New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#2451 Re: Not So Free Chat » Greetings - From the Moon-Mars Blitz » 2004-07-21 16:30:22
Which guy near which lady with what hair next to which man with a tie and a shirt??! ???
Was your wife there, Bill?
No.
#2452 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone » 2004-07-21 15:17:53
The Kliper manned spacecraft replacement for Soyuz was first mentioned at a Moscow news conference on 17 February 2004. The 14.5 tonne reusable lifting body would be used as a space station ferry and lifeboat, or could operate independently to shuttle tourists to space. Assuming the Russian government provided 10 billion roubles of financing, Kliper and its new Onega launch vehicle could fly as early as 2010.
Okay, here is the rub: Assuming the Russian government provided 10 billion roubles of financing, Kliper and its new Onega launch vehicle could fly as early as 2010.
Its always about the money.
Yahoo says that todays exchange rate is about $0.34 for 10 roubles.
10 billion roubles = $340 million US, right?
Jeez. $500 million? Why doesn't Elon Musk just buy an Onega factory and be done with it? Or is my math off?
= = =
PS - - How much is CEV development expected to cost?
#2453 Re: Human missions » Congress Cuts NASA's Budget On Apollo Anniversary - A no no for Bush's budget increase » 2004-07-21 15:02:40
The subcommittee action Tuesday passed by voice vote, an indicator of strong across-the-board sentiment. . ..
from UPI
Next up, full floor vote, which Tom "the Hammer" Delay promises will not happen without full funding for NASA.
Otherwise conference committee or continuing resolution.
Now, from the Washington Post's report on the yet unpublished committee comments:
The committee also expressed skepticism that the administration can finish building the international space station by 2010 and then retire the shuttle. Knowledgeable congressional staffers, who declined to be identified by name because of committee policy, suggested that this view contributed to lawmakers' decision not to fund the crew exploration vehicle.
"NASA needs to reevaluate this date in the context of the current budget environment and the technical challenges associated both with return-to-flight activities and the new system development needs," the panel's report said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … .html]Link - - registration may be required but you can try that "Kos" trick if you don't wish to register for WaPo.
#2454 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Rogue Waves - ...science study IDs them » 2004-07-21 13:07:16
:realllymad:
Hi! My name is Rogue. See I am waving.
= = =
Mea culpa. This silly post will self-destruct in 60 minutes.
:sleep:
#2455 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone » 2004-07-21 10:48:45
To pay for all the modifications and new stuff... millions for new launch cameras, millions for re-inspecting each orbiter, millions and millions for hoarding supplies and Shuttle tiles on the ISS, millions for robot arm modication, millions for the laser hole-finder, millions and millions for astronaut Shuttle repair training (!!!), millions for paying engineers overtime for re-re-checking assemblies, millions for paying the Shuttle builders consulting fees, millions for testing/re-testing TPS modifications...
The list goes on. Is it not clear that by nature of Shuttle's extreme complexity and fragility, that modifying it for anything than its intended purpose would be folley?
Which is why "return to flight" is stupid.
But in politics momentum is everything and the Bush plan of return to flight and ISS completion followed by shuttle retirement creates momentum (and inertia) in entirely the wrong direction.
RTF as part of VSE is an inherent political contradiction. Bureacracies cannot turn on a dime like a Porsche or BMW.
#2456 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone » 2004-07-21 10:39:04
Why can't Congress change the rules on re-certification? Not cancel the process but merely define the current refurbishment as compliance?
Recertification is the process where the blueprints and plans and the vehicles themselves are inspected, and all the engineering involved re-checked, where failure probabilities and consequences and tollerances/performance/margins are re-evaluated... It is a very involved, laborious task and after the number-crunching is done the vehicle is stripped down and inspected to make sure it is built the way the plans call for... At least as far as I understand it, i'm not an engineer.
It is somthing that engineering societies and NASA safety policy, and the CAIB people sets, it isn't somthing that Congress can over-rule lightly. That would be a little like telling doctors to over-rule medical ethics, and since it would cross the return-to-flight people, step on the toes of White House politics.
Fair enough, but what is that $1.1 billion return to flight money for?
I thought the orbiters were being stripped down as we type these messages. Since Congress loves the orbiter so much, why not do the recertification right now?
= = =
This is not my objective, of course. I favor immediate grounding of the entire orbiter fleet.
Yet so many people, including clark and Keith Cowing seem convinced that the orbiter WILL be terminated in 2010 come hell or high water just because GWB said so at a press conference and Sean O'Keefe said so in some smoky bar.
My point? Lets not be so sure about the politics of that. Senators Nelson and Hutchison, for example, seem to have a different agenda.
#2457 Re: Space Policy » Bush Sets Wrong Goal? » 2004-07-21 10:28:59
In Lost in Space the recent NASA bashing book, a Russian engineer was said to have quipped, "our trying to build Buran was a stupid move, wasting money copying your shuttle. But ISS is our revenge. . ."
How much money has NASA wasted on ISS? How much has Russia spent on ISS? Europe?
If it is a race, ISS / STS ties a huge weight to our ankle while Proton and Zenit corner the paying market, with an occasional Atlas for appearances sake.
#2458 Re: Space Policy » Bush Sets Wrong Goal? » 2004-07-21 09:40:14
The ISS is =NOT= worthless from the perspective of the rest of the world. So long as the United States spends $6 billion per year on STS / ISS, we cannot do anything else.
From the French and Russian and Chinese perspective, ISS / STS is a gift from heaven. GWB says its not a race. Since we would be in first place if it were a race, how can anyone else complain?
#2459 Re: Not So Free Chat » Greetings - From the Moon-Mars Blitz » 2004-07-21 07:15:43
The guy near the lady with the hair and next to the man with the shirt and tie. ???
:band:
#2460 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule? » 2004-07-21 07:12:19
Territory status. Local matters are decided locally, but the Martian colonies are bound to their host nation rather than having full sovereignty. The other two options are unrealistic extremes. Mars can't be governed from Washington, so that's out. But neither will any nation put up the considerable capital to establish a colony with the intent of cutting it loose at the earliest opportunity.
Until some band of political dissidents amasses the funds to undertake a colonization mission themselves you will not have independence as a factor.
So Mars, a semi-autonomous territory. Until such time as they see fit to seek statehood or wrestle away by less established means.
IMHO, the reality that the settlers will indeed seek to wrest control away from the home capital undercuts national interest in founding settlements. Whether anyone ever discusses this in public, or not.
= = =
Hmmm. . .
A dissident (or quasi-dissident) group that seeks to raise funding for a private settlement? Sounds like a good plot for a novel! 
#2461 Re: Martian Politics and Economy » Colonial Policy: Direct Rule or Home Rule? » 2004-07-21 07:10:49
Territory status. Local matters are decided locally, but the Martian colonies are bound to their host nation rather than having full sovereignty. The other two options are unrealistic extremes. Mars can't be governed from Washington, so that's out. But neither will any nation put up the considerable capital to establish a colony with the intent of cutting it loose at the earliest opportunity.
Until some band of political dissidents amasses the funds to undertake a colonization mission themselves you will not have independence as a factor.
So Mars, a semi-autonomous territory. Until such time as they see fit to seek statehood or wrestle away by less established means.
IMHO, the reality that the settlers will indeed seek to wrest control away from the home capital undercuts national interest in founding settlements. Whether anyone ever discusses this in public, or not.
#2462 Re: Human missions » Business Community and Space - Bring the Business into the Space Race » 2004-07-21 07:06:13
Bigelow is already aiming at the two markets that have a chance of paying off - tourism and pharmaceutical research. An orbiting TransHab based facility that will host drug researchers and tourists.
IIRC Bigelow is privately held so you cannot even buy stock.
