Hard to believe that it's been 25 years

Hard to believe that it's been 25 years since the space shuttle explosion. I think there are only 2 space shuttle missions left (with a proposed third one).

Project constellation Nasa's successor program to the space shuttle is up for cancellation this year.

Quote: pacomartin

Hard to believe that it's been 25 years since the space shuttle explosion.

It is ins't it? I still remember that day very clearly. I got off school early because a teacher dind't make it and caught the news as soon as I got home and turned on the TV.

NASA should phase out manned missions and stick to "doing science" and unmanned probes to other planets. That they do reasonably well (even if the Hubble's main mirror was ground to the wrong specs, and many mars landers mysteriously disappeared). Long term, NASA's biggest hits were the Pionneer X and XI and the two Voyager probes. I think contact's been lost with the Pionneers, but one of the Voyagers at least is still sending data on the far reaches of the Solar System.

SpaceX has successfully flown its Falcon IX heavy lifter and orbited a space capsule, the Dragon. They even brought it out of orbit and recovered it. All at a lower cost than any government program. And that's just the beginning. TSpace has some interesting desings, Robert Bigelow (of Las Vegas no less) has a tourist space station in the works, Virgin galactic is on track for suborbital hops (yawn), and Burt Ruttan is busting out already.

Before anyone brings up Apollo, all the program did was show off. yes, the samples brough back are priceless and have been useful in research. Adn the images of men walking on the surface of another world still send shivers up my spine, theya re the most beautiful pictures ever taken, too. But it all comes down to a handful of cold-war show-off missions and no follow up. No lunar bases, no manned space stations for furthering space travel (just expensive manned labs for "doing science"), no furhter trips to the Moon, even.

No, we just got the Shuttle, which promised to bring down launnc costs, and instead sent launch costs farhter up into orbit. Larry Niven summed it best in the 80s: "We can put a man on the Moon, but we can't put a man on the Moon."

Robotic spacecraft did most things better than humans back in the 1960s already. And robots have advanced at least somewhat since then. Manned orbital spaceflight has its research value (studying effects of microgravity etc on humans), but manned planetary exploration is just a gimmick. Having a crew in space just adds a lot more machinery than said crew saves.

Suppose we had a lunar station. So what would it be doing that an orbital station can't?

Perhaps if eventually space missions advance much further, manning them will become important once again, but as for now, it just isn't anyone's priority.

About 6 to 10 years ago Lawrence Livermore used to talk about the Hyper Soar concept which would bring potential travel beetween any two points on earth to about 2 hours.

It could transport people or cargo, strike enemy targets, or help put satellites into space.

It is possible that telepresence may replace much of the world travel.

Quote: P90

Suppose we had a lunar station. So what would it be doing that an orbital station can't?

Mining the Moon for raw materials, building electromgnetic launch tracks, putting together spacecraft for trips to mars, spinnning solar sails in orbit, even settling the Moon.

But those are things that will be done only when there's profit to be had for doing them. That's why the sooner governmetn gets off the manned space travel business, the quicker private enterprise will advance.

Quote: Nareed

Mining the Moon for raw materials,

No one needs them here. Not at that cost. And there, it just has too small a fraction of materials available.

Quote: Nareed

building electromgnetic launch tracks, putting together spacecraft for trips to mars, spinnning solar sails in orbit, even settling the Moon.

All incredibly expensive endeavors. Putting a spacecraft together is easier done on Earth. Perhaps you could use moon dust in some mooncrete. But where will you find pitch for carbon fiber, epoxy resins, and all the other materials necessary for constructing a modern spacecraft? You'd have to ship them from Earth, and then it's cheaper to do assembly on Earth, or in space for that matter.

Quote: Nareed

even settling the Moon.

But who has the money to settle the Moon and why? Even if you somehow made it self-sufficient, the investment costs would probably be on the order of a hundred billion per colonist, perhaps down to ten at a larger scale. Just getting each man there cost us a billion.
And even if you finally made it self-sufficient, you have to keep in mind that this money would be bringing 5% in yearly, so that's $500+ million a year. Not many people make that kind of money, and even fewer could make it on the Moon.


These things could be considered in 2200s perhaps, but even 2100s... not early 2100s, that's for sure. We aren't quite running out of space on Earth yet - we still have Alaska, Greenland and Siberia, plus the ocean, all much cheaper to settle.
Yes, you may point out at how other technologies have become mainstream, but we still aren't building homes in the air.

As to when colonizing Moon for habitation purposes will become economically practical, my suspicion is never. As cultures westernize, explosive population growth ends, we feel fine with just two children. However much I might hope to get an indefinite lifespan and see the StarTrek future, it's not a very realistic dream to have.

