Well, this is kind of disappointing....

centsworth_II · Dec 12, 2007

"It is not a challenge any more." We've got a shuttle sitting on the ground because we can't figure out why the fuel gage won't work. There's no telling how many things will need to be "figured out" in a new system before getting back to the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

j05h · Dec 13, 2007

> And how does this help convince people that Cassini was a good thing to spend a billion dollars on? It's easy to convince people that weather satellites and commsats are good. But what makes them think Gravity Probe B is a good idea? There are a lot of people who will never care about space, science, cosmology or the expansion of Life into the Solar System. Exploration holds no sense of wonder for them. Cassini or Gravity Probe B is as irrelevant to them as Federal agriculture subsidies. Those who might care need to be shown how science probes are part of a larger picture of space development that includes direct, beneficial products. GPS may be a military system (like the 'Net) but it has been heavily commercialized. Look at the revolution in "Nav" systems in automobiles. Weather, GPS, comm.imaging sats are not "exploration" - they are definitely utilization. In an expanding, useful frontier, most things done should be useful, not necessarily exploration. The more use the frontier is, the sooner it develops. Vishniac brings up a good point above, where to much attention brings to many negatives to a project or social development. This isn't meant as snobbery, but does the space movement really need the least common denominator of Humanity onboard? We're still in the trailblazing phase (barely started that, even), we don't necessarily need everyone supporting space development. Space has to be relevant to apply even to the savvy/early-adopters (Branson, Musk, Bezos are visionaries on this). If it's political space, it has to also be non-controversial - witness Congress & NASA sparring over not funding humans-to-mars research. Compare that to say 4Frontiers, which has determined the destination (a decent-sized base on Mars) and are working toward those goals within their fiscal limits. As space geeks, our challenge is two-fold. Help spread the message of our unlimited future in space. Also,we have to "run inter <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

schmack · Dec 13, 2007

hi everyone, sorry to but in, but this is a very interesting thread. MannyPim, I was wondering if you might be able to provide an email address where we might send an email in support of the U.S going back to the moon sooner rather than later? (the way they did for hubble) because i don't know about you guys, but i would surely send one. However i think it will end up in the hands of private enterprise to finally provide whats needed to get us to become a "space fairing nation" also while i'm inclined to agree with the opinion of getting the message out there in order to get what you want (ie: business marketing, political campaiging, save the whales, etc) i think i prefer the idea of flying under the radar and doing it the way they do in anarctica. This seems have been proven as a fairly comprehensive means of forward motion with a solid chance of some slow success. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups Gimme some Schmack Schmack! </div>

qso1 · Dec 13, 2007

vishniac: Stop this madness of wanting presidential announcements, continuous presidential support, $bilions projects, the audience and approvement of the entire population, the support of the media, and so on... Me: The only way this can happen is for the private sector to take over a huge portion, if not all of human spaceflight. As for madness, IMO, its even crazier to be claiming to need NASA budgets cut to support other programs when NASAs budget has already been cut 50% three plus decades ago. Where did those savings go? I ask because everything centers around cost while nobody bothers to check to see if the cost argument is a valid one. It would be valid if the vast majority of Americans were dirt poor. But all we got for three plus decades of NASA lite is...S&L scandal, Iran Conta, Deficit spending decade after decade...no real improvement at NASA despite a few years of surplusses during the Clinton years. No improvement in the education system that critics of NASA said would occur decades ago if only we'd divert NASA budgets, which we supposedly did...to such worthy causes as education. Its not about money IMO. Money is only the excuse used (And NASA an easy target) by politicians to justify diverting money to whatever special interest group has them in their pocket. The cost of going to the moon or mars will easily dwarf Antarctic bases because of the life support and transport capabilities involved. Unless there is some quantum leap in how we contract out aerospace projects...the cost is always going to be high because of the variety and type of expertise required on an ongoing basis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

qso1 · Dec 13, 2007

You bring up lots of good points. I sum it up this way. Unless there is some quantum change in American thinking across the board, or some quantum event. We are not going to the moon or mars. One event that could get the gears in motion would be discovery of microbiological life on mars. To make spaceflight relevant. The public has to be able to actively participate. The private sector is our only hope now the way I see it. And tho some call for abolishing NASA (Not necessarily you J05H). If the private sector is successful, then in time...NASA will be phased out. The majority of Press, politicians, and public (3Ps) do not care about human spaceflight except as to its cost. The campaign to marginalize NASA accomplishments has succeeded whether its the fault of the three Ps, NASA or both. The point of going to the moon or mars should be what it always was. Exploration of the solar system. Not as a means to generate spinoffs or benefit the man on the street directly. Government programs designed to benefit the man on the street are a mess as it is. Why ask an agency that has a specific task to go outside its mandate. Once the public is able to be involved in spaceflight in a more direct way (Private sector, tourism). Nobody will be worried about cost or benefit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

