U.S. going back to moon

[Evan van Eyk]

Originally posted by Ergi
Yes typo, but you aren't any better yourself.
Since the ISS is in a stable orbit,

It actually is not. It has to be lifted up on a regular base or would follow her Russian cousin down to Earth.

I've heard someone say that the ISS is the biggest hindrance on our way to the other planets because just keeping it running consumes a big part of the space program budget.

While I see that it takes a lot of money, I think it is worth the try. First of all the cooperation aspect of this multinational project is a first time in human history ( after all Russians and US working together ), which is essential if we want to "conquer" space without again getting on our throats about its ressources.
Second it provides us with a steady testing range for experiments which are also essential for long-term travels, e.g. to Mars or even beyound. There is technology to be tested, experiments to be made, which you just can by simply using a shuttle, due to its short term missions.
Concerning the budget - if we would stop putting so much money into military projects and put it into space exploration a lot could be helped.

[Cybrludite]

Originally posted by Ergi
I've heard someone say that the ISS is the biggest hindrance on our way to the other planets because just keeping it running consumes a big part of the space program budget.
This would even be worse with a station on the moon. Apart from having to shuttle radiation shielding (led) material to protect the atronauts everything will have to be transported a longer way.
What's even worse is that new space crafts will have to be developed for landing and returning from the moon surface with the ability to carry big loads.

Why would we need to bring lead up the well to Luna? Plenty of free radiation shielding there already. They're called "rocks". With solar panels for power, you can bake the regolith to liberate useful things like oxygen, titanium, aluminium & helium-3. Incidently, aluminium dust burns quite well when combined with oxygen. In other words, you've got local fuel for your lunar heavy lifters. A metalic oxide engine won't have the thrust of a more conventionally powered rocket, but they'd only be lifting from .16667g.

[Ergi]

Originally posted by Cybrludite
Why would we need to bring lead up the well to Luna? Plenty of free radiation shielding there already. They're called "rocks". With solar panels for power, you can bake the regolith to liberate useful things like oxygen, titanium, aluminium & helium-3. Incidently, aluminium dust burns quite well when combined with oxygen. In other words, you've got local fuel for your lunar heavy lifters. A metalic oxide engine won't have the thrust of a more conventionally powered rocket, but they'd only be lifting from .16667g.

Of course they could use the low-tech solution But I doubt NASA will convince the senate to fund a stone pile or a hole. Besides, building either of them might take a very long time and the environment up there isn't exactly good for your health.

Evan van Eyk:

There's nothing we disagree on.

[BouncyCaitian]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_1155103.htm

Looks like china's going fora moon probe shot at this point.

[Sarge]

I hope they go for it. It might give our space program a good kick in its complacency.

[REG]

The Chinese can have the moon.

[First of Two]

That would be a BIG mistake.

[Ergi]

I think so as well. What do you believe will happen once the Chinese have built a real colony up there, or anything else that could make the other countries pretty envious. The colonization of North America wasn't exactly unbloody.

Or imagine what a country like China would be willing to do for a huge paycheck from a big company. I can already see the biggest Pepsi logo ever moving through the night sky.

[Capt.Hunter]

Why go to the moon again - been there, done that. Has to be Mars next. I'm in thorough agreement with the guy who said:

"If you're going to explore the world outside your home, which is more sensible - go somewhere far away or just walk around the block a few times then head back?"

As for the ISS, the problem there is that the damn thing was originally costed at $8 billion and is currently coming in at $400 billion because NASA have great technical skills but didn't hire accountants. Actually, they DID hire accountants - Arthur Andersen (yep - the Enron guys)...

Add to this the fact that ALL of NASAs policy decisions were based around the ISS - at the expense of other projects, and you begin to get a sense of why it costs so much. Hell, they even had to design new booster rockets to get the shuttle to the right orbit after they brought the Russians aboard - because for the Russians to be involved (a political decision - don't want any former Soviet rocket scientists taking their paycheck from Hussein or Bin Laden...) the station's orbit had to pass over Baikonur Aerodrome. This involves a higher orbit, so the shuttle needs more fuel. The cost of those boosters? $1 million. The tail begins to wag the dog...

As for a lunar colony - go for it, as long as no-one tries anything pathetic like annexing the whole chunk of rock as sovereign territory.

[First of Two]

The ISS got caught in a vicious circle, which is mostly the fault of the US Congress.

They were running over budget (to be expected when developing new technologies).
So Congress cut the budget and forced a redesign.
Redesigns themselves cost money. Plus it takes money to figure out ways to cope with decreased resources.
So they went over budget again.
So Congress asked for another redesign.
etc.
etc.
etc.

PLUS the stuff Capt. Hunter is talking about.

P.S. There's a UN treaty that says that no nation may declare any space body as its property, even by landing people on it.

Of course, this treaty was mainly intended as a barrier to US expansion, (as we're the only nation to have succeeded at it so far) and will probably only last as long as it takes for a non-US country to land a manned ship on said body.

[Capt.Hunter]

Sorry, were you saying other countries wouldn't abide by it, or the USA? (Sarcasm...)

[First of Two]

I said others. I meant others. (Although I was not specifically referring to any particular country.) The proof will come with the pudding.

If I were running things, however, I'd abrogate the treaty, and increase funding to space development initiatives. The economic benefits of exploting such resources would be, literally, astronomical.

Meanwhile I could conquer the world with the waste material. Vote my way, or I drop a chunk of rock on you from 500 miles up.


If it's occurred to me, then no doubt it's occurred to some bright boy in the Chinese space program. First to bring back an NEA wins the planet.

[Dave Biggins]

Thankfully, First, you're not running things.

Like Sarge, I wish the Chinese all the luck in the world. In Washington, space exploration is a political albatross. Speaking out against space exploration is not wise move, politically. There are too many businesses involved in it and the industries are pretty well spread out over the U.S. Besides that, it would appear to be just plain un-American (). The returns, however, haven't been getting the headlines.
On top of that, after losing two aging shuttles, NASA is a bit gun shy about full-blown manned missions these days.

The Chinese landing on the moon can reverse this. To paraphrase Sarge, it would be a good kick in the pants. A successful Chinese moon-mission would trigger congratulations...sincere congratulations, believe it or not. It would also rekindle our competitive streak. We'll be on our way to Mars.

Deep down inside, though, I want us to reach the stars. All of us.

Now to allay any fear about rocks from space...Mass Drivers are viewed as a viable weapon program only only by people who have a secret underwater base replete with turtleneck wearing thugs driving about the base in golf-carts at excrutiatingly slow speeds.

A meteor is not exactly a precision weapon. You hit a country with a meteor, other countries are going to feel it. That's counting on the fact that you are able to hit the target in the first place. You deal with fall out, disastrous weather changes, and scads of other problems that will not just affect the target country. It will affect your country as well.

I beleive that the Chinese have expansionist tendecies. I also believe that these tendencies are balancedby a modicrum of prgmatism.

[Owen E Oulton]

"after losing two aging shuttles"

Sorry, Dave, but that's a statement that always bugs me... Columbia was less than a third through her 100-mission service life, and Challenger was lost on her 10th flight, less than three years after she first flew.

Columbia was lost due to negligence (NASA knew there was a problem with insulation hits for years and never bothered to fix it) and Challenger due to active disregard for safety parameters.

[REG]

I don't know whether the fault lies in the small budget allocated by the US government, or NASA mismanaging the money. I think both are at fault, but I'd rather fix the latter first.

BTW, I'm curious. If a media conglomerate wants to send up a new communications satellite to replace the aging ones, do they pay for the shuttle service out of their own pocket, or do they negotiate on paying the service in exchange for a tax break?