New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#176 Re: Space Policy » NASA 2008 Budget » 2007-06-28 08:12:17
I suspect that as much as manned flight can attract the news the fact that with the white elephants like the shuttle and the ISS taking such a percentage of the funds and that NASA has over 55 other missions on the go then something has to give.
And the manned side is a very easy target. It at the bottom line cannot really say it is contributing to great scientific knowledge.
#177 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » What Type Of Government Should Mars Have?? - Mars Government » 2007-06-24 12:52:08
Dryson as much as it may pain you the fact this is that the question posed by Ancalagon is legitimate.
Grypd, I understand your argument. But you're still assuming that things are more simple than they actually are. Sure, we have the technology to build a space-elevator. But it's not worth it. There's no return on a project like that. It's a money-pit. The risk far outweighs the benefits. No company in the world would want to do anything like that.
The best way to describe the space elevator is to compare it to other heavy construction Transport developments that have been done here on Earth. These have in the main been completed by or on the behalf of goverments and even to the point of more than one goverment getting involved and therefore having ownership. As an example the Suez canal or Panama canal.
A space elevator will not be done by any commercial interest but in an a well thought out Goverment decision to have in there control the means to improve the economic capability of and increase there control of Mars. The elevator will probabily make a profit but it is its ability to be allow financial increase that will make a Goverment spend funds to create it.
#178 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » What Type Of Government Should Mars Have?? - Mars Government » 2007-06-22 17:18:56
Ancalgon, sorry to say I agree and also disagree with you.
Let me explain. Mars in itself is worthless, unless it is the home of some element which can only be garnered there, It has great advantages to be sure to anyone who wants to set up a civilisation but in itself it has no element which cannot be gained elsewhere, usually easier and in greater and purer quantities.
But this ease of liveability will mean that people can set up and prosper and these people will need things made for them that are hard to be made in-situ. How will these people pay for these items or what can they trade.
One thing about Mars is that a beanpole elevator attached to one of the Shield volcanoes can be done with our science knowledge now. Bulk goods can go up and settlers and hi-tech items down. Im not sure if we will ever have this for the Earth and so we will end up using either a TSTO or SSTO space plane for our planet and though they can take up people we do not try to send bulk goods in planes.
So this means we can get people into space and probabily make things too either on the Moon or other low G enviroment. Buisness will be looking to sell things back to the main payer that of the Earth and this will be in the form of needed resources. resources will be the one issue that the buisness world will be looking for in the future solar system and since this will be mining it comes as no surprise that we will begin to have increasing populations in the asteroid belts and further afield. These populations will need to be fed. Water they can gain from C class asteroids and ice but food has to be grown and the building of habitats in space to grow food will make this an expensive buisness. Supply from the Earth will be expensive. Even the Moon will struggle to grow food in its long day and the necassary items to grow food is just not present in high concentrations. So that leaves Mars, Mars with a bit more than 24 hour cycle and all that plants need to grow and thrive and very low building costs and maintenance bills could easily become the garden of the solar system.
The gravity well of Earth will unless we make some major scientific advance will never be able to provide the bulk food needed. Mars can and probabily will. A Beanpole will allow bulk items to be flung to anywhere needed and that is enough of an economy to get Mars going. What is the dream of buisness but to get a monopoly on something everybody wants.
And we all need to eat.
#179 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » What Type Of Government Should Mars Have?? - Mars Government » 2007-06-20 04:30:37
If we use the British Empire as an example it was often the case that buisness interests got to an area first and then Goverment followed. In certain cases the buisness interests and the Goverment where almost the same.
The East India company
The Hudson Bay company
Both where primarily buisness interests but of a national kind though the East India company was more Goverment orientated unlike the Hudson bay company. The effect was the same the company found resources, started to run an area and then the Goverment moved in.
This will probabily happen on Mars as well as elsewhere.
#180 Re: Not So Free Chat » Minnesota interfering with Canada's aboriginals » 2007-05-18 04:08:50
There is one thing I have noted from these threads. Both the USA and Canada has reasonably large "native" populations which often tend to be seperate from the country but also in most ways not appearing to benefit from that countries being advanced.
If we also add Australia in as well which has spent a lot of money trying to get there native populations lives to be better and in short for the most part failed.
There appears to be a collective quilt feeling towards these native populations and countries often throw a lot of money at them to try to make there lives better. It does though appear to often not work and in some cases make things worse.
