Arctic Research Station: A Step Toward Mars 134
Phrogman writes: "There is some great information on the Mar's Society's Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station which is being set up in the 20km diamater Haughton meteorite crater on Devon Island in Canada's high arctic. They will be assembling a complete simulation of a manned Mars lander there and conducting research leading towards a human mission to Mars. The lander was built in Denver, and is currently undergoing final checks before being flown up to the crater by the U.S. Marine Corps. There is detailed information on the lander itself here.
The project is a joint venture with NASA, and is sponsored by the Mars Society, Discovery Channel, and of course flashline.com (thus the name). There is also excellent 360 degree Quicktime(tm) photos of the entire region on the official website for the Haughton-Mars project. Marc Boucher of spaceref.com is actually onsite at the base camp and will be reporting on events there over the next few months."
The attitude seems to be pragmatic -- if we want to go to Mars, we need to start building the infrastructure, make the public aware of the possibilities, demo Mars vehicles, etc.
Base designs (Score:1)
IIRC... (Score:1)
So just be warned, if we ever do colonize Mars, we may come across some clueless newbies claiming to own Martian land
--
Re:no crash landiing (Score:1)
Good morning! Been sleeping well?
Re:Venting (Score:1)
I'm not going to get involved with the US/Canada pissing contest, but whoever said the moderation system here sucks was dead on.
That being said, I think privatization of the space program is an excellent idea. Our governmentS (US and Canada) should be spending their funding on solving problems at home before looking at exploration. NASA puts a lot of commercial satellites in the air using our tax dollars, but we can't get more cops to chase the crackheads off our streets, or better yet, chase them off our streets and put them in rehab instead of prison.
To sum up:
slashdot moderation: needs work
space program: sweet, but improperly funded
sophomoric country comparisons: yawn
Antarctica 4 stars (Score:1)
Re:Venting (Score:1)
Anyway, the trip to AK is long and fierce. rubber is the first to go under harsh weather, pressuming you keep a mechanically sound vehicle. I needed a wiper blade- but did anyone help out a poor traveller? No. Did they grub for US dollars at the first opportunity? why yes! why is that? THEY SUCK.
I can give it up for penecillin, that's a very good 'invention' or discovery maybe. but canadarm? that is a bitch-ass accesory to some real US of A greatness.
As for being a hick or redneck, I am a vaguely effeminate city boy and a
Now, why can't any of you freakin canucks answer for the mullet problem? or the lameness in not being able to maintain a fricking MAJOR HIGHWAY?
Re:hrrmm... (Score:1)
So when's the TV show? (Score:2)
I mean, just think:
An hostile environment which can weed out the morons (none of this pansy "Tropical Resort" crap)
A bunch of scientists in a closed space. If they're anything like the scientists, grad students, or OSS programmers I know, the political infighting will be better than any soap opera
Tons of nifty new tech gadgets from Nasa (or assorted VC start-ups, paying to be showcased)
And the looming spectre of the US Military in the background. (ya gotta have a bad guy)
To hell with Survivor or Big Brother, I wanna see this.
Re:Peruvian hash? (Score:1)
Why Flashline. . . (Score:1)
Don't be fooled! (Score:1)
Think about it - NASA obviously can't _really_ be practising for Mars when they haven't even managed to put a man on the moon yet!
(I hear the gravity is weaker in Canada)
What about other projects? (Score:1)
Maybe we can trade them some beads for half of the planet!
-S
Scott Ruttencutter
Re:mercenary (Score:2)
What you mean "we", paleface? (Score:2)
It doesn't matter extremely if the US government doesn't go, as long as somebody goes. I'd prefer Mars to be settled by people from a culture of democratic institutions and a recent frontier, but in a pinch anything will do.
--
Ancient Goth: Someone who overthrew the Roman Empire.
The possibilities and the problems (Score:2)
That's simply untrue. There is tremendous commercial interest in raw materials and energy, both of which are available in the solar system (and except for solar energy, all beyond GEO) in quantities millions of times what we can extract on Earth.
The problem is simple: it just costs too much right now to get past GEO, and it is beyond our tested capabilities to bring anything back in quantity. These are things that will change, although they won't change immediately. There's simply too much room for improvement for them not to change, short of a total technological retrogression.
Right now, it costs over $5000 to put a kilogram payload in orbit. $3 of this is spent on fuel. The rest of it is spent on expendable rockets and enormous ground crews, both of which were needed to develop space flight in a hurry and catch up to the Soviets, but neither of which are intrinsically necessary with today's technology. When the costs of accessing orbit drop first by a factor of 10, then by a factor of 100, expect the situation to change dramatically. Imagine if you had to buy a new car for each trip to work, and it starts to sink in.
Of course, I don't expect costs to drop by that much any time in this decade. Rotary Rocket might have done it, but they don't have a chance at getting the financial backing. Kistler still might do it, if they can round up the last half of the funding they need; I'm not optimistic, but I've got my fingers crossed. The American aerospace giants, Lockheed Martin Marietta (insert 50 other names here) and Boeing have basically merged with all their former competitors, and (aside from the fact that we've all but lost the commercial launch market to Europe) have no big incentive for radical new development programs. They get government money at "cost-plus", where they report how much they spent on a project and get some prearranged percentage of that as a guaranteed profit. Not exactly an incentive to cut costs. I'm (indirectly) a Lock-Mart employee, and I've seen first hand the "spend this money or they'll take it away" mentality.
Smaller startups like Kistler have a chance to do much better, but this isn't the internet; a startup space program needs a couple billion dollars of capital to be a success, not a couple million like a dot com.
Billionaire venture capitalists are harder to find. I hope Beal does well; they're starting conservatively, but at least they're fresh blood.
I'm not worried about the long term; within a few centuries the fossil fuels and the fissionable uranium are going to become more and more precious, the industrializing third world is going to raise world power consumption tenfold, fusion power plants are going to be developed (and be unable to find completely clean-burning fuels closer than the Helium-3 on the moon and outer planets), and getting power from space is going to look better and better.
I'm a hopeless science ficiton fan
So am I; that's why I'd like to see the development and colonization of space start within my lifetime, when it's first possible, rather than four centuries from now, when it will first become dramatically necessary.
