Free Dating Site    

^^^ They are not even designing a vehicle to replace the 30 year old space shuttle that is falling apart to take the crew to low earth orbit. Mars is long shot.

You've asked if the millitary spending in general has made the world "better". Since you gave no definition of "better" I'll assume that "any people left alive" is "better" than "no people left alive" and posit a hypothetical.

I responded with the quote you've cited, establishing that the Russian MILLITARY were capable of putting up an orbital, cargo-and-crew-carrying spacecraft for what you cited a private firm putting up a sub-orbital two-man, paload-less craft.

Then why didn't you know that GPS was US Millitary? I don't trust you at all because you've been so catigorically wrong on such a well-known fact.

As I have mentioned, a space elevator would require the manufacture of sometihng we don't even know to be possible, much less possible to manufacture.

Actually the design for the shuttle replacement has already been selected. Unfortunately, like all government projects it is not going to deliver on what it is designed to do and costs overruns are already being seen.

Budget cuts delay new spacecraft
NASA FEARS U.S. MAY LOSE LEADERSHIP IN SPACE EXPLORATION
By Robert S. Boyd
McClatchy Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The federal budget squeeze has forced NASA to abandon hope of launching a successor to its three aging space shuttles by 2014, the target that President Bush set in his ``Vision for Space Exploration'' plan three years ago.

Instead, the United States will have to rely on Russia or commercial aerospace companies to ferry cargo and crews to the International Space Station for five years after the last shuttle is retired in 2010.

The shuttles' replacements -- the new Orion spaceship and Ares I rocket launcher -- won't be ready until 2015 at the earliest, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told the House Science and Technology Committee on Thursday.

``America may have a prolonged gap between the end of the shuttle program and the beginning of Orion and Ares I operational capability,'' he said.

``I cannot sugarcoat the issue,'' Griffin told a House Appropriations subcommittee Tuesday. ``I am deeply concerned that the gap between the retirement of the space shuttle in 2010 and the new U.S. human spaceflight systems does not grow longer.''

The lengthening time that the United States won't have the means to put humans into space is an embarrassment for the world's leading space-faring nation, especially when other countries are stepping up their extraterrestrial ambitions.

``If the new spacecraft are delayed even further,'' Griffin said, ``the nation will cede leadership in human spaceflight at a time when Russia and China have such capabilities, and India is developing them.''

The setback comes as budget reductions force NASA to delay or cut back some of its popular science goals, including climate-change research and the hunt for habitable planets around other stars.

``I'm afraid NASA is heading for a train wreck if things don't change,'' Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., the chairman of the science committee, told Griffin on Thursday. The space agency's new budget, he said, ``bears little resemblance to the rosy projections offered by the administration three years ago.''

NASA has spent about $9 billion for space exploration since Bush announced his ``Vision'' in January 2004. The agency is running almost $1 billion short of the amount it originally projected to spend through 2014.

The space exploration budget for the coming year, fiscal 2008, is $3.9 billion, $229 million less than the White House had sought for 2007. That comes on top of a $751 million shortfall this fiscal year because Congress failed to agree on a spending plan for 2007.

NASA is committed to a pay-as-you-go process. ``If we receive less funding than requested, we will adjust our pace,'' Griffin said.

During the 2 1/2 years that the space shuttles were grounded after the Columbia disaster in 2003, NASA relied on Russia's small Soyuz vehicle to carry astronauts to and from the space station. Another Russian craft, Progress, handled cargo loads.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/technology/16915365.htm

The replacement is going back to a capsule (Orion) that is going to be strapped on top of a rocket (Ares I) and shot into space, just like the apollo. Not a single stage to space or space plane.

Originally the shuttle was sold to the American public as a 'reusuable' vehicle capable of 100+ lift-offs a year.

Jerry, you're a 'military man' so obviously you see the countless trillions we've spent since WW2 as money well spent. And you are entitled to your opinion just as I am, and I strongly disagree.

Which is why I corrected you by letting you know the actual cost of a Soyuz spacecraft as well as the fact that Scaled Composite's two air/spacecraft are entirely resuable while a new Soyuz must be purchased everytime. The two aren't even close Jerry...

Nice try, but GPS isn't the only thing you mentioned. You claimed that the military was responsible for: finding lost hikers, dicovering oil reserves, saving lives due to accurate weather forecasts, etc. I was merely pointing out that many of those benefits come from either the private sector or non-militray progrmas such as NASA.

Carbon nanotubes are the material of choice so far. I've included a link so you can read up on them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube

As for manufacturing them, that will require nanotech to advance somewhat which is why I made the comment 'right around the corner' as opposed to 'I have some in my pocket!'.

I know we couldn't leave the soler system

If there was a way that manned space travel could make a profit from mining, manufacturing etc much more resources would be dedicated to it, cost would decrease and risk would lower.