Some native populations have done well though as an example in the USA where they have used there seperate legal status to open super Casinos or similar buisnesses and made a lot of money. Still for every success there are a lot of failures.
What really can be done to help or is helping just making things worse.
#181 Re: Human missions » Jeff Bell » 2007-05-01 16:26:41
NASA boss Mike Griffin says we can do three Apollo-scale projects over the next 50 years without increasing the NASA budget. It sounds too good to be true - and it is. Griffin's analysis of NASA's past relies on questionable economics and his vision of the future includes political and technical impossibilities.
Mr Bell has unfortunatly got a chance to have a good bite into what is rapidly becoming clear that NASA just does not have the money to actually accomplish what it has promised.
The March 14 2007 issue of Aviation Week contained an article by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin which apparently is the most detailed statement yet of his long-range plans. In this article and related press interviews, Griffin makes a case that NASA is not really as underfunded as many critics say, and that the US can afford three major space projects on the scale of Project Apollo over the next 50 years without major budget increases.
Specifically, he argues that a steady budget of about 14 billion FY2000 dollars per year can comfortably accommodate the Moon landing, Moon base, and Mars landing programs proposed by President Bush in February 2004.There has been surprisingly little discussion of this key article. Possibly many space advocates suspect that the news is too good to be true. After all, on March 16, Griffin appeared in person on Capitol Hill to argue for a major increase in NASA funding of exactly the kind he had claimed was unnecessary in this article. This contradiction should have tipped us all off that the AvWeek article is not a serious analysis.
He then goes into a cost analysis and details of inflation compared to needed rises in NASA's budget.
A bigger question is: why do so many space cadets still worship Griffin and believe everything he says, without the normal level of skepticism directed at the statements and actions of political appointees? The answer is that Griffin is a master at divining what we want to hear and telling us exactly that. We are so accustomed to seeing bland organization men at the helm of NASA that we have been blinded by the sheer novelty of an Administrator who shares our romantic vision of space. We need to open our eyes and demand some hard-nosed rational planning to back up that vision.
ouch
#182 Re: Human missions » Private Moon mission » 2007-04-27 09:30:01
SpaceX just recieved a very good deal. They are to be allowed the use of the abandoned Space Launch Complex 40 at cape Canaveral and as such they now have there launch site on the mainland.
The deal is for 5 years and SpaceX has to pay to upgrade the site as well as put in its own infrastructure and the goverment can still use the site if needed but im pretty sure SpaceX can live with that.
#183 Re: Human missions » Private Moon mission » 2007-04-26 10:55:49
NASA has had a lot of money and a lot of waste. Can we honestly say that the Shuttle or the ISS have proven themselves to be value for money?
That is unfortunatly a problem with all goverment organisations they tend to be conservative and over managed. Alt space though has the problem of no cash flow. Sort that out and alt space would thrive.
One intresting point is that NASA just cancelled the Orion vehicle which was to be the cargo carrier to the ISS. This means that as long as the white elephant is up there then they are going to need that capacity and unless they will leave that completely to the Japanese and Europeans it may well have to be purchased from alt space. Space X dragon maybe?
#184 Re: Human missions » NASA CUTS ORION » 2007-04-26 10:47:24
Yes there will be more cuts and this will certainly push the programme back at least 3 to 4 years.
#185 Re: Human missions » Private Moon mission » 2007-04-25 09:30:45
According to Bigelow he is not really in the tourism buisness but in providing a place for other countries and corporate buisness to go to in space.
And he has started his own prize for the development of an alt space manned launch capacity.
Larry I never stated that the Alt space had a means to get people to space yet. But the future of alt space has never been as bright as it is at present. And that is even with NASA. The future though is that NASA is no longer an enabling organisation but increasingly becoming one of hindrance.
#186 Re: Space Policy » NASA funding » 2007-04-24 13:22:07
The problem is it is not just a political one, it is one where view, intention, actions and directive count for a lot more than just who can throw the most money at it.
So what if the USA gets back to the Moon first and simply loses out to a slower competitor who when they get there expands and dominates the Moon.
#187 Re: Human missions » Private Moon mission » 2007-04-24 11:29:51
Honestly looking at private space flight and NASA they cannot compare. NASA does not support the advent of an independent launching culture and even in the utilisation of space is very slow in commercial reasons.
NASA touted the Shuttle as the cheap space launcher and more or less strong armed the other EELVs to be cancelled so that all satelite launches where to be done by the Shuttle.
