Mission to Mars: Why Space Travel is Needed.

self | 7/25/02 | self

[Atlas Sneezed]

"The space program, as flawed as it was and still is, created far more wealth than it consumed."

Even accepting that, the free market could have created even more wealth with what was invested. (You don't need to go to the moon to develop teflon and smaller computers).

[Atlas Sneezed]

"wouldn't it be better for them (the disabled) to earn their own keep, like you and I? I'm not necessarily talking about a GOVERNMENT project"

Fine. Have at it without my tax dollars. I don't even need to dispute the likelihood that folks in wheel chairs can be more healthy and productive at zero G than on earth. That is the beauty of the free market. You are free to do what others think is wrong.

"We need to colonize space, obtain new sources of raw marerials, food, etc., plus room for humanity to continue to expand and prosper. We need true long term thinking."

Have at it with your investors' money.

[Young Werther]

With the recent Near Earth asteroid event we continue to be reminded that a "extinction event" may be just around the corner. Colonies on the Moon and Mars ensures that mankind's seed is not lost if Earth becomes uninhabitable. So here's my goals as evolved from Dr. O'Neill of Princetion who wrote "The High Frontier".

1. A fully functional self sustainable Lunar colony by July 20, 2019.

2. By 2030 the first LaGrange habitat/factory at the LaGrange delivers it's first solar powered generating station to earth for power delivery.

4. 2040 Permanent colony on Mars.

4. By 2050 all Earth's power is beamed to earth and all heavy industry has been moved off planet. In this way the Earth can become a park-like living room for humanity and all God's children, including the animals that God provided for our physical and emotional well being.

[camle]

exactly, we are in 100% agreement then!

[Movemout]

Your fixation on SSTO is interesting. It has only been in the last ten years that Single Stage to Orbit has moved from the realm of science fiction to the realm of reality. My read, having been involved in the effort at NASA, is that SSTO has limited value even if achievable. The payload delivered by SSTO is fairly miniscule given the size of the launch vehicle. It is extremely vulnerable to a micrometeorite strike and thus would, or should, not stay on orbit in LEO for any appreciable time.

The notion of reusable launch vehicles has huge promise but little backing within NASA. The X-33 program was ambitious and underfunded. It failed in the area of composite tanks but it might have failed elsewhere even with more money. The X-34 solved the composite tank problem, smaller scale, but it was single string in many areas and relied on a Government Furnished Engine(GFE) that was poorly executed. NASA's failure on two Mars probes made them suddenly risk adverse and unwilling to take a chance on the relatively low cost X-34 approach and they cancelled X-34 beacuse the cost of adding redundancy to the avionics systems and likelihood of a further delays in the propulsion system would likely be cost prohibitive.

You nailed the real reason for going to the moon and beyond by citing the explorative nature of the USA. It makes a lot of sense to go to the moon and then beyond. The moon is actually a better space station than the ISS. It gives you a chance to practice things while only three days from the earth as opposed to going to Mars which is at least six months from home. Mars exploration in reality only makes sense when you consider nuclear propulsion, which the greenies are dead against. In fact with two week nights on the moon you need an SP-100 like nuclear generator to make it economically feasible to build a campsite leading to a more permanent lunar infrastructure.

I have long been an advocate of exploring our solar system for my own selfish reasons but we are a long away from having the resolve to do so. My read is that with the war on terrorism that we are farther away than ever.

[inquest]

I have a question for you, or anyone else who might be knowledgeable on the subject, and forgive me if the idea sounds whacky - I make no pretensions to engineering expertise.

Is it at all feasible to design an airframe that can handle orbital-type speeds through the upper atmosphere, while using a jet or other turbine-style propulsion system? The reason I ask is I'm just trying to think of ways we can get into space with a minimum of on-board rocket fuel (not that I'm the only one, of course). I figure a maser link with an orbiting spacecraft might be able to provide, or help provide, the necessary energy. What'cha all think? (please, no tomatoes)

[DoughtyOne]

We can resolve the issues you raised if we set our minds to it.  Our shuttle is aging.  Other nations are entering space.  It's time we decide to fish or cut bait.  If we're not going to enter space in a serious manner, then let's close down NASA and get used to relegating ourselves to a nation in decline status.  If we do wish to capture the high ground, then let's get off our asses and do it.  A Manhattan level project is now called for to develop a SSTO space plane.  It's doable.  This is the right time.  It would be good for our nation in a number of different ways, not the least of which would be dominance of the high ground.

We have spent $100s of billions of dollars to come to the place that we can put seven people in space for short periods of time.  When not spent $10 to $20 billion to faciliate thousands being able to enter space?

In the early days I was a strong supporter of NASA.  I wouldn't give you $20 for the whole program these days.

[nanny]

Goodness, I haven't heard that statement from Rush Limbaugh.

HE might be right, however, while I love Texas, there is a lot of marginal land between San Angelo and El Paso and a long way to the north and south. Not a lot of moisture or shade. From what a read, there is not nearly as much water underground in that part of the country as we think. It might not be what we could call 'quality' living.

What are these proponents of unlimited immigration going to do when basic services for cities break down. By the time some people wake up to the dangers, it will be too late.

[no-s]

Instead of colonizing Mars, it's better to simply stop immigration.

You should stand on the beach and order the tide to go out - you'll have the same effect on immigration.

There are resources in space and no government on earth can make a credible claim. This is the fuel to freedom. I agree the government should stay out of my way if I want to colonize mars or whatever - it's not doing so presently. I won't argue mars colonization should be a government project. It won't get done anytime soon.

As for elbow room - dude, there are whole planets out there with no one (human) using them yet. If you want to live cheek to jowl with your neighbors in a tiny box, go ahead. Personally, I'm a tool-using primate, not a veal calf. I plan to make use of natural resources (especially free fusion energy from the sun and big rocks just floating around) coupled with primate ingenuity to build my own little worlds.

[no-s]

We don't need ssto to get to space inexpensively. Two stages are fine. The first stage can even be air-breathing and re-usable. The key is to stop looking for esoteric solutions in order to get cost-plus govt contracts. Use some of the stuff we already know how to do, i.e. applied science. Experiment. Get there first. The solar system based economy has the potential to be multiple orders of magnitude larger than earth. The founders will be bigger than all of earth's moguls several times over.

[Brett66]

We have spent $100s of billions of dollars to come to the place that we can put seven people in space for short periods of time. When not spent $10 to $20 billion to faciliate thousands being able to enter space?

This is NASA we're talking about here. Their goals have never been to open up space for the average person. Even if they have this new whiz-bang SSTO toy they can be expected to:

1. Make it more inefficient and expensive than anyone could imagine. (They were predicting $100/lb. to LEO for the shuttle in the 70's.)

2. Only allow super-elites to ride their toy. No civilians except politically correct feel-good choices from NASA for a PR stunt. (McCauliffe,Glenn redux)

This just isn't a game that NASA wants to play. It's up to private non-government orginizations to get us to the point of Arthur C. Clarke's vision in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

[DoughtyOne]

I envision the project to get the space plane off the drawing board and onto a runway somewhere near you, and you, and you...

As for NASA, as soon as that space plane is a reality, I'd close it down. I'd then wait three years. At the end of three years I'd develop some form of national service like the Navy to oversee it.

Why do I suggest that? All we need is for some NGO like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace to get their meat-hooks into it. I'm open to any suggestions, but I'll be damned if I'll agree to another NGO taking over. I may dislike government, but at least they answer to someone. Those NGOs don't answer to anyone including God.

[Brett66]

I should have typed "private companies" instead of NGO.Though there are some cool NGO's like the Artemis Project.

[Movemout]

"Is it at all feasible to design an airframe that can handle orbital-type speeds through the upper atmosphere, while using a jet or other turbine-style propulsion system? The reason I ask is I'm just trying to think of ways we can get into space with a minimum of on-board rocket fuel (not that I'm the only one, of course). "

Possible? Yes. Feasible? Not yet proven. Scramjets are going through the experimental phase with projects like Hyper X. NASP was supposed to demonstrate this capability but bit off more than it could chew.

[Movemout]

Sorry for the late reply. I had to go earn some ducats. I don't disagree with your point of view. NASA has been a dysfuntional agency for a couple of decades. I told someone a while back that I was going to be taking a couple of classes in Chinese. They asked why. I said that if I wanted to continue to pursue activities in the space world that I wanted to be able to converse with the operators.

[DoughtyOne]

Once tourism and off world habitation has taken off, big business will be quick to fill the void a defunct NASA would leave. But I think we need to be cognisant of a problem that will present. If we are not careful we won't have a 51st and 52nd state etc., we'll have WallMart World and Nike World. The big corporations would like nothing better than to exploit a whole new world. I'd sure like to see these new communities set up with mom and pop this and that instead of wholely owned corporate towns or worse yet, states. This is going to take a good deal of oversight on the part of the first governments on these planets.

[Movemout]

You are definitely on the right track. A two stage system with one or both stages being reusable (bimese concept) is well within our technical capability today. The problem is getting NASA to ask for it. The private sector bids on what NASA asks for. If you chase after "esoteric" stuff then you never have to take the final exam. If you don't take the exam then you don't have to worry about the grade.

[DoughtyOne]

I certainly don't disagree with that comment. China is determined to enter space. In the next couple of years they will.

[Twodees]

When farmland that could feed the entire world is being fallowed by order of our government, it's hard to credit any idea that we need to farm Mars in order to feed people. The "scientists" who claim that the earth can't support the number of people already here are propping up the UN's proposal to kill off some of the population.

[Age of Reason]

"Conservation" is another word for "rationing."