Slashdot Mirror
NASA Unveils Strategy for Return to the Moon
mknewman writes to tell us that NASA recently announced plans to build a permanent base on the moon by 2024. The (still tentative) plans call for building the base on one of the moon's poles, which constantly receive light from the sun and have less temperature fluctuation. This base will start small in 2020 and grow over time with the hopes of eventually supporting 180-day stays and providing a jumping-off point to Mars."
and I was able to read the article first... just hope they're not gonna be bean-counted to death on this one... those auditors are already sharpening up their knives to trim the budget... I'd hate to see an astronaut die because things were cut too fine...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
We should have done this 20 years ago, and, I hope they aren't bluffing.. i'll believe it when I see it.
NASA should follow the examples of many communities by resorting to mixed developments (i.e., stores on the bottom level and apartments on top) to sustain a viable community for the base. Real estate prices will obviously shoot to the moon but I'm sure that Donald Trump will go for a ride.
This is WAY too slow of a schedule.
I suspect that by 2015, we will be back on the moon due to Bigelow. Even now, the sundancer is a nice small module for launching as a good way to carry to the moon, as well as land on the moon for a station. Combine that with 2 launch systems, one for earth and one for the moon. By 2010, there will be at least 5 human rated systems (Russian, China, Space Shuttle (probably will not be fully canceled until we have orion going) or Orion, and the 2 cots system). By 2014, the Sundancer will have been in orbit for at least 3 years. That will make it acceptable for taking to the moon and landing on its surface. All that is needed is a landing system for it, a connection module, and a true lunar transport. Finally, the BA-330 will be available by 2015 (I would guess by 2011) and that will be used for the real transport to lunar orbit.
While I like the Ares V (love the capacity), I think that the only real chance is the direct launcher. It is the true safer, faster, cheaper approach.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Gromit, that's it! Cheese! We'll go somewhere where there's cheese!
He was the Russian space program. It all went downhill after that. The US had no way of knowing, of course, but his death signalled the end of the space race and the US had won. The fact that they got a man on the moon at all after that is a massive acheivement - a political one as well as a technical one. Even without a heavy lift vehicle, I think Korolev could have beat Von Braun to The Moon. He had the contingency all planned out. This is the plan that the Russian space agency announced last year: take a Souyez up to a space station, refuel it, do a flyby of the Moon. With another refueling in Lunar orbit, you can land and takeoff. You don't need a heavy launch vehicle to do a Moonshot.. it just makes it a lot easier.
How we know is more important than what we know.
There's a rumor that NASA will announce the discovery of liquid water at or near Mars' surface.
God I hope that's true.
And I hope the aquifer is substantial.
When I was a kid in the 80's, I thought we would actually get to Mars in my lifetime, but it doesn't look like it. :-(
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Why not spend a decade concentrating our efforts on designing and building radically new heavy launch lift concepts? While we are far from being able to build a space elevators, we could build both launch assist catapults and orbit assist tethers.
Letter To Iran
Wouldn't it take a LOT less energy and time to go directly to mars, rather than stopping off at the moon and having to escape the gravity well of *two* planetary bodies before going to Mars?
Besides, they'll probably only serve peanuts, they won't have any pillows, the in flight movie will be a bad movie that all the astronauts have already seen 3 times, they will spend most of their time waiting for other spacecraft to launch while they sit in a hot and stuffy capsule, and they will have to take their moon boots off as they pass through security. Not to mention delays due to meteor showers, turbulence in the solar wind, and aliens that pop out of crew members' stomachs. It's probably better to take the train at this rate, or maybe even drive.
Is it safe to build a house on ONE POLE??
So much easier to simply change your name to "Alice" and then try the patience of Ralph Kramden...
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
Everybody understand? Good, now go! It's Oscar time!!!
I would guess that the lunar budget would be cut totally before it got that fine. There is plenty of time before an actual landing for Congress to cut that part of NASA's budget, saying "The money could be better spent here on Earth," leaving out the last part of the phrase. ("The money could be bettter spent here on Earth getting pork for my constituents so I get re-elected and/or my party gains more seats.")
I hope that it doesn't happen that way.
NASA is fully aware of the current work in commercial spaceflight.
Some NASA centers (*cough* Marshall *cough*) feel threatened by it. The brass, and some of the centers, love it, though. They can't say it strongly in public right now, but they would love to take advantage of it to make lunar exploration cheaper and more sustainable.
If the commercial sector --- including COTS, Bigelow, and the other players --- take root and grow, expect NASA to revise the lunar plans. The current plan is the fallback plan. Read the words they used today. They make very clear that the plan is provisional, pending future developments.
Coincidentally, a pretty good article analyzing the planned launch architecture was published yesterday. Here's the link.
Additionally, aerospace engineer Jonathan Goff over at Selenian Boondocks has a post titled Lunar Much Sooner (and Better) which discusses a number of alternatives to NASA's current plan.
Finally, Selenian Boondocks also has another post about some things revealed by one of the architects of NASA's plans, suggesting that several of the design constraints imposed on the architecture may be somewhat dubious, (arguably) making the whole project much more expensive and unsustainable.
