You are not logged in.
It also shows that NASA and other Space agencies throughout the world will do anything to keep jobs and their position in the world on the cutting edge of technology for space development. That is why they won't want a fully independent space complex not in control of any government because they can't use their " NAtional Interests" speech to the government requesting their support to deal with the other government's space developments or other countries space developments.
If you look at any of the Space / International Agreements the "National Interests" Clause is used to justify the limiting or stopping the development of space without their permissions. They like competition only when they are winning not when other countries or corporations are winning and not there's.
That is why the CEV Design will be the only design used to go to the moon or mars without the express permission on the US Government because the would use the NAtional Interest Policy to have economic / trade or resource constraints with suppliers to foreign space facilities.
RedStreak,
Then why build the ISS in that orbit , If it can't be used for Lunar Expansion and Mars Expansion ? Again Misuse of government and taxpayer money !!!!!! Again another reason for the public not trusting NASA to get to the Moon and Mars without spending 400 Billion dollars . !!!!!
I think we need better strategy thinkers for large scale projects like the moon missions, lunar bases, mars missions and mars bases. If we don;t we won't get there and that will slow the world down over the next century.
RobS
Your Right !!!!
But the first thing is to understand the questions, problems, issues, and barriers to building a Mars Direct Mission funded or controlled by the Mars Society. I don't see the creativity in the Society to find those answers. They have great ideas but alot of them work in the industry and are bound by the company employment contracts.
I see Mars Society is an Advocate for Mars Exploration , not a Mars explorer funding organization.
By the way, the International Conference also discussed another 12 objects that over time could become official planets on the list. Its also seems that we have hundreds of moons of the current planets.
We will have alot of exploring to do, but I hope this doesn't change the focus of current space programs from the Moon and certainly Mars.
What !!!, What !!!
Redstreak,
You mean we are going to have six to eight person missions for the next several decades landing on the moon or mars then lifting off and coming back to earth or having 50 -100 personnel on a permanent or rotational with earth for the moon and or mars ?
I hope the later or why put the effort into the Tourist trips , That is what NASA is paid for !!!! Not the Mars Society Experiments in Artic Circle or in the Desert .....
Redstreak,
I am not going to explain the environmental benefits of the use in hydrogen / oxygen based launch environment.
GCNRevenger,
The Ares 1 Re-entry Capsule will be a reuseable capsule from the specs outlined in the NASA Documents. By Designed variations for the Ares V to have similar features would add the expansion of space. But, if they have decided to go for one use vehicle then , it shows the misuse of government funding again. I never said I liked the space shuttle because it slowed the development of space from the Saturn V rocket platform - we could have expanded the Skylab with more modules, solar panels, more and possible even an outpost on the moon but the officials decided to go with the shuttle over the rocket and therefore limited the lift capacity until now with the ares v coming back.
Now its time to expand the development of space with newer designed for the payload to carry personnel and cargo into orbit and beyond. All issues have solutions and we could develop a long term crew vehicle for ferrying personnel to orbit their to a space station / factory or another space vessel. I find that you want to throw things away all the time and yet don't want to move forward in creating a space industry that can accomplish the ideals of many of the mars society members and other space society members are working towards, which is Human Settlement in space NOT joyrides, NOT tourist missions, BUT permanent settlements and outposts.
GCNRevenger,
Sometimes I find that you don't understand about the concept of reusability - the doctrine should be used from the Launch to splashdown for humans and cargo to and from earth.
To limit the waste of modules in space we design the launch vehicle on a return via parachutes to earth when expended its fuel within the atomsphere. The second stage designed on the doctrine of reuseability can be stripped down for material use in orbit or components returned to earth including the engine assemblies. Again reducing the overall cost per launch and gaining experience developing in space.
Using the Ares V main vehicle ( without booster ) could convert it into an Ares 3 Cargo and Crew Launch Platform. This would allow the creation of orbital logistic systems to remote transfer of fuel and supplies to space stations and other platforms in orbit within the use of humans. Then returning the payload vessels back to earth to be reused under the reuseablility doctrine. ( example payload vessel used 25 missions would reduce the costs by 24 spacecrafts. The use of hydrogen and oxygen propellant also in large quantities are reused when the earth's gravity draws the spent particles back to earth and the propellant is environmentally responsible.