Hell, there's probably other SF fans on Slashdot who enjoy stories of warp drives, matter transporters, and other gee-whiz plot devices but who haven't read even layman's accounts of what's possible with real technology. A few recommendations:
Entering Space [amazon.com] is the single book to get if you're curious about this stuff; it's also by Robert Zubrin, one of the founders of the Mars Society which is sponsoring the Arctic Research Station (see, I'm still on topic!)
The Case for Mars [amazon.com] is probably the reason the Mars Society exists in the first place. It's also a hell of an influential book; NASA adopted a variation of Zubrin's "Mars Direct" plan, and subsequently cut their estimates of what a manned Mars landing would cost from $500 billion to $50 billion.
Halfway to Anywhere [amazon.com] is G. Harry Stine's discussion of the SSTO concept: a single stage to orbit, reusable rocket that could cut costs to orbit by two orders of magnitude.
Mining the Sky [amazon.com] is a little more pollyanna than the other books, but still interesting.
I'm posting anonymously, both because of the Lock-Mart mention above and because I'd like to beg that someone moderate this up without being punished for karma whoring. +1, Informative, please?
Re:Getting to Mars (Score:1)
I have a quick way to solve the problem: Instead of the overachieving social animals typically employed as astronauts, why not pick folks content to sit in a small cubicle staring at a computer screen for months at a time? Who knows, a Slashdot veteran might be among our first Mars voyagers! :)
sweet (Score:2)
Re:The possibilities and the problems (Score:1)
Anyway, I thank you for your reply. I think you build a strong case for the possibility of industrial use of zero gravity, at least in Earth orbit, if we bring down the cost of getting stuff into space. I thought more of the cost was associated with the expense of chemical rockets, but since it isn't, there is no reason for this not to be possible.
The step that I question is that of mining the asteroids. Under any circumstances it would require an incredible initial investment for what I see as relatively minor benefits. I think it is wishful thinking to believe that any company would take the financial risk involved in mining an asteroid.
I think it is plausible that we turn to the rest of the solar system as a source of fusionable hydrogen, though it will be a while (as we don't even have controlled fusion yet...)
Re:Progression of Technology? (Score:1)
Personally, I see it this way. We have the technology now to go, but it'll be tough. In ten years we'll have the technology to go without much problem. In thirty years we'll be able to go with ease.
Conversely, what are the chances that we'll nuke ourselves first? At last count, there are thousands of active nuclear warheads both on ground and on submarines. Each one represents the equivalent amount of firepower that was used in Europe during the entirety of World War II. The US already loves to lob missiles at people, and it's just a matter of time before someone ups the ante. Sure, they tell us that they'll never be used. Pardon me if I dig a shelter anyway...
Anyway, just pointing out that a cessation of technology advance is not the only way we'll never reach Mars.
Re:Your ignorance makes me cry (Score:2)
Bingo.
Re:Getting to Mars (Score:1)
Or perhaps the sailors of old (such as Magellan's crew) who would go 2 years or so away from port.
Plus, though they may not have voice communication due to have conversations with friends back home, they probably will have enough bandwidth for some good email and slower communications, not to mention if they have a good enough recieved they could still pick up radio and television signals from earth.
I think they'll make it.
hrrmm... (Score:1)
Rocket Man (Score:1)
Reminds me of the Elton John song: "Mars ain't the kind of place to raise the kids. In fact it's cold as Hell. And there's no one there to raise them, if you did."
Maybe he was talking about Canada. . .
Woohoo - Karmaburn! (Score:1)
Creating a poxy greenhouse in a bloody big crater doesn't qualify as a 'complete simulation of a MARS lander' people. HOW STUPID ARE THEY? Plus! It's SPONSORED BY THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL PEOPLE!!! WTF DO THEY KNOW??
Then 'timothy' in his utter wisdom exclaims that 'The attitude seems to be pragmatic'. JEEESUS.
MARS and Canada are nothing alike. Nothing. Let me say that again with proper emphasis. NOTHING ALIKE!!
This is a silly bullshit idea from people with more money than sense and more time on their hands than is healthy.
Devon Island (Score:2)
At least you wouldn't need Fluoinert and liquid nitrogen to overclock your computers on Mars--just leave it outside ;)
You may joke, but... (Score:3)
I'm intrigued by the environmental-containment requirements. On the Moon you have to have a seal because there's hard vacuum out there. On Mars the same will be true, but in addition to the low-pressure unbreathable atmosphere, there's the possibility of Martian microbes. And of course it would be a shame if we got all excited over Martian "life" only to find that it was Earth microbes that had escaped and multiplied in a pristine environment.
Sagan's Cosmos has some interesting speculations on what we might find, based on "Mars jars" experiments and the inconclusive Viking data. At this point we still can't even exclude the possibility of multicellular life (simple lichens or slime molds, maybe even things as complex as moss should be able to survive on Mars).
Getting to Mars (Score:3)
I assume there have been studies based on scientists in the Antarctic, oil-rig workers, MIR Astronauts, etc., but even those people have relatively easy contact with human civilization compared to the relay time associated with travel to Mars. And if an emergency occurred, help could be summoned within a reasonable amount of time. In space, those reassurances aren't there. Anyone know of any studies that would really compare to these conditions?
A Step Toward Mars (Score:2)
The project is a joint venture with NASA, and is sponsored by the Mars Society, Discovery Channel, and of course flashline.com (thus the name). There is also excellent 360 degree Quicktime(tm) photos of the entire region on the official website for the Haughton-Mars project. Marc Boucher of spaceref.com is actually onsite at the base camp and will be reporting on events there over the next few months."
The attitude seems to be pragmatic -- if we want to go to Mars, we need to start building the infrastructure, make the public aware of the possibilities, demo Mars vehicles, etc.
The public and the possibilities (Score:3)
The attitude seems to be pragmatic -- if we want to go to Mars, we need to start building the infrastructure, make the public aware of the possibilities, demo Mars vehicles, etc.
Note: This post is in the context of manned space exploration, versus unmanned probes, the latter of which I support.
I've seen this attitude elsewhere, kind of like "if only the public really understood the idea of going to mars, there would be a lot of support for it". Well, I've got news for people: The public knows as much as they need to know, and they don't care. The public's attitude can be summed up by "Go to another rock? Been there. Done that."
There simply is no reason, from Joe Public's point of view, to go to Mars. Yes, there is a lot to discover scientifically, but that usually doesn't interest the average joe. The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat.
And please don't give me the old tired line about all the tech benefits that came out of the space program. Yes, benefits came out of it, but nothing that wouldn't have come out of industry anyway (only cheaper).
It's been said before, and it bears saying again. It is time for private industry to privatize space. Only when it pays for itself will humans have a permanent presence in space. Trying to rely on the fickle budgets of governments is just folly.
Wake me up when someone has a plan to start mining space, terraforming an asteroid, or launching a factory for low-grav manufacturing. Until then, all this is just a carnival sideshow.
--
Re:What about the moon? (Score:1)
Do you see any Presidential candidates talking about manned space exploration? Nope. People need to start asking their reps what they're going to do to support manned space exploration.
Well, now you hit another matter. I'm not a big proponent of the space program in the first place. I personally thinks it's a big money sink when those dollars could go to better use at the moment.
I'd much rather we spend our money and attention fixing up what we got down here than figuring out ways to leave it.
But this is a debate that won't come to any definitive conclusion, so it's not worth beating on it. (The same opinion I have of theological discussions... :) )
JimTheta, jimtheta@beer.com
Re:Stop venting your prejudices. (Score:1)
Re:$2 crack alert! (Score:1)
...
just pointing fact and poking fun... nothing more, nothing _less_...
nukes in space (Score:1)
Anybody remember that Cassini probe that they sent to Saturn? It had a nuclear battery and almost got canceled because of protesters.
So anyway, NASA doesn't use nuclear stuff because it's tough to get public approval for Mars colinization if the masses think of Mars as being full of radioactive space wrecks.
I will rise from the ashes like a Tuscon!
Re:Public Awareness and ... Arctic Circle? (Score:1)
--
Ancient Goth: Someone who overthrew the Roman Empire.
Re:IIRC... (Score:1)
The company behind it is LunarEmbassy.
http://www.lunarembassy.com/
Information on the legal status of their claim (which sounds not entirely unlike that of the Principality of SeaLand) are in the FAQ:
http://www.lunarembassy.com/ls/legeneralfaq_e.s
Also to consider - with enough "big players" buying land (and they claim quite a few), those players have a vested interest in protecting the claim from any challenges. With a bit of luck, Sealand may soon benefit from the same principle.
Re:hrrmm... (Score:1)
Yep, one of the things kicked off the war where the americans finally managed to stop being british was when the rule came in that in America a pint would be 16 ounces.. this meant of course that every brew taxed by the pint would result in more payments to England for every barrel produced. Quite understandably folks didnt like being given short weight by some foreign government so they changed governments and put their own in place instead. Funnily enough they then kept giving themselves the same short weight.... On the other hand, when folks from the western side of the Atlantic have accompanied me back to the eastern side on my occasional visits home they are pleasantly surprised by the fact that when you buy a pint of beer you get a 20oz glass :)
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking
Re:Your ignorance makes me cry (Score:1)
I wouldn't let NASA off the hook that easily. It's NASA's job to test the whole shebang as a unit. Obviously, NASA didn't test it nearly well enough if something as major as that slipped through the cracks.
If you got a software back from a subcontractor and shipped it without testing it, would the customer blame you or the subcontractor?
--
Re:Your ignorance makes me cry (Score:1)
In almost any other situation this is how the world would see it, but because its NASA they're supposed to know better, huh?--whatever. Its just a big gov't agency with dicey funding that doesn't have congress backing them up for crazy useless things like moon landings anymore, so its hard to lure the best and brightest at gov't wages to do projects the world doesn't really give a crap about anymore. If they could actually pull off something like a Mars landing it would reinvigorate interest in the agency, more than the int'l space station is now.
Just thinking.... (Score:1)
"God is dead." - Nietzsche
Re:At last it is confirmed! (Score:1)
Alex sucks. He was too chicken to go on celebrity Who Wants To Be a Millionaire.
--
Re:At last it is confirmed! (Score:2)
I know you meant it completely as a joke, but there's actually a pretty serious issue in there as well.
Mars, the most habitable plant in the Solar System besides ours, is a lot like Antarctica - except it doesn't have breathable air, a viable biosphere, natural resources (including any significant quantity of water). It's a year-long multi-million dollar space ride away from these too, which makes rescues impossible (not to mention really expensive vacations).
After all the starry-eyed idealism has worn off, who would actually want to live there? Would you?
I predict the upper reaches of Alaska or the Northwest Territories and the depths of Antarctica will be populated long before any significant settlement of Mars will occur (if ever).
We'd better take care of this planet. It's really the only good one out there.
Re:Environmental Bad News (Score:1)
Actually, the CBC has been all over this angle all day (radio 1). Apparently the locals were notified about this on Thursday. The locals are, of course, not white and don't speak English... if they wanted to build a mars simulation on Frontenac St. you know for damn sure there'd be six years notice and a referendum.
The Society for Mars Theme Parks on Inuit Land has stated however that they are looking after environmental concerns... how? They'll all be peein in barrels and carting it out with them. While I appreciate their concern for soil ammonia (an issue to be sure) it seems like a gesture at best. Permafrost ain't so perma... any bozo with a pickup truck can cause massive surface melts. Remember though that this is the same governmetn coalition that gave us "non-ivasive" uses of wilderness like low-level, supersonic flight testing in Labrador.
On the plus side, if we get to mars and find out that all our previous calculations about gravity, atmospheric pressure and composition yatta yatta were way off, we'll be glad we spent all that cash on Mars Condos.
Re:Woohoo - Karmaburn! (Score:1)
The Mars Society project is following in the footsteps of the Haughton-Mars Project, a NASA collaborative effort on Devon island that has been ongoing since 1997. Here's a link to feed your enlightenment:
http://www.arctic-mars.org/
I will quote from the HMP website for those who dont wish to follow the link. Why Devon island is important to Mars research:
"The Haughton meteorite impact crater, on Devon Island, in the Canadian high arctic, is 20 km in diameter and formed 23 million years ago. It is the highest-latitude terrestrial impact crater known on land (7522'N, 8941'W). It lies in the "frost rubble zone" of the Earth, i.e., in a polar desert environment which approximates in several respects the conditions that may have prevailed at the surface of Mars earlier in it's history, when wetter and warmer conditions might have existed
The Haughton-Mars Project is a multidisciplinary investigation to study the Haughton crater and its surroundings. By it's nature, the crater is a testimony to our planet's profound ties with the cosmos. By location, it represents a geographic extreme on our planet and, as it turns out, a unique analog to a neighboring world. Therefore, by studying the Haughton crater and it's surroundings, we hope to learn more about Mars, the Earth's geologic past, a cosmic phenomenon (impact cratering) that has in the past catastrophically altered the course of the Earth's evolution, and an extreme environment in one of the most rarely visited corners of our planet. While investigating Haughton, we will also learn how to best explore Mars, by testing robotic and human exploration technologies and strategies, and by optimizing interactions between the two.
So far, our initial reconnaissance of Haughton and its surroundings showed that a wide suite of natural features and processes occur there that provide possible analogs to similar martian features. These observations provide a basis for identifying similar features on Mars or, alternatively, for understanding why such features might be different there or altogether absent. Continued studies of Haughton will allow more detailed investigations of these martian analogs, and ultimately a better understanding of the evolution of Mars itself. The Haughton-Mars Project offers, in our view, a unique potential for broad-ranging science return and an opportunity for innovative engineering in geographic and planetary exploration. It is perhaps the combination of these factors that best defines the significance of the project."
The Mars Society Project is an attempt to extend these studies to human survivability in the engineered module, psychological impacts of isolation, etc. as well as testing technology and techniques that may be implemented in any future missions. This IS an important mission. Devon Island is as close to being Mars as we are going to get without actually GOING THERE. That is why the site was chosen, by SCIENTISTS. The HMP is a scientific endeavor, and the Mars Society is predominately composed of scientists - a great many are aerospace engineers and many work for NASA. This isnt a bunch of amateur Jacques Custeaus playing with a cool igloo.
As to the Discovery Channel, the Mars Society is a totally privately funded organization. This project cost a damn lot of money. The Discovery Channel, along with a great many interested and dedicated members and individuals, were gracious enough to donate their money to help make this project a reality, and hence make a manned Mars mission that much closer to being a reality. Frankly I wish there were more companies that would be willing to donate the kind of money the Discovery Channel has - for TV rights or whatever. That is what the Mars Society is about - privately funding a private Mars Mission.
Re:Peruvian hash? (Score:1)
Deo
Re:Rocket Man (Score:1)
Yes, they'll grow up too damn tempted at the easy pickings and I'll have to drag the little bastards off to a non-extradition country eventually. No thanks!
Deo
Re:Maintaining a habitat isn't the hardest part... (Score:1)
Keeping humans in space for the roughly 8 month outbound journey is the biggest prob, as far as I can see. Mir cosmonauts returning to Earth after a year literally have to be carried away, because they dont have the leg muscle strength to walk after spending so much time in zero Gs.
Of course, if plasma propulsion comes through in ~10 years, we could be to Mars in 3 month travel time.
http://spacsun.rice.edu/aspl/vasimr.htm
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson (Score:1)
Re:Getting to Mars (Score:2)
I wonder, though, how thoroughly they are researching the psychological and group-dynamics aspects of having a crew stuck together in space for months on the trip there with little to do and even less contact with home. Keeping any group of people in a confined space for such an extended period is bound to cause problems. I assume there have been studies based on scientists in the Antarctic, oil-rig workers, MIR Astronauts, etc., but even those people have relatively easy contact with human civilization compared to the relay time associated with travel to Mars. And if an emergency occurred, help could be summoned within a reasonable amount of time. In space, those reassurances aren't there. Anyone know of any studies that would really compare to these conditions?
Well, here at the end of the twentieth century (or the beginning of the twenty-first), it's easy to say "gosh that would be psychologically debilitating!" Just a few generations ago, though, people regularly endured reasonably comparable conditions, often for nothing more rewarding than a good job. If you want a sense of how people endured under extreme conditions when separated from any kind of civilization or even emergency help for months at a time, read about Ernest Shackleton and the Endurance expedition (or any number of similar Arctic/Antarctic ventures), or military expeditions across the Americas, or what have you. The fact is that some of us feel MUCH TOO MUCH is made of the "psych factor".
Choose good people, build a team, you can tell how well they work together on Earth. If people are reasonably focused on their work and mission, they're not going to be interested in stirring up trouble with each other.
----
Re:hrrmm... (Score:1)
My worry about this mission is that it's going to renew the stereotype about Canadians living in igloos, ets. (among other things, they melt in the summer).
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø`ø
What about the moon? (Score:1)
Seriously. We haven't even put real establishment on the moon yet. Why are we jumping forward to hype about a Mars base already?
The moon is umpteen times closer, we know more about it, and more importantly, we've actually been there before. Not to mention, if there's a problem, you're a hell of a lot closer to rescue.
-JimTheta, jimtheta@beer.com
Venting (Score:1)
First off, to every patriotic american out there, get over it, you're not the center of the world. While on the subject... hey! your parents had you there, that doesn't make you superior, especially not all you inbred-bible-thumping southerners. But I'm getting sidetracked.
I'm not entirely sure whether it is because you have a poor excuse for an education system, or simply that you're all complete and utter retards, but you just don't seem to get it.
Yes, Canada is a country.
No, we don't live in igloos.
I'm sorry but I just can't stand all these stupid jokes and idiotic remarks anymore. In my opinion the only people who waste time making fun of others are either:
a) terribly bored, or
b) halfwits.
Yes, this is flamebait, and I honestly don't care.
Go ahead, moderate me down.
Re:LEO -- a question for the experts (Score:1)
I have heard much rhetoric in support of the shuttle program (and lately the ISS) that cites advances in crystal growth, drug research, fancy new materials, etc., that could come from research in LEO, but I can't for the life of me identify any tangible advances that have been made. I'd like, if someone here is in the know, to be set straight on the matter if possible--just what commercial spinoffs have resulted specifically from LEO research?
If LEO is indeed useful commercially, just how good of microgravity conditions are needed? Can parabolic-flight aircraft suffice? How about drop towers, which can provide quite good microgravity, albeit for a limited duration?
Can anyone recommend a good web site with this information? Thanks.
Re:Public Awareness and ... Arctic Circle? (Score:1)
Sadly, there were no sites available that were simultaneously cold, arid, and otherwise Mars-like, while also having a lot of easy access to local news outlets. On the other hand, the Discovery Channel connection should provide enough coverage without the local news doing a "Look at these weirdos" human interest stories...
