Are the risks of bump-firing on the moon (Lunar-bumping) anything like aqua-bumping?

Quoted: Space exploration should be left in the private sector where it belongs, tax payers should not be forced to fit the bill. You want our government to be in charge of space exploration? The same government that can’t build a damn tunnel without getting conned for millions and the end result is a tunnel that is leaking? Seriously, NASA got schooled by Spaceship One, the private sector is a million times more efficient at handling these types of things. If there is economic reason to go to the moon and mars then it will be done, and for far less than the government could and it won’t be at the tax payers expense.

"The Government" doesn't build tunnels. Private contractors do. "The Government" doesn't build spaceships. Private contractors do. "The Government" doesn't rebuild Iraq. Private contractors do.

NASA didn't "get schooled" by Scaled Composites, the awesome accomplishments of Rutan et. al., notwithstanding. The X-Prize winning flight of SpaceShipOne barely got where NASA was with the X-1E, X-2, D-588-2 and X-15 programs were forty years ago. More to the point, the prize money put a pretty good dent in the cost of the effort, but financially, that project in and of itself is a loser for Scaled. So much for "a million times more efficiently."

All that was proved in that project was that a composite-framed manned craft could be propelled to sub-orbital velocities and altitudes with a composite rocket motor, and guided by modern flight control systems. The challenges of orbital flight, let alone extra-orbital rendezvous necessary for travel beyond the direct influence of Earth's gravity, are orders of magnitude greater than a simple ballistic trajectory.

NASA has done all the groundwork. The fundamental challenges of flights to the moon have been identified and addressed with spectacular success. I have no doubt that they will seek the contributions of ALL industries once again to make the next generation of lunar exploration even more successful.

Quoted: Anyone who thinks the moon is necessary for the military seriously has no clue, you honestly think that china is going to chuck boulders at us from the moon? hah!

No, but they could build a "LASER" there.

This business of going to the moon is pretty ridiculous.

Same with a trip to Mars. It would take waaaay too long to get there and back for a human to survive. After all, there aren't any rest stops or McDonald's on the way, you know. How's the astronaut going to sustain him/herself?

Quoted: www.smallartworks.ca/PS/Space1999/AlphaMoonbase/Alpha1.jpg

Oh, hell ya!

Quoted: This business of going to the moon is pretty ridiculous. Same with a trip to Mars. It would take waaaay too long to get there and back for a human to survive. After all, there aren't any rest stops or McDonald's on the way, you know. How's the astronaut going to sustain him/herself?

Cup holders. BIG FUCKIN' cup holders.

Quoted: How can I possibly contain my excitement?  Wooopty-fuckin-dooooo! A man on the moon..... again.  So much benefit for mankind that a few of us get to walk around on a low gravity rock that has no atmosphere.

How cynical. Golf club technology has come a long way since last guy on the moon teed up. WE'RE GOING FOR THE RECORD, HERE!

I'm a little disappointed w/ the announcement personally.  So we can maybe make it back to the moon within 15 years?  I was kinda hoping they'd be announcing a plan to be on Mars within 15 years.  I guess going to the moon and setting up a small camp is better than nothing.  Just a little anti-climatic or something, lol...  I'm all for increased spending on space exploration, certainly not less.

Quoted: Quoted: How can I possibly contain my excitement?  Wooopty-fuckin-dooooo! A man on the moon..... again.  So much benefit for mankind that a few of us get to walk around on a low gravity rock that has no atmosphere.   How cynical. Golf club technology has come a long way since last guy on the moon teed up. WE'RE GOING FOR THE RECORD, HERE!

Plus, Tang comes in sugar-free now. Why haul all those carbs into space if you don't have to?

Quoted: I'm a little disappointed w/ the announcement personally.  So we can maybe make it back to the moon within 15 years?  I was kinda hoping they'd be announcing a plan to be on Mars within 15 years.  I guess going to the moon and setting up a small camp is better than nothing.  Just a little anti-climatic or something, lol...  I'm all for increased spending on space exploration, certainly not less.

I'm kinda the same way, but at least NASA's getting back in the exploration business - we've been stuck in Low-Earth Orbit for WAAAAY to long now.  

It's a good thing we're talking about Mars again... Hopefully we can get back to where we were 30-40 years ago...

I'd love to see Project Orion come back from the dead...





We can build this, it's all 1960's technology... Electric Boat was the prime contractor...

"The Government" doesn't build tunnels. Private contractors do. "The Government" doesn't build spaceships. Private contractors do. "The Government" doesn't rebuild Iraq. Private contractors do.

They pay for them, oversee them, and manage those projects. Trust me the government is involved and their incompetence is what leads to the failures, if you can’t figure that out than I feel sorry for you. Why do you think the Big Dig contractors screwed the government over? They did it because they could.

NASA didn't "get schooled" by Scaled Composites, the awesome accomplishments of Rutan et. al., notwithstanding. The X-Prize winning flight of SpaceShipOne barely got where NASA was with the X-1E, X-2, D-588-2 and X-15 programs were forty years ago. More to the point, the prize money put a pretty good dent in the cost of the effort, but financially, that project in and of itself is a loser for Scaled. So much for "a million times more efficiently."

Bullshit, look at the cost how much did those projects cost? How much did Shipship One cost? NASA couldn’t build a cost affective spacecraft to save their own jobs.

Scaled Composite’s SpaceShip One was by no definition of the word a “loser”. They intentionally spent over 10 million because that is what was needed do design the craft, the X Prize was never their goal, their goal was to build a company that would lead the private space travel sector. You think they were in it for a measly 10 million? They are in it for the BILLIONS that they are going to make in the future. Spaceship one demonstrated a completely new approach to spacecraft/aircraft design, Spaceship One was a HUGE success.

All that was proved in that project was that a composite-framed manned craft could be propelled to sub-orbital velocities and altitudes with a composite rocket motor, and guided by modern flight control systems. The challenges of orbital flight, let alone extra-orbital rendezvous necessary for travel beyond the direct influence of Earth's gravity, are orders of magnitude greater than a simple ballistic trajectory.

You really love the government line don’t you? You really think NASA can do what the private sector can’t? Tell me this genius, why are we going to the moon? In the future there is the possibility of H3 mining, possibly even solar panel arrays, and such. But what economic reason is there to go now? Scaled Composites never tried to do any of the crap you just mentioned, and you know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON TO! There is no economic reason to go the moon right now, in 10, 15, 20 years there probably will be but as for right now there is ZERO REASON TO GO. The private sector has common sense something that the government completely lacks, which is why they aren’t developing those technologies, however there was reason to go any one with common sense would be able to figure out that the private sector could do it a hell of a lot better and cheaper than the government.

Quoted: what's wrong with building it in orbit where there is no gravety?

There is plenty of gravity in orbit.  That's why you're in orbit.

what do you mean return?

No, but they could build a "LASER" there.

I really hope that you are joking.

Quoted: They pay for them, oversee them, and manage those projects. Trust me the government is involved and their incompetence is what leads to the failures, if you can’t figure that out than I feel sorry for you. Why do you think the Big Dig contractors screwed the government over? They did it because they could.

Thus proving my point that incompetence, greed, corruption and ass-hattedness is not the exclusive province of the government. It comes with all humongous beaurocracies, public and private.

Bullshit, look at the cost how much did those projects cost? How much did Shipship One cost? NASA couldn’t build a cost affective spacecraft to save their own jobs.

Well, see, we'll never know, will we? That is the most closely held secret in all of aerospace technology right now: how much did SS1 cost? I have seen estimate anywhere from $50 million to over $200 million, for a $10 million return on investment. More later...

Scaled Composite’s SpaceShip One was by no definition of the word a “loser”. They intentionally spent over 10 million because that is what was needed do design the craft, the X Prize was never their goal, their goal was to build a company that would lead the private space travel sector. You think they were in it for a measly 10 million? They are in it for the BILLIONS that they are going to make in the future. Spaceship one demonstrated a completely new approach to spacecraft/aircraft design, Spaceship One was a HUGE success.

What I wrote earlier was that in and of itself, the SS1 project currently is a financial loser, but Rutan's own account! True, he wasn't in it for the short-term, and thank God he's not! There WILL be future gains, but for the near term, SS1 is in the "gotta spend money to make money" phase.

You really love the government line don’t you?

No.

You really think NASA can do what the private sector can’t?

Yes. They can do, and have done, the #1 thing that private industry has no done, cannot do and will not do: fund the project.

Tell me this genius, why are we going to the moon? In the future there is the possibility of H3 mining, possibly even solar panel arrays, and such. But what economic reason is there to go now? Scaled Composites never tried to do any of the crap you just mentioned, and you know why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO REASON TO! There is no economic reason to go the moon right now, in 10, 15, 20 years there probably will be but as for right now there is ZERO REASON TO GO. The private sector has common sense something that the government completely lacks, which is why they aren’t developing those technologies, however there was reason to go any one with common sense would be able to figure out that the private sector could do it a hell of a lot better and cheaper than the government.

The only reason to go to the moon is that it is the next step toward the permanent presence of man in space. That's it. Pure and simple.

If Columbus had waited for daily scheduled 747 service from Milan to New York, there would have been no 747s.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How can I possibly contain my excitement?  Wooopty-fuckin-dooooo! A man on the moon..... again.  So much benefit for mankind that a few of us get to walk around on a low gravity rock that has no atmosphere.   Gotta (re)start somewhere. You just want us to continue sitting on our asses while everyone else goes to space and leaves us behind? Nick leave us behind where? where is everyone else going?  Mars? why go?  because it's hard?  just something to do? i am tired of paying for others to have toys and do things. i want to retire and have the SOC bennies i am paying for. not do stupid things like go to a moon that can't help us get anywhere else. now if we want to look at new drive technology that will let us go where and when we please i am all for that.  but no more of this sling shot shit.

Why goto Mars?  

Going to mars is the first step in colonizing another planet. If humans dont get off this huge meteor target/volcanic explosion waiting to happen that we call Earth. Our whole species will some day be wiped out. Everything we have accomplished or been through will have been for nothing.

bush is just doing this to mislead folks about the solar system ending chaos cloud that is due to hit in 2014. he figures that if he says we are going to the moon in 2018 then people wont believe that it will end in 2014.

of course it could be a big dodge to cover up the 'space arc' that the haliburton is building to save the top world corporate leaders...

Quoted: No, but they could build a "LASER" there. I really hope that you are joking.

Oh, I think I am...

No one caught it.

Thus proving my point that incompetence, greed, corruption and ass-hattedness is not the exclusive province of the government. It comes with all humongous beaurocracies, public and private.

Greed is a good thing, that’s what motivates people to succeed. The contractors that did the Big Dig made out extremely well because of their greed, they were successful in their goal of generating money. The government failed to be successful because their incompetence allowed them to be taken advantage of.

What I wrote earlier was that in and of itself, the SS1 project currently is a financial loser, but Rutan's own account! True, he wasn't in it for the short-term, and thank God he's not! There WILL be future gains, but for the near term, SS1 is in the "gotta spend money to make money" phase.

How many prototypes do you know of that aren’t financial losers? Spaceship One was a prototype, nothing more, the next generation of crafts will be the money makers. That is why Spaceship One was a success, are you honestly trying to tell me that the government could have made spaceship one for less than Scaled Composites? Even if NASA could have had the foresight to come up with the revolutionary idea, you think they could have built it for less, shit I doubt they could have built it at all.

Yes. They can do, and have done, the #1 thing that private industry has no done, cannot do and will not do: fund the project.

Like what? What great accomplishments has NASA accomplished? And at what price?

The only reason to go to the moon is that it is the next step toward the permanent presence of man in space. That's it. Pure and simple. If Columbus had waited for daily scheduled 747 service from Milan to New York, there would have been no 747s.

You really think that if the Queen hadn’t sent Columbus that we would all be sitting around in Europe right now wondering what lies to the West? Do you really, truthfully, and honestly believe that?

Quoted: Quoted: No, but they could build a "LASER" there. I really hope that you are joking.

I demand the sum... OF 1 MILLION DOLLARS!!!!

Quoted: Greed is a good thing, that’s what motivates people to succeed. The contractors that did the Big Dig made out extremely well because of their greed, they were successful in their goal of generating money. The government failed to be successful because their incompetence allowed them to be taken advantage of.

OK. Got it. As long as the Boston cronies get rich, everything is OK. How can you possibly ascribe the cost overruns on the Boston Artery project to the Federal government?

Greed is what motivates people to steal, not to succeed. Technical ingenuity is what motivates people to innovate. Einstein never made a nickel, generally speaking.

Money is not "generated." It's just transferred. You're claiming that the thousands of contractors who fleeced the American public on the Big Dig were successful? Really? C'mon.

How many prototypes do you know of that aren’t financial losers? Spaceship One was a prototype, nothing more, the next generation of crafts will be the money makers. That is why Spaceship One was a success, are you honestly trying to tell me that the government could have made spaceship one for less than Scaled Composites? Even if NASA could have had the foresight to come up with the revolutionary idea, you think they could have built it for less, shit I doubt they could have built it at all.

Here again, NASA has no need to build a suborbital craft. They already did a long time ago, when it hadn't been done.

Like what? What great accomplishments has NASA accomplished? And at what price?

Kennedy's challenge to the nation was not to land a man on the moon and return him to Earth at the lowest possible cost. It was to do it at any cost, knowing full well that the cost would be offset by benefits to America and mankind for the eternal future.

You really think that if the Queen hadn’t sent Columbus that we would all be sitting around in Europe right now wondering what lies to the West? Do you really, truthfully, and honestly believe that?

No, of course not. My point is that Columbus set out on his government-subsidized journey with what he had. I suppose ultimately his mission was a failure, having never plied a more direct route to India. However, had the Queen of Spain not gambled on the deal, European colonization of North America may have come some decades later.

Space exploration is a risk. It is inherently beset with life-threatening dangers that are not for the timid. There will be those who face up to the risks in a forthright and progressive manner, and lead the way in space, and there will be those, like you, who will sit on the sidelines grousing about it yet freely benefitting from the accomplishments and triumphs of his fellow man. I much prefer to champion the cause of space exploration because it IS something we should do as a nation, in the name of all mankind.

Plus, rockets are kewl.

Quoted: Why goto Mars?   Going to mars is the first step in colonizing another planet. If humans dont get off this huge meteor target/volcanic explosion waiting to happen that we call Earth. Our whole species will some day be wiped out. Everything we have accomplished or been through will have been for nothing.

And Bush doesn't want to evacuate the blacks either.

Sorry NASA is not going to be the one to return us to the Moon.  

There is no way they could do it on time or on budget.  And we cant afford them to NOT be on time or on budget anymore.

THESE People however CAN get us to the Moon.  IF they are supported, for a fraction of the cost.

www.space.com/news/050908_spacex_falcon.html

SpaceX to Tackle Fully Resusable Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle By Leonard David Senior Space Writer posted: 08 September 2005 04:25 pm ET Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) announced today that it will develop a Falcon 9 booster – an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class vehicle. A key goal of SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles intended to increase the reliability and reduce the cost of access to space by a factor of ten. SpaceX, headquartered in El Segundo, California, is bankrolled and run by Elon Musk, a successful entrepreneur that among past activities co-founded PayPal, a leading electronic payment system. According to a press statement detailing company plans, the Falcon 9 would be capable of launching approximately 21,000 pounds (9,500 kilograms) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 pounds (25,000 kilograms) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity “greater than any other launch vehicle,” the SpaceX statement said. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 would be priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing.  Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, making Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide. First booster, yet-to-fly SpaceX initially intended to follow its first vehicle development, Falcon 1, with the intermediate class Falcon 5 launch vehicle.   But the company now explains that, in response to customer requirements for low cost enhanced launch capability, SpaceX has accelerated development of an EELV-class vehicle. Therefore it is upgrading Falcon 5 to Falcon 9.   According to the company statement, SpaceX has sold Falcon 9 to a U.S. government customer. SpaceX still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007. The announcement today comes at a time when the company has yet to fly its Falcon 1 booster. The maiden launch for Falcon 1 is now scheduled for fall of this year from the SpaceX island launch complex in the Kwajalein Atoll. A second Falcon 1 mission is slated to follow a classified launch of a Titan 4 booster from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Falconeering the future Musk told SPACE.com that Falcon 9 is intended for three roles: -All sizes of Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) satellites, including commercial and government customers. -Heavy LEO satellites, which are mainly U.S. Department of Defense spacecraft. -Resupply of the International Space Station with cargo and later crew transportation. “The prices we are showing do not account for reusability, so I’m hopeful that we will be able to reduce costs significantly over time.  Also, this is still the first generation of our propulsion technology,” Musk said. The SpaceX Merlin 2 engine will benefit from a very significant thrust upgrade and also be considerably cheaper per pound of thrust than Merlin 1, he said.   “As a result, the generation of rockets based on Merlin 2 will be much cheaper per unit mass to orbit than the Falcon line, which is based on Merlin 1,” Musk said. Musk noted that the goal of SpaceX is to make Mars colonization affordable. That means growing to super-heavy 100-plus ton lift, super-cheap and super-reliable launcher, Musk said. “Falcon 1 was the first step and Falcon 9 is the second step.”

A rocket built by ACUTAL BUISNESS PEOPLE with realistic views on cost vs risk unlike NASA

Quoted: Sorry NASA is not going to be the one to return us to the Moon.   There is no way they could do it on time or on budget.  And we cant afford them to NOT be on time or on budget anymore. THESE People however CAN get us to the Moon.  IF they are supported, for a fraction of the cost. www.space.com/news/050908_spacex_falcon.html <snip> SpaceX, headquartered in El Segundo, California, is bankrolled and run by Elon Musk, a successful entrepreneur that among past activities co-founded PayPal, a leading electronic payment system. <snip>

Fuck. I was gonna change my name to Elon Musk, but it's already taken.

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry NASA is not going to be the one to return us to the Moon.   There is no way they could do it on time or on budget.  And we cant afford them to NOT be on time or on budget anymore. THESE People however CAN get us to the Moon.  IF they are supported, for a fraction of the cost. www.space.com/news/050908_spacex_falcon.html <snip> SpaceX, headquartered in El Segundo, California, is bankrolled and run by Elon Musk, a successful entrepreneur that among past activities co-founded PayPal, a leading electronic payment system. <snip> Fuck. I was gonna change my name to Elon Musk, but it's already taken.

He may have a funny name but its people like him and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, who funded Rutans successful Spaceship One program who are the future of space travel, not NASA.

Quoted: I gave up with NASA setting up a base on the moon when the broke 1980's proposed date. NASA is not going to do it unless Congress gives the all the money..  NASA is all talk on the subject. Blahh. Blahh. Blahh.. Get real.. It won't happen from NASA. If you want it done . You have to have companies like Hilton, McDonalds, Microsoft, Coca Cola, and Donald Trump have Fed- X get it there. Then it will happen. Don't depend on the government to get it done right, or even at all.

Much truer than most would believe.  Private industry will always get things done quicker, cheaper, and more efficiently than big government.  There just needs to be some sort of incentive for the market to drive it.

OK. Got it. As long as the Boston cronies get rich, everything is OK. How can you possibly ascribe the cost overruns on the Boston Artery project to the Federal government? Greed is what motivates people to steal, not to succeed. Technical ingenuity is what motivates people to innovate. Einstein never made a nickel, generally speaking. Money is not "generated." It's just transferred. You're claiming that the thousands of contractors who fleeced the American public on the Big Dig were successful? Really? C'mon.

I never said it wasn’t a douchbaggary thing to do, I just said that they were successful in their goals. Personally I blame the government for being so incompetent as to allow the contractors to take advantage of them far more than I do the contractors.

Technically the only time money is “generated” is when it’s printed if you want to take things literally, the contactors made out very well so you can’t say they weren’t successful.

Here again, NASA has no need to build a suborbital craft. They already did a long time ago, when it hadn't been done.

Yeah and they built one that had zero use too, and I’m sure they spent several times more than Scaled Composites did. Granted that was some time while ago, but are you really trying to say that you think NASA today could have built SS1 for less than Scaled Composites? Are you really trying to say that NASA could have come up with SS1’s design or something better?

Kennedy's challenge to the nation was not to land a man on the moon and return him to Earth at the lowest possible cost. It was to do it at any cost, knowing full well that the cost would be offset by benefits to America and mankind for the eternal future.

Since when is doing something “at any cost” a good thing, what exactly did we accomplish by going to the moon? What exactly are these benefits to America and mankind that you speak of?

No, of course not. My point is that Columbus set out on his government-subsidized journey with what he had. I suppose ultimately his mission was a failure, having never plied a more direct route to India. However, had the Queen of Spain not gambled on the deal, European colonization of North America may have come some decades later.

Doing things prematurely comes at a cost and should always be avoid, responding prematurely will always result in failure. Things will always be accomplished when they are ready to be accomplished.

Space exploration is a risk. It is inherently beset with life-threatening dangers that are not for the timid. There will be those who face up to the risks in a forthright and progressive manner, and lead the way in space, and there will be those, like you, who will sit on the sidelines grousing about it yet freely benefitting from the accomplishments and triumphs of his fellow man. I much prefer to champion the cause of space exploration because it IS something we should do as a nation, in the name of all mankind.

What accomplishments am I benefiting from exactly? I am unaware of any real benefit that resulted from going to the moon, the only thing that was accomplished was wasting tax payer dollars. You really think space won’t get explored if the government doesn’t do it?

Plus, rockets are kewl.

Some might argue that health care is “kewl”, however that doesn’t mean the government should fit the bill.