IMO, the International Space Station is a mission to nowhere. And I
believe the Constellation program is just a repeat of the Apollo
program. The excitement of the Apollo 11 moon landing quickly faded
with the congress and the public because it was essentially a space
spectacular program instead of a pioneering program for human
expansion off the planet.
elite few and towards space colonization and industrialization program
by building a mostly reusable space transportation infrastructure and
permanently manned and continuously growing facilities in space and on
the Moon and Mars through the exploitation of extraterrestrial
resources on the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids.
So I'm all for building the Ares V heavy lift vehicle as soon as
possible. We desperately need a heavy lift vehicle.
But I'm against the Ares 1 and prefer building a reusable VTOVL Delta
Clipper as a people shuttle that could be launched from anywhere in
the country and would be attractive to private industry for human
space launches and space tourism. This same VTOVL could also be used
as a Mars lander and hydrogen tanker from the Martian surface to Mars
orbit.
With the Ares V, we could launch Skylab-like manned habitats (or even
cabled rotational habitats to provide artificial gravity) into Earth
and Lunar orbit along with massive water tankers, oxygen tankers, and
hydrogen tankers for long term survival and transportation fuel needs.
The lunar lander should also be reusable, IMO, expendable as NASA
proposes. That would mean giving such a vehicle the capability of
refueling on the lunar surface and from orbiting space tankers. We
should also have a small reusable OTV for people transport between
lunar and Earth orbit. Reusable vehicles of course require maintenance
which means we'd have to have a lot more mechanical engineers in
orbital habitats and on the surface of the Moon and Mars which I
think is a good thing as long as people are mostly living off the
resources of the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids.
If we built huge Drexler type light sails in lunar orbit, this would
provide us with a reusable vehicle that would weigh less than 50
tonnes yet could transport several hundred tonnes of people and
payload rapidly to Mars orbit in just a few months. And these aluminum
sails would require very little maintenance.
Using the Ares V to send base facilities to the lunar surface where
humans could exploit the oxygen in the soil for survival. Similar
bases on Mars could exploit Martian ice and send needed hydrogen to
the moon. But we need to know if lots of people can truly survive in
extraterrestrial environments with little or no resources from Earth.
And we also need to find out if we can utilize the resources in these
environment to gradually expand the size of this habitats.
This may sound a lot more expensive than our current space program or
the Constellation program, but without the space shuttle program and
by turning over the ISS program to Russia, Japan, and Europe, I
seriously think it could done with only a slight increase in the
current NASA budget. And I think Americans would be a lot more
interested in a program of gradual colonization of the New Frontier
rather than one that has an elite few just visiting these worlds and
then returning to brag about their expensive adventure.
A mission to nowhere.....
And you are absolutely right IMO on all counts.
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.comFrom: newpapyrus@...: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:48:26 +0000Subject: [spacesettlers] NASA should prioritize space colonization over pure exploration
IMO, the International Space Station is a mission to nowhere. And Ibelieve the Constellation program is just a repeat of the Apolloprogram. The excitement of the Apollo 11 moon landing quickly fadedwith the congress and the public because it was essentially a spacespectacular program instead of a pioneering program for humanexpansion off the planet.NASA, IMO, needs to shift its priorities from space exploration for anelite few and towards space colonization and industrialization programby building a mostly reusable space transportation infrastructure andpermanently manned and continuously growing facilities in space and onthe Moon and Mars through the exploitation of extraterrestrialresources on the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids.So I'm all for building the Ares V heavy lift vehicle as soon aspossible. We desperately need a heavy lift vehicle.But I'm against the Ares 1 and prefer building a reusable VTOVL DeltaClipper as a people shuttle that could be launched from anywhere inthe country and would be attractive to private industry for humanspace launches and space tourism. This same VTOVL could also be usedas a Mars lander and hydrogen tanker from the Martian surface to Marsorbit.With the Ares V, we could launch Skylab-like manned habitats (or evencabled rotational habitats to provide artificial gravity) into Earthand Lunar orbit along with massive water tankers, oxygen tankers, andhydrogen tankers for long term survival and transportation fuel needs.The lunar lander should also be reusable, IMO, expendable as NASAproposes. That would mean giving such a vehicle the capability of refueling on the lunar surface and from orbiting space tankers. Weshould also have a small reusable OTV for people transport betweenlunar and Earth orbit. Reusable vehicles of course require maintenancewhich means we'd have to have a lot more mechanical engineers inorbital habitats and on the surface of the Moon and Mars which Ithink is a good thing as long as people are mostly living off theresources of the Moon, Mars, and the asteroids. If we built huge Drexler type light sails in lunar orbit, this wouldprovide us with a reusable vehicle that would weigh less than 50tonnes yet could transport several hundred tonnes of people andpayload rapidly to Mars orbit in just a few months. And these aluminumsails would require very little maintenance.Using the Ares V to send base facilities to the lunar surface wherehumans could exploit the oxygen in the soil for survival. Similarbases on Mars could exploit Martian ice and send needed hydrogen tothe moon. But we need to know if lots of people can truly survive inextraterrestrial environments with little or no resources from Earth.And we also need to find out if we can utilize the resources in theseenvironment to gradually expand the size of this habitats. This may sound a lot more expensive than our current space program orthe Constellation program, but without the space shuttle program andby turning over the ISS program to Russia, Japan, and Europe, Iseriously think it could done with only a slight increase in thecurrent NASA budget. And I think Americans would be a lot moreinterested in a program of gradual colonization of the New Frontierrather than one that has an elite few just visiting these worlds andthen returning to brag about their expensive adventure.
There's an old tongue-in-cheek saying: "No matter where you go,
there you are". In regard to the ISS, it's my hope that although it
"goes nowhere", it will be the progenitor of a permanent LEO transfer
point between Earth and destinations beyond. Likewise, I suspect that
there will be a similar orbiting transfer point at Mars.
The people manning the ISS serve a useful function - now, for
observation and research - and, hopefully, later for facilitating
missions and commerce between Earth and our other enclaves around the
solar system. Dismissing their work as a mission to nowhere does them
a disservice.
I don't believe there's anyone at NASA or in the space community in
general who feel that the ISS is an end result. It's a first - and
necessary - step in our evolution towards a being space faring species.
In the future those who find themselves on the Earth, on an
orbiting space station, on the Moon, Mars or elsewhere will all be
part of the fabric of our civilization. Describing any one of these
groups as being on a mission to nowhere marginalizes their
contribution and their value as human beings.
Chris
As a follow-up to my previous post I would remind everyone that NASA is
no better equipped to commercialize space than DARPA was to
commercialize the infant internet they funded. I believe that our
movement into space will follow the same pattern. I think that NASA will
eventually turn the ISS over to commercial use. In a way, the Russians
are ahead of us on this. They seem to be much more willing to let
private companies and individuals use their facilities.
Chris
...."and their value as human beings" sheesh I didn't mean to rank on them that hard.
There's an old tongue-in-cheek saying: "No matter where you go,there you are". In regard to the ISS, it's my hope that although it"goes nowhere", it will be the progenitor of a permanent LEO transferpoint between Earth and destinations beyond. Likewise, I suspect thatthere will be a similar orbiting transfer point at Mars.The people manning the ISS serve a useful function - now, forobservation and research - and, hopefully, later for facilitatingmissions and commerce between Earth and our other enclaves around thesolar system. Dismissing their work as a mission to nowhere does thema disservice. I don't believe there's anyone at NASA or in the space community ingeneral who feel that the ISS is an end result. It's a first - andnecessary - step in our evolution towards a being space faring species.In the future those who find themselves on the Earth, on anorbiting space station, on the Moon, Mars or elsewhere will all bepart of the fabric of our civilization. Describing any one of thesegroups as being on a mission to nowhere marginalizes theircontribution and their value as human beings.Chris --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Don DAnthony wrote:>> > A mission to nowhere.....
I didn't like the whole concept of the ISS program when Regan first
proposed it. The program's been a huge waste of money, IMO. In fact, I
preferred Skylab since it provide more interior space for the
astronauts to have fun once in a while.
would have enabled us to launch another Skylab which would have been
far cheaper than this thing. And the Saturn V in combination with the
space shuttle could have enabled us to do all sorts of incredible
things during the 80's and 90's including establishing a permanent
base on the moon and multiple space stations in Earth and lunar orbit.
Marcel F. Williams
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Smyth" wrote:
--- On Sun, 7/6/08, Chris Smyth wrote:
"The people manning the ISS serve a useful function - now, for
observation and research - and, hopefully, later for facilitating
missions and commerce between Earth and our other enclaves around the
solar system. Dismissing their work as a mission to nowhere does them
a disservice."
Ed
They other guy made a good point about the Saturns...I'd bet there'd be a couple of thriving cities up there by now if we had kept the Saturns going.
The im Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world?
On Jul 6, 2008, at 8:23 PM, Ed Minchau wrote:
> --- On Sun, 7/6/08, Chris Smyth wrote:
> "The people manning the ISS serve a useful function - now, for
> observation and research - and, hopefully, later for facilitating
> missions and commerce between Earth and our other enclaves around the
> solar system. Dismissing their work as a mission to nowhere does them
> a disservice."
>
> Name one discovery made aboard the ISS which was not already known
> via Skylab or Mir.
>
What "discoveries" are made by building a factory? Pretty much none,
but it's only by building a factory that you learn how to build and
operate factories. That's what we need to do in space, too: learn to
build and operate things, and the only way to do that is to do it.
Not that I agree with all of ISS's design decisions, but it IS a very
large (by current and historical standards) orbital facility, which
we're building and operating. That experience is valuable, quite
regardless of whether we can point to any specific discoveries made
there.
Best,
- Joe
Even NASA officials now realize that decommissioning the Saturn V was
a mistake. That's why they're working on the Ares V. The only silver
lining is that the Ares V will be capable of carrying more payload
into Earth orbit and more payload into lunar orbit.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Don DAnthony
>
> They other guy made a good point about the Saturns...I'd bet there'd
be a couple of thriving cities up there by now if we had kept the
Saturns going.
>
> To: spacesettlers@...: spider_boris@...: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:23:48
-0700Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: NASA should prioritize space
colonization over pure exploration
>
> --- On Sun, 7/6/08, Chris Smyth wrote:"The people
manning the ISS serve a useful function - now, forobservation and
research - and, hopefully, later for facilitatingmissions and commerce
between Earth and our other enclaves around thesolar system.
Dismissing their work as a mission to nowhere does thema
disservice."Name one discovery made aboard the ISS which was not
already known via Skylab or
smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
> From: Marcel
> Even NASA officials now realize that decommissioning the Saturn V was
> a mistake. That's why they're working on the Ares V.
success) will surely return!"
What made the saturn V great was not just capacity, it was reliability and
ground breaking concepts. By the end of its life it was also a proven design
based upon tested technology. The Aries V is based upon new SRBs, two types
of new engine, two new stage designs, and a new launcch and assembly
facility. And on vague dreams of the past.
And let's not forget, NASA had a good idea when it threw the saturn V away.
There is no good reason why space access has to be so expensive.
Reusabuility is the future. The fact that NASA chose a version of
reusability that allowed it to keep it's 20k workforce (and political clout
in washington) does not change that. The Aries V is a step backwards, not
forwards.
And let us also not forget that it will depend on the Aries I in two
important ways: If NASA fluffs the development of the shaft, congress won't
fork out the money for the second vehicle. And the shaft is so dangerously
underpowered it can't even lift a baseline CEV to the ISS.
John
Again, I am strongly against the Ares 1. I preger a small VTOVL Delta
Clipper type of manned people shuttle which I believe would also be a
vehicle that would be very attractive to be purchased by private
industry.
capability. And it is partially reusable.
Would I like a totally reusable heavy lift VOTVL? Sure! But we need to
test the concept on a smaller scale first, IMO. Plus I think we can
have the Ares V online and functioning a lot sooner than any reusable
heavy lift vehicle.
Marcel F. Williams
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> > From: Marcel
> > Even NASA officials now realize that decommissioning the Saturn V was
> > a mistake. That's why they're working on the Ares V.
>
> That's cargo cultism. "We'll copy the appearance (on paper) and the
gods (of
> success) will surely return!"
>
> What made the saturn V great was not just capacity, it was
reliability and
> ground breaking concepts. By the end of its life it was also a
proven design
> based upon tested technology. The Aries V is based upon new SRBs,
two types
> of new engine, two new stage designs, and a new launcch and assembly
> facility. And on vague dreams of the past.
>
> And let's not forget, NASA had a good idea when it threw the saturn
V away.
> There is no good reason why space access has to be so expensive.
> Reusabuility is the future. The fact that NASA chose a version of
> reusability that allowed it to keep it's 20k workforce (and
political clout
> in washington) does not change that. The Aries V is a step
backwards, not
> forwards.
>
> And let us also not forget that it will depend on the Aries I in two
> important ways: If NASA fluffs the development of the shaft,
congress won't
> fork out the money for the second vehicle. And the shaft is so
dangerously