palmettoguy4519
Registered User
Do I really want my taxes to towards pictures from MARS? I would rather put that money towards the war on terror! Or wait, lets put HOWARD DEAN on Mars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!all for that
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Back to the moon?
- Thread starter webmaster
- Start date
- Status
Mars? Naw, I'd put Howard Dean somewhere a little further out. Preferably far enough away where we can't hear him. I think if he ended up on Mars I'd still hear a little tinny "PICK ME! BUSH SUCKS! PICK ME! BUSH SUCKS! . . ." ringing on and on in my ear. Oh, the torture . . .
Moons of Jupiter, maybe?
Moons of Jupiter, maybe?
What does everyone think of a space elevator? Although the nanotube technology isn't far enough along to actually build an elevator today - it seems painfully close. One of the most expensive things about space is just getting up there. A space elevator would make it way cheaper to get up to space, which means that the private sector could send up more stuff.
I'm all for going back to the moon and mars, but if we just spent 5 or 6 billion on a space elevator, it would reduce the cost of any mission to the moon or mars significantly. The Gov't and Private industry could work together a lot better to solve problems like radiation exposure and bone/muscle loss. It seems like a space elevator could go from science fiction to reality in a few years time if anybody threw any mulla in that direction.
I'm all for going back to the moon and mars, but if we just spent 5 or 6 billion on a space elevator, it would reduce the cost of any mission to the moon or mars significantly. The Gov't and Private industry could work together a lot better to solve problems like radiation exposure and bone/muscle loss. It seems like a space elevator could go from science fiction to reality in a few years time if anybody threw any mulla in that direction.
I've spent a lot of time reading and doing research into the space program and futures over the past couple years. As any pilot especially one who wants to fly fighters or whatever the Navy wants me to fly, space is a dream that like most of us have gone back to the days of being a small kid.
It is almost positive the Chinese will go to the moon, considering their massive economic growth, major restructuring of the military and world view since the 90's. Space is the only logical step for them and so is the moon. That CNN article listed above was a good article, and there is tons of evidence of similar topics reguarding the Chinese throughout the Aerospace communities and foriegn policy communities.
Has anyone ever seen the HBO special "From the Earth to the Moon"? I think aside from its very pro-human space flight view, its an incredible set of disks that really send shivers through my mind every time I see them. Very inspiring!!
After following the Spirit mission since its launch and with Opertunity on its heels, it really excits me to see us sending probes, but I think the US should lead the world in the exploration aspects. Probes and cop-out answers of no economic value will only hold until major break throughs come. I dont even want to think about how much Capital Political and Economic could be earned from mining an asteroid or the moon, it will be something that may solve many problems. Any Adminstration that pulls that through could run the election and political tables for a decade.
I find I am rooting for those goofy Chinese to really succeed in space. Because I dont belive for one second, a Republican or Democratic Presidental Admin will let the Chinese be the next ones to land on the moon, economics aside ... its a stratigic calculation that can not go unanswered ... who wants to live under a Red moon? I think any continued Chinese success will bring the first space race of the 21st Century. And what is so exciting to me, is that all of us will be right in the middle of that ...
I dont see any manned Mars missions happening untill proven sucess of Moon missions happens and the missions can prove the American public that its worth the leap of faith and money to go to Mars. But I also think starting that project to the Moon and Mars will dump so much money into the civilian markets and stock markets ... maybe its one of the answers for todays economic set backs.
I say on to the Moon and Mars ... and Im going to be there! I dont care if Im the 100th guy to land ... Im going!
Until then ... thats Val's deep thought of the day ...
Valion310 - "Last one to the moon is a rotten egg!!"
It is almost positive the Chinese will go to the moon, considering their massive economic growth, major restructuring of the military and world view since the 90's. Space is the only logical step for them and so is the moon. That CNN article listed above was a good article, and there is tons of evidence of similar topics reguarding the Chinese throughout the Aerospace communities and foriegn policy communities.
Has anyone ever seen the HBO special "From the Earth to the Moon"? I think aside from its very pro-human space flight view, its an incredible set of disks that really send shivers through my mind every time I see them. Very inspiring!!
After following the Spirit mission since its launch and with Opertunity on its heels, it really excits me to see us sending probes, but I think the US should lead the world in the exploration aspects. Probes and cop-out answers of no economic value will only hold until major break throughs come. I dont even want to think about how much Capital Political and Economic could be earned from mining an asteroid or the moon, it will be something that may solve many problems. Any Adminstration that pulls that through could run the election and political tables for a decade.
I find I am rooting for those goofy Chinese to really succeed in space. Because I dont belive for one second, a Republican or Democratic Presidental Admin will let the Chinese be the next ones to land on the moon, economics aside ... its a stratigic calculation that can not go unanswered ... who wants to live under a Red moon? I think any continued Chinese success will bring the first space race of the 21st Century. And what is so exciting to me, is that all of us will be right in the middle of that ...
I dont see any manned Mars missions happening untill proven sucess of Moon missions happens and the missions can prove the American public that its worth the leap of faith and money to go to Mars. But I also think starting that project to the Moon and Mars will dump so much money into the civilian markets and stock markets ... maybe its one of the answers for todays economic set backs.
I say on to the Moon and Mars ... and Im going to be there! I dont care if Im the 100th guy to land ... Im going!
Until then ... thats Val's deep thought of the day ...
Valion310 - "Last one to the moon is a rotten egg!!"
As I pointed out in the beginning, we need an economic reason for going to the moon. I"m wil the rest of you guys, I would go just to go, but we live in the real world. We have to think about this in a real world prospective. With a true economic reason, the pivate sector would take over and find a way to do it better and cheaper. Here are some of my ideas for economic reasons:
Orbiting Farms - we can ship dirt onto large orbiting sats and have whole communities grow food, giving more land to industrial development.
Power - microwave energy back to earth from solar collectors, yes there would be a huge loss of energy, but it's free engery, so the loss isn't important.
Crystals - crystals of all sorts grow better in space. These are used for computers and other things.
Industral - move the automated industrial sector into space. Gets rid of pollution and other problems on earth.
Tell me what you think
Ben
Orbiting Farms - we can ship dirt onto large orbiting sats and have whole communities grow food, giving more land to industrial development.
Power - microwave energy back to earth from solar collectors, yes there would be a huge loss of energy, but it's free engery, so the loss isn't important.
Crystals - crystals of all sorts grow better in space. These are used for computers and other things.
Industral - move the automated industrial sector into space. Gets rid of pollution and other problems on earth.
Tell me what you think
Ben
I think:
If we are talking about huge energy loss, do it from earth, you'll lose the energy through the atmosphere, but if really expensive solar cells are free than we don't have to worry about it.
There is helium 3 on the moon, theres a reason.
Move the industrial sector into space? like what the whole planet? Why don't we just change the earth’s orbit and call it even.
Caeli brings up a good point, the cost to put a pound of material into space is about 20,000 that means the astronauts are eating 40,000$ hot dogs, something to think about, dems expensive hotdogs. I think if we invested in a space elevator, the trip up would be somewhat less exciting, but would completely open up access to space. In that case I could see the solar panel farms in space, which would be cool.
If we are talking about huge energy loss, do it from earth, you'll lose the energy through the atmosphere, but if really expensive solar cells are free than we don't have to worry about it.
There is helium 3 on the moon, theres a reason.
Move the industrial sector into space? like what the whole planet? Why don't we just change the earth’s orbit and call it even.
Caeli brings up a good point, the cost to put a pound of material into space is about 20,000 that means the astronauts are eating 40,000$ hot dogs, something to think about, dems expensive hotdogs. I think if we invested in a space elevator, the trip up would be somewhat less exciting, but would completely open up access to space. In that case I could see the solar panel farms in space, which would be cool.
Living in the real world does unfortunatly constitute the hard reasoning.
The Economic values if given hard thought and inspiring minds can lead to their own answers, unfortunatly what little the voting public sees is the small highschool science project or some obscure project from Stanford on the Shuttle missions over the years and so the real value has convienced the public that its not worth it. Obviously putting the 1st world Industrial sectors in some extended Earth orbit is unrealistic, but taking the 21st Century leap and expanding the technoligy to accomidate more toxic production types on a lunar surface or on a "High Lunar Orbit" type facility would make the tree huggers pretty happy and probably be a source of dumping money into the technoligy and industrial development stocks.
I've come across pretty good articles on Solar Farms being positioned between the Earth and the Sun (there is some term for the exact gravitational location, but I can't remember it). I thought that was a very promising idea. ( I dont think Al Quida could hit those yet!!
)
As much as I agree with the private sectors taking over the space initative. I dont see them being able to compete with Uncle Sams deep pockets for another 10 to 15 years unless there is a mass mobilization of the private sector. Wouldn't that be Capitalizim at its best? "Uncle Sam competes with America's Private Sectors for Space" ....
If all else fails ... Howard Dean blows enough hot air out to launch a whole new fleet ... he'd be a great launch power source!
Valion310 - "Fox 3!"
The Economic values if given hard thought and inspiring minds can lead to their own answers, unfortunatly what little the voting public sees is the small highschool science project or some obscure project from Stanford on the Shuttle missions over the years and so the real value has convienced the public that its not worth it. Obviously putting the 1st world Industrial sectors in some extended Earth orbit is unrealistic, but taking the 21st Century leap and expanding the technoligy to accomidate more toxic production types on a lunar surface or on a "High Lunar Orbit" type facility would make the tree huggers pretty happy and probably be a source of dumping money into the technoligy and industrial development stocks.
