In theory this sounds great. Unfortunately I don't trust this administration to pull it off.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-space-war-234829
Quote
Trump advisers' space plan: To moon, Mars and beyond
A push for privatization is inspiring a battle between aerospace contractors and the new breed of tech entrepreneurs.
By Bryan Bender
| 02/09/17 05:09 AM EST
The Trump administration is considering a bold and controversial vision for the U.S. space program that calls for a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon by 2020, the construction of privately operated space stations and the redirection of NASA's mission to "the large-scale economic development of space," according to internal documents obtained by POLITICO.
The proposed strategy, whose potential for igniting a new industry appeals to Trump's business background and job-creation pledges, is influencing the White House's search for leaders to run the space agency. And it is setting off a struggle for supremacy between traditional aerospace contractors and the tech billionaires who have put big money into private space ventures.
"It is a big fight," said former Republican Rep. Robert Walker of Pennsylvania, who drafted the Trump campaign's space policy and remains involved in the deliberations. "There are billions of dollars at stake. It has come to a head now when it has become clear to the space community that the real innovative work is being done outside of NASA."
The early indications are that private rocket firms like Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and their supporters have a clear upper hand in what Trump's transition advisers portrayed as a race between "Old Space" and "New Space," according to emails among key players inside the administration. Trump has met with Bezos and Musk, while tech investor Peter Thiel, a close confidant, has lobbied the president to look at using NASA to help grow the private space industry.
Charles Miller, a former NASA official who served on Trump's NASA transition team after running a commercial space cargo firm, is pushing for the White House to nominate a deputy administrator who foremost "shares the same goal/overall vision of transforming NASA by leveraging commercial space partnerships," according to a Jan. 23 communication. That deputy would run the space program's day-to-day operations.
Trump has yet to name a NASA director, but the documents confirm that Rep. Jim Bridenstine, a Republican from Oklahoma and former Navy pilot who ran the Tulsa Air and Space Museum, is a top contender.
"Fingers crossed," Miller writes of Bridenstine's candidacy, according to one email
The White House and Miller did not respond to requests for comment.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, another commercial space evangelist with close ties to Trump, is also pushing the White House to embark on a major effort to privatize U.S. space efforts.
"A good part of the Trump administration would like a lot more aggressive, risk-taking, competitive entrepreneurial approach to space," Gingrich said in an interview. "A smaller but still powerful faction represents Boeing and the expensive old contractors who have soaked up money with minimum results.
"No NASA program dominated by bureaucrats could take the risks, accept the failures and create a learning curve comparable to an entrepreneurial approach," he added. "Just think of the Wright brothers' 500 failures in five summers at $1 per failure. Ask how long NASA would have taken and how much it would have cost."
The more ambitious administration vision could include new moon landings that "see private American astronauts, on private space ships, circling the Moon by 2020; and private lunar landers staking out de facto 'property rights' for American on the Moon, by 2020 as well," according to a summary of an "agency action plan" that the transition drew up for NASA late last month.
Such missions would be selected through an "internal competition" between what the summary calls Old Space, or NASA's traditional contractors, and New Space characterized by SpaceX and Blue Origin.
But the summary also suggests a strong predilection toward New Space. "We have to be seen giving 'Old Space' a fair and balanced shot at proving they are better and cheaper than commercial," it says.
Another thrust of the new space effort would be to privatize low-Earth orbit, where most satellites and the International Space Station operate — or a "seamless low-risk transition from government-owned and operated stations to privately-owned and operated stations."
"This may be the biggest and most public privatization effort America has ever conducted," it says.
Granting most of low-Earth orbit activities to the private sector — key exceptions would be made for military and intelligence satellites — is a major element of what Walker, who chaired the House Science Committee, has been pushing Trump to adopt.
Unlike deep space exploration, which under the proposed vision would remain a key element of the government's space mission, in low-Earth orbit "you have mature enough technologies — private space stations in orbit, a number of concepts for building constellations of satellites that would have earth-bound applications," said Walker, who says he now consults mostly for New Space clients.
But he said the potential for economic development there — from space tourism to a host of industrial purposes to include the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and new materials — cannot be fully tapped "as long as the investors think they might be competing with the government."
"Turn over low-Earth orbit to commercial interests," Walker advises. "NASA — your job is to go to deep space. Get back into the business of technology developments that move us more aggressively into the exploration role again," such as a mission to Mars. "You can't do missions of that enormity with chemical rockets."
The proposals being considered by the new administration also call for a "space industrialization initiative" in which NASA, with its $19 billion annual budget, would be "refocused on the large-scale economic development of space," according to the summary.
The model for NASA's new role, it says, could be the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, a federal agency established in 1915, at the dawn of aviation, to promote and institutionalize aeronautical research.
"NASA's new strategy will prioritize economic growth and the organic creation of new industries and private sector jobs, over 'exploration' and other esoteric activities," according to the summary of the NASA agency action plan. "Done correctly, this could create a trillion-dollar per year space economy, dominated by America."
But such an approach is likely to cause anxiety within NASA and in Congress.
"Clearly there is a very keen interest in bringing in commercial but there is still a lot of desire to maintain programmatic continuity," said Andy Aldrin, director of the Buzz Aldrin Space Institute at the Florida Institute of Technology. "At some point those two things may not be consistent. At the end of the day there is only so much money to go around."
At NASA itself, major components of the agency that are focused on human space flight, space science and aeronautics might see their budgets cut or redirected under the new administration. "The uncertainty is not good for the workforce," said Brendan Curry, vice president of Washington operations for the Space Foundation, an educational organization whose members include a wide variety of space firms.
"The sooner that we know whatever the plan is from the Trump administration then Congress can adjudicate on it and the space industry will move ahead," Curry said.
Indeed, the bigger fight over the soul of the space agency could play out on Capitol Hill. Convincing skeptical lawmakers that are worried about the loss of NASA contractor jobs in their districts could be difficult — not to mention finding the additional federal money that might be needed to partner with private space companies.
Lori Garver, who served as the deputy NASA administrator in the Obama administration, predicts major pushback from Congress despite the potentially significant economic benefits of an aggressive government role in the privatization of space.
"We had a new administration that wanted to go in that direction but we were slowed," she said in an interview. "We made a little bit of progress."
While there is a strong argument that privatization would bring new jobs, "they don't want to let it go because they can't ensure where the jobs will be," said Garver, now general manager of the Air Line Pilots Association.
A bitter foretaste of the potential space war was the feud between Space X and the United Launch Alliance — a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing — over lucrative contracts to launch military satellites into orbit.
Powerful backers of Boeing, such as Sens. Richard Shelby of Alabama and Dick Durbin of Illinois, faced off against SpaceX supporters like Arizona Sen. John McCain, and SpaceX ultimately won a court battle to elbow its way into the military market.
For Aldrin, whose father Buzz was the second human to walk on the moon, the government space effort is a crossroad. He believes that private investment in space will not only bring economic benefits but could help NASA reignite its human space program, which has stalled since the retirement of the space shuttle fleet in 2011.
"We can leverage more investment in commercial markets to provide a better foundation for what NASA would like to do with human exploration," he said. "We have to understand what the relationship between those two things can be. Sound market economics can be a real strong foundation to launching a mission to Mars and human habitation to Mars."
Hmm so Boeing has Shelby and Durbin and SpaceX John McCain. So which senators does Lockheed-Martin own? :hmm:
If we encourage this, he'll forget the wall.
Yes they could pull it off.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 21, 2017, 10:55:17 PM
If we encourage this, he'll forget the wall.
Yes they could pull it off.
11 million illegals to collect, that's a lot of grease for liquid propellant.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 21, 2017, 10:55:17 PM
If we encourage this, he'll forget the wall.
Yes they could pull it off.
Yeah, I think Trump is the only man who could pull it off.
Leading from the front and baldly going etc. :cool:
It's bigly and grandiose. Right up his alley.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 21, 2017, 11:13:49 PM
It's bigly and grandiose. Right up his alley.
Hey a wall didn't work for the Chinese. Yuan Dynasty happened.
But it did make a pretty good tourist attraction. Lewis Black's Big Fucking Thing economic plan.
if trump pulls this off, it will be his legacy. 500 years from now, no one will care about jose or achmed. human colonies in trappist-1 here we come!
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
tribbles
economic viability will soar once costs are reduced through the creation of Trump Elevator
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 08:53:37 AM
if trump pulls this off, it will be his legacy. 500 years from now, no one will care about jose or achmed. human colonies in trappist-1 here we come!
Can you actually talk about anything without trolling?
QuoteHave we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
I don't know. But making it economically viable is the job of SpaceX. NASA doesn't worry about stuff like that.
Quote from: Valmy on February 22, 2017, 11:04:14 AM
I don't know. But making it economically viable is the job of SpaceX. NASA doesn't worry about stuff like that.
Quotethe redirection of NASA's mission to "the large-scale economic development of space,"
;)
Yeah that is a stupid idea. NASA needs to focus on pushing the frontiers, the private sector should worry about economic development.
Quote from: Valmy on February 22, 2017, 11:53:50 AM
Yeah that is a stupid idea. NASA needs to focus on pushing the frontiers, the private sector should worry about economic development.
Yeah, as long as they are let and helped to do that (which is probably the case already. just sayin').
And once transportation of materials mined from asteroids is made economical, the changes will be profound. Metals and other resources that are rare premium resources now will become commonplace in everyday use.
Quote from: Valmy on February 22, 2017, 11:04:14 AMCan you actually talk about anything without trolling?
I talked about space and my support for trump's focus on space exploration. also, I hinted at NASA's big reveal hours before their press conference
So, Trump no more has a plan for space than he had for defeating ISIS. :(
To be fair, he never claimed he had any plan for space, and he has about as much plan for space as Obama or Bush had.
I think the past month has provided more than enough evidence that trump does what he says he will do
plus, it's an easy excuse to shift $$$ on climate change research to space exploration(!)
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 02:05:02 PM
I think the past month has provided more than enough evidence that trump does what he says he will do
The continued existence of ISIS disproves THAT canard! :lol:
Quoteplus, it's an easy excuse to shift $$$ on climate change research to space exploration(!) Trump's pockets
Gotta watch out for the family business!
So Trump's plan to defeat ISIS was really one to end the tyranny of the International Space Station. <_<
At least this might bring colonialism back into favor. Its PR has really taken a beating over the past couple centuries.
Quote from: Tamas on February 22, 2017, 12:25:04 PM
Yeah, as long as they are let and helped to do that (which is probably the case already. just sayin').
And once transportation of materials mined from asteroids is made economical, the changes will be profound. Metals and other resources that are rare premium resources now will become commonplace in everyday use.
That would crash all the precious metals and diamond markets. :P
Remember when you are in suspended animation in a 235 trillion mile trip to the TRAPPIST-1 colonies and you accidentally get brought out of it early don't wake up any other colonists no matter how hot they are.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-telescope-reveals-largest-batch-of-earth-size-habitable-zone-planets-around
QuoteNASA Telescope Reveals Largest Batch of Earth-Size, Habitable-Zone Planets Around Single Star
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has revealed the first known system of seven Earth-size planets around a single star. Three of these planets are firmly located in the habitable zone, the area around the parent star where a rocky planet is most likely to have liquid water.
The discovery sets a new record for greatest number of habitable-zone planets found around a single star outside our solar system. All of these seven planets could have liquid water – key to life as we know it – under the right atmospheric conditions, but the chances are highest with the three in the habitable zone.
"This discovery could be a significant piece in the puzzle of finding habitable environments, places that are conducive to life," said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of the agency's Science Mission Directorate in Washington. "Answering the question 'are we alone' is a top science priority and finding so many planets like these for the first time in the habitable zone is a remarkable step forward toward that goal."
At about 40 light-years (235 trillion miles) from Earth, the system of planets is relatively close to us, in the constellation Aquarius. Because they are located outside of our solar system, these planets are scientifically known as exoplanets.
This exoplanet system is called TRAPPIST-1, named for The Transiting Planets and Planetesimals Small Telescope (TRAPPIST) in Chile. In May 2016, researchers using TRAPPIST announced they had discovered three planets in the system. Assisted by several ground-based telescopes, including the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope, Spitzer confirmed the existence of two of these planets and discovered five additional ones, increasing the number of known planets in the system to seven.
The new results were published Wednesday in the journal Nature, and announced at a news briefing at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
Using Spitzer data, the team precisely measured the sizes of the seven planets and developed first estimates of the masses of six of them, allowing their density to be estimated.
Based on their densities, all of the TRAPPIST-1 planets are likely to be rocky. Further observations will not only help determine whether they are rich in water, but also possibly reveal whether any could have liquid water on their surfaces. The mass of the seventh and farthest exoplanet has not yet been estimated – scientists believe it could be an icy, "snowball-like" world, but further observations are needed.
"The seven wonders of TRAPPIST-1 are the first Earth-size planets that have been found orbiting this kind of star," said Michael Gillon, lead author of the paper and the principal investigator of the TRAPPIST exoplanet survey at the University of Liege, Belgium. "It is also the best target yet for studying the atmospheres of potentially habitable, Earth-size worlds."
In contrast to our sun, the TRAPPIST-1 star – classified as an ultra-cool dwarf – is so cool that liquid water could survive on planets orbiting very close to it, closer than is possible on planets in our solar system. All seven of the TRAPPIST-1 planetary orbits are closer to their host star than Mercury is to our sun. The planets also are very close to each other. If a person was standing on one of the planet's surface, they could gaze up and potentially see geological features or clouds of neighboring worlds, which would sometimes appear larger than the moon in Earth's sky.
The planets may also be tidally locked to their star, which means the same side of the planet is always facing the star, therefore each side is either perpetual day or night. This could mean they have weather patterns totally unlike those on Earth, such as strong winds blowing from the day side to the night side, and extreme temperature changes.
Spitzer, an infrared telescope that trails Earth as it orbits the sun, was well-suited for studying TRAPPIST-1 because the star glows brightest in infrared light, whose wavelengths are longer than the eye can see. In the fall of 2016, Spitzer observed TRAPPIST-1 nearly continuously for 500 hours. Spitzer is uniquely positioned in its orbit to observe enough crossing – transits – of the planets in front of the host star to reveal the complex architecture of the system. Engineers optimized Spitzer's ability to observe transiting planets during Spitzer's "warm mission," which began after the spacecraft's coolant ran out as planned after the first five years of operations.
"This is the most exciting result I have seen in the 14 years of Spitzer operations," said Sean Carey, manager of NASA's Spitzer Science Center at Caltech/IPAC in Pasadena, California. "Spitzer will follow up in the fall to further refine our understanding of these planets so that the James Webb Space Telescope can follow up. More observations of the system are sure to reveal more secrets."
Following up on the Spitzer discovery, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has initiated the screening of four of the planets, including the three inside the habitable zone. These observations aim at assessing the presence of puffy, hydrogen-dominated atmospheres, typical for gaseous worlds like Neptune, around these planets.
In May 2016, the Hubble team observed the two innermost planets, and found no evidence for such puffy atmospheres. This strengthened the case that the planets closest to the star are rocky in nature.
"The TRAPPIST-1 system provides one of the best opportunities in the next decade to study the atmospheres around Earth-size planets," said Nikole Lewis, co-leader of the Hubble study and astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland. NASA's planet-hunting Kepler space telescope also is studying the TRAPPIST-1 system, making measurements of the star's minuscule changes in brightness due to transiting planets. Operating as the K2 mission, the spacecraft's observations will allow astronomers to refine the properties of the known planets, as well as search for additional planets in the system. The K2 observations conclude in early March and will be made available on the public archive.
Spitzer, Hubble, and Kepler will help astronomers plan for follow-up studies using NASA's upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, launching in 2018. With much greater sensitivity, Webb will be able to detect the chemical fingerprints of water, methane, oxygen, ozone, and other components of a planet's atmosphere. Webb also will analyze planets' temperatures and surface pressures – key factors in assessing their habitability.
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, manages the Spitzer Space Telescope mission for NASA's Science Mission Directorate. Science operations are conducted at the Spitzer Science Center, at Caltech, in Pasadena, California. Spacecraft operations are based at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, Littleton, Colorado. Data are archived at the Infrared Science Archive housed at Caltech/IPAC. Caltech manages JPL for NASA.
For more information about Spitzer, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/spitzer
For more information on the TRAPPIST-1 system, visit:
https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/trappist1
For more information on exoplanets, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/exoplanets
-end-
Felicia Chou / Sean Potter
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1726 / 202-358-1536
[email protected] / [email protected]
Elizabeth Landau
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
818-354-6425
[email protected]
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
Near earth asteroids hold astronomical amounts of valuable metals and minerals. Rare Earths, platinum and gold in particular.
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
I think it's worth getting out into space just purely from a scientific standpoint. Any direct economic benefits will only come in the extreme long-term, if ever.
Trump's campaign promise to revitalize NASA is one of the very few things I agree with him on. As Timmay says, not sure that I think he can actually pull it off.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
Near earth asteroids hold astronomical amounts of valuable metals and minerals. Rare Earths, platinum and gold in particular.
I guess that's an inventive way of not answering the question.
Quote from: dps on February 22, 2017, 05:34:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
I think it's worth getting out into space just purely from a scientific standpoint. Any direct economic benefits will only come in the extreme long-term, if ever.
Trump's campaign promise to revitalize NASA is one of the very few things I agree with him on. As Timmay says, not sure that I think he can actually pull it off.
Seems like a boondoggle at this point (we need space colonies and a space economy?). I'm not anti-science but I don't know, can't help but feel regret that I don't know...Trump isn't trying to help Americans now.
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
Near earth asteroids hold astronomical amounts of valuable metals and minerals. Rare Earths, platinum and gold in particular.
I guess that's an inventive way of not answering the question.
The deposits are worth trillions of dollars. It's absolutely worth it.
our species is dead without a huge effort to explore space. even if it's all show, if trump gets us interested in space again, that's all that matters. trump's personality makes him actually likely to get really into space. pragmatists caring about trade deals killed space exploration for decades
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
Near earth asteroids hold astronomical amounts of valuable metals and minerals. Rare Earths, platinum and gold in particular.
I guess that's an inventive way of not answering the question.
It would shorten the whole process if you'd just say what answer you want, rather than just moaning each time you don't get it. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on February 22, 2017, 04:20:00 PM
Remember when you are in suspended animation in a 235 trillion mile trip to the TRAPPIST-1 colonies
40 light years make it sound so much closer... :P
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 06:33:21 PM
pragmatists caring about trade deals killed space exploration for decades
yeah, sure, it's not like scientific research at NASA costs money after all, and anyway, money is everywhere, no need to get richer and increase state's revenues to fund space program.
shuttle orbit speed is 18k mph. we've figured out how to go 200k mph. if we science it some more and reach 1 million mph, we can get there in around 2684 years. science that down so much that you get 100 years and we'll be traveling there the time we figure out how to do it. really, we need more mega computers I think to figure out the physics
Quote from: viper37 on February 22, 2017, 07:44:19 PMyeah, sure, it's not like scientific research at NASA costs money after all, and anyway, money is everywhere, no need to get richer and increase state's revenues to fund space program.
could you reword your post plz
Watching the NASA press conference, at 4:20 they say one of the planets in the habitable zone has strong signs of being water rich.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB4acbZyFBw
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fcpsprodpb%2F45EC%2Fproduction%2F_94800971_mediaitem94800970.jpg&hash=bd513912174e4ef137e4a5f90f4de3b5d421c82e)
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/1_main_pia21423-png.png)
Why aren't you talking about http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/world/new-exoplanets-discovery-nasa/index.html
Tim
:mad:
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2017, 08:59:06 PM
Why aren't you talking about http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/world/new-exoplanets-discovery-nasa/index.html
Tim
:mad:
What did you think my last two post were about?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 09:00:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2017, 08:59:06 PM
Why aren't you talking about http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/world/new-exoplanets-discovery-nasa/index.html
Tim
:mad:
What did you think my last two post were about?
3 are in the zone, not 1
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2017, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 09:00:12 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2017, 08:59:06 PM
Why aren't you talking about http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/22/world/new-exoplanets-discovery-nasa/index.html
Tim
:mad:
What did you think my last two post were about?
3 are in the zone, not 1
Yes, but so far, only
Quoteone of the planets in the habitable zone has strong signs of being water rich.
Narrow view IMO.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 22, 2017, 09:08:51 PM
Narrow view IMO.
Well, that's just what they have now. They will be doing much more in depth studies of the system with the Spitzer, Hubble and upcoming James Webb space telescopes.
At the 32:23 mark they say their working hypothesis is that these planets formed further out and migrated inward before their orbits stabilized. That means they formed in a very ice rich area, and should be water rich. They just don't know yet.
Ok. So we need gravity, composition of the atmosphere, and water content. Get on that space researchers.
BTW did some Walloon, Michael Gillon, find this thing? Was the Euro Space guys or was it NASA? Or some combination of the two?
And at least two tree tiles and two sheep tiles.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 22, 2017, 11:14:17 PM
And at least two tree tiles and two sheep tiles.
Settlers of Trappist-1. I would play it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 22, 2017, 11:12:47 PM
Ok. So we need gravity, composition of the atmosphere, and water content. Get on that space researchers.
BTW did some Walloon, Michael Gillon, find this thing? Was the Euro Space guys or was it NASA? Or some combination of the two?
Because the planets are close enough to gravitationally tug on each other, scientists have been able to calculate their mass, and since they know the diameter due to the transits, they will know the gravitiy.
Watch the NASA video. It's NASA and the Belgians.
They will know in a few years whether it's atmosphere has oxygen and methane, because it's close enough to study with Spitzer, Hubble and the JW space telescope.
Quote from: grumbler on February 22, 2017, 07:26:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
Near earth asteroids hold astronomical amounts of valuable metals and minerals. Rare Earths, platinum and gold in particular.
I guess that's an inventive way of not answering the question.
It would shorten the whole process if you'd just say what answer you want, rather than just moaning each time you don't get it. ;)
I asked a question about tech, it wasn't answered.
This is the second time in recent years a 'earth like planet in the habitable zone' has been discovered around a red dwarf.
Now.
1: I wish the media would stop saying earth like planet when they only mean a terrestrial planet.
2: According to the science fiction canon I have in my head....a habitable world around a red dwarf should not be possible. In Frontier Elite such things were very rare. IIRC the issue was that you had to get so close to the star to get enough energy from it that the radiation would be deadly. Also that many of these stars are prone to flares.
Has something changed in science to dismiss this? Or was sci-fi knowingly wrong all along?
I was a bit suspicious bt the name, Trappist, so first thought it was a joke, till I saw the university of Liege was involved. I wonder wat we'll find in the Gueuze, Lambic, Pale Ale, Old Brown and Stella Artois systems. :)
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 06:33:21 PM
our species is dead without a huge effort to explore space. even if it's all show, if trump gets us interested in space again, that's all that matters. trump's personality makes him actually likely to get really into space. pragmatists caring about trade deals killed space exploration for decades
50 years is chump change in the lifetime of the species.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 05:59:28 PM
The deposits are worth trillions of dollars. It's absolutely worth it.
As soon as you pull just one gold asteroid down from space, it's going to become too abundant to still be worth trillions.
Well it could still be worth trillions, but the resulting inflation will make everything else worth millions.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 23, 2017, 05:49:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 05:59:28 PM
The deposits are worth trillions of dollars. It's absolutely worth it.
As soon as you pull just one gold asteroid down from space, it's going to become too abundant to still be worth trillions.
Aluminum used to be more valuable than platinum, however once they figured out how to mass produce it become far more economically important, despite the fact that the value per gram plunged.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 02:36:11 AM
I asked a question about tech, it wasn't answered.
If the answer you get isn't satisfying, ask a follow-up question rather than attacking the person attempting to answer. You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 23, 2017, 07:07:32 AM
Aluminum used to be more valuable than platinum, however once they figured out how to mass produce it become far more economically important, despite the fact that the value per gram plunged.
Aluminum has never been more valuable than platinum, as it has far fewer unique uses. You are correct, though, to note that price and value are not the same thing, even if your wording is incorrect.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 07:19:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 02:36:11 AM
I asked a question about tech, it wasn't answered.
If the answer you get isn't satisfying, ask a follow-up question rather than attacking the person attempting to answer. You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
I guess it takes one to know one.
Quote from: Archy on February 23, 2017, 02:50:28 AM
I was a bit suspicious bt the name, Trappist, so first thought it was a joke, till I saw the university of Liege was involved. I wonder wat we'll find in the Gueuze, Lambic, Pale Ale, Old Brown and Stella Artois systems. :)
It's a very quiet star, only communicating in hand signals.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 08:04:05 AM
I guess it takes one to know one.
:lol: Okay, I'll pretend I am back in the third grade and so think this response is clever.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 23, 2017, 09:02:03 AM
Quote from: Archy on February 23, 2017, 02:50:28 AM
I was a bit suspicious bt the name, Trappist, so first thought it was a joke, till I saw the university of Liege was involved. I wonder wat we'll find in the Gueuze, Lambic, Pale Ale, Old Brown and Stella Artois systems. :)
It's a very quiet star, only communicating in hand signals.
well played :D
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 09:13:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 08:04:05 AM
I guess it takes one to know one.
:lol: Okay, I'll pretend I am back in the third grade and so think this response is clever.
I thought we were starting a game of trading cliches. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 09:34:14 AM
I thought we were starting a game of trading cliches. :(
In order to start that again you will have to stop the previous round where you speak in cliches.
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 09:39:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 09:34:14 AM
I thought we were starting a game of trading cliches. :(
In order to start that again you will have to stop the previous round where you speak in cliches.
Oh, have we just moved on to random sentences? I'm game.
"I'm so sorry, but when a white boy disrespects you, you punch him in the fucking face."
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 10:27:48 AM
"I'm so sorry, but when a white boy disrespects you, you punch him in the fucking face."
Race violence :o
Quote from: HVC on February 23, 2017, 10:39:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 10:27:48 AM
"I'm so sorry, but when a white boy disrespects you, you punch him in the fucking face."
Race violence :o
I wonder if she'll be brought up on inciting racial hatred though I'm not sure if her statement was made in UK, just the punch she threw.
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 10:27:48 AM
Oh, have we just moved on to random sentences? I'm game.
"I'm so sorry, but when a white boy disrespects you, you punch him in the fucking face."
Interesting game.
"Faux black people make pathetic bullies."
Quote from: grumbler on February 23, 2017, 11:17:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 10:27:48 AM
Oh, have we just moved on to random sentences? I'm game.
"I'm so sorry, but when a white boy disrespects you, you punch him in the fucking face."
Interesting game.
"Faux black people make pathetic bullies."
I think she's actually black. :unsure:
"He couldn't become a distant memory soon enough to suit her."
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: HVC on February 23, 2017, 10:39:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 10:27:48 AM
"I’m so sorry, but when a white boy disrespects you, you punch him in the fucking face."
Race violence :o
I wonder if she'll be brought up on inciting racial hatred though I'm not sure if her statement was made in UK, just the punch she threw.
had to look that story up. is Abigail a racist term? :unsure:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 23, 2017, 05:49:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 05:59:28 PM
The deposits are worth trillions of dollars. It's absolutely worth it.
As soon as you pull just one gold asteroid down from space, it's going to become too abundant to still be worth trillions.
If they bring the asteroid down from space, the mass destruction that would cause might keep the value somewhat stable. :P
But even if we were to measure the value of an asteroid in the trillions...the cost of transport/retrieval of the mining infrastructure needed to operate in deep space, and return the ore to Earth in a safe manner, is way too prohibitive to be cost effective for quite some time.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 24, 2017, 05:20:00 AM
But even if we were to measure the value of an asteroid in the trillions...the cost of transport/retrieval of the mining infrastructure needed to operate in deep space, and return the ore to Earth in a safe manner, is way too prohibitive to be cost effective for quite some time.
Yes, and that was the information Garbon was trying to get.
Quote from: HVC on February 23, 2017, 11:45:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: HVC on February 23, 2017, 10:39:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 23, 2017, 10:27:48 AM
"I’m so sorry, but when a white boy disrespects you, you punch him in the fucking face."
Race violence :o
I wonder if she'll be brought up on inciting racial hatred though I'm not sure if her statement was made in UK, just the punch she threw.
had to look that story up. is Abigail a racist term? :unsure:
Well she didn't say he was being racist.
Quote from: dps on February 24, 2017, 05:45:01 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 24, 2017, 05:20:00 AM
But even if we were to measure the value of an asteroid in the trillions...the cost of transport/retrieval of the mining infrastructure needed to operate in deep space, and return the ore to Earth in a safe manner, is way too prohibitive to be cost effective for quite some time.
Yes, and that was the information Garbon was trying to get.
Well, in truth, I was largely asking in a rhetorical manner, but yeah. -_-
Man, this system really is tiny.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jpl.nasa.gov%2Fspaceimages%2Fimages%2Flargesize%2FPIA21428_hires.jpg&hash=77845a4315ee64ffcba9516f273c0a412bf8ba95)
While watching this I realized the factor that will make or break the habitability of these worlds is the density of the worlds. Of the three in the habitable zone, only the third is dense enough to form a magnetosphere to protect it from the star's flares. It's far enough from the star, that it's atmosphere will have to be quite thick to be warm enough, but it's a possibility.
EDIT: Actually, I just thought a way around this. These planets are getting pulled on by the gravity of their neighbors in similar ways to the Galilean moons. Hopefully it's enough for their interiors to heat up enough that they have a molten iron core, and not so hot that they're a volcanic hellscape like Io.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftgIr0_tDvs
Send katmai to them. They will be dense enough.
Only grumbler will live to see our space colonies.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
Near earth asteroids hold astronomical amounts of valuable metals and minerals. Rare Earths, platinum and gold in particular.
We have those things here, with much more reasonable recovery costs. As things stand, there is nothing in space that is worth the expense of retrieving it.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 22, 2017, 07:49:26 PM
shuttle orbit speed is 18k mph. we've figured out how to go 200k mph. if we science it some more and reach 1 million mph, we can get there in around 2684 years. science that down so much that you get 100 years and we'll be traveling there the time we figure out how to do it. really, we need more mega computers I think to figure out the physics
Speed isn't the issue, but rather fuel efficiency (and at a certain point, materials science).
Reminder where Trump wants to take some of the money from.
https://qz.com/919982/a-nasa-engineer-explains-why-trumps-plan-to-cut-the-space-agencys-climate-science-program-is-a-lot-harder-than-it-sounds/
QuoteA NASA engineer explains why Trump's plan to cut the space agency's climate science program is harder than it sounds
Within weeks of the US election, president Donald Trump said he intended to scrap NASA's research on climate change, shifting those resources—less than $2 billion of the agency's $19 billion budget—to its space program.
Other Republicans have echoed that goal. Oklahoma state senator Jim Bridenstine, who is reportedly being considered (among others) to run NASA, once called on Barack Obama to apologize to the people of Oklahoma for funding climate change research. Texas representative Lamar Smith, chairman of the House committee on Science, Space and Technology, said earlier this month that NASA should be focused on space, not climate change, because "another dozen agencies" are already studying the latter.
But cutting NASA's climate science research could prove to be an expensive, logistical nightmare, according to a contractor who works as an engineer for one NASA satellite that collects climate data. The engineer requested to remain anonymous to avoid jeopardizing their employment at the agency.
NASA currently has 16 earth science satellites in orbit (and three other earth science instruments attached to the International Space Station) that, in addition to climate data, collect information on the atmosphere, oceans, and land-based phenomena like wildfires. The satellites make up the core of NASA's climate science program, and the most immediate problem with eliminating climate research is what would be come of them.
"If you stopped operations—if nobody manned the satellites—they would crash and spread space debris," the engineer said. NASA currently tracks around 500,000 pieces of space debris traveling at extremely high speeds; satellite engineers must steer their spacecraft to avoid them. If a satellite crashes into a piece of debris, the satellite would splinter, possibly sending "40,000 or 50,0000 pieces of space debris into low earth orbit," the engineer said. "Then you have to try to account for all those pieces of debris. That would be truly a crisis. They wouldn't de-staff our teams just because of that danger."
Transferring satellite operations to a different agency would be costly. NASA's earth science satellites are operated in large part by contractors, many with five-year agreements, who use specialized equipment at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. Severing those agreements, and physically moving those machines to a different agency's headquarters, would be a massive headache. "All the engineers and scientists are geographically living near the center where we work," the engineer said. "All the resources—all that stuff is geographically tied down."
Even if the Trump administration wanted to remove those satellites from space entirely, the logistics and red tape surrounding the "deorbiting process"—delicately bringing a satellite back to Earth—can take "years and years," said the engineer, who worries more about the administration leaving the satellites in place and simply ceasing data collection.
Budgetary waste is a common refrain among those seeking to end climate science at NASA. Since other US agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also study climate change and earth science, critics argue, there is a degree of redundancy in NASA's work.
But redundancy isn't wasteful; it is a basic tenet of high-quality science. If more than one set of data point to the same trend or conclusion (especially if they were collected by entirely separate scientists at separate agencies), scientists can have more confidence that the conclusion is correct. For that very reason, climate scientists often use climate data gathered by NASA, NOAA, and the EPA. Eliminating any of these data sources would reduce the overall diversity of data and, by default, the scientific rigor of US research. It would also consolidate data collection into the hands of fewer political appointees.
Already, grassroots efforts are underway at universities around the country to download and store federal science data. "Data rescue" groups have managed to harvest NASA's earth science data, as well as much of NOAA's and the EPA's data. NASA employees have taken notice. "We're all pretty excited by it," the engineer said. The data rescue initiatives have gained urgency in the wake of Scott Pruitt's confirmation as EPA administrator, as NASA employees worry he could pull the EPA's climate data from public view.
"Censorship is my number one concern," the NASA engineer said. "Once you consolidate the sources of data, it's easier to censor."
Big deal. Drain the swamp. Grab that pussy. America first.
Fucking luddite. <_<
http://www.iflscience.com/space/trump-cancels-europa-lander-asteroid-mission-earth-science-first-budget/all/
QuoteTrump Cancels Europa Lander, Asteroid Mission, Earth Science Satellites In First Budget
Trump's first federal budget is out, and while it's pretty terrible news for education and environmental science, it's a bit of a mixed bag for NASA. The headline news is that, sadly, the Europa Lander will be no more – for now.
The budget (which comes off the back of recommendations from Congress last week) covers fiscal year 2018, which begins on October 1 this year, and allocates NASA $19.1 billion – a decrease of 0.4 percent from the Obama administration's last budget.
It's not a final budget, as the House and Senate will now examine it, make changes, and send it back to be signed. But it does give an idea of what Trump wants to do with NASA – and there are some pretty big losers.
It proposes continuing funding for a mission to Europa in the 2020s called the Europa Clipper. This will fly past the moon multiple times to ascertain if its ocean beneath its icy surface might be habitable.
However, there had been tentative plans to also send a lander to Europa, either on this mission or on a separate mission. This budget would scrap that, although there's always the chance it will be picked up again in the future.
"[T]he Budget provides no funding for a multi-billion-dollar mission to land on Europa," states the document, somewhat stomach-churningly titled "America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again".
The funding for the Europa Clipper comes as generally good news for NASA's Planetary Science division, which would get a 20.1 percent boost in funding from the previous budget. But it's dire news for Earth Science, which is cut by 12.9 percent as a result. NASA involvement in several satellites would be cancelled – although some like DSCOVR could live on through the NOAA.
"The Budget terminates four Earth science missions (PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR Earth-viewing instruments, and CLARREO Pathfinder) and reduces funding for Earth science research grants," the budget notes. Great.
"We remain committed to studying our home planet and the universe, but are reshaping our focus within the resources available to us," NASA's Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot added in a statement.
The other major cut is to the Asteroid Redirect Mission. This was a proposed mission where an asteroid would be moved into lunar orbit, and astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft – which maintains funding alongside the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket – would fly to it and study it.
"We remain committed to the next human missions to deep space, but we will not pursue the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) with this budget," said Lightfoot, although he noted that some developments from the project – like solar electric propulsion – would be retained.
This mission has been up for the chop for a while, as some bemoaned its lack of clear purpose. Nonetheless, it leaves NASA's manned exploration with very little direction in place. The budget makes no specific mention of focusing on getting humans to the Moon or Mars, although it does pledge funding to support "astronauts on deep-space missions".
The other big losers are aeronautics, which is cut by 26.6 percent, and the Office of Education, which would be scrapped. Support would be maintained for NASA's commercial endeavors, though, which includes funding companies like SpaceX and Boeing to begin taking astronauts to low-Earth orbit in the next few years.
There are certainly some questionable decisions here. While NASA's funding remains stable, those hoping Trump wouldn't be aiming his chopping block at climate science and education are in for a bit of a shock. Save us, James Mattis – you're our only hope.
Quote from: Neil on February 25, 2017, 11:05:36 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 22, 2017, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 22, 2017, 08:59:24 AM
Have we actually identified anything that, with current or near future tech, would be economically viable to transport back from space?
Near earth asteroids hold astronomical amounts of valuable metals and minerals. Rare Earths, platinum and gold in particular.
We have those things here, with much more reasonable recovery costs. As things stand, there is nothing in space that is worth the expense of retrieving it.
- you have to pay royalties to government
- you have to bribe local authorities
- you have high environmental safety issues
- you have local opposition to your project, no matter how good or how safe it is
In space, no one can hear you scream.
Quote from: Syt on March 05, 2017, 01:07:07 PM
Reminder where Trump wants to take some of the money from.
the budget proposal cancelled three planned earth science missions, but appears that it's still funding the existing satellites. With the exception of one at a Sun-Earth Lagrangian point that is already up and producing data. The budget would still keep it in orbit and taking data, but would stop it from taking pictures of Earth.