Re:Building a new STS the right way.
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 1
I would propose that the US discontinue any crew transport missions for the Shuttle to ISS and pay a significant portion of the money needed to keep Soyuz ships flying to ISS instead. If these ships cost 50 million bucks then there is a savings of about 400 million bucks for each transport (the Shuttle cost an estimated 450 million to fly).
Purchasing Russian space transportation for use by NASA is illegal under the Iran Nonproliferation Act.
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the course of 1970s, the world will experience starvation of tragic proportions, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death. -Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968
While unadulterated statistics in this area are hard to come by, 100 million people dead from starvation in the 1970s seems to be correct within at least an order of magnitude.
Also, incidentally, shipping people to other planets is not likely to be an effective way of dealing with excess population. Can you imagine the amount of chemical fuel involved in lifting just the quarter-million people born every day away from the earth?
I can imagine the amount of fuel involved. I can even imagine this being done with existing technology. The "chemical fuel" that concerns you is nothing more than oxygen and hydrogen. These are gases which can be easily separated from water with the application of electric current. After these chemical fuels are burned, they return to the environment exactly what was taken.
Yes, but the Moon, unlike Mars, is capable of turning a profit right now. All the arguments against space exploration on the grounds that it is too expensive only apply to space-based research. Those arguments carry a lot of weight when you consider the incredible cost of projects like the ISS and flags-and-footprints on the Moon and Mars. Commercial exploitation of near-earth asteroids and the Moon is within our reach technologically, and it comes at essentially no cost to us. Of course, like most business ventures, it requires a little initial investment. The students in the lunar base project will be successful if they produce designs that are capable of returning money on the investment, and if someone actually steps up to fund the project.
The moon is a treasure trove of construction material which we can use to build a space infrastructure. Rick Steiner demonstrated that he has no idea what the issues are when he suggested building power stations in lunar orbit. Where is the material going to come from? Earth? Developing the moon is our next, most effective, step into space. Effective because with a little investment it would solve many of the problems keeping humans from staying in space. Because with a little investment companies could turn a profit from their operations in space, starting with selling lunar material here on Earth. Gone would be the argument that space exploration is a waste of money, that we have nothing to show for it.
On the other hand, the just introduced bill will do nothing to remove the waste of the national space program. It's just a continuation of the same program that only really worked when it was a race against the enemy. A program that treats space like a playground for scientists, keeping companies from actually doing something useful with it. Don't be swayed by the romance of space exploration, this bill will only keep you on the ground.
The Space Launch Initiative is the wrong way to go. Even if NASA picks a design and builds it, we will just end up with another inefficient government-run launch system that costs 10 times as much as anyone else's. Why are we letting NASA control access to space? Why do ordinary Americans have to go to the Russians to get into space? This SLI business is just another example of big, dumb NASA trying to do things the only way it knows how, and messing up the US launch market in the process.
So how should NASA get a new rocket? NASA should invest in American businesses who have good ideas without trying to control them, and they should pay American companies (maybe Russian companies?) to send their astronauts into space.
The report detailed a plan to maximize the research capability of the station while keeping down costs. So far NASA has not shown the ability to hold down total program costs. This report addresses that in a way that does not endanger the construction of the station. "Core complete" is not the intended final configuration. It is proposed as a milestone. When NASA demonstrates competency at managing project costs, they get more toys, and a station crew of seven.
The idea of using visiting crews to supplement the station crew is brilliant. I only hope that NASA takes this advice seriously.
The report also made the point that cutting more hardware will do little to reduce the cost. The proposed solution is to cut support personnel, which of course NASA will fight tooth and nail.
As nuclear and fossil fuels become harder to find, beaming solar power from space will become feasible. When that happens, the companies and governments which have developed the necessary technologies will reap the rewards. An analysis of NASA's attempts to do so can be found at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309075971/html/. This is the document mentioned in the Space.com article. Check out The SSP Monitor for more space solar power information
Slashdot Mirror
Purchasing Russian space transportation for use by NASA is illegal under the Iran Nonproliferation Act.
While unadulterated statistics in this area are hard to come by, 100 million people dead from starvation in the 1970s seems to be correct within at least an order of magnitude.
I can imagine the amount of fuel involved. I can even imagine this being done with existing technology. The "chemical fuel" that concerns you is nothing more than oxygen and hydrogen. These are gases which can be easily separated from water with the application of electric current. After these chemical fuels are burned, they return to the environment exactly what was taken.
Yes, but the Moon, unlike Mars, is capable of turning a profit right now. All the arguments against space exploration on the grounds that it is too expensive only apply to space-based research. Those arguments carry a lot of weight when you consider the incredible cost of projects like the ISS and flags-and-footprints on the Moon and Mars. Commercial exploitation of near-earth asteroids and the Moon is within our reach technologically, and it comes at essentially no cost to us. Of course, like most business ventures, it requires a little initial investment. The students in the lunar base project will be successful if they produce designs that are capable of returning money on the investment, and if someone actually steps up to fund the project.
The moon is a treasure trove of construction material which we can use to build a space infrastructure. Rick Steiner demonstrated that he has no idea what the issues are when he suggested building power stations in lunar orbit. Where is the material going to come from? Earth? Developing the moon is our next, most effective, step into space. Effective because with a little investment it would solve many of the problems keeping humans from staying in space. Because with a little investment companies could turn a profit from their operations in space, starting with selling lunar material here on Earth. Gone would be the argument that space exploration is a waste of money, that we have nothing to show for it.
On the other hand, the just introduced bill will do nothing to remove the waste of the national space program. It's just a continuation of the same program that only really worked when it was a race against the enemy. A program that treats space like a playground for scientists, keeping companies from actually doing something useful with it. Don't be swayed by the romance of space exploration, this bill will only keep you on the ground.
Foozone.org
The Space Launch Initiative is the wrong way to go. Even if NASA picks a design and builds it, we will just end up with another inefficient government-run launch system that costs 10 times as much as anyone else's. Why are we letting NASA control access to space? Why do ordinary Americans have to go to the Russians to get into space? This SLI business is just another example of big, dumb NASA trying to do things the only way it knows how, and messing up the US launch market in the process.
So how should NASA get a new rocket? NASA should invest in American businesses who have good ideas without trying to control them, and they should pay American companies (maybe Russian companies?) to send their astronauts into space.
Foozone.orgThe report detailed a plan to maximize the research capability of the station while keeping down costs. So far NASA has not shown the ability to hold down total program costs. This report addresses that in a way that does not endanger the construction of the station. "Core complete" is not the intended final configuration. It is proposed as a milestone. When NASA demonstrates competency at managing project costs, they get more toys, and a station crew of seven.
The idea of using visiting crews to supplement the station crew is brilliant. I only hope that NASA takes this advice seriously.
The report also made the point that cutting more hardware will do little to reduce the cost. The proposed solution is to cut support personnel, which of course NASA will fight tooth and nail.
As nuclear and fossil fuels become harder to find, beaming solar power from space will become feasible. When that happens, the companies and governments which have developed the necessary technologies will reap the rewards. An analysis of NASA's attempts to do so can be found at http://www.nap.edu/books/0309075971/html/. This is the document mentioned in the Space.com article. Check out The SSP Monitor for more space solar power information