APOD: Shuttle Enterprise Over New York (2012 May 09)

[Altair]

No Chris, America does NOT have an active program to put humans into orbit. It purchases launch seats from foreign countries at extortionate prices. Any nation with the funding can do the same. Before you even bring up SpaceX or SNC or CST-100 saving the day, you must admit that under a BEST case scenario none of these projects will fly humans for at least another 5 years (NASA's own estimate). Add to that a hostile congress that wants most of these potential commercial crew services killed off by cutting the budget for it by 2/3rds, and openly calling for NASA to simply sole source the whole thing out to Boeing.

As for NASA's own future Orion spacecraft, NASA has openly admitted that Orion will not fly until its giant SLS launcher is ready, perhaps in 2018 at the earliest. Most observers feel however that the giant rocket is nothing more than a political jobs program and once it has outlived that usefulness will never survive the budget process for another 6 or 8 years. In fact, SLS folks have been given orders to invent potential (but unapproved and unfunded) missions that could use SLS, so that congressional backers have some sort of flimsy excuse to keep funding the project now. As as a result Orion will likely end up a hanger queen.

As for unmanned exploration, yes there is some current activity that will produce exciting results when previously-launched craft have reached their objectives, however the future for American planetary exploration is grim: 9 planetary probes are currently scheduled for launch in the next decade. Only 3 are American though: one a larger class, one medium class, and one smaller class. As for ongoing missions already launched, budgets are being slashed: NASA will now be spending only $9 million on outer planets missions in 2012 - enough to keep fewer than 500 people employed. America has also withdrawn from major collaborations such as the Joint Mars Initiative and ESJM/Laplace, leaving America's credibility as a partner in future spaceflight initiatives in tatters.

The only American setpiece program currently underway with a defined future is the Space Station. It is being successfully operated to NASA's credit but is wildly underutilized - partly due to the organization intended to coordinate ISS scientific exploitation (CASIS) being in total disarray.

Overall, there is no credible national space policy, mid and long term objectives, or benchmarking. Without such things, such organizations whither and die in the hostile world of American politics.

So, Chris, one needs to look at not just where we are, but where the trends are headed. They are not good. America's future in space leadership is in serious jeopardy. To claim anything other is whistling by the graveyard.

[neufer]

• ________ Scientific American JUNE 1960
  
  "Putting a man in space is a stunt: the man can do no more
  than an instrument, in fact can do less." So said Vannevar Bush,
  chairman of the Board of Governors of the Massachusetts Institute
  of Technology, in a statement to the House Committee on Science
  and Astronautics. "There are far more serious things to do than to
  indulge in stunts. As yet the American people do not understand the
  distinctions, and we in this country are prone to rush, for a time, at
  any new thing. I do not discard completely the value of demonstrating
  to the world our skills. Nor do I undervalue the effect on morale of
  the spectacular. But the present hullabaloo on the propaganda
  aspects of the program leaves me entirely cool."

[Chris Peterson]

No Chris, America does NOT have an active program to put humans into orbit. It purchases launch seats from foreign countries at extortionate prices. Any nation with the funding can do the same.

Exactly. The launch vehicle is just a bus. If the Russians can provide cheaper and safer rides into space, why shouldn't we take advantage of that? Certainly, the shuttles were largely failures, and astronomically expensive. Rockets are boring, old school stuff. Rockets are NOT the space program. The space program is what we do in space, what research we conduct, where we choose to go. How we get there is the least of it.

[neufer]

America does NOT have an active program to put humans into orbit. It purchases launch seats
from foreign countries at extortionate prices. Any nation with the funding can do the same.

Exactly. The launch vehicle is just a bus. If the Russians can provide cheaper and safer rides into space,
why shouldn't we take advantage of that? Certainly, the shuttles were largely failures, and astronomically expensive.

• . http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php? ... 40#p152240

<<Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has estimated that the Space Shuttle program has cost about US $170,000 million through early 2008.

This works out to an average cost per flight of about US $1,500 million >>

[b][color=#0000FF]Aerial view showing portions of four of the five SEGS III–VII plants located at Kramer Junction. As an example of cost, in 2002, one of the 30 MW Kramer Junction sites required $90 million to construct, and its operation and maintenance cost is about $3 million per year (4.6 cents per kilowatt hour). Kramer Junction employs about 95 people.[/color][/b]

---

<<Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS) is the largest solar energy generating facility in the world. It consists of nine solar power plants in California's Mojave Desert, where insolation is among the best available in the United States. SEGS I–II (44 MW) are located at Daggett, SEGS III–VII (150 MW) are installed at Kramer Junction, and SEGS VIII–IX (160 MW) are placed at Harper Lake. NextEra Energy Resources operates and partially owns the plants located at Kramer Junction.

