E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
An artist's conception shows a solar sail rising above Earth in space. Solar sailing is one of the fields supported by NASA's technology development program.
Four decades after the moon landings, has NASA lost its technological mojo, its life force, its essence, its Right Stuff? That question has been getting asked quite a bit in recent years, but for the engineer who's just been named NASA's next top techie, the answer is clear: The mojo is still there, baby.
"Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me" may not be quite the right movie reference for Cornell Professor Mason Peck, who takes over NASA's Office of the Chief Technologist in January. He's actually more of a "Star Trek" guy.
"We allow ourselves to geek out about space technology," he was quoted as saying in a 2009 Cornell University feature article. "I'm not above including a 'Star Trek' reference in a lecture or providing a science-fiction story among the required readings."
A big part of his new job at NASA is to communicate how the agency's technologies will benefit future space missions as well as everyday life here on Earth. He's also tasked with leading NASA's technology transfer and commercialization efforts, and building contacts with industry, academia and other government agencies.
NASA's arrangement with Peck keeps him on Cornell's engineering faculty — which is a good thing, because he is currently the principal investigator for the Cornell-built CUSat in-orbit technology demonstration satellites, due for launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in 2013. He's also the principal investigator for Cornell's Violet satellite, which will test technologies for improved Earth observations and eventual exoplanet studies.
Cornell
Cornell Professor Mason Peck has been named NASA's next chief technologist.
While Peck prepares to take up his new duties, his predecessor as chief technologist, Bobby Braun, is returning to his own teaching and research position at Georgia Tech after 19 months in the NASA post.
During an interview this week, Peck talked about the status of NASA's tech mojo and related themes. Here's an edited transcript of the Q&A:
Cosmic Log: How can new technologies help America and its partners explore the final frontier more fully and efficiently?
Peck: There are definitely a lot of things at stake here. First of all, NASA has not had much of a technology program for a while. When Bobby Braun took the chief technologist position, that was the first time it had been filled for quite a while. You could say NASA's technology pipeline was kind of empty, or it had a minimum level of investment. So he put in place a number of programs. It's remarkable how much progress he made during the relatively short time that he was there. I'm very fortunate to inherit the programs he put in place. These will provide the means to refill that technology pipeline.
A lot of the new ideas are going to come from the people that OCT [the Office of the Chief Technologist] sponsors to do this work, within NASA and outside NASA.
It's key to recognize that innovation drives economic success. It inspires people, it provides new directions for new businesses, and that's always been the case. We're lucky that Congress agrees with the president that NASA needs this kind of technology program. It provides innovation that creates jobs, stimulates the economy — and for NASA particularly, provides a path for NASA's future.
Q: What's your view on the balance between human spaceflight and robotic exploration?
A: There's clearly a role for both. Both get me excited in really fundamental ways. I don't think it's fair to claim that NASA needs to sacrifice one for the other, to be honest. That might sound like I'm dodging your question. ... I think that there's no shortage of new technology efforts at NASA, in human spaceflight or robotic exploration. By "robotic," I guess I mean a number of things. We could be talking about near-Earth activities that have to do with science, or commercial activities, or we could be talking about exploration of different planets. I guess what I'm saying is that there are plenty of things that can be done.
Q: I feel as if we should be talking about the prospects for specific technologies, such as the orbital fuel depots that folks have been discussing.
A: Well, I'd just as soon not talk about orbital fuel depots, just because that's become a little political. But I can say that OCT is looking at cryogenic propellant storage because this is what technology needs to be at NASA. It's all about solving multiple problems, without necessarily having a specific mission in mind. There are mission-specific technologies that get worked on, and that happens in the individual mission directorates. But the role of OCT is to develop technologies that are fundamental and have a broad impact.
Cryogenic fuel storage is really a capability we need for a number of things, including the Space Launch System. It's not a matter of one technology competing with the other. They're very much complementary.
Q: When you mention SLS, that brings up another question people have. Some people say we don't really need dramatically new technologies to go forward in space. But at one point, people were saying NASA would have to develop entirely new technologies in order to extend the space frontier. Is it a matter of applying existing technologies, or will completely new technologies have to be invented to get us where we want to go?
A: I don't think it's either-or. There's a lot we can do in the near term with mature technologies. But often when it comes to space, a mature technology is not just something that someone cooked up in a lab and showed that it worked on a desktop. There's a lot involved in maturing a technology to the point where the risk is low enough to use it in space, let alone for human space. There's a level of risk that at NASA one is willing to take on for robotic exploration or some science missions that wouldn't be appropriate for human space.
There are a lot of more near-term technologies that make a lot of sense for human space applications, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be pursuing the more innovative, radical technologies that could drive missions 10 or 20 years out. This is the idea behind the NASA technology pipeline. For a number of years, there hasn't been enough investment in technology for us to make the progress we need to make to prepare for the future. Now we're trying to fill that gap in the pipeline.
Q: What would you like to put into that pipeline first?
A: This is the nature of the current OCT programs. There are some near-term technologies being considered: One is the deep-space atomic clock, which is not a propulsion technology, but it enables navigation for a number of new missions. There's laser communications. This technology allows for very high-bandwidth, very dense communication across long distances. These are at the level of technology demonstration missions. In a few years, we'll be demonstrating these technologies in space at a level that will make them viable possibilities for near-term missions.
Down at the lower level of technology readiness, that's where a lot of OCT's effort is spent, because that's how the pipeline gets filled. One of the more exciting parts of the OCT portfolio is the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts. Thirty new NIAC projects have just been funded. There'll be a meeting coming up very soon to kick off some of those projects. ...
One of the great things about working at NASA, and working in the U.S., is that innovation drives a lot of what we do. We're ready for it, we just need the means to do it.
Q: Some people talk as if NASA has lost its mojo. They remember the can-do, "failure is not an option" spirit of the Apollo program, and wonder if that spirit is still alive at NASA. How do you channel that legacy of NASA as the agency of innovation, and use that legacy to move forward?
A: Well, first of all, that NASA hasn't gone anywhere. The challenges that NASA faces are simply budgetary. NASA has the technical talent to innovate. It innovates all the time. NASA is the premier space organization in the world, bar none. I have no doubt about that. I'm only concerned that NASA may not have the means to do so. NASA's workforce is very talented. They're brilliant and highly motivated people. The folks who are doing the engineering, in general, could get jobs elsewhere and probably make more money. It's not merely money that drives them. It's not merely career advancement. It's something deeper. That's a great environment to work in, and that's what you get at NASA.
Now there's funding for the first time in a long time for innovations aimed at solving problems at the level of NASA's centers, and ideally across NASA. I think this will make a big difference, because engineers love nothing more than to innovate. That's why most of us got into this business.
I don't think NASA is losing its mojo. It's a combination of budget, because times are tough across the country, and just the fact that we've struggled to maintain a consistent path over the years. This is a hard problem. Remember, in the Apollo days, NASA's proportion of the national budget was 10 to 15 times as high as it is now. One thing I'd like to accomplish as chief technologist, among many, is to communicate to Americans how valuable NASA really is in their lives. The thing is, that's not hard to do. In fact, most people already believe it. We just have yet to hear those voices.
