I've been thinking about the shameless pandering WRT space recently conducted by the Elect (this time) at Any Cost Bush political machine. I won't waste much energy debating yet another under funded, bait and switch proposal designed to sway the great unwashed and further the not-so-hidden agenda of the PNACers. According to the PNAC Mein Kampf, Rebuilding America's Defenses, (p. v in the introduction) "http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"
"our" role in Space is to:
"Control the new International Commons of space and cyberspace, and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control" (insert either stirring or ominous music here)
These proposals will not be funded by this administration, even if He manages to occupy the White House again. But, now that the topic has been introduced, we may be able to take some advantage of it by proposing a space program that actually is revolutionary and effective. It must be revolutionary because we simply can't continue to employ (estimated) 5,000 highly trained technicians to spend $140 million and up to six months to inspect, disassemble and painstakingly refurbish our aging "fleet" of barely usable, white elephant shuttles. There can be no more perfect example why Congressional budget battles should NEVER be allowed to determine the means and ends of human exploration of space.
To design a program, we first need to have a desired outcome. I can think of two not necessarily contradictory reasons for leaving the confines of our planet. The first, and by way of personal disclosure, most compelling of these reasons, is to discover more about our universe and ourselves. NASA has been trying to fulfill that goal (modestly) throughout most of my adult life. Again, due to the absurd cost, progress has been maddeningly slow. The second outcome, manned Space programs have always been hostage to the political whimsy of the day, usually yielding damned little of lasting value, yet at enormous cost. I am very supportive of having humans explore space in the classical sense. Our ability to learn, adjust expectations and discover new information is currently impossible to build in a surrogate machine. So, to me, the most obvious, indeed, overwhelming need is for us to develop new means for getting goods and services outside of the planet's gravity well at a cost that can make it almost mundane, not a career capping endeavor for groups of scientists who might get, at most, a few tries at the prize.
While grants from the British government and a few scientific societies might fund something as important and compelling as the voyage of the Beagle, it was the East India Company, and others like them that made global travel and commerce a reality. We need private industry to get involved if we're ever to expend the resources needed to inhabit space.
I have a modest proposal; one that is largely re-useable at both ends of the endeavor and which could be a good counter-proposal to the Bush mendacity. The cost should be far lower than a (relatively) meaningless trip to Mars, long after Bush is collecting Medicare. The benefits should be measurable and far more timely than the Bush/Rove proposals, as well.
I believe that we should be pursuing two, separate tracks for entering space; one for people and one for scientific or industrial cargo. We must have a truly re-useable "space plane" type of device for ferrying people and small quantities of supplies into high Earth orbit. It's pathetic for our shuttles to be limited to (around) 165 miles above Earth. That's not anywhere near the useful parts of orbital space. Also, it should be able to take off and land on it's own, or supplemented power. It should be able to utilize aerodynamic control and a tough skin to survive re-entry without having to be completely refurbished after a flight. This type of craft has been pretty well explored and many of the biggest aerospace companies are already working on projects. That's fine. Bush may actually fund further research on this part, since it goes to his cronies. It will keep the Rockwells, Boeings and Lockheeds happy. We can say Bush got this one right (assuming he actually does provide anything for research) and move on to the meat of my proposal.
What we desperately lack is a way to move large payloads into high-Earth orbit or beyond. For this, I propose a new approach. Instead of using century old "rocket science", we could develop a staged approach to space.
Stage 1 - Somewhere, possibly in the Rockies, there may exist a mountain with a desirable slope. Up this slope, we should build a very long, mag-lev track that can be used to boost the spacecraft launch assembly to near sonic speeds. The launch package could hopefully, be going about 600 miles an hour at about 12/14,000 feet before the first bit of fuel is expended. The payload would be a cargo container, about the size of a semi-trailer/railroad car etc. This container would be mounted on a lifting body, or variable geometry aircraft, which would boost the payload to around 140,000 feet and maybe mach 3 or 4, or faster. It would do this by means of hydrogen fueled ramjets. The difference in speed from leaving the launcher and achieving the supersonic speed necessary for the ramjets to kick in, could be made up by either turbojet engines or recoverable, solid rocket boosters, similar to ones called JATOs, developed by the Air Force in the 60's to get overloaded Armageddon bombers off the ground. However the process worked, the manned or unmanned launcher would drop off just before an expendable solid rocket booster kicks the cargo container on up to orbit. These boosters are about the only part of the system that might not be cost effective to recycle. The launch aircraft returns to base and lands. Since it never actually goes into space, required refurbishment should be minimal and it could be turned around in a reasonable period.
Stage 2 - What I think has great potential, is that the cargo containers would all be designed with standardized hatches, connections, possibly even pre-wired and configured as labs before they're sent up. A very similar process to the modules loaded into the back of the Space Shuttles now. These containers could be strung together and used as habitat, research and manufacturing labs, or even as moveable "stations". Whatever economic value there may be in space, it's got to help having thousands of cubic meters of habitable space in which to operate.
This is just a bare bones illustration of a process I think could work. As a political issue, I think its value could be explained to good effect. At least one Western state Governor would get a bonanza handed to him or her. The project would provide high paying jobs. These would be involved in construction, maintenance/operation of the facility and many thousands of jobs in supporting industries. I can only guess, but I think we could argue from 20,000 to 50,000 new jobs, happening in the next 2-10 years, not 10-30 years in the future.
By reducing the cost and planning requirements from today's ludicrous levels to a realm accessible to small to middle sized industry and entrepreneurial coalitions, we could see more progress in the next twenty-five years than we'd see in 60 years of the current, elephantine, top down model. Wide utilization of space might also help to suppress the ugly ideas coming from PNAC and therefore the Pentagon and VP Cheney's office, about controlling space and militarizing it. I know many of us are interested in actually experiencing space, or at least enabling our children to do so. Unless the current model is thrown away, we will never be able to make space anything other than an occasionally inspiring (vicarious) journey or a terrifying threat over our heads.
I haven't seen a lot of recent research utilizing such a model. Obviously, there are critical areas that need feasibility studies. Especially the effects of high speed travel close to the ground. What kind of aerodynamic problems would appear? What are the limits to the size of launch vehicles and payloads, etc. My point is that, if the Democratic candidate [Dean ;-) ] could point out some of the obvious fallacies in the Rove plan, and propose thoughtful, innovative and feasible proposals of his own, this could be another way to take one of Rove's half-baked ploys away from the White House and use it as a weapon against them. The only way to deal with this crowd is to keep throwing them off balance. The boy genius/turd blossom is actually not so good at thinking on his feet. If we resist their definitions, both of us and of the problems we face, and we don't let them craft our environment, and we make them react to our initiatives, then we win and they crawl back under a rock to plan further mischief.
If anyone wants to discuss my ideas, please hold forth. I'm all agog.
