"On arrival at Mars, ExoMars would be equipped to scout about for the leftover traces of long-gone life or still thriving biology on the far-away world. Furthermore, the ESA robot is to help identify potential peril for a future humans-to-Mars mission – now resident on NASA planning charts as the year <b>2030</b>."<br /><br /><br /><br />2030? Is that the offical stance now?<br />Anybody can tell that's a BS date, they pushed it so far into the future because they have no planes drawn up for it and they don't want to have to worry about it.<br />with the current administrator changeover, NASA is in total disarray, its long term objectives unclear, and the short term goals centered around the remainder of the Space Shuttle program-i.e. not screwing up again.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
- Status
Say what? >speaking 33t: NASA is teh ghey<<br /><br />Link to the 2030 date?<br /><br />What's the rush with getting to Mars...let's get the Shuttle fleet back up and running, then the CEV, then go back to the Moon, etc. etc.
There still is a lot to do before we are ready to send humans to Mars. Lots of questions to answer before we can make the trip.
"with the current administrator changeover, NASA is in total disarray, its long term objectives unclear, and the short term goals centered around the remainder of the Space Shuttle program-i.e. not screwing up again."<br /><br />Thanks for making it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you had been following the news you would know that NASA is in better shape today than at any time since the end of the Apollo program. NASA is neither "in total disarry" not are its "longterm objectives unclear". Thanks to the VSE the objectives are clear for the first time in decades: First the Moon then Mars. <br /><br />BTW: With Griffin it's likely that NASA will accelerate the schedule for manned Mars missions.
d00d ||a5/-| i5 n0it gh4y, n/-a 1z t3h 1337 5p/-|ze xp10ra7i0n ag3nzy! d3y k1ck /-|zz<br /><br />*cough* 5pea...Speaking leet is one ''skill'' I NEED to lose... <br /><br />But in other words, if you think ||a...NASA is a mess now, you weren't paying attention in the 90's (And neither have I, but at least I read about it) They are getting things together now finally, squeezing the last 5 or so years of the shuttles then getting ready for the CEV and then the moon. Trust me, i'm ****ing PISSED that things take this long to get achieved, I got so frusterated at how slow things are going that I actually got inspired to design a moon/mars capable vessel myself for a while, before realizing how hard it would be. NASA's goals are not easy to achieve, and the bureaucracy makes it even harder. GOT A SOLUTION?! I didn't think so. <br /><br />We all would like things to go faster, but with the budget cuts (Burn in hell eternal, congress) and the ever so SLOWLY rising public support and attention, we can only: A) &%$#@! at NASA and senators til they start doing something faster, or B) Start fervently praying that the civilian space companies will suddenly get ambitious and shoot for the moon or mars. I'm going to start B) now...
I have a solution: disband NASA.<br />ANd for those who think NASA is in better shape than the 90s, I am asking you how many people are manning the ISS right now, vs. how many were supposed to be on it (7!)<br />The CEV follows the SLI who folloed the Venture Star who followed the NASP who was to follow the Shuttle.<br />The fact that the CEV is touted as both a means to get astronauts in orbit AND to explore other worlds shows lack of a clear understanding of future space exploration needs, by reverting to the same stretegy used in the Apollo program.There's one big difference: the Apollo program was designed to take people to the moon and it did that well. <br />The CEV (undesigned yet) is seen as able to perform various missions, a very broad range indeed, goinga s far as Mars and maye even beyond. Definitely such a vehicle will be quite formidable-the life support systems and radiation shielding alone will make it much heavier than an Apollo era capsule-thus using it as a means to ferry a few astronauts to orbit will prove prohibitedly expensive -kind of like using a Saturn 5 rocket(today,the Delta IV) to do the job of a Saturn I (the Proton nowadays). <br />I think the CEV will eventually be cancelled-heck I know when, 4 years from now when the administration changes 
<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>I have a suggestion. Read up before you criticise - your evaluation of the CEV is so bad, it's not even wrong.