Q: I know you haven't even started the job yet, but how do you think your own personal approach to innovation will make a difference at NASA?
A: I'd like to think that OCT can be seen as an organization that is courageous in its pursuit of technology. By "courageous," I mean we are driven first by technology — not by politics, or by the parochial concerns that drive a lot of the decision-making within an organization. We're about the technology. We're about doing the right thing. I've got to say that I'm following in some pretty big footsteps here. Bobby Braun set up a fantastic set of programs here. I think he and I see things very similarly.
I would like to think that people will see the risk-taking that I would encourage in technology development as being at the right level — that is, responsible risk-taking. We want to explore new ideas, we want to move toward new frontiers in technology so we can take the next steps at NASA. We don't want to get stuck repeating the same things over and over again, just because we can't do any better. What we've done already at NASA is fantastic, but my goal is to encourage a culture change toward accepting the right level of risk.
There is some level of risk we don't take on. We don't want to risk human life, right? Doing human space, there's clearly a line we don't cross. But in many other areas, there are lots of opportunities, particularly for science or robotic exploration, where maybe more risk is acceptable. Maybe it cuts down on costs, or maybe we can push some boundaries and actually do more science by creating the right balance. I would like to think that we can take on risk in the right way.
More about the tech frontier at NASA:
- NASA picks three tech missions for deep space
- 30 out-of-this-world ideas win NASA funding
- NASA offers $5 million for technological feats
- What's the shape of space to come?
- NASA will need new ways to do everything
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or following the Cosmic Log Google+ page. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
We need to divert funds from *manned* missions. There is no clear program or goal for manned flights. On the other hand, our accomplishments with unmanned flights have been and continue to be spectacular. More like Cassini, Stardust and Voyager, less like the Space Shuttle.
I disagree. We need to develop manned and unmanned space flight simultaneously in order for them to keep pace with one another both technologically and in terms of data-gathering.
If we put all of our eggs in one basket, we will find ourselves playing a century of catchup in order to prove out and collect data on new technologies and whether they work great for robots, but not humans. The systems and ship-designs will be a lot different between manned and unmanned missions. And robotic missions cannot always act as a simulation for a manned mission.
Unmanned missions will be helpful for testing dangerous and cutting edge tech without worrying about life-support, retrieval, etc. Manned missions will be helpful for gathering data on what works and what doesn't when embarking on missions further and further from the only spinning rock we (currently) call home.
Because they're cheaper. When you no longer have 3%-4% of total US GDP allocated to your agency (like during Apollo), you have to make deep cuts and prioritize more heavily than what is ideal. Like what your hobbies can be when you're poor or when you're rich.
If we even spent half as much as we spent on air conditioning for soldiers in Iraq, or 1/10 as much as we give to the Airforce, we would be able to more than double NASA's budget and be able to experiment and explore a whole lot more!
Robots are great, and they will get even better! The development timeline on robotics is no longer dependent on how quickly taxpayer dollars can be allocated to R&D in NASA since the private sector is in on the applications and how robotics are playing an increasing role in Defense, an arena that no politician will dare cut into like they do NASA.
But you cut manned exploration and you doom its development to a crawl. In the short run we will have great capabilities and accomplishments in robotics and unmanned exploration, in the long-run we will still be just as vulnerable to cataclysmic events from space and just as unable to get off of Earth.
Something most people don't realize is that manned exploration is actually cheaper in the long run than unmanned.
For all the probes we've sent to the Mars' surface, the data collected from them represents less than 2 months worth of work that two geologists can do with a microscope, mass spec, rock hammer, and chem set.
That's not to say what they've accomplished with probes isn't amazing, but you need to put in perspective of what humans with equipment can actually do. There is just no comparison at all, and looking at future robotic missions, that isn't going to change anytime within the next 30-50 years.
From a price/return point of view, manned is the only game in town from Venus to probably Jupiter in the grand scheme of things at this time. It's a bit more spendy upfront, but the savings over the long haul makes that cost look trivial compared to unmanned. This is assuming that we are talking about knowledge as a commodity, if you don't think that, then no science should be done and you can just go back to your cave and be a hunter gatherer.
Mitchell
@skdeitch,
I agree whole-heartedly.
1) The idea that we can send a man to Mars (or one of its moons) successfully and return him safely to Earth in the next decade or two is nothing more than a pipe dream. The man is the problem. We have no way of preventing the severe mustle atrophjy and bone loss that would result from such prolonged weightlessness and the shielding necessary to prevent DNA/cellular damage from cosmic radiation would be prohibitively heavy. We are at least 50 years away.
2) We got there by allowing fighter jocks to dominate NASA. They kept NASA focused on manned exploration and near-Earth orbit activities because that is what the military wanted. The space shuttle was essentially a space craft as seen through the eyes of a fighter pilot. The ISS was originally to be located at the Earth-Moon LaGrange point but the military wouldn't have it and the space shuttle turned out to be too limited to get there. The idea that the "right stuff" was all that was required was always a thorn in the side of engineers at NASA.
3) The whole "high-tech mojo" thing is also just a chimera. Even the military is rapidly moving away from both extreme expensive high-tech and from manned vehicles. Expensive high-tech is turning out to always be less effective than an equal amount of money spent on low-tech. (The military calls it the Piper Cub paradox.) And the last generation of manned fighters is already being built. The man is the limiting factor and without him, fighters can be faster, more maneuverable, and cheaper.
The United States loves its mythology --- from the Old West that existed only in movies to the space program that was largely a cover for a Cold War skirting of treaties restricting the militarization of space. But one myth that needs to be retired is the one that says that manned space flight is the future. The difference is obvious. As Spirit and Opportunity die, there is no rush to rename junior high schools. As manned space programs recede the engineers win. Robotics can do everything that a manned mission can do and more without the risk.
Manned space flight is NOT cheaper, it is by several orders of magnitude more expensive, as it requires all the extra fuel to haul the large, fragile and relatively puny humans, as well as the elaborate life support equipment and supplies needed just to keep the humans alive and healthy.
Nor can a human geologist do any more than a robotic probe could, both require the same equipment to examine and test samples, and a robot can get the same guidance as to deciding what to examine and what samples to collect as what a human geologist does - in fact, a human geologist on Earth did just that for our Mars rovers. Granted, a human geologist on Mars could make the decision a bit faster, but the few minutes time delay in communication between Earth and Mars simply isn't that great of a delay.
The real appeal for manned space flight is the hope of travelling there in person someday. But that thrilling fantasy is highly unlikely to ever come true for most of us, and it is an expensive fantasy to maintain.
Not even close CM. And if you don't believe me, go and talk to the scientists who work with the probes. That's right, I'm daring you to go talk to the people involved and not make baseless claims.
