Check out some similar questions!

paraclete · Apr 24, 2011, 04:02 AM

No sure if we have a miss print here or is this space exploration on the cheap?
News just in says NASA gave SpaceX $75 million for a trip to MARS!
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sc...-1226044123413

Now if they had given them $75 billion the story might be believable but for $75 million you don't even get off the ground

Scleros · Apr 24, 2011, 05:41 AM

Think of it as a grant. Did you read the article?

"SpaceX is one of the two leading private space companies in the US and has won $75 million from the US space agency NASA to help its pursuit of developing a spacecraft to replace the space shuttle."

paraclete · Apr 24, 2011, 06:07 AM

A real drop in the bucket for what has been explained as an ambitious goal but don't worry they might be able to buy a used shuttle

cdad · Apr 24, 2011, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by paraclete

A real drop in the bucket for what has been explained as an ambitious goal but don't worry they might be able to buy a used shuttle

The money is for research. Its not to actually build anything yet. They are still in the testing phase.

paraclete · Apr 24, 2011, 08:51 PM

Do you mean to say we don't know how to do it or is this just some pork?

cdad · Apr 25, 2011, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

do you mean to say we don't know how to do it or is this just some pork?

We know how. That part is easy. The real questions is "how best". That requires research. Also to fine tune what already exists.

paraclete · Apr 25, 2011, 05:31 AM

Man has been in space for decades. One thing we know, it is a hostile environment, survival is not assured and $75 million isn't going to tell us any different. Riding around the Earth in a space station has demonstrated that man is not physically built for long term space voyaging. We went to the Moon and didn't discover a good reason to establish a research base there.

Travel to Mars obviously requires much larger vessels to serve the needs of a human crew and there seems little point to going there other than some alturistic idea that because it is there we must go. We know how to build bigger vessels, we don't know how to get them off the Earth and you won't get a prototype for $75 million.

Surely right now there is better use for that money in fostering research in solving a few problems closer to home, unless of course, this is veiled military research

tomder55 · Apr 25, 2011, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by paraclete

man has been in space for decades. One thing we know, it is a hostile environment, survival is not assured and $75 million isn't going to tell us any different. Riding around the Earth in a space station has demonstrated that man is not physically built for long term space voyaging. We went to the Moon and didn't discover a good reason to establish a research base there.

Travel to Mars obviously requires much larger vessels to serve the needs of a human crew and there seems little point to going there other than some alturistic idea that because it is there we must go. We know how to build bigger vessels, we don't know how to get them off the Earth and you won't get a prototype for $75 million.

Surely right now there is better use for that money in fostering research in solving a few problems closer to home, unless of course, this is veiled military research

I tend to agree that at this time humans have not conquered the long term challenges of weighlessness for an extended period.
Recently it has been observed that prescription drugs expire at a faster rate in low gravity conditions. Now that may not be an issue for a moon colony where replacements could be shipped in 3 days. But it takes months to voyage to Mars.

A large voyager to Mars would be assembled in pieces in low Earth orbit... probably docked at ISS or a similar platform. It would waste too much fuel to launch from the ground.

Once water was discovered at the polls of the moon then a colony or military base became conceivable. For that reason alone a US mission should be attempted . Our world competitors certainly consider the expense of owning the high ground worth the cost.

I don't know if the money is sufficient . I tend to be happy that NASA is privatizing much of it's mission(whatever that is... I don't believe they have a clear vision of what their mission is;and no clear directive from POTUS except to reach out to the Muslims ) .

tomder55 · Apr 25, 2011, 06:22 AM

By the way ; the $75 million is not for a Mars mission . It is for an escape system for the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft . The Dragon may some day be an answer to transport US astronauts into low Earth orbit... effectively replacing the Shuttle as a human transport vehicle .

As it is a private enterprise ,the Dragon can also be used for other commercial ventures in space.

The Falcon9 lifter is seen as a cheaper replacement for the Ares V rocket that NASA had approved last decade .

paraclete · Apr 25, 2011, 04:23 PM

Just more money vanishing into a black hole

tomder55 · Apr 25, 2011, 04:47 PM

If you were going up in the capsule you might think an escape device important.

paraclete · Apr 25, 2011, 09:02 PM

Tom I can't remember anyone previously thinking an escape device in a capsule is important, reentry capsules already exist and have been extensively tested. On a trip to Mars where are you going to escape to? Any devise you could get back to Earth in would need to be almost as sophisticated as the transport vehicle. Propulsion systems, navigation systems, long term air supply, food, etc. What we are really saying is we haven't made any significant advances in our thinking in forty years, so the $75 million might just be buying some new brain power

tomder55 · Apr 26, 2011, 03:44 AM

As I already pointed out the Dragon is not a vehicle capable of a Mars mission. It is a commercial replacement for the Shuttle

WASHINGTON D.C. (April 19, 2011)--Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) has been awarded a $75 million from NASA to develop a revolutionary launch escape system that will enable the company’s Dragon spacecraft to carry astronauts.

SpaceX Wins $75 Million NASA Contract

It will not have the dual capability of carrying cargo and passengers .But will give us the alternative to carry our own passengers instead of relying on the Russians.

paraclete · Apr 26, 2011, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

As I already pointed out the Dragon is not a vehicle capable of a Mars mission. It is a commercial replacement for the Shuttle

SpaceX Wins $75 Million NASA Contract

It will not have the dual capability of carrying cargo and passengers .But will give us the alternative to carry our own passengers instead of relying on the Russians.

Seems to me you already have a proven vehicle called a shuttle but someone forgot to develop its capability why do you need a commercial replacement? It isn't as though there is a resort up there, just keep flying schuttle after all you even have one that actually hasn't been used/

This is just more BS

tomder55 · Apr 26, 2011, 06:10 AM

The shuttle is 1970s technology . It's like driving a Ford Pinto or flying a Sopwith Camel bi-plane .

It takes too much fuel for low earth human launches ;and the life support is unnecessary to lift cargo.

paraclete · Apr 26, 2011, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

The shuttle is 1970s technology . It's like driving a Ford Pinto or flying a Sopwith Camel bi-plane .

It takes too much fuel for low earth human launches ;and the life support is unnecessary to lift cargo.

But you said you wanted to take cargo and passengers. So what is wrong with some 1970's rockets like Atlas and some capcules? After all it works well for the Russians. Why don't you just admit someone loused up the planning, one of those brilliant Presidents you keep electing over there who have no vision beyond the next election

Look if you wait long enough Virgin will have a discount flight for you, Branson is just waiting for the opportunity

tomder55 · Apr 26, 2011, 06:25 AM

What's the difference which private firm NASA contracts for the flights ?

The mistake was in building ISS . We shoud've instead established moon bases. We've wasted way too much time in low Earth orbit.

paraclete · Apr 27, 2011, 06:29 AM

No votes in it Tom. You beat the Russians to the Moon and then run out of steam. Now you will have to beat the Chinese to Mars. I was reading up on SpaceX. They could lift a shell the size of an A380 up there and outfit it. No vision

tomder55 · Apr 27, 2011, 07:23 AM

The Chinese announced they will be building their own space station. So much for the idea of "international" cooperation in space.

tomder55 · Apr 27, 2011, 11:36 AM

And the Ruskies are trying to monopolize access to ISS .

Pajamas Media NASA Over a Russian Barrel

I agree with one of the comments in above link.The US should remove our sections of ISS and use one more mission of the Shuttle to tow it to a new location and attach it to a Bigelow .
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/