Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on April 06, 2005, 06:11:28 pm
-
WE'RE GOING BACK INTO SPACE!!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/04/06/shuttle.rollout/index.html
Here's to STS-114 and a successful return! *toasts*
also, //www.nasa.gov of course.
*gets really excited*
-
*fingers firmly crossed*
Good to hear, albeit I think they should look at possible replacements anyways (simply to give something cool to look at :D )
-
Bah. What we need is new shuttles. As if that's going to happen.
-
Awesome. They had better accomplish something, since they happen to be taking down the Hubble.
-
When are they going to stop launching shuttles and rockets for Christ's sake. I know that it takes money to switch because you've already got the useless ramps and ****, and spare shuttles that you were stupid enough to make, but seriously, enough is enough.
With that said, I hope that people don't die in this one, as they did in the one before.
-
They say, if we continue living as we do now, we'll run out of resources by 2050.
Even if it seems far-fetched, space-travel is neccessary...
-
Basically, the shuttle needs to be replaced. It's thirty year old techology. Your home computer easily beats the shuttle's in processing power. Also, you could probably make a more efficient design now.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Basically, the shuttle needs to be replaced. It's thirty year old techology. Your home computer easily beats the shuttle's in processing power. Also, you could probably make a more efficient design now.
that's the problem the shuttle, even with its inefficiencies... works. i don't doubt that it will be replaced.. hopefully by nasa itself, as the current shuttle design was made with hauling spy satellites in mind.
that said, it's also the only thing big enough to take the modules for the ISS up into space.
so i think a lot of research will have to be done on this one..
-
They had a successor in the pipeline, but it was cancelled due to cost overruns, if I remember correctly.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
They had a successor in the pipeline, but it was cancelled due to cost overruns, if I remember correctly.
oh yes... money
the only real thing that will get us up to the stars, will be just simple, human greed. the illustrious search for new worlds and stuff will be secondary... remember how much of the inner US was colonised.. during the gold rush..
"there be gold in dem thar planets!"
:p
-
In true human fashion there are two things that will drive outward expansion (if British Imperialism has taught me anything): Greed as already stated but also for power reputation and status as much as wealth, and the drive to extend the reach of our own belief systems (i.e. Missionaries: The Next Generation).
-
Who are they going to convert? Martian bacteria?
-
Them heathen robot landers don't worship Robot Jesus(tm) and must be converted!
-
Er, any sentient life we find? Our own colonists? I was just using the missionaries as an example of how we would expand.
-
We have to start relocating before the Vogons begin their demolition.
-
great, space mormons..
-
Originally posted by Ace
Them heathen robot landers don't worship Robot Jesus(tm) and must be converted!
We believe he was built, and that he was a very well programmed robot, but he was not our messiah.
-
Heh.. space mormons. Good one. Anyway, my opinion on this is that they need to make a better ship... hopefully that X-Prize thing'll go through. Anywho... ****ing aliens. And you guys are all focused on Mars.. there's nothing there but red. There won't be life inside our solar system... Leastways nothing noticable. It'd be pretty cool if we eventually found something like the Vasudans.
Finding something like the Shivans would suck.
-
Cause a 14-year war with Vasudans would be so cool instead? :wtf:
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
We believe he was built, and that he was a very well programmed robot, but he was not our messiah.
You shall repent your ways and worship of the false gods, and embrace the true love of Robot Jesus(tm). Lest your immortal programming burn in the lake of fire that is Mac OS, forever!
Inquisition, here we go...
Inquisition, what a show...
Remember that the pain is only temporary, and necessary to purify your source code, and that Robot Jesus(tm) loves you!
-
[q]Lest your immortal programming burn in the lake of fire that is Mac OS, forever![/q]
I may go to hell, but I might finally be in with the cool crew! :eek2:
-
Based on our current knowledge of space travel, I would guess that interstellar travel would most closely resemble something out of Arthur C. Clarke's The Songs of Distant Earth; gigantic ships hurtle from one star to another for millennia at a time before reaching their destinations.
An interstellar war would be one of truly gargantuan proportions.
-
Originally posted by Ace
You shall repent your ways and worship of the false gods, and embrace the true love of Robot Jesus(tm). Lest your immortal programming burn in the lake of fire that is Mac OS, forever!
Inquisition, here we go...
Inquisition, what a show...
Remember that the pain is only temporary, and necessary to purify your source code, and that Robot Jesus(tm) loves you!
