BTW, the Mars Design Reference Mission 5.0 identifies a 6 month flight time using chemical rockets. 500 days there. 6 months flight time back. That's a standard conjunction mission profile.
I've never seen any studies on NTP, NEP, or VASIMR that were beyond the "guessing" stage. They're simply not funded to do mission studies.
They have, however, set extremely optimistic schedules and have not done significant work to man-rate the platform or the Dragon module. I fully expect them to be performing their COTS ISS supply mission in the next year or two but I don't put as much faith into their ability to scale up to putting people into LEO as quickly as they say they can.
Sigh. The Dragon module has to be man-rated because it connects to the station. NASA is on the record as saying SpaceX can do a "life boat" configuration on flight 5 (that's just 1.5 years from *now*). SpaceX needs funding to produce the launch escape system.. that's it.
My suggestion was not to just use the LES from Ares I, my suggestion was that NASA should be tasked with making sure their LES is compatible with Dragon, that way they avoid having to write another line item for SpaceX on their budget.
A vehicle that already exists in the majority, and the part that doesn't is much smaller than even Ares I.
What are you blathering about?
The only thing DIRECT reuses is the SRBs. The external tank is modified, therefore it is new. At least with Shannon's proposal the external tank is the same size, so you don't need to buy all new equipment to transport and assemble it.
You're right, the codeword for that is "assured access to space":)
COTS-D will provide that.. assuming it ever gets the funding. My personal opinion is that NASA is waiting for Orbital Sciences to pull their finger out.
Oh yeah, it also showed how completely ridiculous the idea of on-orbit assembly remains. I'd love it if it wasn't true. We could launch up parts, assemble them into some giant battlestar galactica type ship and fly around the solar system in style. But the reality is, just pulling some parts out and putting some new ones in took hours and hours of grueling labor. We really need better suits, with better gloves, and the Moon shot will motivate that.
It'll take 5.5 years to man-rate a Delta IV, and you'll have to pay for the privilege and gift the ULA new launch facilities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2m-UoOM7eg). Alternately, you could fund COTS-D and have a manned vehicle from SpaceX in 2.5 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O81Zq02eStg). If you gifted SpaceX the launch escape system you can have a manned vehicle next year (I totally just made that up, but it makes sense to me). That said, if you cut Ares I now you're cutting Ares V. Ares I is "behind schedule" because they're working on the 5-segment solid stack. Without that the Ares V won't fly either.. so, sooner or later they have to do this work. Hopefully after the Ares I-X flight test (which, btw, will be a 4 segment solid stack, I know, wtf) people will stop armchair quarterbacking and just let NASA do their freakin' job.
Yes, exactly. All those people who talk about how freakin' pointless the ISS was will completely forget about everything that was learnt about living safely in a vacuum when we start permanently living on the Moon. Then when people are saying how pointless the permanently manned outpost on the Moon is, they'll say the ISS was doing the really important research that we needed for a Mars transit mission. Then when the astronauts land on Mars those same people will say that, actually, it was all the research NASA did into making better aircraft and studying biconic aerodynamics that mattered. Then they'll say, no, no, it actually *was* all that research that was done on the Moon that is now being used to build a Mars base.. wow, it's so obvious now! Then they'll discover life on Mars and go, shit, I guess those 4 independent instruments on Viking that said there was life in the Mars soil actually were right - guess we wasted years of effort to discover what we already knew but were unwilling to accept. But by then it'll be too late, suckers!
Sorry, what? I must have missed the part where the necessary hardware to build super intelligent robots was invented 40 years ago and then left out in the rain.
No new science is needed to put humans on Mars. It's an engineering challenge that we can plan out and do. With a sufficiently interested public it could be done in 10 years. It'll most likely take 25 instead.
On the other hand, we've been fiddling around with AI for over 50 years and have no freakin' idea how far we have to go. So far we can't even make a robot with the same capabilities as a 18 month old toddler.
Because robots are completely incapable of doing the task.
The fantastic work of Spirit and Opportunity could have been done by a competent field geologist in an afternoon.. remember that is the ultimate goal of the VSE, put humans on Mars by learning how to support them permanently on the Moon.
Sigh, they're not hedging their bets. Shannon thought it was interesting, so his team studied it. That's all. This is what people at NASA do. It's their job.
"It is a small effort, it hasn't been looked at across NASA, because we already have a plan: Constellation. I think we should fund the plan."
The point of Shannon's presentation was to say exactly what he says at the beginning of that video. NASA is *always* looking at *all* the options and the DIRECT people are just, simply, wrong; that's why no-one is interested in their shit. Not because there is some great big conspiracy to quash their option.. but because the mission requires a Saturn class or bigger vehicle. NASA has been given the mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon, use in-situ resources and stay there permanently.. then move on to Mars. You're not going to land an outpost on the Moon with a 70mt launcher, and you're definitely not going to go to Mars with that.
