Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Shuttle / September 2005



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

If Moon,Mars and Beyond Canceled what next for NASA?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
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.