Saturday, January 16, 2010

Appearances - Past, Present and What's Better

I had a great time talking with Mr. Jim Bohannon last night. It is so much easier to discuss the potential of space exploration during a full hour and I'm thankful he gave me that much time. In fact, I'm thankful for all of the great shows that have had me on to discuss this important topic.

However, nothing beats someone getting the book and learning the full details. Then you are armed with knowledge you can share with friends, family, and even those pesky politicians who think they know more than you. If they refuse to understand, then they need to be replaced by people who do value space as a solution for our present and our future.

It's important that the American public become aware of the potential of space, that it is not just a side project, but that it should be our MAIN project...our economic pillar of stability and strength. I only hope all these appearances help drive people for further inquiry, that they get the book and tell others about it, and that this starts shifting public opinion of space. Word of mouth is a powerful thing.

I'm not asking everyone to become space geeks, but I am hoping everyone gives space serious respect for what it can do for our country, and do what they can to make sure we go in that direction. Ad Astra; to the stars. It's our calling, it's our solution, it's our destiny.


Norman Copeland said...

I listened to the entire broadcast of the Jim Bohannon show, he's a good knowledgeable presenter. It helps when the presenter's have knowledge about other thing's to add to the conversation, generally speaking for a topic speaker it's a good idea to keep the perimeters of the subject bolstered with the topic and it's interesing prognosis.

My question's are, because I can see the pattern your developing for the bulk of conversation:

What really is the relevance of utilising the figures of $150 billion spent on the Apollo programme?

I personally would like to hear what external source a trillion dollars will come from, because that is how much is needed for government to realistically put the moon plateau on the public's lap right now... But for why?

Who in the political arena is fronting this development, and, I would like a minimum of two names, particularly because I believe that people outside of the space business will not be getting anymore interested because they do the sum's in the cold light of day. So what?

And, what directers from what ''American'' companies are prepared to guest speak along side you for the push towards a structured momemtum for space advocacy?


Norman Copeland.

Douglas Mallette said...

We didn't have the time for me to go into part 2 of that Apollo statement. Obama's Stimulus package of $700 billion hasn't done a damn thing to help us, but $700 billion would have funded 4 full scale Apollo style programs, as a comparison, so that would employ 1.6 million people. The point is that if you're going to spend money, spend it on something that has a history of creating great jobs, something that inspires the youth, something that brings the world together in cooperation, and something that helps advance technology that can aid the world.

I don't yet know what private sector people are interested in helping contribute to the trillion dollar pie for the Moon. I don't think a trillion is required by the way. $300 billion from global governments over 10 years, and the same matching amount from private industry would do just fine.

Douglas Mallette said...

Oh, as for other speakers to work with me, I don't know. That's why I'm trying to get myself out there, to put myself in their vision and hopefully get them interested. That's part of the mission I'm on. I don't think I'm well known enough yet to approach major industry people on my own.

And as for the politicians, the ones who "advocate" for space only care about the NASA pieces in their own back yard. They're only interested in maintaining the voters happiness in their districts. NASA has become more of a jobs program for them than a space exploration entity. Politicians suck and they have no true vision, which is why private space will prevail.

I think it's incumbent upon the citizens to elect people who have a better view of space and what it can do for us, and not just the NASA bit. That's why I'm more interested in working with the public than lobbying politicians. It's the people who will elect the next round of politicians, so I hope to get them thinking of space solutions when they address those running for office.

Or better yet, I hope the ones running value space as a prime part of their platform. As I said on the show, I wish more scientists and engineers would run for Congress, fixing this mess using logic, reason and the scientific method. :)

Marcel F. Williams said...

The Constellation development program is currently being funded at about $3.4 billion a year. The Space Shuttle program cost $3 billion a year. The ISS cost $2 billion a year.Space flight support cost almost another billion. In total, that's still less than we spend in one month in Iraq.

We don't need NASA to build a city on the Moon. We just need them to build the fort!

And setting up a small settlement on the Moon is not going to cost us more than what were currently already spending on our manned space program. Launching a lunar habitat module or node is probably not going to cost more than a billion dollars per launch. So launching one node plus 2 modules is probably going to cost about $3 billion a year. If you add another launch for other lunar base materials (oxygen manufacturing machines, regolith digging vehicles, etc.) that will probably add another billion. Human launches could cost $1 to $2 billion depending on how we do it. A single launch scenario using a small lunar lander would be much cheaper.

But a focused lunar base program that continuously grows the the habitat area by adding 2 large habitat modules per year, 10 habitat modules over 5 years, 20 habitat modules over a decade, shouldn't be more expensive than what we're doing now.

Norman Copeland said...

A quick estimate example of the reality of the neccessities...

I estimate a based neccessity on the application of rocket launchers we have available.

So, the cost of 6 flights per year operating the constellation rockets is 1.2 billion, but, the application mechanism is effectively a reconnaissence scenario.

An enlargement neccessary for building on the moon would require more than 10/15 times the financial investment and personel resulting with 30 billion per year ground maintenance purse.,The

[[[Ares I ground and flight operations goals are summarized]]]

Another 100 rockets for a 6 launch per year base = per rocket.. ?????? Cost for an order of 100.

With buddies and private monies???

[rocket per booster and and capsule not quoted]

Government monies???

[rocket per booster and and capsule not quoted]

the extra personel and training would 500 fold resulting with a 100 billion initial investment for an additional ten training bases with an additional 50 billion ten year utility budget.

15 more rocket launch sites = 500 billion each 7.5 thousand billions,28804,1934027_1934003_1933945,00.html

So, utility supply and personel vehicles has been paid for and potential investment from the power and industry sector is secured.

But, the private sector that will be investing in the new spaceship technology, because of russian success with space vehicles will certainly see the market slow again for the development of faster and larger travelling space vehicles, estimating the cost of one of these neuclear powered vehicles at 300 million, 10 of these wouldn't certainly be enough to see the race for Europa and Titan start, but, would certainly encourage the private sector to start thinking about solar system bases much quicker.

If the Russians decide they want to announce an off planet base for 10 thousand people, it wouldn't surprize me, and thinking along those lines... That is exactly what I think the Chinese have been saving for... Resource management isn't a guess.

No, America needs a trillion dollars to stay In the news.

I'm still supporting liquid fuel, because of the dangers of neuclear explosions and weapons of mass destruction. The main reason is atmospheric science, it's something which is vital in the natural quest to build and terraform planetoids. Or do we want neuclear reactors in underground cities?

Come on, don't be silly.

Improving thrust for liquid engines...

Norman Copeland said...

Some launch data for this year]...

United Launch Alliance plans 10 launches this year with Atlas and Delta rockets to dispatch payloads to space for science, Earth observation, navigation, communications and military reconnaissance missions...