Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
What do you think of the new focus for NASA?
Freejack
Jake the Not-so-Wise
in Zocalo v2.0
Bush's proposal for further space exploration:
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/index.html[/url]
All in all I think it's good news.
The mission to Mars will be a massive undertaking, someone estimated it could cost upward of $1 trillion!
One point I do not like, if NASA holds to the proposed plan there will be a 3-5 year period where the US has no vehicles capable of carrying humans into space.
Jake
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/index.html[/url]
All in all I think it's good news.
The mission to Mars will be a massive undertaking, someone estimated it could cost upward of $1 trillion!
One point I do not like, if NASA holds to the proposed plan there will be a 3-5 year period where the US has no vehicles capable of carrying humans into space.
Jake
Comments
Maybe it could become a more global agency with the US taking the lead
[B]I think the timeframe is a bit pathetic. Returning by 2020? It took them well under a decade to get there from a standing start in the 60s, why is it going to take 17 years from a huge basis of existing experience now? [/B][/QUOTE]
It probably has to do with financing and the really bad deficit that states is carrying due to the recession and recent/ongoing wars. Maybe people in the 60s were more willing to commit financial resources to space exploration.
This is just my opinion, I have no numbers whatsoever to back it up, and haven't done any supporting research.
gawd what a horrible prospect...putting up with Bush because he's funding NASA.
My guess as to why it's going to take so long this time is that we have a different purpose in mind, not to mention there's bound to be a much heavier emphasis on safety.
The Apollo capsules really weren't at all safe; it's amazing that all the ones that actually launched made it back. And there was at least one instance of astronauts getting in a capsule, [i]not[/i] launching, and [i]still[/i] not making it back.
Our goal back then was simply to put someone up there; our new goal has more to do with establishing a [i]presence[/i] there, which is a very different and much more difficult task.
$$$++
Think about it. H3 on the moon, prescious metals in asteroids...
you go into space, you get to the stuff, you win.
Also, we beat the Chinese, we win the international bragging rights, and score two for democracy!
So, yeah. Political motivations aside, I think this is a damn good move. It's forcing a step forward, and giving us a leg up in "The Space Race 2: That Place Near The Earth"
[B]Well, at least they're actually planning on finishing the ISS. [/B][/QUOTE]
Heh! They have too! :D
Along another line of conversation here... Does anyone know where we (or anyone else for that matter) are with building on site with existing materials...
IE: Lunar Cement / Martian Cement/ etc.
We should start thinking about using what's there as well as what we bring... ;)
Once again the big element being water I guess...
[B]Heh! They have too! :D
Along another line of conversation here... Does anyone know where we (or anyone else for that matter) are with building on site with existing materials...
IE: Lunar Cement / Martian Cement/ etc.
We should start thinking about using what's there as well as what we bring... ;)
Once again the big element being water I guess... [/B][/QUOTE]
Excellent question. What I remember reading in PopSci is that there were plans to use raw materials on the Moon as fuel, the idea being that missions sent to the Moon only need enough for a one-way trip, saving costs and reducing the takeoff weight.
The moon fuel could then be used to propel the spacecraft to other planets (such as Mars), or back to Earth.
[B]Excellent question. What I remember reading in PopSci is that there were plans to use raw materials on the Moon as fuel, the idea being that missions sent to the Moon only need enough for a one-way trip, saving costs and reducing the takeoff weight.
The moon fuel could then be used to propel the spacecraft to other planets (such as Mars), or back to Earth. [/B][/QUOTE]
I just hope they wouldn't assume that for the first few missions until they had a working model proved! :p
[B]I just hope they wouldn't assume that for the first few missions until they had a working model proved! :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, would be pretty good if they did. However, everything I've read about was purely theoretical and at this point the info is outdated by about 5 years... so I hope someone can post more recent NASA plans.
[B]It probably has to do with financing and the really bad deficit that states is carrying due to the recession and recent/ongoing wars.[/B][/QUOTE]
There would be enough money for all of this if they would just cut the military budget.
For example when Bush was elected he immediately gave over ten billion dollars more for missile defense program.
[url]http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2024/stories/20031205000406400.htm[/url]
[i]If the rest of the economy swills down the toilet, at least one can be sure that weapons producers will benefit. Indeed, these firms have enjoyed ceaseless profits over the past several decades.[/i]
[URL]http://www.cdi.org/issues/budget/FY03Highlights-pr.cfm[/URL]
[I]In all, the administration plans to spend $2.1 TRILLION on the military over the next five years[/I]
So now back topic when this "funding issue" is solved.