Regardless, I'm psyched; this was vaporware at last August's Mars Society convention and now the final product was packed up for shipping just last Monday. The plan is for a report on the first trial to be delivered at the next Mars Society convention [marssociety.org] in Toronto, August 10-13... A private organization has done more towards a manned Mars mission in the 3-4 years it has existed than NASA has in decades. I better shut up now, before I trigger my Anti-NASA rant... ;p
Re:Your ignorance makes me cry (Score:1)
Re:Your ignorance makes me cry (Score:1)
Re:Close the Damn <I> (Score:1)
Stop venting your prejudices. (Score:1)
Canada has a larger area than the US, for a start.
And it is funny how you accuse us here in Canada of being xenophobic. Canada is the most multicultural country in North America. Come here to Montréal any day, and see for yourself. An amazing city to live in.
If you took offense at my comments about what a silly place Canada is, I humbly apologize.
Somehow, I can't bring myself to believe in your apology.
P.P.S. I know that didn't look like much of an apology. Sorry.
Ah, that must be why.
Re:Public Awareness and ... Arctic Circle? (Score:1)
Re:The public and the possibilities (Score:1)
They'd say it would show America's pioneering spirit, and I think that would touch a nerve with voters. They'd say that it would look for life - and believe it or not, very many people find that interesting.
The responsibility of NASA now is to test, research and develop hardware so that the cost of commercial space utilisation can be brought down. Going to Mars will test out new hardware - I can imagine that exactly how the crews cope for the months long journey will be of interest to any companies considering asteroid mining.
If we ever want to go into space - if humans want to go into space - then sooner or later, money will have to be spent on developing and researching ways to do it. And at first, it will be hugely unprofitable. But NASA, through their R&D, are helping other companies to bring their prices down.
I'm not quite sure I understand your point here. You believe in unmanned space exploration, yet you advocate mining space, terraformation and zero-G manufacturing. All of those will require humans in space. What is that, but space exploration? How can space exploration possible not help that goal?
Red Mars, Antarctica, et al. (Score:2)
Personally, I really liked Antarctica too - he flies off the handle at the very end, where he spouts off about "What works for Antarctica, works for the rest of the planet", but barring that, it was a good read. Not a raw SF read, but definitely a good read. I guess it helps that I would sympathize with eco-terrorists and don't own an SUV myself... it might be a bit too wide-eyed radical eco-hippie for some tastes.
Just the one way to find out - try it! Its not a big waste.
Recursive fuel? (Score:1)
delta-V = V(exhaust) * (ln( M(init)/M(final) ) - 1 )
The rocket equation is one reason why ion drives are so attractive for interplanetary space missions. If you need 14,000 m/sec of delta-V, doing it with xenon ions screaming out the back at 50 kilometers per second takes a lot less mass than doing it with superheated steam at a mere 4500 meters per second.
--
Ancient Goth: Someone who overthrew the Roman Empire.
Re:Getting to Mars (Score:2)
Heck, you really only have to look at oceangoing ships or submarines to see somewhat equivalent conditions. At sea for months, cramped conditions, endless days of the same scenery. Nothing we haven't done before. People adapt.
--
The begining of corporate research funding? (Score:1)
I guess I might just be missing something, but why is flashline.com interested in this endeavor at all, except for the obvious advertising? Unless they somehow developed some of the software associated with the project, my guess is that they are just footing a good portion of the bill in order to have their name thrown on a tarp around the igloo or something like that.
Are we starting to see a new era here in scientific research? While you are able to get some money from good ole Uncle Sam, in order to do anything really cool you have to get someone to sponsor you and then agree to wear their logo?
I can see both a good and a bad associated with this type of sponsorship. While you are going to more money from private sources in order to do some really cool things, isn't this going to end up like ancient Rome, where people were only willing to foot the bill for really big and cool things that people would always see rather than the essentials. For instance, it was very popular to build a theater in the Roman world, and the rich people would gladly dole out the cash to build one of those as people would go there and associate their name with it. However, you didn't see people lining up to spend money on the roads (well, sometimes, but usually not), nor for basic infastructural needs of the cities. Sometimes even when the did this, they made very shoddy but large buildings, so the people were impressed, until the damn thing fell down and killed a bunch of people.
What I'm getting at here, is that this gives the possibility that the only things that are going to get funded are the sexy projects, like a mission to Mars rather than others which may have more actual value to people but have much less sex appeal (my mind is failing on these right now, but for the sake of argument, we'll throw out diabetes research, as i don't recall having heard much about that lately).
Just to be clear, I don't have anything completely against corporate sponsorship of research projects, as its giving some funding to a great project. However, I wonder at the precedent that its setting and the consequences that we will see from it. Though we may not see them right away, they may show up sometime in the future.
Re:At last it is confirmed! (Score:2)
But, on the other hand, we have cultural diversity, a tolerant society, snow, universal health care, great beer, snow, not many gun problems, snow, and ummmmm....snow. Oh, and we have lots of women up here and all of them are drop dead gorgeous - it's just hard to tell with them in parkas and mukluks all the time.
BTW, we _were_ going to go to Mars ourselved _in_ a Zamboni, but we didn't have enough room for beer. And we spent the money on hospitals.
P.S. My buddy in the border patrol will be checking for that hash with a rubber glove.
Re:At last it is confirmed! (Score:1)
Indeed. Send us your women!
P.S. Take it easy Canadians, I am only kidding. I would never really want to bad-mouth your charming little "country", or your amusingly xenophobic culture.
Xenophobic? You've never been to Toronto. If I wanna hear a different language all I have to do is take a few steps down the street. Being xenophobic or racist here means being pissed off at approximately 2/3 of the people on the street.
P.P.S. I know that didn't look like much of an apology. Sorry.
And yet we still maintain a leading edge in zamboni technology.
I have no fruit of vegitables in the car to declare...
I assume you meant fruit or vegetables, and they'll do that to you in any country, including going from the states to Canada. It's the 'No Flora or Fauna' rule, I thought The Simpsons would've at least taught you that.
Beware the Koala bear.
Re:The public and the possibilities (Score:2)
In this lies the problem that, in my opinion, will keep humans confined to Earth permanently: There is precicely zero commercial interest in anything outside geosynchronous orbit. What's on the moon or Mars or anywhere else in the solar system that has any value beyond scientific curiosity? Nothing. Without the pressure of commercial greed or the competition of the cold war, the advance of the space program has been and will continue to be diminished.
I'm a hopeless science ficiton fan, but the reality of the situation is that humans will never make it as far as settling the solar system, let alone traveling the stars.
Re:The public and the possibilities (Score:1)
They'd say it would show America's pioneering spirit, and I think that would touch a nerve with voters. They'd say that it would look for life - and believe it or not, very many people find that interesting.
Did we learn nothing from Apollo?
Let's say by some miracle Mars gets sold to the public, and we end up going. Then what? Exactly the same thing that happened with Apollo -- people get bored watching astronauts walking around, picking up rocks. Questions start getting asked about how much it's costing for a bunch of rocks. Budgets dry up.
Meanwhile, private industry is still suckling off the public teat, rather than trying to find the profit in going into space, such as space mining, etc.
I want permanent settlements in space. The only way that's going to happen is for the settlements to pay for themselves, so they aren't at the mercy of the government. Believe me, I want manned space flight -- but I want sustainable manned space flight.
The days of NASA as being at the forefront of technology are over. They are just another bureaucracy trying to find some way to increase their budget and survive. I have nothing against pure research, which is why I think NASA is better suited to unmanned probes (in conjunction perhaps with universities), or military purposes.
--
Re:Kim Stanley Robinson (Score:1)
Re:Peruvian hash? (Score:1)
Re:What about the moon? (Score:1)
Ah, damn, I have to say this. (Score:1)
The border patrol on both sides hated him. They knew what he was doing, but it took them a while to actually catch him in the act. When Revenue Canada (our border patrol people) caught him, they engaged in some vigilante action.
They used his own guns and smoked him.
`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø,,ø`ø`ø
Going to Mars, dear? (Score:1)
We, being earthlings, will NOT colonize Mars for a long time to come. I suggest that, along the lines of what was said about moon experimentation or colonization mentioned below, if people are serious about such things, and are not interested in astronaut corpses on mars, that more than just arctic testing be done. They can research whatever they want now, but I think we need experience in the area before an attempt is made to actually colonize mars. At the present rate of things, I think maybe we'll be on mars in 150-300 years... The society that is needed for this type of venture isn't really there. Worst of all, most people are more concerned with a wide array of other things much more mundane, and they consider the very idea as detached. I don't believe it will be possible with current trends for us to be on mars any time soon(for instance: 30 years?).
Re:Going to Mars, dear? (Score:1)
Overcooking ??? (Score:1)
We might not have a civilisation left to do it., (Score:1)
Exampled explored in Sci-Fi include:
1. War on earth kills us all before we get there. (See Titan by Baxter)
2. We just run out of resources before we escape the gravity well. (See Rainbow Mars)
3. We might give up all technology due to religious or environmental reason.
This is just of the top of my head, be aware that the human race is fragile, we might not live long enough as a race to leave this world.
A map... (Score:1)
Here's a map [aol.com] of Nunavut, Canada, with Devon Island highlighted, in case you're wondering where exactly it is.
Re:Devon Island (Score:2)
At least this is in the Summer with temperatures hovering in the near zero range from what I understand. The only time I was in the high arctic, I spent 2 weeks at Clyde River on Baffin Island in early December. It completely redefined cold for me. Temperatures ranged from -20C to -40C (with windchill making that an impressive -70C at night on one occaision). There we were in like 9 layers of clothing and the local Innuit kids are racing around in jeans, a heavy T-shirt and sneakers on their snowmobiles. We complained about the cold and the Innuit Rangers we were with told us we should come back in late January to early February when "The real winter comes". Since I was in the Canadian Army at the time, we naturally were staying in tents.
Mind you it was an incredible experience, but one I am glad to remember from the comfort of my balmy Victoria apartment thank you very much...
Mars Simulation? Do something useful! (Score:2)
"Look everyone! I made a planetary habitat out of my couch cushions! Wanna come over and pretend we're on Mars?"
Can't the space advocacy groups concentrate on something useful (if boring) like inexpensive commercial transportation to orbit?
Peruvian hash? (Score:2)
You can get better shit in BC!
And if you don't know what British Columbia is, then I give up.
Re:The public and the possibilities (Score:2)
I'm sure that microprocessors, the push for micronization, and several super light super strong plastics would have eventually showed up in industry without the inovations by the Apollo program but would they have been any cheeper than they are today, and would it have take another 10-20 years to get to the level that the Apollo program had. Would our $49 k6-2's really be any cheeper if microprocessors had been inovated by industry. Would our level of technology today be anywhere near what it is if we hadn't had the space program?
Here is some of the inventions.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/Dail
Most new, truly inovative, technologys arrise from the needs of pure research. If we cut off pure research, as you are suggesting, then we can expect truly mold shattering inventions to become less frequent.
It is time for private industry to privatize space
I would like to hear you say that when Coca Cola starts putting up orbiting advertisements that block you and your dates view of the stars. If private industry privatizes space you can expect the Taco Bell Dog annoying us in even the most remote of places. Without the govenment preventing space from becoming the next greatest billboard by having the only game in town we can enjoy the views of the stars unobstructed. Eventually those advertisements will appear but
not any time soon.
The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat
Well, the Russians may be out of the picture but with China develping a space program we may have another space race coming up.
It is also best for society to keep up pure research. If one looks at the chronicles of history, all of the great empires (except the British) started to collaps when scientific research for the sake of science was cut in funding to help fund, mostly military, but also other programs. Our ability to support pure scientific research, like exploring space and mars, is a necessity and something we should be proud of and support because without it our great society will fall victom to repeating history.
Re:LEO -- some answers for you (Score:2)
Materials processing for the mixing of new alloys, chemicals, drugs, etc. can be done in a "containerless" environment, where the reagents are suspended in a magnetic field and manipulated without gravity yanking the substances down by mass.
Along those lines, initial experiments (to be expanded on in the ever-under-construction Space Station) have indicated that you can build molecules atom-by-atom in these containerless environments and make substances which would not easily (or even possibly) form in a 1-Gravity environment. This opens some exciting possibilities since, thanks to the Human Genome Project, we're starting to understand just how WE're put together atom-by-atom. Given the ability to custom-make organic materials, gene therapy to target specific ailments would be greatly assisted by such microgravity research labs. That's not to say that we'll come across something which can't be made on Earth, rather that being able to build what you want from scratch (instead of messing about with aproximations in a lab) would help speed up the experiementation process.
Microgravity research has already helped some groups in understanding their materials processing better (metals, rubbers, industrial plastics, medical assistance) and accelerated their own research. That's why companies such as SpaceHab and facilities such as Russian, European and (a few) American automated research capsules have launched full of commercially (and some government) funded experiements.
Another interesting research area is in combustion. The idea is: Compare combustion on Earth with a duplicate experiment environment in microgravity. What difference are seen? What is due to the 1-G field of Earth and what is due to properties of combustion which have so far gone unnoticed (since we're all stuck in that 1-G environment)? Even if combustion research resulted in improved efficiencies of just 1% for all new internal combustion engines, the annual fuel savings alone could justify a space research lab.
Going back to that atom-by-atom stuff, what would computer chips be like if you could build them up with raw materials, instead of scratching them out of a wafer of Silicon? Would it be possible to stick a Cray on your Palm Vx?
Along those lines, given a rarefied vacuum using a "wake shield" or other such spiffy device (do a web search on "wake shield facility") Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) wafers can be 'grown' cost effectively in large quantities. These can be used in the manufacture of computer chips in theory, though only a few wafers have been constructed in the on-orbit facilities to date, so testing remains to be done.
There are quite a few other items but, returning to your question, none of them have been demonstrated to date.
I like to think of microgravity research and manufacturing in context with the original Sputnik launch: Many people wondered what all the fuss was about with this "beeping orange" whizzing overhead. No one (well, aside from Arthur C. Clarke
GPS? Weather satellites? Remote Sensing to improve crops? On-orbit imagery to "keep the peace"
If you'd be interested in reading more, I don't have any web links, but do have quite a few technical references you could find in any university library. Just say the word and I'll post 'em for you.
Oh, and you're right about drop-towers and parabolic flights: They're great for manufacturing and experimenting with some things, but most materials processing and medical experiments require more than a few seconds time. That's why the fates invented microgravity
Re:The public and the possibilities (Score:2)
There is precicely zero commercial interest in anything outside geosynchronous orbit.
Actually, I think that's a little pessimistic. Asteroid mining obviously needs to go into the asteroid belt, but I think I know what you mean. You want real colonies on real planets that you can visit. In that respect, you have a point.
However, I think there's hope. It comes down to a question of cost. There are tons of people who would like to live on mars just for the vacation aspect, but at this point it would be prohibitively expensive to maintain a colony, set up regular space flights, etc. However, once we lower the costs of staying in space for asteroid mining or manufacturing (which ought to be very profitable), the costs of setting up a colony should drop a lot.
The biggest problem with space travel is that our technology is incredibly crude and the infrastructure non-existent. But just getting geosync space travel in place, and then asteroid space travel in place, it should make it relatively practical to have real colonies.
--
How will they get anything done? (Score:2)
no crash landiing (Score:2)
Let's hope the Marines can do a better job at landing the thing than NASA.
Re:Peruvian hash? (Score:2)
Then my comment was modded up as "informative" by somebody... yea, I thought that was funny, too. For not a single moment was my post intended to be factual.
In meta-moderation, it was slapped all the way back down to 2 for being "flamebait", in spite of the fact that lots of Canadians laughed; only one person flamed me, and it appears that he is not even Canadian.
Clue to Slashdot: Meta-moderation is not helping.
Public Awareness and ... Arctic Circle? (Score:2)
On a more positive note, I have to applaud any effort to get more space exploration going. The earth is pretty played out for explorers...
Re:What about the moon? (Score:2)
Big difference.
flash floods, but does it rain? (Score:2)
New Scientist also reports [newscientist.co.uk] that flash floods may be occuring on Mars, scarring its terrain.
Well it may not rain (sorry, my bad) But one for the geophysicists and definitely an article which poses some questions Discovery Channel would sure love to be able to answer, *Exclusive* :-)
At last it is confirmed! (Score:2)
Really cold, nothing to do, nowhere to go, and everybody stays inside the shelter at all times unless wearing special protective clothing.
Also, they need women.
(Kind of makes me wonder if there are any spots on the Martian "Ice Caps" that are smooth enough to play hockey on... and what is the cost of putting a zamboni on Mars?)
P.S. Take it easy Canadians, I am only kidding. I would never really want to bad-mouth your charming little "country", or your amusingly xenophobic culture. If you took offense at my comments about what a silly place Canada is, I humbly apologize.
P.P.S. I know that didn't look like much of an apology. Sorry.
(Oh, and if you happen to be on the Canadian border patrol, let me tell you in advance that I have no fruit of vegitables in the car to declare... just a fat bag of Peruvian hash and a whole trunkload full of guns.)
Re:What about the moon? (Score:2)
Essentially, what it boils down to, is that the Moon has very little of the resources needed to sustain a colony by itself, whereas Mars has an ample abundance of such things as hydrogen and carbon.
Plus, it doesn't take very much more effort to get to Mars than it does the Moon.
And, lastly, self-sufficiency is the name of the game. Being able to manufacture ones own fuel *on* Mars is a big part of what's required to stay there and do enough research, and this is not something that'd happen if we put the beans into setting up a base on the Moon. It may one day be that Mars will be a strong provider of resources for other bases, including the Moon and Asteroid Belt, and therefore it makes more sense to get there, set up base, learn how to be self-sufficient on the only other habitable planet in our system, etc.
Get Zubrins book (I'd provide a link, but I'm lazy) and check it out. It's an astonishingly good read, and it convinced me that Mars could actually happen within my lifetime.
Re:And why did they choose Canada? (Score:2)
Mark Duell
Progression of Technology? (Score:3)
Um, do those 23.8% actually believe that the advancement of technology has just STOPPED?
'Never' is quite a long time. It seems a bit ignorant/short-sighted/closed-minded to believe that man will 'NEVER' reach Mars. Long ago, people believed if a man went faster than 40 Miles per Hour, he would suffocate.
Good Thing they were proven wrong, eh?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Which other projects? (Score:2)
--
Ancient Goth: Someone who overthrew the Roman Empire.
Mars is better than Antarctica. (Score:3)
Sure the winds blow fast, but not hard (there's just not enough air). The biggest thing you have to worry about is long periods of overcast skies and poor visibility from the dust storms (better than the months-long winter-night of the arctic and antarctic).
You can pitch your giant tents or burrow in the low gravity and live indoors. Imagine giant buildings that are like a cross between a greenhouse and a mall, and I think you've got a fair idea of what Mars will be like for everyone but the first few pioneers (and there may never be uncomfortable pioneers; it makes more sense to me to just drop construction robots made in space from materials mined from asteroids).
Sure, the effort of moving people there is pretty rough, but practically everything else is easier once you get started. That's mostly due to the gravity; it'll be much easier to build huge buildings on Mars. I imagine there will be some pretty spectacular architecture due to this. Also, there probably won't be any natural disasters to worry about either, until we start terraforming.
In short, dead planets put up less of a fight.
Re:The public and the possibilities (Score:4)
There simply is no reason, from Joe Public's point of view, to go to Mars. Yes, there is a lot to discover scientifically, but that usually doesn't interest the average joe. The moon was interesting because that was new, and we had the russians to beat.
I hear you (and believe me, I'm just as pragmatic). But the main thing isn't that the average joe thinks Mars is uninteresting. In fact, the preponderance of space operas like Armageddon and Mission to Mars (!) argues against that. The problem is that the average joe thinks Mars is too expensive to explore. They don't want to pay for it, especially when our national debt is measured in gajillions.
There's also a small contingent who use the red herring argument that "we should solve our problems on Earth first" (as if we will ever have all humanity's, or even just America's, problems solved). It even shows up here at
And please don't give me the old tired line about all the tech benefits that came out of the space program. Yes, benefits came out of it, but nothing that wouldn't have come out of industry anyway (only cheaper).
That's the usual ex post facto justification. Truthfully, the benefits come less in terms of specific inventions ("Tang! Space pens!") than in the development of a high-tech infrastructure and high-tech workforce to build it. (Hey kids! Where did the internet come from?) Eventually those people go into other lines of work and apply the knowledge they've gained. At the same time, the wider culture gains in terms of being challenged by the exploration. Zubrin talks of the Western Frontier's importance to the US, for example.
It's been said before, and it bears saying again. It is time for private industry to privatize space. Only when it pays for itself will humans have a permanent presence in space. Trying to rely on the fickle budgets of governments is just folly.
Perhaps. On the other hand, governments have done more for us in terms of space exploration so far than any private company. This may be a valid analogy, but so far it's failed to prove out.
Even counting the private satellite business and its LEO/GEO applications, from weather to communications, there's extremely limited and narrow-minded interest in space from the private sector. The most recent great hope for space privatization, including the financing of efforts to develop true low-cost launch systems, has crumbled in the face of the failure of Iridium. Just this last week, Gary Hudson left Rotary Rocket (the most promising candidate, with a flying vehicle), and Globalstar effectively began to run out of money. Without LEO constellations to launch, there's no investment potential in cheap rocketry.
And without cheap rocketry, we're stuck waiting for governments to do the right thing.
----
Kim Stanley Robinson (Score:2)
Re:Thank you very much -- References (Score:2)
First off, you can find out a lot about contemporary events through reading "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (affectionately known as Aviation Leak for their bleeding-edge news reputation), "Space News" or visting www.spacer.com
Most of the best stuff I've found was printed back in the mid to late 80s, since everyone was anticipating Space Station Freedom and the incredible research and manufacturing opportunities which would result. 15 years later, you'll find many of the journal articles are quite similar (yes, we're still waiting).
Anyhow, some relevant journal articles include:
R. Kohli, L.A. Ranceitelli, "Materials Processing in Space", Advances in the Astronautical Sciences (AAS), 86-442, pp. 1753-1759 (1986).
E.M. Jones, "Putting Space Resrouces to Work", Acta Astronautica, 26, pp.16-18 (1992).
G.E. Maryniak, "Harvesting Nonterrestrial Resources - A Status Report", AAS, 86-341, pp. 1735-1749 (1986).
B.Iannotta, "Shuttle Serves as Fertile Ground for Medical Research", Space News, p.11, July 31 (1995).
M.E. Vaucher, "Business Considerations Affecting the Future of Space Manufacturing", AAS, 86-444, pp.1761-1777.
...and for some off-planet stuff:
C.O'Dale, "The Development of a Commercial Lunar Infrastruture", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 51, pp.49-56 (1998).
Those should give you a good start. Look in the bibliography section of each of these papers for leads to many more.
Happy reading!
Re:The public and the possibilities (Score:2)
The problem is that the average joe thinks Mars is too expensive to explore. They don't want to pay for it, especially when our national debt is measured in gajillions.
I think that's a good point. If the cost was reasonable, then the public probably would get behind it.
Part of the problem, too, is that there really isn't any uncertainty about going to Mars. When it came to the moon, it really was blazing a new trail and the "audacity" aspect could take hold of the public's imagination.
Nowadays, does anyone really doubt that we could get people to Mars and back given enough money? Since there's no mystery involved, it really comes down to (as you imply) a cost-benefit analysis. The big question is whether the public would spring for even the modest budget (by Apollo standards) that it would take to go to Mars, and I just don't feel it myself.
Maybe there is some middle ground. Like make a sustainable colony part of the mission. I think the concept of "sustainable" would really sell to the public, because then it doesn't look like "an endless money pit just to bring home some rocks". The problem is that Mars (as another poster pointed out) is just not that profitable, compared to asteroid mining or micro-grav manufacturing.
My gut feeling is that Mars isn't going to happen until we are mining asteroids, which will help establish infrastructure and (as you also point out) give us cheap rocketry.
--
Interest in Developing Space (Score:2)
There are a number of organizations who are interested in developing space for its commercial applications. These include (but are not limited to):
At the current time, there is to obvious economic benifit to going beyond geosyncronous orbit. Yet all of these organizations believe that we should so proceed. Why? Because there are abundant resources available on the moon, Mars, and asteroids. No, they are not in the forms that we are used to using them, but they are the same 100 odd elements of which everything here on Earth is made. I will not repeat the cases for going to the various bodies in our solar system... the different organizations which I listed above, and others like them, make a better case that I have time or space for here.
Currently, the chief restriction to executing any of these exploration and development programs is the high cost of getting materials into orbit. Face it, the space shuttle is overpriced, and alternative launch vehicles are not much better. However, several private firms (in addition to several government contractors) are in a race to develope low cost launch systems. Will they succeed? Almost certainly so within the next five years.
And once we have low cost (relative term) launch systems, I expect we will see a space tourism market begin. That will probably be the early economic force in the development of space.
And beyond that? As Robert Heinlein said in his writing, "Once you reach Low Earth Orbit, you are half way to anywhere in the Solar System."
Gonzo
Re:hrrmm... (Score:4)