% of the total federal budget (that percentage has been steadily decreasing since 1989- it's highest year was 1966 at 5.5%). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

For comparison, the DOD's 2010 budget is slated to be around $663 billion, more than 20% of the total federal budget. If you think the government is spending too much money somewhere, why not look there? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid took up a staggering $1,354 billion ($1.3 trillion) in 2009, 39% of the total federal budget. NASA's budget is only 1.3% of that; I'm willing to bet that a good hard fiscal look at those 2 monstrosities could come up with WAY more than 1.3% in beauracratic waste and fraudulent claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Federal_Budget

Basically, I think NASA has pretty good bang for its buck (especially considering its notoriety and public visibility), compared to some of the real money pits in the federal government. If I had the choice, I would much prefer to forego taxes on SS/medicare and put it towards NASA instead, but that's me personally I guess.

 

[mheslep]

[...]
Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid took up a staggering $1,354 billion ($1.3 trillion) in 2009, 39% of the total federal budget. NASA's budget is only 1.3% of that; [...]

Category error. SS/M&M, even if they're inefficient and ill-conceived (and I say they are), directly pay out to the entire population of 300 million sooner or later. The space program directly benefits a few, and the indirect benefits argument is complicated to make.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Category error. SS/M&M, even if they're inefficient and ill-conceived (and I say they are), directly pay out to the entire population of 300 million sooner or later. The space program directly benefits a few, and the indirect benefits argument is complicated to make.

I'm not collecting Social Security (and don't expect that I will be able to when I retire a long time from now). In 2009, 51 million Americans collected Social Security (not 300 million, although around 140 million were forced to contribute). How you define "direcly benefits" is a difficult thing to measure as well... there are more ways to benefit than just through receiving money. There are a lot of programs the federal government funds that don't "directly benefit" the majority of the population (and they are far larger than NASA).

The point is, NASA's budget is a drop in the budget compared to some of the (what I would consider wasteful) spending occurring in the federal government. Even if NASA was shut down tomorrow, where do you think that money would go? Would it be used to "directly benefit" the population? How do you even decide what "directly benefit" means?

 

[slide_Rules]

While it might be theoretically possible/feasible, I don't think I would consider it practical at this point. It would have to be a pretty huge rover to require 25kW of power (the MSL is about the size of a Volkswagen and only uses 125W).

A huge rover??

25kW = ~ 33 horsepower. That's less power than the smallest of cars.

There are practical tools (from drilling to transmitting) that could be vastly improved with 100 times the power that fission provides.

I guess the real problem is this: Can small fission plant of 25kWe fit into the footprint of a large car?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

A huge rover??

25kW = ~ 33 horsepower. That's less power than the smallest of cars.

There are practical tools (from drilling to transmitting) that could be vastly improved with 100 times the power that fission provides.

Maybe it sounds like a small amount of power for a car, but that would be about an order of magnitude more power than any interplanetary space probe ever made... As I said, the MSL only needs 125W to power everything it has. You might need the kind of power you're talking about if they were doing core sample drilling or major sample collection; but the kind of scientific instruments used so far just don't need a lot of power (in fact efficient power consumption is a major design driver).

I guess the real problem is this: Can small fission plant of 25kWe fit into the footprint of a large car?

It's possible I think, although it would be quite expensive. It might be simpler to use several RTG's, although when the full 25kw was not being used you would have to dissipate quite a lot of heat since an RTG cannot be throttled...

 

[mheslep]

I'm not collecting Social Security (and don't expect that I will be able to when I retire a long time from now). In 2009, 51 million Americans collected Social Security (not 300 million, although around 140 million were forced to contribute).

Sure, but at least so far, nearly every individual eventually moves through that retirement window gets their money back.

How you define "directly benefits" is a difficult thing to measure as well... there are more ways to benefit than just through receiving money. There are a lot of programs the federal government funds that don't "directly benefit" the majority of the population (and they are far larger than NASA).

There you go. Compare to those indirect programs, not SS/M&M.

Would it be used to "directly benefit" the population? How do you even decide what "directly benefit" means?

Directly in this case means they directly get back what they put it, minus the govt losses. Indirect returns would be when the cash is returned in some other form, and collectively, such as park, road, etc, i.e. indirect.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Social Security is a topic for another thread. Suffice to say the previous poster stated that he thought NASA is a waste of money, I tried to put it in perspective in terms of the total federal budget and what much larger sums of money are spent on.

I do stand by my statement that NASA's budget is money well spent compared to many other government programs.