assilem

Seems like a pretty complicated method. I think the lunar lands from the 60's worked pretty well. I guess mars is a different story though.

__________________
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels

ObieX

We'll be building a lunar base and departing to Mars from there. Or I think that is the plan anyway. The 2 launch method shown is for the moon shot only i think.

The stuff they had in the 60s may have worked a few times, but those capsules were tin cans. They were in such a rush to beat the Russians they didnt have much time to plan for things that could be fatal. Such as the one capsule accident they had where the oxygen in the capsure ignited by a spark and the crew all died. After that they started to mix the oxygen with a nitrogen (i think.. or something else that wont explode). An unimginable amout of upgrades have been made since then.

But basically this *IS* the old time type of ship, it just launches on two rockets. Getting stuff into space takes A LOT of fuel. There needs to be, like, around 3lbs. of fuel for every 1 pound of cargo they add to the rocket. That adds up damn fast.

They'll just be using the single rocket, on the right, for things like runs into orbit and to the space station (for crew that is). They'll use the one on the left to get up cargo to the space station, and also to join with the crew capsule for the moon missions. Both variations should get a good work-out.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

SERPENT7

Pragma,
Did you acutually read my post? Cuz it seems to me you stopped at the second line.
See that part where it says "putting off the inevitable"? That means that until we learn to not waste resources, and not produce more garbage/pollution than we can store/re-use we have no business looking for more planets to screw up. I feel VERY STRONGLY we should FIX our problems rather than delaying the consequences of our actions.

Broken,
A new space race would serve only to distract us as a civilization from addressing the real issues. Also, see above.
Besides, the first space race was only 'won' with lots of government pork and serious subsidies. (The gov gives money to private interests because they hope new weapons come out of it, and will be able to kill more people more cheaply. This is why they call it the 'military-industrial complex'. Is industrialized murder really in our best interests?)

OzOz

Serpent7,

Launching satellites not a good idea? This is news to me. They're generally more effective in space than on the ground. What do they do up there that's good? Well, apart from communication, weather observation, military reconnaisance (which you mightn't think much of, but which helped the US to spend billions less than it might have on weapons during the Cold War, since it could get a more accurate idea of what it might face in battle that way), monitoring the health and distribution of different types of crops, keeping tabs on pollution, navigation, air/sea search and rescue, environmental research - apart from these, I guess not much useful. May as well scrap the lot of them.

As for you employing EVERY person in the US, how much money do you think NASA spends each year? Their annual budget is currently around $16 billion. Divide that amongst the entire population of the US (as you suggest) and everyone gets paid about $50 per year. Maybe you're only talking about the unemployed? How many is that? I wouldn't know the figure for the US, but even if it's as low as 5 million, that's still only $3000 each. Not a heck of a lot. $60 per week. I would HOPE that your welfare system over there is better than that! What would you have them doing for that sort of money? I'd bet those "egg-heads with a bunch of degrees" would be bored stupid, and take their knowledge and know-how to other countries.

Which, by the way, is another way in which the money spent is not being wasted. One reason behind the decision to go to the Moon was the perceived national need to not let the US aerospace industry slowly wither away. In Russia, that problem has come up since the end of the Cold War, with a bit of a twist. Many of these "egg-heads" could not be paid at all by the Russian government. Quite a few were forced into work which would leave anyone like that bored to tears. There was another alternative for them - go to work for some dictator somewhere who wanted the ability to build missiles. Not something that most people would want to see happen. So, one of the reasons for undertaking the International Space Station (a project which I'm very critical of, on other grounds) was to help to provide interesting and rewarding work for these "egg-heads" in preference to other, less palatable alternatives.

As for the government giving money to industry to produce new weapons to be "able to kill more people more cheaply", one of the main drives with modern weaponry has been to produce more expensive and (usually) more accurate weapons, to be able to kill LESS people - and to make sure as much as possible that the ones you do kill are the ones you need to kill, with as little collateral damage as possible. One of the more reprehensible pieces of anti-US propaganda I can remember from early 2003, before the US went into Iraq, was a claim from one of our local Aussie politicians that the US military was going to carpet-bomb Baghdad. Carpet-bombing is a tactic from an era when airborne weapons were VERY inaccurate, so you had to saturate an area, attacking with literally hundreds of aircraft, to ensure a reasonably good chance of hitting your intended target. Now, of course, the same job can often be done by one aircraft - the target gets flattened, rather than most of the surrounding city plus tens of thousands of civilians and (maybe) the target.

People often said that we should stop going to the Moon and eradicate poverty. The US stopped going to the Moon. I still see poverty. Ergo, poverty is not the result of space exploration. Giving up space exploration will not solve the world's problems, or cause them to be solved. You can expect that any money that is freed up by abolishing NASA would be frittered away on little projects, mostly designed to make your local senator or member of congress look good rather than to solve the world's problems. The world's problems can be solved - or solved as much as they're ever going to be - while we continue going "out there". They certainly won't be solved by offering to redistribute ~0.25% of the US federal budget.

__________________
Maybe you should put some shorts on or something, if you wanna keep fighting evil today.

tecoyah

Human nature virtually requires us to explore....and learn from these explorations. A mindset of stagnation will destroy the human experience, just as surely as poison. There were quite a few social issues in Spain when Columbus set sail. And I seem to remember a few wars as Americans expanded west.....but this did not stop humans from finding out what was there, and in my opinion, the payback in both money and psyche.....was well worth it.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

mackyroo

Very good point. Humans have been exploring ever since we began to walk the earth.

How about instead of thinking this a nation's race. How about a human race? Astranauts in the future will be the ambassadors of earth and humanity. Would be nice to see humans join together in something.

__________________
Official Bullshit.

SERPENT7

Oz,
I agree satalites are more effective in space than on the ground. This was not the crux of my argument. I just do not think we need more of them, or need them to be cheaper, considering the damage the mass media is doing to us all as it is.
I MAY have been using hyperbole when i said i could employ EVERYONE in the us w/ the nasa budget. Mainly i was trying to point out that there are bigger issues going down in this country than whether or not we have a moonbase. It is of course all about peoples priorities.
I also said that "The egg-heads" could have gone into other fields of endeavor, not simply be cut loose to screw things up in other ways.
You are correct, that poverty is not the result of space exploration. (BTW, I never advocated ignoring space. More on that later.) It is the result of capitolism. or more accurately profit by controlled scarcity.
As for killing fewer peeps w/ new more expensive weapons, you are right,...and wrong. Mostly i was thinking about the NEW stuff, like directed energy weapons, or IPVs (This second one i have a REAL problem with.)
So, to sum up, i think we (Meaning all of humanity) needs to be A LITTLE more focused on improveing and protecting planet earth, rather than finding new places to screw up.

macmanmike6100

I've never believed the conspiracy theories before, claiming that we never went to the moon in the first place. However, I find it hard to believe that we went to the moon 30 years ago -- well before the Digital Age -- and now it will take us nearly 10 years just to get to the same place again. (And yes, I recognize that there was a restriction that we could only land on the equator last time, but that was a fuel restriction, not design.)

filtherton

I have a feeling that if we wait until humans perfect the process of living amongst eachother and all the other living things on the planet, we'll be waiting until the end of time.
Serpent, perhaps you could stop wasting so much time on internet message boards and focus more of your energy on improving the situation of your fellow human and the planet earth. Actually, i don't really think that.
I just think that the idea that we should or should not do this or that because we could be saving the planet and ourselves is more of a non sequitur than anything else.

SERPENT7

Filtherton,
Maybe you should spend more time shutting your piehole, and less time telling me how to run my life.
Besides, I was only trying to point out what i see as a disparity between most people abstracting thier ideals and notputting ANY of them into actual practice.

OzOz

Serpent,

Not sure about your link between not needing more satellites, and the damage that the mass media is doing to us.

Also, note that "egg-heads" will not necessarily be interested in throwing themselves into any given person's pet cause. Different people have different things that drive them, and forcing them into something that they're simply not interested in is not going to be good for society - instead of getting the benefit that you might have got out of them, you'll get very half-hearted boredom, and that's not good.

Also, the "mess" we're in is not the fault of the "egg-heads". It would be very rare that a scientist would be faced with a moral decision to not proceed with research because of how it will affect the world. I would argue that "messes" derive more from the political and corporate worlds. Even in weaponry, you'll probably find that scientists working in that area do it out of a mixture of interest and a genuine belief in national defence.

For my part, given a choice between a job in the Moon program and an environmental job, I'd take the Moon job without a second's thought. That's what drives me. Personally I find environmental stuff a bit dull - and I'm turned off by the exaggeration and dishonesty that I believe to be coming from all too many of the more aggressive environmentalists, and the constant chanting that it's the most incredibly important thing of all. It gets old really quickly.

I agree that we can and should take better care of this planet and of each other - but I don't believe that this is a reason to slow down in space. Personally I'm very glad that the US is going back to the Moon. The US is rich enough to do that and fight poverty. Both are just a matter of political will. I don't believe that poverty will ever be eradicated, but it must be fought. However, the probable fact that it will always be here is why I can never support the argument that we shouldn't do X until we've eliminated poverty.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. More another time maybe.

__________________
Maybe you should put some shorts on or something, if you wanna keep fighting evil today.

Pragma

He was using the "stop spending time on messageboards" as an example of things people should stop doing, not to insult you - so you didn't need to return it. Granted, he could have stated it better, but oh well.

The point is, instead of staying in college to get my Computer Science degree, I could drop out and join the Peace Corps. But I don't. Is that selfish of me? Sure. Is my CS degree going to help humanity? Probably not. Do I care? Not really.

Why do we spend time and energy trying to explore space? Because a lot of people believe that humanity's future, one way or another, is in space. There's lots of ways that we could "work to make society/humanity" better, but that's an entirely different discussion. Going to space does help us, as there are lots of technologies/medicines that are researched in space, or in the process of going to space, so it's not an entirely useless venture.

__________________
Eat antimatter, Posleen-boy!

SERPENT7

Oz,
The advertising driven Mass Media (Ie, t.v. and cable) is damaging to us in that it shortens our attention spans, and keeps us misinformed. (Read 'Manufactured Consent by Noam Chomsky for more on this effect.)
I never mentioned forcing anyone to do anything, let alone the egg-heads. While on the one hand, i do not think the state of the world is the fault of nor the sole responsibility of these geniuses, i also do not think they give much thought to the moral implications of the things they create. (Most computer science people i know cannot wait for AI to be a reality, even though they all recognize the folly of giving physical power to a cognitively independant being that possess no self restraint or morality.)
I agree w/ you that the moon job would be alot more exciting, but this is only because the environment is such an unknown and nearly unquantifiable endeavor. (The moon produces tangible progress and rewards, whereas how do you measure environmental success?)
I also agree w/ you that space should not be ignored, and that it is all a matter of political will. However, I also think that the earthly issues should not be ignored either.
As for being dishonest about how much damage is being done to the environment, no one knows how much the earth can take, because we have never killed one before! Unfortunately, many environmentalists make the mistake of trying to illustrate things through fear. This is (imho) because the damage done is hard to see, or quantify, or understsand, or communicate effectively.
The environment is important, but it is not the only important thing out there. So yes, i see your frustration.

Pragma,
I never faulted anyone for not 'dropping out to join the peace corps.' I never even blamed any one group for screwing up the earth. Mostly i was trying to encourage people here to acknowledge collective responsibilty for caring for thier own backyard, rather than worrying about what is over the horizon.
'Future' is a self-fullfilling prophesy. (People believe our future is in space, so they bend thier energy to that end, and ignore fixing things here. Therefore, space colonization becomes not just possible, but vital, and therefore inevitable.)
I never said 'going to space was an entirly useless venture.' to quote myself, "(BTW, I never advocated ignoring space. More on that later.)"

OzOz

Serpent,

No, the difference in the excitement levels between the Moon and the environment is very much a personal thing. It doesn't have a lot to do with how unknown and unquantifiable the environment is. For instance, it was once suggested to me that I should get into naval architecture (ship design and construction). I don't think you'd disagree that this is a very known and quantifiable endeavour. Unfortunately it just doesn't float my boat. For me, space does - and it's not because you can get visible results in it. It's the way I'm wired. I get excited about it. For some people, it's sport. For some, it's their religion. For others, it's cars, or reality TV, or shoe shopping or what-have-you. For some, it's the environment.

Stating that the "egg-heads" could have gone into other fields of endeavour, rather than being set loose to screw things up again, does suggest that you think that they should have gone into other fields of endeavour, and that it is all their fault. What should they have done rather than get involved in space, or whatever else they're doing?

__________________
Maybe you should put some shorts on or something, if you wanna keep fighting evil today.

SERPENT7

Oz,
I never assumed that 'the egg-heads' would screw anything up if let loose. I was merely articulating an assumption YOU made. (Several posts back.) I did say they could have chosen another field of endeavor.
I could keep splitting hairs and countering your false assumptions, but let me just finish this by trying to be as CLEAR AS POSSIBLE.
1) I am advocating taking on a personal responsibility for how things are being run.
2) I believe EVERYONE should be involved in the social and political dialog, and make informed choices.
3) I also think we (Meaning all of humanity) needs to be A LITTLE more focused on improveing and protecting planet earth, rather than finding new places to screw up.

OzOz

Serpent,

You talk of me making assumptions. Fine, but where is my "assumption" that the "egg-heads" would "simply be cut loose to screw things up in other ways" (as you put it)? My bit about fears of Russian rocket engineers being tempted to sell themselves to the highest bidder and how preventing that was one of the motives behind the US inviting Russia into the ISS project is not my assumption, but a fear that has been stated in print many times and, it would seem, made a basis for US and Russian government policy. (Also, I'm not aware that any Russians actually *have* sold their services in this way. I would suggest that's a pretty good example of personal responsibility, and of them giving quite a bit of thought to the moral implications of the things they could create.)

I also noted your response to my question about your statement that we don't need more satellites or need them to be cheaper, given the damage the mass media is doing to us all. While I agree that we're not well-served by the mass media (after all, in the final analysis, commercial TV news doesn't exist to inform - it exists to sell shampoo and anything else anyone cares to advertise, for the right price), you didn't answer the original question: How does the performance of the mass media mean that we don't need more, or cheaper, satellites?

I won't argue with your three points - I'd consider them to be pretty self-evident (and I'd note that we're not looking for other places to screw up). I would point out though that I'd be more than happy to work in a civilian or military (under the right circumstances) space program - and in so doing, I wouldn't feel in the slightest bit irresponsible.

__________________
Maybe you should put some shorts on or something, if you wanna keep fighting evil today.

OzOz

It's also worth pointing out that undertaking long journeys or setting up colonies in space or on other worlds pretty much forces us to conduct research on ecologies and how they function. This space-inspired work has been going on now for decades. There have been several attempts to set up completely self-contained habitats, including human occupants, and have them run for a year or more. There are lots of questions to be answered that are relevant not just for space flight, but also for here on Earth. How exactly does a whole ecology function? What is the minimum required to make one work? What can make an ecology break down? What can be done to restore it to health and normal operation? What is the best way to recycle waste products? What can be done to minimise or eliminate reliance on non-recyclable products? On a future long-term space endeavour, all these questions will be of high importance. Up there, an ecological system will be required to function with as little active maintenance as possible. After all, there's little point in sending people if they're forced to work full-time just on maintaining the life support systems! Also, up there, you can't just throw your stuff into a truck and move to the next town if your local environment goes down the drain. All these questions and their answers will feed back into better management of our own planet's environment.

On top of that, there are intangible environmental benefits. One of the environmental movement's most iconic images is the photograph of Earthrise taken from lunar orbit by Bill Anders on Apollo 8, the first flight around the Moon, in 1968. It has often been credited with helping to really get people thinking about how fragile the planet we live on is. It's interesting to speculate on just why that photo did it. We had pictures of Earthrise from a few years before, taken by the unmanned US Lunar Orbiter probes. They didn't have much of an impact. Is it because the 1968 photo was taken by a human? It is something I'd love to see for myself. I only wish I had enough to be able to afford the $100 million that the Russians are asking for a seat on their commercial circumlunar flights later this decade.

__________________
Maybe you should put some shorts on or something, if you wanna keep fighting evil today.

Stiltzkin

Finally, our first mission to the moon
(yes, I'm one of THOSE people ^^ )

Ardus

Sweet, now all they need are some sexy uniforms, Starfleet style.