|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
jeff findley wrote: Charles Buckley writes: How current is the Lunar Reference Mission? Is there even a Lunar Reference Mission on file? I know that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of individual papers about lunar development. But, there does not be the same sort of cohesive pattern that has emerged for Mars. One of the inputs to a reference mission is overall goals. I'd suspect now that Bush seems to want to emphasize manned exploration over unmanned science, the reference missions may change a bit. I think that one of the reason that there is a cohesive pattern for Mars reference missions is that mission is only a bit more than "flags and footprints". It's a sustainable mission, but it's not what I'd call a permanent Mars base or really a permanent manned presence. The "lunar base" reference mission isn't as clear, because once you decide you want a lunar base, you have to decide what you're going to *do* with that base beyond "flags and footprints". Furthermore, the goal on Mars always seems to be "to determine if Mars was ever host to live in any way, shape, or form". The Moon is a dead place, so you have to find other things to do there. Jeff We need a good inventory of resources available if we're ever to move business out of earth orbit. A large number of small probes manufactured on an assembly line would have a small unit cost. Small enough probes could be bundled two or three (maybe more) per launch, reducing launch costs. These could show us where ice and other resources are on the moon and NEOs. A few more waves of unmanned probes would be a very good investment in preparation for moving permanently into space. I fear that more flag and footprint missions without good use of in-situ resources wouldn't be much different than millions of broken windows. -- Hop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Carlos Santillan wrote: mining minerals to build the ships that'll explore the Solar Systems, the first step to the Stars, I can't belive that there be so short sighted scientits that say "Been there, done that." Jeff Let's say mining minerals a done deal. How much infra structure would you need to fabricate a space ship from these minerals? And even with working mines on the moon, much would still need to be imported from earth. It may be better to go straight to your destination than enter and exit the moon's gravity well. -- Hop David http://clowder.net/hop/index.html |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"Hop David" wrote in message ... Let's say mining minerals a done deal. How much infra structure would you need to fabricate a space ship from these minerals? And even with working mines on the moon, much would still need to be imported from earth. With enough time, support and luck, space exploration would be a side project of a permanent lunar settlement, not the end result. If the only goal of space exploration were pure science, then the whole endeavor would be pointless. Doc -- "I'm at peace with my lust. I can kill because in God I trust. It's Evolution, baby." Pearl Jam "Do the Evolution" |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
In article ,
Dick Morris wrote: The article mentioned "informal discussions", so it's more than just one guy's opinion. The cost estimates for SEI were more than informal discussions, so it is logical to assume that the author was referring to recent discussions. You may have inside information, but all I have is press reports, all of which mention manned Mars flights. Whatever the truth of the situation turns out to be, press reports that Bush's proposal will cost a trillion dollars are NOT irrelevant. There are no reports that Bush's proposal will cost a trillion dollars. You're either confused, or making stuff up, or have been deceived by some trash press which has made stuff up. But tell you what, let's agree to postpone this until Wednesday when we'll have (perhaps) an actual proposal instead of just leaks and rumors. Then we'll see whether Mars is mentioned as more than a broad generalization "for sometime in the future" sort of thing. Cheers, - Joe ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Joe Strout wrote: In article , Dick Morris wrote: The article mentioned "informal discussions", so it's more than just one guy's opinion. The cost estimates for SEI were more than informal discussions, so it is logical to assume that the author was referring to recent discussions. You may have inside information, but all I have is press reports, all of which mention manned Mars flights. Whatever the truth of the situation turns out to be, press reports that Bush's proposal will cost a trillion dollars are NOT irrelevant. There are no reports that Bush's proposal will cost a trillion dollars. You're either confused, or making stuff up, or have been deceived by some trash press which has made stuff up. I've seen it on line and also in the Seattle PI, Jan. 9: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...archpagefrom=2 NASA to start from scratch in new effort By PAUL RECER AP SCIENCE WRITER "If NASA returns astronauts to the moon and then takes aim at Mars, the agency will have to go back to the drawing board to get the job done. The rockets, equipment and engineers that put American footprints on lunar soil have long been lost, junked or retired. .. .. .. .. .. "No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal discussions have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly $1 trillion, depending on how ambitious the project was. The cost of a moon colony, again, would depend on what NASA wants to do on the lunar surface." But tell you what, let's agree to postpone this until Wednesday when we'll have (perhaps) an actual proposal instead of just leaks and rumors. Then we'll see whether Mars is mentioned as more than a broad generalization "for sometime in the future" sort of thing. Agreed. Cheers, - Joe ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"jeff findley" wrote in message ... The long term damage is that the "experts" in the press still think that it will cost "1/2 a trillion dollars" to go to Mars. One of NASA's biggest challenges will be to prove to Congress and the administration that they can do this for less (by cut-throat management saying "No!" to throwing everything in the program that every field center wants). And the other challenge will be to actually DO it for less. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Joe Strout wrote:
[...] Frankly, I really don't care all that much how much dark matter and dark energy there are in the cosmos. But the fact that the total lunar population is zero, and I couldn't take a vacation there even if I were a billionaire -- these things I *do* care about. We need to get off this rock, and to provide abundant clean energy to the poor saps who are still here. Science projects isn't going to do either of those, but space development will. Hmmmm, I think maybe your (great-)grandfather might have made analogous comments about the photoelectric effect vs settling Alaska (granted, that was already underway before Einstein was a young man). Basic research doesn't always have an obvious payoff, but sometimes the payoff exceeds anything that could have been reached by the state of development at the time of choosing. (If I could phrase that simpler, you'd all benefit, but you're going to have to figure it out as is.) So far, getting the right balance between the two has been a matter of luck. Think policy setters will get it right? /dps |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:50:19 GMT, Dick Morris
wrote: I've seen it on line and also in the Seattle PI, Jan. 9: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...archpagefrom=2 NASA to start from scratch in new effort By PAUL RECER AP SCIENCE WRITER "If NASA returns astronauts to the moon and then takes aim at Mars, the agency will have to go back to the drawing board to get the job done. The rockets, equipment and engineers that put American footprints on lunar soil have long been lost, junked or retired. Beware... This is the same article that claims that Apollo and Saturn V plans are "lost" (they're on microfilm at Marshall Spaceflight Center) and that Apollo flew "reactors" to the moon (they didn't.) Fact-checking is obviously not Mr. Recer's specialty. Brian |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Hop David wrote:
A large number of small probes manufactured on an assembly line would have a small unit cost. Small enough probes could be bundled two or three (maybe more) per launch, reducing launch costs. These could show us where ice and other resources are on the moon and NEOs. You would soon run into the limits of the DSN. Paul |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"drdoody" wrote in message m... With enough time, support and luck, space exploration would be a side project of a permanent lunar settlement, not the end result. If the only goal of space exploration were pure science, then the whole endeavor would be pointless. Doc Doc has become boring. plonk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why We Shouldn't Go To Mars | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 11 | February 18th 04 03:07 AM |
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 |