RedImperator wrote:That's still missing the point: if there's no profit to be had, nobody's going to do it. Even Mars First will cost too much money for too much risk for gain that's too far off in the future. No investor is going to sink his money into something that might not pay off until his grandchildren are grown. Without significant technological advances to bring down the cost of lifting payload into orbit, the private sector will not be willing to pay for a Mars mission.
It depends on what your goal is. If your saying you can go to Mars in one year, then no, no-one is going to invest. If you say you wanted to study how to go to Mars, then you'll probably get one or two rich space nuts to fund the project. This would pave the way for R&D toward that end.
Most of the private sector would be trying to find better ways to lift satellites into orbit, which is something that could be applied to any serious lunar/Mars effort down the road.
Will this take a while? Yes, but you don't have to worry about the Government dictating what you can and can't do.
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I was thinking of the Chinese building one in a few decades to capitalize on our lack of effort if we don't do anything. I suspect the air resistance problems could (theoretically) be overcome.
I'm not sure how the air resistance problem can be overcome, since Orion isn't exactly aerodymanic like a rocket or shuttle is, but my knowledge of Orion is a bit limited. Way I'd do it is just built Orion in orbit or on the Moon, so you wouldn't have any atmosphere to resist. Really, China has alot on their plate as far as large projects go, I don't know if they can afford to develop and build Orion, especially if they've got to build it in space. I believe you mentioned in another thread that China's got it's hands full with domestic projects right now, like water movement and modernizing their country.
This space stuff is something that requires a lot of economic mucle. China is a nation that has way to much of its plant and infrastructre being 1960's vintage and shoestringing it to keep it together. They also have an entire generation with little in the way of formal education.
I think that over all China's space preogrammes will be mainly for what it can do for earth bound economic benifits and economic's related politics.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"
Durran Korr wrote:Good. Manned space missions are a complete waste of time and more importantly money. Machines can do the job much better, at a cheaper price, without endangering human life.
Need and want are two differing things and with the shitloads of money being thrown around thats like complaining about a drop in the sea.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
SirNitram wrote:True for scientific missions and eventual industry, but there will be a need, at some point down the road, to know how to keep people alive up there.
I don't think our planet is in that bad of shape just yet. Although I'll always be fascinated by space travel, it's a big 'ol waste of money sometimes, and until this worlds environment does crumble (which won't be for a long, long time) we don't need to worry about it.
Why do we have to go out of need?
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
JodoForce wrote:A few months ago I heard Bush was upping the NASA budget and approving the nuclear drive program
If so my opinion of Bush just raised alot.
Bush is actually one of the more space-conscious Presidents...the problem, of course, is that he pisses away a lot of Political Capital for Pet projects like invading Iraq.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
JodoForce wrote:A few months ago I heard Bush was upping the NASA budget and approving the nuclear drive program
If so my opinion of Bush just raised alot.
Actually so did mine, maybe if we tell him Bin Laden is on Mars?
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"
- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist
"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
Gil Hamilton wrote:
Not to mention the psychological problems that come with sticking 7 people in something that will likely be the size of a 747 fuselage for such a long time with no way to get out and no privacy. This may not seem like a problem, but NASA is really worried about it.
It is a real legitimate problem, and the last thing NASA wants is the crew re-acting a scene from the Shining while on decent to Earth.
Crayz9000 wrote:From what I've read, what we should be doing is finishing the ISS to use, not primarily as a scientific research station, but as a construction and launching station. Given that it would be better to assemble stuff up there, we could rather easily stick the stuff necessary for a manned Moon base up there via smaller rockets, and then get it to the Moon.
Then, with the Clementine data on lunar ice, we can build a refueling station on the Moon, which can produce cryogenic hydrogen/oxygen for a fraction of what it would cost us to blast fuel into orbit. That fuel could both support the ISS (refueling a reboosting system) and fuel any Mars missions we might want to do in the future.
Of course, Congress wouldn't like this idea because it's "too ambitious". *sigh*
NO!
Mars Direct is a much simpler and inexpensive plan. And it'll get us there quicker!
While Mars Direct is a good soldid plan, it is also one born out of NASA and goverment expeidiency. Using robotic or automatic rockeets to send the necessary equipment to Mars before the astronaughts even go. The only problem I see is that it sets up a situation like the moon shots of the late 60's and 70's. What happened? Well we did it for a while and got tired of it and stopped.
Actualy spending some cash and setting up a actual infrastructure will make the Mars missions a more permement thing, IMO. A functioning moon base for science and refueling purposes would create some infrastructure for us to go to Mars and other Planets in the system. Like wise, a functioning base on Mars would contiue the logistics trail to the rest of the Sol system.
Private sector interests will explode with an actual ability to maintain a presence in space. It is then and only then that private companies will start to invest heavily in space programmes.
As for the actual mission, the current 3 year figure is based off of chemical rockets, and other viable methods are available. While not perfected, plasma rockeets are on their way, and my beloved M2P2 is being developed at the U of Washington has the promise of cutting the transit time down considerably, and scores of other engines are currently being developed. Hell, a modern day version of NERVA would cut transit time massively.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Gil Hamilton wrote:
Not to mention the psychological problems that come with sticking 7 people in something that will likely be the size of a 747 fuselage for such a long time with no way to get out and no privacy. This may not seem like a problem, but NASA is really worried about it.
It is a real legitimate problem, and the last thing NASA wants is the crew re-acting a scene from the Shining while on decent to Earth.
True, but if transit time can be reduced to 6 to 8 months then they are looking at a chuck of time that SBN crews normally suffer. Though it is not in 0g, but it is still not unreasonable.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Why we should continue manned space exploration some ask? It has no current practical applications you say.
My response is, so what?
No currently the practical applications are limited but if we dont continue to push the envelope we will never advance, super-sonic speed had no practically viable applications with the technology available in 1947 or even with the tech for the next 10 years (thereabouts) but still the bell X1 went up, and we continued the X flights, pushing the envelope ever further.
A huge portion of science has absolutely no short term practical application, does that mean we should abandon discovery simply because we are short sighted?
Hell we waste money on cruise missiles being used to kill a bunch of people who posed no actual threat to us, we waste money on the war on drugs, we waste money on things that have absolutely no benefit and a very real potential detriment. Space may not have current benefit, but the benefits are defintely there if the envelope is continually pushed, and it most certainly doesnt carry with it the detriment to society of those other much more expensive wastes of money.
BTW there is a real private manned space program with a real chance of sucess in the near future, didnt we have a thread on it like a month ago?
Festina Lente
My shoes are too tight and I've forgotten how to dance
FettKyle wrote:I got this from my EarthScience teacher and she said she got this from some New York newspaper I'll check with NASA tommorow and ask My teacher if she still has the article by monday. But if this is true America can no longer go to space by it's own means. So we have to Rely on the Russian *shiver*
THIS REALLY PISSES ME OFF
The reason congress did or is doing this is because it would cost to much in this Recesion
Do you really think that the goverment is really going to get rid of the space program because of an accident? We may have elected Bush, but we aren't that stupid.
Liberals for Nixon in 3000: Nixon... with carisma and a shiny robot body.
never negoiate out of fear, but never fear to negoiate.
Captian America- Justice League
HAB submarine commander-
"We'll break you of your fear of water."