It doesn't really matter what we do now in regard of speeding these things up, no more than Daedalus' and Icarus' attempts at flight mattered in creating modern aviation. We are bronze age compared to the technological level that will make these things cost-effective.

Space exploration is important scientifically, in terms of impact back on Earth, but not for actual space colonization, as it's just a pipe dream for this century.

Quote: P90

No one needs them here. Not at that cost. And there, it just has too small a fraction of materials available.

No, no one needs them here

But the high cost of space launches is the need to export everything off Earth. As planets go ours is relatively small, but ti still has a huge orbital velocity which costs millions in fuel and complicated launch systems. The Moon, in contrast, has a low orbital speed and amenities like the complete lack of an atmosphere, and 2 week days with uninterrupted sunshine.

An EM launch track powered by solar cells could launch cargo in ton-lots anywhere in the Solar System at very little cost per launch, once the cost of building is recovered. But for that you need any kind of active space industry of any kind.

So far there isn't one, nor is one likely any time soon. I'm not suggesting we build a Lunar base right now, but that there are reasons to build them in the future.

As to resources, the Moon appears to be rich in light elements like carbon, alumminum, sillicon and others, including oxygen (bound to lunar minerals). There seems to be some water in the form of ice under the poles, too. Sure you'd need Earth resources at first. But over decades these could be gotten more cheaply from other sources, such as Mars (incredibly rich in iron), the asteroids and possibly the moons of the Jovian planets, even the atmospheres of the Jovian planets.

It's a matter of cost, again. launching from Earth is expensive. Launching from the Moon and asteroids is cheap. Launching from Mars is somewhere in between.

Quote: pacomartin

Hard to believe that it's been 25 years since the space shuttle explosion. I think there are only 2 space shuttle missions left (with a proposed third one).

Project constellation Nasa's successor program to the space shuttle is up for cancellation this year.

What a huge waste of resources! We can't even run our own country worth a crap. I don't need to know anything about Mars.....unless I could move there. Typical ego trip by the pols. Your welcome for this target to attack, all you posters. I will announce the winner
of the most hateful post in a few days.

Quote: Nareed

But the high cost of space launches is the need to export everything off Earth.

It's a factor.
But only one of the many factors. In a modern spacecraft, launch costs are just a fraction. ISS
The fact is, spacecraft have to be built as lightweight and high-performance machines, not only to be lifted, but also to be able to move around and operate under space conditions.

For instance, the cost of ISS is estimated at $50-$100 billion, for less than 500 tons of weight. That is $100,000-$200,000/kg - with launch costs being just $7,000-$10,000, only 5-10% of overall cost.

Fuel is so cheap it's barely even factored into overall cost, just a couple percent. It's not about fuel, but about spacecraft.

If you tried to go to space in a Ford Taurus, it would lose all the air. If you welded it up, it would blow apart from pressure. If you reinforced it, it would be punctured by micrometeoroids and lose all the air. So you need to mount Whipple shields to protect it, but even after that, everything inside would keep getting cyclically frozen, fried and irradiated. So you need to insulate and protect it, but you will still run out of air. A regenerative life support system won't fit in the trunk, so you need something a lot bigger than Taurus. And that something bigger will also need a lot of power to run, which means you have to equip it with large and expensive solar arrays. But once you do that, your electronics will still keep getting fried in space, so you need specialized survivable electronics. At this point, it's pretty clear that even a Lexus won't do.

To get closer to what you need to survive in space, you have to send a submarine there. A nuclear-powered one, preferably, but these things cost a couple billion, not unlike spacecraft, and weigh thousands of tons. Well, at least you get more internal space for the buck. Assuming you have free launch, a submarine has most of what you need to survive in space.

It's great if all you want is just hanging out in space. Maybe an orbital hotel (but who for? if you had to go all the way to Moon orbit, you'd have all these Earth launch costs) or something.
What if you want to go somewhere? Then you need an engine. And here is the kicker: The trusty screw just doesn't get very much thrust pushing through this sheer fabric of space.

Space engines are expensive. They aren't just expensive because they are light, they are expensive because they are highly complicated machines designed to withstand enormous temperatures.
Can you make them on the cheap? To some extent, but if you have to go far, the extra weight of these low-performance engines and fuel adds to the weight you have to push.

And matters are bad already because your heavy submarine takes a lot more engine to push as well. To save on the engine, you need to cut weight. Replace the steel hull with friction welded aluminum-lithium alloys and CFRP, use lighter and more elaborate shields, replace the heavy reactor or low-end 8% panels with lightweight multi-junction 40% solar panels, lighten the interior...
...and before you know it, you are back to a properly built and appropriately expensive spacecraft.

Certainly, launch savings can allow you to be less tight about weight and save tidbits here and there, but spacecraft still travel on delta-V, and interplanetary distances still require a lot of delta-V. Not to mention you still need a lot of the equipment, like research equipment and spaceworthy electronics, relatively unchanged. There just isn't all that much room for spacecraft to get far cheaper than they are now.

Quote: Nareed

It's a matter of cost, again. launching from Earth is expensive. Launching from the Moon and asteroids is cheap. Launching from Mars is somewhere in between.

Launching from Earth is expensive. Launching from Moon is cheaper. But launching something very expensive from Moon still remains very expensive. Just like buying local vs internet order, you save on the delivery, but the base price is still there. And since these Moon colonists cost so much to get them there, the labor cost is much higher, so be cautious not to waste dollars to save cents.

You forget that large amounts of fuel require large amounts of spacecraft as well.

Take the Saturn V in Apollo Lunar landing configuration. The first two stages and part of the third are there just to get the third stage, CM/SM and LEM into orbit. The rest of the third stage is there to accelrate the CM/SM and LEM to Lunar orbit.

In contrast the LEM has fuel enough to doa soft landing on the Moon and to take off into orbit. While the CM/SM has enough fuel to achieve lunar insertion and return to Earth.

Let's say you want a sample return mission to Mars, fully automated. From Earht you'd need a huge rocket like an Atlas, Delta or a Falcon IX. From the Moon you wouldn't need a rocket at all. Just fling the pieces off in the EM launcher and get them to assemble in space. Or launch the whole thing together. Better yet, you don't send any fuel for the return trip with your probe. You send it months or years later when the probe is ready to return.

Not to mention there are means of making fuel on Mars, just add hydrogen, which would need to be sent separately.

Of course this would be ridiculous for one mission or even a few of them. But for long term exploration of Mars and beyond, it would be necessary.

A lot of the points made here (AGAINST expanding the space program/moon colonization/etc.) have been from economic arguments. It's hard to dispute the contention that the cost-benefit ratio of such programs has been and will be terrible. Such gigantic efforts and expenditures should probably be directed toward solving terrestrial problems, like global warming, or global cooling, whichever it is.

I just wonder about the nonmonetary benefits of space exploration and settlement. The space program so far has consisted of a few baby steps that conferred very little practical benefit, cost many lives, and were fabulously expensive. The "offshoot technologies" that were a result of the space program raised the cost-benefit ratio from, say, 0.02 to 0.04. So strictly seen as an investment, it was an awful one. But what about the effects on human morale, human imagination, hope for the future, and all those intangibles? Don't we, as a culture, and even as a species, need a frontier, an unknown? Don't we need to have a vision of the future that expands on our current state? I think the primary benefit of the space program so far has been exactly that, and I think it's been very valuable.

Insofar as the practical difficulties of moon colonization are concerned, it all boils down to the cost of getting materials out of the earth's gravity well. A colonization effort (as all colonization efforts throughout history) would ultimately depend on how quickly the colony could become self-sufficient. The raw materials appear to be there, and the most important raw materials--humans--are, fortunately, self-replicating.

Harrah's would help out by borrowing $31 trillion in order to fund their Lunar Palace casino, built within the spacious confines of Tycho Crater. Imagine shooting craps in 1/6 gravity....

Quote: Nareed

You forget that large amounts of fuel require large amounts of spacecraft as well.

Large amounts of launch vehicle. But it's the cheap part. After you discard that part, you are left with the same spacecraft for actually performing the mission.

The Apollo program cost $170 billion dollars in FY09 money. It consisted of 14 Saturn V launches and 4 smaller test rockets. A Saturn V rocket costs, adjusted for modern dollars, $1.12 billion, launch included. Adding small rockets, that makes for about $17 billion spent on launches - and $153 billion on everything else.

Lifting things into orbit is expensive by Earth shipping standards, but as far as space exploration goes, it's the cheap part.

Quote: Nareed

Just fling the pieces off in the EM launcher and get them to assemble in space.

Foe which you need to not only make them resistant to the shock of the launch and the electromagnetic forces involved, but also capable of self-assembling. Much more expensive than the baseline spacecraft.

Quote: Nareed

Of course this would be ridiculous for one mission or even a few of them. But for long term exploration of Mars and beyond, it would be necessary.

So say a mission from Earth will cost $1.2 billion for the rocket and $5 billion for payload and other costs. A mission from Moon, $100 million for the rocket and $5 billion for payload and other costs - and that is assuming you will get the same cost for building your payload on Moon as for building it on Earth.

Being a job that took a quarter million people in a hundred different industries all across the country, what are the chances you'll even be able to build it on Moon? Everything complicated will have to be shipped from Earth. Engines, electronics, all equipment. All you can do on Moon is build the fuel tank and hopefully fuel. And even then it's not even clear where do you get kerosene on Moon (requires oil) or hydrogen (requires water). In regards to Mars, as well, hydrogen *is* the key fuel.

416 billion dollars spent on the space program from 1958 to 2010 in 2010 dollars. What has it brought us?

- Satellite TV
- Miniaturization
- Cordless power tools and appliances
- Smoke Detectors
- Water filtration (both for the home and for towns)
- CT Scanning and MRIs
- Global Positioning Satellites
- Weather satellites
- Scratch-resistant glasses
- Survival blankets
- Roofing material (such as what is top of the roof at BC Place, the Georgia Dome, and aircraft terminals
- Helmet padding
- firefighter breathing systems
- food safety
- breast cancer detection
- enriched baby food
- infrared thermometers
- insulation on NASCAR cars
- footwear innovation
- aviation safety

All of NASA's money is spent on earth (and most in the USA) and a great deal of the money spent is on Research and Development. The jobs created by the NASA program are not just high-paying, government jobs, but high paying jobs in the high-tech industry. These jobs are not outsourced to China, but are home grown jobs for highly educated scientists.

To be fair, a lot of that is only tangentially related to NASA. For instance, SCBA is closely based on SCUBA and rebreathers, both predating the space race. Most of the rest only got first used in space programs because they were the first ones to have demand for it.
I'm not even sure who put "food safety" on the list.

That is not to say space programs are not important, but let's not get overexcited.

Ok. If you want to go blow by blow, so be it :)

Quote: P90

Large amounts of launch vehicle. But it's the cheap part. After you discard that part, you are left with the same spacecraft for actually performing the mission.

You save on anywhere from 3 to 9 expensive liquid fuel engines, with regenerative cooling and associated turbo-pumps; plus the tankage, insulation and the fuel itself. Also, depending on the model, on anywhere from 2 to 6 solid boosters, which are cheap but I don't think they'll ever grow as tress like Larry Niven imagined ;)

Quote:

The Apollo program cost $170 billion dollars in FY09 money. It consisted of 14 Saturn V launches and 4 smaller test rockets. A Saturn V rocket costs, adjusted for modern dollars, $1.12 billion, launch included. Adding small rockets, that makes for about $17 billion spent on launches - and $153 billion on everything else.

Fine. how uch of that money on everything else went into 1st, 2nd and half of the 3rd stages? Add the crew escape system, too. Building, transportation and assembly.

Quote:

Foe which you need to not only make them resistant to the shock of the launch and the electromagnetic forces involved, but also capable of self-assembling. Much more expensive than the baseline spacecraft.

there wouldn't be much shock from the launch. You'd accelerate gently at whatever g you want. Without friction from the track or the air (no air), you can take a day to build up launch speed. and not just lunar orbit speed, but also terminal velocity to your destination if you want. hell, terminal velocity for midpoint at 0.5g and decelerate the rest of the way. As for Em forces, the same shielding you'd need on a regular maglev at home. As far as I'm aware that's none.

Quote:

So say a mission from Earth will cost $1.2 billion for the rocket and $5 billion for payload and other costs. A mission from Moon, $100 million for the rocket and $5 billion for payload and other costs - and that is assuming you will get the same cost for building your payload on Moon as for building it on Earth.

But also depending on the mission profile, most of the craft would end up without much damage and in need of only routine maintenance for re-use. Nothing like a re-entry to Earth with the ancilalry scorching. even a $5 billion dolalr craft would be depreciated over time and missions, rather than written off after one use. That amortization also lowers costs.

Now, besides costs there are other limitations imposed by fuel and launch, such as the size of the craft, the amount of expendables, etc. This can all be expanded if you can launch fuel after the craft, launch spares, and so on from aen EM Lunar track using Lunar materials for construction.

Quote: Nareed

You save on anywhere from 3 to 9 expensive liquid fuel engines, with regenerative cooling and associated turbo-pumps; plus the tankage, insulation and the fuel itself. Also, depending on the model, on anywhere from 2 to 6 solid boosters...

Engines are relatively expensive, but launch engines less expensive than SSME. Fuel is basically free. Tankage and insulation are cheap. Spacecraft themselves are extremely expensive.

Quote: Nareed

Fine. how uch of that money on everything else went into 1st, 2nd and half of the 3rd stages? Add the crew escape system, too. Building, transportation and assembly.

17 billion *is* all the expenses on first, second and third stages, instrumentation, building, transportation and assembly. The entire Saturn V, from the components up to the launch, cost $1.12 billion. The rest, the part that doesn't depend on Earth's gravity, was 153 billion (roughly).

Quote: Nareed

there wouldn't be much shock from the launch. You'd accelerate gently at whatever g you want. Without friction from the track or the air (no air), you can take a day to build up launch speed. and not just lunar orbit speed, but also terminal velocity to your destination if you want.

Not so easy. First of all, for what you are proposing here, you need a track going around the whole Moon. The entire Moon, at 11 thousand kilometers.

Second, to do that, you'd need a device to stay on the track, which you will otherwise lift off the moment you gain enough velocity, and that's not even orbital velocity. At meaningful extra delta-V, that is a lot of force involved, and considering the perfection required, it's not a simple railroad track. Essentially, you are talking about a space-elevator-ish scale hyperproject.

Quote: Nareed

But also depending on the mission profile, most of the craft would end up without much damage and in need of only routine maintenance for re-use. Nothing like a re-entry to Earth with the ancilalry scorching. even a $5 billion dolalr craft would be depreciated over time and missions, rather than written off after one use. That amortization also lowers costs.

Space causes a lot of micrometeoroid and other damage. You would still need massive crews to do the overhauls. What's more, in case of many missions, like a Mars landing, you would be leaving most of the craft behind, although not the most expensive parts.

Seriously speaking, from spacecraft construction to the all-equatorial hyperaccelerator to maintaining a space center to doing all the overhauls on the Moon, you are talking about building a small country there. And that is an effort that would take taxing half the humanity's industrial output for decades. All for - what?


Though considering the effort involved, it would be prudent to sacrifice a country or two for performing open cycle nuclear rocket launches, which would lower the launch costs of the hyperproject. But will we even need such a hyperproject all that much when we have open cycle nuclear rockets? Once you screw the consequences, nuclear rockets (or Project Orion, but I consider uranium salt solution rockets to be more practical) might not be cheap, but payload delivered can be increased massively.
Or, if you want more optimism and less film noir, assume fusion rockets. Or, if you want to go back to Earth, a similar accelerator could be built on Earth, using a mountain as a base and building a couple miles further. All you need is clear the dense troposphere, once you do that, air resistance decreases massively, largely to the point where your space micrometeoroid shielding, necessary anyway, can be designed to withstand the heat.

Quote: P90

Seriously speaking, from spacecraft construction to the all-equatorial hyperaccelerator to maintaining a space center to doing all the overhauls on the Moon, you are talking about building a small country there. And that is an effort that would take taxing half the humanity's industrial output for decades, if not the whole century. All... for what?

Ok. I resent that. I stated from the start I'm in favor of getting government out of the manned space travel business, so private companies can take it over. Private companies have no power to tax or to compell payments for anything other than goods or services obtained. So don't bring up the tax boogey man, because it's not warranted.

For what? For whatever's out there. For the same reason people left Europe and settled the Americas. To exapand humanity's reach to the stars, to learn all there is to learn out there. To find new resources, new means of making things, new things that can be done in space, in vaccum or in low gravity. For all that.

If there's no profit to be made above the Earth's Clarke orbit, then the whole thing will collapse. We'll stay warm and cozy in the cradle until the Sun turns red giant and fries us all.

Now, you're right about the maglev track being useless after lunar escape velocity, but not entirely. If it could slope up, it could impart more delta-v, though perhaps not as much as needed. I made a mistake there.

But it wouldn't take a whole equatorial track. A large track, yes, but not the whole of the Moon's width. More like a cyclotron and about of that size. Only above ground.

Quote: Nareed

Ok. I resent that. I stated from the start I'm in favor of getting government out of the manned space travel business, so private companies can take it over. Private companies have no power to tax or to compell payments for anything other than goods or services obtained. So don't bring up the tax boogey man, because it's not warranted.

I didn't actually mean "tax" in the government speaking. Rather "tax" in a broader meaning, as in require. Such a hyperproject would take the humanity dedicating most of its disposable industrial capacity to it.

Quote: Nareed

For what? For whatever's out there. For the same reason people left Europe and settled the Americas.

That one was gold and slaves.

Quote: Nareed

If there's no profit to be made above the Earth's Clarke orbit, then the whole thing will collapse. We'll stay warm and cozy in the cradle until the Sun turns red giant and fries us all.

Don't be such a defeatist. We didn't invent nuclear and biological weapons for no reason. One thing in the world that is for sure, we are going to at the very least beat the Sun to it.

Quote: P90

That one was gold and slaves.

Funny then they had to import slaves from Africa.

Quote: mkl654321

I just wonder about the nonmonetary benefits of space exploration and settlement. The space program so far has consisted of a few baby steps that conferred very little practical benefit, cost many lives, and were fabulously expensive. The "offshoot technologies" that were a result of the space program raised the cost-benefit ratio from, say, 0.02 to 0.04. So strictly seen as an investment, it was an awful one. But what about the effects on human morale, human imagination, hope for the future, and all those intangibles? Don't we, as a culture, and even as a species, need a frontier, an unknown? Don't we need to have a vision of the future that expands on our current state? I think the primary benefit of the space program so far has been exactly that, and I think it's been very valuable.

The cost/benefit was a major net plus. Thousands of products and technologies. The cost of the space program has been very low compares to many social programs. I would say the moon shot in the 1960s was the basis for keeping the USA #1 in technology 1970-1995 or so. And few lives were cost, less than 20. The USA has a problem where people want to not take chances if someone dies. This will keep us from maintaining the lead in the world at some point.

Many critics of the space program will say that the money would have been invested wisely elsewhere. But with the US mired in a cold war in the 1950s and the launch of Sputnik, the US could have deferred superiority to the Russians or fought to keep up. This "race to space" did indeed spawn off many innovations and technologies that are with us to this day. The other great thing that spurs innovation: war. Where would the internet be today without ARPANET, which was a network meant to decentralize inforamation in case of armageddon? How many inventions were necessitated by the military?

Now, what would be the ROI on a mission to Mars? There is no arms race to space. Missions to space are missions of peace. Planetary robots and rovers would accomplish nearly the same as sending humans to Mars. Mars is 120 times further away from earth than the moon. Mars is lacking an atmosphere. What innovations would be created as a result of preparing for this mission?

That said, most scientists who worked on the Apollo programs never dreamed that their innovations would have the applications that they have today.

Quote: boymimbo

Mars is 120 times further away from earth than the moon.

That's an average. You aim where the planet will be, not where it is. So a trip would be shorter than that.

Quote:

Mars is lacking an atmosphere.

Mars has a lovely atmosphere made mostly of carbon dioxide. It's too thin. It's useless as a shield for radiation and doesn't do much against meteorites (see the planet). But it's very useful. For one thing you can use it to aerobrake, meaning you need less or no fuel for deceleration upon arrival. Many probes have done this already, so we know it's doable. Second, carbon dioxide can be used to make rocket fuel in the form of hydrocarbon chains, just add hydrogen, additives and catalysts.

You did not say mars is rich in iron. The red color of the planet comes partly from iron rust prevalent there. This means the rocks are rich in oxygen. there's water frozein in the poles, plus a little in the atmosphere, and possibly in permafrost around the poles and maybe elsewhere. There is a chance there may be life there, too, or that there has been life there. Either way finding an example of non-Earthly life might advance biology tremendously.

Quote:

What innovations would be created as a result of preparing for this mission?

Who cares? If that be the goal, then just amke a list of innovations and invest on them. The goal is to gain a world.

This was discussed several months ago. As I said then, I'm very disappointed with what NASA has accomplished since the Apollo program. The space shuttle I think was a terrible use of money. Non-manned probes and SETI I have no problem with.

My opinion is to downsize NASA to non-manned exploration, and welcome the private sector to get into the space business. I think we'll see a legitimate space hotel within 40 years, at no taxpayer expense. If the private sector could in the future present a proposal to help colonize the moon I would not oppose it if the price were reasonable. I think we're getting ahead of ourselves with talk of a manned mission to Mars. Maybe in 50 years.

Remember, I worked for the federal government for 10 years, so I know first hand how bloated and inefficient it is.

Quote: Wizard

My opinion is to downsize NASA to non-manned exploration, and welcome the private sector to get into the space business. I think we'll see a legitimate space hotel within 40 years, at no taxpayer expense.

Do you have any specific opinions about Bigelow Aerospace ?

Quote: Bigelow Aerospace Mission Statement

Since 1999 our mission has been to provide affordable options for spaceflight to national space agencies and corporate clients. In 2006 and 2007, we launched our orbiting prototypes Genesis I and Genesis II. Using our patented expandable habitats, our plan is to greatly exceed the usable space of the International Space Station at a fraction of the cost by developing our next generation spacecraft.

Robert T. Bigelow (born 1945) is a hotel and aerospace entrepreneur. He founded the 17 unit hotel chain Budget Suites of America in 1987 and is the founder of Bigelow Aerospace.

Quote: pacomartin

Do you have any specific opinions about Bigelow Aerospace ?

This is the first I've heard of them, but I welcome such competition to NASA.

Quote: Wizard

I think we'll see a legitimate space hotel within 40 years, at no taxpayer expense.

That depends on what you mean by taxpayer expense. Robert Bigelow has already orbited two scale test models of his Genesis space station, meant to provide tourist services someday. Naturally he won't launch the operational mdoel anytime soon, but certainly in less than 40 years. To get them there SpaceX is about 2 or 3 years away, or less, from orbiting live people in tis Dragon Capsule/falcon IX booster combo.

But SpaceX will make money, when it does, largely by selling launch services to NASA and the DoF (that's Department of Defense for thsoe who don't speak basic Aerospace). Teh existing Falcon IX launch was a demo flight for NASA, for example. Oh, it does sell services to others, but it operates from either Cape Cananveral in Florida (a NASA and USAF facility) and from Kwajalein attoll in the Pacific (a USAF facility).

Quote:

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves with talk of a manned mission to Mars. Maybe in 50 years.

Maybe. On the toher hand Elon Musk, CEO and founder of SpaceX, started the company in part because he dreams of missions to Mars (and to that extent he reminds me of Delos D. Harriman in the old Heinlein stories). And there are the other spacenut internet billionaires putting their own money down, such as Jeff Bezos of Amazon.

I'd be willing to bet on a manned Mars landing in 30 years at most. Tell you what, if I win the safety Super Bowl bet, I'll give you another crack at my soul ;)

Quote: Wizard

This was discussed several months ago. As I said then, I'm very disappointed with what NASA has accomplished since the Apollo program. The space shuttle I think was a terrible use of money. Non-manned probes and SETI I have no problem with.

My opinion is to downsize NASA to non-manned exploration, and welcome the private sector to get into the space business. I think we'll see a legitimate space hotel within 40 years, at no taxpayer expense. If the private sector could in the future present a proposal to help colonize the moon I would not oppose it if the price were reasonable. I think we're getting ahead of ourselves with talk of a manned mission to Mars. Maybe in 50 years.

Remember, I worked for the federal government for 10 years, so I know first hand how bloated and inefficient it is.

From what I have read you may be dissapointed. If you follow STRATFOR, and I am sure you and most people here would enjoy it, the next branch of the military will be the "Space Corps." It will be a logical extension of the USAF as the USAF was once the Army Air Corps.

An advantage of NASA is it allows the government to do some "pure" research with direction. IMHO, not enough pure research is done and AT&T Bell Labs and the breakthroughs they made almost made the AT&T monopoly worthwhile. Almost. The research they made was so pure some scientests who worked there wondered why they got paid. My concern with privatizing NASA is you lose the "for science" part and get companies who just send thrill-seeking people to orbit and nothing else. We still need to explore. Remember, the USA is still the only nation to ever put something on Mars in one piece and working.

BTW: I still continue to salute how you kept out of the government-employee mindset--I have a friend who works for the government who does not understand where paid-days off come from and why another friend who owns his company does not "get" them. Scary.

Another concern is safety. Astronauts went through rigorous training programs and was fully trained for each mission. A great amount of research and development went into the development of the shuttle, something I don't believe that a private company is capable of.

Space is a very risky business. Look at the errors that took the Challenger and the Colombia out. The shuttles are purposely built with redundancies and older technology because it's proven.

Private industry is fine to contribute to the space program, but I wouldn't trust it to be responsible for the program. Too many things can go wrong. First off, there's the temptation to cut corners, whether it be in safety or in training, in the name of profit. Private industry is subject to funding, lending, and capital constraints that government is not.

Quote: boymimbo

Private industry is fine to contribute to the space program, but I wouldn't trust it to be responsible for the program. Too many things can go wrong. First off, there's the temptation to cut corners, whether it be in safety or in training, in the name of profit. Private industry is subject to funding, lending, and capital constraints that government is not.

Oh, please. Both shuttles were lost because NASA was cutting corners and trying to keep up an image. There were plenty of warnings about the SRB O-ring leaks, not to mention foam falling off and striking other orbiters. I can't see a private company being so reckless with its investment.

True. My point is that space is a very risky business, and even an organization such as NASA, an government organization of thousands of individuals, erred severely.

Speaking of Hard to believe that it's been 25 years, I turn 25 next month AHHHHHH! My life is so not in the place I imagined it would be when I was 18 :/

Quote: Nareed

Funny then they had to import slaves from Africa.

Natives were enslaved and used just as well. But eventually African slaves overtook all colonies' slave economies, like cheap electronics from China. So while in the end North America turned out different from most colonies, the original motives were pure.
Establishing dominance over other humans, whether through force or economic power, will always be the strongest driving force. We even initially went to space just to prove who can make it first, losing interest and cutting the funding once the race was over.

Not considering the possible gains vs cost aspect, I'd wish it to continue simply for the explorative process. The 'non measurable' impact it has in our lives, much as MKL stated in the beginning of this thread. However, I'd not care a bit, maybe even encourage it, if space exploration ceased entirely and was replaced by ocean research. It's something that impacts every form of life on Earth, covers about 3/4 of it, yet we've seen almost none of it. I think the measurable gains from such research would surpass that of space.

Quote: NicksGamingStuff

Speaking of Hard to believe that it's been 25 years, I turn 25 next month AHHHHHH! My life is so not in the place I imagined it would be when I was 18 :/

Me either. I figured I would be in a box by now. But I used to have a lot of fun. Now I have fun just not a lot of fun.

Quote: Nareed

Oh, please. Both shuttles were lost because NASA was cutting corners and trying to keep up an image. There were plenty of warnings about the SRB O-ring leaks, not to mention foam falling off and striking other orbiters. I can't see a private company being so reckless with its investment.

There are warnings about all kinds of things all the time, but at some point you need to make a risk-based decision and go with it. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Quote: boymimbo

True. My point is that space is a very risky business, and even an organization such as NASA, an government organization of thousands of individuals, erred severely.

A large organization leaves more room for error, not less, because any person at any time may figure someone else will check his work anyway. I've seen it happen too often. This is particularly true in government, where firing people is harder.

As to risk, yes space launches are risky. A rocket is a large pile of explosives contained in a fragile vessel. SpaceX's first launch attempt blew up. The second had engine problems that prevented it from reaching orbit. The third had a stage separation malfunction that also kept it from orbit. The fourth and fifth succeeded. That was to be expected when dealing with prototypes of brand new designs. The company has proceeded prudently, starting with cargo and testing the hell off its systems. I see no more reason for concern because they're private.

Will any private launchers have accidents that kill people? I can guarantee it. But the reason will be the risk inherent in space operations, not the fact that private companies are involved.

For the record, aside from the two shuttles lost to the bureaucracy, there have been other accidents involving NASA and the Soviet space agency. There was the fire on the Apollo capsule that killed all three astronauts doing tests. The explosion of an oxygen tank on the Apollo XIII service module that nearly killed all the crew. The Soviets lost an astronaut when his capsule's parachute failed to deploy. Then another three in an early Soyuz capsule which depressurized on reentry.

Besides this lots of unmanned rockets have met accidents. Starting with the first attempt by the US to launch a satellite all the way back in 1957, and including all space programs I know of.

Quote: Nareed

Besides this lots of unmanned rockets have met accidents. Starting with the first attempt by the US to launch a satellite all the way back in 1957, and including all space programs I know of.

So, what is your point? That we should not do anything that is not 100% safe??

Quote: Nareed

I'd be willing to bet on a manned Mars landing in 30 years at most. Tell you what, if I win the safety Super Bowl bet, I'll give you another crack at my soul ;)

I think in a 8 days you won't have a soul to barter with. We'll be pretty old in 30 years. How about we wager a box of Depends?

Quote: Wizard

I think in a 8 days you won't have a soul to barter with. We'll be pretty old in 30 years. How about we wager a box of Depends?

Agreed. So long as you sign an affidavit stating you do not have a diaper fetish ;) Also said box can be paid off in the cash equivalent at the time the bet is settled.

Quote: Wizard

I think in a 8 days you won't have a soul to barter with. We'll be pretty old in 30 years. How about we wager a box of Depends?

Ribbing by the Wizard... I love it!!!

Going to the moon was a moment of pride for the United States. Everyone who was conscious in July 1969 knows where they were when humans landed on the moon. I'm not sure if the public will get behind a private company to do the same for a journey to Mars.

My belief is that no private corporation will take on a mission to Mars. It is far too risky and far too capital intensive for it to be a guaranteed profitable venture. Perhaps a benevolent explorer will get behind the program and provide capital. The space program in and of itself was not profitable, but all of the spinoffs and patents for inventions to make it necessary had huge positive implications for the world today.

I also believe that no nation will take on manned missions to Mars either.

Quote: boymimbo

My belief is that no private corporation will take on a mission to Mars.

Want to double the Wizard's bet? ;)

There is a Memorandum of Understanding signed between Virgin Galactic and NASA for poential cooperation in the future. Signed on February 20, 2007.

It was only effect for two years, but they may have extended it.

No. I have a diaper fetish. What the hell is that, by the way!???

Quote: boymimbo

No. I have a diaper fetish. What the hell is that, by the way!???

You have one and don't know what it is?

So we bet something else. I'm open to suggestions.

I bet two of my spacebus tickets that will be given as freebies to all senior citizens.

Quote: P90

I bet two of my spacebus tickets that will be given as freebies to all senior citizens.

Those will all be ONE-WAY tickets, thus revealing the true purpose of the Mars colonization program.

Quote: mkl654321

Those will all be ONE-WAY ticketws, thus revealing the true purpose of the Mars colonization program.

And the job will be subcontracted to a promising and trustworthy entrepreneur from Abuja.