Otto -the cost of building a moon resource extraction facility- which will have to be built by ferrying material from earth - is so astronomical in terms of present technology it is not even worth trying to calculate. Trillions? Who cares - it's fiction at this point And how is this not going to happen to our moon cans? Maybe it is, maybe it won't, or maybe something else. There's basically no natural resource that is cost-effective to mine on the moon with present tecnology. IF we need tritium we will get it here on earth for a fraction of the cost It has soemthing to do wit growing crystals that can't be grown on earth or something. ISS was built witht he goal of having a permanent human presence in orbit, and tat's pretty much it - just like the moonbase is built for the same way - that is why NASA is not saying "this moonbase is the start of our brand new Lunar megacity. You keep errecting a wall of separation between the two. THe ISS as presently planeed probably can't support a tether, but maybe some future space station will. In the same way the proposed moon base is basicallly a grounded vesion of the ISS - it can't support your massive lunar base plans, but maybe a future moon base will. Actually you forgot one part - cut the budget by a factor of 10 then have cost overruns in multiples of 10 (or even 100 or more in the case of the space shuttle). Are you seriously telling me I should rely on NASA's cost estimates here? Because now they are saying something like - oh, just 10 billion a year or so. Fat chance. You're relying on budgetary predictions and other proposals by NASA, architects of many a boondoggle, so let's call it even, shall we? Go for it, in fact have it on my desk by 9 AM. I'm sure you will have an answer for every point because you are pretty set on having a moonbase. OK - well - let's see, it will go something like this. The ISS was a great idea,and so we need a new space station, just like it but better. We can use the ISS as a house for guys who build the new space station. The new awesome space station will be used to house guys to create giant floating solar plants (for which feasibilty studies and technology exist - and for which a far more real need exists than asteroid nickel mines) and an ending point for the Space tether (for which feasibility studies etc exist). See above, same same as regarding space tethers and solar plants. Yet why is your asteroid nickel mine a higher priority? Are you kidding? That kind of thinking? NASA has spent the last 35 years pouring money into 1970's technology. They killed off spaceplanes and all sorts of projects to suppport the shuttle-ISS combo. As I said before - do you care to measure the sum spent on the shuttle or the ISS to the amount spent on antimatter tech? I'm guessing one is a lot more. That's right - and these goals weren't made with profit in mind so it's easy to say they're successful, . Build a probe, send it to mars, hope it works, easy. Build a huge ass structure and keep it resupplied and able to support humans far far away - not so easy,even if they're not that far - ISS. Anyway this is just a bunch of self-help nonsense about setting goals so it doesn't really get us anyware Then don't send them out, if there's nothing to be learned, I don't care. Who is going to be happy from your nickel mines? Metal traders? If we're going to split that hair -aside from the elation of seeing people on the moon, national pride etc, what was the primary benefit of Apollo? A bunch of information that made planetologists, geologists, and cosmologists happy, mostly. Compromised boondoggles that cost many multiples of what they should have cost - If a half assed space station costs 10x as much as it should have cost, a trust fund for a full size space station is only about 5% of what one would have needed - so I'm notsure what a trust fund gets us - or why NASA gets one. The other problem is that NASA is pretty good at holding on to funds that go nowhere once it gets them, I mean they keep funding the useless space shuttle - why should we reserve funds for NASA when they have such a history of holding on to funds for useless projects? This is NASA's current plan, as far as I can see. I don't see your lunar factories anywhere. NASA has lots of shiny promotional materials on antimatter too. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/antimatter_spaceship.html Why is it that your lunar base/factory/refueling station to aid in asteroid nickel mining (i didn't even know we had a nickel shortage?)is a realistic possibilty and antimatter is not? I mean I see you saying it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but that's the beginning of the cost of the massive moonbase by any reasonable estimate (and not that I believe them, but NASA says it would only cost a few hundred million to create enough positrons to power their new antimatter plan, see above). And yeah it might be dangerous, sure, but then we thougt the first atomic bomb could ignite the entire atmosphere when we fired it off. (once again NASA says their positron plan is really safe) But anyway the benefits of an antimatter propulsion system make your nickel mine look like peanuts, and then we can build te nickel mine really quickly and easily afterwards. OK agreed, let's do antimatter then.