This statement does not compute.
Abort, Retry, Fail?
-
Originally posted by Blitzerland
They say, if we continue living as we do now, we'll run out of resources by 2050.
Even if it seems far-fetched, space-travel is neccessary...
Interestingly, "they" said the same thing something like 30 years ago. "They" said the water would all but undrinkable, the air unbreathable, and the land untenable.
-
Interestingly, "they" said the same thing something like 30 years ago. "They" said the water would all but undrinkable, the air unbreathable, and the land untenable.
The numbers people attach to it may be rather arbitrary, and even absurd, but our environment is not invincible, and it's difficult to refute that we're on very thin ice.
-
Hehe, vogons... :drevil:
Interesting topic indeed.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Cause a 14-year war with Vasudans would be so cool instead? :wtf:
Yes. They're easier to kill. Even on Insane. On insane... I can kill Vasudans in the beginning of FS1(or FS Port.) On insane... I can't kill Shivans. It's completely ****ed up. Even with shields. Ever tried the first mission with Shivans in it in FS2? Christ, that's hard as hell. I can't make it 10 seconds....
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
This statement does not compute.
Abort, Retry, Fail?
This piece of divinely-inspired promotional art will compute, meatbag:
(http://www.savant-online.net/graphics/robo_j_img.png)
---
Anyway "they" in the 70s said that by 2010-2030 we'd be running out of fossil fuels. The new projections are showing 2050 or so. There are a lot of variables involved, the early projections were assuming that developing nations would be industrializing at a faster rate, which they are now. (*cough* "outsourcing" *cough*)
-
yeah, but it's always just-far-enough-in-the-future-that-I'll-probly-be-dead-before-I-have-to-explain-why-I-was-wrong
-
Space is our future. Plain and simple. It would be nice if the human race would stop being so shortsighted for the next 100 years or so to get us to the stars........
-
I want my damned orbital elivator!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, but it's always just-far-enough-in-the-future-that-I'll-probly-be-dead-before-I-have-to-explain-why-I-was-wrong
:lol:
Quoted for truth.
-
Going back closer to the original topic (since I missed out), the shuttle was originally planned to be replaced about now, by a craft called the Venture Star. That would be a full sized shuttle based off a scaled prototype called the X-33. The Venture Star would have been a single-state-to-orbit design, that carried no external fuel tanks, no external boosters, and used a linear aerospike engine for maximum thrust plume efficientcy during the entire range of atmosphereic densities that the craft would have to opperate in, from sea level to orbit (vacume). It was to be a collection of technological innovations to be a cutting edge spacecraft when opperational. Unfortunatlely, the low-weight graphite fuel tanks being devellopped, would not seal properly and were more brittle than anticipated. The design was changed to accomidate more conventional alluminium fuel tanks, but this had more weight. The design was then altered further to include more fuel (to compensate for the increase in weight), but it required moving the cargo section into an external pod above the main body, increasing drag. That was the last design change I remember before it got canned. This was late in the Clinton administration IIRC. It was basically going quite a bit over-budget, and was taking somewhat longer than planned. Combine all of these factors into a single assessment, and what you have is a craft which is deemed too ambitious to be attainable. It should be said at this point, that a fully reusable single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft such as the proposed Venture Star, is the Holy Grail of earth-to-space spaceflight.
Following the canellation of the X-33 and Venture Star programs, NASA began SLI, or Space Launch Initiative. Basically, it was a program to select a design that was less radical and amitious as the Venture Star, but more efficient than the current Shuttle. It would basically be a fully or semi-reusable two-stage-to-orbit design, with a reduced heavy cargo cappacity. Around this time, Bush had just entered office and internal reviews of NASA revealed considerable cost overruns across the board. Its been said that Clinton was a bit fan of NASA, and got into the habit of delaying the release of some of its financial information until certain points of the year, so that it would end up getting more funding (I can't remember the specifics though). After the review, certain planned segments of the ISS were deleted. A larger propulsion module, a larger crew module, and a specially designed emergency escape vehicle. The latter was designed to fit 7 people, which could only be accommodated by the crew module, so those kinda go hand-in-hand.
During 2002 (IIRC), NASA was once again told to hit the breaks on new shuttle developpment, as the SLI program was haulted for further review. It was replaced with another program (that appears to have no name that I know of) that basically wants to take a commercial heavy booster used for lofting heavy sattalites and attempt to make it safe enough for human use. Then, a much smaller craft called a "Space Plane" would be placed atop it, with perhaps 2/3 to 1/2 the shuttle's crew cappacity and no where near its cargo cappacity. Further "refinements" on this concept basically made it into a high-tech reuseable verson of an Apollo era capsule, with no clear mention of any kind of glide cappability, so it may be back to ocean recoveries. I consider this proposed type of spaceflight, an unacceptable step backwards for NASA.
Then in 2003, Columbia broke up during rentry. While tragic, it forced NASA to take certain actions that crippled it and zapped its momentum. Firstly, it forced a grounding of the remaining shuttles until the cause of the accident was found, understood, and a method to prevent it is devised and implimented. All of these are important, understandable, and completely called for. This also put a stop to ISS construction, and basically left them in a holding pattern, trying to pare back their opperations so that they use the least number of resources until such a time as the shuttles are cleared for flight and construction resumes. This should happen starting next month. This basically took all of NASA's develloppment resources, including that used to devellop a replacement. Both NASA and the Russion space program are in the middle of a race with time, that NASA seems unable or unwilling to win. There is a deal with the Russians about how long whey are expected to provide Soyuz capsules to the station, both to ferry crews and to have one on hand to act as emergency escape vehicle. This runs out in 2008, at which time (under the original agreement) NASA would have its emergency crew return vehicle and replacement shuttle fleet opperational. Now, the shuttles are due for retirement in 2010, but its looking like they won't have anything close to coming on-line until about 2015. The craft that NASA is proposing as its Shuttle replacements, could serve as emergency return vehicles, as the Soyuz craft to today, but what is to fill the gap between 2008 and whenever this space go-cart is to enter service? Right now, NASA is at the mercy of people like Bush, who are alot of talk and no action. Basically, Bush's policies are stringing people along until they realize that there is nothing waiting to take over, by which time he'll be either out of office after his 2nd term is up, or at the end of his term where it doesn't matter to him anyway... he's had his fun. [/end anti-Bush rant].
There may be a glimmer of hope, but it all depends on if NASA can get off its assets after RTF (return to flight) for the Shuttle and knucle down to actually selecting, desiging, building, and implimenting the shuttle replacement. They need to be serious about it. It needs to be on the front burner rather than on the back burner set to simmer. The Russians too have indicated they are planning to design a new orbiter, though still rocket and capsule configuration. This likely the result of Chineese success with a more advanced copy-cat design of the Soyuz, prompting an Asian space race or sorts. Unfortinately, it is my opinion that if NASA hasn't even selected a replacement concept by the time the Shuttle is retired, or once again suspends the design program for another review, they should stop kidding themselves, the American people, and their Russian partners that they have any real plans (when I say "real" I mean plans that they fully expect is within their cappabilities to meet in the time alloted), to contine a manned presence in space. It they can't support and maintain the space station when the shuttles are retired, they've got no business being in manned spaceflight and step aside and give the corporations the center stage in space.
As you can guess, the space program (manned, robitic, remote-sensing, and even in terms of physics) is an interest of mine, of which I am quite passionate about. Unfortinately, as a Canadian, I realy don't have any say in how the American goverment and space program conducts its affairs, but with no such program here in Canada, I have to live viariously though NASA and other foreign space programs for my fix. These are my observations and conclusions, which have found their way into this editorial of sorts.
Later!
-
NASA == beauracracy
beauracacy == bad for any kind of real innovation since beauracacy tends to maintenance of status quo.
I personally feel that the Astronautics portion of NASA should be separated and made it own area. With one of the prime duties of the head of the thing being the continual vigilance that the it doesn't become a beauacracy.
Of course, that will never happen, and such an agency would be crippled by group-think in months.
-
[color=66ff00]01000001011011010110010101101110 (convert to ascii (nickciske.com/tools/binary.php) for great justice).
Anyhow, go read a copy of Arthur C. Clarke's 'Prelude to space', it was years ahead of its time and described a far more practical, reusable space vehicle than the rather poorly designed one still used by NASA.
[/color]
-
NASA should be dealing with manned and robotic missions in deep space as well as dealing with prizes as incentives for privatized LEO missions.
Pretty much NASA should be focusing everything into space telescopes at the L-Points, probes to planets, and a large scale manned exploration program divided into stepping stones. The first being a new single-staged orbiter, if necessary this could be tied to the private company prizes so that the best design there is the one used by NASA. The second being a true space ship for missions in Earth-Moon space which uses the ISS as its base of operations. The third would then be expanding on this ship design for a Mars mission, then a Jovian mission, a Saturnian one, etc. That way NASA has a 50 year plan for exploration.
Launching satellites, joy-rides, and basic maintenance of the ISS could then be provided by private industry which has the carrots of NASA prizes to extend their influence a little further each year. (new altitude records, time in orbit, payload, etc.)
At the same time, a space elevator research program being done along side NASA's deep space mission and private company prizes would be a smart, and cost efficient thing to do.
NASA no longer being involved in pure areonautics, or geology research, handing those over to their proper departments of the government, and other slack cutting would also help immensely.
-
Don´t mean to alarm anyone, but the inspections found a crack in the foam cover of the big central fuel tank. NASA said it was not serious enough to prevent launch, but somehow i don´t trust their judgement. They had all the time in the world to check the damage and save those people, but they judged it as "a minor issue". It would be ironic if this shuttle suffered a similar end to its brother.
If people remember, the shuttle suffered catastrophic failure after being hit by a piece of foam, after launch. And now they find a crack in the same foam and still they allow the launch to proceed as usual?
Ok, but don´t say i didn´t told you so...
:wtf:
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Don´t mean to alarm anyone, but the inspections found a crack in the foam cover of the big central fuel tank. NASA said it was not serious enough to prevent launch, but somehow i don´t trust their judgement. They had all the time in the world to check the damage and save those people, but they judged it as "a minor issue". It would be ironic if this shuttle suffered a similar end to its brother.
If people remember, the shuttle suffered catastrophic failure after being hit by a piece of foam, after launch. And now they find a crack in the same foam and still they allow the launch to proceed as usual?
Ok, but don´t say i didn´t told you so...
:wtf:
And at the same time, it seems that all too much concern may be getting placed on something that isn't necessarily a legitimate problem. I know it's popular to not trust NASA right now, but I don't think that's the danger. Letting a minute imperfection in the insulation of the fuel tank that isn't in a region prone to sudden temperature changes (or even in a region that could actually fall on the orbiter - for all we know it may be on the bottom of the tank) stop the resumption of manned space flights by NASA is a far more serious concern, as the Columbia accident has already set the space program back years. The fact that they found the crack and delayed rollout to make sure it wasn't a problem gives me confidence that people better qualified than any of us looked at it and assessed the risks. Space travel is not and never will be a risk-free enterprise, so don't treat it as such.
Oh, and quite frankly there was no way to save the Columbia crew, even if NASA had known prior to re-entry that the heat shield was damaged. They didn't sit on their asses about it, because there was nothing that could have been done even if they spent thousands of man-hours checking it out. It takes too long to prep another orbiter to pick them up, and it's not like you can just change course whenever it suits to go link up with a lifeboat like the ISS.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Letting a minute imperfection in the insulation of the fuel tank that isn't in a region prone to sudden temperature changes (or even in a region that could actually fall on the orbiter - for all we know it may be on the bottom of the tank) stop the resumption of manned space flights by NASA is a far more serious concern, as the Columbia accident has already set the space program back years. The fact that they found the crack and delayed rollout to make sure it wasn't a problem gives me confidence that people better qualified than any of us looked at it and assessed the risks. Space travel is not and never will be a risk-free enterprise, so don't treat it as such.
They didn´t delayed the rollout. Infact, they are rolling out a month and a half before the launch window, wich starts mid/late month of May. If i were making sure the shuttle is in tip top condition, i wouldn´t roll it out so early and leave it exposed to the elements, when i can leave it inside the hangar and test every system all over again. And since we don´t know where the crack was found, we don´t know how serious it can be. It could be unimportant, yes. But it can be very serious aswell.
But that´s not the point. The point is that an accident happened, caused by things that were not previouslly considered to be mission dangerous. Even if the crack was found on the least dangerous spot of the tank, caution dictates that it must be dealt with, and fixed. Just because they "think" it´s not dangerous, doesn´t mean that it is not. They didn´t think foam was capable of punching a hole in the shuttle before either, and look at what happened.
You say the crash has set the program back years. Well, just think what a second crash, by the same reasons, would do to the space program! Are you willing to take that chance?
-
They did delay it, though only by a matter of hours. It's being rolled out now because - per requirements to resumeing shuttle launches set by NASA - another orbiter has to be preped for launch in case something does go wrong, and they need the hanger space. Never mind that it's actually common practice - always has been - to bring the orbiters out early, so that final checks can be made on the pad from which the shuttle will launch rather than in a building before a long and somewhat tedious rollout. The very fact that they're running over the entire foam layer with a fine-toothed comb and any potential problems are at least checked is worlds better than what was happening before. The statement says it's in a "noncryogenic" area of the tank, meaning what caused the foam to break off before - rapid changes in temperature as the rocket took off - aren't an issue on whatever part of the tank this crack was found. So it can't be the same thing that destroyed Columbia. Quite frankly, releasing a statement saying "we found a crack" to the media was and will continue to be a stupid policy, precisely because of the knee-jerk reactions made by people who don't understand what the problem was in the first place.
Am I willing to see NASA take a (albeit small) risk in order to resume manned space exploration? Absolutely. The space shuttle is still one of the most reliable spacecraft that has ever been built, having carried out over a hundred launches with only two losses.
-
Originally posted by Ace
Inquisition, here we go...
Inquisition, what a show...
We know you're wisi'n
that we go away.
but the inquisition's here
and it's here to stay!
-
If were actually serious about wanting america to dominate space, then his administration is going to have to put a lot more money into NASA.......
-
The problem with NASA isn't lack of money, it's that they put the Administration in National Aeronautics and Space Administration first with Space and Aeonautics taking a far back seat.
-
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8339843
Looks like we ain't going nowhere this next month.
-
I´m glad they grew some common sense. After the last fiasco, they certainly don´t need another huge failure. Ever since i heard they found the cracks in the foam insulation, i had a sense of deja-vu.
Just last week i saw a documentary about the disaster, and how they had every chance to check the damage prior to re-entry, but the higher ups thought it was perfectlly "safe"... Yeah, right!
It wasn´t the foam that killed those 7 astronauts, it was NASA burocracy, and thick headedness from its admins. They thought it would cost too much money to turn satelites and telescopes around for a close-up shot of the wing. Even a simple EVA would have been enough. But no, they prefered to be cheapskates and allow those men to fall to their deaths...
:rolleyes:
-
I think that without a major overhaul, the shuttle will never be completely free from this kind of threat. No matter how they modify the tank design, they're still be a danger... and probably one greater than NASA, or to a greater extent, the american people consider acceptable. They'll pretty much need a complete redesign of either the tank, or the shuttle's tile protection system. Considering that they've flown for 20 years without encountering any manifestation of this problem serious enough to bring down an orbiter, its reasonable to assume that they could fly the next 5 years without it happenning again. If I were an astronaught, it's a risk I'd be willing to take. My point is this: sure, I think all they've done for the shuttle in their return to flight opperations have proably significantly reduced further threat from this kind of thing, but as I said further up, the threat will never be reduced enough to the satisfaction of those in change of this thing, and I don't think that delaying the launch for 2 months will reduce it any further. If the lingering threat is considered too great to resume launches, then they should scrap the whole fleet becuse they'll never be satisfied with the threat level.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Just last week i saw a documentary about the disaster, and how they had every chance to check the damage prior to re-entry, but the higher ups thought it was perfectlly "safe"... Yeah, right!
You have to be very careful when you watch documentaries. They're supposed to take a side. I certainly hope you didn't believe everything you heard. Documentaries need to be watched with open eyes, listening ears, and most importantly, a questioning mind. Documentaries are just another way the media controls us, but if you can pick one apart, you can see through the bull****.
And by the way, the only thing that's going to get us past the earth is money and power, sad but true, unless someone already with that money and power just simply has a passion for space.
-
That said Swamp Thing is completely correct. NASA did notice the shuttle being hit by the piece that fell off the tank, did have the chance to schedule a space walk to inspect the damage but declined because they assumed that the insulation couldn't cause enough damage to the shuttle to be a danger.
NASA have pretty much admitted to all of this.
-
NASA is useless when it comes to space exploration and technology.. it seems they havent had an original idea in 30 years and that no great space feats have been made besides.... OOH we got a probe to... guess what?! TRACK A SATELITE IN SPACE!!!! Im at a lost for words.
If NASA consisted of 5 people on the payroll, received the same funding, but instead of doing anything, became a prize board that dished out sums of cash to private companys and crap for doing the research and development of radical space vehicle designs and efficient propositions for private space stations and colonies as well as large craft to transport people between planets while remaining in space, the money would go so much farther.
