Moon, asteroids, and Mars are GO!

Yeah, see, the rest of us actually tend to call that by it's proper name - Basic Research.

And if we didn't do it, by the way, we'd be grunting at each other in a cave right now....

And we never will until we need it.
That's reality.

Until the need is there and pressing, it won't be done. Sorry to say it, since it implies that people are short-sighted and stupid, but that's how it is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I mean, some people still actually believe we didn't go there in the first place...

I've already told you, robots can't do that.

Yeah. Sorry 'bout that, it turns out that life is actually rather complicated and there isn't a cliff notes version of everything for you. But on the upside, this stuff is pretty interesting to learn about, even on a superfical level. Look, seriously - go order a copy of "The High Frontier" or "Mining the Sky" or "The case for Mars" or any of the popular science books on the topic from the last 30-odd years, and actually read it. It won't give you the full story - you'd have to actively study the area for that - but it will (for about $30 or so) give you a good foundation and an interesting read for a few hours (that ought to give you a week or two of on-the-can reading). And then you'll have a fuller idea of what the people proposing to spend billions of dollars of your money are talking about when they discuss in-situ resource utilisation; and long-term microgravity versus long-term low-gravity physiological effects; and specific impulses of different drive types and their implications; and so on.

Just think - a hundred years ago (just after the first powered flight), that book would have cost you trillions of dollars. Today, you can go to www.amazon.com, click a few times, and the book shows up in your mailbox within a week. Personally, I don't know why you're resisting actually reading this stuff....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Currently being invested in invading foreign countries. Happily, that's easily fixed...


Not sure what do here? Are you being serious?

To avoid having to terminate the ISS, shuttle or other projects, all of which are needed.


Oh you meant the thing that keeps on leaking, and the other that is older then me, and breaks apart in the sky? Yeah, too bad the shuttle isn't going up there for a while, if ever again...Why must this be a purely government program?

And you think it won't be?

Under Bush, no. He has ostracized to many people too fast, nor do I think he would want foreigners to work on this symbol of Americana.

Sure, Bush will spin it as purely american, but the fact is that it won't be.

This is objectively known how?

It's like Beagle 2. It's an ESA project, ie. european - but it's never been listed in the papers as anything other than British...


Illogical comparison, you know that. The British have prior to Beagle been part of the ESA, NASA and the US have always been lone rangers. The program will be overwhelmingly American.

Two, I said "over the last three decades", not "three decades ago". The High Frontier may be old - but it's not like noone's written other books on the topic since...

But they are dealing (I assume) mainly from the possible economic benefits, I doubt that they deal with the initial costs correct? Why? Because you cannot predict those costs, and you cannot predict the future. The current budget deficit is way to huge to deal with this, do you actually disagree? Especially when there is essentially questionable success to be had. I agree with Nasor, find what the hell your looking for first.

Yes - and do you really think Bush will ever support Medicare?

As you said in another thread, Bush will not be president by the time this things really starts up. What will be there is the deficit this has caused, let's say a new president does want Universal Medicare, and he can't afford it because of this? What then? Talk to the dying please, explain why a rock is more important then their lives.

He's already cutting death benefits from US GIs for feck's sake - you think he wants to keep them healthy? His record says he'd rather eliminate medicare.

Bush is not the object of my attacks, what is, is the waste this program is.

Look, fact is this - it's a good programme.

Sparks I keep on noticing that you say things that are totally subjective and try to pass it off as a fact? Please, come on here...

It will have positive effects and will provide significant economic returns in the long term.

Yet to see any of this, if you are so confident in these "returns" you really should little problem explaining them to me, and how you are going to make up a $ 1 trillion investment?

And it makes for a far better stirrup to technological progress than invading foreign countries.

You know what is even harder and better for man? Curing Cancer, or AIDS. That's a challenge.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. Go look at how much is being spent on the military in the states, most of which is simply not useful. Hell, military budget overruns could fund NASA at 200% their current level of funding every year...

The recent leak in the ISS was the first ever detected, it was extremely minor and was found and fixed within 48 hours. Yes, the ISS is a white elephant of a project, but that's what happens when you have no defined policy on space exploration.
Which is another reason to stop faffing about in LEO and just get on with it. Feck's sake, we've waited for two whole generations already...

Yeah, that'd be the one. You know, the end result of a development program for a low cost reusable orbiter? The one that's more expensive and less useful than the original Saturn V booster (whose plans, dies and jigs were all destroyed as part of the deal for building the shuttle).

Pity you've nothing else to use, really...

Well, firstly it won't be. The first one sure wasn't. All the work gets done by private contractors - that's why you see short-term benfits.
Secondly, it's government-financed for the same reason that NACA was government-financed - because basic research is not something the private sector does well. Or at all, in fact.
So instead, the government runs the X-plane experiments, pays for it in taxpayers money, releases all the docs and info to the public domain and ten years later you have the most advanced fighters in your military and jet airliners for the civilians.
Which you wouldn't have otherwise, or would have at very high prices. Same as with the drug industry today.

As I said, don't think this project will remain associated with Bush for long. He's gone in the 2004 elections, but the programme will live on since it's so popular. (As I've said before, Apollo represented the american contribution to world culture - it's the defining event in American culture as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Well. The defining good event, at any rate.)

By knowing how these projects work. There's simply too much to do, too much needed for it to be a solo run in the US. Hell, you couldn't do it the first time without Von Braun...

But not wholly. And not in reality - just in appearance. For the end benefit, that's a cost I'd be willing to pay.

Incorrect. Look, until you read that book, this will be a content-free discussion. So go read it first, okay?

I don't have to - I do have to explain why the oil needed to run SUVs (and please note the figures - if every US SUV ran at 30mpg - the standard for a car - then all the oil Iraq produces would be surplus to requirements for the US. So why does this justify the enormous military spending and it's associated problems?

You're making the mistake here, you see, of looking at the NASA budget as big. It isn't. Neither is the projected costs of going to the moon. What's big is military spending. Seriously, go compare the figures, the actual data.

It's not a waste, not compared to, say, the Bradley development programme.

And I note you don't read the primary material. Even when it's partially quoted and a URL link given, you'll comment on the quotes without looking at the source - a habit that makes you look uninformed and foolish.
I've been reading the sources since I was eight. O'Neill, Zubrin and the other popular writers - and NASA internal documents, such as the Apollo mission reports, the biographies of those who went there, the various plans that have been drawn up over the last thirty years.
I realise it's a hell of a summation to just say it's a good programme - but short of typing in 19 years of reading, I don't see a good alternative other than pointing you to the source and letting you read for yourself.

Our understanding of biology is based on one single datapoint - namely DNA. We understand no other means of life existing. Going to another planet and finding a single microbe that was not DNA-based would trigger an enormous revolution in biology, and hence, medicine. I'll admit - it's a spin-off. But a cure for cancer is a pretty big spin-off, no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes. Go look at how much is being spent on the military in the states, most of which is simply not useful. Hell, military budget overruns could fund NASA at 200% their current level of funding every year...

I agree 100% that the military industrial complex world wide is the biggest waste of money man has engaged in ($850 billion to be exact) . But let's not bash the military too much shall we? Do I even have to say anything about the Nazi's and rockets, and the invaluable experience that those military programs gave to the United States and the Soviet Union?

Yes, the ISS is a white elephant of a project, but that's what happens when you have no defined policy on space exploration.

Sorry, but there was a policy on the ISS, to promote international co-operation in space, and co-habitation in space for prolonged periods of time, so we could make missions like those to mars even feasible.

we've waited for two whole generations already...

You sound like a child at Toy r us, calm down. Don't get angry at us for telling the fiscal reality, get angry at Bush and his cabal for slashing taxes so much that if they weren't slashed this could have happened with tacit support from almost everyone.


You know, the end result of a development program for a low cost reusable orbiter? The one that's more expensive and less useful than the original Saturn V booster (whose plans, dies and jigs were all destroyed as part of the deal for building the shuttle).

Cry me a river! Just a question, why isn't the US or China, helping the Russians exploit the massive Energia rocket. That could easily lift just about anything into space, and re-start the Russian shuttle program?

Pity you've nothing else to use, really...

Pity for me? Why? I don't care?

The first one sure wasn't. All the work gets done by private contractors - that's why you see short-term benfits.

I don't think you got the gist, the government should not be involved, or if it is. In a secondary mode, the government would be recycling the money and would still waste it as if it were inside NASA.

So instead, the government runs the X-plane experiments, pays for it in taxpayers money, releases all the docs and info to the public domain and ten years later you have the most advanced fighters in your military and jet airliners for the civilians.

More could be said for military programs? Should we then (using your logic) invest more in the military, because of the tech. spin offs?

Which you wouldn't have otherwise, or would have at very high prices. Same as with the drug industry today.

The prices in the drug industry are high because they are basically a cabal of special interests who control the market. Not because the R&D was expensive. Although some drugs are expensive for a legitimate reason.

As I said, don't think this project will remain associated with Bush for long. He's gone in the 2004 elections,

LOL! Ok back to reality...Just the same way the 1969 was not associated with Kennedy?

but the programme will live on since it's so popular.

The lack of public enthusiasm basically killed the initial moon program. It's like a fad, real cool at first, then as cool as you're grandmother the next.

(As I've said before, Apollo represented the american contribution to world culture - it's the defining event in American culture as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Well. The defining good event, at any rate.)

It was, but it was merely psychological effects at best.

By knowing how these projects work. There's simply too much to do, too much needed for it to be a solo run in the US. Hell, you couldn't do it the first time without Von Braun...

Mr. Braun was sickeningly pro-American, he was essentially American. The Soviets were way ahead of the Americans in terms of Rocketry, and still are. They did things on their own, and they arguably produced more original and more successful things in space.

But not wholly. And not in reality - just in appearance. For the end benefit, that's a cost I'd be willing to pay.

I wouldn't be wiling to pay for it, and more people (if they truly understood) wouldn't be wiling to pay for it either.

Incorrect. Look, until you read that book, this will be a content-free discussion. So go read it first, okay?

Nah, it's ok. I am certain Sparks you can give me a small synopsis, no big woo-hoo.

So why does this justify the enormous military spending and it's associated problems?

I think you under the premise that I actually supported Iraq?

You're making the mistake here, you see, of looking at the NASA budget as big.

No I am not, I know that $15 billion is tiny in comparison to other programs, I was actually shocked at small it was. In consideration of all that NASA does. But increasing the budget of NASA now is a big leap...backwards in terms of fiscal responsibly.

It isn't. Neither is the projected costs of going to the moon. What's big is military spending. Seriously, go compare the figures, the actual data.

I know the figures:

US DoD- $400 billion
NASA- $15 billion.

Deal with rummy boy over there not me.

It's not a waste, not compared to, say, the Bradley development programme.

Agreed, but it is a waste when we just send men up there for joy rides to wave the flag photo ops. At least the Bradley serves a purpose, albeit sinister. (want to talk about a waste of money...F-22!)


And I note you don't read the primary material. Even when it's partially quoted and a URL link given, you'll comment on the quotes without looking at the source - a habit that makes you look uninformed and foolish.

And screaming like a child, that we need on because it's been 30 years is SO much better.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Our understanding of biology is based on one single datapoint - namely DNA. We understand no other means of life existing. Going to another planet and finding a single microbe that was not DNA-based would trigger an enormous revolution in biology, and hence, medicine. I'll admit - it's a spin-off. But a cure for cancer is a pretty big spin-off, no?

The KEY part of that entire convo, is the word "if" and I am not wiling to spend $1 trillion on a "if" and to satisfy a scientists ego.

 

No, you don't - especially since the german rocket program was only funded by the Nazis in the final years. Von Braun and Goddard both worked on their own in the beginning. It was an accident of history that things went as they did.

No, there wasnt. Not ever. You need to research more - even Kraft and Krantz have criticised the ISS (and for a jarhead like Krantz to criticise anything NASA does takes some prompting).
Fact is, the ISS has wallowed due to a lack of direction and purpose that a goal like going to the moon provides.

No, I sound like someone whose childhood was spent learning about this area, and whose professional life to date was chosen to be as close to this area as nationality permitted, and who cannot understand the constant dumbing-down of the country who went to the moon, and their subsequent lack of progress. And in this, I sound just like people like Kraft, Krantz, and all the others that made it possible or actually went there.

Anger doens't come into it - and the fiscal reality is that this is fully feasible, both financially and technically and needs only the order to go.

BTW, I've yet to see you show any economic analyses that say it's not feasible. And I've given links to show it is.

Actually, US companies are negotiating with Energia (the russian version of NASA - well, sort of, Energia actually makes the rocket - it's a complicated political setup over there at the moment. Read Dragonfly for a pretty decent summation of the situation). The object is to commercially use their rocket, which is still better than anything the US has, despite the design being 30 years old.

You're ignoring the evidence (supplied by the drug industry) that shows that private sector basic research is not the way to go.

No, I'm just pointing out all the spin-offs.

Drugs are expensive because drug companies must spend enormous amounts trying to develop drugs (basic research, in other words). Because of this, drugs and their IP become company property, so life-saving drugs become proprietary products rather than commodities as they ought to be.
That's why private sector basic research doesn't work.

More like the way it wasn't associated with Nixon and LBJ. Bush will announce it - but Dean or Clarke or whomever wins in '04 will be the one to do the bulk of the work and thus be associated with it in the public eye.

That's because the initial race was to get to the moon - not to build a moon base or to actually do anything while there. Now if we go back to the moon as part of a race to mars, we'll probably go to mars once, then the programme will be cut back. Okay, that's not ideal - but there'll be a permanent moon base in operation afterwards, like the way the ISS still operates even after all the hassles it's had. Inertia

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, he wasn't. Not even close, in fact. You need to do more research. Von Braun was pretty much ambivalent to nationality, he simply wanted to run the show - read Kraft or Krantz's biographies and you'll see what I mean, from the guys that worked with him. Hell, Krantz absolutely hated the guy, specifically because he wasn't pro-american.

Well, yes - but they're not doing development work at the moment. Technically, the US is ahead given the ion drive being tested for the last six months in Deep Space One. (Well, for in-system drives anyway - for surface-to-orbit "oomph", Energia's still got the best system).

Yes, with massive amounts of resources from government spending - far more in real terms than the US programme - and a resident genius in Korolev. (Which is why the space race ended in practical terms with his death).

Sorry, you don't get to say they don't truly understand. Not until you do first - and for that, you need to do more research than you have to date.

A brief synopsis of thirty years of technical and economic analyses done in fine detail by hundreds of different people for dozens of different projects with hundreds of different approaches and technologies?
Okay, here it is:

It's a good programme.

Nope, but I think you're arguing to cut NASA's budget, which is a miniscule fraction of the military budget.
Look, if you want either social programs or space programmes, then you're not fully understanding the economic situation. The fact is, you can have both - you just have to cut military spending to a sane level. And that's always been true. The fact is the bulk of the US military is not useful for modern day tasks (with the exception of invading other countries, which isn't something you ought to be doing anyway).

No-one is saying "hey, let's use the medicare budget to go check and see if Armstrong really went to the moon by fetching the flag!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, it's simply insignificant compared to government spending. Seriously. Totally and utterly insignificant.
We're not, after all, talking about a second apollo programme here, we're looking at a far less demanding task in economic terms, given the timeframe. Apollo (and Gemini and Mercury) were done at a time when so little was known that it was said that there were known knowns (and precious few), known unknowns and unknown unknowns (and the latter were in the majority). That's not as true today as then - and we have better tools today to do this kind of thing.

Indeed, but that's not what's being talked about here. Mars cannot be a flags-n-footprints run, because the laws of orbital mechanics prevent it. It's six months there, and six months back - and you have to stay for nearly two months before the hoffmann orbits let you leave again. Flags-n-footprints can get a whole month - and then you get a full month of genuine, honest-to-goodness field science. With trained men.

(Please remember, Zubrin's estimate was that the three months of Spirit's trundling about mars would be a half-hour's work for a geologist. Now let's say he's exaggerating and make it two hours - dunno 'bout you, I can cover a mile or two in that time by hopping, let alone walking - and that means that you're doing the equivalent of 46.5 years of robotic exploration with that one mission. 12 hour days, times 31 days, divided by two hours; that's how many three-month-equivalents you have)

Actually, I was referring to the fact that the Bradley had cost $6 billion before the first model was ever built...

We're rapidly heading for a content-free discussion here, at a staggering turn of pace. You know I've listed the reasons and given my sources and you have done nothing but say "it's a waste" without giving analysis or sources.

You're not being asked to. You're being asked to spend $3.43 on it. (That's you, personally).
(That's just over a month's subscription to sciforums.com BTW)

I'll make you a deal. If there's a vote, you vote yes and I'll pay your share. Sound fair?

 

I've never claimed that basic research isn't important - I'm claiming that we can conduct more basic research with unmanned missions than we can with manned. I simply want to get the most knowledge for our money. If you disagree, please provide a few examples of experiments that could be conducted by a manned mission but that would be impossible with unmanned missions. You've claimed numerous times that such examples exist, but I've yet to see you provide any.

For the past several years I've worked in a hybrid rocket lab that receives almost all of its funding from NASA grants. I admit that I'm no expert on space exploration, but I do know a few things about launch technology. That’s why I'm so skeptical of our ability to develop any sort of industry in space without major technological advances.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize when the cart is being positioned in front of the horse.

 

No, you don't - especially since the german rocket program was only funded by the Nazis in the final years. Von Braun and Goddard both worked on their own in the beginning. It was an accident of history that things went as they did.

Irregardless, the Nazi's put large financial resources in the rocket program, so what if it was delayed? I don't it was an accident that the Nazi's provided funding to the V-1's and the V-2's and even the ambitious Amerika bombers. The German rocket program was a leap forward for the Soviet, and American programs, deny?


Fact is, the ISS has wallowed due to a lack of direction and purpose that a goal like going to the moon provides.

You are telling me that the ISS serves no purpose at all?!

No, I sound like someone whose childhood was spent learning about this area, and whose professional life to date was chosen to be as close to this area as nationality permitted, and who cannot understand the constant dumbing-down of the country who went to the moon, and their subsequent lack of progress.

It is neither my fault, nor concern if you may have wasted your life. (If you're reason d'etre is to see a man on mars). The fact remains is that alone the US (at this moment in time) simply cannot afford this program, at $50 billion per annum.

Anger doens't come into it - and the fiscal reality is that this is fully feasible, both financially and technically and needs only the order to go.

Right now? It's not fiscally responsible for the US to do all this. She would have to go $1 trillion into debt if the deficits are not dealt with. Are you telling me otherwise? Who will make money off this exploitations? The government (who would screamed at for socialist practices), or private industry who would essentially pay little taxes from the profit? Is this just the taxpayer’s corporate welfare checks?

The object is to commercially use their rocket, which is still better than anything the US has, despite the design being 30 years old.

The Rocket I am talking about is the one that powered the Buran into space, confusion?

You're ignoring the evidence (supplied by the drug industry) that shows that private sector basic research is not the way to go.

Can you honestly say that about the aerospace sector? Boeing, Airbus, Tupolev, are private corporations that have done what? R&D for the last 80 years! Drug companies are one faucet of a economy, and the greatest achievements to make products viable to the public is private corporations. I can understand the reservations you would have for the private sector, mainly that R&D would cut into profits. Would you expect a company to spend billions when it's losing money? That's what you are asking the American people.

Drugs are expensive because drug companies must spend enormous amounts trying to develop drugs (basic research, in other words).

Then why are Canadian drugs significantly cheaper in Canada? Subsidy and public funded healthcare, why not in the US? Market forces, so there is more then just R&D going on here.

Because of this, drugs and their IP become company property, so life-saving drugs become proprietary products rather than commodities as they ought to be.

If you believe in the capitalist doctrine, and support it. Then this statement cannot apply. I personally agree that drugs that save lives should be for everyone, but as long as interests lie with profits nothing will change, does that mean nationalized drug companies? maybe that is the only solution, but we won't see that happen.

More like the way it wasn't associated with Nixon and LBJ. Bush will announce it - but Dean or Clarke or whomever wins in '04 will be the one to do the bulk of the work and thus be associated with it in the public eye.

Bush is going to win in '04, imo. Then what?

That's because the initial race was to get to the moon - not to build a moon base or to actually do anything while there. Now if we go back to the moon as part of a race to mars, we'll probably go to mars once, then the programme will be cut back. Okay, that's not ideal - but there'll be a permanent moon base in operation afterwards, like the way the ISS still operates even after all the hassles it's had.

Who benefits from this then? Me and you, or Enron's?

No, he wasn't. Not even close, in fact. You need to do more research. Von Braun was pretty much ambivalent to nationality, he simply wanted to run the show -

Damn, wrong impression alert!


Well, yes - but they're not doing development work at the moment.

None at all? I know of some Russian development programs.

Technically, the US is ahead given the ion drive being tested for the last six months in Deep Space One.

Link?

Yes, with massive amounts of resources from government spending - far more in real terms than the US programme - and a resident genius in Korolev. (Which is why the space race ended in practical terms with his death).

Yes, it is questionable whether the USSR actually benefited from their space program(due to it's massive costs). But nevertheless we have a situation where the US is experiencing a Soviet-ization of the military, politics, and spending. The US is starting to look more and more like the USSR every wasteful initiatives started.

Sorry, you don't get to say they don't truly understand. Not until you do first - and for that, you need to do more research than you have to date.

All I need to get is the fact that the US will be more fiscally burdened by this program, and you cannot tell me different.

It's a good programme.

That changed everything thank you.

Nope, but I think you're arguing to cut NASA's budget, which is a miniscule fraction of the military budget.

I agree, disgustingly small.

Look, if you want either social programs or space programmes, then you're not fully understanding the economic situation. The fact is, you can have both - you just have to cut military spending to a sane level.

Yes, again I don't disagree. But we know that the latter will not happen anytime soon, nor can the US military budget be cut now with imperialism on the rise. This goes back to the Soviet-ization of the US, priorities like in the USSR will be pride initiatives) Militaritism, and ii) Space, at the expense of social programs.

No-one is saying "hey, let's use the medicare budget to go check and see if Armstrong really went to the moon by fetching the flag!"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I see the hands digging into social security, and begging for the Chinese to buy American bonds. Debt, soaring.

No, it's simply insignificant compared to government spending. Seriously. Totally and utterly insignificant.

No one here is denying this, but as long as the military industrial complex is so huge social programs are and will suffer.

We're not, after all, talking about a second apollo programme here, we're looking at a far less demanding task in economic terms, given the timeframe. Apollo (and Gemini and Mercury) were done at a time when so little was known that it was said that there were known knowns (and precious few), known unknowns and unknown unknowns (and the latter were in the majority). That's not as true today as then - and we have better tools today to do this kind of thing.

In another thread you were talking about the perceived lack of technique we will have in 10 years time? Contradiction?


Mars cannot be a flags-n-footprints run, because the laws of orbital mechanics prevent it. It's six months there, and six months back - and you have to stay for nearly two months before the hoffmann orbits let you leave again. Flags-n-footprints can get a whole month - and then you get a full month of genuine, honest-to-goodness field science. With trained men.

For now let's forget about Mars, that way to far in the future.

Actually, I was referring to the fact that the Bradley had cost $6 billion before the first model was ever built...

Horrendous, the F-22 cost significantly more then that, and it's waste beyond waste. I agree that money would have been better spent on peaceful space missions, or social programs. But c'est la vie.


you have done nothing but say "it's a waste" without giving analysis or sources.

Please re-read my posts in this thread.

You're not being asked to. You're being asked to spend $3.43 on it. (That's you, personally).

I am not wasting one red cent, mainly because I don't live in the US. Neither do you, so go ahead pay you're phantom $3.43, lol.

I'll make you a deal. If there's a vote, you vote yes and I'll pay your share. Sound fair?

Vote for what exactly?

 

Perhaps, if you're willing to accept a rather slow rate of progress. The fact is, manned and unmanned missions do not exist on an either/or basis - they are complementary and each needs the other.
As I pointed out above, a single month of 12-hour days on mars for a trained geologist (preferably with a little buggy) would give a straight time equivalent of 46.4 years of the MER type programs - but you need MER to give you the initial look and to do wide-spread data collection. (well, actually you need lots of MERs, or aerobots, but you get the idea). The thing to remember is that these missions do not exist in isolation - we learn about these places so we can go there.

Ah-ha! A qualified opinion!
Thing is, I've spent the last seven years working in a robotics lab - and I don't think that robots can do everything a human can do, not for the next fifty years at least. Perhaps not even then, not without a major and unpredictable breakthrough in research. (As opposed to development - a better robot arm is predictable, a new kind of actuator isn't).

 

Not "no purpose", but it isn't fulfilling any real mission at present. The science done is secondary to being there, and the being there part was done on Mir for far longer and under more difficult conditions - but the communication between NASA and Energia (who had the real expertise and who ran operations in Russia at the time) was minimal at the very, very best.
Mir, frankly, was hairy. But a lot was learnt. The ISS, however, while a valuable asset for a renewed programme, serves little purpose right this second.
Other, of course, than to have a presence in space - which is not by any means a waste.

Ha!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's simply not true.

Yes, right now.

She's already $7 trillion in debt, and she wouldn't have to go a trillion more down. That's just not economically necessary.
And that's a fact. Cut military spending, start the programme, create new jobs, bring new motivation to the science and engineering sections of higher education - that's the responsible course of action.

The exploitation is not the programme - exploitation is a spin-off, and comes during the programme and later. The programme is exploration and that's the public sector's job, for reasons already given.
Don't confuse the two!

No confusion. (BTW, buran flew once, unmanned and light, to LEO. Thats the limit of the engines you're talking about).

Yes, and the history books say I'm correct. All the companies you listed did do R&D work for the last fifty years - all of it funded by the public sector and all the data went to the public domain as a result.
I've already told you this.

Okay, that's just confused. Look, here's the way it works.
In the 50's, the US government funded basic research, the results of which were made freely available. All the blind alleys that would cripple a private company to pursue, all the drudgery of experimentation to find data rather than build a product, all of it - all done on taxpayer's money. The end result is that you can go out today and get yourself an aeroplane that will break 200mph for the cost of a sports car. Anyone can do that. And if you want, you can get one with higher performance in kit form and build it yourself for less than the cost of a family sedan. You can fly anywhere in the world for a hundred dollars or thereabouts. All of this is because aeroplane companies had the R part of the R&D already done for them, better than they could do it. And you reap the end benefits - cheaper products with better performance.

Contrast this with drugs, where life-saving drugs cost far, far more than their production costs because the company had to pay for researching a hundred leads for every one successful drug and had to eat the losses involved in doing that.

Contrast it also with the Japanese robotics research situation - where companies are forced by law to put a set percentage of profits back into R&D. End result is high-quality achievements - and no public domain data, meaning that Honda may have the most advanced walking robot in the world in ASIMO, but noone else can use that data to make more and better products - so progress stagnates, prices stay high and effectively ASIMO may as well not exist.

Basicly, the best model is to let public sector fund basic research, turn the info into the public domain, and let the private sector handle the exploitation.

Even there, they're still far more expensive than their production costs.

I don't believe in anarcho-capitalism, thanks very much - which is what you're thinking of.

That's not the only solution. I've stated the best solution above.

Then this programme won't be funded sufficently, will fail badly or just quietly go away. Just like it did with Bush Sr. a decade ago.

Me and you in the end. (He said, typing on a PC which exists only because of the space programme, listening to TV being relayed from a satellite, and wondering about drinking some coffee flown in from Kenya on a jet that wouldn't exist without NACA's programme in the 50's.)
Companies too. And unless someone digs back into it, possibly Enrons.
But mankind in general as well. Remember, today we know the craters on the moon are from asteroid impacts, and this lets us understand how we got here, and identifies a significant and real threat to the entire species. We didn't know this before apollo. It wasn't even suspected prior to the space programme. Apollo gathered physical evidence proving it - and thus throwing out decades of accepted canon that said those were extinct volcanos. Hell, I still have an astronomy book from the early 50's that confidently proclaimed this - and said that meteor impacts all ended at the time the earth formed. And this is just one example - before you say that this is the only thing we learnt and that it's not worth it.

Ah, but do you know of any funded ones? I sure don't...

http://www.google.com

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seriously - DS1 is the biggest thing in drive technology at the moment, you have to know that if you want to claim an opinion with any weight. A quick google will give you the public site, and you can learn all you need from there. But basicly, it's a drive that you can run continously and thus cut down in-system transit times. (Currently, with chemical tech, we give the platform a hard shove at the start of the transit on a hoffmann minimum-energy transfer orbit, than some adjustments en route and then another shove at the end - sortof like billiards. Ion drive technology means you're more sailing than playing golf with the platform - and means stuff becomes faster, more convienent and easier to control).

It's questionable, not due to the massive costs, but because of the secrecy. Exploration was done, but data was never released into the public domain and as a result, no exploitation ever took place - and thus there was no benefit for the average citizen past the pride of being first into space. Which has little practical benefit...

Yes I can, and have been doing for a while now. Look, it's like this. Cut military spending.
There.
Now you have enough for pretty much anything you want to do.

Sorry, but you're asking me to synopsise decades of research for you. Please don't expect me to spend a day typing that up when there are hundreds of sources out there that already do so...

But you have to realise that the current military setup cannot last - it's not economically viable, not politically survivable, and hell, even the military is now complaining that they don't have enough bullets!.
So military spending will have to be cut - hell it's allready happened in the UK - and this would give Bush an "out" to do so without seeming "soft on terror".

Nope. I was saying in that thread that if you wait before starting for a decade, you won't have any experts left alive. Here we're talking about what you can do in ten years if you start now, while you still have access to that expertise.
Different things entirely.

 

That's simply not true.

Then tell me where this money is going to come from please? The military budget is not, I repeat not going to be cut. It cannot be cut now with the adventures in Iraq, and I would venture to say the inevitable battles to waged with North Korea, and maybe even China. NMD, F-22's, and unnecessary wars will be #1, everything else will have to wait. Please Sparks be realistic on this one, where will the money come from? I know! SOCIAL PROGRAMS! YEAH!!!

Yes, right now.

Yes....sure... :m: ?

She's already $7 trillion in debt, and she wouldn't have to go a trillion more down. That's just not economically necessary.

But it's going to happen, if the government were to cut her military budget in half the US will still be $200 billion in the hole! It is not economically nessecary you are correct, but it's a economic eventuallity if the deficit is not reigned in.

And that's a fact. Cut military spending, start the programme, create new jobs, bring new motivation to the science and engineering sections of higher education - that's the responsible course of action.

When was the last time a government did responsible course of action?

The exploitation is not the programme - exploitation is a spin-off, and comes during the programme and later. The programme is exploration and that's the public sector's job, for reasons already given.
Don't confuse the two!

The moon base is for exploitation and exploration, for instance Helium 3 (we are running out of helium on earth) would be a hot commodity from the Moon. You usually don't explore just to explore, you usually explore to exploit, ask Columbus.

Yes, and the history books say I'm correct. All the companies you listed did do R&D work for the last fifty years - all of it funded by the public sector and all the data went to the public domain as a result.
I've already told you this.

The Boeing 747? The 707? The 247? The DC-3? These were funded by the government, the single-handedly revolutionize air transport. They were funded by private companies, the Wright brothers plane? Yes the public sector has done a lot to advance aviation, but without the private industry to exploit it, there would be no need for innovation.

In the 50's, the US government funded basic research, the results of which were made freely available. All the blind alleys that would cripple a private company to pursue, all the drudgery of experimentation to find data rather than build a product, all of it - all done on taxpayer's money. The end result is that you can go out today and get yourself an aeroplane that will break 200mph for the cost of a sports car. Anyone can do that. And if you want, you can get one with higher performance in kit form and build it yourself for less than the cost of a family sedan. You can fly anywhere in the world for a hundred dollars or thereabouts. All of this is because aeroplane companies had the R part of the R&D already done for them, better than they could do it. And you reap the end benefits - cheaper products with better performance.

The US at the time could afford to do those things, she cannot do that now. The US has a booming population, a bad economic tinge as of late, and booming budget expenditures, and stagnate revenue. The US economy btwn 1945-1972 was booming, such things were possible because the money was rolling in. This no longer exists, sparks. This is not a hard concept to get, different time, and different circumstances.

Contrast this with drugs, where life-saving drugs cost far, far more than their production costs because the company had to pay for researching a hundred leads for every one successful drug and had to eat the losses involved in doing that.

So you deny drug price fixing by the big pharmaceuticals? New drugs are going to be expensive, but run of the mill drugs are artificially high.

Basicly, the best model is to let public sector fund basic research, turn the info into the public domain, and let the private sector handle the exploitation.

I agree, when there is money to be spent.

I don't believe in anarcho-capitalism, thanks very much - which is what you're thinking of.

Nor am I talking of “anarcho-capitalism”, I am talking of the current reality. A company has a patent on a drug then it has exclusive rights on that drug. That is what you consider “anarcho-capitalism”?
That's not the only solution. I've stated the best solution above.

But it seems this is the only solution that you provide for the space program, nationalization of it. Odd, hypocrisy?

Then this programme won't be funded sufficently, will fail badly or just quietly go away. Just like it did with Bush Sr. a decade ago.

Let's hope...the US under 4 more years of Bush will go down the tubes so badly, Dean is not a supporter of this moon mission either. He is already using the moniker of "bankruptcy". Your hopes then Sparks seem dashed either way.

Me and you in the end. (He said, typing on a PC which exists only because of the space programme, listening to TV being relayed from a satellite, and wondering about drinking some coffee flown in from Kenya on a jet that wouldn't exist without NACA's programme in the 50's.)

Great accomplishments and support LEO projects, and communications satellites they do much more to improve our lives then a base on the moon.

But mankind in general as well. Remember, today we know the craters on the moon are from asteroid impacts, and this lets us understand how we got here, and identifies a significant and real threat to the entire species. We didn't know this before apollo. It wasn't even suspected prior to the space programme. Apollo gathered physical evidence proving it - and thus throwing out decades of accepted canon that said those were extinct volcanos. Hell, I still have an astronomy book from the early 50's that confidently proclaimed this - and said that meteor impacts all ended at the time the earth formed. And this is just one example - before you say that this is the only thing we learnt and that it's not worth it.

That was again at a time when the US could afford such a program. Something called economic growth, this escapes us today Sparks.

Ah, but do you know of any funded ones? I sure don't...

I don't know about that, but to say that Russia has no Research is a mischaracterization.

It's questionable, not due to the massive costs, but because of the secrecy. Exploration was done, but data was never released into the public domain and as a result, no exploitation ever took place - and thus there was no benefit for the average citizen past the pride of being first into space. Which has little practical benefit...

It was questionable in both respects, of course the costs prevented any economic benefits of that space program (which you so love to say). Remember the Soviets never had any military space programs

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes I can, and have been doing for a while now. Look, it's like this. Cut military spending.

Can we please stay within the realm of reality, if the US cuts military spending it would under a democratic president who's priorities lie with social programs not space.

But you have to realise that the current military setup cannot last - it's not economically viable, not politically survivable, and hell, even the military is now complaining that they don't have enough bullets!.

I am well aware that the current budget deficit cannot last, military spending can be stabilized. How? Cut other spending, the Soviet states of America under a republican will not cut that spending.

So military spending will have to be cut - hell it's allready happened in the UK - and this would give Bush an "out" to do so without seeming "soft on terror".

The UK is totally different from the US, no comparison.

Nope. I was saying in that thread that if you wait before starting for a decade, you won't have any experts left alive. Here we're talking about what you can do in ten years if you start now, while you still have access to that expertise.
Different things entirely.

Does it really matter? We are under the assumption that inititive by the president is even real.

Except that it's the stated goal of the programme. So you can't forget it. "A Man On Mars", remember?

Fine then, even more waste.

I have. That's what I was saying. No analysis, no sources, figures only given vaguely and without references.

No analysis? ok there

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

need to say more?

Actually, I do - a small portion of my taxes fund the ESA. So you might say I've paid a cent or two towards Beagle and Mars Express!
(And I'd happily pay more - I judge it to be very worthwhile)

And I know that beagle is such a successful space mission!

Whether or not to proceed with a programme to put a man on mars in a decade.

Well I vote no.

 

Okay, so the plan's been announced. From the White House fact sheet:

President Bush's Vision for U.S. Space Exploration

The President's plan for steady human and robotic space exploration is based on the following goals:
First, America will complete its work on the International Space Station by 2010, fulfilling our commitment to our 15 partner countries. The United States will launch a re-focused research effort on board the International Space Station to better understand and overcome the effects of human space flight on astronaut health, increasing the safety of future space missions.
To accomplish this goal, NASA will return the Space Shuttle to flight consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the Station, and the Shuttle will be retired by the end of this decade after nearly 30 years of service.
Second, the United States will begin developing a new manned exploration vehicle to explore beyond our orbit to other worlds -- the first of its kind since the Apollo Command Module. The new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and tested by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is retired.
Third, America will return to the Moon as early as 2015 and no later than 2020 and use it as a stepping stone for more ambitious missions. A series of robotic missions to the Moon, similar to the Spirit Rover that is sending remarkable images back to Earth from Mars, will explore the lunar surface beginning no later than 2008 to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle, humans will conduct extended lunar missions as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods.
The extended human presence on the Moon will enable astronauts to develop new technologies and harness the Moon's abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments. An extended human presence on the Moon could reduce the costs of further exploration, since lunar-based spacecraft could escape the Moon's lower gravity using less energy at less cost than Earth-based vehicles. The experience and knowledge gained on the Moon will serve as a foundation for human missions beyond the Moon, beginning with Mars.
NASA will increase the use of robotic exploration to maximize our understanding of the solar system and pave the way for more ambitious manned missions. Probes, landers, and similar unmanned vehicles will serve as trailblazers and send vast amounts of knowledge back to scientists on Earth.

Key Points on the President's FY 2005 Budget
The funding added for exploration will total $12 billion over the next five years. Most of this added funding for new exploration will come from reallocation of $11 billion that is currently within the five-year total NASA budget of $86 billion.
In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget, the President will request an additional $1 billion to NASA's existing five-year plan, or an average of $200 million per year.
From 1992 to 2000, NASA's budget decreased by a total of 5 percent. Since the year 2000, NASA's budget has increased by approximately 3 percent per year.
From the current 2004 level of $15.4 billion, the President's proposal will increase NASA's budget by an average of 5 percent per year over the next three years, and at approximately 1 percent or less per year for the two years after those.

 

I am happy to see the ambition that this program has, also I was surprised that Bush was actually wiling to allow other nations to join the program (the question is how much foreign assistance will be allocated?). The US has begun it's program, I have my misgivings on the economic aspects of the program, $1 trillion is a lot of money. If the US can pull it off, that's good news. But the question still remains, isn't that energy and money be better spent at home? I say yes, but I am not sad that the US is going into space.

 

Until 2010 the plans look certainly economically feasable and as a nice relatively slow way to phase out the shuttle program, buying some extra time to keep shuttle technicians at work, buys time for others to find other job or start working on the new exploration vehicle.

After that, testing the exploration vehicle should shed more light on technological/financial impact and might require adjustments of the plans.

It would not surprise if they could hide some of that nasa budget in DoD, because maybe they are already busy with SSTO solutions that can be used dual purpose for millitary/science..

 

Undecided, where's that trillion dollar figure coming from?

(And no, it's not better off being spent at home. That was the argument for shutting down the Apollo programme the first time and the last 20 years didn't see the cash going to social programmes, it was funnelled into the military. And if you think that won't happen again, you're ignoring history...)

 

Inevitably this program is going to be cut, does that mean the program gets cut fullly, or partially, well that's up to Zeus to discern. 10 is right, the formitive years where costs are low because it is merely in the R&D stage of development, and nothing is being done (nothing expensive). Things will change,it's only a matter of time.

 

Undecided, where's that trillion dollar figure coming from?


http://www.cbpp.org/1-9-04cbppstmt.htm

I ask the same question?

 

Hey, if they don't, they'll fund a trillion-dollar space programme...

Okay. First things first. He3 has some promise as a future fuel. However - we can't use it yet and it's not lying about in chunks on the lunar surface. So it's not a hot commodity, it's hard to get at and it's useless when you do - for now.
Secondly, you explore first - then you exploit. That's the model that human history has shown works. Columbus included.

No, they weren't. The DC3 was, as it was a military transport. It wasn't a jet aircraft either. As to the boeings, their designs were based on publicly available data from the NACA testing throughout the 50s and 60s.

That's nonsense. The need for innovation is a function of our desire for a better life, not our desire to exploit things we don't yet know exist....

Actually, she can't afford not to. The benefits brought are amongst the best peaceful ways to recover an economy. (Obviously not on their own, but they're damn handy.)

It's not a hard concept to get - it's also wrong. The economy in that time frame was far from booming. And the push given by the manned space programme was one of the major reasons why the economy was able to recover from a war footing to a peacetime footing.

"run-of-the-mill" drugs are the ones whose patents have run out and which are now made as commodity items. And it's not price fixing when only one company makes the product.

Nope, but the idea that the public sector does nothing and the private sector does everything is anarcho-capitalism by definition...

No, consistency.
If you won't read what I write, why should I waste my time writing it?

We have a saying over here - "cutting off your nose to spite your face". It seems to apply to that sentiment of yours.

And yet, without the moon programme of the 60s, you wouldn't have any of them.

You're right. So let's be accurate. Russia has no effective, funded, significant R&D programmes.

Nope, not the costs - the secrecy. The cost was effectively irrelevant.

Yes, because Kennedy, was a well-known hard-core right-winger

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nope. You have no analysis, you know no figures and this discussion is no longer worth my time. Let us know when you've actually read a book (may I suggest Entering Space by Zubrin? $12 in total, including shipping. Even a high-school kid can afford that...)

I'd call it a spectacular success. It was a last-minute, high-risk addition to a project that had been developed over several years, it cost 35 million in total (compared to MER which comes to $550 million), and it only failed at the last hurdle, the landing. Which was always a crap-shoot anyway. So yes, it's a spectacular success - because it showed that the ESA could build a lander that fast, that cheap and have it work.

 

And for the record:
Democratic presidential candidates and space: a primer

 

Sparks I'm loving the overly subjecitve quoting, whoa! I expected more then that, attack the weak eh? Well I assume you agree with everything else you ommited to say:

Hey, if they don't, they'll fund a trillion-dollar space programme...

Totally irresponsible, in today's finicial climate.

No, they weren't. The DC3 was, as it was a military transport.

It's predecessor the DC-2 was not a military plane ,nor was the Boeing 247. They were both funded by private companies. The DC-3 was eventually absorbed into the US military, it was a civilian airliner first. The DC-3 is essentially a pressurized DC-2.

It wasn't a jet aircraft either.

No shit sherlock!

As to the boeings, their designs were based on publicly available data from the NACA testing throughout the 50s and 60s.

That's great, but the 747 was a totally new design and was totally a private venture. The origins of the 707 are found with the military, that is true. The Comet for instance? That was a private venture, and there was cetainly no NACA testing, or the Avro Jetliner? The reason d'etre for both being to satisfy the private market, from private companies.

That's nonsense. The need for innovation is a function of our desire for a better life, not our desire to exploit things we don't yet know exist....

Not true, man innovates so man can exploit his innovations. Your logic basically says this:"We have found a cure for cancer, but we will not produce it. But it will potentially give you a better life." Do you deny that man wouldn't innovate if there wasn't a exploitable objective? Even this moon mission, you constantly hear the ecos of $$$, and mining, and Helium, etc. All to exploit. If space was exploit-less none of this wouldn't be happening.

Actually, she can't afford not to.

She's been dong rather well for the last 30 years without going to the moon. She can't afford to do it, I don't think you are getting this.

The benefits brought are amongst the best peaceful ways to recover an economy. (Obviously not on their own, but they're damn handy.)

This is so economically ignorant, I cannot even believe you are even saying this. Ok so you think it will help the US economy? Let's see the US government spends $1 trillion, and creates a mini-boom in the economy. With little jobs being created (due to outsourcing, and the mechinization of industry, surely not 9 million jobs), and the US government going $1 trillion into debt. That is not a way to run a capitalist economy, when you are in the red you slash you do not increase funding. Interest rates up, inflation up, unemployment up, and possible non-confidence in the US government's ability to meet her economic commitments. Using this logic of government spending the US economy right now should be booming faster then China with the massive military expenditures. Where are all the jobs? Where is this economic growth? Oh I forget Soviet policy usually fails.

The economy in that time frame was far from booming.

So then was the US economy during the period of 1945-75 known as the 30 golden years of economic development? Oil prices were low, there was increasing consumer confidence and spending, etc. The 60's is not known for economic instability, quite the opposite.

And the push given by the manned space programme was one of the major reasons why the economy was able to recover from a war footing to a peacetime footing.

WHAAAAAAAA!!!! You have got to be kidding me, you are telling me that the manned space program almost singlehandely brought the US out of WWII boom? Which of course is illogical, the US boomed in WWII, and post WWII even before the concept of a manned mission, and even NASA was a dream. Stop please, you killed me.

"run-of-the-mill" drugs are the ones whose patents have run out and which are now made as commodity items. And it's not price fixing when only one company makes the product.

I will find a link…

Nope, but the idea that the public sector does nothing and the private sector does everything is anarcho-capitalism by definition...

What then are you talking about? I was reffering to patents (which government is nessecary to enforce). You are confusing subjects of the thread.

If you won't read what I write, why should I waste my time writing it?


Well I am not really get much debate here anyways, coming from a man who thinks that you can afford this with a $400 billion deficit. Loving the logic there buddy…


We have a saying over here - "cutting off your nose to spite your face". It seems to apply to that sentiment of yours.

And here we understand the concept of supply and demand, the supply is limitied the demand isn’t. Thus the demand will have to wait…

And yet, without the moon programme of the 60s, you wouldn't have any of them.

I am pretty sure we would have had communication satellites, consider they were launched before the moon missions. Manned LEO was initiated in 1961 with Yuri, again not dependant on the moon program. Where are you getting this from Sparks?

You're right. So let's be accurate. Russia has no effective, funded, significant R&D programmes.

Sad, agreed.

Nope, not the costs - the secrecy. The cost was effectively irrelevant.

Not when the costs gave way to any perceived advantage, the costs is what brought much of the USSR down. The Space program like the Soviet military was a burden, with minimal results.

Yes, because Kennedy, was a well-known hard-core right-winger

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ok? Did you actually read what I said? In order for that sentence to even begin to make sense, I would have to have said that a democratic president would have decreased social spending….

Nope. You have no analysis, you know no figures and this discussion is no longer worth my time.

Why spew ignorance when enlightment is just around the corner?

Let us know when you've actually read a book (may I suggest Entering Space by Zubrin? $12 in total, including shipping. Even a high-school kid can afford that...)

You are under the idiotic impression that reading a book that doesn’t have the idea of the grim budgetary constraignts on the US at the moment will actually do anything to change my mind. Again I do not deny that space is important, and that it should be developed. But what you aren’t understanding is that THE US CANNOT AFFORD IT! And no book is going to tell me it can.

I'd call it a spectacular success

As was the Challenger…

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!