I actually finished a presentation today with Johnson Space Center (JSC) about resupplying a Moon Base for a university class today, and I'm planning on going and helping run a booth at the SEC conference (where I assume this plan was announced) tomorrow. Needless to say I'm very excited about these plans and am very much a space exploration advocate. Look at my previous posts and I think that will show it.
NASA at times does a great job of innovation and exploration. Anything unmanned, JPL and Ames do a great job with. Not to deride anyone at JPL, but its very hard to not be a little cyncical about this. I am very afraid of what the next administration may bring, whether it's Democrat or Republican, and am afraid that whoever is next may help put the axe on Bush's best initiative (though its been a bit bastardized lately.)
Here's hoping we get a moon base like the antarctic base, and can move on to Mars (although I don't believe that the one is necessarily dependent on the other.)
Just look at the steaming pile of crap that is the ISS and there's your Moon Base Alpha right there. Grandiose dreams and visions reduced to a paltry 3-man crew that spends most of its time trying to stay alive. Rah farkin' rah.
Put down your Heinleins and spend a little time trying to make the planet we will all live and die on a better place.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
I really hope that this is for the long term. And by "they" i mean the politicians.
While the JFK speech that kicked of the first trips to the moons has its inspiring places ("We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win..."), I'm having a hard time imagining anybody planning anything beyond the next election.
Could we tie this into the War on Terror in someway?
TC - My Photos..
Further, all the money that we save in not transporting life-support systems to the moon could be invested in many more vital science/technology experiments -- conducted by our trusty robots.
In my opinion, sending people on far-away space missions will never be cost effective until we solve the biggest problem: the speed of our space vehicles. They need to be so fast that going to and from Pluto should take no more than an hour. If your spaceship blows a fuse near Jupiter, NASA can send a space taxi in 15 minutes to give you a lift.
A while ago, SlashDot reported on plans by the US Air Force to utilize Heim theory to build a warp drive for space travel. The news about these plans seem to have disappeared from the popular press' radar. Does anyone have more information about progress on this exotic project?
I hope their lunar lander "pickup truck" turns out to be much less of a design compromise than their space "pickup truck".
Actually, I quite liked the design of the Eagle. Too bad it's fictional. It meets most, if not all of Nasa's requirements. It can be manned, or operated via remote control. (I don't recall if it was capable of fully autonomous operation.) It can move cargo, and personnel. It's very modular, which should make it cheaper to build.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
A direct transfer orbit (which is nowhere near a straight line) to Mars is the fastest way to reach Mars, but it's also one of the least fuel efficient ways. For this reason, large payloads such as the orbiter, rover, etc. have been sent to Mars via gravity assisted transfer orbits instead. These usually involve multiple trips around the sun and a couple close passes with other planetary bodies. If the payload goes past a planet or moon at just the right angle it will sling-shot around, effectively stealing momentum from the body. (don't worry, planets have plenty to spare) Go watch Star Trek IV to get the hollywood version. Gravity assisted transfer orbits are more difficult to plot, far far slower, and overall just a PITA, but there isn't any other option at the moment. Even if we had the money to spare nobody makes rockets big enough to send large payloads to Mars "directly".
Unfortunately, sending humans to Mars via gravity assited transfer orbits is not as easy. It's a much longer trip, so unless we sort out that suspended animation gig soon they would need much more food, supplies, etc.. That means more mass and more fuel, so a direct transfer orbit starts to look more economical for human travellers. As an added bonus, they don't spend several years in deep space, probably much closer to the Sun for much of their journey facing who knows what kind of added health risks. Given that there's little chance we'll ever build a rocket big enough to blast off directly for mars,we'll have to assemble the ship that goes to mars in orbit or on the moon. The moon's low-gravity environment may well prove to be an easier and safer environment for assembling an interplanetary space vessel. The moon is only about 1.2% as massive as the Earth so it's not that much of a "detour".
2024? I'm 27, which means if they really manage to build a base by then (which is already doubtful by itself considering the space program's de-evolution), I'll probably never get to see man walk on Mars. In fact, my yet to be spawnlings (aka children), are probably not going to either. Oh well. Anyone want some apple juice ?
As for putting a fueling station in lunar orbit, yeah, that's more difficult. The moon's gravity is low enough that 'wasting' the fuel to do direct lunar launches all the way back to Earth orbit would probably have to do until we come up with a 'cheap' way to get mass quantities of fuel to lunar orbit.
But, again, it might be cheaper to launch one big 'fuel depot' to the lunar surface and cut down on the need to carry return fuel out (from Earth) and down on the actual landing craft.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Re-shoot the movie? (with better gfx)
Mod points are a dangerous tool. Abuse them wisely.
Now we might all agree that space exploration is exceedingly exciting. But why on Earth (no pun intended) would we want to go to the moon? There's nothing there but sharp and spikey moondust. Now, missions like Hubble I understand and support. Those make sense as they get us a much better insight into what is out there and how it might have come to be. But manned missions to nowhere just to prove "we can do it"? It seems to me this kind of mission is designed purely for the publicity value. For the general public, stunts like these are much more interesting than some probes sent to other planets that actually provide us with new and possibly new information.
And don't even get me started on the "we have to spread out humanity to other planets" argument. I'd rather die out as a species than to have to live on Mars, I tell you that.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
I'm just wondering :
is going to mars commercialy intresting?
is going to the moon commercialy intresting?
Going to the moon might be something dough not for you and I, it would be intresting for mining industries for rare metal harvesting. The best thing to build on the moon would then next be a robot assembly line, to futher rebuild the moon into a underground moonbase, using much of the same mining holes. In this way we can get something back from the moon. and later colonize it (perhaps). That's economicly and could be a rather more stable futher plan.
Going to mars well ehm to be seriously it only costs a hell of lot of money, and in the end it might just only be a news item on jerry springer. Sorry to say its not economical to do. The same amount of money could be used for other things. For example science satelites, or scholing of scientist. Mars is just far away a round trip costs lots of time and what do we want to find there? Why walk there? If we want intresting science then think of sending science robots to the satelites of jupiter, much more intresting too in terms of search for life. Overall the search of life shouldn't drive a project to go to mars. If we have colonized the moon like sketched above. Then maybe i say maybe it will then later become economicaly intresting to go futher.
Altough it's more likely to go in to commet mining all together if you think about it.
*__*
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Forgetting one moment about the ridiculous time schedule (17 years with current technology after Apollo took less than 10 years after starting virtually from scratch half a century ago is simply embarrassing), the question remains what to do up there besides scientific explorations. The Moon is basically a pile of worthless dirt: Light crust material with all the volatiles gassed out.
Going after astroids is both cheaper (in terms of delta-v) and more interesting economically: You have anything from volatile rich comets to core material iron/nickel balls in all different sizes and at delta-vs as low as several hundred m/s from HEO (as compared to 2 x 1.4 km/s for the moon). Also, a zero gravity enviroment has many advantages for processing, requires less structural support (e.g. for solar pannels and mirrors) and makes it easy to move heavy stuff around.
After all, if you're serious about developing a permanent space presence, you will need some sort of space industry which is easier to bootstrap from astroids than on the moon.
I will take the idea of spreading our risks around rather than trying to solve just one or several issues, thank you very much. NASA is acutally some of the cheapest insurance that our society has. As it is, a bunch of new jobs are about to come on line in aviation and aeronautics, due to NASA.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Whatever happened to "before this decade is out"? Why the hell could we go to the moon almost from scratch in the 1960's and do we need almost 20 years now?
-- Cheers!
The Alan Parsons Project
Will it have Blackjack, and hookers?
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
Once? More like 6 times actually.
>> Hillary will cancel all space programs when she gets elected.
Look at the bright side, at least hell would have frozen over, pigs would be flying, and MONKEYS WOULD BE FLYING OUT OF MY ASS.
>> Hillary will cancel all space programs when she gets elected.
>> Look at the bright side, at least hell would have frozen over, pigs would be flying, and MONKEYS WOULD BE FLYING OUT OF MY ASS.
You idi*t ! You made me spill scalding hot starbucks liquid on my pants and more....
-:)
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Boy will NASA ever be disappointed when they arrive at the moon all ready to start building and find a Chinese moonbase already there.
-R
You simply make an announcement. You say that whomever gets there and physically stakes a claim will be the owner of the land to do with as they wish, backed up by the strength of the US/whatever military.
The reason nobody can be bothered going to the moon is that nobody can own it at the moment. Change that and we will have huge amounts of commercial interest. Get rid of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, without ownership there is no scarcity, without scarcity there is no value. Without value it isn't worth going there.
Deleted
I have more faith that Richard Branson will have a Virgin Resort on the moon before nasa even gets off their first flight.
but 2024 is not good enough - I wanna be alive when this happens! I just hope that some other country gets there first or at least does something to accelerate this new space race!
N
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Back in those days, they designed the system and invented the technology at the same time, and often in 6-12 month time tables, like
,get this ready, we'll sort out these missing
hardcore engineers do. None of this, we'll coast along to drag our career path out to 25years to get a good pension.
They said, we gota launch a moon orbit in 12 months, what do we need, ok build this and that
bits later, and plugnpray.
The days when engineers were the managers, then the accountants stepped in to control everything, and keep records of everything.
Build stuff with 2x tollerence than spec, and nothing will fail. Build stuff like today just to spec with no flexibility and bang it all
falls apart.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
As someone who finished watching "From the Earth to the Moon" earlier tonight, I can say that I can't wait for humans to return to the moon. We do need a permanent presence on the moon, for many reasons, such as; separation of the human species in case of global tragedy, explore moon's geology (where did that thing come from?), explore theories about colonization, biospheres, and self-sustenance, launch point for future missions to distant worlds (if we could build a manufacturing center on the moon, its 1/6th gravity would be very beneficial to launching new craft), and many, many, many more benefits both seen and unseen.
Returning to the moon is in humanity's best interest, and is clearly the path to the future. Focus on the space program will push development and inventions to help push the edge of what is capable. I see space travel as one of the grand challenges we will face in our lifetime, and it would be a shame to hesitate when we have already taken so many steps toward that goal. As someone who was born prior to the last Apollo mission, I feel it is a crime that we have abandoned the moon for the majority of my lifetime.
Unfortunately, the political winds have not been blowing favorably towards NASA, and it may take another visionary like JFK to take us back to the moon and beyond.
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
With no magnetic field to shield them what kind of strategies will the base need to use to cope with solar radiation and not have the astronauts fried? Is it as simple as building the base in a crater permanently in shadow?
Outsource the project to India and China
Rebrand it
Declare success
You must be protected from the terrible secret of space.
Do you have stairs in your hours?
I don't know if anyone else has already mentioned this, or if the amount is negligible with a 28 earth-day day, but launching from the poles would be harder than launching in the direction of the spin from the equator.
I'm gonna need a spec.
You won't see another Moon landing.
You won't see any Mars landing.
Your hopes and dreams are dead.
Deal with it.
I sure hope you are right. The last thing we need is more wasteful NASA programs.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Clearly, he means an hour of proper time. At 0.9401c, the trip will take exactly 1 hour. (Due to his time dilation, from earth's perspective, or to the journey's length contraction, from his perspective.)
"You won't see another Moon landing.
You won't see any Mars landing."
We will, but the 'crew' will be a bunch of rich Chinese tourists. If we're lucky, maybe they'll take a few Americans along as servants.
Crap, I forgot a square root in there. The required speed is 0.9696c. Sorry.
And promoting physical fitness, well being, and cooperation with others?
Explain baseball.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
>Apollo is simply fiscally unrepeatable
I have read that for the $340,000,000 currently spent in Iraq we could have nearly 2.5 Apollo missions in today's dollars.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
That is ridiculously far away in the future. If we REALLY wanted,we could do it in 10 years, and the first expedition to Mars could be on its way 6 years later. If we only wanted.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
I hereby define the 'Mars Interval' as the length of time that must elapse between any given pair of random announcements, not accompanied by any funding or research, that the USA will go to Mars (or the Moon, or the asteroids, or weaponize space, or whatever).
The 'Mars Interval' was once as high as 7-10 years but recently has fallen to about two years. At the current rate of decline, the Interval may fall as low as a week, which will make for some very repetitive weekend news stories.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
What do you expect?
When I lived out in los angeles I couldn't understand why NASA was run so inefficiently and why it was so bogged down.
Now that I live in florida its plain as day!
Cronyism, nepotism and poor work ethic are rampant in this state. I'm in miami where the vast majority of it resides.
What im trying to figure out though, is what happened? The signs here are everywhere that this state used to function well an do amazing things but that era is gone and i'd like to know why.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Will they send women too? What if one of them gets pregnant? I'd be interesting having the first born child in the moon. I guess that's the biggest goal these moon missions can go for. Imagine that..
Mmm that guy will have enormous troubles filling inmigration and other legal forms here...
I used to believe that manned space flight had a special glamour.
But Spirit and Opportunity changed my mind. We might have got quite a greater thrill seeming some jut-jawed space cowboy strut around gusev crater, but you can't say you got no thrill from the Mars rovers. It's easy to anthropomorphise those plucky little guys.
And, considering thrills per buck, we're likely to get a much more steady supply of them with robot missions. From a technology spin-off standpoint, robotic missions are much more promising because we can try many different things. Not only are the trials cheaper, with robot missions failure is an option.
A moderately high failure rate may be a blessing in disguise, and not just from the lessons learned. The public lost interest in manned space flight because it was perceived as too routine. Audacity is a virtue; I'd personally love to the British team behind Beagle 2 come back for a grudge match with Old Man Mars. I'd even wait up for the first pictures -- I haven't done anything of the sort since the first Space Shuttle launch.
I even think robotic missions are a better long term path to space colonization. You get more experiences, faster to help develop general space capabilities. A country with the experience from dozens of interplanetary missions is much better placed to exploit Mars than one that has managed a single manned mission.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I completely agree with you that the money IS spent on Earh. Unfortunately, the words coming out of politicians mouths are more often aimed toward getting votes than toward speaking the truth. If politicians can get votes from the ignorant by using false rhetoric, they will.
Whenever I read announcements like this, all I can think about is Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. I can remember the final chapter of "Robots and Empire" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_and_Empire when Giskard turns to Daneel and tells him the only way for the human race to reach it's potential is to abandon Earth and reach out to the universe. The series also deals with the "racism" that pops up between the "Spacers" (those born on planets other than Earth) and the "Terrans" (those born on Earth). Humanity needs to grow, and being confined on one planet will never allow for us to meet our true potential.
1) build rocket
2) put astronauts in rocket
3) fly rocket to moon
This concludes today's presentation on a strategy for returning to the moon. Thank you for attending.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
.. because it throws down the gauntlet to China. China's in the same position the USSR was a generation ago - proud, insecure, and eager - perhaps overeager - to demonstrate its "greatness". But unlike the USSR, they actually have the economic viability to mount a decent long-term challenge to the USA.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. America is a great country but it NEEDS a competitor. Without Russia to "compete against" the whole game has fallen apart, the US has lost its confidence, progress in "national pride" projects such as this grinds to a helpless standstill while the narrow-minded lefties whine about "the money could be best spent at home" and similar short-term thinking - and let's not even mention the miserable standstill in the middle east.
China is shaping up to be the new Russia for America - a capable, proud opponent who will catalyse any number of "races", some good, some bad. But any way you cut it, this can only be a good thing in the long term, and China certainly presents less of a threat than Russia.
Now if the Euros could get in on the action, we could have a three-way race to the stars, and progress in space technology will accelerate to a pace we can only dream of today, and about time.
Brilliant news, let's wait for China's response - that's what will really "lock it in".
Let my new 7-digit UID be a lesson to all - write down your passwords.
...be a direct design from the Eagle in "Space: 1999"?
/ SpBstEag.jpg
http://www.smallartworks.ca/PS/Space1999/Boosters
From JFK's Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs, May 25, 1961: "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." And the important bit: "I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment."
The goal was to put a man on the Moon. Not twelve. Not twenty. Just one. JFK could have said "making six landings on the moon sometime in the next twenty years" or "a moon landing real soon now", as NASA is saying, but who would have cared?
Like, totally! Fer sure!
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
This is the first time I've ever seen an article on Slashdot AFTER it's been reported in the morning news. I'm dissapointed.
My name would be Pi_r_[]ed, but this stupid thing wouldn't allow it. Well, at least now you know.
Believe it.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.2 00
The above article at the above link has a quote indicating that physical constants may be different if one were to travel along the different dimensions described by Heim Theory. If that was the case, the speed of light may be raised and the trip to Pluto shortened. Note that this would not actually require traveling faster than light, just faster that light as measured in "our" vacuum.
Think of it as a real theory which predicts warp-drive-like effects.
science is a religion
Well i'm from EU think your a bit right.
:)
Nasa tends to 'want to do big things' with low tech.
It might be better for NASA to work better with the EU together.
The EU wouldnt go to the moon unless there was an economic reason for it.
Mining could be that, but not just 'space travel' as its anounced to the public.
I've read the NASA mission statement on this, and i can tell you.
That most of the science goals could as well be achieved with cheap satelites.
But Nasa isn't always behind
Take the Mars rovers (that was a nice technology jump).
Altough these keep on driving (and thus keep on costing money
So thats why a next version might get nuke bateries, which will limit project costs...)
The european probe was to cheap and crashed into Mars.
Just imagine if EU and NASA had worked together on it, it might have succeeded.
Perhaps also then the rovers could have a better science payload.
To go on, forward its better to think of what you want for what reason.
Check if there are possible economic reasone like mining or just do that for a trial.
And then use tele-precense (like the mars robots). A solar plant and some marsrovers/moon rovers with tele-hands could build a lot without people actualy beeing there and reduce money cost.
Anyway probaply china will be the first back on the moon.
A typicaly blooming space industry wich had not done something yet to be recognized.
And to show to its own people, so the futher american moon-naut better like's rice
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Going to mars several multi miliards of dollars
..priceless
;)
Going to the moon a little bit less but still very expensive
Taking an outside walk on mars in a space suite, several thousends of dollars.
Drinking a coke on the moon, 50 dollar cent.
Solving earth's current climate problems
(based on the Eurocard mastercard advertisement)
(well at least on mars you dont have to argeu about global climate problems, they are allready there)
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
Are you suggesting that the space program doesn't qualify as "pork"? That funding for space research continues because of the high-minded idealism of the U.S. Congress?
This is an astronaut's joke, right?
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
I went to a talk last night by the flight director and one of the astronauts from the last shuttle mission (STS-115). Afterwards, I spoke with the astronaut and asked her what NASA thought about Bigelow, SpaceX, etc. Her response? They aren't direct competition right now, and she hopes Ares is up an running before commercial human orbital flights happen.
I realize this is only one person that I spoke with, but it sure sounds like the old attitude "as only NASA can". But if they keep on the path they are on where there are a thousand or more people at mission control for a single shuttle launch (note that mission control is only for flight operations and not for launch or final runway approach), I really don't have much confidence in their new plans. This is more employees than SpaceX and Bigelow are projected to use _together_ to have launch operations and run a space station. Think about the cost: e.g. 1000 flight controllers+support staff x $150K/year salary = $150 million dollars/year JUST FOR FLIGHT OPERATIONS! (and $150K per year per person is probably a conservative average for total salary+benefits for each employee.