-
Just wait till some extremely valuable resource is found on another planet. Like turnsky said:
Originally posted by Turnsky
"there be gold in dem thar planets!"
:p
All the large corps. of the world will be like kids in candy stores.
-
The moon has an abundant supply of titanium, so there's already a valuable resource out there, but mining it could have devastating consequences on Earth.
-
Dollars in the heavens.
-
The moon needs to be used as a starting point for space exploration because if you think wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to launch a spacecraft
from the moon because of it's lower gravity. Of course the process of making a launch pad on the moon wouldn't be cheap and suppying it from earth wouldnt be either but it wad still be a stepping stone to other planets.
-
Another space race could spice things up. Perhaps China vs. US/ESA? Although I wonder will the US go bankrupt before that happens? :p
But what we really need is unified political will from the major parties (USA, EU, Russia and China) to work together to achieve our goals. ISS is a good start, but what we would really need would be a permanent base on the Moon (not to mention actually going there again, after all these years). Expensive, yes, but well worth it.
-
United Federation of Partisan government systems. ;)
Close enough.
-
What we really need is an enemy for the entire world to unify against, sounds bad but its the fastest way to get things done.:D
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
The moon has an abundant supply of titanium, so there's already a valuable resource out there, but mining it could have devastating consequences on Earth.
How so?
-
It'd destroy the world titanium market, if it's easy enough to mine.
-
I can guess of a few possible consequences; accidents from the returning of ore (it's been theorised rail-guns could be used for this IIRC), the superpowers getting in a pissing match over who has the rights to mine the moon, and the fairly unlikely(IMO-?) consequences of reducing the moons' mass or in some way affecting its orbit and thus the tides.
-
Originally posted by Swantz
What we really need is an enemy for the entire world to unify against, sounds bad but its the fastest way to get things done.:D
Yeah...But since there curretnly is none (since we found no other intelligent life out there...YET) we keep going at eachothers throaths..
Hmm..maby we should invent an artifical enemy?
-
al-Queda in space!
-
That's exactly how the shivans got started. :)
-
I want everything to be made of titanium in future....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I can guess of a few possible consequences; accidents from the returning of ore (it's been theorised rail-guns could be used for this IIRC), the superpowers getting in a pissing match over who has the rights to mine the moon, and the fairly unlikely(IMO-?) consequences of reducing the moons' mass or in some way affecting its orbit and thus the tides.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! :p
-
We aren't going to make the moon hollow, so that's a bit... exageration...
-
I agree; I highly doubt that humanity could manage to extract enough minerals from the Moon in any reasonable amount of time to cause any noticeable change in its orbit. While the Moon is only about one-eightieth of the Earth's mass, that's still a helluva lot of matter; it's not going to disappear anytime soon.
-
How about the Collaberative Resource Acquisition Program? We could all send crap to the moon ;)
-
What about that guy who started selling chunks of land on the moon, because of a lapse in regulations? I don´t see it getting any real value, but if we take history as our teacher, wouldn´t we be open for hard litigation and maybe even territorial wars?
Back in the 15th century, the first european to reach new land would plant his country´s flag and claim it as their own. Would this mean the US would claim the moon, since it arrived first? Or is the moon property of all Mankind? How will it work?
If, for example, the chinese develop a new cheap means to mine the moon, and start mining it, would the US try to injuction it on the grounds they were there first? If the US is willing to go to war to protect their energy resources (as it did in Iraq, Kuwait, etc), what would happen if they find a new energy source on the moon?
I perceive some rough legal battles, maybe even military battles, to settle this. I just don´t think i´ll be alive to see it.
-
The countries of the world signed an agreement saying that no country could claim other planets as belonging to them.
The guy who was selling bits of the moon claimed that the agreement didn't say anything about private individuals and promptly claimed the rest of the solar system and started selling it off. Obviously the claim only has validity in his mind.
-
Originally posted by Andreas
But what we really need is unified political will from the major parties (USA, EU, Russia and China) to work together to achieve our goals. ISS is a good start, but what we would really need would be a permanent base on the Moon (not to mention actually going there again, after all these years). Expensive, yes, but well worth it.
The US would not go along with that. China's space program and the EU's space program do have a partnership, IIRC. I know for certain they have one to at least get their own GPS system in place.
Not sure about Russia. If it is smart it would jump onto the EU-China bandwagon.
-
Russia & the ESA have already signed a co-operation agreement IIRC.
-
So essentially the US is on its own. With the debt the way it's going, I wonder how long that will last.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Obviously the claim only has validity in his mind.
That didn´t stop him from selling parcels of the moon to people like Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, someone from the english royal family, Bill Clinton, and other VIPs, along with other more average Joe personalities. :D
At least according to him. Allthough i don´t hear anything about these people filling lawsuits against him for unwarrented use of their name, wich means there is some truth to the matter...
:doubt:
-
Originally posted by Kosh
So essentially the US is on its own. With the debt the way it's going, I wonder how long that will last.
I think the US also co-operates with the ESA and Russians, though. ESA satellites/probes have travelled along with US ones (Huygens & Cassini, for example), and US astronauts will have travelled to and from the ISA on Soyuz.
-
Oh yeah, forgot about that......
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
That didn´t stop him from selling parcels of the moon to people like Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, someone from the english royal family, Bill Clinton, and other VIPs, along with other more average Joe personalities. :D
Yeah but they are almost certainly worthless for anything other than decorative purposes.
-
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/050503_cev_nasa.html
The first CEV concept. More to follow.
-
About time. :) This new administrator seems like just the type of person that NASA needs. Not only is he pushing the CEV concept forward, but he's re-evaluating the decsion to abandon Hubble. My fingers are crossed...
-
When I saw this guy was reconsidering Hubble's fate, I know he was the right person for the job. :)
There were a few articles I read that credit Bush with motivating NASA to get its act together, which is total bull****! If anything, he inhibited NASA, because after droning on about going to Mars, thinking it will make him sound like some great president, he slashes NASA's budget.
-
Originally posted by Ghost
hopefully that X-Prize thing'll go through.
Burt Rutan and his SpaceShip One already won that.
EDIT: Also, the US already has close ties with the ESA and the Russians. It's just a big deal that the latter two were signing a co operation pact because they didn't have one before, not that the US didn't already have one with both of them.
-
i'm all for corporate space endeavors....i love nasa, dont get me wrong, but yeah, beauracracy sucks, and it's killing it
you need breathing room to do stuff like space travel...innovation needs room to thrive....new ideas are dangerous, but neccesary
the wright brothers werent government endorsed; i think corporate competition, for better or worse, is the way of the future....governments are close to being corporations anyhow
and so far as the "dangers" of the upcoming launch...they NEED to do this launch; sure, if there are probs to prevent it, then they need to not go ahead with it...but you know what? they know that, and they wouldnt do it....hell, the astronauts arent idiots, theyre all ****in PHds and ****, theyre gonna keep up with the wellbeing of the program and the mission
not to mention....when this whole space idea started, they used TEST PILOTS; these are guys who hopped into PROTOTYPES of a rocket strapped to a chair and said "yeehaw mutha fecker!!!"
astronauts are feckin HEROES....theyre some of the bravest (and luckiest) people on earth, but they cant be scaredy little cowards....space is dangerous, and it always will be....if the average joe knew all the details of exactly how dangerous it all was, they'd vomit, faint, and then crap themselves....yet astronauts are aware of it, and they CHOOSE to do it anyways
in every shuttle that crashes, each person in it decided that it was a risk they were willing to take; they ARE NOT victims....like i said, they are heroes, and they want to do this **** no matter what cost
(i met an astronaut recently on a visit to cape canaveral...it was awesome...i shook his hand and had a photo taken with him, asked him alotta questions....i was giddy, lol...i touched a man who has been in friggin SPACE!!!)
-
What bothers me about corporations is, are they doing this to benefit humankind, or their pockets? What bothers me about the government is, are they doing this to benefit humankind or some secret agenda? They both must be watched carefully.
Space will always be dangerous. In the future, it will just be a question of how dangerous, as we become more familiar with traveling in space, it will become safer. It'll probably be more dangerous than flying, but treated in a similar manner. I don't believe astronauts are necessarily heroes just because they go up into space, but they certainly are very brave. I wanted to be an astronaut when I was little. Who didn't? I still want to go up there someday.