holmec · Dec 13, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Folks, we are basically doing Apollo II.<hr /></blockquote> Sure, its Apollo II or 2.0. Were picking up where Apollo left off. And why is that a bad thing? I think that's exactly what we need to do. Apollo fulfilled and went beyond Kennedy's mandate. And the last couple of missions were science missions, as in geology. That job is not done yet! Apollo was stopped in the light of Vietnam war and Cold War. Not to mention societal upheaval and the want to explore our capabilities to make space craft (hence STS, SkyLab, and ISS). Its about time we got back on the Lunar horse. But I'm afraid that the Lunar quest will out do the Mars effort. Luckily we have organizations like Mars Society. Perhaps New Space will do on Mars what NASA could only dream about. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

l3p3r · Dec 13, 2007

On the topic of the threat of NEO collision with Earth; I think a privately funded mission (relatively low cost, long time span) to gravity tug a large asteroid onto a collision course with Earth would have a very good ROI in terms of galvanizing the population to see value in the space program <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MannyPim · Dec 13, 2007

Greetings Schmack ! I don't have specific NASA email addresses for you. I will try to find the most effective ones. In the meantime, I believe the most effective way to influence NASA is to influence those in charge of oversight in Congress (although NASA has been known to completely disregard congressional mandates in the past). I would try to express my opinions to as many of the people mentioned below as possible (my opinion being of course, that a schedule slip of THREE YEARS in the FIRST THREE YEARS of the VSE project is bull&%$#@! !!!). It is our job as tax payers to demand accountability and performance for the money NASA is spending. We need to constantly hold their feet to the fire. Traditionally, the most vigorous NASA oversight has been done by the House Science Committee. Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the presumptive chair of that committee in the new Congress, said that would not change under his leadership. "An important part of the Committee's agenda will be serious and sustained oversight of all of NASA's activities," Gordon said in a written response to questions from Space News. "In that regard, we will of course be examining the Administration's exploration initiative -- including its objectives, its schedule and funding, and the roles of international cooperation and the commercial sector --â€‘ to make sure the nation gets the best return on its investment in this important initiative." Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), whose Boulder congressional district is home to Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corp., the Southwest Research Institute and the National Weather Service's Space Environment Center, is expected to become chair of the House Science space and aeronautics subcommittee. Udall, who has said he is committed to helping NASA maintain momentum on its space exploration goals without "hollowing out space and Earth science" or sacrificing aeronautics research, wou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

MannyPim · Dec 13, 2007

Sure, its Apollo II or 2.0. Were picking up where Apollo left off. And why is that a bad thing? I think that's exactly what we need to do. Apollo fulfilled and went beyond Kennedy's mandate. And the last couple of missions were science missions, as in geology. That job is not done yet! I am of the opinion that ANY progress is better than NONE. And I don't see anything wrong with building on our previsous accomplishments. The most important thing as we prepare to return to the Moon this time is that we go with the purpose and full commitment to establish a permanent presence and hopefully to exapnd that presence as quickly as possible. I am not really objecting to doing Apollo 2.0 (again, as long as we have long term objectives and we are not just doing another one shot program). My point was that since we are basically doing Apollo 2.0, I think it is bull that we need 20 years to do it, now that we have much better technology and now that we are no loner dealing with the unkown as we were in the 60s. VSE was annouced in 2004. Our estimate on putting boots on the ground was 2015 to 2017. Now, barely three years into the program, we have already slipped the schedule by THREE YEARS !?!? At this rate, I would be surprised if we got back to the Moon by 2025. That's 21 YEARS to do what we have already done in less than 9, almost a half a century ago. That's my objection. But I'm afraid that the Lunar quest will out do the Mars effort. Luckily we have organizations like Mars Society. Perhaps New Space will do on Mars what NASA could only dream about. My personal opinion is that the Moon should be our natural priority. Mars can wait. I am not saying that Mars SHOULD wait. And I am not saying that we must get to Mars via the Moon. In an ideal world, NASA would be funded to at least 2% of the Federal budget (or abo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

MannyPim · Dec 13, 2007

On the topic of the threat of NEO collision with Earth; I think a privately funded mission (relatively low cost, long time span) to gravity tug a large asteroid onto a collision course with Earth would have a very good ROI in terms of galvanizing the population to see value in the space program As I said in another post here, I welcome and celebrate every step forward. And your suggestion is certainly a very significant step forward. Of course, the threat of death hanging over people's heads for months (as would be the case if we were to detect a NEO on a collision course with the Earth) would have a much more direct and "inspiring" effect than an experimental mission to an asteroid. But I would LOVE to see us create and develop the technology to divert NEOs as soon as possible. We will need it one day and we don't know how soon that will be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

