I'm already bored with NASA's Vision for Space Exploration

n_kitson · Oct 24, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We're not going to colonize Mars or the Moon anymore than we colonize the South Pole or the bottom of the ocean or the Greenland ice sheet.<hr /></blockquote> Well, we do have permanent research stations in all three those locations, and two underwater hotels are opening over the next 12 months. It will be interesting to see how these hotels perform financially. That said, colonization is far removed from a permanent research station or hotel. Like you point out, no-one has colonized Antartica, despite the fact that it is a far, far more pleasant and habitable environment than Luna or Mars. So, I'll put my money in the pot with yours: We're not going to be seeing British-empire style colonies on Mars, Luna or any other space rock in the next 100 years.

dobbins · Oct 24, 2005

There have been dozens of Pacific Typhoons stronger than anything ever seen in the Atlantic and there has never been a need to come up with something stronger than a 5 there so I can't see a need for an increase here. As for the number of 5s this year before WWII there weren't any hurricane flights, and they weren't that common until the 1960s. There weren't any satellites to track hurricanes before the 1960s. There was very little data on hurricane's strength at sea before the 60s, most of the data was the strength when a storm came ashore. If we still had data like that no one would have ever known that we had any 5s this year. Katrina and Wilma would have been recorded as 4 and Rita as a 3. There could have been more 5s in the 1950s and earlier in one year that no one ever knew reached that strength because they were never measured at full strength.

no_way · Oct 24, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Like you point out, no-one has colonized Antartica, despite the fact that it is a far, far more pleasant and habitable environment than Luna or Mars.<hr /></blockquote> Ever heard of the Antarctic treaty ? If not for that, many people would be happy to bring excavators and mining equipment to the continent, not to colonize it but to pump and strip-mine. And after that take extended vacations with the billions earned in the most exotic places on earth. Perhaps even underwater hotels. I'd say, ok, leave Antarctic as it is, but i have no problems with people stripmining the asteroids, build powersats on orbit etc all for profit. Heck, i'd like to be one of them miners or construction workers. Oh and surprisingly, history has shown, that some mining outposts have later grown into cities.

gsuschrist · Oct 24, 2005

Radar: "I, who pay the salaries of these people and would like to see objectives accomplished, have little sympathy for people who are primarily interested in taking my money and have only passing interests in accomplishing objectives" Well said. You can change the 'I' to a 'We'. It's unfortunate that we accept such a poor performance by NASA in the area of manned exploration. As sad as the waste of resources is the dampening of interest in space by the kids of Joe sixpack (who pays the bills). We knowthe USA can do better and Americans should demand better.

dobbins · Oct 24, 2005

The problem isn't the real workers it's having positions like the assistant aide to the deputy associate administrator of the office of ... Or in short a byzantine bureaucracy.

shuttle_man · Oct 24, 2005

" We knowthe USA can do better and Americans should demand better". We are doing the best we can with the money available and the safety required. I don't understand people's need to see failure. manned space flight is not easy!

john_316 · Oct 24, 2005

A super typhoon is a cat 5 just like a cat 5 hurricane. There was one Typhoon more powerful than Wilma and that was Typhoon tip in 1979 and it uses the same scale as hurricanes. Typhoon tip reached a record of 190 mph sustained winds where as Wilma is 175mph... My point Wilma is a rare gem in the Atlantic Basin as it doesnt have the warmth and water coverage like the Pacific but for having less warmer water the Atlantic has a new degree of storms over Cat 4 and in the 5 range. The scale says anything over 155mph winmds is plain destrcutive and no matter what new scale they create they are still devastating. My point is for the discussion is on the affects of launches and missions of the US and when they take a hit from such a storm. Michoud is an example in New Orleans. They say what a billion in damage there? So the reason is this. If we loose Michoud in one storm then 3-4 weeks later the Cape where to take a heavy blow then we have no manned launch facilities until they are fixed. My idea of another launch facility for SRB/CEV such as White Sands, South Carolina, and Georgia or even Texas are for a what if scenerio. A pad for the SRB/CEV, I dont think would be prohibitively expensive to build at any other place in the CONUS. I dont mention Vandenburg unless this is an option as well. SRBs are manufactured by ATK in Utah so I dont see a problem there like the ET tank in New Orleans. So my point is you need a safe place to build and launch (plus/minus the eqautor boost) your rockets from a monster storm on your foot steps like Katrina, Ivan, and or a Wilma. An example: A launch is delayed at cape for CEV to ISS because of a hurricane so have a second facility in western US to fly crew there and launch on another CEV. CEV is a hell of alot cheaper than STS and if those cost go prohibitive like STS then close NASA doors permanately and buy russian boosters. NASA needs to turn a