He is also doing the down and dirty engineering needed to make TransHab fabric lighter and more functional allowing for cheaper launch costs.
He is also negotiating with the cheapest sources of lift to LEO on the planet. Russian, Chinese and Elon Musk.
= = =
Otherwise, we need an ice-breaker. Someone to throw away many many billions of dollars motivated by altruism. :;):
#2463 Re: Not So Free Chat » Dr. Jeff Bell - Strikes again » 2004-07-20 21:01:59
Go http://www.hobbyspace.com/Links/RLVNews.html]here and scroll down to SUBORBITAL BOMBAST:
Suborbital bombast... Perhaps Prof. Lynch should leave sounding rocket research anyway since Prof. Jeffery Bell, also known as The God of AeroSpace (GAS), says rockets don't reach space if they don't reach orbit: StuntShipOne: The GeeBee Of Outer Space - SpaceDaily - July.20.04. Be sure to put on your raincoat and galoshes before encountering this mudslinging screed.
He gives the usual criticisms of suborbitals that aren't worth revisiting. However, there is an attitude that I do want to address. Scientists in basic research, especially in an area like space science, often spend whole careers and tons of public money in the pursuit of esoteric matters that never lead even indirectly to a single solitary practical application in the "real world". Yet they don't seem the slightest bit embarrassed to receive accolades, tenure, and even prizes
On the other hand, if an engineer in R&D like Burt Rutan develops a virtually endless stream of new technologies and techniques but doesn't directly create a product as popular as pens and pencils, an academic like GAS feels perfectly justified in trashing him.
That "basic engineering" is not given the same respect and prestige as basic science is not a rational, defensible attitude. It arises from the fact that science traditionally has taken place within the ivory tower university environment where all pursuits are pure, just, and noble. Engineering mostly happens out there in the grubby, ugly world of commercial enterprise where everybody is only after the ugly buck. However, we should remember that it is that world of practical engineering that created the wealth that pays for all that basic research.
Of course, many scientists feel successful engineering is just a trivial consequence of good science. Actually, it's often the other way around.
BTW, someone should send Bell a link to ZERO-G. He should also be told never to ride on a 777 or the future Boeing 7E7 since they are 12% and 50% composite, respectively. He should certainly never launch any science payloads on the Orbital Sciences Pegasus, which was designed in partnership with Scaled Composites and which is built with components from the company.
The original has lots of extra links. . .
#2464 Re: Not So Free Chat » Dr. Jeff Bell - Strikes again » 2004-07-20 20:05:51
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04v.html]Bell blasts sub-orbital tourism.
#2465 Re: Not So Free Chat » Greetings - From the Moon-Mars Blitz » 2004-07-20 18:34:02
Admit it Bill...you're the kid right?
Yup! 
#2466 Re: Science, Technology, and Astronomy » Idea: Give the ISS a hab AND an ERV - Kill three birds with one stone » 2004-07-20 18:28:18
When X-38 was cancelled, I said to some that was step one towards killing the station. I read somewhere that the administrative cost to wrap up the program was more than 50% of the cost to have finished the program and deliver flight-ready X-38s.
Maybe there is a secret plan to have Bush cancel shuttle / ISS after the election so the Florida voters don't punish him.
= = =
Question about this:
But now, with a concrete deadline that the train stops in 2010, NASA has somthing new to motivate them... their own destruction.
Why can't Congress change the rules on re-certification? Not cancel the process but merely define the current refurbishment as compliance?
#2467 Re: Not So Free Chat » Greetings - From the Moon-Mars Blitz » 2004-07-20 18:24:33
I love this thread.
Its a lucky day when my wife pays this much attention to me. :;):
= = =
Just joking, honey, if you read this. . .
#2468 Re: Not So Free Chat » Greetings - From the Moon-Mars Blitz » 2004-07-20 18:23:02
The man behind Zubrin with the Mars button on the left lapel.
Nope. I am taller than that.
But you are getting warmer.
