https://news.yahoo.com/senate-budget-co … 05846.html
Private Sector Joins NASA in Funding Astrobiology Research
]]>However, if they are doing Monkeyshines on the Moon, you might as well show them a shopping list, and see if they have anything you can afford to buy, any good deals.
]]>As part of the general public that feels that investing in space is a must to push technological materials and processes I also feel that the corporate world needs to catch up and start investing as well to make it work for all man kind to be able to do the same by gaining the ability to afford to be part of the new frontier.
I am just a Space Nut and I can see how it can benefit man if we can get the costs down....all plans are on the table....my fear is that Nasa will go to the moon and then will stop, go to an asteriod then will not do another and finally man will land on mars but never to go again. With each start and stop the cost will go up and Nasa will claim to not have the money as the corporate world will still be behind not willing to invest in the infrasture to make it so that man can still keep going.
Should space exploration be a priority for federal funding?
Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and NASA funding
]]>https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Flywhee
Moving from sunshine to shadow, frequently would be normal for many situations on the Moon, and perhaps a flywheel would store "Sprinting" energy for the shadows. Of course "Sprinting" in that situation is stupid, since the robots do not have to outrun Lions, Tigers, and Bears, and rocks and dirt can't run away very well, but I think you understand.
Flywheels would give both good and bad Gyroscopic effects I believe, so good engineering is desired.
Good: Energy Storage, stand up like a bicycle or segway?
Bad: Bangs itself to pieces?
]]>I'm very much in favour of Luna first, because I think the return on investment is much quicker. There are options for tourism, fuel production, and mining there; the craft can be much lighter, because they're not spending months in transit; a much more rapid evacuation can be done at any time, so if one of your colonists gets ill you can send them back to Terra for treatment; the much lower lag allows increased use of telerobotics and assistance from Terra...
My... plan, if you will, is to get a Lunar colony established before the first manned Mars mission, so that we can build (most of) it and fuel it from Lunar, vastly reducing the cost. Yes, it's Battlestar Galactica. But if we can bootstrap our way to that point, we don't need to pour in 100s of $billions to get there.
Hmmm, I wonder if a Lunar colony could make money building satellites, only importing a few components they can't make themselves?
I agree. I am afraid of the Mars "Roach Motel" outcome. I am a plan A + option B + option C kind of person. Don't let them get you into a cul-de-sack.
If Mars only, then I am afraid of
1) Barriers due to biological claims.
2) A dance and prance around a flag. I have visions of each nations Cosmo/Asto person kicking the other one in the pants in a circle while circling and changing flags. Then they all get into their spaceship, and fly home and crash into the sun.
Something stupid engineered by a mob of nutcases (Not thinking of you Spacenut) anyway.
If you go from the bottom up Moon/Asteroids/Mars, (Some exchange in position allowed), instead of the commando to Mars scheme, you have many more shots at it. The Commando to Mars scheme can be sabotaged too easily by those who want to co-opt the funds, or simply don't want such a mission to work.
]]>Again;
Apes on the Moon:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/tech/mci-robochimp/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … N.htmlNASA Robosimian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HFXO_qx5ZY
Driving a Car?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBsfJZ-Gixc
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4617
So, do you want connection to the future of such potential machines, where people on Earth might "Look" at the surface of the Moon, and might participate in guiding such machines, to build useful and perhaps even profitable industrial capacity on the Moon, or do you want to continue your practice of maintaining a narrow view of the process of accessing Mars, which I believe is possibly outdated.
In fact those machines could be a method of employment for some of the future generations, where they might at first run them remotely from the surface of the Earth, and later, from "Shell Worlds/ Space Stations" closer to the Moon. Politicians understand voters and JOBS!
And if you are thinking of riding me out on a rail, just remember, "I am the Mostest on the Topic!".
I am being rather polite actually, under the circumstances.
]]>My... plan, if you will, is to get a Lunar colony established before the first manned Mars mission, so that we can build (most of) it and fuel it from Lunar, vastly reducing the cost. Yes, it's Battlestar Galactica. But if we can bootstrap our way to that point, we don't need to pour in 100s of $billions to get there.
Hmmm, I wonder if a Lunar colony could make money building satellites, only importing a few components they can't make themselves?
]]>Space Policy [ New posts ]
Light political discussion relevant to Mars exploration and space; outreach to politicians in the US and worldwide. Refrain from general politics.
Also from:
Index
» Interplanetary transportation
» Moon Detour, Ballistic Capture, Perhaps also Semi-Cyclers
OK, yes, you can do gravitational fly by's , you can do some orbital maneuvers, it is also possible to drop water ice onto the Moon, and recover a large amount of it.
But what value/cost to a Mars mission?
Really, the more important question should be what are reasonable values?
I might say "If I had asteroid mining, I might be able to use it to help a mission to Mars". In fact that appears to parallel to what NASA is doing, sort of.
And then I might further say "If I could do something on the Moon, perhaps I could leverage that to help asteroid mining, and a trip to Mars."
Apes on the Moon:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/tech/mci-robochimp/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … -MOON.html
NASA Robosimian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HFXO_qx5ZY
Driving a Car?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HFXO_qx5ZYI am going to double post this to another thread with additional comments as you will see.
So, I presume that the local topic can be restated as "How come we can't sell a trip to Mars to the US public?"
Logically you need the public consent to get a real politicians attention.
So, a movie "Pacific Rim" tends to be ridiculous. But it is understandable by little boys. Why wouldn't you build giant robots so that you could punch cross dimensional monsters that look like Godzilla?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Rim_(film)
Well, thankfully all of your potential customers are not little boys, but you need to sell to little boys anyway as well.
Lot's of rigid thinking around here.
For instance you are mostly caught in the "Mars Roach Motel".
That's the one where scientists co-opted the NASA budget to focus on unmanned missions. (And it was right to do so as it turns out).
However, a robot that drills in rocks at a feet per day rate is not nearly as exciting as punching Godzilla with a giant robot.
My point being that I have also repeatedly worked with introducing a proposed "Ballistic" method of injection into Mars orbit, and the only one who even ever acknowledged it is GW. Are you all so afraid of offending the Hohmann transfer gods, or do I just smell exceptionally strange?
You are rigid. Even Mr. Bolden now acknowledges that NASA is not doing a "The Moon is off limits".
I guess the point being that Mars is an exceptional case, it is a long time off, yet it saps the energy that could be used to do the asteroids and Moon, and the irony is that there is a good chance that if you did the asteroids and Moon, they would make a "REAL" plan to go to Mars, much more viable.
And in the mean time with robots on the Moon, you just might capture some imagination, since the time delay is ~3 seconds, and solar energy to drive them would be 2x as powerful, and the Moon is an object you can see in the sky very plainly as unique.
Mars, might be settled, but a bird in the hand is other objects for now. That should come at no reduction in what NASA and others are doing for Mars.
I see a patchwork of a Fossilized plan for Mars and a mostly disconnected set of concepts for other objects, but no master plan, or if a master plan, a rather impractical one.
So, now I will wait and see if someone will do a "Topper" move on this. That's always fun. It helps you keep so many active members here.
]]>Today America is wasting far too much money and attention fighting wars around the world. And America is part of the reason these conflicts are happening. Not everyone in the US wants America to become an empire like the ancient Roman empire, or the Third Reich, but enough do that it has become a problem. Resources are wasted trying to accomplish something that is in conflict with the principles of freedom. If you want to focus on Mars and something constructive, then stop trying to rule.
]]>So back to why the US public is opposed to spending money comes back to the buying power. The cost of say a car ($1,000 back in the 60's), house (under $10,000 in the 60's possible and up) and gas (was only 50 cents a gallon) have all gone up to $20-$30 thousand(factor of change 20-30), $100 thousand (factor of change 10 up), and up, while gas is on the decline its been as high as $4 a gallon and is currently just over $2 (factor of change 4-8), . The hourly pay rate was just around $2 in the 60's and is only currently near $9 of course the area of the nation, job types and family situation do change the ability to survive(factor of change 4 plus a bit ).
]]>Threads topics that end up this way really annoy me especially since the last few pages are not about the topic can we not do this.....
I am a counter puncher, just like Donald Trump, I am happy to talk about Mars, then people from other countries start getting critical of the United States, I would simply point out, that if it weren't for the United States, there wouldn't be much to talk about, there would be no Apollo Program, no exploration of the Outer Planets. Russia has done very little except build manned space stations in low Earth orbit, it planetary program has concentrated on unmanned moon rovers and probes to Venus. The United States by contrast has sent probes to Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and now Pluto, can you beat that?
]]>100 billion is way out of the box for what a mission to Mars should cost and even when saing funds for 10 years to allow for it to occur its still to much as all we have done is save money that gets burned at such a high rate as to not even be enough to even go even after another decade of saving......
We need to design based on the Spaxe x model.....
NASA Analysis: Falcon 9 Much Cheaper Than Traditional Approach
SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9, for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these costs.
So what are the payload developement costs that we should target?
]]>Why not return to what might get funded by US citizens budgetarily, as part of (or not part of) a NASA budget.
Myself, I do not believe much will ever happen until the giant-corpoorate welfare state is broken. This afflicts more than just the US, by the way.
Otherwise, any manned Mars mission had best be do-able for under $100B, else it will not go through Congress, or any other body, US, EU, or any other.
GW
]]>