I predict that we will see MASSIVE changes at NASA in 5-10 years as commercial efforts start regular human flights. Congress may realize they can cut NASA's human spaceflight budget by 2/3 if they outsource. Alternatively, NASA and its contractors might succeed in lobbying Congress to legislate commercial efforts into the ground before they get a good foothold, just to maintain the status quo. A less likely (but more desirable) outcome is a lot of the NEO stuff (e.g. ISS resupply) being outsourced and NASA buying Bigelow modules for more advanced missions (e.g. return to moon, asteroid rondesvous, Mars, etc).
science is a religion
I hope this comes to pass. If it does, I was told a few years ago, that I was in the running for a job at Google's lunar base. http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html
I can't wait to move!
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
We have a shuttle, now we need a real space ship that can be reused. Building these single-use spacecraft that return to earth at the end of every mission doesn't make sense for exploring. How long would it have taken to explore the earth with single-use ships that had to come back to their home port after every single jaunt?
We need to follow the patterns of more adventurous peoples, such as the Norsemen in the Middle Ages. They built longboats which were some of the first craft able to move about the Atlantic. They could be beached anywhere and were simple enough that they could be fixed with materials that were commonplace if damaged. They took these things all the way to America and through the Mediterranean Sea to the Middle East!
We need a real space ship, not just expendable canoes. We have a harbor under construction (the ISS), although it is more of an outpost at the moment. We next need to get a supply depot were we can start storing extra consumables for a true space ship. Once we have that, we can start building on our existing infrastructure instead of starting from scratch every time we want to do something different.
It's good to have long term goals, but it is wasting time to make detailed plans for anything more than a few years out. Lets build the capability to move to nearby places of interest (e.g. Moon, Mars, and near earth asteroids.) Once we build a little ship, we can build bigger ones for destinations that are further away.
science is a religion
You know, as much as I want to return to the Moon (building a large solar array there to harness 1% of the Sun's energy could replace fossil fuel plants on Earth--just 1 good reason to go back) and then go to Mars, I'd rather send a robotic submarine to Europa. I am DYING to see what is under the ice.
Go ahead, mod me flamebait, I'm used to it when I express my honest opinion that manned spaceflight is a waste of time.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Sure it needs more radiation protection. So build a bigger launcher and add shielding (e.g. water blankets). Then you get:
A) a spacecraft that is safer for people
B) a way to use off-the shelf electronics
C) additional water reservoir (can be used in emergency)
If you compare the extra consumables used to build a larger rocket to the extra engineering effort needed to make rad-hard systems, scaling up the size is usually cheaper. Bigelow is apply the above concepts to his inflatable systems.
science is a religion
WALLACE: "Berbershire? [...] Londonderry? [...] Well! It's like no cheese I've ever tasted!"
Monolith Moon Cheese®, it's full of stars!
And now for something completely different...
We're whalers on the moon,
We carry a har-poon...
But there ain't no whales,
So we tell tall tales
And sing a wailin' tune.
Of course, Ignignokt the mooninite would have something snappy to say; like, "Don't even think about going up there. (ERR: "yeah!") We allowed you to go there once, but that was a courtesy. We wanted to see if your pathetic ships would blow themselves up. That would have amused us. (ERR: "Ha! That would have been GREAT!") Indeed, Err. Our technology has the ability to vaporize any and all trespassers at any time."
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
I know a problem with fuel depots have been cryogenic storage of liquid propellant. They have a limited lifespan because they keep venting fuel as it warms up.
What if we went with solid or non-cryogenic fuels? E.g. the fuel used in the space shuttle boosters or liquids such as kerosene and nitrous oxide? Liquid transfer shouldn't be too hard if they use a centrifuge or a flexible bladder in a pressure vessel (e.g. like squeezing a juice box to get the juice to squirt out of the straw). Solid fuel catriges may even be able to be moved around and manually loaded by astronauts.
science is a religion
There is another where we go out there and we take the galaxy. We eliminate what is currently a single point of failure - we build those ships and we spend thousands of years sleepwalking our way to entirely new planets. Ten million years later the whole galaxy is ours. Every planet has a different kind of human on it with a different set of eyes.
Weston? Is that you?
please check your math....
Anyone who spends any substantial amount of time there will get dizzy from all the spinning.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
NASA gets to implement an exciting new bureaucracy for the 'return to the moon' in two decades. (Hint: it will always be two decades away.)
Gosh, a base at the lunar South Pole. Where, oh where will NASA and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation put the training facility? With that keen grasp of science politicians and bureaucrats show, I bet the first major action in this program will be ground breaking for the Ted Stevens Lunar Training Facility just outside Fairbanks, Alaska.
I'll also bet that after the earmarks for studies, research, and ground facilities are in place, that no funds will be available for any actual missions. NASA knows this, too, which is why they'll be hitting up other countries for spare change.
That's how they built the Enterprise! Isn't anybody paying attention? *sigh*
the day the foundation contractor locates that magnetic anomaly. ---- got that synching feeling?
0x7279727972797279
2020? Why don't we get started NOW? While NASA is going through the R&D stages of its first base, let's say "Moon Unit Alpha", they could be accepting donations from the collective public. That way, if their federal funding is cut, they still have funds to fall back on. If everyone interested in seeing "Moon Unit Alpha" donated some money, say, as part of a "NASA Supporters Club", with the option for recurring monthly membership fees, then NASA would essentially have a limitless supply of funds. Hmmm... Not only would they be able to build a "Moon Unit Alpha", but they could move on to "Moon Unit Beta" and eventually "Moon Unit Zappa"!
I'm sure many people would jump at the chance to have the ability to say they actively funded the building of a moon base. I know I would!
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
Does anyone here believe this will actually happen?
I do not.
[singing:]
Come and listen to my story of a man named Jeb
You must've heard about 'im, he's all over the Web
You see, one day, he'll be shootin' for the moon
But all we'll remember is the bringin' of the doom...
Taxes, that is...
Budget cuts...
You'll see.
(feel free to contribute... I'm just riffin' here.)
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
Gee, it's nice that you concede NASA still gets things done despite our 'low tech' and being 'behind.' Yes, it's too bad the rovers are still alive, it sure is expensive to keep driving around, getting science. And it's a nice tip about reducing project costs by launching nuclear materials into space. I'm sure the EU would love to do this from their own launch pad ... in South America, just in case it blows up.
Remind me again, what are the amazing EU successes? Please list at least three.
This login name for sale.
Offtopic? You could call it unfunny, but not offtopic! Unless the mods today are under 30, thus not Space:1999-aware.
I'd like to point out that the lunar lander guidance computers were hardly the only items using integrated circuits at the time. They were used, by NASA, for the control systems of many of the spaceship components, including the Apollo Guidance Computer in the Command Capsule, control systems at "Mission Control" and KSC, and other places including simulators. While it is true that NASA consumed at one point about 90% of all world-wide IC production, it wasn't just for the lander computers, nor was the development of ICs pushed by NASA either. That NASA (at the time) had the deepest pockets of any customers and were willing to pay high prices for them, others went for more descrete components instead.
It should also be noted that almost all of the ICs involved were very, very simply circuits, like AND, OR, NOT, and other basic gate ICs, mostly like (although they weren't) the 7400 series simple chips. It still takes a pile of those chips to make a basic CPU, and in many cases discrete components won out because they were more power efficient and smaller than the ICs at the time to do the same job.
Of course this early "investment" in IC production did eventually pay off in terms of buying new fabs for larger production chip runs with more complex designs, but that wasn't to happen until well after the Apollo flights after Apollo 17 were canceled. Certainly investment into those fab lines wasn't done to benefit NASA or any space-related activities, but to go after the commercial IC market instead. That eventually some of these chips did end up in more modern spacecraft eventually did help NASA, that was more of a side effect than somthing specifically caused by NASA. NASA spacecraft computers are a decade or more behind the rest of the computer industry for a variety of reasons, as there are some very unique environmental situations that spacecraft computers encounter that ordinary CPUs sitting in a cubicle don't experience. That usually requires setting up seperate fab lines and much tougher specs to meet than ordinary IC production, often at huge premium prices.
BTW, as far as NASA using commercial services instead of trying to develop capabilities "in house", I have to completely agree with you on that idea 100%. The re-development of a heavy lifter to replace the Saturn V in the 21st century is certainly something that (at the moment) is unique to the needs of NASA and not commercial transportation systems.
What is your source? Not doubting, you just seem to have pretty detailed info in this area and I am interested in learning more.
science is a religion
You also forgot that the whole Apollo program, particularly getting to the Moon with Apollo 11, was blessed and sanctified by St. John the Divine, of Massachusetts, who was martyred in Dallas, Texas and whitewashed any project he was associated with, most especially going to the Moon. In short, it was political suicide to vote against it.
The only way this program could have a similar impact is if Air Force One was shot down over Baghdad by an Iranian missile, and even then I don't think George W. Bush would carry the same degree of martyrdom as JFK had in the 1960's. And even then all such an attack would do is ensure that the USA would be in Iraq for the next 100 years, as Bush is not really as strongly associated with going to Mars as JFK was associated with going to the Moon.
I can't wait to move! Would that come with a
Indeed!
At one one-thousandth of c, relativistic corrections are detectable with precision instruments but not significant to engineering. The correction factor is 1 + 5E-7.
The energy cost of accelerating to a speed like that is extraordinary in any event. Imagine something the size of a Shuttle orbiter, 1E5 kg. 0.5mv**2 is (0.5 * 1E5 * (3E5)**2) == 4.5E15 Joules or 1.25 *billion* kilowatt hours. Even with some miraculous 100% efficient technology it would take a big chunk of the US power grid to accelerate that one ship at 1g or better.
The plan for the moon would be to dig hole into the ground, mine water. People would live like moles.
To save humanity in case of an asteroid strike you would do EXACTLY the same thing here on earth. Dig deep holes and stock them well with food and water. You'll save a LOT more people at 1/1000 of the cost.
Space exploration should be left to lifelong career professionals
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The stated purpose for the space shuttle was to have a re-usable vehicle in orbit. We had one, it was called SPACELAB. But that was the product of another President. Hence, we needed something different and Spacelab had to go.
... EVERYTHING ... I'm amazed that we did not realize how right we got it in the first place.
To replace spacelab, we decided to create what is essentially a mini space station that could be launched and retrieved. So instead of just leaving the space station up in space, we decided to create an orbital RV.
The repair of the Hubble space telescope was a giant coup for the Space Shuttle program. But I would point out that we could have launched the original from a rocket AND it would probably have been far cheaper to simply build another telescope and launch it on another disposable rocket rather than fund the space shuttles.
So 30 years later, we are back to capsules. We are back to the notion that crafts that vehicles which burst into flame as part of normal operation are probably more disposable in nature. Being in the country that invented disposable
President Bush would have us divert funding away from serious scientific missions utilizing probes in order to fund an extra-orbital camping trip. I don't think the new Democratic Congress will tolerate this though. Bush squandered a $250 billion surplus and turned it into a $300 million deficit. We have to recover some of the wasted funding and we certainly have to spend our budget wisely. Weenies and Smores with Tang on Luna is not a responsible use of the taxpayers money at this point.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Oh please, let us have the private sector tackle the problem if the promised economic resources are available. This is what "pro-moon" people are always saying. So if there is economic opportunity, it is the PRIVATE sector that should pursue it.
What is MORE likely to happen is that the new space "entrepreneurs" will do what virtually every other sector of the economy has. They will swagger around in public and ask for subsidies in private.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Oh, I wish I had mod points. That was a great show.
apt-get install deathstar && deathstar alderaan && echo "You're far too trusting"
That has to be one of the dumbest mistakes I've ever typed on teh internets. :)
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Well, I think you have to consider the number of rockets necessary to send all the equipment to do the mining and processing to Luna. I think you need to consider whether this is all worthwhile in the end. I think you need to consider wether a Lunar base could ever be self-sufficient.
I have no doubt that we the human race could accomplish this task. I just wonder what toll it would take on the Terran economy and whether it is actually worth it.
No doubt that cost would go down as we got better at some things. But you really have to consider whether it would ever go down enough to make a cost-benefit analysis acceptable.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Throw a
at the end of lines. Pressing enter doesn't mean anything to html.
Man, you really need that seminar!
You would need more than a machine shop. You would need ore refiners and foundries. You need massive hydroponic facilities. You would have to mine a substantial amount ore just to get the raw materials to start with. Just keep in mind the amount of resources it would take just to get STARTED. Then you have to wonder to yourself about how many people will actually WANT to work in an environment like this.
As far as exporting products to Earth, everything will have to be transported by rocket. I am well aware that such rockets would be much smaller than the ones needed to get from the earth to the moon, but you still need to get off the moon and out of orbit. Then all the products that are petroleum (plastic) or organic (any other fiber) based would have to rocketed up to the moon at an extra-ordinary cost.
If the Chinese want the moon, I say let them have it. They'll go broke trying to colonize it
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Just make stuff that makes sense, i.e. things that will ultimately be cheaper to produce in-house or cheaper to put in Earth orbit. For example, it wouldn't make any sense to produce athletic shoes on the moon, but it may be cheaper to built orbital solar array components since the launch costs are greatly reduced and processes running on the moon may have some advantages such as reduced gravity. Of course, initial prices will be higher, but if the cost is averaged out over a number of years, some products will have cost advantages and some will likely never become viable.
... as would we."
Sure, large hydroponic areas will eventually be needed, but not right away. After all, it doesn't have to be self sufficient immediately. I imagine food production will be gradually rolled out as facilities come online. And who says they will need to be hydroponic? For all we know, regolith may be good for growing potatoes...
As far as finding people to work there, I think you wouldn't have to pay much more than is payed in harsh environments on Earth. Enough people would find the idea exciting that you likely wouldn't have a problem signing people up (look how many sign up to stay on commercial ships for long periods).
"If the Chinese want the moon, I say let them have it. They'll go broke trying to colonize it
A lot of people said the same things about the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska. Sure, it may be rough for the early adopters, but it always is. Turning our backs on any resource may end up looking like a bad idea far enough down the road. Besides, I think there is a decent chance that their will be countries (or their equivalent) on the moon when enough time passes. Due to the UN space treaty, existing countries aren't allowed to stake claims to areas of the moon. However, if someone intends to permanently live there, someone will want self determination and declare an independent state.
science is a religion
There are a number of source for the information I was quoting. By far the best "original" source of information about the early history of IC production can be found at:
i d=393
/. story about the Apollo Guidance Computer and an attempt to completely recreate it as a part of a home simulator. For details about this project, you can look at this website for some much futher information:
http://technetcast.ddj.com/tnc_catalog.html?item_
This is a lecture given by none other than Gordon Moore (of Moore's Law fame) that goes into the history of ICs.
There was also some time about (about a year or so, perhaps a little longer) a
http://klabs.org/history/build_agc/
There is other information that I've picked up over the years as well, but these are two sources to get you started if you are really interested in some of the early history of the Apollo mission computers. Of course Wikipedia is also available with some other outstanding information if you look up "Apollo Guidance Computer", particularly if you read through the sources to generate the Wikipedia article.