 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / May 2004Is this even possible?
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/spacestoryN0505MOONMA RS.htm O Keefe says moon mars program can be done keeping bbudget the same, plus inflation. Does anyone else believe that? HAVE A GREAT DAY! >http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/spacestoryN0505MOONMA >RS.htm mind the wrap HAVE A GREAT DAY! > http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/spacestoryN0505MOONMA > RS.htm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does anyone else believe that? Yes, because we're no longer in a race, we have plenty of time. Kill ISS and shuttle, and you free up a huge chunk of NASA's budget to spend on this. Jeff  SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. >Yes, because we're no longer in a race, we have plenty of time. Kill >ISS and shuttle, and you free up a huge chunk of NASA's budget to >spend on this. > >Jeff Thjen why not kill it NOW, and move on? HAVE A GREAT DAY! > >Yes, because we're no longer in a race, we have plenty of time. Kill > >ISS and shuttle, and you free up a huge chunk of NASA's budget to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thjen why not kill it NOW, and move on? For one, NASA has little experience in long term spaceflight. We'll have a much better chance of successfully operating long term missions on the moon and Mars if we gain this experience with ISS now. As you know, the NASA doctors are currently saying a year long mission on ISS isn't prudent. A mission to Mars will be far longer than that. If we don't have the balls to fly this long on ISS, where medical evacuation is hours away, how do we expect to fly to Mars where medical evacuation is many months away? Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. "jeff findley" > > >Yes, because we're no longer in a race, we have plenty of time. 2009 Shuttle retired. 2014 NASA tasked with Mars mission. 2024 NASA completes preliminary study. Congress order changes. 2030 Revised mission approved. 2036 Contracts awarded. 2047 Mission launch. > "jeff findley" > > >Yes, because we're no longer in a race, we have > plenty of time. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 2036 Contracts awarded. > 2047 Mission launch. It's time to worry about the shuttle and ISS programs again: http://www.nasawatch.com/ From the above site: Editor's note: It would seem that Senate Commerce Committee space subcommittee staffer Gen. Pete Worden is pushing his own agenda. He has been telling people that it is just time to get rid of the Space Shuttle and the Space Station and stop wasting money on both programs. With this type of talk, NASA will be lucky if they can keep shuttle and ISS funding going, let alone obtain more funding to start a moon/Mars program. Jeff SignatureRemove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. > Editor's note: It would seem that Senate Commerce Committee space > subcommittee staffer Gen. Pete Worden is pushing his own agenda. He [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Jeff Ending both would give nasa the needed mandate, build something new or fade away. If the shuutle ended NOW for whatever reason could ISS continue? HAVE A GREAT DAY! >> Editor's note: It would seem that Senate Commerce Committee space >> subcommittee staffer Gen. Pete Worden is pushing his own agenda. He [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >If the shuutle ended NOW for whatever reason could ISS continue? This is an over-reactionary idea. There is no point to outright killing STS and ISS when we have the obligation to finish ISS construction. If we can't finish a project in LEO, we have no buisness talking about grand projects on the Lunar surface. I don't know how resigned the folks at NASA are that STS will end around 2010. But, while that reality may not hit home until the last orbiter landing, once that happens NASA will have no choice. Make a new vehicle, or stop flying. And I don't think it should take till 2010 for that reality to hit. The go-ahead for the Shuttle wasn't approved by congress until 1972 when Apollo 16 was underway. By then NASA's remaining Apollo flights were finalized. By 1975, preliminary construction of Columbia was in its early phases, the same year as ASTP -A.L. Mars will never happen, you americans are to busy trying to take over the world. Leave it to China. and whats with the 'HAVE A GREAT DAY'? > > Editor's note: It would seem that Senate Commerce Committee space > > subcommittee staffer Gen. Pete Worden is pushing his own agenda. He [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > HAVE A GREAT DAY! > Mars will never happen, you americans are to busy trying to take over the > world. Leave it to China. The world? Or Mars? > and whats with the 'HAVE A GREAT DAY'? It is American slang for, "I'm done with you, go away". Richard Lamb >> and whats with the 'HAVE A GREAT DAY'? > >It is American slang for, "I'm done with you, go away". > >Richard Lamb Actually I decided to put something upbeat and friendly as my signature. perhaps it could say end STS and ISS NOW? HAVE A GREAT DAY! >>> and whats with the 'HAVE A GREAT DAY'? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > perhaps it could say end STS and ISS NOW? How about just "-- " on one line, and "Bob Haller" on the next? SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >> Actually I decided to put something upbeat and friendly as my signature. >> >> perhaps it could say end STS and ISS NOW? > > How about just "-- " on one line, and "Bob Haller" on the next? That would require Clue enough to dump aol, *and* get a real newsreader. SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen >That would require Clue enough to dump aol, *and* get a real newsreader. I actually like AOL, I have MSN as well, admittely aol tech support really sucks. they haave a great product, but rotten tech support HAVE A GREAT DAY! > Mars will never happen, you americans are to busy trying to take over > the world. Leave it to China. This is rich, a Brit lecturing *anyone* about imperialism. Brings to mind an image of an aging porn actor who can't get it up without Viagra lecturing youth on the evils of sex. SignatureJRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. >> Mars will never happen, you americans are to busy trying to take over >> the world. Leave it to China. > > This is rich, a Brit lecturing *anyone* about imperialism. Brings to mind > an image of an aging porn actor who can't get it up without Viagra > lecturing youth on the evils of sex. Well, if you want someone who *knows*... SignatureThis is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen "mark danson" > Mars will never happen, you americans are to busy trying to take over the > world. Leave it to China. Well yeah I uh don't think that China going to Mars would necessarily be a bad thing. If the Chinese were able to garner the sort political and economic maturity to attempt this sort of mission I would be forced to revise my current opinion of the Chinese dudes, which is that they are a bunch of gossiping fairies with a two bit dictatorship at the top who have until recently destroyed their economy every ten years....but I digress. A Mars mission has never been anything other than extremely improbable under any circusmstance just on technical difficulty alone. The 2047 date is a best-case date, assuming no worldwide war, economic discontinuities due to famine, a society that still values scientific progress, large scale polical value realignments after various immigration flows, the govt's credit rating, etc, etc. Or it could happen in 2250 and the history books will recall the Age of Oil. >, the govt's credit rating, etc, etc. Or it could >happen in 2250 and the history books will recall the Age of Oil. If there is an energy crash after the "Age of Oil," I'd say Mars not before 3004, if ever. "G EddieA95" > If there is an energy crash after the "Age of Oil," I'd say Mars not before > 3004, if ever. Dunno what an energy crash is....I suspect that as supplies fall that prices will rise to high levels, and that substitutes will have to be found such as hydrogen, solar, alchohol, and so on, in addition to the other option of paying the higher price and the option of doing without. And the desire for oil can cause wars, which tend to be a bad thing. When oil becomes scarce, living standards go down, thus a Mars mission becomes unlikely as I would argue that an affluent society is a prerequisite for a Mars mission. I suppose a shortage leading to economic failures, decreased food production, and a war could be considered a crash. Natural gas is used to make nitrogen fertilizer. I don't think the agricultural industry could sustain current output without artificial nutrients for plants. > Natural gas is used > to make nitrogen fertilizer. I don't think the agricultural industry > could sustain current output without artificial nutrients for plants. Actually, the ag industry in the developed world is a relatively minor consumer of energy, just a few percent of total energy demand. We use more energy cooking food than we do growing it. Paul >> Natural gas is used >> to make nitrogen fertilizer. I don't think the agricultural industry [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >consumer of energy, just a few percent of total energy demand. We use >more energy cooking food than we do growing it. It's not energy thats the issue Paul. It's the amount of petrochemicals that are used for non-energy purposes (chemical feedstocks). D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. >>Actually, the ag industry in the developed world is a relatively minor >>consumer of energy, just a few percent of total energy demand. We use [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > petrochemicals that are used for non-energy purposes (chemical > feedstocks). Fossil fuels are overwhelmingly used in agriculture as energy sources (either for fuel, for thermal processing of other mineral fertilizers, or production of hydrogen for ammonia synthesis). You might argue the last is a use as a chemical feedstock, but it's quote substitutable using non-carbon energy sources at prices that could be tolerated. The use of fossil fuels for out-and-out chemical uses, such as pesticides, are a very small fraction of the total fossil fuel use in agriculture, and could also be substituted for by diverting a very small fraction of ag output to chemical production. In fact, overall, actual petrochemicals (aside possibly from some of the highest volume plastics) could be substituted for entirely from renewable sources. The quantity of material involved is just not very large compared to the amount of fuel consumed for energy. Paul "Paul F. Dietz" < . The quantity of material involved > is just not very large compared to the amount of fuel consumed > for energy. Well that's good to know. I was a little concerned that food prices were going to have a big increase. Thx. > Well that's good to know. I was a little concerned that food prices were > going to have a big increase. Thx. I didn't say food prices wouldn't increase. It's just that this increase will not be all that much, as a fraction of GDP. We don't spend very much on food now (and most of that cost is added after the farm.) Paul [...] > In fact, overall, actual petrochemicals (aside possibly from > some of the highest volume plastics) could be substituted for > entirely from renewable sources. The quantity of material involved > is just not very large compared to the amount of fuel consumed > for energy. Ahhh, but several reports indicate the energy required to use the substitutes goes up considerably; you end up using more petrochems.... I'll try to remember to track down a cite...I know Sci Am had an article, and I think I've seen similar articles in American Scientist and/or other sources. /dps > Ahhh, but several reports indicate the energy required to use the > substitutes goes up considerably; you end up using more petrochems.... > > I'll try to remember to track down a cite...I know Sci Am had an > article, and I think I've seen similar articles in American Scientist > and/or other sources. If you're talking about ethanol, you're wrong. The heat input there is currently provided from non-petroleum fossil fuels (coal, I think). The heat energy input for these processes could also be provided by nuclear sources. Ethanol production is also not very efficient because it currently doesn't handle cellulose and hemicellulose. A process that uses those gets much more out of the plants, and can use plant varieties that mature over longer periods, increasing the amount of material harvested at a given time from a given area. Paul >>Yes, because we're no longer in a race, we have plenty of time. Kill >>ISS and shuttle, and you free up a huge chunk of NASA's budget to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Thjen why not kill it NOW, and move on? >HAVE A GREAT DAY! Because we made a deal with various international partners to complete ISS. While most US hardware is already up there, most JAXA and ESA equipment is still sitting on the ground. The US has to keep some of its promises. Question though, does NASA plan to look to the Russians and the ESA for support of any Lunar program? -A.L. They always say this, but the reality is often different. Human nature. Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ | http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004a/spacestoryN0505MOONMA | RS.htm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | Does anyone else believe that? | HAVE A GREAT DAY! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.