I call bullshit from the very moment you mentioned resources. Money isn't about resources.. it's about motivation. That car probably contains about $10,000 worth of steel. That's not what makes it so expensive.
Why do we have schools to train engineers? Why do we have professors to run schools? Why do we have institutions like NASA to inspire people to become engineers? When people talk about these things, why do they say they are so important?
Meh, I asked if anyone had been convicted. If you can't even get a conviction for something as blatant as making and selling cracking tools then you're not going to get one for anonymous warez d00ds. So yeah, if someone says to me "why do we need to make our copy protection stronger? The law will protect us!", I will smile, try not to laugh at the person paying my pay check and kindly explain to them that, no, the law will not protect you.
I'm sorry but it's simply not possible to make a moral argument.
You can't say something like "why don't you give that money to the poor, it would do more good" because the indirect economic impact of that action is simply impossible to calculate. If you could calculate it, you could probably corner the stock market in some way, but hey, you probably would think there was many things wrong with that too.
If you parked it on the street without an armed guard, you'd deserve it.
Friend of mine has a Ferrari.. it goes from the garage to the track and back again, and that's it. (Oh ok, sometimes it goes down the highway and gets him speeding tickets.)
Well yes. There certainly is a chilling effect. You can't publicly make these tools and try to sell them. Which is what his employer was doing. But everyone knew this, long before the DMCA came into effect. It really does nothing to change the "scene", and that's where the cracks come from.
Slashdot Mirror
To blatantly and deliberately mislead the public into believing something is a crime when it isn't.
"Production of propaganda with an intent to mislead" or something.
I bet it's already illegal in Germany.
It's a wet dream of the copyright owners that one day the police with fight a war on their behalf.
I provided references.. you could at least do the same.
From the crappy article its hard to tell..
BTW, the Mars Design Reference Mission 5.0 identifies a 6 month flight time using chemical rockets. 500 days there. 6 months flight time back. That's a standard conjunction mission profile.
I've never seen any studies on NTP, NEP, or VASIMR that were beyond the "guessing" stage. They're simply not funded to do mission studies.
They have, however, set extremely optimistic schedules and have not done significant work to man-rate the platform or the Dragon module. I fully expect them to be performing their COTS ISS supply mission in the next year or two but I don't put as much faith into their ability to scale up to putting people into LEO as quickly as they say they can.
Sigh. The Dragon module has to be man-rated because it connects to the station. NASA is on the record as saying SpaceX can do a "life boat" configuration on flight 5 (that's just 1.5 years from *now*). SpaceX needs funding to produce the launch escape system.. that's it.
My suggestion was not to just use the LES from Ares I, my suggestion was that NASA should be tasked with making sure their LES is compatible with Dragon, that way they avoid having to write another line item for SpaceX on their budget.
A vehicle that already exists in the majority, and the part that doesn't is much smaller than even Ares I.
What are you blathering about?
The only thing DIRECT reuses is the SRBs. The external tank is modified, therefore it is new. At least with Shannon's proposal the external tank is the same size, so you don't need to buy all new equipment to transport and assemble it.
umm.. everything on the Shuttle set the state of the art. More information than you ever wanted to know: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiYhQtGpRhc
Enjoy.
You're right, the codeword for that is "assured access to space" :)
COTS-D will provide that.. assuming it ever gets the funding. My personal opinion is that NASA is waiting for Orbital Sciences to pull their finger out.
Oh yeah, it also showed how completely ridiculous the idea of on-orbit assembly remains. I'd love it if it wasn't true. We could launch up parts, assemble them into some giant battlestar galactica type ship and fly around the solar system in style. But the reality is, just pulling some parts out and putting some new ones in took hours and hours of grueling labor. We really need better suits, with better gloves, and the Moon shot will motivate that.
It'll take 5.5 years to man-rate a Delta IV, and you'll have to pay for the privilege and gift the ULA new launch facilities (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2m-UoOM7eg). Alternately, you could fund COTS-D and have a manned vehicle from SpaceX in 2.5 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O81Zq02eStg). If you gifted SpaceX the launch escape system you can have a manned vehicle next year (I totally just made that up, but it makes sense to me). That said, if you cut Ares I now you're cutting Ares V. Ares I is "behind schedule" because they're working on the 5-segment solid stack. Without that the Ares V won't fly either.. so, sooner or later they have to do this work. Hopefully after the Ares I-X flight test (which, btw, will be a 4 segment solid stack, I know, wtf) people will stop armchair quarterbacking and just let NASA do their freakin' job.
