Bush Space Plan

[Quarto]

I don't know about you, but to me, the psychological tensions of living with 6 (or more) people, for 3 months, inside a vehicle that is shorter than a 737-800 (quite a bit of the length is for the payload anyways) would be unbearable.

Hey, hey, hey, it's not our fault that you're weak. You're free to say that you won't get into such a ship, but what the heck makes you think you're talking for all of mankind? People used to cross the Atlantic - hell, the Pacific - in ships half the length (or less!) of a 737-800. And I'm not even talking about WWI & II submariners who, though operating in vessels usually longer than a 737-800, certainly had a lot more than just psychological tensions to worry about.

And then, there is the question as to how you'd get back to Earth. How would you propose a manned mission to Mars be achieved? The orbiter is pretty much out of the question. What does that leave? At this time, nothing. Maybe in 10 years or so, the technology that would make the mission practical would exist (in which case, huzzah! Go to Mars!).

Eh? Well yeah, the space shuttle is out of the question. That's why a new vehicle has to be developed. This will not happen by itself, however. If NASA doesn't start working on a new vehicle, then in 10 years or so, this vehicle will still not exist, and you'll be telling us again that we're not ready for manned exploration. Note, incidentally, that NASA was far less prepared to go to the Moon when Kennedy made his speech than it is now to go to Mars. The Apollo programme wasn't set up because the US had the technology to go to the Moon and so decided to give it a try. Quite the contrary - this excursion was an act of desperation. The Soviets were ahead, and Kennedy decided to go for a long-shot project to recover the advantage.

 

[Ein-7919]

But to give you that warm fuzzy feeling that your rant didn't go to waste, after reviewing that that since there are other more important things on your mind, such as supporting progressive values such as bitch about the tax cut, axe the defense budget, complain about the economy, I will guess at this point that you will vote Democrat this upcoming year. If no, then disregard any further saying at this point and accept my apologies. Afterall, a vote for Bush is a vote for the space program.

I would refute the claim that my last post was a rant as it was not made in a hostile, angry, or violent manner (which is a necessary attribute for a rant). My post was merely to correct perceived misconceptions as to what I was saying (and putting emphasis on certain phrases that seemed to be overlooked by some readers).

As for "bitch about the tax cut, axe the defense budget, complain about the economy" I, by no means, bitch about the tax cut, nor do I complain about the economy. I merely used those as examples of certain aspects of our society that are listed as being a higher priority than space exploration in the government's eye. NOT in my eyes.


Time to address another poster who has issue with my posts:

Hey, hey, hey, it's not our fault that you're weak. You're free to say that you won't get into such a ship, but what the heck makes you think you're talking for all of mankind? People used to cross the Atlantic - hell, the Pacific - in ships half the length (or less!) of a 737-800. And I'm not even talking about WWI & II submariners who, though operating in vessels usually longer than a 737-800, certainly had a lot more than just psychological tensions to worry about.

Let's look at it this way: The orbiter's overall length is 122'. Over 2/3 of that length is for the payload (approximate). That leaves an approximate 41 feet being the crew compartment. That leaves each crewmember (assuming maximum occupancy of 8) about 5 feet of length. But hey, if you know of 41 foot long ships (with a crew of 8) that would take a 3 month long voyage across the ocean then my argument can be dismissed.

Eh? Well yeah, the space shuttle is out of the question. That's why a new vehicle has to be developed. This will not happen by itself, however. If NASA doesn't start working on a new vehicle, then in 10 years or so, this vehicle will still not exist, and you'll be telling us again that we're not ready for manned exploration.

That is very true, but I absolved myself of that objection by this line in my post:

I made the claim that manned space exploration is impractical at this time. In 10 years, MAYBE we (the US) will have the technology to make manned exploration practical.

That 10 year time would take into consideration different propulsion systems, the constuction of the proposed CEV, and other technological discoveries. But given that it has taken us over 20 years to develop an alternative propulsion system (albeit for small, already in orbit vehicles), I can only hope that in 10 years we will have something that will replace chemical propulsion for the CEV. Furthermore, I never made the claim that we shouldn't research and develop the CEV, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that I didn't want to further research into space technologies.

Okay, enough of this post...it's too long as it is (that's what I get for combining two responses in 1 post). But, if you want to refute ANYTHING that I have posted, do one thing first: read the whole bloody thing. After you have read the whole thing, then you have the right to argue against anything I have written.

 

[Quarto]

Let's look at it this way: The orbiter's overall length is 122'. Over 2/3 of that length is for the payload (approximate). That leaves an approximate 41 feet being the crew compartment. That leaves each crewmember (assuming maximum occupancy of 8) about 5 feet of length. But hey, if you know of 41 foot long ships (with a crew of 8) that would take a 3 month long voyage across the ocean then my argument can be dismissed.

Well, as a matter of fact, I do - and not one, but many. Take, for example, the mutiny on the Bounty - the mutineers left Captain Bligh and those still loyal to him in a boat. Eventually, Bligh and his people made it to Dutch Indonesia. I don't remember for certain if there was 8+ of them, and I don't remember if the whole ordeal lasted three months. What I do remember, however, is that psychological tensions were never an issue. They had to rely on each other, and so they did.

Of course, you're being rather facetious here anyway. You know very well that the space shuttle wouldn't be going on this mission, so there's really no point debating whether crew members would have psychological problems because of the limited space on the shuttle. A spacecraft designed for a Mars voyage would obviously be larger than the space shuttle.

That 10 year time would take into consideration different propulsion systems, the constuction of the proposed CEV, and other technological discoveries. But given that it has taken us over 20 years to develop an alternative propulsion system (albeit for small, already in orbit vehicles), I can only hope that in 10 years we will have something that will replace chemical propulsion for the CEV. Furthermore, I never made the claim that we shouldn't research and develop the CEV, so I'm not sure where you got the idea that I didn't want to further research into space technologies.

Eh, now you're backtracking. If you don't think that we shouldn't research and develop new spacecraft for manned voyages, then you cannot possibly disagree (which you did, in this very thread) with Bush's Mars plans. After all, given that Bush wants NASA to go to Mars not now but by 2030, obviously the next ten years is going to be spent doing just what you now claim you're suggesting - researching and developing. So what exactly are you arguing against?

 

[Ein-7919]

Of course, you're being rather facetious here anyway. You know very well that the space shuttle wouldn't be going on this mission, so there's really no point debating whether crew members would have psychological problems because of the limited space on the shuttle. A spacecraft designed for a Mars voyage would obviously be larger than the space shuttle.

I would like to point out a quantifier that I made in my statement regarding the shuttle:

As for manned missions to Mars with current technologies, well, seeing as how it takes approximately 3 months to get to Mars (3 months for remote vehicles anyways) and seeing as how the crew would need to spend that time in a 122' orbiter (the only current space vehicle we have to transport humans).

This sentence should make any and all arguments regarding my being facetious in my statement void. I very explicitly said "with current technologies".

Eh, now you're backtracking. If you don't think that we shouldn't research and develop new spacecraft for manned voyages, then you cannot possibly disagree (which you did, in this very thread) with Bush's Mars plans. After all, given that Bush wants NASA to go to Mars not now but by 2030, obviously the next ten years is going to be spent doing just what you now claim you're suggesting - researching and developing. So what exactly are you arguing against?

Actually, if you look back to page 2 I very expressly recanted my doubts about the Bush plan. Ah, here we are...on 1-16-2004 I wrote:

just took a slightly more careful look at that original article. I seem to have been under the impression that the US would construct a lunar base by 2020. But, I was mistaken. In the speech Bush states that we (the US space program) will make a return to the moon by 2020...but not necessarily in the form of a lunar base. Shame on you all for letting me get away with my original statements (which based on wrong assumptions and interpretations) for so long.

So as of right now, I will retract all my nay-saying about how puting a base on the moon will take $12+ billion because that is not even the issue. $12 billion for finishing the ISS, R&D for the CEV, and returning to the moon are completely feasible (especially if it's going to be within the next 16 years). So, HOORAY! I was wrong, and we're going back to the moon! Cheese and crackers for everybody!

So, your argument regarding my disagreeing with the BSP should just go out the window. And your question about what I am arguing against, well, that should also have been answered as well.

 

[Delance]

Yeah, since Psych is a liberal that hates Bush and the space program and all ...

I don't want to be too off-topic (even on this zone), but it's really misleading the way "liberal" means "leftist" on the US. It just sounds like a palatable word for "socialist".

 

[Quarto]

And your question about what I am arguing against, well, that should also have been answered as well.

Well, no, it hasn't - your posts confuse me . I mean, the only thing you seem to be opposed to is sending someone to Mars now, in a space shuttle. Yet, nobody has suggested anything like that, so either you're opposed to even researching manned space travel (except you've stated that you aren't), or your posts have all been pointless .

 

[Ein-7919]

Well, no, it hasn't - your posts confuse me . I mean, the only thing you seem to be opposed to is sending someone to Mars now, in a space shuttle. Yet, nobody has suggested anything like that, so either you're opposed to even researching manned space travel (except you've stated that you aren't), or your posts have all been pointless .

Okay, here it is in a nutshell:

My original posts were arguing against the Bush space plan. However, in the post that I quoted in my last reply I recanted that argument on the grounds of my being mistaken about the content of the plan. After that point, psyche has been claiming that my posts indicate that I am opposed to space exploration and am just waffling over the whole thing by spouting political wishy-washy sentiments (as is x is more important than the space plan right now, so we should focus on x at the moment). However, as anybody who actually read my posts in their entirety would know, I am now supportive of the BSP. So, that is what I have been arguing ever since psyche posted a baiting post (it may not have been originally thought of as baiting...but that is how I interpretted it as). That I, in fact, do support space exploration.

As an aside, it should be noted that there can be people who support space exploration (expanding current R&D for the space program as well) but who still oppose the Bush presidency. Not all people who support space exploration are Bush supporters.

 

[Erkle]

I don't want to be too off-topic (even on this zone), but it's really misleading the way "liberal" means "leftist" on the US. It just sounds like a palatable word for "socialist".

Hey your right, but we can't say socialism, that is just a bit to close to communism.

 

[Ripper]

The only things I got against the Bush space plan is: Too little, too late, and too wimpy.