No more American manned spaceflights

[pmulcahy11b]

On a different but related track, a recent PCWorld report says that Internet speeds to Earth are only about the same as dial-up speeds here on Earth. That's something they're working on to speed up; It will be essential before you can have a large civilian presence in Earth orbit. The problem is that the ISS is moving, the Earth is moving, and the ISS constantly has to change tracking stations while it orbits. Those tracking stations weren't designed for Internet traffic.

Beyond Earth orbit, forget it. The time lag will be to great, even from high Earth orbit to the ground, to play games like Warcraft or something like that. And of course, civilians will be upset about that...

A Canadian astronaut has already tried to play Warcraft from the ISS on his day off and found out the slow internet connection stopped him from effectively doing that.

[Targan]

Beyond Earth orbit, forget it. The time lag will be to great, even from high Earth orbit to the ground, to play games like Warcraft or something like that. And of course, civilians will be upset about that...

Once again, the technology needs to catch up with the theory. Quantum entanglement theory shows that it is possible to create linked particles. I believe these are the key to FTL communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

[pmulcahy11b]

Once again, the technology needs to catch up with the theory. Quantum entanglement theory shows that it is possible to create linked particles. I believe these are the key to FTL communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

That's a long way in the future, though it might be one of the keys to FTL travel as well. Michio Kaku believes that FTL travel may be as little as 200 years away, and will probably be based on time-space warping. Stephen Hawkins does not agree with the timeline (he thinks it's much further off), but agrees that FTL travel will be based on time-space warping.

[RN7]

Congress, though, insisted in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that Orion be capable of backing up the private sector if they can't handle the mission, and Lockheed-Martin (Orion's prime contractor) has said that they can man-rate an existing rocket by 2014 if they got the go-ahead for to do just that, and to have Earth orbit flight test of Orion as well.

Lockheed-Martin, btw, has indicated that they can fly an Orion Asteroid Mission in 2019. If that's the case, then lunar exploration gets speeded up.

America has one significant advantage over all its competitors in space with the possible exception of Russia. This would be the size and technological capability of its commercial aerospace and space industry, which to an extent is a legacy of the Cold War and the Military-Industrial Complex. A similar and more politicaly controlled space industry exists in Russia, but if you think America is having a hard time financing its space projects on its own just imagine how hard it is for Russia. Although other countries have space programes, they are to a varying degree politicaly controlled and funded.

[RN7]

Good grief no! The USAF only seems "more ordered" because as a non-civilian agency they are better at hiding their screw-ups. The USAF is much less efficient, hard as that may be to believe, than NASA at managing budgets. And it's been USAF involvement (meddling) with the shuttle program that has been a major contributor to the STS being the mess that it's been, right from the beginning.

When I stated USAF control would lead to a more ordered civil space programe, I meant it would lead to less showmanship and less bureaucracy and more sense. Also the USAF is a bit more multi-dimensional than NASA in regard to not just having to focus on orbital and space related activities. Is there a comparable air force which does a better job than the USAF

The original NASA designs were much more practical and elegant, including SSTO. It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

Which SSTO projects are you refering to

The Rockwell X-30 was cancelled in 1993 because NASA couldn't design it to cary a crew and a small payload with the US DOD wanted, which I think was quite a reasonable request.

The Lockheed-Martin X-33 was cancelled in 2001 after a long series of technical difficulties and after NASA had invested $922 million and Lockheed Martin another $357 million, which in turn led to the cancellation of Venture Star, as X-33 was a subscale technological demonstrater for the Venture Star project.

Then there is Blackstar which nobody seems to know much about other than claiming it doesn't exist, and its not a NASA project.

[RN7]

Im genuinely at a loss as to whether he believes what hes saying or whether its all part of operating within his niche.



Many of my countrymen take issue with the UN. Some of the given reasons represent very reasonable concerns. Some of the given reasons are pure poppycock. Most of the given reasons have various ratios of legitimacy and poppycockedness. I have some issues the UN, but this isnt the occasion to go into them. As a vehicle for supporting and managing lunar development, the UN is the best available choice for keeping the Moon from becoming either an Antarctica (a scientific preserve virtually bereft of commercial development) or a Wild West (a virtual free-for-all in which the rule of law frequently is observed through its breach). A lunar Antarctica will not deliver the resources humanity very much needs at this juncture in history, while a lunar Wild West will reward the wealthy and aggressive in the short term and probably lead to the militarization of space as the wealthy players attempt to secure by force of arms what the power of law has failed to secure. If the UN is the agency that authorizes a lunar colonial government, then the big investors who will naturally want to manipulate the system to secure advantages for themselves (and themselves only) will have a much bigger task than corrupting the government of some economically supine banana republic. At the same time, there will be an opportunity for every nation to both participate in creating the charter for the lunar colonial government (LCG) and in receiving the benefits thereof. Every nation will have a chance to have a voice in the formulation of the rules for developing lunar resources. Equal access to lunar resources through the LCG will enable all nations with corporations capable of assembling capital to participate in an orderly lunar gold rush. Nations incapable of participating directly in development of the resources nevertheless will benefit from disbursement of tax revenues and participation in the charter-building and monitoring process. Truculent nations (though wishing to impede the process for a variety of reasons) can be managed by parliamentary procedure. Nations engaging in warfare not sanctioned by the UN, genocide, or crimes against humanity would lose their access to disbursements from the taxation of lunar enterprises.

The Antarctic model would seem the best way for any future colonisation of the Moon and other heavenly objects, but if private industry gets involved expect trouble.

[RN7]

This underscores the problem that military men are military men. Putting the USAF in charge of the US space program would be like putting the US Navy in charge of merchant shipping. Without making any claims about the degree to which space has been militarized already, we should pursue a philosophy of minimizing and retarding the militarization of space instead of giving militarization a de facto embrace by bringing the USAF into it any more than they already are. Sooner or later, there will be an armed presence in space far more significant than anything we can point to today. At one end of the spectrum is a set of competing forces busting budgets in Cold War fashion to ensure that each nations commercial interests in space are oeprotected against interference by the forces of competing nations. At the other end of the spectrum is a small constabulary-type force in operation to enforce agreed-upon rules for all commercial interests regardless of national origin. We should pursue policies to get as far towards the latter end of the spectrum as possible.

Most if not all countries would consider any facility, colony or instalation in orbit or beyond to be their own soveriegn territory, and are likely to be overtly hostile to any other country or organisation attempting to enter, inspect or take control of it. A commercial facility owned by a large corporation might be a grey area, but if their using the resources or infrastructure of a host country to maintain it then their likely to be considered some countries property. Unfortunately people and countries are territorial, even on Antarctica, and they will retain the right to defend themselves if they think they are being threatened or potentially under some prospect of threat, and the militarisation of space is an inevitability.

[RN7]

Nanomachines and bucky balls, that's where it's at. If we could build 'beanstalk' space elevators we could move bulk commodities to and from space at very low costs. The theory is sound but the technology is still in its infancy. You capture yourself a carbonacious asteroid, place it into the right orbit around the Earth and use nanomachines to spin super-strong bucky string cable and lower it down to the surface, using the asteroid's own mass as building material.

I think were moving a bit beyond ourselves here, maybe in the next century and I'll be happy discuss it with you all then

[Matt Wiser]

One thing about this topic is that everyone has their opinions and can, even if we're on the same page on others, can "agree to disagree." This is a subject that evokes passion and anger-especially if your proposed exploration strategy didn't make the cut, but at least here it's amicable. Over on spacepolitics.com, if you're not a commercial space zealot, a Space X fanboy, or an ObamaSpace supporter (preferably all three), you're a heretic or worse. I'm one of those gutsy enough to call them on this: pointing out that a lot of what they want to do has no political support in Congress, and the venom my way is fast and furious. Some of 'em think that anyone who's anti-commercial space, or just skeptical until these commercial entities prove themselves, is a shill for NASA or those backing the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift. They also don't realize that there is a big difference between what they want to do and what Congress will allow them to do-especially with NASA funds-and forget that NASA (or any government agency for that matter) can't spend a dime on anything unless Congress approves the funding. Not to mention that Congress is not a rubber stamp. For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The thing that makes me laugh is that while the spacepolitics.com fanatics are arguing, the Asian nations and others are pushing ahead with their own space programmes. The Chinese aren't the only ones getting rockets ready for space exploitation and do the fanatics think that Israel, India or even Indonesia will stop their own space programmes to let the USA or Russia dominate the heavens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Asian_national_space_programs

And as for commercial exploitation, there's definitely the belief that there is some very big money to be made, considering the notions put forward in the following article, it's simply a matter for them of creating the technology to exploit the universe.

http://www.physorg.com/news183044315.html

One thing about this topic is that everyone has their opinions and can, even if we're on the same page on others, can "agree to disagree." This is a subject that evokes passion and anger-especially if your proposed exploration strategy didn't make the cut, but at least here it's amicable. Over on spacepolitics.com, if you're not a commercial space zealot, a Space X fanboy, or an ObamaSpace supporter (preferably all three), you're a heretic or worse. I'm one of those gutsy enough to call them on this: pointing out that a lot of what they want to do has no political support in Congress, and the venom my way is fast and furious. Some of 'em think that anyone who's anti-commercial space, or just skeptical until these commercial entities prove themselves, is a shill for NASA or those backing the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift. They also don't realize that there is a big difference between what they want to do and what Congress will allow them to do-especially with NASA funds-and forget that NASA (or any government agency for that matter) can't spend a dime on anything unless Congress approves the funding. Not to mention that Congress is not a rubber stamp. For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.

[pmulcahy11b]

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

[Matt Wiser]

The ChiComs have only flown two HSF missions so far, and though some say they're getting ready for a Salyut clone of a space station, they're on a very slow path at present. Want to move up lunar return with people Confirmation of a Chinese lunar landing program, and that will get Congress on NASA's rear end, because there are members on both sides of the aisle who feel that "NASA was first there, and NASA should be first back."

The people on Spacepolitics.com are fanatical, no doubt about that. A lot of them have the "my way or the highway" mentality.

[Raellus]

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

Firefly fan

[Matt Wiser]

No hard evidence so far of a ChiCom lunar program at present (No heavy-lift vehicle, no lunar lander or surface systems under development, etc.). However, the Chinese have said that they do want to attempt a lunar landing sometime in the 2020s. Want to kick-start NASA into returning to the moon sooner than they currently plan (late 2020s, minimum) Confirmation of a ChiCom lunar mission in the planning stage. Watch Congress go ape, and direct NASA to "beat the Chinese".

[waiting4something]

I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.

You mean the first man on the moon