NASA and the Vision thing

An article from The Washington Post: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10185181/
Now this is interesting; the Congress may well be willing to okay a
budget hike to allow NASA to do both the Shuttle and the CEV, but the
White House doesn't seem keen on funding its own new program.

Pat

Without a breakthrough in technology it useless to plan space
habitation vehicles etc. There is only one way forward in space and
that is use of the resources of space, the Moon asteroids etc. Anything
else is a dead end which simply leads to greater and greater expense
and diminishing returns.

There is a thread

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...4a60610c4da1bb

where Von Neumann machines are discussed. To get a digitally controlled
macine tool to self replicate, given a supply of raw materials is quite
easy. Bath University is on the point of doing just that. What NASA
needs to do is investigate the chemical processing of asteroids +
continue the unmanned program with such things as LISA. The other thing
it should do is investigate the chemical processing of asteroids/Moon.
Everything else, SAhuttle, ISS should be cancelled. They are dead end
albatrosses. The Shuttle should be immediately replaced with Ariane
which is a lot cheaper per kg.

wrote:

Without a breakthrough in technology it useless to plan space
habitation vehicles etc.

Right, no need for air, water and food at all.

There is only one way forward in space and
that is use of the resources of space, the Moon asteroids etc.

Right, just have trillion dollar robots mine the moon, mars and the
asteroids.

Anything
else is a dead end which simply leads to greater and greater expense
and diminishing returns.

Sure, we can mine the moon, mars and the asteroids without going to
space at all ...

plonk

wrote in message
ups.com...
The Shuttle should be immediately replaced with Ariane
which is a lot cheaper per kg.

Now all *you* have to do is convince Congress and the American people that
they should stop using an American made product and start using a French
made one.

Go on, we'll watch. I assure you, logic and technical superiority are
completely irrelevant, so I'd like to see your method of persuasion, which,
in your post, was substantially lacking.

Right, just have trillion dollar robots mine the moon, mars and the asteroids.

Robots do not cost a trillion dollars. No way. In fact Bath University
is proposing to sell a digitally controlled machine tool for something
more like 100. If it can self replicate, and a DCMT potenially can the
price will be round about that level.

To mine the moon your prime requirement is a source of energy. Silicon
photovoltaic is top of the list, although you could melt rock using a
mirror. You then need a way of converting Moon/asteroid into useful
materials. The research would be done here on Earth with relatively
small scale projects. I myself would estimate the complete cost at a
billion dollars tops. You would in practice be spending less as you
would get back quite a lot in the intermediate stages. If B&Q or
Walmart were to sell a machine tool cheap they would make quite a lot
of money.

Go on, we'll watch. I assure you, logic and technical superiority are
completely irrelevant, so I'd like to see your method of persuasion, which,
in your post, was substantially lacking

Elle marche! That is surely all the persuasion needed..

Pat Flannery wrote:
An article from The Washington Post: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10185181/
Now this is interesting; the Congress may well be willing to okay a
budget hike to allow NASA to do both the Shuttle and the CEV, but the
White House doesn't seem keen on funding its own new program.

Pat

In this case there's not much difference between a vision and a
nightmare.

;-)

Rusty

Rusty wrote:

In this case there's not much difference between a vision and a
nightmare.




Congress is looking around for places to cut money without offending too
much of the populace with the 2006 elections coming up. It could be that
since Bush came up with this they see it as his, not their,
responsibility to kill it.
Griffin obviously seriously screwed up his math when he said this could
all be done with only minimal added funds.

Pat

wrote in message
oups.com...
Go on, we'll watch. I assure you, logic and technical superiority are
completely irrelevant, so I'd like to see your method of persuasion,
which,
in your post, was substantially lacking

Elle marche! That is surely all the persuasion needed..


And the reaction of the great, unwashed taxpayers who will foot the bill is
"Who is Elle Marche?"

What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving
"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument
is unpersuasive.

"Who is Elle Marche?"

It means it works in contrast to the Shuttle which has problems
working.

What you've done, like so many other kooks, is heard a few rumors involving
"someday, maybe" underfunded technology and believed the hype. Your argument
is unpersuasive.

Conventional rockets, the Shuttle, Ariane and the Saturn C5 have
cryogenic upper stages. This gives an exhaust velocity of some 4km/sec.
To get to the Moon you need a total return impulse of approx 16km/sec.
Roughly 11km to escape the earth and 2.74*2 km/sec to land and then
escape from the Moon. Now this represents a mass ratio of e^4. Apollo
had the mother ship in a parking orbit. A parking orbit reduces the
total impulse somewhat but not significantly. To go to Mars and return
you will not get away with an impulse much under 20km/s. It does not
matter whether you refuel in orbit or not the total cost of providing
that impulse will be the same. Also to go to Mars you will have massive
amounts of consumables. $80e9 is a fair estimate I would say.

This is what I mean when I talk about a dead end technolgy. If you have
e^2 more rockets you can incease the impulse by 8km/s but it is really
a dead end as I claim.

As far as your claim is concerned, I say we need new technology.
Priority should be given to finding that new technology. If you don't
have it don't go. I cannot see $80e9 being at all justified. It would
be a little less (but not much less) to go again. The whole concept of
a manned space station is fatally flawed. Out knowledge of the Solar
System and the Universe outside has been provided by unmanned probes.
We should be maintaining Hubble NOT woth the shuttle but with Ariane
and a VR robot that does not come back. Robotics and AI is a technology
with a future.

What is the nature of this new technology. Well I am open to
alternative suggestions but as the robotic AI route seems the most
promising for space exploration in the immediate future it would seem
logical to think in terms of a Von Neumann machine. A VN machine would
be a leap of imagination beyond simply servicing Hubble, James Webb
etc. Hubble simply requires VR, James Webb being a distance from Earth
will require a little AI.

There are alternatives. There if the N word. Fission giving specific
impuses or round about 12km/s might be used for trips from LEO. If you
could fuse He3 and Deuteriium (Tritium and Neutrons are no good in
space) you could achieve 40-50km/s no problem.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:05:11 -0600, wrote
(in article . com):

There are alternatives. There if the N word. Fission giving specific
impuses or round about 12km/s might be used for trips from LEO.

You're seriously confusing exhaust velocity, delta-V and specific
impulse. Go take an astrodynamics class or at least read a book and do
the math.

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net