WHEN ARE THE NEWLY DESIGNED SPACE SHUTTLES COMING!!!!!!!

[caper]

When are the new crafts coming??. Scrap the station. Lets go to Mars. Lets have Nuclear high engery fission pulse engines e.g. Vasimir, Dr. Diaz's designs, Pulse engines ,etc,etc!!!

 

[tomnackid]

And scrapping the ISS will get you all that?

 

[rubicondsrv]

"fission pulse engines"<br />are you talking about orion? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[caper]

Sorry I dont understand your question

 

[vogon13]

YEA ! Orion!<br /><br />Let's put a shoppinjg mall on Mars! My sister will find a way to get there, without NASA.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[ob1kenobe85]

I agree, something needs to be done NOW on this issue. Whether is ION Pulse engines, or fission run propulsion we need to get off this rock before we destroy it and ourselves. We got a rock coming this way as it is. Looking at the 2010-2012 area for impact. Lets get off our ass and do some research and testing.

 

[mattblack]

When are the newly designed shuttles coming? Er... Ask Richard Branson. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

Global warming will make large portions of this planet uninhabitable within the next 100 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

"Global warming will make large portions of this planet uninhabitable within the next 100 years."<br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Not sure where this comes from. The Earth was warmer in the past and was MORE hospitable to life. I'm not saying the change will be a picnic, but "...large portions unihabitable."??? How do you figure that?

 

[jschaef5]

<font color="yellow">When are the newly designed shuttles coming? Er... Ask Richard Branson. </font><br /><br /><br />We all know that Scaled likes to keep things hush hush <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />When i saw Burt Rutan at EAA 2005 he said that he wants to go to the moon before he dies...The mans got dreams, money, and the engineers, what more does he need? Considering NASA has... a vision and engineers but no money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ob1kenobe85]

I dont know, why dont you think about it instead of asking "How do you figure that" all info you need is right in front of your face. Do some research!

 

[caper]

What do you mean brother??

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Global warming will make large portions of this planet uninhabitable within the next 100 years.</i><br /><br />Actually, it might make some areas more inhabitable and more fertile, while making others more inhospitable. Human induced climate change will certainly wreak havoc, but probably won't render the planet uninhabitable. <br /><br />I do wonder about the unprecedented water pollution that will result from heavily developed coastal areas going underwater due to rising sea levels, though!

 

[JonClarke]

NASA has a lot more money than Rutan!<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>

 

[jschaef5]

That is very true. But it will probably take NASA a ton more money because of all the issues that are associated with being part of the government. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

>Global warming will make large portions of this planet uninhabitable within the next 100 years.<br /><br />Good, that'll free up equatorial launch sites. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Seriously though, the earth's surface temp has been higher, and lower, than it currently is during the time of man. (<100k years) And for 95% of the fossil record it was higher. If animals and people with rocks and fur were able to get through that, we won't have much trouble. <br /><br />Check http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html for historical climate and CO2 information.

 

[nacnud]

Yeah but early man didn't have to relocate New York, London, Tokyo etc. he just walked uphill a bit. <br /><br />PS this is M&L why are you talking about climate change?

 

[revolutionary]

Scrapping the ISS seems like a very good idea and its definitely something we should keep an open mind about doing. Those scientists, engineers, and technicians currently employed on the ISS project could utilize their talents much more efficiently by abandoning the ISS and concentrating on other endeavors.

 

[tomnackid]

"I dont know, why dont you think about it instead of asking "How do you figure that" all info you need is right in front of your face. Do some research!"<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />I TAUGHT environmental science on the college level so I was probably "doing the research" while you were still ...<br /><br />

 

[spayss]

"Global warming will make large portions of this planet uninhabitable within the next 100 years." <br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />So your're saying every cent of research dolars should be spent to fight global warming. that's a resonable statement as millions of people will benefit as opposed to puting a few astronauts into space. I suppose if one sees doom and gloom for millions then it would be unethical to do otherwise but turn all of science and technology toward the global warming issue and forget about space exploration until the climate challenge is met.<br />

 

[wdobner]

<i>Scrapping the ISS seems like a very good idea and its definitely something we should keep an open mind about doing.</i><br /><br />And what about the billions of dollars of equipment we launched up there? Would you have that equipment just reenter and just be completely wasted? Why not complete the ISS to something near the original specification such that we can have a space research platform for whatever scientific research we may need? It's not as exciting as manned flights to the Moon or Mars, but in terms of our long term inhabitation and exploration of space it's potentially more important. We're going to need platforms in space as we expand outward and while the ISS may be inconveniently placed with it's 51.6 degree orbit it's almost perfect for research. Lets start trying to push a carbon nanotubule research program up onto the ISS. Everyone says they're likely a technology that requires zero gravity for them to be properly created, so set up a lab and start at it on the ISS. That way we can hasten the end of expensive and wasteful earth launch vehicles and their replacement with vastly more efficient space elevators.<br /><br /><i>Those scientists, engineers, and technicians currently employed on the ISS project could utilize their talents much more efficiently by abandoning the ISS and concentrating on other endeavors. </i><br /><br />What endevours would these be? NASA and the Bush Administration have already said that they can get to the Moon and continue ISS construction with the existing NASA budget. Would your proposed squandering of several billion dollars worth of equipment already in space outweigh the very slight savings from 'freeing up' a few scientists and engineers? And what project are these engineers and scientists supposed to work on? Mars flight development beyond the conceptual stage is out until the CEV flies, and by then our neutered space station should be fully constructed and a rather small drain on our budget.

 

[tomnackid]

People don't seem to understand that if the money didn't go into the ISS it WOULD NOT automatically go into other NASA programs. If NASA losses ISS funding then most likely that money will go into non-space gov. programs.

 

[spayss]

"If NASA losses ISS funding then most likely that money will go into non-space gov. programs. "<br /><br /> The argument of bureaucrats in every department and Congressman in every state. The reason we're approaching an 8 billion dollar debt and NO MORE money for space exploration.<br /><br />"We'd better spend the money...even waste it...or we won't get it next year".

 

[tomnackid]

Its everyone's argument because its the truth. <br /><br />It's obvious you have never been involved in departmental budgeting, but the "spend it or lose it" model is unfortunately a part of life. Nothing's perfect. A possible way around it is to offer rewards to companies that accomplish specific goals. For example a 10 billion dollar prize for establishing a base on the moon capable of housing 10 people for a year. Make the goal reasonable enough and the rewards high enough that anyone attempting it has a good chance of making a respectable profit even after investing their own money. This will avoid the typical "$10,000 screwdriver" scenario that so often crops up in government contracts. The down side is that the companies most able to accomplish the goals might consider it too risky, what if a competitor swoops out of nowhere and wins the prize? How do you break the news to you investors? Also, what if a company accomplishes the task to the letter of the agreement but does it by producing something that has no long term usability? Obviously engineers and lawyers would have to go over the terms with a fine tooth comb.<br /><br />No system is going to be perfect. Why don't you try and propose something positive instead of just gripping about the problems?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If NASA losses ISS funding then most likely that money will go into non-space gov. programs.</font>/i><br /><br />Not necessarily. If NASA can propose a plan that largely involves the same contractors and hires the same people in the same districts, then Congress might be willing to switch. The new ESAS plan largely does this -- same SRB contractor, same ET contractor, same main engine contractor, etc.</i>