Comments on: Bush’s Nefarious Space Plan

By: nothin to do with this

nothin to do with this — Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:11:36 +0000

i got nothin do with this

By: josh

josh — Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:54:00 +0000

i’m not opposed to exploring space. my “anti-space” far left blah blah blah comes from the two things wrong i see with the space program.

1. corporate america pays nothing in, yet reaps the benefits of exploration.
2. the dynamic of it all. its sold to us wrapped in a patriotic bow, and i’m leary of anything packaged in that manner. i think of wally george with the picture of the space shuttle behind him.

i would also like to point out that my most of my fellow “lefties” that say they agree with me in principle on things like single payer healthcare and campaign finance refore but it is unrealistic to consider that this will happen in our lifetime. some of these folk are the the first to say they are for things like missions to mars.

so, we can make it to mars, that is attainable, but healthcare for all is a dream that can never happen in our lifetime. i’m not insinuating we shouldnt be going to mars if its feasible, or that the money for such missions should be the money used for healthcare, but surly if mars is possible than healthcare is anything but a pipe dream. mabey we just need to dress it up in a patriotic bow…

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:02:07 +0000

The beauty of the space program is that you can explore space at the same time as you are developing renewable energy sources, and studying the enviornment. It’s just a matter of focus. That’s why I don’t necessairly agree with Bush’s proposals. You shouldn’t just say, “let’s put a man on mars and let the technology trickle down.” You should say, “How does going to mars best serve us? What can we gain from going there besides knowledge?” In terms of mars, I would say very little right now. The future of mars probably will be as a spot for manufacturing and moving asteroids into orbit around. But that’s not happening anytime soon. We need to develop a permanent precesnce in space before we can even think about that. The moon however has potential to solve many of our enviornmental and energy problems. I’ve outlined a few in my previous posts, but there are many more. Space in general has the ability to solve many of the problems we face on earth. What we need is a real plan, unfortunately Bush doesn’t have one. To exploit space and really get a return on the investment what is needed is a cheap way to get stuff to and from space. Once that happens great stuff will come about.

By: greg

greg — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:42:28 +0000

In defense of “anti-space liberal rhetoric”, I really think concentrating on a long-term goal of landing a man on Mars is a pointless waste of money that could be much better spent on either domestic programs that are routinely deemed “too expensive” or space programs that aren’t nearly as “romantic”. I’m unmoved by sweeping oratory about “man’s need to explore”. I’d rather see all that effort go towards more practical projects like environmental research, renewable energy sources, etc.

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:57:30 +0000

No problem. Space is great, and exciting. You just don’t want to half ass it. Or you get something like the space shuttle. And that’s what I’m afraid bush’s proposal is. Just a half-ass job. Intead of telling NASA what to do. We should just give them a budget and ask them what they think the best use of the money is. Really, who do you trust more to know how to best spend the money: NASA scientists or Karl Rove?

By: tom

tom — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:36:41 +0000

thanks for all those posts andrew… i was getting sick of all the anti-space liberal rhetoric all over the news and blogs… now i’m even more excited about space.

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:14:03 +0000

Much of that would be dependent on the kind of payload that you were off lifting. At the end of the elevator is going to be an enormous counterweight. Now since in the event that the cable ever snaps this counterweight flies off into space, it's a bad idea to have it be a manned station. The idea though is though that the elevator extends far beyond geosynchronous orbit. Therefore you could unload your payload at geosynchronous orbit, low-earth orbit, or high-earth orbit. Some payload may be crafts that have their own propulsion. Some maybe satalites. Some maybe raw material for constructing things in space. If this was truly constructed the area around the elevator(s) would become like most other busy ports in the world. Vehicles unloading and moving cargo, manufacturing and transportation facilities, etc. Here is the link I probably should have given first.

By: Jason H

Jason H — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:58:13 +0000

I read the links, but I’m still unclear as to what happens at the top end of the elevator. Would there be a small manned space station to receive the payloads? Or would they detach from the elevator and then launch their own propulsion?

By: andrew

andrew — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:38:02 +0000

Well the idea is that you build the cable out of basically a ribbon of carbon nanotubes. These are incredibly strong and incredbily lightweight. If the cable were to snap, the counterweight would shoot off into space (imagine spinning a ball on a rope and letting go). The cable is then so light that it flutters back to earth (and most of it burns up in the atmosphere before actually hitting the planet). You do actually loose anything that was travelling on the elevator at the time, but for saftey's sake you'd build this thing in the middle of the ocean so that the falling payload doesn't do any damage. There is a company here in seattle doing alot of research into the field. Here are some links: Here And here And here

By: greg

greg — Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:50:28 +0000

I’m with you, Andrew, when it comes to nuclear power. I think the potential benefits are too great to completely drop. That said, I still think we should tread very carefully.

This “space elevator” concept is intriguing. At risk of losing my geek cred, the idea hadn’t ever occurred to me. I just read an interesting article about the emerging technology. If you have any others you recommend, feel free to post the links here.

Although the idea sounds really cool in a science-fiction-y way, there are still a lot of potential dangers that immediately spring to mind (which I’m sure the engineers working on this have also considered). What happens if the cable snaps? Does the multi-ton payload fall hundreds of miles back toward the surface of the Earth? Would the cable act as the world’s largest lightning rod? Call me a pessimist, but I’d hope that any space elevator would have multiple cables for redundancy’s sake.