Looks like NASA and the ISS have another problem looming:
A need for 'demanning' due to funding problems, both Russian
and US, may result in the ISS being unmanned for a year at a
time.

Although Mir was able to survive demanning, I wonder if the ISS
would be able to considering the need for almost constant main-
tenance?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/840268.asp?cp1=1

:rolleyes:

ISS is probably the worst thing to happen to the US space market. Too much money was spent on that damn thing, and we get so little science out of it. The real science and commercial applications come from unmanned spacecraft. It's just too expensive to make spacecraft suitable for people to survive in.

It's expensive, yes. However, if this annoying pack of monkeys we call humanity could stop wasting money on wars and advertising, we could easily afford to build massive colonies in space, self-sufficient with acres and acres of plant life, covered in solar panels, et cetera...

Originally posted by Adam
It's expensive, yes. However, if this annoying pack of monkeys we call humanity could stop wasting money on wars and advertising, we could easily afford to build massive colonies in space, self-sufficient with acres and acres of plant life, covered in solar panels, et cetera...

First off, let's remember that technologies developed from war are what allowed us to get into space in the first place.

Second, I don't think there is enough desire for us to get into space and start colonizing. IIRC, it took 1% of the GDP for the US to put a person on the moon. Colonizing space is much more difficult, and thus will probably be more expensive. People don't want to pay for something that doesn't get us much in return.

Most of the manned space flights have been political, and we have had comparitively little science in return. On the other hand, unmanned spacecraft have returned a bunch of scientific data that has improved our knowledge of the universe.

The novel Time by Stephen Baxter presents a rather nifty solution for cheap movement into space for our species. Not a bad story either. You might like to have a look at it.

You want to give me a quick summary of it?

Good points empennage. Welcome to Sciforums.
But if I'm not mistaken, quite a bit of 'science' was
done aboard Mir.

Come to think of it, I don't remember Noah having
much in the way of public support either, Adam.
:cool:

Originally posted by empennage
You want to give me a quick summary of it?

The idea went something like:
- A one-shot launch using 40-year-old shuttle engines, no need to worry about a return to Earth.
- Atop the launcher, a mainly automated facility to latch onto a NEO and mine water and launch it back to Earth orbit.
- Water in orbit gives water and fuel.
- Facility on asteroid starts harvesting ore as well, launching that back to Earth orbit.
- Material already in orbit means less to lift up from Earth.

In the novel this is done by a private company, avoiding the ridiculous overheads of the NASA bureaucracy. By the way, most of the cost of USA space launches comes from unnecessary crap like stripping a shuttle down to component parts bewteen launches, and the endless committees, and the thousands of committee-sitters who need to be paid...

Anyway, one of the ways they saved money in the novel was by buying old, trusted technology, no development costs at all.

Have you noticed that Russia can put ten loads into orbit for the cost of one NASA load? There's a reason for that. It's the same reason Australia is getting into a joint space programme with Russia. The USA blows so much money on bureaucratic nonsense...

Originally posted by Adam
The USA blows so much money on bureaucratic nonsense...

Agreed.

IMHO, a lot of the money that they blow on bureaucratic nonsense is because of the manned space programs. If all that money went into unmanned launches, there would probably be 10 times the launches. Afterall, it is rare for one unmanned spacecraft to cost anywhere near $1 billion. Most are less than $100 million, and some are in the $10-30 million range.

Agreed, 100%

Unmanned launches are a must. Manned launches are a waste, until we get a space industry turning a profit from materials in the asteroids or such.

And if NASA could launch ten unmanned missions for the cost of one manned mission, then Russia/Australia could launch ten unmanned missions for every one NASA unmanned mission. Now all I need to do is convince NASA to hand over all that money so we can do the work...

Originally posted by empennage
First off, let's remember that technologies developed from war are what allowed us to get into space in the first place.


True, but how has human advance been retarded by our desire to kill one another? (Yes, I know this is not an answerable question.)

Things called IIS are just prone to fucking up.

If you want advancement, maybe some healthy competition between countries would help, more or less like the cold war, except...without the "war" part. We're all cooperating with each other, but from my POV I've noticed that we're helping each other out at least once in awhile whenever we get behind in schedule. We need competition, using the systems and beaurocracies we've got going now.

As for the ISS, the first time I looked at it I wondered: "why the f*ck isn't it a wheel?" You'll easily garner public awe if you have a rotating wheel in space (a la 2001), which means more public support and interest in the space program.

If we're going to continue advancing in astronomy, we need people in space. Not robots, but people. They may not be able to garner the same sciences as unmanned spacecraft, but they would capture the imagination.

um exuse me but didnt VELCRO come out of the space program?

and plastics?

i mean velcro is used HEEPS and that by itself is a BIG plus

Originally posted by Asguard
and plastics?
Plastics came from the 30's. IIRC Dow Corning was a major developer in polymers, especially things like nylon or rayon.

