backtop

Print 56 comment(s) - last by randomly.. on Mar 14 at 1:05 PM
President Obama continues to receive harsh criticism, with NASA preparing for four manned shuttle launches

Amid continued criticism and uncertainty, NASA is moving ahead with four remaining manned shuttle missions aimed at completing the International Space Station (ISS).

Manned shuttle launches are expected to take place in April and May, along with scheduled launches this July and  September.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report indicates the shuttle cost to finish the ISS will total upwards of $48.5 billion.

The current fleet of space shuttles should have transitioned into retirement by now, but must make several additional flights now that the U.S. space agency doesn't know when it will have a next-generation rocket system.

At its current standards, NASA spends upwards of $200 million per month to keep the fleet running.  The next manned shuttle launch will take place on April 5, when space shuttle Discovery heads to the ISS.

The next-generation Constellation program is to be scrapped entirely, which could leave NASA at the mercy of the Russian space program even longer.  After construction on the ISS is complete, the United States will purchase trips into space aboard the Russian Soyuz craft.

Constellation was expected to lift off in 2015, but that's obviously unlikely to be met with a new shuttle program.  The agency is trying to end Constellation extremely carefully, but is finding even that to be difficult.

Furthermore, former President George W. Bush outlined his desire to return to the moon by 2020 -- a goal that will not happen, though the Chinese, Russia, India and other space nations are looking to make the trek to the moon's surface.

Obama decided to offer more money to private contractors to help shuttle astronauts and supplies into low-Earth orbit (LEO). 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Someone should make a graphic..
By Smartless on 3/10/2010 2:17:27 PM , Rating: 4
Show America's flag on the moon, then put India, China, and Russia's flags around it blocking it out.

What makes me laugh is we sent people to the moon using sliderules and Fortran. Today we have graphing calculators, composite materials, unmanned patrol planes, a near complete ISS, a radio controlled car on Mars, computers that can play Crysis... and we can't put a guy on the moon. yes yes it isn't that simple... I mean can't we just get a Prius up to 94 mph or something?




RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By Sahrin on 3/10/2010 2:35:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
computers that can play Crysis


Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I've got a flying car parked at the end of my personal monorail line operated by a robot I want to show you.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By TMV192 on 3/10/2010 2:56:00 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah but NASA doesn't have a $60 billion budget (inflation adjusted), or German Engineers


By quiksilvr on 3/10/2010 5:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
V-Dub in da house!


By Pneumothorax on 3/10/2010 5:35:47 PM , Rating: 1
The early 20th to mid 20th century had some of the most brilliant minds ever seen, I don't think we'll ever get such a high concentration of great scientific geniuses again...


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By Calin on 3/11/2010 2:29:26 AM , Rating: 3
And it isn't willing to take the risks it took then (unlike India, China and Russia).
There's no wonder that you hear about successful Chinese manned launched until they are successfully finished - if they aren't successful, you hear about unmanned launches :).

It takes acceptance of loss and death and willingness to do it right for this kind of stuff - and Americans have the latter, but not the former.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By islseur on 3/11/2010 4:35:35 PM , Rating: 1
I'll drop a bomb or two here, but try not to kill me because I'm the messenger.

1.
Chinese have faked their recent manned spacewalk.
Proof:
1.1 - No atmosphere for the earth like in NASA and Russian space walks videos.
1.2 - No noise in communication's like in NASA and Russian space walks. It is know that the signal when entering the atmosphere gets distorted and you can't get rid of the noise.
1.3 - Bubbles seen in the video floating from the space craft. This is impossible in space where there is no gravity.
1.4 - Chinese flag is waving in space.
1.5 - Stadium lights seen in the mirrors.
1.6 - Much more if you research the topic...

Video: China's Space Walk Was FAKE (4 minutes):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g

It's not that the Chinese tried to be original on this one while trying to pull this. They had from who to learn as usual.

quote:
Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of Truth's protective layers.
Neil Armstrong 25th anniversary Of Moon landing

2.
Moon landing has never happened.
Proof:
2.1 - No crater under the landing module or even a small dust on the legs of the module.
2.2 - Different source of light with different directions of shadows on the photographs. Impossible cause the only source of light was the sun.
2.3 - Waving American flag.
2.4 - No stars seen on the photos.
2.5 - Latest Apollo 11 footage showing staging of footage.
2.6 - Passage beyond our planet's radiation shield called the "Van Allen Belt". Only 250 to 750 miles about the Earth. It keeps us from being exposed to too much radiation. The moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth. In order for man to get to the moon, he must go outside of this radiation protective belt. This act is impossible unless you are surrounded by at least 4 feet(1.2Meter) of lead.
2.7 - Much more if you research...

Video: Latest color footage shot by Apollo 11 astronauts.
Banned in America: Proof of Fake Moonlanding (10min)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM

Video: Dark Side of The Moon
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2304895215...

As you can see from the latest Apollo 11 footage, the fact that they didn't flew away from the "Van Allen Belt" is telling. This is the most single and heaviest argument to the fact that using current space technology a MANNED mission to the moon is simply impossible by U.S, Russia, China or whoever. They can't do it now because they didn't do it before with this technology.

