President Barack Obama has proposed a five-year budgetary freeze on NASAs
spending keeping it at USD18.7 billion levels annually till 2016.
I don't think we are going anywhere with this kind of budget. May be the way
forward is to request the public to directly fund programs.
Eg. Let's say it will take an investment of five billion $ / year for 10
years to put men on Mars. This will require 10 million people to contribute
500 $ / year.
People may contribute if someone trustworthy can come up with a good plan.
Maybe a philanthropist will have to fund the study phase.
(Personally I would be prepared to contribute some money if there is an
ambitious program to create the world's first CELSS system having say 90%
efficiency)
Regards,
Selvaraj
If we were to ask the members of the Mars Society to each contribute $500/yr to put people on Mars, do you think each and every one would do it, or do you think there would be a certain percentage who would decline?
>From what walk of life are we going to find more people more enthused and committed to Mars than the Mars Society?
Regards,
Mike Combs
From: spacesettlers@...m [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sraj
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 6:05 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] : NASA space budget
President Barack Obama has proposed a five-year budgetary freeze on NASA's spending keeping it at USD18.7 billion levels annually till 2016.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1457664.ece
I don't think we are going anywhere with this kind of budget. May be the way forward is to request the public to directly fund programs.
Eg. Let's say it will take an investment of five billion $ / year for 10 years to put men on Mars. This will require 10 million people to contribute 500 $ / year.
People may contribute if someone trustworthy can come up with a good plan.
Maybe a philanthropist will have to fund the study phase.
(Personally I would be prepared to contribute some money if there is an ambitious program to create the world's first CELSS system having say 90%
efficiency)
Regards,
Selvaraj
> I don't think we are going anywhere with this kind of budget. May be the way
> forward is to request the public to directly fund programs.
>
> Eg. Let's say it will take an investment of five billion $ / year for 10
> years to put men on Mars. This will require 10 million people to contribute
> 500 $ / year.
>
> People may contribute if someone trustworthy can come up with a good plan.
>
> Maybe a philanthropist will have to fund the study phase.
>
> (Personally I would be prepared to contribute some money if there is an
> ambitious program to create the world's first CELSS system having say 90%
> efficiency)
>
> Regards,
>
> Selvaraj
On CELSS, I would also support research on that front. I know there are a couple of government programs going on. Also there is a private group working on it, but its hard to tell what they've done and how far they've gotten. And no hard data that I can tell either.
Brooks
Sraj, great idea, except that just about everyone interested in getting us
there is in some way affiliated, or at least acquainted, with either the
National Space Society, the Planetary Society or one of the other Pro-Space
lobby groups. Most of these groups have membership fees, and regularly ask
for additional donations. Being a member of the two mentioned, I can tell
you that most of the acquired monies goes to support the lobbying efforts in
Washington, with varying degrees of success. The Planetary Society was able
to launch its' solar sail, which is fabulous and shows great promise, but as
far as getting people to "donate" $500 a year for a decade, a few will, and
most will not for a variety of reasons ranging from economics to apathy.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for such an enterprise, but I think that
it's unrealistic to believe that it would be a widespread success with the
general public unless they get a hell of a lot more fired up about space
than they are now. This is where we need some genius: come up with a
strategy for capturing the attention of the nation, firing their
imaginations and giving them a strong motivation to back the space effort.
I don't know what that might entail; bombarding asteroids didn't do it,
landing on the moon seems to have had the opposite effect, and the
opportunity to generate a significant portion of our energy needs in orbit
and to get dirty industry and refining into space and off the planet doesn't
seem to interest most people. Whatever the motivation might be, we have to
get the public, and thus the Congress, fired up about space before they'll
open their pocketbooks.
From: sraj
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 6:05 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] : NASA space budget
spending keeping it at USD18.7 billion levels annually till 2016.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1457664.ece
I don't think we are going anywhere with this kind of budget. May be the way
forward is to request the public to directly fund programs.
Eg. Let's say it will take an investment of five billion $ / year for 10
years to put men on Mars. This will require 10 million people to contribute
500 $ / year.
People may contribute if someone trustworthy can come up with a good plan.
Maybe a philanthropist will have to fund the study phase.
(Personally I would be prepared to contribute some money if there is an
ambitious program to create the world's first CELSS system having say 90%
efficiency)
Regards,
Selvaraj
I'm working on the traditional Catholic community. We already live on the outskirts of the world, might as well get the hell out of Dodge.
Who funded it? Wealth. But they had more wealth to get, because, as long as you had human beings to work and reproduce, growth was guaranteed (the gentle swell of population that wafted us upward for so very long). There's the rub. No growth. If platinum were lying around on the surface of the earth, it'd go begging, in this shrinking economy.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike" wrote:
On Feb 15, 2011, at 4:05 AM, sraj wrote:
> NASAs
> spending keeping it at USD18.7 billion levels annually till 2016.
>
> http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1457664.ece
>
> -------------
>
> I don't think we are going anywhere with this kind of budget. May be
> the way
> forward is to request the public to directly fund programs.
The federal government is $14 trillion in debt. $18.7 billion is a
lot of money. Be thankful it's not zero.
There's a lot that can be done with that kind of money. One example:
the budget calls for a five year program to build a heavy lift vehicle
with $1.8 billion for the first year, and that will be done cost plus
-- which usually means big cost overruns. SpaceX, in a recent letter
to Space News, says they can build a heavy lift vehicle for $2.5
billion TOTAL in five years for a FIXED cost contract.
>
> Eg. Let's say it will take an investment of five billion $ / year
> for 10
> years to put men on Mars. This will require 10 million people to
> contribute
> 500 $ / year.
Putting people (it might be a woman!) on Mars would be inspiring --
for at least a week. We don't need prestige projects. We need
industry. Space solar power, tourism, materials processing, stuff
that, at least in principle, makes a profit. Stuff that develops self-
sustaining infrastructure. Something that will put more than a
handful of government employees in orbit.
This is entitle spacesettlers, so let's settle space, not blow our wad
on prestige projects. Take a look at http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/PathsToSpaceSettlement2009.pdf
if you'd like to know how to settle space for a lot less government
money than $18.7 billion a year.
>
> People may contribute if someone trustworthy can come up with a good
> plan.
>
> Maybe a philanthropist will have to fund the study phase.
>
> (Personally I would be prepared to contribute some money if there is
> an
> ambitious program to create the world's first CELSS system having
> say 90%
> efficiency)
>
> Regards,
>
> Selvaraj
>
The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't space-
faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs worked
pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll try mammals
this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and deflect
asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread beyond
Earth to ensure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.
Al Globus
http://alglobus.net
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
Brooks, as you may know we at 1000 Planets, Inc are continuing such
research and Terry Kok continues his research in Indiana. Some people I know are
trying to put together a private very professional attempt to do such in
Kansas.
It is still in the very early stages of discussion but I was invited out to
Kansas 4 months ago and will go back next month for further discussions,
but it is too early to discuss it further.
than 90% efficiency but we will have to get it up to 100% and I am sure we
can do that.
John Wayne Smith
In a message dated 2/15/2011 4:48:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bhn1700@... writes:
It is unfortunate that NASA's budget is getting cut, but I am happy to see
private companies like SpaceX and Biegelow getting off the ground.
(Literally) SpaceX will provide private launches to the spacestation and NASA
has recently decided to purchase one of Biegelow's inflatable habitats. I
think these both show promise that future private entities will have a good
chance of getting us there then NASA.
On CELSS, I would also support research on that front. I know there are a
couple of government programs going on. Also there is a private group
working on it, but its hard to tell what they've done and how far they've
gotten. And no hard data that I can tell either.
group, I think he's moderator.
Brooks
I like your ideas, Al, as they parallel my own, but, unless we can REALLY boost the private sector into this project it still sounds damned expensive (To supply a substantial fraction of civilization's 15 tw
energy habit would require huge numbers of launches, not to mention developing the ability to build extremely large structures in orbit.).
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:10 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] : NASA space budget
On Feb 15, 2011, at 4:05 AM, sraj wrote:
> President Barack Obama has proposed a five-year budgetary freeze on
> NASAs
> spending keeping it at USD18.7 billion levels annually till 2016.
>
> http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1457664.ece
>
> -------------
>
> I don't think we are going anywhere with this kind of budget. May be
> the way
> forward is to request the public to directly fund programs.
The federal government is $14 trillion in debt. $18.7 billion is a
lot of money. Be thankful it's not zero.
There's a lot that can be done with that kind of money. One example:
the budget calls for a five year program to build a heavy lift vehicle
with $1.8 billion for the first year, and that will be done cost plus
-- which usually means big cost overruns. SpaceX, in a recent letter
to Space News, says they can build a heavy lift vehicle for $2.5
billion TOTAL in five years for a FIXED cost contract.
>
> Eg. Let's say it will take an investment of five billion $ / year
> for 10
> years to put men on Mars. This will require 10 million people to
> contribute
> 500 $ / year.
Putting people (it might be a woman!) on Mars would be inspiring --
for at least a week. We don't need prestige projects. We need
industry. Space solar power, tourism, materials processing, stuff
that, at least in principle, makes a profit. Stuff that develops self-
sustaining infrastructure. Something that will put more than a
handful of government employees in orbit.
This is entitle spacesettlers, so let's settle space, not blow our wad
on prestige projects. Take a look at http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/papers/PathsToSpaceSettlement2009.pdf
if you'd like to know how to settle space for a lot less government
money than $18.7 billion a year.
>
> People may contribute if someone trustworthy can come up with a good
> plan.
>
> Maybe a philanthropist will have to fund the study phase.
>
> (Personally I would be prepared to contribute some money if there is
> an
> ambitious program to create the world's first CELSS system having
> say 90%
> efficiency)
>
> Regards,
>
> Selvaraj
>
The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't space-
faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs worked
pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll try mammals
this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and deflect
asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread beyond
Earth to ensure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.
Al Globus
http://alglobus.net
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
If one individual is able to convince ten persons, and they in turn convince
another ten persons ....
ten million
in seven steps we will reach the ten million mark.
The big question is, will we able to convince say 10 out of 20 persons we
meet to contribute 1% of their income for this noble venture?
It depends on the credibility of the individuals making the request. But
what credibility do scientists and engineers have?
1. They don't provide leadership.
In the pecking order Politicians ( who rarely know much about science),
Industrialists (who are fairly ignorant) and economists (who are equally
ignorant) rate higher than scientists and engineers.
2. Scientists and Engineers have allowed science to be distorted by
Politicians, Industrialists and Economists. So not only do they lack
credibility, their science also lacks credibility.
3. How come that with the logical tools of science at their disposal,
scientists and engineers have allowed the planet to reach the sorry state it
is in at the moment?
4. Why are students in USA not all that interested in learning maths and
science?
In short, people will contribute provided scientist and engineers have
credibility and they are capable of providing leadership.
Regards,
Selvaraj
On 15 February 2011 19:54, Combs, Mike wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:02 AM, sraj wrote:
>
> If one individual is able to convince ten persons, and they in turn convince
> another ten persons ....
>
> 1 ... 10 .... 100 .... 1000 .... 10,000 .... 100,000 .... one million ...
> ten million
>
> in seven steps we will reach the ten million mark.
>
> The big question is, will we able to convince say 10 out of 20 persons we
> meet to contribute 1% of their income for this noble venture?
(...)
proposed a 1% increase on the tax load for investing *on Earth*, and I
suspect that it would be worse in the case of putting the money in
space, which is an abstract, outlandish, even unimaginable concept for
the majority of people. (Lets remember that surveys in different parts
of the world point that a sizable fraction of the population does not
have the most basic knowledge of space, for instance thinking that the
Sun orbits Earth. I would add other gross misconceptions that I have
noticed anecdotically, for instance thinking that gravity is conducted
by the air and so goes to zero outside the atmosphere, or thinking
that a galaxy and a planetary system are the same thing.)
On the other hand, one thing that may have a slightly higher chance of
success is approaching selected wealthy (and well-informed)
individuals with ideas about space projects - which in fact is done,
like for instance the guys behind the 100-Year Starship Project
reportedly (IIRC) approaching the president of Google.
On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:02 AM, sraj wrote:
> convince
> another ten persons ....
>
Unfortunately, I've found convincing even one person is often an
extremely difficult and time consuming task.
> 1 ... 10 .... 100 .... 1000 .... 10,000 .... 100,000 .... one
> million ...
> ten million
>
> in seven steps we will reach the ten million mark.
>
> The big question is, will we able to convince say 10 out of 20
> persons we
> meet to contribute 1% of their income for this noble venture?
>
> It depends on the credibility of the individuals making the request.
> But
> what credibility do scientists and engineers have?
>
> 1. They don't provide leadership.
>
> In the pecking order Politicians ( who rarely know much about
> science),
> Industrialists (who are fairly ignorant) and economists (who are
> equally
> ignorant) rate higher than scientists and engineers.
>
> 2. Scientists and Engineers have allowed science to be distorted by
> Politicians, Industrialists and Economists. So not only do they lack
> credibility, their science also lacks credibility.
>
> 3. How come that with the logical tools of science at their disposal,
> scientists and engineers have allowed the planet to reach the sorry
> state it
> is in at the moment?
>
> 4. Why are students in USA not all that interested in learning maths
> and
> science?
>
> In short, people will contribute provided scientist and engineers have
> credibility and they are capable of providing leadership.
>
> Regards,
> Selvaraj
>
> On 15 February 2011 19:54, Combs, Mike wrote:
>
> > If we were to ask the members of the Mars Society to each contribute
> > $500/yr to put people on Mars, do you think each and every one
> would do it,
> > or do you think there would be a certain percentage who would
> decline?
> >
> > Wikipedia says the Mars Society has 6,000 members. So we're 3
> orders of
> > magnitude away from 10 million.
> >
> > From what walk of life are we going to find more people more
> enthused and
> > committed to Mars than the Mars Society?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mike Combs
> >
The first space tourism business is already profitable! Burt Rutan
spent about $40 million of Paul Allen's money to build SpaceShip One.
This vehicle was piloted into space three times in 2004. The third
flight won the $10 million dollar Ansari X-Prize, writing 'Virgin' on
the vehicle's tail pulled in some more cash, and technology sales put
it over the top. The flights lead to a $120 million contract with
Virgin Galactic to build the first true sub-orbital tourist vehicle.
Al Globus
http://alglobus.net
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.