reply to post by woodwardjnr
I couldn’t agree with you more. The space program picked right up with Manifest Destiny where the pioneers who expanded our country to the Pacific
coast left off. It was glorious run we had, but as with all good things, it had to end. I do not support the end, but as you stated, with the endless
wars and corporate bailouts, something had to be cut.
reply to post by ohioriver
While I agree with you that this is an excellent opportunity for the private sector, the government’s control over the heavens has hardly been
relinquished.
The government still has the authority to regulate and control what the payloads are and how they can be launched. On top of that, while the United
States may have lost its only way of placing humans into orbit, there are still dozens of rockets capable of launching payloads into orbit and
beyond.
reply to post by geraldcole
If you feel that humanity will visit Mars within the next 40 years, then you must understand the logistics presented by the situation. It would be
rash and uneconomical to visit Mars and not construct a base of operations. Due to the orbits of the planets and the sheer amount of reaction mass
needed for a direct route versus a transfer orbit, once arriving on Mars, they would be stuck there for a longer period of time.
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
Your gumption for the prospect of terraforming Mars is admirably naive. Unfortunately, we do not have the slightest practical idea how this would be
accomplished. Also, most plans for terraforming the Red Planet require there to be substantial reservoirs of liquid or frozen water beneath the
surface – something which has yet to be proven to this day.
While I cannot argue that in the past 175 years we have made several paradigm shifts in all areas that took us from bloodletting to open heart
surgery, from compound bows to automatic weapons, from vacuum tubes to transistors, we still lack the capability to drastically modify the weather
patterns here on our home planet, much less another, less hospitable one.
reply to post by Illustronic
You are absolutely correct in stating that it will be very difficult for a private company to turn a profit. It will be a very long time before the
industry of space tourism really takes off. In the meantime, space entrepreneurs need to take a look at how expanding regions were taken advantage of
in times past. Of course, you would be surprised at the amount of resources and potential of all of the “big dead space rocks.”
When the United States was first expanding west it happened in waves. First, there were the explorers. An example would be Louis and Clarke (or
Edwards and Hunt if you prefer.) Following them were the traders, trappers, guides and others who made a living by harvesting the natural resources
and turning a profit. Following them were the first settlers, and then they came in droves. Once settlements had been established, tourism began.
Unfortunately, modern day space entrepreneurs are attempting to make the jump from early explorers to tourism. As a society, we need to go to the
Moon, Mars and especially the asteroids to exploit their resources. Despise that statement as you will, but that is the inherent way mankind acts.
The Moon would essentially be a trailhead for further out. Minerals and ore can be refined and shipped cheaply back to Earth – 2.38 km/s is not too
hard to achieve. More importantly is the farming potential for Luna. We ship our waste products; they recycle it and send it back as food.
Mars would be important, especially if there is liquid or frozen water. Water is possibly the most important thing when it comes to space exploration.
Aside from being essential to human life, it can be used as a reaction mass and to shield the ship from radiation.
Beyond Mars, lay the asteroids - essentially the biggest, most abundant of the “big dead space rocks.” Despite this, within the main belt is more
untapped, virgin resources than Earth has ever known. With mining of the main belt we will be able to end (though probably incite more) wars. There
would be very little need for “conflict minerals.” Diamonds would be common place, as would all of the other minerals we hold so dearly today.
It’s all out there, just waiting for us to make use of it.
reply to post by Illustronic
As I typed these replies out while reading the thread, this post amused me. It was as if you responded to my last comments directed at you before I
even knew I was going to type them!
All soliloquys aside, I feel you’re not thinking of a grand enough scheme here, despite having the right idea.
While it is true that you need a voracious velocity to escape our Blue Planet, not so much Luna. Build the ships to mine the asteroids on the surface
or in Lunar orbit (even less escape velocity needed!) and problem solved. In fact, the asteroids need not even be mined in their orbits. Build smaller
drones which can kick them out of orbit in the main belt, sending them into a Lunar orbit. Mine them there.
As far as reentry, heat ablative materials surely could be manufactured in Lunar orbit or on the surface, Break the body into manageable pieces,
attach the ablative materials and send the chunks on down to Earth. You wouldn’t even need to use a net or something to catch. Using parachutes or
retro rockets there are several land based locations that could be used much more safely. In fact, I can think of several off the top of my head: The
Australian Outback, Russian Siberia, China’s Gobi Desert, the African Sahara, North America’s Sonoran Desert and even land in the Arctic and
Antarctic could be utilized.
At first it would be expensive. Usually the first few times anything is accomplished it is, but with repetition and quantity comes reductions in
price. For example, five hundred years ago it was too expensive to send people across the Atlantic. It took royalty to finance the expeditions, and
even they were hesitant. Today, getting from New York to London is a pretty routine affair.
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
The concept of the space elevator is a beautiful one, but not very economically feasible. You said it yourself, in order to build it we will have to
wait for the technology to be developed. We would be better off using an electromagnetic catapult to get from Earth to space, but this would be more
effective for use on Luna due to the lack of an atmosphere. Also, this type of launching facility could be made with technology available today.
Building space craft in Lunar orbit would be far cheaper. Besides, if we currently have the capability to launch nearly 1000 kg to Mars (the Mars
Science Laboratory is about the size of a modern Mini Cooper and weighs about 900 kg), we should be able to get the manufacturing equipment to
Luna.
reply to post by monkcaw
There is still public access to space. NASA is not going anywhere, just suspending launching of current manned expeditions. Earth orbit is not being
abandoned, as we still have several methods of launching probes into Low Earth Orbit. As far as American militarization of space, no weapons will be
placed there, but spy installations (Keyhole, X-37B, etc) will continue. While they are an important facet of intelligence gathering, orbits are
predictable. It’s easy to figure out where and when a body will be overhead, so don’t expect these satellites to replace drones and other flying
aircraft anytime soon.
reply to post by IamJustanAmerican
The ISS experiments performed by schoolchildren and high school students are quite amazing. These experiments go through a rigorous selection program
and have yielded real world, applicable results. Also, the fact that a child has something in space has to be a real high for the kids, their parents,
their teachers and school. Getting kids today interested in the sciences is one of the most difficult challenges faced by our educators today.
There is no need to be so dismissive.
reply to post by Illustronic
So what if Soyuz is based off of 1960’s technology? The car you drive is based off technology even older. Trains? Older still. Boats? Even more
dated! Though, just as with these methods of transportation, they have been constantly updated and improved. The most recently launched Soyuz is part
of the newest generation and even has a digital computer and avionics. As far as reliability, the last Soyuz to fail was in 1983, and the crew all
survived. While the Soyuz lacks cargo capacities, do not overlook the Progress craft which has a payload of over 2000 kg.