RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,381
Posts: 5,357,238
Members: 24,628
Currently online: 476
Newest member: suryaprabu02

TrekToday headlines

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 12 2013, 10:41 AM   #31
Pingfah
Admiral
 
Pingfah's Avatar
 
Location: Cornwall, UK
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

I don't think Mars One has any genuine expectation of getting to Mars, they will spend the money raised by the not-for-profit on a half arsed attempt to do very little.

The main point of the whole project is the reality TV show where they train the astronauts, which will make bags of cash for the for-profit company, and nobody will ever be in any real danger as they already know the mission will not get off the ground.
__________________
So it goes.
Pingfah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2013, 12:30 PM   #32
FreddyE
Commander
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Wouldn´t growing food mean to create a whole biosphere? We can´t even manage that on earth. See the disaster that was Biosphere 2.
FreddyE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12 2013, 11:04 PM   #33
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

FreddyE wrote: View Post
Wouldn´t growing food mean to create a whole biosphere? We can´t even manage that on earth. See the disaster that was Biosphere 2.

No, your equating the failure of self sustaining biospheres with "growing food". You can grow food in Biosphere 2 quite well. The problem was that they couldn't ever get it to stabilize as a sealed environment. And while a stabilized bisophere would be ideal for colonization, there's nothing wrong with having to import some materials you run short on or dump materials you are in excess of. If you plan appropriately.

publiusr wrote: View Post
I think we just have too many space advocates drinking Ayn Rand Cool-Aid.
NASA should be in business of building rockets--the larger the better. That allows returns.

The folks here are just more examples of people falling all over themselves to keep from building heavy lift. One way missions--they think--require less mass. But they need constant supplies, otherwise you get the nightmare described here:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...63#post2150263
Ah here we go with the "NASA using it's entire budget to launch a REALLY COOL HLV every 7 years is the way to colonize space" argument. And what the hell does Ayn Rand have to do with anything? You really think Ayn Rand is a big influence on space advocacy??? You really are heading into conspiracy crazy town there.


NASA should be in the business of Aeronautics and Space. Business should be in the business of building rockets.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2013, 02:48 AM   #34
JirinPanthosa
Commodore
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

I have no problem with this. Everybody involved is consenting. The government shouldn't have a monopoly on space travel. So long as this project doesn't harm anybody without their informed consent, any government action to prevent it would be overstepping their bounds and infringing on personal liberties.

Between the government and big corporations, I trust them equally NOT to be ethical. But at least big corporations admit it.

I also think the government should be exploring space for the betterment of mankind, I just don't think anybody involved in government is genuinely interested in doing so.
JirinPanthosa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2013, 11:51 AM   #35
Stoo
Captain
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Location: Into The Crypts of Rays
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

I'm skeptical of attempting mars manned missions in general. But this Mars One thing seems particularly difficult to take seriously. I will be genuinely surprised if anything gets off the ground.

Last edited by Stoo; August 13 2013 at 12:04 PM.
Stoo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 13 2013, 03:44 PM   #36
Samurai8472
Vice Admiral
 
Samurai8472's Avatar
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Melakon wrote: View Post
That's a really tempting proposition-- join their program, get shot into space on a one-way trip, and they make millions of dollars when your ship blows up and you die.

They're also sending up a Xenomorph to test your endurance and expand biotech weapons progress

__________________
"Inception" is a layer cake.
Samurai8472 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 07:12 PM   #37
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

sojourner wrote: View Post
FreddyE wrote: View Post
Wouldn´t growing food mean to create a whole biosphere? We can´t even manage that on earth. See the disaster that was Biosphere 2.

No, your equating the failure of self sustaining biospheres with "growing food". You can grow food in Biosphere 2 quite well. The problem was that they couldn't ever get it to stabilize as a sealed environment. And while a stabilized bisophere would be ideal for colonization, there's nothing wrong with having to import some materials you run short on or dump materials you are in excess of. If you plan appropriately.

publiusr wrote: View Post
I think we just have too many space advocates drinking Ayn Rand Cool-Aid.
NASA should be in business of building rockets--the larger the better. That allows returns.

The folks here are just more examples of people falling all over themselves to keep from building heavy lift. One way missions--they think--require less mass. But they need constant supplies, otherwise you get the nightmare described here:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...63#post2150263
Ah here we go with the "NASA using it's entire budget to launch a REALLY COOL HLV every 7 years is the way to colonize space" argument. And what the hell does Ayn Rand have to do with anything? You really think Ayn Rand is a big influence on space advocacy??? You really are heading into conspiracy crazy town there.


NASA should be in the business of Aeronautics and Space. Business should be in the business of building rockets.
They are building rockets. Arsenal method uses contractors, they just kept them on the short leash--and its not going to be every seven years. The space libertarians suffer from the "we too did build that fallacy" in that you have to add the cost of building the Internet that Musk got rich off of and add that to the cost of the rocket. LV development is never cheap. Golden Spikes missions will also run into the billions--and they add complexity to boot.

I remember Griffin once talking about just how much NASA money went to Musk--and questioning just what is meant by "private" spaceflight.

He is no dummy, and was, after all invited here, despite his disagreement over ULA
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/05/...ates-50-years/

As an examle of how Ayn Rand types dissemble, I submit Andy Paztor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pasztor

Or take Robert Zimmerman's article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...953158510.html
He is a climate change denialist of the worst kind--and a frequent guest on the Coast to Coast AM, which has young earth creationists on without anyone challenging them.

They didn't leave much time for calls (I work late and its either this or sports talk) this time, but once I pointed out that the private firms he lauded were sub-orbital toys--and that COTS was also pork--and that Curiosity could also be called Pasadena pork, or that the Apollo8* Saturn rocket he was making book-money on was the SLS of its day--and also called pork by the same anti-gov't frauds trying to shut the country down today.

He didn't like that.

He is a lot like a certain poster from NASASPACEFLIGHT who told lies against Space based radar and who libeled ATK and Space News in many of his posts there, if you will recall.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 10:50 PM   #38
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

publiusr wrote: View Post

They are building rockets. Arsenal method uses contractors, they just kept them on the short leash--and its not going to be every seven years. The space libertarians suffer from the "we too did build that fallacy" in that you have to add the cost of building the Internet that Musk got rich off of and add that to the cost of the rocket.
This being the only part worth responding to, how in the world do you try to lump in the creation of the internet as part of the sunk cost of SpaceX's rockets? If Musk had made his billions through oil would you be trying to add in the costs of developing the oil industry? What about farming? WTF are you on???? And wtf do you mean by "we too did build that fallacy"?? I'm not sure what that even means given the grammar of the quote. And until SLS has a second launch proving otherwise, you're right. It won't be seven years. It'll probably be longer. Ooohh, or maybe they'll get that launch rate up to a staggeringly breakneck speed of once every 3 years. Certainly not high enough to hang a robust space program on.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 12:48 AM   #39
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

All the good ideas in US manned spaceflight were formed from proteins that came from beef, which is why the Western Cattlemen's Association is really responsible for all the progress made thus far, and only that pioneer ranching spirit can keep spaceflight progressing without losing complete continuity with what came before. Beef.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 12:36 AM   #40
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

sojourner wrote: View Post


This being the only part worth responding to, how in the world do you try to lump in the creation of the internet as part of the sunk cost of SpaceX's rockets?
Because that is where he got his money from

sojourner wrote: View Post
And until SLS has a second launch proving otherwise, you're right.
But you don't even want it to get that first flight.

That's like me challenging you to a fifty yard dash, but let me tie you up first.

SLS can fly as often as shuttle--and once flying, should be able to fly with less problems because there is no orbiter. The problem is that NASA needs a larger budget

Webb is worth several SLS cores by itself--and Curiosity is also in the billions. Golden Spike is the billions. There is just no cheap way to do this.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=34964
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 01:05 AM   #41
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

publiusr wrote: View Post
sojourner wrote: View Post


This being the only part worth responding to, how in the world do you try to lump in the creation of the internet as part of the sunk cost of SpaceX's rockets?
Because that is where he got his money from
So what? who cares where he got the money? Where did NASA get the money?? I don't see you adding the entire cost of every technical advance since fire to SLS. Dude, get a grip.

sojourner wrote: View Post
And until SLS has a second launch proving otherwise, you're right.
But you don't even want it to get that first flight.

That's like me challenging you to a fifty yard dash, but let me tie you up first.
Again, what are you talking about?

SLS can fly as often as shuttle--and once flying, should be able to fly with less problems because there is no orbiter. The problem is that NASA needs a larger budget
And the bolded parts are where we have the crux of the issue. SLS is too expensive. You can have it, or you can have robust science missions like the ones mentioned below.
Webb is worth several SLS cores by itself--and Curiosity is also in the billions. Golden Spike is the billions. There is just no cheap way to do this.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=34964
Golden Spike is a commercial venture and has no bearing on SLS or NASA's budget, unless NASA at some future point purchases services from them - probably at a cheaper rate.

Oh, and that's a great article you linked to. I especially like how Robert Clark took it apart in the comments section.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 06:01 AM   #42
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

publiusr wrote: View Post
SLS can fly as often as shuttle--and once flying, should be able to fly with less problems because there is no orbiter.
No, it really can't fly as often because it costs about $2 billion a flight, according to NASA's Dan Dumbacher, who is developing the SLS. It's about a billion for the Orion and a billion for the rocket, and the Orion is probably not reusable either. That's the low cost estimate - from the NASA guy who's trying to sell the SLS program.

Of NASA's total budget of about $18 billion, only about $8 billion is available for human spaceflight, and $3 billion of that is tied up in the ISS and $2 billion is tied up in support or other programs, leaving about $3 billion for flying missions.

We averaged 4.5 Shuttle missions a year, and if you discount the two downtimes, 5.5 missions a year, with a peak of nine. So just matching the Shuttle's average flight rate would take $9 to $11 billion a year, and to match the Shuttle's peak rate would take $18 billion a year - in a budget that allows about $3 billion. Given that budget, they're not going to be able to afford to launch one very often.

Other issues are that we only built about 40 SSME's over the 30-year span of the Shuttle program, and each SLS launch throws away four. Yes, NASA picked the world's most expensive and complicated engine with the lowest historical production rate of any non-canceled motor to power this monster.

The problem is that NASA needs a larger budget
No, the problem is that NASA needs a cheaper rocket. Each Orion carries a crew of two to six, which is less than the Shuttle. They're not going to get an extra $12 billion a year to fly possibly six (high end cost estimates) to thirty-six (low ball cost estimate) when the same amount of money could buy a brand new Ford Class nuclear powered aircraft carrier for a Navy that's seeing its hull count plummet. That's not going to get past the same Senate that was complaining about buying seats on a Soyuz at $70 million a pop, especially when one of them pulls out a calculator and sees $300 million a seat best case and about $7 billion a seat worst case. Two seats on a glorified Apollo space capsule are not worth as much to this country as a nuclear powered super carrier.

Even if you advocate for heavy lift, it needs to be cheaper, and it shouldn't be wasting precious payload and stack height on a big crew module, service module, and giant abort tower for every mission. You should use a small capsule for going up and coming down, and if you need a big capsule for going far away, don't stick all the extra volume inside the re-entry capsule, do what the Russians do and make an orbital module.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 03:27 PM   #43
Captain Kathryn
Commodore
 
Captain Kathryn's Avatar
 
Location: In Star Trek / Doctor Who fantasy land aka New Jersey
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Captain Kathryn
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

gturner wrote: View Post
All the good ideas in US manned spaceflight were formed from proteins that came from beef, which is why the Western Cattlemen's Association is really responsible for all the progress made thus far, and only that pioneer ranching spirit can keep spaceflight progressing without losing complete continuity with what came before. Beef.
Wait, is this really true?
__________________
Assimilate more Janeway...among other stuff! Captain Kathryn's Tumblr
Captain Kathryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 04:57 PM   #44
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

Well, its true in the same way that the government is responsible for all the money people made off the Internet, but probably more so because when the government ran the Internet it was illegal to make money off of it. It wasn't even legal to use the Internet for non-governmental purposes, such as e-mailing colleagues about playing golf after work. So somehow I don't think the government can claim credit for Paypal, which involves pay, profit, and pals.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2013, 08:51 PM   #45
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Mars One - Unethical?

gturner wrote: View Post

That's the low cost estimate - from the NASA guy who's trying to sell the SLS program.
Any new LV is going to cost out the wazoo up front. Imagine if Venture Star or some other RLV were on the table--I guarantee you it would be even more costly--and with less payload to boot. Compared to F-35 and other things this gov't does, it's a bargain

sojourner wrote: View Post

It won't be seven years. It'll probably be longer.
Based on what, again?


The problem is that NASA needs a larger budget
gturner wrote: View Post
No, the problem is that NASA needs a cheaper rocket.
There is no "cheaper rocket. Musk looks to be trying to fund MCT by having his hyperloop usurp California's high-speed rail. Now talk about cost!


gturner wrote: View Post
Even if you advocate for heavy lift, it needs to be cheaper, and it shouldn't be wasting precious payload and stack height on a big crew module.
I don't know why you are concerned so much about stack height. It worked perfectly well for Saturn, and will work perfectly well for SLS.

I don't want my astronauts to be in cramped Soviet craft. I want them to have room. Remember the Dragon circum-mars mission proposed? Imagine being cooped up in that thing. Even with the inflatable nose, similar to Soyuz sperical compartment, it would get to be un-livable fast. That's why we need high volume cyclers to go to Mars, like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100

Too large even for Falcon Heavy.

What I want everyone to understand is this. We are in a very critical time period right now. I am trying to use the same institutional inertia behind STS to go over to SLS while there is still momentum.

If things peter out--it will be impossible to get momentum started for any new project for BEO missions. The current path is just the price of doing business. Musk seems to be interested in too many things. Solar city, hyperloop, his Tesla car--safe, but maybe not quite what he claims:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...nhtsa/2691843/

If entirely left up to him, there may be no MCT, or heavy lift in humanities future at all.

That's why I support SLS. It has institutional inertia behind it--and I am thankful Congress suports it for once. SD-HLLV advocates have been pushing this for years when it was ALS, NLS, Magnum, CaLV, etc. We should be happy that they are no longer on the outside looking in.

Here is a nice quote: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...657#msg1086657
"Why not just launch the lunar lander on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy thereby cutting costs significantly.?"
Falcon Heavy can't get the 25-35 tons to LLO required for a Lunar Lander. I'm not even sure it can get more than about 10 tons in LLO.

Then there was Ed Kyle's remark
Human lunar exploration requires mega-funding, regardless of rocket.

And another nice quote:
A "2XJupiter lunar architecture was supposed to be good and efficient...but a 2X launch with a similar LV in SLS will be horribly unaffordable?
"

Some other salient points
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...827#msg1086827
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...875#msg1086875
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...986#msg1086986
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...697#msg1087697
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...071#msg1080071

Lastly, this video gives me hope for the future:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...543#msg1087543

Last edited by publiusr; August 23 2013 at 09:36 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.