|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
Brian Short wrote:
Hop David wrote: Charles Buckley wrote: Hop David wrote: (snip) It's been my impression that even if NASA doesn't follow Zubrin's plan to the letter, they hope to use in situ resources _if_ they do a manned Mars mission. Mars Reference Mission. http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/MarsNew...ion_Table.html Thanks. IIRC years ago NASA gave daddy Bush a half trillion dollar price tag for going to Mars. And 500 billion is what the hair spray heads on my TV news were saying. Am I correct in believing the Mars Reference Mission will be much cheaper? (I couldn't find any cost guestimates during my quick perusal of the URL) I've seen estimates from $30B to $50B. Certainly more than a 5% increase in NASAs current budget per year. Brian You have to take into account that NASa has been funding a lot of specific technologies under the radar in very specific technology programs that does not show up as a line item under the Mars Program. They've already built out various in situ plants for use on Mars as well as much of the life support. The idea of funding tech off the reference mission is to knock the cost of development down to the point they can go to Congress and say "We need X number of dollars to go to Mars" where X is the magic number where it becomes possible. That number is closer, btw, to $10 billion than $50 billion. And, I suspect that Congress would not even believe that estimate. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
chimera wrote:
The second thing that is lacking is--a reason. Back in the '60s, as we all know, it was reason enough that the Soviets might take command of space away from the U.S. But today the reason to spend all this money is . . . ? There is nothing so critical, so pressing, that the money won't be siphoned to other more pressing concerns first. I look at things like this as sporting events, and I for one would be willing to pay a few extra euros tax each year to see *Europe* get there first. That's mainly just rooting for the home team, but I expect that such an accomplishment would have benificial side-effects as well. If the USA joins this race, I'm sure there will be quite a number of people rooting for *that* team :-). |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
In sci.space.policy Joe Strout wrote:
In article , Sander Vesik wrote: No more Galileos or Cassinis or Pluto probes or Space Telescopes? What if this means "No more galileos, cassinis and space telescopes UNTIL" those can be launched from lunar surface ? But this is essentialy the same as never, as things stand or are even projected. You must have a very limited definition of "never". We could be launching craft from the lunar surface in 20 years easily. If in a hurry, then 10-15 years. Not what I would call "never." Just as you cannot call ISS a "earth orbit manufacturing base" it is extremely unlikely that anything NASA will create on moon would in some way help launching satellites. *Even* if there was actual manufacturing base, to actually *make* a staellite starting with raw materials you hundreds of people to be there. And there is no way that is going to happen in the next 20 years. It would not even happen if you could pour as much money as you wanted into it. It means long delay or even cancelation of real science projects over a bunch of unneeded footprints. No, it means delay or cancellation of science projects in favor of real development of space. And I say, great! The first thing the Bush administration has done (or at least, been rumored to be claiming to do) that I've agreed with. Frankly, I really don't care all that much how You need to go and have your head examined, i'm afraid. 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. And the Apollo program take 2 is not going to give you these things either nor get you any closer to them. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
In sci.space.policy "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
So, let me see if I get this straight. This means launching the stuff required to build them to the Moon, assembling/building them there and then launching them? The point of this is what exactly? There isn't. The only way it would make sense at all is if he thought the satellites could be constructed on moon, which means he has no clue at all. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"Joe Strout" wrote in message ... In article , "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote: You must have a very limited definition of "never". We could be launching craft from the lunar surface in 20 years easily. If in a hurry, then 10-15 years. Not what I would call "never." So, let me see if I get this straight. This means launching the stuff required to build them to the Moon, assembling/building them there and then launching them? Nope, you don't have it quite straight yet. Oh, I have it straight. I'm just pointing out the idea makes no sense. It means launching the expensive, complex parts -- like the circuitry -- to the Moon, but the most massive parts (especially the fuel, and probably also the frame) would be lunar materials. And exactly with what would you assemble them? With tools. And those tools have to be brought from the Earth to begin with. So for the near-term, you're better of launching directly from the Earth. In addition to being cheaper (once this lunar infrastructure is in place), you also have the benefit of a much gentler launch for your delicate instruments, as well as a more flexible development environment (i.e. you can build and store the thing in vacuum until launch, if necessary to avoid oxidizing any components). And you also have to create pressurized places to build/assemble them, house your workers, handle your food, etc. In short, a lunar infrastructure does not make sense in the near-term for what you want it to do. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
In sci.space.policy drdoody wrote:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message news You must have a very limited definition of "never". We could be launching craft from the lunar surface in 20 years easily. If in a hurry, then 10-15 years. Not what I would call "never." So, let me see if I get this straight. This means launching the stuff required to build them to the Moon, assembling/building them there and then launching them? The point of this is what exactly? You're missing the point entirely. I say get a permanent industrial presence started on the moon and let corporations take over space exploration from industrial presence will mean things like "aluminium foil and pipes and solar panels". It will most definately not be electronics or precision machinery or optics or anything like that. there. We get them to the moon, they mine it and science hitches a ride to the stars. Putting a governmental agency in charge of space exploration on any level higher than what NASA has already accomplished is stupidity. Would you ride a ship built and flown by the spacefaring equivalent of the US Postal Service? I wouldn't. Precicely what how did you imagine going from "ore comes out of mine" to "and here is a satellite ready to be sent to Jupiter" ? I see future exploration of space happening the same way that exploration of the Gulf Of Mexico has. Sure, the US government has done some surveys down there, but most of the mapping has been done by the petrochemical industry. Why? Because the oil industry are the people who have a vested interest in what's at the bottom of the Gulf *and* have the funding to go looking for it. Sure, they're motivated by profit. But there have been several discoveries made by them that wouldn't have been made otherwise. This just means you have no idea what "making things" (never mind making something complex) means. Doc -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message ... In sci.space.policy Joe Strout wrote: In article , Sander Vesik wrote: No more Galileos or Cassinis or Pluto probes or Space Telescopes? What if this means "No more galileos, cassinis and space telescopes UNTIL" those can be launched from lunar surface ? But this is essentialy the same as never, as things stand or are even projected. You must have a very limited definition of "never". We could be launching craft from the lunar surface in 20 years easily. If in a hurry, then 10-15 years. Not what I would call "never." Just as you cannot call ISS a "earth orbit manufacturing base" it is extremely unlikely that anything NASA will create on moon would in some way help launching satellites. *Even* if there was actual manufacturing base, to actually *make* a staellite starting with raw materials you hundreds of people to be there. And there is no way that is going to happen in the next 20 years. It would not even happen if you could pour as much money as you wanted into it. Um .. you are confusing a port with a shipyard, or a garage with automotive assemly line. -kert |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
Remember, just to develop the industrial base on the Moon to make this possible you're going to have to have cheap launch from here on Earth. And more importantly, have a way to return to earth the ore that you have mined on the Moon, and all of this should be cheaper than the ore that is mined on earth. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions
"john doe" wrote in message
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote: Remember, just to develop the industrial base on the Moon to make this possible you're going to have to have cheap launch from here on Earth. And more importantly, have a way to return to earth the ore that you have mined on the Moon, and all of this should be cheaper than the ore that is mined on earth. I'm not sure that is the point. My question is: is it cheaper to mine and process materials on the moon, and use them there in finished products, than it is to fly finished products there? Or, are there materials on the moon that cannot be gotten on earth? Jon |
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 04:07 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 01:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 11:14 AM |