A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

USA to return to Moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 9th 04, 09:19 AM
Stephen Souter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default USA to return to Moon

In article ,
"Dr. O" [email protected] 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/
Ads
  #2  
Old January 9th 04, 07:19 PM
Alex
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stephen Souter wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Dr. O" [email protected] 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.
  #3  
Old January 9th 04, 09:01 PM
Zdenek Jizba
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized. Dan Hanson Policy 25 January 26th 04 07:42 PM
Moon key to space future? James White Policy 90 January 6th 04 04:29 PM
The November 8th Total Eclipse of the Moon Ron Baalke Misc 0 October 28th 03 07:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.