NASA to consider Free Ranging Space Ships

I spotted this little tidbit I thought some of you would be interested in this story.
Free Ranging Spaceships!

It doesn't give much information on the topic. I figured I'd post it here and see what kind of replies we get. Knowing that there are many here at ATS who are very knowledgeable on such topics. Maybe somebody has a pic or a rendition of what they think such a craft would look like.

My big question would be how would it be powered and what type of engine would it be? I mean this sounds like a cool concept. Star Trek here we come


Space panel considers alternatives to NASA's plan for moon base

A presidential space panel on Thursday challenged NASA's vision of establishing a base on the moon and instead weighed other ambitious options that include free-ranging spaceships that could visit destinations throughout the inner solar system.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Free-ranging space ships can be shot down or captured.

Is this such a great idea?

Maybe we were not meant to go out there.

And, btw, are these ships going to have people on board? (Lambs to the slaughter?)

reply to post by spellbound


Shot down?

Why?

What have you heard?

Come on! Out with it...

reply to post by SLAYER69


So funny - why don't you volunteer to go?

Good luck.

reply to post by SLAYER69

MIT engineer Ed Crawley, who heads the panel's deep-space subgroup, outlined scenarios that included astronauts exploring the moon; or going directly to Mars with a possible visit to the moon to test technology; or exploring the inner solar system with free-ranging spaceships. Instead of trying to set up permanent moon base as Constellation envisioned, Crawley called for a phased exploration program starting with flybys and scouting missions, building up to longer visits and eventual bases. That, he said, is more affordable and achievable.

Hi Slayer,

I went over this rather quickly but what caught my eye was Crawley, the deep space leader who outlines all that can be done with the "free ranging spaceships". What the heck are these? He talks like they already exist which may of course be the case in the form of a back engineered very secret craft or some sort of ET recovered vehicle, a la Bob Lazar and area 51, etc.

Shot down or captured? IMHO that would be a reference to the inside idea that we aren't supposed to have this technology yet, let alone brazenly flying it around without permission. Who would shoot our free rangin spaciships down, you ask? That would be TPTB, of course.

We're (we humans) are supposed to occupy our time with growing a lawn free of dandilions and other bothersome weeds, you know!

I think they are referring to ships set on an auto pilot, travel to planets in the solar system and drop off rovers and such. This ship would probably be nuke powered with an ion drive and go out on its own way and only come back every so often.

Doubt there would be any people on board.

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

So funny - why don't you volunteer to go?

Good luck.

Why don't you explain your original post, that's what Slayer69 was aiming for.

And FYI, hell yes I would volunteer to go on these space missions, but they're obviously not manned.

[edit on 11/8/2009 by C0bzz]

Sorry... but there is no 'Star Trek' in this 'free ranging spaceship' concept.

reply to post by Larryman


Thanks for everybody's reply.

We are assuming there would be no manned missions regarding these free roaming crafts. Now either it's all theory of maybe they know something we don't. either way it's a start.

I couldn't find where they stated it wouldn't be manned.

Originally posted by spellbound
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Free-ranging space ships can be shot down or captured.

Is this such a great idea?

Maybe we were not meant to go out there.

And, btw, are these ships going to have people on board? (Lambs to the slaughter?)

Not meant to be there? Do we stick our head in the sand and cry "Mommy"? Our planet is limited in resources with over a billion people living in poverty. Space offers us a way out. As for free ranging spaceships it would be the most economical to have ships that cycle between Earth orbit and the moon or asteroids. Also in time Mars. We have a technical capacity to make this happen, starting now. As for if their being shot down, we have diplomatic as well as more extreme responses if it happens. It's called an act of war. We all know what that can mean. And besides, the cost of space industrialization is so great nations will have to share the risk. The payoff would be economic so there is an insentive for everyone to "play nice".

Originally posted by SLAYER69
We are assuming there would be no manned missions regarding these free roaming crafts.

So why have ships if there will be no passengers? Don't we already have these (a.k.a. space probes)?

Just my 2-cents

reply to post by arbiture

As for if their being shot down, we have diplomatic as well as more extreme responses if it happens. It's called an act of war.

Interesting! This brings us the question of who gave us permission to, for instance, do manned missions to other planets like Mars?

What if one of our crafts were shot down on the way to somewhere? What would we be in a position to do about it?

What are the legal ramifications and remedies?

A free ranging space ship can be either man or unman. A man spaceship, probably will be known as long range reusable man spaceship. That will be use for exploring Mars, and close Earth objects and deeps space experiments. A unman long range reusable spacecraft, which smaller can be launch from the LRRMS or Earth itself. It can also be retrieve by the long range reusable spacecraft and brought back to Earth. Both spaceships will be both capable of launching like a normal aircraft and VTOL type aircraft.

This is just pie in the sky stuff. We (humanity) will end up using all our resources on social items, and will never, ever, move into space expansion. We'll die in our own filth.

Originally posted by SpacePunk
This is just pie in the sky stuff. We (humanity) will end up using all our resources on social items, and will never, ever, move into space expansion. We'll die in our own filth.

Get out much?

God I hope you are way off.

I agree with SpacePunk. Overpopulation is upon us, and NASA is still playing with inept rockets, and 4-man capsules. We should have had light-speed space-cities by now.

NASA = No Advanced Ships Allowed.

But hopefully, ET will intervene with non-NASA technology to save us from cannibalism.

[edit on 8/12/2009 by Larryman]

The amount currently spent on space travel, even if we multiplied it ten times, would still barely constitute a drop in the bucket compared to our various governments' social and military spending.

We need to focus on space projects that provide potential economic returns IMO - and that seems to be happening albeit slowly.


A free-ranging ship, if I understand correctly, is just a ship that stays in space and is used for various missions around the Solar System, not purpose-built for a particular mission and then scrapped.

This could be useful for projects like asteroid mining, as well a powerful general tool for exploration.

reply to post by xmotex


Has NASA spent even one dollar on development of anti-gravity (dark energy) for use as a ship lifting force in the last 10 years?

So are they recommending NOT to establish a base on the moon, and instead propose the free range ships? If so this sure leads one to believe that our govt is obeying the warning to stay off the moon.

Maybe?

Originally posted by Larryman
reply to post by xmotex

 

Has NASA spent even one dollar on development of anti-gravity (dark energy) for use as a ship lifting force in the last 10 years?

NASA has researched dark energy in the last 10 years. Given the slow progression, even in non-NASA research, tells us that using dark energy is unreasonable in the near future time scale as propulsion. If you think such technologies exist then it's up to you to prove that they exist.

If you want to push Humanity into being a space faring civilization - then go join a space lobbying group. Doesn't anyone get it? The REASON we don't go to mars, or even the moon, is because the average person doesn't care - even during Apollo they didn't really care. To top it off, it seems like NASA is just a playground for defense contractors to do high -tech experiments. How about using the funding to make space profitable for actual companies, perhaps start with reusable SSTO vehicles for a start, then move on to mining the moon and beyond.

Unless there is drastic change, we will NOT be going to the moon any time soon. Maybe a bunch of research probes and LEO, at most.

[edit on 12/8/2009 by C0bzz]