A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old January 10th 04, 06:48 PM
Charles Buckley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 10th 04, 07:21 PM
Kees van Reeuwijk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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 :-).


  #84  
Old January 10th 04, 08:52 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 10th 04, 08:56 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 10th 04, 08:59 PM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 10th 04, 09:02 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 10th 04, 09:04 PM
Kaido Kert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 10th 04, 10:33 PM
john doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 10th 04, 10:50 PM
Jon Berndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.