usa space program

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-09 01:17pm

evilcat4000 wrote: Yes but there is lots minor things that can be named. Tiny hills, small potmarked crateres, boulders etc.

Or you could just buy up 1,000,000 acres in Northern Canada for nothing and name a valley, river, etc. after yourself.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-01-09 01:24pm

evilcat4000 wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:They sold Martian real estate ? I thought only the Moon was sold.

Serioulsy I have better idea. Why not ask NASA to name places on Mars after you ? Maybe if centuries into the future Mars is terraformed and colonized famous places on Mars would bear your name. This is the best way to immortalize oneself.
Too late, the Martian surface has already been mapped, and if you look over the charts, all the geographical landmarks already have names.
Yes but there is lots minor things that can be named. Tiny hills, small potmarked crateres, boulders etc.

[Eddie Murphy as a donkey] I love what you've done with the place! That's a nice boulder! [Eddie Murphy as a donkey]

Here's to hoping. Although i pity the poor bastard who has to ride in a cramped spaceship for a year or two.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-01-09 01:48pm

Bout a month ago the Admiral came to talk to the lab up at prototype and said that we had been commissioned to develop a nuclear reactor that could go into space.

I'd say this is for real and not just smoke up our collective butts.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-01-09 01:58pm

Ender wrote:Bout a month ago the Admiral came to talk to the lab up at prototype and said that we had been commissioned to develop a nuclear reactor that could go into space.

I'd say this is for real and not just smoke up our collective butts.

We're hoping you'll propose a SW name for it! How about "The Curtis Saxton 2000"?

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-09 01:58pm

What the hell do you do, Ender?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-01-09 02:19pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Bah, Mars Direct can get you to the Moon just as well as Mars, and gives you cheaper costs and operational experience with the mission system.

Uh.. How? The main part of the Mars Direct plan is using local resources to turn into rocket fuel. there is nothing on the Moon that can be broken down into fuel.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-09 02:59pm

kojikun wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Bah, Mars Direct can get you to the Moon just as well as Mars, and gives you cheaper costs and operational experience with the mission system.
Uh.. How? The main part of the Mars Direct plan is using local resources to turn into rocket fuel. there is nothing on the Moon that can be broken down into fuel.

That's not entirely true, or rather, we don't quite know for certain; there may be water ice on the moon below the surface, as I understand it.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-01-09 03:05pm

CNN Article:

CNN wrote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush next week will lay out his "vision for expanding the space program," which is expected to include long-term proposals for manned missions to the moon and an eventual manned mission to Mars, senior administration officials say.

NASA's target for a moon mission is 2018, an official said.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-01-09 07:50pm

If you want to buy lunar property check out The Lunar Embassy

I got as a gift 1700 acres in the crater Santbech on the moon as well as 2000 acres on Mars.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-09 07:52pm

Much as I like the space program, I have to say: "Great, another Bush plan to spend more money that the government doesn't have."

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-01-09 07:57pm

Iceberg wrote:Much as I like the space program, I have to say: "Great, another Bush plan to spend more money that the government doesn't have."

"Have to say that" because your partisan bias commands it?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-09 08:03pm

TheDarkling wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Much as I like the space program, I have to say: "Great, another Bush plan to spend more money that the government doesn't have."
"Have to say that" because your partisan bias commands it?

No, because the Bush administration doesn't seem to grasp the fact that in order to spend money, you must first have it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-09 08:04pm

Iceberg wrote:
TheDarkling wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Much as I like the space program, I have to say: "Great, another Bush plan to spend more money that the government doesn't have."
"Have to say that" because your partisan bias commands it?
No, because the Bush administration doesn't seem to grasp the fact that in order to spend money, you must first have it.

This is unique to Bush how?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-09 08:08pm

Joe wrote:
Iceberg wrote:
TheDarkling wrote: "Have to say that" because your partisan bias commands it?
No, because the Bush administration doesn't seem to grasp the fact that in order to spend money, you must first have it.
This is unique to Bush how?

Bush has increased discretionary spending forty percent while slashing taxes - and it's probably going to go up another 10-15% in FY 2004-05. That's fiscal recklessness bordering on insanity.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-09 08:21pm

This is unique to Bush how? The size of the current deficit is still lower relative to the size of the GDP than the deficits of the early Clinton years. Spending just would have grown even more rapidly without the tax cuts, anyway.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-09 08:32pm

Clinton's early budgets ('93-97) contained virtually no increases in discretionary spending; only after 1998 did discretionary spending start to increase significantly - surprise surprise, this was while the Republicans' power was rising in Congress and Clinton's power as President was on the wane.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-09 08:46pm

Clinton's early budgets ('93-97) contained virtually no increases in discretionary spending; only after 1998 did discretionary spending start to increase significantly - surprise surprise, this was while the Republicans' power was rising in Congress and Clinton's power as President was on the wane.

What the fuck are you talking about? The Republicans peaked under Gingrich in the mid-90s, and began to decline afterwards; they had less Congressional seats coming out of the next midterm election than they had going in.

And Clinton's budgets (which have nothing to do with the fact that the deficit in 93 WAS larger as a percentage of GDP than what we have now) certainly didn't contain increases in discretionary spending for lack of effort on the part of the Clintons; remember universal healthcare? Increases in discretionary spending during Clinton's first term were actually probably lower on account of the Congressional Republicans, who shot down the national health care plan and prevented new spending through gridlock when they later took control of Congress in 1994.

Trogdor · Post by **Trogdor** » 2004-01-09 11:50pm

I'm leery about this whole lunar base thing. Doesn't international law forbid any one country from using a piece of anything in space just for themselves?

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2004-01-10 12:00am

jegs2 wrote:CNN Article:

CNN wrote:WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush next week will lay out his "vision for expanding the space program," which is expected to include long-term proposals for manned missions to the moon and an eventual manned mission to Mars, senior administration officials say.

NASA's target for a moon mission is 2018, an official said.

I hope thats a typo; 2018???? Jesus H Christ, last time it took less than a decade, but now, here in the 21st century, with all the historical data and experience from Apollo available, it'll take FOURTEEN YEARS????? Ay yi yi...

If thats the plan, it'll never get off the ground.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-10 02:31am

Trogdor wrote:I'm leery about this whole lunar base thing. Doesn't international law forbid any one country from using a piece of anything in space just for themselves?

I think it refers to construction of military bases.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-10 02:55am

Ender wrote:Bout a month ago the Admiral came to talk to the lab up at prototype and said that we had been commissioned to develop a nuclear reactor that could go into space.

I'd say this is for real and not just smoke up our collective butts.

Couldn't that be for the ion engine?

Would this be Zubrin's 100 kW reactor for Mars Direct? Know anything about its' specifics?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-10 02:57am

kojikun wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Bah, Mars Direct can get you to the Moon just as well as Mars, and gives you cheaper costs and operational experience with the mission system.
Uh.. How? The main part of the Mars Direct plan is using local resources to turn into rocket fuel. there is nothing on the Moon that can be broken down into fuel.

Mars Direct Homepage.

Read Mars Direct: A Simple, Robust, and Cost Effective Architecture for the Space Exploration Initiative. Its a good paper (I find pdf most servicable in this case, by the way) and explains everything about the Mars Direct concept. I strongly recommend absorbing that document before talking about future Mars projects.

Zubrin wrote other papers too, including one about Mars colonization and economics.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-10 04:10am

Burak Gazan wrote:
I hope thats a typo; 2018???? Jesus H Christ, last time it took less than a decade, but now, here in the 21st century, with all the historical data and experience from Apollo available, it'll take FOURTEEN YEARS????? Ay yi yi... If thats the plan, it'll never get off the ground.

Well, that's the thing. Right now we don't have the right sort of infrastructure for long range manned missions, as NASA has spent the last two decades working for the Space Shuttles (which were never meant to be used for such a long time), the ISS, and lots of robot probes. It would take us years to begin recreating Apollo type missions, simply due to having to reorganize for it. These things take time. The key, I think, is to not just make this a NASA project scrounging on the scraps of whatever hunk of taxpayer money Congress throws their way. That way, it's guaranteed to fail, since Congress will inevitably decide the project is too expensive and axe it. This is something that I suspect members of Congress get wood over, since they've been known to cancel scientific endeavors when it would cost less to finish the project than it would take to clean it up *cough-superconducting-supercollider-cough*. The way to go is make suits from the business world see dollar signs and generate massive public interest. Do stuff like taking whatever hot flash-in-the-pan boy band is wooing the country at the time and have the first concert staged entirely in space. I guarantee every TV set in these United States and the world at large will be tuned to that channel, and companies will heap riches at NASAs feet to sponser it. And imagine what the networks will do the be the network to carry the first concert in space or the moon? General Electric and Viacom have deep, deep pockets... imagine the bids to carry that? Turn it into a massive media spectacle. Make America love the sizzle, and they'll buy the steak.

Bob McDob · Post by **Bob McDob** » 2004-01-10 07:39am

Couldn't the US government institute some sort of "Space Bond" program? I find it hard to believe there would be any opposition to something as politically benign as space exploration if it used private investment.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-01-10 01:28pm

Scap the ISS and Shuttle ASAP, they're useless.

If you're not gonna scrap ISS, minimalize it, finish it, and do it competently ASAP as a place to train for Mars missions and other long duration low-gravity senarios.

Replace STS with STS-derived Ares heavy lifter (detailed concept in Mars Direct study) and a new capsule-based launch system.

Concentrate on getting more Mars unmanned missions, at least one probe Pluto-ward, and crackin' on Mars Direct, first to go to the Moon.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

usa space program

CNN Article

Re: CNN Article

Re: CNN Article