PDA

View Full Version : NASA Issues




I Am Weasel
11-25-2007, 01:08 PM
Noticed a thread over at nasaspaceflight.com regarding presidential candidates. Ron Paul was brought up as being laughable, and was given this response....


Can you explain how Ron Paul is laughable? The man is genuine and the most suited for the job as president. He has the interest of the US sovereignty as the focal point of his campaign and that's laughable? I can't for the life of me understand what is wrong with people today that if a politician is willing to go by the laws of our constitution that he's a laughing stock. {snip}

~reply~

I am afraid you do not understand Ron Paul at all.
He is a Libertarian who runs as a Republican (it's easier to get elected that way in the lone star state). His policies range from the scatter-brained (supports "free trade" while also supporting excise taxes on things manufactured in the US), to the unworkable (proposes cutting programs that everybody knows the public will not tolerate cutting... Look: the Republicans started-out their mini revolution in 1994 planning to kill the federal dept of education and PBS, but ended-up boosting spending on the federal dept of education and could not escape the wrath of soccer moms everywhere when they threatened to "kill Big Bird" ). As a libertarian, you should not expect him to want to see the federal government spend any money on space for any purpose other than defense. Most Libertarians believe that things like resource or weather satellites and manned spacecraft are better operated as a commercial for-profit service than as a government service; there's certainly nothing about spaceflight in the Constitution. The one pro-space Ron Paul point I will draw your attention to is that he supported Reagan's SDI program (which is consistent with a person who is essentially an isolationist but who is concerned about national security in the era of MAD). The reason he can get such wide support from so many is that (unlike many politicians) he attempts to be consistent with what he claims to believe and yet he has such a scattered set of positions that almost anybody can find something they like. The trick, of course, is for each supporter to either not look close enough to see all that he does not want, or to assume that Paul would stick to the positions the particular voter likes while failing to stick to all that other stuff...

In any event, you need to realize that Ron Paul will not get the nomination of any party (though he might actually jerk the GOP back a bit towards it's smaller government traditions).
This is a spaceflight forum, not a science fiction forum.

if anybody cares to check out this thread, it's here...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9993&start=256&posts=267

lucius
11-25-2007, 01:18 PM
You should of thank them for their efforts at modern day pyramid building, all done on your tax dollars--read that 'hoax' from the 1960's, 'The Report From Iron Mountain': it's batting about 700 in hindsight.

Ron LOL
11-25-2007, 01:25 PM
Hey, look, a guy RP wants to take funding away from is crying about how RP is going to take funding away from him.

dwdollar
11-25-2007, 01:28 PM
There's a large block of space enthusiasts who worship NASA and think they can do no wrong. These brainwased enthusiasts wouldn't be happy with a 1000% increase in NASA's budget. NASA's problems are not because of a small budget. It's another bureaucracy unable and unwilling to take risks.

I believe the future of space flight is with people like Burt Rutan (http://www.scaled.com/).

jgmaynard
11-25-2007, 01:28 PM
I'll bet him $20 right now that Burt Rutan or another private space group will have a man on Mars before NASA gets another man on the Moon.

JM

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 01:43 PM
Is private space research legal? should be. I know there's no competition in manufacturing/research, that's why we're getting nowhere.

Anti Federalist
11-25-2007, 01:47 PM
What a surprise...

A bunch of entrenched bureaucrats in a state of panic that they might have to go and get real jobs that produce results.

dwdollar
11-25-2007, 02:01 PM
Is private space research legal? should be. I know there's no competition in manufacturing/research, that's why we're getting nowhere.

Much research is classified and/or compartmentalized. I think that is the heart of the problem.

Whenever an independent researcher makes a discovery he/she is showered with federal grants or offered a government job. Either way, they work for the government from then on, and are told to keep their mouth shut.

u2canbfmj
11-25-2007, 02:43 PM
if the moon was made of oil, Halliburton would have already been there.

AlexMerced
11-25-2007, 02:44 PM
so basically... the space race isn't over...

Visual
11-25-2007, 02:49 PM
There's a large block of space enthusiasts who worship NASA and think they can do no wrong. These brainwased enthusiasts wouldn't be happy with a 1000% increase in NASA's budget. NASA's problems are not because of a small budget. It's another bureaucracy unable and unwilling to take risks.

I believe the future of space flight is with people like Burt Rutan (http://www.scaled.com/).

Well, like the exploration of the america's, it was government sponsored trips that set the way until commercial activities set out. Commercial activities won't happen until the government makes the first step.

I agree that NASA is a buerocratic beast but that's because a lot of it is actually stipulations by congress people that their districts get portions of the NASA pie.

There will never be an amount of which NASA will be satisfied, nor will scientists (including myself). However, cutting funding will hinder the US in the future.

US economy has continued to grow because we stay ahead of the rest. When people were still weaving clothing, we stole weaving machine designs from britain and perfected it which is now made in china. When there was a need for a new strong material, we made steel which is now made in japan. When we needed transistors and computers, we built them, which are now made in taiwan. Now we make satelites and space components. If we don't continue the progression we will soon lose that market to some other country.

He could cut nasa costs and increase scientific output by getting rid of all the NASA pet projects.

Arklatex
11-25-2007, 03:14 PM
The private sector makes NASA what it is anyway. Where are they looking for their new rocket designs? The private sector.

garrettwombat
11-25-2007, 03:15 PM
NASA

does anyone else agree with me that it is a huge waste of money and that if they wanted to do it then they need to find a way to make profit off it it... not take billions and use it to look at the black hole in the center of our universe, or examine evaporated ice crystals from a comet...

i dont know about you guys but i dont care where i came from, and i really dont care to know because we will never know... and that is all that NASA is about... and no matter how much money you give them, no matter how much technology is used you will never be able to answer how matter came into existence. why dont we spend all that useless money that we spend on NASA and make zero emission fuels... now that's something the market can profit from.

Ibgamer
11-25-2007, 03:25 PM
NASA

does anyone else agree with me that it is a huge waste of money and that if they wanted to do it then they need to find a way to make profit off it it... not take billions and use it to look at the black hole in the center of our universe, or examine evaporated ice crystals from a comet...

i dont know about you guys but i dont care where i came from, and i really dont care to know because we will never know... and that is all that NASA is about... and no matter how much money you give them, no matter how much technology is used you will never be able to answer how matter came into existence. why dont we spend all that useless money that we spend on NASA and make zero emission fuels... now that's something the market can profit from.

I wouldnt call it useless

We can learn much about space and how things here on earth react to it. The better we understand space the better we can understand things back here at home. Personally everything with the universe amazes me, its so unknown so vast, and with the USA exploring, learning, and pioneering it is just another great bulletin for this amazing country.

However I think space exploration should be funded internationally and be a worldwide movement rather than just the US spending all the money to send up an american crew and an Italian here and there.

BeFranklin
11-25-2007, 03:32 PM
There's a large block of space enthusiasts who worship NASA and think they can do no wrong. These brainwased enthusiasts wouldn't be happy with a 1000% increase in NASA's budget. NASA's problems are not because of a small budget. It's another bureaucracy unable and unwilling to take risks.



I don't think there is a large block of real space enthusiasts that "worship NASA". As a member of L5 when it fought off the UN's "moon treaty", most actual space activists have been interested in private ventures into space for a long time, having seen how the government completely gutted the space programs at political whim in the 70s.

The private space ventures going on right now - for instance spaceshipone, is completely in line with this.

We need to start reaching out to the private space enthusiasts; open source; electronic freedom crowd.

AlexMerced
11-25-2007, 03:33 PM
I wouldnt call it useless

We can learn much about space and how things here on earth react to it. The better we understand space the better we can understand things back here at home. Personally everything with the universe amazes me, its so unknown so vast, and with the USA exploring, learning, and pioneering it is just another great bulletin for this amazing country.

However I think space exploration should be funded internationally and be a worldwide movement rather than just the US spending all the money to send up an american crew and an Italian here and there.

don't say that to Alex Jones, I can see it being privatley funded internationally

schmeisser
11-25-2007, 03:45 PM
What needs to be cleared up, and addressed to make privatization more robust, is property rights in space.

Google it

vertesc
11-25-2007, 03:56 PM
NASA has done some great work for America, and humankind. That being said, big centralized government research organizations are phenomenally wasteful. I would support redirecting 2/3rds of the budget into space research grants for educational institutions, to encourage a competitive mode of research.

garrettwombat
11-25-2007, 04:02 PM
I wouldnt call it useless

We can learn much about space and how things here on earth react to it. The better we understand space the better we can understand things back here at home. Personally everything with the universe amazes me, its so unknown so vast, and with the USA exploring, learning, and pioneering it is just another great bulletin for this amazing country.

However I think space exploration should be funded internationally and be a worldwide movement rather than just the US spending all the money to send up an american crew and an Italian here and there.

i love space exploration also... iv always dreamed of being an astronomer since i was a little kid... i have telescopes and all kinds of dorky crap... but the only good nasa does is to create synthetic good in space... making new materials, and figuring out new ways to do things... materials, foods, ect.. all these things they should be able to profit from and fund themselves up into space... not take our money

kalami
11-25-2007, 04:38 PM
"you don't really know what Ron Paul stands for" has to be the most pretentious statement I ever encounter from anti-Paulites

sirachman
11-25-2007, 04:44 PM
I am a participant in a growing private space enterprise and the biggest problems we face hands down are government red tape, high taxes, bad laws, and a generally negative and definately non-helpful attitude projected by government. They either need to be helpful, or stay out of private ventures. However what they do is a mix of boths negatives. If Burt Rutan can make a sub-orbital spaceship in a couple years and less than 3 million then that hands-down proves private industry far exceeds government beaurocracy in its efficiency. The best path for the future it to restrict government space projects to strictly research science ones which can then be bidded out to private space contractors and leave hardware construction, extra-planetary missions, and all other things that can break a profit to private industry.
There are massive possibilities for profit, expansion, and much more in space all that is needed is a government that will get out of the way. All ownership in space is free-for-all until claimed by arrival in my opinion since continental jurisdiction of countries cannot be extended thousands of miles upward and outward into space and object never visited by them.
In conclusion it is in my opinion that NASA can be maintained for space research like missions while removing government regulations and creating a more hospitable environment for space upstarts. Then NASA can be gradually phased out as a market arises large enough to allow for private space contractors to bid for contracts to work on government projects funded and approved by the people for the purpose of furthering humanitys understanding of the surrounding cosmos.
~Adam

Elwar
11-25-2007, 05:03 PM
Umm...Ron Paul voted for funding for NASA.

The only "yes" vote that has come into question on the stance that he always votes based on the Constitution.

His explanation is that the funding he voted for had national defense implications.

Visual
11-25-2007, 05:12 PM
I am a participant in a growing private space enterprise and the biggest problems we face hands down are government red tape, high taxes, bad laws, and a generally negative and definately non-helpful attitude projected by government. They either need to be helpful, or stay out of private ventures. However what they do is a mix of boths negatives. If Burt Rutan can make a sub-orbital spaceship in a couple years and less than 3 million then that hands-down proves private industry far exceeds government beaurocracy in its efficiency. The best path for the future it to restrict government space projects to strictly research science ones which can then be bidded out to private space contractors and leave hardware construction, extra-planetary missions, and all other things that can break a profit to private industry.
There are massive possibilities for profit, expansion, and much more in space all that is needed is a government that will get out of the way. All ownership in space is free-for-all until claimed by arrival in my opinion since continental jurisdiction of countries cannot be extended thousands of miles upward and outward into space and object never visited by them.
In conclusion it is in my opinion that NASA can be maintained for space research like missions while removing government regulations and creating a more hospitable environment for space upstarts. Then NASA can be gradually phased out as a market arises large enough to allow for private space contractors to bid for contracts to work on government projects funded and approved by the people for the purpose of furthering humanitys understanding of the surrounding cosmos.
~Adam

Indeed.

Also, it's amazing if you look at the nasa budget how much is slated for pet projects for congressmen.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 05:13 PM
Space exploration would be better done by a private foundation of forward thinking Capitalist like the guy from Virgin.

robertwerden
11-25-2007, 05:22 PM
ron has said he would rather see nasa run by the marketplace

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 05:24 PM
We need a planetary private effort, in both the FOR profit and non profit sectors. This means that companies, individuals and non profit enthusiasts should all be able to work on it in a true free market setting.

jb4ronpaul
11-25-2007, 05:29 PM
I am sure if laws and regulations were properly changed, we could create a massive new private space exploration industry in this country with lots of new employment and benefits in many areas. Anyone in the space industry should love Ron Paul because he is basically the only person running who would even consider this.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 05:34 PM
ron has said he would rather see nasa run by the marketplace

The moon is a great source of Helium-3. with private competition, a cheaper way of extracting it and returning it could be developed.
With money to be gained, space technology and later exploration would explode.

Under government control, we will never get to mars.
ask the guys from "Mars Direct". Nasa doesn't know a good idea when it hits them in the face.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 05:42 PM
The moon is a great source of Helium-3. with private competition, a cheaper way of extracting it and returning it could be developed.
With money to be gained, space technology and later exploration would explode.

Under government control, we will never get to mars.
ask the guys from "Mars Direct". Nasa doesn't know a good idea when it hits them in the face.

True. Why aren't more people getting involved in private research and development?

What is "Mars Direct"?

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 05:49 PM
True. Why aren't more people getting involved in private research and development?

What is "Mars Direct"?

Mars Direct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

google it to find more info.. the guy behind the project is a genius.


Private research isn't there because it isn't necessary because the government is taxing the businesses to do the exploration on their behalf.

dwdollar
11-25-2007, 05:50 PM
I agree with idea of extending private property rights into space. As far as I know, there are none. The way I understand it, according to treaty, space is owned by governments and not just one government but all governments as a whole. I understand the intent of wanting to have a peaceful future in space but this will not encourage exploration. In theory, if a private entity wanted to build a base on the moon, they would have to get the permission of every government on Earth. And even then they couldn't own the land.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 05:51 PM
If I were elected to congress I would promote Mars Direct, and using my status to form outside of our government a foundation of space dwelling millionares... to start a private foundation for the advancement of humanity in our solar system and beyond.

I believe if we start focusing on space exploration as a planet, our in fighting will start to look really ridiculous and childish.

Our future as a planet, is a unifying theme.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 05:53 PM
I agree with idea of extending private property rights into space. As far as I know, there are none. According to treaty, space is owned by governments and not just one government but all governments as a whole. I understand the intent of wanting to have a peaceful future in space but this will not encourage exploration. In theory, if a private entity wanted to build a base on the moon, they would have to get the permission of every government on Earth. And even then they couldn't own the land.

Ownership is determined by who can actual hold a presence and defend it. Regardless of what all the earth governments state... if a private company colonies and militarizes the moon, there is nothing they can do about it.

Property ownership should be the result of "homesteading".

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 05:54 PM
Mars Direct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

google it to find more info.. the guy behind the project is a genius.


Private research isn't there because it isn't necessary because the government is taxing the businesses to do the exploration on their behalf.

What? Government taxing the businesses to do the exploration on their behalf? That doesn't make any sense. Where are they being taxed?

Mars Direct sounds cool. Why would it cost 55 billion USD in order to complete the project? Sounds like a lack of competition to me, you have this government monopoly and I don't see much incentive for start-up companies. 55 billion must be primarily for the materials, right?

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 05:58 PM
What? Government taxing the businesses to do the exploration on their behalf? That doesn't make any sense. Where are they being taxed?

Mars Direct sounds cool. Why would it cost 55 billion USD in order to complete the project? Sounds like a lack of competition to me, you have this government monopoly and I don't see much incentive for start-up companies. 55 billion must be primarily for the materials, right?

Research Mars Direct, learn its entire story.. it was born of competition... and is the cheapest most efficient way for us to explore mars.
It was propose to nasa, and they rejected it in favor of the 8 unmanned projects they are going to be milking over the next two decades.

the taxation i was talking about was the usual taxation. not a special tax.

sirachman
11-25-2007, 06:03 PM
No government owns space unless they are there to claim ownership. All ownership is is your claim on a place, and even that can be taken by force. Thus your residence in the area you are claiming can be enough for ownership as long as your behavior in that area does not attract someone who can steal it from you. According to that logic, noone owns space since noone lives there to claim it. If a country put a manned base on the moon they would own whatever they claimed and could protect from anyone who wished to take it from them, same goes for a private enterprise. When you go into space you basically become your own little mini-country. Treaties and whatnot do not matter in reality as no Earthly government has jurisdiction in space. Protecting space assets however is not entirely difficult and there is enough space out there that conflicts over specific bits would be quite unneccessary. Do some research on Near Earth Asteroids and you will find that they are massively numerous, average miles wide, closer than Mars, and contain thousands of times more elemental resources than the entire crust of the planet earth. The average 1M wide asteroid is worth over 2 Trillion dollars in current market prices and thats not counting the fact that currently it costs more than 2000 dollars a pound to send something into orbit, and thats not to mention what it costs to sent it to geosynchronous orbit, much less where it would be found on the asteroid.....
The one and only problem is taxes and government regulations to get things off the ground. Everything else is basically a Columbus esque voyage where you take off in the name of your country, claim it for your own when you get there, then demand independance in return for the worlds access to your products.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 06:04 PM
Research Mars Direct, learn its entire story.. it was born of competition... and is the cheapest most efficient way for us to explore mars.
It was propose to nasa, and they rejected it in favor of the 8 unmanned projects they are going to be milking over the next two decades.

the taxation i was talking about was the usual taxation. not a special tax.

But what is the government taxing? Yeah, I could spend all night researching this, but why do that when I could be promoting Ron Paul? ha :p I just thought that you meant a special tax that is discouraging free market research and development? Ha, anyway.

Why would it cost 55 billion USD though? lol. However, I much prefer money going towards this than some stupid war perpetuated by the military industrial complex.

sirachman
11-25-2007, 06:08 PM
I dont disagree with nasa being kept as a committe of scientists that picks projects to be governmentally funded. However I think everything they pick to do should be subcontracted out to private industry, and if that industry doesnt exist they need to be as helpful as possible in creating it. That cant happen until taxes are lowered and government takes on a helping role rather than a prohibitive role. Prizes have worked in the private industry such as with the xprize so I think if the govt gets involved they should fund these as well as giving grants in return for results but without the negative requirements they currently have.

Hah, how did I get this off topic. This is a Ron Paul board afterall. I guess my love of space and freedom lead me to Ron Paul for his view of small government and low taxes.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 06:10 PM
I dont disagree with nasa being kept as a committe of scientists that picks projects to be governmentally funded. However I think everything they pick to do should be subcontracted out to private industry, and if that industry doesnt exist they need to be as helpful as possible in creating it. That cant happen until taxes are lowered and government takes on a helping role rather than a prohibitive role. Prizes have worked in the private industry such as with the xprize so I think if the govt gets involved they should fund these as well as giving grants in return for results but without the negative requirements they currently have.

Hah, how did I get this off topic. This is a Ron Paul board afterall. I guess my love of space and freedom lead me to Ron Paul for his view of small government and low taxes.

Why should government even be involved at any level? The referee doesn't make the touch down in a football game, that's the player's job. ;)

sirachman
11-25-2007, 06:22 PM
I meant IF the government was involved that would be the limit of its involvement. I would much rather have people donate to a fund to do space science missions. However one could argue that because of the unusual combination of massive expense, massive discovery possibility, and lack of profitability they can be agreed to be funded governmentally through taxes due to their benefit to humanity as a whole. However I disagree with this because I believe that any of these can be made profitable.

I do believe that due to the MASSIVE amount of money required to be thrown at these ventures some sort of government motivation would be helpful and while not needed the difficulty of aquiring the funds for these ventures in the free-market would be such that productivity and progress in space would be very limited due to the risk/benefit ratio.

This is why I suggest some sort of prize system, and/or completely getting rid of all taxes associated with purchases and other activities in space ventures, and/or some type of motivation to invest massive amounts of money. Other than that I dont know but a lack of taxes on ventures paired with the government de-regulating space related things would be of massive benefit alone.

Cunningham
11-25-2007, 06:23 PM
Private industry will go to the moon if the government gets out of it's way so they can get the Helium 3 thats up there. That stuff is the reason that you hear about another country putting together a moon program every other month.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 06:28 PM
Private industry will go to the moon if the government gets out of it's way so they can get the Helium 3 thats up there. That stuff is the reason that you hear about another country putting together a moon program every other month.

helium-3 will power this planet in the post fossil fuel era. Clean, cheap energy that is in abundance on our moon.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 06:29 PM
We needs more congressmen with progressive scientific thinking.... I imagine myself, with the company of others on this board occupying congress and bring our great country into a better society!

sirachman
11-25-2007, 06:31 PM
As for the whole Helium-3 moon thing... Near Earth Asteroids are much easier to get to (less fuel required and easier trajectories), have much more profitable contents, their resources are much easier to extract, they have no atmosphere so descent and docking with them is much easier than a moon landing, Helium-3 is very hard to seperate from the lunar regolith, and the lunar environment is not too friendly compared to the hostile yet relatively simple to occomodate vaccum surrouding asteroids.
Look up some stuff on asteroid mining its quite interesting. Don't mean to knock Helium-3 but rather point out the much better business model surrounding asteroid mineral extraction. Helium-3 extraction is extremely expensive/difficult and not cost affective for personal use or sale unless your customer is a "money is no object" government wanting to make a lunar base aka. USA. (At least with current technology)

sirachman
11-25-2007, 06:35 PM
Solar and Nuclean Fission/Fusion are my proferred source (frankly both the same source and quite effective especially in space) so Helium-3 is a good resource for that reason. However regulations and difficulty of its extraction are the biggest problem. Once a presence is established on the moon that is also a costomer for the Helium-3 it will be a much more feasible project.

Solar arrays can also be constructed using lunar materials, and can be deployed in space or on the moon and will recieve much more sun due to lack of Earth's thick atmosphere. This energy can then be used there or transmitted to Earth using a type of microwave radiation beam (not the kind that cooks food a different frequency).

sirachman
11-25-2007, 06:36 PM
Can't wait for a congress that is familiar with basic science, not to mention the dream of one that is actively knowledgeable of it.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 06:36 PM
As for the whole Helium-3 moon thing... Near Earth Asteroids are much easier to get to (less fuel required and easier trajectories), have much more profitable contents, their resources are much easier to extract, they have no atmosphere so descent and docking with them is much easier than a moon landing, Helium-3 is very hard to seperate from the lunar regolith, and the lunar environment is not too friendly compared to the hostile yet relatively simple to occomodate vaccum surrouding asteroids.
Look up some stuff on asteroid mining its quite interesting. Don't mean to knock Helium-3 but rather point out the much better business model surrounding asteroid mineral extraction. Helium-3 extraction is extremely expensive/difficult and not cost affective for personal use or sale unless your customer is a "money is no object" government wanting to make a lunar base aka. USA. (At least with current technology)

Oh, I am very open to better ways of getting energy... I plan to make some major impacts on the direction of our country as a congressman, and i'm not going to be able to do that if i don't listen to people who have more knowledge on these subjects than i do.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 06:37 PM
Private industry will go to the moon if the government gets out of it's way so they can get the Helium 3 thats up there. That stuff is the reason that you hear about another country putting together a moon program every other month.

How hard could it be to get it done? You have the issue of getting a hold of the materials, then you get up there and try to extract some Helium 3 embedded in the upper layer of regolith. I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't cost THAT much, you can always try and get a non-profit project going.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 06:39 PM
It may be possible to farm our own helium-3 if we understand how it is formed we may be able to collect/manufacture it in low earth orbit.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 06:40 PM
It may be possible to farm our own helium-3 if we understand how it is formed we may be able to collect/manufacture it on low earth orbit.

Yeah, there is some here on Earth but it's rare. Well, people are free to start something up, I'm not sure how much the government is regulating any of this.

sirachman
11-25-2007, 06:46 PM
There are massive regulations on orbiting/deorbiting radioactive materials thus selling lunar mined h-3 to earth isnt very easy, and there are regulations against having nuclear reactors/bombs in space so making a reactor on the moon and selling to it/selling its energy is also not very possible.

Basically once all this is set up its possible, however currently simply mining stuff like iron, platinum, gold, etc from asteroids which are easier to get to in the first place is much easier.

Also:
Helium is present in the lunar regolith in quantities of ten to a hundred (weight) parts per million, and 0.003 to 1 percent of this amount (depending on soil). 2006 market price for He3 was about $46,500 per troy ounce ($1500/gram, $1.5M/kg), more than 120 times the value per unit weight of Gold and over eight times the value of Rhodium.
Thats alot of strip mining :/

Cunningham
11-25-2007, 06:47 PM
How hard could it be to get it done? You have the issue of getting a hold of the materials, then you get up there and try to extract some Helium 3 embedded in the upper layer of regolith. I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't cost THAT much, you can always try and get a non-profit project going.

I would think that multiply companies could pool there resources and spread out the financial risk to get it done but I think I read somewhere that current anti-trust lays prohibit those type of combined activites. I'm not sure if that is true though.

sirachman
11-25-2007, 06:48 PM
Raw resources and minerals could be mined from an asteroid in space using a variety of methods. Even a relatively small asteroid with a diameter of 1 km can contain billions of metric tons of raw materials.

In 2004, the world production of iron ore exceeded 1,000 million metric tons[1]. In comparison, a comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than 2,000 million metric tons of iron-nickel ore[2], or two to three times the annual production for 2004. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to contain 1.7×1019 kg of iron-nickel, which could supply the 2004 world production requirement for several million years. A small portion of the extracted material would also contain precious metals, although these would likely be more difficult to extract.

Cunningham
11-25-2007, 06:50 PM
There are massive regulations on orbiting/deorbiting radioactive materials thus selling lunar mined h-3 to earth isnt very easy, and there are regulations against having nuclear reactors/bombs in space so making a reactor on the moon and selling to it/selling its energy is also not very possible.

Basically once all this is set up its possible, however currently simply mining stuff like iron, platinum, gold, etc from asteroids which are easier to get to in the first place is much easier.

Also:
Helium is present in the lunar regolith in quantities of ten to a hundred (weight) parts per million, and 0.003 to 1 percent of this amount (depending on soil). 2006 market price for He3 was about $46,500 per troy ounce ($1500/gram, $1.5M/kg), more than 120 times the value per unit weight of Gold and over eight times the value of Rhodium.
Thats alot of strip mining :/

I want nanite assemblers to come online sometime in the next 15 years. They would make all of this so much easier.

sirachman
11-25-2007, 06:50 PM
Heck just go here:
http://www.permanent.com/

It itsn't being updated anymore as far as I can tell, however it is the best source of information on the net related to space resources, colonization, etc.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 06:59 PM
We could bypass any government by just creating a society of dedicated individuals. We would get materials in countries where they're easiest to obtain, assemble where its easiest to assemble and finally launch from a place where we don't have to answer to any single government. A society, perhaps a micronation. A government, a people and an economy that all exists under the radar of macronations.

sirachman,

great site. http://www.permanent.com/ w00t! :D

sirachman
11-25-2007, 07:02 PM
Glad you enjoyed.
Check out: www.InterPlanetaryVentures.org also, ask me if you have any questions about it. Just PM me.

~Adam

Cunningham
11-25-2007, 07:03 PM
We could bypass any government by just creating a society of dedicated individuals. We would get materials in countries where they're easiest to obtain, assemble where its easiest to assemble and finally launch from a place where we don't have to answer to any single government. A society, perhaps a micronation. A government, a people and an economy that all exists under the radar of macronations.

sirachman,

great site. http://www.permanent.com/ w00t! :D

Looks like we got that back up plan if Ron doesn't win. :)

sirachman
11-25-2007, 07:05 PM
Hah, if Ron does win all it will do is make it easier once we don't pay income tax and can invest all that much more into such a project ^^
Hah.
Revolution 2.0: Elect Ron Paul
Revolution 3.0: Space Edition

:)

Joking aside, this is actually factually feasible.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 07:05 PM
The U.S. is sovereign and thus is not bound by any other regulations you mentioned.... No one has the authority to regulate space. I'd laugh in the face of anyone who proposes they possess such power.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 07:07 PM
I could see a voluntary income tax form that would list governmental projects and people could voluntarily fund them... but the private foundation would be the best way to go... I would be an associate! Especially with the money I save from not paying income tax.

sirachman
11-25-2007, 07:07 PM
Check out the goofy space treaties then.

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

They may not claim ownership, but they certainly attempt to set regulations/laws...

Laugh--> their face

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 07:19 PM
Looks like we got that back up plan if Ron doesn't win. :)

Yup. Free humanity. There are ways to bypass any country's laws, or regulations, you just need a global organization to do it. Ever hear of underground economies?

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 07:23 PM
Check out the goofy space treaties then.

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

They may not claim ownership, but they certainly attempt to set regulations/laws...

Laugh--> their face

They only have authority if you give them authority. Otherwise... it is very laughable... and as laughable as you are I writing regulations for space commerce and expecting everyone to abide by them as if it were "law".

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 07:26 PM
They only have authority if you give them authority. Otherwise... it is very laughable... and as laughable as you are I writing regulations for space commerce and expecting everyone to abide by them as if it were "law".

Depends. If there's only one planetary system in space, then who says an individual can't be held liable for murdering someone in space by the government? I bet there wouldn't be any separate "Law of the Sea" if there wasn't individual nations in the world. It would all fall under one jurisdiction. It really depends on how the justice system works.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 07:33 PM
Depends. If there's only one planetary system in space, then who says an individual can't be held liable for murdering someone in space by the government? I bet there wouldn't be any separate "Law of the Sea" if there wasn't individual nations in the world. It would all fall under one jurisdiction. It really depends on how the justice system works.

It really depends on who you surrender your sovereignty to.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 07:36 PM
It really depends on who you surrender your sovereignty to.

hmm. I'm telling you, if there's only one planetary system in a universe, what makes you think they can't claim jurisdiction to it? It really depends on the laws, how the justice system works and on logistics.

sirachman
11-25-2007, 07:41 PM
Well first of all there are BILLIONS of planetary systems in the Universe, and secondly you can claim whatever the hell you want but laws and claims are only good if they can be backed up. Thus you can do whatever you want as long as you can defend yourself.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 07:46 PM
Well first of all there are BILLIONS of planetary systems in the Universe, and secondly you can claim whatever the hell you want but laws and claims are only good if they can be backed up. Thus you can do whatever you want as long as you can defend yourself.

That's why I brought up logistics. Government cannot enforce laws if it's not around.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 07:48 PM
It really depends on who you surrender your sovereignty to.

think about it a little more.

Visual
11-25-2007, 07:57 PM
Thing about laws in space such as murder... it's not like they can come and arrest you. The most feasible thing would be to launch a missle and kill you. That would still cost millions of dollars.

Revolution9
11-25-2007, 08:10 PM
The moon is a great source of Helium-3. with private competition, a cheaper way of extracting it and returning it could be developed.
.

Bush wanted to build a pipeline, and when told that wasn't feasible suggested hiring Pakistani truckers as they will drive anywhere cheap. He got lost drunk driving after a frat party and ended up there. The only souvenir he brought back was the vacuum betwixt his ears.

:D
'Randy

LFOD
11-25-2007, 08:10 PM
In my opinion, NASA is simply yet another way to funnel tax money to the aerospace industry.

If space exploration has some productive value, then it would be taken up by free enterprise.

Those who are just dying to discover what comets are made of can find a way to finance it with THEIR money, not mine.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 08:40 PM
Bush wanted to build a pipeline, and when told that wasn't feasible suggested hiring Pakistani truckers as they will drive anywhere cheap. He got lost drunk driving after a frat party and ended up there. The only souvenir he brought back was the vacuum betwixt his ears.

:D
'Randy

I'm not sure Bush has returned from that trip just yet....

sirachman
11-25-2007, 08:50 PM
LFOD, ever used a cell phone? Private industry cant afford to throw billions at projects without promise of profit thus new technologies will be slow in coming. If you want new things like cell phones, satellite tv, or frankly thousands of other innovations to ever come about you need some sort of system to throw money at fringe ideas that arent yet profitable. This cannot at least currently be done in the private space sector. As soon as it can I agree with you, but right now its just too expensive and the benefits from it are very worth the cost. Try and do some cost comparisons on how much the nasa budget it and how much it achieves. It is very beneficial to you whether you agree with it or not and a much more efficient use of money than any other government program even in the health sector. Just look up the statistics. I personally believe its by far worth the .001 percent of the federal budget or whatever that it takes up. Far more important than any other expenditure really. Realize how tiny our Earth is compared to the vastness of space... Im done with this, if you wish to be informed of the importance you can easily do so.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 08:55 PM
LFOD, ever used a cell phone? Private industry cant afford to throw billions at projects without promise of profit thus new technologies will be slow in coming. If you want new things like cell phones, satellite tv, or frankly thousands of other innovations to ever come about you need some sort of system to throw money at fringe ideas that arent yet profitable. This cannot at least currently be done in the private space sector. As soon as it can I agree with you, but right now its just too expensive and the benefits from it are very worth the cost. Try and do some cost comparisons on how much the nasa budget it and how much it achieves. It is very beneficial to you whether you agree with it or not and a much more efficient use of money than any other government program even in the health sector. Just look up the statistics. I personally believe its by far worth the .001 percent of the federal budget or whatever that it takes up. Far more important than any other expenditure really. Realize how tiny our Earth is compared to the vastness of space... Im done with this, if you wish to be informed of the importance you can easily do so.

A private foundation of wealthy benefactors could fund non-profit space ventures. these people would do it just to have there name on the spacecraft.
Virgin Atlantic is invested money into a space venture that isn't showing signs of immediate profit returns... its about image.
You can have an association of people like us who like this stuff who donate to the above mention foundation and its governing board of benefactors to do non-profit space ventures.
If there is enough interest, then it will happen.

sirachman
11-25-2007, 09:04 PM
Yes it can work and i am not disputing that, I am merely saying that the private infastructure to replace nasa does not currently exist. Thus to remove NASA entirely without the private industry to replace it fully funded would be to vastly slow advancement of technologies and knowledge which is to the benefit of humanity as a whole. Everyone is at least indirectly effected by this advancement in knowledge and it is important to maintain pace in its pursuit. The reason for exploration is to discover targets for private industry, and methods for them to use in their endeavors. No startup can afford to spend millions of dollars just to scope out what COULD be out there, or experiment with better ways of doing so without a promise for profit. Once industry is established this can be accomplished with R&D profits. However established space industry does not currently exist so government funding can fill this gap providing methods for private industry to use in order to extablish private industry as profitable.

Other things such as the protection of Earth from possible asteroid/comet strikes is something which is needed yet not profitable or feasible to be handled by private industry.

Virgin Atlantic created Virgin Galactic because they intend to make tons of money from rich people who wish to experience a sub-orbital thrill ride. This is so far from a "space" venture it shouldn't even be considered close. The difference between going to orbital and beyond and going to suborbital is like the difference between jumping and going into suborbital space. It is much much more difficult. It will happen, however space itself will have to have a profitable draw for anything farther into space to ever happen. In other words we will have to have orbital stations, asteroid mining or some combination of profitable/fun activities in space to make the industry something other than a thrill ride for the rich.

I do agree with the statement that "If there is enough interest, it will happen" however due to a lack of education and a sense that anything other than looking at the stars is "sci-fi" it won't unless we not only improve science and math education as well as get people interested which is done by showing people there is always more to be discovered.

To conclude this LOONG post: If I stop having to pay income tax, a large portion will definately be going to such a fund. Hopefully alot of other people will do the same. How about you?

Cunningham
11-25-2007, 09:13 PM
I think that the space tourism stuff thats being pursued by Virgin Galactic and some other companies will realize the profits needed to entice future investors to finance exploration of the moon and mars. Virgin has already lined up pledges from "early adopters" that are willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money for a very short low orbit trip. Future exploration will probably end up piggy backing on tourism.
The thing is, none of use really know the best one way to do it. A free market for space will allow numerous different ways to be tried and worked out. The best options will rise to the top. Space tourism will push things one way, asteroid mining will push things another way.

Whatever gets me a trip to space, thats all I want. Just once damn it. :)

Mithridates
11-25-2007, 09:13 PM
Oh good, my favourite subject. Eight pages already so I'll first write down my thoughts on the matter before I read all the messages.

-There's nothing I love more than space and my goal in life is to get to somewhere like Venus (the cloudtops where it's the same temperature as Earth, so think Cloud City from Ep. 5) or Ceres before I die. I'm Canadian and my support of a party is largely based on their vision for space development. In the US though it seems to be different because the US has been overextending itself for a long while and isn't in quite a favorable situation.

I think there's a place for NASA at present and they only take up 0.75% of the budget, and RP has talked about a consensus being needed when he becomes president, since he can't just run in there with an executive order and start shutting things down. The war in Iraq for example costs about the same per month as NASA uses in a year, so shutting that down right away is crucial. The debate over NASA can come later.

Luckily there are a lot of really good private space companies that are up and coming, such as Bigelow Airspace, SpaceX, Armadillo Airspace, JP Aerospace, and so on. They're not quite ready for the big time though. Once they are you can bet that they'll start stealing the show by themselves, so really the onus is on them. However, NASA is:

-a good thing, and
-much too small to worry about at present. Space is not a waste of money. The most obvious examples are probes that tell us where malaria is most likely to spread, letting poor countries concentrate their minimal extermination budgets on areas where people are most likely to be affected, technological spinoffs, and:

The most important reason of all:

-The ability to leave the planet, because eventually we're going to need to and as long as we're concentrated in one area we're eventually going to die there. This isn't me talking, it's Stephen Hawking.

But I see no reason why a person that likes space as much as I do shouldn't support Ron Paul. Actually living within your budget and staying out of the affairs of others creates spinoffs the likes of which you can't imagine. How many potential Hawkings have been killed or maimed in Iraq for example, and how many people have been blindsided by the over-exaggerated War against Terror to the extent that they've lost their ability to think for themselves and therefore about important and peaceful subjects like space development?

Okay, time to read the rest of the thread now.

torchbearer
11-25-2007, 09:16 PM
They underestimate how many Nerds there really are.....

http://www.thestencil.com/archives/images/nerd.jpg

Elwar
11-25-2007, 09:18 PM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/sep/17/dr-no-sometimes-votes-yes/

"For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January."

Mithridates
11-25-2007, 09:20 PM
The moon is a great source of Helium-3. with private competition, a cheaper way of extracting it and returning it could be developed.
With money to be gained, space technology and later exploration would explode.

Under government control, we will never get to mars.
ask the guys from "Mars Direct". Nasa doesn't know a good idea when it hits them in the face.

I'm not a fan of Mars Direct myself, mostly because I'm not a fan of Mars as a locale for manned exploration since the launch windows are so few and far in between. I think Venus' cloudtops and Ceres will make much better locations to colonize than Mars right now.

Mithridates
11-25-2007, 09:26 PM
helium-3 will power this planet in the post fossil fuel era. Clean, cheap energy that is in abundance on our moon.

The other thing the Moon has are its peaks of eternal light, the only place nearby where you can have solar power for 24 hours a day.

(Well, it would still be blocked out by the odd Earth eclipse so 99.999% of the time)

Visual
11-25-2007, 09:27 PM
I'm not a fan of Mars Direct myself, mostly because I'm not a fan of Mars as a locale for manned exploration since the launch windows are so few and far in between. I think Venus' cloudtops and Ceres will make much better locations to colonize than Mars right now.

Indeed on ceres. I think it makes more sense than any other place. Only thing is mars is closer, and offers an ability to see the path the earth could have taken if things had gone diffrently. But mars should only be a scientific trip, sort of like the antartic. A permanent base near the asteroid belt (Ceres) offers a better long term viability for many reasons.

Mithridates
11-25-2007, 09:29 PM
Hah, if Ron does win all it will do is make it easier once we don't pay income tax and can invest all that much more into such a project ^^
Hah.
Revolution 2.0: Elect Ron Paul
Revolution 3.0: Space Edition

:)

Joking aside, this is actually factually feasible.

Let me just insert a Revolution 2.5: Universal second language Edition in there. I'd like to see that happen as soon as possible so that the world is able to pool its resources without the inefficiencies you see now (I know, I work in translation).

Mithridates
11-25-2007, 09:33 PM
Indeed on ceres. I think it makes more sense than any other place. Only thing is mars is closer, and offers an ability to see the path the earth could have taken if things had gone diffrently. But mars should only be a scientific trip, sort of like the antartic. A permanent base near the asteroid belt (Ceres) offers a better long term viability for many reasons.

Yep. Don't forget though that even though Mars is closer the launch windows to Ceres are more frequent, so in terms of "how often can we get there", Ceres wins there too. I think there's only about an extra month in terms of travel time over Mars.

You wouldn't believe how nervous I was watching Dawn launch.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-25-2007, 09:43 PM
I'm not a fan of Mars Direct myself, mostly because I'm not a fan of Mars as a locale for manned exploration since the launch windows are so few and far in between. I think Venus' cloudtops and Ceres will make much better locations to colonize than Mars right now.

Why not do them all in the same time?

BizmanUSA
11-25-2007, 09:49 PM
Noticed a thread over at nasaspaceflight.com regarding presidential candidates. Ron Paul was brought up as being laughable, and was given this response....


Can you explain how Ron Paul is laughable? The man is genuine and the most suited for the job as president. . . .

See page one of this thread to read the entire reply

In any event, you need to realize that Ron Paul will not get the nomination of any party (though he might actually jerk the GOP back a bit towards it's smaller government traditions).

This is a spaceflight forum, not a science fiction forum.

if anybody cares to check out this thread, it's here...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9993&start=256&posts=267

LOOK up in the sky - it's a bird, it's a plane, it's NASA - No it's RON PAUL our candidate to the rescue

Hopefully this nasaspaceflight.com forum has only a few of these Special Rocket Scientists!

BizmanUSA

Mithridates
11-25-2007, 10:00 PM
Why not do them all in the same time?

Eventually, sure. I don't think we're quite there yet. Note the last spacewalk made during the last shuttle mission; it was made to repair a problem in the solar panels that they had no idea existed until the shuttle was sent up there. There was also that slight problem with the metallic dust as well. Now imagine that the same problems are happening while a craft is four months away from the Earth, has no way to turn around and may or may not have the supplies needed while at the same time being in an area with much more radiation.

Not impossible of course, but I think we should do things in a certain order, and with a HUGE concentration on unmanned spaceflight and astronomy, because we've found over 200 extrasolar planets and any day now we'll discover another Earth (we've already discovered two potential other Earths in Gliese 581, though much larger). Once we've discovered another Earth we'll have all the interest we need in exploration. Here's how I think we should go about it, manned mission-wise:

1) Short mission to a near-Earth asteroid. Takes about a month or two.
2) Manned Venus flyby.
3) Colonization of either an asteroid, cloudtops of Venus, or Ceres.
4) Mars.

Rhys
11-26-2007, 12:42 AM
There's already a prive spaceship called... Spaceship One. It won the X-Prize, was funded by Paul Allen and was purchased by Sir. Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines.

Goldwater Conservative
11-26-2007, 12:57 AM
Notice how the government all but gave up on space after the Soviets couldn't keep up and we gave them the finger by landing on the moon. I'm a big space buff, but frankly I trust the private sector more to handle exploring the final frontier. Government only cares for it militarily.

And while I could shred that guy's laughable straw man argument, I'll simply say that anybody who thinks that being a paleoconservative/libertarian in the mold of Goldwater and Reagan somehow disqualifies you from being a Republican... is an idiot. Same goes for anybody asserting that libertarianism (by definition, those who oppose coercion and advocate maximum liberty, whatever the issue) is somehow not a consistent political philosophy, especially considering the "mainstream" alternatives of today.