Even the Mars Society says that one geologist on Mars would learn everything that both Spirit and Opportunity have learned in the past 7 years in under 3 weeks. Michael actually asked them about that as we were already having this discussion a several months ago.
Probes are extremely limited in what they can do given a certain time frame, especially compared to what humans can do.
We've (the world over) already spent 10-20 maybe even 30 billion on Mars, and that's not adjusting for inflation. The Mars Society says 50 billion and 10 years gets us to Mars. I personally think that's extremely optimistic, but 200 billion over 40 years (that's still 5 billion/yr) is quite doable to set up a research base. A years worth of work by a crew of geologists will learn more than all the probes we could send out in the next 100-150 years or more. In the long run, it's cheaper.
Mitchell
@Mitchell,
The ONLY problem with probes versus manned missions is the time lag. There has to be sufficient AI "buffering" to make probes more interactive. As AI improves, the buffering increases. Right now Spirit and Opportunity were operating on a 17-hour buffer. If they were built today, the buffer would be closer to 6 ot 7 hours. It will never be realtime because the humans are the problem --- they require time to think, to plan, and to execute. But the potential exists to improve AI to the point that all human interaction can be removed from the equation. At first, all except "supervisory" monitoring and later all human interaction removed. There is no obstacle to this happening except incremental improvements to AI that will happen with or without the space program.
The issue that the Mars Society proposed was essentially one of mobility. A human geologist could have visited all the sites visited by both Opportunity and Spirit in 3 weeks. But he would have to taken along a Spirit or Oppoortunity analog to examine the samples, so it is pretty specious. Mobility of rovers is far more easily imporved than AI.
But the bottom line in space exploration is weight, weight, and weight. To send a man to Mars (and just leave him there) costs around 600,000 pounds minimum. A pretty reasonable probe can be sent there for around 30,000 pounds. That's a current ratio of about 20:1 in favor of probes. And as probes improve they can do more and more. A man is still a man. And you still have to get him back or you have to rename all those junior high schools.
We simply have to almost totally abandon the "right stuff" fighter pilot mentality that dominates the science fiction view that people have of space exploration. It is a case where the fictioonal model is the absolute enemy of what is readily achievable at a practical cost.
CM: First you can't simply compare weight, you have to compare work accomplished per dollar spent.
Secondly, you absolutely fail to recognize the problems using probes for research. Lag is only part of the problem, still, even at the 6-7 hours you are suggesting that is an incredible amount of time. What you are missing out on is having a person there who steps out onto the Martian surface, surveys 360 degrees around him, and know what to do. It's having the intuitive, and problem solving presence right there where it's needed. It's speed, humans are far faster, extremely faster. It's the ability to go places probes can't. It's the ability to get samples that probes can't get. It's the ability to multitask that probes can't do. It's being able to use a whole host of tools that are impractical for probes to carry/use. It's the ability to fix and repair, or get unstuck. It's a whole list of other stuff too.
Using probes for exploration isn't even in the same ballpark as having humans there. At this point it's like comparing Little League to the Pros that's how far off we are at this point.
It seems like you (among a lot of other people) are stuck in the present. You're comparing the cost of sending one probe to send a person in the next couple of years. We're talking about the next 50 years now or 100 years. You have to start looking long term. Probes add up, and the add up quickly. Like I said before, human is more upfront cost, but in the long run significantly cheaper when we are comparing performance vs price.
This isn't fighter pilot mentality, you're the one that's stuck in the past. This is actual exploration with real scientists I'm talking about. I was dead serious when I said you should actually talk to people involved. They will tell you they same thing I have.
You give probes far far far too much credit for what they actually get done. If you don't believe me, quantify the amount data all the probes have sent back to Earth, you'll find it's not a significant amount.
Mitchell
Just relying on just probes is like relying on your I-Phone on an RV toy car to explore a dance at the local club...while the views may be interesting and you can identify who is there, if they happen to cross the lens, but you will absolutely miss over 95% of what actually goes on. The same can be said for space exploration: No matter how good the probe, it is only a Poor Substitute for sending a live person or team.
Now, some things, like the Cassini probe and Huygens are very good, Cassini for it's longevity and Huygens for a first 'look around', but these should only be precursors to actual manned flights.
B. Honest Do you know on what premise the huygens probe was dessigned, and why it only lasted for 15 minutes?
I've been to a dance club before and even in person it's difficult, if not impossible, to see 95% of what actually goes on. In person, or with mechanical devices, no matter what the mission, you are just going to miss stuff. Robots and machines are good for looking at specific things and people are likewise good for certain things. The only way forward is to utilize both and leverage the advantages that both options yield.
Eagle, what do you mean? Huygens was an atmospheric entry probe with only 3 hours of battery life. Is there anything wrong with calling it a first "look around"?
Everybody here is so solidly sure that propulsion technology will improve by leaps and bounds, but robotics won't.
No, that's not what we are saying. Robotics continue to advance, getting better, able to do more stuff, and they will continue to do so. What we are saying is that the divide between what robotic exploration vs having humans on site is so great they it'll be many many many decades before that gap narrows.
That's not to say that unmanned shouldn't be an option, I do not an any way, shape, or form argue against probes. Like I said, at this point manned is really only practical between Venus and Jupiter, anything outside that, the cost just wouldn't be practical anytime soon. Probes are even prudent inside that band depending on what the mission is.
What I'm arguing about is that manned absolutely has it's place, especially from a cost/performance point of view in certain scenarios. Humans onsite increases productivity by a huge factor, and it's a higher quality of work too.
Most people just have no inkling of an idea how little probes accomplish in a given amount of time vs humans at this point in time. Don't get me wrong, what they do is amazing and I love to glance over the data from time to time, but it's an extremely agonizing, slow pace.
Mitchell
mob_barley No, what i want folk to understand, is that we need robotic mission as a " step " before human life is risked, and with Huygens it had only 15 Minutes of " Battery life " because it was assumed that it would land on " an ocean of methane and it will sink in about 15 minutes " do some further reading on that.
Huygens (the Titan lander) was designed to float on liquid methane; it would not "sink in about 15 min".
If I've got my facts straight, it would have better off landing on liquid.
*sigh* Sorry CM, I thought comment 1.6 came from you. I apologize in directing my comment 1.7 at you instead of Chris. Sorry about that, my fault completely.
Mitchell
We need both manned AND robotic missions, not one or the other. With regard to the manned missions, the obvious goal should be humans to Mars within a decade using the "Mars Direct" mission architecture. That specific goal will also enable as a byproduct all of the hardware necessary to return humans to the moon and enable other deep space missions. Remember, we will at first only be sending out a manned mission to Mars every 18 months so there is plenty of opportunity to also do more frequent manned missions to the moon, to the Legrange points, and NEOs in parallel with that grand goal. Such a specific, short-term goal will truly capture the imagination of young people who will be motivated to once again embrace the hard science and math courses required in order for them to personally participate in establishing humanity as an interplanetary species.
