A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

clark · 2004-11-23 11:13:29

What would you say to a leader who got up on the soap box and said, "we're sending exploration teams to Antartica to pave the way for eventual settlement of the Last Continent, our ultimate objective."?

You might not, but most would say the leader was daft. More so if he claimed it was a way to diffuse tension here and abroad by providing another realm for competing ideas to flourish.

MarsDirect missions then become like the frogmen who scout the terrain before the Marines hit the beaches in mass numbers. With LSTs and troop transports and Liberty ships filled with cargo stretching to the horizon.

It will still take a hundred years. Some things can't be changed.

BWhite · 2004-11-23 11:15:40

What would you say to a leader who got up on the soap box and said, "we're sending exploration teams to Antartica to pave the way for eventual settlement of the Last Continent, our ultimate objective."?
You might not, but most would say the leader was daft. More so if he claimed it was a way to diffuse tension here and abroad by providing another realm for competing ideas to flourish.

One problem. Antarctica is already "owned" by New Zealand and Australia.

clark · 2004-11-23 11:16:54

One problem. The heavens are "owned" by everybody.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-23 11:19:12

Possession is 9/10's of the law, they say... :;):

clark · 2004-11-23 11:22:35

Someone should have told those 6 people before they made a stink about the deer stand...

BWhite · 2004-11-23 11:25:48

One problem. The heavens are "owned" by everybody.

which also means nobody. Therefore, demographics is destiny. Especially if we continue to value 1 person = 1 vote.

Whoever gets out there first and makes babies will be in the best position for their grandchildren to write the laws concerning space property rights. Writing the rules for space property rights will be the "Great Game" of the late 21st and early 22nd centuries.

BWhite · 2004-11-23 11:29:06

America has the lead right now in wealth and technology. Population? India & China are educating engineers in far greater numbers than we are.

If we wait 100 years, there is another children's story:

"The Tortoise and the Hare"

clark · 2004-11-23 11:30:06

Let me play the cattepillar in your buttermilk...

Let's buy into your premise. What does getting there first really mean when there are very real constraints on how quickly you can grow the population? It's going to cost a lot time and resources and energy to keep kids alive in space.

Native American's had a decisive population advantage when colonists first arrived. Fat lot of good it did them.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-23 11:32:58

Native American's had a decisive population advantage when colonists first arrived. Fat lot of good it did them.

Disunity and smallpox did them in, the comparison doesn't really hold up.

clark · 2004-11-23 11:34:27

Neither do any of the other comparisons made when we look in detail. It's just a generalized concept to get a point across. Don't quibble.

BWhite · 2004-11-23 11:35:46

Let me play the cattepillar in your buttermilk...
Let's buy into your premise. What does getting there first really mean when there are very real constraints on how quickly you can grow the population? It's going to cost a lot time and resources and energy to keep kids alive in space.
Native American's had a decisive population advantage when colonists first arrived. Fat lot of good it did them.

Jamestown failed. Yup. No guarantees. (Oops, meant Roanoke)

FINITE to fail, but infinite to venture.
For the one ship that struts the shore
Many’s the gallant, overwhelmed creature
Nodding in navies nevermore.

Emily Dickinson? I got me some heavy artillery here.

= = =

We pays our money and makes our choice. Settle Mars and risk failure or stay home and watch Simpsons re-runs in idleness and comfort.

clark · 2004-11-23 11:44:02

MUCH madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
’T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails.
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.

Emily. Nuts I say.

clark · 2004-11-23 13:58:55

Let me know if I lose. It's been nice talking to you.

See you on Mars.

Josh Cryer · 2004-11-23 14:14:31

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-23 14:20:06

???

clark · 2004-11-27 13:05:43

Back from the future again. Needed to check on something.

I still win.

Josh Cryer · 2004-11-28 16:16:05

Are you sure the setting on your time machine didn't have "dimention: alternate" set?

clark · 2004-11-29 07:56:32

More like, 'dimentia'... but I regress...

You don't appear to read.

Never fear though, I am here to rub this all in your face.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.htm … Highlights of the Final FY05 Spending Bills (NASA Excerpt)

NASA is funded at $16.2 billion, $822 million above last year and $44 million below the request. The agreement give NASA almost total funding flexibility, but requires NASA to report to the Congress within 60 days on how they will adjust program values to cover increased costs associated with the Hubble servicing/repair mission and shuttle return-to-flight activities. This flexibility is unprecedented and gives the Administrator broad latitude to implement the President’s vision for Space within the funds provided in the bill."

And in an op-ed in NYTimes...

NASAs]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/29/opinion/29mon2.html?oref=login]NASA's Budgetary Gift Horse

he space program fared remarkably well in the huge appropriations bill just approved by Congress. NASA got a hefty $16.2 billion budget for fiscal year 2005, only a tiny bit shy of what the administration had requested, and it was given unusual authority to shift money from one program to another.
The agency clearly scored a budgetary coup in a year when most federal programs were ratcheted back to make room for the costly war in Iraq and to alleviate huge deficits. Yet there is a potential for mischief in this generally ample budget. NASA will have to absorb some $1.4 billion in costs that were not anticipated when its original request was submitted. That could force the agency to make some agonizing choices that will affect the future of the manned space program and of space science.
The unanticipated costs that NASA must absorb include $291 million for a servicing mission to save the Hubble Space Telescope, NASA's most important scientific instrument, from premature death; $762 million in cost overruns for returning the stricken space shuttle fleet to service; perhaps $200 million in earmarked funds to support pet projects of members of Congress; and $130 million to meet a percentage reduction demanded of all agencies to stay within Congressional funding limits.
Congress insisted that the Hubble servicing mission and some other programs receive specified amounts, but for the most part it granted NASA unprecedented authority to move funds about from one account to another to stitch together a viable program within the available resources.
That puts a special burden on NASA to make wise choices. In most years, there has been a budgetary wall between the manned space program and unmanned scientific programs, thus providing some protection for science when the inevitable cost overruns hit the more costly manned flight programs. Now NASA will have great freedom to pillage its scientific accounts to pay for the shuttle or space station or the president's Moon-Mars exploration program, or it can raid one manned program to help pay for another, all subject to final approval by Congress.
Space officials have reportedly told Congressional committees they can find most of the needed money by slicing $100 million or more from this program or that until the desired cuts are reached. Our feeling is that NASA should look very hard at terminating its two costliest programs, the International Space Station, now orbiting in a partially built state overhead, and the shuttle fleet that is being resuscitated to carry parts and astronauts up to the station. Those two programs eat up much of the NASA budget for little real gain.
The main reason for completing the station, aside from a stubborn desire to finish something once started, is concern that other nations collaborating on the station would resent being abandoned. Yet the same pressures that have led many Americans to consider the station a white elephant may also be at work abroad. It may be possible to persuade our international partners to accept some losses on the station in return for a truly important role in more visionary space exploration.
The one thing that has become apparent since President Bush proposed putting astronauts on the Moon and Mars is that no such plan can gain momentum until the station-shuttle complex is shut down.

Also in Congressional news is a call for a detailed assesment on the HLV issue- how will it be handled.

Looks to me that ISS will be redesigned, where the Shuttle only needs to make a few more token launches. After that, NASA is free to shift Shuttle and ISS funds to speed up CEV and Prometheus (the latter being developed by DOE).

The spiral development plan is being used to allow for incorporation of continuing improvments in technology- white papering capabilities means that only developed technologies are used by a certain date- this means a lot of developments are obsolete before they are finally produced.

clark · 2004-11-29 08:18:02

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-04 … Scientists Call For Global Cooperation In Space Programme

Scientists from leading space nations closed a conference on moon exploration here last Friday with a call for global cooperation to achieve a permanent human lunar base by 2024.
The Udaipur Declaration said the moon must be used for the benefit of mankind and recommended short-term steps, such as communication infrastructure for navigation and a Lunar Internet, to be taken up with space agencies.
"It laid the roadmap for future explorations with a step-wise approach starting with joint scientific analysis of the data from current and previous lunar missions," said Bernard Foing, executive director of the International Lunar Working Group, a public forum sponsored by the world's space agencies.
Future lunar missions are currently planned by the United States, Europe, China, Japan and India.

Gee, America intends to set a base on the Moon between 2015-2020 (where did we hear that? :laugh: )

Now this?

BWhite · 2004-11-29 08:51:13

The CEV RFP (due in January) will speak volumes about whether the "Vision" is really about going somewhere or whether is just pretending to go somewhere as an excuse to sell lots of rope.

= = =

WAIT A MINUTE!

The NY Times is calling for termination of ISS & STS?

Now that is news.

The main reason for completing the station, aside from a stubborn desire to finish something once started, is concern that other nations collaborating on the station would resent being abandoned. Yet the same pressures that have led many Americans to consider the station a white elephant may also be at work abroad. It may be possible to persuade our international partners to accept some losses on the station in return for a truly important role in more visionary space exploration.

This is what I called for last Spring. Cancel STS outright and hand ISS to the EU/RSA and mollify our ISS partners by bringing them along to the Moon.

Edited By BWhite on 1101741025

Josh Cryer · 2004-11-29 18:20:25

It's common sense to do that! Sending the Shuttle up only to complete a project that has been overspent by billions (which has, in my opinion, little non-commercial value at this point in time) is just a waste.

But I absolutely agree with you Bill. The real indication of how well this plan seeks Mars would be the CEV report.

John Creighton · 2004-11-29 19:06:32

It's common sense to do that! Sending the Shuttle up only to complete a project that has been overspent by billions (which has, in my opinion, little non-commercial value at this point in time) is just a waste.
But I absolutely agree with you Bill. The real indication of how well this plan seeks Mars would be the CEV report.

I think people must of learned a lot building the ISS I just think the money could be better spent. I look at ISS and I look at sky lab, I see the price difference and I ask why isn’t sky lab good enough? Do you really need a space station much bigger then can be lifted by one rocket. I also don’t like the fact that it is immobile. I would of preferred to see one or two transhabs bound together with an arckjet thruster for station keeping then ISS.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-29 20:42:37

[This thread is really Josh's, Clark's, Bill's, and CC's, I know, but if I may just toss in two cents worth(?):- ... ]

It's one thing to "mollify" various space agencies by giving them a "truly important role" in future projects, it may be another thing entirely to persuade them to stump up the cash to make a "truly important" financial contribution!
And there's always the usual 'fly in the ointment' - endless committee meetings with representatives of governments who are all paddling their own canoes, usually in different directions.

I don't know what the best way forward might be, though I'm inclined to agree with Bill and Josh, in principle. Why throw good money after bad?
But trying to cobble together some kind of United Nations of Space Exploration will probably meet the same intractable problems which make today's U.N. the lame duck shambles of an organisation it is.

It's always going to be easier to sell a space program to tax payers if you say the cost will be shared among several countries to ease the pain. But, in the end, I think one country, with one plan, and with one administrative structure to carry it out, will be able to achieve its objective much more cheaply in the long run.

I'm keen to get out of the rope retailing business, too! :bars:

BWhite · 2004-11-29 21:46:53

[This thread is really Josh's, Clark's, Bill's, and CC's, I know, but if I may just toss in two cents worth(?):- ... ]

Shaun, have I ever refrained from jumping into someone else's thread? :;):

IMHO no one owns anything here at NewMars. We are all like, well, perfect communists. . .

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-30 06:46:33

IMHO no one owns anything here at NewMars. We are all like, well, perfect communists. . .

Ooooh, that stings.

I'm jumpin' back in you bunch'a commies!

But trying to cobble together some kind of United Nations of Space Exploration will probably meet the same intractable problems which make today's U.N. the lame duck shambles of an organisation it is.

Quite right. I'm of the opinion that discussions of international versus single-nation space missions generally overlook an important factor. Are we talking about others helping us do what we want or helping others do what they want?

Did I mention I'm a selfish American imperialist? Anyway, if we want to go to Mars, and the Russians (for example) want to go with us and are willing to help then by all means I welcome them aboard. But if another nation wants to float around in LEO in a big pimped-out space station and asks for our help I'm inclined to wish them luck and decline. Snickering behind their backs.

International partners in a mission that serves our interests and desires, I give a resounding yes. International cooperation in a project that delays or replaces our interests and desires? Bugger off.

Of course there's some give and take between the two, which makes it likely that any long-term agreement for general space cooperation is doomed to accomplish half as much for four times the cost. We'd be much better served by deciding what we want and pursuing it, welcoming partners when they offer but not altering our own objectives for the sole purpose of attracting them.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-11-23 11:13:29

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#177 2004-11-23 11:15:40

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#178 2004-11-23 11:16:54

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#179 2004-11-23 11:19:12

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#180 2004-11-23 11:22:35

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#181 2004-11-23 11:25:48

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#182 2004-11-23 11:29:06

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#183 2004-11-23 11:30:06

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#184 2004-11-23 11:32:58

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#185 2004-11-23 11:34:27

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#186 2004-11-23 11:35:46

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#187 2004-11-23 11:44:02

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#188 2004-11-23 13:58:55

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#189 2004-11-23 14:14:31

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#190 2004-11-23 14:20:06

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#191 2004-11-27 13:05:43

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#192 2004-11-28 16:16:05

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#193 2004-11-29 07:56:32

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#194 2004-11-29 08:18:02

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#195 2004-11-29 08:51:13

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#196 2004-11-29 18:20:25

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#197 2004-11-29 19:06:32

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#198 2004-11-29 20:42:37

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#199 2004-11-29 21:46:53

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#200 2004-11-30 06:46:33

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

Board footer