If Moon,Mars and Beyond Canceled what next for NASA?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ray - 19 Sep 2005 01:41 GMT For sake of argument lets say that moon, mars and beyond is underfunded and then canceled next decade sometime, so the moon, mars and beyond program is off. What will NASA spend their 16 billion dollar or 15 billion dollar budget money on? Orbiting the Earth in CEV and Space Station for eternity? Or will this lead to eventually getting rid of manned spaceflight? What do you all think?
Ray
Bob Haller - 19 Sep 2005 01:55 GMT I hope we get to mars in my lifetime. I kinda doubt it, since I am 48:(
But if the program gets canned as I suspect every Bush idea will I have hopes for a aggreasive robotic program.
I just hope miss management doesnt get the entire NASA canned, by say run away costs and preventable astronaut deaths
Cardman - 19 Sep 2005 02:51 GMT >I hope we get to mars in my lifetime. I kinda doubt it, since I am 48:( Given an average life expectancy of 76 years, then NASA would have until 2033 to reach Mars. So that is only possible if things go very well. I would more expect things to take another decade.
My own 76 years would be up in 2047, which makes me think that I may just about make it.
Still, since life does not work in averages, then you could either be hit by a train tomorrow, or to go on to live until you are 128.
Should you wish to extend your life expectancy, then avoid smoking, being overweight, unhealthy food, excessive alcohol and other drugs, and to try staying out of dangerous situations. And I guess that regular health checks would help as well.
There is also the option that you may never die. The old multiple universes theory.
Like if you held a bomb with a random trigger on it with 50% chance of going off, then the Universe would split into two at this point. In one Universe you would be alive, and in the second you would be dead and covering a large area.
The key aspect here is that your consciousness can only exist in the Universe where you are alive. In this context your life could either be very long or even immortal. Those people dying around you would just be extending their existence into another Universe.
So always be optimistic.
>But if the program gets canned as I suspect every Bush idea will I have >hopes for a aggreasive robotic program. That seems likely. I doubt that they would cancel human spaceflight though, when the worst case should be that they do more LEO.
>I just hope miss management doesnt get the entire NASA canned, by say >run away costs and preventable astronaut deaths I highly doubt that entire NASA would be canned. It could be broken up though, where say some aspects could be moved to the commercial side.
Cardman.
Bob Haller - 19 Sep 2005 03:16 GMT Honestly I think commercials willdo way more than NASA, and have a better chance of reaching Mars too.
nmp - 19 Sep 2005 18:42 GMT Op Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:16:33 -0700, schreef Bob Haller:
> Honestly I think commercials willdo way more than NASA, and have a > better chance of reaching Mars too. There has to be a profit, or no commercial flight to Mars will take place the next million years or so. No?
Joe Strout - 19 Sep 2005 20:55 GMT > Op Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:16:33 -0700, schreef Bob Haller: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There has to be a profit, or no commercial flight to Mars will take place > the next million years or so. No? No; lots of things are done that aren't profitable.
Why, just the other night I went to a movie, for example. No profit in that for me at all, though I did enjoy the experience...
Best, - Joe
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------'
nmp - 19 Sep 2005 23:11 GMT Op Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:55:13 -0600, schreef Joe Strout:
>> Op Sun, 18 Sep 2005 19:16:33 -0700, schreef Bob Haller: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why, just the other night I went to a movie, for example. No profit in > that for me at all, though I did enjoy the experience... Than the enjoyment was your profit.
Now tell us why a private company should want to go to Mars.
Just for the heck of it, is just not a good enough answer.
There needs to at least a reasonable expectation for *some* tangible result before anyone would invest the x*10^9 dollars to go to Mars.
Of course, if some government or assortment of governments would be paying the bill, there would be quite a few companies willing to propose some kind of project.
Is this the future of space travel?
Joe Strout - 19 Sep 2005 23:59 GMT > >> There has to be a profit, or no commercial flight to Mars will take place > >> the next million years or so. No? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Than the enjoyment was your profit. Not in monetary terms. But you're right, I was willing to take a monetary loss because I *wanted* to; I found it satisfying and fulfilling.
> Now tell us why a private company should want to go to Mars. Oh, come on. I've practically led you by the hand to the answer; surely you can take that last little step yourself? The analogy is not a complicated one.
> Just for the heck of it, is just not a good enough answer. Nope, but keep going, you're on the right track.
> There needs to at least a reasonable expectation for *some* tangible > result before anyone would invest the x*10^9 dollars to go to Mars. This statement seems to make an assumption that (1) the value of x will always be something > 1, and (2) that so many dollars will always represent a substantial amount of wealth. In your earlier post, you were making statements about the next half-million years, as I recall. It seems very unlikely that your assumption above will be true for that long.
> Of course, if some government or assortment of governments would be paying > the bill, there would be quite a few companies willing to propose some > kind of project. > > Is this the future of space travel? No. The future of space travel is people paying to travel in space because... well, I don't want to give it away any more than I already have. It would be rude of me to suppose that you haven't figured it out by now.
Best, - Joe
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------'
Rand Simberg - 20 Sep 2005 03:09 GMT On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:59:27 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe Strout <joe@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >> There has to be a profit, or no commercial flight to Mars will take place >> >> the next million years or so. No? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >monetary loss because I *wanted* to; I found it satisfying and >fulfilling. The issue isn't whether or not you "made a profit." You were a consumer. It's whether or not the movie producer (as a provider of transportation to the moon or Mars) would do so.
Joe Strout - 20 Sep 2005 04:23 GMT > >> > No; lots of things are done that aren't profitable. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > consumer. It's whether or not the movie producer (as a provider of > transportation to the moon or Mars) would do so. That's a different analogy than the one I was trying to make. I was pointing out how I, as an individual, am perfectly willing to lose money on activities because I find the expenditure rewarding or worthwhile in other ways. Organizations can do the same thing: for example, non-profit organizations do exactly that, institutionally. If we're talking about the next half-million years (the silly timeframe posited by the OP I was responding to), it's not at all unreasonable to suppose that NPOs or even individuals will be quite able to colonize space just because they feel it worthwhile, quite apart from any profit motive.
Of course, it's a bit of a moot point because I also think that there *is* profit to be made in space, and space development will happen for those reasons first. But I still reject the assertion that, without a source of profit, space colonization would not happen within the next 500K years.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | joe@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------'
nmp - 20 Sep 2005 09:16 GMT Op Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:23:06 -0600, schreef Joe Strout:
> Of course, it's a bit of a moot point because I also think that there > *is* profit to be made in space, How? This is faith/belief, not reason.