Otherwise, considering the technological progress made for the last 40 years and EXPERIENCE gained in space exploration compared to the experience that was in possession by the U.S at the moment of the "successful" moon landing and the fact that all the space era started something like a decade earlier by USSR launching the first sputnik into orbit. It should be VERY VERY VERY EASY today to do something that was done 40 ears ago considering all the progress that's at hand now.

Now don't shoot me on this one. You can disagree and try to debate but please present it politely like I did. Please try to provide evidence why you think it is possible what I said is not possible.

Cheers.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/11/2010 9:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
Wow...I didn't think idiots like you moon-conspiracy nuts were bright enough to even find the on-switch on a computer.

Most of your items can be debunked by anyone with even a high school science education. The "no stars seen in moon landing photos" for instance -- the astronauts were in bright white suits in direct sunlight. Cameras don't have enough dynamic range to capture a very bright image, next to a very dim image (stars). Setting the exposure so the stars would have been visible would have meant the astronauts would have been nothing but an overexposed blur.

The "waving flag" factoid is just as easy. Flags don't just wave because of a breeze. When you stick a flagpole into soil (or lunar regolith) and screw and push it around hard to get it to penetrate, you're generating a lot of angular momentum. A flag (especially a spring-loaded flag like the astronauts used) will wave as a result. Here on earth, friction with the air will make it stop in a few seconds. On the moon, it can wiggle for a minute or more once the astronauts let go.

All you other points have been debunked long, long, LONG ago. Many times.

Now pull up your pants and run along home. The big kids have things to do.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By islseur on 3/12/2010 4:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow...I didn't think idiots like you moon-conspiracy nuts were bright enough to even find the on-switch on a computer.

:-) Your personal attack on me is just pathetic and very telling about what kind of person you really are.

Inability to politely present your case/view and resorting to name calling and personal attack is practiced by those who can't really scientifically debate unpleasant facts which don't fit into the world view they adopted from the mainstream.

Just pity you have discredited yourself right from the first sentence.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/12/2010 10:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
"Your personal attack on me is just pathetic and very telling about what kind of person you really are."

Absolutely! It demonstrates that I have zero patience with scientific illiterates. If you don't wish to be treated as a loon, don't act like one.

However, I did more than simply insult you. I also debunked several of your pseudo-factoids, and pointed out that the rest have been discredited long ago.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/11/2010 10:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
Furthermore, I realize that you're likely not interested in science at all, but the Van Allen belts don't "shield against" radiation. They ARE a very strong radiation source, and indeed were one of the dangers Apollo astronauts had to face.

The belts though are composed of high-energy protons (not something like gamma rays), and are very easy to shield against. Your "four foot of lead" figure would protect you from a Hiroshima-sized blast. In reality, a few mm of steel stopped the bulk of the radiation. Astronauts received a dose of about 2 rem...or about 1/100 of what they would have needed to experience radiation sickness.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By islseur on 3/12/2010 5:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Furthermore, I realize that you're likely not interested in science at all, but the Van Allen belts don't "shield against" radiation. They ARE a very strong radiation source, and indeed were one of the dangers Apollo astronauts had to face.

What I said is that "Van Allen Belt" is our planet's radiation shield and that it keeps us from being exposed to too much radiation. What exactly is not scientifically correct? Van Allen radiation shield/belt is made of energetic charged particles called plasma. This belt is held in place by Earth's magnetic field. Our planet's magnetic field provides a natural shield against radiation.

If you don't know to read and yet present yourself as a big scientist then it really is your problem.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/12/2010 10:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I said is that "Van Allen Belt" is our planet's radiation shield and that it keeps us from being exposed to too much radiation. What exactly is not scientifically correct?
All of it. The Van Allen Belt is a source of, not a shield against radiation. In fact, its comprised primary of those energetic particles which the magnetosphere shields us against.

Your statement is like claiming the bullet that bounced off your bulletproof vest is what protected you, rather than the vest itself.

Furthermore, it's nowhere near strong enough to require "four foot of lead" to shield against. Look up the cross section of steel or even aluminum for a 100MEV proton, bright boy.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By inperfectdarkness on 3/10/2010 2:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
what's the point? we've done it already. unless we're doing it to test new equipment/capabilities, it's only a waste of resources to put boots on the ground up there again.

i'm all in favor of the space program. i also think that at a cost of $20,000/lbs to put something into space--we shouldn't do something just for bragging rights.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/10/2010 4:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
"what's the point? we've done it already"

The point of the new moon program was not just to touch boots to ground, but create a permanent presence on the moon. The advantages of a lunar colony-- and the bootstrap it would provide towards eventual exploitation of lunar resources- would repay the initial investment a hundred times over.

Or..we can continue to keep launching half-billion dollar shuttle missions, that do nothing but further 'test the effects of microgravity on seed germination'.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By trisct on 3/10/2010 5:03:24 PM , Rating: 1
I consider myself a space enthusiast, and would like to see nothing more than a moon outpost (anyone remember Space: 1999?) but there has been nothing but hot air expelled on the subject for years now. There have been occasional grandiose speeches, but very little in the way of concrete plans or concepts for what a moonbase would be useful for.

Acres and acres of seed germination experiments, perhaps? Making glass from lunar dust? Someone has to find something useful and compelling to do up there before people will get fired up to go. A bigger version of ISS that sits in vacuum on the Moon, instead of floating in orbit is just going to be more expensive, and not much more useful.

I think we have to give in to the fact that there are more important things to take care of for the next few years.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/10/2010 5:19:10 PM , Rating: 5
"but very little in the way of concrete plans or concepts for what a moonbase would be useful for."

Just a few of the many:

a) A properly sited polar base would have solar power 24 hours a day, unfiltered by atmosphere or clouds. Combined with the lower gravity (much higher surface area per unit mass) and absence of weather (no cleaning, wind damage, etc), solar power actually becomes viable.

b) Extensive research has been done on extracting lunar metals and other resources, which (due to the much shallower gravity well and lack of atmosphere) could be launched into NEO or even back to earth with a very cheap linear accelerator...no spaceship required.

c) Industrial production on the moon (or in NEO, using lunar-launched resources) generates no pollution whatsoever here on earth.

d) The moon has unlimited free vacuum and extremes of temperature, priceless for many industrial processes.

e) The dark side of the moon (far side to you pedants) is a priceless location for a research station on radio and other forms of astronomy, shielded as it is from the earth. The lower gravity also makes deployment of much larger telescopes viable.

f) Eventual space tourism alone to a lunar base could pay much or even all the initial development cost.

g) The experience gained in operating a semi-self sufficient lunar colony will be invaluable for missions to Mars or elsewhere. Furthermore, those missions will actually be cheaper and more effective, if they are provisioned from lunar resources, rather than ones dragged out of our very deep gravity well.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By Calin on 3/11/2010 2:32:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Combined with the lower gravity (much higher surface area per unit mass

:)
Much higher surface area per unit weight
:)

The mass (a measure of inertial resistance to movements) is the same in void or in a black hole.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/11/2010 8:42:17 AM , Rating: 2
No. While your statement is true if you simply moved the same structure from earth to moon, you wouldn't do that. The moon's lower gravity allows you to build structures in a much more 'flimsy' manner than possible here on earth.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By randomly on 3/12/2010 9:38:08 AM , Rating: 2
I love the idea of a moonbase but most of these concepts are not very compelling to me.

a) yes you can have constant solar power, but what are you going to do with it other than power the base that makes any economic sense?

b) Is moon mining even remotely cost effective vs mining on earth, without further data I would think not unless a resource on earth is getting extremely rare.

c)It seems vastly simpler and cheaper to just implement pollution controls on earth based production, no matter how expensive those might be.

d)Are vacuum and temperature extremes really that valuable? I'm not aware of any industrial process where cost to produce a vacuum is a major cost factor. Nor heating or cooling that can't be done on earth. If you have some specific examples of a production process that would have an economic benefit from production on the moon that would be very helpful.

e) This one has the most traction for me. Far side of the moon is radio quiet. However it may be more cost effective to place radio telescopes at lagrange points with appropriate shielding than to try and build and maintain them on the moon. I'll give this one to you anyway.

f) Ok space tourism is plausible, but the costs involved seem so prohibitive at this point in time that realizing it just seems extremely unlikely. I don't think you are going to get any investors on this one for a long time. Even tourism to LEO is a mighty struggle.

g)Lunar colony as testing/training ground for Mars missions- ok I'll buy this. But again the costs are extremely high given the expected budgets in the next 20 years. I would really love to see this happen, but the budget realities are just depressing. Without a major NASA budget increase it's not going to happen.

Given the budget constraints I think the best plan is to go the route of the 'Flexible Path' from the Augustine commission report. Forgo the incredibly expensive lander developments and concentrate on a deep space vehicle that can visit the Moon, NEO's, Lagrange points, moons of Mars, asteroids. Then use small Telepresence robotic landers controlled by the astronauts to do real time exploration. You get almost all the excitement, videos, and research of boots on the ground, but with less risk and with a vastly smaller budget. All the technology and systems developed are also directly applicable to future boots on the ground missions when they can be afforded.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/12/2010 10:17:32 AM , Rating: 2
"yes you can have constant solar power, but what are you going to do with it other than power the base"

Refine metals and other resources from the lunar regolith.

" Is moon mining even remotely cost effective vs mining on earth"

If you're shipping those resources to earth surface, it won't be for a while. If you're shipping them to NEO, then yes. Lifting costs using a lunar surface linear accelerator would be a few pennies per pound.

Those materials could be used directly in earth orbit, either for satellites or space mission resources, or manufacturing facilities there could take advantage of zero gravity, to produce products in zero-G which are not possible here on earth.

" If you have some specific examples of a production process that would have an economic benefit from production on the moon that would be very helpful."

Take a look at a text like "Resources of Near Earth Space", for a large number of scholarly papers on the subject.

"However it may be more cost effective to place radio telescopes at lagrange points with appropriate shielding"

Long-frequency radio waves are going to bleed around any metal shielding smaller than 10-100X the wavelength of the waves you're trying to pick up. With radio telescopes operating in the 30 meter (10mhz) range, to get a good level of shielding would require a metal shield as much as 6 km in size. Admittedly, it only needs to be very thin foil, but light pressure alone on it will cause some substantial difficulties.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By randomly on 3/12/2010 12:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think one of our basic disconnects in this discussion is timescale. I'm looking for reasons that justify an initial moon base, the startup scenario. You seem to be picturing a far future scenario where there might be demand for mined resources in space or on the moon.

Constant solar power at the poles is not a reason for a moon base, it's just a convenience. Solar power may be also be somewhat limited due to terrain restrictions and the fact that your panels are going to cast very very long shadows. Besides the resources you want to mine may not be anywhere near a pole. Nuclear power could also fill the need, may well be cheaper, and may be much easier to deploy than solar on uneven terrain.

As you said it will be a long time before it makes sense for moon resources shipped to earth. It will also be a long time before the resource requirements in space are large enough to justify moon mining/refining/production instead of just shipping it directly from earth.

It's not an effective argument for an initial moon base.

We need a plausible economic scenario for zero-g construction that requires very large tonnage before it makes sense.
The vast majority of proposed zero-g processes are small volume, high value, high precision processes. Until those kind of space based manufacturing things have been proven large tonnage materials from the moon seem a distant need.
I think you need an established zero-g production infrastructure before you can justify harvesting moon resources. Again it's not a persuasive argument for an initial moon base.

Very interesting collection of papers, thanks. However I still didn't find anything that presented a compelling economic argument for an initial moon base.

The vast majority of the advantage to space or lunar based radio telescopes is getting outside the ionosphere that reflects so much interference back to earth. With a radio telescope at a Lagrange point outside the charged particle layers surrounding the earth plus the distance from earth minimal extra shielding may be needed to attenuate the interference below the noise threshold of the detectors. You don't need 10x-100x the wavelength, you just need enough attenuation to do the job. There is also the option of using a heliocentric orbit like the Spitzer telescope.

Again I don't see this as a strong justification for an initial lunar base. Maybe as an adjunct to a base already established for other reasons.

The strongest arguments for an initial moon base seem to be scientific exploration and development of systems and technologies for future exploration. The economic arguments just don't fly for me. However I'll bite on the science, adventure, prestige, and inspiration reasons. It's a wonderful dream to shoot for.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/12/2010 1:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm looking for reasons that justify an initial moon base"

In other words, if Columbus's first trip to the New World won't show an immediate profit, he shouldn't have been sent?

I'm not looking at a "far future" scenario. The communication satellite industry took off within 20 years of Mercury/Gemini. It would take about the same period of time for paying industry to boostrap off an operating moonbase. Once a continual presence is established, and infrastructure is in place (power, and a minimal amount of volatile extraction), private industry would spring up nearly overnight.

"The vast majority of proposed zero-g processes are small volume, high value, high precision processes"

That's true only because the assumption is manufacturing will be done with resources lifted from earth surface, at $1000+/kg. An entirely different set of assumptions kicks in if one has lunar resources in play.

"Very interesting collection of papers, thanks. However I still didn't find anything that presented a compelling economic argument for an initial moon base"

You bought and read a 1,000 page book in the last hour? Impressive. What about the paper on in-situ propellants? Refueling of satellites from lunar resources alone could be a $3B/year industry by 2030. That alone would pay maintenance costs on a lunar base, if not capital expenditures.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By randomly on 3/12/2010 8:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
Columbus's sales pitch was exactly that they would show an immediate profit.

I'm interested in convincing reasons to fund the first Moon base. None of the reasons you have stated have good enough reward vs risk to attract private capital yet, which is a good litmus test. The only place we have a chance to get the money is out of Congress whose motivations are somewhat different than private industry.

The communications satellite industry took off because it was immediately useful and profitable. It payed for itself all along the way.

We are struggling right now just to get investment in nuclear plants which are a much smaller investment, much shorter build time, and much better risk vs reward than a moon base, let alone moon industry.

quote:
You bought and read a 1,000 page book in the last hour? Impressive.


There is no reason to get condescending.
I didn't need to buy the book since it's available online, and I skimmed through the papers in Part II which references Moon resources. Half of it is about Oxygen extraction.If I missed a compelling case in there please point it out.

From the paper on In-Situ Derived propellants they state that if current launch costs of Earth to LEO improve by a factor of 10 (I think that was Spacex's goal) then the benefits of lunar propellants is minimal. They also only compare lunar propellants to Earth sourced chemical propellants and not to high isp Nuclear or Solar propulsion systems which restricts their competitiveness to essentially lunar descent and ascent stages.

Remember these things need to be competitive against other technologies available. Besides where are you going to go with this propellant and in what time frame is that going to be a need?

As for satellite refueling they are all going toward electric thrusters and they can hold enough fuel on launch to last decades if needed. Many already do that on hydrazine. The only satellites to use a lot of propellant are low orbit recon types which are mostly military. The US Orbital Express program was completed and successfully demonstrated on orbit refueling, however the program was ended due to lack of interest. To justify lunar propellants requires a need of real tonnage.

At any rate the mass of propellant required is minimal and launch costs of the propellant from earth are not the dominant cost factor in refueling. Most satellites launched now will be obsolete by the time they run out of fuel and are just replaced with new technology.

I would love to see us build a moon base, and I think NASA deserves more funding. But putting forward weak justifications dilutes the whole credibility of a moon base proposal. It makes it easier for people to dismiss. We need strong arguments.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/12/2010 11:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
"The communications satellite industry took off because it was immediately useful and profitable. It payed for itself all along the way."

That's just the point-- that entire industry was only made possible by government investments in Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. In fact, that one single spinoff alone has already paid for the entire cost of the space program many times over. Just one tiny branch of the satellite industry (weather satellites) have saved as much in property damage as the entire cost of Apollo.

The two important points here though are this. Firstly, that industry would not now exist without the initial government investment. Secondly, uses like weather satellites couldn't even be predicted when Mercury/Gemini was first conceived. The same will be true of a lunar base.

I've already given a large number of potential candidates for payback. Space tourism alone is a far larger industry than you're willing to believe. There are tens of millions of people on earth with weak hearts, people who would survive years or decades longer in the 1/6 g of the moon. Earth orbit isn't an option -- zero g is damaging over extended periods.

"We are struggling right now just to get investment in nuclear plants "

Come now. Private industry is struggling...and that's only true because of regulatory uncertainty and fears about environmentalist-based lawsuits tying up billions in construction capital.

Meanwhile, the government is expected to spend something like 60 trillion dollars over the next decade. Are you actually suggesting it couldn't shake lose 0.1% of that figure to fund a moon base, with all the jobs, new industry, and economic prosperity that it would eventually enable?

"I didn't need to buy the book since it's available online"

Ah, I didn't realize that...I bought the original when it was first released many years ago. In any case, I mentioned it only because it happened to be on the shelf behind my desk at the time. There are better works on the economics of a lunar base.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By randomly on 3/13/2010 3:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Putting money into something does not automatically make it a viable market. Satellites offered unprecedented capabilities, the high ground. Remote sensing and Recon, and communication relay.
The moon on the other hand offers nothing beyond the science aspects that we don't already have in one form or another. The resource opportunities there are not unique, they are in competition with already existing earth based or satellite based resources. They have to compete against those.

Sure there are alot of people who want to go into space, but the cost is enormous which restricts the potential candidates to a hand full. Costs need to come down by orders of magnitude before you'd have a viable tourist economy.

My point about the nuclear plants was as an example of the point where perceived risk is having a major impact on private industry committing to billion dollar investments.
Nuclear plants are a vastly less risky and more demonstrably profitable investment than moon bases, yet people are balking at even that level of risk vs reward. A moon base requires a vastly larger investment, much longer 'build' time, and much higher risk of failure. Do you know of anybody credible who is willing to invest money in such a venture?

Yes it is that difficult to shake the money loose. You have to sell this to congress, which means you have to sell it to the public. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. Look how well vague promises are going over now. Support for NASA has been so luke warm that Constellation was NEVER funded to the level required even from the first year.

I love the idea of a moon base, I'm already convinced. The problem is to get the money you have to convince a lot of other people, and I don't think these arguments are strong enough to pull it off.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/13/2010 3:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
"Sure there are alot of people who want to go into space, but the cost is enormous which restricts the potential candidates to a hand full"

Incorrect. Rockets like Long March and Soyuz already have lifting costs down to $2500/lb. At the current rate of decline, and assuming we build proper infrastructure, a trip to the moon would be around $10M...about what we pay for a trip to the space station now.

Currently there are some ten million millionaires in the world, a figure expected to more than double by 2030.

"The moon on the other hand offers nothing beyond the science aspects that we don't already have in one form or another."

You mean besides 1/6g (invaluable for medical and certain industrial uses), unlimited solar power, and 74,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg worth of untouched resources -- aluminum, iron, titanium, magnesium, potentially even gold and uranium....all of it wholly unclaimed, and entirely unrestricted by mining and environmental regulations.

"Do you know of anybody credible who is willing to invest money in such a venture?"

Do you know of anyone who, in 1959, was willing to fund a communications satellite venture?

Government bootstrapping the investment is key. If the US won't do it, within 20 years I expect China will...and Chinese firms will reap the benefits, rather than US ones.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By randomly on 3/13/2010 6:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
It takes more than cheaper launch costs, historically launch costs are only about 20% of mission costs. Even $1000/lb. isn't enough. $10M is hopelessly optimistic in the next 20 years for a lunar visit.

All the low g and vacuum and unlimited resources are not a convincing argument if they don't make economic sense. They have to compete against already existing resources and infrastructure.

There are 4,600,000,000,000 kg of uranium in seawater, along with all those other precious metals, but nobody is bothering to extract it.