JonClarke · Oct 25, 2005

"Excuse me, the big problem in the past was the explotation of native peoples. Care to tell me what native peoples we are going to exploit off Earth?" Fortunately none. Nor are there biological assets to be destroyed (as far as we know) However, the 16-17th centuries you previously mentioned were also marked by territorial wars, trade wars, exclusion of the poor and non-enfrachised from common wealth, slavery, the introduction of exotic diseases and feral pests, and large scale degration of soil and water resources. All of which democratic societies committed to the rule of law would wish to avoid in the future. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

holmec · Oct 25, 2005

>I'm ignoring the VSE or anything NASA does. No point in getting annoyed over something bound to be cancelled anyway< What would take VSE's place?? Or do you think that the manned space program will be canned? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Oct 25, 2005

>There is little potential for exciting scientific discoveries on the Moon(and NASA doesn't mention colonisation or industralisation of space).< Obviously you do not know much about Appollo 15. NASA is not in the business of colonies. Private ventures would be. As for mining, NASA does keep in mind to be able to make fuel out of mined material from the moon even in VSE. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Oct 25, 2005

I hate to spoil the bordom guys. But I am actually enthusiastic. The VSE is not an end, its a begining. I hope it will be an open ended begining. This is Apollo The Next Generation type of stuff. Stuff that Von Braun would talk about. Think about it. More than anything VSE is a system. A system that has the potential to explore more of the lunar geology, colect more data on how to stay on the moon, provide a platform to be able to go to Mars, provide the future for the ISS. The Shuttle is going away. Its sad, but its life. We need to move on. VSE is giving us the basis to achieve what we started to do in the first place and that is extend our reach beyond earth orbit. The proposed two new rockets marks a new way of thinking for NASA. Or actually an old way that was never tried. By separating unmanned cargo/equipment from the crew in launch we have a level of safety we never have experienced before. Von Braun said that there was two ways to go to the moon, one is make a big rocket and go to the moon directly (ie Saturn 5) and another is to send up components on several rockets in LEO and put them together and blast to the moon. What I am getting at is modularity. This VSE system is extremely modular which translates into flexiblity which translates into survivablility with the budget or other unforseen obsticles. The heavy lift rocket to take the lunar module an the boosters up will probably be used for other things, like ISS components. The CEV capsule will be used to ferry people to the ISS as well as the moon. The CEV service module will have solar panels, a first for NASA. And some parts are reusable: the solid rocket boosters; The CEV itself. Now all of these parts can be changed. Can become better. Can be different for different missions. It has room to grow. And it has room to adapt. It provides NASA with a solid infrastucture. And who knows, with budget cuts maybe NAS <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

frodo1008 · Oct 25, 2005

I have to agree with JonClarke, the developement of even mining is not going to be stoped by any such treaties. It only states that NO COUNTRY can own the moon or other outer space objects, Their use is for all mankind. If course, those that CAN exploit those resources will be the ones reaping the benifits, that is even the way is is on Earth. Those that can not even get to the moon will not directly benifit from the minerals found there. They may take part in tourism, by being paying tourists, but they can't control the prices the Space Hotels charge, anymore than they can affect such charges on the Earth. Above ALL these treaties were put in place to slow (once again, if you don't even have space capabilitie, how are you going to affect those who do?) the military use of space. Why export our stupid animosities and wars into an entirely new area? This has indeed been worked out for freedom of the commerce of the seas here on the Earth, why not carry such freedom out to space? Quite frankly, the use of minerals from either the moon or asteroids to make even completed manufactured goods is going to be almost totally limited to the developement of space infrastructure for a long time into the future. At least until full level space elevators out to GEO bring the cost of bringing a pound of material baack to the Earth from space down well below $100 per pound. Even then, it will be cheaper by far to manufacture the goods of living right here on the Earth. But the goods of living for actually living in space will be far, far cheaper to make in space itself for a long time to come! So these treaties really ARE moot for a very long time anyway. No, the costs of just getting into space, and then working there are going to dominate space commerce for a long time to come. So let us (and this includes even pure private capitalistic types) concentrate where it will do the most good!! And please note that the treaties do not slow down

dobbins · Oct 25, 2005

"However, the 16-17th centuries you previously mentioned were also marked by territorial wars, trade wars, " Things that are more likely to happen here on Earth if we don't gain access to the wealth of space. "exclusion of the poor and non-enfrachised from common wealth, " There is no such thing as the common wealth, trying to export that superstition into space will make it less likely we will ever get there. "slavery, " You might as well have included wooden sailing ships in space, you were really reaching on that one "the introduction of exotic diseases and feral pests, " Smallpox and rats on the Moon? and large scale degration of soil and water resources. We are going to degrade the Moon's water? "All of which democratic societies committed to the rule of law would wish to avoid in the future." Then space will belong to the civilized societies that don't fall for this silly crap.

n_kitson · Oct 25, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Ever heard of the Antarctic treaty ? If not for that, many people would be happy to bring excavators and mining equipment to the continent, not to colonize it but to pump and strip-mine<hr /></blockquote> Granted, the later environmental conservation treaty on Antarctica prohibts strip mining. However, colonization is not prohibited. If a signatory country had a territorial claim to Antarctica prior to 1959, that claim would still be valid. Article 4 of the treaty 1. Nothing contained in the present Treaty shall be interpreted as: a. a renunciation by any Contracting Party of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica; b. a renunciation or diminution by any Contracting Party of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which it may have whether as a result of its activities or those of its nationals in Antarctica, or otherwise; c. prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party as regards its recognition or non-recognition of any other State's rights of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. 2. No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force. Finally, only 45 countries have ratified the treaty.

askold · Oct 25, 2005

holmec - I'm glad you've found something to get excited about. However, your point: "The proposed two new rockets marks a new way of thinking for NASA. Or actually an old way that was never tried. By separating unmanned cargo/equipment from the crew in launch we have a level of safety we never have experienced before." Isn't that what the Russians have been doing for some time now - launching the astronauts on the Soyuz and the cargo on Progress?

lunatic133 · Oct 25, 2005

I, too, am against strip mining antarctica because of the fragile ecosystem there. But the moon and asteroids are not antarctica. There are no moon penguins that will lose their homes, no native moonicans to be enslaved and/or displaced, there is NOTHING THERE, except for various resources that could be useful here on Earth. People like to compare the colonization of space with the colonization of America, and while it is similar in some respects, it is nothing alike in many others. And to the nay-sayers against long term colonization, I ask you, with all these crazy hurricanes wreaking havoc, don't YOU want to get off this planet ASAP? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> It surprises me that nobody here has mentioned Helium-3 yet. Of course, there's still a lot of debate about it, but I believe that it can and will become the energy source of the future provided ample supplies are available (ie, the moon). For the moment, let's save the squabbling over the practicality of He-3 fusion for another thread, and assume that it works. If it does, then the way I see it that's more than enough reason to go to the moon. Of course, there will still be protests to mining the moon. People get all squeamish at the sound of strip mining because of the negative connotations it has on Earth. But with gas prices as they are we're going to need to find a new form of energy soon. From a purely environmentalist standpoint, would you rather strip mine a lifeless rock to get an almost 100% clean burning form of energy, or would you rather strip mine the appalachians to get at arguably the dirtiest fuel there is (coal). I would think the answer would be obvious. Of course, even on the moon, it would have to be done carefully. People are protective of their moon, and they don't want the familliar face of the moon to be scarred by various strip mines you can see from Earth. In a more innocent time (high school) I suggested lunar landscape artists to make the moon their pe

no_way · Oct 25, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />However, colonization is not prohibited. <hr /></blockquote> How are you going to colonize some land if you cant touch its natural resources ? Humans obviously cant just live off the scarce sunlight and snow alone. Even worse, those make for real weak export articles too, so nothing to be traded either. Even local services like tourism wouldnt sell all that well as one doesnt have to go to antrarctic to freeze one's nuts off. So the theoretical colony would go bankrupt darn quickly.

JonClarke · Oct 25, 2005

JC However, the 16-17th centuries you previously mentioned were also marked by territorial wars, trade wars, D Things that are more likely to happen here on Earth if we don't gain access to the wealth of space. We don't want them happening in space either, which is why we have legistative frameworks. JC exclusion of the poor and non-enfrachised from common wealth D There is no such thing as the common wealth, trying to export that superstition into space will make it less likely we will ever get there. The vast majority of societies and their legal systems would disagree with you. JC slavery D You might as well have included wooden sailing ships in space, you were really reaching on that one I only mention it to illustrate that the 16-17th centuries that you seem to regard as a paradigm for the future had a range of institutions and practices that are both unpleasant and irreelevant. JC the introduction of exotic diseases and feral pests D Smallpox and rats on the Moon? Not on the moon but there are a range of terrestrial organisms that could do well on the martian subsurface (and in habitats). Uncontrolled tranasfer of these organisms to Mars carry the risk of highly unpleasant consequences. JC large scale degration of soil and water resources. D We are going to degrade the Moon's water? Quite easily though inappropriate management. JC All of which democratic societies committed to the rule of law would wish to avoid in the future." D Then space will belong to the civilized societies that don't fall for this silly crap. You don't like the rule of law? Iraq, Afghanistan, or Sierra Leone, all places where the rule of law has broken down, most people would not consider them particularly civilised. How does this relate to space? You have advocated dumping existing legistlative frameworks to encoura <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Oct 25, 2005

Just because something lacks an ecosystem does not mean that it is open slather. We don't quarry Everest or the Arches national moment for this reason. Nor does exploitation of extraterrestrial resources come without potential environmental consequences. Space junk is already a hazard. Quarrying asteroids and comets could, if not done carefully, cause major increases in space debris. The Moon is an interesting case. Apart from those who would oppose things on principle there would be many who would not like a world which has been loved throughout human history turned into a visible eyesore though large scale mining. So perhaps mining could be confined to the far side. Or at a scale below what is visible to the naked eye (50 km) or the largest telescopes (500 m). The lunar atmosphere is also an issue. many porposed uses of the Moon require preservation of hard vacuum for astronomical instruments, solar collectors, collection of pristine polar volatiles. Some uses will compromise this. Dumping unused propellants, especially if these consist of highly reactive hypergolics. This was done during the Apollo program and caused a dedectable increase in the mass of the lunar atmosphere. One of the proposed oxygen extraction schemes involves large quantities of HF, really nasty stuff. Waste disposal on the moon is also an issue. Several kg per person per day even with reasonably efficent recycling. Are you going to haul it back to origin as happens now in the Antarctic? Incinerate it? if so, what do you do with the waste gas - dump it, or recycle? Not an insoluble problem, but certainly one that needs thoughtful care. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Oct 25, 2005

Antarctic tourism, ranging from hard core types doing solo treks to the pole to luxury liners and overflights, is very profitable. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

dobbins · Oct 25, 2005

I believe in natural rights, Not in the whims of whatever mob controls a legislature this moment, that among these are the right to own property rather than the superstition of common wealth that the mob uses to seize what it could never earn. I also find the notion that someone's views of 15th century politics as a reason to limit what can be done in space as having as little merit as someone's view that the Moon is a Goddess and off limits to mere humans.

JonClarke · Oct 25, 2005

Those who define elected bodies as "mobs" are usually those who see themselves as hereditary or natural elites. Are you one these? "Natural rights" are well and good. But the expression of natural rights changes with time and space, according to circumstances. Nor are natural rights to, for example, property rights or common common wealth, mutually exclusive. For these reasons natural rights have to be defined, protected, and interpreted through a legislative framework. I suspect most people would think democratic countries can do politics rather better in the 21st century than in the 15th. In the same way we can - and should - do exploration and development a lot better. now than then Do you think other people's views are to be respected? I may not share the world view of an aboriginal group that a particular area is sacred but this does not mean I should ignore their beliefs and trample all over the area. Indeed where I live I would be fined if I did, and perhaps go to gaol, and rightly so. However I don't know anyone at this time is saying the moon is off limits because they think it is a divine being, do you? Jon Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

lunatic133 · Oct 25, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I also find the notion that someone's views of 15th century politics as a reason to limit what can be done in space as having as little merit as someone's view that the Moon is a Goddess and off limits to mere humans. <hr /></blockquote> Oh, but it is, haven't you seen Zenon: Z3? <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> I admit that there are definite unethical things about mining the moon for helium-3 however what other alternatives do you suggest? Fossil fuels? Giving up all technology and returning to our cave men existence? There needs to be a balance, I think, between preserving what is naturally there and allowing ourselves to progress and survive as a species.

holmec · Oct 27, 2005

>Isn't that what the Russians have been doing for some time now - launching the astronauts on the Soyuz and the cargo on Progress?< Yes for LEO. But this is not only for LEO but moon missions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

dobbins · Oct 27, 2005

There are SOME areas of the Moon and Mars and other places that should be preserved. The Apollo 11 landing site should be off limits to development as a historic landmark. There are parts of the Moon that should have the same status as the Grand Canyon does here on Earth, preserved for their scenic beauty. That does NOT mean we have to take some Luddite approach and ban electric lighting on the Moon because someone might get upset over seeing the lights of a Moonbase on the dark part of a crescent Moon. Some common sense has to be applied rather than a knee jerk reaction towards unlimited development or mindless preservation. Lack of the legal systems that would go hand in hand with sovereignty makes it harder to get private interests to start developing the Moon, but it also makes it impossible to protect areas that should be preserved. A lawless Moon is one where any and everything is open once those private concerns do get there.

I'm already bored with NASA's Vision for Space Exploration

n_kitson

Guest

dobbins

Guest

no_way

Guest

gsuschrist

Guest

dobbins

Guest

shuttle_man

Guest

john_316

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

dobbins

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

askold

Guest

lunatic133

Guest

no_way

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

dobbins

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

lunatic133

Guest

holmec

Guest

dobbins

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page