After moon, where should NASA go?

Discussion in 'Architecture & Engineering' started by kmguru, Jul 26, 2009.

Not open for further replies.
1. kmguruStaff Member

Messages:
11,757
Any ideas and how? We still have the same shuttle technology. Congress wanted next generation programs in 1987 but that died in the vine.

Should not we first set up a 2001:Space Odyssy type space station first before going anywhere?

Should we set up a moon base underground first?

3. orcotValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,423
visiting a Near earth object (NEO) would be cool

5. cosmictravelerBe kind to yourself always.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
33,264
Human Space Flight Review Committee Announces Meeting Agendas

WASHINGTON -- The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee will hold public meetings July 28, 29, 30, Aug. 5 and 12. The meetings are open to news media representatives. No registration is required, but seating is limited to the location's capacity. Agenda times are approximate and subject to change.

The first meeting will be July 28 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. CDT at the South Shore Harbour Resort and Conference Center, 2500 South Shore Blvd. in League City, Texas.

The agenda is:
10 a.m.: Committee chairman Norm Augustine opening remarks
10:30 a.m.: Mike Coats, director, NASA's Johnson Space Center
11 a.m.: Congressional perspective (presenters TBD)
Noon: Lunch break
12:30 p.m.: NASA Constellation projects managed at Johnson
1:30 p.m.: International Space Station/space shuttle subgroup (Sally Ride, moderator)
3:30 - 4: p.m.: Public comment period

The second session will be July 29 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. CDT at the Davidson/U.S. Space and Rocket Center, 1 Tranquility Base, in Huntsville, Ala.

The agenda is:
8 a.m.: Robert Lightfoot, director, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
8:30 a.m.: Low Earth Orbit Access subgroup briefing (Bo Bejmuk, moderator)
10 a.m.: NASA Constellation projects managed at Marshall
11a.m.: Congressional perspective (presenters TBD)
Noon: Lunch break
1 p.m.: NASA Constellation projects continued
2 p.m.: Integration subgroup briefing (Lester Lyles, moderator)
3:30 - 4 p.m.: Public comment period

The third public session will be July 30 from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT at the Hilton Cocoa Beach Oceanfront Grand Ballroom, 1550 North Atlantic Ave., in Cocoa Beach, Fla.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2009/release-20090724.html

7. Diode-ManAwesome User TitleRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,372
A manned expedition to Neptune. It must be done!

I'm actually a lot more interested in consumer space travel than any moon base.

8. kmguruStaff Member

Messages:
11,757
We first ned a new propulsion technology. Wonder if anyone is working on a high magnetic field based propulsion technology.

(some old stuff here: http://keelynet.com/energy/holt1.htm)

Last edited: Jul 26, 2009
9. CarcanoValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,865
We should not go anywhere.

NASA should be putting its money into discovering how to create an anti-gravity machine...the ultimate propulsion system.

10. kmguruStaff Member

Messages:
11,757
You might like this one...they are working on this for quite sometime now....I worked on a similar concept in my graduate class but did not have resources to go forward.

Wormhole-Stargates: Tunneling Through The Cosmic Neighborhood

11. Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738
Why underground?

12. kmguruStaff Member

Messages:
11,757
In case of micro-meteorite showers...

13. DywyddyrPenguinaciously duckalicious.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,629
You're assuming that
A) anti-gravity is possible and
B) it's a propulsion method.

14. Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Home. Sell the furniture and computers first.

No need for tax dollars funding showmanship in space. No need for manned space flght. Insturments are cheaper and better and developng them would boost progress in AI. Private industry can do all that is needed in space, and pay taxes to the government when it gets a profit. (I would ontract them with payment of cost only when they fail and a profit when they met the contract requirements.)

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2009

Messages:
7,721
I like you Billy, you are a smart guy, but you are really out of it on this one.

Private industry will not go to space, except to fill it with garbage. There is no profit in exploration. It is the providence of collective effort, time and time again.

16. Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738

That's a problem on the moon?

Last edited: Jul 28, 2009
17. Captain KremmenAll aboard, me Hearties!Valued Senior Member

Messages:
12,738
If the US had continued with space exploration after the 1960's instead of investing in wars, we would now have a very well established base on the moon. Who knows what valuable resources are there.

My feeling is that by now, we should be heading towards Mars, but we have gone off at a tangent, and are 40 years behind.
The first objective should be to set up a working base on the moon, and exploit the resources there.
We should continue sending unmanned craft to Mars until we are ready to do more than just land there. What's the point in that?

18. Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
I support exploration of space and solar system objects - I just don't want to waste a lot of tax payer's money doing it. I want it to be much cheaper and better done by instruments. If private industry has no interest in for example going to the moon to explore what minerals* may be there, learn more about the geology of planet formation, the nature of micro meteorites, etc. then I conclude it is not worth doing, at least not now.

If despite the many other demands on the public purse, the people want to ignore such as finding cures for disease faster with government agencies (I note there is no NDEA, the National Disease Eradication Agency, but there is a NASA) and fund NASA anyway, I will vote against that but believe in democracy so will pay my taxes still. If the democratic decision is to explore space even when the returns are not attractive to private industry, then why not contract for private industry to do the job - paying only their cost, if for example, they fail to come back with moon rocks or Mars dust for detailed analysis on Earth.

Be honest: The USSR was first into space with a dog, then a man, so to save face Kennedy pledged to put a man on the moon. There is nothing of scientific value that has been learned that could not have been learned for 1/10 the cost. Man rated rockets are very much more expensive than three equal performance rockets carrying only instruments. Man is a nuisance in space also, requires food, water, air to breathe, and is always dropping a glove, wrench or bolt, etc. to make dangerous space junk. When the consumables man needs are also considered, (adds to the launch weight) it cost at least 10 times more to get the same scientific knowledge as if done with instruments.

Also there is the great benefit that would have come to earth bound people if the money spent to support man in space had be spent on development of artificial intelligence instead. Man in space does have a much better adaptive brain than we can now make, but if on the third try with unmanned attempt to get something done on Mars, then try a fourth time and still have less than half the cost to get the job done. If AI had progressed and money had not been wasted, perhaps the recent metro/ rail crash in DC, caused by faulty AI would not have happened - Life on Earth would be much better and safer if those wasted dollars had gone into AI development.

SUMMARY
Be rational. Not a political glory seeker. Use ~20% or less of the manned space budget to get the same exploration done with instruments and have greatly increased “spin-off” in the advancement of AI.

Do you see / understand my POV (or have any reply - counter argument)?

------------------
*Solar flux deposited He3 is the only one that might be there worth the cost of bring it to Earth. (I think essentially none is there as helium is extremely volitile and the surface of the gets very hot during the 14 days of steady sunlight.) Until, if ever, man knows how to make controlled fusion that He3 is not worth much either.

PS as I could still edit, I added a sentence to post 11.

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2009
19. Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Name one, even only one, which is not available on Earth with less than 1% of the cost of bringing it back to Earth from the moon.

20. NorsefireSalam Shalom SalomRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
11,529
I'm with Billy T.

NASA doesn't need to go anywhere. It's unnecessary spending that is best left to the private sector.

And there's many-a-profit to be made in space.

21. Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Of course there is. For example:

“… Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic Ltd. commercial space venture sold a 32 percent stake to an Abu Dhabi investor, raising $280 million to help fund a test-flight program that will begin later this year. …Virgin’s prototype SpaceShipOne flew to the edge of space three times in 2004 and the successor SpaceShipTwo should begin testing this year, the statement said. Both craft use a carrier plane, WhiteKnightTwo, to travel to high altitude, from where they are launched. More than 300 people have paid almost$40 million in ticket deposits, according to London-based Virgin. …”

From: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aLaTEv9czp0Y

So long as NASA can stick you with the tax bill, they need not worry about being cost effective. They can be stupid and dangerous too* – filling the cabin with pure O2 and killing three astronauts in a launch pad fire –EVEN after the USSR had warned them. The Russian never used anything but air, but NASA did not want (could not?) lift the “useless” N2 of air.

---------------
*Unlike private industry, you cannot sue the government, except when Congress passes a private law allowing you to.

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2009
22. NasorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,221
While an anti-gravity machine would be great, you have to consider the likelihood of success. NASA could definitely send people to Mars etc. with big rockets if they spend the money. You might pour a bajillion dollars into an antigravity engine and never accomplish anything.

23. SyzygysAs a mother, I am telling youValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,671
Then his answer was that NASA should go nowhere. I agree with that. Space is not for humans and there is nothing in the Solar system worthy to explore it anymore when we have way bigger problems here on Earth. If they want to waste a little money, they could do deep ocean living, that is still cheaper and more practical then space exploration.

What could be done has been done already...