New Mars Forums

The jury must remain out for a few more months.

The resignation of Admiral Steidle and the cancellation of the CEV "fly-off" he was to administer means we do not yet know what the CEV program will be. (The Thiokol stick for CEV is my guess but we just don't know yet)

Also, it appears that Dr. Griffin will announce his return to the moon architecture and CEV program details later this summer. Some say July. The O'Keefe planning process may very well be dead, dead, dead (that's why NASA execs have been reassigned or let go) and therefore we currently have no real idea what the implementation of the vision will look like.

Therefore we cannot yet judge.

http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/ … tml]Source link

A few months ago I told my wife I might want a http://www.cleardomesolar.com/]solar thermal oven for Father's Day. She called me at work today looking for some links on where to get one. (This guy has weird web navigation, the link takes you to a home page yet the solar oven page has the same URL - - so, just click the "oven" link at the top of the page)

Anyway, after reading about it we mutually decided that with children 900 degrees was just a little too dangerous.

The guy who makes these things said that with two 24 inch parabolic disks set to focus both mirrors on the target he melted an industrial thermometer that was rated to 1800 degrees F - - he estimates the furnace hit 2000 degrees F.

These would be awesome for the Moon if you added a Sterling cycle engine. No atmosphere and in the shadows temperatures approach, well very very cold. Those Sterling engiens should just whir right aloing if you can dispose of the waste heat fast enough.

Edited By BWhite on 1118438072

Actually, I would prefer to by-pass the moon and go to Mars, but our President has announced otherwise. Therefore we should do the Moon with equipment that can transition us on to Mars. Rather than do the moon then go clean slate.

Anyway as for "any" potential mission, what is wrong with the "stick" as a low cost medium/large cargo carrier? What can EELV do that a 4/5 segment RSRM (with a Delta IV uppermost stage) cannot?

And, if we are into building new facilities we can build a new pad just for the stick even if the goal is to close Pad 39.

As for politics, Florida is too closely divided between red & blue and has too any crucial electoral votes for either party to be responsible for the shuttle army being fired in one swoop.

Therefore, they should be doing some useful work. Not saying I approve, I merely acknowledge that reality.

Which is why NASA should give t/Space $500 million for an alternate crew to LEO capability even if we also do parallel development of CEV on top of a Thiokol stick.

That stick can do double duty as a medium heavy cargo lifter at half the price of EELV.

NASA also needs to open up destinations. Create viable places in LEO for t/Space to visit. One shuttle C can throw a small habitable station. Skylab wa far superior to ISS in volume and that was one shot.

We cannot do more than lunar flags and footprints with EELV. Can't sortie enough mass fast enough.

In a perfect world clean sheet might be better but in 5 years the deficit will be crasing down on us. If the CEV isn't flying and if we don't have a viable plan to do something worthwhile on the Moon why should we keep the program at all?

Big rockets are the ONLY thing NASA can do that others cannot.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. But don't enshrine that into law and create an escalating precedent on what is considered acceptable.

This Administration doesn't want to compromise. On anything.

The other day Bush stuck his finger in Tony Blair's eye over global warming and aid to Africa. We can argue global warming until the cows come home but since Tony Blair does take it seriously and since aid to Africa is a major Blair initiative to shore up the support of his own party and because he is our ONLY ally in the Bush version of the War on Terror whacking Tony in public on those issues just seems stupid.

Regardless of where we "should" stand on those issues.

= = =

Bush is also playing to his Christian Right base that truly wants the Christians to smite the Muslims (and the gays and the democrats and the secular humanists and the atheists). How do we fight Bush on that if we are told opposing the president coddles terror?

The Bush strategy is to force the Democrats to disarm on the domestic agenda with the threat of disloyalty in fighting terror. And that is utterly despicable.

Fear of being wimpy is itself wimpy. We have the biggest military on the freakin' planet and we are afraid of appearing weak?

Barbara Bush sure put some goofy thoughts in that boy's head.

But we can't bust heads without more soldiers. Remember my complaint is NOT ENOUGH troops in Iraq to do the job right. NOT ENOUGH money being spent on reconstruction. "Gotta appear tough" is a good way to find oneself fighting for a bridge too far.

To be "not nice" and carry a too small stick is the worst of all worlds. Weak Roman. And nothing has changed since Cobra and I agreed on that point last time.

Someone please, tell me why EELV is better than shuttle derived.

So I can fight about something else.   

It also sets a precedent for how other states deal with their insurgents. After all many in this country support funding people to overthrow the Iranian regime.

But tell me this. What does Gitmo gain for us? What benefit?

For the record, if a terrorist knew where a timed nuke was hidden, we gotta do whatever it takes to get the intel. Whatever. But that is a special case.

By the way, how many detainees even speak English? How much of a threat are they? We will erode our legal protections and condone things analagous to a Bill of Attainder so we can imprison in secret some low life scum?

Actually I wonder if eroding the Bill of Rights is the real objective of the whole Gitmo thing. Bill O'Reilly had a segment on the other night about how much easier police work would be if pre-trial detention without charges wasn't so frowned upon by our legal system.

Then show us and the issue evaporates.

Cindy, the Geneva Convention allows us to lock them up.

If our goal is to extend the western view of civiliation to include the heathen (in other words "win" this clash of civilizations) then treating enemy combatants "as if" the Geneva Convention applies - -  even if the lawyers can prove it doesn't - - would go a long ways towards convincing the rest of the world that becoming western isn't such a bad choice.

Gitmo is (a) corrosive to our ideals whether legal or not; (b) a lousy way to actually acquire useful intel; and (c ) undermines our efforts to build a positive image of the West

Even if its legal (per Atty General Gonzales) WHY are we doing it?

= = =

Answer?

"Pride and Ego Down"  inflicted on prisoners allows Rummy and company to feel "Pride and Ego Up" - - it has nothing to do with national security.

= = =

PS - Cobra, I do play snarky on the boards, but if you held a BBQ, I'd eat the food. No problem. Just no fresh venison - - that deer variant of "mad cow" is nasty.

Edited By BWhite on 1118409605

Forget the lawyer arguments. Those principles SHOULD apply to everyone, everywhere unless America really stands for "might makes right"

Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Preamble to the Constitution.

Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from pre-existing rights the Constitution was enacted to preserve.

Human rights that Thomas Jefferson believed were the inalienable rights of every human being, anywhere on the planet, or who may travel to Mars for that matter.

= = =

In practice, the legalities of the Constitution do not apply outside the United States, however the principles must, always and for everyone. No exceptions.

And Gitmo sets a terrible precedent for the future treatment of our POWs with the world saying in that case "what goes around, comes around"

= = =

If we deny human rights even to the most vile terrorist we undermine our own moral legitimacy. And to assure that is happening we need transparent access to Gitmo.

Edited By BWhite on 1118369255

What if done under the President's inherent power to fight wars? Scalia? Clarence Thomas?

= = =

This is exactly the battle the ACLU and others are fighting right now and the right wing media are screaming "traitors, traitors"

= = =

Cindy, Koran abuse or not, the mere existence of Gitmo violates what America is supposed to stand for.

Edited By BWhite on 1118351551