New Mars Forums
You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#176 Re: Not So Free Chat » Life on Mars? ExoMars Trace Gas Orbitor may have an answer in months » 2018-04-28 22:02:47
Given the way evolution works I very doubt that “Life could still be clinging on under the Martian surface”. Think that should be "is well established under the Martian surface".
If I had to bet I would say there is life and it is underground.
I agree.
#177 Not So Free Chat » Life on Mars? ExoMars Trace Gas Orbitor may have an answer in months » 2018-04-28 19:43:05
- EdwardHeisler
- Replies: 3
Life on Mars? Scientists close to solving mystery of the red planet
Mission to find source of methane detected in atmosphere may have an answer in months, researchers believe
by Robin McKie Science Editor
The Guardian
April 28, 2018
Scientists have begun an experiment aimed at solving one of astronomy’s most intriguing puzzles: the great Martian methane mystery.
In the next few months they hope to determine whether tantalising whiffs of the gas that have been detected on the red planet in recent years are geological in origin – or are produced by living organisms.
On Earth, methane is produced mostly by microbes, although the gas can also be generated by relatively simple geological processes underground. The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter, which has been manoeuvring itself above Mars for more than a year, has been designed to determine which of these sources is responsible for the planet’s methane. Last week sensors on the craft were deployed and began making their first measurements of the planet’s atmosphere.
“If we find traces of methane that are mixed with more complex organic molecules, it will be a strong sign that methane on Mars has a biological source and that it is being produced – or was once produced – by living organisms,” said Mark McCaughrean, senior adviser for science and exploration at the European Space Agency.
“However, if we find it is mixed with gases such as sulphur dioxide, that will suggest its source is geological, not biological. In addition, methane made biologically tends to contain lighter isotopes of the element carbon than methane that is made geologically.”
The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter was blasted towards Mars on a Proton rocket from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan in March 2016. The robot spacecraft – a joint European-Russian mission – reached its target seven months later and released a small lander, called Schiaparelli, which was designed to test heat shields and parachutes in preparation for future landings. However, the lander was destroyed when it crashed after its retro-thruster rockets shut off too early.
At the same time, the main orbiter swept into a highly elliptical path around Mars as planned.
Space engineers have since been altering that orbit – by repeatedly skimming the Martian atmosphere – so that the craft now circles the planet about 250 miles above the surface. A few days ago engineers pointed its instruments towards the planet and began taking measurements.
Scientists expect it will take more than a year to complete a full survey of the planet’s methane hotspots but are hopeful that within a month or two they will have a good idea if its source is biological or geological in origin.
Astronomers have found hints of methane on Mars on several previous occasions. In 2004, Europe’s Mars Express orbiter detected levels of methane in the atmosphere at about 10 parts in a billion. Ten years later, Nasa’s Curiosity rover recorded the presence of the gas on the surface. Crucially, atmospheric methane breaks up quickly in the presence of ultraviolet solar radiation. Its continued presence on Mars therefore suggests it is being replenished from a source somewhere on the planet.
“We will look at sunlight as it passes through the Martian atmosphere and study how it is absorbed by methane molecules there,” said Håkan Svedhem, the orbiter’s project scientist. “We should be able to detect the presence of the gas to an accuracy of one molecule in every 10 billion molecules.”
If the methane is found to be biological in origin, two scenarios will have to be considered: either long-extinct microbes, which disappeared millions of years ago, have left the methane to seep slowly to the surface – or some very resistant methane-producing organisms still survive underground. “Life could still be clinging on under the Martian surface,” said Svedhem.
However, if the gas is found to be geological in origin, the discovery could still have important implications. On Earth, methane is produced – geologically – by a process known as “serpentinisation” which occurs when olivine, a mineral present on Mars, reacts with water.
“If we do find that methane is produced by geochemical processes on Mars, that will at least indicate that there must be liquid water beneath the planet’s surface – and given that water is crucial to life as we know it, that would be good news for those of us hoping to find living organisms on Mars one day,” said McCaughrean.
