You are not logged in.
I think there is a strong case with skipping SDV, using EELV today for the Moon, and build a new HLLV later for Mars.
But if the ultimate goal is Mars, ...what's the point?
Actually, the idea is for NASA to go to the Moon with the budget it has. That means re-directing funds from Shuttle and ISS construction to the Moon effort. If an SDV costs the same number of dollars per year as Shuttle then NASA would have nothing left for the Moon.
The ISS soaks up about 3 billion a year alone. The orbiter and the ISS must be killed together, so that one is not left to justify the other.
The idea is for NASA to lower its total cost, simply reducing the cost per-pound while still paying $5Bn a year for SDV would bankrupt NASA!
No, the idea is for NASA to be more effecient at what it does. 'Cheaper is better' was the flawed logic behind Goldin's faster, better, cheaper mantra.
Y'know what should be the top priority of a martian civilization? Education. We cannot encourage ignorance. If the people are smart, they won't care for religion or politics. Educated people can govern themselves. Who was it who said that?
Yes, but remember the white elephant is the orbiter, not the launch stack. The other half of the shuttle army will probably find work in the CEV and other projects. If NASA can't cull The Army the only way to maximise efficiency is to up the launch rate (though cost per pound on SDV will be 5 times cheaper, either way). Now the critics might tell you we have no reason for launching 100 tonne payloads into space twice a month, citing the ISS, but imagine what could be built as justification... That's 2.4 megatons of hardware a year...
You mean without the Orbiter? IMO, the enormous expense of flying the shuttle has everything to do with the orbiter, and very little to do with the launch stack. Think about it: Delete the orbiter and the payload is intantly increased 5-fold, human flight safety expenditure is eliminated, and launch frequency is no longer limited by the prep-time of the orbiters.
It's just gotta be cheap!
The big question is, can NASA really afford to cull The Army?
I wonder what it would cost to build another set, considering the design work (the largest expense) has already been done?
You know what the truth is? Creation? Evolution? Truth is we just don't know. Nothing makes any sense. It just is.
I don't know, do you? The thing is, oil wells do dry up (yes, unfortunately they are finite), there's plenty of evidence for that. So, if geological processes are still producing it at a rate greater than our consumption, where do you think it goes?
We're still consuming it at a rate greater than it is produced (whether by biological or geological processes), so the abiogenic theory doesn't really help much, which is perhaps why the theory hasn't been given proper attention in the past. It does change one thing though: Might life have originated from these same abiogenic/geologic processes? Now that would have real implications!
Could you elaborate, dicktice?
By non-DNA based, I mean to say life that eventuated (evolved) seperately from earth-life (or the source of life on earth). The probability of DNA-based life evolving seperately throughout our universe, in either case, is very very slim.
Dook, what makes you think life is plentiful throughout the universe? The odds of a single occurance are infinite to one...
Yes, but aren't we, for the most part, responsible for those cost overruns?
It makes you think: The last century has been the most productive in history, yet what have we achieved?
Are doting grandparents who plaster their cars with bumperstickers about their grandkids and who carry around wallet-sized photo albums of their grandkids (to show photo after photo to anyone who's even remotely interested) "insecure"?
Yes.
Some folks are more expressive of their pride and love.
And some folks are more expressive of their pride and love, because they are insecure.
Sometimes things are not always as they seem. But in the words of the late Pope:
It is what it is.
Indeed.
-Mike
The chance of life is infinite-to-one, I once heard. Impossible, therefore, unless there are an infinite number of varying 'universes'. And if that be the case, there must be an infinite number of 'universes' which evolve to form life (because the ratio of 1:infinity is the same as infinity:infinity*infinity), in which case intelligent life would eventually evolve to find itself, stranded in it's own lifeless universe; A purely rational point of view. However, if life is found to have evolved twice (i.e non-DNA based) within the same universe (especially within the same solar system), the existence of a 'creator' must be considered, as the odds of such an eventuation would be unimagineable.
The existence of non-DNA based life on Mars (or any other planet) would therefore prove that 'God' exists.
Personally, I don't think we're that lucky...
-Mike
And what do you suppose 'In-Situ' means? Currently, we are not in a situation which warrants the construction of lunar extraction facilities for export to earth. We may be in that sort of situation 50 years into the future, or sooner if launch costs come down considerably, but not today. Lunar resources will help us on the moon, not here on earth. Atleast not yet.