holmec · Dec 13, 2007

good points. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />My point was that since we are basically doing Apollo 2.0, I think it is bull that we need 20 years to do it, now that we have much better technology and now that we are no loner dealing with the unkown as we were in the 60s.<hr /></blockquote> Reasons for 20 versus 9 years: 1. Apollo was just to get there, we need hardware to stay. a. not only is the rockets being developed but hardware for the ground to include new space suits and rover and habs. 2. We are setting down on the moon double the man power we did in Apollo at a time. 3. Different way of going to the moon than Apollo. Using a two launcher system that makes a 'ship' to go to the moon. 4. The 'know how' of the Apollo program though is documented, the people of that time period are dying. So important information will inevitably die with them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

j05h · Dec 13, 2007

> Unless there is some quantum change in American thinking across the board, or some quantum event. We are not going to the moon or mars. One event that could get the gears in motion would be discovery of microbiological life on mars. I disagree somewhat. The quantum changes are already occurring especially the 2004 SpaceShipOne flights. Life on Mars could change policy goals but could also lock Mars away for study. The thing that will make space development happen is building businesses that can continue to grow, offering space products. Civil space (NASA, NOAA) can only exist as part of a larger whole. If NASA could more accurately position itself in the public mind-share (tiny $ for huge rewards and a "brand" for space) it would be in a better position. > The point of going to the moon or mars should be what it always was. Exploration of the solar system. Not as a means to generate spinoffs or benefit the man on the street directly. Government programs designed to benefit the man on the street are a mess as it is. Why ask an agency that has a specific task to go outside its mandate. That is not at all what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that NASA needs to go to the Moon and beyond with others, especially American industry. The current plans are irrelevant for most people because it is entirely a rehash. If they supported SPS then it could happen faster but will probably happen any way. I'm talking about the opposite of NASA building space hotels. If they want to buy modules from Bigelow and do whatever with them, that's excellent. But the EarthRise Hilton should be done privately, and be relevant to (well-heeled) normal people. NASA needs to present itself as an enabler of further efforts and part of a much larger whole that includes Big Aero, Institutional Space, new.space and mil.space. Beamed power, space-cell phones, better GPS, sub and orbital flights and especially tourism & settlement, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 13, 2007

I'm not sure the SpaceShipOne flights accomplished much. Sure, they won the prize, but what have they done since then. Nothing. Hopefully they are developing hardware for the future, but for now looks like a one time event. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MannyPim · Dec 13, 2007

I'm not sure the SpaceShipOne flights accomplished much. Sure, they won the prize, but what have they done since then. Nothing. Hopefully they are developing hardware for the future, but for now looks like a one time event. Come on MW.... SpaceShip One was a watershed event. It showed that a private company dedicated to a vision can accomplish more and faster than an organization like NASA, for a lot less money. I think I saw a figure on what it would have cost NASA to develop, build, and fly SpaceShip One and it was something on the order of $300 to $400 Million dollars (about 10 times what it actually cost Scaled Composits). It is also a watershed event because a fleet of SpaceShip Two is being build for Virgin Galactic that will begin to fly people to space by the hundreds and soon by the thousands per year. I talk a lot about the importance of making space relevant to people's lives and get them thinking about the possibilities. I can think of only tow or three other things that could have as profound an impact as regular suborbital flights. We all know we have to crawl before we can walk and before we can run. This is where we are now, at the crawling stage. But it is a beginning and it will lead to the next step. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

tanstaafl76 · Dec 13, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm not sure the SpaceShipOne flights accomplished much. Sure, they won the prize, but what have they done since then. Nothing. Hopefully they are developing hardware for the future, but for now looks like a one time event.<hr /></blockquote> Uhm, they are in the process of building a fleet of ships for Virgin Galactic. So I don't know as I'd call that nothing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vulture2 · Dec 13, 2007

>>Beamed solar power is the obvious next choice for massive global benefit. I am all for going into space but the original arguments for SPS asumed there would be no technology for storage of solar energy and that nuclear power would be rejected due to safety concerns, and that no new power sources would appear. Wth improvements in fuel cells, hydrogen appears a viable energy storage medium. Nuclear now provides 80% of the electricity in France and more than half in New England. The estimates showing space solar power to be cost-competitive were unfortunately biased by large doses of wishful thinking. I think space can be developed, like most exotic locals on earth, for research and tourism. But these activities are sensitive to cost and less expensive technology (i.e. fully reusable launch vehicles) is needed.

spacy600 · Dec 13, 2007

"The reason is that the Moon can and will become a new and profitalble sector of the economy in the next 20 to 30 years." Doing what?, I am looking for that Killer App. I can understand LEO fuel depot, LEO Habs, hotel, tourist, ect Drug manufacture, Leo ship building with asteroid metal. What is so economically special about the moon? I can understand Radio astronomy, tourist.

