|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
USA to return to Moon
In article ,
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote: "Steve Dufour" wrote in message om... NASA plans return to moon By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL NASA plans to scrap its space shuttle fleet to pay for the agency's new plan to return to the moon and develop human space exploration systems, senior administration officials said. Unfortunately, this sounds like another 'footprints' mission. There isn't a real long-term vision of exploration or commercial exploitation. The thing I fear most is that once people land on Mars, interest in the space program will falter, resulting in another long gap between it and the next human space venture. What worries me even more is what the impact of this will be on any COMMERCIAL manned space exploration (i.e. tourism, mining, colonization) efforts. Does anyone have a clue? Could it be that the X-Prize follow up will simply be deemed irrelevant because it's dwarfed by the manned Mars effort? I'm not sure I follow your logic. Why should the X-Prize "be deemed irrelevant" simply because the American government might want to send astronauts to Mars? I'd have thought that if such a program succeeded it would open up new opportunities. In any case, America has spent billions on the ISS yet the X Prize has not suffered AFAIK, even though what the US has done (and spent) on the ISS probably dwarfs the X Prize contestants' own efforts on their X Prize efforts. Will it dampen or even kill the market for commercial rockets (non-military vehicles)? If we're still talking about commercial "manned space exploration"... What market? Thus far only the Russians have sent paying customers into orbit, and they did it using their own hardware and the customers were sent to a government-paid-for facility. You can't "dampen" (much less "kill") what does not yet exist. Or which at best still only exists on paper. In any case, why would going to Mars dampen the enthusiasm of potential customers for going on trips into Earth orbit? I'd have thought it would be more likely to broaden any future market by providing potential new destinations for the customers to (one day) go to. How about venture capital not being awarded to some guy who wants to build a commercial manned orbital vehicle? Again why? Does the venture capital market for (say) tourist resorts plummet every time governments spend billions on dams, highways, or other projects? Will there be less need for "commercial manned orbital vehicles"? Will Bush be funding his Mars program using venture capital (as opposed to taxes)? Let's not panic just yet. Nothing has been announced officially. It could just be somebody flying another kite. -- Stephen Souter http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
USA to return to Moon
What worries me even more is what the impact of this will be on any
COMMERCIAL manned space exploration (i.e. tourism, mining, colonization) efforts. Does anyone have a clue? Could it be that the X-Prize follow up will simply be deemed irrelevant because it's dwarfed by the manned Mars effort? Will it dampen or even kill the market for commercial rockets (non-military vehicles)? How about venture capital not being awarded to some guy who wants to build a commercial manned orbital vehicle? I'm not aware of any commercial manned space exploration vehicle in development. They had their chance to develop one in the 1980s and 1990s, but none have appeared. What makes you think that one will magically appear if NASA does nothing in the 2000s? Is NASA's nonactivity a requirement for developing commercial launch capability? If this is a requirement, it seems that other Nations must avoid having manned space programs as well, such as China and Russia. We wouldn't want China to discourage commercial space activity by having a manned space program of our own would we? If so then how do we stop China. A Chinese space program might after all dwarf any commercial space ventures, making them seem "small and insignificant" thereby discouraging investment. So by your reasoning if we halt NASA's manned space program and China doesn't halt their's it would do COMMERCIAL mannes space exploration no good. On the contrary, I think want NASA does has little to do with what private investors would do to advance manned space activity or not. You have not proven otherwise. The above is just a theory that can only be proven by the complete halt of all manned space activities by all the governments involved, nothing less would do, and if we can't get China to stop, there is little sense in stopping NASAs manned space program which isn't afterall the only game in town. Tom |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
USA to return to Moon
Stephen Souter wrote in message ...
In article , "Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote: "Steve Dufour" wrote in message om... NASA plans return to moon By Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith L. Cowing UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL NASA plans to scrap its space shuttle fleet to pay for the agency's new plan to return to the moon and develop human space exploration systems, senior administration officials said. Unfortunately, this sounds like another 'footprints' mission. There isn't a real long-term vision of exploration or commercial exploitation. The thing I fear most is that once people land on Mars, interest in the space program will falter, resulting in another long gap between it and the next human space venture. What worries me even more is what the impact of this will be on any COMMERCIAL manned space exploration (i.e. tourism, mining, colonization) efforts. Does anyone have a clue? Could it be that the X-Prize follow up will simply be deemed irrelevant because it's dwarfed by the manned Mars effort? I'm not sure I follow your logic. Why should the X-Prize "be deemed irrelevant" simply because the American government might want to send astronauts to Mars? I'd have thought that if such a program succeeded it would open up new opportunities. In any case, America has spent billions on the ISS yet the X Prize has not suffered AFAIK, even though what the US has done (and spent) on the ISS probably dwarfs the X Prize contestants' own efforts on their X Prize efforts. Will it dampen or even kill the market for commercial rockets (non-military vehicles)? If we're still talking about commercial "manned space exploration"... What market? Thus far only the Russians have sent paying customers into orbit, and they did it using their own hardware and the customers were sent to a government-paid-for facility. You can't "dampen" (much less "kill") what does not yet exist. Or which at best still only exists on paper. In any case, why would going to Mars dampen the enthusiasm of potential customers for going on trips into Earth orbit? I'd have thought it would be more likely to broaden any future market by providing potential new destinations for the customers to (one day) go to. How about venture capital not being awarded to some guy who wants to build a commercial manned orbital vehicle? Again why? Does the venture capital market for (say) tourist resorts plummet every time governments spend billions on dams, highways, or other projects? Will there be less need for "commercial manned orbital vehicles"? Will Bush be funding his Mars program using venture capital (as opposed to taxes)? Let's not panic just yet. Nothing has been announced officially. It could just be somebody flying another kite. It's just like NASA having a flexible orbital structures program, that doesn't work, yet they are not interested in companies like the one I work for, who have existing technologies that do work, flexible space station modules are no different than flexible decompression chambers, except that decompression chambers are far stronger, in the region of 5 to 6 times stronger, I suppose they will waste a ton of cash on developing stuff that already exists. Just imagine how quickly and cheaply you could put an orbital station up if it was made of certain types of special fibre and plastic, I did the maths and costings of a module 10 meters in diameter and 50 meters long, well within the capabilities of an aryan rocket, and it would only cost the same as 3 NASA space suites, of course this is existing technology and NASA doesn't own the patents to it, so I suppose it will cost a few hundred million dollars to get to the same point we are, we should all remember that the European Space Agency is no better, it chucks money away just like NASA, it's just not so blatant about it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
USA to return to Moon
Alex wrote:
It's just like NASA having a flexible orbital structures program, that doesn't work, yet they are not interested in companies like the one I work for, who have existing technologies that do work, flexible space station modules are no different than flexible decompression chambers, except that decompression chambers are far stronger, in the region of 5 to 6 times stronger, I suppose they will waste a ton of cash on developing stuff that already exists. Just imagine how quickly and cheaply you could put an orbital station up if it was made of certain types of special fibre and plastic, I did the maths and costings of a module 10 meters in diameter and 50 meters long, well within the capabilities of an aryan rocket, and it would only cost the same as 3 NASA space suites, of course this is existing technology and NASA doesn't own the patents to it, so I suppose it will cost a few hundred million dollars to get to the same point we are, we should all remember that the European Space Agency is no better, it chucks money away just like NASA, it's just not so blatant about it. Are you referring to transhab? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
USA to return to Moon
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:26:56 GMT, "Roger" wrote:
"Terrell Miller" wrote in message . .. "Roger" wrote in message m... When I was learning science in school (quite a few years ago, granted...) it was thought that nothing could survive in the dark, cold, and pressure of the deep oceans. When thriving ecosystems were discovered around black smokers, it was a complete surprise. Yet another good reason to reduce pollution and exploitation of nature. Not only are we destroying what we know is out there, we may be destroying things we can't even imagine. Christ, leave it to a tree-hugger to turn "life is much more abundant than we'd ever imagined" into "we are causing muich more destruction than we'd ever imagined". Get a life. As long as it lasts. Hopefully long enough for your grandchildren. Unless, of course, you don't want that. Mother nature isn't exactally a conservationist. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
USA to return to Moon
"Christopher" wrote in message
... On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:26:56 GMT, "Roger" wrote: "Terrell Miller" wrote in message . .. "Roger" wrote in message m... When I was learning science in school (quite a few years ago, granted...) it was thought that nothing could survive in the dark, cold, and pressure of the deep oceans. When thriving ecosystems were discovered around black smokers, it was a complete surprise. Yet another good reason to reduce pollution and exploitation of nature. Not only are we destroying what we know is out there, we may be destroying things we can't even imagine. Christ, leave it to a tree-hugger to turn "life is much more abundant than we'd ever imagined" into "we are causing muich more destruction than we'd ever imagined". Get a life. As long as it lasts. Hopefully long enough for your grandchildren. Unless, of course, you don't want that. Mother nature isn't exactally a conservationist. But she takes her time. Humans have exterminated species at a rate that she would have to spend thousands of years killing off. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |
Bush Wants Return to the Moon and Beyond | BlackWater | Policy | 16 | December 8th 03 11:30 PM |
If we do return to the Moon | Dholmes | Policy | 25 | November 19th 03 04:23 AM |