Ford Motor Corporation, number one developer of plastics and it applications. in the early days.
DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Public intrest in space, would require the avialablity of materials that currently are exspensive putting the cost out of public reach, although the material are mined in abundance even the so called rare elements, and for certain the abltiy to manufacture elements is now days a easy step of achivement, So then we can see that what prevents people form having a intrest is that are not allowed to achive such, as gold mongers sit on 100 million tons of gold and charge 400 $ a little oz. who could afford it at that rate.
And it is because of this that people look at the sky and just wish, to see the sites from above, but no door will open for them to achive such views of the earth ect..., NASA intimidates the public and scares the public that going to space is not possible.
And therfore the UFO is in such a craze and wonderment of the public, because they want something that will allow them to achive such a site, that they can afford to cross that bridge to see the site of the world.
Even so the goverments have determined that there own public is the enemy,confining the people to limited knowledge and teaching, imposing needless regulations.
the easiest way into space is to use a hydrogen ballon and then propell the remainder in to space. it so simple that the hot air ballon and helium and hydrogen balloon use in the 1800s could see the hue of the earths atmosphere. there is so much hydrogen in the sea that there is a endless supply. The hindenberg was a pleasure craft, it is for sure that private zeppliens gain many a space flight.
if that was not enough, in todays time a person could burn oxygen or nitrogen to propell into space, nitrogen has the highest exspansion rate of any gas, got all the push you need for 40 miles.......
the problem is this once you get started the goverments which ever is yours ect... is going to say you can not do that because you did not meet are requirments of what we say is to be met, or you have to pay us to have a license, permit ect...., when the event to gain flight is as free as the wind that blows on the earth, as free as the air we breath, but yet they would make you pay for the abundance of air that circulates the earth. But consider this the piolets of the 1800s where flying objects as big as ten storie houses, that means the ojects where biger that a 747 jumbo jet liner, biger than the zepplins, and such piolets had very and i mean very little knowlegde of flight and atmospheric condtions, in fact if you look at the marker of history books you can see that thousands of people with out any skill in flying where floating hundreds of feet above the ground, some of them miles those that were privilaged to hydrogen.
it is the fear that NASA and the goverment put into people about flying,media, when it would be safer to fly a hot air ballon that fly a lear jet.
well i just though i might add to the picture some facts
DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Hi Dwayne!

NASA intimidates the public and scares the public that going to space is not possible.

NASA doesn't intimidate the public so much as they scare the public, so I'll have to admit that part of your statement is somewhat correct.

But NASA doesn't go around "scaring" the public with covert, clandestine operations, as most conspiracy theorists would have you believe. NASA can just as easy scare anyone with simple, yet effective evidence.

The costs of moving payload into LEO is one the primary reasons NASA has problems with space travel. The costs of salaries, research and development simply add to the problem. The real kicker is that the bulk of the monies invested rarely yield any fiscal returns. Together, this represent billions of irrecoverable taxpayers dollars. Are you starting to shake a little ?

Once into space, the problems of overcoming the effects of cosmic radiation, weightlessness, and isolation become issues of great magnitude and importance - the result being--you guessed it--more taxpayers dollars for R&D! Getting scared yet ?

No matter how you look at it - space travel is expensive - VERY expensive! And that scares the public.

But don't get me wrong, Dwayne - I'm a huge advocate for space travel. But there is a limit to how much one can give to the taxman.

And if you sincerely feel strongly about helping NASA, then go to this site and make a donation and make it your personal goal to make space travel a reality:

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_1210_001E_&page_name=main

Manned launches are a waste...
No one can deny the obvious value of scientific exploration of space via unmanned spacecraft.

But then, how easy is it to deny the obvious value of exploring male sexuality via vinyl inflatables?

There's nothing more important for man than confronting the real thing and acquiring actual experience.

READ ABOUT THE JUMP-(SITE LINK) (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/kittinger/DI29.htm)

With the invention of the hydrogen ballon people can see the site of the earth for a very low cost, in this picture of J. Kittinger he is jumping from a open gondla attached to a hydrogen ballon,he is also whereing a suit to protect hem from the cold ect.... could primative man accidentally mad it this far, zepplins would have, why is the image of great diffculty present to the public about such easy achivements.
Well hydrogen will float right out into outter space, there is no doubt about that, its called the hydrogen escape ratio, is there a cheaper way into outter space than a hydrogen ballon , no! as the entire 70 % of the earth is covered in water containg hydrogen, it only gets cheaper if you use the electron, i.e electricty.
Below is the picture of the jump and you can see the view!
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/kittinger/DI29G1.jpg


DWAYNE D.L.RABON

U.S. PRESIDENT Lyden B. Johnson

"If anything is going to slow down the advancement of the common man it is going to be red tape"

Needless Regulations, goverment red tape, premits ect, mis information ect....prevent the people from freedom, just as a monoply would prevent any other from developing a gain.
the constrinment of free resouces, land, access to sea water on shore lines, wood, ect..... prevent a base establishment of any family,(housing cost 60% of income) how then could the common reach for space.
as seen from the statememt of Lyden Johnson above, the process of what controll would do to the common public was known.
DWAYNE D.L.RABON

By empennage:IIRC, it took 1% of the GDP for the US to put a person on the moon Source please

I know it wont acheive anything but for movement in space why not use nuclear weapons/explosives? Space is a vacuum and so there is no friction. Why not have a cylindrical spaceship with a bomb on the front and a bomb at the back. Set off one (far enough away from the earth) and this will shoot the spaceship out into space at a great speed. With nothig to stop it the spaceship will just keep going. When they want to stop/come back then set off the other bomb :D (not very scientific/accurate i know but its just a thought. Why not do this just to find out about outer space? Have an unmanned mission with cameras etc :)

So, what you are saying is that Columbus should have sent out Zillions of corked bottles containing hand-written messages instead of setting off on a westward tack for China?

Yet, he got it done far sooner by just doing it himself.

Do both, in parallel. Each method has its own worthy, distinct merits.

Neville, what you describe is the basics of Project Orion.

Project ORION Test Vehicle (http://www.nasm.si.edu/nasm/dsh/artifacts/RM-ORION.htm)

Not the most efficient or cheap way to do travel, and it's not that fast in the end anyway. Plus, it's hard on the travelers.

But the real problem isn't propulsion once we get into space, it's GETTING INTO space that's costly, dangerous, and time consuming. Until a better method is used, we won't develop past occasional low orbit missions, with a few long range probes here and there.

Well i 'll say it again

HYDROGEN will float right out into outer space, carring its passengers and payload. no heavy booster needed.

however if you don't wait to wait three days or so, then your going to need a bosster rocket.

The cheapest way in to space it to fill a ballon with hydrogen and float into outer space, and then use the shell of the ballon as a solar sail, or magnetic sail, taking you to the far reaches of the solar system.
in such a system the weight calculation remain the same from beging to end. and it is elemetary in practice, not much diffrent than building a ship and sailing to the Americas. maintain a orbit is achivable by using a atmospheric friction glider design. the dangers os such travel is that you are left to the guidence of the natural elements of space, simular to a hanglider, sailboat, bicycle, canoe ect.... this means success is the reward of the best navigator, just as in the 1500s
basically to say what is your skill level.
Lets remember that the acqusition of space the final frontier must be avilable to the masses, this is the ultimate achivement. Independance and freedom to do so and requires a invention that relys on the natural forces of space, the abundance, simular to the invention of the wheel,the stone spear,fire, the sailboat, ect....this is key to bringing the masses to the achivement of space at little or no cost.( for the common man, family or independent individual)
DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Well Dwayne, a group is planning to try and go up that high.

http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/06/060302t_balloons.jhtml

However, getting to the fringes of the atmosphere does not equate to being in orbit or anywhere remotely near escape velocity. Good platform for near space experiments and pictures, but not as a transfer to space.

I suppose the balloon could carry a rocket, which then would launch from the high vantage point. I think I've seen that in both balloon and plane format. How much it ends up saving in cost is debatable.

I also found these numbers: At zero degrees centigrade, a 'vacuum balloon' would have a lift of about 28 grams for each 22.4 liters of volume. Obviously this is the upper limit for lift from a lighter-than-air craft. A helium balloon would have a lift of 24 grams for each 22.4 liters of volume; a hydrogen ballon would have a lift of 26 grams. So figure your average payload, plus some orbit booster weight, and then add the cost for that much helium/hydrogen. Probably need a lot.

It's just that humans can do things in space that machines can't, that's amongst other reasons a big factor for deciding wheter or not to put humans into earth orbit.

It's not the costs that makes it expensive, trust me: it's the concept that does.

There ARE cheaper alternatives for design. But it's not always the best designs that get develloped. More of the time it's the best lobbyed or marketed design.

A truly lack of imagination I call it, if you oppose humans in space, but you may call it expensive, shure: I won't deny it's expenses.

But it's not like it's in the range of expence like the 389billion dollar/year that the DOD gets.

If nobody wishes to go out there, then we might as well give up fantasysing. I don't give up, I hope, I dream.

Live long and prosper!
greetz fukushi

Thanks for that Jaxiom. Dwayne thats a good idea!

And what about the space elevator?

It could be build in fifteen years and would bring costs down to a few dollars/pound to put in orbit.

and it's not expencive at all to build, right now they are bussy with getting enough funding.

I read about it on space.com a while ago,....every now and then I hear about it.

fifteen years isn't much at all.

Question is: What's going to be done with the ISS in the meantime?

:cool:

the first LEO take-away! afterall: those people will be verry hungry after that elevator ride! :p

U.S. PRESIDENT Lyden B. Johnson

"If anything is going to slow down the advancement of the common man it is going to be red tape"
And how will red tape increase the speed of advancement for the common man Dwayne D.L.Rabon?? :bugeye: :confused: Sound like him trying to sound good/get votes to me!! And what about the space elevator? Is this a joke Fukushi?? lol ;) It would be blown down or surely would not stand for very long if at all! Plus there is the complication of weather conditions: storm, rain, wind, lightning!!...

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/837772.asp?cp1=1

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/space-elevator/

These are all viable links, have a nice read!:cool: