NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a bit of old news, but one that takes a few days to contemplate. NASA has a plan to get an astronaut on the moon by 2018, keep astronauts on the moon for a week, and do this at a total cost of $104 bn. Presumably, they will also attempt repeat missions, and perhaps a few years after that, NASA can establish its long-held dream of a moonbase.

Comments? I encourage you to skip this part, for I don't want to influence your thinking. I do have my own opinion, and it is quite lengthy.
NASA's plan is a giant tradeoff. The aging shuttle fleet will probably never be in space again, the Hubble will die out until its successor, the Webb telescope, is up, and NASA hopes for a new spacecraft by 2010. The great irony, in fact, is that NASA is buying Soyuzes for its own use, all from a manufacturer in Russia.
NASA also plans for a second vehicle, and while it works, its no piece of design creativity. It's a rocket with a capsule reminiscent of Saturn V rockets, and it is to land on the moon. It works, but has no design creativity.
This effort is all, if you ask me, a pathetic waste of taxdollars. It was always assumed, for instance, that NASA would make space travel cheap and affordable (like the movie 2001). Perhaps it would if spurred by Russian competition. After all, despite their safety record, the Soviets launched five times as many manned missions as the US by 1980, and were well on their way to developing a space shuttle. But they collapsed, and their space program is ailing. NASA has no incentive.
NASA fails to realize that . With no competitors in space, NASA became a monopoly. Since then, there have been no space flights beyond low earth orbit, and much of the technology for space comes from the seventies.
What NASA failed to realize was the quiet revolution of space that has been gaining momentum for a few years, being the private push for space. Like Renaissance patrons of old, billionaires pony money into their pet projects, each competing for a better one. The highly successful Scaled Composites, for example (the Space Ship One guys), are financed by the third richest American, Paul Allen.
This is far more sustainable than the last big push into space, being the sixties. It is actually getting people into space, and more importantly, is creating industries up there. There are at least a couple of designs for a small space hotel right now that are recieving lots of investments. It seems certain that far more people will go into space with Virgin Galatic in a few years than NASA even can dream of.
It is time for change at the agency. NASA's myriad functions, from space ship design to mission control, can be outsourced, saving the rest of us a ton of money. NASA needs to act as a coordinator of these efforts to achieve its goals of the moon and Mars. It must also be more willing to reward innovation wherever it pops up, and not constantly reward the big aerospace firms with big, bloated contracts. In short, what we need in the US is a revolution of how we view space exploration, and ultimatly, space settlement.

Mans future lies in space. The USA has been negligent for years and has held back the development that should have got us to Mars and beyond years ago.

Mans future lies in space. The USA has been negligent for years and has held back the development that should have got us to Mars and beyond years ago.
I think that it is unfair to blame NASA entirely, however. Sure, no one in the US did anything to stoke interest in space, but neither did anyone else (asside from a few small advocacy groups) even try. The Chinese are making strides, but I suspect that it is more for national pride than anything.
I also doubt how far humans are willing to travel into space. Sure, there are obvious reasons to go to the moon, and even Mars. But putting humans on distant planets and space stations that take several months to get to and have a communication lag time would be tough. Will the rewards justify the risks? Will it be too expensive? And here's an underpondered question: how will earth-based governments control their territories in space? I see space as the next Wild West. It's a great place to make a fortune, but who controls it?

I think that it is unfair to blame NASA entirely, however. Sure, no one in the US did anything to stoke interest in space, but neither did anyone else (asside from a few small advocacy groups) even try. The Chinese are making strides, but I suspect that it is more for national pride than anything.
I also doubt how far humans are willing to travel into space. Sure, there are obvious reasons to go to the moon, and even Mars. But putting humans on distant planets and space stations that take several months to get to and have a communication lag time would be tough. Will the rewards justify the risks? Will it be too expensive? And here's an underpondered question: how will earth-based governments control their territories in space? I see space as the next Wild West. It's a great place to make a fortune, but who controls it?

No, I don't blame NASA - though they have been extreamly wasteful with both time and money over the years.

My blame lies at the feet of the American people and their government who have allowed this waste.

Tax papers money could be spent on better things than a moonbase. I say, let the private sector control space.

No, I don't blame NASA - though they have been extreamly wasteful with both time and money over the years.

My blame lies at the feet of the American people and their government who have allowed this waste.
Some people, notably science fiction authors like Arthur C. Clarke and a few advocacy group members, argue that humans must go to space. They argue that it is for reasons of curiosity, or some form of buckaneer exploration, or, popular among space junkies, for an undefined spirituality. All of those reasons share one thing in common, and that is that they are not practical. That's why I call them fanatics. Don't fall into that trap.

Tax papers money could be spent on better things than a moonbase. I say, let the private sector control space.
A. So we give space to the private sector. Who would maintain law and order? Who would enforce contracts and regulate commerce? Governments, I believe, arise naturally, but that is not allowed to happen, lest they become threats to terrestrial governments. Governments need to send troops into space. The US government should do this eagerly, as it has the capability to get to the moon, and a permanent presence there would be most beneficial. More importantly, governments need to decide how to rule space from orbit. For example, if an orbitting missile from Russia is directly over Canada, does Canada have a right to shoot it down? It gets complicated considering that this is unprecedented for even spy sattelites.

Tax papers money could be spent on better things than a moonbase. I say, let the private sector control space.

The private sector is half a century behind NASA.

All these fools who see some private bongo technically hitting space (just technically, no person would really consider what these people did space) and immediately jump to "let the private sector take over" are just that: fools.

Let NASA work in harmony with private interests and then things will get going.

I think the moonbase is a good idea, I'm one of those "progress for progess' sake" people.

The private sector is half a century behind NASA.

Not entirely true. Most of NASA's space probes, space suits, even space station components, are built by either Boeing or Lockeed Martin. NASA is also relying increasingly on Russian contractors for Soyuz capsules and the like, and those firms are pretty new. The problem with big aerospace, however, is that it has had no real competition in anything other than general aviation, and have thus became stagnant. I think we may see a massive defection of scientists and managers over the next few years. They will either start their own business, or go to the more liberal atmosphere of a smaller firm. That's how monopolies are destroyed.

Neccessity is the mother of invention after all. And in times of war, or nation ego trips, the government agencies is usually a step ahead of the private sector. But when you don't have a war or a competing country to have an ego trip with, the private sector would eventually pull ahead.

After all, NASA was cutting edge in the 70s, but the equipment they have today is now considered 70s vintage isn't it? Whereas the corporations are definitely pulling ahead in the general tech advantage. So I'd say that while they lag behind in the sheer lift potential of NASA, them having the Saturn V rockets and all, the corporations can close the gap much faster than NASA did when they rushed to build the Saturn Vs to beat the Russians.

As to why go to space? Well, humans aren't exactly what we would call living in a fully sustainable manner are we? Mineral resources, energy supplies, those things don't replace themselves in a manner that will sustain humanity at it's current rate.

Eventually, if we don't go to space, we'll quite literally eat ourselves out of house and home.

This makes me think that either:
1) NASA has too much money to burn (given the state of US Finances, I doubt that is the case)
2) The conspiracy theorists who said the moon landing was a hoax are right; NASA finally has the technology to actually do it.
3) This is an expensive diversion from problems both foreign and domestic.

3) This is an expensive diversion from problems both foreign and domestic.
Hear Hear!

Seriously, every "libertarian" about should be up in arms about this. They're spending billions and billions of your dollars to do a repeat of a 1960's TV Show?

What in the gods' name can we learn from the Moon now?
Send that Pluto Probe off, they wanted to have done that years ago.
Send people to Mars - at least there is a remote possibility that people could one day live there.
And if you want to build space ships in space, then I wonder whether it might just be better to build the facility in orbit, rather than millions of kilometres away on a place where gravity can break stuff...

Some people, notably science fiction authors like Arthur C. Clarke and a few advocacy group members, argue that humans must go to space. They argue that it is for reasons of curiosity, or some form of buckaneer exploration, or, popular among space junkies, for an undefined spirituality. All of those reasons share one thing in common, and that is that they are not practical. That's why I call them fanatics. Don't fall into that trap.

We have one overriding reason to go into space, more important than all those you list - survival.

Hear Hear!

Seriously, every "libertarian" about should be up in arms about this. They're spending billions and billions of your dollars to do a repeat of a 1960's TV Show?

What in the gods' name can we learn from the Moon now?
Send that Pluto Probe off, they wanted to have done that years ago.
Send people to Mars - at least there is a remote possibility that people could one day live there.
And if you want to build space ships in space, then I wonder whether it might just be better to build the facility in orbit, rather than millions of kilometres away on a place where gravity can break stuff...

The advantage of the Moon is that there are all the raw materials a deep-space effort needs with the ability to get them into Earth orbit far cheaper than lifting them from Earth itself.