Why?

Because it doesn't make any economic sense yet. When it does, then they will. Same goes for the moon, much as we may want it to none of it yet makes economic sense. We can not change that through shear dint of desire. We have to go for other reasons. Which I think are sufficient anyway.

Yes, there was a lot of interest in satellites in 1959. The Rand corporation was already doing studies on satellites by 1946. By 1961 there were 115 already in orbit. They advantages are clear and compelling.

A good debate at any rate, sorry if my responses have been less than timely. At this point I think we're beginning to repeat ourselves and I don't think anybody is listening anymore anyway. I'll concede the last words to you.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By porkpie on 3/14/2010 9:25:50 AM , Rating: 2
"...was already doing studies on satellites by 1946. By 1961 there were 115 already in orbit."

That figure is so obviously ludicrous I had to research where you found it. As I suspected-- Wikipedia. The reference is from a paper on space debris. The figure is for 115 pieces of space debris ...not operating commercial satellites.

In 1961, there were zero commercial satellites in orbit. The very first didn't launch until 1962 (Telstar I). It was launched by NASA (not a commercial launch) ..and it lasted in orbit a grand total of about 9 months.

Even worse, you're still refusing to acknowledge the salient point here. Telstar, and every single other commercial satellite launched since then has either been launched directly by government-built infrastructure, or off technology derived from it. That industry would not exist today had it not been for the space race. Period.

Had the US and Soviet governments had your philosophy of "it'll happen on its own when it makes economic sense", there would be no communication satellites today. None. No satellite TV or radio. No accurate hurricane and storm predictions.

Worse of all is your casual brushing off of the one aspect that doesn't require economic justification -- pure scientific research. Not only will a permanent lunar presence give us unparalleled data in exogeology and other fields, but the infrastructure alone will enable longer, deeper, more powerful missions to the rest of the solar system. We are already limited on mission parameters by what we can cram into a single launch. NEO assembly (one of the most expensive piece of the proposed lunar mission infrastructure), changes the game there entirely.

Finally, to add some historical perspective to your viewpoint-- the concept of artificial satellites was not widely accepted in 1946. Many scientists believed it technologically impossible. In fact, Vannevar Bush, who headed all scientific research for the US during the WW2 period (including missile research and the Manhattan Project), said in 1946 that a 3000-mile ICBM was physically impossible, much less a missile capable of the far higher velocities needed to achieve orbit.


By randomly on 3/14/2010 1:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
ok i know I said i'd give you the last word...

I'll give you the wikipedia space junk one.

I still think economic justification is too weak and uncertain an argument to sell to congress.

Vannevar Bush was one classic example of the naysayers but there were many who believed otherwise, Von Braun's crew for example. I was looking at some old comic books and they were already talking about weather and earth observation satellites in 1956. A 1958 comic book had all that and geosynchronous communication satellites in it. Granted they also mentioned that Venus might be a tropical jungle that big game hunters might want to visit to shoot dinosaurs...ah the good old days.

Ok now for the real reason you dragged me out of my hole.

You have misread me badly if you think I casually brush off the scientific research. On the contrary I think that the science opportunities coupled with inspirational adventure of the whole thing is more than sufficient reason to fund a moon base. I think those reasons are much stronger and more persuasive than the weak economic arguments. Weak arguments should be avoided because they just damage your overall credibility and weaken your case.

Certainly economic reasons are worth a mention, but you can't support the weight of the moon base argument on them.

Again, I'll let you have the last word so that you can graciously admit that I'm right. heh.


By delphinus100 on 3/11/2010 12:30:38 PM , Rating: 3
And that's the difference.

Apollo was optimized to get US astronauts to the Moon 'before the decade is out' and before the Soviets, whichever came first. This is why the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous method of getting there, was chosen over the alternatives of Earth Orbit Rendezvous (assembly, or at least refueling in LEO) or Direct Ascent, taking an Apollo capsule all the way to the Lunar surface and back, using a launcher even larger than Saturn 5 (known as Nova or Saturn 8). LOR could be done with a single Saturn 5 launch, in the shortest development time...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvou...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_ascent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Orbit_Rendezvou...

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/262/1

...Not because it was necessarily the best for long-term Lunar (and other) operations.

Using the engineering motto of:

"Good, fast, cheap. Pick any two "

Apollo went for the Good and the Fast. Today, we aren't driven by a calendar deadline set by a martyred President, or the need to prove our system of government superior to that of a dangerous adversary. The Cold War as we knew it, is over. And no matter how much some may want it to be, China is not the new Soviet Union, with regard to the Moon. Which is just as well, as a new 'race' would only push us again into 'crash' programs that might would get somebody (back) there first, but again in a fast but sub-optimal, unsustainable way.

I'm less interested in who gets (back) tot he Moon next, as in who can do it and make it stick . Do you want to be the modern equivalent of the British, Spanish, French, Portuguese...or do you want to be the Scandinavians (Vikings) who got here before them, but could not make it work?

Today, we want the Good and the Cheap. That means slower development that leaves behind useful infrastructure as it expands to all the places that some people are antsy to go to, and does make good use of existing and new technology (VASIMR, among others), including orbital and Lagrange Point fuel depots and refueling, to get to them on an affordable, continuing basis.

Constellation was simply re-doing Apollo, without the pressure, but with somewhat newer technology (steroids, right?) and high-operating costs, but giving us little additional capability over Apollo.

The only missing element in the new policy is a real RLV, to service space stations (note the plural) bring up personnel, some elements for assembly and otherwise enable all this (those 'tired of going round and round in LEO' don't get that...they want to go directly to the mountain peaks, when they don't even have a good way to reach the base camp), but you can't have everything at once, I guess.

This is still a good change int the right direction.


By Divide Overflow on 3/10/2010 2:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
You confuse can't with choose not to.
The nation has simply lacked the prioritization to do so.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By kattanna on 3/10/2010 4:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and we can't put a guy on the moon. yes yes it isn't that simple..


what NASA needs to do is to stage a moon/mars mission as a reality TV show... then.. there would be OVERWHELMING public support

IMO, though it makes me cry


By delphinus100 on 3/11/2010 11:41:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
then.. there would be OVERWHELMING public support


...Right up until the minute they're asked to open their wallets to pay for it.

One of the reasons networks like 'reality' shows is that their production costs are pretty low, compared to most other kinds of shows.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By cruisin3style on 3/10/2010 5:29:45 PM , Rating: 1
We were on the moon many, MANY years ago. Let china and whoever else play catch up. We need to get our financial situation in order. We can then dump money into Mars or a resource race on the Moon or whatever other imaginable outcomes the future may bring for space travel.

When traveling to the moon was a daunting task, we did it in about a decade. I don't see why we can't achieve it again (in less time?) with the right funding if necessary. Keep the right employees for now, talk about the moon later. There are so many things that are threatening our country's greatness right now, many of them involving money, that I don't think seeing astronauts tweet from space and plant an ipad on the moon is so important right now.


RE: Someone should make a graphic..
By whiskerwill on 3/10/2010 5:43:29 PM , Rating: 4
The federal govt is spending $3,800 billion a year. only 18B of that goes to NASA (0.4%)

We get our house in order by cutting back on these ridiculous social programs, not by cutting NASA's budget.


By cruisin3style on 3/11/2010 3:55:54 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say anything about cutting. Please point to where I did.

It doesn't make a great arguement, however right you may be, by putting words in the other person's mouth.

But getting to the moon would require additional money, no? That was all I was saying. I mean, if it didn't require additional money they'd already be doing it.

If I had had sex with a supermodel 40 years ago and my son told me he had sex with a supermodel today, I might be jealous. I'd definitely think about it, and maybe want to do it again. But then I'd realize I was happily married (you know, a step or two beyond just sex). Let's do the next big thing, not repeat ourselves only because other nations are finally doing it.


The truth comes out...
By nafhan on 3/10/2010 2:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't one of the main reasons for killing off the shuttle program to provide funding for Constellation? What now?




RE: The truth comes out...
By JediJeb on 3/10/2010 3:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
What now? Well so far some of that money is supposed to be used to bring private space launch companies into the business of sending supplies and people into space. If it works then that should be the great next step in space exploration, I just hope it does work.

Just think of it this way, NASA is a model of a Star Trek type space future, where travel into space is mostly run by the governments. Private Companies would be more like Star Wars where companies and individuals own their own spacecraft and travel into space. I kinda like the Star Wars approach myself.


RE: The truth comes out...
By Xavi3n on 3/10/2010 6:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Actually a Star Trek approach hasn't even begun to be attempted yet. To pursue the exploration and colonization of space will require the resources of the world, not just one or two superpowers.

Don't get me wrong, capitalism will be fantastic for Space Colonization, but its only there to give the world a boot up the ass and say "There's this black stuff above your heads idiots!".


RE: The truth comes out...
By PhilM on 3/10/2010 5:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
Retirement of the space shuttle has been planned for 2010 since the Bush administration. The Orlando Sentinel published an internal memo by then NASA administrator Griffin on September 6, 2008, that covers termination of the space shuttle in 2010 and closing of the International Space Station in 2016, and also offers some pretty candid evaluations of the Bush administration motivations and plans -- see http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29133 Note that there is a brief NASA comment at the bottom of this article where Griffin claims his remarks were taken out of context and he fully supports the Bush administration's plans. Highly recommended reading!


RE: The truth comes out...
By Solandri on 3/10/2010 6:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
No, the main reason for killing off the shuttle program is that many of its components are reaching their expected end of life. They were engineered with the expectation that they'd only be in service for about 20-25 years, so little or no research was put into how reliable the parts would be after that timeframe. Some of the O2 tanks(?) have already exceeded their end of life. NASA had to pay to test them and re-certify them for 10 more years of operation to continue flying the fleet.

The entire concept of a reusable launch vehicle was based on the premise of roughly one launch a week. With a launch rate that high, the upkeep costs of maintenance facilities and personnel are divided over enough launches that the price per launch is lower than for disposable launch vehicles. The shuttle however has never come close to that launch rate, and consequently costs a great deal more per launch than disposable launch vehicles. So it's not financially viable to continue flying the things either.


