fight against a blind, deaf, practically headless behemoth that is the space programs and industry around the world.
I sent some feedback. Thanks for the link.Maybe I should retire from space advocacy after this, it's going to suck anyway, and it all just makes you a bitter person when you fight against a blind, deaf, practically headless behemoth that is the space programs and industry around the world.
Quote from: meiza on 08/11/2009 08:08 pmfight against a blind, deaf, practically headless behemoth that is the space programs and industry around the world.keep fighting. you are not alone.there are those of us that fight away from the light. in dark corners and offline.don't give up, no matter how many "left turns" you see them make in succession.good luck.
Quote from: Jim on 08/11/2009 05:39 pmNot the first ones. They will be outposts, supplied from earth. There will be generations of outposts/bases before there will be one such as you propose.The early bases/outputs will be like the Antarctic stations, constantly requiring logistics flights. The western forts analogy is decades later.Nice post Jim! If you want to build independent bases a good place to start is seeing if you can 1) build one at the Antarctic base or the Mars Society's Arctic base, one that can survive on it's own resources without external support, 2) build one at LEO that can do the same. Then you might be ready to start thinking about building one on the Moon. kkattula's comments apply equally well to a Moon base BTW.
Not the first ones. They will be outposts, supplied from earth. There will be generations of outposts/bases before there will be one such as you propose.The early bases/outputs will be like the Antarctic stations, constantly requiring logistics flights. The western forts analogy is decades later.
The way I see it is that even though the odds for propellant depots are long, they're the best they've been in a long time, and likely the best they will be for a while. It's worth giving it our best shot right now to try and convince people, even if we think the odds are long. Worst case, the idea has really gotten a lot of technical attention, and probably made it that much more likely to succeed next time around if this time it doesn't work.That said, while I've been burning the candle from both ends to do what I can to support this, my primary plan has always been to work at ways to make depots a commercial reality, even if NASA decides to be irrelevant. Plan for the worst, work for the best, and never give up hope.~Jon
Quote from: Warren Platts on 08/11/2009 03:47 pm is that the lunar station at least has the possibility of growing itself in terms of both size and functionality, using locally grown materials. In other words, a lunar base would be capable of OUTPUTS. Not the first ones. They will be outposts, supplied from earth. There will be generations of outposts/bases before there will be one such as you propose.The early bases/outputs will be like the Antarctic stations, constantly requiring logistics flights. The western forts analogy is decades later.
is that the lunar station at least has the possibility of growing itself in terms of both size and functionality, using locally grown materials. In other words, a lunar base would be capable of OUTPUTS.
As legacies go, an affordable Heavy Lift Vehicle would be a nice start.Secondly, Propellant Depot technology.Thirdly, a long range manned space-flight capability. (radiation/micro-gravity mitigation etc)Every time someone suggests we should go to Mars, (or anywhere else), lack of these things puts it "at least 10 to 15 years away". And sets the price at "humungous"."The longest journey is the one you never start..."
1) build one at the Antarctic base or the Mars Society's Arctic base, one that can survive on it's own resources without external support, 2) build one at LEO that can do the same.
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 08/11/2009 06:36 pm1) build one at the Antarctic base or the Mars Society's Arctic base, one that can survive on it's own resources without external support, 2) build one at LEO that can do the same. Um ... how would a self-sufficient "base" on LEO work ? Live off of .. sunlight and orbital debris alone ?We should phone ISS and let them know how this trick works ..
Depots, lunox, "infrastructure," "outputs" from space bases--all of these things are great for a vigorous program, but at what scale do they begin to make sense?My worry is that in a burst of enthusiasm we will build a high-capacity infrastructure but then be unwilling to spend enough money to make good use of it. We could get locked into high maintenance costs without deriving much in the way of cost savings. Then we'd be worse off than we are now.That's why I'd really like to see more economic analyses of infrastructure proposals.
What were the main outputs provided by the early days of the world wide web, the outputs that fueled the explosive growth? There were two "industries" that were HUGE in that expansion - what were they and what did they have in common? (Hint: they were NOT physical products)
Quote from: spacester on 08/12/2009 01:52 amWhat were the main outputs provided by the early days of the world wide web, the outputs that fueled the explosive growth? There were two "industries" that were HUGE in that expansion - what were they and what did they have in common? (Hint: they were NOT physical products)So no one is interested in pursuing this line of thought?
Could the Augustine Commission ask for a much much needed additional month to review options.. like they ask to be able to look at options outside the existing budget?