Technically speaking, we don't really "need" either one, humans have thrived for thousands of years without manned or robotic spaceflights, and could survive for thousands more years on Earth if both were to be cancelled today.
So it's really more a matter of "want" and "usefulness" vs. costs. We sent men to the Moon not because of need, but because we wanted to, and with a booming economy back then we could afford to indulge that whim. We sent out robotic missions because we wanted to, and it gained useful information, and because it was far more cost effective than manned spaceflights. With the economy down, we can no longer indulge the luxury of manned spaceflights, and can barely justify even the low cost robotic space probes.
As I recall, America's economy was not exactly booming back in 1961 when President Kennedy committed this nation to landing a man on the moon within a decade, but rather just barely recovering from our expenditures on World War II and the Korean War. Those were hard times indeed! Rather, it was our national commitment to defeating the Soviet Union at all costs by building up our aerospace technology and intelligence networks, our aggressive nuclear arms buildup, an expansion of the military-industrial complex, and to landing men on the moon that actually drove this nation's economic expansion during the 1960s and on into the early 1970s. After that expansion began to be choked off by the unwillingness of the presidential administrations from President Nixon forward to make the same kind of national investments in America's future, we have coasted on the that momentum built up during the 1960s over the last 40 years. That momentum is now about spent. It is time to reinvigorate our nation and once again take on the hard challenges in order to renew our economy and restore the greatness that was America.
It is our sense of wonder, our ability to conceive ways of conquering new frontiers, and actually carrying out that exploration that defines our species. I would argue that we "need" to explore space precisely because such exploration defines who we are as a species and ensures that we, as a species, do in fact have a future.
CM - if you care about the survival of the human race as a species, then yes, we need to push space technologies and exploration as much as possible. As Seriously explained in his post, if we drop human exploration and go exclusively with probes, we'll be woefully behind when we decide that it's time to send humans somewhere.
There is also the matter of new technologies to be gained from putting humans into space, many of these will wind up as NASA spinoffs and have untold benefit to humanity. If you're not familiar with other ground-breaking NASA spinoffs, I highly advise you yo go research those. Anyway, it is my firm belief that will not be able to develop the technology necessary to travel to new star systems until we have a fair amount of orbital research facilities. The propulsion system needed will be operating in a zero g, vacuum environment, so to thing we can invent and build such a system easier here on Earth than in space is quite fool hardy.
@ Brokinarrow
Agreed! NASA spinoffs are incredibly valuable, and unlike spinoffs from defense spending, the NASA spinoffs don't sit under lock-and-key as classified documents for decades on end!
There are still batteries that the Navy had developed for nuclear submarines from the 1970's that are still classified top secret today!
Plus, with manned exploration, the spinoff technology is incredibly valuable because they all focus around compact, energy efficient and survival oriented items.
Fuel cells and compact energy generation/storage, better solar panels, air/water filtration and purification, efficient lighting, food preservation/storage, etc etc etc.
Probe tech alone primarily only gives us better robots and does nothing towards improving human survival in any way. For example, FEMA uses NASA-spinoff tech to help people sick/starving in Africa and Haiti and power equipment in portable medical centers brought in after a disaster!
If we were to put the funds into NASA to be able to develop a manned spacecraft to take humans into deep space, think of the tech that we could get out of researching to accomplish that!
People who want to cut funding from NASA in general don't seem to understand that the money spent on going to space helps support jobs on the ground! American jobs!
The private sector has money to do its own space program, but they won't risk those funds on project timelines that stretch that far out, otherwise Google, Exxon and Union Carbide would already be launching their own satellites and mining space for resources!
Taxpayers must shorten the timeline with funding the R&D...like the railroads, power grid, interstate highways, data-cables and microwave relays...the private sector will make use of it and eventually get on board, but they are a risk-averse group and require breaking a lot of inertia to get them to ultimately move into new markets, no matter how beneficial it will ultimately be
Fill the gap.
NASA is a waste of money and resources. They are using the same technology the chinese invented hundreds of years ago. I am sure when the first bottle rocket was invented, they thought about riding it into space. The 'exploding fuel' method of travel is never going to get us anywhere farther than we have been (to garner useless information) They should be working on a new form of propulsion (electromagnetism?). Or, better yet, with all their brain power and money, working on something we can use now like a more efficient electric motor and/or battery. The 'show off to the russians' is past. Let's focus on today's problems instead of tomorrow's fantasies .....
"They are using the same technology the chinese invented hundreds of years ago. I am sure when the first bottle rocket was invented, they thought about riding it into space."
That's because Newton's Third Law continues to work...and rockets (though not necessarily chemical, of course) are the only way to make changes of velocity in vacuum. Want a reactionless drive or something just as speculative (and maybe not ever possible)? Talk to physicists, not engineers...
"Or, better yet, with all their brain power and money, working on something we can use now like a more efficient electric motor and/or battery."
What does the acronym 'NASA' stand for, again?
"The 'show off to the russians' is past."
Yes, and to one is trying to anymore.
"Let's focus on today's problems..."
You speak as if no one is doing that. Have you checked? I'm guessing not...
@Frank Glover,
Didja knmow that when Newton published the PNPM about 1/3 of the members of the Royal Academy correctly stood up and said, "You're wrong!" That third of British scientists were kicked out of the Royal Academy by its President, Isaac Newton. We don't know how many of the others figured out that the PNPM was interesting but far less useful than history would have us believe.
The problem that so many objected to qwas that the laws of motion were a two-body soution for which there are no two-body problems. Scientists of his day saw it as a cute theory that could never be proven because it was unobservable. Until the first sputnik, scientists were unsure if the laws of motion could even be relied on as a rule of thumb. But still today, Newton can only be used as a two-body rule of thumb that is applied and then corrected, one two-body interference at a time, to get a best guess. Then the launch takes place and the course is observed and mid-course corrections made to make up for the two-body interference that was not factored in. The more that wasn't factored in, the more and larger mid-course corrections that are necessary.
Newton was a theorist of limited usefulness to actual space engineering. Just a tad too abstract and only applicable as a starting point for a guess.
And rockets aren't the only way. Look at the picture of th space sail. Smaller versions have already been tested and work exactly as proposed.
The fact that you think information is useless tells me all I need to know about you.
To be fair he didn't claim that all information is useless, rather just this particular info. Opinions vary on that no doubt.
Should not the solar sail in the illustration above be going away from the sun instead of towards it as it appears?
You noticed that, too? Blame artistic license.
Looks to me like it's still in orbit, perhaps in a slingshot trajectory to leave Earth.
Well, first of all, there's certainly a lot of artistic license. Second, that green line is suggestive of the trajectory for a rising orbit. Maybe it's just been launched, or maybe it's being boosted into higher orbit. The green line may mean something else entirely that's not clear in the photo information. But it makes for a nice, evocative picture.
Just another b/s snake oil salesmen. Mirror image to stated regulation. Pathetic what our lies and protection of national security have left us humans with....a big bunch of nuthin!
These are the leaders of our species?
Seems more like Natural Selection. But what bothers me is: When the eventual ascension of our species happens. . . will the majority of humans be able to access it? Hopefully it will be a wide spread effect!
Someones been watching too much x-men?
Oh.... another concern......... has anyone thought about inadvertently bringing back a microbe from another planet that will wipe out mankind? We don't even have a handle on the viruses that we have now on earth........ until we better understand inner space, we should protect ourselves from outer space by STAYING AWAY!
"Oh.... another concern......... has anyone thought about inadvertently bringing back a microbe from another planet that will wipe out mankind?"
Yes. Google: planetary contamination
Next question?
Have a Look at the Photo on My Profile, this and a number of other " Contaminants " are about to be sent to " another world " .
NASA exists for political reasons and for show. NASA was created and has reamined in existence to fulfill the need of a high tech Borneo Head Hunters Gourd Length Contest with other nations to allow America to show its purported technological superiority while our economy crumbles. The original Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions were propogated and brought to fruition to show we were superior to the Soviet Motherland and its Stalinist based technocracy. Look at the proposed missions and you understand its nothing more than a redux with the Red Chinese only without the vibrant economy, tax base and hollow shell of industry versus the 1960's. If NASA really wants to move ahead it should continue development of robotic craft and mining capability and use them on the moon to harvest Harrison Schmidt's Helium-3 in the regolith and perfect electrostatic confined fusion (Farnsworth et al) power plants and the Chang Diaz ion type drive for fast transit to and from the planets. Combined with similar efforts in orbital tethered based power generation and a combined push with the DOE into OTEC in the Pacific and Puerto Rico makes far more economic sense and what 7 billion people will need versus a few rocks from Mars for show and tell and bragging rights. 'Nuff said.l
False.
My main problem with manned spaceflight is that the goal is undefined. Do we really see a Star Trek like future? It doesn't seem all that plausible. Once we figure out how to effectively live on Earth maybe we will discover a need to travel in space. On the other hand, maybe if we learn to live on the Earth, space travel will become irrelevant.
skdeitch - If we wait till we can "effectively" live on Earth, we will never travel space. A lot of the technology developed by NASA has been of huge benefit to humanity. Can you imagine a Wal-Mart running without using barcodes? Or how about a fire department that doesn't have flame and heat resistant clothing? How many more deaths would occur without smoke detectors (which also detect a number of poisonous gases)? All of these were developed for human space flight, and there are thousands more NASA spinoff technologies like them.
To skdeitch:
Yes, yes it is plausible, yes the earth is a also a spaceship and living in space will help us better live on the earth, and yes, even of we do a better job of living on the earth we will have even greater need for space travel to spread our species across the solar system and on to the stars.
Why? What is the mission? You say the Earth is also a spaceship, but that is really just rhetoric. Yes we all live in space, but we are also living in a particular environment in space and Earth is the part of it that we are a part of. Imagine fish creating vehicles to allow them to move about on land. Perhaps they might find a purpose for doing so. In the past evolution led them there because there were opportunities available, but it would seem odd for them to use artificial means. For us it is a little different. We have created our own difficulties in surviving here and those difficulties are in our nature. If we go into space, we take them with us. The case for solving our problems before we leave Earth is clear and simple. That is a defined mission as opposed to "Let's just go and see what happens!" It's the difference between approaching it as an adult rather than as a child.
Well, I think I have been pretty clear that I believe the defined mission for the immediate future should be humans to Mars within a decade using the "Mars Direct" mission architecture laid out by Dr. Robert Zubrin and The Mars Society. The term "spaceship earth" was coined by the late Buckminster Fuller more than five decades ago, so I cannot take credit for it. I would also like to point out that our ancestors in Europe had not solved all of the problems in Europe before setting out to colonize the New World, but in time their descendants in the New World justified that choice when the inhabitants of one of the new nations that they founded here established a new kind of democratic government in 1776, invented the telegraph in the 1830s, built a vast transcontinental railroad network and also invented the telephone in the 1870s, invented the electric light bulb and the electric power grid in the 1880s, invented the first heavier-than-air flying machine that first flew for just 12 seconds in 1903, and went on to land the first men on the moon just 66 years later. Further, the inhabitants of that new colony played the decisive role in ending two devastating world wars that had wracked the land of their European ancestors and in the process learned to tame atomic energy that had originally been discovered in Germany by Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn in 1939.
O.k., first of all the colonization of the New World by Europeans didn't exactly work out well for all parties involved. Also the Europeans brought all of their problems with them. All that being said, it's a false analogy anyway. We are not talking about venturing to new lands on a planet we evolved on. We are discussing going places that do not have environments in which we can naturally survive. We either have to take everything with us including air and water or we must take those things from the environment of whatever planet we visit. Should we choose to live there we will no doubt wish to dramatically alter the environment of that place to suit us. If there is any native life, it is bound to suffer, but even if there is not the unique character of the place is forever changed.
What worries me more than that is that the whole history of humanity seems very lemming-like, constant growth leading up to a blind leap into an unknown that is not compatible with life. It seems better for us to figure out how yo get along on what we have. The desire to spread our species to other worlds is no more or less than the desire to cheat nature, to opt out of natural selection. It will not work and nature will not be denied. We are not destined to become gods.
If you had spoken to me twenty years ago, you would have found yourself in conversation with the most passionate booster of manned spaceflight. I was dreaming of seeing humans on Mars, mining the asteroids, colonizing the moons of Jupiter. But as time has gone on I have seen how directionless it is. It really is a craving for greater and greater wealth and a way to not have to worry about having to get along with the Earth.
Yes, there are things to learn out there and our robots have shown themselves to be very competent at gathering the data. I would like to see some even more ambitious missions like interstellar probes. Some of them would take centuries to reach their destinations but if we properly manage ourselves we will be here to receive the news of wonders they send back.
skdeitch - Ok, well since you are so opposed to getting off the planet before we fix our problems, let's hear your solution to the biggest one (and one of the biggest reasons we need to figure out how to get people to new star systems): Population growth. We hit 7 billion people this year, and that occurred 12 years after humanity reached a population of 6 billion (google it). The current projections have us hitting 10.5 billion people by 2050. If you think humanity has issues NOW, imagine those problems multiplied for another 3.5 billion humans. The only ways the human population is going to drop or stabilize usually involve some unpleasantness: Famine, war, disease. Or, we could spend a small percentage of our national budget on space flight and figure out some new technologies to get to new stars, many of which would probably improve life on Earth while we are waiting for all the tech to come together.
O.k., I need to understand your view on something. Do you think it will become technically feasible to move large, existing populations off of Earth? If you do, you are simply incorrect. Most demographers expect the human population to start to level off when we hit 9.5 billion or so. Still *way* too many people, no question about that, but even if we had full blown starships next week, most of them would be staying right here. Moving huge populations is not how colonization works. But you see that you are illustrating my original point quite clearly. You would rather dodge the problem of population, i.e. go out and find more space to live, rather than solve it. Lazy is what it is.
