You only have to accelerate a relatively small, LEM-like vehicle to rendezvous with the cycler. That vehicle doesn't have to contain life support consumables for the entire return, since the cycler can be loaded with those consumables at this end.
If a crop fails in the first few years before they've had sufficient time to store a lot of food,
Surely enough food would be sent in advance (unmanned missions) to last through multiple cycles.
So, building a fleet of these so that a cycler would come by often enough to prevent a colony emergency would be really prohibitive.
You've lost me here. Build a fleet of what?
You need:
two cyclers
some disposable Ares/Orion stuff to get from the Earth's surface to rendezvous with a cycler
some LEM-like vehicles to get from the cycler to Mars surface and back
disposable heavy-lift vehicles (Ares V or the like) to launch the cyclers
disposable heavy-lift vehicles to launch the supplies and habitat modules, which might get to Mars via the cyclers, or via a more direct path if we're in a hurry and can launch more payloads into Earth orbit to assemble into spacecraft for the more direct path.
You send habitat modules, food, fuel, and a few extra of the LEM-like vehicles to Mars well in advance of sending people. You don't send any people until the supplies are there and the cyclers are working. You have redundant *everything*.
So I'm completely lost as to what kind of "very large ship" you have to build a fleet of to wait for cyclers.
the "smaller ship" would still have to carry a good deal of fuel.
Sure, but it doesn't have to be sent in a single package, nor in the same package as humans. You can send any number of provisioning missions before sending people, and you don't send people until you have enough provisions successfully landed on the Mars surface and within proximity of the target.
You would probably spend close to a trillion dollars for cyclers
Even assuming enormous cost overruns, as happen on every space or military project, a pair of cyclers isn't going to cost anywhere near a trillion dollars.
Why can't we test equipment, processes, and methods by remote control? That's how we've done every Mars mission to date. Some have failed, others have succeeded far beyond our expectations. We've learned a lot about what works, what doesn't, and what kind of things we're likely to screw up. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't do the same for manned missions. We can build a lot of infrastructure and deploy and test a lot of equipment, processes, and methods before we send the first humans to Mars.
Even the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs did things incrementally. They didn't just launch Apollo 11 without having tested anything previously.
It's a very different situation. We can do reconaissance of Mars without sending people, and have already done so. We also would have two-way communications with people we send.
Some explorers from Europe to North America might have been willing to go on a one-way trip if they'd had the equivalent.
Seems crazy to me. Why not build a spacecraft that does a minimum-energy cycle between Earth and Mars orbits continuously, for shuttling crew back and forth? It would be slow, but it wouldn't be maroon anyone.
Then you use the Constellation/Orion/CEV stuff to get from Earth to the cycler, and LEM-like craft between the cycler and Mars.
The resources for the Mars base, including lots of emergency provisions and an escape vehicle or two (extra LEM-like craft to return from Mars surface to Mars orbit and dock with the cycler) can be sent to Mars in advance. It doesn't make sense to send people until the provisions etc. are in place.
For redundancy, you'd probably build and launch two cyclers.
The drawback of all this is that it takes longer to build and deploy than a one-shot Apollo-style mission, but it's worthwhile because it provides an infrastructure for maintaining a permanent base and rotating crews.
The crews would still be committing to spending quite a few years to a mission, but not the rest of their lives.
Sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention. Anyhow, I did some maintenance on SNMP code in a router back in the early 1990s, and added a few MIBs, and the protocol didn't seem that complicated. The biggest problem I had with it was that the MIB veriables didn't match the actual router state variables very well.
SNMP. The least "S" "P" out there that I've ever had to deal with, anyway.
You're lucky then. There are other protocols that are FAR more complex than SMTP. Q.931 comes to mind, especially when considering how it is actually implemented and how various implementations interoperate (or fail to interoperate).
My UID isn't prime. Its factors are, though.
There are sixteen positive integers that are factors of your UID, and of those, only four are prime.
The MS protocols tend to be crufty because they are developed in secret, don't get any public review, and are allowed to evolve in a completely ad-hoc manner.
That's not to say that all protocols developed by open processes are wonderful, but on average they seem to be better.
Sure, but there's a lot of difference between offering a similar feature set, and being a drop-in replacement that is compatible with all the crufty MS protocols.
We're not forcing our waste on other countries; it wouldn't even be worth our while to pay the shipping costs to get it there. If we want to dump it, we have NO shortage of landfill space here.
What's actually happening is that companies in those countries are BUYING the waste from us, and THEY are paying to get it shipped there. Once it's there, they sort through for anything valuable, and dump the rest.
WE are not doing the dumping. If the governments in those countries don't want dumping, they need to crack down on their local companies that are doing it. However, they can't get international publicity and paint the US as the bad guys in the situation if they do that.
I'm all in favor of use taxes on things the government does that require continued investment. We're already sort of doing that with highways in most states, where state taxes on fuel pay for highway maintenance and construction.
However, the NASA patents in question are not in that category. Taxpayers paid for them outright, and no further maintenance of them is required.
"Free to the public" most certainly does NOT mean that no one will make money off it. Are you assuming that if NASA makes the technology available at no charge, that no company will want to use it in products?
Lots of companies are using information that is in the public domain to make money. Many companies sell products based on technology that is not patented, or for which the patents have expired. Disney has routinely used music that is in the public domain in their animated films, which have been immensely profitable.
If any private parties were involved in the development of the patented technology, they were ALREADY paid for their involvement. Rarely does anyone do any R&D for the government without being compensated for it.
And it doesn't matter whether the parties that want to use the patent are commercial or not. The research was already paid for by our tax dollars.
If the research is being done for the purpose of making money, then it shouldn't be done by the US government, as that is not one of their powers authorized by the Constitution. See Article I section 8 for Powers of Congress.
It's not NASA's job to take patents and turn them into business opportunities for itself
Exactly my point. Thank you.
NASA gets money back.
NASA doesn't "get its money back". It was never NASA's money. It was our money, and after we've already paid for it once, they're telling us that if we want the results of the research we'll have to pay for it again.
Industry gets stuff to make new products/services from, which creates jobs and possibly new peripheral technology
Which they would also get if NASA made the patents freely available, since we've ALREADY paid for them.
Some people here need to grow the fuck up and realize shit isn't free.
Of course it's not free. We've already paid big bucks for it. There's no rational basis for making us pay for it twice. Unlike public infrastructure such as roads and sewers, NASA doesn't have any ongoing expenses to "maintain"
the patented technology.
Nice thought, but a refund isn't what I'm after. Since I paid to develop those technologies, I should get the use of them without paying again for a patent license.
The government is not supposed to be a profit center. I don't want it selling off technology it develops at my expense any more than I want it selling off the national parks or the interstate highway system.
Whether it's an exclusive license or a sale, the result is the same. I get to pay for the research again and again.
Your example with the pig is exactly why the government shouldn't be giving out subsidies. I am unable to identify which of the Powers of Congress enumerated in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution includes the power to grant subsidies to private entities.
Lower taxes resulting from sale of the patents? What are you smoking, and where can I get some?
If I was concerned about foreign companies being able to take advantage of the research I've paid for, I'd want NASA to sell the foreign patent rights, not the US patents. But the reality is that it's just as much in my interest for foreign companies to be able to use the research results as domestic companies, because in either case if they have to buy patents, they'll mark up the prices they charge me for their products.
Slashdot Mirror
You only have to accelerate a relatively small, LEM-like vehicle to rendezvous with the cycler. That vehicle doesn't have to contain life support consumables for the entire return, since the cycler can be loaded with those consumables at this end.
Surely enough food would be sent in advance (unmanned missions) to last through multiple cycles.
So, building a fleet of these so that a cycler would come by often enough to prevent a colony emergency would be really prohibitive.
You've lost me here. Build a fleet of what?
You need:
You send habitat modules, food, fuel, and a few extra of the LEM-like vehicles to Mars well in advance of sending people. You don't send any people until the supplies are there and the cyclers are working. You have redundant *everything*.
So I'm completely lost as to what kind of "very large ship" you have to build a fleet of to wait for cyclers.
the "smaller ship" would still have to carry a good deal of fuel.
Sure, but it doesn't have to be sent in a single package, nor in the same package as humans. You can send any number of provisioning missions before sending people, and you don't send people until you have enough provisions successfully landed on the Mars surface and within proximity of the target.
You would probably spend close to a trillion dollars for cyclers
Even assuming enormous cost overruns, as happen on every space or military project, a pair of cyclers isn't going to cost anywhere near a trillion dollars.
I never suggested otherwise. The early explorers didn't set out for North America (or India) in the first ship ever built, either.
Even the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs did things incrementally. They didn't just launch Apollo 11 without having tested anything previously.
Some explorers from Europe to North America might have been willing to go on a one-way trip if they'd had the equivalent.
It seems rather ironic that Aldrin himself was involved in analysis of the cycler approach, but is now advocating a one-way trip.
Then you use the Constellation/Orion/CEV stuff to get from Earth to the cycler, and LEM-like craft between the cycler and Mars.
The resources for the Mars base, including lots of emergency provisions and an escape vehicle or two (extra LEM-like craft to return from Mars surface to Mars orbit and dock with the cycler) can be sent to Mars in advance. It doesn't make sense to send people until the provisions etc. are in place.
For redundancy, you'd probably build and launch two cyclers.
The drawback of all this is that it takes longer to build and deploy than a one-shot Apollo-style mission, but it's worthwhile because it provides an infrastructure for maintaining a permanent base and rotating crews.
The crews would still be committing to spending quite a few years to a mission, but not the rest of their lives.
Sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention. Anyhow, I did some maintenance on SNMP code in a router back in the early 1990s, and added a few MIBs, and the protocol didn't seem that complicated. The biggest problem I had with it was that the MIB veriables didn't match the actual router state variables very well.
SNMP. The least "S" "P" out there that I've ever had to deal with, anyway.
You're lucky then. There are other protocols that are FAR more complex than SMTP. Q.931 comes to mind, especially when considering how it is actually implemented and how various implementations interoperate (or fail to interoperate).
My UID isn't prime. Its factors are, though.
There are sixteen positive integers that are factors of your UID, and of those, only four are prime.
SMTP is a great protocol compared to most of the Microsoft cruft.
That's not to say that all protocols developed by open processes are wonderful, but on average they seem to be better.
Sure, but there's a lot of difference between offering a similar feature set, and being a drop-in replacement that is compatible with all the crufty MS protocols.
What's actually happening is that companies in those countries are BUYING the waste from us, and THEY are paying to get it shipped there. Once it's there, they sort through for anything valuable, and dump the rest.
WE are not doing the dumping. If the governments in those countries don't want dumping, they need to crack down on their local companies that are doing it. However, they can't get international publicity and paint the US as the bad guys in the situation if they do that.
I'm all in favor of use taxes on things the government does that require continued investment. We're already sort of doing that with highways in most states, where state taxes on fuel pay for highway maintenance and construction. However, the NASA patents in question are not in that category. Taxpayers paid for them outright, and no further maintenance of them is required.
Lots of companies are using information that is in the public domain to make money. Many companies sell products based on technology that is not patented, or for which the patents have expired. Disney has routinely used music that is in the public domain in their animated films, which have been immensely profitable.
I wasn't talking about MY intentions. When NASA was chartered, there was no claim that it was to be a profit-making enterprise.
And it doesn't matter whether the parties that want to use the patent are commercial or not. The research was already paid for by our tax dollars.
If the research is being done for the purpose of making money, then it shouldn't be done by the US government, as that is not one of their powers authorized by the Constitution. See Article I section 8 for Powers of Congress.
Exactly my point. Thank you.
NASA doesn't "get its money back". It was never NASA's money. It was our money, and after we've already paid for it once, they're telling us that if we want the results of the research we'll have to pay for it again.
Which they would also get if NASA made the patents freely available, since we've ALREADY paid for them.
Of course it's not free. We've already paid big bucks for it. There's no rational basis for making us pay for it twice. Unlike public infrastructure such as roads and sewers, NASA doesn't have any ongoing expenses to "maintain" the patented technology.
It will help us more if they make it freely available to the public which has already paid for it.
What makes them think that material from Wikipedia and NPR is in the public domain?
I'm opposed to those things too. The fact that there are other misuses of our taxes doesn't excuse this one.
The government is not supposed to be a profit center. I don't want it selling off technology it develops at my expense any more than I want it selling off the national parks or the interstate highway system.
That's one of those "difference between theory and practice" things.
Your example with the pig is exactly why the government shouldn't be giving out subsidies. I am unable to identify which of the Powers of Congress enumerated in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution includes the power to grant subsidies to private entities.
If I was concerned about foreign companies being able to take advantage of the research I've paid for, I'd want NASA to sell the foreign patent rights, not the US patents. But the reality is that it's just as much in my interest for foreign companies to be able to use the research results as domestic companies, because in either case if they have to buy patents, they'll mark up the prices they charge me for their products.