Obama to host Apollo 11 astronauts

[Rocket Doctor]

This is from the Herald newspaper in Rock Hill SC

Obama to host Apollo 11 astronauts

WASHINTON - President Barack Obama will host the Apollo 11 crew monday (July 20th), the 40th Anniversary of man's first landing on the moon.

The event is one of only two that will feature the entire Apollo 11 crew. Two of the crew members Neil Armstrong who took the first step on the moon, and command module pilot Michael Collins, do not make many public appearances. The second man on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, appears frequently in the media.

Foot note:

Check your local news channels on Monday for this event.

I only wished that i could have launched a Saturn V there.......Oh well........

[jetlag]

Do you think our President ever launched a model rocket? By himself?
Maybe he used acorns for ballast?
(couldn't resist, sorry!) :D
Allen

[stefanj]

Do you think our President ever launched a model rocket? By himself?



Well, he's a bit of a geek, of the right age to have seen the moon landing as a kid, and he grew up in places where he had access to launch fields. But while lots and lots of kids my age were into rockets, some never heard of them. So it's a toss-up.

[Rocket Doctor]

Do you think our President ever launched a model rocket? By himself?
Maybe he used acorns for ballast?
(couldn't resist, sorry!) :D
Allen


Heck NO, doesn't that sound familiar.
The Apollo 11 crew as well as John H. Glenn,Jr. were at the Smithsonian yesterday, they gave out 468 passes for a "reunion" for the 40th Anniversary, over 7,000 applied.

This was my concept three months ago, having the Apollo 11 crew there as well as our first in space astronaut Glenn.

Here is what the White House Scheduling Office had to say in an email to me dated April 22,2009

Thank You for contacting the White House to suggest a Moon Landing 40th Anniversary celebration in Washington DC. The President values each and every opportunity to honor those who have dedicated their lives to improving their communities and our country as a whole. Unfortunately, the constraints of his schedule and the volume of inquires are such that the majority of them cannot be accomodated. It is with regret that we must decline your request.

We Thank You for your interest in arranging a meeting with the President and offering to give him a Saturn V model, and we appreciate your understanding.

Sincerely,

The White House Ofice of Appointments and Scheduling




Geesh, they changed their minds fast enough..............


FYI

I have sent a copy of the actual email to Scott.

[mperdue]

I suspect that this event was planned before they even knew who would win the presidential election last year.

[Royatl]

Geesh, they changed their minds fast enough..............


FYI

I have sent a copy of the actual email to Scott.

No, Ken,
They probably already had something scheduled, but it may have been fluid and they didn't want to say anything about it, and just simply wanted to let you (and the many others who probably had similar suggestions) down gently.

Back in the day, I was inspired by the '69-'70 Bluebonnet Bowl in Houston, where the NAR section and Estes flew a Saturn V to the roof of the Astrodome, to suggest a similar halftime show during the 1970 football season to Georgia Tech's coach and athletic director, Bobby Dodd. A couple of weeks later, I got a very nice letter from Coach Dodd politely declining the offer.

Years later, I got to know people in the PR office at UGA Athletics, and found out that they get many letters each week suggesting halftime shows, some theme-based, some agenda-based, some simply wacko. And they politely decline all. I asked, what if there is a really good idea in one of those letters, and a friend said, "well, if it's a really good idea, we've probably already had it."

[bob jablonski]

I was kind of disapointed with the Photo op speach. It would have bee a perfict time to give his vision of what NASA is to do
Mr. Bob

[tfischer]

I was kind of disapointed with the Photo op speach. It would have bee a perfict time to give his vision of what NASA is to do
Mr. Bob

There was an interesting article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune the other day about NASA's future direction (e.g. should they o back to the moon, etc.). I don't think Obama, or anyone else, is clear on NASA's future strategy...

[Nuke Rocketeer]

There was an interesting article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune the other day about NASA's future direction (e.g. should they o back to the moon, etc.). I don't think Obama, or anyone else, is clear on NASA's future strategy...

That's because there really is no money left to do anything.

[tfischer]

That's because there really is no money left to do anything.

Well, as much as I love space exploration and rockets, I think questions need to be asked. Going back to the moon just for the sake of going back probably isn't financially prudent, especially in these economic times. This article (I tried to find a link, but couldn't) was talking about things like is it worth sending a human (expensive and risky) vs. something like a Mars Rover to explore the moon for scientific reasons? Of course there are other reasons for going there, like setting up an outpost on the moon to launch deep-space missions, or even to colonize it...

I missed being alive for the moonwalk by about a year, but I was in 5th grade when the original Shuttle (Columbia) was launched and safely returned to earth. The shuttle was supposed to be the new, sexy, low-cost way to send people up to space. Heck they were talking about someday there being commercial flights for civilians thanks to the new shuttle... Now it pains me a bit to see the whole shuttle program axed due to it being, ironically, too expensive, returning to the "cheaper" technology that preceded the shuttle. It also seems like the same problems keep happening over and over. I can't remember a flight where they weren't concerned about debris hitting the heat tiles during launch... You'd think they could have solved that in almost 30 years...

Anyway I obviously love rockets or I wouldn't be here. But I'm not quite ready to hand NASA a blank check either.

[gpoehlein]

Considering how long it takes to go to Mars, not to mention that you have to stay there a long time before Earth and Mars are close enough to come home again, I think building a long term colony on the Moon is the most sensible approach. Doesn't it make more sense to develop the colony technology on a celestial body that is only 3-4 days away rather than one that is months away?

Greg

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Well, as much as I love space exploration and rockets, I think questions need to be asked. Going back to the moon just for the sake of going back probably isn't financially prudent, especially in these economic times. This article (I tried to find a link, but couldn't) was talking about things like is it worth sending a human (expensive and risky) vs. something like a Mars Rover to explore the moon for scientific reasons? Of course there are other reasons for going there, like setting up an outpost on the moon to launch deep-space missions, or even to colonize it...

I missed being alive for the moonwalk by about a year, but I was in 5th grade when the original Shuttle (Columbia) was launched and safely returned to earth. The shuttle was supposed to be the new, sexy, low-cost way to send people up to space. Heck they were talking about someday there being commercial flights for civilians thanks to the new shuttle... Now it pains me a bit to see the whole shuttle program axed due to it being, ironically, too expensive, returning to the "cheaper" technology that preceded the shuttle. It also seems like the same problems keep happening over and over. I can't remember a flight where they weren't concerned about debris hitting the heat tiles during launch... You'd think they could have solved that in almost 30 years...

Anyway I obviously love rockets or I wouldn't be here. But I'm not quite ready to hand NASA a blank check either.

The biggest reason for the expense of the shuttle launch was that NASA was told by certain powerful congresscritters that they had better keep employment at roughly Apollo levels or suffer budget cuts that would ax the shuttle. Every subsequent shuttle replacement was cut primarily because of the fact that the premise of the program would be to cut the number of people needed to operate the system.

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Considering how long it takes to go to Mars, not to mention that you have to stay there a long time before Earth and Mars are close enough to come home again, I think building a long term colony on the Moon is the most sensible approach. Doesn't it make more sense to develop the colony technology on a celestial body that is only 3-4 days away rather than one that is months away?

Greg

Yep, especially when to me the main reason a manned Mars mission should not happen is the very high radiation dosage they would get on that months long trip. We probably will not send anyone there until we can come up with a relatively lightweight radiation shielding method.

[bob jablonski]

The moon would make a great platform for a space telascope Easyer to controle, stable platform and easyer to work on at 1/6 then zero gravity. And don't forget about healium 3.
and whatever else we find plus spin offs.
Mr. Bob
Starlight dude

[jadebox]

Yep, especially when to me the main reason a manned Mars mission should not happen is the very high radiation dosage they would get on that months long trip. We probably will not send anyone there until we can come up with a relatively lightweight radiation shielding method.

Researchers are also looking at medical ways to reduce or avoid damage from the radiation. This research could lead to medical breakthroughs.

We need to challenge ourselves with things like going back to the moon and Mars because these challenges force us to find solutions to problems that often have other applications here on earth.

-- Roger

[RandyT0001]

Researchers are also looking at medical ways to reduce or avoid damage from the radiation. This research could lead to medical breakthroughs.

G Harry Stine's (aka Lee Corey) book Space Doctor already figured this out years ago. Since most natural radiation is particle radiation (alpha and beta) the best thing to do would be to surround a 'storm cellar' where the crew takes refuge during solar flares, etc. with about a meter of water. NASA is also working on a hydrogenated polyethylene composite material that has less mass than the water with equal protection.

We need to challenge ourselves with things like going back to the moon and Mars because these challenges force us to find solutions to problems that often have other applications here on earth.

There are a significant number of challenges here on Earth that require solutions now otherwise civilization will probably collapse within a few hundred years. To name a few there is population growth, exponetial growth in fossil fuel use, climate change, antibiotic resistant infections, desertification of arable land. This is where our focus should be. Once these have been solved (or in the process of the application of the solution) then let's do the research on nuclear rockets that can take us to Mars and beyond. This idea of a new 'race' to Mars is like we are racing off to an overseas vacation despite the rising water of the flooding river that approaches the home we'll leave behind.

IMO

[jadebox]

There are a significant number of challenges here on Earth that require solutions now otherwise civilization will probably collapse within a few hundred years.

The things we will learn overcoming the technical obstacles facing us to make it to Mars and back will help us survive here on earth. Continuing manned exploration of the solar system will also inspire young people to learn about science and technolgy. It's those young people that will face the challenges of the future.

-- Roger

[RandyT0001]

The things we will learn overcoming the technical obstacles facing us to make it to Mars and back will help us survive here on earth.

That statement is not necessarily true. What is true is finding solutions to the problems I presented are considerably more likely to help us survive here on Earth because both the problems and the solutions are directly relate to human existance on Earth.

Continuing manned exploration of the solar system will also inspire young people to learn about science and technolgy.

Presenting them with a truthful assesment of the world's future if these problems aren't solved would, one hopes, inspire them to a greater extent to try to solve these problems. They are the ones that will have to endure the consequences of our decisions to not address these issues. Filing their heads with 'Heroic/ Sugar plum/ Santa Claus' visions of manned space exploration to Mars and beyond while ignoring serious problems growing on Earth is a terrible disservice.

It's those young people that will face the challenges of the future.

It's our great-grandchildren that will have to try to survive in the world we leave them. Will it be a world where nations are attacking each other in war over the limited fresh water resources left in a much hotter world where vast tracts of desert make growing food difficult while the TV's are reminiscing the 'glory years' the landing of astronauts on Mars forty years before? Or will it be a peaceful world where people are fed, medically cared for, utilizing solar power for energy needs and the nations of the world are collectively engaged in a well funded, properly researched manned exploration of Mars and the Belt utilizing nuclear rockets that the masses are proudly watching on live TV, knowing that only the difficulties and problems of deep space exploration face them in their future?

[stefanj]

How very timely!

SF power hitter Kim Stanley Robinson (Red Mars trilogy) wrote an essay about just this stuff:

Return to the Heavens, for the Sake of the Earth (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/17/AR2009071702018.html)

[jadebox]

That statement is not necessarily true. What is true is finding solutions to the problems I presented are considerably more likely to help us survive here on Earth because both the problems and the solutions are directly relate to human existance on Earth.

I didn't say we should stop other research in order to continue manned exploration of space. But, to suggest that we should stop exploring because there are other problems is very short-sighted.

-- Roger

[kurtschachner]

Yep, especially when to me the main reason a manned Mars mission should not happen is the very high radiation dosage they would get on that months long trip. We probably will not send anyone there until we can come up with a relatively lightweight radiation shielding method.


This is actually a very serious problem. A recent paper discussed the problem in detail (you can read it for free):

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12045

[Royatl]

This is actually a very serious problem. A recent paper discussed the problem in detail (you can read it for free):

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12045

Carl told me that Buzz Aldrin was saying that NASA should send old astronauts on the first Mars missions for that very reason. The thinking being that, heck, they've had a good life, they're trained, they're past their reproductive years, and they've probably got cancer or something here and there anyway, so the radiation won't be that much of a change - might even help!

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Carl told me that Buzz Aldrin was saying that NASA should send old astronauts on the first Mars missions for that very reason. The thinking being that, heck, they've had a good life, they're trained, they're past their reproductive years, and they've probably got cancer or something here and there anyway, so the radiation won't be that much of a change - might even help!

Score one for all the old farts!!!

[Jeff Walther]

There are a significant number of challenges here on Earth that require solutions now otherwise civilization will probably collapse within a few hundred years. To name a few there is population growth
Levels off or goes negative when a society becomes affluent. Cheap energy leads to affluent societies. Build more nuclear power plants. , exponetial growth in fossil fuel use
Coal can be dispensed with as soon as we build enough nuclear power plants. Our transportation system is still dependent on oil and will be until we find a good replacement solution, which we really have not, so far. Battery technology is getting closer, but is not there yet. However, in the interim, we could force all intercity freight to containerized train cars, which would save huge amounts of oil, and to go further still, convert the rail system to overhead electric, and supply the electricity with, you guessed it, more nuclear power plants. , climate changeI believe that CO2 is up. Still have my doubts about climate change. But that all becomes moot once you implement the above changes which replace fossile fuels., antibiotic resistant infections, This is an ongoing battle which will never be solved. But is no reason to delay other long term investments.desertification of arable land. Nuclear power plants desalinating ocean water for irrigation.This is where our focus should be. Once these have been solved

Bah, that's just a recipe for never making any long term investments. You're so focused on present day boogie men, you'd sacrifice the longer term future.

[Jeff Walther]

Or will it be a peaceful world utilizing solar power for energy needs

Why would we want to do that? Solar energy is vastly less ecologically friendly than nuclear power generation.

One covers hundreds of square miles in collectors, be they solar panels or wind mill towers, to unreliably obtain the generating capacity of a nuclear power plant which can fit on a few score acres of land. That's hundreds of square miles covered in structures, utility runs and service roads, just so greens can have the illusion of being "eco-friendly" or is it "sustainable". Nuclear power plants are compact and have a much smaller geographical and ecological footprint than the equivalent generating capacity from "solar" sources. Plus the energy is predictable and reliable.

[gpoehlein]

To expand on a couple of Jeff's points:

As far as antibiotic resistant bacteria go, two things come to mind:

1) Stop prescribing antibiotics for every little sniffle - antibiotics have NO effect on viruses, but that doesn't stop people from asking for them whenever they get a cold or the flu (both viral diseases) and their doctors just prescribing something to shut them up. The other contributing factor is the use of antibiotics in our livestock industry - constantly prescribing antibiotics to counter the effect of overcrowding and bad diet is just wrong.

2) Orbital and low-gravity pharmaceutical manufacturing could bring us a lot of important breakthroughs, but we'll never know if we don't ever get off this dirtball!

The nuclear issue is interesting in that, although it doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses, it does create a lot of radioactive spent fuel. So of course, our nearsighted, short term solution is to bury the stuff somewhere and hope that doesn't come back to haunt us. On the other hand, there should be some way to "recycle" the spent fuel - after all, if it is radioactive, it still has energy to give up. We need to do research to find ways to use the fuel more efficiently. And I have no idea how extra-planetary facilities could aid in this research and/or recycling.

You are right, though - we need to stop contemplating our navels because we have so many problems here on Earth. We've had all these same problems for a long time, and space research could help solve them.

Greg

[stefanj]

Why would we want to do that? Solar energy is vastly less ecologically friendly than nuclear power generation..

You're cherry picking your facts.

You need a river for cooling the plants, and that warmed water causes problems. This is going to be more problematical as changing rainfall patterns and warming climate make water rights a problem of their own.

You need to mine and refine and process uranium. Are you counting the facilities to do that in your "compact" equation? Are you taking into account the fossil fuels required to do the mining and refining and transport?

I'm in favor of more nuclear power, but it's not a cure-all, and it has its own costs and problems. Handwaving those away while dismissing solar power because it covers more land is dishonest.

You know what we REALLY need? Better energy storage and transmission technologies.

[Jeff Walther]

I'm in favor of more nuclear power, but it's not a cure-all, and it has its own costs and problems. Handwaving those away while dismissing solar power because it covers more land is dishonest..

Even taking those into account, nuclear is more eco friendly. Mining need not consume fossile fuels, but it is true that it does now. But so do all the activities associated with building solar facilities and the vehicels driving all over those service roads to keep them working.

The fact is that a nuclear power plant consumes a tiny amount of fuel in a year. You could probably fit the USA's entire yearly supply on one ocean going freighter, and that generates 20% of our electricity.

More than 90% of the "waste" is reusable fuel. It isn't really waste in the traditional chemical reaction sense. It is nuclear fuel which has become too rich in impurities to be effective as nuclear fuel any longer. Remove the impurities, rebalance the enrichment and it is still very usable.

Cooling is necessary, but not as problematical as you seem to think. It certainly is no more likely to cause local climate changes than having square miles of dark solar panels or wind slowing turbines is. In extreme cases reservoirs could and should be built. If there isn't enough water present to cool a power plant, there probably isn't enough water available so supply the local population's needs either.

I agree that better transmission techniques would be useful. but cutting inefficiency losses is never going to satisfy our growing need for energy.

[Nuke Rocketeer]

To expand on a couple of Jeff's points:

As far as antibiotic resistant bacteria go, two things come to mind:

1) Stop prescribing antibiotics for every little sniffle - antibiotics have NO effect on viruses, but that doesn't stop people from asking for them whenever they get a cold or the flu (both viral diseases) and their doctors just prescribing something to shut them up. The other contributing factor is the use of antibiotics in our livestock industry - constantly prescribing antibiotics to counter the effect of overcrowding and bad diet is just wrong.

2) Orbital and low-gravity pharmaceutical manufacturing could bring us a lot of important breakthroughs, but we'll never know if we don't ever get off this dirtball!

The nuclear issue is interesting in that, although it doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses, it does create a lot of radioactive spent fuel. So of course, our nearsighted, short term solution is to bury the stuff somewhere and hope that doesn't come back to haunt us. On the other hand, there should be some way to "recycle" the spent fuel - after all, if it is radioactive, it still has energy to give up. We need to do research to find ways to use the fuel more efficiently. And I have no idea how extra-planetary facilities could aid in this research and/or recycling.

You are right, though - we need to stop contemplating our navels because we have so many problems here on Earth. We've had all these same problems for a long time, and space research could help solve them.

Greg

The Europeans and Japanese recycle their spent fuel already. For us, the two obstacles are political and economic. Economic in that the cost of recyling the spent fuel is much more expensive than mining uranium and processing it into new fuel. Political in that NIMBY comes into play for re-processing and waste storage facilities. Argonne Labs also has a new reactor design that will burn a lot of the waste too, but it is still experimental.

[Nuke Rocketeer]

You're cherry picking your facts.

You need a river for cooling the plants, and that warmed water causes problems. This is going to be more problematical as changing rainfall patterns and warming climate make water rights a problem of their own.

You need to mine and refine and process uranium. Are you counting the facilities to do that in your "compact" equation? Are you taking into account the fossil fuels required to do the mining and refining and transport?

I'm in favor of more nuclear power, but it's not a cure-all, and it has its own costs and problems. Handwaving those away while dismissing solar power because it covers more land is dishonest.

You know what we REALLY need? Better energy storage and transmission technologies.

When you take into account the capacity factors for nuclear, coal, hydro, wind, and solar generation into account, by far the cheapest on total footprint is nuclear. Most nuke plants run at about 92% to 95% CF, Solar at best can get about 45%, while wind struggles along at best at 30%. Plus taking into account that the wind generally dies when the loads are increasing, i.e., temperatures are climbing, giving you have a very unreliable system. To be on the conservative side in system planning, wind generation planners have to assume a 25% CF, so to replace 1 MW of fossil capacity (which runs ~95% CF too), you have to build 4 MW of wind in a widely distributed area and string much more transmission lines, which decreases efficiency more due to line losses. You will not be able to replace fossil with solar, since the sun does not shine at night, so you have to keep those gas turbines and coal plants around for evening generation.

Energy storage, AKA batteries, are still a long ways from being good for a mass scale, and there are more efficient low/no loss transmission line technologies, but those come at a cost, since they are superconducting with cryogenic temperatures and are very maintenance intensive, therefore expensive, and the amount of power needed to keep the lines cold is very close to the amount lost in the inefficiencies of regular transmission systems.