Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

cIclops · 2006-06-05 09:48:21

You would think in a pro Mars forum that the loudest and strongest voices would also be pro Mars colonization but guess that just isn't so here.

Who here is anti Mars colonization?

Rational, informed debate is more interesting than the opposite. True enthusiasts want to see their dreams become real not remain fantasies for the sake of self delusion. The colonization of Mars and other worlds will be a very long process, nevertheless it will happen in time.

Marsman · 2006-06-05 10:24:17

I don't think I mentioned the word anti Mars in my post. What I said was that the pro earth view (which anyone can hold to, even me) seems to be quite pronounced here. You call it having a "rational, informed debate" but is it really? Most thinking people already know about alternative solutions to colonizing Mars. We have had them rammed down our throats for decades now. By all means continue with the "debate" but how does that advance the cause of getting humans to Mars? Maybe many people are ignorant of the earth based alternatives to space colonization, so if that is the case then it can't hurt to fill them in. But being that the name of this forum is "New Mars" A Forum specifically for Mars ENTHUSIASTS" I wondered why there was so much other discussion on unrelated topics. (not that I am against it)

For example, this thread was discussing private space or what is derisively labelled "alt.space". The anti private spacers are pronounced here. But consider the alternatives. Are they any less insane? The quagmire that is politics is far harder to negotiate than any private business venture. The last 4 decades bears witness to that. I'm all for government funded space programs(I think they are foundational to all future private efforts) but I'm not for attacking the future which will be private whether you like it or not. Right now these companies are struggling. Some of them are lying and should be exposed as liars and others are just plain incompetent. But let's not throw out the concept behind it. As Martian Republic states in many places, governments start big projects and the private sector takes them over once they are going. Maybe they need to be more realistic and more honest but how would you suggest they get investors? Here is an interesting article on that- http://www.thespacereview.com/article/635/1

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-05 16:14:39

Hey now, I didn't say anything about expanding humanity into space being a bad thing, I simply stated my opinion that - through technology - there is no logistical reason why we can't live on Earth only.

Grypd · 2006-06-05 17:41:58

No one here is anti colonisation but we all live on this planet and for a long time to come so will the vast majority of the human race. And I could use a colloquial phrase from Scotland but I wont the gist of it though is we live here dont mess it up.

When we go to Mars we wont be like the first colonies that arrived in what became the USA. Most of these failed and disapeared. We as a modern digital people will expect instant success and this may be hard to achieve. So what would drive people to form a first colony on Mars. And how do we increase the Marsian population especially if economic reasons are unable to fund such colonies.

1) Fame, In short the American Idol of space where we see people who want to live there and the fame they gain promotes further colonisation.

2) Religion, of a sect that is persecuted or believes itself to be.

3) Politics, We got there so we will ensure that we can put enough people to ensure our claim to it.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-05 20:12:46

The issue as this page indicates is that private industry can not get the funding from normal business oportunities and that government backed is the only way to get some elite into space.. Martin_Tristar and another that has left us comstar03 both I think feel that this is wrong and that private industry can produce the needed finaincing.

These very topics tried to air some ways to go about solving this.

Space Activity Licensing >>>> - Controlling the Commercial Space Race

Business Community and Space - Bring the Business into the Space Race

Businesses In Space - Businesses In Space

Opening space to Individual or private industry - Space CHASE Act

7-Up: Free Space Flight Offer

I for one feel that private industry will eventually get there and by far cheaper than the current Nasa, Military strong holds in Boeing and Lockheed as well as others.

By designing a system from the funds that you have you do not get bloatware design and other conditions that eat up all available funds.

Rxke · 2006-06-06 06:47:44

For example, this thread was discussing private space or what is derisively labelled "alt.space". The anti private spacers are pronounced here.

I think you misunderstood the sentiment expressed by the 'op-ed' that started this thread...

Alt.space isn't derisive, it is a fairly common moniker, even used by the 'community' of fledgling busineses themselves. Alt means alternative, which doesn't mean bad, just different than what is happening now.

The writer is a budding altspacer himself, but did a tour etc. and was disillusioned to see the discrepancy between the extatic and critique-less pressreleases and the grim thruth. Lots of buzz, very little metal.

Stuff like saying NASA can't accomplish anything, and Rutan builds a spaceship with spare change etc. (while the SS1 is more an X1 than a spaceship) doesn't get us to space any faster.

Critique is good. It keeps your feet on the ground, figuratively. But you've got to keep an eye on reality. Spaceflight is incredibly hard, and some of these startups try to give an imprression it isn't, that all you have to do is have some entrepeneurial spirit etc. In short, most of them don't have a clue, and all but none of them have any money.
There are exceptions, though, but you tend to hear less about them in the press than these 'kewl' guys.

publiusr · 2006-06-09 11:33:30

Space-flight is blue-collar--not white collar. The model that works for internet gurus does not work for space. I want to see space colonies--and perhaps greenhouses--eventually. Right now, I'd settle for a bigger line of rockets. That has to come first--and the alt.spacers are bashing CaLV and VSE and offer nothing but hot air in return.

Spaceflight will always have more in common with TVA than MSN. You need real infrastructure--and it needs to be supported. Let the alt.spacers find payloads to place atop CaLV, so they don't have to re-invent the wheel with boosters. Musk spent a lot of money just to replicate an LV the ABMA threw together (Redstone class).

There is no Long-eze to orbit in the works--that has a chance.

So we should support NASA.

Private Enterprize has only one successful space program--China's. Every time you go to Wal-Mart, you help the Long March to space. So be it. But don't call NASA a socialist program when 'free-enterprise' money goes to Shenzhou.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-03-09 13:56:12

Jeff Bell article

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Rocke … e_999.html

Rocket Plane Roulette

Grypd · 2007-03-10 04:09:02

Again Jeff Bell is on his rant again but as always he spreads good points in with ignoring the points that hurt his arquement.

You will note that the rocketplanes are experimental test craft put to the limit of there then capability. The majority in the 1940s and 50s. These craft where instrumental in developing our understanding of flight and so they had a high risk.

But since then we have advanced our understanding of material, atmospheric and of course airframes a lot. Our planes no longer rely completely on the skill of the pilot they use computers and advanced fly by wire systems.

We have advanced wind tunnels and computer simulations designed to make it easier to simulate what a plane can do. And of course we also have 50 years of knowledge these aero engineers do not have and this is priceless.

Mr Bell does make some good points but his bitterness reduces his arquement and that is a pity.

GCNRevenger · 2007-03-10 07:39:36

Say that rocket planes of days past had a failure rate of ~1-2%, modern technology could improve this figure no doubt, but by the needed factor of 100's?

cIclops · 2007-03-10 08:36:43

Say that rocket planes of days past had a failure rate of ~1-2%, modern technology could improve this figure no doubt, but by the needed factor of 100's?

RpK and SpaceShipTwo are both commerical ventures, if their technology doesn't produce the needed level of safety their projects will simply terminate. Note that neither project has the level of funding that goes into the development of a modern commercial aircraft, so it's right to question whether these projects will ever succeed.

EuroLauncher · 2007-04-03 11:57:19

GCNR,

At least I am working on a overall strategy for colonization program, NASA and other government programs are explorer "tourist" based programs that won't go anywhere in the future.

I think you are being unfair

Martin_Tristar · 2007-04-09 05:14:33

Eurolauncher,

It depends on the thought processes being planned by the government departments and agencies. When you look at the development of the Moon from 1960-2007 , because we haven't got that right yet, and it will take another 20 years to have a functioning base on the rock, It gives you a bad view of the Marsbase future.

We are not even talking about commercialization or colonization of our solar system, they are too large concepts for the minds at this space organizations and the oversight committees. Its against the other various government costed programs like health, education, defence and more.

But we need to work from the different view of colonization and then work on the tools , processes, facilities and resources for that direction, not the current tourist direction.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-10 10:19:51

New Spacer's will try in that SpaceDev announce Dream Chaser agreement with ULA to ride atop of an Atlas V

It is only a Memorandum of Understanding but with lots of possiblity in the COTs program and with Bigelow also looking to man rate the launch vehicle private enterprise is moving faster each day towards a lower cost launch than that could be purchased from Nasa.

publiusr · 2007-05-04 16:15:02

I'm not big on top-mount spaceplanes.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-05-26 05:12:45

I wonder if Musk (if he could get some others to help) could obtain plans for the Saturn IB. It used a cluster of Redstones of about the same size as the current Falson, and would actually be tiny compared to the Stick and carry about as much. But the rumor has it he is already rolling metal on Falcoln V/IX.

The Saturn is too much for Musk

quasar777 · 2007-06-08 14:27:44

i said practically the same thing on space.com abt 4 yrs ago. i called it a Mars Commune though. one thing not mentioned i`ve noticed most anywhere is that if some of us are gonna become Permanent Residents of OuterSpace (i`ve taken to calling this PermRes) alotta what we do here will become useless. & by saying this i mean we will eventually develop standard parts. like suits for instance, they should all fit together. it should become fairly common to quickly meltdown & refabricate most needed parts. this has been done i guess on a limited basis in the US military w/ a "Mobile Parts Hospital". i think this equipment will eventually become downsized to fit in a Space capsule. we`d be able to manufacture practically anything out of metal. i guess it does have some limitations though otherwise many would be out of business. the plastic 3d stereo lithograpy idea has been around a bit longer. i know i`m sounding like a dreamer talking about these things. & too, i think some have probably overlooked an aspect of Aerospace industry.

publiusr · 2007-06-23 12:59:18

I wonder if Musk (if he could get some others to help) could obtain plans for the Saturn IB. It used a cluster of Redstones of about the same size as the current Falson, and would actually be tiny compared to the Stick and carry about as much. But the rumor has it he is already rolling metal on Falcoln V/IX.
The Saturn is too much for Musk

Not if the other space start ups were to join him. Saturn IB is small compared to Ares I and Delta IV "heavy."

ftlwright · 2007-06-26 00:51:50

I wonder if Musk (if he could get some others to help) could obtain plans for the Saturn IB. It used a cluster of Redstones of about the same size as the current Falson, and would actually be tiny compared to the Stick and carry about as much. But the rumor has it he is already rolling metal on Falcoln V/IX.
The Saturn is too much for Musk
Not if the other space start ups were to join him. Saturn IB is small compared to Ares I and Delta IV "heavy."

Even with all the other start ups, Elon still wouldn't have enough money for a Saturn IV - waaay too many trade secrets and expertise locked up there.

Unfortunately, Burt is going to end up killing someone before private space flight has any chance of taking off. I really don't have a problem with paying customers traveling in space - heck they may actually find something useful to do up there.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-06-05 09:48:21

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#52 2006-06-05 10:24:17

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#53 2006-06-05 16:14:39

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#54 2006-06-05 17:41:58

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#55 2006-06-05 20:12:46

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#56 2006-06-06 06:47:44

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#57 2006-06-09 11:33:30

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#58 2007-03-09 13:56:12

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#59 2007-03-10 04:09:02

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#60 2007-03-10 07:39:36

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#61 2007-03-10 08:36:43

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#62 2007-04-03 11:57:19

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#63 2007-04-09 05:14:33

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#64 2007-04-10 10:19:51

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#65 2007-05-04 16:15:02

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#66 2007-05-26 05:12:45

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#67 2007-06-08 14:27:44

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#68 2007-06-23 12:59:18

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

#69 2007-06-26 00:51:50

Re: Alt.space debacle (GCNRevenger 's gonna love this)

Board footer