You are not logged in.
So Nasa is making this available for free... Where is the self funding approach in that.
I believe that Nasa was trying to go towards the Federally funded research and design ceter approach. Why wait if it is possible to start generating a brand new revenue stream..
The nations space programs right now can not purchase anything of the kind such as a soyuz or a progress from Russia regardless of the price.
How can we get the private industry to go for such concepts?
Could we buy from our Eurpean freinds the Automated Transfer Vehicle or do we have that same issue as before?
Truely the use of nuclear propulsion will most likely not be from the Earths surface to orbit but rather once in orbit to our far off destination of Mars.
Moon use would only be a trial use only and not very practical for cost versus chemical rockets, since it is such a small comparitally speaking distance as compared to Mars.
FYI
We already know how to transfer these items in zero- g as indicated and As noted in this article Russian Progress cargo ship docks with ISS.
http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04052714 … 6t02y.html
I agree with both RobertDyck in that the use of insitu fuels is a must to lower the exploration costs.
comstar03 also makes a lot of sense in that we can learn alot from those old shows such like space 1999 and others.
Nitrogen is an inert gas, are there any other inert gases that could be found in the Lunar soil? Could nitrogen or some other inert gas also be cheaper to transport from earth to any lunar operations for use.
If it did not take so long for a journey to Jupiter or Saturn, you might be able to siphon off some of there atmosphere for use else where.
How about catching comets or searching for other forms of icy bodies?
I know, I'm a little out there.... open thinking some times can go a long way to solving problems...
How can we get Nasa to implement such ideas?
The nations space programs right now can not purchase anything of the kind from Russia regardless of the price.
How can we get the private industry to go for such concepts?
Could we buy from our Eurpean freinds the Automated Transfer Vehicle or do we have that same issue as before?
I like how all of you are thinking out of the Box but how can we get Nasa to implement such ideas.
The nations space programs right now can not purchase anything of the kind from Russia regardless of the price.
How can we get the private industry to go for such concepts?
Could we buy from our European friends the Automated Transfer Vehicle or do we have that same issue as before?
RobertDyck:
I like the thought process for why bring things not needed for a lunar landing.
Also to develop ships that use lunar fuel resources rather than Fuels that are only available from Earth is I feel down the right path as well.
I also think we should explore the use of the Space elevator and the magnetic rail guns launch systems for Lunar use as well.
The problem of how we solve to be able to do manned flight will come but making a profit by government run agencies will not.
That is where private industry must be allowed access to all technical design specifications maybe for a price but in order to allow a stepping stone of developement to occur not a reengineering to developement.
Also the next question is to what market will generate a profit one of tourism, mining, or just plain old settlement?
I think that everyone is missing the point on the equation of E=MC>2 . Energy is release from a mass at a constant of the speed of light but light is not the only thing that is release from such efforts. There is radiation for one thing since the sun is an expression of the equation at work. So hence I think that if the mass is also larger then quite possibly the constants can change also in the equations based on the out come of the energy release.
Also we will have a very long wait for Mars as it would seem. Before we can get to go to Mars we will need to have the CEV for manned flight which will be used for Lunar use first under NASA current plans.
Is there any real reason to control a space race by private companies so closely if launch site are chosen for safety. This also should include re-entry to landing as well.
So long as some official means are use to safe guard against ramming into planes on launch or on return who care what other risk these companies will take. It is there responsiblity to police those issues.
The external tank has value in that is also refined material from which to do experiments on as well as to utilize for construction or for destructive purposes. Also the remaining Fuel is of value since when combined it is water. Lets not waste what cost so much to get from the Earths gravity well to LEO.
The problem with using manned flight for repair and of other activites by the commercial industry. Always will come back to the question of How much do you think it is worth or do you feel it is worth doing for the money and could I save money by doing it a different way.
The industry of heavy lift capability is under the same gun. Of what was the developement cost, how many launches will it take to recouple the investment knowing how much we can expect a customer to pay.
Sometime starting small means you either stay small or that the rate of grow is over a very long time. Much to long due to rising of inflation and costs to recouple a profit means you eventually go out of business.
I think there are more problems than the misunderstanding of the astronauts role in space and of colonist in general.
The desire to explore to venture into the unknown has little to do with science but is the way though which science can be explored.
We want to go because it is there.
Thanks Clark: on the UPI exclusives from spacedaily and UPI Press. Both articles quote in the form of questions the requirements for Moon and Mars with broad opening statements of the type of crafts to expect.
I find it odd that the spacedaily page shows the Kistler rocket, are they not aware of the contract being cancelled.
The fly off was discussed by many of us months ago. If in the process of the fly off if it should happen to be made a man rated event. I would not be against the 2008 as the target date.
The second wave of flights could be more complex with elements for the flight actually being assembled at the L-1 point. This only makes sense if there is a station there to construct the elements into something otherwise it is probably not worth doing.
By years end differing studies will also determine if the CEV and the lunar lander will be separate spacecraft, or if they can be combined into a single ship much like the apollo program.
Some more info From Nasa Watch
Also a few months back there were simular anouncements for other BAA items but do not have the links right now.
29 July 2004: Pre-Proposal Conference for the Human and Robotic Technology Broad Agency Announcement
Pre-Proposal Conference for the Human and Robotic Technology Broad Agency Announcement Live Streaming Webcast http://realserver1.jpl.nasa.gov:8080/ra … er/hq07.rm
Pre-Proposal Conference Human and Robotic Technology Broad Agency Announcement presentation (PowerPoint)
http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/hrt_ind … july04.ppt
Pre-Proposal Conference Human and Robotic Technology Broad Agency Announcement presentation slide addition (PowerPoint)
http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/interna … pation.ppt
Broad Agency Announcement - Research and Development Opportunities in Human and Robotic Technology (Word)
http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/baa_hrt.doc
I am really not sure which post to put this under for Project Prometheus since I know very little about nuclear powered rockets.
Advanced Electric-Propulsion Technologies R&D Teams Selected
Being four or five times more powerfull than needed for the load factor at launch. Would that not mean then that the external tank could be brought to orbit rather than throwing it away with fuel remaining still in it. Could then be adapted to the role of boosting the ISS orbit.
As others have noted the SDV was never intended to be man rated but only as a cargo ferry. This is a great first step in reducing ISS transportation costs of construction and of resupply as needed. But this does not resolve the need for a crew transport only the number of forced trips by the shuttle for this purpose. I feel that a capsule mounted on top of the External tank with a small menuevering booster would be a good place for the CEV man rating to happen. This would further off load the shuttle need for being the main crew transport.
Now here is an article of interest for mining of in-situ materials to make rocket fuel on the moon. The same could be true of mars as well.
NASA Grant To Tap Lunar Resources
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-04zf.html
Kerry is putting together a space policy as indicated on the http://www.spacepolitics.com/ web site.
To answer that question here is a link for A full-scale mock up of a Shuttle C concept sits at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama in this 1989 image.
http://www.space.com/php....0image.
An artist's concept from the early 1980s shows a Shuttle-C cargo element in Earth orbit carrying the Galileo probe to Jupiter.
http://www.space.com/php....upiter.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm
Shuttle-B: Flexible Use of NASA's Space Transportation System
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzs.html
Many more sites are still to be found some dating back to the early 80's.
Personally I like the build full scale mock unit from 1989.
I do not know if others are interested but there are a series of articles being presented by guess writers on the Project Constellation site about the CEV.
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news/
The second part of this series is about shuttle derivatives.
I do not know if others are interested but there are a series of articles being presented by guess writers on the Project Constellation site about the CEV.
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news/
