NASA too broke to build new rocket...

steingar said:
I suspect a vehicle capable of maintaining a small crew for an extended period, flying to Mars and returning from there will indeed require a quantum leap in technology.
Click to expand...

No quantum leaps, just a generational advance in scale. We already have the technology to assemble larger space craft/durational habitats in space. It's just a matter of assembling one that caters to the mission, attaching a booster to it and sending it off.

A quantum leap would be turning their mass into energy and reversing the process on the other end....
 
Henning said:
No quantum leaps, just a generational advance in scale. We already have the technology to assemble larger space craft/durational habitats in space. It's just a matter of assembling one that caters to the mission, attaching a booster to it and sending it off.

A quantum leap would be turning their mass into energy and reversing the process on the other end....
Click to expand...

Do the math on the weight you would need to move, the distance you would need to move it, and the time frame, so you can calculate the needed acceleration. Then think about how much fuel you would need given current technology. Then start thinking about the fuel to move the fuel...

By the time you're done, you'll have a vehicle that would dwarf anything ever sent up into space. Even sending it up piecemeal and assembling it in space would require novel technologies. Right now we can't even get back to the Moon, and Mars is orders of magnitude more difficult.
 
Henning said:
Dude, I run a boat with a crew of 7, we have to haul a major load of groceries every 2 weeks just for the crew. When in guest service it's three times as much. Local resources in this context is on the same freaking planet, Mars you'd have to haul them from Earth. Billion dollar grocery runs just don't cut it. You could potentially and at great expense build a "biosphere" type operation, but Biosphere II failed on the O2 side of things due to microbe consumption, so you need a good power supply and water so you can replenish O2. Where would this financing come from and why?
Click to expand...

yeah, Dude, I get the challenges. Even though it is in fact sort of rocket science, it's not really hard to figure out that there are a lot of challenges.

I was trying to understand your objections to travel to Mars. First you said it wasn't habitable. But I guess you mean that would be expensive, too expensive in your mind, but it actually could be habitable.

Wrt biosphere failures, don't overlook the fact that with every system that works there was a time when it didn't work.
 
I think for a trip to Mars, you'd have to have an orbiting space station where pre-fabricated parts from dozens of Earth launches would be assembled in orbit into a true "space ship".

Either that or colonize the Moon to the extent where you have lunar based manufacturing using lunar raw materials to build new rockets. With less gravity on the Moon to overcome, maybe launches further into space would be easier than something that starts from Earth.

Yeah, all this will require many years and lots of Dollars that we don't have. :cryin:
 
MSPAviator said:
I think for a trip to Mars, you'd have to have an orbiting space station where pre-fabricated parts from dozens of Earth launches would be assembled in orbit into a true "space ship".

Either that or colonize the Moon to the extent where you have lunar based manufacturing using lunar raw materials to build new rockets. With less gravity on the Moon to overcome, maybe launches further into space would be easier than something that starts from Earth.

Yeah, all this will require many years and lots of Dollars that we don't have. :cryin:
Click to expand...

You would also have to build lunar industry and power supply to refine all the lunar resources into finished goods.

Earth launch would be cheaper.
 
Bob Noel said:
yeah, Dude, I get the challenges. Even though it is in fact sort of rocket science, it's not really hard to figure out that there are a lot of challenges.

I was trying to understand your objections to travel to Mars. First you said it wasn't habitable. But I guess you mean that would be expensive, too expensive in your mind, but it actually could be habitable.

Wrt biosphere failures, don't overlook the fact that with every system that works there was a time when it didn't work.
Click to expand...

The thing is, why settle Mars? What is there that makes it attractive? You will have to build the colony to withstand the same situation as living in space really, so why not just build a giant space habitat and stay there? I'd rather drift endlessly through space than be stuck on a rock.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
And contractors are not "NASA employees." And sadly, those contractors cost MORE than they would if they WERE NASA employees in most cases.
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree with that. Keep in mind that even jobs that are contracted based on qualifications rather than fee still have to pass some kind of financial oversight. A lot of people want to latch on to things like paying a contractor $XXX an hour. In fact, the contracts are essentially written with multipliers that cover on only the individual's salary, but also that person's overhead. In most organizations, that multiplier is around 3. The employee gets about a third, and the other two thirds go to office space, benefits, administration, etc. If they were NASA employees, then NASA would end up eating those costs.

Furthermore, using contractors allows 1) a faster, nimbler operation that's more able to cope with change than one bound by the government's sometimes-insane purchasing/hiring rules. 2) You can buy the expertise you need only for the period you need it, rather than having a bunch of deadwood sitting around. 3) it keeps the airlines happy because it creates that horde of road warriors whose primary goal in life seems to be to cram the largest suitcase possible into the jammed overhead bin of a 757.
 
MSPAviator said:
Yeah, all this will require many years and lots of Dollars that we don't have. :cryin:
Click to expand...

As long as the only primary concern is money and that the sole purpose to go there is to obtain more money, it's not going to be happening.

NASA must return to the Glory Days if they're going to do something besides limp into low Earth orbit in a deathtrap.
Just round up the beancounters, ALL of the beancounters, take them out behind the launch pad and shoot them..then get on with the program. We could be on Mars in under a decade with a little motivation that doesn't involve dollar signs.
 
Henning said:
The thing is, why settle Mars? What is there that makes it attractive? You will have to build the colony to withstand the same situation as living in space really, so why not just build a giant space habitat and stay there? I'd rather drift endlessly through space than be stuck on a rock.
Click to expand...

Why? well, some people have different dreams.

For those without spirit, let them stay stuck on this rock.

For those with spirit, let them explore space, even other rocks.

The "when" is something that we can discuss (though there will always be some who will claim that it is too hard or expensive).

btw - one advantage of the rock vs a space colony is possible protection from radiation and fast moving debris.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top