As it is, Sun Belt states reap all of the benefits of NASA spending. Granted, launch facilities have to be in the deep south to take advantage of the Earth's rotation, but hardware can be built anywhere. Move the manufacturing of boosters and stuff up north. Put laid off auto workers to work building boosters. Give blue collar Union labor a reason to support NASA. Great Lakes cities can ship out huge stuff. Include the whole country in the space industry. After all, the whole country pays for it.
- Status
lcech":24myy3bv said:
Trips that leave reusable infra structure would give a huge boost to public interest, in my opinion.
They don't all have to be manned missions. Landing robots to start building a base would be tremendously exciting.
Once a base is started, it doesn't have to manned constantly 24/7 365 days a year.
Some short term goals could be oxygen production from lunar minerals. First for life support. Then as fuel to help with lunar ascent.
Manufacture of photovoltaic cells for the base might also be an early ISRU project.
A lunar development program that relies heavily on robotics would be a big impetus for robotic development. And improved robotics could have a very positive impact on earth's economic health. Technological innovation stimulating the economy was one of the reasons advocates used to justify Apollo. Developing teleoperation to build infra structure could have many industrial spin offs.
Perhaps that is not the right tactic. Passion and enthusiasm imply, to me at least, a degree of entertainment. If you think of the Apollo program it was a huge media success but when the public turned their attention to other things interest, and funding waned.
Compare this to public willingness to pay for Police, Fire, the Military, and Sewers. There is no passion for fire trucks, but everyone understands that they are a necessary thing. There is no enthusiasm for sewers but everyone understands that they are a necessary thing. Though there is substantial vocal support for police and the military, they are funded because they are needed not because they are entertaining. Through good times and bad there are cops on the street and dirty water is flushed away.
Should there be a campaign to get people to understand that exploration of space, indeed eventual colonization of other bodies is necessary for the long term survival of the country, indeed all of humanity. It's not fun, it will be expensive, people will likely get killed, and much of it could be boring, but it is just a necessary thing.
Compare this to public willingness to pay for Police, Fire, the Military, and Sewers. There is no passion for fire trucks, but everyone understands that they are a necessary thing. There is no enthusiasm for sewers but everyone understands that they are a necessary thing. Though there is substantial vocal support for police and the military, they are funded because they are needed not because they are entertaining. Through good times and bad there are cops on the street and dirty water is flushed away.
Should there be a campaign to get people to understand that exploration of space, indeed eventual colonization of other bodies is necessary for the long term survival of the country, indeed all of humanity. It's not fun, it will be expensive, people will likely get killed, and much of it could be boring, but it is just a necessary thing.
NASA as an organziation is a very fickled beast. One the one hand: they can create amazing devices, perform astounding science, and yet can't do anything right when it comes to public relations/engagement.
The public likes to hear someone come and answer the question: What's in it for me?
NASA hasn't really answered that question since - just guessing - the 70s when we won the Moon Race and, later, brought Apollo 13 back safely.
As impressive as some of the PR eye-candy - like Ares - can be, the cost and time required to get great ideas off the CAD screen (ahem! drawing board) is so darn long - for good reasons and bad - that the public looses their appetite for "something new, something wow". Combine this with the fact that the agency does not have a firm, articulate agenda and you get what we have now: a snoozefest for all but the most science-minded types like you and me.
The public likes to hear someone come and answer the question: What's in it for me?
NASA hasn't really answered that question since - just guessing - the 70s when we won the Moon Race and, later, brought Apollo 13 back safely.
As impressive as some of the PR eye-candy - like Ares - can be, the cost and time required to get great ideas off the CAD screen (ahem! drawing board) is so darn long - for good reasons and bad - that the public looses their appetite for "something new, something wow". Combine this with the fact that the agency does not have a firm, articulate agenda and you get what we have now: a snoozefest for all but the most science-minded types like you and me.
This may sound totally bonkers (and a tad bit of rubbish) to some and maybe its just me but, i believe that some sports if not all should be removed or at least the money that is put into them should be substantially diminished. Those people make millions for doing absolute nothing and they do not contribute to anything. all they do is run around naked and get paid millions to do it. That goes along with reality shows, pseudoscience, 3 starbucks within two blocks, some form of music... everyday we ( i say we because i know i am not the only one) see things that are either being built or just money that is being spent on POINTLESS things.