You want my solution to overpopulation? It's pretty simple. Stop having so many kids, but even if we don't the problem will take care of itself in mostly unpleasant ways. I'm doing my bit, but others seem reluctant to fall in line with me so the solution is likely a Malthusian one.
No Hope= of a manned Mars mission within a decade, that is " Pie in the Sky "
skdeitch - Yes. Just as it was equally infeasible to move large amounts of cargo by plane with the advent of the airplane (thats why zeppelins were so popular back in the day), with the ever increased use and continuing improvements to space technology, eventually we WILL indeed reach a point where getting to orbit is common place. If you don't believe me, please go review your history, as it has proven over and over that human kind is very capable of finding ingenious solutions that we never thought could be possible.
As to your question of population control, I gave you the options: War, famine, or disease. China may be capable of implementing forced population control on it's populace, but the US and other countries that value freedom won't be able to get that law passed without a fundamental shift in the way their people think. And that won't happen anytime soon, just being realistic.
I tried to post my response to this a lot earlier but the internet wasn't cooperating.
We still don't move large amounts of cargo by plane. The *vast* majority of cargo is transported over land or by sea. If we ever get a plane that can carry as many cargo containers as the Maersk Alabama, I'll be impressed, but don't ask me to pay for the fuel.
I wonder how cheap getting to orbit will ever get. It seems to depend on a lot of things we are in no way sure will pan out. One of them is space elevators. If they will ever work a breakthrough in materials technology has to happen and there is none on the horizon. In fact we have gotten to a point in science and technology that we are starting to run into walls. Battery technology, nanotechnology, materials engineering are all starting to grind up against limits imposed by nature. A lot of people who should know are now saying that we may never have complex nanomachines, that we may never have super-strong ultra-light cables or super-strong, super-light and thin light sail material. Solar panels are unlikely to get cheaper or lighter until a major breakthrough occurs. Of course these people may be dead wrong, but as of now there is no reason to think so. Continued access to space with heavy manned vehicles that are driven by chemical rockets is going to get harder rather than easier.
Believe me, *Every* developed nation will have strict population control laws before the century is over and they will be putting serious pressure on undeveloped nations to have them to. As far as that particular thing goes, our current notions of what constitutes freedom will be considerd quite archaic. That *will* happen whether we go to Mars or not. Count on it. Plan for it. The existence of these laws does not mean that war, famine and disease will still not still be factors. With so many people in concentrated populations we are going to see pandemics on a pretty impressive scale. There is *no way* to avoid this, we are past the point of no return. It's not a doomsday scenario, but it won't be a picnic either.
Yes, we are clever, but in the past we have had time and breathing room in which to exercise out clever monkey brains. My prediction? The civilization that goes to Mars is the one which will rise from our ashes.
It would be nice from my perspective if we humans were to invest in learning to get through the next few centuries on this planet. We have a changing climate over which we have far less control than some people think. The other side of that change leaves us with an altered map, new seas, different agricultural regions and shifted balances of power. There will be different people in charge when when we cross that hump. If we do.
I find it difficult to disagree w/that scenario, as much as I'd like to. Agreed also that we, as a race, are in for a BIG population correction. I just hope I don't live to see it. --S--
This will never work.It is an interesting concept, but take into account of the graviational effects on the tether wich COULD weigh many,many tonnes in size,
and given the effects of gravity the thing could very well come crashing back to earth an endanger the lives of hundreds of people.
Didn't they say the same thing to the wright brothers?
They did, and to all of the others who were working on powered, heavier-than-air flight. Lots of people beside the Wrights were working the problem which was technically daunting. A lot of the other people working on powered flight also told the Wrights their design would fail and the Wrights told them likewise. Most of those people were correct, most of the early designs failed and failed again before one succeeded.
This is also a difficult concept dependent on the development of exotic materials technology that does not yet exist.
And it never will exist if we don't put forth our best efforts in researching how to create them.
"Four decades after the moon landings, has NASA lost its technological mojo, its life force, its essence, its Right Stuff?"
Well, after Wernher von Braun died, the US did not have rocket scientists of the same caliber for awhile. He designed the Saturn V for NASA, and they still have trouble building a rocket that can reliably lift a similar payload and deliver it to the moon.
Well, it wasn't Wernher von Braun alone who made it possible, but his vision did serve as the cornerstone for making it happen. The fact is that more than 400,000 individuals contributed toward making the lunar landings possible. Galvanized around a very specific well-defined goal on a short and specific timeline of just one decade, those very gifted and dedicated individuals focused their minds on the task at hand using slide rules and only the most primitive onboard computers that possessed less memory than today's most primitive type of cell phone. What we are lacking today is not dedicated rocket scientists, but politically courageous leaders willing to define difficult worthwhile objectives to be achieved on short decade-or-less timelines and with the willingness to fund achieving those objectives that will actually get the job done. As difficult as rocket science is, it doesn't come close to the difficulty of today finding genuine political leaders possessing both vision and courage. The problem is not with NASA, but with the recent occupants of the House, the Senate, and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over the last four decades.
"As difficult as rocket science is, it doesn't come close to the difficulty of today finding genuine political leaders possessing both vision and courage."
You have nailed it Stan, I have to agree. Thanks for your reply.
Check this out:
If this works they way they hope it will, Mars is a possibility sooner than you think.
There is a technical beauty to robotic missions because these little devices can go places humans just can't go. But the down side is that they also go where humans could go, if there were the political will to utilize the innate human desire & talent to explore. In a sense, they become cheap shortcuts for the timid and the career bean counter, that cheats the human race of the chance to do more.
The Mars rovers are a good example of both the good and the bad because they have blazed a trail for humans to follow. The question now is one that should be answered by the human adventure but the odds of that happening are indeed slim.
We have been going to Mars since Apollo and each planning ritual that comes around pushes such a mission further and further back, keeping it forever just over the horizon of realization. The result is that those of us who were alive to see man walk on the moon will now almost certainly be long dead before our species reaches the red planet. What hurts the most is that, it didn't have to be this way.
I would love to see a research program at NASA dedicated to putting up orbiting solar collectors and beaming microwave energy to earth. We have the technology just not the willingness. Is anyone aware of any research that has been done recently in this field and whether it has become any more cost effective than 25 years ago?
Let me google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=space+energy
And BTW, before you get off on the Mars Society, you have to look at their track record:
1) No dated prediction made by the Mars Society has happened. They have always attributed this to "a lack of will." The truth is that there were unsurmountable technical impediments and a lack of both money and "new" science that would have made them possible, let alone practical.
2) The Mars Society has actively opposed all robotic exploration. Their first major campaign was in opposition to the Curiosity rover which is due to be launched shortly. This campaign failed. Their current campaign is to stop all new and unfunded unmanned exploration of Mars after 2016. That, too will fail.
3) The Mars Society has its roots, not in engineering, but in science fiction. Science fiction has a bad habit of inventing needed technology. In real life things are not so convenient.
4) Mankind has never been famous for stepping up to challenges. European explorers only came to the new world AFTER they had fairly accurate maps, probably of Chinese origin, to guide them. And look at modern challenges, such as global warming. How well is mankind stepping up to these challenges?
Hmm, I don't think the Mars Society wants to have robotic Mars exploration stop after 2016. In fact, Bob Zubrin bemoaned that prospect at an event held jointly with the Planetary Society, one of the biggest nonprofit advocates for robotic exploration. But you'll be able to ask Bob about that on Dec. 7 (Pearl Harbor Day) when he'll be my guest on the "Virtually Speaking Science" talk show/podcast. Stay tuned for more details about that. Yes, science fiction almost always leads science fact ... that's just the way things work. And yes, the human species is built to respond more strongly to crises or quick opportunities than slow trends. If there were a 100-mile-wide asteroid irrevocably heading for Earth (heaven forbid), that would cause a transformation of the space effort.
Glad to see we have someone with ambition taking over this vital role at NASA. I wish Mr. Peck the best and great success in rolling out future technologies for the betterment of mankind!
Okay folks, the bottom line here is a call for the lost art of invention. So, instead of yapping about what we need, get out to the garage or into the basement and get to work.
Not sure if you're being serious or joking, but I highly doubt any innovation needed for space science will happen in one's garage. I'd love to be proven wrong.
I should mention I'm aware that in the PAST, certain tech was developed in such a fashion. JPL began as what was essentially a garage project. But I don't see any of the current demands being met by tinkering in a garage.
Maybe if the garage is owned by a fairly wealthy engineer with lots of downtime... Tony Stark?
I'm with Fred on this one. You don't need to be rich and have lots of tools to be a garage inventor. And you can easily invent something in the garage that will work in space. It's all about the idea, and for that one does not even need a garage. Y'all remember the story about the father son team who floated the iPhone to the edge of space... well, that's just one way to go about it.
I agree with Fred... Let's get to work!
I think Fred is on the money. (Heck, I'd be happy if people would just maintain their yards these days!) To me a lot of it has to do with the fact that we all have too many distractions today.
ok About the " Solar Sail " how many here know why the Sails on Boats on Earth, work?those that do please explain the concept of " Drag friction and Sail propulsion " for those that do not Just imagine trying to walk on a floor smeared with Jelly mixed with roller bearing balls, get the Idea?
For any Propulsion to be of any use, one must have control of the direction of motion, I will wait for some response before continuing.
You bring up an interesting point, but I myself having 0 practical knowledge of sailing don't really know how to answer. Do go on though! I would think that whomever designed the solar sails probably thought of that issue, or maybe they just cheat and use some directional thrusters for steering?
Brokinarrow Yes, Solar Particles do have Momentum and can " Push " any object as studies in asteroids have shown, But the key here is not just a " Push/Pull " Factor but an ability to control direction, in that one needs to have Two separate forces, on earth, Water is more resistant then Air, Surface area of Sails are more then The Boat, so one uses the one against the other to Tack, Same would have to be applied in any locale, so when the Friction of the Body is less then the Force acting, one has to then use " Thrusters ", as you mentioned the Use of thrusters is " Cheating " as one will need consumables, then again a study has been done in " scooping up particles to be used as Ejection materials " and rightly so, when the materials are heated up accelerated and ejected, then we have Thrust, any ION engine uses those simple mechanics, so again we come back to the need of " Energy " to do the Heating and acceleration of the ejecta.
Let me know if you want to continue.
Not a problem; simply angle the sails....
From Caltech / JPL:
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~diedrich/solarsails/intro/tacking.html
Solar sails have been built and flown - it works.
Having come into the conversation late I must say that Michael stole my answer. As with the sails on terran boats, the solar sails need to be angled. The rudder in the water plus the angle of the sail gives you the motion in the ocean, doesn't it? The solar particles push the sail and the angle of the sail acts as the rudder giving you the direction of the motion?
lol Bob and Michael, you both Know Zilch about Sailing and why and how it is possible, recommend you go for a Sail one of this days.
Eagle, I've sailed across the North Atlantic in winter, across the Pacific from New Zealand to Cali, and around most of North America until stopped by pack ice.
I've earned my Captain's certification from the United States Coast Guard.
My knowledge of oceanic sailing is more than adequate. Similarly, my knowledge of physics is adequate to understand the essentials of solar sailing.
If you have a point, make it without the insults.
*laughs* That's not what tacking is Mob :-) It's the exercise of sailing upwind.
In this case, Eagle was asking how is it you can get a spacecraft to return to the sun after being flown away. For sailing, it deals with thrust from the sails vs the friction of the water. Say the wind blows at 0 degrees, if you angle the sails to provide thrust at a angle of say 45, and steer the boat in a direction between 90 and 135, you'll see the boat move upwind. You go for a ways, then switch directions. It's depends entirely on the difference in friction the boat has between going forwards and going sideways to work.
Since space has no friction, he wanted to know how you tack and get back closer to the sun.
@Eagle: Michael's link explains how. It's not tacking in the nautical sense, but there's still a solution. Basically it amounts to needing a specific angular momentum to stay in orbit. If you have more then you fly away, if you have less then you fall back towards the sun.
Basically what you do is angle the sails to decrease angular momentum, though it will still push you out further, eventually you'll have decreased the angular velocity despite the added velocity of acceleration to the point where it can't maintain orbit and you fall back towards the sun.
Hope this explains everything on both sides :-)
Mitchell
Ack, Michael sneaks in while I'm writing up my post.......
Mitchell
Mitchell-512733 Thank you for your contribution,Never the less as space has " Almost Zero Friction " Gravitational effect is indeed a mater to contend with, but that when it comes to Solar Storms, where the Solar particles travel at about 3 Million Kilometers / Hour, is insufficient for anything other then " Getting Blown with the Winds" I will await and read further comments from the " Captain of the Seas " even tho time and again they have shown me that they are " Thin Skinned " what a shame as Science needs " debates " to progress, and being thin skinned does not assist in that.
Eagle, you know zilch about solar sailing.
And again, the insults.
I'm not getting what you are asking then, I thought your big question was "how do you tack?"
If you are asking how can you steer, it's a matter of aligning the sails at various angles to the sun to provide directional acceleration.
Perhaps clarifying your question will help me out.
Mitchell
EDIT: Ack, that sneaky little.... again he sneaks in while I'm posting....
There are some major differences with Light Sailing, for one, there is NO 'tacking' or sailing against the stream of sunlight. The use of a solar sail is primarily for taking objects away from the sun. The opposite of that would be to allow gravity to pull the object back Towards the Sun. Of course, in the future there may be stations in the outer solar system with laser cannon to propel the sails back towards the inner system, but that is a LOOOooooong ways away. (One could, of course, use their velocity outwards and a gravitational well, such as a planet or moon, and do the gravitational slingshot process to launch one back towards the inner system. You would want to pull in the light sail for the trip inwards tho (except for times when steering or braking is needed) until you get to the point where you want to start braking.)