MannyPim · Dec 13, 2007

Doing what?, I am looking for that Killer App. I can understand LEO fuel depot, LEO Habs, hotel, tourist, ect Drug manufacture, Leo ship building with asteroid metal. What is so economically special about the moon? I can understand Radio astronomy, tourist. Well, there may not be a killer app. Most likely it will take a combination of economic activities to make a Lunar colony a profitable venture. There could also be a killer app that no one has thought about or even imagined yet. However, if there is a killer app, I would say that you are on the right track. It is Space /Lunar Tourism. Besides tourism the possibilties include (in no particular order): 1. Production of raw materials for space construction (steel, aluminum, silicon, titanium, oxygen, etc) 2. Installation and maintenance of large astronomy instrument "farms" (radio telescopes, Very Large Baseline interferometers, microwave and UV telescopes, etc) 3. Prospecting for PGMs (platinum group metals) 4. Large scale vacuum manufacturing 5. Maintaining an active NEO defense station. 6. Participate in the technology development for Mars and other solar system missions. 7. Novel entertainment projects - TV, movies, shows, sports in 1/6 G. Besides the environmental conditions that make these things feasible on the Moon, the other critical aspects that make the Moon a special place for commerce are its proximity to the Earth, the small communications delay, and the constant line of sight contact. And, as I said, there will be many more things happening on the Moon which we cannot yet imagine. Once we build it, we will figure out many new uses for it. We are at a place in history comparable to the Columbus trip across the ocean. When he was conceiving of the trip, he was probably thinking of trading some gold and spices.... I am sure he never envisoned <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

qso1 · Dec 14, 2007

J05H: I disagree somewhat. The quantum changes are already occurring especially the 2004 SpaceShipOne flights. Life on Mars could change policy goals but could also lock Mars away for study. Me: I would agree that the examples you cited are quantum changes underway. What will be needed now is that those changes fully occur in such a way as to render endless debating over the use of government funded spaceflight moot. I hope this quantum change takes place and NASA eventually retired so there will be no longer the decades long quest just to get someone to say yes to funding something like human mars missions. A near term phase of the private sector and NASA furthering human spaceflight utilizing their particular capabilities and a long term phase where the private sector has taken over the spaceflight game entirely. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 14, 2007

Well, a trip around their site (sales brochure <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) shows a lot of concepts, but I have yet to see any hardware. In fact their site is painful to read through since there's so little hard information, and it's organized like a sales tour, unlike SpaceX. We'll see if they get something off the ground in 2008. I hope so, then I'll feel a lot better. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MannyPim · Dec 14, 2007

Well, a trip around their site (sales brochure ) shows a lot of concepts, but I have yet to see any hardware. In fact their site is painful to read through since there's so little hard information, and it's organized like a sales tour, unlike SpaceX. That's what happens when you make space acessible to many people. It stops being a spectator event and a curiosity and becomes a business. And marketing is a critical aspect of every business. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

MannyPim · Dec 14, 2007

Do you ever get the feeling you were born 200, 300 years to soon? Only every single day..... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I would actually settle for having been born 50 years later.... I remain convinced that the big life span extension breakthrough will happen within the next 30 years and then, not longer after that, indefinite lifespans.... people will live as long as they wish to live. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

kyle_baron · Dec 15, 2007

I think almost all, if not all the money NASA gets should be with the single goal of finding organic life in our solar system. I'm convinced it's here in some form, with Titan, Europa, and Mars being the best candidates. We need to prove that life exists outside of the Earth. Yawn. Who cares about microbial life? And what purpose would it serve? If found, it's going to be made up of the same elements, as found on Earth. Yawn. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MannyPim · Dec 15, 2007

I think almost all, if not all the money NASA gets should be with the single goal of finding organic life in our solar system. I'm convinced it's here in some form, with Titan, Europa, and Mars being the best candidates. We need to prove that life exists outside of the Earth. I tend to agree with kyle-baron... NASA's primary focus should be on creating and maturing the enabling technologies that will be needed for space settlement. The amount of discovery and science we can do AFTER we have permanent colonies on the Moon and in space is going to eclipse anything we can do from Earth or even robotically. And science can wait. The information will always be there. But we need to move forward agressively with space settlement. There is a window of opportunity now and we must take advantage of it. We don;t know how lng this window will remain open. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible. </div>

arkady · Dec 15, 2007

Yawn. Who cares about microbial life? And what purpose would it serve? If found, it's going to be made up of the same elements, as found on Earth. Yawn. Sarcasm I hope. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "The choice is the Universe, or nothing ... " - H.G Wells </div>

Well, this is kind of disappointing....

centsworth_II

Guest

j05h

Guest

schmack

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

holmec

Guest

l3p3r

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

holmec

Guest

j05h

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

vulture2

Guest

spacy600

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

qso1

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

MannyPim

Guest

arkady

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page