I was happy that this year was the first Carl Sagan day, and was happy to see that James Randi and Phil Plait (to name a few) were speaking there about how Carl's passion for science was so contagious. Carl's words were so easy to understand to anyone, he made anyone that listened to him speak for 5 minuets wonder about the cosmos above. We need people like him back. People like Bill Nye i've seen his new show and its just as good as when i was a child watching Bill Nye the science guy but its aimed at older audiences which is great too. more shows like these are a huge step toward getting the pubic enthusiastic about nasa and space programs.
another thing is that it saddens me to bring up astronomy or other space reflated topics in groups and we talk for a minute or two then it goes right back to their happiness world fill with tattoos and sports, drinking, drugs and sports. And if it doesn't lead into that, then it becomes.... "2012, moon landings were fake, the end of the world planet x" where are they getting all this quackery? i once heard that something like 30%, or something wild like that, of people still believe the earth is the center of the "universe." I am just going to end there because you get into pseudoscience and quacks like scientology youtr just done. I'm only 21 but seeing this type of stuff all the time makes me wish every day i was born in the 1890's or 17th century studying with Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus.
I was happy that this year was the first Carl Sagan day, and was happy to see that James Randi and Phil Plait (to name a few) were speaking there about how Carl's passion for science was so contagious. Carl's words were so easy to understand to anyone, he made anyone that listened to him speak for 5 minuets wonder about the cosmos above. We need people like him back. People like Bill Nye i've seen his new show and its just as good as when i was a child watching Bill Nye the science guy but its aimed at older audiences which is great too. more shows like these are a huge step toward getting the pubic enthusiastic about nasa and space programs.
another thing is that it saddens me to bring up astronomy or other space reflated topics in groups and we talk for a minute or two then it goes right back to their happiness world fill with tattoos and sports, drinking, drugs and sports. And if it doesn't lead into that, then it becomes.... "2012, moon landings were fake, the end of the world planet x" where are they getting all this quackery? i once heard that something like 30%, or something wild like that, of people still believe the earth is the center of the "universe." I am just going to end there because you get into pseudoscience and quacks like scientology youtr just done. I'm only 21 but seeing this type of stuff all the time makes me wish every day i was born in the 1890's or 17th century studying with Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus.
There are only three realistic things you/we can do to get the American public interested in space exploration again and all three need to happen at the same time to be effective. Demonstrating a personal profitability in space based operations for both public, and private, sector organizations under the "American made" ideal (that's offering hands-on sub-contracting opportunities for off-world general tasks that the average person can do like; house keeping, food service, data entry, general construction/engineering, off-world assembly techs, etc.), developing off-world industrial/commercial operations to build, upgrade and maintain habitats and infrastructures, and, offering that work to the average American citizen. Otherwise, the average American will always see our nation's activities in space as completely detached and unrelated to them.
Another thing that would help is if the bulk of the people involved in discussions like these took the chance at putting more effort into finding solutions to the issues that keep the American public out of off-world operations/opportunities instead of constantly undermining any of those potentials with outright discounts/discouragements on all the ideas that have already been offered to get us there as a nation. As with this, and many other like discussions, wide-spread arm-chair negativism has been the primary deterrent for individuals and businesses alike to get involved, invest and make it happen. Blasting everything out of hand without justifiable cause stalemate's public interest more than anything else. Say for instance; I myself used to post my concepts and ideas (that I've spent my life working on) on how to get our species off-world under profitable realistic means on space.com long ago but, all that the ppl on here seemed to want to do is dream up ways to discount every aspect of them. No one offered any potential solutions to the finer details that hadn't been worked out yet. They just wanted to flame off on it as if it were pointless to offer ideas to begin with. So I took it as that and stopped posting. I deleted all of what I'd offered up to that point and decided it was worthless to be a part of this community. Now I only read the articles space.com posts and ignore the discussions because they're nothing but, discouraging to me. This, in fact, is the first discussion I've responded to since then, and, the only reason I chose to respond to this one is because 1) it was posted as an article on space.com's homepage and, 2) the subject has a direct relation to my personal discouragement towards being involved in all the other discussions I've seen on here. Stop looking for excuses to pass over ideas and start offering solutions to help them along. I bet we'd be back to the interest/involvement levels we had back in the 70's within 10 yrs if everyone did this. If you have nothing good to offer, then say nothing at all because your not being part of the solution, your just part of the problem.
Another thing that would help is if the bulk of the people involved in discussions like these took the chance at putting more effort into finding solutions to the issues that keep the American public out of off-world operations/opportunities instead of constantly undermining any of those potentials with outright discounts/discouragements on all the ideas that have already been offered to get us there as a nation. As with this, and many other like discussions, wide-spread arm-chair negativism has been the primary deterrent for individuals and businesses alike to get involved, invest and make it happen. Blasting everything out of hand without justifiable cause stalemate's public interest more than anything else. Say for instance; I myself used to post my concepts and ideas (that I've spent my life working on) on how to get our species off-world under profitable realistic means on space.com long ago but, all that the ppl on here seemed to want to do is dream up ways to discount every aspect of them. No one offered any potential solutions to the finer details that hadn't been worked out yet. They just wanted to flame off on it as if it were pointless to offer ideas to begin with. So I took it as that and stopped posting. I deleted all of what I'd offered up to that point and decided it was worthless to be a part of this community. Now I only read the articles space.com posts and ignore the discussions because they're nothing but, discouraging to me. This, in fact, is the first discussion I've responded to since then, and, the only reason I chose to respond to this one is because 1) it was posted as an article on space.com's homepage and, 2) the subject has a direct relation to my personal discouragement towards being involved in all the other discussions I've seen on here. Stop looking for excuses to pass over ideas and start offering solutions to help them along. I bet we'd be back to the interest/involvement levels we had back in the 70's within 10 yrs if everyone did this. If you have nothing good to offer, then say nothing at all because your not being part of the solution, your just part of the problem.
As soon as Nasa stops funding nonsensical projects like the space ladder and Russians who can make gravity 1/100 of one procent lighter.
Why not fund the building of a real Flying Saucer?
They take power right out of the aether.
That system can also be used to power cars (like Tesla did in 1931 wirth his Pierce Arrow Car) as well as homes (which was the reason that he did not dare to to divulge how it worked, as the investors of the Niagara Falls Power Plant (which he had designed) , Pierpont Morgan and Rockefeller, would have had him murdered)
Tesla did not Patent the idea.
I found how the Flying Saucer works. I patented the basic system. Nasa Propulsion Engineers were not interested, they might become obsolete.
Also, the powering/propulsion system could even be applied to a Shuttle.
Fund me, $100 milliion could bring the USA and Canada (I am a Canadian) to the top in real space travel.
Apart from more work. I found over 1000 applications for the basic system. Start with an electric fence.....
Why not fund the building of a real Flying Saucer?
They take power right out of the aether.
That system can also be used to power cars (like Tesla did in 1931 wirth his Pierce Arrow Car) as well as homes (which was the reason that he did not dare to to divulge how it worked, as the investors of the Niagara Falls Power Plant (which he had designed) , Pierpont Morgan and Rockefeller, would have had him murdered)
Tesla did not Patent the idea.
I found how the Flying Saucer works. I patented the basic system. Nasa Propulsion Engineers were not interested, they might become obsolete.
Also, the powering/propulsion system could even be applied to a Shuttle.
Fund me, $100 milliion could bring the USA and Canada (I am a Canadian) to the top in real space travel.
Apart from more work. I found over 1000 applications for the basic system. Start with an electric fence.....
gravitor.
Welcome to Space.com
If you are going to post such foolishness, the proper forum is The Unexplained, not Space Business and Technology.
Wayne
Welcome to Space.com
If you are going to post such foolishness, the proper forum is The Unexplained, not Space Business and Technology.
Wayne
Actually it was George W. Bush trying to be he new JFK when he, not NASA, chose to go back to the moon and then on to Mars. He spoke it but he never had the same fire of JFK. I will say though, you are propably correct about the staying power of Mars.
I agree with Rocket when he said we need term limits. If we want to get the public interested again, then we need leaders (both political as well as those in corporate America) that are willing to lead like JFK did when he set forth his challenge to America to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade (1960's). Unfortunately he was assassinated before that was accomplished but thankfully Johnson followed up on JFK's challenge. We need fresh ideas not more of the same old, same old. Unfortunaely though Rocket, I don't believe "We the People" run the government anymore. We let congress have way too much power. We do need to take it back and term limits will do that. But this is not a political forum so I will digress. Please do not follow it up with anymore political posts.
Elroy is on the right track. Get the whole country involved in the R & D and manufacturing of the hardware. Let's not just give that to a few companies that got fat off of NASA just because they have a relationship with NASA (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Corp. and Boeing Co). The whole country pays for it, then the whole country should develope and build it.
One last thing, let's stop being a nation of politically correct people who are worried about what will happen to the Earth if we keep launching into space (no, Al Gore had nothing to do with that but his global warming alarm (which I believe to be partially true) has helped fuel it). There I go, getting political again. I will end now.
If the Kepler spacecraft discovers that Earth-like planets are common in the galaxy (as is fairly likely to be the case), it seems to me that that would do a lot to rekindle public interest in space. Hopefully it would at least revive funding for NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder telescope. The discovery of life on Mars might help a lot too. What NASA needs is a major and exciting scientific discovery, and not a silly stunt like sending a civilian prize winner into space. Although I support manned spaceflight, right now it seems far more likely that unmanned rather than manned spaceflight could produce a scientific breakthrough of the needed magnitude. I think it's highly unlikely to come out of the expensive international space station, but very likely to come from the relatively cheap Kepler.
It's hard to put into words but I think 'disappointment' covers it. We, as a country have lost the will and direction necessary to move forward in Space. We can blame it on the economy and come up with every other excuse but it all comes down to a lack of leadership and foresight.
Someday, we will need the ability to leave the planet on short notice and we won't have it. Some day we'll discover another habitable planet and we won't have the ability or desire to send a probe out to visit. All you have to do is look at what has transpired since the last moon landing and you can gauge how long it will take to get back to the moon and go on to Mars.
I don't blame it on public apathy. Our leaders have not done anything in Space to excite anyone. The excuse is, that it's too expensive. It may be if you're thinking only a few years ahead. But the plan should be for at least 50 years and guaranteed funding annually. It's nice to have goals and timetables, but it seems that whenever it looks like the money will not be enough, the goals change. Rather, the goals should remain in place even if it takes a few years longer to reach them.
The excitement may return when private enterprise starts making regular trips for tourists to LEO. When that gets to be routine, then regular private citizen trips to the moon will maintain interest. At that point, NASA should have developed the means to get to Mars and back in a reasonable time. If they have not, then it's time to give up and let China or India lead the way. 'Cause that's where we're headed right now. All you have to do is look at Congress. They can't even decide on a health plan for the country which has been decades in the making
Sorry about the rant! Is there anyone else out there that is disgusted or disappointed regarding the pace of space exploration? I look for a manned moon landing by the U.S. no earlier than 2022 and, if it does happen at all, a manned Mars mission to the surface no earlier than 2035. Any bets, out there?
Regards,
CTG
Someday, we will need the ability to leave the planet on short notice and we won't have it. Some day we'll discover another habitable planet and we won't have the ability or desire to send a probe out to visit. All you have to do is look at what has transpired since the last moon landing and you can gauge how long it will take to get back to the moon and go on to Mars.
I don't blame it on public apathy. Our leaders have not done anything in Space to excite anyone. The excuse is, that it's too expensive. It may be if you're thinking only a few years ahead. But the plan should be for at least 50 years and guaranteed funding annually. It's nice to have goals and timetables, but it seems that whenever it looks like the money will not be enough, the goals change. Rather, the goals should remain in place even if it takes a few years longer to reach them.
The excitement may return when private enterprise starts making regular trips for tourists to LEO. When that gets to be routine, then regular private citizen trips to the moon will maintain interest. At that point, NASA should have developed the means to get to Mars and back in a reasonable time. If they have not, then it's time to give up and let China or India lead the way. 'Cause that's where we're headed right now. All you have to do is look at Congress. They can't even decide on a health plan for the country which has been decades in the making
Sorry about the rant! Is there anyone else out there that is disgusted or disappointed regarding the pace of space exploration? I look for a manned moon landing by the U.S. no earlier than 2022 and, if it does happen at all, a manned Mars mission to the surface no earlier than 2035. Any bets, out there?
Regards,
CTG
[quoteBasically, public interest and support is crap. I recall the Apollo days, and it was exciting for everyone. Every age, every nationality was captured up in this magnificent endevour, and everyone talked about it. Now, flash forward to 2009, and we now see complete apathy from the general public. And without support from the general public, no politician is going to push for funds for any program.
If you're going to take a shot at re-igniting public interest, it has to involve people outside the industry. My personal concept is to invite some A-list pop star such as Miley Cyrus to go along on a shuttle mission, with a professional cameraman. While up there she can shoot some public interest clips, and footage to be used in creating some videos and a movie. Miley Cyrus would win because she would be the first entertainer to break new ground, put out unique videos, and capture a lot of media attention. NASA and space enthusiasts would win because kids would become aware that there's more to life than Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, and Paris Hilton.
Hey, apathy is at an all-time low, drastic measures should be considered to combat this nation-wide lack of interest..][/quote]
The reason why the Apollo program went so well was that it was new and exciting. The Apollo program also gave America something to be proud about accomplishing over other countries which other then Russia which we were in a cold war with was won by us launching the Apollo program even though Russia put the first satellite Sputnik into space, which is exciting itself and awe inspiring for real space enthusiasts. Not much was really going on back then in the way of entertainment other then going to the local drive in and swapping bubble gum with your highschool sweeheart.
This day and age people are too overwhelmed with the war in the Middle East and the constant up and down of various market's. People have become scared of leaping beyond and exploring space. There are not really any quick rewards which the younger generation is all about these days, quick self gratification and looking for that next dollar has scared people away from wanting to risk money in something that doesnt have a fast payout, which space exploration is not about getting out there and getting fast rewards, space exploration is about surveying a potential location to collect asteroid rocks from and then delivering the rock back to Earth for reprocessing. Moon mining would be an investment as there would not need to be any concerns about enviromental situations and would actually make money.
What would really rally the world to look back into space would an engine design that could get from point A to point B faster then conventional engines do, but since an engine like that would obviously break the established laws of physics which would make people like Einstein and Hawkins just a footnote in history no one will put forth the effort or money to design or even research such an engine. The problem with humanity is that humanity has become lazy and just want's to sit around and talk about what happened in the past. Sitting around listening to what a bunch of old guys did fifty years ago is as about as exciting to listen to as someone drawing her nails down a chalk board.
Another problem is everyone wants to play WoW and act like they are sword fighters and magic caster's which is easier to act out and portray than actually taking the time to think about space exploration and what could be.
Down with WOW!
Only those who have the true hearts of space exploration will keep the fire going while everyone else runs to other camp fires to listen to tales and myth's of fighter's and dragon's.
If you're going to take a shot at re-igniting public interest, it has to involve people outside the industry. My personal concept is to invite some A-list pop star such as Miley Cyrus to go along on a shuttle mission, with a professional cameraman. While up there she can shoot some public interest clips, and footage to be used in creating some videos and a movie. Miley Cyrus would win because she would be the first entertainer to break new ground, put out unique videos, and capture a lot of media attention. NASA and space enthusiasts would win because kids would become aware that there's more to life than Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, and Paris Hilton.
Hey, apathy is at an all-time low, drastic measures should be considered to combat this nation-wide lack of interest..][/quote]
The reason why the Apollo program went so well was that it was new and exciting. The Apollo program also gave America something to be proud about accomplishing over other countries which other then Russia which we were in a cold war with was won by us launching the Apollo program even though Russia put the first satellite Sputnik into space, which is exciting itself and awe inspiring for real space enthusiasts. Not much was really going on back then in the way of entertainment other then going to the local drive in and swapping bubble gum with your highschool sweeheart.
This day and age people are too overwhelmed with the war in the Middle East and the constant up and down of various market's. People have become scared of leaping beyond and exploring space. There are not really any quick rewards which the younger generation is all about these days, quick self gratification and looking for that next dollar has scared people away from wanting to risk money in something that doesnt have a fast payout, which space exploration is not about getting out there and getting fast rewards, space exploration is about surveying a potential location to collect asteroid rocks from and then delivering the rock back to Earth for reprocessing. Moon mining would be an investment as there would not need to be any concerns about enviromental situations and would actually make money.
What would really rally the world to look back into space would an engine design that could get from point A to point B faster then conventional engines do, but since an engine like that would obviously break the established laws of physics which would make people like Einstein and Hawkins just a footnote in history no one will put forth the effort or money to design or even research such an engine. The problem with humanity is that humanity has become lazy and just want's to sit around and talk about what happened in the past. Sitting around listening to what a bunch of old guys did fifty years ago is as about as exciting to listen to as someone drawing her nails down a chalk board.
Another problem is everyone wants to play WoW and act like they are sword fighters and magic caster's which is easier to act out and portray than actually taking the time to think about space exploration and what could be.
Down with WOW!
Only those who have the true hearts of space exploration will keep the fire going while everyone else runs to other camp fires to listen to tales and myth's of fighter's and dragon's.
Here is what has helped New York City: To further their goal of being on the front burner when it comes to peoples decisions as to where to travel, they created a first responder office for the movie trade. It streamlined the bureaucratic process of licensing, street closure permits, food concessions, police protection, etc. The result was that NYC now has more movie productions going on in its streets than ever before, showing its landscape to millions worldwide and planting subtle messages in the heads of movie goers.
Let the imagineers work for/with NASA. Give them access to real Nasa architecture as backdrop, permit and promote usage of documentary footage; have contests for the best screenplay with a Nasa theme.
How about co-branding? Invite Ronald McDonald House to open a branch on premises. Would Disney be willing to build a hotel and space port theme park near by?
Nasa awards millions ($) in contracts. Why not require the winning corporation to generate Nasa publicity through their channels and art departments. Better yet, in the case of technology/defense giants: use their paid lobbyists to gain political currency for Nasa or at least just more money.
And the next Woodstock concert should be held at a Meadow near a Nasa point to inoculate a whole new generation with stardust!
Playboy enterprises brings up another thought: Just as Hefner trained his Bunnies to perform well within the pages of his magazine and then tried to create some buzz around each individual that lead to some fame and career enlargement into movies, books, fashion, travel reporting and plain old name-dropping relationships-, so should Nasa trained astronauts gain a second life as ambassadors of the brand.
All of the above could be cut to size for the private space sector. I just cited Nasa because it is the only game in town as of now.
Let the imagineers work for/with NASA. Give them access to real Nasa architecture as backdrop, permit and promote usage of documentary footage; have contests for the best screenplay with a Nasa theme.
How about co-branding? Invite Ronald McDonald House to open a branch on premises. Would Disney be willing to build a hotel and space port theme park near by?
Nasa awards millions ($) in contracts. Why not require the winning corporation to generate Nasa publicity through their channels and art departments. Better yet, in the case of technology/defense giants: use their paid lobbyists to gain political currency for Nasa or at least just more money.
And the next Woodstock concert should be held at a Meadow near a Nasa point to inoculate a whole new generation with stardust!
Playboy enterprises brings up another thought: Just as Hefner trained his Bunnies to perform well within the pages of his magazine and then tried to create some buzz around each individual that lead to some fame and career enlargement into movies, books, fashion, travel reporting and plain old name-dropping relationships-, so should Nasa trained astronauts gain a second life as ambassadors of the brand.
All of the above could be cut to size for the private space sector. I just cited Nasa because it is the only game in town as of now.
MeteorWayne":3781q9p7 said:
I don't know where you were in 1986 but here in the United States, the Challenger launch and explosion was aired on live television. I watched it live, as did many other school children coast to coast.
Selective memory, I guess.
Or selective imagination, since it wasn't aired live on CBS, NBC, or ABC. I know, because I was monitoring all 3 at the time.
The problem is that NASA should not be in the entertainment business. It is wrong to ask the taxpayers for $100 billion just so we can excite them. We are replacing the Space Shuttle with a rocket that carries half the crew, flies half as often after a gap of five years, carries 2% of the payload, and costs just as much? Because we are bored with LEO?? We promised the public we would produce practical benefits with the Shuttle and ISS, and we had darn well better do so before we ask for another $100 billion. NIH, or DOE, or even NSF don't ask for money just because they want to excite, inspire, or entertain the public. Want to inspire kids to study? Try giving them better schools and college tuition that they can afford. In every field scientists have to justify every penny they ask for by providing significant new knowledge or useful technology. On the moon we can't do earth observation or microgravity, and it would cost ten times as much to do space observation. What can we do? Lunar geology??? Get real. If any scientists were really interested, we could easily send robotic systems. Will people go to the moon? Of course, when we have technology that makes it practical for scientists and tourists. When will that be? After Constellation stops consuming all the resources that could go into technology development.
If we continue on this course, Constellation will fail. It will never carry people beyond LEO and in twenty years we will look back on the trashing of the Space Shuttle without a new reusable launch system to replace it as the greatest error in the history of the US space program.
End of tirade.
If we continue on this course, Constellation will fail. It will never carry people beyond LEO and in twenty years we will look back on the trashing of the Space Shuttle without a new reusable launch system to replace it as the greatest error in the history of the US space program.
End of tirade.
Pretty much my points I've been trying to make here since day 1. The moon race would actually slow us down as a space faring nation, eating up all the funding that is required to build better, more efficient rocket and space planes or a more worthy endeavor then flipping rocks.
I half agree. Certainly an underfunded moon program would be worse than useless because all the money would go into getting people to the moon and getting them back. Everything else would be trimmed, removing any point.
However, launch costs are never going to come down until there is a reason for many launches. Even running a 747 would be hugely expensive for america if it were the only one in existance and had so few flights that by the time you wanted to build another you also had to rebuild all your factories and expertise.
Im quite enthusiastic about a robotic teleoperated base, and lots of experiments to perfect ISRU technologies. A robot that could produce a hundred times its own mass in useful volatiles or in solar cells is about as good as reducing launch costs a hundred fold. Where as with rockets you are facing diminishing returns as you approach theoretical limits, with ISRU you can expect accelerating returns. Infinite return is totally plausible; that is when you hit self sufficiency and grow with no further input.
Also in the meantime you are actually learning things about the moon.
This might be drifting a bit off topic so I will throw in 'and robots actually building stuff on other worlds could be a way to re-ignite passion for space'
However, launch costs are never going to come down until there is a reason for many launches. Even running a 747 would be hugely expensive for america if it were the only one in existance and had so few flights that by the time you wanted to build another you also had to rebuild all your factories and expertise.
Im quite enthusiastic about a robotic teleoperated base, and lots of experiments to perfect ISRU technologies. A robot that could produce a hundred times its own mass in useful volatiles or in solar cells is about as good as reducing launch costs a hundred fold. Where as with rockets you are facing diminishing returns as you approach theoretical limits, with ISRU you can expect accelerating returns. Infinite return is totally plausible; that is when you hit self sufficiency and grow with no further input.
Also in the meantime you are actually learning things about the moon.
This might be drifting a bit off topic so I will throw in 'and robots actually building stuff on other worlds could be a way to re-ignite passion for space'
What you say is true Kelvin, but I don't think we will ever get much further than just one 747 until there is a profitable reason to be in space, and space is commercialized like the airline industry.
I also suspect that robotics is over rated. Its hard enough making robots for things and routines you know, but for space? All robots on earth always have a guy nearby ready to kick it...All the costs should be tallied up in such a robot, and then compared to sending a man up there doing what humans do naturally, I don't think robots win. Humans are the perfect robot.
I also suspect that robotics is over rated. Its hard enough making robots for things and routines you know, but for space? All robots on earth always have a guy nearby ready to kick it...All the costs should be tallied up in such a robot, and then compared to sending a man up there doing what humans do naturally, I don't think robots win. Humans are the perfect robot.
People mostly like sci-fi, it's just that many times it's hard to separate possible from pure fiction. General film production is not very helpful, facts-wise, with rare exceptions. Eye candy sells well, so that's what we get.
There are also space themed on-line games, which are also quite popular and usually not very reality obsessed.
This games can also get very complex and technical, using all sorts of fictional technology and materials.
What about an open source game, using as real as possible physical engine, allowing users to add scriptable objects, which could then be used as such, or as components in other objects. Universe would be made upon known data about celestial objects, with their movement and interaction, sort of a virtual galactic solarium, which you could explore, err, not very fast If object description is based on XML, it would be even neater. One could start with Flight Gear, or with OGRE, mix it with a bit of QT, torrent under-carriage for a global database and mysql for local. Eclipse could be a binding tool, it has a lot of software modeling add-ons which could be used or modified. It should allow local server and connecting of servers to create a common universe, sort of a multiplayer player game with allowed client mods.
It would probably be much simpler, to make such a program single user, as simple as game programming goes, but i think it's nice to have someone around to share misery
Plugging popular message protocols into user interface would probably also not be impossible to do.
If such a game could be used as a simulator, it would be a very nice playground to show and experiment with ideas.
I think that Mars rover drivers use something close to this.
There are also space themed on-line games, which are also quite popular and usually not very reality obsessed.
This games can also get very complex and technical, using all sorts of fictional technology and materials.
What about an open source game, using as real as possible physical engine, allowing users to add scriptable objects, which could then be used as such, or as components in other objects. Universe would be made upon known data about celestial objects, with their movement and interaction, sort of a virtual galactic solarium, which you could explore, err, not very fast
If object description is based on XML, it would be even neater. One could start with Flight Gear, or with OGRE, mix it with a bit of QT, torrent under-carriage for a global database and mysql for local. Eclipse could be a binding tool, it has a lot of software modeling add-ons which could be used or modified. It should allow local server and connecting of servers to create a common universe, sort of a multiplayer player game with allowed client mods.It would probably be much simpler, to make such a program single user, as simple as game programming goes, but i think it's nice to have someone around to share misery
Plugging popular message protocols into user interface would probably also not be impossible to do.
If such a game could be used as a simulator, it would be a very nice playground to show and experiment with ideas.
I think that Mars rover drivers use something close to this.
vulture4":1s8u9knl said:
The moon has resources. If we develop infrastructure for exploiting these resources, our solar system becomes much more accessible.
vulture4":1s8u9knl said:
I certainly hope we will send robots. Robots may enable us to utilize lunar resources.
vulture4":1s8u9knl said:
SST RLV has been the holy grail. You believe we haven't sought such a vehicle? We have. It may not be possible. If it is possible, it is not a given it would be less expensive than expendable launch vehicles.
Propellent depots might enable reusable vehicles for going between LEO and EML1 as well as other destinations.
Supplying propellent depots in the near term might give us a high enough flight rates that we can consider mass production.
Yes that is what I meant. Mastering the technology alone wont bring prices down until you have a reason to run many flights. Therefore we shouldnt only concentrate on launch technology, we also have to keep looking for reasons to go, such as investigating the moon, advancing ISRU technology and so on.Booban":vtxm3taf said:
Booban":vtxm3taf said:
I dont see it as an either-or. Robots have great advantages early on, but once you have infrastructure and a bunch of robots in need of minor repairs it becomes very obvious to send people. Also because there is infrastructure in place you could possibly use the same small landers that you used to land your robots. You only need to land the human and sufficient life support for the trip down. Also by this time the lander would be well tested. Because you have kept everything small you probably do not need an Ares V up front. You might even have a choice of launchers.
The holy grail really did excite people. Maybe a sophisticated, reusable space plane would also do so.
Whether an RLV is SSTO or TSTO is less important than its operational cost. NASA's efforts to build an RLV have failed because of 1) failure to build prototypes and cutting development funds (Shuttle), arcane attempts to force contractors to pay for NASA projects (X-33 and X-34), serious design errors that resulted in LH2 tank failure (X-33), followed by declaration that it was impossible to build, even though a comparable vehicle (DC-X) was already flying with such a tank, extreme underfunding leading to a crash without funds to build another prototype (DC-X) and in the case of the X-34 and X-37, NASA simply abandoned the projects without explanation.
So the lack of progress in RLV technology has been because of rather elementary mistakes and general lack of effort, not because any serious effort has failed. It might be slightly difficult; in the old days the difficult would be done immediately. Constellation is expensive but also rather simple and unsophisticated. Will it really excite the public, which wants tax cuts, enough to pony up $150B?
To get people interested, there has to be some exciting new discovery. So, do the work. Go looking for exciting things. Cheaply. That means unmanned.
Until that exciting reason to go is found, the public support for the much more expensive manned missions to ANYWHERE will not materialize, and no PR trick is going to fool anyone.
So fund (1) unmanned searching, and (2) better propulsive technologies, like VASIMR and inertial fusion. Then when the search program pays off, we will have the means to GO.
The searching could pay off in unexpected ways. In Clarke's series "Rendezvous with Rama", it was the deep space search for dangerous asteroids that found the aliens....
Until that exciting reason to go is found, the public support for the much more expensive manned missions to ANYWHERE will not materialize, and no PR trick is going to fool anyone.
So fund (1) unmanned searching, and (2) better propulsive technologies, like VASIMR and inertial fusion. Then when the search program pays off, we will have the means to GO.
The searching could pay off in unexpected ways. In Clarke's series "Rendezvous with Rama", it was the deep space search for dangerous asteroids that found the aliens....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
The Lyrid meteor shower peaks this weekend, but don't expect much this year- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
Latest posts
-
-
Question Recommendations for International Research Competitions- Latest: Andrii Dzygunenko
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram