Lost in Space

[TheMadCap]

Maybe, maybe not. 98% is pretty high for such a dangerous activity, and was about the estimated reliability rate of the Gemini and Apollo missions. NASA's bigger problem in that regard is the unrealistic expectations expressed by their management - their risk analysis of the shuttle program was always along the lines of "The odds of losing a shuttle are 100,000 to 1, because if the risk is any higher I might lose my job. I don't care if the engineers say it's 100 to 1, I'm a lawyer and I know better."

 

Doesn't mean that a regulated private space industry wouldn't be required to meet some fictitious 100% reliability rate...but a sane regulatory environment would probably be satisfied by 99% and sufficient evidence of risk analysis and mitigation.

 

 

They may say that, but no one really believes that failure rate. As Feynmen pointed out in his Appendix to the Rogers commission report, a more realistic figure is 1 in 50 flights. Damn near nailed it, didn't he?

 

Again, I will say (as I have said countless times before) unless you have somewhere you need/want to go (Mars, etc) then why do you need risk people's lives?

[DC Tom]

Again, I will say (as I have said countless times before) unless you have somewhere you need/want to go (Mars, etc) then why do you need risk people's lives?

 

Risk mitigation. If you're going to Mars, you're not doing it all in one mission. Too many unknown unknowns. You fly a bunch of progressively longer and more complex missions, to build the body of knowledge that allows you to mitigate the mission risk. Just like Apollo.

 

Not that that's any sort of justification for the STS (). But it would be hellaciously stupid to jump directly to a Mars mission without doing a multitude of short- and long-duration manned LEO and lunar missions first.

[Magox]

Neil Armstrong speaks...

[IDBillzFan]

Neil Armstrong speaks...

Thanks, Neil. If Obama wants to hear from your antiquated "Oh, look at me! I walked on the moon! One small step for man blah blah blah" piehole, I'm sure he'll ask for it. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, and let the new dude do his thing, okay?

[John Adams]

Neil Armstrong speaks...

 

I am torn between Neil's POV and his fellow cremember. Buzz Aldrin was on Howard Stern this morning (really). He had the opposite take, arguing that the moon is a dead place and why bother going there using NASA. He said that if there's any value to being on the moon, commercial companies will go there. If they don't go there, it will speak volumes of the moon's value. He also argued that the cost of developing a single program is so great that it had better have a perceptible value. He liked that we're shooting for Mars, despite its difficulties. FWIW.

[Magox]

I am torn between Neil's POV and his fellow cremember. Buzz Aldrin was on Howard Stern this morning (really). He had the opposite take, arguing that the moon is a dead place and why bother going there using NASA. He said that if there's any value to being on the moon, commercial companies will go there. If they don't go there, it will speak volumes of the moon's value. He also argued that the cost of developing a single program is so great that it had better have a perceptible value. He liked that we're shooting for Mars, despite it's difficulties. FWIW.

Ya and not only that, Jesse James got butt naked for him.

[John Adams]

Ya and not only that, Jesse James got butt naked for him.

 

Big day for an 80 year old. I think her name is Jesse Jane for the record. Jesse James is the guy who's cheating on Sandra Bullock.

[finknottle]

He said that if there's any value to being on the moon, commercial companies will go there. If they don't go there, it will speak volumes of the moon's value.

 

That ignore's the effect of government regulation, which limits who can launch what, and how, in a way that early experimental aviation was never limited.

 

There is also every reason to believe that a lunar venture set up to exploit the moons resources would not be able to hold their claims. Suppose I had an expensive and risky venture which successfully set up a moon base at the South Pole, and found and mined the water resources thought to be there. Would my monopoly be recognized?

 

Ask yourself this: is Antartica valuable? Why has there been no commercial development there?

[John Adams]

That ignore's the effect of government regulation, which limits who can launch what, and how, in a way that early experimental aviation was never limited.

 

There is also every reason to believe that a lunar venture set up to exploit the moons resources would not be able to hold their claims. Suppose I had an expensive and risky venture which successfully set up a moon base at the South Pole, and found and mined the water resources thought to be there. Would my monopoly be recognized?

 

Ask yourself this: is Antartica valuable? Why has there been no commercial development there?

 

Not sure I follow your post.

 

I understand your issue RE commercial launches and licensing. That's something that has been and will continue to be overcome.

 

Your statement about the moon's value compared to Antarctica agrees with Buzz. The moon is not valuable (probably), except as a training place for future missions elsewhere. Sadly, nothing in our solar system may be interesting beyond satisfying scientific curiosity. For example, it's believable that a person will land on Mars and return some day. We will probably find frozen water there. But unless we discover life or evidence of it, Mars may have little to "wow" us. The same may hold true for the other watered moons in our solar system. But that doesn't mean we should not go and look. Space exploration--especially manned--is one of the few adventures that captivates almost all of humanity's imagination and we should keep doing it.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Weren't you the one blaming private industry for the schedule slippage?

If you choose to call Lockheed Martin Aerospace and Boeing Space Divisions private industries then sure.

 

A lot of the slippages come in the form of bureaucratic red tape when dealing with the Gov't.

[finknottle]

Your statement about the moon's value compared to Antarctica agrees with Buzz. The moon is not valuable (probably), except as a training place for future missions elsewhere. Sadly, nothing in our solar system may be interesting beyond satisfying scientific curiosity. For example, it's believable that a person will land on Mars and return some day. We will probably find frozen water there. But unless we discover life or evidence of it, Mars may have little to "wow" us. The same may hold true for the other watered moons in our solar system. But that doesn't mean we should not go and look. Space exploration--especially manned--is one of the few adventures that captivates almost all of humanity's imagination and we should keep doing it.

 

No, the moon is potentially very valuable. Space-based industry could be very profitable if certain resources are present. In particular, a convenient source of water is key to a permanent presence - people and industry both need it, and it can be a source of reaction mass for travel. The problem is that you cannot afford to ship water up from earth. You need a convenient source already up there. (By analogy, consider colonizing the New World, if you needed to bring your own soil for crops.)

 

There might be recoverable water under the lunar poles in usefull quantities. If you could claim it *and keep it,* you would likely monopolize initial expansion throughout the solar system. That's some sweet action, even for the likes of Paul Allen.

 

Lotta if's there, but it is no coincidence that the US, Japan, China and India have each launched lunar water probes in the last few years.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Lost in Space, Bye, bye shuttles...

 

From the FOX blurb...

 

The Obama administration's decision to end the space shuttle program is causing great concern among politicians on both side of the aisle as well. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., has said that reliance on the Russians could last even longer than NASA anticipates, since replacements for the aging spacecraft are far from ready. It's a situation he finds "unacceptable."

 

Lets not forget that the choice to retire the Space Shuttle was made quite a few years ago. Wednesday, July 13, 2005

 

NASA is considering retiring a Space Shuttle orbiter in 2007 and beginning modifications to one Shuttle launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center under a plan now being reviewed at NASA headquarters, according to senior agency sources.

 

Driving the idea of a phased retirement of the space vehicles are two concerns. The first is a desire for finding new sources of funds to pay for advancement of the President's moon-to-Mars plan. And secondly NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin's fears of a third Shuttle accident.

 

NASA and White House Discuss Shuttle Retirement

[DC Tom]

Lost in Space, Bye, bye shuttles...

 

From the FOX blurb...

 

The Obama administration's decision to end the space shuttle program is causing great concern among politicians on both side of the aisle as well. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., has said that reliance on the Russians could last even longer than NASA anticipates, since replacements for the aging spacecraft are far from ready. It's a situation he finds "unacceptable."

 

Lets not forget that the choice to retire the Space Shuttle was made quite a few years ago. Wednesday, July 13, 2005

 

NASA is considering retiring a Space Shuttle orbiter in 2007 and beginning modifications to one Shuttle launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center under a plan now being reviewed at NASA headquarters, according to senior agency sources.

 

Driving the idea of a phased retirement of the space vehicles are two concerns. The first is a desire for finding new sources of funds to pay for advancement of the President's moon-to-Mars plan. And secondly NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin's fears of a third Shuttle accident.

 

NASA and White House Discuss Shuttle Retirement

 

Fox must be run by a bunch of !@#$ing monkeys. Can't discern the difference between cancelling the Constellation and Ares programs, and cancelling the Shuttle program?

[John Adams]

Fox must be run by a bunch of !@#$ing monkeys. Can't discern the difference between cancelling the Constellation and Ares programs, and cancelling the Shuttle program?

 

Fox is painful.

 

One of my partners is uber conservative and forces us to rotate the news playing in our cafeteria through at least a day of Fox. It's funny to see their take on things.

 

On another note, are Fox anchors (male and female) sporting more makeup than any other anchors? I always find them quite disturbing looking, even the strippers who do the midday reporting.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Cape Canaveral, Florida (CNN) -- President Obama pledged his full commitment to the space program Thursday, outlining a new strategy that ends current programs while funding new initiatives intended to propel humankind farther into the solar system.

 

In a speech at the Kennedy Space Center, Obama outlined his proposal to pump an additional $6 billion into NASA's budget over the next five years while halting a project to resume lunar missions.

 

The new spending would be for research on a propulsion breakthrough to travel deeper into space, as well as development of technologies to allow humans to transport necessary supplies to work and stay longer, Obama said.

 

"I am 100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future," Obama said to applause from the audience of space program workers.

 

He outlined a program including a multibillion-dollar modernization of Kennedy Space Center, expansion of private-sector and commercial space industries, creation of thousands of jobs and eventually human travel to Mars.

 

"We will actually reach space faster and more often under this plan," Obama said, adding it would send more astronauts into space over the next decade than previously planned.

 

Instead of being scrapped as originally proposed, the Orion crew capsule would be used as an emergency vehicle to reach crews at the International Space Station, Obama said.

 

The administration would instead invest in deep space exploration and scientific development, he said.

 

"We've been there before," Obama said of the moon. "There's a lot more of space to explore and a lot more to learn when we do."

 

Obama noted that the space shuttle fleet is scheduled to be retired at the end of this year under a decision made six years ago. That will leave the Russian Soyuz capsules as the only avenue into space until commercial ventures are ready to do the job, expected to be years away.

 

Leroy Chiao, a former astronaut and the current vice president of Excalibur Almaz, a private manned space flight company, said it's time to "give the commercial guys a chance."

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/oba...dex.html?hpt=T2

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I don't see much need for the US to go to the moon unless there is a need for people to start living there.

 

Nor can I see dozens/hundreds/thousands of people lasting the 6 months it would take to get to Mars w/o wanting to kill each other first due to what would have to be cramped living conditions.

[TheMadCap]

I don't see much need for the US to go to the moon unless there is a need for people to start living there.

 

Nor can I see dozens/hundreds/thousands of people lasting the 6 months it would take to get to Mars w/o wanting to kill each other first due to what would have to be cramped living conditions.

 

Kind of like what happened to the pilgrims on thier voyage across the ocean? Ever been on a scale replica of the type of ships that era used for crossing the oceans? They were unbelievably tiny.

 

We're talking about professionals here, not regular, everyday American Idol watchers...

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Kind of like what happened to the pilgrims on thier voyage across the ocean? Ever been on a scale replica of the type of ships that era used for crossing the oceans? They were unbelievably tiny.

 

We're talking about professionals here, not regular, everyday American Idol watchers...

Excuse me?

 

If you plan on colonizing the moon or mars --- all of them will not be professionals.

 

Have "civilians" been to Earths orbit and the Space Station?

 

Answer -

 

On April 7, Hungarian-born billionaire software engineer Charles Simonyi boarded a Russian Soyuz spaceship bound for the International Space Station, to become one of only a handful of civilians to fly into orbit around the Earth.

[Booster4324]

Excuse me?

 

If you plan on colonizing the moon or mars --- all of them will not be professionals.

 

Have "civilians" been to Earths orbit and the Space Station?

 

Answer -

 

On April 7, Hungarian-born billionaire software engineer Charles Simonyi boarded a Russian Soyuz spaceship bound for the International Space Station, to become one of only a handful of civilians to fly into orbit around the Earth.

 

I would think that any colonization attempts (something we are way away from) would still be filled with professionals. Afterall, you aren't sending more than dozens at a time, you are not going to pick the average guy. They will be exceptional in that they are astronauts who have another vocation.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I would think that any colonization attempts (something we are way away from) would still be filled with professionals. Afterall, you aren't sending more than dozens at a time, you are not going to pick the average guy. They will be exceptional in that they are astronauts who have another vocation.

 

I may have to differ on all but the first listed as in the rest though educated they are average guys -

 

Construction Engineers, welders, plumbers, electricians, sheet metal fabricators, etc how to be an Astronaut.

 

How long would it take two dozen professionals to build a structure? One year, two years, three years?