Tax papers money could be spent on better things than a moonbase. I say, let the private sector control space.

Alright. Let us say that happens. What happens when a Private Corporation goes and retrieves an Asteroid from the Asteroid belt, and then brings it close enough to Earth for Cheap Lifts Dumps to mine it?

Answers:

a.) The Asteroid enter's the earth's gravity well, and many people die.
b.) The Asteroid hits the moon, splitting it apart or destroying the orbit. Either way, many people die.
c.) Nothing happens, and all is well.

These possibilities are put from most likely to least likely.

Alright. Let us say that happens. What happens when a Private Corporation goes and retrieves an Asteroid from the Asteroid belt, and then brings it close enough to Earth for Cheap Lifts Dumps to mine it?

Answers:

a.) The Asteroid enter's the earth's gravity well, and many people die.
b.) The Asteroid hits the moon, splitting it apart or destroying the orbit. Either way, many people die.
c.) Nothing happens, and all is well.

These possibilities are put from most likely to least likely.

Well (c) is the most likely by far. (a) is remotely possible but if we have the power to move the asteroid in the first place then we have the power to get it into earth orbit.

(b) on the otherhand is totally impossible - even the largest asteroid is not big enough to do that.

Alright. Let us say that happens. What happens when a Private Corporation goes and retrieves an Asteroid from the Asteroid belt, and then brings it close enough to Earth for Cheap Lifts Dumps to mine it?

Answers:

a.) The Asteroid enter's the earth's gravity well, and many people die.
b.) The Asteroid hits the moon, splitting it apart or destroying the orbit. Either way, many people die.
c.) Nothing happens, and all is well.

These possibilities are put from most likely to least likely.


First off, most of the asteroids anywhere near earth, ae so large, there isnt anyway we could move them close enough to earth, to do any damage.
It would be more pheasible, to actually robotically mine minerals from the asteroid belt itself.

b. No asteroid is that big.
It would take something the size of another planet, smashing into it at great speed to do that.
In wich case, we'd have atmospheric problems long before the moon went boom.

N.A.S.A indeed needs to outsource to the private sector.
Let private companies spend the money to go to space, NASA can hire them to carry cargo to a space station, and save billions.
Not only that, but the Government should invest NASA's yearly budget into these companies, so as to encourage, and support this future.
Once spaceflight is maintained by private companies, things such as affordable spaceflight, and revenue can be earned.
Nasa needs to take a different role in the future, in the areas of regulating commercial spaceflight.
In a sense, they should be the government branch that would regulate commercial and private spaceflight.

N.A.S.A indeed needs to outsource to the private sector.
Let private companies spend the money to go to space, NASA can hire them to carry cargo to a space station, and save billions.
Not only that, but the Government should invest NASA's yearly budget into these companies, so as to encourage, and support this future.
Once spaceflight is maintained by private companies, things such as affordable spaceflight, and revenue can be earned.
Nasa needs to take a different role in the future, in the areas of regulating commercial spaceflight.
In a sense, they should be the government branch that would regulate commercial and private spaceflight.

Except that the government isn't going to give up their monopoly on space anytime soon I think. Some things that come to mind supporting this idea is the opposition it had towards the development of GPS by Europe wasn't it? (Europes own GPS network that is, as opposed to the US run GPS network)

THE PROBLEM OF SURVIVAL:
Yes humans need to move into space in order to survive. At the very most we have about four billion years before the expanding sun boils the oceans. But humans can't survive in space at the moment. Any colony, whether it is on the moon or mars or anywhere else in the solar system, will be dependant upon supplies from earth. We cannot build a self sustaining colony with our current technology. Until we have the technology to make colonies self sustaining they will not help with the survival of humanity. Building a moonbase now will be incredibly expensive. The money would be better spent on basic research that could lead to self sustaining colonies in the future.

Some people will say that valuble things can be learnt by building a moonbase now. I think we would learn new things, mainly problems we didn't anticipate, but we already have so many problems to conqueor that we are already aware of I don't think it's productive to go looking for more. When we are ready to test the technology to build a space suit, rover or small space ship entirely with materials found in space, then we will be ready to colonize space.

Didnt NASA suffer some major paycuts after the Soviet Union fell? Its kinda hard to keep up to date with no cash.

THE PROBLEM OF SURVIVAL:
Yes humans need to move into space in order to survive. At the very most we have about four billion years before the expanding sun boils the oceans.

There are many more pressing problems a lot closer in time.

But humans can't survive in space at the moment. Any colony, whether it is on the moon or mars or anywhere else in the solar system, will be dependant upon supplies from earth.

To start with, so were the colonies in North America.

We cannot build a self sustaining colony with our current technology.

Yes we can, and have been able to for many years.

Until we have the technology to make colonies self sustaining they will not help with the survival of humanity. Building a moonbase now will be incredibly expensive.

So was the establishment of the American bases.

The money would be better spent on basic research that could lead to self sustaining colonies in the future.

Part of that basic research is to actually go out there and try.

Some people will say that valuble things can be learnt by building a moonbase now. I think we would learn new things, mainly problems we didn't anticipate, but we already have so many problems to conqueor that we are already aware of I don't think it's productive to go looking for more.

If we had taken that attitude the Americas would still be waiting for Europeans to arrive.

When we are ready to test the technology to build a space suit, rover or small space ship entirely with materials found in space, then we will be ready to colonize space.

But until we colonize space we can't do those things.

Yes we can, and have been able to for many years.

Okay, I admit that I am wrong. It might be possible to build a self supporting space colony with todays technology. But it would need an enormous industrial base, massive redundancy and massive quanities of stockpiled supplies. I should have said that we can't build a self sustaining colony with space budgets that are likely to be available in the foreseeable future.

If you know of how a self sustaining colony can be built cheaply, please tell me.

Okay, I admit that I am wrong. It might be possible to build a self supporting space colony with todays technology. But it would need an enormous industrial base, massive redundancy and massive quanities of stockpiled supplies. I should have said that we can't build a self sustaining colony with space budgets that are likely to be available in the foreseeable future.

If you know of how a self sustaining colony can be built cheaply, please tell me.

The question is not "can we afford it?" but rather "can we afford not to do it?"

Yes, it will be expensive - though not as expensive (if run properly) than the Apollo programme was. NASA, as usual, wants to spend far too much and take too long to do the job.

It is true that we would need to rebuild the space programme as the legacy of Apollo has been squandered. We should have been reaching Mars in the early 1980s and be well beyond there by now.

We have to get out finger out, too much time has already been wasted.

To start with, so were the colonies in North America.

My opinion is that building a moonbase now would be like Wilbur and Orville Wright spending all their capital and risking their lives climbing high mountains so they could find out about high altitude conditions and learn how pilots could survive in them, when they would have been better off just staying at home and working out how to build a damn airplane.

Just as you can't simply pick up a tennis racket and claim the glory of winning at Wimbelton without years of practice first, you can't win the glory of colonizing space without doing the hard effort of scientific research first. Investing in a prestige project like a moonbase now is only likely to sap funding from research and end up pushing you real goal further and further into the future.

When you build the necessary technology, people will be able to go and live in space.

If you build it, they will go.

*sings fly me to the moon*

I applaud NASA and their efforts to return to the Moon.

This is the final frontier and it is time that we humans begin to explore it rather than sending out probes.

The question is not "can we afford it?" but rather "can we afford not to do it?"

Yes, it will be expensive - though not as expensive (if run properly) than the Apollo programme was. NASA, as usual, wants to spend far too much and take too long to do the job.

It is true that we would need to rebuild the space programme as the legacy of Apollo has been squandered. We should have been reaching Mars in the early 1980s and be well beyond there by now.

We have to get out finger out, too much time has already been wasted.

But how? How can even a thousand colonists with ten million tons of supplies build pressure relief valves, a silicon chip manufacturing plant, radiation detectors, carbon dioxide scrubbers, an aluminium smelter, plumbing supplies and the thousands of other things they will require to be self sustaining using only materials found on mars and today's technology? Even with a thousand people and a huge amount of supplies it isn't practical at the moment, and no government will pay for such a huge effort. The only way it will be reguarded as affordable is if technology advances make it much easier and cheaper to colonize space than it is today.

But how? How can even a thousand colonists with ten million tons of supplies build pressure relief valves, a silicon chip manufacturing plant, radiation detectors, carbon dioxide scrubbers, an aluminium smelter, plumbing supplies and the thousands of other things they will require to be self sustaining using only materials found on mars and today's technology? Even with a thousand people and a huge amount of supplies it isn't practical at the moment, and no government will pay for such a huge effort. The only way it will be reguarded as affordable is if technology advances make it much easier and cheaper to colonize space than it is today.

You send the people that can build those things. Come on, use a brain. In order to build a successful colony, first you have to build your dome. This requires Construction workers. Once you have your dome then people can start to move in. This means that you'll have industrial workers and engineers coming up to build the factories.

My opinion is that building a moonbase now would be like Wilbur and Orville Wright spending all their capital and risking their lives climbing high mountains so they could find out about high altitude conditions and learn how pilots could survive in them, when they would have been better off just staying at home and working out how to build a damn airplane.

Not a good comparison. They already knew about high altitude conditions, men had been working at altitudes far higher than they thought their plane would fly6.

Just as you can't simply pick up a tennis racket and claim the glory of winning at Wimbelton without years of practice first, you can't win the glory of colonizing space without doing the hard effort of scientific research first.

And a lot of that research is best done on the job.

Investing in a prestige project like a moonbase now is only likely to sap funding from research and end up pushing you real goal further and further into the future.

When you build the necessary technology, people will be able to go and live in space.

If you build it, they will go.

We already have the technology, most of the research has already been done, many are ready to go.

Surely a huge concentration on space colonization would solve a whole lotta problems here. Consider this:

If everyone - Europe, China, the US, Russia, Japan and any number of other countries (and continents if we thinking in terms of the ESA here) with the technical and financial resoursces to make the attempt (of which there are probably loads - how much money would it really take if we vamped up the efficiency of the techniques used) actually did make the attempt, then we'd probably all be far too busy worrying and focusing on that - something that actually matters to be fucking things up down here - wars, developing yet more pollutive industries, screwing over third world countries with unfair trade regulations and all the hundreds of other unsavoury things rich governments tend to get up to when bored.

Hehe, perhaps that list was a little optimistic - I doubt the EU and the US will stop buggering up thrid world economies just because some of us have moved a few million miles away, but surely it'd help with some of it?

But how? How can even a thousand colonists with ten million tons of supplies build pressure relief valves, a silicon chip manufacturing plant, radiation detectors, carbon dioxide scrubbers, an aluminium smelter, plumbing supplies and the thousands of other things they will require to be self sustaining using only materials found on mars and today's technology? Even with a thousand people and a huge amount of supplies it isn't practical at the moment, and no government will pay for such a huge effort. The only way it will be reguarded as affordable is if technology advances make it much easier and cheaper to colonize space than it is today.

Just as a thousand colonists in the early Americas could not make all they needed. Raw matterials for near-earth use will be traded for more complex things like microprocessor chips. This trade will make it cheaper as less needs to be hauled up to orbit from earth.

in my opinion, i think the idea of sending shuttles into space via thiose huge rockets is a waste at the moment. They should invest in building one of those space elevators (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html). With that a major cost of space travel would be removed.

in my opinion, i think the idea of sending shuttles into space via thiose huge rockets is a waste at the moment. They should invest in building one of those space elevators. With that a major cost of space travel would be removed.

That would be cool. Probably a better investment than a moonbase. Develop the needed technology first, build the space elevator and then build a moon base or mars base. One step at a time, each helping the next step.

That would be cool. Probably a better investment than a moonbase. Develop the needed technology first, build the space elevator and then build a moon base or mars base. One step at a time, each helping the next step.

Problem is you cannot build it from the ground up, you have to be in space to build it.

The elevator will come, of that I've no doubt, but it will be built with materials mined in space.

We have one overriding reason to go into space, more important than all those you list - survival.
If that's so, then the push for space will be so big that our heads will spin. I believe you're right at some level, but I believe that survival is not an issue right now.

in my opinion, i think the idea of sending shuttles into space via thiose huge rockets is a waste at the moment. They should invest in building one of those space elevators (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html). With that a major cost of space travel would be removed.
That will happen, but only after a significant amount of cargo and people are transported to and from space. Besides, there are only a few sites in the world that could ever host a space elevator. Where will it be, and who will control it?

This makes me think that either:
1) NASA has too much money to burn (given the state of US Finances, I doubt that is the case)
NASA claims it will need little extra funding. But if it did, it'd be easy to secure. The deficit is as large as it is because of the unique nature of the global economy right now.
2) The conspiracy theorists who said the moon landing was a hoax are right; NASA finally has the technology to actually do it.
Yeah right.
3) This is an expensive diversion from problems both foreign and domestic.
A diversion with only a small column in my local paper. I couldn't even find a good link for this. It will only grab attention when it happens, perhaps by 2018. Do you think that the same foreign and domestic problems will exist then?

Problem is you cannot build it from the ground up, you have to be in space to build it.

The elevator will come, of that I've no doubt, but it will be built with materials mined in space.

The starting cable is only supposed to weigh 87 tons, perhaps less. Then you use that starter cable to send up send up robot climbers that strengthen and reinforce the cable. No need to go to the moon for 87 tons of stuff.

Hear Hear!

Seriously, every "libertarian" about should be up in arms about this. They're spending billions and billions of your dollars to do a repeat of a 1960's TV Show?

What in the gods' name can we learn from the Moon now?
Send that Pluto Probe off, they wanted to have done that years ago.
Send people to Mars - at least there is a remote possibility that people could one day live there.
And if you want to build space ships in space, then I wonder whether it might just be better to build the facility in orbit, rather than millions of kilometres away on a place where gravity can break stuff...
The full benefits of the moon will not be realized until a significant amount of economic activity happens in space. Then, not only would the moon be useful for mining, but it'd also be useful for manufacturing. More immediatly, it can be used to expand defense. What form that will take on is mere speculation at this point, but even minarchists realize that a goverrnment's primary obligation is the defense of its citizens.

If that's so, then the push for space will be so big that our heads will spin. I believe you're right at some level, but I believe that survival is not an issue right now.

I bet the dinosaurs thought that.

Seriously, we don't know what danger we are in and we don't even know where the dangers will come from. What we can be sure of is that there are many dangers that can wipe us out and a lot more that can return us to a stone-age existance very quickly.

Their effects on the long-term future of the human race can most easily be mitigated by getting at least one viable colony established off-earth.

The starting cable is only supposed to weigh 87 tons, perhaps less. Then you use that starter cable to send up send up robot climbers that strengthen and reinforce the cable. No need to go to the moon for 87 tons of stuff.

That is a gross underestimate. We are talking about a cable that is 44,000 miles long. The initial cable has to be strong enough to hold its own weight as it is lowered through 22,000 miles (the last 100 with a lot of air resistance. The larger the initial cable the quicker the final cable gets built and the elevator can start really working.

In reality the main station in geosync orbit would be built first with materials from the moon. You then either need a second station at highside (44k) or at least a large counterweight.

It is something that will come, though it may be that Mars (with its lower gravity and thinner atmosphere) will get its elevator first.

The advantage of the Moon is that there are all the raw materials a deep-space effort needs with the ability to get them into Earth orbit far cheaper than lifting them from Earth itself.

Yep, so true.

Too bad not many people realize that the whole freaking moon is made up of minerals that people need to make things. And it would be cheap to mine too, so its even better. If i could set up a mine on the moon or here on Earth, I'd do it.

Not entirely true. Most of NASA's space probes, space suits, even space station components, are built by either Boeing or Lockeed Martin. NASA is also relying increasingly on Russian contractors for Soyuz capsules and the like, and those firms are pretty new. The problem with big aerospace, however, is that it has had no real competition in anything other than general aviation, and have thus became stagnant. I think we may see a massive defection of scientists and managers over the next few years. They will either start their own business, or go to the more liberal atmosphere of a smaller firm. That's how monopolies are destroyed.

Let me correct myself:

The private sector that isn't directly associated with NASA is half a century behind.

I don't think you grasp the VAST difference in technology behind something like a space shuttle and the "vaunted" Spaceship One.

What form that will take on is mere speculation at this point, but even minarchists realize that a goverrnment's primary obligation is the defense of its citizens.
Indeed, but what does the state building a base on the moon have to do with defence?
We still are bound by UN Law (...) that declares space a demilitarised zone, so at least the department of defence should have little say in all of this.

Let me correct myself:

The private sector that isn't directly associated with NASA is half a century behind.

I don't think you grasp the VAST difference in technology behind something like a space shuttle and the "vaunted" Spaceship One.
Spaceship one is only as small and primative as it is because they lack NASA's capital and R&D resources to build something equivilant to it. Other than that, the private sector is actually fine.
And btw, most aerospace firms, big or small, do business with at least one space agency these days.

That is a gross underestimate. We are talking about a cable that is 44,000 miles long. The initial cable has to be strong enough to hold its own weight as it is lowered through 22,000 miles (the last 100 with a lot of air resistance.

Supposedly, the carbon nanotubes in development can do just that. And there is a technique now in employ that allows them to be weaved together to form a very strong mesh. It's just a matter of making enough of it and sending it to space with a suitable tether.


The larger the initial cable the quicker the final cable gets built and the elevator can start really working.

Maybe, but that would require an even larger initial counterweight. Robotic climbers would be able to increase the rate of construction of the elevator with a single base rope exponentially per cycle, there being more room for the climbers.


In reality the main station in geosync orbit would be built first with materials from the moon. You then either need a second station at highside (44k) or at least a large counterweight.

Depends really, on whether the bean counters will approve a moon mining station or prefer the old method of boosting the materials made on earth for construction in orbit.

Indeed, but what does the state building a base on the moon have to do with defence?
We still are bound by UN Law (...) that declares space a demilitarised zone, so at least the department of defence should have little say in all of this.
Once governments can transport large groups of people to and from space, that particular statute will be obsolete, and there'll probably be a movement to repeal it. Yet already, it is becoming unenforcible. The Pentagon is secretly working on sattelites to protect other sattelites and to destroy earth-based targets, and China has known military ambitions in space. Already, we all know how to orbit a nuclear weapon.

Once governments can transport large groups of people to and from space, that particular statute will be obsolete, and there'll probably be a movement to repeal it....
It's a disappointment - it should be clear to everyone that space is something humanity needs to explore if it is to save itself, not America or China.
I do hope that such a repeal will not come to pass.

Now, does anyone know how space tourism is doing? The 800 pound gorilla of this extremely young industry, Virgin Galatic, is scheduling services for 2008. Another firm in Las Vegas, Bigelow Aerospace, is planning on a small hotel of three or four guests to be in orbit in five years. I wouldn't write these guys off, as they have a multibillion dollar investment from its founder, Robert Bigelow, a hotel magnate.
Most impressive of all is that company that's starting to buy its own Soyuz spacecraft. They want to send tourists on a 21-day space voyage that includes a trip around the moon, for a modest fee of $100 million. It's not clear if there are any takers.
Yet no private space ship launches have happened since the first few test flights of SpaceShip One. I know that the time table for beginning services is impressive, but I get antsy when I don't see any tangible progress. I mean, I hope that space tourism, and probably aerospace, will be a growth industry again. I don't want my hopes dashed this time.

It's a disappointment - it should be clear to everyone that space is something humanity needs to explore if it is to save itself, not America or China.
I do hope that such a repeal will not come to pass.
If you said that to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella about the new world, you'd have your figernails pulled out. Just like then, today's governments are not keen to let oppritunities pass them by, regardless of the consequences. I mean, it's important to look at it from their prespective: they see their rule of space as the best way to ensure control, defense, and the orderly settlement and commerce of space. Space will be militarized by any government capable of putting weapons up there. The last question remaining is what the hell took governments this long.

If you said that to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella about the new world, you'd have your figernails pulled out. Just like then, today's governments are not keen to let oppritunities pass them by, regardless of the consequences. I mean, it's important to look at it from their prespective: they see their rule of space as the best way to ensure control, defense, and the orderly settlement and commerce of space. Space will be militarized by any government capable of putting weapons up there. The last question remaining is what the hell took governments this long.

Actually, they'll have to repeal the no weapons in space treaty or someone has to pull out of it. Then can this occur.

Actually, they'll have to repeal the no weapons in space treaty or someone has to pull out of it. Then can this occur.

Weren't they going to already pull out of that treaty with space based anti-ICBM defense platforms back in the 70s?

Granted, orbital based weapons may not be more effective than terrastrial versions (at least in regards to nuking your enemy), but if space travel starts to become more cost effective, you can bet your last penny that someone is going to start bringing up stuff there that goes boom.

Weren't they going to already pull out of that treaty with space based anti-ICBM defense platforms back in the 70s?

Granted, orbital based weapons may not be more effective than terrastrial versions (at least in regards to nuking your enemy), but if space travel starts to become more cost effective, you can bet your last penny that someone is going to start bringing up stuff there that goes boom.
Come to think of it, one treaty against demilitarizing space, the Antiballistic Missile treaty, or ABM, was withdrawn from so that the US could develop a missile shield. If one is ever built (and I'm confident that it'll happen in the next decade with the right motivation), space-based weapons may be needed.

bump

Now, this may be years, if not decades away, but when will we see a Mars landing, and which nation (or company) will get there first? I fail to see the benefit of Mars myself, though I assume one could be found.
I see more potential in Venus. It is roughly the same size as Earth, is fairly geologically active, and not too far away. The main problem is its climate, of which I propose a little something. By 3001, I'd like to see Venus's orbit shifted to one that runs roughly equal to earth (though they'd be at opposite ends), terraformed, and have lots of water and vegetation. In other words, I want it to be transformed into a second earth, though perhaps this one will be more agricultural in nature.

That will happen, but only after a significant amount of cargo and people are transported to and from space. Besides, there are only a few sites in the world that could ever host a space elevator. Where will it be, and who will control it?

Well i'd assume it would come under some UN body (i know the bureaucracy!) I'd assume each area, not just the country would have to draw up plans, and the one which was the most feasible an showed most potential would be chosen.

If you said that to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella about the new world, you'd have your figernails pulled out. Just like then, today's governments are not keen to let oppritunities pass them by, regardless of the consequences. I mean, it's important to look at it from their prespective: they see their rule of space as the best way to ensure control, defense, and the orderly settlement and commerce of space. Space will be militarized by any government capable of putting weapons up there. The last question remaining is what the hell took governments this long.

actually that's interesting because it did happen. Spain and portugal were vying for influence in south america, and the vatican stepped in and gave them both spheres of control (simplified version of history). That's why one large chunk is spanish speaking and another (brazil) is portuguese speaking.

If it can be done with monarchs i'm should it can be done with elected governments.

bump

Now, this may be years, if not decades away, but when will we see a Mars landing, and which nation (or company) will get there first? I fail to see the benefit of Mars myself, though I assume one could be found.
I see more potential in Venus. It is roughly the same size as Earth, is fairly geologically active, and not too far away. The main problem is its climate, of which I propose a little something. By 3001, I'd like to see Venus's orbit shifted to one that runs roughly equal to earth (though they'd be at opposite ends), terraformed, and have lots of water and vegetation. In other words, I want it to be transformed into a second earth, though perhaps this one will be more agricultural in nature.

would they not more likely just put big mirrors in front of it to reflect the excess sunlight?

bump

Now, this may be years, if not decades away, but when will we see a Mars landing, and which nation (or company) will get there first? I fail to see the benefit of Mars myself, though I assume one could be found.
I see more potential in Venus. It is roughly the same size as Earth, is fairly geologically active, and not too far away. The main problem is its climate, of which I propose a little something. By 3001, I'd like to see Venus's orbit shifted to one that runs roughly equal to earth (though they'd be at opposite ends), terraformed, and have lots of water and vegetation. In other words, I want it to be transformed into a second earth, though perhaps this one will be more agricultural in nature.

in response to the other points, it would be nice if it had international backing. Also remember by landmass, mars has as much land as the earth. So the full potential of earth is there if terraforming is possible.

Return? We never went there in the first place.

Return? We never went there in the first place.

heh? what to do the moon? what makes you think that?

Return? We never went there in the first place.

Another person that believes that conspiracy?

I see more potential in Venus. It is roughly the same size as Earth, is fairly geologically active, and not too far away. The main problem is its climate, of which I propose a little something. By 3001, I'd like to see Venus's orbit shifted to one that runs roughly equal to earth (though they'd be at opposite ends), terraformed, and have lots of water and vegetation. In other words, I want it to be transformed into a second earth, though perhaps this one will be more agricultural in nature.
Venus is already far enough from the sun to be a nice place. The problem with it is the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and not enough water to dissolve it. Plus the atmosphere is 90 times as heavy as ours and contains a good amount of sulphuric acid.

I say we start with Mars, which is easiest and then move on to bigger projects.

actually that's interesting because it did happen. Spain and portugal were vying for influence in south america, and the vatican stepped in and gave them both spheres of control (simplified version of history). That's why one large chunk is spanish speaking and another (brazil) is portuguese speaking.

If it can be done with monarchs i'm should it can be done with elected governments.
It should be noted, however, that both sides asked for outside arbitration. If the involved parties wanted to take their case to the UN or some third party, that's fine. But it mustn't be hashed out whether countries like it or not.

in response to the other points, it would be nice if it had international backing. Also remember by landmass, mars has as much land as the earth. So the full potential of earth is there if terraforming is possible.
Yes, but I don't think it has the same gravity as earth does.

Venus is already far enough from the sun to be a nice place. The problem with it is the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and not enough water to dissolve it. Plus the atmosphere is 90 times as heavy as ours and contains a good amount of sulphuric acid.

I say we start with Mars, which is easiest and then move on to bigger projects.
You may be right, as Mars will be settled first. It's economic advantages are few, but very great. For one, it is a stepping stone for further exploration. More importantly, its proximity to the asteroid belt, which is very rich in minerals, would make Mars an ideal processing center.