A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

clark · 2004-11-30 07:18:13

We are all like, well, perfect communists. . .

Power to the people! And, oh, that fascist.

This thread is just killing time till I win another bet. Just as long as no one tries to sell us anything, I think whatever tangent is pursued is just fine.

So, a redesigned ISS would leave some parts out, right? :hm:

Bigelow is building his own private space stations... and if you listen carefully, while he wants space tourism, he is gearing up business for business and government...

What's a government to do with a piece of abandoned ISS hardware in a post-Bigelow space station universe? I can draw a road map, but I think you all may get the idea.

clark · 2004-11-30 08:11:24

Let me put another nail in the coffin Josh...

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55409main_26%20TS.pdf]NASA PDF Transportation theme (CEV development)

Fun reading, but I especially liked this part:

By 2010, identify and develop concepts and requirements that could support safe, affordable, and effective transportation and life support for human crews travelling from the Earth to the vicinity or the surface of Mars

That is on page 3, listed under a performance measure for VSE and CEV design and development.

Josh Cryer · 2004-11-30 08:15:48

By 2010? So we won't have a concrete date until 2010? :;):

BWhite · 2004-11-30 09:10:47

Let me put another nail in the coffin Josh...
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55409main_26%20TS.pdf]NASA PDF Transportation theme (CEV development)
Fun reading, but I especially liked this part:
By 2010, identify and develop concepts and requirements that could support safe, affordable, and effective transportation and life support for human crews travelling from the Earth to the vicinity or the surface of Mars
That is on page 3, listed under a performance measure for VSE and CEV design and development.

Yup. In 2010, Paul Spudis will announcement concepts and requirements to prove we need another 75 years of study.

= = =

Fortunately, the recent budget deal requires that NASA identify CEV concepts and requirements by early Spring 2005 and not 2010 along with a report on the need for heavy lift.

clark · 2004-11-30 09:28:14

You are soooo cynical Bill. All of you.

You're getting what you want, aren't you?

How quickly everyone forgets that Mars as a destination was a joke. Returning to the Moon? Fat chance.

Not 4 years ago I started spouting off in earnest, and it seemed little more than the ravingings of a lunatic (of course, not much has changed on that count!).

Nuclear power propulsion? Right, pipe dream that the eco warrior tree huggers would see over their dead bodies.

Moon bases? Sure clark, pass what you got.

A president declaring a space vision that places human exploration at the forefront- an increased budget for NASA- all of this has been the request of the space community for decades. You have it, yet you doubt.

Retiring the Shuttle, finding an endgame strategy for ISS- all of which leads to HLLV development of some sort.

If you want to know whats going on is that a trip to Mars takes too long right now. I'm not talking the actual trip, I'm talking about preparing for it.

Maybe on paper Mars Direct can happen in 10 years, but a lot can happein in ten years, and NASA (the entity that is supposed to make Mars Direct work) is unlikely to achieve that timeline.

In order to get to Mars, it will take two decades. 20 years is to long a time frame to set on any goal, at least for space, and one that requires consistent long term funding.

So what do we do?

You aim for half way to give people something to latch onto. 10 years, we're pushing it, but people will follow along, and then the day will come to go to Mars, and we will be able to do it, and we will have the support of people for it.

Paul Spudis is entitiled to his opinion, but look at the architecture proposals- the moon is a side show where they argue over a handful, or a handful plus number of lunar landings. NASA is already gearing up for MArs. That's the WHOLE point of going to the Moon. Not as the final destination, but as a springboard.

Arrrgggh! :rant: :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-11-30 09:59:19

Option A clark you are correct. But will NASA allow civilians to go, or will this be von Braunian, to use Tumlinson's categories?

Option B VSE and CEV are "smoke and mirrors" to distract us from the gutting of NASA. The VSE (as you quoted) calls for 2010 as the deadline to identify "concepts & requirements" for CEV. Congress wants the CEV details sooner than that just to make sure its not all smoke and mirrors.