> and space development will happen for those reasons first. But I still > reject the assertion that, without a source of profit, space > colonization would not happen within the next 500K years. Without a source of profit COMMERCIAL space colonization is impossible.
You are right though, when you say there may be other reasons to do it.
nmp - 20 Sep 2005 09:07 GMT Op Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:09:29 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> The issue isn't whether or not you "made a profit." You were a > consumer. It's whether or not the movie producer (as a provider of > transportation to the moon or Mars) would do so. Right. And no one is going to buy shares in a company that aims to set up a passenger ferry to Mars, just because they will never see return on their investment *in their lifetime*.
Rand Simberg - 20 Sep 2005 15:55 GMT On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:07:33 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> The issue isn't whether or not you "made a profit." You were a >> consumer. It's whether or not the movie producer (as a provider of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a passenger ferry to Mars, just because they will never see return on >their investment *in their lifetime*. That's not at all obvious.
Alan Anderson - 20 Sep 2005 14:03 GMT > >Right. And no one is going to buy shares in a company that aims to set up > >a passenger ferry to Mars, just because they will never see return on > >their investment *in their lifetime*. > > That's not at all obvious. The problem is that it *is* obvious.
It's obvious in the same way that the Earth is obviously flat, and heavy objects obviously fall faster than lighter ones, and human-powered flight is obviously impossible, and a business based on providing overnight package delivery is obviously impractical.
From the point of view of someone looking only at the cost side of the equation, human spaceflight of any sort is absurd on the face of it.
nmp - 20 Sep 2005 15:00 GMT Op Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:03:06 +0000, schreef Alan Anderson:
> From the point of view of someone looking only at the cost side of the > equation, human spaceflight of any sort is absurd on the face of it. Right, and this is exactly why commercial enterprises are not going to go there - unless they get big government contracts to do so. Because for them the costs far outweigh the benefits.
Last time I checked out the rover pictures, there was no money growing on trees on Husband Hill, waiting to be harvested and brought back to Terra to make lots of people rich. Which would, kinda, justify a commercial effort to go there and pluck the dollar bills from the trees.
I am not saying that people should not go to Mars, because I think they should. My point is that it is just not realistic to expect that some kind of private party is going to finance this endeavour any time soon.
Much less, that they could do better than some kind of government program could. Mind you, it need not be NASA, as I understand that quite a few of you are a bit fed up with that organization.
But if you have any serious indication that perhaps some entrepeneur anywhere in the world is even thinking about deploying a base on Mars, or even the Moon and have ferry services set up to go there *and* expecting a return on investment, without any government funds at all, please let me know.
I will buy a ticket for that bus line, if it's affordable :)
Rand Simberg - 20 Sep 2005 18:09 GMT On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:00:12 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>But if you have any serious indication that perhaps some entrepeneur >anywhere in the world is even thinking about deploying a base on Mars, or >even the Moon and have ferry services set up to go there *and* expecting a >return on investment, without any government funds at all, please let me >know. Actually, Elon Musk has long been thinking about exactly that.
nmp - 20 Sep 2005 15:23 GMT Op Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:09:34 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:00:12 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Actually, Elon Musk has long been thinking about exactly that. Yes, but he's back to building rockets now, isn't he?
Which is a good thing by itself, and I admire SpaceX like every one else for doing what they do.
Rand Simberg - 20 Sep 2005 18:30 GMT On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:23:57 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Op Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:09:34 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Yes, but he's back to building rockets now, isn't he? "Back to it"? As a first step, yes, but the goal hasn't changed.
nmp - 20 Sep 2005 18:06 GMT Op Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:30:34 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:23:57 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > "Back to it"? As a first step, yes, but the goal hasn't changed. From growing vegetables on Martian soil it is definitely a step back.
The goal remains what it is: a goal. Not a serious plan. Not the industrial moneymaker so many are dreaming of.
Of course it's good to have goals, I will never criticize anyone for having them :)
Rand Simberg - 20 Sep 2005 21:28 GMT On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:06:09 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>>But if you have any serious indication that perhaps some entrepeneur >>>>>anywhere in the world is even thinking about deploying a base on Mars, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >From growing vegetables on Martian soil it is definitely a step back. How can it be a "step back," when he was not taking that step? You confuse steps with ultimate goals.
>The goal remains what it is: a goal. Not a serious plan. Not the >industrial moneymaker so many are dreaming of. It doesn't have to be an "industrial moneymaker" to be profitable, or successful. You seem to be arguing strawmen.
nmp - 20 Sep 2005 20:21 GMT Op Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:28:40 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:06:09 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > How can it be a "step back," when he was not taking that step? You > confuse steps with ultimate goals. And by ultimate goal, you mean going to Mars?
Isn't the ultimate stated goal of SpaceX more humble (and yet still very ambitious) to slash launch costs for access to orbital space by a factor of ten? That is, the kind of project that you could actually find customers and return of investment for?
I know Musk once spoke of growing vegetables on Mars in 2005. Has it happened? No, and probably he found out it was not a realistic plan to begin with at all. I would even assume that he knew that all the time, and that he is more of a realist than you are ;)
>>The goal remains what it is: a goal. Not a serious plan. Not the >>industrial moneymaker so many are dreaming of. > > It doesn't have to be an "industrial moneymaker" to be profitable, or > successful. You seem to be arguing strawmen. Listen. Regardless of who is going to do it, the first ever human flight to Mars is going to cost several billions of your US dollars, right? And this flight will not be carrying passengers, just a handful of crew members. There is not going to be a base over there or any kind of serious infrastructure (like the kind you would need for operating a business), just a cramped shelter/crew module where they essentially camp out for the little time they stay. And then, they are not going to bring home shiploads of priceless booty either. If they return at all.
So how is this going to be profitable, or even attractive, to private parties. Most of which are not the kind of idealists like Musk.
Rand Simberg - 21 Sep 2005 00:56 GMT On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:21:31 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Op Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:28:40 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >And by ultimate goal, you mean going to Mars? Yes.
>Isn't the ultimate stated goal of SpaceX more humble (and yet still very >ambitious) to slash launch costs for access to orbital space by a factor >of ten? That is, the kind of project that you could actually find >customers and return of investment for? Yes, as a first step to eventually getting to Mars. He recognizes that launch costs are the barrier.
>I know Musk once spoke of growing vegetables on Mars in 2005. Has it >happened? No, and probably he found out it was not a realistic plan to >begin with at all. I would even assume that he knew that all the time, >and that he is more of a realist than you are ;) Perhaps. I've never even heard of that plan.
>>>The goal remains what it is: a goal. Not a serious plan. Not the >>>industrial moneymaker so many are dreaming of. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Listen. Regardless of who is going to do it, the first ever human flight >to Mars is going to cost several billions of your US dollars, right? No, not necessarily. That's only if NASA does it using SDLVs.
nmp - 20 Sep 2005 23:09 GMT Op Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:56:24 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:21:31 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way > as to indicate that: [snippetysnip]
>>And by ultimate goal, you mean going to Mars? > > Yes. We agree.
>>Isn't the ultimate stated goal of SpaceX more humble (and yet still very >>ambitious) to slash launch costs for access to orbital space by a factor [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Perhaps. I've never even heard of that plan. Well, that was *before* he recognized that launch costs are the barrier :)
(around 2001, you could google it up)
But of course, when you are going to Mars, there will be a few other barriers to break too. It's not like going on a picnic. It's not just the rocket that matters.
>>>>The goal remains what it is: a goal. Not a serious plan. Not the >>>>industrial moneymaker so many are dreaming of. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, not necessarily. That's only if NASA does it using SDLVs. Nah. When those guys do it, it is going to be *hundreds* of billions of your US dollars, not (just) several :)
But even when you are getting it cheap, say, just a "few" billions of dollars, there will be no monetary return to speak of. The astronauts involved will all have a lifetime of speaking appointments, but I guess that is not the holy grail you're after.
Rand Simberg - 21 Sep 2005 02:42 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:09:26 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>I know Musk once spoke of growing vegetables on Mars in 2005. Has it >>>happened? No, and probably he found out it was not a realistic plan to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >barriers to break too. It's not like going on a picnic. It's not just the >rocket that matters. True, and irrelevant to your argument. He's taking on one barrier at a time.
>>>Listen. Regardless of who is going to do it, the first ever human flight >>>to Mars is going to cost several billions of your US dollars, right? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >But even when you are getting it cheap, say, just a "few" billions of >dollars, there will be no monetary return to speak of. You continue to think, without basis, that going to Mars must cost "billions" of dollars.
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 07:33 GMT Op Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:42:21 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:09:26 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a > way as to indicate that: [snips]
>>>>Listen. Regardless of who is going to do it, the first ever human flight >>>>to Mars is going to cost several billions of your US dollars, right? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You continue to think, without basis, that going to Mars must cost > "billions" of dollars. Then show me the basis for your belief that it can be done for much less.
Rand Simberg - 21 Sep 2005 15:14 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:33:59 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> You continue to think, without basis, that going to Mars must cost >> "billions" of dollars. > >Then show me the basis for your belief that it can be done for much less. If propellants are cheap (as they could be, with either low-cost launch, or extraterrestrial sources), and it's done on a large scale, there's no particular reason to think that it can't.
Ami Silberman - 21 Sep 2005 18:06 GMT > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:33:59 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > launch, or extraterrestrial sources), and it's done on a large scale, > there's no particular reason to think that it can't. The marginal cost for going to Mars won't cost billions, but once you introduce the notion of relying on large scale, then you have to explain how large a scale. It will still cost billions upfront.
Rand Simberg - 21 Sep 2005 21:11 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:06:48 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Ami Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>> You continue to think, without basis, that going to Mars must cost >>>> "billions" of dollars. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >introduce the notion of relying on large scale, then you have to explain how >large a scale. It will still cost billions upfront. But that money up front is not necessarily chargeable to the Mars flight (e.g., it could be paid for by a tourism industry on the moon).
Ami Silberman - 21 Sep 2005 21:44 GMT > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:06:48 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Ami > Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But that money up front is not necessarily chargeable to the Mars > flight (e.g., it could be paid for by a tourism industry on the moon). But that reduces the investors ROI for setting up lunar tourism. And where do you get the upfront money to pay for the lunar tourism industry, and how much can you siphon off to fund your Mars plans while still growing the lunar industry?
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 22:21 GMT Op Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:44:02 -0400, schreef Ami Silberman:
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:06:48 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Ami >> Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> flight (e.g., it could be paid for by a tourism industry on the moon). > But that reduces the investors ROI for setting up lunar tourism. Good one, Ami :)
Makes me wonder: what would be a reasonable price to ask for a week's stay in the moon hotel (after one got around building it in the first place).
It has to be relatively affordable to the "average" millionaire clientele, I guess. And they are not going to spend their entire little fortune on a moon trip either, so you couldn't charge more than a few millions of dollars for a ticket anyway.
And then you will have to move *lots* of those people up to the moon before you ever break even with the costs of developing the hotel, the transport etc. You will have to bring them home safely too, or nobody's going to fly with you again. That would be a real killer - for your revenue stream, that is :)
> And where do you get the upfront money to pay for the lunar tourism > industry, and how much can you siphon off to fund your Mars plans while > still growing the lunar industry? Right.
Space tourism as a business model sucks. It could be done as a by-product of larger, more important programs. And then of course it would be serving as kind of a PR gimmick.
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 01:26 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:21:00 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>> But that money up front is not necessarily chargeable to the Mars >>> flight (e.g., it could be paid for by a tourism industry on the moon). >> But that reduces the investors ROI for setting up lunar tourism. > >Good one, Ami :) Not really, as I explained.
>> And where do you get the upfront money to pay for the lunar tourism >> industry, and how much can you siphon off to fund your Mars plans while [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Space tourism as a business model sucks. It could be done as a by-product >of larger, more important programs. Yes, that's the conventional wisdom. It's foolish.
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 22:40 GMT Op Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:26:24 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:21:00 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not really, as I explained. Sorry Rand, I guess you are really a nice guy, and you mean well, but you have explained absolutely nothing. Your money seems to come from thin air.
>>> And where do you get the upfront money to pay for the lunar tourism >>> industry, and how much can you siphon off to fund your Mars plans [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, that's the conventional wisdom. It's foolish. No, it's not.
There is no money to be earned in space for a long time to come.
It's not that I do not regret that there is not going to be a big holiday resort or theme park on the "shores" of Mare Tranquillitatis in just a few years, but there is not.
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 01:46 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:40:05 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>> But that money up front is not necessarily chargeable to the Mars >>>>> flight (e.g., it could be paid for by a tourism industry on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Sorry Rand, I guess you are really a nice guy, and you mean well, but you >have explained absolutely nothing. Your money seems to come from thin air. You're going to have to quote what I explained, and explain why it's wrong, or why you didn't understand it, for this to have any weight.
>>>> And where do you get the upfront money to pay for the lunar tourism >>>> industry, and how much can you siphon off to fund your Mars plans [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >There is no money to be earned in space for a long time to come. Do you have some basis for this bizarre statement? I've spent years in this newsgroup explaining and supporting my position. Where's yours?
Jim Davis - 21 Sep 2005 22:50 GMT > I've spent years > in this newsgroup explaining and supporting my position. No offense, Rand, but Brad Guth can make that claim. :-)
Jim Davis
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 01:54 GMT On 21 Sep 2005 21:50:56 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis <jimdavis2@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> I've spent years >> in this newsgroup explaining and supporting my position. > >No offense, Rand, but Brad Guth can make that claim. :-) I do take offense, since he has done neither.
Brad Guth - 22 Sep 2005 03:43 GMT No offense wizard "Jim Davis" and lord "Rand Simberg", but at least I've utilized the hard-science of many others and, I've even utilized the regular laws of physics as opposed to the likes of your evidence exclusions and/or topic avoidance and otherwise heavy usage of your social/religious and politically correct conditional laws of physics that can't possibly hold up in any honest court of law, whereas otherwise deductive reasoning is typically one of the tallest orders of their honest day.
Since our "NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture", then perhaps we village idiots can seriously get with discussing a few of those potentially lethal physical impact issues, thermal extremes, radioactive and otherwise reactive facets and a whole lot further about the atmospheric environment of our moon that really sucks, especially by day unless you're one hell of a robot and thus having no such DNA/RNA to fry or TBI to death.
It seems as though, by way of my going "usenet postal" along with my trusty lose cannon has managed in spite of all of your defensive flak, whereas I've managed to hit a few more of those tender mainstream private parts, at least pricking a few of those status quo nerve-endings. Thus is apparently why others are not even pitching another one of their usual all-knowing and wag-the-dog efforts of damage-control or any other fits over what terraforming our moon has to offer, much less any notions of our sticking with almost if not entirely as to whatever robotics has to offer in the way of achieving the utmost bang for the almighty buck, while otherwise polluting mother Earth the very least per deployed kg. Imagine that, apparently I'm sufficiently right again and they're not.
Nuking our moon via a sub-frozen CO2 dirty-bombs worth of hosting Ra-226/Rn-222 isn't quite the same thing as commonly thought of here upon Earth.
Radium-226 which goes on and on with the process of creating Rn-222 gas is exactly what could become easily delivered to our moon using conventional SBRs as our Earth-->moon torpedoes. Otherwise frozen Rn-222 sequestered within frozen CO2 may have to accomplish the task if folks can't take a hint as to what's otherwise possible.
B1ackwater offers this moon related topic; NASA Back to Moon by 2018 - But WHY ? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/bfe561b9824b9 f1a/ecfa8369f334ec56?hl=en#ecfa8369f334ec56 This is an extremely nice topic and as such it imposes a damn good set of rational questions and alternatives, especially important since we're nearly bankrupt. However, since "NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture", then perhaps we village idiots can seriously discuss those potentially lethal physical impacts, thermal issues, radioactive, reactive and atmospheric environment about our moon that really summarily sucks worse off than our resident warlord(GW Bush), especially by day unless you're one hell of a robot that at most couldn't cost us 1% that of any manned expedition, and not 0.1% if there's no return ticket to ride.
It seems the status quo is entirely mindset into their usual taboo/nondisclosure yet somehow that's perfectly fine and dandy for the likes of wizard "David Knisely", whereas otherwise life involving the regular laws of physics and hard-science that's the least bit outside the box is where pesky morals or so much as having a stitch of remorse sucks because; http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/tree/browse_frm/thread/312c0ee1 964db812/85e2050d1b0c9a78?rnum=11&hl=en&q=brad+guth&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.astro.a mateur%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F312c0ee1964db812%2F8ee6a5d795a6cc43%3Flnk%3Dst%26 q%3Dbrad+guth%26rnum%3D7%26hl%3Den%26#doc_abc3dca90eb703fc
>There are some posters out there >who feel the need to formulate >their own elaborate theories >about the heavens and their fate. And otherwise lord/rusemaster David Knisely having contributed yet another very nicely worded mainstream status quo rant, which is exactly why such all-knowing folks as Knisely are not all that likely going to contribute an honest need-to-know squat upon this next related sub-topic as to the lunar atmosphere and subsequent environment.
The temperature or rather the temperature extremes found on moon surface is what I believe can become moderated to suit, at least on behalf of greatly improving the odds on behalf of robotics that can be robust and thus engineered so as to not care about their local thermal or radioactive background dosage environment nor of whatever's incoming that's producing all of that truly nasty secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays. However, with having such a crystal clear layer of Radon plus another extended layer of Argon should create quit a well insulated surface baking environment that's capable of getting a damn site hotter than the sort of hell reported by our cloak and dagger MI6/NSA~NASA Apollo spooks.
In spite of all the brown-nosed minions of their mainstream status quo that thinks and/or keeps insisting at we village idiots should only think that we've already done that and been there, thus why all of their need-to-know and/or taboo/nondisclosure that sucks and blows at the same time, which only seems rather out of proper form, especially when it appears that building/terraforming an artificial lunar atmosphere for robotics has been doable without our ever risking so much as one TBI white hair upon another astronaut:
Not that I'm insisting this as the one and only alternative, however for further sportmanship reasons I'm thinking that the likes of Radon gas should become liquid at night and, otherwise expand out to perhaps an atmospheric depth of a km by day. Topped off by mostly argon that might reach as far as 50 km by day and something less than 10 km by nighttime/earthshine.
According to Mike Williams; "The strength of the surface gravity (1.623 m/s/s) isn't the critical factor. What's more significant is the escape velocity (Moon 2.38km/s, Titan 2.65km/s)."
"The heavier gas sticks around but the useful gas escapes. The various types of molecules settle down to having the same average kinetic energy, but that means that the lighter molecules move faster than the heavier ones. They move just as fast, in fact, as if the heavier molecules were not present."
"There's a piece of JavaScript on this page <http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4> that will calculate the average molecular speed given the molecular mass and temperature. N2 molecules (m=28) on Titan (T=-197C) average 260m/s which is about a tenth of the escape velocity. CO2 molecules (m=28) on the Moon (daytime T=107C) average 464m/s which is about a fifth of the escape velocity. That might sound OK, but not all molecules travel at the average velocity, some travel faster and leak away. The Earth isn't able to hold on to hydrogen molecules, and they average about a fifth of Earth's escape velocity."
"Radon atoms would travel at an average of 206m/s on the Moon, which suggests that you could build an atmosphere of pure Radon."
Density of dry ice: anywhere from 1.2 to 1.6 kg/dm³ depends upon compactness (avg 1.5 g/cm3) Frozen solid form at -78.5° C Sublimes at anything much hoter than -78°C In a snowball form of compactness upon the moon it may represent less than 1 g/cm3.
Radon, Rn-222 atomic number: 86 Atomic mass: [222] gmol-1(no stable nuclide) Isotope: 222Rn (222.017570) Specific gravity of the liquid state is 4.4 g/cm3 at -62°C, and SG of the solid state becomes 4 g/cm3, thus 4 tonnes/m3 if frozen solid and especially frozen solid if that Rn were sequestered by the likes of frozen CO2 at 1.5 g/mm3.
Radium-226 which creates Rn-222 Symbol: Ra Atomic number: 88 Atomic weight: [226]
A cubic meter of each substance, be it CO2, Radium-226 or even Radon-222 that which by most accounts is exactly what Earth needs to get rid of anyway, may represent a composite sphere of 5.5~6 tonnes, and even that's not going to actually be all that large of diameter of what's encased within dry-ice that can be easily directed at impacting (not orbiting) the moon. From the zero-G vantage point of such being easily and thus efficiently accelerated from the nullification zone of roughly 60,000 km away from the moon's surface might offer 3600 seconds, in that there's an unobstructed path of least resistance that'll obviously benefit greatly from the final 1.623 m/s/s worth of gravity assist, whereas this task should not require all that much added thrust energy if any for getting the final velocity up to good speed of final impact becoming worth 30 km/s (9 fold better KE bang/kg than DEEP IMPACT). Although, what's in the path of stopping us from achieving a roundabout head-on impact of 60+km/s?.
Impacting our moon with 6 tonnes worth of most any substance that's arriving at 30 km/s should represent more than enouth KE for producing 6e6 tonnes of vaporised lunar basalt.
Our moon has been classified as already fairly radioactive by several fold greater than Earth, thus another clue that our moon is actually that of an ET icy proto-moon as having arrived instead of being ejected out of Earth, that plus having the much lesser density makes a whole lot more sense than any spendy computer model that's keeping the likes of a Pope and other terrestrial or bust sorts of religions as happy campers about their being the one and only intelligent life in the entire universe, even thosgh that notion is a bit more depressing than our having the likes of GW Bush as our resident warlord.
Of course, my lunar terraforming notions of artificially bombing the holy crap out of our moon with the likes of large blocks or spheres of dry-ice having frozen Rn within, besides creating whatever horrific meteor like impacts worth of vaporising lunar basalt into capably releasing a ratio of 1e6:1 worth of O2, the very nature of the delivered CO2 might subsequently revert to just good old elements of co/o2 or perhaps react into just C and O2, whereas the Radon element should have vanished within a few days unless we'd replaced and/or supplemented that lunar bombing of frozen Rn with the likes of including Ra226 which might even react quite nicely with the already available He3 into making a nifty long-term supply of creating Rn. After the Ra226 is sufficiently depleted, say in 6400 years it should be at 1/16th of it's initial potency, and by then having established a good amount of terraformed atmosphere as becoming the case since the amount of continual Radon-222 would have extensively moderated the hot/cold of the lunar day/night differential to something quite manageable for the likes of holding onto O2, whereas by then there shouldn't be hardly any significant local radioactive threat for naked humans that could be safely accommodated for 60 earthshine days upon the surface of our moon, that which a reasonably engineered moonsuit couldn't manage, or at least sufficient as for accommodating the likes of whomever we don't want living here on Earth (I have a growing list of whom those folks should be, roughly the bulk of the upper 0.1% of humanity that have been pillaging and raping mother Earth while continually snookering the lower 99.9% of humanity, and I do believe there should be plenty of available space on and/or within the moon for accommodating each and every one of those 15e6 folks in spite of all the deployed Ra226 that upon average shouldn't have modified the already background radioactive terrain by more than 10%).
According to the above "Molecular Speed Calculation" of Argon-40, even if the elevated average altitude represented at worst 100°C (373K) would give Argon the maximum RMS velocity of 482.4 m/s which obviously should stick around. Even that of O2-32 only jumps to an RMS velocity of 539 m/s which should also stay put at least up until a truly nasty solar wind of 1200~2400 km/s excavates such lighter mass elements away.
So, you tell me why artificially bombing our moon, and especially with the sorts of nasty stuff that Earth is getting more and more desperate to get rid of isn't such a good idea.
>So stick to just the cold hard facts >and do not engage these fools. >As time goes on, they should then fade >and prove that knowledge rules! - D. Knisely Obviously this nifty rant closing was speaking on behalf of warning us about himself, as for our not bothering to engage such mainstream rusemasters because, doing so will only bring us MOS LLPOF infomercials and thus wasting human talents, resources of expertise and energy as well as sustaining collateral damage and continued carnage of the innocent.
BTW; just because certain folks fade is more than likely because theve become too smart to waste valuable time and resources upon the lost cause of humanity that's ruled by and thereby performing as brown-nosed minions to the upper most 0.1%, of which the likes of lord D. Knisely is apparently even somewhat above that. ~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 00:54 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:44:02 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Ami Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>> If propellants are cheap (as they could be, with either low-cost >>>> launch, or extraterrestrial sources), and it's done on a large scale, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> But that money up front is not necessarily chargeable to the Mars >> flight (e.g., it could be paid for by a tourism industry on the moon).
>But that reduces the investors ROI for setting up lunar tourism. I doubt if any sensible person would put into a business plan the prospects for Martian colonization, or even visits, as a revenue source...
>And where >do you get the upfront money to pay for the lunar tourism industry, From the LEO tourism industry.
>and how >much can you siphon off to fund your Mars plans while still growing the >lunar industry? I have no Mars plans, and don't anticipate having any. Those who do will fund them from whatever sources they can, based on the prospects of using less expensive lunar infrastructure.
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 21:46 GMT Op Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:11:04 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:06:48 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Ami > Silberman" <silber@mitre.org> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But that money up front is not necessarily chargeable to the Mars > flight (e.g., it could be paid for by a tourism industry on the moon). LOL
And when will the moon hotel be ready, you gather?
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 00:56 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:46:52 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>>Then show me the basis for your belief that it can be done for much less. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >And when will the moon hotel be ready, you gather? Long before NASA will get to Mars. Or perhaps even the Moon.
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 22:22 GMT Op Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:56:40 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 22:46:52 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Long before NASA will get to Mars. Or perhaps even the Moon. Man, you need a reality check.
Henry Spencer - 22 Sep 2005 01:18 GMT >>>And when will the moon hotel be ready, you gather? >> Long before NASA will get to Mars. Or perhaps even the Moon. > >Man, you need a reality check. No, I'm afraid you do. NASA might make it back to the Moon, although I'm no longer betting on that after seeing how they propose to do it. NASA is never going to get to Mars.
Never.
NASA's projected date for doing Mars has been receding into the future at a minimum of one year per year (sometimes faster) for quite a while now. And there's a good reason for that: nobody wants to pay for it at NASA "business as usual" prices. The one hope of making it happen was to show that NASA could do lots better than "business as usual" on a big project. So far there is no evidence of that. Goldin tried but failed to do that on the space station; apparently Griffin isn't even going to try on returning to the Moon.
 Signature spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net
liberalhere@yahoo.com - 22 Sep 2005 05:05 GMT > >>>And when will the moon hotel be ready, you gather? > >> Long before NASA will get to Mars. Or perhaps even the Moon. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > on the space station; apparently Griffin isn't even going to try on > returning to the Moon. Yes, Griffin made that adamantly clear during his nomination hearing, that Bush was his boss and he would be a yes man.
NASA lost all the do-or-die people of the 50s and 60s, especially at the contractor level. All that seem to be there today are the go-along-to-get-along types. I've have co-workers tell me they didn't see any justification for having a space progeam, but they'll accept the paycheck for as long as they can.
> -- > spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer > mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 01:27 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:22:15 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>And when will the moon hotel be ready, you gather? >> >> Long before NASA will get to Mars. Or perhaps even the Moon. > >Man, you need a reality check. Really?
Why?
I could say the same about you, with at least as much basis.
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 22:42 GMT Op Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:27:18 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:22:15 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Really? Yes.
> Why? Because your detachment from reality is quite... impressive. Or are you really just a comedian?
> I could say the same about you, with at least as much basis. Sure :)
It has been fun debating with you. Thanks.
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 01:47 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:42:54 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>>And when will the moon hotel be ready, you gather? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >It has been fun debating with you. Thanks. <shrug>
I get paid for my opinions about this stuff. What's your pedigree, since you seem to offer no actual arguments?
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 22:49 GMT Op Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:47:49 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> I get paid for my opinions about this stuff. What's your pedigree, > since you seem to offer no actual arguments? I have been reading these opinions of you in this discussion :)
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 01:54 GMT On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:49:12 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Op Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:47:49 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg: > >> I get paid for my opinions about this stuff. What's your pedigree, >> since you seem to offer no actual arguments? > >I have been reading these opinions of you in this discussion :) So you're not going to answer the question?
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 23:00 GMT Op Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:54:57 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:49:12 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So you're not going to answer the question? You know what Dirty Harry said about opinions, right?
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 02:05 GMT On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:25 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Op Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:54:57 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >You know what Dirty Harry said about opinions, right? Whether I do or not, it's of little relevance to technical discussions. Your ignorant opinions are certainly being granted all the respect they're due, since you seem unwilling to support them in any way, or even use an actual name..
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 23:17 GMT Op Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:05:29 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:25 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > they're due, since you seem unwilling to support them in any way, or > even use an actual name.. You seem rather preoccupied with names & reputations. But you shouldn't be, since they have no meaning in a technical discussion either.
I have explained to you why I think that private enterprise is not going to be the pioneer force you would like it to be. But with you, it has been falling on deaf ears. And in replying to me you are consistently ignoring more than 1/2 of what I said.
This discussion is OVER, since neither of us is going to convince the other of their opinion. Hence the reference to Dirty Harry.
"Opinions are like a.sholes; every body has one."
Paul F. Dietz - 22 Sep 2005 01:58 GMT > You seem rather preoccupied with names & reputations. Hah! And you are obviously very preoccupoed about them, since you carefully refrain from attaching your real name to your emissions.
Paul
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 02:28 GMT On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:17:11 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>You know what Dirty Harry said about opinions, right? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I have explained to you why I think that private enterprise is not going >to be the pioneer force you would like it to be. No, you haven't. You've just "explained" to me that it's not consonant with reality, with no actual arguments to back it up. I've written technical papers on the subject, to which I could refer. Have you?
nmp - 21 Sep 2005 23:32 GMT Op Thu, 22 Sep 2005 01:28:17 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:17:11 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > written technical papers on the subject, to which I could refer. Have > you? Oh man! I am *so* humbled by the force of your arguments, I am not going to be a nuisance anymore and shut up from this point. Okay?
:P Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 02:44 GMT On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:32:32 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>>You know what Dirty Harry said about opinions, right? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Oh man! I am *so* humbled by the force of your arguments, I am not going >to be a nuisance anymore and shut up from this point. Okay? I'll take that as a "no."
royls@telus.net - 22 Sep 2005 22:56 GMT >I am not going >to be a nuisance anymore and shut up from this point. Okay? Thank you.
-- Roy L
nmp - 23 Sep 2005 12:28 GMT Op Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:56:40 +0000, schreef royls:
>>I am not going >>to be a nuisance anymore and shut up from this point. Okay? > > Thank you.
:) Dave O'Neill - 21 Sep 2005 23:47 GMT > On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:42:54 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp > <address@is.invalid> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I get paid for my opinions about this stuff. Did I read correctly that NASA have been paying for your opinions too?
Did you share with them your opinions of the organisation or did you do the work and collect the money. I'm assuming that you worked for a standard consulting rate on that engagement?
Dave
Rand Simberg - 22 Sep 2005 02:56 GMT On 21 Sep 2005 15:47:23 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Dave O'Neill" <daveon@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> I get paid for my opinions about this stuff. > >Did I read correctly that NASA have been paying for your opinions too? Yes, though not on this subject.
>Did you share with them your opinions of the organisation or did you do >the work and collect the money. I did the work, and collected the money, and they seem happy with the results. As for my opinions of the organization, that's not what they pay me for.
Alan Anderson - 20 Sep 2005 01:27 GMT > Now tell us why a private company should want to go to Mars. The same reason private companies go to places like Telluride and Trenton and Sao Paulo on a regular basis: paying passengers and freight.
Ray - 20 Sep 2005 01:31 GMT > Op Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:55:13 -0600, schreef Joe Strout: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Is this the future of space travel? NASA's job is to develop the technology to live on the moon and live on mars, mining, growing food and then move on to the next destination. After this is all done, than private industry can go and developed industry out of all this, but NASA has to show it can be done first.
Ray
nmp - 20 Sep 2005 15:09 GMT Op Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:31:22 +0000, schreef Ray:
> NASA's job is to develop the technology to live on the moon and > live > on mars, mining, growing food and then move on to the next destination. > After this is all done, than private industry can go and developed > industry out of all this, but NASA has to show it can be done first. I think this is exactly how things will go. But it will take lots of time.
One prerequisite for commercial success that I can think of, is the availability of *dirt cheap* and nonetheless reliable mass transportation of people and materials from Terra to Luna/Mars and vice versa.
Katipo - 21 Sep 2005 21:37 GMT >I hope we get to mars in my lifetime. I kinda doubt it, since I am 48:( > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I just hope miss management doesnt get the entire NASA canned, by say > run away costs and preventable astronaut deaths I have been having a discussion in another thread (see the CEV comment/question thread) about developing a next generation shuttle type craft capable of flying to both the space station and lunar orbit instead of going back to the highly wasteful "disposible" space craft of the Apollo era - yes I know the CEV ismeant to be reusable up to 10 times.
Your thread illustrates another important weakness of the disposible space ship approach. It is easy to shut the program down at a minute's notice with minimal cost involved. Well, that might be a good thing in some ways it also makes it highly vulnerable to issues such as, say, a Senator wanting to score some quick points for himself (or herself) by publicling moaning about what these disposable craft are costing.
The media will tell you that the reason the shuttle has been kept in service for so long is because of NASA's apparent inability to come up with something better. While that may be a factor, I suspect the real reason is a, quite understandable, reluctance to throw multi billion dollar spacecraft on the scrap heap while they still have years of useful life, and considerable book value left.
Brad Guth - 19 Sep 2005 03:20 GMT Ray, How about community service for life, plus retroactive payback of all their benefits and retirement for the past four decades that should just about cover for their crimes against humanity. The bulk (90%) of NASA properties could be utilized for housing the poor and of the middle class recently made poor if not dead by way of actions and/or inactions taken GW Bush.
Paul F. Dietz offered a thought;
>I'm a bit surprised the dollar hasn't gone lower. It's actually much lower than you'd think. It's being artificially infomercial sustained by mostly Jewish and Catholic gold because, by far they have the most at risk. Even within America the dollar isn't worth half of what it was as of five years ago, not to us American minions and certainly not to foreign customerts and investors.
Wars (hot or cold, phony or otherwise) breeds profits and disproportionately lesser physical/bodily risk for the wealthy that normally have those tax avoidance methods of keeping their loot out of sight and thus out of mind, and as such it always taking that horrific toll directly from the middle class and poor without a stitch of remorse. ~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
Nomen Nescio - 19 Sep 2005 03:30 GMT Katrina might just change the financial picture. Its going to cost billions and billions (God bless Carl Sagan) to restore tens of thousands of shacks to their former glory. And if the President's government keeps handing out debit cards for Gucci bags, even billions and billions aren't going to rebuild the infrastructure and all that good stuff.
The best theory I've heard so far is take down a Colorado 14'er and transport all the dirt to the Big Easy to raise it about twelve feet above sea level. Then it can't flood again in the next 10,000 years.
Ed Kyle - 19 Sep 2005 04:39 GMT > For sake of argument lets say that moon, mars and beyond is > underfunded and then canceled next decade sometime, so the moon, mars and > beyond program is off. What will NASA spend their 16 billion dollar or 15 > billion dollar budget money on? Orbiting the Earth in CEV and Space Station > for eternity? Or will this lead to eventually getting rid of manned > spaceflight? What do you all think? The ISS, or something like it, in low earth orbit accessed from the U.S. by CEV. Possible circumlunar manned flights using the same hardware, to keep an eye on the moon walkers from China. A robotic planetary exploration program.
- Ed Kyle
af - 19 Sep 2005 13:35 GMT > For sake of argument lets say that moon, mars and beyond is > underfunded and then canceled next decade sometime, so the moon, mars and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ray If cancelled, be for sure, then it will be Jupiter, Saturn and Alpha Centauri which will be again underfunded and, of course, cancelled and go on in that way "ad infinitum".
Scott Hedrick - 20 Sep 2005 03:06 GMT > For sake of argument lets say that moon, mars and beyond is > underfunded and then canceled next decade sometime, so the moon, mars and > beyond program is off. What will NASA spend their 16 billion dollar or 15 > billion dollar budget money on? They *won't*, because it would be cut as well.
Brad Guth - 22 Sep 2005 21:02 GMT If our moon, Mars and beyond are canceled; what next for NASA? There's always Venus that gets as nearby as 100 fold that of our moon, and it certainly has by far the most viable aerobreaking worthy atmosphere to start off with.
Even without the observationology of my interpreting upon what 36 reaffirming 8-bit looks per pixel has suggested as being most likely artificial and thus indicating the workmanship of locals or perhaps ETs as having been camping out on Venus, plus indicating upon many other extremely interesting items of natural formations and active fluid/mud like flows that would have made their site selection more desirable than not, whereas it seems the growing amounts of so much other hard-science and of applying the regular laws of physics are what's giving Venus it's greatest potential of having supported other life that's natural as well as otherwise the possibility of ET/imported forms of intelligent life.
Of whatever's pressure, even if that's 100 bar isn't in of itself insurmountable to well known forms of life as coexisting here upon Earth. Even humans can eventually adapt to our surviving within such extreme pressure without applied physiological technology, other than for our having to artificially create the pressurized atmospheric cell environment in the first place, that which should only required an O2 basis of not more than 1% and the remainder as 99% H2.
Of whatever's temperature isn't all that insurmountable for three reasons. 1) temperature is directly related to pressure, in that the greater the pressure the greater the amount of heat that life can survive within. 2) even though there's a limit as to what human tissue/cells can take as heat, exoskeletals are not nearly as limited and, if need be a insulation barrier of local basalt and/or silica micro-balloons would become more than accommodating as for creating the necessary R-Factor of providing a thermal isolation formula of a viable conductive and even as a radiated heat barrier. 3) thermal energy heat-exchanging isn't the least bit technologically limited, especially within such a nicely conductive mode of mostly dry CO2 and, all other factors seem perfectly surmountable via evolution and/or applied technology. This isn't to say that where-is as-is Venus is directly suitable for us humans, especially the dumb and dumber portions of humanity that still can't seem to tie their own shoe laces without going absolutely postal over something.
Of course, if any of this is being suggested to the all-knowing usenet gangs of mostly social/religious and political correctness, as then nothing of science, physics and especially of observationology matters because, apparently it just might otherwise rock a few too many of their precious mainstream status quo boats, and we simply can't have that much good ship LOLLIPOP rocking no matters what the consequences. Thus only a flat Earth that's populated by extremely bigoted and otherwise brown-nosed folks as having been surrounded by nothing but their God's eye candy is permitted.
To put this into yet another perspective; It seems that we humans have become the Earthly sort of ETs that have been out and about as taking our technological first-hand and mostly robotic look-sees at whatever other planets, moons and a few meteor/asteroids have to offer, thus if we can manage to accomplish such within the extremely limited scope of our physics and science, then it's entirely possible that other life as having been much older and thus most likely of some intellectual level of expertise better off than our's, as having been capable of their going to/from the sorts of places that seem inaccessible as well as unlivable for our kind seems perfectly doable, that is unless you're another Godless anti-ET bigot that can't accept change. What's unfortunate about the sorts of mutated life via incest cloning upon this Earth is that our limited understanding of what's even situated upon Earth is staggering to say the least, in that we don't seem to even know our own physiology well enough to save our own souls, much less appreciate and support other more complex forms of mature life that has up until our arrival outlived humanity by millions of years in spite of their having only their DNA/RNA smarts of applied physics and thus their internal biological programmed intellegence as to account for their survival. Perhaps at some future time we humans well evolve into becoming born with all of our physical skills and intelligence, simply emerge as intellectually whole and thereby ready to work efficiently and diligently at a given task without a stitch of learned arrogance, bigotry and/or greed outside of whatever it takes for managing our basic survival as a collective whole. Though as it is, we're rather easily molded by the framework that's established by others, programmed into becoming everything from serial killers to the likes of LLPOF warlords as having been running humanity amuck, whereas few have managed to escape being formally assimilated into the human borg like collective of what's continually taking advantage of so many others in order to benefit so few.
It seems we've created our own worse enemies and subsequently we've turned ourselves into various forms of intellectual as well as biological bounty hunters and somewhat arrogant opportunest as a result, including the sport of hunting down whatever intellect that's the least bit outside the box, and otherwise having pointed out the likes of Cathars and Jesus Christ so that their elimination could be accommodated via some self proclaimed and thus remorseless authority that's supposedly upon our bigoted and greedy behalf, and then some of us wonder why ETs are keeping a safe distance.
If you could imagine having been cosmetically altered so as to look, dress and act the part of a visiting ET that had arrived upon Earth, chances are you'd last all of a day before getting hunted down, terminated or otherwise sequestered and dissected nearly on the spot. And by the way, ETs that should be at least as smart if not a whole lot smarter than us humans certainly do NOT have to remotely look like us humans, as whatever shape and form are somewhat irrelevant factors with regard to ET or even local intelligence. If we humans are as smart as it gets, now you're taking serious trouble in River City, whereas there's nothing other than more of the same wars upon wars based almost entirely upon anything but the truth. We hardly have the resources for sustaining the sorts of phony baloney wars we've created thus far, and the Earth simply isn't getting any bigger, in fact Earth for humanity has been shrinking by measurable factors and at the same time requiring a greater amount of artificial energy and other resources per soul at that.
Without the viable to/from capability of what the lunar space elevator and thus access to the energy resources of our moon has to behold, chances are we're not going to have whatever it'll take for defending our Earth from ourselves, much less from invading ET's that have long since pillaged and raped their home worlds to the point of no return if not total demise (Mars gives us a reasonably close look-see at what the worse outcome might involve if we manage to extract the last joule of energy from Earth).
If our moon and that of Venus offers viable alternatives as to improving our quality of life while otherwise moderating our global suffering and, if those two external globes open other doors so that our Earthly ET capability can grow and expand, then so be it. However, if the likes of this usenet that has a license to kill can't even manage to cope with the honest prospects of what's entirely possible, then we're entirely up against a firery wall that offers no possible redemption or the slightest amount of remorse for humanity, and as such we more than deserve the consequences of our actions as well as from our inactions that have long since contributed to the ongoing collateral damage and demise of humanity.
Without accepting change and without accepting the truth there's no hope of our long term survival, at least not for the lower 99.9% of humanity that's having to perform as brown-nosed minions to the upper most 0.1%. Clearly the rich have been getting richer and the poor becoming less than worthy of being allowed to live much less prosper. For those of you looking for whatever can be taken out-of-context just so you can avoid the truth by pointing and smirking like our resident warlord(GW Bush), be my guest.
For those the least bit interested in whatever else others and myself have had to say all along, stay tuned in and/or aligned with the program of sending us your moral and whatever other support so that our lose-cannons and butt-kickings can become even more effective. Donations of technology or gifts of cold hard cash are certainly welcome and entirely legal as long as I've acknowledged my having received such, or perhaps taking the "high standards and accountability" road of our "so what's the difference" warlord policy and entirely like the oil/energy ENRON sorts of dealings having involved GW Bush, whereas I wont tell if you don't tell can also be arranged. If I had a minion staff as perhaps a cloak of a certified ministry and offshore bank of my ET God, then I could even apply for some of the matching funds and/or grants being forked out by our resident warlord(GW Bush) himself, and as such I'd just have to bet that would push a few more of those *do NOT push* bigotry-R-us buttons.
Send your support directly to my attention: 4410 SE Nelson Rd. Olalla WA 98359-8517 or just call: (253) 8576061 and I'll put your name along with others as listed on my lose-cannon notch/kill plate. ~
Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.
|
|
|