Advantages?
By clovell on 3/10/2010 2:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
What's the advantage to stopping a depth-based approach to manned space exploration (moon, mars) and favoring a breadth-based apporach (Commercial LEO flights)?

Kinda seems like we'e selling out.




RE: Advantages?
By mmatis on 3/10/2010 2:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
It shovels money to the appropriate people. That's what this administration is all about.


RE: Advantages?
By porkpie on 3/10/2010 4:31:10 PM , Rating: 2
"What's the advantage to stopping a depth-based approach...and favoring a breadth-based apporach"

I would hope that's a false dilemma, and Obama's long-term plan is to move the 'breadth' to private industry, while NASA focuses on the depth.

The little voice in my head fears otherwise, however, and believes this may just be a cost-cutting measure in disguise. When a government agency gets $6B into its own budget, those monies are going to definitely be spent. When they're going to "be made available" to private firms, they very often never wind up being shaken loose.

I remain cautiously optimistic about the plan. It looks good on paper...but execution is what's going to count. But given Obama's ludicrously unqualified pick for NASA administrator, it's going to be a tough road to hoe.


RE: Advantages?
By clovell on 3/10/2010 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
Right - it really seems like NASA getting nerf'd big time here.


Sadly.....
By Freezebyte on 3/10/2010 3:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Its probably going to take another shuttle blowing up before anything major changes with NASA and its space program.




RE: Sadly.....
By Micronite on 3/10/2010 4:22:15 PM , Rating: 3
That's going to be difficult if we don't have any more shuttles.


China ...
By drycrust3 on 3/10/2010 3:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
which could leave NASA at the mercy of the Russian space program even longer


The Chinese Shenzhou rocket may be another option, especially as it has a higher payload to Low Earth Orbit than the Soyuz-2 (8,400 kilograms (19,000 lb) vs 7,800 kg (17,100 lb)), although it doesn't have a long history of launches.




RE: China ...
By drycrust3 on 3/10/2010 3:13:20 PM , Rating: 2
Duhhh! Checks it twice and misses the obvious mistake before posting. I should have said "Long March 2F" rocket. Shenzhou is the space craft.


A different approach...
By NT78stonewobble on 3/12/2010 5:19:13 AM , Rating: 2
Just an idea ofcourse...

Let Nasa develop an relatively (very?) cost efficient launch vehicle. Whether its the ares program but atleast with different weight lift capabilities...

Plan lots of launches with some for the ISS, others for the moon, other science launches AND launches that private companies get to bid on (tourist launches?) to recoup the costs.

And let nasa make the technology availabe. So any company is able to buy the launch platform and related technology.

Basically I wanna let nasa have the big budget and let IT carry the burden of developing the new technology and then try to get this technology to the private enterprice as fast as possible.




Bizzarro tax structure
By paulpod on 3/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bizzarro tax structure
By JediJeb on 3/10/2010 3:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
Make it easy, just tax every single person at the same rate with no deductions. Figure what was brought in this year in income taxes, figure what the total income for all American who earn any income at all was this year, then next year divide the taxes brought in by the total income and multiply by 100 then you have the tax rate you need to charge each person equally.

Leave no loopholes, no deductions, simple payroll withholding because everyone would just have the same percentage taken out. It would make everyone equal and save money in the end by not needing to worry about filing taxes or figure withholding on an individual basis. If in the future you need to raise or lower taxes it is as simple as changing a single number, nothing else to consider. Heck the tax code would then be a one page document that most everyone could understand, and even congressmen would not have an excuse for not being able to get their taxes correct.


RE: Bizzarro tax structure
By Micronite on 3/10/2010 4:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
Or better yet, just go to a national sales tax and forget all the income schenanigans.

You want a tax break, don't buy that BMW, go for the used Ford Focus instead. Your tax rate by and large would be your choice.

Now you have the decision to either spend your money (tax revenue), re-invest it (great for the economy), or hide it in the mattress (sucks for everyone including you). It's really a win-win situation.

Of course, you couldn't do much social engineering with a national sales tax except for making certain things exempt.


RE: Bizzarro tax structure
By porkpie on 3/10/2010 4:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
"National asset spending, like a space program, should not come on the backs of poor taxpayers"

But spending 25X as much on welfare and wealth redistribution programs should?

If you ask the people who actually pay taxes, you'd get at least 10 (possible 100) times as much support for the space program as you would for additional entitlement programs.

More to the point, the spinoff benefits of space-based R&D are incalculable. Our space program from the 1960s and 70s has given us communication satellites that have revolutionized the world, as well as weather prediction satellites that have already saved hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars of property damage...along with literally thousands of other technology enhancements.

That's just the tip of the iceberg as far as what space will bring us in the way of social and economic benefits. We just need the foresight to exploit those advantages...or stand aside and let the Chinese do it for us.


RE: Bizzarro tax structure
By Nfarce on 3/10/10, Rating: 0
"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki