Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A change of subject...; Let's talk about ISS - Alpha.
Topic Started: Apr 11 2004, 04:40 PM (129 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I'm in the process of writing a lenthly essay on the future of commercial space utilization and governmental space exploration.

Recently, Pres. Bush proposed a change in vision for NASA. Part of this change has been the idea that we ought to step back from the International Space Station - Alpha (btw, I call it ISS -Alpha, because I ultimately believe it will the first of many space platforms) in favor of a Lunar base and a long term plan for a manned visit to Mars.

Of course, this has really caused a great deal of consternation within many interested parties, and raised many questions.

The two chief questions, in my mind, are;
• Is this a good idea?
• If it is a good idea, what do you do with ISS-Alpha?

I'd like to get a cross section of opinions on these two questions.

Just to let you know, here are my opinions on it...

I think that the idea of a Lunar base is do-able and should be considered. It would be cheaper and be far easier in the long run to construct major and large pieces of space hardware on the moon than on Earth.

The reason why this would be the case is that the gravity felt on the moon is 1/6 that felt on Earth. Simply put, it would require less energy and power to launch something of the surface of the moon than it would to launch it off Earth.

Another reason for increased ease of construction, is that people and machinery could lift more weight for the same amount of energy. If a person can lift 50 lbs on Earth with no problems, on the moon the same person could lift an object that weighs 300 lbs on Earth.

If we are to construct a human space craft that are to reach Mars and other planets, it would probably easier and cheaper to do it from the moon.

Ok, I consider the idea of a Lunar base to be a good idea in the long run, so what of ISS - Alpha? What would I do with it?

Simply put, I'd make it a governmental and commercial platform for continued research, exploration and tourism.

The governments involved should develop a module standard that establishes the minimum requirements for any module attached to ISS. I'd then allow any company or government to create modules to hook up to the platform.

This would give commerce a destination in Earth orbit. From that, you'd see more traveling to space for tourism only, which will lead to a whole new face of the service industries that typically serve tourists on Earth. For example, some people will gladly play the premium for a freshly cooked meal instead of the standard fair available to astronauts today. As well, after a visit from a tourist, someone needs to prepare accomendation for the next visitor, so you're going to need a cleaning crew of sorts.

Additionally, ISS-Alpha could serve as a way station for those headed for the moon. This tactic would help reduce the launch costs for those wishing to go to the moon, because the vehicle and fuel for getting from LEO (Low Earth Orbit) to the moon isn't launched from Earth. The only thing that is launched from Earth is a vehicle to carry the passengers for a short duration flight to the ISS.


I'd like to get some thoughts on this to help round out my opinion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
One thing I felt was sad was that the Hubble Space Telescope is not going to be maintain and will be allowed to fail. That was doing a lot of good scientific work.

My personal opinion of space exploration is this (sorry its not very StarTrek visionary). We can build very advanced robotic probes etc. These can be launched into dangerous situation at no risk to life. They are much cheaper than human missions, yet we can still gather a great deal of data from them.

I think we should have more Mars Rovers, more Hubbles, more Voyagers perhaps. Less space stations, luner bases and manned missions to Mars.

Manned missions (beyond say repair jobs etc) might be romantic. In the cold war they were political. But frankly they are not logical or required.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
The big reason why I want the ISS to be copleted and maintained is that there will not likely be as much public support for its completion afterwards as there would be before. Let's take two scenarios.

1. So what are we going to do now?
We're going to build a space station.
What then?
We're going to build a base on the moon and then go to Mars!

2. So what are we going to do now?
We're going to build a base on the moon and then go to Mars!
What then?
We're going to build a space station.

In situation one, we're going to complete a step in space exploration that no longer has as much public support, but could still reap many scientific discoveries. We will then go on to bigger more exciting programs.

In situation two, we will do the big exciting missions first and then settle down to more mediocre tasks. Now, my bet is that Joe Average will react in the same way as the moon shot, unless we go on to bigger and better things after Mars, public interest in space exploration is going to go down the toilet again.

For us to have any kind of support for the ISS, we must force the public to take the medicine BEFORE we give them the sugar.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Apr 11 2004, 04:46 PM
Manned missions (beyond say repair jobs etc) might be romantic. In the cold war they were political. But frankly they are not logical or required.

Actually, there is a great deal of logic for humans in space, and the pinnacle of that logic should the survival of the species. One large asteroid could wipe out nearly all life on the planet, and if there is no capacity for people to live off world, the human species would die off.

While I agree that more exploration can be done by robotic exploration, the ultimate justification for the robotic exploration is analyze conditions and situations that will warrant eventual human exploration.

If we do not do this with the eventual colonalization of space as the goal, then what really is the point of it all? Pure research and exploration will most likely never garner the interest necessary that would eventually lead to developments that in turn make pure research and exploration more feasible.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I disagree with you that scientific research and robotic missions would fail to create enough interest.

Frankly I think the idea that sending a manned mission to mars is going to save us from an asteroid impact is false. Where the heck would all of humanity go? God gave us the Earth and its fate is ours.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Apr 11 2004, 05:20 PM
I disagree with you that scientific research and robotic missions would fail to create enough interest.

Frankly I think the idea that sending a manned mission to mars is going to save us from an asteroid impact is false. Where the heck would all of humanity go? God gave us the Earth and its fate is ours.

Wait a second ... you're putting words in my mouth. I never said a manned mission to explore Mars would save humans from an asteroid impact. I never said that at all!

As for your initial statement about generating interest, you seemingly didn't understand what I said.

Of course current mission generate interest, but is it enough so that people will make the hard decisions to spend the money not just on the pure research necessary in space exploration itself, but will it generate enough interest to encourage people to sufficiently research new propulsion methods?

I'd argue that the answer is no. If the answer were yes, then some of the more exotic forms of propulsion that have sat in the R&D phase for decades would have already been developed.

For example, both the Russians and Americans researched and successfully tested nuclear propulsion during the 1960's, but because of a lack of funding the American projects were just recently restarted. The Russians went further by developing a fully functional version, and I believe the US purchased a model from Russians for testing.

This same thing can be said for ion propulsion, maglev launch system, ram jets, scram jets, pulse engines and other forms of exotic propulsion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Do we really need those propulsion systems? Frankly I can think of better ways to spend money. Yes you could make the same argument about robotic led exploration but I can see much greater Earth based application from advancements in robotic and remote technology.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
I think the ISS would still have a value as a transit point from Earth orbit to other points in the solar system, including the moon. It certainly could serve as a staging area and carry out both research and commercial applicaations to enhance its value.

I believe that a base on the moon would be advantageous in establishing a launch point to the rest of the system. Conceivably it would not be as restricted as an Earth orbiting station for some matters. The possibility of tapping into at least some resources there could be beneficial to future space exploration and/or life on Earth.

DS, in regards to your comment about the loss of Hubble. I've read where that may or may not be a done deal yet. Even if it is, you should be aware (if you are not already) that there are plans to have a new improved space based telescope in orbit by around 2011 or 2012. While there may be a couple of years in between that we will have some down time, in the end we will have (hopefully) a better device to work with.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Swidden
Apr 11 2004, 11:51 PM
DS, in regards to your comment about the loss of Hubble. I've read where that may or may not be a done deal yet. Even if it is, you should be aware (if you are not already) that there are plans to have a new improved space based telescope in orbit by around 2011 or 2012. While there may be a couple of years in between that we will have some down time, in the end we will have (hopefully) a better device to work with.

Thanks thats good news a least. I found it hard to believe that such a valuable resource would be lost without some kind of replacement. If it going to be an upgrade then great news.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Apr 11 2004, 06:23 PM
Do we really need those propulsion systems? Frankly I can think of better ways to spend money. Yes you could make the same argument about robotic led exploration but I can see much greater Earth based application from advancements in robotic and remote technology.

If we are to make space exploration more cost effective and feasible ... YES!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Apr 11 2004, 07:06 PM
Swidden
Apr 11 2004, 11:51 PM
DS, in regards to your comment about the loss of Hubble. I've read where that may or may not be a done deal yet. Even if it is, you should be aware (if you are not already) that there are plans to have a new improved space based telescope in orbit by around 2011 or 2012. While there may be a couple of years in between that we will have some down time, in the end we will have (hopefully) a better device to work with.

Thanks thats good news a least. I found it hard to believe that such a valuable resource would be lost without some kind of replacement. If it going to be an upgrade then great news.

There are several replacements planned for the Hubble. One of them is a network of space telescopes that form an array and should be capable of directly imaging planets around other stars!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus