You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
With 50 billion in aid going to disaster relief for Katrina what does that mean for VSE. Will it dellay VSE by a year? 50 billion is about the size of the buget of NASA. That is a huge expendature. Is that money to be spent all in one year or will it be spread out over severl years.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Too early to tell, but it may speed up development of SDV by further reducing NASA's ability to launch the Shuttle. The fewer flights the SHuttle can make before 2010, the more pointless is becomes to wait till 2010 to retire it.
Offline
The only draw back to SDV HLLV is the ability to manufacture the ET at this point whether we go with the shuttle -c or the inline.
IMO, So all funding should be redirected to the making of Da Stick's upper stage and CEV capsule to get our space launch capabilities going again.
Offline
The price of reconstruction after Katrina is going to be at least four times the NASA yearly budget, and probably more than eight times that much. NASA could easily take a hit as Congress searches desperately for budget cuts in order to pay for this. NASA will also need to make allowances to rebuild its own damaged facilities.
This is going to cause enough trouble with people battening down to defend the shuttle army and their pet programs. But there is another problem looming on the space advocacy horizon. It doesn't matter that rebuilding damaged aerospace facilities in Louisiana and Mississippi is going to aid the local economies. We need to brace ourselves for a major resurgence of the "that money would be better spent here on Earth" lobby.
IMHO, after nearly fifty years of space travel, it'll be a waste of our time to stoop to responding with a defense of space exploration in general, as though the very principle itself were somehow suspect. After all this time, if someone really believes that space exploration contributes nothing to their lives or to the national economy, then tell them to give it back. It's not possible to go back in time and undo their past use of the various space spinoff technologies, but it's not unethical to suggest someone stop using space-related technologies in the future. People can move inland to places where they don't need weather satellites to track hurricanes. They can close down their business' websites and stop watching non-local television broadcasts. They can stop making long distance phone calls and return all their e-mails. They can throw away their GPS. The US military is all-volunteer these days, so they can resign, desert their units and scamper home from battlefields and other locations where satellite reconnaisance is required. Advice on how to do it is available from the monasteries and any number of other ascetics.
Tell them to give it back. Vote with their feet - there are people to help them.
"We go big, or we don't go." - GCNRevenger
Offline
CM, point of clarification... what has Human Space Exploration done for Joe Six-Pack lately?
We can all agree that space exploration has benefits, but the argument is hollow when it comes to putting boots up there. Why? What is the benefit?
Space advocates bend over backwards trying to justify the extradoniary cost of sending humans into space. All of the benefits of space investment are largely the result of not sending people into space, or could have been done without sending people into space (for a fraction of the cost).
Human space exploration gave us the Shuttle, the ISS, a couple of national tragedies. For what? Billions and billions, a limping shuttle, and an aborted space station that politicans use for "international" good will (and Russians for a make works space program).
Rally the troops, but space advocates (human-space advocates) need to arm their people with something better than Tang and teflon. [shrug]
Offline
A more interesting question is whether mars will have hurricanes.
A terraformed mars would have an average temperature less than the earth's also from the examples I have seen there would not be any seas at the equator, so it's doubtful.
Offline
Yes, there’s the rub, Clark.
Space exploration in general contributes too much to let it lapse, but NASA’s manned space exploration program has accomplished nothing in the last decade. NASA has held up the space shuttle/space station system as it’s only manned space exploration for so long that people have begun to equate the two. Space shuttle = manned space exploration; and space shuttle = failed program; therefore, manned space exploration = failed program. Thanks to NASA’s pioneering efforts, no true defense of manned space exploration can begin without contradicting that. That’s a major damper on any defense, and Tang alone can’t fix that. The best economic model for space exploration at this point is research & development, and it’s commonly known that only a fraction of R&D programs ever actually succeed. Tang succeeded, “manned space exploration” clearly hasn’t. That’s the end of the story if you believe shuttle = manned space. If someone believes that, then comparing the two without first making damn sure that you’ve distanced yourself from the space shuttle is like comparing apples and orange drink.
Dook, I think that “New Orleans analogs” will probably be abundant on Mars. Oh, Mars has no combination of oceans and high winds to speak of, but there are other hazards and the best lure on the planet to go park a colony on top of them – water. I see it again and again in discussions about Mars: “Follow the water.” Unfortunately, all of the truly unstable terrain we’re familiar with on Mars is potentially associated with water or water weathered formations. Valles Marineris may have formed in a catastropic flood. Water in the polar caps is associated with deposits of potentially unstable carbon dioxide ice that could sublime away and subside or even erupt over time. Water ice deposits in craters can subside and are located under huge cliffs of fractured rock. Salt crusts cover powdery dust deposits that can trap vehicles and possibly even astronauts. Getting water out of the deposits where it has been confirmed can be dangerous indeed.