Rxke,
Firstly, If a business spent 250 Billion plus dollars on a space station it would bring a return either via experiments and new technological developments or being a stepping stone for lunar missions.
If that is true and can't be used for lunar and martian missions, even if we have counted on the additional fuel requirements for moving the reusable vehicle into the correct orbital path for the lunar mission. Then it shows that the Americans and the ISS Partners didn't think ahead for space expansion, thus would be the most expensive supplier of space colonization resources ( both physically and personnel ) . That means they would most likely fail in the goal of permanent human outposts in space.
ON a personal Note - Rxke
I don't care, your opinion on my understanding or not of orbital mechanics because it would be people like me ( enterprenuers and CEOs ) that pay for people like you to do your job in space industry ( if you work in it ) and we are also the people that demand results for resources provided or you would be fired .
8)
GCNRevenger,
We are trying to go into space on a permanent basis and build a moonbase and voyage to mars. We can't do it by throwing money and resources away. If we take the apollo program they used 7 Saturn V vehicles and use and throw-away 7 second stage modules, If we want to do 25 lunar missions to establish an outpost on the moon the mass misuse of resources would increase.
The use of earth - moon return vehicle about the size of a second stage module and then refuel this vehicle for a storage facility at the ISS would reduce the overall costs to the mission to the moon. At the same time use the ISS as our luanch platform for interplanetary missions and lunar missions. The public would see the benefit for the space station and would continue the support into the space program and may even expand it towards the mars. The development of new engines and the testing of this engines could be used in the lunar missions as well.
Overall GCNR, you don't understand the management of resource allocation, public support for the space program and the increasing demands on the space vehicle platform over the next decades to come.
Tom Kalbfus,
I agree with alot of your comments regarding the CEV Design, we need to look at the design from a launcher component and payload vessel component. Development of Payload Vessels need to be specific to the needs of the task involved such as Non-Atomspheric Landings vs Atomspheric Landings or Cargo transfer into orbit vs Cargo returns from orbit. Each of these vessels require different requirements and systems to function in space and from earth to space.
Also, Allows the development of private support / logistics vessels for orbital platforms including the ISS. We could design the CEV Vehicles for Ariane / Falcon 9 and other launcher suppliers or develop a docking module for CEV developers to include the other launcher suppliers globally. Its time the private enterprise build and expand commerical applications / services in orbit and provide a return cargo system for commercial manufacturing processes for LEO Activities.
Tom Kalbfus,
Does this mean, that If private enterprise gets their first they could design the constitution for Mars ? everytime people think that government will do it the economies are business driven not government driven they wait for there handout through charges and taxes.
Marsman,
We need to build a financial base to expand the services of the Mars Society , If NASA won't do it then , someone needs to do it !!!!, Why can't it be the Mars Society.
Its the membership of the Mars Soiety must make a decision on the direction, it should take in the development of Mars space on their timeline or NASA Timeline ?, then the decision made follow through and make it happen.
Mars Society Timeline :
Say you use the Ares Launcher as your vehicle base but we need the develop the upper stage/s for the mars direct mission from concept to design to prototyping then production. Secondly, we need the crew for the mission , not from nasa, but equally trained to their level on our equipment.
But before we can do that we need to build the necessary financial and human resources necessary to mount and maintain a mission to mars .
uniderth,
Well, Firstly , you think that the governments of the Earth will happily give up their control over their future base/s on Mars, you have been smoking dope !!!!. This won't happen for at least 50 years and by then many changes will be underway on earth. It also depends who gets there first as well, who will control the government or oversight of the Martian Surface including any property rights to the planet.
RedStreak,
We need to establish a long term view of launches to the moon and the L points for Moonbase Development or maintenance of space objects including all the telescopes and other observatories. If we look at the throw-away ideas of the Saturn -Apollo tourist missions as our guide for Ares Platform then we won't get anywhere with the CEV as well. By standardizing on the heavy lift vehicle - first stage of Ares V and design 60-130MT Lift vehicles for a variety of tasks then we could expand the frontier for humanity.
