|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Strout wrote:
Then you've already lost (or else you have a uselessly loose definition of "expensive"). Rocket launch could be substantially cheaper than it is now, but it needs a healthy capitalist market, not a massive socialist space program -- We have a healthy capitalist market, (far more launches are commercial than NASA). Prices haven't come down much. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Ray wrote:
That makes no sense. You have a spacecraft designed to operate outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel the program? No. Hint: what did they do with Apollo ? And do what with the CEV? Operate it in orbit only? No. Where else do you want it to go ? Jupiter ? The CEV is just a glorified Apollo with more people in it. Nothing more. It is unsuitable to go to Mars. In fact, if there isn't room for proper exercise equipment, I wonder if it is suitable for 2 weeks trips. They put the exercise equipment in the shuttle for a good reason. exception. The moon program might be cancled eventually for Mars, but to cancel it and do nothing outside of earth orbit is just stupid. But going to Mars requires something akin to the space station, not some glorified Apollo (although the space styation might have one or two CEVs to land people on mars, assuming some escape rocket has already landed there before and couldn't carry people). I think the congress and the senate are dedicated to this program. They are not dedicated. Once cost overruns start to make the news, that program may be cancelled. What may be left is the LEO version ov CEV and launcher. And if someones makes calculation that it would be cheaper to simply recertify the shuttles, then all of CEV may be cancelled. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff Findley wrote: "dasun" wrote in message oups.com... Science is not the reason for going up - that is philosophical - science is what you do when you are there, along with all the house keeping chores. Colonisation, if it happens at all, is generally not what you do when you first arrive on a new world, as the history of earth exploration will attest, first you look around and then you decide where to stay and why and that may take decades or centuries. In short science is a very useful activity to perform if you have decided to go to new worlds in the first place. Besides, find a politician that understands science! None of that will happen with the high cost that NASA is building into the program. I agree with Rand's blog that NASA is likely to have four or less flights per year to the Moon. This is nowhere near a colony, and at a cost of $7 billion per year, you're not going to find anyone who would want to pay to scale that up to colony size. What's holding us back is high launch costs. NASA's exploration plan does nothing to address this issue. Nope, this is Antartica 21st century style. The saddest thing is you could have done this for less money years ago with a couple more EORs and off the shelf equipment. Dave |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
in article , Joe Strout at
wrote on 9/19/05 3:50 PM: In article .com, "dasun" wrote: Given financial & political realities this is the best we could have hoped for. Since it's what we actually got, this statement is true by tautology, but that's hardly comforting. I actually hoped for much better. See it for what it is - a starting point that gives an industrial and experience base for grander journeys in the future. I think it gives the wrong kind of experience base for any grander journeys. It's a perfect near term solution to getting big things built and sent to Solar System destinations. Sending manageable pieces into orbit, putting them together with crews moved in smaller, more reliable, vehicles, and then manning them when they are complete. What flexibility. When a new propulsion system is ready just substitute it for the older propulsion unit. Conceivably we will never need anything larger than the CLV again. This plan has good balance in the area of payloads. snip AS for the stick and using shuttle hardware, well why not? Because it is far too expensive. It makes any real progress with it untenable. Yet, supported by taxes, it competes with commercial providers who could do the same work for much lower real costs, and at the same time open up space for the rest of us. What *real* evidence do you have for this claim that commercial providers could do the same for less? What commercial provider has produced a man rated launcher? snip George Evans |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
George Evans wrote:
I like the emphasis on the Moon. As a science teacher in the US, I am dismayed that some college aged students don't think we ever got there. I know this is fantasy, but I would love to see some type of activity on the Moon, maybe a large mining operation, that would be visible in amateur telescopes. What a visual aid! What is more likely is that McDonalds, Coke or Pepsi will fund a flight to Moon whose purpose will be to unfurl a HUGE banner with their logo on it, so all kids who look at the moon with a telescope will be able to see that logo FOREVER. Since very litle of what will be done to go to Moon will be of use to go to mars, the trips to the moon are a diversion. If mankind is to advance exploration of space, it should be working on a mars mission. Unless you work on it, you won't develop what is needed to get there and back. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
In article , John Doe wrote:
What is more likely is that McDonalds, Coke or Pepsi will fund a flight to Moon whose purpose will be to unfurl a HUGE banner with their logo on it, so all kids who look at the moon with a telescope will be able to see that logo FOREVER. One can hope, anyway. Since very litle of what will be done to go to Moon will be of use to go to mars, the trips to the moon are a diversion. If mankind is to advance exploration of space, it should be working on a mars mission. Nonsense. Mars is not particularly important for mankind's development of space; it is too far away and has a steep gravity well. The Moon, OTOH, is vitally important, a gift from the cosmos that gives us a stepping-stone to the rest of the universe, by virtue of being only a couple days away and with a convenient gravity well. The focus on the Moon is quite right. It's just a shame that NASA is developing a new launcher as part of getting there. Best, - Joe ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
in article ,
at wrote on 9/19/05 4:50 PM: If you studied compute science, then you must be pretty much aware of the Moore's law. And you are certainly aware of predictions that computer would never play chess well enough. Which means that any speculation about robot's future limited abilities is groundless. I see nothing special about your yellow soil example. With digital cams ever increasing abilities, in 10 years you will have a remote picture that is indistingusheable from what human is able to see on the spot. Some obscure geologist sitting in the comfort of his desktop and watching the transmission over the internet would notice something interesting. Then you can fund a new mission *for a fraction of manned mission cost*. Even more likely, the amount of transmitted data in 10 years from now would be so huge, that you have to employ a very sophisticated data mining technique, in order to extract some useful information. No way a trained Joe Doe geologist could be able to do that on the spot. Yes, unglorified astronouts are just expensive technicians. Possibly NASA is planning a crew of *four* based on the experience with the shuttle in which some of the crew flew the plane and some were *specialists*. Let's say the first mission had room for two geologists. Are you telling me that every top notch geologist in the world would still rather just sit home watching monitors? George Evans |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
in article ,
at wrote on 9/19/05 5:53 PM: snip There is number factor as well. Compare a 1000 geologists investigating phenomenon remotely, versus one of the spot. Given adequate quality of remote observation, it is more likely that some of those 1000 geologists would find something interesting, that would escape the guy on the spot. But think of the possibilities of 1000 geologists looking through the crystal clear helmet cam of one of our best geologist, able to discuss with him real time (minus a few seconds) what they are looking at and suggesting further courses of action. "John, could you break off a hand specimen of that that so we can see..." George Evans |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
in article , S. Wand at
wrote on 9/19/05 7:10 PM: snip 1) The Stick-CEV seems wrong-sized for LEO operations - too large. The decision is understandable because we're keeping the SRBs for the heavy lifter. But it would be nice to see private industry step up for operations less than 250 miles high. I don't see any reason why NASA wouldn't welcome private industry for transporting astronauts to and from various stations and construction projects in LEO. They don't manufacture there own T-38's do they? George Evans |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 4th 05 07:50 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 5th 04 01:36 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |