Mars Missions will have to compete with others

[sheeny]

NASA's changing the way it treats Mars Missions. In the past Mars missions have had their own program and funding. Now they will go into the pot with everything else to compete for funding. More from nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090605/full/news.2009.551.html

Al.

[Nesti]

Good article Al.

Reckon that's a good thing. Logically, there's no use learning so much about one planet, any planet, when the real lessons and challenges are right here on Earth. I'd rather see money directed toward understanding the true impact of what we (humans) are doing to this planet, then that understanding can be directed towards rectification actions; manufacturing, waste disposal, education...the list is huge.

If that takes billions of dollars injected into the ISS and ground based research, then so be it!

It's a shame, but the reality is that if we're all gone in 200 years, so too is the research, knowledge and understanding.

Perhaps we should shoot a probe or two around the sun to intercept the third planet in our system. You know, the little blue one with water! Land, get a rover thing happening, run some basic tests, see if there's any i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-t life. No politics, just science - see if it can support life in the distant future? You never know, we may need it down the track! :D

Cheers
Mark

[DJDD]

but why the ISS at all, then?




:lol:

[Nesti]

Oh I reckon there's tonnes more we can measure and learn from earth orbit observation. For instance, there may be a chance - very remote perhaps - that a sophisticated variant of Joseph Weber's 'Weber Bar', may be sensitive enough to detect gravity waves emitted from earth, while in orbit. Perhaps on Earth it's like trying to receive RF signals while standing right next to a TV broadcast antenna (The Weber Bar on Earth scenario); it's just getting swamped. In orbit, it may be sufficiently distant enough to detect earth quakes (small movements of great quantities of mass). The ISS, in comparison to Earth, is virtually massless.

You never know!

The biggest hurdle, in keeping the ISS operational, isn't the ISS. It's the payload to orbit dilemma. The Shuttle, as good as getting payloads to and from orbit as it is - is inherently dangerous and costly...a maintenance contractor's dream come true ($$$).

[DJDD]

my comment was based upon your earlier statement:

and I do not see the ISS as being big part of that, although I am sure arguments can be put forward as to how and why it can be used to improve the "human condition".

However, I do not actually know how much is spent directly on the ISS and on all of the associated aspects (staffing, project management, monitoring, etc.) and the cost to move things up to it. Perhaps it is small in the grand scheme of things.


having said that, I am a fan of the ISS and think the costs are worth it, even if it used to solve problems that *at the moment* mean little to humanity as a whole, or to solve problems that may lead to a good outcome for humanity (referencing your Gravity wave scenario) or even if the end result is to simply answer the question "Why?" with " Because it's there..." :thumbsup:

same with going to mars.



anyone know if they have decided upon a replacement for the shuttle? and if so, when it will be ready for use?

[Nesti]

Geez, that's a big and uncertain question isn't it? Earth Orbit Elevator - like the one in the Simpsons :D - sounds like a worthy successor. I know that's a bit Shuttle-negative, but, even though it's a pretty vehicle, there's no proper way to get out of an emergency (RTLS is a bad idea and escape slides are even worse). Just my thoughts.

With regards to you reply...yeah, so long as it's not another war or conflict I'm happy with any exploration.

[Robh]

Eventually they might be using scramjet aircraft to get into space.
In 2004, the unmanned X-43A was launched from a B-52 and flew at Mach 9.8.
The USAF Boeing X-51 scramjet-powered aircraft is scheduled to fly this year and will be dropped from a B-52 as well. NASA is involved.

Regards, Rob

[DJDD]

perhaps i was confused but I thought there was a successor already designed/built/ready (?) to replace the shuttle in the next few years. hmmm...

i love the idea of a space elevator.

[Nesti]

DJDD: They did do a sizable amount of work on the X-33/X-34 program, if that's what you are talking about, however, the technology isn't there yet and won't be for some time. Among the list of issues, the motors (Linear Aerospike) and the carbon-carbon skin. The vehicles' fuel tanks, which will need to be 'Wet Wing' (Wet Body actually, since it's a 'Lifting Body'), in that there are no fuel bladders or solid tanks (most of the body is the tank), to maximise space useage, which means the airframe and carbon-carbon metal composite thermal skin must cope with -200 deg C internally, and +3000+ deg C on the re-entry phase. These are what I consider to be insurmountable technical difficulties which won't have solutions any time soon. http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/x33_cancel_010301.html

They then placed their hopes in the VentureStar project (next phase after the X-33 demonstrator), which was a bigger, revised X33. It used seperate LOX LH tanks (no wet wings), and Inconel (skin metal from X-15 days), no tiles on the skin, but really, different dog, same feas! Canned also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_xT1Lluy5o
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/

Shuttle replacement set to be the Orion/Constellation Project. Back to the old style of getting into space (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo programs).
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/flighttests/aresIx/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html

AresTV (good videos)
http://www.youtube.com/AresTV

Budget cuts will delay
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11112

As for testing – oh dear me!
http://www.space.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=SP_080821_parch ute_test&mode=