#178 Re: Not So Free Chat » Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change » 2018-04-25 21:38:55
EdwardHeisler,
Tesla's goal is to make 6,000 Model 3's per week. Let's say they hit that goal. That's 312,000 new electric vehicles per year. In 2017, 6,332,925 new vehicles were sold in the US alone. So they're going to replace 5% of that gas guzzling fleet per year with electric cars that upper middle class Americans can actually afford to purchase after tax payers subsidize 25% of the cost of the vehicle. That means Tesla or whomever only needs to manufacture 20 times as many electric vehicles per year to replace manufacture of new gas guzzlers. Then there's world vehicle sales, which was just over 96 million in 2017 if memory serves. If you learn how to count, we might be able to have a reality-based conversation about what any specific proposal will or won't do to reduce CO2 emissions. Until you learn how to count, we'll just ignore the natural gas and coal guzzlers that produce the electrical power for the new electric vehicles since that requires more math.
MAKE AMERICA MATH AGAIN
Can you count how many car companies are producing electric cars and what their total worldwide productions has been over the past decade? Count! You seem think that Tesla is the only game in town and that electric car making is and can only happen in the United States. You seem to be totally unaware that other U.S. auto makers are producing electric cars! I can provide you with hard facts on that if you'd like. And you can count them. Even Trump is aware of that! You surely must be smarter and better informed than Trumpy.
In less than a decade gas driven cars will not be manufactured in China for its billion plus people and this will probably be the case in most car producing nations. China will make tens of millions of electric cars and many will be exported to nations all over the world .... except for the United States if Trump plunges ahead with his isolationist trade war which could cause an economic depression at home.
You seem to be living in the past and not looking ahead to what the future will bring. Why are you so terrified of scientific progress?
#179 Re: Not So Free Chat » Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change » 2018-04-25 11:05:22
Yes, EdwardHeisler we have seen the impressive list before and aside from the many jobs what are they doing to stop, slow or correct the out come of global warming?
Crickets?
This is the real challenge to those that are studing the cause and effect now lets get to correcting the outcome....
Why is the list as impressive to you as it is for me?
For starters, I may be wrong but I believe I have seen proposals to greatly expand solar and wind power to replace the burning of fossil fuels.
Have you noticed any developments along those lines or am I just whistling dixie?
I also heard rumors that Elon Musk is considering building electric driven cars to replace gas guzzlers!!!! Well, I can hardly wait to see them or is that just science nutcases day dreaming.
And if you viewed the Musk video what do you think of his very specific proposal? Another nutty idea I assume. Thank the gods for some common anti-science sense from President Trumpy. Hip Hip Hooey!
#180 Re: Not So Free Chat » Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change » 2018-04-24 19:51:54
He's a businessman as well as a dreamer! And he's definitely not a climate scientist!!
Terraformer wrote:What, you're not taking Musk at his word? I am shocked, louis. Just shocked.
Humbug! Elon Musk and those pinhead nerdy scientists are just trying to sell lectric cars, wind machines, sun roofs and batteries to make trillions of bucks. Dam those capitalist comease and comease capitalists!
We should depend on honest Trump's poof that climate change is a cleaver Chinese hoaks to put West Virginia coal minors out of work. Trump nose lots of stuff. And he has very manly big hands!
All of the following commynistic and terrierists outfits and the pinkish Elon Musk are wrong on climate change.
Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012,
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”
“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”
The following lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
#181 Not So Free Chat » Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change » 2018-04-24 10:00:30
#182 Re: Human missions » Where to Land... » 2018-04-16 21:14:07
I hope that Elon Musk decides to land the BFR with cargo and crews in the so-called "special regions" of Mars.
#183 Re: Exploration to Settlement Creation » The First Humans on Mars » 2018-04-10 09:50:30
We will be shocked if we do it in our lifetime, it would seem as Nasa is dragging there heals....We have been simulating living on a mars analog in several places and we have lots of useable data to design a mission for man to be able to go.
And women will also be able to go! 
#184 Not So Free Chat » Confrontation or cooperation: US-China space relations » 2018-03-26 20:11:36
- EdwardHeisler
- Replies: 5
Confrontation or cooperation: US-China space relations
by Gentoku Toyoma
Monday, March 26, 2018
Landing on the Moon in 1969 was one of the greatest achievements in human history. This accomplishment was the result of the Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union. Now, the United States endeavors to go to the Moon again.
Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union cooperated in space. The United States can find ways to work with China.
This time, the United States should go to the Moon not based on competition but on cooperation. China’s space capabilities are improving rapidly and its space presence is expanding. Collaboration with China can bring financial and diplomatic benefit. Last December, the Trump Administration declared its intent to go back to the Moon and go beyond. To achieve this goal, international cooperation is necessary. To achieve this goal, the United States should travel to the Moon with China as a new partner.
While the United States has built trust and cooperation with many countries in space, so far it has not worked with China. The US space station program was originally designed in the context of Cold War. Eventually, the United States invited Russia to the International Space Station and deepened international cooperation in space. On the other hand, in 2011, a federal law prohibited NASA from working with China for national security reasons.
This prohibition should be eliminated and the United States should collaborate with China. Cooperation should proceed step by step. Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union cooperated in space. The United States can find ways to work with China. As a first step, the United States should admit China to participate in the International Space Station.
The US human spaceflight program requires a great amount of money, and cooperation with China can contribute to reducing US costs. This February, the Trump Administration presented NASA’s budget request with a renewed emphasis on human spaceflight. Yet, in the long term, NASA’s budget will likely not significantly increase. It will be difficult to go back to the Moon if funding levels remain flat. China also aims to go to the Moon. If the United States works with China in the International Space Station program and other human spaceflight programs, they can share the financial burden. The United States can reduce its costs and accomplish its goal with less expenditure.
Suspicion can escalate confrontation, but trust can avoid an arms race. Last December, the US National Security Strategy classified China as “revisionist.” There are concerns that conflicts between the United States and China are inevitable in the near future. To avoid conflicts, increasing cooperation is beneficial for both countries. In fact, the US and Chinese governments already have a space dialogue. Taking a step to operational cooperation in space will be a good start to building more trust.
This time, the United States should lead the international space society and travel to the Moon and beyond together, with China as a new partner.
This cooperation benefits not only both countries but the whole of international space society. Nowadays, there are many problems in space policy: space debris, weaponization of space, and controversial international space law. To resolve these issues, international cooperation is essential. As the United States and China share more common interests in space, it will become easier for them to address international issues together.
There are security concerns that China would steal US space technology and develop its own capabilities. But this planned collaboration is in civil, not military, space operations. The United States would limit the exchange so as not to leak its advanced technology. Additionally, even if China keeps building its own space station after its participation in the ISS, its own station can be used to support the ISS. China has already developed its own space technology. Cooperation would not be a unilateral relationship, but one of mutual benefit.
It’s been 45 years since the United States last visited the Moon. Last time, the United States was alone, but since then many countries have improved their space technology. This time, the United States should lead the international space society and travel to the Moon and beyond together, with China as a new partner.
Gentoku Toyoma is a graduate student at the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.
#185 Interplanetary transportation » NASA chief: Why NASA won’t buy a bunch of Falcon Heavy rockets » 2018-03-26 17:31:31
- EdwardHeisler
- Replies: 8
Wait, what? —
NASA chief explains why agency won’t buy a bunch of Falcon Heavy rockets
“It’s going to be large-volume, monolithic pieces that are going to require an SLS.”
Eric Berger - 3/26/2018
Since the launch of the Falcon Heavy rocket in February, NASA has faced some uncomfortable questions about the affordability of its own Space Launch System rocket. By some estimates, NASA could afford 17 to 27 Falcon Heavy launches a year for what it is paying annually to develop the SLS rocket, which won't fly before 2020. Even President Trump has mused about the high costs of NASA's rocket.
On Monday, during a committee meeting of NASA's Advisory Council, former Space Shuttle Program Manager Wayne Hale raised this issue. Following a presentation by Bill Gerstenmaier, chief of human spaceflight for NASA, Hale asked whether the space agency wouldn't be better off going with the cheaper commercial rocket.
"Now that the Falcon Heavy has flown and been demonstrated, the advertised cost for that is quite low," Hale said. "So there are a lot of folks who ask why don't we just buy four or five or six of those and do what we need to do without building this big, heavy rocket and assemble things like we did with the space station?"
In response, Gerstenmaier pointed Hale and other members of the advisory committee—composed of external aerospace experts who provide non-binding advice to the space agency—to a chart he had shown earlier in the presentation. This chart showed the payload capacity of the Space Launch System in various configurations in terms of mass sent to the Moon.
“A lot smaller”
"It's a lot smaller than any of those," Gerstenmaier said, referring to the Falcon Heavy's payload capacity to TLI, or "trans-lunar injection," which effectively means the amount of mass that can be broken out of low-Earth orbit and sent into a lunar trajectory. In the chart, the SLS Block 1 rocket has a TLI capacity of 26 metric tons. (The chart also contains the more advanced Block 2 version of the SLS, with a capacity of 45 tons. However, this rocket is at least a decade away, and it will require billions of dollars more to design and develop.)
SpaceX has not publicly stated the TLI capacity of the Falcon Heavy rocket, but for the fully expendable version of the booster it is probably somewhere in the range of 18 and 22 tons. This is a value roughly between the vehicle's published capacity for geostationary orbit, 26.7 tons, and Mars, 16.8 tons.
Gerstenmaier then said NASA's exploration program will require the unique capabilities of the SLS rocket. "I think it's still going to be large-volume, monolithic pieces that are going to require an SLS kind of capability to get them out into space," he said. "Then for routine servicing and bringing cargo, maybe bringing smaller crew vehicles other than Orion, then Falcon Heavy can play a role. What's been talked about by [Jeff] Bezos can play a role. What United Launch Alliance has talked about can play a role."
“And,” not “or”
After this, Gerstenmaier reiterated NASA's default position with regard to the SLS and much cheaper commercial launch solutions—that there is room for everyone in the industry. "I don't see it as an 'either/or;' I see it as an 'and,'" he said. "We're trying to build a plan that uses SLS for its unique capability of large volumes and a large single mass in one launch. The cargo capability is pretty amazing with SLS. You can launch a big chunk of gateway in one flight; where it would take multiple flights, I'm not sure you could even break some of those pieces up into those smaller pieces to get them on a smaller rocket."
One difficulty with Gerstenmaier's response to Hale's question is that NASA does not, in fact, yet have any "large-volume, monolithic pieces" that could only be launched by the Space Launch System. The cornerstone of its 2020s exploration plans is the Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway, a small space station to fly in orbit around the Moon. The first piece of this station, a power and propulsion module, will launch in 2022 aboard a commercial rocket.
In fact, beyond this power element, NASA remains in the beginning stages of soliciting and accepting designs for the other components of this "gateway," including airlocks and habitation areas. These could, in theory at least, simply be designed to fit within the mass and size restrictions of a Falcon Heavy or other planned commercial launch vehicles. Potentially, this would save NASA billions of dollars and allow it to spend considerably more money on exploration activities.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03 … y-rockets/
Gerstenmaier didn't comment on the SpaceX BFR rocket which will probably be ready to launch before the SLS. Maybe he hasn't heard of it? Right. Ed Heisler
#186 Interplanetary transportation » NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion » 2018-03-24 08:16:22
- EdwardHeisler
- Replies: 19
NASA budget jumps $1.1B with big increase for SLS, Orion
By Lee Roop
March 23, 2018
Real-Time News from Huntsville
NASA spending in Alabama and other states will surge more than $1 billion above current levels this year under a spending bill that cleared Congress this week and was signed by President Trump today.
House approval late Thursday of the Omnibus Spending Bill for fiscal year 2018 means NASA will get get $20.7 billion. That's $1.1 billion more than 2017 funding and $1.6 billion above the White House request.
A big beneficiary will be the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, which will get $2.15 billion, and the Orion crew capsule, which will get $1.35 billion. Development of SLS is being led by the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, and $2.15 billion is a significant injection of cash for a program that has been challenged by delays since its beginning.
NASA has spent an estimated $10 billion on SLS since Congress forced President Obama to accept it in 2010 after Obama canceled its predecessor Constellation rocket program. The engines are ready to go, Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot said in Huntsville this week, and several segments have also been completed. The first uncrewed launch is now expected in early 2020.
"This is a strong bill that provides significant support for my priorities on the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee, such as law enforcement, national security, economic development, scientific research, and space exploration," U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala) said in a statement.
Also notable in the budget is $100 million for NASA education programs that had been marked for closure by the Trump administration.
Vice President Mike Pence, center, visits Alabama's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville in late 2017 to get an update on NASA's Space Launch System. Marshall is leading the development of SLS, which got a major boost in a federal Omnibus Spending Bill passed by Congress this week. With Pence are U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), left, and Marshall Director Todd May.
#187 Re: Human missions » Trump says NASA is "way ahead of schedule" in getting humans to Mars!! » 2018-03-21 18:43:15
EdwardHeisler wrote:Do you think that Trump was misquoted? Trump is normally very accurate in his statements and never lies. Trump clearly knows more about NASA and space travel than the stupid writer.
EdwardHeisler,
You seem to have a very immature need to criticize anything and everything President Trump says, even when he's busy promoting the agenda that most of us here want, which is to go to Mars.
How is Trump promoting the human exploration of Mars? Unless it's just Trump once again blurting out non-fact based rhetoric and b.s., please provide links indicating Trump's timeline, budget and plan for sending human explorers to Mars.
Deal with reality, not what you wish Trump understood and is doing about space exploration. While it's true he learned how to be a real estate shark, he continues to demonstrate his illiteracy when it involves space exploration. I'm not picking on poor little defenseless Trump, just stating the facts about someone who is not an informed supporter of space exploration. He is not our friend. He does not support us. In fact, I see Trump as an enemy of peaceful space exploration, our Constitution, our freedoms and our democratic rights.
As retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey said " Reluctantly I have concluded that President Trump is a serious threat to US national security. He is refusing to protect vital US interests."
Trump is not a "normal" conservative Republican president like Reagan or the Bush's. He's not even a Republican. He's a Trumpite building a dangerous racist, zenophobic and authoritarian cult-like following. This is different.
To preserve our way of life Trump will need to be removed from his position of power before this year is out. While I hardly like Pence, the clear and present danger to our Republic would end if Pence takes charge.
Hopefully Musk can continue to squeeze money out of the DOD and NASA to help fund his Mars objectives without interference from Trumpy.
And no, I did not campaign for or vote for Hillary Clinton. The worst candidates the Democratic Party and Republican Party could run for President were nominated. So which was the lesser evil? Clinton or Trump? Flip a coin.
#188 Re: Human missions » Trump says NASA is "way ahead of schedule" in getting humans to Mars!! » 2018-03-20 18:38:47
Now I see Ireland luncheon.. he was celebrating....
Speaking to members of the military in California on Wednesday, Trump vowed that the U.S. would make it to Mars "very soon."
"You wouldn't be going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you.
Fact Checker Analysis
President Trump’s false claim that Clinton wouldn’t have sent humans to Mars
By Salvador Rizzo
March 18
Washington Post
“Very soon we are going to Mars. You wouldn’t have been going to Mars if my opponent won, that I can tell you. You wouldn’t even be thinking about it.”
— President Trump, in remarks at the Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, Calif., March 13, 2018
So what does Clinton have to say about all this?
Fact Checker Meg Kelly unearthed a video clip showing that Clinton has been talking about getting humans on Mars since at least 1999. As first lady, Clinton helped launch the “Mars Millennium Project,” an educational campaign “to imagine a new life on the red planet.”
In a 1999 speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Clinton said this project was “challenging schoolchildren around the nation in conjunction with NASA to design a community that they would want to live on the planet Mars in the year 2030.”
More recently, during the 2016 race, Clinton’s campaign submitted written responses to questions about space travel from ScienceDebate.org. She said one of her goals would have been to “advance our ability to make human exploration of Mars a reality.” (In response to the same questions, “Trump did not formally support a human Mars exploration program or other specific initiatives,” Space News noted.)
Today, thanks to a series of successful American robotic explorers, we know more about the Red Planet than ever before,” Clinton said. “A goal of my administration will be to expand this knowledge even further and advance our ability to make human exploration of Mars a reality.”
Space, the final frontier, was very much on Clinton’s mind in 2016. Unlike Trump, Clinton was on the record during the campaign supporting efforts to get humans to Mars one day.
It’s not clear that the American plan for Martian colonization would be unfolding any differently had Clinton won the presidency, since NASA’s “Journey to Mars” initiative predates Trump and builds on what Obama did. And in any case, Americans are not expected to be walking on Mars during the four or eight years of the current administration.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to get this right, so the president earns Four Pinocchios.
#189 Re: Human missions » Trump says NASA is "way ahead of schedule" in getting humans to Mars!! » 2018-03-20 17:25:51
Where does Trump say "NASA"?
Space X is an American company. If Space X get there "very soon" then the USA has got there.
EdwardHeisler wrote:Trump: We're trying to top JFK by looking at Mars mission
By Max Greenwood - 03/15/18
The HillPresident Trump said Thursday that he wanted to "top" President John F. Kennedy's ambitions to send a man to the moon by pursuing a trip to Mars.
"We're looking at Mars, by the way," Trump said. "Trying to top [Kennedy]. We're going to get there. It's moving along pretty good. A lot of things have happened ... having to do with that subject. Way ahead of schedule."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat … rs-mission
He doesn't have a clue.
Where does Trump say "SpaceX"? Since he said he would top NASA's moon missions one could assume he believes NASA will top that with human missions to Mars. And I haven't read anything from anyone in NASA or the entire Trump government indicating they think SpaceX will lead the way to the human exploration of Mars.
Of course, it's entirely possible given Trumps illiteracy on space travel matters that he is confusing SpaceX with NASA. I'll give him that.
#190 Re: Human missions » Trump says NASA is "way ahead of schedule" in getting humans to Mars!! » 2018-03-20 17:19:23
From Mr. Greenwood's article:
"The U.S. eventually reached that goal in 1967. The last U.S. moon landing was in 1972."
The person who wrote that article seems to think we went to the moon in 1967, but the first crewed flight occurred on October 11, 1968 and we actually landed on the moon in 1969. Anyone who bashes President Trump is a good little boy, even if they're too stupid to write an article that accurately reflects what actually happened.
Do you think that Trump was misquoted? Trump is normally very accurate in his statements and never lies. Trump clearly knows more about NASA and space travel than the stupid writer.
#191 Human missions » Trump says NASA is "way ahead of schedule" in getting humans to Mars!! » 2018-03-20 15:01:00
- EdwardHeisler
- Replies: 68
Trump: We're trying to top JFK by looking at Mars mission
By Max Greenwood - 03/15/18
The Hill
President Trump said Thursday that he wanted to "top" President John F. Kennedy's ambitions to send a man to the moon by pursuing a trip to Mars.
"We're looking at Mars, by the way," Trump said. "Trying to top [Kennedy]. We're going to get there. It's moving along pretty good. A lot of things have happened ... having to do with that subject. Way ahead of schedule."
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat … rs-mission
He doesn't have a clue.
#192 Interplanetary transportation » SpaceX’s first BFR manufacturing facility approved by the Port of LA! » 2018-03-19 21:42:41
- EdwardHeisler
- Replies: 12
SpaceX’s first BFR manufacturing facility approved by the Port of LA
By Eric Ralph
March 19, 2018
SpaceX has been given initial approval by the Port of Los Angeles to acquire and develop a massive vacant lot into a facility capable of manufacturing the first BFR prototypes and refurbishing the company’s reusable Falcon 9 boosters. This approval is without a doubt the biggest step forward yet for the company’s ultimate goal of sending massive spaceships to Mars.
A request summary completed on March 6 details SpaceX’s proposal, laying out a bright future of rocket manufacturing for the abandoned 18-acre lot at Berth 240, one that might soon support “composite curing, cleaning, painting, and assembly [of commercial transportation vessels]” that “would need to be transported by water due to their size.” This description meshes almost perfectly with past discussion of BFR manufacturing plans from SpaceX executives like Elon Musk and Gwynne Shotwell, both of which have in the recent past affirmed the need for any BFR manufacturing facility to be located adjacent to a large body of water due to the difficulty of transporting rocket hardware as large as BFR.
On March 15, around a week after the environmental impact assessment gave a green light for SpaceX’s facility, Port of Los Angeles’ Board of Harbor Commissioners approved the proposal, effectively giving SpaceX permission to begin serious demolition and construction activities at Berth 240, an abandoned lot located on the San Pedro side of the greater Port of Los Angeles, which refers to both Ports of San Pedro and Long Beach. To provide context, SpaceX’s primary manufacturing facilities in Hawthorne, CA occupy 10-15 acres of urban real estate – in other words, even partial development of Berth 240’s 18 acres would mark a huge expansion of the company’s available manufacturing and refurbishment space, an absolute necessity for the construction of a launch vehicle as large as BFR.
The construction of such a facility would make it significantly easier for SpaceX to build its first BFR/BFS prototypes, avoiding the massive disruption and cost that transporting the 9m-diameter vehicle through downtown LA. Rather than dealing with that nightmare, SpaceX would instead be able to simply crane an assembled booster or spaceship onto a barge (perhaps a drone ship?) that would then ship the rocket hardware through the Panama Canal to the company’s facilities in Cape Canaveral, FL or Boca Chica, TX.
While it is likely to take a fair amount of time to prepare the lot for the construction of a facility capable of manufacturing advanced composite rocket components, the wording in the Port documentation also suggests that SpaceX means to transfer its Falcon 9 recovery work to the new berth as soon as it’s available. Indeed, the comparatively massive space would give SpaceX far more room for recovery operations with the drone ship Just Read The Instructions (JRTI), and could potentially become a one-stop-shop for booster recovery and refurbishment. As of now, boosters recovered on the West Coast are transported to the Hawthorne factory for all refurbishment work, operations that themselves already require brief road stoppages to accommodate the sheer size of Falcon 9. As of 2018, SpaceX is planning for BFR to be 50% taller and close to three times as wide as Falcon 9 (350 feet long and 30 feet in diameter).
Although SpaceX is specifically named in the study, the company appears to have created a distinct LLC to lease the lot, referred to as “WW Marine Composites” by the authors. At the point of publishing, WW Marine Composites does at least appear to exist, but that is the sum of all info available on the circa-2016 LLC. This obscure, stealthy LLC appears to continue SpaceX’s habit of purchasing and leasing land through shell corporations, a common behavior of businesses thanks to its tax benefits and protection against liability. Finally, an additional document from December 2017 hints that SpaceX is still working closely with Janicki Industries, a globally-renowned carbon composite structures manufacturer that SpaceX tasked with the creation of the first 12m-diameter composite tank, revealed to the surprise of almost everyone in 2016 and soon after tested to destruction in 2017.
Regardless, it will be exciting to watch SpaceX develop what will likely become its newest property acquisition. BFR is a massive rocket and will require commensurately massive manufacturing hardware, hardware that is likely to be spotted by any number of eagle-eyed SpaceX fans and observers in the LA area. Berth 240 may also uniquely lend itself to some incredible photos of the company’s progress, thanks in part to the fact that it’s all but surrounded by shoreline that is accessible to the public. Teslarati photographer Pauline Acalin visited the site just after receiving insight on the latest development to get a feel for the location.
#193 Interplanetary transportation » A name for the BFR. How about calling it the Hawking or the Sagan? » 2018-03-19 09:52:38
- EdwardHeisler
- Replies: 3
Other ideas please.
#194 Re: Human missions » Should we establish Mars bases, settlements or a colonies? » 2018-03-18 20:44:58
I just want to go and do not care what anyone will call it....
OK. So would Trumpycamps be acceptable? LOL
#195 Interplanetary transportation » SpaceX Falcon Heavy Launch: The Fire and Fury of Liftoff Photos » 2018-03-18 19:31:23
- EdwardHeisler
- Replies: 1
SpaceX Falcon Heavy Launch: The Fire and Fury of Liftoff
#196 Human missions » Should we establish Mars bases, settlements or a colonies? » 2018-03-18 16:01:18
- EdwardHeisler
- Replies: 18
I prefer the term settlements. Colony has such a negative meaning based on the unpleasant history of colonization on our planet. Some old school cold/hot warriors may prefer an imperial colonial empire controlled by Darth Vadar type Space Force troopers. Not me!
#197 Re: Not So Free Chat » Trump Proposes U.S. ‘Space Force’ to Guard the Galaxy » 2018-03-15 13:45:33
Hey EdwardHeisler,
Be careful to avoid flaming when speaking to or about people who disagree with you on politics.
We do allow political discussion on the forum, but that's not an excuse for name-calling, flaming, or calls to violence.
The discussion of a "Space Force" obviously is deeply related to the topic of this forum and you can agree or disagree, but there is absolutely no reason why that should lead into slurs against people who you disagree with politically.
Do you find anything in my previous post objectionable and have you ever found anything in any of my posts that are clearly racist or sexist attacks?
Unless "Starship Trooper" is a real person I don't think that post can be consider a violation of our rules. I don't think we have any imperial starship troopers in the Department of Offense and hope we never do. Don't you agree?
If you can find any of my posts where I have called other posters nasty names such as a "ignorant sob" or employed racist attacks on posters or public figures please send me the links.
Thanks and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
#198 Re: Not So Free Chat » Trump Proposes U.S. ‘Space Force’ to Guard the Galaxy » 2018-03-15 07:32:28
Hopefully not a single "Starship Trooper" will make it beyond low Earth orbit or even to orbit!
China, Russia, India or some other nation not in favor of such extreme right-wing neo-fascist concepts will do whatever it takes to torpedo such militarization and I will support them, not Trump or his cult followers. That starship warrior pictured needs to get a bloody nose or worse.
If that's what exploring the universe is going to be like I want nothing to do with it. And such colonial conquest schemes would be a betrayal of everything the Mars Society stands for.
#199 Re: Not So Free Chat » Trump Proposes U.S. ‘Space Force’ to Guard the Galaxy » 2018-03-14 15:52:55
d embrace the peaceful and scientific exploration of our solar system and beyond.
We've been doing that since the end of Apollo. How's that worked out? I'm willing to accept military bases on Luna and Mars, if it's the only way we'll actually get people out there.
Our exploration of our solar system has gone very well since the end of Apollo. Have you heard of the Hubble Space Telescope? And we and other nations have sent numerous space probes to investigate all of the planets of our solar system. The Mars rovers and other Mars missions have provided us with an enormous amount of information on the Red Planet. In the next decade we'll send our first human explorers to Mars with or without NASA. So outside of not yet sending humans to Mars the peaceful and scientific exploration of our solar system has gone really well. I really don't know how you missed that.
So you want military bases on Mars and the Moon. Is it safe to assume you only want U.S. military bases and not "foreign" ones on the Moon and Mars? Wonderful. So the U.S. should plant a flag on Mars, declare Mars to be part of new U.S. imperial colonial empire and threaten to destroy any attempts by other nations or capitalists to explore Mars. How progressive and spacey!
Perhaps Elon Musk should have placed an Abrams tank with a Darth Vadar Trumpy dummy on the Falcon Heavy rather than a Tesla roadster. That would have been so uplifting and inspiring!
#200 Re: Not So Free Chat » Trump Proposes U.S. ‘Space Force’ to Guard the Galaxy » 2018-03-13 21:05:35
OK Its actually in the high ground control to space article.
I'll not be attending the meetup at the knucklehead café. Oh darn. LOL