Moon bases would make Mars missions much cheaper and easier. (and would also give much needed experience)
There are also lot of metals on moon's surface material which could later be used as building material.
Mares surface contains 4,5% of Fe for example. (5,3% of Mg, 6,6% of Al, 1% of Ti)
"Continents" contains only 1,8% of Fe and only very little of Ti and 4% of Mg, but 10% of Al!
There's over 60% of oxygen in both areas.
(these numbers are shares from total number of atoms and they have been measured from samples returned on Apollo missions)
[B]What were the relative spendings on NASA and other things back in the 60s? Anyone know? [/B][/QUOTE]
I don't know what the actual budget for space exploration was, but I do know after Kennedy's famous [I]Ask Not What You Can Do For Your Country[/i] speech in 1961, NASA's budget was doubled the next year and almost doubled again the year after.
Also remember there was one big driving force in the 60s, above all else you had to beat the Soviets. Today, China is the closest we come to a space race rival and they are 30 years behind us. Besides our relationship with China is much better than our relationship with the Soviet Union was in the sixties. Heck I imagine if China showed enough interest in activities such as the ISS, they would be welcomed as a partener.
Jake
For a Heat Shield?!?
:rolleyes:
[B]Wood?!?
For a Heat Shield?!?[/B][/QUOTE]
Function of a heat shield is to insulate crew and ship from high temperatures in re-entry.
And wood is very good heat insulator compared to metals and heatshield doesn't have to withstand heat long. (of course different woods conduct heat at different rates)
[B] Heck I imagine if China showed enough interest in activities such as the ISS, they would be welcomed as a partener.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
I wouldn't bet on that...
[B]Wood?!?
For a Heat Shield?!?
:rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, we used cork and silica for Spirit's and Opporunity's heat shields.
I'd rather lose a few pounds of payload than be seared into ashes.
[B]I don't know any technical details, but I'd be very surprised if it's not possible to use raw materials on both the Moon and Mars (particularly Mars) for building with. [/B][/QUOTE]
Try looking at [url=http://www.niac.usra.edu/]this[/url] NASA site, or one of the other one's off the [url=http://nasatechnology.nasa.gov/?ntpo=1&CFID=17582&CFTOKEN=18809416]NASA Technology Portal[/url].
Back when I worked with the shuttle and space station in Clearlake, we'd get the local NASA newsletter and tech briefs (back in late 80's/early 90's). Sometimes there would be a report on the extraction of building materials from lunar soil. I even have a sample of simulated lunar soil around here somewhere that was handed out at one of the tech fairs. It's incredibly fine, like pencil graphite mixed with fine black sand.
Several of the "go to the moon and fill up at the poles" ideas have met with the realities of later studies that there is not any water hidden in craters at the poles. I think the last European lunar probe helped to dispel that recently. There IS plenty of oxygen, its just bound to other elements, making extraction more difficult.
Every second you spend in re-entry is courting death. I'm sure the shuttle engineers are quite happy to believe that everything is fine and technology will allow the shuttles to cheat death for the long periods it has to.... just as long as everything is working well...
...we all know what happens when O rings fail... and tiles get bumped...
doing the above gives you a 'for free' bonus when you're talking payload...
I still maintain we should be just sending 'stuff' to the moon. IE raw materials/prefab stuff.. things we cant get locally on the moon easily. We build up a critical mass of 'stuff' on the moon, perhaps even send a bunch of bots to handle it mooside. Basically ship the moonbase first and then land some blokes to chuck it all together.
I wonder what sort of consequences there would be for diverting a comet to go smackety into the moon to fix the H20 problem.
Another good way to build gear on the moon is this... inflatable domes, dirty great, thick strong whoopee cushions... flattish ones you can bury under a few metres of moonsoil. Air pressure inside/weight of soil help to negate each other. Plus the soil requires no binder if its just piled loose on top.
You also dont need much water to build if you adopt Rammed Earth as a way of building, here on this rock you need minimal moisture to make a very stout solid wall by basically just smacking the hell out of clay type material inside a formwork. (and formwork you can use over and over).
Moonbase and new spaceship capable of taking off and landing planets by itself: in 5 years
Manned missions to Mars and Mars base: in 10-15 years
And it should be a joint project together with at least ESA and Russia's space agency and hopefully with many others as well.
That's how it should go.
- PJH