Also, while photons from the sunlight get reflected, transferring energy to the sail in the process, particles from the solar wind will actually tend to stick, rather than to get reflected, and thus add their tiny mass as well as directional energy, to the object sailing. Because of this, even angling the sails to change directions is going to be slow due to the fact that the energy given by the solar wind is going to continue to push directly away from the sun and thus offset, to a large degree, the impetus given from the light/photons.
All in all, Light Sailing in never going to be a Primary means of propulsion but can certainly be used as additional 'free' thrust on very long term missions to the outer solar system and beyond.
Mitchell-512733 Yes, Thank you, Lets take it one step at a time.
Directional Motion: To Have a Choice of Direction, one needs to have TWO componants, 1) Inertia 2) Vector Force.
The Inertia of a Craft is to " do what it IS doing " Unless a force acts upon it to overcome Inertia to a NEW direction " , So in space a Solar Sail has Inertia, now it needs an external force that is acting in a " Vector " ( Direction WE choose ) It is said " Change the angle of the Sail " the " Sails " are part of the " Original Inertia " it is the same as the old adage, " If you want a Sail Boat to go faster get a HUGE Fan and Blow on the Sail " :-)) Nice Joke sounds great, but Zero facts, The Fan pushing the Air Forward has " an equal and opposite Force on its BASE pushing the Boat back " so the net result is a Negative as the energy used on the Electrics on the Fan is " wasted "
Angling the Sails in Space, where the predominant force ix X Vector Does NOTHING tot he Inertia of the Object if the " Friction acting upon it " Is not great enough to act in a Tangent to the " Photon Stream "
Here is an Example: A Ship in a Storm. The wind is against the direction the Captain wants to go, the Sea Current is about the Middle vector, so No sails, Take on Sea water in water tight compartment, so as to minimize the Ship Surface area to the Blustering Force of the wind, by doing that with mathematical precession, then one can " Tack " with the Oceanic current, to going a Vector to both forces acting, current part positive, wind force total negative, so one now has a mitigated direction.
In Space, this cannot be done. Unless you can come up with some other " force " that can negative the Huge Solar Storm, or the Photons momentum acting on the Solar Sails, if you can, then this can turn out to be a positive chat, Rather then " Blame him for insults " gamenship.
To begin with, you are the one who starting off with the insults with your post #19.5, even if that wasn't your intention, that's the way you came across.
Also, it would help if you would simply articulate your question accurately, I had to parse your last comment several times before I finally thought I understood what you were asking, though I'm still not even sure about that. If I'm correct about what you are asking, it turns out that actually it is you who doesn't understand sailing as much as you think you do.
When sailing, you can get thrust from sails 2 ways.
First is to simply have the wind blow the sail forward with the wind, much like blowing a feather away from your mouth. That thrust is in a single vector following the wind. In order to steer, you use the friction of the water going forward vs going sideways. From your post, it looks like this is what you're getting at, how can you steer in space if there's nothing to push against?
Well, the second way you get thrust is to use air pressure, specifically the difference in pressure on one side of the sail vs the other. This is the exact same principle that airfoils (like the wings of airplanes) use. Here, we angle the sails to one side of the direction of the wind. The wind blows open the sail into a concave shape like an airfoil. So, like an airplane, the air blowing across the outer sail moves at an faster rate than the inside creating a low pressure zone on the outside of the sail, just like the top of a wing. This creates a force more or less perpendicular to the sail and provides thrust.
This thrust will be at an angle to the wind since the sails are angled. So, even if you're boat was completely circular, no rudder or anything like that, you still would have limited steering capability depending on the angle set to the wind.
The same thing happens if we are using the solar wind for acceleration, between that and using gravity of the sun as I explained above, you get to move around the solar system.
However, using the solar wind in such a way is inefficient by 3 orders of magnitude compare with using light pressure. Again force is exerted perpendicular to the reflective surface so you have directional control between 270 degrees and 90 degrees in relation to the sun. Since the light is far more powerful of a force, solar storms have inconsequential impact.
To cut off thrust, you simply angle the sail perpendicular the sun.
Of course, the first third of you comment doesn't match up with your second third which again doesn't match up with the last third so I might not be answering anything in which case I point back to my second paragraph.
Mitchell
Low " Pressure Zone " in Space.. ok..thanks!
a star trek kinda guy?...cool. I reserve true judgement for real on the job performance though. I have faith in nasa as a whole and know darn well every one at nasa wants to advance the knowledge of mankind and the technological ability and leadership of this country, that being said, we have had a sad sense of leadership in this country for several decades, and specifically in terms of nasa, I do blame most of it on politics, not money, just politics...I feel that overall, nasa has done well to breach their internal scientific differences, like the debate over gustav, surely not my choice, but at least they presented reasoning and rebutal among themselves and their peers, and they apparently listened to each other, which is better than I can say for almost every other group of humans on this planet to day...most just propose and deny and stagnate compromise till the final extension of the final deadline, and then they still want more time to wear out their opposition, not knowing they are that right, but wanting their opponents to be that wrong!! Odd duck this world of post 2000. Nay, a moonbase is something we will eventually realize as mandantory, something like the shuttles (real spaceships don't bounce) will again prove to be important in space industry, we will have a lot more imperial probe droids (robots) doing more stuff, and sooner is not soon enough, but, the big gain from all those bots will be knowing exactly where to put those boots on the ground....human exploration and habitation of space is inevitable, an economic goldmine, and, of course, the real tool of man's ever expanding knowledge base. Is nasa on the right path?...probably not, but thankfully, in the longterm, it's a flexible path, mistakes are expensive but as so many have already pointed out, we spend a lot of money on everything, perhaps waste money on everything is more like it.....and I blame the politics of the game, nasa needs to be one step removed from the politics, certainly more goal orientated and without doubt, welcoming of the criticism from us in the peanut gallery. After all, we are the people, or at least some of the people. Meanwhile back at the raunch. Solar sails do work. I would prefer we had a moonbase and start working on real space engines, after all, only on earth do we find all this oxygen to burn. Thinking of space in terms of waves, weeellllll...so, so,....I note that a large current sheet spirals out from the sun, like spiral wave with a lot, I mean a LOT of energy....enough to get closer to the fabled eight minutes a parsec than, lets say, chemical reactants......
ok the Spiral effect is because of the Solar systems, galaxies and Universal rotation, so care to explain to me as i asked earlier as to how and why Sails on Boats work on earth and how you do " tack " And how can the same be accomplished in Space with a Sail pushed by solar particles?
I've read enough of your comments to actually start understanding you, Ray. And find agreement. I, too, wish NASA had a bit of "separation" from the political wrangling that goes on down around the Beltway. As far as Peck, I see his job as a bit of a visionary/ manager of ideas. Let's hope he tackles the job of improving NASA's image/importance to the politicos and the public in general.