Disbanding NASA is <i>so</i> the solution. NASA will do a much better job once it doesn't exist, and the ISS will be fully crewed with 7 people once there is no American space agency. Brilliant!<br /><br />Like the Delta IV you bring up, the CEV will be versatile. In various configurations the Delta IV will lift anything from 8.5 to 21.8 tons. You'll never see the top-range Delta IV Heavy being used to launch an 8 ton payload; you'll never see a CEV with the extra life support modules for a Mars trip making a taxi run to the ISS. It's *modular*.<br /><br />In summary: OMG WTF U R teh l337 lollz0rz BBQ.
life support systems on the CEV-capsule- will have to function for 6 or more months, therefore extra redudancy will have to be built in the spacecraft itself, not the service modules that will carry extra supplies for a mission to Mars.(assuming the astronauts on a Mars mission spend all their time in the CEV capsule.)<br />he Delta IV has not been man-rated yet, I doubt all configurations will be man-rated, especially those with solid boosters. I think only the IV heavy will be man-rated eventually.<br />And for those who say my analysis of the CEV is wrong, please point me to a preliminary design analysis of this spacecraft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
><i>Life support systems on the CEV-capsule- will have to function for 6 or more months..</i><p>See, you're going wrong already. Why do you assume that the crew will be in the capsule for six months? In most of the mission designs I've seen, the capsule will be attached to a Earth-Mars transfer vehicle. The transfer vehicle will provide living space and life support to the crew during the cruise to Mars. The systems in the capsule can be powered-down most of the way.</p>
What would be the point of taking the CEV all the way to Mars if it's powered down all the time? Not to mention, the CEV probably can't land on or take off again from Mars. Maybe there's something about the CEV mission and design I am missing..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
indeed, the capsule will be used just for transport to and from orbit. <br />however, it will be included for both missions to the moon and mars.<br />this, of course, means that future missions will not rely on the ISS -all that money invested in the ISS wasted, we know that already.<br />the next administration is going to take a look at this and decide to invest in the ISS some more, I bet <br />this is how it usually works. <br />also, please review this page:<br />http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ses/buildingblocks.html<br />there are no plans for a Mars lander, they specify the lunar lander for 'interplanetary' missions.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<br />this is how it usually works. <br />also, please review this page:<br />http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ses/buildingblocks.html<br />there are no plans for a Mars lander, they specify the lunar lander for 'interplanetary' missions.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div><font color="yellow">"...based on the conceptual drawings."</font><br /><br />Well if we're going to choose a contractor based on the artwork -- I suggest that we hand the CEV contract over to the owners of the STTNG franchise. Let's skip all this sub-light stuff and go right to the good stuff.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
<font color="yellow">"Boeing's work best illustrated the modular concept."</font><br /><br />Agreed -- their concepts look good. However, modular isn't *really* a hard concept to grasp. I actually have a 'slight' bias *against* pretty pictures -- namely because NASA has spent big bucks over the past couple of decades to produce reams of P5*. I want to read a proposal with actual words and specifications that have some meat to them before I grant that a given company truly has their cranium external to their nether orifice.<br /><br /><br />* Power Point Presentations & Pretty Pictures
hah. How about "finish" instead?<br /><br />Ya know, we might be happy yet to have a (core) completed space station. If they told the current ISS residents, "Hey guys, you should know that anyone that has served on the ISS has a lot better chance than others in manning the Lunar Space Station or first of the new lunar missions" I think we could see a lot of fantastic practice and progress done on the ISS. It would get everyone really excited.<br /><br />... or maybe it just makes me excited <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /><br /><br />Nah, it would pump everyone up. Plus, we might actually get some great science done once all the instruments are in place and we have the more affordable (please god) CEV to bring people up to the ISS.<br /><br />... and to contribute to the l33t tom-foolery, imagine when Americans set up the first permanent or long duration habitat on the Moon... "0wn3d!!"
I don't beleive that NASA will stick with the CEV concept. Since the Shuttle, they never managed to finish anything-the ISS, the Venture Star RLV (which, as opposed to the SLI who never made it off the drawing board) had some serious investment in it, hardware had already been built and so on.<br />The only way for NASA to survive is to stop being a tool of the politicians. but the politicans make the budget.<br />So, I don't think NASA has a future anymore. The big contractors(Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed) only want fat contracts from the govt, they don't care about space exploration for science of comemrcial purposes.<br />The future is all private industry-and when I mean private industry I mean the small guys who have the guts to start a project without the goverment backingh.<br />In fact, the government, with its ******** export control laws, is actually hurting the private sector-Virgin Galactic won't be able to purchase spacecraft from Rutan because of possible military aplications <br />now, that is really teg ghey! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<br />now, that is really teg ghey! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>stop out-sourcing space-related jobs to foreign markets<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This is less of a problem that most people think. Do you realize just what a pain in the hinder it is to outsource a subcontract in this field? You have to cope with ITAR then, and Lockheed and Boeing together did an excellent (albeit unintentional) demonstration of how risky that can be -- they both got fined big bucks for exporting information to China without going through the full ITAR process. And they didn't pack up data and ship it over there; the export consisted mainly of having American personnel assist with getting a Long March rocket's payload fairing into an acceptable state. (Those kinds of data exports are the tricky ones; it's easy to forget that you shouldn't let a representative from your Canadian subcontractor glance at your computer screen, for instance, since depending on what's on the screen it may constitute an export and thus require prior ITAR approval.)<br /><br />Does it happen? Yep. But only when absolutely neccesary. Contractors in this field are usually reluctant to subcontract abroad unless they have to, because it leads to added expense and risk, especially after Boeing and Lockheed were made examples of. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
I asked him what on earth he was trying to say in the second post on here. No reply.<br /><br />Maybe I should have asked like this "R U able 2 say wot U mean" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
See: Leet speak [wikipedia]<br /><br />leet <br /><br />A derivitave of the 80's software piracy scene. Originally "elite" was used to show status on a BBS. Commonly the people who cracked the software, or had sysop access on a board would be referred to as Elite. Later it became common to just use "leet." With the internet explosion it was later used to describe hackers as well as crackers. Due to it being great to be known as leet, newbies started adopting the term and using to describe themselves, often with numerical variations. Anyone who considers themselves "leet" should be able to tell you who/what Razor1911 is, anyone failing to answer this question should be laughed at.<br /><br /><i>"Wow, those guys that run this new board are leet, they had win 3.1 a week before it came out!"</i><br /><br /><br />Teh Ghey<br />Phrase origination: 'That's Gay'.<br /><br />'Teh Ghey', is an Internet slang-based phrase, used to express dislike for something, someplace, or something. <br /><br />'Teh Ghey' has nothing to do with homosexuals/gay people, although some people seem to think so.<br /><br /><i>"iPods are teh ghey."<br /><br />"iTunes are teh ghey."<br /><br />"That movie I went to see last night was teh ghey."<br /><br />"Trish is annoying. Everything she talks about is teh ghey!!"</i><br /><br /><br />Better yet, just ignor it.
USA, joo pwned by 0/t50/r(i||6 <br />/0/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
For those who do not understand leetspeak.....<br /><br />...count your blessings. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />These days, leetspeak doesn't even mark you as "elite", except perhaps to script kiddies (novice "hackers" who use crude and simplistic methods to crack other systems on a superficial level, usually with a severely overinflated impression of themselves). People who are more experienced generally find leetspeak annoying, as the initial novelty of it has long since faded. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
1337 is kind of fun when you're not being serious, and just joking around, but IMO don't expect to be taken seriously when speaking 1337. But I think it's okay for just messing around ...<br /><br />omg ||@5@ 1z teh @//350//3!!!!11111one
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact- Started by Admin
- Replies: 13
-
-
Introduce yourself! (And show us your swag)- Started by sward
- Replies: 271
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram