Spaceport America: Proving the Naysayers Wrong

[aquitaine]

I'm sorry but it looks like spaceport america is the real deal

 

[negitron]

Yeah, and Phillip-Morris purportedly has brand names trademarked and acreage set aside for cultivation of marijuana when it becomes legalized. Your point?

 

[russ_watters]

Naysayers about what? I have little doubt that Richard Branson is going to build his sub-orbital rocket and commercialize it. Is something implied beyond that?

 

[aquitaine]

Because when it comes to people going into space there is a lot of naysaying going on about. I gathered from a previous conversation about the future of manned space travel that many people either don't think it will ever happen, or simply don't want it to.

 

[FredGarvin]

You do realize that there is absolutely nothing concrete in that news snippet? It can be summed up in just a few words:

After getting their FAA license and securing funding...

Personally I think the idea will never make it past the insurance lawyers.

 

[redargon]

Because when it comes to people going into space there is a lot of naysaying going on about. I gathered from a previous conversation about the future of manned space travel that many people either don't think it will ever happen, or simply don't want it to.

manned space travel is happening now, or do you mean to other planets?

 

[Chi Meson]

Orbiting the Earth just above 90% of the atmosphere is one thing. Traveling to the moon is another thing altogether. Traveling to the next nearest planet is yet another thing, and going beyond the asteroid belt is still yet another thing.

Each "next step" is increasing fuel requirements, difficulties, and dangers by an order of magnitude ("10 times each time"; no that is neither scientifically determined nor truly accurate, just a figure of speech). Traveling to the next star is not even on this list yet.

Having paying customers taking day trips into orbit is only a hair beyond taking an airplane flight, and no guarantee that the "next step" will ever be taken. It is, however, the first "next step," I'll grant you that, and we'd never be walking around on Mars unless we take it (the "next step," that is; did you think I was talking about taking Mars?)

It sounds to me that each flight will be a monstrous waste of energy. As an environmentally concerned citizen, I will be appalled at such a disgusting waste. As a frustrated astronaut wanna-be, I will be on the second flight. I will deal with the conflict by planting a tree. :sarcastic understatement smiley:

 

[aquitaine]

Personally I think the idea will never make it past the insurance lawyers.

So the naysayers will say nay.

Orbiting the Earth just above 90% of the atmosphere is one thing. Traveling to the moon is another thing altogether. Traveling to the next nearest planet is yet another thing, and going beyond the asteroid belt is still yet another thing.

One step at a time.

Having paying customers taking day trips into orbit is only a hair beyond taking an airplane flight, and no guarantee that the "next step" will ever be taken.

Actually I think it would because it proves not only that there is a real market for it but also why wouldn't people start demanding more? They would have to offer more to stay in business.

 

[Integral]

I am a nay sayer when it comes to NASA and manned missions to the moon or Mars. BUT I am a supporter of commerical endeverors to do the same.

 

[D H]

I am a nay sayer when it comes to NASA and manned missions to the moon or Mars.

This site is chock-full of such. This site is not representative of the taxpayers as a whole. (If it were, Kerry would have beaten Bush by an 85-15 landslide.)

I am a nay sayer when it comes to NASA and missions that have little if any benefit to humanity (e.g., Kepler). Fortunately for you scientists, Congress does not listen to me. Fortunately for the likes of aquitaine, Congress does not listen to those of you, either.

 

[Integral]

This site is chock-full of such. This site is not representative of the taxpayers as a whole. (If it were, Kerry would have beaten Bush by an 85-15 landslide.)

I am a nay sayer when it comes to NASA and missions that have little if any benefit to humanity (e.g., Kepler). Fortunately for you scientists, Congress does not listen to me. Fortunately for the likes of aquitaine, Congress does not listen to those of you, either.

ie Manned missions to the moon or Mars.

 

[mgb_phys]

Why build it in New Mexico?
It's along way north, not as bad as Baikonur, but if they intend launching anything other than sub-orbital passenger flights it's going to be costly.
Being in the US means you don't need to deal with ITAR for every component but you need a visa for all your customers - better hope that none of your billionaire passengers made their money from online poker sites!
You can probably get some DoD contracts for test flights but you also risk being shut down by some future administration's national security concerns.
You have to meet a lot of EPA/environmental impact assessment requirements and risk being delayed for ever if someone finds a protected flea in the area.

 

[D H]

ie Manned missions to the moon or Mars.

That human spaceflight has zero value is your religion. It is not a logical point of view.

 

[JaredJames]

That human spaceflight has zero value is your religion. It is not a logical point of view.

I agree, space exploration is simply the next step for humans, we explored this planet (albeit not completely yet) and now we are moving on to the next big thing. If we do manage to get manned missions to Mars and an efficient way of gettings things back and forth, the possibilities are endless. Resources for a start.

I do however think they should work on developing the technology a lot further than they have done first and then attempt further space flight.

 

[Cyrus]

That human spaceflight has zero value is your religion. It is not a logical point of view.

I agree, space exploration is simply the next step for humans, we explored this planet (albeit not completely yet) and now we are moving on to the next big thing. If we do manage to get manned missions to Mars and an efficient way of gettings things back and forth, the possibilities are endless. Resources for a start.

I do however think they should work on developing the technology a lot further than they have done first and then attempt further space flight.

Wishful Thinking about manned spaceflight. Mmmm Hmmm.

Please explain the techno-logic behind these statements, I see none so far.

(Note the Daft Punk Reference)

 

[JaredJames]

whats techno logic (don't say a song)?

If we could mine resources from other planets, it would be of benefit, not much more to say really.

 

[Cyrus]

whats techno logic (don't say a song)?

If we could mine resources from other planets, it would be of benefit, not much more to say really.

Did you really think before saying this? (I mean, seriously??) Exactly how are we going to do this, Jared...

We spend billions of dollars to bring back a few moon rock(s). Now you want to excavate? You do realize those minerals will cost more than platinum once they get back to earth.

 

[JaredJames]

Did you really think before saying this? (I mean, seriously??) Exactly how are we going to do this, Jared...

We spend billions of dollars to bring back a few moon rock(s). Now you want to excavate? You do realize those minerals will cost more than platinum once they get back to earth.

Hence the IF. and as per the previous post, IF we had an efficient (and economical) way to do it, it would be of benefit, but until the technology exists we shouldn't.

 

[russ_watters]

If we could mine resources from other planets, it would be of benefit, not much more to say really.

If I could squeeze my cheeks together and make a diamond, that would be a benefit too, but that doesn't make it anything more than a fantasy or any more useful a statement either.

Your post omits the big caveat and should read something like this:

'If we could mine resources from other planets at a cost competitive with mining them on earth, it would be of benefit.'

And when you put that caveat in, it reaveals the uselessness of the point: it couldn't possibly be cost competitive to mine minearals from other planets. Not even if the surface of the moon were covered with pre-cut diamonds.

 

[Cyrus]

Hence the IF. and as per the previous post, IF we had an efficient (and economical) way to do it, it would be of benefit, but until the technology exists we shouldn't.

Yeah, but we don't. So don't waste time doing it.

 

[JaredJames]

Yeah, but we don't. So don't waste time doing it.

What? Don't waste time mining (I agree) or don't waste time developing new technology for solar travel (I disagree)?

 

[Cyrus]

What? Don't waste time mining (I agree) or don't waste time developing new technology for solar travel (I disagree)?

"Solar Travel"?

 

[JaredJames]

"Solar Travel"?

I just read an article on the latest developments in solar propulsion and quite frankly think they should give up now. Given they have come up with nothing even remotely useful (acceleration wise), seems pretty pointless to me.
I'd still like to see some research done on new methods, but it seems such a waste continuing development on such useless technology. Solar sails in particular.

 

[turbo]

If we could mine resources from other planets, it would be of benefit, not much more to say really.

There is a LOT more to say. We have to loft every single gram of fuel, food, equipment, shielding, personnel, etc out of the Earth's gravitational field at a massive cost. Then you have to develop a way to protect the occupants from solar radiation once the craft is out of the Earth's magnetic field. You have to feed and shelter the crew all the way to the planet, build living quarters, mining facilities, and smelters or some other means of concentrating materials, and finally loft the crew and the product out of THAT planet's gravitational field and propel them back to Earth for recovery. Remember that all the fuel that will be required to bring the crew back must be transported to the other planet in the first place.

Is this impossible? Yes. Barring fantastic breakthroughs in propulsion and shielding at a minimum, it is impossible to send humans to another planet in the foreseeable future (and I'm not talking just decades, here). Asking US taxpayers to fund manned missions with no reasonable pay-back in sight is wrong. The aerospace industry loves public money. Their "product" is so expensive that apart from high-payback payloads like communication satellites, private money cannot support aerospace. If private investors want to make all the breakthroughs necessary to mine other planets, they are free to knock themselves out.

 

[efekwulsemmay]

Personally I think the idea will never make it past the insurance lawyers.

They already have. The entirety of your quote follows as such:

After getting their FAA license and securing funding, the 27 square mile development project has officially begun.

 

[JaredJames]

Exactly how dangerous is the radiation in space? The moon hoax gang use it as a reason they couldn't land on the moon, but I've never seen a definitive answer. Just a load of debates as to whether or not it is dangerous.

 

[turbo]

Exactly how dangerous is the radiation in space? The moon hoax gang use it as a reason they couldn't land on the moon, but I've never seen a definitive answer. Just a load of debates as to whether or not it is dangerous.

We were extremely fortunate that there were no Solar storms while the Apollo crews were outside the Earth's magnetic field, or the crews would have died of radiation damage.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am surprised at the antiquated (and sadly, unscientific) thinking being expressed by several members in this thread. These members appear not to have heard of the concept of economic growth. The present hiccup in the globale economy will hardly put a permanent halt on this.

When I lived in Singapore in the early 1970s a return airfare to the UK cost around 400 pounds sterling. That was about five months salary for a junior teacher. Today I can still get a flight for around four hundred pounds, but that represents only about one weeks salary for a junior teacher. Technology and more efficient application of technology reduces costs.

Mining from planets might be a little foolish - at this point. Almost as foolish as the idea that it could be economic to fly lamb in aircraft half way around the world. However mining of asteroids would be another matter.

Why do some of you think we have to lift all the fuel into orbit? Oh, that's right. You are basing it on precedent. The Pilgrim Father's took their firewood with them to the New World and sent back for regular supplies of coal.

The arguments against are just filled with thinking that assumes current technology extends indefinitely into the future with no change. And twenty years ago you hadn't even heard of the internet.

 

[JaredJames]

Why do some of you think we have to lift all the fuel into orbit? Oh, that's right. You are basing it on precedent. The Pilgrim Father's took their firewood with them to the New World and sent back for regular supplies of coal.

The arguments against are just filled with thinking that assumes current technology extends indefinitely into the future with no change. And twenty years ago you hadn't even heard of the internet.

Thank you, that is exactly why I used 'if'. It may not be feasible now, but in the future who knows?
This is the sort of thinking which gets me annoyed. Everytime I see a debate in of religion vs atheist, the religious viewpoint is always "we don't know how it works and therefore there is a god". They never consider what we may discover.

I believe the whole purpose of putting a base on the moon was to avoid having to lift the fuel into orbit (at least not all in one).

 

[Chi Meson]

I am surprised at the antiquated (and sadly, unscientific) thinking being expressed by several members in this thread. These members appear not to have heard of the concept of economic growth. The present hiccup in the globale economy will hardly put a permanent halt on this.

When I lived in Singapore in the early 1970s a return airfare to the UK cost around 400 pounds sterling. That was about five months salary for a junior teacher. Today I can still get a flight for around four hundred pounds, but that represents only about one weeks salary for a junior teacher. Technology and more efficient application of technology reduces costs.

Mining from planets might be a little foolish - at this point. Almost as foolish as the idea that it could be economic to fly lamb in aircraft half way around the world. However mining of asteroids would be another matter.

Why do some of you think we have to lift all the fuel into orbit? Oh, that's right. You are basing it on precedent. The Pilgrim Father's took their firewood with them to the New World and sent back for regular supplies of coal.

The arguments against are just filled with thinking that assumes current technology extends indefinitely into the future with no change. And twenty years ago you hadn't even heard of the internet.

Twenty years ago I had a Compuserve account.

It is NOT "scientific thinking" to say "someday science will figure it out." It IS scientific thinking to make conjectures based on all the evidence as we currently understand them. While it is important to understand that there will be breakthroughs ahead, and that there will be something else discovered that we have no idea about now, we cannot tell what those things will be, and an expectation that we will discover ANYthing that we want is exactly the same as fiction.

We do know, right now, that interplanetary space, even interstellar space, is awash in energy. Lots of radiant energy for one, there's the solar wind, and lots of hydrogen. There are many ideas out there on how we can use that energy.

The hydrogen ramjet idea is over 30 years old, and would be a great source of fuel once a spacecraft is already traveling at high velocity. Solar sails should work fine for acceleration away from the sun, but the craft would need to be very small compared to the sails, and it would be no good for getting back home (you cannot tack against the wind in space).

Science must be skeptical in the face of goals based on unknown speculation. We have to temper our wishes with our reality (as we understand reality to be). Going into orbit around the Earth is OLD news. It has been done for forty years now. Half a century of orbiting the earth. So now a Spaceport "is going to be built" in order to take people into orbit. How much of a step is that?

We are also now thinking and planning (not building yet) a scheme to get one or two people to Mars and back. I am certain that we will get there, and probably within my lifetime. But large groups of people going to Mars? Not so very soon.