-
ahh, krisvek, meet the censors....wondered how much language was filtered :)
in the end, it's all about greed, or some nicer sounding equivalent...corporations are just more up front about it
what is the purpose of expanding out to the stars? why do we want to colonize? why do we want to prosper? because, dammit, we think we have the right....we WANT to, and that is enough
we do have other options...i mean, we COULD be training the dolphins, chimps, or elephants to evolve and prosper like us, or something, but why add more competition? we're out to save our own necks....self-preservation is, one way or another, a form of greed...every living moment of each of us is at the price of the life, comfort, etc. of countless others; i'm not about to give up my place in the universe though
-
I guess space exploration is like early naval exploration (before Columbus) for the europeans. The sea always has been, and always will be dangerous, but modern ship designs are far safer than those early caravels (or whatever they were called).
But where the comparison breaks down (here and in a few other places), is that those early naval expiditions were much less resource and monetarily taxing (I think, I could be mistaken) than space exploration is. This is why I believe the earth must sooner or later unite to become (for the most part at least) a single planetary nation. This way a lot more resources can be pooled into space exploration than is possible under the current, divided, earth.
-
i like the corporation idea more still...because the timetable for united-earth-nation is tooooo far off
but, ideally, i agree
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
What bothers me about corporations is, are they doing this to benefit humankind, or their pockets? What bothers me about the government is, are they doing this to benefit humankind or some secret agenda?
Corporations want money, plain and simple. Whetever it is a bunch of low-paid Chinese working in some textile factory, or a bunch of miners in Mars, it's the same thing.
Governments are more interested in military and political appliances that space can offer. The scientists working for these entities are most likely the ones who want to do it to benefit mankind.
-
orbital elivator.
-
lol...bob, what's the latest youve heard about orbital elevators?
i've heard the concept and all...and maybe it would work...but....from the ground into space? that'd be quite a task...and an easy target...and...it's just....so far-fetched sounding...
not that i'm too closed-minded for it...id' support it, if they really thought it would work...but i dont think most would (obviously, or else we'd be building one)
-
it'd work, it'd just cost about atrillion dolars to build one, but after that, building other ones the cost would go down exponentaly, and we'd be able to get realy big hunks of matter into orbit easily and cheaply.
-
trillion dollars? hmmm....it'd have to be a united effort between countries/corporations
would be awesome though...but does that trillion spent save money? how much have all the shuttle launches cost?
essentially free travel to space would be cool....i'd send my santa clause letters up there :)
-
It sounds like a project of magnitude like the alien launchpad from Contact.
-
that's awesome, because i'd thought the exact same thing....good, good movie...tho i wish the aliens had been more exciting....the trip was cool though
-
I think an orbital elivator is simply the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Can you imagine having a giant pole sticking up into space? I can see it now: terrorist attack collaspses elevator, obliterating a four hundred + miles of terrain. Or "errant aircraft crashes into space elevator"
It's a nice concept, if we didn't have to live on the planet along with it.
-
well, if the line was severed near the surface of earth, then the thing might just float off into space...(i dont know how that would work, lol)
dont know about 400+miles...but if it was loading a fuel tank up there, then yeah...it'd be bad for that thing to fall to earth from 6 miles up...not sure if it would actually ignite though....it's not liek they use diesel :)
-
Plus, would you want to live next to the thing and have to look at it every day? :p
-
itwould have to be based on the equator and would likely be mounted in the ocean.
it would use carbon nonotubes for the tether, this has the dencity of news paper, it would fliter to the ground in a worst case senario.
it would not be that easy of a target if it was built right, a large array of smaller tethers (think square mile), all connected to a sub station every few miles. each car would grab hold of sevral strans at the same time (more than four) so that if one failed there would be others to fall back on (and arrainged so that there would be no way a single object moveing through the array could leave a car with fewer than three strands, each strand individualy would be strong enough to safely hold a single small load car and it's maximum capacity load)
the strands themselves can be conductave (superconductive if I recall corectly) so you could power the cars through the strands.
-
An orbital elevator is as probable as digging your way to China. Where's it going to go to, the moon, the international space station? It's just ludicrous. Spacecraft would be much more versatile.
-
an orbital elevator is how you build big inter planetary space craft, it would allow industrialiseation of space. it would become ecconomical to, for example, mine asteroids.
-
And it probably wouldnt gost trillions of dollars, billions is more likely once we find a way to make nanotubes well.
-
we can make kilometer long sheets of the stuff now, there still needs to be a bit of work done, we need a more pure composit (they aren't quite strong enough just yet). I'm figureing in development of the materials into the cost. and remember it's going to be a bunch of *44 thousand mile* long strings of a rather expensive material.
at the very least hundreds of billions.