Shuttle Replacement

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I'm get the feeling that this effort for helium 3 is a separate effort and should shorten that length of time considerable.</font>/i><br /><br />Could be, I did not see the particular show you are referring to. However, there is a larger issue of who has vested interest in seeing this technology advance, and whether they have enough capital to bring it. Do you think coal states (and their government representatives) want to see this succeed? Do you think oil states (and their government respresentatives) want to see this succeed? Do you think the current energy companies (who donate heavily to politicians) want to see this technology succeed?<br /><br /><i>Assume the world is fundamentally corrupt, and then everything starts to make sense.</i></i>

 

[JonClarke]

Once people have actually got He3 fusion to work (supposedly harder than dueterium fusion), the obstacle to lunar mining is that it may well be easier to breed the stuff on Earth using the much more plentiful lithium.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

Well, people from Wisconsin Fusion research insitute are saying that there aint enough He3 around on earth to do more than an engineering test program, while using lunar he3 they could actually start moving significantly.<br />Overview of current state of research can be found here:<br />http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/proj

 

[holmec]

I think it was called "Moon for sale" on Discovery last Saturday. <br /><br />http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.13781.25460.0.0<br /><br />here is an interesting post on BBC<br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/moonsale/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

You should take offense; in fact you should be incensed that the international student body is beating that big old American butt. In less than twenty years when the baby boomers start dropping dead, nearly 95% of the professional engineers w/ a PE will be naturalized Indians and Pakistanis. The number one reason for this is that Black/White Americans are scared to death of losing points on the GPA, and as a result they are opting for Information Systems, and Business majors thinking if they can’t do the real science they will just macro manage. It doesn’t quite work like that… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[thereiwas]

Some research done at Duke University calls into question those assumptions that China and India are turning out much greater numbers of engineers than the USA. It seems the term "engineer" is a bit slippery.

 

[webtaz99]

My prediction is that before the first milligram of He3 is delivered from the Moon, Focus Fusion will be generating power. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Focus, Polywell or both, and using the Proton-Boron11 fuel cycle which negates the need for He3 and virtually eliminates radioactive waste. Its 'waste' is plain old He4. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

The real value of materials on the moon has absolutely nothing to do with fusion power! What it does have to do with is that the lunar regolith has very large percentages of the kinds of perfectly normal materials such as iron and titanium that are vital to building structures in space. These materials are very expensive and difficult to get into space from the surface of the earth.<br /><br />However, do to both the very light gravity of the moon (0.16 g) and the almost total lack of any kind of atmosphere that a craft would burn up in (no TPS system needed at all), these materials will be far, far cheaper to obtain on the moon once an adequate mining (and perhaps at least smelting) outfit has been built on the moon. Thus the moon is of far greater importance to the actual future of humanity in space than Mars.<br /><br />One of the most important reasons for the existence of the ISS is to learn to process these kinds of materials. Indeed the knowledge thus obtained (which can NOT be obtained on the surface of even the moon, let alone the earth) will eventually be of far greater economic value than the entire cost of the ISS project!!<br /><br />It may not happen until the last half of this century, but the opening up of the space frontier itself will eventually be of even greater value than the cross continental railway was in opening up the vast resources of the American West!<br /><br />So shutting down the VSE and ISS at this time would eventually prove to be just about as stupid as the US not going for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803! <br /><br />Does anybody else on these boards and in the confines of the US take such a long view, or has such drivel as "American Idol" truly idled (pun intended) the brains of the average American. Good Heavens, I hope NOT!!!!!!<br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

"So shutting down the VSE and ISS at this time would eventually prove to be just about as stupid as the US not going for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803! <br />Does anybody else on these boards and in the confines of the US take such a long view, or has such drivel as "American Idol" truly idled (pun intended) the brains of the average American. Good Heavens, I hope NOT!!!!!! "<br /><br />Nor do I! However, when it comes to our government, stupidity is not outlawed; in fact sadly <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> it is encouraged by the "What have you done for me lately" mindset.<br /><br />Personally, I have much better things to do than watch Idol, or any of the 90% of crap on TV nowadays.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[halman]

frodo1008,<br /><br />To me, the real value of the Moon for the U.S. right now is as a destination that is not on Earth. Getting people to think about where they are in terms of our Solar System is critical to maintaining funding for our space program. For too long now, space has mostly been about Low Earth Orbit, or robots far, far away. Getting people to think of the Moon as someplace that we are sending people to is going to be a giant step in awareness for most Americans, I believe. The idea that there is someplace besides Earth is not very well established in the average person's mind, at least it seems so to me.<br /><br />Realizing that the blue ball that we live on is just one of many in the neighborhood is something most people don't really grasp completely. I believe that the average person thinks of Earth, and everything else being very, very far away. Mars is just another point of light in the sky, like Aldebaran, or Polaris. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

Good points halman.<br /><br />I think of the awareness problem that exists now in terms of what the average person sees in the entertainment world. Actual spaceflight rarely gets a mention unless its about faking lunar landings, the cost or some tragedy. A recent Law and Order episode patterned after the astronaut love triangle thing is one of the few TV series I can recall in recent years that bothers to even mention spaceflight. But still in the usual context which is, only if the story is sexy enough.<br /><br />Imagine a lunar tourism capability in a decade or so. Media shows that could be made about that subject, maybe with some location footage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I agree w/ you Frodo the real value is the lunar raw materials we can extract from mining and smelting. Which is why I say we should have to two separate operations; why should the shuttle be decommissioned just so we can plan a seven trip to the moon? I think w/ the right restructuring at NASA we can do both, and complete the construction of the ISS w/ money to spare.<br /><br />The problem NASA has is not the congress or the current administration. The problem at NASA is an internal one. NASA’s current project management just isn’t as academic as the JPL which has done some ground breaking work on mars. If the guys down in Houston and Cape Kennedy could do half the job the JPL has done we would already have a preliminary manned lunar base.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

JPL uses the same management style as the rest of NASA. there is little influence from Caltech. In fact, some say that the Mars program could be futher along if JPL would make changes in its habits. <br /><br />It has nothing to do with JSC and KSC (BTW the title Cape Kennedy hasn't been used since 1974), it is the shuttle system that is the problem

 

[halman]

jimfromnsf,<br /><br />The problem is not with the shuttle program, nor is it with the management styles of the respective agencies handling space flight operations. It is in the perceptions of this country's leaders, in their refusal to deal with the future. Even if we scrapped the shuttle right now, abandoned the International Space Station, shut down all deep space ground stations, and concentrated the entire portion of the NASA budget pertaining to off planet exploration into the Ares/Orion program, we still are going to come up short. Because the future is not important enough to fund properly, judging by the actions of Congress and the last several administrations.<br /><br />Space exploration is viewed primarily as scientific research, not as expanding the sphere of human activities. Insuring that high tech companies get sufficient contracts to keep operational is the biggest priority to Congress. The United States could easily increase spending on off planet exploration by a factor of 10, if it were deemed important enough. 600 billion dollars will go to Department Of Defense accounts in the coming fiscal year, because national defense is a high priority to Congress. Much of that money will not actually go to buying weapons, outfitting and training troops, or replacing obsolete equipment. It will go to contractors performing 'studies' and 'advanced testing', as a form of 'corporate welfare,' to make sure that vital defense industries don't go belly up.<br /><br />Spending some of that money on space exploration would achieve the same result, as far as keeping contractors in business, and produce honest advances in technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>>The problem .. is in the perceptions of this country's leaders, in their refusal to deal with the future.<br /><br />I agree, however the leaders respond to the people. We cannot simply ask for money; we who want to see space settled must develop a rational long-term strategy and build public support for it. I believe that means standing up and saying that the Vision for Space Exploration is a dead end since it squanders the development of enabling technology for a replay of Apollo that will leave us with no lasting benefits.

 

[jimfromnsf]

VSE and enabling technology enabling technology are not mutually exclusive. If there was no VSE doesn't mean there would be money or work on enabling technology

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Does anybody else on these boards and in the confines of the US take such a long view, or has such drivel as "American Idol" truly idled (pun intended) the brains of the average American. Good Heavens, I hope NOT!!!!!!</font><br /><br />I'm with you 100% and then some. I also see the moon as a sort of "Louisiana Purchase", and I've used that in arguments in the past. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

vulture2,<br /><br />I happen to believe that it is the duty of government to prepare for the future, paving the way for growth, providing leadership in developing technologies, and subsidizing their implementation. This is how the United States grew to be a world power, but our government got shanghied in the 1960's, and since then has been ignoring the future, while assisting the rich to further enrich themselves.<br /><br />The people would accept space exploration if it was presented to them as a program with a definite goal, which would be highly visible, attainable, but still challenging, and feasible within 25 years. If it were announced that the United States was going to build a base on the Moon within the next 25 years, it would be generally accepted by the public, I believe, as a logical step in our efforts off planet. By the time that the base was nearing completion, space transportation systems would, by necessity as well as investment, be far advanced from where they are today. Establishing a base on the Moon would require enough launches to stimulate the development of efficient and economical launch vehicles, something which has never been justifiable without such demand.<br /><br />This would make the next step, whatever we choose that to be, far easier to accomplish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If it were announced that the United States was going to build a base on the Moon within the next 25 years, it would be generally accepted by the public, I believe, as a logical step in our efforts off planet."<br /><br /><br />To do what? They question it just as the ISS is now questioned, especially since it is intended to be abandoned.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">To do what? </font><br /><br />To use it's resources to, among other things, build interplanetary spacecraft that are much bigger/better than anything that has to be launched from Earth. I want to exploit all of the resources in our solar system, and we'll need a moonbase to do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>To use it's resources to, among other things, build interplanetary spacecraft<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />in this case, i would advocate taking say .. about 1 .. no 0.5% of NASA's budget and reallocate it to some separate body like Space Resources Roundtable and their Eighth Continent project ( see isruinfo.com )<br /><br />these guys actually want to accomplish that stuff, and have done a lot of preliminary work in the area.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"To use it's resources to, among other things, build interplanetary spacecraft that are much bigger/better than anything that has to be launched from Earth. I want to exploit all of the resources in our solar system, and we'll need a moonbase to do it."<br /><br />And that is what is going to sell the idea to the public?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">To do what? They question it just as the ISS is now questioned, especially since it is intended to be abandoned.</font>/i><br /><br />I think the biggest motivation (for the public) for the US to return to the Moon and establish a presence there is China. China plans to send an orbiter to Moon (this year) before the US does again. China plans to send a rover to the Moon (2012) before the US does (if it does at all). China also plans to send humans to the Moon.<br /><br />The public will want to go to the Moon because of national prestige. To quote Sun Laiyan, director of China's National Space Administration:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Space technology reflects a nation's overall power and is an important facet of the modernisation of national defence. If China had no atomic bombs or hydrogen bombs and had not launched its first satellite since the 1960s, China could not be called an influential country and would not enjoy the same international status.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote></i>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And that is what is going to sell the idea to the public?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Ben Bova, Stephen Baxter, Gregory Benford, the late Gerard K. O'Neill just to name a few.<br />