Announced yesterday, NASA says they are on track to get humans back on the moon by 2020.
Take a look:
http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=071211002619.itpq7dm2&show_article=1
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071211002619.itpq7dm2&show_article=1
An interesting chunk of text :
QuoteThirty-five years ago this week, Gene Cernan, Ron Evans and Jack Schmitt were on the surface of the moon. We are working hard to return a future generation of astronauts to the moon," said space flight veteran Carl Walz, who now works for NASA's exploration systems mission directorate.
Despite budgetary constraints, NASA hoped to have Constellation fully operational by 2016, Gilbrech said.
"We're hoping we get a budget passed by Congress," he said, pointing out that only six-tenths of a penny of every tax dollar went to funding NASA's space programs.
"We're making plans to be ready for any and all scenarios. The (budget proposal) we put in keeps our program on track for the March 2015 initial operating capability... and full operating capability a year later," Gilbrech, who leads new spacecraft development at NASA, said.
Very Cool!! I hope it actually happens.
- Ed C.
Not cool. Barely acceptable. If its 2020, where's my lunar mass drivers then?
As I recall, Ronny Raygun wanted to have Space Station Freedom up by 1990 (they're still building it). And George First wanted to have Americans on Mars by 2000.
I'm not optimistic, especially given NASA's recent history of making extremely expensive unreliable equipment.
I think you'll see China on the Moon before the USA gets back there.
Quote from: Kyle AaronAs I recall, Ronny Raygun wanted to have Space Station Freedom up by 1990 (they're still building it). And George First wanted to have Americans on Mars by 2000.
I'm not optimistic, especially given NASA's recent history of making extremely expensive unreliable equipment.
???
NASA's project have been operating under huge budget constraints and all missions have been with a cost-savings mindset. All the Mars rover missions were made for a "relatively speaking" song, and have operated well beyond what the operating projections expected. They expected to get maybe a few months out of them, and they've gone for years.
Seriously, NASA's tenders operate under extreme cost constraints now, and their focus is on cheap and quick and very focuses missions, rather than large and sweeping scope things like Voyager that end up being bloody expensive.
I'm seriously interested in where you are getting the "expensive and unreliable" opinion. Because considering how much budgetary pressure they are under, that the stuff works as well as it does is a bloody miracle, and a lot of it is over-performing, not under performing.
Just do a little research into NASA's budget for particular launch vehicles, cost per launch, combined with their reliability - and then compare with Russia, France, Japan or China. Here's (http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf) a start to your researches.
Some example cost/kg to low-earth oribit,
US:-
Athena 2: $11,622
Pegasus XL: $30,744
Taurus: $13,768
Atlas 2AS: $11,314
Delta 2: $10,692 (much cost not counted due to being Cold War surplus ICBMs)
Shuttle: $10,416
Russia/Ukraine:
Cosmos: $8,667
Rocket: $7,927
Shtil: $465 (much cost not counted due to being Russian Navy project)
START: $11,627
Dnepr: $1,548
Soyuz: $5,357
Proton: $4,302
Zenit 2: $3,093
China:
Long March 2C: $7,031
Long March 2E: $5,435
Long March 4B: $4,412
Europe:
Ariane 44L: $11,029
Ariane 5G: $9,167
Overall we see,
Small launchers, $8,445/lb Western, $3,208/lb non-Western
Medium/Intermediate, $4,994/lb, $2,407/lb
Heavy, $4,440/lb, $1,946/lb
So in general, Western launchers are much more expensive per unit weight put into space, and US launchers the most expensive - that's despite long and extensive experience and support from the defence industry.
Now let's have a look at the Shuttle. That's relevant to a discussion of putting Americans on the Moon since it shows NASA's ability to develop a spacecraft which carries both people and cargo, and which has to stay in space for some weeks.
The study I linked to notes,
"There are several ways to compute the cost of a shuttle mission, ranging from dividing the total NASA budget for the shuttle by the number of launches each year to estimating the marginal cost of one additional shuttle flight. The former method can produce per-launch costs of over $500 million, while the latter can lower the cost below $100 million. NASA's Space Transportation Architecture Study in the late 1990s estimated a shuttle launch cost of $300 million, based on an annual budget of $2.4 billion and eight flights a year, a rate NASA approached or achieved for most of the 1990s. We adopt the $300 million cost figure for this analysis, although we note that in the last few years the shuttle flight rate has dropped significantly without an appreciable decrease in the shuttle program budget, which would result in a sharp increase in per-launch costs."
So it's pretty fucking expensive. Now, let's consider reliability.
The Space Shuttle has had 120 flights, and two catastrophic failures resulting in the complete destruction of the craft, a failure rate of 2/120 = 1.7%
14 of 830 crew members have been killed in these two incidents, a death rate of 14/830 = 1.7%
Now let's compare it to Soyuz launchers, which from 1963 to 2002 had 1,143 launches and 36 failures, a rate of 0.3%. The Russians have had 4 deaths from 96 cosmonauts, but none since 1971, and none in the current Soyuz design (which has also launched many US and EU astronauts).
It may be objected that Soyuz has had a number of "near misses" in terms of deaths, but then so has the Shuttle. For example, STS-51-F had one of its three main engines shut down due to a faulty valve reading, and a second was about to shut down when a flight controller stopped it. Had he not, the craft would have ditched in the Atlantic destroying itself and killing its entire crew.
Russian history is of making cheap and reliable spacecraft. Chinese history is of making cheap and unreliable spacecraft, though their reliability is improving. US and EU history are of making expensive and unreliable spacecraft.
See?
No matter what the topic - Kyle aaron finds yet another way to do America-bashing.
Its still pretty neat news, if you're not a pessimist. (or cynic)
- Ed C.
Why? What's the point of the mission? Is it just another mass budget boondoggle of the sort NASA seems so adept at these days?
And that's not America bashing, it's NASA bashing. America is in many ways a great place with a great culture, NASA is a massive bureaucracy with all the vision of the IRS.
So, now the great vision for human space exploration is to return to missions that we were carrying out decades ago, that's it. I fail to see much to get excited by.
Call me when we go to Mars or build a genuine permanent space station that people can visit who're not astronauts. Hell, call me next time we build some major orbital telescopes or build a radio telescope on the dark side of the moon. Call me when we do something ambitious. Frankly I don't find this cool, I find it depressing.
Quote from: KoltarSee?
No matter what the topic - Kyle aaron finds yet another way to do America-bashing.
Its still pretty neat news, if you're not a pessimist. (or cynic)
- Ed C.
He critices the US and EU, you just read it as America bashing. I didn't read it as EU bashing.
Besides, on the facts he's correct, NASA is shockingly bad at this stuff these days, if you disagree with his remarks then show how his numbers are wrong.
Bashing a US agency is not the same as bashing the US, if I say that I have doubts about the efficacy of FEMA for example that doesn't make me a US basher, it makes me someone who doubts the efficacy of FEMA.
would be neat, says the geek in me.
will it truly happen? doubt it, says the realist in me. i mean, get serious. when push comes to shove, will the american people support financially:
1. energy independence
2. "global warming" stuff
3. more ridiculous military spending
4. space travel
i bet 1 - 3 beat out 4. unless things get a whole lot better, which personally i don't see happening.
that said, i'd love to have a lunar hotel out there. or even a base (visions of space: 1999.
I am fairly pessimistic as well, but I do have to admit that Americans are never so good as when they have real competition.
If it starts to look like the Chinese will beat them to the Moon, then you'll see huge interest pick up.
Shit, if only Iran had a space program, the Americans would have reached Jupiter by now.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditI am fairly pessimistic as well, but I do have to admit that Americans are never so good as when they have real competition.
If it starts to look like the Chinese will beat them to the Moon, then you'll see huge interest pick up.
Shit, if only Iran had a space program, the Americans would have reached Jupiter by now.
RPGPundit
Instead, they are attempting to compete in the nuclear field - and you know how we feel about that...
It'll depend on the folks in charge. Didn't Obama state that he'd cut funding for various NASA projects?
I don't necessarily think it's a "left v right" thing, it'll depend on the specific priorities of the folks in charge. Some folks think space is important, others think we should fix our problems here first.
I like space, and I suspect if we stop funding things and get into the "why? What's the point?" mentality, we won't start again any time soon.
Quote from: RPGPunditf only Iran had a space program, the Americans would have reached Jupiter by now.
OH, as the kids say, SNAP!
I think it's great. It makes me even happier that it makes Kyle mad.
Quote from: Kyle AaronAs I recall, Ronny Raygun wanted to have Space Station Freedom up by 1990 (they're still building it). And George First wanted to have Americans on Mars by 2000.
I regret that they couldn't do it, I don't regret the ambition.
Regan got stuffed by his success in the cold war, having won that the need for a space station was suddenly less evident, had the USSR lasted a bit longer we might have got our space station before the century was out after all. Bush 1 I suspect just didn't realise the huge cost involved and the technical difficulties.
Has anyone else noticed that this isn't just a repeat of Apollo? They want to build a permanent base and use it as a stepping stone to Mars.
Quote from: Elliot WilenHas anyone else noticed that this isn't just a repeat of Apollo? They want to build a permanent base and use it as a stepping stone to Mars.
Not me, if I had I wouldn't have criticised it for lack of ambition and being a mere retread, would I?
Go NASA, ahem.
I fucking hope we go. Look at all the good that came from the Apollo program!
Imagine what we might get going back.
Love the space program.
If anybody is interested in the technical issues involved or just want to try flying a real spacecraft hop over to http://www.orbitersim.com and download Orbiter Space Simulator
Also my own Project Mercury at http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit and Project Gemini. Project Mercury is detailed enough that you can follow the original checklists. It also a highly automated spacecraft so you can just launch it and go along for the ride and then take control when you feel comfortable. My Project Gemini doesn't have everything implemented yet but is historically accurate in terms of flight controls, fuels, weights, etc.
There are tons of additional add-on at http://www.orbithangar.com/
All of this is free, and in the case of my add-on open source. Orbiter is free for non-commercial use.
You will find that flying a spacecraft is both easy and hard. The main problem of historical spacecraft is the limitation on fuel which makes precise calculations mandatory. However Orbiter includes a souped up spacecraft called the Deltaflyer that is excellent for beginners to learn the basic.
Finally a lot of the stuff about the space program we see is passive. We read about the mission, watch it on tv, read the biographies. It is hard to get involved actively. Amateur Rocketry is a good way but require time and money and at the high end meeting the requirements of regulation.
Orbiter is unique is that it is a general purpose simulator. you can set up any historical or hypothetical. You can do the math yourself or rely on the aids that Orbiter give. Either way you are doing the same stuff that the real guys do. The closest software ever released that is like orbiter is Microsoft Space Simulator, the last DOS software Microsoft ever released.
Enjoy
Rob Conley
Quote from: Kyle AaronSo in general, Western launchers are much more expensive per unit weight put into space, and US launchers the most expensive - that's despite long and extensive experience and support from the defence industry.
While there are difference based on factors unique to each country the prime determinate of your launch cost is literally how often do you launch. The actual hardware cost of the rocket and payload is dwarfed by the cost of running the launch facility. We pay the same for Kennedy if there are 4 shuttle launches, 2 shuttle lanuches, or none.
The more you launch the cheaper your $ per orbit will be. The advantage of re usability isn't just about saving hardware. But turnaround time. In the 70's one of the reason the shuttle was sold was because of re usability. But the problem is that the shuttle is a hangar queen and thus nothing was saved on prep time in between launches.
The shuttle main advantage is it flexibility. It's payload bay and cross-range capabilities allows it to do missions no other spacecraft could ever do. Of currently operating spacecraft the Soyuz and Shenzhou COULD match the shuttle in flexibility by varying the contents of the mission module (the front module) but the shuttle can a payload several order of magnitude bigger than those two spacecraft. The Soyuz did this for a dozen mission in the late 60's and early 70's. The Shenzhou modules have lifted a variety of payload and have been left in orbit on both the Chinese manned and unmanned flights.
Quote from: estarIf anybody is interested in the technical issues involved or just want to try flying a real spacecraft hop over to ....
Holy CRAP. I'm gonna download some of that! Thanks for Los Linkos, Estar!
My hubby has that. He uses it a lot.
WE (humans, mankind, Earth's populace) needs to get back into space exploration on a mopre frequent and permanent basis because it raises everybody up when we do big things like that.
Getting people to look UP and be hopeful and look forward to things - kind of insures the human race lives longer.
- Ed C.
I agree. I'd much prefer it be the United States exploring Mars and setting up bases on the moon, but if its the Chinese, then at least its still humans. I'm only mostly myopic. :)
I think those numbers Kyle reflect more the cost of living, the relative values of the currency, and the different levels of regulation than any actual greater efficiency on the part of the Russians or Chinese in these areas.
They might be a better comparison if index or normalized for the cost of living in those countries or the average wage. I think the Russian and Chinese numbers would also be higher if you take out the cost associated with increased worker safety regulations in the US.
I certainly don't believe NASA's projections, anything so far out that relies on Govt. funding is pie-in-the-sky unless it is military or a running budget item.
I'd love to go to the moon again but I really have to ask why?
Quote from: XantherI'd love to go to the moon again but I really have to ask why?
I the long run, if we have settlements on the moon and on Mars - and somebody back on Earth gets stupid and launches a nuclear attack somewhere on Earth.
At least we have survivors up there in those settlements who could come back and re-start things.
More optimistic answer?
Humanity needs BIG Dreams , it also needs room to spread out. Going to the moon and Mars gives us a new challenge and frontier. As a race we need positive challenges. Going there also gives us more land to set up cities and places to live.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarI the long run, if we have settlements on the moon and on Mars - and somebody back on Earth gets stupid and launches a nuclear attack somewhere on Earth.
At least we have survivors up there in those settlements who could come back and re-start things.
More optimistic answer?
Humanity needs BIG Dreams , it also needs room to spread out. Going to the moon and Mars gives us a new challenge and frontier. As a race we need positive challenges. Going there also gives us more land to set up cities and places to live.
- Ed C.
While I can agree with the Big Dream I'd much rather focus resources on reducing the cost to orbit to make the really big dream of interplanetary travel more viable. I'm all for exploring the moon to see if we can find some water and set up some infrastructure fabrication there. That is, better to boost material out of the moon's gravity well than Earth's for building of space facilities.
I really doubt, however, that we are near enough to establishing self sufficient colonies to realize the benefits of greater room or as a last refuge for the survival of the species. I just think at the moment money could be better spent sending robots instead of humans with all the attendant life support requirements.