We need a structured approach designed for multiple missions to the moon and expansion of the space station into multiple platforms with a variety of tasks using the skylab workshop design as a blueprint for commercial platforms with bigelow habitats as expansion modules.
Firstly,
GCNR, I didn't say to launch all the rocket / mission from earth, but to have a lunar transfer vessel in orbit connected to the ISS or sitting close to the ISS. I mean to launch from earth orbit the lunar transfer vessel to the moon and have a one stage lander to return to a larger reusable service module for the transfer back from the moon. Then the CEV Command module would return to earth from Low orbit using the Ares 1 Vehicle to LEO only.
This reduces the costs for space launches from using Ares V - HLLV for routine lunar launches decreasing those launch costs. What we use the Ares V is to increase the large orbit components for the station or building a second station or large interplanetary probes or surface droid missions. ( example - Mars GPS and Comm Satellite Package for mission expansion )
We need the launching of cargo and crews, must be in a reusable vehicle that reduces te overall cost per mission. If we need to develop a Ares 3 launch vehicle based on the Saturn 1B then we should, ( using the first stage of Ares V to reduce development costs ) thus providing the 60MT payload launch vehicle for LEO cargo vessels and larger crew vessels and large combination cargo / crew hybrid vessels then the Ares 1 can carry.
American Space Vehicle Fleet :
Ares 1 - Crew Launch Vehicle with small cargo volume for space station
and low earth orbit
Ares 3 - Larger Crew and /or Cargo Vessels for space station or translunar vehicle resupply.
Ares 5 - Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) Multi-purpose use including modules for space stations or modular vessels, launching large satellites and interplanetary probes /and surface droids
Other countries like Australia, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Britain and even the Europeans could build the payloads (crew / cargo vessels ) for getting into space while the United States could be the launch vehicle thus increaing the use of the platform reducing the recovery of costs and increasing space faring nations throughout the world.
Lets look at the proposed CEV Concept for the Moon.
To launch two rockets one cargo and one humans, connect in space and travel to the moon with a lander, Then land do the surface mission then blast off leaving half the lander behind and connect with CEV command & service modules and return to earth and disgard lander and service module and return to surface in command module.
If we do launch 15 missions to moon the we are leaving junk on the planet and not using them for something else. We need to look at the Lunar missions as an extension from the earth orbit station activities. The only time we need a reentry shield is for earth atomsphere descents, So, design a separate vehicle for that leg and dock with the space station and transfer to the lunar transport vehicle, then undock with space station with thrusters , then firing main engines to the lunar surface with a custom lander ( all in one piece ) Then the lander take the human to the lunar surface and back again connect with the command module and return all (including lander ) and dock with the space station then transfer to earth re-entry vehicle while the lunar tranport vehilce gets maintenance and re-supplied.
This means a quickly turnaround for lunar missions and reduced cost in the missions working with multiple use vehicles.
When you look ar Bigelow Aerospace and the Genesis 1 prototype module in space and its meeting the requirements setforth , then I hope they move to the next module (Genesis II) to continue their movement into space with their products and services.
In the Turn of the 20th Century we didn't have a car industry and when we did start it the cars were made by hand on the assembly lines eventually more and more robotic systems where added to increase the efficency of the product to meet demand. We need to standardize on a launch mehtodolgy / model that increases the production into a assembly line model similar to cars for rockets and reduce the overall cost for launching. We have also needing to develop a recyclable component model for space vehicles and determine what on earth side and what's on orbital side increasing the useability and recovery of components.
We need to move forward and create different vehicles , structures in space including using Bigelow Habitats alone, or in combination with other habitat systems. We need full scale simulated environments on earth as well for training and system evaluation to build long duration transportation systems and orbital environments in a low cost method.
Looking at the Ares I and Ares V Launch platform the Ares V could be used to launch large payload to the Mars surface in a slow burn consumption journeys to the planet thus deposit equipment and inflatable habitats, communication and greenhouses, robotic droids and more before humans get there. To assembly a moonbase could be built just like the mars base, using the Ares V vehicle and supply one way cargo runs to the moon with hardshell and softshell habitats, vehicles and other equipment including robotic systems to assembly the habitat environment before humans arrive for a permanent presence, again reducing the overall cost in human space activities. these are private enterprises methods not government political photo stunts.
GCN,
Many cultures across the world work on a long term based or even family generation acquisitions depending on the goals / objectives of the people involved. The Asian cultures have alot of these values in their core cultures and we should learn from all cultures to meet the changes when we go into space. So If you want short term gains in space related industries you won't get it unless you overcharge your clients like the governments or large publicly listed corporations.
I know you have issues with this business structure but, a small microbusiness called microsoft in the 1970's generated on millions of profits but the expansion of that business was the development of products and services and the acquisition of other products and services they rebranded under the Microsoft Logo, now they are a $250 Billion plus company with $5 Billion plus -- in research funding and surplus cash of $50 Billion plus and that is a single industry sector business --- software / information technology. Global PC hardware Market is worth about $ 700 Billion plus with 3-5 year turnover. A current Example is GE Capital a subsidary of GE Corporation that has been buying finacnial services businesses across the world adding their products / services into their company and some acquisitions have been over $1 Billion each in price.
A diversified Private Corporation in multiple industry sectors and multiple geographic regions would reduce the overall risk for the budgetary cost for the space activities based on a micro private version of the Publicly listed GE Corporate Model.
Large Global Private Corporation start $1B profit margin (after Tax) with 25% for company growth - $250 million, 50% Space Projects - $ 500 Million and 25% to Owners - $ 250 Million. You could provide a good financial base for private space infrastructure to grow, over 10 years the company would grow organic by $ 2.5 B in business activities through investment and with $ 5 Billion in Space Infrastructure Assets. All the Space Assets are funded from net profits after tax without debt (No Loans). Also as the Private expands into new markets for commerical business and increases the profits of the corporation the space ventures receive an increase in their funding based on percentage.
GCN, I don't think you have looked at the various business structures and the various industries, services, and products that could support a private space venture and the changes you would need to increase the efficiencies in space launching , orbital development and planetary developments.
GCNRevenger and All Opposing the Private Enterprenuers in Space.
Firstly, I never said you would recovery 100% of your investment in space development on the short term. I never said that private enterprenuers are going into space to make short term profits. GCNRevenger works on the concept of short term gains are the only reason for private enterprise in space without government assistance ( Handouts ), that is false !!!!
Secondly, Bigalow did purchase the Transhab project assets and Yes he commercialized on them , But that has happen across this world, Example Windows by Microsoft ; Spreadsheets By Lotus, and others; most technologies ideas and processes that haven't received patent protection but even then others have used it to further advances for their companies, businesses, and countries. .
My Thoughts about Commercialization
I will provide some thinking into why long term or even generation investment into space would eventually return on investment for private investors. Planning and development of space infrastructure would require a global private diversified business group to absorb the costs for a slow buildup and technology development of a space program and infrastructure including working with other space agencies globally for technology and other logistic related activities. Meanwhile you slowly using your combined allocated profits by owner to build the infrastucture needed to launch and recover small rockets (up 5000kg payloads ) for geostationery orbit. It might take 1.5 - 2x longer to assembly the necessary infrastructure then government agencies but will become an asset of the company group.
As Space Business Sector within the company would become a high prority for the diversified organization more support and secondary business assets ( engineering firms, component fabrication, mterial processing and fuel refining , etc. ) will be purchased / acquired / constructed to increase the space business activities. Using sustainable energy platforms again provides another measure of self sustainability, and remember all these additional business assets increase the overall wealth of the business group as a whole.
The next move is developing our own missions and equipment (including manned and unmanned vehicles) for expansion into earth orbit, and develop business activities that we could deliver to provide a income base and infrastructure base to facilitate a permanent move into space for the business group. This development strategy has only one main goal --> To become the domainate private interest player in the expanded human presence within our solar system and provide the necessary infrastructure for space privatization and not just for scientists and those that each government allows to venture forth.
I think you should go an look at many of the crashed technology companies of the Stockmarket Fall 2000 and find out where their technologies, intellectual property and ideas went to --- they got bought over by larger competitors and absorbed and continued to expand their market share , I think you need to look at the possibilities of the private space companies will eventually expand or combine or merge to form larger space corporations or become subsidaries to larger companies but the space privatization will continue. " That's Commercial Business "
Conclusion
When you look at the infant space sector and the potential within the sector for upward growth then you need to expand slowly strategically into the sector to gain footholds and then expand, compete for other customer business and help expand the customer base in the sector as well. If you can't see this happening over the next twenty years ( just like the PC Sector ) then just sit there and critize this reply because I am working on my strategy for space privatization and its nothing like the Larger agancies timelines.
[/b]
Rxke,
At least Bigalow Aerospace is doing some new developments and also building modules for space habitats that could reduce the overall costs into space. But it has also shown that you don't need billions of dollars to do it get into space. Private enterprise could even get to mars with a probe or rover at a reduced cost, We need to stop kicking the alternative space companies and embrace them.
Grypd,
Yes Strategic Importance - now but Fiscal Importance later when critical mass issues are addressed. When that happens the people / corporations / governments that have the strategic assets will control the outcomes. Remember corporations that we currently know just build assets in a single closed global environment in the future these corporations will stretch across many different global environments and in space as well.
By using the resources of the corporation on earth they could develop a long term strategy including succession planning for the future resources and strategic importance for the corporation. ( Its the way you look at things - short term view or long term view - similar to a clan or family business)
Don't underestimate the development power of corporations / business entrepreneurs, they might start with small amounts of capital but can efficiently create the required infrastructure for a small logistic companies then move off from there.
Corporations developed alot of the technology around the world we use and thing it has always been there, Airplanes, Cars, Cell / Mobile phones, Internet / WWW and global broadcasts systems just to name a few. Coming developments include e-paper , wireless integrated systems, Internet Version 2, Interplanetary Networks( under testing) traffic flow monitoring and anti-accident systems, increases in computering power for vehicles and more in the next 10 years.
We are moving forward with technologies coming across the world , we could use some technologies developed from one industry across to another like space industry. We need to overcome the barriers to the public image of space and its the future of humanity. Space industry will be the only industry that doesn't have a limit in growth because space is so vast we could keep expanding the human race into space for the next 100,000 years and still not even touch 5% of our galaxy.
( The Space Industry growth - not the sky is the limit but the stars are our limit)
Most of the nuclear reactors that generate power are run by corporations not governments they are under government oversight the same can be developed for nuclear energy in space. Secondly, disregard the enviromentalists you can prove them wrong with good risk management.
However, I do agree that , IF business wants a bigger slice then they must take charge of the future timeline and goals in the space sector. That means they need to develop there own agenda, timeline, vehicles, and other requirements for space and work with a consortium of corporations to make this possible including the undertakings for numbers of vehicles and other infrastructure uses, and not rely on goverment infrastructure.
We need to develop newer methods and processes for space development on a commerical basis. We need to bring entrepreneurs into the space sector to expand the world above the atomsphere.
If we don't then, space will not be explored by humans or settled by humans or our understanding about humanity in the context of the universe will not be realised. We need to the development of private training, education centers bringing space into mainstream business environment just like computers, internet and other business environments including globalism.
We also need to get guts !!!!!! in developing with nuclear energy for space propulsion and power systems and disregard the knockers of the world and move forward. Yes, we need to take reasonable safety measures but not stop in the expansion of space.
This week , Microsoft is launching the Robotics Studio that can work with their development platform (Visual Studio ) for programming hardware in the field of robotics. Some of the Robotic device manufacturers are using windows CE embedded or Windows XP Embedded languages in the hardware components.
This means the development of complex robotic systems are coming and the systems will be based on a networked, plug and play platform that will increase the use and variety in applications including the application for space and other planetary uses.
Most CAM /CAD systems for manufacturing reside on Window Platforms and the ability to plug into a robotic platform and control robotic construction systems, vision systems from other application will now be possible at a low cost and the develop of cheaper telepresence systems will also help the development of underwater and outer space regions.
Again reduce the overall costs in space development and reduces the need to place humans in dangerous positions until the appropriate facilities are assembly and powered. The technology development studio will allow the management of space systems can be management via robotic droids, assembly arms and other robotic tools from a secure human centric environment within the a station or vehicle or planetary base.
This is a great leap forward in robotic system development see the following micosoft address :