Perhaps, in option B, we learn that the VSE really is not feasible doing things the NASA Boeing/Lockmart way. The Three Stooges way to quote General Pete Worden.

Pete Aldridge gets a law passed that CEV must fly on Delta IV so the Air Force can buy in bulk. CEV is economonically obsolete before it even flies once.

Why should we believe the VSE is real? After all this is the same guy who said Saddam had WMD. ;-)

So, we hope for Option C.

NASA becomes irrelevant. Sean O'Keefe becomes irrelevant. The VSE becomes irrelevant. Not good, not bad, irrelevant.

Sir Richard Branson lights his billboards to guide the first CEV landing, and offers the very first NASA crew to return to the Moon hot showers and free HBO movies at his lunar hotel.

In all three options, the VSE is good because going beyond LEO becomes acceptable. No more Dana Rohrbacher making it illegal to develop Transhab.

What remains an open question is whether NASA and Sean O'Keefe (as proxy for GWB) will truly allow the private sector to travel to LEO and the Moon for tourism and other private purposes. Because, if Falcon V flies successfully, followed by Falcon X, this NASA plan will be trumped by the private sector before it actually does anything at all.

Which may be the real hidden benefit in disguise for the entire VSE.

Edited By BWhite on 1101830464

clark · 2004-11-30 10:04:55

I like Option A the best. The part where I am right.

Of course, Option A does not preclude Option C, but Option C is a bit far fetched.

Private commercial interests will not lead the way, they will follow.

All NASA is doing is getting out of LEO a step ahead of the private concerns, and largely, if they didn't, they would become irrelevant.

Going from LEO to the Moon for private tourism is huge, it will not happen before NASA and other governments go, and go farther.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-30 14:51:18

So, a redesigned ISS would leave some parts out, right? :hm:
Bigelow is building his own private space stations... and if you listen carefully, while he wants space tourism, he is gearing up business for business and government...
What's a government to do with a piece of abandoned ISS hardware in a post-Bigelow space station universe? I can draw a road map, but I think you all may get the idea.

Give the spare parts to the bigelow hotel chain in exchange for putting them up there for him..

Josh Cryer · 2004-11-30 22:15:58

Look at the icon I've been using since 2003, clark. I want you to be right, but I don't want you to be slightly right, I want to to be absolutely right, I don't want a pork job and talking heads, I want action. I'll be some 50 years old, clark. Almost 60, actually.

That's not what I want when I know it can be realized sooner.

clark · 2004-12-01 07:41:01

Pork job and talking heads? Why, because Bill mentions selling rope and a disenfranchised retired general who laughs at an alternative development and procurement strategy?

You know what sprial development is? It's the friggin X series of aerospace development that got us here today back in the 50's and 60's.

Build a little, test a little. That's what the X series was, and that is precisely what "spiral" development is. Don't be a slave to words and language.

If you want action though, you need to articulate a reason to rush to Mars, other than your own personal desire. I've mentioned this quite a few times, but I have yet to see any rationale reason that explains the neccessity to put humans on Mars in 10 years versus 20 or 30 years. WHy ten instead of 20? Why 10 instead of 30?

Most can agree that going to Mars with people on board is worthwhile, but what the advocates fail at is explaining why it has to happen now, this minute, in a rush.

Besides, if we rush to Mars, just for the sake of it, we will have to wait longer to go further, or to do more- just like what happened with Apollo. Learn from history or you're doomed to...

Josh Cryer · 2004-12-01 08:32:56

I think it's unfair to totally dismiss all the reasons for Mars.

1) It costs less to send a pound of supplies to Mars than it does the moon, just takes a wee bit longer.

2) Mars has all the major elements one would need to survive there without needing them shipped in (the moon would need water shipped in, at the bare minimum).

3) A moon base won't be a moon colony until you have the tech to put a colony anywhere in the inner solar system (anywhere before Jupiter). A Mars base could be made into a Mars colony with only the inclusion of agricultural materials (ie, CELSS). In other words, it's not just easier to build a base on Mars, it's far easier to build a largely self-sustainable base on Mars. One that can last for awhile without requring supplies and such

4) As far as makin' rockets go, build a little, test a little, has been done. We know how to get off this rock of ours, and the environment of Mars can be approxomated much better on Earth than the environment of the moon. So if you're going to build a little, test a little, you better do it where you'll get the best bang for the buck.

5) There is no "rush to Mars" mentality, specifically. There's merely a "let's not rush to the moon, but chose a much more logical and rewarding target" mentality. Moon, been there, done that. Mars offers far more than the moon. Without a doubt it does.

6) The technology to "go places" has existed for many years, there's nothing huge to be learned, as far as Mars is concerned anyway. Why? Because we know more about Mars' environment better than any other planet in the solar system except for Earth's. We know with exercise we can exist fine in zero G, and this stands to reason in low G, too. We know that Mars gets so and so much sunlight,and that it has a 24 hour day/night cycle. That Mars has ample water, and that we can derive chemicals needed to get back straight from the atmosphere (try that on the moon, where scrapping up regolith is necessary for 100% of all resource gathering).

So, using that technology, especially SDV and other similar approaches that Bill White has advocated, would get us to Mars.

7) China.

clark · 2004-12-01 08:54:17

1) It costs less to send a pound of supplies to Mars than it does the moon, just takes a wee bit longer.

We're not that good at sending things to Mars quite yet. The distance involved increases costs due to all the variables involved with interplanetary travel. Costs for humans increase as well due to time constraints which are far longer than missions to the Moon. Stalemate.

Until we have a greater capability in dealing with long term duration missions, and greater experience in success on Earth-Mars launches, Mars is not better than the Moon.

) Mars has all the major elements one would need to survive there without needing them shipped in (the moon would need water shipped in, at the bare minimum).

The moon has water, just like Mars. What you neglect though is that both Mars and the Moon will require supplies from Earth- Mars will take longer to receive those supplies. It's not basic consumables that is the problem- it's the high end technology and parts that keep people alive in space. Neither the Moon nor Mars will have the capability to create these things for a very long time- being near Earth is a plus in this regard. Being on Mars, which has an optimum trajectory window every two years is a huge negative (on less than optimum, it costs more to ship things to Mars)

3) A moon base won't be a moon colony until you have the tech to put a colony anywhere in the inner solar system (anywhere before Jupiter). A Mars base could be made into a Mars colony with only the inclusion of agricultural materials (ie, CELSS). In other words, it's not just easier to build a base on Mars, it's far easier to build a largely self-sustainable base on Mars. One that can last for awhile without requring supplies and such

Both are difficult. We have no experience building colonies on any other planetary body, let alone building bases. It makes more sense to practice near Earth where we can safely return in case of a major disaster. On Mars, if we went there first to cut our teeth, we would end up with quite a few failed Ranoke's.

4) As far as makin' rockets go, build a little, test a little, has been done. We know how to get off this rock of ours, and the environment of Mars can be approxomated much better on Earth than the environment of the moon. So if you're going to build a little, test a little, you better do it where you'll get the best bang for the buck.

CEV is not rockets dude. CEV is interplanetary travel. It is long duration missions. It is nuclear propulsion. CEV is about "getting" there, not about learning to live there.

The Moon is a test bed for learning how to live anywhere, and how to live along the way.

5) There is no "rush to Mars" mentality, specifically. There's merely a "let's not rush to the moon, but chose a much more logical and rewarding target" mentality. Moon, been there, done that. Mars offers far more than the moon. Without a doubt it does.

Been there, done that? You been? You done that? LAst I checked, a dozen guys, now very old, set down on the moon, hit a few golf balls, took some snap shots, and brought home a pitiful amount of moon rock with them after a 24 hour stay.

You call that "been there, done that"?!

We didn't do anything but smile for a camera to send the folks back home. Nothing more than the achievment of landing on the Moon was achieved. Glory of winning a race, but no glory in the accomplishment.

If we had stuck with Apollo, 30 years ago, we would have done exactly what we will be doing now with CEV and VSE. We wouldn't have rushed off to Mars. We are picking up right where we left off because it is the most sane and sensible way to go.

The moon offers a wealth of opportunity for more people on Earth than Mars ever will. We can build telescopes there, and we can mine it for LEO and GEO use or L1 support. We can use it as a base for Solar Power Sats that can power Earth. Mars offers nothing in comparison other than itself.

) The technology to "go places" has existed for many years, there's nothing huge to be learned, as far as Mars is concerned anyway. Why? Because we know more about Mars' environment better than any other planet in the solar system except for Earth's. We know with exercise we can exist fine in zero G, and this stands to reason in low G, too. We know that Mars gets so and so much sunlight,and that it has a 24 hour day/night cycle. That Mars has ample water, and that we can derive chemicals needed to get back straight from the atmosphere (try that on the moon, where scrapping up regolith is necessary for 100% of all resource gathering).

You have to scrape dirt on Mars too. You have to convert thin atmosphere into useable substances where there is less light to power things. Mars has problems Josh. It ain't rosy.

Look, getting to Mars will take time, and it will take lessons learned from living on Moon to get there. MAybe living on Mars will be easier- but getting there isn't. We need to be able to overcome the hurdles on the Moon so we are prepared for the length of journies required to go to Mars or beyond.

That's the point.

7) China.

Your mom. :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2004-12-01 09:09:12

Hehe, I'll respond later clark, gotta run (literally, I run two miles a day).

clark · 2004-12-07 14:49:22

So do I win, or what?.

Josh Cryer · 2004-12-07 17:08:01

Only if you consider me being lazy you winning.

clark · 2004-12-08 15:01:25

I think we're all winners on that count.

BWhite · 2005-01-11 12:03:55

Update on Jimo and http://www.space.com/spacenews/business … html]other things:

But Project Prometheus, the nuclear power and propulsion program long a favorite of O'Keefe's would remain fully funded at around $430 million even though its flagship mission, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, is being eyed for cancellation. NASA recently renamed the mission Prometheus 1 and announced that a search for less daunting initial demonstrations of the nuclear power and propulsion systems NASA needs is underway. NASA spokesman Michael Braukus said the analysis of alternatives won't be completed until April 15.

clark, what does your one-eyed hobo eye concerning JIMO cancellation?

clark · 2005-01-11 12:43:12

LOL!

What isn't said is said very loudly...

Crystal ball, crystal ball,
tell me what you see,
When winds do storm, and morning fades,
show the future unto me!

It's about time we reasses the architecture of the ISS and completing by 2010, no?

Looks like we are already cutting out any extraneous improvements to the Shuttle (not related to saftey).

So fewer launches, fewer construction bills in space, leads to some savings in the future- which gives NASA the budgetary boost it will need since no more big bucks are on the horizon.

Renaming JIMO dosen't mean cancellation- it means they want a sure fire success so they don't lose funding on the big ticket science mission. Hmmm, nuclear powered Lunar Mission sounds like a good start... two fer one since Lunar mission was cut in the budget any way.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-11-30 07:18:13

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#202 2004-11-30 08:11:24

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#203 2004-11-30 08:15:48

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#204 2004-11-30 09:10:47

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#205 2004-11-30 09:28:14

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#206 2004-11-30 09:59:19

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#207 2004-11-30 10:04:55

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#208 2004-11-30 14:51:18

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#209 2004-11-30 22:15:58

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#210 2004-12-01 07:41:01

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#211 2004-12-01 08:32:56

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#212 2004-12-01 08:54:17

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#213 2004-12-01 09:09:12

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#214 2004-12-07 14:49:22

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#215 2004-12-07 17:08:01

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#216 2004-12-08 15:01:25

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#217 2005-01-11 12:03:55

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

#218 2005-01-11 12:43:12

Re: A bet - Adrian and Josh - discussion

Board footer