Space station and shuttle missions may be mothballed for years

[Seeker of Truth]

Source (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=375103)


Space station and shuttle missions may be mothballed for years
By Charles Arthur Technology Editor
03 February 2003



For the Americans Ken Bowersox and Don Pettit, and the Russian Nikolai Budarin, the next 24 hours will be lonely. And they could earn the title of the last men in space – for a long time.

They are at present aloft in the orbiting International Space Station (ISS), waiting for the Russian Progress cargo ship launched yesterday to ferry supplies to them. It is scheduled to dock tomorrow to deliver food, equipment, fuel and post.

While they are safe, with enough supplies to last them until June, and a Russian Soyuz rocket is scheduled to go and pick them up in April, whether anyone will follow them up there for years is unclear.

The future of the ISS, and of manned space travel beyond the Earth's orbit, is now uncertain. The failure of the space shuttle Columbia – which disintegrated on re-entry to Earth's atmosphere on Saturday, killing all seven astronauts on board – will almost surely mothball the ISS for about two years. All of Nasa's shuttles have been grounded until the cause is found and rectified.

After Challenger blew up in 1986, 32 months – nearly three years – passed before the next one flew. There is no knowing how long it will take to fixwhatever went wrong this time.

"It is the fate of the ISS that is at stake now," Boris Chertok, a Soviet space pioneer, said. With the shuttles grounded, there are too few Russian Soyuz and Progress rockets available to keep the supply and crewing missions flying.

Sergei Gorbunov, of the Russian space agency Rosaviakosmos, said that while the shuttles were grounded, "work in orbit [on the ISS] will be carried out in a truncated regime". But, he added, "you can forget about further construction on the station until the resumption of American shuttle launches".

[RayChuang]

Actually, I would not be surprised that NASA will provide assistance for the Russians to fly 1-2 week manned missions to ISS ever 4-5 months or so to make sure everything is still in working order. They'll also use the Progress re-supply vehicles to regularly keep the right orbit for ISS until the shuttle fleet is operational again--which in my guess will probably take about 18 months.

[Dash_Riprock]

The amount of down time will depend on the specifics of the cause. If it was the insulation breaking loose and damaging the tiles, then that will probably be an easier fix from a technical standpoint than if it is determined there was some sort of pre-existing design or structural flaw of the shuttle itself.

Of course, NASA may never be able to determine the cause beyond the level of "probable". Then someone will have to make some tough decisions.

The station isn't going anyware. It may sit idle, but I believe it will eventually be used as it was intended. It would be a helluva costly white elephant.

[aresian]

Just saw a NASA official who said that there were currently no plans for "unmanning" the station.

[Warlady]

Bush said it will not be mothballed. I have to take him at his word.

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
Space station and shuttle missions may be mothballed for years

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't hurt my feelings if it did. 40+ years of manned space travel and we're still stuck on earth. Tito spent 20 million so he could take a space ride. That tells me that unless we come up with a super cheap way to travel, space travel is only going to be for the super rich. This morning I heard some "expert" say that a new generation shuttle would cost 10BILLION alone. Sure we've gained a lot in technology, but my life now isn't a great deal better than my parents' was 40 years ago. NASA hasn't solved mankinds' basic problems of greed, selfishness, crime, hatred, racism, etc.

(So, let the rocks start flying---)

[Warlady]

dgauw I sure hope you don't expect a government program to solve greed, selfishness, crime, hatred, racism, etc.

[dajoga]

Warlady--that was precisely my point--no government spending or program can solve man's basic problems. My point was that for all the money we've spent on the space program, what have we really gained? IMO, we haven't gotten our money's worth, but that's par for the course with the fed gov. We still have man's basic problems.

[Warlady]

What have we gained????? Technology beyond our wildest dreams and hopefully more of the same to come.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that for all the money we've spent on the space program, what have we really gained?

[/ QUOTE ]
And what SHOULD have been done with the money? More social programs? Home theaters or Porsches for the third-generation wards of the state, mayhaps?

Do a little research on the enormous gains in technology, communications, ecological monitoring, microelectronics and on and on. The space program has paid for itself a hundred times over.

If our ancestors said, "Why should we spend all this money exploring the world when we still have man's basic problems here at home?" where would the greatest country in history be now?

"We still have man's basic problems" because we are human, and that means we are imperfect. That doesn't mean we should all curl up into the fetal position, suck our thumbs, and wait to die.

For all of "man's basic problems", we are an unrelentingly inquisitive species. It is in our genes to "boldly go where no man has gone before". We've been just about everywhere there is to go here on this little blue marble around an average star in the arm of a so-so spiral galaxy. There is only one frontier left, and that's "out there".

Unfortunately, the myopia of the technophobes will prevail re space exploration. We'll remain imprisoned on this ball of mud, looking wistfully at the night sky and wondering what we could be doing "out there" if we didn't cut off our balls to satisfy the whiners.

And, "We (will) still have man's basic problems."

[Warlady]

I don't believe NASA was created to solve man's basic problems.

[MaximumSam]

Well, I'll continue what I was saying on the other thread. This is a perfect opportunity to focus on long range probes and sensors, as well as robotics as the immediate future for our space program. Ray's idea of assisting the Russians might be perfect, as we can still have our manned missions, but we will spend most of our own money on missions that have the most potential to find new and important information. Furthermore, it seems like there is a lot of potential for new inventions and discoveries in making the technology for such systems.

[Warlady]

Sam, I think we ARE doing that. We have launched long-range probes. Robots is another invention out of NASA. Thanks for reminding me.

[DoctorDoom]

http://www.uh.edu/engines/pioneer10.jpg (http://spaceprojects.arc.nasa.gov/Space_Projects/pioneer/PNhome.html)Pioneer 10 has been in transit for almost 31 years, and is 7.59 billion miles from Earth. That's over twice as far as Pluto's orbit. On March 2, 2002, the 30th anniversary of the launch, contact was made and data was received from it. Click the pic to go to NASA's Pioneer site.
<br clear="all" />
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/images/spacecraft1.gif (http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html)Voyager 1 was launched 5 years later, in 1977, but because of its faster speed is now farther away than Pioneer. It's heading for exploration of the "heliopause". The pic is clickable, and goes to NASA's Voyager site.
<br clear="all" />
Despite the fact that robots and probes can do a lot of research, the ultimate exploration of the universe is for man himself to carry out. It may not be for years, and possibly even decades, but mankind WILL establish a presence in space, the whining of the naysayers notwithstanding.

[MaximumSam]

Yes, we have done that, but that's not where our focus is. Our focus has been mostly where it has stayed for decades - the dream of being an astronaut and flying into space. This focus has reached the end of its useful life, and now we spend our energy on programs like Voyager, Pioneer, etc. These missions have the most potential for new and exciting discoveries, which in turn will lead to more momentum to send people into space.

Even if we could go to Mars right now, what would be the point. We got to the moon over 30 years ago, and we haven't done much since. Instead of going to Mars, then spending another long drought of useless space exploration, let's spend our money on the technology that will lead to the most beenfits. Really, is there much difference between seeing something with a probe, and seeing something with your own eyes? I would rather see it through a probe than not see it at all.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[ QUOTE ]
dgauw said:
Warlady--that was precisely my point--no government spending or program can solve man's basic problems. My point was that for all the money we've spent on the space program, what have we really gained? IMO, we haven't gotten our money's worth, but that's par for the course with the fed gov. We still have man's basic problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

What the heck are you talking about?!?
You think they are up there just to look at stars?
They perform many experiments to slove diseases and improve quality of life. What do you think they have been doing all this time?
I must say your criticism is sounding unbelievable naive.

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
And what SHOULD have been done with the money?

[/ QUOTE ]

Give it back to the taxpayer--

[ QUOTE ]
If our ancestors said, "Why should we spend all this money exploring the world when we still have man's basic problems here at home?" where would the greatest country in history be now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges--quantum difference in exploring planet earth and outer space. On earth you're still in our basic environment--outer space you have to take your environment with you. Everything to sustain life has to be carried with you--that's a major hindrance and why it's so financially prohibitive.

AND I reiterate--I'm not against space travel, just not with my tax money--let private business do it. If it is so beneficial, there will be plenty of entrepreneurs ready to tackle it.

[Dash_Riprock]

It has been said that cynics know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Learning and discovery are two different things.

We could learn much of what we learn in space from the comfort of our labs here on Earth. But discovery is often dependent upon the unexpected and the unknown. While those elements do exist even in the most agreeable of environments, they are often most pronounced in the least hospitable of such arenas.

Perhaps our desire to explore even when the element of risk is substantial defines most clearly what humanity needs to be for its long-term growth and prosperity. Certainly, mankind is never challenged more than when his spirit is the subject of that challenge.

One international space station: $80,000,000,000
One space shuttle: $2,000,000,000
One space shuttle mission launch: $100,000,000
Seven astronauts giving their lives in humanity's quest for truth: Priceless.

[DesertFox]

The space program is one of the few places I see govt properly involved. Private business couldn't do it because it has to show a profit in a finite period of time.

Like the military, the space program will never make money. It has spawned countless industries (the computer industry would never be where it is but for the space program), but those weren't its point.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Apples and oranges--quantum difference in exploring planet earth and outer space. On earth you're still in our basic environment--outer space you have to take your environment with you. Everything to sustain life has to be carried with you--that's a major hindrance and why it's so financially prohibitive.

[/ QUOTE ]
And one would suppose by that comment that Columbus, Magellan, DeSoto and other explorers stopped at MickeyD's for lunch on the way over the pond.

Aside from air and fish, what did the early explorers not have to bring with them in their months-long journeys into the unknown to find new lands? They were in effect seaborne ecosystems on journeys with no known destination, and only a hope to guide them. When they did encounter land, they didn't log on to Mapquest and print out directions. They dropped anchors and went ashore, not knowing what — or who — they'd find. That was the era of REAL explorers, men with the courage and conviction to sail far out of sight of their homeland in their travels, never knowing if they'd return.

If they were plagued with nay-saying defeatists at every setbback, they'd have stayed home and grown vegetables.

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from air and fish, what did the early explorers not have to bring with them in their months-long journeys into the unknown to find new lands? They were in effect seaborne ecosystems on journeys with no known destination, and only a hope to guide them. When they did encounter land, they didn't log on to Mapquest and print out directions. They dropped anchors and went ashore, not knowing what — or who — they'd find. That was the era of REAL explorers, men with the courage and conviction to sail far out of sight of their homeland in their travels, never knowing if they'd return.

[/ QUOTE ]

Com'on doc--you're smarter than that or are you intentionally ignoring my obvious point? Sure Columbus had to carry food and water, but once they landed they didn't have to set up a shuttle sustem to keep themselves alive--on the new land was food, water, materials to build shelter AND most important an environment that they could survive in which was basically like the environment they left. If all we had to concern ourself with was travel to get to Mars, that wouldn't be so great, but once we get there what do we have to do to survive? THAT's the biggy!

aside from air--that's no small problem when it comes to space travel as opposed to boat travel on earth. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure Columbus had to carry food and water, but once they landed they didn't have to set up a shuttle sustem to keep themselves alive--on the new land was food, water, materials to build shelter AND most important an environment that they could survive in which was basically like the environment they left.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Once they landed", yes. But, they had no knowledge of whether they ever would land, world globes being in short supply at the time. They had to bring everything they needed for a long-term journey. And, they had no assurance that whatever land they did find would have all the necessities of life.

This is all largely irrelevant, inasmuch as the central issue is the notion that man should self-impose his imprisonment on planet Earth because, golly gee willikers, it's too hard to go somewhere else.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Prov 29:18a) And where there is no courage, the people stagnate. For the species that built the Great Wall of China and dug the Panama Canal by hand to sit back in recliners, remote in hand, and wail that space flight is too much of a challenge is to forsake all that makes humanity superior to the rest of life on Earth.

So space travel poses problems. BFD. LIFE poses problems, but few of us want to give it up for that reason. We should be going into space if for no other reason than the one expressed by British mountaineer George Leigh Mallory, who when asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest, tersely replied, "Because it's there."

[2nd_Amendment]

What can I say except, Well said!

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
This is all largely irrelevant, inasmuch as the central issue is the notion that man should self-impose his imprisonment on planet Earth because, golly gee willikers, it's too hard to go somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say that? Why are you reading selectively?

[Warlady]

dgauw you are giving the impression that we shouldn't bother with space exploration because it's either too difficult, too costly or there isn't a good enough reason to or that the private sector should be responsible. That's not the message you meant to portray?

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did I say that? Why are you reading selectively?

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that was aimed directly at you? Are you the official spokesperson for the "no more manned space flight" contingent? I'm speaking of a mindset, not a person.

But, if it makes you more comfortable, I will specifically exempt you from responses of that kind.

Thus:

"This is all largely irrelevant, inasmuch as the central issue is the notion that man should self-impose his imprisonment on planet Earth because,<font color="red">(Note: the following comment is not directed at any member of this board)</font> golly gee willikers, it's too hard to go somewhere else."

[Warlady]

Doc, dgauw probably got the impression you were posting to him because you quoted him and used his reply button.

[MaximumSam]

But none of this addresses the issue of whether manned space flight is very useful right now. Sending our technology across the universe is just much more practical right now.

[DoctorDoom]

Actually, I used the Quick Reply, which points to the previous poster. That's one drawback to not having the old-style post button that doesn't single out any poster or post.

[Warlady]

Doc we're working on a generic reply button.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
But none of this addresses the issue of whether manned space flight is very useful right now. Sending our technology across the universe is just much more practical right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
When does "right now" cease to preclude manned space flight? At what point will "right now" be appropriate for it? And what is to prevent someone from presenting the same tedious argument about "manned space flight (not being) very useful right now" a hundred or a thousand years in the future?

Technophobia is the new incarnation of the Luddite mentality. If mankind were to heed the endless procession of naysayers, we'd still be living in caves, garbed in animal skins and grunting gutturally.

No doubt there were those in the infant USofA who considered the plans being laid for a new, free nation, and said, "Do you really think our independence from England is very useful right now?"


Here are some famous (or infamous) examples of shortsightedness and underestimation of man's ingenuity.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five or six computers."
-- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"There is no reason anybody would want a computer in their home."
-- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons."
-- Popular Mechanics, 1949

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us."
-- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
-- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920s.

"While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility."
-- Lee DeForest, inventor of the "audion" vacuum tube

"Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
-- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin English scientist, 1899.

"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."
-- 1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work.

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will."
-- Albert Einstein, 1932.

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives."
-- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project.

"Nothing is gained by exaggerating the possibilities of tomorrow. We need not worry over the consequences of breaking up the atom."
-- Engineer Floyd W. Parsons, Saturday Evening Post, 1931

"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical, and insignificant, if not utterly impossible."
-- Astronomer Simon Newcomb, 1902

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
-- Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.

"There will never be a bigger plane built."
-- A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people.

"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction."
-- Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon."
-- Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873.

"As you may well know, Mr. President, 'railroad' carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of 15 miles per hour by 'engines' which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed."
-- Martin Van Buren, then governor of New York, in a letter to President Andrew Jackson, 1829


Fortunately for mankind, the future belongs, not to those who say that a thing can't be done, or that we should wait until the "right time", but to those who say, "We CAN do it and this IS the right time!" and then roll up their sleeves and get to work.

[MaximumSam]

When does "right now" cease to preclude manned space flight?

When we have somewhere to go, and the means to get there, and there is something useful about going there. We spent lots of money to get to the moon, and reaped the technological benefits of that, and since we have...never gone past the moon. Simply going somewhere with a person is mostly useless. Why not go somewhere with our technology, instead? Why intentioanlly limit ourselves?

At what point will "right now" be appropriate for it?

Right now, the biggest idea for man is to go to Mars. Whoopty. We will land on Mars..and then we will be on Mars and come back. Should we build a base on the moon? We haven't even landed a shuttle on the moon. What good would a base serve, besides a few people milling around, sort of like what happens on the space station. If discovery is our goal, we should be sending out what can discover the most, and this is undoubtedly unmanned spacecraft.

And what is to prevent someone from presenting the same tedious argument about "manned space flight (not being) very useful right now" a hundred or a thousand years in the future?

Possibly, we will find somewhere important to go. Possibly, there will be a reason for us to leave. What is keeping us from going anywhere now? Technology and lack of support. If we discover places we want to go, then we will have the support to develop the technology to get there.

Technophobia is the new incarnation of the Luddite mentality. If mankind were to heed the endless procession of naysayers, we'd still be living in caves, garbed in animal skins and grunting gutturally.

Technophobia has no place in this argument. The only issue is what kind of technology will we use - cumbersome, slow, manned technology, or dynamic and flexible unmanned technology.

Fortunately for mankind, the future belongs, not to those who say that a thing can't be done, or that we should wait until the "right time", but to those who say, "We CAN do it and this IS the right time!" and then roll up their sleeves and get to work.

We can do it and it is the right time. The issue is what it is.

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
you are giving the impression that we shouldn't bother with space exploration because it's either too difficult, too costly or there isn't a good enough reason to or that the private sector should be responsible. That's not the message you meant to portray?

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "we" you mean the fed gov, yes, but if you mean humanity, no. I've never said I'm against space exploration. Maybe we're not on the same page with our terms--to me, space exploration is going beyond simply orbiting the earth. If maintaining a space station is necessary for our national defense, no problem. If we want to see what's on Mars or whatever, let private business do that. If it's not profitable for the private sector, why should we spend our hard earned tax money? I just don't see the value of finding out if ants tunnel differently in space than they do on earth.

[DesertFox]

As some article showed, the dangerous part of space missions is getting up there and then coming back into the atmosphere. If we had a base on the moon, which is airless, we wouldn't have to risk space shuttles coming back to earth. Hence it makes brilliant sense to build a base on the moon and explore from there rather than from here. People would go up a year or two at a time, limiting the re-entries into our atmosphere.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
As some article showed, the dangerous part of space missions is getting up there and then coming back into the atmosphere. If we had a base on the moon, which is airless, we wouldn't have to risk space shuttles coming back to earth. Hence it makes brilliant sense to build a base on the moon and explore from there rather than from here. People would go up a year or two at a time, limiting the re-entries into our atmosphere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we need a moon base! We need it before the Chinese decide to claim it for their own. It would really suck if they took over the moon.

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
which is airless,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great for launching, but a major problem for anyone living on a moon base--how often would we have to lauch and return supply ships? Seems like we still have the problem of leaving and entering our atmosphere. That's the point I made to DD: that the lack of basic human enviroment is the biggest expense and deterrent to manned space exploration. You have to admit that Maxi's point of robotic and unmanned exploration is far more reasonable b/c we were created to live on earth not in space.

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
before the Chinese decide to claim it for their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you heard that they want to do this? We went there 34 years ago and didn't do anything with it--why would the Chinese want to?

IMO the only value to going to the moon was if we found an abundance of precious metals or nuclear material. But last I looked, the futures market for green cheese wasn't even good enough for Hillary to invest in.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[ QUOTE ]
dgauw said:
[ QUOTE ]
before the Chinese decide to claim it for their own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you heard that they want to do this? We went there 34 years ago and didn't do anything with it--why would the Chinese want to?

IMO the only value to going to the moon was if we found an abundance of precious metals or nuclear material. But last I looked, the futures market for green cheese wasn't even good enough for Hillary to invest in.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon129.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it was on Fox News this weekend. China is going to send out a manned mission and they want to send people to the moon, to stay.

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
China is going to send out a manned mission and they want to send people to the moon, to stay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was there any reason given as to why they want to set up a station? Like I said, unless there are an abundance of rare metals or something extremely valuable on the moon, I don't see any value to going there unless a very inexpensive means of getting there is found. I wouldn't lose any sleep over a few Chinese on the moon. But then with their cheap slave labor maybe it's feasible for them.

[aresian]

Oddly enough I think I'm agreeing with Sam in a way on this one. I can see dropping back for a few years and going with unmanned missions. I can see this if we start sending multiple rover and orbital missions to the moon to start scouting out a good site for a base. We take that time to build robotic craft that would go to begin digging out the space for the base and maybe even doing simple construction. (Most plans I remember have a lunar base subsurface mostly to use the lunar soil to protect against cosmic and solar radiation.) While all of this is going on we then have time to consider what sort of next generation spacecraft we build. Personally I'm leaning toward a two craft system. One for cargo and one for personnel.

[aresian]

[ QUOTE ]

Was there any reason given as to why they want to set up a station? Like I said, unless there are an abundance of rare metals or something extremely valuable on the moon, I don't see any value to going there unless a very inexpensive means of getting there is found. I wouldn't lose any sleep over a few Chinese on the moon. But then with their cheap slave labor maybe it's feasible for them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Luna has the following elements in abundance:
Oxygen
Aluminum
Calcium
Titanium
Iron

Titanium is a strategic mineral used in the construction of aircraft and missiles.

We have also found evidence of ice on the surface of the moon. What makes Luna very valuable real estate is that it is close to the Earth and with an unknown amount of water and lots and lots of oxygen bound up in the crust it would be one of the easier extraterrestrial bodies to colonize. And it is the gateway to the rest of the solar system.....

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[ QUOTE ]
aresian said:
[ QUOTE ]

Was there any reason given as to why they want to set up a station? Like I said, unless there are an abundance of rare metals or something extremely valuable on the moon, I don't see any value to going there unless a very inexpensive means of getting there is found. I wouldn't lose any sleep over a few Chinese on the moon. But then with their cheap slave labor maybe it's feasible for them.

[/ QUOTE ]


Luna has the following elements in abundance:
Oxygen
Aluminum
Calcium
Titanium
Iron

Titanium is a strategic mineral used in the construction of aircraft and missiles.

We have also found evidence of ice on the surface of the moon. What makes Luna very valuable real estate is that it is close to the Earth and with an unknown amount of water and lots and lots of oxygen bound up in the crust it would be one of the easier extraterrestrial bodies to colonize. And it is the gateway to the rest of the solar system.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! Plus the Chinese would love to do something big before we do. They would use this as a way of either hindering us in space exploration or getting alot of money out of us to use any facilities they set up.

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
Luna has the following elements in abundance:
Oxygen
Aluminum
Calcium
Titanium
Iron

Titanium is a strategic mineral used in the construction of aircraft and missiles.

We have also found evidence of ice on the surface of the moon. What makes Luna very valuable real estate is that it is close to the Earth and with an unknown amount of water and lots and lots of oxygen bound up in the crust it would be one of the easier extraterrestrial bodies to colonize. And it is the gateway to the rest of the solar system.....

[/ QUOTE ]

This all may be true, but we've already been there and we have the capability to "colonize" much more than the Chinese--they haven't even orbited the earth yet, have they?--but we haven't cashed in on all this valuable stuff--Why? My suspicion is that it's not financially feasible to do so. If it costs a million to get a half million of stuff from the moon, that's just plain stupid. That would be a real "fleecing of America."

[DoctorDoom]

<font color="red">Note: the following is not directed to any specific person in this thread.</font>

As I said earlier, NO BALLS! It's too hard, so let's not do it.

Money wise, the proposed 2004 NASA budget is $15.47B. To put that in perspective:

[ QUOTE ]
American children ages four to 12 spent over $28 billion of their own money in 1999, and they influenced a whopping $500 billion of their parents' purchases. According to a survey by the Department of Labor, teenagers spend over $1 billion a week.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sellouts (http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/22/linn-s.html)

[ QUOTE ]
PRATT: It's also a lot of chow: dog chow, to be exact. In fact, Americans spend more than $4 billion a year on dog food, and several billion more on everything from canine confections to puppy playthings.

[/ QUOTE ]
02/13/01: Cashing In On Canines At The Westminster Dog Show (http://www.nightlybusiness.org/transcript/2001/trnscrpt021301.htm)

[ QUOTE ]
Consumer spending on commercial games increased by $3.1 billion in 2000, or by 5.4%, to a record $61.4 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Gross Annual Wager of the United States, 2000 (http://www.grossannualwager.com/Primary%20Navigation/Online%20Data%20Store/Free%20Research/Gaw%2000%20Analysis.pdf) (PDF file)

[ QUOTE ]
In 1999 sales through jewelry stores were $23.9 billion.

In 2000 Americans spent $13 billion a year on chocolate in all its forms.

During 1999 U.S. soft drink sales came to $58 billion.

In 2000 American toy sales reached $23 billion.

In 1998 there were $23 billion in pet-related sales.

In 2001, Americans spent $38 billion on state lotteries.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lifestyle Table (http://www.emptytomb.org/lifestylestat.html)

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
Note: the following is not directed to any specific person in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL-Doc sometimes your logic is as bad as the leftists on this board--"not directed to any specific person"--yet it follows my posts--save your time, I know what you mean.

[ QUOTE ]
American children ages four to 12 spent over $28 billion of their own money in 1999,

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but would you be in favor of fed gov giving $28 bill for these kids to spend? If that happened, you'd be screaming bloody murder! All your comparisons are irrelevant for that reason.

Found this:

[ QUOTE ]
NASA initially touted the shuttle as a reusable launch vehicle that would provide a cheap way to place satellites into orbit. The proposed and actual numbers have proved quite different.

"The [original] numbers that NASA gave to the White House were that shuttle would cost about $5.5 million per launch and the launch rate would be anywhere between 50 and 60 launches a year," said John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.

Shuttles have instead averaged about five launches a year, and NASA was way off on the cost.

"Most people use a figure like $400 [million] or $500 million [per launch]," Logsdon said. "Anyway you look at it, it's a lot of money."

After Columbia became the first shuttle in space in 1981, shuttle crews became, in effect, human couriers to do deliveries that unmanned rockets could do at the same or lower cost, and without human risks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note the word "cheap" to describe the shuttle system--and compare 5.5 mill with 400-500 mill per launch. Interesting, huh?


more here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/05/sprj.colu.shuttle.future/index.html)

[dajoga]

[ QUOTE ]
Most important, the space shuttle was designed under the highly unrealistic assumption that the fleet would fly to space once a week and that each shuttle would need to be big enough to carry 50,000 lbs. of payload. In actual use, the shuttle fleet has averaged five flights a year; this year flights were to be cut back to four. The maximum payload is almost never carried. Yet to accommodate the highly unrealistic initial goals, engineers made the shuttle huge and expensive. The Soviet space program also built a shuttle, called Buran, with almost exactly the same dimensions and capacities as its American counterpart. Buran flew to orbit once and was canceled, as it was ridiculously expensive and impractical.

[/ QUOTE ]


more here (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030210/sceasterbrook.html)

[ducktapehero]

I think private enterprise will play a greater part in future space flights. No, it won't happen tomorrow but the day will come when someone figures out how to make space travel profitable. It might be 10 years or it might take 100 years. I think the Government should encourage this. Maybe put a contract on the table for companies where the Govt. will provide what they know about space travel in return for businesses making space travel profitable. That is what capitalism is all about, the fact that private businesses are more efficient at solving certain problems than the Govt. is. Don't ask me about the details because I am merely thinking outloud on the keyboard. I just believe that if the Govt. actively ENCOURAGED private enterprise work on it, they would FIND a way to make it profitable eventually.