Are politicians averse to leaving LEO?

All the talk about the possiblity of Orion being "shrunk" to fit on an
EELV and with that, the possible scuttling of Moon flights by the (yet
to be inaugurated!) Obama administration leaves me with a question:
Do politicians have an aversion to sending manned missions beyond LEO?

This isn't the first time this has happened since the end of Apollo.
The Space shuttle was originally conceived as assembling and servicing
space stations which would be the launching point for manned missions
back to the Moon and on to Mars --- basically the architecture
envisioned in the 1950s by von Braun and his contemporaries. All but
the shuttle was scrapped, and even though a space station has FINALLY
been built, it still seems like running up to LEO and back is the only
thing politicians will pay for, as if that is the destination and not
just a stop on the way there.

And it is not just the US. The Soviets got stuck in a similar rut
with their Salyut space stations. Although there were proposals for
using ENergia to go to Mars, they came to nothing, and crews were sent
back and forth the their space stations for decades. We, of course,
joined them with Shuttle/Mir, and they joined in the ISS, and one
justification for this is to do research prior to a manned misison to
Mars. That's fine ..... but at some point, you have to decide enough
preparation has been done and take the plunge! That doesn't seem to
be happening. Why not?

Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space? Is there
something else going on, some psycholigical aversion to goint to far
from "mother Earth"? Did they just watch ALIEN a few times too many?
What?

Probably just being deep and philosphical about something that isn't
deep and philosophichal at all, but when you figure we've been stuck
in LEO when we hanve't had to be for years -- under one plan we could
have landed on Mars the first time in 1984! -- one has to wonder if
sticker shock is the only road block or if there are other factors.

Then again, maybe the cold weather is freezing my brains.

==

"I am not A big, fat panda. I am THE big, fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU
PANDA




--
Posted Via Newsfeeds.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Service
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.Newsfeeds.com

Michael Gallagher wrote:
All the talk about the possiblity of Orion being "shrunk" to fit on an
EELV and with that, the possible scuttling of Moon flights by the (yet
to be inaugurated!) Obama administration leaves me with a question:
Do politicians have an aversion to sending manned missions beyond LEO?

Sticker shock.

Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space?

Simple.

Many of those politicians believed that without a federal bailout, the
entire US banking system would collapse, creating a financial crisis
worse than the Great Depression. Quite a few more more didn't believe
that, but didn't want to take a chance on being wrong. (In other words,
they were too cowardly to stand for their principles.)

"actually go[ing] somewhere in space" pales against that. It simply is
not the same priority.

Then again, maybe the cold weather is freezing my brains.

I won't argue against that.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:10:58 -0500, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

All the talk about the possiblity of Orion being "shrunk" to fit on an
EELV and with that, the possible scuttling of Moon flights by the (yet
to be inaugurated!) Obama administration leaves me with a question:
Do politicians have an aversion to sending manned missions beyond LEO?

No. They just have an aversion to any proposal that doesn't provide
the requisite amount of pork for their districts. They don't give a
goddamn about space.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 21:28:27 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jorge
R. Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Then again, maybe the cold weather is freezing my brains.

I won't argue against that.

Neither would I. In general. Even in warm weather...

On 13 Jan, 03:10, Michael Gallagher wrote:

Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space? *Is there
something else going on, some psycholigical aversion to goint to far
from "mother Earth"? *Did they just watch ALIEN a few times too many?
What?

The baleout was necessary for the health of the whole financial
system. A lot of damage has been done but it would have been
infinitely worse without it. I personally think the banks should be
compelled to start lending again under pain of nationalization. When
the economy picks up again a lot a bale out money is coming back.
Obameamight even make a "killing".

However this has nothing really to do with manned spasceflight. It is
a complete red herring to point to other large expenditures.
Politicians see a hight cost ticket, the cost of which is certain to
rise as soon as your Mars spacecraft starts to get built. What is
there to justify such an expenditure except prestige.

Unless there is new thinking that can drastically reduce the cost no
politician of any sanity is going to go (manned) beyonf LEO and up to
LEO only really for international relations.

There seems to me to be little prospect of any genuinely new thinking,
and little preospect of being able to do anything after a hugely
expensive trip to the Moon/Mars. All governments are facing the same
constraints.

Probably just being deep and philosphical about something that isn't
deep and philosophichal at all, but when you figure we've been stuck
in LEO when we hanve't had to be for years -- under one plan we could
have landed on Mars the first time in 1984! -- one has to wonder if
sticker shock is the only road block or if there are other factors.

I think sticker shock + the growth of stickers. Mars will not cost 80
billion but probably more like 240 billion of which very little will
come back.


- Ian Parker

Michael Gallagher writes:

Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space? Is there
something else going on, some psycholigical aversion to goint to far
from "mother Earth"? Did they just watch ALIEN a few times too many?
What?

Assume that a Mission To Mars works right. I'll even give you
it coming in on time and within range of the original budget estimates,
even though those traits have not been among those that past major
space projects have been renowned for. How many people benefit, and
how much do they benefit? How soon do these benefits arrive? Do these
benefits outweigh the costs? What of these benefits could be achieved
with a lesser expense? How inconvenient would it be it to wait for
these benefits?

Now do me the favor of assuming the bailout of financial
institutions works half as well as its proponents hope. Again, how
many people benefit? How soon do those benefits arrive? Do those
benefits outweigh the costs? What of those benefits could be achieved
with a lesser expense? How inconvenient would it be to wait for those
benefits?

I suggest the answers to both sets of questions are not
materially affected by the movie _Aliens_.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:I think sticker shock + the growth of stickers. Mars will not cost 80
:billion but probably more like 240 billion of which very little will
:come back.
:

They don't just load all that cash in a rocket and shoot it off to
Mars, Ian. Where do you think that money gets spent, anyway?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On 13 Jan, 21:47, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
Michael Gallagher writes:
Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space? *Is there
something else going on, some psycholigical aversion to goint to far
from "mother Earth"? *Did they just watch ALIEN a few times too many?
What?

* * * * Assume that a Mission To Mars works right. *I'll even give you
it coming in on time and within range of the original budget estimates,
even though those traits have not been among those that past major
space projects have been renowned for. *How many people benefit, and
how much do they benefit? *How soon do these benefits arrive? *Do these
benefits outweigh the costs? *What of these benefits could be achieved
with a lesser expense? *How inconvenient would it be it to wait for
these benefits? *

Yes, but if you do "public works" people will get employed whatever
you do. You opnly get Keynsian benefits if what you have gone into
debt for earns you money. A manned expedition to Mars is unlikely to
earn any money.

The sort of project you want from the stand-point of Keynes is a big
construction project. Like the Hoover dam. A dam generates electricity
wheras a trip to Mars will generate no income and very little science.
The sort of thing that should bre looked at is high speed broadband
and solar power. I think the high voltage grid will need to be
upgraded to take account of the new generating pattern. People should
be allowed to sell their surplus power back to the grid.

You are right that historically budgets have been way way out. If you
take an estimate and multiply it by 3 this is what you can bet your
botton dollar it is goiing to cost. Why do you suppose that a Mars
mission would be on budget. It would be a historical first if it were.

* * * * Now do me the favor of assuming the bailout of financial
institutions works half as well as its proponents hope. *Again, how
many people benefit? *How soon do those benefits arrive? *Do those
benefits outweigh the costs? *What of those benefits could be achieved
with a lesser expense? *How inconvenient would it be to wait for those
benefits? *

They are not affected by any film. What would concern me, if I were
American, is the fact that developments in robotics seem to be taking
place outside the US. The US once led the world in broadband. Now S
Korea does. The Scandanavian countries have thier place too. As a
Briton I feel, well in fact I have always felt this, that our future
is in Europe and as far as Asia and the US goes we should be on the
winning side.

If it is possible to build a VN machine it will be built, make no
mistake about it. The sons of dogs do not control, or have any
influence in Asia. Korea and Japan both believe in AI and robotics.
Korea certainly believes in Von Neumann although they might put it
differently. China is not that far behind either.

My postings are not really about whether Mars will be on budget or not
although there is every reason to believe it won't be. What I am
saying is that Mars is ultimately futile. It will cost ANOTHER 40
billion to send a second expedition there and what do you do after
that?

You have to use the resources of space, you have to mine robotically.
You simply cannot afford to send astronauts to the Asteroid belt, or
at least not in significant numbers. If you are going to get benefits
from space they will be technological benefits. What benefits would be
be looking for? Benefits in robotics would be high on the list. In
point of fact a lot of work is being done with no space applications
in mind.

People in the group seem to want to persuade us that there are no
benefits in that direction. One might ask, what benefits are there in
any direction.

On the Apollo project a minicomputer was used when Apollo was on the
dark side of the Moon. This did give a stimulus to minicomputer
development. As I said everyone seems to be trying to persuade us that
no benefits of that kind would accrue. I think the onus should be on
them to tell us what benefits they see.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 13 Jan, 21:47, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
: Michael Gallagher writes:
: Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
: ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
: spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space? *Is there
: something else going on, some psycholigical aversion to goint to far
: from "mother Earth"? *Did they just watch ALIEN a few times too many?
: What?
:
: * * * * Assume that a Mission To Mars works right. *I'll even give you
: it coming in on time and within range of the original budget estimates,
: even though those traits have not been among those that past major
: space projects have been renowned for. *How many people benefit, and
: how much do they benefit? *How soon do these benefits arrive? *Do these
: benefits outweigh the costs? *What of these benefits could be achieved
: with a lesser expense? *How inconvenient would it be it to wait for
: these benefits? *
:
:Yes, but if you do "public works" people will get employed whatever
:you do. You opnly get Keynsian benefits if what you have gone into
:debt for earns you money.
:

Wrong.

:
:A manned expedition to Mars is unlikely to
:earn any money.
:

Perhaps not directly, but there will be spin offs.

:
:The sort of project you want from the stand-point of Keynes is a big
:construction project. Like the Hoover dam.
:

Keynes doesn't care what government spends the money on. You
obviously fail to understand basic economics, as you fail to
understand SO many things.

snip A.S.S. meandering

:
:You have to use the resources of space, you have to mine robotically.
:

Why? We don't have to mine robotically here on Earth. Why do you
think space is different?

:
:You simply cannot afford to send astronauts to the Asteroid belt, or
:at least not in significant numbers.
:

Then you simply cannot afford to develop robotic mining ships and send
them to the asteroid belt in significant numbers, either.

:
:If you are going to get benefits
:from space they will be technological benefits.
:

Why? Sudbury, Canada, already gets huge benefits from the use of
space resources.

:
:What benefits would be
:be looking for? Benefits in robotics would be high on the list.
:

Only if we follow your circular logic.

:
:In
oint of fact a lot of work is being done with no space applications
:in mind.
:
:People in the group seem to want to persuade us that there are no
:benefits in that direction. One might ask, what benefits are there in
:any direction.
:
:On the Apollo project a minicomputer was used when Apollo was on the
:dark side of the Moon. This did give a stimulus to minicomputer
:development. As I said everyone seems to be trying to persuade us that
:no benefits of that kind would accrue.
:

Yet you gibber on about how manned space flight will provide no
benefits.

Hint: You're not supposed to start with your conclusion and then
reason backward....


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On 14 Jan, 15:06, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 13 Jan, 21:47, (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
: Michael Gallagher writes:
: Sticker shock is one possility, but why would politicians who shelve
: ouy $1 trillion in bailouts shirk at $50 billion or $500 billion
: spread out over decades to actually go someplace in space? *Is there
: something else going on, some psycholigical aversion to goint to far
: from "mother Earth"? *Did they just watch ALIEN a few times too many?
: What?
:
: * * * * Assume that a Mission To Mars works right. *I'll even give you
: it coming in on time and within range of the original budget estimates,
: even though those traits have not been among those that past major
: space projects have been renowned for. *How many people benefit, and
: how much do they benefit? *How soon do these benefits arrive? *Do these
: benefits outweigh the costs? *What of these benefits could be achieved
: with a lesser expense? *How inconvenient would it be it to wait for
: these benefits? *
:
:Yes, but if you do "public works" people will get employed whatever
:you do. You opnly get Keynsian benefits if what you have gone into
:debt for earns you money.
:

Wrong.

:
:A manned expedition to Mars is unlikely to
:earn any money.
:

Perhaps not directly, but there will be spin offs.

:
:The sort of project you want from the stand-point of Keynes is a big
:construction project. Like the Hoover dam.
:

Keynes doesn't care what government spends the money on. *You
obviously fail to understand basic economics, as you fail to
understand SO many things.

snip A.S.S. meandering

:
:You have to use the resources of space, you have to mine robotically.
:

Why? *We don't have to mine robotically here on Earth. *Why do you
think space is different?

:
:You simply cannot afford to send astronauts to the Asteroid belt, or
:at least not in significant numbers.
:

Then you simply cannot afford to develop robotic mining ships and send
them to the asteroid belt in significant numbers, either.

:
:If you are going to get benefits
:from space they will be technological benefits.
:

Why? *Sudbury, Canada, already gets huge benefits from the use of
space resources.

:
:What benefits would be
:be looking for? Benefits in robotics would be high on the list.
:

Only if we follow your circular logic.

:
:In
oint of fact a lot of work is being done with no space applications
:in mind.
:
:People in the group seem to want to persuade us that there are no
:benefits in that direction. One might ask, what benefits are there in
:any direction.
:
:On the Apollo project a minicomputer was used when Apollo was on the
:dark side of the Moon. This did give a stimulus to minicomputer
:development. As I said everyone seems to be trying to persuade us that
:no benefits of that kind would accrue.
:

Yet you gibber on about how manned space flight will provide no
benefits.

You are totally ignorant on economics. Keynes DOES care what you spend
the money on. You go into debt if you are onto a reasonable
iinvestment. You definitely want something that will return loads of
money.

You are also BTW completely out o step with mainstream government
thinking.


- Ian Parker