The result was that satelite launching went to the Arianne programme and then to the newly free Russian Soyuz. THe USA is well behind in the only commercial activity currently being done.
The future for Alt space is a lot happier now but even though the likes of Elon Musk are offering there services to NASA there buisness is not aimed at NASA. Bigelow takes it even further with his plans to have very little to do with NASA at all.
What it would take to get Alt space to the Moon is a change of legislation and allowing the ability to claim parts of the Moon for commercial reasons. If this was done then buisness has an asset that can be financed even though it does not have a product. If we can get platinum group metals then we now have a product.
The one thing in all this is that NASA is not needed and even actually is a major hindrance. It is the equivalent of Soviet central planning when we live in cultures that defeated such planning by our more flexible capitalist views.
#188 Re: Human missions » NASA Exploration Roadmaps » 2007-04-24 11:15:35
There was a recent poll held in the USA where the question was asked what should be cut if goverment had to reduce costs. Both Democrats and Republicans stated that one of the first to be cut is the space programme.
This indicates that there is no swell of loyalty or desire for the space programme in the US public it appears to be a waste of cash and unless it can prove itself to be of financial and public use it will not last.
The space programme is a very easy programme to cut and so its future looks very gray. This means that the plans for the Moon and onwards to Mars may well all get cancelled.
#189 Re: Terraformation » Would Mars' gravity increase if... » 2007-04-23 07:07:07
No sorry.
#190 Re: Terraformation » Terraformers Take Note - ...(unintended consequences) » 2007-04-23 07:06:30
At the present moment of time Mars recieves a lot less light than we do here on Earth and this is even with a very thin atmosphere.
If we terraform and increase that atmosphere that light level will drop a lot and if we also get the regular dust storms lasting a lot longer Mars will cool. Or at least plantlife we put down will find it harder to survive.
We will likely use Soleta arrays to increase the light on Mars and to warm it up so reducing that problem.
But, then we have the problem that as we increase the tempature the perma frost ice may start melting creating real dangers to people crossing the surface and damage to our bases. Think sinkholes and instant floods.
#191 Re: Human missions » hot damn! Bigalow is up there! » 2007-04-18 04:06:38
More on bigelow..
Likewise, Bigelow also said that, unlike a number of other commercial space ventures, he doesn’t plan to depend on US government business, either from NASA or the Defense Department. “We can’t count on any traffic or assistance from DOD. We can’t count on any kind of a business model that has any dependency on NASA,” he said, without elaborating.
Without tourism or government business, just who does Bigelow believe is the likely customer for his orbital habitats? Bigelow said his company’s business plan focuses on two classes of customers: “sovereign clients”, who are foreign governments looking to jumpstart their own space programs; and “prime clients”, major corporations interested in leasing module space for various business purposes.
and the prices
Bigelow’s approach, under a program called “Hang Time”, is to provide additional destinations for astronauts from other countries, as well as all the related services needed for those astronauts and their space agencies. Hang Time will offer a four-week stay for an astronaut on a orbiting facility, including Bigelow-provided training and transportation. The service would cost governments $14,950,000 in 2012 dollars, the year he said the company planned to begin offering the service. An extra four weeks on a station could be purchased for an additional $2,950,000.
Of course this depends on a launcher but Bigelow actually expects it to cost Less
#192 Re: Human missions » Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ? » 2007-04-16 10:13:56
NASA's plan to cut the Moon rover and other cuts have mostly been ordered to stop.
[url=http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070416_business_monday.html]Lawmakers Rebuff NASA's Plan to Kill Robotic Lunar Lander
[/url]
#193 Re: Human missions » Is the Space Exploration Initiative in trouble - You decide » 2007-04-16 10:07:38
NASA's budget is in real trouble. Not from a great reduction in funds but in how those funds are to be spent.
Lawmakers Rebuff NASA's Plan to Kill Robotic Lunar Lander
Colorado Springs, Colo.—House and Senate appropriators have pushed back against NASA’s proposed termination of a planned 2011 robotic lunar lander mission, directing the agency to spend $20 million this year to continue work on a follow-on to the 2008 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
Not in itself an extreme problem but when combined with other spending commitments NASA will now also have to keep on with.
Specifically, the lawmakers want NASA to restore half of a $54 million cut it made to education programs, and to provide $5 million for a Solar Probe mission under study at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md.
The lawmakers also expressed concern about the long-planned Space Interferometry Mission being reduced to a technology-development effort, but did not call for any restoration of funds. The letter also urged NASA to provide stable funding for its Independent Verification and Validation Facility in Fairmont, W.Va.
The lawmakers are silent on the rest of NASA’s operating plan, which also quantifies the extra funding NASA must spend this year to maintain the launch schedules of major programs including the James Webb Space Telescope and the Mars Science Laboratory.
Keeping James Webb on track to launch in 2013 will cost $478.5 million this year, $9.9 million more than NASA previously anticipated, according to the documents.
Maintaining the Mars Science Laboratory’s 2009 launch date will cost an extra $62.7 million this year, pushing the mission’s total price tag, including launch and several years of operations, to $1.75 billion.
This all has to come out of the VSE budget as will any cost overuns with the Shuttle launches. The more these cost accrue the less chance NASA will have on getting there launch platforms ready and the CEV process to keep on track.
#194 Re: Life support systems » What would be the best method of maintaining fertile fields? » 2007-04-10 17:23:47
Hydroponics is already used in large projects and it is though expensive to set up easier to run. Another issue and one of more immediate concerns is that sunlight on Mars is a fraction of what is recieved here on Earth, and so unless we have plants specially adapted for this enviroment we will have to provide artificial light and that is a real energy hog.
#195 Re: Meta New Mars » Bloody broken login! » 2007-04-10 17:20:06
Ill have to say im having the same issue even to the point that it forgets me mid reading a thread.
And I have cleared the cookie cupboard 
as well just to see if it is this
#196 Re: Human missions » Why don't democracies engaging in manned spaceflight... » 2007-04-03 09:23:47
It is an intresting point that until space is seemed as a real destination or workplace then it will never get the public support it needs. At the moment it truly appears to be the the domain of the Rocket Scientist and as such it is not open to people to work there or more significantly your children. It is the difference between all the 1950 and 60s films where people where working in space routinely compared to what we have now that has lost a lot of the support spaceflight once had.
As a place of learning and getting pretty pictures it is nice but until we have people employed there making profits it will not be a place for anyone except the blue sky dreamer.
#197 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2007-03-23 13:39:43
Elon confirms that there was a collision between the first and second stages and that the first stage was not recovered.
SpaceX Confirms Stage Bump On Demoflight 2
"Yes, the stage sep bump will obviously need to be addressed, however it does not appear to have caused damage," Musk said. "The reason we chose a niobium metal skirt is that it is resilient to bumps vs C-C [carbon-carbon composite] nozzle, which is brittle and may crack."
According to the SpaceX website, "An impact from orbital debris or during stage separation would simply dent the metal, but have no meaningful effect on engine performance." Musk himself asserted that "There is substantial inflation pressure on the nozzle, so, even if the skirt dented, it would undent immediately after ignition."
So what did cause the failure.
Musk said that SpaceX would publish a detailed update on the launch on its website by next week, noting it was "so very important that we have time to properly digest the data."
We will have to wait till then I suppose.
#198 Re: Space Policy » Space fairing Nations - The ever changing view » 2007-03-22 06:26:22
Russia and Europe agree closer space cooperation.
Europe And Russia Confirm Closer Space Cooperation
From small acorns grow .......
#199 Re: Interplanetary transportation » Falcon 1 & Falcon 9 » 2007-03-22 05:57:18
Spacedaily did an analysis of the video and they are considering it to have been a collision with the first and second stage that could have damaged the upper stage so causing the failure.
Falcon 1 Video Suggests Stage Collision
I know a lot of ifs and buts here. Then again all we have is eyes not the sensor information that SpaceX has.
Onboard video of the orbital launch strongly suggests, however, that there was a collision between the top of the first stage and the exit cone on the second stage at staging. Less than 15 seconds after staging, a structural ring near the bottom of the cone can be seen disintegrating, possibly as a result of the collision.
It is not known what, if any, effect a collision and the ring disintegration might have had on the vehicle, which failed to reach orbit after what SpaceX has described as a roll control problem. A control issue is evident as a conical oscillation of increasing severity towards the end of the released video, although it appears mostly to involve pitch and yaw, with the roll position holding relatively steady
#200 Re: Human missions » Jeff Bell » 2007-03-21 17:42:29
NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program has been widely hailed by the alt.space community as a breakthrough in US launch policy, but the numbers just don't add up. This project will be too late and too little to make a significant contribution to closing the post-Shuttle ISS supply gap - except perhaps as a slush fund to cover cost overruns in Orion/Ares.
not very confidant of this whole program is he 