Sorry, Michael; I can't help being a bit perplexed/mystified as to how you could possibly feel comfortable participating in a forum such as New Mars, which is decidedly pro- manned space exploration. Seems a major conflict of purpose, intent and interest...
--Cindy
Cindy, this is the point I was trying to make. I don't mind, robots or humans, whichever gets the job done better. And NASA must realize that humans can do a helluva lot better than robots. I am therefore ecstatically pro human space exploration.
Read the above post; I agree with it 100%. I just don't like the idea of human exploration for human explorations sake (?). NASA is heading in the wrong direction with this one, IMO. NASA is, afterall, a conglomerate of engineers, not (definately not) charismatic visionaries. I'd like to avoid the wishy-washy side of the 'human space vision' thing and return to common sense. Because, most of the time (but not all of the time, ISS being a good example of when not to use humans...), when conducting space exploration, humans are better than robots. Even the humble engineers know that.
-Mike
Ian, why? Is the Hubble really that important? How does Hubble advance human space exploration in any amount?
Can I just say how angry I am at this whole 'Human space exploration' thing. To me, it does not matter, humans or robots, it is simply a matter of which is more efficient. And NASA must decide for which situation humans might get the job done more efficiently: Whether it be concerning manned Mars exploration, or, in this case, servicing the Hubble.
NASA will always do well when it has a clear goal, a clear objective, in mind. That goal in 1961 was to land a man on the moon within the decade, and NASA did a reasonable job. After that, NASA hasn't really had a goal, hence the mandness that is the Shuttle/ISS.
But today, the goal should not be to return a man to the moon, or to land a man on Mars.
The goal should be simply this: To answer some damn-good questions, and to do so as effectively and efficiently as possible. Not some wishy-washy contestable 'human space vision'.
-Mike
Can I just add that ISRU means 'Living off the land', not pilfering lands of their resources for profit.
Perhaps something which is often confused...
-Mike
GCNR, what I am trying to do is to get you to compare what it is you want with what NASA is likely to do. Yes, we should have cheap rockets and efficient RLV's and such before we start, and we should look into mining the moon as a profitable enterprise; But sadly, it's just not going to happen. Right now there isn't a demand for lunar resources like He3 or PGM's, and any water found on the lunar surface will only be beneficial to astronauts living on the lunar surface. It is pointless to return to the moon simply because, 45 years later, it will be *easier*. I don't care what others will have you believe: Right now it is either the Moon or Mars; NASA cannot afford both.
No, I think you should re-type it all right here, for your own benefit.
NASA is planning to fly no more than 28 Space Shuttle Flights between now and 2010 at a rate of roughly 5 per year. This will lead to some tough decisions - some of them coming rather soon.
Mike Kostelnik, Deputy Associate Administrator for International Space Station and Space Shuttle Program: "If we did not have the ISS on orbit today we would not be returning [the Space Shuttle fleet] to flight but rather dedicating resources to next generation of exploration".
Others: Since NASA will not need any more Al-Li to build External Tanks (they have enough for 28 flights), that contract will be shut down. Since NASA no longer needs SRB canisters (they have enough for 28 flights) that contract will be shut down as well. By 2008, NASA will have enough Aluminum perchlorate for SRB fuel (again for the remaining number of flights) - so that contract will come to and end - possibly driving up the cost for DoD users.
Of course, if NASA decides to pursue a Shuttle-derived heavy launch system (mentioned more than once at this meeting), this might change.
Crunch time.
Remember what I said before?
But I also beleive we will go nowhere if we cannot compromise on a plan, even if it means that the plan itself is compromised.
Just keep it realistic, okay?
Swindle away ... just as long as we get beyond LEO, eh?
Dicktice, I thought you were wiser than that. This is exactly the same kind of thinking that led to the shuttle and ISS.
Here we go again... now ask yourself, if John Kerry were to have been elected back in November (*shivver*) and he proposed going back to the Moon and eventually Mars, would you think that was the greatest thing ever? Label him a neo-JFK (even sharing the same initials, convienant)? ...Of course though, Bush bad! VSE bad! LM/Boeing = space Haliburton! Bush lied! Abu Ga-... etc etc
GCNR, this has nothing to do with the election. I am not a US citizen and frankly don't give a damn about your country. Don't make a fool of yourself trying to defend Mr Bush, we all know he's a bit... well, you know.
Actually, I think you've cheered me up a bit (Griffin, a man with common sense(!) is at the helm, I hear). A lunar program might be okay if it's kept tight and gives us an HLLV to play with, but don't go dreaming about moon factories and telescopes, or I will start preaching again...