Following the water is the only economically viable way to settle Mars. It could also get us killed.
"We go big, or we don't go." - GCNRevenger
Offline
Space exploration in general contributes too much to let it lapse, but NASA’s manned space exploration program has accomplished nothing in the last decade. NASA has held up the space shuttle/space station system as it’s only manned space exploration for so long that people have begun to equate the two. Space shuttle = manned space exploration; and space shuttle = failed program; therefore, manned space exploration = failed program. Thanks to NASA’s pioneering efforts, no true defense of manned space exploration can begin without contradicting that. That’s a major damper on any defense, and Tang alone can’t fix that. The best economic model for space exploration at this point is research & development, and it’s commonly known that only a fraction of R&D programs ever actually succeed. Tang succeeded, “manned space exploration” clearly hasn’t. That’s the end of the story if you believe shuttle = manned space. If someone believes that, then comparing the two without first making damn sure that you’ve distanced yourself from the space shuttle is like comparing apples and orange drink.
Let me take it a step further- what has manned space exploration given society at all?
What are the direct and tangible benefits that we derive from investing in manned exploration? In the last 40 years, including the glory days of Apollo, we have gained little at more cost by pursuing manned exploration.
Sure, we can always fall back on the 'feel good' benefits, but those very same benefits can be obtained elsewhere (say for instance, curing cancer). Apollo, and manned exploration in general, are modern day "Monument" buildings that society undertakes to try and demonstrate and reflect their power. The Roman roads and aqueducts, the Pyramids, the Great Wall, The Hover Damn- these are giant under takings that demonstrate power. It is tribute to ourselves.
Yet manned exploration isn't inherently anymore special than any other great Monument undertaking we might puruse. And there are many others that will have a larger and more direct benefit to society as a whole.
Of course, the oft cited rationale, the last defense as it were, is this far off and distant idea of one day colonizing the stars (or around these parts, Mars). Well, what is the benefit? How does that improve the lives of the here and now?
Even if you can answer these kinds of questions, you still have to explain why we need to do it all in a few years or decades versus going slowly over multiple generations, for hundreds of years.
I personally believe that the raw energy of space advocates is better spent in weaving the desire for the expansion into space into the very fabric of society at large. Too many spin their wheels trying to get their pet destination or particular dream accepted as legitimate. It is the wrong approach, IMHO.
It would be better to simply push for a continued and sustained development and exploration of space. Get it to the point where it isn't even a question of whether or not, but just a question of "when and how".
Of course this means that the space advocates of today have to put aside their driving impulse to get everything done in as short as time as possible and take the longer view. [shrug]
A Mars colony in a hundred years, not ten... but a Mars colony all the same.
Offline
Let me take it a step further- what has manned space exploration given society at all?
What are the direct and tangible benefits that we derive from investing in manned exploration? In the last 40 years, including the glory days of Apollo, we have gained little at more cost by pursuing manned exploration.
I would say that you are correct in that most items of discovery would have been achieved in time. Many items are the direct push of already ongoing research in most cases. Even robotic probes show no return on investment.
The satelites in orbit though they could be of great importance are poorly resourced and have only indirected roles for the specific data to which they are designed to collect.
Offline
Oh No im agreeing with clark...(sound of several thuds as head bangs of desk repeatedly)
I would be a bit hesitant about not refering to the feel good factor. The manned space race has been used as a symbol of national pride and a physical object for people to feel good about. Only recently the president of Russia had to disapoint his people with we have more important things to spend our money on than space missions. Still feel good and patriotism are not tangible features but they do have power for the common person.
If we though really want the common person to feel involved in manned space then we have to give him or her the feeling that they and more importantly there children will get jobs and benefits from space. As an example if we go to a hydrogen economy and we need a lot of platinum and find it easier to gain from the Moon than elsewhere this will be a major step. If that person sees there car with a Moon derived platinum catalyst and there son or daughter getting well paid for there shift in either support of or direct work in space industries.
Manned spaceflight is seen as an elite profession you have to be the creme de la creme and well connected too to ever get a chance to be an astronaut. This paradigm has to change we have to make everyone believe that they have a chance if they work hard. This can only happen if there is more manned spaceflights not less.
So we are in classic dammed if you do or dammed if you dont scenario. There will not be a general public support for spaceflight beyond the gestures we are doing until we have something to engage all the public in space and no support to have a lot of missions. We will not be able to engage all the public till we have a lot more people flying on these missions and a feeling that everyone can be a part (and get paid).
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Pages: 1