Yes, exactly. All those people who talk about how freakin' pointless the ISS was will completely forget about everything that was learnt about living safely in a vacuum when we start permanently living on the Moon. Then when people are saying how pointless the permanently manned outpost on the Moon is, they'll say the ISS was doing the really important research that we needed for a Mars transit mission. Then when the astronauts land on Mars those same people will say that, actually, it was all the research NASA did into making better aircraft and studying biconic aerodynamics that mattered. Then they'll say, no, no, it actually *was* all that research that was done on the Moon that is now being used to build a Mars base.. wow, it's so obvious now! Then they'll discover life on Mars and go, shit, I guess those 4 independent instruments on Viking that said there was life in the Mars soil actually were right - guess we wasted years of effort to discover what we already knew but were unwilling to accept. But by then it'll be too late, suckers!
Sorry, what? I must have missed the part where the necessary hardware to build super intelligent robots was invented 40 years ago and then left out in the rain.
No new science is needed to put humans on Mars. It's an engineering challenge that we can plan out and do. With a sufficiently interested public it could be done in 10 years. It'll most likely take 25 instead.
On the other hand, we've been fiddling around with AI for over 50 years and have no freakin' idea how far we have to go. So far we can't even make a robot with the same capabilities as a 18 month old toddler.
They, of course, have not the slightest clue how difficult (probably impossible with current technology) it would be to live on the Moon or Mars.
That's exactly the mission NASA has been tasked with: figure out how to live off the Moon, and then Mars.
As for the question of Why, well that's also been addressed. "We do these 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." If you want to know what a America would look like without NASA, just take one look at my country, Australia. If you train to be an aeronautical engineer here you might as well start looking for a job overseas at graduation time.. cause our aerospace industry is non-existent. That has knock-on effects in every other industry.
NASA == high tech and there's no higher tech than manned space flight. The challenge is the journey and the destination.
Because robots are completely incapable of doing the task.
The fantastic work of Spirit and Opportunity could have been done by a competent field geologist in an afternoon.. remember that is the ultimate goal of the VSE, put humans on Mars by learning how to support them permanently on the Moon.
Sigh, they're not hedging their bets. Shannon thought it was interesting, so his team studied it. That's all. This is what people at NASA do. It's their job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGBxP3rYWw
"It is a small effort, it hasn't been looked at across NASA, because we already have a plan: Constellation. I think we should fund the plan."
The point of Shannon's presentation was to say exactly what he says at the beginning of that video. NASA is *always* looking at *all* the options and the DIRECT people are just, simply, wrong; that's why no-one is interested in their shit. Not because there is some great big conspiracy to quash their option.. but because the mission requires a Saturn class or bigger vehicle. NASA has been given the mission to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon, use in-situ resources and stay there permanently.. then move on to Mars. You're not going to land an outpost on the Moon with a 70mt launcher, and you're definitely not going to go to Mars with that.
Conviction. Do you know the word or what?
He was given bond, he couldn't pay it.
So, I'll ask you again, has there been a single person convicted of a DMCA charge? Anyone? If not, why would you bet your business on it happening?
I called you an idiot because you're clearly too dumb to follow a simple argument.
I call bullshit from the very moment you mentioned resources. Money isn't about resources.. it's about motivation. That car probably contains about $10,000 worth of steel. That's not what makes it so expensive.
Why do we have schools to train engineers? Why do we have professors to run schools? Why do we have institutions like NASA to inspire people to become engineers? When people talk about these things, why do they say they are so important?
Meh, I asked if anyone had been convicted. If you can't even get a conviction for something as blatant as making and selling cracking tools then you're not going to get one for anonymous warez d00ds. So yeah, if someone says to me "why do we need to make our copy protection stronger? The law will protect us!", I will smile, try not to laugh at the person paying my pay check and kindly explain to them that, no, the law will not protect you.
Speaking from a "flaunt your wealth in the face the starving and you'll get a dagger" class warfare perspective of course.
I'm sorry but it's simply not possible to make a moral argument.
You can't say something like "why don't you give that money to the poor, it would do more good" because the indirect economic impact of that action is simply impossible to calculate. If you could calculate it, you could probably corner the stock market in some way, but hey, you probably would think there was many things wrong with that too.
If you parked it on the street without an armed guard, you'd deserve it.
Friend of mine has a Ferrari.. it goes from the garage to the track and back again, and that's it. (Oh ok, sometimes it goes down the highway and gets him speeding tickets.)
Well yes. There certainly is a chilling effect. You can't publicly make these tools and try to sell them. Which is what his employer was doing. But everyone knew this, long before the DMCA came into effect. It really does nothing to change the "scene", and that's where the cracks come from.
The charges against Sklyarov were later dropped [..] He was allowed to return to Russia on December 13, 2001.
Way to fail to even read the article you linked to.
Idiot.
And which is why I find his work so incredibly boring. If I wanted to read about a shanty town, I'd go buy a book called "poor people".