The plants have a 354 MW installed capacity, making it the largest installation of solar plants of any kind in the world. The average gross solar output for all nine plants at SEGS is around 75 MWe — a capacity factor of 21%. In addition, the turbines can be utilized at night by burning natural gas. NextEra claims that the solar plants power 232,500 homes and displace 3,800 tons of pollution per year that would have been produced if the electricity had been provided by fossil fuels, such as oil.

The installation uses parabolic trough solar thermal technology along with natural gas to generate electricity. 90% of the electricity is produced by the sunlight. The parabolic mirrors are shaped like a half-pipe. The sun shines onto the panels made of glass, which are 94% reflective, unlike a typical mirror, which is only 70% reflective. The sunlight bounces off the mirrors and is directed to a central tube filled with synthetic oil, which heats to over 400°C . The reflected light focused at the central tube is 71 to 80 times more intense than the ordinary sunlight. The synthetic oil transfers its heat to water, which boils and drives the Rankine cycle steam turbine, thereby generating electricity. Individual locations The mirrors automatically track the sun throughout the day. The greatest source of mirror breakage is wind, with 3000 typically replaced each year. Operators can turn the mirrors to protect them during intense wind storms. An automated washing mechanism is used to periodically clean the parabolic reflective panels.

The facilities have a total of 936,384 mirrors and cover more than 1,600 acres (6.5 km²). The SEGS power plants were built by Luz Industries, and commissioned between 1984 and 1991. After Luz Industries bankruptcy in 1991 plants were sold to various investor groups as individual projects and expansion including three more plants was halted.>>

<<The Allen Telescope Array was a joint effort by the SETI Institute and the Radio Astronomy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley to construct a radio interferometer that is dedicated to astronomical observations and a simultaneous search for extraterrestrial intelligence.

First conceived by SETI pioneer Frank Drake, the idea has been a dream of the SETI Institute for years. However, it was not until early 2001 that research and development commenced after a donation of $11.5 million by the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. In March 2004, following successful completion of a three-year research and development phase, the SETI Institute unveiled a three-tier construction plan for the telescope. Construction began right after, due to the pledge of $13.5 million by Paul Allen to support the construction of the first and second phases. The SETI Institute named the telescope in his honor. Overall Paul Allen has contributed more than $30 million to the project.

The ATA is under construction at the Hat Creek Radio Observatory, 290 miles northeast of San Francisco, California. When completed, the array is expected to consist of 350 antennas. The first phase with 42 antennas (ATA-42) is complete and became operational on 11 October 2007. In May 2009, UC Berkeley announced it was performing all-sky surveys using the Allen Telescope Array. The ATA Team reported initial results from their survey of the Galactic Center Region at the June 2009 meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

As of April 2011, the ATA has been placed in hibernation mode due to funding shortfalls, meaning that it is no longer available for use.

Operation of the ATA was resumed on December 5, 2011.>>

[Altair]

Exactly. The launch vehicle is just a bus

Incorrect. Any nation that does not have independent access to space does not have an independent space program. This is fact, not opinion. That paradigm is an American (and other nations') national security principle, not mine. Any independent national space program starts with independent access to space. It is a critical lynchpin, not "just a bus"

Rockets are boring, old school stuff.

To say that rockets are "old school stuff" is simply ridiculous. Rocket propulsion continues to be and WILL remain for the foreseeable future the only sufficiently advanced technology available to get people and things into outer space. This is not opinion, it is fact. Half a dozen nations are currently spending a combined billions of dollars per year developing new launch vehicles for the future. I guess that they are all "old school".

If the Russians can provide cheaper and safer rides into space, why shouldn't we take advantage of that?... How we get there is the least of it.

Incorrect. For the United States to need Russia to get people into orbit on a permanent basis is politically unacceptable. In 10 years, if the situation is still the same and there is no American substitute available for Soyuz, America will get out of the manned spaceflight business following retirement of the ISS. The current situation of waiting until 2017 or later to kick the Soyuz habit is already intolerable in many influential circles. I'm not sure that you understand the political component that drives national space programs.

Certainly, the shuttles were largely failures, and astronomically expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle wrote: Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has estimated that the Space Shuttle program has cost about US $170,000 million through early 2008. This works out to an average cost per flight of about US $1,500 million

And Apollo costs about $20B per lunar landing. What's your point? What does this have what to do with fixing the chaotic current and future state of the American space program? If you think that the future American space program is going to be "business as usual minus the shuttle", you are very mistaken. If you think the funding that once went to the "astronomically expensive" shuttle will be redirected towards another, "better" space endeavor, you are mistaken - just as some folks were at the end of Apollo.

The space program is what we do in space, what research we conduct, where we choose to go.

And America is planning on doing a whole lot less of that in the future. That's the issue. That's what I laid out in prior post. Unfortunately, you have as a retort ignored 95% of the stark realities that myself and many, many others have listed off and responded with "but the Russians are fine, rocket propulsion is yesterday's news, and I really hate the Space Shuttle".

Fine basis for a future space policy.

[Chris Peterson]

Incorrect. Any nation that does not have independent access to space does not have an independent space program...

I think you are living in the past.

We certainly have access to space, with numerous American designed, manufactured, and launched space vehicles. Manned spaceflight is mostly a waste of resources at the current time, in any case. For what little we are doing with the ISS, there's absolutely nothing wrong with using Russian launchers. They are safer and much cheaper than the shuttles, which were extremely inappropriate for ISS access. Russia is not our enemy; we are partners with respect to the ISS. As far as future manned space missions are concerned, the shuttles were not appropriate, and new vehicles are currently being designed.

[neufer]

Certainly, the shuttles were largely failures, and astronomically expensive.

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has estimated that the Space Shuttle program has cost about US $170,000 million through early 2008.
This works out to an average cost per flight of about US $1,500 million

And Apollo costs about $20B per lunar landing. What's your point? What does this have what to do with fixing the chaotic current and future state of the American space program? If you think that the future American space program is going to be "business as usual minus the shuttle", you are very mistaken. If you think the funding that once went to the "astronomically expensive" shuttle will be redirected towards another, "better" space endeavor, you are mistaken - just as some folks were at the end of Apollo.

Funding for the U.S. space program increased dramatically after Russia sent satellites, dogs and humans into space.

Funding for the U.S. space program decreased dramatically after
the U.S. successfully landed the first men on the moon and brought them home safely.

Funding for the U.S. space program depends primarily
upon the success of other countries in space NOT upon our own.

(Space science doesn't give a damn about who does it.)

[Space_Cowboy]

Pardon me if this has been addressed earlier, but I am having trouble with the perspective of today's picture. The Empire State Building appears much closer to Lady Liberty than it actually is. Was some special lens used?

[rstevenson]

Pardon me if this has been addressed earlier, but I am having trouble with the perspective of today's picture. The Empire State Building appears much closer to Lady Liberty than it actually is. Was some special lens used?

A telephoto or long-focus lens.

While you're at Wikipedia, have a look at the Perspective distortion page too.

Rob

[Ann]

As a color freak, I note that Lady Liberty is green, while her pedestal is brownish. Almost all other buildings and constructions have a bluish cast, which can only be a result of distance (since it is obvious that none of the buildings we see are intrinsically blue).

I agree that it is fascinating to see the Statue of Liberty so seemingly close to the Empire State Building.

Ann

[wanna_be]

We are still going to space. We have an active program of both manned and unmanned space exploration. We retired a piece of overpriced, obsolete, dangerous technology. So what? It hasn't changed anything in actual practice, except possibly to free up some resources for more useful purposes.

The only manned flight for now and the coming few ( five? ten? more? ) years is the Soyuz. We're two years out from Obama's Asteroid Speech. Does anyone even remember it?

I do agree we should do more robotic planetary missions. There is some cool stuff going on, but how about a Titan explorer? Oh and I do hope the Curiosity Mars Rover works. That Sky Crane looks like a pretty crazy landing setup. And here's a mission for you, should you choose to accept it Noting that you're in central CO, why don't you run up to Fort Collins and do a nice mid afternoon panorama from the ridge above Horsetooth? That Moonrise APOD is driving me out of my mind.

[milna]

The Statue of Liberty is nowhere near the Empire State Building; that part of the photo is a composite

[Chris Peterson]

The Statue of Liberty is nowhere near the Empire State Building; that part of the photo is a composite

No it isn't. With a map of New York, or using Google Earth, it's pretty easy to figure out exactly where this picture was shot from. (In fact, in Google Earth both the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty are present as 3D structures, so if you locate yourself correctly, you can actually see a view that looks like the image.)

[BWD]

I'm a little late coming to this discussion however here goes. I grew up in NJ and I'm a photographer, I can say with about 99.9% surety that it is impossible to take this photo without the help of Photoshop. This view is from NJ directly across the river from the Empire State Building in the approximate vicinity of the Lincoln Tunnel. The Statue of Liberty is about 3 to 5 miles south and slightly west of this position. You can try to accomplish all this in one photo however the perspective on both land marks would be drastically different and I'm not sure you would be able to see as much of the Empire State Building as you see in this photo. All that said, I'm wondering if the Shuttle is not part of the composite process as well. Bottom line good work with Photoshop there is a future for the person who accomplished this as a photo retoucher.

[Chris Peterson]

I'm a little late coming to this discussion however here goes. I grew up in NJ and I'm a photographer, I can say with about 99.9% surety that it is impossible to take this photo without the help of Photoshop.

I'm glad you left yourself that 0.1% padding, because your view has already been conclusively shown to be wrong.