Not true. See below. I also like how you've branded them 'moon cans'. When you’re trying to run a propaganda campaign it always helps to brand with sufficiently negative emotive terms. Um... no. Pretty much we know it will. Not true. Except a moon base is expandable. You just dig a hole in the ground next to what you have already. Add some concrete and give it an airlock. Presto. Bigger moonbase. Since the surface area of the moon is 3.793×107 square km, you can keep it up for quite a while. Would you detail these supposed massive cost overruns please? Specific numbers would be nice. I'll help you out. The Shuttle cost $ 6.744 Billion. It was estimated at $ 5.15 billion. Oh my god. The horror. The final number, BTW, was 1/4 of the budget for the Apollo program which came before. Apollo was the last program that was not given a fraction of the budget that was deemed necessary for the initial stated goals. But apparently somewhere you got some vague impression about cost overruns and decided that it must be true. Why let the truth get in the way. Please, tell me what these 'spaceplanes which the shuttle killed off' were. I am positive you can't because I know they don't exist. All their other projects were shut down for them. They were told that the shuttle was going to be shut down too unless they did it the way the USAF wanted. Nothing was killed to make the shuttle. It was a bone thrown to them as the consolation prize and a way to throw more money into the military budget via NASA. But again, your argument is the shuttle sucks so all manned spaceflight sucks. That doesn't stand up. Except you can chart out successful programs and unsuccessful programs and correlate the success to the clarity of the goals. I'm not talking about a motivational speech. I'm talking about clear history. It is no more self-hep nonsense than Edward Gibbon's Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire is a self help book. They have a very good track record when they are properly funded. When they are given a fraction of the necessary money and told either build what you can with this or shut your doors and close up shop, they elect to try. But I'm sure you would nobly fall on the sword in that situation. We aren't talking about some hypothetical theoretical. Its pretty much an accepted law of physics. Antimater touch mater, it go boom.
call it (or me) simplistic, call it what you like. Give me your unnecessary rationalisms regarding capitalism - blah blah blah truth is, its BS that there's millions of starving HUMAN BEINGS in this world, who doe needlessly everyday because we care about **** like finding out if there could be aliens (yes i know thats not what its about, spare me) the world is stuffed because of man's desire to horde wealth and to use it selfishly and stupidly.
Otto that is a lot of posting. why don't we just take it point by point - using present techology - how much will it cost to send to the moon the 3-400 tons of equipment used to build your massive moonbase complete with a moon base builiding factory.
I'm sorry that you are such an idiot. Countless lives have been saved due to satellite imagery, doppler radar, GPS positioning, cell phones and... DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies. BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine. LASER ANGIOPLASTY - Laser angioplasty with a "cool" type of laser, caller an excimer laser, does not damage blood vessel walls and offers precise non-surgical cleanings of clogged arteries with extraordinary precision and fewer complications than in balloon angioplasty. ULTRASOUND SKIN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT - Advanced instrument using NASA ultrasound technology enables immediate assessment of burn damage depth, improving patient treatment, and may save lives in serious burn cases. HUMAN TISSUE STIMULATOR - Employing NASA satellite technology, the device is implanted in the body to help patient control chronic pain and involuntary motion disorders through electrical stimulation of targeted nerve centers or particular areas of the brain. COOL SUIT - Custom-made suit derived from space suits circulates coolant through tubes to lower patient's body/ temperature, producing dramatic improvement of symptoms of multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, spina bifida and other conditions. PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals. OCULAR SCREENING - NASA image processing techniques are used to detect eye problems in very young children. An electronic flash from a 35-millimeter camera sends light into the child's eyes, and a photorefractor analyzes the retinal reflexes, producing an image of each eye. AUTOMATED URINALYSIS - NASA fluid dynamics studies helped development of system that automatically extracts and transfers sediment from urine sample to an analyzer microscope, replacing the manual centrifuge method. MEDICAL GAS ANALYZER - Astronaut-monitoring technology used to develop system to monitor operating rooms for analysis of anesthetic gasses and measurement of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen concentrations to assure proper breathing environment for surgery patients. VOICE-CONTROLLED WHEELCHAIR - NASA teleoperator and robot technology used to develop chair and manipulator that respond to 35 one-word voice commands utilizing a minicomputer to help patient perform daily tasks, like picking up packages, opening doors, and turning on appliances. Other spinoffs in this area include: Arteriosclerosis detection, ultrasound scanners, automatic insulin pump, portable x-ray device, invisible braces, dental arch wire, palate surgery technology, clean room apparel, implantable heart aid, MRI, bone analyzer, and cataract surgery tools.
I've also heard corn growers talk about how important it is for us to be making ethanol here in the US to end our dependence on foreign energy sources, stop global warming and so on.. Its true the manned space program produced some great spin offs but the problem is do you justify a program based on what potential spin offs you can get. If JFK had justified sending a man to the Moon so that we could have teflon and velcro it never would've passed Congressional muster and rightly so. While building a Moon base very well might create interesting spin offs that's not something that can't be predicted. For that matter its possible those spin off products might be developed in other ways too.
But you are framing this in a cold war context. You are using the almost the same rhetoric as those back in the 50's who were talking about "living under a Red Moon." You're talking about maintaining preeminence in space on a nationalistic rather than a humanistic perspective. Its maybe a bit toned down but it is basically the same cold war rhetoric of looking at this as a struggle between nations using space exploration vs. military conflict. On one hand you argue this from an humanistic standpoint but then you argue for it from a nationalistic standpoint. What is more important? If it is from the humanistic then what does it matter if the PRC, Europe and Japan take the lead? Given the PRC's current space program its possible they could develop the technologies for moving people into space and stopping killer asteroids cheaper and more efficiently than NASA could. Do you believe that if a killer asteroid were heading to Earth that the PRC wouldn't stop it just to spite the US? You've outlined some admirable goals but what I don't see is why is NASA the only path for getting those done? If the concern is about humanity then I see nothing wrong with other countries or even the private market driving that development.
Incorrect. It is very true. Maybe not trillions, but still very true. Nevermind that ISRU would never be more than a backup system. Period.
last estimate I saw: Each Ares V launch (yes, just the launch, not the equipment, not the payload, not the LSAM, not the AresI/Orion/etc) was 1 billion dollars. Total cargo payload per launch. 4-5 mt with crew, 35-40 mt in cargo mode. By comparison, the shuttle costs ~150million per launch. I'd rather we go to the moon than continue to waste enormous sums of money on wars and weaponry, but the costs are (pardon the pun) astronomical.
Sorry, but I lived through those Cold War years, and what I'm saying is nothing like the rhetoric then. I can't hold two complimentary opinions at the same time? Hell yes, I'm a nationalist. When did that become an awful thing for a liberal to be? Why is it somehow wrong for me to want the United States to maintain its lead in space technology and manned space flight, while also giving other reasons, excellent ones, for doing it, like being able to save the planet from a potential catastrophe that we are historically overdue for? And why on earth should we depend on another country(s) to take care of this potential problem, when we are the leading scientific nation in the world, and easily lead in space technology? I swear, you guys are just blowing me away. PS: I am all for private industry doing all of this and depending on their quarterly profits to drive space technology. When they are able to do the things we can do now with NASA, give me a call. D&D. Attempt Something. Impeach Bush for Creating Idiots.
Depends on what all you add up. I think 600 sounds reasonable for all the prep/maintenance. I was talking strictly about launch. In theory, you won't have the 4x increase on Ares since the rockets are not reusable. I know the Orion CM is still planned to be reusable, but that's really a political move (it sounds good), but hopefully NASA will grow a pair and just acknowledge that reusability is even more a pipe dream than mars.
How much would it cost for monthly launches to ferry water, oxygen, and other consumables to the moon regularly for 20 years or longer? Use of local resources is the most importatnt enabling technology for longterm habitation off the surface of the earth. IMO much more important than some antimater super engine.
I am a lifelong NASA backer. My father spent his entire career working as a nerd engineer and administrator there, Apollo through early Shuttle years. His take was that the shuttle and the space stations were pathetic projects because they neither had ambition nor the planning scheme to push our technological envelope. They were primarily "off the shelf" in terms of tech, whereas the moon missions had built-in technology and engineering innovations as a matter of course, to get from point A to B. My personal take for further space exploration is heavily robotics based. So, for the 2nd time in as many weeks, I am agreeing with Sam on something. The cost comparison is not even close, to say nothing of material comparisons. To protect a Mars-bound human being from deadly solar radiation, you would need a spaceship shell approximately 3-5 meters thick, using the best available materials. Do you know how insane that is? And this does not even start to deal with bone deterioration, etc, which are substantial, even during a couple of weeks in orbit. Okay, we could, at great cost, deal with all of these factors, but why? So frail human can walk and fart on Mars, give some cliche statement back to Earth? He or she is just as likely to end up dead, at the cost of trillions of dollars. And today's robotics can out-perform a human on Mars anyway. Just my 2 cents.
Don't you work for JPL or something doing robotics based missions? If so I would be astounded to find anything else. If I've got you mixed up I apologize.
No -- but I slept at a Holiday Inn express last night. Sam will tell you I am a space gorilla, and I've never denied that, for the record. I'm a physicist, and I once worked on projects at NASA Ames in planetary science; that was some time ago (1991), and it's not my field now, but I'm in touch with Mars "experts" there. I just think it's pretty clear that what a robot can do, per dollar, versus what a human can do, per dollar, is a very large ratio. Maybe I'm missing something, but what do we want a human Mars-o-naut to do that a robot would struggle to do? PS -- I don't know anybody working at JPL, but I bet they are really cool.
In NASA terms, a metric ****load. I concur. But don't expect NASA to foot that bill willingly. There are two issues (neither of them engineering related): 1) short term (relative) schedule/budget pressure. 2) the NASA "no-risk" mentality. I repeat - NASA will NOT sign up to ISRU as anything more than research/backup systems for as the foreseeable future. It is not worth the budget risk, and definitely unacceptable as a "planned" system for manned operations. Maybe. Chemical propulsion is severely limited outside of LEO-ops.
They are cool. And eccentric. And a tad arrogant. But very cool. It's not uncommon for them to wear shorts and flip flops to the office (lucky dogs). They used to have an "idea wall" in the lunch room at the JPL, where you could scribble any zany idea down. Twice a year or something they would choose two to actually study. Neat.
I agree with the parts I bolded, B-Bob, but we can't take back the mistakes of the past. What I would like to know is if you support a continuing of the manned space program, continued support for a near-Earth space station, even if it is somewhat eviscerated from what I'd like to see (I think you have to start somewhere, and this is what we're stuck with), constructing facilities, eventually, at the Lagrange points, and building a Lunar base, with facilities for mining materials, if available, to provide what we need to breathe and what we need for fuel. I'm not in a tremendous rush to go to Mars with humans. I think we need to solve the radiation problem and the propulsion problem. We need to be able to get there much faster than current technology allows us, for many reasons, some being those you mentioned. I'd also like to get your take on what we need to have available to deal with a potential discovered asteroid or comet with our planet as a big target. Lead time is critical, of course. Would you be happy dealing with that via robotics alone? Oh, and do you think it is important that the US maintain our lead in space technology, including manned space flight? D&D. Attempt Something. Impeach Bush for Creating Idiots.