#2469 Re: Not So Free Chat » Greetings - From the Moon-Mars Blitz » 2004-07-20 18:22:15
*Bill is either the very tall (seemingly) man standing in the back and to the rightish of the pic, with graying beard and moustache and glasses OR he's the blonde-haired guy towards the left and towards the middle with the white shirt and black bow tie.
3rd guess: The man standing nearly exact center with what looks like a white T-shirt and black dress shirt over it, staring face-on into the camera.
--Cindy
I am home now. Comcast cable modems are pretty good even though I don't like Comcast all that much as a company. The photo loaded up fast, as it should.
Anyway, Cindy's first choice?
Nope.
Cindy's second choice.
The mad scientist dude? I ain't that old (looking). :;):
Besides I have a friend who is a trial lawyer. Jurors with bow ties get excluded by him. Always. He says its a bad karma thing.
Cindy's third choice?
Nope. But better than the last choice.
#2470 Re: Space Policy » Bush Sets Wrong Goal? » 2004-07-20 17:19:04
Senate passed full funding for the VSE (Vision for Space Exploration) - - a House Committee did not. The full House can reverse the Committee but that may not be likely.
For the wonks, that means conference committee.
Representatives from the House and Senate meet to resolve differences between the two versions of the budget and while in theory new stuff isn't supposed to be added, if the Senate and teh House and the President all agree to "break" the rules, who will complain?
Tom Delay is exactly right. Full funding for the VSE can be written in at the conference committee level.
= = =
Bottom line? E-mail Bob Zubrin and George Whitesides at National Space Society.
Express your willingness to attend Moon-Mars Blitz 2 and visit staffers from those people assigned to the Senate-House conference committee while it is going on.
Let the political wonkery types (not me - but groups like ProSpace manage and direct the details) but offer to show up in person and lobby staffers.
= = =
More political wonkery via Rand Simberg:
http://curmudgeons.blogspot.com/2004_07 … 74853]Mark Whittington
and Rands]http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/004031.html#004031]Rand's trackback
= = =
Another quote:
The Appropriations committee is supportive of Bush's plans but "does not have sufficient resources" to pay for them, a report with the bill said.
#2471 Re: Human missions » Might Shuttle C - save Hubble? » 2004-07-20 17:03:27
That 2010 deadline for ISS? We do that only if everything falls perfectly into place.
Already the politicians are circling to extend shuttle orbiter.
Re-certification? After spending $1.1 billion on return to flight, all Congress has to do is change the rules and define orbitrer as re-certified.
#2472 Re: Space Policy » Bush Sets Wrong Goal? » 2004-07-20 13:55:37
Where...
CongressToday? Or something like that.
Hit all the usual suspects.
Spacetoday (Jeff Foust's site)
Space.com (Lew Dobbs)
Spacepolitics (Jeff Foust again)
spacetoday.net
DOT NET - - Sorry
#2473 Re: Space Policy » Bush Sets Wrong Goal? » 2004-07-20 13:49:35
More story links can be found at spacetoday
= = =
Details. We need more details. The space.com story says part of the vision funding was funded. Go to space.com.
This public library computer is fast but won't let me cut & paste like I can at my office.
#2474 Re: Not So Free Chat » Our $8 trillion headache - Things don't look so good » 2004-07-20 13:41:12
Reagan cut taxes at first, yet then raised them for the balance of his term.
#2475 Re: Space Policy » Bush Sets Wrong Goal? » 2004-07-20 13:36:28
Read "No one will be happy" at
http://www.spacepolitics.com]www.spacepolitics.com
Mark Whittington says Tom Delay says it will all work out in conference committee. Now we are in wonk-zone of the US political process, big time!
= = =
Today also is the 35th anniversary of what?
Good timing, guys!
= = =
PS - If anyone cares, I left my office and my molasses slow DSL (thanks SBC!) and logged in at the local public library.
Can't stay long - - but I had to read the breaking news at some reasonable bandwidth.