Don't get me wrong though, if they were looking for volunteers from the masses I'd sign up to ride that candle.
Quote from: XantherWhile I can agree with the Big Dream I'd much rather focus resources on reducing the cost to orbit to make the really big dream of interplanetary travel more viable. I'm all for exploring the moon to see if we can find some water and set up some infrastructure fabrication there. That is, better to boost material out of the moon's gravity well than Earth's for building of space facilities.
I really doubt, however, that we are near enough to establishing self sufficient colonies to realize the benefits of greater room or as a last refuge for the survival of the species. I just think at the moment money could be better spent sending robots instead of humans with all the attendant life support requirements.
Don't get me wrong though, if they were looking for volunteers from the masses I'd sign up to ride that candle.
If nothing else, it (the moon) could serve as a great beta test bed for building and sustaining life in non Terran situations.
We need to get the fuck off this rock. I am all for this.
Quote from: KoltarSee?
No matter what the topic - Kyle aaron finds yet another way to do America-bashing.
Well, there is a lot to bash.
You guys should really get your shit together.
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerWe need to get the fuck off this rock. I am all for this.
QFT and all that shit.
I don't recall who it was who said:
"The Earth is the cradle of humanity. But everyone must leave the cradle someday".
But I seem to recall that Heinlein put it less romantically:
"The dinosaurs had no space program"
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditI don't recall who it was who said:
"The Earth is the cradle of humanity. But everyone must leave the cradle someday".
But I seem to recall that Heinlein put it less romantically:
"The dinosaurs had no space program"
RPGPundit
R.A. Heinlein knew his shit. I'm happy if NASA and any other space agency resumes operations. We should be more advanced on that field that we are these days.
Quote from: ImperatorR.A. Heinlein knew his shit. I'm happy if NASA and any other space agency resumes operations. We should be more advanced on that field that we are these days.
Exactly. I was born in the year Man first landed on the Moon. I'll be 39 in two weeks. I'm supposed to have space stations (real ones) and Moon-bases and Mars missions with habitats and the whole nine yards - NOW. Well, actually, 20 years ago. I grew up expecting it to happen Any Day Now.
I want my future back.
Quote from: Tyberious FunkWell, there is a lot to bash.
You guys should really get your shit together.
How is Australia's space program going?
I feel reasonably sure that it wasn't the space program Mr. Funk was referring to.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI feel reasonably sure that it wasn't the space program Mr. Funk was referring to.
I can pick just about anything. After a while, it's like listening to amateur hackers complain about why Microsoft can't get it's act together. Gee, do you think they never thought of that and aren't trying to?
When you grow up, you get criticism from time to time. It's just part of being an adult. Stop crying, it isn't manly.
Quote from: Kyle AaronWhen you grow up, you get criticism from time to time. It's just part of being an adult. Stop crying, it isn't manly.
And when you grow up, your criticism actually gets taken seriously. Stop whining. It's not manly, either.
Quote from: RPGPunditI don't recall who it was who said:
"The Earth is the cradle of humanity. But everyone must leave the cradle someday".
RPGPundit
Tsiolkokski said the quote, a man with big dreams not afraid to dream them.
Quote from: John MorrowHow is Australia's space program going?
How's the American healthcare system going?
Quote from: Tyberious FunkHow's the American healthcare system going?
A) Post that question in the various healthcare threads.
B) Fucking fantastic. How's yours?
Quote from: WerekoalaExactly. I was born in the year Man first landed on the Moon. I'll be 39 in two weeks. I'm supposed to have space stations (real ones) and Moon-bases and Mars missions with habitats and the whole nine yards - NOW. Well, actually, 20 years ago. I grew up expecting it to happen Any Day Now.
I want my future back.
me too! born in '69 (june) and thought we'd be settling the solar system by this time. where's the future we were supposed to have? i want my flying cars, dammit :( :mad:
Quote from: Tyberious FunkHow's the American healthcare system going?
Not all that badly, in my opinion. I don't have any personal complaints.
Quote from: James J SkachB) Fucking fantastic. How's yours?
Better than our space program.
Quote from: Tyberious FunkBetter than our space program.
Not to bust on the Aussies, but I honestly thought that your country would have had a joint venture space program with the Japanese by now.
Quote from: beeberme too! born in '69 (june) and thought we'd be settling the solar system by this time. where's the future we were supposed to have? i want my flying cars, dammit :( :mad:
Me three, born in March of '69 and hoped to have seen asteroid mines and O'Neill colonies providing the resources and labor to build solar power satellites by now.
Hell, with all the crap about the Global Warming Issue, you'd think that both sides of it would agree that a solar power satellite may be a worthwhile enough alternate energy solution to at least build an expiramental prototype.
Quote from: jeff37923Not to bust on the Aussies, but I honestly thought that your country would have had a joint venture space program with the Japanese by now.
Apparently the United States has provided technical and financial support (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/space/SpaceRepublish_151986.htm) for Australian space efforts in the past but NASA is also looking for Australia to invest in space research (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2004/1041122.htm).
Quote from: jeff37923Hell, with all the crap about the Global Warming Issue, you'd think that both sides of it would agree that a solar power satellite may be a worthwhile enough alternate energy solution to at least build an expiramental prototype.
No, because if they were to become close to a reality, the Luddite wing of the environmentalist movement would point out the damage that high-energy microwave beams do as they pass through the atmosphere as a reason to stop them.
Quote from: jeff37923Not to bust on the Aussies, but I honestly thought that your country would have had a joint venture space program with the Japanese by now.
The peak of Australia's glory in space was the launch of WRESAT in 1967. We were the fourth country to put a man-made satellite into orbit, behind the US, USSR and France.
Since then, things have been pretty limited. Fundamentally, the government sees minimal economic benefit to maintaining a space program. Therefore, any initiative out of Australia is privately funded. And given that we have the
15th largest economy in the world, you can imagine that private funds available for space research would be limited.
As an aside, if we do ever get off this rock and have some serious time to kill in a long space flight, what could be a better way to fight the boredom than role-playing. Maybe NASA could do some scientific research and determine the "best" RPG in the way that only Government can. ;)
Ok rolling dice in space might be a problem...
Quote from: CallousAs an aside, if we do ever get off this rock and have some serious time to kill in a long space flight, what could be a better way to fight the boredom than role-playing. Maybe NASA could do some scientific research and determine the "best" RPG in the way that only Government can. ;)
Ok rolling dice in space might be a problem...
And thus,
Traveller the LARP was born...
:haw:
Quote from: jeff37923And thus, Traveller the LARP was born...
:haw:
Sweet!
You, of course, have to do a spectacular death scene when you die in character creation. Again and again... :)
Quote from: CallousYou, of course, have to do a spectacular death scene when you die in character creation. Again and again... :)
The video transmissions of those alone could pay for the trip.
Yak! Space exploration as Reality TV. I just made myself sick.
Quote from: jeff37923The video transmissions of those alone could pay for the trip.
Yak! Space exploration as Reality TV. I just made myself sick.
Well, with the writer's strike and NASA funding issues... :)
Quote from: CallousWell, with the writer's strike and NASA funding issues... :)
...any port in a storm. Doesn't make the concept any more palatable.
Could be a good science fiction story, though.
Quote from: jeff37923And thus, Traveller the LARP was born...
:haw:
That would make it the bestest Christmas ever (ok, maybe aside from the first one).
Diceless RPGs would enjoy renewed popularity if space travel were to become commonplace.
Quote from: jeff37923Yak! Space exploration as Reality TV. I just made myself sick.
OOh!! Thats not a BAD idea!! - Ity would make Space Tourism mean something else entirely.
- Edmund W. Charlton
See now, this article here, "A rocket a day keeps the high costs away (http://www.astronautix.com/articles/arosaway.htm), that is the big and ballsy American spirit. This buggerising about with a copy of Apollo or the overpriced boondoggle and astronaut-killer the Shuttle, that's wussy stuff. Putting out a tender for 1,000 rockets to put 2,000kg each into LEO at not more than $1.3 million each, launched daily, failures to be learned from while the programme presses on - now that's the sort of ballsy stuff that got the USA to the Moon in the first place.
That's the spirit you guys need to recapture. You've become fat and timid.
I just looked over my original post in this thread - nowhere in there do I say Americans back to the moon - I said humans, mankind, earth residents....etc.
That INCLUDES Australians....that includes everybody. When I say or type that "We" need to explore and set up colonies, I'm usually referring to everybody or mankind ....not just Americans.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarThat INCLUDES Australians....that includes everybody. When I say or type that "We" need to explore and set up colonies, I'm usually referring to everybody or mankind ....not just Americans.
AFAIK, there have been only three "Australian" astronauts. All of them became US citizens before joining the space program. Doesn't NASA let non-Americans in?
Quote from: Tyberious FunkAFAIK, there have been only three "Australian" astronauts. All of them became US citizens before joining the space program. Doesn't NASA let non-Americans in?
Did they have romances with Americans and marry them?
- Ed C.
Finally!!
A candidate mentions NASA and Space Program in a good way:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080606111510.5jnz56gu&show_article=1
QuoteMcCain would like to see a man on Mars
Jun 6 07:15 AM US/Eastern
Presumptive Republican White House nominee John McCain said Thursday he would like to see a manned mission to Mars as part of a "better set of priorities" for NASA that would better engage the public.
At a townhall event in Florida, the Arizona senator was asked about funding for the US space agency's shuttle program, which is due to end in 2010.
He said he "would be willing to spend more taxpayers' dollars" to continue the program but argued that NASA must do a better job of inspiring the American public, as when it sent a man to the moon in 1969.
McCain said one of his favorite books as a child had been Ray Bradbury's 1950 novel "The Martian Chronicles," about humans colonizing the Red Planet.
"I am intrigued by a man on Mars and I think that it would excite the imagination of the American people if we can say, 'Hey, here's what it looks like," he said.
"We know that now, and here's what may be there and let's all join in that project. I think Americans would be very willing to do that."
Now ...I might think about voting for McCain.
- Ed C.
Quote from: KoltarFinally!!
A candidate mentions NASA and Space Program in a good way:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080606111510.5jnz56gu&show_article=1
Now ...I might think about voting for McCain.
- Ed C.
Fuck.
Fuck, fuck, fuck.
...me, too.
Crap, and I was going to sit this election out.
Guess I'll be voting for McCain.
Let's go to Fucking Mars!!!
:woop:
Seriously, I am all for space exploration. I'd agree with him--they do need to do a better job showing the benefits and advances to the public.
McCain going for the geek vote. Smart move.
Quote from: KoltarI just looked over my original post in this thread - nowhere in there do I say Americans back to the moon - I said humans, mankind, earth residents....etc.
But you're a Klingon! :eek:
Quote from: Kyle AaronNow let's have a look at the Shuttle. That's relevant to a discussion of putting Americans on the Moon since it shows NASA's ability to develop a spacecraft which carries both people and cargo, and which has to stay in space for some weeks.
Actually, Kyle, the shuttle is entirely irrelevant to this discussion because the Shuttle was developed in the 1970s with unrealistic expectations and a continually contracting budged that caused all sorts of compromises. The new system is purposely modeled on the Apollo approach rather than the Shuttle approach because rather than wasting money and weight on wings so they can fly back at substantial risk, as the Columbia disaster showed (the risk of failure during landing has always been large for the shuttle) they decided to go with what's safer and cheaper. Given that NASA has purposely looked at exactly the problems you are talking about and given that NASA has rejected the Shuttle approach for the Apollo (and Soyuz, since you seem to like them) approach, I think your analysis is entirely irrelevant to this new system.
Yes, Kyle, the Shuttle is a dangerous and expensive system because the design parameters were too optimistic and the budget kept getting cut, along with safety systems, when it was developed in the 1970s. That's why NASA is choosing not to build another Shuttle system but is instead building a system like the Apollo and, yes, Soyuz.
Quote from: Kyle AaronRussian history is of making cheap and reliable spacecraft. Chinese history is of making cheap and unreliable spacecraft, though their reliability is improving. US and EU history are of making expensive and unreliable spacecraft.
Of course the Russians have a good history of making cheap and reliable spacecraft because their cheap development often cost a lot of lives along the way, including the 90 or so who died in the launch-pad disaster that killed Marshall of Artillery Mitrofan Nedelin, and I notice your death toll starts in 1971. The Americans learned from their Shuttle mistakes, too, which is why they aren't building another Shuttle. The American safety record before the Shuttle was pretty good, too (the Apollo 1 disaster led to design changes), so the main problem has been the Shuttle.
I have to agree with John that the Shuttle program was the worst disaster to ever befall the american space program as a whole. Its what's set us back nearly 40 years from where we OUGHT to be right now in space exploration.
RPGPundit
I love space but I wouldn't spend nickle on a manned mission to Mars given the enormous hole McCain's party has dug for us here on earth.
Personally I like the guy; he's probably the best candidate the Republicans could have put forward, but I would discount space program talk relative to far more pressing issues such as tax policy and the deficit, Iraq & the Middle East, education and poverty, etc.
See, this is what happens--your young nations grow up, have kids, then suddenly they don't want to go out on crazy-ass fun road trips any more.
I'm hard-pressed to think of much of anything either party has done lately, and I haven't heard a concrete plan to fix shit yet. Both sides seem pretty inept. So let's get our asses to Mars and see if that does anything.
Shit is never going to "change" here on Earth - let's get to fucking Mars before I die. The shitheads who stole my future owe me THAT much.
I want permanent orbital colonies. I wanna go to Side 3, dammit.
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerI want permanent orbital colonies. I wanna go to Side 3, dammit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGo748GqS9g&feature=related
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Elliot WilenI love space but I wouldn't spend nickle on a manned mission to Mars
Neither will Obama. He's not interested in manned spaceflight.
Once you stop funding such a a thing, it's damned difficult to justify re-spending it.
Space. The worthless frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Obama. His mission - to explore no new worlds. To seek out no new life and no new civilizations.
To boldly stay where mankind has stayed before.
Quote from: ThornhammerSpace. The worthless frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Obama. His mission - to explore no new worlds. To seek out no new life and no new civilizations. To boldly stay where mankind has stayed before.
But you gotta admit, that's change. And we can hope that it doesn't come about I suppose.
Because after all, why piss money away in outer space to give life-long employment to a handful of eggheads when you can use it to buy votes in south Chicago?
Quote from: WerekoalaBecause after all, why piss money away in outer space to give life-long employment to a handful of eggheads when you can use it to buy votes in south Chicago?
I just had an interesting idea for an occult RPG adventure about a politician hiring a necromancer on election day so that the dead still in the voting books could vote for them as zombies.
(Yeah, in the real world, they just have someone sign for them and record the vote, but that's no fun.)
Quote from: ThornhammerNeither will Obama. He's not interested in manned spaceflight.
Name a president (or candidate) who's been genuinely interested in manned spaceflight since, oh, Nixon. Maybe Reagan? And I think he was probably more interested in the potential military side-benefits of an actively funded space program.
!i!
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd I think he was probably more interested in the potential military side-benefits of an actively funded space program.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-2KpgBRc3o
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Ian AbsentiaName a president (or candidate) who's been genuinely interested in manned spaceflight since, oh, Nixon.
You can find plenty of interest in both Bush administrations, both trying to direct NASA toward a set of specific goals, which is why NASA is abandoning the Shuttles and looking toward Mars. The goal was to give NASA objectives it could achieve and build on.
Quote from: ThornhammerNeither will Obama. He's not interested in manned spaceflight.
Once you stop funding such a a thing, it's damned difficult to justify re-spending it.
Space. The worthless frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Obama. His mission - to explore no new worlds. To seek out no new life and no new civilizations. To boldly stay where mankind has stayed before.
Please do try to read what was written.
Manned spaceflight isn't the sum total of space exploration.
That said, if a mission to Mars can really be carried out at a cost which is effective relative to unmanned exploration, in terms of scientific knowledge gained per dollar--even roughly so--I would certainly favor it.
I think it's a ridiculous point on which to base voting in the coming election; however if you do, your priorities are probably so different from mine on terrestrial issues that it doesn't really matter anyway.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI love space but I wouldn't spend nickle on a manned mission to Mars given the enormous hole McCain's party has dug for us here on earth.
Larry Niven's commentary from a 2000 interview at Space.com (http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/larryniven/larry_niven_000210.html):
We should not have assumed that a political space station could be built. We'd have most of what we predicted of the conquest of space, if we hadn't ignored parasite control. The wealth (as in flying cars) predicted by Heinlein and his followers (including myself) was another matter. It all went to welfare programs.
Vast numbers of people are microscopically better off for that, except that we all have less to aspire to.
Here is where the predictions failed: We didn't take Cargo Cult mentality into account [that being] "if somebody has something I don't, he must have stolen it."
We didn't understand how good we could get at communication -- when you have something that someone else doesn't, the whole damn planet knows it.By the way, I do agree that the Republican's have made a mess of the Federal budget since 2000 (which is a reason why many conservatives are unhappy with Bush and the Republican congress), but that has little to do with tax cuts (which not only did little to change the tax revenue collected but also shifted a larger percentage of the tax burden to the more wealthy taxpayers) and are due to spending which has increased far beyond anything that even the Iraq war might be used to justify.
I think it's important to point out that John McCain has a different set of priorities than George W. Bush and the reason why he opposed Bush's tax cuts is because the Republicans made no effort to cut spending along with it. So I don't expect McCain to keep digging that hole, though there is only so much a President can do to control a Congress (regardless of the party in control) that feels they have to service constituents who, like hungry baby birds, chirp incessantly for more Federal money.
QuoteA newspaper burns in the sand, and the headlines say ‘Man destroys Man!’
Extra! Extra! Read all the bad news on the war for peace that everybody would lose
The rise and fall, the last great empire, the sound of the whole world caught on fire
The ruthless struggle, the desperate gamble
The game that left the whole world in shambles
The cheats, the lies, the alibis
And the foolish attempt to conquer the skies
Lost in space, and what is it worth, huh?
The president just forgot about Earth
From Beat Street Breakdown by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five
Quote from: John Morrow(which not only did little to change the tax revenue collected
You toss that out as if it's an uncontroversial statement of fact. Here's a summary (http://logicizer.blogtownhall.com/2007/11/15/no,_the_bush_tax_cuts_have_not_generated_higher_revenues.thtml) of people who disagree with that. You can trot out your sources (I suspect it'll be few outside the Pres, the VP, the editorial page of the WSJ, and the Heritage Foundation, but surprise me) and then whoever wants to read up can do so without polluting the forum with extensive quotes.
Quote from: Elliot WilenYou toss that out as if it's an uncontroversial statement of fact. Here's a summary (http://logicizer.blogtownhall.com/2007/11/15/no,_the_bush_tax_cuts_have_not_generated_higher_revenues.thtml) of people who disagree with that. You can trot out your sources (I suspect it'll be few outside the Pres, the VP, the editorial page of the WSJ, and the Heritage Foundation, but surprise me) and then whoever wants to read up can do so without polluting the forum with extensive quotes.
Please note that I claimed that "did
little to change the tax revenue collected". I worded it that way for a reason. I did not claim that the tax cuts generated higher revenue nor did I claim that they never generated lower revenue. My claim was that the differences were
little.
Rather than link to another page full of selected quotes by an advocate or advocacy group of a particular position or not, I did my own analysis of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) numbers to do comparisons of revenue with 1998 (reported in 1999) (in the middle of the Clinton boom) and in 2000 (reported in 2001) (just before the downturn) with the tax receipts since, through Bush's 2003 tax cuts and, to be fair, looked at the numbers both adjusted for inflation and against the growth in the GDP. If you don't like my sources for Inflation and GDP, feel free to offer your own. Each year's CBO report starts with the actual revenue numbers from the year before, both in dollars and as a percentage of GDP, so I looked at both. The Excel spreadsheet I'm referring to is attached.
There was clearly a point during the economic downturn when revenue was lower by all measures that I consider relevant, specifically from 2002-2004, before the Bush tax cuts and during their first year. If you want to dwell on that, you are welcome to but I'd prefer to look at the numbers after the recovery, which the tax cuts were designed to stimulate.
The first thing that I want to point out is that if you take the 1998 receipts from 1999 and project them forward to 2005-2007, the receipts in 2005 exceeds the inflation-adjusted 1998 receipts by 92 billion, in 2006 by 278 billion, and in 2007 by 319 billion. The receipts in 2006 also exceeds the projection made in 1999 by 14 billion and the receipts in 2007 exceed the projection made in 1999 by 68 billion.
If we do the same comparison with the 2001 projections, the receipts in 2006 exceed the inflation-adjusted 2000 receipts by 36 billion and in 2007 by 130 billion. The receipts do fall substantially short of the projections made in 2001 by about 250 billion in 2007 to over 415 billion in 2005. Of course in 2001, the projections were clearly quite rosy.
The point, though is that tax receipts are more than keeping pace with inflation and are even in line with projections made nearly a decade earlier, upon which Congress was supposed to budget, but the budget is growing faster than inflation and projections.
Next, I took at look at GDP, since the Bush tax cuts mean that a lower percentage of the GDP are collected as tax revenue. If you look at it from that perspective, then the tax receipts lag behind the GDP somewhere in the 80%-90% range. That is, tax receipts are 80%-90% of what they'd be if they kept perfect track with the GDP (that's not 80%-90% of the GDP but 80%-90% of the percentage increase in the GDP applied to the tax receipts). But given that the tax cuts are designed to stimulate GDP growth, higher tax rates could lead to a lower GDP, thus reducing the receipts in real dollars and in dollars adjusted for inflation (provided inflation remained stable, too). Many of the economists on the page you liked to acknowledge that tax cuts cost growth but claim that the growth does not fully offset the cuts. The number 1/3rd seems to get tossed around a bit so let's assume that the real difference here is somewhere in the 7%-15% range.
So, yes, I think my original point stands, that the Bush tax cuts don't make that much of a difference in the tax revenues collected and that the major problem is increases in spending, not that the government is not collecting enough money. Tax receipts are keeping pace with and exceeding inflation, even despite Bush's tax cuts. Feel free to use the attached spreadsheet and sources to make any sort of counter case you'd like to make.
Oh snap! A zip file! Morrow escalates!
John, it might be a good idea to start a new thread about this, but first I have a quick question. I've been looking at your spreadsheet and your sources, and I'm puzzled about line 13, showing the 1999 CBO total revenue projections as a percentage of GDP. The numbers in that line show a steady decline from 19.6% to 17.4% between 1998 and 2008. However Table 3 in the sources cited for lines 2 and 13 show revenues as a percentage of GDP at slightly above 20%--peaking at 20.7% in the 1999 forecast before declining slightly into the 20.2% projections for 2001 onward. It looks like you've put the numbers for projected outlays (as percentage of GDP) on that line.
Quote from: Elliot WilenJohn, it might be a good idea to start a new thread about this, but first I have a quick question. I've been looking at your spreadsheet and your sources, and I'm puzzled about line 13, showing the 1999 CBO total revenue projections as a percentage of GDP. The numbers in that line show a steady decline from 19.6% to 17.4% between 1998 and 2008. However Table 3 in the sources cited for lines 2 and 13 show revenues as a percentage of GDP at slightly above 20%--peaking at 20.7% in the 1999 forecast before declining slightly into the 20.2% projections for 2001 onward. It looks like you've put the numbers for projected outlays (as percentage of GDP) on that line.
It's possible I made a mistake. I'll check it when I get home. I included the GDP to be fair (it supports your point more than mine) because two key things you can expect the receipts to grow with are inflation and GDP.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI've been looking at your spreadsheet and your sources, and I'm puzzled about line 13, showing the 1999 CBO total revenue projections as a percentage of GDP.
You are correct. It's wrong. Corrected spreadsheet attached.
One thing these numbers do show is that they were being way too optimistic in 2001 and 2002.