I've come across pretty good articles on Solar Farms being positioned between the Earth and the Sun (there is some term for the exact gravitational location, but I can't remember it). I thought that was a very promising idea. ( I dont think Al Quida could hit those yet!!
As much as I agree with the private sectors taking over the space initative. I dont see them being able to compete with Uncle Sams deep pockets for another 10 to 15 years unless there is a mass mobilization of the private sector. Wouldn't that be Capitalizim at its best? "Uncle Sam competes with America's Private Sectors for Space" ....
If all else fails ... Howard Dean blows enough hot air out to launch a whole new fleet ... he'd be a great launch power source!
Valion310 - "Fox 3!"
The private sector does control a lot of the space program. NASA's last word is administration which means they hand out contracts. NASA organized the building of the shuttle and station but it was contractors that did it. For instance USA (United Space Alliance) holds the contract for the shuttle. USA is a half Boeing half LM group, which built a lot of the shuttle (the individual companies) and turns around the shuttles.
I always thought we should pursue the pasta antipasta reactor engine technology
I always thought we should pursue the pasta antipasta reactor engine technology
I am sure the reponses to this will be "interesting" to read.
I think this new space initiative by the administration is bogus. I was waiting to form an opinion but after reading some of the details today, I am really disappointed.
- He is asking for 1 billion over 5 years
- Lunar Landing by 2015 presence* within 20 years
- Manned landing on Mars sometime after 2030 (not very specific)
Keep in mind that Kennedy made his famous speech to go to the moon on September 12, 1962 and we first set foot there on July 20 1969. Now it is going to take us longer to get back to the moon and back then they had to develop everything including the engines to get them there.
* White House officials said the human "presence" would not necessarily be a permanent base.
NASA would also develop and build a new "Crew Exploration Vehicle" to ferry people first to the International Space Station after the shuttles are retired, and then to the moon, no later than 2015. The goal, the White House said, would be humans "living and working there for increasingly extended periods.
This idea of a "Crew Exploration Vehicle" that goes to the station and then on to the moon is a bad one. In space you have to optimize your vehicle for the mission. Ferrying people and supplies to an Earth orbit is vastly different than going 238,000 miles to the moon and landing. That is why the shuttle replaced the Apollo rockets when we stopped going to the moon.
My real problem is the way the administration has come up with the money:
- Retire the shuttle by the end of the decade.
- “Bush would withdraw the United States from the International Space Station by 2010”
- “Bush would also shift $11 billion in federal money from other NASA programs to make way for the program.”
The shuttle does need to be retired. It cost about $4 billion a year. The main problem I have is abandoning the space station. We have spent billions to build the station. It was the most complex thing we have ever built in space and it does have a purpose. There are over 17 countries involved and the station is supposed to last for 20 years. Here is the mission statement of the station.
ISS Mission Statement
The mission of the International Space Station is to enable long-term exploration of space and provide benefits to people on Earth.
1. To create a permanent orbiting science institute in space capable of performing long-duration research in the materials and life sciences areas in a nearly gravity-free environment.
2. To conduct medical research in space.
3. To develop new materials and processes in collaboration with industry.
4. To accelerate breakthroughs in technology and engineering that will have immediate, practical applications for life on Earth - and will create jobs and economic opportunities today and in the decades to come.
5. To maintain U.S. leadership in space and in global competitiveness, and to serve as a driving force for emerging technologies.
6. To forge new partnerships with the nations of the world.
7. To inspire our children, foster the next generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, and satisfy humanity's ancient need to explore and achieve.
8. To invest for today and tomorrow. Every dollar spent on space programs returns at least $2 in direct and indirect benefits.
9. To sustain and strengthen the United States' strongest export sector - aerospace technology - which in 1995 exceeded $33 billion.
The station only cost about $1 billion per year. This is less than the administrations new plan on marriage:
“Bush administration officials are planning a $1.5 billion election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.”
He also wants to shift $11 billion out of NASA’s $15 billion budget towards the new program. This means an end to most all of NASA’s programs which include weather prediction, atmospheric research and other areas vital to keeping us the most technically advanced society on earth.
NASA’s overall budget is less than 1 percent of the federal budget. When we were serious about space it was up around 4 or 5 percent. This link shows a simple graph of space funding over the years. http://www.spacepolicy.org/page_gb0899.html
The fact is that they are not serious about space and never have been. The whole time President Bush was Governor of Texas he never toured NASA Space Center in Houston. All this is is an election year stunt. This will actually hurt NASA more than it will help because in the end, the shuttle will be retired, the station will have been abandoned and we will not have funded a new launch vehicle which will be the end of Human Space Flight, at least in America that is.
Some other links about the station:
Science
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/science/index.html
Experiments currently on board
http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/ros/all.html
Kennedy Speech
http://www.rice.edu/fondren/woodson/speech.html
I think this new space initiative by the administration is bogus. I was waiting to form an opinion but after reading some of the details today, I am really disappointed.
- He is asking for 1 billion over 5 years
- Lunar Landing by 2015 presence* within 20 years
- Manned landing on Mars sometime after 2030 (not very specific)
Keep in mind that Kennedy made his famous speech to go to the moon on September 12, 1962 and we first set foot there on July 20 1969. Now it is going to take us longer to get back to the moon and back then they had to develop everything including the engines to get them there.
* White House officials said the human "presence" would not necessarily be a permanent base.
NASA would also develop and build a new "Crew Exploration Vehicle" to ferry people first to the International Space Station after the shuttles are retired, and then to the moon, no later than 2015. The goal, the White House said, would be humans "living and working there for increasingly extended periods.
This idea of a "Crew Exploration Vehicle" that goes to the station and then on to the moon is a bad one. In space you have to optimize your vehicle for the mission. Ferrying people and supplies to an Earth orbit is vastly different than going 238,000 miles to the moon and landing. That is why the shuttle replaced the Apollo rockets when we stopped going to the moon.
My real problem is the way the administration has come up with the money:
- Retire the shuttle by the end of the decade.
- “Bush would withdraw the United States from the International Space Station by 2010”
- “Bush would also shift $11 billion in federal money from other NASA programs to make way for the program.”
The shuttle does need to be retired. It cost about $4 billion a year. The main problem I have is abandoning the space station. We have spent billions to build the station. It was the most complex thing we have ever built in space and it does have a purpose. There are over 17 countries involved and the station is supposed to last for 20 years. Here is the mission statement of the station.
ISS Mission Statement
The mission of the International Space Station is to enable long-term exploration of space and provide benefits to people on Earth.
1. To create a permanent orbiting science institute in space capable of performing long-duration research in the materials and life sciences areas in a nearly gravity-free environment.
2. To conduct medical research in space.
3. To develop new materials and processes in collaboration with industry.
4. To accelerate breakthroughs in technology and engineering that will have immediate, practical applications for life on Earth - and will create jobs and economic opportunities today and in the decades to come.
5. To maintain U.S. leadership in space and in global competitiveness, and to serve as a driving force for emerging technologies.
6. To forge new partnerships with the nations of the world.
7. To inspire our children, foster the next generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, and satisfy humanity's ancient need to explore and achieve.
8. To invest for today and tomorrow. Every dollar spent on space programs returns at least $2 in direct and indirect benefits.
9. To sustain and strengthen the United States' strongest export sector - aerospace technology - which in 1995 exceeded $33 billion.
The station only cost about $1 billion per year. This is less than the administrations new plan on marriage:
“Bush administration officials are planning a $1.5 billion election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.”
He also wants to shift $11 billion out of NASA’s $15 billion budget towards the new program. This means an end to most all of NASA’s programs which include weather prediction, atmospheric research and other areas vital to keeping us the most technically advanced society on earth.
NASA’s overall budget is less than 1 percent of the federal budget. When we were serious about space it was up around 4 or 5 percent. This link shows a simple graph of space funding over the years. http://www.spacepolicy.org/page_gb0899.html
The fact is that they are not serious about space and never have been. The whole time President Bush was Governor of Texas he never toured NASA Space Center in Houston. All this is is an election year stunt. This will actually hurt NASA more than it will help because in the end, the shuttle will be retired, the station will have been abandoned and we will not have funded a new launch vehicle which will be the end of Human Space Flight, at least in America that is.
Some other links about the station:
Science
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/science/index.html
Experiments currently on board
http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/ros/all.html
Kennedy Speech
http://www.rice.edu/fondren/woodson/speech.html
Urtico,
Can you paste where you read about abandoning the ISS? I haven't read that. As to the new Vehicle, we need it, and if they can make 1 Vehicle that can be changed around to do more than one job, more power to them.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/SciTech/GoodMorningAmerica/okeefe_moon_040114-1.html
That was an interesting article. As to not touring NASA, I lived in Tallahassee, Fl for 4 years, but never toured the capital building. That doesn't mean that I wasn't interested in Government.
Ben
Can you paste where you read about abandoning the ISS? I haven't read that. As to the new Vehicle, we need it, and if they can make 1 Vehicle that can be changed around to do more than one job, more power to them.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/SciTech/GoodMorningAmerica/okeefe_moon_040114-1.html
That was an interesting article. As to not touring NASA, I lived in Tallahassee, Fl for 4 years, but never toured the capital building. That doesn't mean that I wasn't interested in Government.
Ben
- Status