It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Slow Pace of Progress in the Space Sector

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The United States needs to focus on the space industry. It is imperative that we find an alternative private company that will advance space technology and deployment of exploration vessels quicker.

The U.S. cannot afford to wait until 2038 before having its first manned mission to Mars. The U.S. cannot afford to wait until 2018 to return to the moon. The U.S. cannot afford to wait until 2020 to send defensive satellites into orbit to protect vulnerable satellites.

If anyone is interested in sending out letters to U.S. Senators to express our lack of content with the progression of the space sector, please send me a PM and together we can co-write a letter to be distributed to each our of respective U.S. Senators.

Highest Regards,

Rickey Gerard Perez




posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I think this is a wonderful idea. what we need to do is to write this said leter in a way that is cordial and not threatening.

We need to find at least one person in each state to participate in this exercise.

How are your writing skills?

Should we find someone on the board with a degree in marketing/journalism?

Let me know what you think.

- One Man Short



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by One Man Short of Manhood
what we need to do is to write this said leter in a way that is cordial


We need to start researching the following:

1. Reasons why our government should be concerned with speeding up space development.

2. The format of letters sent to Senators that have achieved overwhelming success.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Good idea. Any such letter should also detail the recent advances made in new launch methods, here are a few topics.

Space Tether/Elevator
Neutrally Boyant Launch platforms
Nanotextiles/materials with unparelleled performace to wieght ratio(to lower launch costs)
Nanocatalysts to improve combustion in conventional rockets

There is more then enough laymans articles out there on these topics that should be easily understood by the most uneducated politician.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rickey Gerard Perez
The United States needs to focus on the space industry. It is imperative that we find an alternative private company that will advance space technology and deployment of exploration vessels quicker.

whats the rush all the sudden???
oh, and private company...good luck with that.
They dont have the funds for what your talking about...I'd say the private company with one of the brightest futures is T/Space...but it sounds like you want someone to come up with some big new technological breakthough that would put the US far above the rest of the world...and I cant think of any.
vessels??? what kind of "vessels" are you refering to?



The U.S. cannot afford to wait until 2038 before having its first manned mission to Mars.

As far as i'm aware they havn't set a Mars date yet...So i'm not sure where you pulled that number out of.



The U.S. cannot afford to wait until 2018 to return to the moon.

again...I'm not seeing you sudden urgency in this.
and Nasa's plans are 2018, at the latest.
Nasa doesn't have an unlimited budget...so they cant afford to do it before then.



The U.S. cannot afford to wait until 2020 to send defensive satellites into orbit to protect vulnerable satellites.

and again...another number thats pure speculation.
currently we do have satellites that can take out or mess up other (enemy) sats.



If anyone is interested in sending out letters to U.S. Senators to express our lack of content with the progression of the space sector

What exactly are you not pleased with???
Space is beginning to catch the spotlight again, with several companies planning on sub-orbital vehicles, and some even orbital ones as well.
Nasa has a new initiative, public space flight is gaining momentum, and the once "far-out" concepts like the space elevator are turning into something that not only is feasable, but that we actually can build it.

So please...other then just rants about how you think the space sector in waning, how about you get into the details of what exactly it is your talking about.

BTW, welcome to ATS...hope ya calm down.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Bill Gates should move into the Space sector, hes like the richest guy alive......although i wouldnt count on his software.

"uh...houston, we have yet another problem, our computers have crashed and we need a update patch"

"this is houston, sorry the patch only comes on CD in this months copy of Microsoft Magazine, ABORT MISSION! ABORT MISSION!"

LOL


[edit on 17-11-2005 by Shadow88]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Why? Why do we need to send men out to planets at a cost of billions more than what launching a satelitte or rover would cost? NASA is going to spend $200 billion to place men on the moon, it would cost maybe a few million to put a satelitte or rover in its place.

Why do you need to contatct senators when it is a private space company you are wishing to see formed?



Nanocatalysts to improve combustion in conventional rockets

Like what? With what fuels? Liquid oxygen is already used as a catalyst with liquid hydrogen, which new catalyst are you proposing?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I doubt any private company would put up the money for this unless there was a garunteed return on there substantial investment. If you can think of a excellent can't miss money making idea for them, then maybe they would contribute in some way.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Why? Why do we need to send men out to planets at a cost of billions more than what launching a satelitte or rover would cost? NASA is going to spend $200 billion to place men on the moon, it would cost maybe a few million to put a satelitte or rover in its place.


Why do specialised test pilots have a job then? If computers were able to give all tangible and intangible relevant details we wouldn't need to train them(the pilots) to observe as well as to fly we would just stick any gutsy and talented pilot in the seat and let the computers do all the work for us in collecting data. Remember instruments malfunction, the Human Brain is much more robust and will be for the foreseeable future.

The same thing holds true in this respect as well. Probes are great and all but having a Geologist on the Moon would be far most valuable. Used in tandem it would have a mutiplier effect on the amount of stuff that can get done while on the surface. Which is also why I think that when we go we should go to stay. Rotate a crew of specialists ranging from Astronomers to Prospectors.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 20-11-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 20-11-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   
I think space mining will spark major private space ventures. As soon as they can make nice profits people will do it. Theres single asteroids floating out there with trillions of dollars of platinum on them along with loads of other metals. More raw metal then on all of earth and nobody will complain if you strip mine a asteroid

I found this people have already dropped dollar cost per pound to orbit to $1,300. Its getting cheaper to go into orbit and our demand for metal keeps going up and earth only has so much.
link

Whats a pound of Platinum worth? $10,450 about maybe. Once you can start bringing those metals back at a nice profit get ready for private space travel to take off.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
The same thing holds true in this respect as well. Probes are great and all but having a Geologist on the Moon would be far most valuable. Used in tandem it would have a mutiplier effect on the amount of stuff that can get done while on the surface. Which is also why I think that when we go we should go to stay. Rotate a crew of specialists ranging from Astronomers to Prospectors.


So NASA should send men to the moon at a cost of about $200 billion for because spending $200 billion on 400 probes to last years would not be as effective as 6 men on the moon for a total of half a month? You gotta be kidding me.

Sending people to the moon as of now or even out into space for that matter is purely a coolness factor and nothing more. I can't imagine that there have been too many discoveries that have stemmed from men being in space that are so coveted and only capable of such an environment. Man's exploration of space has been limited to discovering how the human body function is space. So unless this is everyone's intent, let NASA spend billions to send men into space to study the effects of the human body, why are you people talking about the moon?



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
The ISS help a lot with that, and trying different science experiments in space and what not.

But people want to experience space, and thats what it comes down to. Its inevitable that humans will build ships and explore our galaxy.



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   


So NASA should send men to the moon at a cost of about $200 billion for because spending $200 billion on 400 probes to last years would not be as effective as 6 men on the moon for a total of half a month? You gotta be kidding me.


ROFLMAO! I never said EITHER OR! I said BOTH IN TANDEM! The fact is HUMANS STILL OUTPERFORM ROBOTS PERIOD. You cannot argue that point. You can do all the cost/benefit analyses you want(of course they are in your head and you aren't pencil whipping them up so thus are made up and are worthless imo)

Since when would 200 billion pay for 400 probes? What type of probes would these pay for? Cheapo "faster/cheaper" crappola that had a 1/4 failure rate
With humans working with these probes in Tandem that failure rate would plummet and the amount of stuff we learn would explode.

But I guess that be too logical eh?

Same goes with Mars, you have Geologists etc etc on the surface examining the DATA in REALTIME! Rather having to deal with lagtime they could sift through the data and only send relevant stuff back to earth making life well easier for everyone.

[edit on 21-11-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
ROFLMAO! I never said EITHER OR! I said BOTH IN TANDEM!


You realize that in order to get men to the moon it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, regardless of whether they are working 'in tandem' with robots?


The fact is HUMANS STILL OUTPERFORM ROBOTS PERIOD.


Not when it comes to space exploration.


You can do all the cost/benefit analyses you want(of course they are in your head and you aren't pencil whipping them up so thus are made up and are worthless imo)


So you are saying that a manned mission to the moon won't cost hundreds of bilions of dollars? So why aren't private companies going there to mine your precious moon materials?



Since when would 200 billion pay for 400 probes?


That is assuming that a probe to the moon would cost half a billion. You think it cost more? Spending probes to Mars takes about a cool billion.


Same goes with Mars, you have Geologists etc etc on the surface examining the DATA in REALTIME!


So what? It'll still take 20 minutes to communicate with earth assuming they can work with the quickness of 100 geologist to compile and make since of all they data they are collecting before they leave.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Frosty - Private companies are interested in the moon, but currently for tourism, not for mining...but that will come in time.

many companies are working on sub-orbital vehicles...which is great...but some are allready working on much loftier goals...like LEO and even to the moon.
Like:

T/Space

oh, and Nasa plans to spend 104 billion over 13 years on the moon...which is for both robotic and manned missions. Not 200 billion.

BTW, Space Dev says that manned moon mission(s) could cost a fraction of Nasa's purposed budget..... at a measily 10 billion.


Space Dev

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I recall reading in the last couple of days where private industry is saying it could go to the moon well before NASA says it can get back there, and do it for about one tenth the cost. here is the link to the article:

news.yahoo.com...

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I recall reading in the last couple of days where private industry is saying it could go to the moon well before NASA says it can get back there, and do it for about one tenth the cost. here is the link to the article:

news.yahoo.com...

[edit on 22-11-2005 by Astronomer68]


I just posted that.



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Sorry, I didn't see it. What do you think, can they do it?



posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   
What are their expertise? Do they have a bunch of ex Nasa engineers working for them? If they do then they can do it. Let's see how the Falcon 1 goes so we can make some tentative predictions on when they will achieve their goals.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join