2018 Moon Launch? 104 Billion. Wow!!

I remember reading an article a few years ago on space exploration. It said that we've made back many times (can't remember exactly) what we paid, because of advances and breakthroughs in research done in space.

Is it making back money on our investment that is the issue or is it exploring the possibility of life being planted on a foreign body. Political posturing, or PHD fluff jobs...there appears to be an answer for all of them. YES>

Yes, I would hope that higher ideals other then money and posturing are the reason we are going to the moon or mars. I find it interesting, that when the Chineses put a manned rocket in space, they flew two flags. That of the UN and the of China.

Its high time we all realize we are on this lump of molten rock together. It isnt going to last forever and the possibility of a catastrohoy unknown is just that...unknown. We need to make provisions.

While homeless people in the streets are a real issue, we still need to strive for high ideals. There are ways to handle both issues. But is the race for national prestige? Is this about America or mankind... That my friends is posturing.
I personally like the idea of a global effort. Too come with the best that man can do. When funding got capped for the Int Space station, the russians were still kicking in. That was the right thing to do.
2018 is a bit far off for me. 108 Billion. I Choke. I bet by the time the program reaches maturity, it will be more like 300 billion or more. Who knows.
I am not bashing the technology. I know scientists will find a way. Its the process of agreement to never agree on anything that bothers me. There is so much input, that there is no output. Does that make sense? Real steps with proper intentions. Its relative to everything we do in life. Personal and Public. Look at Iraq. Had we planned the process with the right intentions, and made our intentions and our actions fit, perhaps we wouldnt be in the debacle we are in. Proper planning first. Action second.

Lets keep the forum productive and put out the flames...

Peace


[edit on 24-9-2005 by HIFIGUY]

i have 1 thing to say


Aim Higher Go For Pluto

104 bilion / 13 years = 8 bilion

anual yearly nasa budget +- 18 bilion

18 x 13 = 234 bilion

234 bilion
104 bilion

130 bilion remaining for other science misions spread over 13 years
that is 130 / 13 = 10 bilion a year.

only we have to take in acount that from this 13 years until 2018
5 years have to be paid around 6 to 8 bilion for the space shuttle program
which has to take in this sum.

but it will be done with in nasa budget there is enough money for other sciences and especialy as many science probes will be made by commercial privat industry it will be come much cheaper so 130 bilion / 10 bilion a year can be spend much better if nasa does it there will be cost overruns they have to design a mision and set parameters and they let probes rovers ect be made by privat companies.

so they can do more with less money.

all with in nasa budget

no problems with this mision it is a PRO we NEED to do this!
I am not an american but I say this as a human looking for best things for humankind. this is the best.

and don;t begin about poverty. ect.

that is in the 100 trilions of dollars in 13 years there is so much money spend

money beter spend on space related jobs making tech which can create food in hard places as the sahara dessert and
cleaning water easier and in great quantities. like we need on mars and the moon can be made in use in 3th world countries.

space exploration is for the better of humankind. it will end poverty, hunger ect.
only people don't see the benifits only the costs but what they don;t see how much more money is wasted in the quest of ending poverty.
u can give 3th world countries money as we do now but it will be spend wrongly give them technology and ways for them to create work and food in places as africas dry and not forgiving surcomstances.

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
I dont know about you, but announcing a space launch to the moon set for 2018...deosnt that sound a bit far out considering all the research we already have on space?

www.iht.com...

It only took us less then ten years under the kennedy program, and that was with raw data and a bunch of unknowns.

On top of that 104 Billion, while I support techology, seems like an awful lot of money to put a man on the moon. What about mars? 1.8 trillion?

If budgets like this are the obstacle towards putting men on planets, were never going to hit mars, because our own commercialization will be the limiting factor. I can read the headlines now...." man desting to stay on earth because he cant afford to leave "

The fact of the matter is that China is already talking about putting a man on the moon and I think this is merely posturing. Weve been to the moon. Lets go to mars.

Wouldnt it be interesting if China went to the moon and found no evidence of America being there? Now that would be a conspiracy. Just a thought.

Peace



[edit on 20-9-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 20-9-2005 by John bull 1]

Dont be fooled, this money is going to black project funding. They already have spacecraft that can do what we cant even imagine.
The US is frantically producing all kind of new stuff for the final showdown... soon to come.

Originally posted by timski
Why does payload destined for a lunar outpost have to be launched on the back of a rocket/shuttle? The cost per launch using the currently avalable delivery-systems make the scenario economically unviable.

A cheaper method would be to fire unmanned guided-payload-projectiles at the lunar surface by basically firing a cargo-pod from a large enough cannon...electo-magnetic propulsion could accelerate the pod to 1000mph plus, and have a small SRB to boost into orbit...a desert site would be ideal for launch control as the elec to power the launch could easily be gathered by a huge solar-array...
we could send all the materials ready for assembly a short while ahead of the manned mission to begin assembly...it would be a matter of a few weeks to build a habitable base-camp.

As for why go there in the first place....the lunar surface would offer great technological advantages....no atmosphere, so can experiment creating new metal alloy hybrids that need a de-oxygenated environment to be forged...the same for the reduction in gravity...larger structures could be build such as a roof span over a crater...although the 'Eden Project' didn't quite work to sustain human life independantlyy, as long as there are scheduled cargo-drops, a small colony could survive until they became self-sustaining...and when that is achieved, we'll head for Mars......as Armstrong said "..a small step for man, and a giant leap for mankind.."

You are thinking like Jules Verne. You cannot simply shoot something from a cannon and expect it to reach space.

The force that needs to be created to lift this object into space will be immense in that split second reaction and will more than likely take more weight/cost in explosives than fuel for a rocket. Chances are it will lose velocity and fall back down to earth, that is if the air resistance hasn't burnt and destroyed the projectile before it leaves the barrel.

1000mph is nothing. Most rockets travel at about 5mps or 18 times what you stated. And rail guns are pretty much categorized with cold fusion as fantasy

Originally posted by Senser
Dont be fooled, this money is going to black project funding. They already have spacecraft that can do what we cant even imagine.
The US is frantically producing all kind of new stuff for the final showdown... soon to come.

pa-leeeease.

I believe in amazing Black Project air/space caft, that are far better then what the public knows about, but the money doesn't come from Nasa's budget.

Frosty
You are thinking like Jules Verne. You cannot simply shoot something from a cannon and expect it to reach space.

oh? Would you care to explain why you cant?
of course you can.

Frosty
The force that needs to be created to lift this object into space will be immense in that split second reaction and will more than likely take more weight/cost in explosives than fuel for a rocket. Chances are it will lose velocity and fall back down to earth, that is if the air resistance hasn't burnt and destroyed the projectile before it leaves the barrel.

He was talking about a railgun...So no explosives needed.
The payload would have to be encased in a tungsten shell, its likely you payload that made it to space would be very small, oh and timski, your idea of having a second stage rocket take over from there is garbage, the rocket would need propellants and the rocket itself could not withstand those G's...Not much can, your patload would be crushed...the only thing that you could shoot would probably be blankets...lots and lots of good ol' blankets and pillows.

Frosty
And rail guns are pretty much categorized with cold fusion as fantasy

ahhh...no.
Cold fusion is fantasy, railguns are here today...well, in labs anyway. I believe the Navy's DD(X) still plans on using a railgun for the main gun on the ship.


But the overall idea of shooting cargo up using a gun isn't that great. and I believe will never happen.

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by Senser
Dont be fooled, this money is going to black project funding. They already have spacecraft that can do what we cant even imagine.
The US is frantically producing all kind of new stuff for the final showdown... soon to come.

pa-leeeease.

I believe in amazing Black Project air/space caft, that are far better then what the public knows about, but the money doesn't come from Nasa's budget.

Frosty
You are thinking like Jules Verne. You cannot simply shoot something from a cannon and expect it to reach space.

oh? Would you care to explain why you cant?
of course you can.

Frosty
The force that needs to be created to lift this object into space will be immense in that split second reaction and will more than likely take more weight/cost in explosives than fuel for a rocket. Chances are it will lose velocity and fall back down to earth, that is if the air resistance hasn't burnt and destroyed the projectile before it leaves the barrel.

He was talking about a railgun...So no explosives needed.
The payload would have to be encased in a tungsten shell, its likely you payload that made it to space would be very small, oh and timski, your idea of having a second stage rocket take over from there is garbage, the rocket would need propellants and the rocket itself could not withstand those G's...Not much can, your patload would be crushed...the only thing that you could shoot would probably be blankets...lots and lots of good ol' blankets and pillows.

Frosty
And rail guns are pretty much categorized with cold fusion as fantasy

ahhh...no.
Cold fusion is fantasy, railguns are here today...well, in labs anyway. I believe the Navy's DD(X) still plans on using a railgun for the main gun on the ship.


But the overall idea of shooting cargo up using a gun isn't that great. and I believe will never happen.

One problem, are there any rail guns that aren't supposedly in a lab that can propell a 20 ton payload 200 miles above earth? Can it also be done cheaper than a conventional liquid propelled rocket?

If you did shoot something from a cannon like he suggested the force propelling the payload would reach its maximum push when the payload is inside the cannon, that is if air resistance has not already destroyed it by then. Somewhere in the 200 mile or so journey, the payload will exhibit a loss of force due to gravity and simply fall back down.

The idea isn't great because using a gun means the greatest amount of force has been exerted at the moment of explosion/trigger. With a liquid propelled rocket, a near equal amount of force is exerted over a large amount of distance, making it possible to reach space.

The US Military at one point in time thought they could use psychics to locate Soviet missiles. Rail gun is fantasy.

Originally posted by Frosty
Rail gun is fantasy.

For space launches, yes. But as stated above the U.S Navy hopes to perfect their experimental railgun to the point that it would enter service in 2015.

Railguns are fantasy?

Someone better tell this guy, he built one in his garage. Railguns large enough to launch objects into orbit are fantasy now, then again so were airliners that carried 500 people at 40,000 feet at 600mph, only a few decades ago.

Myself, I think chemical rockets are going to be the only way into orbit for a few decades more - especially for humans. A railgun powerful to send objects into LEO would generate accelerations powerful enough to crush human bodies into paste in the process.

The space elevator sounds great in theory, but nobody really knows if the materials necessary (carbon nanotubes hundreds of miles long instead of 4 centimeters) can be manufactured anytime soon. It could take 20 years, it could take a hundred. Nobody really knows.

Rockets, on the other hand, are a known quantity, they're here now, and they work. They've worked for decades.

[edit on 9/26/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
The space elevator sounds great in theory, but nobody really knows if the materials necessary (carbon nanotubes hundreds of miles long instead of 4 centimeters) can be manufactured anytime soon. It could take 20 years, it could take a hundred. Nobody really knows.

Well so far they've managed to make a 1000ft long ribbon. A long ways to go I know, but they are definately getting there. www.msnbc.msn.com...

That ribbon wasn't made of carbon nanotubes, just ordinary materials, as far as I can tell. It was a proof of concept demonstration for the lifter idea, not for the materials. As far as I know the longest carbon nanotube yet created is 4cm, by LANL.

Hmmm yeah your right about that actually. I miss read, my bad

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of the space elevator idea.

I just think it's going to take several decades before it's really doable.

Rockets, on the other hand, we know how to build right now.

yeah rockets are a well proven technology, but there very expensive, and the price's arn't fallen...and thats their problem.

I'm hoping to get a cheap ride on an elevator to a space hotel in around 40 years...CANT WAIT!

The evevator is a solid concept, and i'm glad that more and more money it continueling to be invested in it. and its great to see LiftPort make another milestone.

I only wish Nasa would up there Space Elevator money, instead of giving companies a quarter of a mill, start giving out much higher sums of money, to get this thing on track, and much quicker.

In thinking about this rail gun idea, can a human withstand the acceleration? Let me see, if we need something like 17000 miles an hour to break gravity, and we had a 200 mile gun, that means that the velocity at the end would have to be 4.72 Miles per second. Are we trying to shoot something into space at an angle, or lift it? I just fail to see the reality.

But in speaking of this, maybe we should be diverting money for technologys like this. If we can build catapults that shoot payloads into space here, imagine what could be done on the moon?

Build a rail, up there, with no friction. I would imagine that would be a dream for shooting large payloads into space. But the trick is getting from earth to the moon. And if were making the effort to get it to the moon, why not get it to where its going instead and miss the mid term stop..

Can someone explain, in laymens terms what a space elevator is?

Peace....

[edit on 27-9-2005 by HIFIGUY]

If somebody said there's WMD's on the moon...We'd be back there by Christmas.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by GEORGE]

Originally posted by GEORGE
If somebody said there's WMD's on the moon...We'd be back there by Christmas.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by GEORGE]

WOW, that was just so darn funny...You must make up your own material, I've never heard that before...Great Job...keep up all of your amazing and extremely enlighting posts.

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
Can someone explain, in laymens terms what a space elevator is?

an elevator that goes into space.

You have to forget about you current elevator thoughts, this elevator isn't build in a structure, it wont have a cable at the top winding up which pulls the elevator up. It will have its own engines on board, and the power for the engines will be beamed up via a laser from the ground, which will be positioned onto the bottom of the elevator, which will have solar cells, to capture the electricity and use it to keep on climbing.

Theres tons of info on the web about this, if you want to learn every inch of it.
This site can keep you up-to-date on the work.
SpaceElevator.com

LiftPort, is the company that plans to have the first ever space elevator by 2018.
LiftPort.com

Heres some misc pics

OMG thats funny..Thanks for the info on the space elevator. Carbon Nanotubes sound like they might be the trick....

But..I think we should get working on this moond shot. I found this regarding some recent surface photos of the moon that have the Bush administration concerned...

pg.photos.yahoo.com.../da73&.dnm=8a82.jpg&_=ph

Peace

[edit on 27-9-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 27-9-2005 by HIFIGUY]